U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

54–449PDF 2010

DECISIONS ON THE FUTURE DIRECTION

AND FUNDING FOR NASA: WHAT WILL

THEY MEAN FOR THE U.S. AEROSPACE

WORKFORCE AND INDUSTRIAL BASE?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

DECEMBER 10, 2009

Serial No. 111–69

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

(

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

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

DAVID WU, Oregon 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio 

KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

VACANCY 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

PETE OLSON, Texas 
(III)

C O N T E N T S 

December 10, 2009

Page 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 2

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Chairman, Committee on Science 

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 15

Statement by Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Chairwoman, Subcommittee 

on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. 

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 16

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17

Statement by Representative Pete Olson, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 19

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

Witnesses:

Mr. David Thompson, President, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 22

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 24

Ms. Marion C. Blakey, President and Chief Executive Officer, Aerospace 

Industries Association 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 26

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

Mr. A. Thomas Young, Executive Vice President (Ret.), Lockheed Martin 

Corporation 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 32

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

Dr. Richard Aubrecht, Vice Chairman of the Board, Vice President, Strategy 

and Technology, Moog, Inc. 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 35

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 37

Discussion 

Opinion of the Panel: Impact of Decision To Augment or Flat-Fund Human 

Spaceflight and Exploration Programs ........................................................... 39

Augustine Report: Budget and Funding Issues ................................................. 39

Stimulus Funds and Human Spaceflight Funding for NASA .......................... 41

Cooperation with Foreign Nations ...................................................................... 41

Effects of Post-Shuttle Gap of U.S. Access to Space on Maintaining Inspiration; and Gap in U.S. Industrial Production of Heavy Lift Vehicle ............. 42

Inspiring the Next Generation for Space Exploration ...................................... 44

The Metric System ............................................................................................... 45

Revitalizing and Improving the Aerospace Workforce ...................................... 45

Education Programs in Elementary Schools/Advocating Math and Science ... 47

Aircraft Propulsion Systems ................................................................................ 48

Educational Initiatives Focused on Math and Science Teachers ..................... 49

Effect of Delaying or Indecision on Constellation Project ................................. 51

Impact of Previous Decisions on Current Status of Human Spaceflight 

and Loss of Jobs ................................................................................................ 52

Importance of Science R&D and Education ....................................................... 54
Page

IV

Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Mr. David Thompson, President, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics .............................................................................................................. 58

Ms. Marion C. Blakey, President and Chief Executive Officer, Aerospace 

Industries Association .......................................................................................... 65

Mr. A. Thomas Young, Executive Vice President (Ret.), Lockheed Martin 

Corporation ........................................................................................................... 68

Dr. Richard Aubrecht, Vice Chairman of the Board, Vice President, Strategy 

and Technology, Moog, Inc. ................................................................................. 71
(1)

DECISIONS ON THE FUTURE DIRECTION AND 

FUNDING FOR NASA: WHAT WILL THEY 

MEAN FOR THE U.S. AEROSPACE WORKFORCE AND INDUSTRIAL BASE? 

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2009

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Gordon 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
2

HEARING CHARTER

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Decisions on the Future Direction and Funding

for NASA: What Will They Mean for the U.S.

Aerospace Workforce and Industrial Base? 

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2009

10:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M. 2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

I. Witnesses

Mr. David Thompson, President 

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Ms. Marion C. Blakey, President and Chief Executive Officer 

Aerospace Industries Association

Mr. A. Thomas Young, Executive Vice President (ret.) 

Lockheed Martin Corporation

Dr. Richard Aubrecht, Vice Chairman, Vice President, Strategy and Technology, 

Moog Inc.

II. Overview 

A series of recent Committee and Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee hearings 

have examined key issues related to upcoming decisions on the future direction and 

funding for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), particularly as they relate to human spaceflight. The subcommittee has examined the results of the Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, the state of advanced technology development at NASA, the growth of global space capabilities and 

what they mean for our space program, and human spaceflight safety. This hearing, 

convened by the Science and Technology Committee, looks at the health of the U.S. 

aerospace workforce and industrial base and how decisions on NASA’s direction and 

funding would affect them, including decisions on human spaceflight plans. 

The aerospace workforce and the industrial base are at the core of the space enterprise, whether for NASA’s programs and other civil space activities, commercial 

space, or national security space activities. The United States would not have 

achieved its leadership position in space without the dedication, expertise and skills 

resident in the aerospace workforce and industrial infrastructure that supports the 

nation’s space program. As the nation looks forward, it will continue to depend on 

these talents and capabilities to support America’s future goals and objectives for 

its space activities. 

