U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing 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

88–140PDF 2015

A REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS 

AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION BUDGET 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

March 27, 2014 

Serial No. 113–70 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

MARK TAKANO, California 

ROBIN KELLY, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE

HON. STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi, Chair 

RALPH M. HALL, TEXAS 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MO BROOKS, ALABAMA 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland, RMM 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

AMI BERA, California 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

FREDERICA WILSON, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

March 27, 2014 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Steven M. Palazzo, Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 

Representatives .................................................................................................... 19 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 20 

Statement by Representative Donna F. Edwards, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 22 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 23 

Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 25 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 26 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 27 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 28 

Witnesses: 

The Honorable Charles F. Bolden, Jr., Administrator, National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration (NASA) 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 30 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 33 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 44 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

The Honorable Charles F. Bolden, Jr., Administrator, National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration (NASA) ..................................................................... 74 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Letter from The Planetary Society submitted for the record by Representative 

Steven M. Palazzo, Chairman, Subcommittee on Space, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 158 

Additional responses submitted by The Hon. Charles F. Bolden, Jr. ................. 164 

(1) 

A REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS 

AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION BUDGET 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 

Thursday, March 27, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:04 a.m., in Room 2318 

of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steven Palazzo [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 

Chairman PALAZZO. The Subcommittee on Space will come to 

order. 

Good morning. Welcome to today’s hearing titled ‘‘A Review of 

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Budget for Fiscal Year 2015.’’ 

In front of you are packets containing the written testimony, biography and Truth in Testimony disclosure for today’s witness. I 

recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

Mr. Administrator, I will begin my statement this morning with 

a sincere thank you for your leadership and the hard work of all 

the men and women at NASA. While I do not always agree with 

the Administration’s decisions, I appreciate the good people at 

NASA and their service to the country. 

The President’s budget request this year for NASA is $17.4 billion, a decrease of $186 million relative to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, which was signed by the President only two months 

ago. I am most concerned by the Administration’s insistence on reordering the funding priorities of the agency. The Consolidated Appropriations Act provided clear priorities to the Administration. In 

fact, Administrator Bolden heaped praise on the appropriation for 

NASA the day it passed, and yet we see again that the President 

has chosen to realign those priorities he agreed to in both the 

NASA Authorization Act of 2010 and the Consolidated Appropriations Act. 

Again this year, the Administration is proposing funding for the 

Asteroid Redirect Mission, or ARM. There is still no budget profile, 

program office or schedule for this mission, so we are in the same 

position we were a year ago when it was first announced. The Consolidated Appropriations Act directed NASA to produce more information on this mission before further investments will be considered. I hope to hear from the Administrator today that these plans 

are under development and that the agency is also taking ongoing 

concerns from many in the scientific community and its own advisory groups into consideration. 

At the same time the Administration has requested these additional funds for the ARM, cuts have been made to top agency and 

Congressional priorities. For the fourth year in a row, the Administration has requested a reduction to the Orion crew capsule and 

the Space Launch System. This year’s budget request cuts these 

programs by $330 million. As Administrator Bolden stated the day 

the appropriations bill passed, the bill keeps NASA’s deep space exploration program on track. Surely if $1.6 billion would only keep 

the SLS and Orion on track, a $219 million cut could derail those 

efforts. This is simply unacceptable. These critical assets are the 

essential components of our future deep space human exploration 

efforts. The Administration cannot in the same breath claim to support space exploration while continuing to divert agency budgets in 

a manner that undermines that mission. 

The agency must be mission-focused and budget-vigilant, and 

that is why I will continue to work for appropriate funding levels 

for these systems. Just as in years past, the Administration is requesting large increases in the Commercial Crew program without 

any data to back up their request. 
20 

One of my top priorities as Chairman of this Subcommittee, especially in times of international uncertainty, is ensuring we restore 

the capability to launch American astronauts on American rockets 

from American soil as soon as possible. Our commercial partners 

are the key to making that possible as they relieve us from relying 

on the Russians for access to the International Space Station. 

But in times of budget constraint, we must be sure we are doing 

the best we can with what we have. This proposal should be accompanied by a strategic acquisition plan and other planning documents in order to justify the Administration’s budget request increase of $152 million. 

Additionally, this year’s budget request also includes the cancellation of the SOFIA program. American taxpayers invested $1.2 

billion on this one-of-a-kind asset, and the Administration is proposing cancellation just as it gets off the ground. 

Administrator Bolden, Dr. Holdren said you might be more helpful in answering questions we have about the proposed cancellation 

of SOFIA. I would hate to see us cancel yet another international 

partnership in the same manner as we did with the ExoMars 

project. I am moved to ask, how can the international community 

rely on this Administration to collaborate on anything without fear 

of cancellation? 

There is no doubt that our Nation’s space program is facing 

many challenges. That is all the more reason the Administration 

must deliver budgets and goals that support a serious commitment 

to human exploration and stop using the Science Mission Directorate as a partisan football. The scientists and engineers who 

work every day to maintain U.S. leadership in space are counting 

on you. The American public is counting on the President and they 

are counting on each of us here in this room to have an honest conversation about where we are at this time in our Nation’s space 

program and to make tough choices. It means setting politics aside 

and investing strategically in our future. 

I am ready to work together to ensure the priorities from previous legislation that the President signed will be honored. The future of our space program depends on it. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Palazzo follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE

CHAIRMAN STEVEN M. PALAZZO

I recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. Mr. Administrator, 

I will begin my statement this morning with a sincere thank you for your leadership 

and the hard work of all the men and women at NASA. While I do not always agree 

with the Administration’s decisions, I appreciate the good people at NASA and their 

service to the country. 

The President’s budget request this year for NASA is $17.4 billion, a decrease of 

$185.9 million relative to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, which was signed by 

the president only two months ago. I am most concerned by the Administration’s 

insistence on reordering the funding priorities of the agency. The Consolidated Appropriations Act provided clear priorities to the Administration; in fact, Administrator Bolden heaped praise on the appropriation for NASA the day it passed. And 

yet we see again that the President has chosen to realign those priorities he agreed 

to in both the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 and the Consolidated Appropriations 

Act. 

Again this year, the Administration is proposing funding for the Asteroid Redirect 

Mission or ARM. There is still no budget profile, program office, or schedule for this 
21 

mission, so we are in the same position we were a year ago when it was first announced. 

The Consolidated Appropriations Act directed NASA to produce more information 

on this mission before further investments will be considered. I hope to hear from 

the Administrator today that these plans are under development, and that the agency is also taking ongoing concerns—from many in the scientific community and its 

own advisory groups—into consideration. 

At the same time the Administration has requested these additional funds for the 

ARM, cuts have been made to top Agency and Congressional priorities. For the 

fourth year in a row, the Administration has requested a reduction to the Orion 

crew capsule and the Space Launch System. 

This year’s budget request cuts these programs by $330 million. As Administrator 

Bolden stated the day the Appropriations bill passed, ‘‘The bill keeps NASA’s deep 

space exploration program (the Space Launch System and Orion) on track.’’ Surely 

if $1.6 billion would only keep the SLS and Orion on track, a $219 million cut could 

derail those efforts. 

This is simply unacceptable. These critical assets are the essential components of 

our future deep space human exploration efforts. The Administration cannot in the 

same breath claim to support space exploration while continuing to divert agency 

budgets in a manner that undermines that mission. The agency must be missionfocused and budget vigilant, and that is why I will continue to work for appropriate 

funding levels for these systems. 

Just as in years past, the Administration is requesting large increases in the 

Commercial Crew Program without any data to back up the request. One of my top 

priorities as Chairman of this Subcommittee, especially in times of international uncertainty, is ensuring we restore the capability to launch American astronauts on 

American rockets from American soil as soon as possible. Our commercial partners 

are the key to making that possible as they relieve us from relying on the Russians 

for access to the International Space Station. 

But, in times of budget constraint, we must be sure we are doing the best we can 

with what we have. This proposal should be accompanied by a strategic acquisition 

plan and other planning documents in order to justify the Administration’s budget 

request increase of $152.3 million. 

Additionally, this year’s budget request also includes the cancellation of the 

SOFIA program. American taxpayers invested $1.2 billion on this one of a kind 

asset, and the Administration is proposing cancellation just as it gets off the ground. 

Administrator Bolden, he said you might be more helpful in answering questions 

we have about the proposed cancellation of SOFIA. 

I would hate to see us cancel yet another international partnership, in the same 

manner as we did with the ExoMars project. I am moved to ask, how can the international community rely on this Administration to collaborate on anything without 

fear of cancellation? 

There is no doubt that our nation’s space program is facing many challenges. That 

is all the more reason the Administration must deliver budgets and goals that support a serious commitment to human exploration, and stop using the Science Mission Directorate as a partisan football. The scientists and engineers who work every 

day to maintain U.S. leadership in space are counting on you, Administrator Bolden. 

The American public is counting on the President. They are counting on each of 

us here in this room to have honest conversation about where we are at this time 

in our nation’s space program, and to make tough choices. It means setting politics 

aside and investing strategically in our future. I am ready to work together to ensure the priorities from previous legislation - that the President signed—will be honored. The future of our space program depends on it. 
22 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize the Ranking Member, the 

gentlewoman from Maryland, Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you also to General Bolden for being here today with us. 

I appreciate holding a hearing to review the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s budget for Fiscal Year 2015, 

and I want to welcome of course Administrator Bolden. I also congratulate NASA and all of its contractor private sector workforce 

on a number of successful launches and milestones that they have 

achieved over this past year. 

I am and always have been and will be a passionate person 

about NASA and our space program and the people who work in 

it. Our program, our space program has been a symbol of our greatness as a Nation, a means for peaceful collaboration with other Nations, a bedrock of our capacity for innovation, and a powerful 

source of inspiration for student and professional engagement in 

science and technology. NASA will continue to be these things and 

more, but only if we provide it with the stability and resources 

needed to meet its multi-mission responsibilities in aeronautics, 

space science, Earth Science, human spaceflight, and human exploration. 

That is why I am pleased that the $18.3 billion proposed for 

NASA for Fiscal Year 2015, which incorporates the funding being 

requested as part of the Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative, is close to the level specified for Fiscal Year 2015 in the NASA 

Authorization Act, the bill that I and full Committee Ranking 

Member Johnson introduced last July. I support the President’s 

Growth Initiative to make further investments in research and development that will help grow the Nation’s economy and create 

jobs. 

That said, I recognize that there will be much discussion about 

this initiative, so we need to understand the impacts to NASA’s 

programs if the agency is only provided the base-level request of 

$17.46 billion. For example, I have questions about the reduced 

funding requested for the Space Launch System and Orion crew vehicle, and the potential impact it will have on the programs’ abilities to achieve critical test flights in 2017 and 2021. 

I also want to understand the implications of the proposed shutdown of the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy— 

SOFIA—good thing we call it SOFIA—a project that was undertaken in partnership with Germany, and I want to hear about 

whether there are options that should be explored and that were 

explored that might preserve our investment in this facility. I also 

want to learn more about the proposal to fund studies on a potential Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope—WFIRST—mission, and 

the science that such a mission might enable. 

I look forward to hearing from Administrator Bolden about increases being requested for the Commercial Crew program. We 

need to know what we will be getting for that money, and how 

NASA will ensure that both astronaut safety and the interests of 

the taxpayer will be protected. 

In addition, I hope to learn today whether the base-level request 

for the International Space Station, and particularly that for research on the ISS, will be sufficient to ensure that a robust re-
23 

search pipeline is in place to support the proposed extension of ISS 

operations and utilization through 2024, and I have questions 

about the proposed changes to NASA’s education programs. We 

have raised those questions here in this Committee before. Those 

programs today played a critical role in inspiring so many of our 

Nation’s youth to seek science and technical degrees and careers. 

Mr. Chairman, I also want to take this opportunity to clarify for 

the record, that while I paid the NASA Administrator a compliment for his passionate and lucid explanation of the Asteroid Redirect Mission to a group of students recently—that is how I spend 

my time watching television—I continue to have questions about 

this potential mission and how it would contribute, relative to 

other potential missions, to enable the goal of sending humans to 

the surface of Mars. 

And finally, Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful that today’s discussion 

will help inform our continuing work on reauthorizing NASA. I 

want to commend you and your staff, Mr. Chairman, for working 

with our team because I think that we can get from here together 

on the same page as Republicans and Democrats in support of our 

space mission. I know that we both share the goal of achieving a 

strong, bipartisan NASA Authorization bill to provide the stability 

and resources NASA needs if it is to accomplish the inspiring missions we have asked it to carry out. 

Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Edwards follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE

RANKING MINORITY MEMBER DONNA F. EDWARDS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing on ‘‘A Review of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Budget for Fiscal Year 2015.’’ I’d like 

to welcome back Administrator Bolden and also to congratulate NASA and its contractor workforce on a number of successful launches and milestones achieved over 

the past year. 