Jobs in the aerospace workforce are highly-skilled and command good salaries. 

For example, according, to a report of the Space Foundation, The Space Report 2009, 

‘‘in 2007, the average annual wage of a U.S. aerospace engineer was $92,700, an increase of nearly $3,500 compared to 2006.’’ The Space Report further states that ‘‘For 

the first time on record, professionals in the federal space research and space vehicle 

manufacturing sectors earned an average salary above six figures . . . or 2.3 times 

that of the average U.S. private sector worker.’’ In addition the aerospace industry 

is a significant contributor to the nation’s economy, and the industry invests in research and development. Aerospace Facts & Figures 56th edition, a 2009 report of 

the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), notes that ‘‘Total sales for the aerospace 

industry grew by 7.2 percent to $200.3 billion in 2007.’’ In his prepared statement 

for a Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee hearing on ‘‘External Perspectives on the 

FY 2010 NASA Budget Request and Related Issues’’ held on June 18, 2009, Mr. J.P. 

Stevens, Vice President, Space Systems of the Aerospace Industries Association 

(AIA) stated: ‘‘Our member companies export 40 percent of their total output, and 

we routinely post the nation’s largest manufacturing trade surplus, which was over 

$57 billion in 2008 . . . . The aerospace industry continues to look to the future, investing heavily in research and development, spending more than $100 billion over 

the last 15 years.’’
3

According to a series of advisory reports, however, the U.S. aerospace workforce 

and space industrial base face growing challenges. In 2001, the Bush Administration chartered The Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry to ‘‘study the issues associated with the future of the United States aerospace industry in the global economy, particularly in relationship to United States national 

security; and assess the future importance of the domestic aerospace industry for the 

economic and national security of the United States.’’ In its report, the Commission 

identified several critical issues including the aging of the aerospace workforce, consolidation in the industry, and ‘‘the failure of the U.S. K–12 education system to 

properly equip U.S. students with the math, science, and technological skills needed 

to advance the U.S. aerospace industry’’. Subsequent reports that are discussed in 

the sections that follow reiterate many of the pressing concerns that the Commission identified. Those concerns are particularly relevant during a period in which 

NASA is moving toward a planned retirement of the Space Shuttle, is developing 

the next human spaceflight system, will be relying on non-U.S. means of access to 

space during for a period of at least 5 years, and is preparing for key decisions about 

the space program and NASA’s plans for human spaceflight in low-Earth orbit and 

beyond that will have significant implications for the aerospace workforce and industrial base. 

Will the nation pursue the current, congressionally-authorized course to return 

humans to the Moon as a stepping-stone to other destinations using the Constellation architecture, or will the Administration propose an alternative path or architecture that Congress will need to examine? Will the Administration and Congress support the increased funding for NASA and its human space flight activities that the 

Augustine committee has said is needed to carry out any meaningful exploration 

program? Will the International Space Station (ISS) be extended to at least 2020? 

What will be the interplay of scientific robotic and human endeavors in space? How 

are the knowledge and expertise gathered through our experience with the first fifty 

years of space activities, including the ability to design, develop, and operate a 

human lunar program and a space transportation system, being passed on to the 

next generation of aerospace professionals? What are the critical skills that the nation will need to preserve if it is to undertake future space activities? How can the 

nation retain and apply the critical skills and experience developed through decades 

of Space Shuttle operations to the next human space transportation system? I-low 

will the space program contribute to meeting national needs and advancing international goals and objectives? The impact of potential decisions on these questions 

will affect the types of skills and capabilities that are required, the size and distribution of the workforce, and the geographical concentrations of the workforce and 

institutions (government, industry, and academic) that have grown up to support 

NASA’s programs over the past decades will also need to be considered. 

Some of these questions on NASA’s future have come to the fore with the Presidentially-charged independent review of U.S. human spaceflight plans that was carried out by a committee led by Mr. Norman Augustine, former Chairman and Chief 

Executive Officer of Lockheed Martin Corporation. The Committee, in its report, 

Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great Nation, reviewed current 

spaceflight plans and proposed potential alternatives. Other actions for the future 

of the space program have been recommended in such reports as the National Research Council’s (NRC) America’s Future in Space: Aligning the Civil Space Program 

with National Needs. These and other reports refer to the importance of a healthy 

aerospace workforce and industrial base for the future of the space program. As 

noted in the NRC report, ‘‘A competent technical workforce—sufficient in size, talent, 

and experience to address difficult and pressing challenges’’ is one of four 

foundational elements that are critical to the ability of America’s space activities to 

contribute to key national objectives. 

Several reports, including the National Academies report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, refer to the urgent need to improve science, technology, engineering, 

and mathematics (STEM) education and promote careers in science and technology 

if the nation is to maintain its leadership in science and engineering. As the National Research Council’s America’s Future in Space report noted, ‘‘Aerospace engineering requirements compete nationally for much of the same technically trained 

talent needed across the broad research and engineering sectors of our country.’’ Because expectations often weigh heavily on those pursuing careers in STEM fields, 

including aerospace, it will be important for Congress and the White House to understand the extent to which the future direction and stability of funding for NASA 

and the nation’s space program will be a significant factor in building and maintaining the pipeline of talent and experience for the aerospace workforce of the future. 

It is clear from a variety of independent assessments that adequate funding and stability of funding are critical ingredients in attracting and maintaining the skilled 
4

workforce needed to carry out NASA’s missions, including especially its human 

space flight and exploration activities, which can require multi-decadal commitments.

III. Issues

• How do the aerospace workforce and industrial base contribute to the nation’s 

economic strength, technological capabilities, competitiveness, and capacity for 

innovation?

• What are the critical issues and trends related to the U.S. aerospace workforce 

and space industrial base that Congress and the White House need to understand as decisions are made on the future direction and funding for NASA?

• How important is the adequacy and stability of funding and stability of 

NASA’s program to the health of the aerospace workforce and space industrial 

base?

• What does the ‘‘gap’’ in U.S. human spaceflight capability mean for the aerospace workforce and industrial base, and how would any lengthening or shortening of the gap affect the workforce and industrial base?

• What, if any, lessons learned from our experience with the gap between the end 

of the Apollo program and the first flight of the Space Shuttle, and its effects 

on the workforce and industrial base, have application to the current plans for 

retiring the Shuttle and transitioning to a new U.S. human spaceflight system?

• What are the critical workforce skills and industrial capabilities that need to 

be preserved as national assets, and what are the most effective ways to preserve those assets?

• What would any significant cutback or change in direction from the current 

Constellation Program mean for the aerospace workforce and space industrial 

base?

• What is the implication of continuing ISS operations and utilization through 

at least 2020 for the workforce and industrial base?

• What are the most significant impediments to ensuring the strength and capabilities of the aerospace workforce and industrial base, especially for human 

spaceflight?

• How do emerging space companies affect the aerospace workforce and industrial base and what is the outlook for the future?

IV. Background

The U.S. Aerospace Workforce and Its Contribution to the Economy 

The aerospace workforce includes NASA civil servants and its grantees and contractor space workforce; the broader aerospace workforce that support space, aviation, and defense programs; as well as a chain of suppliers, businesses and service 

organizations that also support the aerospace sector.

• NASA Civil Servant and Contractor Space Workforce

The President’s FY 2010 budget request for NASA describes the estimated level 

of full-time equivalents for NASA, including headquarters and ten centers for FY 

2010 as 17,900. The budget request states that: ‘‘In order to ensure that the necessary skills are available to meet the work demand of current and future programs 

and projects, maintaining a total workforce level of 17,900 FTE, while reshaping the 

skills, is vitally important to meeting the challenges of NASA’s current and future 

commitments,’’ although it does not indicate why or whether that workforce level, 

as opposed to higher or lower levels, is considered to be optimal. 

The relevant workforce also includes tens of thousands of contractors working at 

or near NASA centers that support NASA’s space and aeronautics activities. The 

main occupations for NASA’s workforce are science and engineering professionals, 

technicians, program managers, administrative professionals, and clerical staff

• Aerospace Industry Workforce

According to testimony by Mr. J.P. Stevens, Vice President, Space Systems for the 

AIA, to the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee in June 2009, AIA ‘‘represents 

nearly 300 manufacturing companies with over 660,000 high-wage, highly skilled 

aerospace employees across the three sectors: civil aviation, space systems and national defense. This includes over 140,000 workers who make the satellites, space sen-
5

sors, spacecraft, launch vehicles and ground support systems employed by NASA, 

DoD, [Department of Defense] NOAA, [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] NRO [National Reconnaissance Office] and other civil, military and intelligence space efforts . . . . Aerospace indirectly supports 2 million middle class jobs 

and 30,000 suppliers from all 50 states.’’