I am and always have been passionate about NASA and our space program. Our 

space program has been a symbol of our greatness as a nation, a means for peaceful 

collaboration with other nations, a bedrock of our capacity for innovation, and a 

powerful source of inspiration for student and professional engagement in science 

and technology. 

NASA will continue to be these things and more, but only if we provide it with 

the stability and resources needed to meet its multimission responsibilities in aeronautics, space science, Earth science, human spaceflight, and human exploration. 

That is why I’m pleased that the $18.3 billion dollars proposed for NASA for Fiscal 

Year 2015, which incorporates the funding being requested as part of the Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative, is close to the level specified for Fiscal Year 

2015 in the NASA Authorization Act bill that I and full Committee Ranking Member Johnson introduced last July. I support the President’s Growth Initiative to 

make further investments in research and development that will help grow the nation’s economy and create jobs. 

That said, I recognize that there will be much discussion about this Initiative, so 

we need to understand the impacts to NASA’s programs if the agency is only provided the base level request of $17.46 billion. For example, I have questions about 

the reduced funding requested for the Space Launch System and Orion crew vehicle, 

and the potential impact it will have on the programs’ ability to achieve critical test 

flights in 2017 and 2021. 

I also want to understand the implications of the proposed shutdown of the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA)--a project that was undertaken in partnership with Germany—and hear about whether there are options that 

should be explored that might preserve our investment in this facility. I also want 

to learn more about the proposal to fund studies on a potential Wide-Field Infrared 
24 

Survey Telescope (WFIRST) mission, and the science that such a mission might enable. 

I look forward to hearing from the Administrator about increases being requested 

for the commercial crew program. We need to know what we will be getting for that 

money, and how NASA will ensure that both astronaut safety and the interests of 

the taxpayer will be protected. In addition, I hope to learn today whether the base 

level request for the ISS, and particularly that for research on the ISS, will be sufficient to ensure that a robust research pipeline is in place to support the proposed 

extension of ISS operations and utilization through 2024. And I have questions 

about the proposed changes to NASA’s education programs, which have played a 

critical role in inspiring so many of our nation’s youth to seek science and technical 

degrees and careers. 

Mr. Chairman, I also want to take this opportunity to clarify, for the record, that 

while I paid the NASA Administrator a compliment on his passionate and lucid explanation of the Asteroid Redirect Mission to a group of students recently, I continue to have questions about this potential mission and how it would contribute, 

relative to other potential missions, to enabling the goal of sending humans to the 

surface of Mars. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful that today’s discussion will help inform our 

continuing work on reauthorizing NASA. I know that we both share the goal of 

achieving a strong, bipartisan NASA Authorization bill to provide the stability and 

resources NASA needs if it is to accomplish the inspiring missions we have asked 

it to carry out. 

Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time. 
25 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. I now recognize 

the Chairman of the full Committee, the gentleman from Texas, 

Mr. Smith. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we appreciate 

Administrator Bolden appearing before us again today to present 

the President’s budget request for NASA. While we may disagree 

on a few topics, I think we share the same desire to ensure that 

NASA remains the world’s preeminent space agency so that our 

Nation continues to lead the world in space exploration and discovery, and that is why I am concerned with the President’s Fiscal 

Year 2015 budget request. Just three months ago, Congress and 

the President reached an agreement on NASA’s budget. Now, just 

a few weeks later, the President recommends a $185 million cut to 

NASA. It also again seeks to fund an asteroid redirect or retrieval 

mission despite what one article this week described as ‘‘scant support in Congress and similarly muted interest in the science community.’’ 

The Administration continues to push this mission on NASA 

without any connection to a larger exploration roadmap and absent 

support from the scientific community or NASA’s own advisory bodies. It is a mission without a realistic budget, without a destination 

and without a certain launch date. 

The committee has heard a number of concerns about the mission as well as many promising alternatives. For instance, the 

Committee recently held a hearing on the potential for a flyby mission to Venus and Mars in 2021. While the mission is not without 

challenges, it is intriguing and would catch the public’s imagination. 

Unfortunately, the budget underfunds the Space Launch System 

and Orion programs as well as the Planetary Science Division. The 

White House’s approach has been to raid NASA’s budget to fund 

the Administration’s environmental agenda. There are 13 other 

agencies that are involved in climate change research yet only one 

conducts space exploration. In the last seven years, the Earth 

Science Division funding has increased over 63 percent. NASA 

needs to remember its priorities and the priority is space exploration. 

I am glad to see that NASA is working to complete the James 

Webb Space Telescope and to initiate the production of the WideField Infrared Space Telescope as well. And NASA finally has included a budget line for a Europa mission, even though it is just 

for one year and too little. Over the last two years, Congress has 

funded a Europa mission at $75 million and $80 million, so the 

one-year funding of $15 million is as disappointing as the potential 

life that may exist under the ice of Jupiter’s moon is fascinating. 

Our leadership in space has slipped. The Administration, I hope, 

will step back, look at the agency as a whole and work to put it 

on a long-term path to achieve worthy and inspirational goals on 

behalf of our Nation. 

Space exploration inspires American students and excites scientists. If we want to continue to be a world leader and take giant 

leaps for mankind, NASA must ensure its budget reflects the importance of space exploration. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back. 
26 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FULL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN

LAMAR S. SMITH

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And we appreciate Administrator Bolden appearing 

before us once again to present the President’s budget request for NASA. 

While we may disagree on a few topics, I think we share the same desire to ensure that NASA remains the world’s preeminent space agency so that our nation 

continues to lead the world in space exploration and discovery. That is why I am 

concerned with the President’s Fiscal Year 2015 budget request. Just three months 

ago, Congress and the President reached an agreement on NASA’s budget. 

Now, just a few weeks later, the President recommends a $185 million cut to 

NASA. It also again seeks to fund an Asteroid Redirect or Retrieval Mission despite 

what one article this week described as ‘‘ . . . scant support in Congress and similarly 

muted interest in the science community . . . ’’ 

The Administration continues to push this mission on NASA without any connection to a larger exploration roadmap and absent support from the scientific community or NASA’s own advisory bodies. It is a mission without a realistic budget, without a destination, and without a certain launch date. 

The Committee has heard a number of concerns about the mission, as well as 

many promising alternatives. For instance, the Committee recently held a hearing 

on the potential for a flyby mission to Mars and Venus in 2021. While the mission 

is not without challenges, it is intriguing and would catch the public’s imagination. 

Unfortunately, the budget underfunds the Space Launch System and Orion programs, as well as the Planetary Science Division. The White House’s approach has 

been to raid NASA’s budget to fund the Administration’s environmental agenda. 

There are 13 other agencies that are involved in climate change research, yet only 

one conducts space exploration. In the last seven years, the Earth Science Division 

funding has increased over 63 percent. 

NASA needs to remember its priorities—and that priority is space exploration. 

I’m glad to see that NASA is working to complete the James Webb Space Telescope and to initiate the production of the Wide Field Infrared Space Telescope as 

well. And NASA finally has included a budget line for a Europa mission, even if 

it is just for one year and too little. 

Over the last two years, Congress has funded a Europa mission at $75 million 

and $80 million. So the one year funding of $15 million is as disappointing as the 

potential life that may exist under the ice of Jupiter’s moon is fascinating. 

Our leadership in space has slipped. The Administration should step back, look 

at the Agency as a whole, and work to put it on the long term path to achieve worthy and inspirational goals on behalf of our nation. 

Space exploration inspires American students and excites scientists. If we want 

to continue to be a world leader and take giant leaps for mankind, NASA must ensure its budget reflects the importance of space exploration. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 
27 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I now recognize 

the Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Good morning, and welcome to this morning’s hearing, Administrator Bolden. I look forward to your testimony today. You have a 

very challenging job with a great many responsibilities, and I know 

that all of us appreciate the service you render to our nation. 

As the Chairman has indicated, we are here today to review 

NASA’s Fiscal Year 2015 budget request. At the outset, I want to 

say that I am heartened that the President has been willing to 

commit more than $18.3 billion to NASA for Fiscal Year 2015, a 

four percent increase over the Fiscal Year 2014 appropriations. 

Achieving that level, however, will require Congress to work with 

the President to achieve targeted spending cuts and increased revenue to provide necessary offsets and stay within the budget agreement. I hope that my friends across the aisle will agree with me 

that NASA and its programs are worth a little effort on Congress’s 

part to identify the needed funds. The ball is now in our court. 

That said, I want to use my remaining time to raise a few issues 

that I hope will be discussed today. First, I am troubled by the cuts 

being proposed to NASA’s education activities. These cuts do not 

appear to be just the result of achieving increased efficiencies 

through interagency collaborations. They are cuts, pure and simple, 

which I consider to be the wrong message to be sending as we try 

to engage the next generation in STEM pursuits. 

Second, I have to confess that I am a bit weary of the annual 

cycle of the Administration proposing reductions in the funding for 

the Space Launch System and the Orion exploration vehicles. Both 

of those vehicles are under development and approaching initial 

testing milestones. This is the point in a healthy vehicle development program that funding should be increasing, not decreasing. I 

expect that this is an area that Congress will once again have to 

address. 

And third, I am a bit puzzled by the cuts proposed for NASA’s 

science programs. Those programs provide not only exceptional 

science, but also important outreach opportunities and the ability 

to engage our international partners in meaningful collaborations. 

We are going to need to look closely at what is being proposed in 

this budget. 

Finally, I want to know more about the proposed increases to 

NASA’s Commercial Crew program. Those increases are quite significant, especially in the context of NASA’s constrained budgetary 

environment. While I certainly want to reduce our dependence on 

Russia for crew transportation to and from the International Space 

Station, I am not prepared to provide a blank check to do so. 

As you know, Representative Edwards and I expressed deep concern last fall over NASA’s intention to prioritize prices over safety 

in its evaluation of vendor proposals leading to upcoming contract 

awards for development and certification of commercial crew systems. Unfortunately, NASA chose not to make any changes in its 

final solicitation before it went out. The agency’s action is directly 

counter to the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, and despite Administrator Bolden’s undisputed personal commitment to safety, I think that is a very worrisome step 
28 

for the agency to take. Moreover, NASA is waiving the requirement 

for certified cost or pricing data as part of that same contract, data 

that has traditionally been required to protect both the agency and 

the taxpayer. 

Administrator Bolden, NASA still has significant time to correct 

both of these deficiencies before bidders submit their final updates 

to their proposals later this spring. I urge you to do so, as I would 

find it difficult to support the funding you are requesting for commercial crew in the absence of such safeguards. 

Well, we have a lot to talk about today, and I again want to welcome you to today’s hearing, Administrator Bolden, and I yield 

back the balance of my time. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FULL COMMITTEEE

RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Good morning, and welcome to this morning’s hearing, Administrator Bolden. I 

look forward to your testimony. You have a very challenging job with a great many 

responsibilities, and I know that all of us appreciate the service you render to our 

nation. 

As the Chairman has indicated, we are here today to review NASA’s Fiscal Year 

2015 budget request. At the outset, I want to say that I am heartened that the 

President has been willing to commit more than $18.3 billion to NASA for FY 

2015—a 4 % increase over the FY 2014 appropriation. Achieving that level, however, will require Congress to work with the President to achieve targeted spending 

cuts and increased revenue to provide the necessary offsets and stay within the 

budget agreement. I hope that my friends across the aisle will agree with me that 

NASA and its programs are worth a little effort on Congress’s part to identify the 

needed funds. 

The ball is now in our court to do so.That said, I want to use my remaining time 

to raise a few issues that I hope will be discussed today. 

First, I am troubled by the cuts being proposed to NASA’s education activities. 

These cuts do not appear to be just the result of achieving increased efficiencies 

through interagency collaborations. They are cuts, pure and simple. That is the 

wrong message to be sending as we try to engage the next generation in STEM pursuits. 

Second, I have to confess I am a bit weary of the annual cycle of the Administration proposing reductions in the funding for the Space Launch System and Orion 

exploration vehicles. Both of those vehicles are under development and approaching 

initial testing milestones. This is the point in a healthy vehicle development program that funding should be increasing, not decreasing. I expect that this is an area 

that Congress will once again have to address. 

Third, I am a bit puzzled by the cuts proposed for NASA’s science programs. 

Those programs provide not only exceptional science, but also important outreach 

opportunities and the ability to engage our international partners in meaningful collaborations. We are going to need to look closely at what is being proposed in this 

budget. 

Finally, I want to know more about the proposed increases to NASA’s commercial 

crew program. Those increases are quite significant, especially in the context of 

NASA’s constrained budgetary environment. While I certainly want to reduce our 

dependence on Russia for crew transportation to and from the International Space 

Station, I am not prepared to provide a blank check to do so. 