The Space Report 2009, a report of the Space Foundation, used workforce data 

from six North American Industry Classification System codes and the U.S. Bureau 

of Labor Statistics to calculate that, during 2007, a total of 262,741 Americans 

worked in the following areas of the space industry—search, detection, and navigation instruments; guided missile and space vehicle manufacturing; guided missile 

and space vehicle propulsion unit and propulsion unit parts manufacturing; other 

guided missile and space vehicle parts and auxiliary equipment manufacturing; satellite telecommunications; space research and technology. [The space research and 

technology code is defined as including ‘‘government establishments primarily engaged in the administration of operations of space flights, space research, and space 

exploration. Included in this industry are government establishments operating space 

flight centers.’’] 

In addition, there is an emerging commercial space industry that plans to offer 

various commercial space and launch services and one issue for the hearing is to 

understand the relevant aerospace workforce and industrial base issues for this segment of the space industry.

• Space Industry Wages

Space industry jobs are high paying jobs. According to the Aerospace Facts & Fig- ures, a publication of the AIA, ‘‘On average, the aerospace workforce is highly-skilled, 

specialized, and productive. Although aerospace workers comprised only 4.7 percent 

of the total manufacturing workforce, their compensation represented 7.1 percent of 

the total annual payroll for all manufacturing.’’

The Space Report 2009 states that ‘‘the combined average annual salary across the six core U.S. space industry sectors analyzed was $88,092 in 2007, nearly double the 

average salary of U.S. professionals in the average private sector overall. For the first 

time on record, professionals in the federal space research and space vehicle manufacturing sectors earned an average salary above six figures, more than $101,000, or 

2.3 times that of the average U.S. private sector worker.’’

In addition, The Space Report 2009 notes ‘‘Growth in space industry employment 

delivers a disproportionately large boost to the economy compared to economic growth 

in other sectors due to high wage levels in the space industry.’’ The report also state 

that, ‘‘Not only are U.S. space industry salaries high, they are growing. In 2003, the 

average U.S. space industry salary, adjusted for inflation to 2007 dollars, was 

$81,991. In real terms, U.S. space professionals made nearly S7,000 more on average 

in 2007 than they had five years prior, a real wage increase of 7.4%.’’

General Issues Related to the Aerospace Workforce 

The overall U.S. aerospace workforce faces a number of challenges, as identified 

by several reports and analyses on the topic. Those issues include the aging of the 

aerospace workforce, the stability of space-related programs, the skills required for 

major programs, and the status of the pipeline for future workers. 

According to the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry’s 2002 report, ‘‘The contributions of aerospace to our global leadership have been 

so successful that it is assumed U.S. preeminence in aerospace remains assured. Yet 

the evidence would indicate this to be far from the case. The U.S. aerospace industry 

has consolidated to a handful of players from what was once over 70 suppliers in 

1980 down to 5 prime contractors today. Only one U.S. commercial prime aircraft 

manufacturer remains. Not all of these surviving companies are in strong business 

health. The U.S. airlines that rely upon aerospace products find their very existence 

is threatened. They absorbed historical losses of over $7 billion in 2001 and potentially more this year. The industry is confronted with a graying workforce in science, engineering and 

manufacturing, with an estimated 26 percent available for retirement within the next 

five years. New entrants to the industry have dropped precipitously to historical lows 

as the number of layoffs in the industry mount. Compounding the workforce crisis 

is the failure of the U.S. K–12 education . . . .’’

• Aging Workforce and Pipeline

The employee ranks within both NASA and the aerospace industry are aging and 

the number of employees eligible for retirement is increasing. According to the 2009 

NRC report, America’s Future in Space: Aligning the Civil Space Program With National Needs, ‘‘As of February 2009, more than 60 percent of NASA’s full-time perma-
6

nent employees were at least 45 years old, and nearly one quarter of employees were 

above 55.’’ According to the AIA, ‘‘Only 15.7% of the aerospace workforce is composed 

of 25–34 year olds. Nearly 60% of the workforce is 45 years and older.’’ The 2009 

NRC report also notes that ‘‘the experienced aerospace workforce that pioneered the 

exploration of space and engineered notable past accomplishments is quickly retiring’’. A 2007 NRC report, Building a Better NASA Workforce: Meeting the Workforce 

Needs for the National Vision for Space Exploration, states that ‘‘NASA has determined that 12 percent of its engineers and 21 percent of its scientists are now eligible 

to retire, and it projects that in 2011, 28 percent of its engineers and 45 percent of 

its scientists will be eligible to retire.’’ As a result of low annual rates of attrition 

at NASA (3.5 percent overall, annually), according to the NRC report, the authoring 

committee did not foresee a sudden large exodus from the NASA ranks. 

To address the aging workforce situation, NASA and the aerospace industry have 

taken concrete steps to encourage and create opportunities for students to pursue 

education and then careers in STEM fields and to gain experience on space projects. 

Even with these ongoing efforts, NASA and the industry face challenges in building 

the pipeline to replace retiring workers. 

The Aviation Week 2009 Workforce Study raises the issue that among those that 

do enter the aerospace workforce, the attrition rate has increased for employees in 

the early stages of their careers: ‘‘The voluntary attrition rate among young professionals (those with 0–5 years of experience) rose to 15.7% from 14% a year ago. This 

data point was added to the survey in 2008 so there is no further longitudinal analysis available. Also note a voluntary attrition rate of 19.4% for the manufacturing/

production workforce within those first five years of service . . . .’’

• Workforce Needs and Priority Skills

Among the skills in highest demand for aerospace programs, both civil and national security, are engineering capabilities—in particular systems engineering—and 

program management. A 2008 report by the Center for Strategic and International 

Studies (CSIS), Briefing of the Working Group on the Health of the U.S. Space Industrial Base and the Impact of Export Controls, states ‘‘The issue of program management and systems engineering skills shortages in government and industry have 

been well identified in numerous studies over the last five years.’’ At the same time, 

these skills are not easily acquired, as the study notes: ‘‘it takes up to 10 years to 

‘grow’ systems engineers and multiple program experiences are critical’’, as described 

in the CSIS report. 

The overall economic climate and the instability of the nation’s aerospace activities appear to be factors affecting hiring projections for the aerospace workforce, 

even for the most sought-after capabilities. According to the Aviation Week 2009 

Workforce Study, which was prepared in partnership with the Aerospace Industries 

Association, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and the National Defense Industries Association, ‘‘Hiring for the top four skills [systems engineering, aerospace engineering, mechanical engineering, program/software engineering] is predicted by these same companies to plummet by 38–80% in 2010, while 

other categories hold relatively steady. Only the fifth skill noted in the rankings, program management, projects a hiring increase (4%) in 2010. The economic hangover, 

then, is expected to last through 2010 or until new programs/contracts develop.’’

In addition, The Space Report 2009 identified a complement of engineering occupations as well as various science occupations that, according to the report, form a 

set of diversified skills and human capital that are needed for future space activities. Those occupations are: Aerospace engineering and operations technicians; Aerospace engineers; Astronomers; Atmospheric and space scientists; Avionics technicians; Chemical engineers; Materials engineers; Materials scientists; and Postsecondary atmospheric, Earth, marine, and space sciences teachers.

• Growth

In terms of space industry employment, The Space Report 2009 states that ‘‘After 

declining slightly between 2001 and 2003 with the bursting of the telecommunications market bubble, U.S. space industry employment has rebounded to 2001 levels. Between 2003 and 2007, the most recent five-year period for which official data 

is available, the number of space industry jobs grew by 5.1%.’’ This growth occurred 

in every sector of the U.S. space industry, except satellite telecommunications. 

The Aviation Week 2009 Workforce Study, which was issued in July 2009, reports 

that ‘‘What began as a full court press to hire and bring specific skills into the A&D

[aerospace and defense] industry a year ago adjusted downward as the year progressed and economic concerns grew worse. A year ago, the projection was that 2008 

hiring would hold at 5%, reflecting the industry’s overall growth. This year, that 
7

number falls to 3% job growth and layoffs among 50% [of] the organizations responding to the survey.’’

• Science and Aeronautics Workforce

NASA conducts a broad portfolio of aeronautics and space and Earth science programs that will require a workforce pipeline with the skills and capabilities to implement those programs. Several National Research Council reports and assessments focused on NASA’s science and aeronautics programs have commented on the 

need for a skilled workforce related to those areas. A sample of the findings and 

recommendations of those reviews include:

Æ ‘‘Recommendation: To ensure that the NASA aeronautics program has 

and will continue to have an adequate supply of trained employees, the 

Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate [ARMD] should develop a vision describing the role of its research staff as well as a comprehensive, 

centralized strategic plan for workforce integration and implementation 

specific to ARMD. The plan should be based on an ARMD-wide survey of 

staffing requirements by skill level, coupled with an availability analysis 

of NASA civil servants to support the NASA aeronautics program. The 

plan should identify specific gaps and the time frame in which they 

should be addressed.’’ NRC, NASA Aeronautics Research: An Assessment, 

2008.