As you know, Rep. Edwards and I expressed deep concern last fall over NASA’s 

intention to prioritize price over safety in its evaluation of vendor proposals leading 

to upcoming contract awards for development and certification of commercial crew 

systems. Unfortunately, NASA chose not to make any changes in its final solicitation before it went out. The agency’s action is directly counter to the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, and despite Administrator 

Bolden’s undisputed personal commitment to safety, I think that is a very worrisome step for the agency to take. Moreover, NASA is waiving the requirement for 

certified cost or pricing data as part of that same contract-data that has traditionally been required to protect both the agency and the taxpayer. 
29 

Administrator Bolden, NASA still has sufficient time to correct both of these deficiencies before bidders submit their final updates to their proposals later this 

spring. I urge you to do so, as I would find it difficult to support the funding you 

are requesting for commercial crew in the absence of such safeguards. 

Well, we have a lot to discuss today. I again want to welcome you to today’s hearing, Administrator Bolden, and I yield back the balance of my time. 
30 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening 

statements, your statements will be added to the record at this 

point. 

And at this time I would like to introduce our witness. The Honorable Charles F. Bolden, Jr., is the Administrator of the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration. His 34-year career with the 

Marine Corps included 14 years as a member of NASA’s Astronaut 

Office. After joining the Office in 1980, he traveled to orbit four 

times aboard the Space Shuttle between 1986 and 1994, commanding two of those missions. Prior to General Bolden’s nomination as NASA Administrator, he was employed as the Chief Executive Officer of JackandPanther LLC, a small business enterprise 

providing leadership, military and aerospace consulting and motivational speaking. 

As our witness should know, spoken testimony is limited to five 

minutes after which the Members of the Committee will have five 

minutes each to ask questions. 

I now recognize General Bolden for his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR., 

ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS 

AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

General BOLDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Members of the Subcommittee, thank you all for this opportunity 

to discuss NASA’s Fiscal Year 2015 budget request. A more detailed written summary of the request has already been made 

available to the Subcommittee so my verbal testimony will just 

touch on the highlights. The $17.5 billion budget request affirms the bipartisan Strategic 

Exploration Plan agreed to with Congress in 2010 and it ensures 

that the United States will remain the world’s leader in space exploration and scientific discovery for years to come. It is an investment right here on Earth for the benefit of the American people 

and the entire global economy. I have a chart I would like to put 

up, Mr. Chairman, if I may, for the rest of my statement, and I will 

refer to this chart off and on as we go. 

[Chart.] 

This budget keeps NASA on the steady path we have been following, a steppingstone approach to meet the President’s challenge 

of sending humans to Mars in the 2030s, and as you always see 

on a chart, you go from left to right, where we are today to where 

we want to be in the 2030s. 

The International Space Station remains our springboard to the 

exploration of deep space and Mars. We guarantee we will have 

this unique orbiting outpost for at least another decade with our 

commitment to extend it until at least 2024. This means an expanded market for private space companies, more groundbreaking 

research and science discovery in microgravity, and opportunities 

to live, work and learn in space over longer periods of time. Astronauts aboard the ISS are helping us learn how to safely execute 

extended missions deeper into space. Later this year, we will see 

Exploration Flight Test, or EFT–1, of Orion. NASA is pressing forward with development of the Space Launch System and Orion, 
31 

preparing for an uncrewed mission of the two together in Fiscal 

Year 2018. 

The budget also supports the Administration’s commitment that 

NASA be a catalyst for the growth of a vibrant American commercial space industry. Already, two companies, SpaceX and Orbital 

Sciences, are making regular cargo deliveries to the Space Station. 

Later this year, we will move beyond commercial cargo and award 

contracts to American companies to send astronauts to the station 

from American soil and end our sole reliance on Russia. If Congress fully funds our Fiscal Year 2015 request, I believe we can do 

this by the end of 2017. 

Unfortunately, due to the reduced funding the past few years for 

the President’s Launch from America plan, NASA may need to extend our current contract with the Russians and purchase more 

seats on the Soyuz spacecraft. Instead of investing $450 million 

into the U.S. economy to support American jobs, we could be spending that money in Russia. Budgets are about choices. The choice 

here is between fully funding the request to bring space launches 

back to American soil or continuing to send money, millions, to the 

Russians. It is that simple. The Obama Administration chooses to 

invest in America, and we are hopeful that Congress will do the 

same. 

In addition to continuing ISS research, strengthening partnerships with commercial and international partners, and building the 

next-generation heavy lift rocket and crew capsule to take our astronauts farther into space than ever before, our steppingstone approach includes a plan to robotically capture a small near-Earth asteroid and redirect it safely to a stable orbit in the Earth-Moon system where astronauts can visit and explore it. Our Asteroid Redirect Mission will help us develop technologies including solar electric propulsion needed for future deep space missions to Mars. 

Under our asteroid initiative, we enhance detection and characterization of near-Earth objects and improve understanding of asteroid threats to the planet. 

NASA’s Fiscal Year 2015 budget request continues support for 

science missions heading toward destinations such as Jupiter and 

Pluto. It enables NASA to continue making critical observations of 

Earth and developing applications to directly benefit our Nation 

and the world. It maintains steady progress on the James Webb 

Space Telescope toward its 2018 launch. Our aeronautics program 

will continue to focus on substantially reducing fuel consumption, 

emission and noise to help make the Next Generation Air Transportation System, or NextGen, a reality. 

Finally, all of NASA’s investments help drive technology and innovation, spur economic activity and create jobs. That is why the 

President’s Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative with Congressional approval will provide NASA nearly $900 million in additional funding in Fiscal Year 2015 to focus on specific areas where 

we can advance our priorities. 

The Fiscal Year 2015 budget advances NASA’s strategic plan for 

the future. We will continue to build U.S. preeminence in science 

and technology, improve life on Earth, and protect our home planet 

while creating good jobs and strengthening the American economy. 
32 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to respond to any 

questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have. 

[The prepared statement of General Bolden follows:] 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 

Chairman PALAZZO. I thank General Bolden for his testimony, 

reminding Members that Committee rules limit questioning to five 

minutes. The Chair will at this point open the round of questions. 

The Chair recognizes himself for five minutes. 

During our budget hearing last year, I asked you about the Ad- ministration’s $60 million reduction to the SLS program in its fiscal 2014 budget request. At the time you believed the discrepancy 

was more about how the money was classified than an actual reduction. This year, the Administration has an SLS vehicle development line very clearly broken out and shows a $219 million reduction to vehicle development. At the time the omnibus passed, you 

praised the appropriation for keeping NASA’s Deep Space Exploration program on track. If the $1.6 billion for SLS will simply 

keep it on track, how will a $219 million cut affect it, and what 

activities will you plan to stop in Fiscal Year 2015 that are funded 

in Fiscal Year 2014? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, if I can get the chart back up one 

more time, I think that will help me explain my logic and why I 

think the budget as we requested suffices for keeping us on track 

to Mars. 

There are three relevant areas here. We are Earth reliant right 

now, and we want to get away from that. We need a proving 

ground before we can go to Mars. There is so much we don’t know. 

We have got to have a place, and preferably somewhere within a 

day or two from Earth, and that happens to be the Earth-Moon 

system, so that is why we selected the Asteroid Redirect Mission 

as our particular steppingstone to go to Mars. In low-Earth orbit, 

we have the International Space Station, which is viable and functioning. 

So we feel that we have got to do first things first, and the first 

thing for us is making sure that we have a reliable Earth-reliant 

system. If I don’t get commercial crew, that Earth-reliant area becomes weakened. I do not want to be reliant on the Russians to get 

my crews to the International Space Station. So I don’t need a 

Space Launch System and Orion if I can’t get my crews to lowEarth orbit. If we continue to depend on the Russians, then everything else is in jeopardy. So Commercial Crew is the critical need 

for this Nation right now. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Okay. I mean, I might have a quick question 

on Commercial Crew as well. So basically you are saying you are 

reducing the SLS/Orion budget to fund Commercial Crew? 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I am not really saying that I 

am reducing the SLS/Orion budget. 

Chairman PALAZZO. It is a $219 million cut, so what are we 

going to be putting it on? 

General BOLDEN. In the time that I have been the NASA Administrator, we have invested $12.5 billion into space exploration, into 

SLS, Orion and the ground systems, $12.5 billion. Over an equivalent time, if we had the Shuttle, we would have spent $12 billion. 

So we have invested more in SLS and Orion than we would have 

spent on the Shuttle if it were still around. The President has requested $109 billion since I became the NASA Administrator. Fiftytwo percent—almost 50 percent of that, $52 billion, has been requested for human exploration. So, I think we are quibbling about 
45 

hundreds of millions of dollars in a multibillion-dollar budget, and 

since I am the CEO of the company trying to get us on this path 

to Mars, I think that all we need to do is continue on the road we 

are. I would invite the Members to go to Michoud. I would invite 

the Members to go to the Kennedy Space Center. They will see 

Orion ready to fly next fall. So we are producing. We are not cutting back on anything. We have hardware in production right now. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I appreciate that answer. It doesn’t quite, 

you know, satisfy my question but I will follow up with you at a 

later time to get more information. 

For the past two years, you have graciously come before Congress and testified that without receiving full funding for Commercial Crew, NASA would not be able to deliver certified crew transfer service to the ISS. However, despite receiving less than the request both years, NASA continues to claim that these services will 

be available by 2017. It would seem that one of three things happened with this program. Either NASA consistently requested more 

money than it needed for the program, or NASA won’t be able to 

meet the 2017 launch schedule, or there is more flexibility in the 

acquisition strategy than NASA is leading on. How can you say 

that if you don’t get full funding for Commercial Crew this year 

that the schedule will slip when this is the exact same thing you 

said in previous years, and yet just this week NASA claimed to be 

on schedule for 2017? 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, if the Committee would indulge 

me, I would ask everybody to think back to my first hearings when 

I became the NASA Administrator, and when we started talking 

about Commercial Crew at that time, we were requesting a billion 

dollars. We requested a billion dollars over the next six years for 

a total of $6 billion for Commercial Crew. That was based on my 

estimate and that of the Augustine Committee that said one provider would cost about $2.5 billion. We multiplied it by two, and 

I added a billion, so that is how I got the $6 billion. We got zero 

the first year. The second year, we got $525 million. At the time 

we were targeting 2015 for the availability of Commercial Crew. 

We would now find ourselves months away from launching Americans from American soil, and I wouldn’t have to worry about paying the Russians another $450 million. Over time when I kept coming back to the Committee, I said if we don’t get full funding, we 

are going to slip. I came back finally and said we have slipped. We 

now will not have Commercial Crew available until 2015—2017, 

and we may not have the competition that I need. The Committee 

implored us to down-select to one. We said please don’t make us 

do that; we need competition. So I just want to remind everybody 

of the history of Commercial Crew and how we got here today. 

We are now faced with a 2017 availability from 2015, so I am 

not—I have been consistent. I have said we will slip if we don’t get 

the funding. We have slipped two years. I am saying the same 

thing again today. If we don’t get what the President requested, I 

can’t guarantee 2017, I can’t guarantee competition, and we will 

continue to pay the Russians. I don’t like that. 

Chairman PALAZZO. So even though in previous years you said 

the same thing but you still contend that we are going to be on 

schedule for 2017? 
46 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I need for everybody to understand what I just said. I said 2015 the first time I testified before 

this Committee. I said we can do that if we fund the President’s 

budget. I came back at a subsequent point and said okay, we are 

not going to make 2015, we can make 2017, given the level of funding we have. We are on track to still get to 2017 if we are given 

the amount of money that the President requested in the 2015 

budget. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Well, General, I think this Committee and 

Congress agrees with you. We don’t want to be solely reliant on the 

Russians for human access to space. I mean, we want to launch 

American astronauts from American soil on American rockets. 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, as I said before, budgets are 

about choices. This Committee, this Congress chose to rely on the 

Russians because they chose not to accept the President’s recommendation and request for full funding for Commercial Crew. 

You can’t have it both ways. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Well, we are getting away from that so, I 

mean—— 

General BOLDEN. We are not away from it yet because I don’t 

have a—— 

Chairman PALAZZO. We are not one to continue to rely on the 

Russians but, again, we have serious budget constraints, not just 

dealing with NASA’s budget but with all of our discretionary 

spending. We have—we are looking at some serious issues, and we 

know the world is not becoming a safer place; it is becoming much 

more dangerous, and you know, we have to make sure that we 

have a presence in space. If not, those friends that aren’t so friendly to us will have a presence, and you as a General in the Marine 

Corps knows whoever has the high ground pretty much dominates 

the battle space. 

So with that, my time has expired. I will turn to the Ranking 

Member for her questions. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will take advantage of that extra two minutes and 48 seconds. Thanks. 

I want to continue this line of questioning, though, because I look 

in your prepared statement, Mr. Administrator, you indicate that 

we can stay on track to launch astronauts to the ISS from American soil by the end of 2017 if Congress fully funds your 2015 budget request. That budget request is $848.3 million, and last year you 

received 696. 

General BOLDEN. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. EDWARDS. So the choice for Congress is that in order for you 

to commit to making that 2017 date, we have to commit to the 

848.3. Is that correct? 

General BOLDEN. Yes, ma’am, that is correct. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And in addition to that, I want to know then what 

your confidence level is if we are at 848.3. 

General BOLDEN. My confidence level of making 2017 if we are 

at 848.3 is good. It is high for making 2017. My confidence level 

for making 2017 with robust competition is not as high. You know, 

that is the reason that we put $150 million into the Opportunity 

Fund—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. Okay. I want to—— 
47 

General BOLDEN. —because that would get us to a billion dollars. 

Ms. EDWARDS. I want to get back to what informs your confidence because there—we had requested, the Committee requested 

an independent cost estimate that wasn’t done, and so tell me what 

the basis is for your 2017 confidence level. 

General BOLDEN. My basis for everything, every statement I 

make before this Committee is my leadership team, and Bill 

Gerstenmaier heads up the Human Exploration and Operations 

Mission Directorate. Until I get half as smart as they are, that is 

going to be my—and we are also talking to industry. We are dependent on American industry contributing the major portion of 

what is going into the Commercial Crew program. We are able to 

stay on track so far but I don’t know how much SpaceX, Boeing, 

Sierra Nevada has put of their own personal funds into Commercial Crew. I know they have put more than we have. So the difference to keep us on track has been because the companies are expecting that we will fully fund it one of these days and they continue to up their investment would be my guess. 

Ms. EDWARDS. So let me just ask, so with the 2014 enacted levels 

of funding for SLS/Orion, and what you requested, resulting then 

you are saying in the slip to 2017—— 

General BOLDEN. No, the 2017 slip came long before that. 

Ms. EDWARDS. So what—if Congress doesn’t fund fully at 848.3, 

what development activities will have to be delayed in order to accommodate—— 

General BOLDEN. Milestone achievements on the part of the 

Commercial Crew providers, compliance with human ratings standards and other requirements because they will be under contract. 

When we award the contract, we have to stretch that contract out. 

That is what always happens. You have less money. We have two 

things we can work with. We can work with cost and schedule. If 

I don’t have enough money, the schedule stretches out. It always 

does. 

In Commercial Crew under the Space Act Agreement, I didn’t 

have to worry as much about the cost because that was a partnership, and so the companies were also putting in money as necessary to make sure that they stayed on track with their milestones. 

Ms. EDWARDS. So let me just ask again, and maybe you have it, 

but can you provide to us the independent cost assessment that 

was done that informs your belief and your confidence in the 2017 

date for Commercial Crew? 

General BOLDEN. Yes, ma’am. I am told that that will be available shortly, so we will get that to the Subcommittee. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Okay. We are counting on that, Mr. Administrator. 

General BOLDEN. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And then I want to ask you on Commercial Crew, 

I am concerned about the possibility of a premature selection of 

Commercial Crew transportation service provider and how that 

translates into safety for our astronauts. So the Aerospace Safety 

Advisory Panel, the ASAP, recommended in its annual report for 

2013 that competition be maintained until safety confidence is 

achieved. So how are you dealing with these safety considerations? 
48 

And if we are going to keep the process open for competition, how 

do you inject safety in there? 

General BOLDEN. We inject safety by putting the competition in 

and writing contracts that allow us to get into the facilities and 

levy additional regulations if necessary requirements. We are confident right now. We just went through a contract—we are in the 

middle of a contract process right now. It is called Commercial 

Crew Capabilities Assessment, and it is the contract that over the 

last year has allowed us to work with the companies. We ask them, 

demonstrate to us how you are going to meet our safety standards, 

demonstrate to us how you are going to document meeting those 

safety standards, show us how you are going to handle hazard reports. We are already doing that with them, and we have worked 

with them for years to reach agreements on what those standards 

would be. They can meet or exceed NASA standards, and in many 

cases, that is exactly what they are going to do. 

Ms. EDWARDS. So—— 

General BOLDEN. They will cite their own standard. 

Ms. EDWARDS. So my time has more than expired, but let me just 

read to you from the ASAP annual report: ‘‘If NASA down-selects 

to one provider before the selectee has demonstrated that its design 

can meet the required level of safety, there is the ultimate potential that the provider may not be able to meet the requirements for 

a number of reasons including cost. In such a situation, NASA will 

have little alternative because it has already down-selected’’—those 

are my words—‘‘but to either move the safety goalpost or to incur 

an overrun and/or a schedule slip. If competition is maintained, 

NASA may have alternatives other than accepting a less safe design, unnecessary higher cost or a late delivery.’’ I only share that 

with the Committee and you because it is very clear that if we 

move toward, one, depending on what our budget numbers are, 

then the likelihood that we are not paying the kind of attention in 

Commercial Crew to safety actually goes up, not down. 

General BOLDEN. No, ma’am. The likelihood that we are going to 

pay less attention to safety is zero. Safety is something that I do, 

that Bill Gerstenmaier does, that the Commercial Crew Program 

Manager does, and that is, our attention to safety is independent 

of cost. We may become even more vigilant, which means the 

schedule is really going to stretch out because we are going to require additional tests. That is what happens when you don’t have 

competition. The vendor begins to think that okay, you are relying 

on me, you have got to have it at this date and you have to take 

what we want. That is not the case. We are not going to do that. 

Ms. EDWARDS. I apologize but I am now at exactly two minutes 

and 50 seconds. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, 

Mr. Smith. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Bolden, I think we are all regretful that we are relying upon the Russians to take American astronauts to the International Space Station. Given the turmoil in the Ukraine, given 

our current relationship with Russia, which is obviously not good, 

are you aware of any threat that Russia might refuse to take 
49 

American astronauts to the International Space Station for any 

reason? 

General BOLDEN. I am not aware of any threat, and I am comfortable because we talk to the Russians every day. We talk to 

Roscosmos. There are a lot of people in Russia. Our partner is not 

Russia; our partner is Roscosmos, the Russian space agency, and 

we are confident that they are just as interested and just as intent 

on maintaining that partnership as we are. 

Chairman SMITH. Hopefully the problems on Earth are not going 

to be—— 

General BOLDEN. This is not the first time that we have had this 

type of problem. When the Russians went into Georgia, the partnership remained robust, and we—that is what we are trying to do 

right now. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you. 

Let me go to my next question, and this is about ARM. Last 

May, NASA Advisory Council Chairman Dr. Steve Squyres testified 

‘‘I see no obvious connection between the Asteroid Retrieval Mission and any of the technologies or capabilities that are required 

for Martian exploration.’’ 

I understand that NASA is undertaking a study on the possibility of a Mars flyby in 2021. Is that the case? 

General BOLDEN. That is not the case as far as I know. We have 

been working with Inspiration Mars, which is I think what you are 

talking about. We agreed that we would allow them to take NASA 

technology. They can use NASA facilities. We will partner with—— 

Chairman SMITH. Perhaps I misunderstood you because I 

thought you specifically told me in response to a letter that I sent 

you that you would review that. 

General BOLDEN. Oh, I thought you asked if we were doing a 

study. We are not doing a study. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. It looks like you reviewed the 2018. Are 

you reviewing the 2021? 

General BOLDEN. We are reviewing any efforts that NASA might 

make in supporting Inspiration Mars. 

Chairman SMITH. So you are not making any official evaluation 

of it? 

General BOLDEN. We continue to make evaluation of it as they 

come back. This started out as a partnership where they needed 

nothing from NASA except do not talk bad about—— 

Chairman SMITH. Maybe I misunderstood your letter to me. I 

thought you were undertaking a review, but you are not. 

General BOLDEN. We are not undertaking a formal review where 

we go out and hire an independent firm, if that is what you mean. 

Chairman SMITH. That is not what I was asking. I was asking 

about an internal review. 

General BOLDEN. We are constantly reviewing whether or not Inspiration Mars and the Mars flyby is a suitable alternative for us 

in getting to Mars, putting humans on Mars. 

Chairman SMITH. I just quoted the Chairman of the NASA Advisory Council as saying that there was no obvious connection between—— 

General BOLDEN. I think if you talk to Steve Squyres today, because of where we are, the maturity of the—— 
50 

Chairman SMITH. I don’t doubt you could put political pressure 

on him but—— 

General BOLDEN. I don’t put any pressure on him. No, that is 

why he is the Chairman of—— 

Chairman SMITH. He testified before this Committee. He was 

very clear. 

General BOLDEN. I don’t—— 

Chairman SMITH. And what I just said was a direct quote. 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, just to be clear, I put no pressure—I can’t put pressure on Steve Squyres. He chairs the—— 

Chairman SMITH. Well, then, as far as I am concerned, his testimony before the Committee stands and the quote that I just gave 

you is still valid, unless you have got other information. 

General BOLDEN. I have other information, which is talking to 

Steve Squyres weekly, and Steve Squyres counseled me, don’t 

make this seem like you are going to save the planet; show us, the 

NASA Advisory Committee, how this is relevant to getting people 

to Mars. We have subsequently done that, and if you can put the 

chart back up again, you know, I am not going to dwell on the 

chart but we—— 

Chairman SMITH. The last I heard, he said there is no connection, so I am going to take him at his word until I hear from him. 

Let me go to a different subject, and this is in regard to the 

James Webb Telescope and the test program as well, a happier 

subject. We expect James Webb to launch in 2018. I think tests 

may be 2017. What information might we glean from those two 

telescopes that will help us in our understanding of astrobiology? 

General BOLDEN. James Webb actually will enable us to look into 

the atmosphere of some of, if not all of, the exoplanets that have 

been discovered through Keppler and other observatories. So James 

Webb will continue to revolutionize our understanding of our universe. Hubble has rewritten textbooks. James Webb is advertised 

to be 100 times more potent and more powerful. 

Chairman SMITH. Specifically, what might we learn about 

astrobiology as a result of those? 

General BOLDEN. We might learn what the makeup of exoplanet 

number whatever it is, what its atmosphere is. 

Chairman PALAZZO. And then—okay. Good. 

General BOLDEN. That will tell us whether or not there is a possibility of life existing on an exoplanet. 

Chairman SMITH. Right. That is my hope as well. Thank you, Administrator. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize the gentlewoman from 

Texas, Mrs. Johnson—my apologies. Ms. Bonamici. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Of Oregon, by the way. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. 

Ambassador Bolden, welcome back, and thanks, as always, for 

your informative testimony. We really appreciate that. 

I want to start by mentioning, as you did, the importance of investing in the Earth Science programs at NASA. I want to acknowledge the economic impact of that research, especially in the 

district I am proud to represent. I can’t overstate the importance 
51 

of accurate climate and weather forecasting to my constituencies 

from agriculture, the fishing community, so continued investment 

in that underlying science that helps us understand climate is important and significant. I know that last year NASA inherited from 

NOAA some climate sensors that were formerly a part of the 

NOAA-funded JPSS program but NASA only received funding for 

Fiscal Year 2014 for that activity, so has that been remedied going 

forward? 

General BOLDEN. We think it is in the process of being remedied, 

and in fact, if I remember correctly, we plan to take the two climate sensors, and they will actually become a part of the International Space Station. We had the option of making them free flyers, which would have been relatively expensive, the Earth Science 

community working with the Human Exploration and Mission Operations Directorate and are trying to enhance the utilization of 

station. We are beginning—as you may know, we are beginning to 

put more and more Earth Science missions on the International 

Space Station. That is where we intend to put them. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Terrific. Thank you. 

And then I wanted to follow up on the comments that were made 

by a couple of my colleagues already about the concern about investing in the Education mission. As someone who discusses that 

issue frequently both in this Committee and the Education Committee, STEM education is a priority of course of many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, of our constituency. What I want 

to talk about today is the NASA Space Grant program. Recently I 

met with representatives from the Oregon NASA Space Grant Consortium, and our conversation largely focused on the importance of 

keeping students engaged in STEM, and I will tell you, there are 

a couple of examples that show how important this is. One of them 

is that students from McMinnville High School in my district on 

April 6th coming right up are doing a nano lab launch, and the difference that this is making to these students in McMinnville High 

School, they are thrilled that they have two separate nano labs 

going up to the ISS. They are so excited. And when we are talking 

about building people who want to work in this field, looking at 

someone also from Oregon, Victor Dang, who is now a full-time 

structures engineer for SpaceX, had an internship at the Johnson 

Space Center, said it was an amazing opportunity, he couldn’t have 

done without the Space Grant program, interned also at Ames Research Center where he said the opportunity had an incredible impact on his career. It was his first industry experience but it solidified his desire to pursue a career in aerospace. He said, ‘‘It was one 

of the most fun summers I ever had. It inspired me to seek opportunities that would allow him to travel to new places.’’ 