Æ ‘‘A successful Earth information system should be planned and implemented around long-term strategies that encompass the life cycle from research to operations to applications. The strategy must include nurturing 

an effective workforce, informing the public, sharing in the development 

of a robust professional community, . . . and much more.’’ NRC, Earth 

Science and Applications from Space, 2007.

Æ Finding. ‘‘Due to reductions in the scope of NASA’s Radiation Protection 

Plan, the current pool of intellectual capital will shrink as researchers retire and are not replaced.’’

Recommendation: ‘‘NASA should try, perhaps as part of an interagency 

effort, to attract and engage young researchers and the broader radiation 

community at a level sufficient to supply the demands for radiation protection of astronauts in lunar mission operations and martian mission 

planning.’’ NRC, Managing Space Radiation Risk in the New Era of 

Space Exploration, 2008.

Æ ‘‘Recommendation. The Exploration Systems Mission Directorate should 

implement cooperative research programs that support the Exploration 

Technology Development Program (ETDP) mission with qualified university, industry, or national laboratory researchers, particularly in low-technology-readiness-level projects. These programs should both support the 

ETDP mission and develop a pipeline of qualified and inspired future 

NASA personnel to ensure the long-term sustainability of U.S. leadership 

in space exploration.’’ NRC, A Constrained Space Exploration Technology 

Program, 2008.

The strength of the scientific and technical base, including for space and Earth 

science, has also been recognized as a critical aspect of the nation’s economic engine, 

and its competitiveness and innovation infrastructure.

‘‘The visible products of research . . . are made possible by a large enterprise 

mostly hidden from public view—fundamental and applied research, an intensively trained workforce, and a national infrastructure that provides risk capital 

to support the nation’s science and engineering innovation enterprise. All that activity, and its sustaining public support, fuels the steady flow of knowledge and 

provides the mechanism for converting information into the products and services that create jobs and improve the quality of modern life. Maintaining that 

vast and complex enterprise during an age of competition and globalization is 

challenging, but it is essential to the future of the United States.’’ The National 

Academies, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, 2007.

• Diversity

The number of women and under-represented minorities involved in the U.S. 

aerospace workforce is not changing, according to recent studies. The Aviation Week 

2009 Workforce Study notes that ‘‘As in past years and despite significant effort, 

there has been no measurable change in the participation of women and under-represented minorities in the technical workforce for A&D.’’ The report also states that 

‘‘Under-represented minorities are defined as non Anglo or Asian American, as self-
8

identified by members of the workforce. Women continue to make up 12% of the engineering workforce and under-represented minorities 18% of the job function. There 

has been no change in either in the past three years, despite hiring and retention efforts by participating companies.’’

According to the Report of the Interagency Aeropsace Revitalization Task Force, 

February 2008, ‘‘A 2007 Aviation Week survey notes that while women comprise 26 

percent of the aerospace workforce, they only comprise 10 percent of engineers and 

17 percent of program managers. Meanwhile, minorities comprise 25 percent of the 

aerospace workforce, but only constitute 18 percent of engineers and 10 percent of 

program managers.’’

Workforce and Industrial Base Issues Related to Human Spaceflight

• Workforce Issues and the Constellation Program

The NASA Authorization Acts of 2005 and 2008 authorized a national human and 

robotic exploration initiative, including the development of a new human space 

transportation system and a return of Americans to the Moon as a stepping stone 

to the exploration of other destinations in the solar system. 

In addition, NASA studied and analyzed various architectures, requirements, and 

implementation approaches based on the Vision for Space Exploration articulated by 

President Bush in 2004. In 2005 NASA issued the Final Report of NASA’s Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) and recommended an architecture that 

is now being developed as NASA’s Constellation Program. In terms of workforce, the 

ESAS report states that ‘‘The Shuttle-derived approach provides a relatively smooth 

transition of existing facilities and workforce to ensure lower schedule, cost, and programmatic risk.’’ Thus, the implications for the workforce were considered at the 

outset of planning for a future human spaceflight system. 

In addition to easing the transition of the current workforce from the Space Shuttle program to the development of the next human spaceflight system, NASA also 

needs to ensure that the necessary technical skills will be in place to support a longterm human spaceflight and exploration program. The NRC’s Building a Better 

NASA Workforce report studied the workforce needs that would have to be met to 

implement the exploration initiative and found that ‘‘the agency now has a relatively 

low number of younger workers to assume future leadership roles in NASA as older 

workers retire. If it does nothing to achieve a better age distribution across its overall 

internal workforce, NASA will suffer a gap not only in technical leadership, but also 

in overall technical experience, especially if the development dates for key VSE [Vision for Space Exploration] components slip and highly skilled workers with experience in the Space Shuttle program retire.’’