So as we are trying to build not only people to work in the field 

but also make sure that the public understands the benefits of 

space exploration, can you talk a bit about how this Space Grant 

program is engaged in getting students into STEM fields but also 

talk about the role in educating the public at large about NASA’s 

educational work, and know that many of us are very concerned 

about the reductions in education. 

General BOLDEN. Very briefly, for the benefit of those who may 

not understand Space Grant or know very much about it, every 
52 

state in the Nation has a Space Grant consortium and it is usually 

headquartered in the land-grant institution of that state. So it is 

a dependable source of STEM reference and education for NASA. 

We have asked them over the past few years to extend their work 

actually down into the K–12 level where they were very uncomfortable at first, but they now as a result of working with us on the 

Summer of Innovation, for example, which is probably where the 

young man in school has learned about STEM education, we now 

have the Space Grant consortium, and many states, they are the 

responsible entity for making sure that Summer of Innovation is 

conducted in their states over a period of time. So it is a very good 

program. 

Ms. BONAMICI. And do you expect that that program is going to 

be cut? Because there are these sharp reductions in the educational 

activities. 

General BOLDEN. One of the things that I never have to worry 

about is reductions in Space Grant. Space Grant and MUREP and 

other programs are those that we ask for what we think will be required to maintain them, and you all always help, so I am not worried about funding for Space Grant. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Well, thank you. I am almost out of time. I yield 

back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Brooks. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I must admit that I am somewhat astonished by your testimony 

that shifts responsibility from this Administration to Congress for 

American’s current inability to launch astronauts into space. Let us 

be clear for a moment. This Administration made the unilateral 

2010 decision to cancel NASA’s human spaceflight Constellation 

program, thereby delaying America’s return to human spaceflight. 

This Administration made the decision to mothball our Space Shuttles and put them in museums rather than keeping them available 

should circumstances or emergencies dictate their use. This Administration has grown America’s welfare, wealth transfer programs to 

over $750 billion per year, more than 40 times NASA’s budget, welfare programs that put a higher priority on buying election votes 

no matter the loss of funding for NASA, national defense or other 

productive functions of the federal government. 

Now I hear testimony that this Administration wants to invest 

in America, quote, unquote, when the Space Launch System, 

NASA’s next human spaceflight program, was forced on this Administration by Alabama Senator Richard Shelby and other Senators and Congressmen who believe in Americans’ exceptionalism 

in space. 

With that as a backdrop, as you know, Russia has engaged in 

acts of war against the Ukraine in the Crimea. America’s response 

has been rather anemic economic sanctions, sanctions designed to 

provide maximum domestic political cover without any hope of 

causing Russia to leave the Crimea. Recent intelligence information 

raises the concern that Russia may go beyond the Crimea and attack eastern Ukraine. All of this raises the specter that this Administration will impose more economic sanctions which in turn 

risk that Russia will respond by denying America access to the 
53 

International Space Station, and they can do that because we are 

reliant on Russia to get to the International Space Station. In the 

time remaining, Mr. Administrator, please describe to this Committee what NASA’s plan is to put American astronauts on the 

International Space Station should Russia say they are no longer 

going to give us a ride to the Space Station? 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, may I get the chart again? Because—and Congressman Brooks, I am not going to engage in a debate about history. It is a fact that the decision to phase out the 

Shuttle was not made by the Obama Administration. That decision 

was made following the recommendation of the Columbia Accident 

Investigation Board in 2004 under the Bush Administration. 

Mr. BROOKS. Excuse me, if I might interject, when the space 

Shuttle was mothballed, President Obama was President of the 

United States. 

General BOLDEN. That is right. 

Mr. BROOKS. He could have made any decision he wanted to 

make—wait a minute. Let me finish. He could have made the decision to have continued to use the Space Shuttle or he could have 

made the decision to keep it available in the event of emergencies. 

He chose not to. 

General BOLDEN. Congressman Brooks, I will just make one 

statement. I was the one who recommended to the President that 

we phase the Shuttle out. I would have recommended we phase it 

out quicker. I just mentioned we were spending $12 billion over the 

same period of time that we have spent $12.5 billion on SLS and 

Orion—— 

Mr. BROOKS. Okay. Let me interject again. 

General BOLDEN. Congressman—— 

Mr. BROOKS. No, wait a second. You said you were not going to 

go over history. You were able to divert from my question to history. My question was, if Russia cuts us off today because of the 

events in the Ukraine or elsewhere in the world, what is NASA’s 

plan to get us to that Space Station? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, we engage in contingency planning every single day, contingency planning for Russia refusing to 

take us to the International Space Station is not a—it is something 

that I consider to be feasible right now because Russia is dependent upon the United States to operate the International Space Station when it comes to power, when it comes to everyday operations. 

That is all done by the United States. Russia has one thing that 

we need: access. If the International Space Station—— 

Mr. BROOKS. Okay. Back to my question. 

General BOLDEN. Listen—— 

Mr. BROOKS. Is it your testimony that America has no plan because you don’t think it is a possibility to worry about? 

General BOLDEN. This is like asteroids. We have a plan. The plan 

needs to be funded. The plan is Commercial Crew. If the Congress 

chooses not to fund Commercial Crew, we—this Nation has no 

plan. 

Mr. BROOKS. Okay. I have looked at your written statement, and 

it says and consistent with your oral statement that basically we 

are looking at the end of 2017, which is three and a half years 
54 

away. Is that the plan if Russia decides to terminate our access to 

the International Space Station? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman Brooks, I am confident that 

based on my conversation with my Russian counterparts that they 

are equally worried about terminating activity on the International 

Space Station, so I am not going to deal in suppositions. I don’t expect that our partners will abandon the International Space Station, which would—— 

Mr. BROOKS. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I see my time is expiring. I 

appreciate the witness’s insight. But if all I am hearing is that our 

only plan is three and a half years away, I have to worry about 

what happens if Russia does cut us off as our relationship with 

Russia continues to deteriorate based on Russian acts of war in the 

Ukraine and Crimea. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for indulging me. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Bera. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member Edwards. 

You know, let us not dwell on the past. Let us actually look to 

the future and think about where we want to go, because that is 

what we do. We are informed by the past but we also plan for the 

future. 

General Bolden, just playing off of what my colleague talked 

about, it is my impression that we also have leverage with regard 

to the International Space Station. 

General BOLDEN. Exactly. 

Mr. BERA. So in a partnership, we have got that leverage, they 

have got some leverage. But the end goal, if we are looking toward 

the future, is commercial space travel and moving folks forward. 

When I do look at the building blocks, and our conversations previously, we do really have a long-term goal to have human space 

travel to Mars, and you are laying out some steps here and so 

forth. 

I had a chance to visit the SpaceX plant down in southern California recently, and it does look like they are also fairly quickly advancing. Obviously they have been able to take supplies up to the 

Space Station and they are now also advancing fairly quickly on 

commercial space travel with humans. Can you give us an update 

about the partnership between NASA and the commercial space entities and so forth? 

General BOLDEN. I think we should all be proud that during the 

period of time that I have been the NASA Administrator in the 

Obama Administration, we have stood up a commercial cargo capability. So we are not dependent on any international partners anymore for getting cargo to space. We are diligently working with 

some of those same partners plus others to bring about a capability 

in the United States to have a Commercial Crew capability. NASA 

does not deal in low-Earth orbit access anymore, nor should we, because we have to use that money in order to execute a deep space 

exploration program. 

Mr. BERA. Great. Can you expand on the Asteroid Retrieval Mission as a building block and a step into going to deep space as well 

as returning from deep space? 
55 

General BOLDEN. There are things that we need if we want to 

go to Mars, and I hope that all of us in this room, particularly 

those on the Committee, will agree with me that NASA’s, America’s, the world’s ultimate goal in our lifetime is to put—to see humans on Mars. If I can get the chart back up because it would really be helpful? In order to get to Mars, there are things we don’t 

have. We don’t have sufficient propulsion to take cargo there because you don’t want to have to utilize your crew vehicle to take 

cargo. It would take multiple SLS missions to get the amount of 

cargo to Mars to sustain a human inhabitation there. We need increased capability in something like solar electric propulsion. We 

need to be able to test it. And so our proving ground is the EarthMoon system, the cislunar orbit where we intend to take the asteroid so that we can interact with it, we can fly Orion there, we can 

do things, we can develop procedures for extravehicular activity, we 

can develop procedures for proximity operations, things that we 

cannot do in low-Earth orbit because that system is different than 

what we know in low-Earth orbit. So I need a proving ground. The 

Moon is two days away. If something goes wrong there, we can 

come home. Once we launch to Mars in the 2030s, the crew is eight 

months away. So imagine Apollo 13. The crew survived because it 

was a loop around the Moon and nature took care of it, to be quite 

honest. An Apollo 13-like incident, the side of the service module 

blows out right after liftoff, we are going eight months to Mars and 

then another eight months to come back or more. So we have got 

to get it right, and our proving ground is cislunar orbit with the 

asteroid mission where we can develop the life support systems 

that are robust. We can’t have a cooling system that fails. We can’t 

have the kinds of things that happen sometimes in the International Space Station. That is why Station is used to develop the 

technologies. They have got to be better, got to be more robust. 

Mr. BERA. And again, if we stick with this theme of wanting to 

be forward-looking, wanting to dream, which is what we did as 

kids, right, when we looked at the Apollo missions and putting a 

person on the Moon, we dreamt big and then we went out and did 

it. That is what we have to do right now. 

With this goal of human space travel to Mars, it is going to—we 

don’t know how we are going to get there just yet but we have got 

to think about those technologies and we have got to start making 

those investments. Would that be accurate? 

General BOLDEN. That is very accurate. It is now time for us, 

and I have asked our people to start thinking about okay, we are 

approaching 2030. SLS and Orion have been proven. We are getting ready to go to Mars. What should we be thinking about now? 

You got to get to the surface. We haven’t even started talking 

about landers. We have not even started talking about surface systems. That is where the international partners and commercial 

partners, I think, are going to be vital. 

Put the chart up one more time, because I need for people to visualize this. This is hard. If you look at Earth reliant, we cannot 

get to deep space, we can’t sustain operations in deep space if we 

have to come back to Earth every time to pick up stuff. Congressman Rohrabacher knows this. We go through this all the time. We 

need things like cryogenic propellant and storage. I don’t need it 
56 

right now. So he and I disagree on what the timing is. We are in 

the just-in-time business. The reason I don’t spend the money that 

you would like to have me spend on SLS is because I don’t need 

a 130-metric-ton vehicle right now. I do need a commercial vehicle 

that I can send my astronauts to low-Earth orbit. Now, we—hopefully everyone agrees we are going to Mars. If we do, hopefully everyone agrees that we have got to crawl, walk, run, and this is a 

crawl, walk, run. We have got to have proven technology. 

Chairman PALAZZO. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Mr. BERA. Great. Thank you. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, perhaps a crawl, walk, orbit would 

be—— 

General BOLDEN. That is good. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. How did you know what I was going to ask? 

General BOLDEN. I was hoping you would because I need for people to be consistent in what they ask, and you have been consistent. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Boy, I didn’t expect all these great compliments. 

General BOLDEN. I try to speak the truth. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, General. Well, let us get to the 

first ride. Two issues I wanted to talk to you about. One was what 

you brought up, refueling in space, and let me just note for the 

record, not all of us do believe that getting to—putting people, you 

know, on Mars should be our number one goal in space right now. 

General BOLDEN. Yeah. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. It is expensive, and making that our number 

one goal reflects taking away resources from other projects that 

might be more important to humankind than just what is a symbolic mission of putting a human being on Mars, considering that 

we have robots and rovers and all sorts of other things that are on 

Mars already. 

But let us go to that. When we are talking about the option of 

refueling in space, would that not give us a great deal of leverage 

to accomplish other missions in space, perhaps on the Moon, perhaps other goals that we would like to achieve at a much more 

cost-effective rate because we wouldn’t have to build such a huge 

rocket that SLS is going to cost tens of billions of dollars? 

General BOLDEN. We don’t know that it would be much more 

cost-effective because to get the type of depot in space—and we 

have talked about this before. The number of flights required to get 

the type of depot in space that we need is extensive, and so while 

an Atlas V or a Falcon 9 may cost significantly less than an SLS, 

by the time you fly 10, 12 Atlas Vs or Falcon 9s, you have exceeded 

the cost of an SLS. So for getting humans into deep space, for getting large payloads, large scientific payloads into deep space, you 

want something like an SLS so we don’t have to do these Venus 

flybys to Jupiter. We want to be able to go direct. SLS will give 

us that capability in time. We are not ready yet. We don’t need 

that capability yet, so we have to do as you said, we need to 

cislunar orbit to develop the technologies, low-Earth orbit to develop the technologies, and we are trying to do that. We are using 
57 

ground tests right now for cryogenic propellant and storage. We are 

not going away from it. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I am watching that closely, and let me just 

say that I think that that presents us a much more cost-effective 

way of achieving specific goals rather than heading for a goal that 

would be so expensive that it would drain other potential uses in 

space, projects in space. 

Now, let me ask you this. Are you confident that if an object from 

space that was discovered or there is an object in space that threatens to cause massive damage on our planet, are you confident that 

that object will be detected and that we can deflect it? 

General BOLDEN. I am highly confident that that object can be 

detected. In fact, if there is an object that is larger than a kilometer that threatens Earth, we probably already have identified it 

and it is in the 97 percent or 98 percent of those objects that have 

already been identified. We know when it is going to be but nothing in the next 100 years in that category. If it is less than 140 

meters, I am less confident that we have—in fact, I know we have 

not identified it yet but we are developing the capability to do that. 

Deflection, nothing. 

And Congressman Posey is probably going to ask me the same 

thing as he did in the asteroid. We are trying. The Asteroid Redirect Mission will inform our—it won’t—I don’t want to fool people. 

We are not going to save the planet with the Asteroid Redirect Mission. It will inform our capability to answer your question and his 

question from the asteroid hearing which is, does the United States 

have the capability of protecting the planet if we can identify something fast enough. In the future, in the near future, when we fly 

the Asteroid Redirect Mission, that will inform our ability for me 

or whoever is sitting in this chair then to say I am very confident 

that we can deflect anything that is inbound to Earth. It will inform us. It won’t give us the capability. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I don’t want to quibble with the word. ‘‘Can’’ 

and ‘‘will’’ are two different things. 

General BOLDEN. Okay. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. With that, we will deflect an object that could 

destroy and murder, you know, millions of people. 

Let me ask—— 

General BOLDEN. We will have that capability, I am confident. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. One last quickly here. Is there an established procedure and chain of command to take the actions that 

would be necessary if we do spot this maybe three percent chance 

that there is a huge object heading toward us? Is there a chain of 

command and the necessary procedures to actually make the decisions and take over and get the job done? 

General BOLDEN. There are procedures in place. There is a definite change of command, or a chain of command. In fact, I am 

going to be traveling to Langley Research Center next week. That 

is my devolution facility. Every year we practice a continuity of operations nationwide or government-wide, so I will be moving with 

my chief of staff and the Associate Administrator to Langley because something bad is happening to Washington. FEMA becomes 

a critical player in the role. The National Command Authority 

springs into action. The President is the guy that makes all the big 
58 

decisions and the National Security Council, and NASA is a teeny 

weeny little player in there. We provide data as we continue to do. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. If a near-Earth object was coming—— 

General BOLDEN. If a near-Earth object were coming, that would 

become an impending national disaster like a hurricane or other 

kinds of things, and there are distinct procedures in place to what 

FEMA would do with the Nation to get prepared. Something like 

a near-Earth object, we don’t presently have the capability like a 

hurricane to give you a percentage probability that is going to 

strike New York or, I mean, you know, it is going to strike Earth. 

That is what we can tell you. And so—but we would have to prepare. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, General. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, 

Mr. Veasey. 

Mr. VEASEY. General Bolden, good morning, and I wanted to 

touch on Russia again very quickly. 

Most recently, one of the official sanctions because of the 

Ukraine crisis is Dmitry Rogozin, Deputy Premier of Defense and 

Space Industry. You have stated that if we provide NASA with the 

President’s request for Commercial Crew we will have launch capability in 2017. So my question to you is, how can we accelerate our 

efforts to assure launch capability returns back to America? 

General BOLDEN. The way to accelerate it in this case is more 

money, to be quite honest. I can’t tell you when a company is going 

to think they are ready to fly but all of our partners that have 

given us schedules—Sierra Nevada, for example, has a scheduled 

launch on an Atlas V, a demonstration flight for themselves, I want 

to say it is 2015 or 2016. So the companies are moving very rapidly, as rapidly as they can, based on the funding that we have 

given them to be able to be ready to fly as soon as they can. I 

would be hesitant to say we could accelerate it any more than a 

year. But we could potentially accelerate it by a year if we were 

given adequate funding. 

Mr. VEASEY. And—— 

General BOLDEN. I can’t say that about everything. I can say 

that companies are poised. 

Mr. VEASEY. Right, right, and speaking of funding, what are the 

impacts of reducing NASA’s education programs? 

General BOLDEN. NASA spends $17.6 billion on STEM education. 

I don’t think people really get it. I spend a lot of time in classrooms. I spend a lot of time doing Skype. I spend a lot of time 

doing VIC with schools because I can’t go to every school. I don’t 

make a trip anywhere, particularly outside the United States, that 

I don’t do an outreach event and try to help our partner nations 

with their STEM education programs because everybody faces the 

same thing we do. 

Everyone is concerned about the reductions that they see in the 

Office of Education but it is making us hungry to find new ways 

to collaborate with other agencies. We did a program with the Department of Education. It is their 21st Century Communities and 

Learning program. NASA essentially did the program for them because we could bring astronauts into the classroom via downlink 

TV from the International Space Station. We were paid $300,000 
59 

to kind of put it together. They invested $5 million. That probably 

would have cost the Nation $10 million last year but we are learning how to collaborate with each other. We are not—I know everybody is worried about losing money. We are finding that synergy 

among Federal agencies is working for us. The 4–H is in every single county in this Nation, every single county. NASA has the Space 

Grant Consortium in 50 states. Compare every single county to 50 

states. We are now talking about working with collaboratively 4– 

H. That is going to magnify greatly the number of kids that we are 

able to reach with STEM education enrichment. So I am not worried about our ability to do our job. STEM outreach, it is us. I 

mean, we do that every day. 

Mr. VEASEY. In your opinion, is there any way to evaluate, you 

know, like whether or not these—— 

General BOLDEN. Oh, yeah. 

Mr. VEASEY. —that would make cuts to the programs? Are there 

real ways to evaluate whether or not these cuts are having an impact on future achievement or, you know, we talk a lot in this Committee about being to inspire young people to, you know, want to 

reach certain goals as it relates to STEM-related jobs. 

General BOLDEN. Without a doubt. NASA’s education program 

this year for the first time is outcome based, which means you have 

got to have metrics, so we are looking at, now we are not allowed 

because of privacy, we can’t map a child from elementary school 

through college. The Department of Education can. The National 

Science Foundation can because they are authorized to do those 

kinds of things. So by our collaborating with DOE, with Department of Education, and the National Science Foundation, they can 

do the metrics that tell us okay, how many kids that participated 

in Summer of Innovation last summer ten years from now are doctors or lawyers or things like that. Those are the metrics about 

which you speak, and although I can’t do it, I can get it now based 

on the collaborations that we have, and it has taken time. 

Everybody wants to see something now. We just started Summer 

of Innovation. We had to battle to get it. I think it has been around 

now four years, and we are seeing—we are now seeing factual data, 

not anecdotal data. We are looking at numbers of kids. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize the gentleman from Florida, 

Mr. Posey. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General, I had a chance to thank Seth and I had a chance to 

thank Bob Cabana for their commonsense no-cost outreach that 

NASA did to reach thousands of people who were indifferent pretty 

much previously to space and now seem to be enthusiastic about 

it, and I just haven’t had a chance to thank you personally for that, 

and I think it is great. That is how we help spread the message. 

General BOLDEN. Thank you. 

Mr. POSEY. A couple of things. You know, as to funding, I don’t 

think any of us are where we would like to be with funding but 

I think we are in a whole lot better place than we were a year ago 

with the uncertainty about sequestration and so I am trying to look 

at a glass half full in that regard pretty much as you are. 
60 

We need a deep space plan, Moon to Mars. There is no doubt 

about that. And we also need low-Earth-orbit options. So I know 

it is tight balancing that, and in space politics, you are always 

going to have some that want it all one way and some that want 

the other way, and I hope that we will continue to understand that 

we do need both and go forward like that. 

A concern that I have, and I discussed it briefly with Dr. Holdren 

yesterday, and he referred to a recent agreement that NASA has 

with Department of Energy over our space fuel supply. I wonder 

if you could bring up to date on that a little bit. 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. We have reached an agreement with 

DOE. They produce the plutonium pellets that we need, and so we 

are still in negotiations right now trying to understand how do we 

help them improve their facilities, I mean, just the infrastructure 

that is needed to press the pellets for propulsion. We have enough 

right now in our stockpile to be able to fly the missions that are 

presently on the books for us—Mars 2020 and the like—but we 

have to work better with DOE to make sure that they can make 

the improvements to their infrastructure so that they can efficiently make the pellets that we need. We have lots of fuel but it 

is old and it needs new fuel to mix in it to make it good. 

Mr. POSEY. They are not in the process of destroying any or getting rid of any that you are aware of or using it for anything else 

other than space? 

General BOLDEN. I will have to take that for the record. I don’t 

know the answer to that, sir. 

Mr. POSEY. Would you just find out? I would kind of like that assurance that it is not being used elsewhere for other things or—— 

General BOLDEN. Yeah, I will, and I will take that for the record. 

I don’t know. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. Thank you, General. Any other comments you 

would like to make about keeping on track with both? 

General BOLDEN. Oh, it is a balance, and I come to this hearing, 

I feel better about where we are than ever before, to be quite honest. I wanted to commend the Chairman and Ranking Member because of the way they are working together. We must do better 

than we are doing. I don’t want to sit here and say what was the 

responsibility of the Bush Administration, what happened in the 

Obama Administration. As Congressman Bera said, what is done 

is done. We can’t undo that. We can make a difference for the future. The thing I will say is, what I am talking about, none of us 

are going to be sitting around here in charge. I had some young 

people, MLLP, they had to leave—Mid-Level Leadership Program. 

They are young, growing leaders in NASA, and they just wanted 

to see how we do this stuff. That is who is going to do all this stuff 

we are talking about. Deep space exploration is hard, and we cannot jump to Mars. We have to develop the technologies. We have 

got to be confident that our systems are going to work. That is why 

when Chairman Smith asked about a Mars flyby, a Mars flyby is 

great but it doesn’t do anything for us in terms of deep space exploration. If the crew survives, and I have doubts about that—that is 

why I am not a fan of a one-time Mars flyby. I mean, okay, we 

have done a one-time Mars flyby. As great as Apollo was, and it 

was awesome, we never stayed on the surface of the Moon for more 
61 

than days. If we are going to go to the surface of the Moon, we better stay there for a month or two months or we are not going to 

learn anything about the impact of less than one gravity on the 

brain or on other—— 

Mr. POSEY. But do we agree unless at some point there is the 

ability to leave this Earth, the survival of our species is threatened? 

General BOLDEN. I am not a fatalist, but we do need to be able 

to be a multi-planet species. 

Mr. POSEY. A realist. We are trying to look at eternity. We are 

trying to look at the future. 

General BOLDEN. I mean, one of these days our Sun—you and I 

won’t see it, nobody we know will see it, but one of these days our 

Sun is going to burn out, it is a start, and it would be nice if we 

have become a multi-planet species by then and we are not just on 

Mars. By then people will be living in other solar systems because 

the solar system will go away. We got to get beyond—like my 

granddaughter says, she says, you are thinking about Mars, I am 

going way beyond that, and she is right. When the Sun gives out, 

this solar system goes away. 

Mr. POSEY. We have to think about planting trees for future generations. 

General BOLDEN. Yes, exactly. 

Mr. POSEY. The shade from which we will never expect to have, 

and I like Neil deGrasse Tyson when he says space is truly the 

only investment we make for future generations. 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. I agree. 

Chairman PALAZZO. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize the gentleman from Arizona, 

Mr. Schweikert. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and General. 

Part of what I want to sort of have a quick dialogue is, just the 

mechanics internally under your review, how you set priorities and 

the decision making and the inputs and those things because I 

know you have a lot of voices and a lot of people tugging on your 

coat saying we want this, we want that. Something like SOFIA because—now, that was really coming online just within the last 12 

months or so, correct? 

General BOLDEN. SOFIA is a—I mean, it has been under development for probably 10 years. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. But in full—— 

General BOLDEN. It was beginning to fly and fly well. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. And so internally, when you are doing your 

prioritizations and mechanics, tell me the review process you go, 

and let us just use SOFIA just because I am somewhat familiar 

with that on how you prioritize a program like that, that you have 

a decade of time and money. 