The NRC report also found that ‘‘There is a longstanding, widely recognized requirement for more highly skilled program/project managers and systems engineers 

who have acquired substantial experience in space systems development. Although 

the need exists across all of NASA and the aerospace industry, it seems particularly 

acute for human spaceflight systems because of the long periods between initiation 

of new programs (i.e., the Space Shuttle Program in the 1970s and the Constellation 

Program 30 years later). 

Finally, workforce challenges in the Constellation Program are exacerbated by the 

funding instability that the program has encountered. As Dr. Kenneth Ford, chair 

of the NASA Advisory Council, testified to the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee 

on June 18th of this year:

‘‘When a program such as Constellation has to re-plan, due to significant budget 

cuts, it means that schedules are shifted and contracts must be changed and renegotiated to a new baseline, inevitably at higher cost. The schedule delays also 

impact the ability to retain the highly skilled workforce currently working in 

support of the Shuttle and ISS systems. As the schedule slips, workers are first 

impacted in the hardware manufacturing facilities, and then as launch and 

orbit operations are delayed, workers are impacted in launch processing and operations. These workers have unique skills, and it is important to retain much 

of this workforce for the new systems. This unstable funding scenario is reminiscent of the instability in the Space Station Freedom yearly budgets in the late 

’80s and early ’90s that resulted in annual re-planning, cost overruns, and 

delays. Largescale engineering development programs and the associated contracts cannot be stopped and started without the inefficiency of replanning, loss 

of critical skills, additional significant costs, and loss of schedule. I hope that 

this is a ‘lesson learned,’ and that it will not have to be relearned at great cost. 

The current budget environment is jeopardizing the future of U.S. human space 
9

flight at a time when NASA has made significant progress toward development 

of the new Space Transportation Architecture.’’

• Workforce Issues and Transition from Shuttle to Constellation

NASA’s currently operating human space flight programs include the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station (ISS) programs. It should be noted that 

some of the Shuttle and ISS workforce also contribute to the Constellation Program, 

which includes the Ares I launch vehicle and the Orion crew exploration vehicle, 

among other development activities. NASA’s estimates of the Shuttle and Constellation workforce are presented as a combined number in the NASA Space Shuttle 

Workforce Transition Strategy of July 2009, which NASA prepared and updates pursuant to the FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110–161). 

NASA has taken several steps to prepare for the transition from the Space Shuttle to follow-on systems while also assessing the key skills needed for the human 

space flight program. The NASA Space Shuttle Workforce Transition Strategy also 

reports on actions that NASA has taken regarding the workforce transition. The 

March 2008 NASA Workforce Transition Strategy Initial Report, Space Shuttle and 

Constellation Workforce, states that ‘‘NASA has made a concerted effort to share 

civil servant and contractor workforce across the programs (especially between Space 

Shuttle, ISS, and Constellation). This workforce synergy enables the Constellation 

Program to make steady progress towards its development and operational goals 

while ensuring the continuing availability of the critical skills necessary to safely and 

efficiently execute the remaining Space Shuttle Missions.’’ In addition, as described 

in the July 2009 Transition Strategy update, NASA has worked with Federal, state, 

and local organizations, including in Florida, to share information related to retaining the technical workforce needed to implement the exploration initiative; established a Space Shuttle Transition Liaison Office; completed Phase III of a NASA 

Workforce Skills Mapping activity and awarded contracts for mission operations 

services that provide the workforce with opportunities following the retirement of 

the Shuttle; among other actions. 

Some of the abovementioned NASA actions regarding workforce transition are 

also discussed in the Aerospace Skills Retention and Investment Reutilization Report, which was prepared pursuant to Section 614 of the NASA Authorization Act 

of 2008 (P.L. 110–422) and the Explanatory Statement accompanying FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 111–8), and was transmitted in July 2009. According 

to the report, NASA is providing assistance to Shuttle workers with career development plans following the planned retirement of the Shuttle. The agency has conducted a series of workforce mapping processes ‘‘to understand how people will migrate from Shuttle to Constellation and other NASA programs’’ and is working with 

industry contractors on mapping of contractor workforce skills and levels. The Constellation workforce size and skills, the report notes, will depend on the program’s 

requirements. ‘‘NASA believes that the highly skilled, experienced, and dedicated 

human spaceflight workforce of the Space Shuttle and ISS programs will be employed by successful bidders for future Constellation development work, but the geographic distribution and quantity of each type of work continues to be determined 

as NASA competes and selects contractors to design and develop Constellation systems. As Constellation contractors further define their vehicles through successful design reviews, suppliers and vendors will be selected, and the opportunities for maintaining continuity of critical workforce experience will become clear.’’ What the report 

does not discuss in detail, but what is critically important, is that the ability to 

transition the Shuttle workforce and ISS development workforce to the Constellation program is predicated on an adequately funded and sustained human space 

flight and exploration program. 