General BOLDEN. Inside the Science Mission Directorate, they 

have—I forget what they call their council, but every year they get 

the wise people of the science community and they evaluate our 

programs to see, okay, what I have asked them to do for me right 

now is, we have a lot of programs that have been flying for a long 

time, long past their planned lifetime. They are expensive. We have 
62 

to pay for those. So when we prioritize what we are going to get 

from our science portfolio, we try to make sure we have a balance 

of Earth, space, everything, and SOFIA ended up in the 

prioritization—SOFIA was down here. When you talk about James 

Webb getting ready to come online, Spitzer, other sources of data 

that is very similar to what SOFIA gives us, SOFIA is a unique 

asset. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. And I don’t want to put words in your mouth 

because I am—— 

General BOLDEN. You won’t. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. —reaching back, because I remember it may 

have been a year or so ago, you were actually somewhat a fan of 

SOFIA. 

General BOLDEN. I am a fan of SOFIA. I am a fan of anything 

that has wings. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. So mechanically, share with me the internal 

process under your authority tree on how they would prioritize 

SOFIA and how it ended up where it is. 

General BOLDEN. We would go to the science community and ask 

how—based on what we expect to get in our budget, what do you 

want to continue to operate, and the one thing I keep cautioning 

is, if we are going to put new systems online, if we are going to 

bring about new technology, better sensors than we have today, 

what are you going to give up? Because the science community—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. But does that become more of a conversation 

of let us enhance what we have or is it to cancel or—I mean—— 

General BOLDEN. Well, you never say what are we going to cancel. That is not a question. So the question is, how do we operate 

within our budget and provide science responsive to the scientific 

objectives set by the Decadal Surveys, set by the outside advisory 

committee, set by Congress. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. So right now you sort of understand your budget request and where you see things going. Tell me where SOFIA 

sits in that. 

General BOLDEN. Low. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. So it is a low priority? 

General BOLDEN. It is not a low priority. I shouldn’t have said 

that. In comparison with other projects in the science portfolio, 

SOFIA did not rise to the level that we decided we were either 

going to terminate another program or—we have options with 

SOFIA, and as Dr. Holdren mentioned I think yesterday, we do 

have options with SOFIA. We don’t know what the 2015 budget is 

going to be so we could end up with enough money that we could— 

we have not stopped flying SOFIA. Everybody is panicking. We are 

working with our German partners to find ways that we can enhance the utilization of SOFIA for the rest of this fiscal year. We 

may not put it into upgrade, for example. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. But when you are doing your layers of priorities, Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative and those, I am 

just—I am trying to get a better understanding how something like 

this falls in the big picture. 

General BOLDEN. If you look at our list of things in the Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative, almost every one of them is 

something that is either in existence right now, and I am trying to 
63 

buy down risk, $150 million to Commercial Crew if the Congress 

grants our request for $848 million takes it to a billion. That is 

buying down risk. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Okay. And just because my time—I had two 

quick—do you think the Germans would be willing to take on more 

of the heavy lift on the cost of—— 

General BOLDEN. That is one of the alternatives. However, to be 

very candid, they don’t seem to be willing to do that. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. If we put their flag first on the airplane? 

General BOLDEN. We are looking at all alternatives for SOFIA. 

I will have to say, though, SOFIA is a joint project. The United 

States, NASA is unable to assume all responsibility for SOFIA. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. My second—and this is just because it outside 

my skill set—Space Station. 

General BOLDEN. Yes? 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. How long can it go unmanned, you know, if it 

sat there for—I mean, is there sort of a—when you cross over a 

maintenance curve? I am just—I am sort of curious if there is a 

data point. 

General BOLDEN. You don’t want to—I don’t—I will have to take 

that for the record. If you really want me to tell you how long we 

can go if we de-man, de-orbit—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. No, no. Let us say it sat up there for 36 

months. 

General BOLDEN. It can’t sit up there for 36 months unoccupied. 

We have got to have people that are repairing—it was an ammonia 

pump that went out. That was an emergency. That was a contingency for which we had to do a contingency spacewalk and all that. 

If there is no crew, that doesn’t get done. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. So in many ways, for maintenance and just 

sort of—you almost—— 

General BOLDEN. You talk about leverage. Everybody is excited 

because the Russians have the leverage on transportation. When 

you talk about navigation, communications, power, the United 

States has significant leverage on the International Space Station. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I am so sorry. I just looked at 

the clock, and I was having fun here. Thank you for your patience. 

General BOLDEN. You asked great questions. 

Chairman PALAZZO. All great questions. I now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Collins. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and there is nothing 

wrong, Congressman, with having some fun. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Well, around here it is. 

Mr. COLLINS. Yeah. Okay. 

General Bolden, my question really surrounds the chart you have 

already showed and the human exploration roadmap that is both 

the authorization bills in the Senate and the House as well as the 

minority’s version that we need to help assess us in the merits of 

the Asteroid Retrieval Mission. So the chart you have been, you 

know, showing a little bit today doesn’t outline what you want to 

call the specific set of capabilities and technologies required to extend human presence to the surface of Mars or the mission sets 

necessary to demonstrate the proficiencies of these capabilities that 

the House version asked for. It doesn’t include the information on 
64 

the phasing of planned intermediate destinations, Mars, mission 

risk areas and the potential risk mitigation approaches that required by the bill offered by Ms. Edwards, and it does not include 

a description of the utility of an expanded human presence in 

cislunar space toward enabling missions to various lunar orbits, 

the lunar surfaces, asteroids, the Mars system and other destinations of interest. 

So until the Administration provides the detailed information on 

the Asteroid Retrieval Mission including how it fits into a broader 

exploration architecture, I assume Congress is going to continue to 

view some of this project skeptically, which brings me to the question: NASA’s budget request includes $180 million for the Asteroid 

Redirect Mission, so last year at the budget hearing, I wasn’t here 

but I have been informed that you told the Committee that a mission formulation review would be done over the summer, but now 

it has been a year since the mission was announced. NASA has not 

completed the mission formulation review, and what I was told is, 

just last week you released a broad agency announcement for information and held an open forum yesterday to solicit even more 

input. So when is NASA going to actually have a plan for the mission that the Committee can review and how can you be sure that 

the mission is in fact a steppingstone to Mars, as the BAA claims, 

without a human exploration roadmap? 

General BOLDEN. My estimate would be that over the next year 

we will continue to refine the concept for the Asteroid Redirect Mission. There are two big potential ways that we could do it right 

now, and that is what we are evaluating. That is the reason we 

continue to go to the community, industry, academia and entrepreneurs, to be quite honest, trying to determine whether we want 

to use a small asteroid—smaller—small is a relative term, where 

we grasp the asteroid and fly along with it and thrust against it 

or whether we go to a large asteroid, take a large boulder from it 

so that has to be determined, and that will determine the specifics 

of the mission, what type vehicle you use and everything. 

We know that no matter what we do, we are going to need solar 

electric propulsion so we have identified that as, if you will, a hurdle to being able to do an Asteroid Redirect Mission, also a hurdle 

to getting to Mars because we know that is what we are going to 

use for cargo. 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, you know, in the tough budget environment 

we are in, clearly I would say the more information that you can 

provide to Congress, the more likely you can get buy-in, and if 

things start to slip or commitments are made and not met, I think 

you can understand that is viewed problematically, and again, 

what I was told was yesterday when NASA presented to the scientific community, it was the opinion of some that the information 

that was presented was a broader set of data and information than 

has already been shared with this Committee or with Congress. So, 

you know, in priority setting, I guess I would just simply encourage 

NASA to give us more data than we ask for so that, you know, we 

are not feeling as though we are left out of the loop or that we are 

not important because you can understand the result if that is the 

feeling, which I think it is somewhat. 
65 

General BOLDEN. I appreciate and intend to respond to that request, and I would hope—I look at the staff in the back. I am told 

that we have been regularly briefing the staff on the progress with 

the Asteroid Redirect Mission, so if that is not true, somebody 

shake their head no, that is not true, and I will go back and—— 

Mr. COLLINS. I think the staff should be shaking their head no 

because clearly, as someone new to the Committee, very directly 

asked me to probe this because they don’t feel like it has been so, 

so there is a—— 

General BOLDEN. Have they not been getting any information or 

not being getting sufficient information? 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, not sufficient. If you are not getting sufficient 

information, you might as well not—— 

General BOLDEN. Robert Lightfoot, who is my Associate Administrator, usually does—he leads the team up here. If it is insufficient 

information, it is because we don’t know. If it is no information, it 

is because I am being misled in thinking that they are coming—— 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, I don’t think anyone would suggest it is no 

information but to some extent insufficient information means decisions can’t be made. 

General BOLDEN. It means we don’t have enough information to 

make an informed decision. That is all it means. 

Mr. COLLINS. Again, I would just encourage you, and I don’t 

think it is saying anything to—the more information you can get 

this Committee, the more likely you will see the Committee—— 

General BOLDEN. Exactly, and I understand that, and again, I 

will go back to my comments earlier. There are big things happening. I would encourage people, part of getting ready for the Asteroid Redirect Mission is having a vehicle to take the crew. If you 

go to the Kennedy Space Center, you will see Orion. It is a spacecraft. It is not a drawing. It will fly next fall, this coming—before 

the end of the year. If you go to Michoud, you will see components 

of SLS that are under construction, whether they are barrel assemblies for the fuel tank or whether they are domes or whatever, that 

is real hardware. We are not talking about drawings anymore, and 

that is all a part of getting to the Asteroid Redirect Mission. So 

that may not be sufficient but that is all we have is hardware. If 

that is not sufficient, I don’t know how to do better. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, General Bolden. My time is expired. 

Sorry, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman PALAZZO. That is fine. Great questions by all the Members of the Committee. 

At this time, General, you are not going to get off without a second round of questions. 

General BOLDEN. That is good. 

Chairman PALAZZO. So I will open it up for myself, and this is 

similar to a follow-up on Commercial Crew. 

Last year, the Associate Administrator, Bill Gerstenmaier, said 

basically 90 percent of all the development costs for the Commercial Crew is being paid for by the American taxpayer, and we know 

that the Commercial Crew contract is going to be similar to what 

the cargo was, anywhere from $7 to $11 billion or greater. So we 

are just thinking—you mentioned that if we don’t—if you don’t get 

the funding, that the schedule will slip beyond 2017. Is there any-
66 

thing that NASA can actually do to entice these companies to actually put more skin into the game, perhaps? Yes or no. 

General BOLDEN. I am confused by a number you just gave. Our 

total expenditure, unless my charts are wrong, the total expenditure on COTS over the five years that I have been the NASA administrator from the taxpayer was, we were appropriated $782 million and we obligated $780 million. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Yeah, I am not talking about Commercial 

Crew. 

General BOLDEN. Commercial Crew—— 

Chairman PALAZZO. I am talking about the value of the contracts 

that, you know, these companies are going to receive from $7 to 

$11 million, estimated value for flying, you know, cargo and crew. 

So I am saying, you know, we are basically paying 90 percent of 

the development cost. Is there a way to get them to maybe put 

more money into the program? 

General BOLDEN. They do. That is the reason—that is why I 

mentioned earlier, when you said how have we managed to stay on 

cost, on target, on schedule, if you haven’t given us what we asked 

for, it is because the companies have paid more than they would 

have normally paid. That is the only way they can produce hardware. We only paid them what we had. So—and I would have to 

go back—I will take for the record to verify the 90 percent number. 

I would be surprised if we are paying 90 percent of the cost of Commercial Crew development to this date. I would be really surprised. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I mean, that is from a hearing we had September 14, 2012. 

General BOLDEN. And I am told the information is proprietary, 

but I will go back and—I will take that for the record. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Okay. At this time I recognize the Ranking 

Member. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thanks. Just very quickly, I do want to follow this 

up because earlier when you mentioned—I thought you had 

misspoken that the industry participants of the Commercial Crew 

program were providing more money than NASA. That doesn’t 

seem to be the information that we have. So is it possible for you 

to provide the Committee with the amounts that each of the—even 

at some level, the amounts that each of the industry participants 

is putting in and NASA so that we can see that? Because otherwise 

I think all of us are under the impression that NASA, that the taxpayers are actually providing the bulk of the support for Commercial Crew. Is that wrong? 

General BOLDEN. As I said, I will take that for the record. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Okay. Thank you. And then you also—I mean, you 

can hear that—don’t think we have coordinated our questions for 

you but what you can hear is a concern around the Asteroid Retrieval Mission, and so I wonder if you would be prepared by a date 

certain to provide the Committee with a roadmap and the analysis 

of the various options that there would be testing different kinds 

of technology for this plan to Mars, and so some of us, for example, 

have thought, well, maybe the Moon makes sense as a sort of test 

bed, others, the ISS, and others, the Asteroid Retrieval Mission, or 

maybe some combination, but when would you be able to provide 
67 

a roadmap with the analysis comparing these options and the technologies that would be derived to the Committee? 

General BOLDEN. Congresswoman, I will go back. It was my impression, because I keep referring to it every time I come forward, 

we have two matrices. One shows human ratings, human performance, human concerns. The other one shows technology gaps. And 

we have had that—I look at that—I have been looking at it for a 

couple of years. I thought we made that available to the Committee-which shows these are things that we are accomplishing on 

the International Space Station, these are things that we will accomplish with the Asteroid Redirect Mission. But I will take that 

for the record and go back and make sure we have shared those 

matrices with your staffs and with you. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And then what about lunar—so here is what we 

are wrestling with here. We have some different ideas on this Committee about what makes sense, but if you all aren’t providing us 

with a real roadmap that outlines the technologies and then maybe 

says here is our scientific analysis about why this doesn’t make 

sense or the other, it would help us to make a more informed decision from a budget perspective and from an authorizing perspective 

of what it is that we need to look at, and I think that the questions 

that you have heard on the Committee go to that point. I mean, 

it would help the Chairman and I very much to have that in hand, 

and it would help for you to say here is a date certain by which 

NASA can give that to us. I want to incorporate that date, quite 

frankly, if we are to do an authorization because then we can come 

back and evaluate what makes sense going forward and that deeply impacts budget. And don’t leave the Moon out because you can 

hear the concern here on the Committee. 

General BOLDEN. We won’t leave the Moon out but—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. I am not saying that is where I am personally but 

it is a concern of the Committee. 

General BOLDEN. Well, but I am just saying that we—you know, 

I can state with certainty the reason the Moon, we don’t talk about 

it, is because there is no technological advantage to go to the Moon. 

There is no challenge technologically to go to the lunar surface. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Well—— 

General BOLDEN. Except money. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Okay. So in providing something to this Committee, it would be very helpful to have that analysis, to have the 

scientific, you know, sort of basis for that decision and also to have 

the buy-in collectively from the community about a direction. Because I think if we had that, we would make some very important 

decisions about in what direction we need to go. 

General BOLDEN. We will attempt to do that. I have to caution, 

hoping that the community, whichever community you are talking 

about, if you are talking about the science community, hopefully 

buy-in is not all will agree. That will never happen. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Okay. 

General BOLDEN. There is the lunar community, and they are not 

in favor of anything—now we are talking about ideologues, so there 

is a community—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. Just give us an analysis, and then let us know 

who is for and against, an analysis that will help us in our deci-
68 

sion-making so that what you want and what NASA needs is for 

this Committee all to be on the same page about the direction. 

That will help you as well as it will help us. Thank you. 

General BOLDEN. I will take that. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Brooks. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Administrator, back to the issue with Russia and our ability 

to get to the International Space Station. What would be the consequences to the operational capabilities of the Space Station if 

within the next year Russia chooses to deny us access by no longer 

allowing us to hitch a ride on their rockets? 

General BOLDEN. As I mentioned before, because we provide 

navigation, communications, power, and as I responded to somebody else, Station would probably—and I hate to deal in conjecture—the partners would probably have to shut the Space Station 

down. 

Mr. BROOKS. And if the Space Station—— 

General BOLDEN. If you are thinking that the Russians will continue to operate the International Space Station, it can’t be done. 

Mr. BROOKS. And if the Space Station is shut down for an extended period of time, say—— 

General BOLDEN. I will not need—I will come to this—I will go 

to the President and recommend that we terminate SLS and Orion 

because without the International Space Station, I have no vehicle 

to do the medical tests, the technology development, and we are 

fooling everybody that we can go to deep space if the International 

Space Station is not there. That is the reason that we and 

Roscosmos and ESA and JAXA, everyone agree that hey, no matter 

what else is going on the surface of Earth, if we want to do this 

global exploration roadmap to which 12 different nations signed up, 

we have to have the International Space Station. That is the reason that the President said okay, I will agree to extend it to 2024 

and we are going—I mean, you know, I don’t want anyone to think 

that I need an SLS or Orion if I don’t have the International Space 

Station. 

Mr. BROOKS. Let me make sure I understand the sequence of 

events of your testimony. 

General BOLDEN. Very plainly—— 

Mr. BROOKS. Let me make sure I understand the sequence of 

events from your testimony, and you correct me if I err. If the Russians deny us access to the International Space Station, it is your 

testimony that because of what services we provide to the International Space Station, you would have to shut it down, and if the 

International Space Station is shut down, you in turn would then 

see no reason to have the Space Launch System or Orion? So is it 

fair for me to infer that you would then recommend that those programs be shut down too? 

General BOLDEN. And I need to correct what I said, if I said it. 

I don’t know that the Russians denying us access—you are assuming that they come today and say okay, you are not going anymore 

and we are not going to bring your crew home so figure out how 

to get them home. I don’t think that any of those contingencies are 

going to happen. 
69 

Mr. BROOKS. Well, I understand that there are probabilities that 

are involved. 

General BOLDEN. But that supposition was given to me, and I 

don’t accept that as a viable supposition. 

Mr. BROOKS. I am one of those that believes in planning for all 

contingencies. It is much like the effort to acquire an asteroid. 

General BOLDEN. We didn’t plan on—— 

Mr. BROOKS. I don’t think that the odds of an asteroid hitting us 

in the next few years are very big, but nonetheless, to me, that is 

an interesting mission because of the risk associated with one 

eventually hitting Earth and our having the capability of being 

able to thwart that. Granted, the Russians may not, over the next 

couple of years, shut us off from access to the International Space 

Station and all they have to do is deny us the ride that we keep 

thumbing with them, which if they are willing to attack other nations, it doesn’t seem beyond the realm of possibility that they also 

might be willing to deny American astronauts rides to the International Space Station. 

But having said that, if the International Space Station is shut 

down for any extended period of time, can it be resuscitated? 

General BOLDEN. I will take that for the record. You know, anything can be done. You are asking for suppositions, Congressman 

Brooks, and—— 

Mr. BROOKS. No, I am asking for your expertise and insight on 

that subject. 

General BOLDEN. I am not an expert on the environmental control and life support system of the International Space Station. So 

I said I will take that for the record—— 

Mr. BROOKS. All right. Thank you. 

General BOLDEN. I mean, there is no either/or in terms of SLS 

and Orion and Commercial Crew, and I don’t know how many ways 

to say that. 

Mr. BROOKS. Right. 

General BOLDEN. I know there are a lot of you who—— 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you. You have answered my question. 

General BOLDEN. Bear with me. You asked me—— 

Mr. BROOKS. If the Chairman would give me another minute in 

order to ask one other question? 

General BOLDEN. This is the last thing I will say: if I don’t have 

Commercial Crew and I can’t get to low-Earth orbit, I don’t need 

SLS and Orion. I showed you the exploration roadmap. If I can’t 

get to low-Earth orbit, there is no exploration program. 

Mr. BROOKS. All right. If I could go to my final question then. 

There was a study done entitled ‘‘Human and Nature Dynamics: 

Modeling Inequality and Use of Resources on the Collapse and Sustainability of Societies,’’ and it concluded in part that income inequality contributes to the collapse of societies. It has come to my 

attention that the study also states, ‘‘This work was partially funded through NASA/GSFC Grant NNX12AD03A’’ and that NASA 

contributed $26,000 to a study on income inequality or that involved income inequality. Why is NASA spending money that 

should be related to space exploration, at least in my view, on income inequality issues? 
70 

General BOLDEN. NASA did not request such study. We did not 

endorse such study. We have not reviewed such study. The study 

was done at the University of Maryland as an offshoot of a study 

we did request on another subject. We don’t control what a principal investigator chooses to do if they can get additional studies. 

Mr. BROOKS. But it is your money. It is $26,000 of NASA funding. Are you telling me that NASA doesn’t control what its money 

is being spent on? 

General BOLDEN. An investigator performs the study that we request, and if they choose to amplify the study with additional information or additional data for their own use, we don’t prohibit them 

from doing that. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you for sharing that information. 

General BOLDEN. It is not a NASA study, neither endorsed nor 

requested by us. 

Mr. BROOKS. But paid for by NASA in part. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Time is expired. 

At this time I want to ask unanimous consent to enter into the 

record a letter—oh, I am so sorry. At this time I recognize the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Administrator Bolden, for staying for a second round of questions. 

I wanted to follow up on the international partnerships and 

international cooperation, which we have talked about a lot in this 

Subcommittee, and we all appreciate the importance of it, and we 

have had some discussions about that this morning, but what I 

wanted to talk about is in light of the proposal to shut down 

SOFIA, what are the risks of the international partners coming to 

view NASA as an unreliable partner, for example? What has been 

the response of the international community when they found out 

about the SOFIA proposal? 

General BOLDEN. The only members of the international community concerned about SOFIA so far have been the Germans, because that is our principal partner there, and before we announced 

the budget, Dr. Jan Verner and I had a long telephone conversation, and that is where we decided that we would set up a cochaired working group to look at options for SOFIA, and that is 

what I referred to earlier. A final decision on SOFIA has not been 

made because we don’t know what the 2015 budget is going to say. 

But as Congressman Brooks says, we are planning for the contingency that we don’t get additional money in the science budget for 

SOFIA, and that would mean that we would then have to phase 

out of the—put it in mothballs. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Well, and to follow up on that, even though Germany may be directly the only partner that has expressed concern, 

what kind of message does that send to the rest of the international community, and have you heard any response from others 

about questioning why this might happen? 

General BOLDEN. A good example would be ExoMars, which everyone was up in arms when we announced that we were having 

to step back from the initial agreements on ExoMars. When NASA 

entered into an agreement with the European Space Agency on 

ExoMars, times were better. We were going to provide launch vehicles for the 2016 mission, the 2018 mission. When the 2013 budget 
71 

was about to come out, I talked to the European partners and I 

said look—we had teams in Paris. This was leading into Christmas. 

I said this doesn’t make sense. We have teams working on all this 

stuff, and I don’t know what the 2013 budget is going to be. I cannot in good conscience allow the teams to keep working towards 

something that we may not be able to support. I said give us time, 

let us look at the budget and then we will determine what happens. When the 2013 budget came out, we found out we couldn’t 

provide the launch vehicles that we had earlier promised. They 

went and negotiated and Russia as a partner in ExoMars agreed 

that they would do that. We agreed that we could hold up our end 

of the bargain on a communications package for 2016, and a very 

important scientific package on 2018. So the partners understood 

where we were. They go through the same thing. It is just that 

when they back out of something or they don’t make a payment, 

it doesn’t make the front page of the New York Times the way it 

does when the United States does it. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, and I asked you earlier about Earth 

science. I want to ask you a question about planetary science. Can 

you talk a little bit about the continued cuts being proposed for 

NASA’s Planetary Science program and whether that is consistent 

in light of the work that NASA plans to undertake on a Mars 2020 

rover? How can the cuts to the Planetary Science program be consistent? 

General BOLDEN. We are holding to a Planetary Science portfolio 

that we have brought to this Committee and others for a long time. 

Mars 2020 is still on track. We have to find ways, innovative ways 

to do missions when budgets are reduced, and our budget has been 

constantly reduced over time. As I said, the President requested a 

certain amount since I have been the NASA Administrator, and the 

amount appropriated has always been less than that was requested, and that is forgotten by most people. We have taken the 

resulting appropriations and we have figured out alternative ways 

to do things. Sometimes you descope a mission, sometimes you 

have to cancel it, but we have really canceled very few missions in 

the time that I have been the NASA Administrator because we 

have been able to find alternatives to how to do it. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. And even though that may be forgotten by most people, I doubt that it is forgotten by people on this 

Subcommittee. 

So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Chairman PALAZZO. The gentlewoman yields back. 

At this time I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a 

letter from the Planetary Society that has been shared with the minority ahead of time. Hearing no objection. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Chairman PALAZZO. I 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, may I get a copy of the letter, 

or can you remind me or refresh my memory of what it is? Because 

I get all kinds of stuff—— 

Chairman PALAZZO. You don’t get the right to see it. 

General BOLDEN. I don’t get to see it? Okay. 
72 

Chairman PALAZZO. We will get you a copy of the letter, of 

course, and the attachment. 

So at this time—— 

General BOLDEN. Is it good or bad? Can you give me a hint? 

Chairman PALAZZO. Both. 

General BOLDEN. Both? 

Chairman PALAZZO. Yeah. 

General BOLDEN. They want more money for Mars, and do they 

like Europa? 

Chairman PALAZZO. General Bolden, thank you. Thank you for 

your valuable testimony and the Members for their questions. The 

Members of the Committee may have additional questions for you, 

and we will ask you to respond to those in writing. The record will 

remain open for two weeks for additional comments and written 

questions from Members. 

The witness is excused, and this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:57 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(73) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
74 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by The Hon. Charles F. Bolden, Jr. 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
(157) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 

ADDITIONAL RESPONSES SUBMITTED BY THE HON. CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR. 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 

Æ