In its Annual Report for 2008, the Congressionally-charted Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) refers to workforce development and sustainment in the transition from the Space Shuttle to Constellation program. Specifically, the report states:

‘‘1. Workforce Transition Planning. NASA currently is managing the 

transition from the Space Shuttle program to the new flagship Constellation 

program as well as continuing the development of specific science missions. 

The ASAP has several observations.

• The morale of Shuttle personnel is still high and represents a fundamental and professional dedication to crew safety and mission assurance.

• The Constellation program is implementing a workforce strategy that includes an integrated design process, development of needed workforce skill 

sets, an inclusive team approach, and knowledge transfer from one generation of scientists, engineers, and managers to the next.
10

• NASA still must develop an Agency-wide personnel skills matrix to identify missing skill sets and to match needed skills with available personnel, 

including transferring or relocating Center and program personnel from 

declining-demand projects to new or expanding projects.

2. Workforce Retention and Development. Both the ASAP and the Agency recognize that the aging of the NASA workforce requires not only retention of experienced Shuttle engineers and leaders with Apollo expertise, but 

also the recruitment and task-specific training of the next generation.

• Retention of Key Technical, Engineering, and Management Leaders. ASAP concerns include (1) retention of experienced personnel for latestage programs; (2) unique local workforce retention issues, such as postKatrina housing expenses or a large influx of new Department of Defense 

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) positions (e.g., at Marshall Space 

Flight Center and the U.S. Army Redstone Arsenal); and (3) the need for 

the Office of Personnel Management to approve reemployment of retired 

Federal civil service annuitants without financial penalty to better enable 

NASA to retain needed expertise.

• Educational Outreach. The ASAP suggests that NASA continue focusing on its well developed Cooperative Education (Co-op) program, but expand its reach and also recruit experienced candidates from industry or 

academia.’’

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) commented on the funding for Constellation and implications for the workforce. In its August 2009 report, Constellation Program Cost and Schedule Will Remain Uncertain Until a Strong Business 

Case is Established, GAO noted that, ‘‘a poorly phased funding plan that runs the 

risk offending shortfalls in fiscal years 2009 through 2012, resulting in planned work 

not being completed to support schedules and milestones. This approach has limited 

NASA’s ability to mitigate technical risks early in development and precludes the orderly ramp up of workforce and developmental activities.’’

• Impact of ‘‘the Gap’’ on the Workforce and Knowledge Base

The nation previously experienced a gap in human spaceflight systems following 

the end of the Apollo program and when the Space Shuttle flew for the first time. 

One of the issues for the hearing is to understand how NASA addressed the ApolloShuttle gap and what can be learned from that experience. 

One recurring theme regarding the Shuttle-Constellation gap is the issue of retaining knowledge and skills. The Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee’s report noted that ‘‘The Committee is concerned about the retention of critical 

knowledge and skills and the availability of that unique portion of the workforce necessary to conduct the next set of human spaceflight missions—which, as of now, cannot be expected until late in the next decade.’’

As mentioned in National Research Council reports and by the Aerospace Commission, and the Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, systems engineering is one of the critical skills that must be retained and developed in the pipeline. In its report, the Human Spaceflight Plans Committee comments that ‘‘If 

NASA is to successfully execute the complex undertakings to which it aspires, it must 

maintain a world-class systems engineering capability, a capability that this and 

other reviews have deemed to be marginal in its current embodiment.’’

• Potential Alternative Human Spaceflight Architectures and Issues and Implications for the Aerospace Workforce and Industrial Base

Æ Testimony by Mr. Norman Augustine before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Science and Space, September 16, 2009

‘‘And unless one makes a major shift in how one conducts business, the overall 

NASA employment should stay about the same. However, the mix of that employment will certainly change. We’ll need different talents. For example, if we terminate the shuttle in 2010 or early 2011, the people who have been focusing on 

launching shuttles are very different people probably than some that will be 

needed to build an Ares or Ares I or an Ares V or whatever, a shuttle drive [derived] vehicle. So there will be changes in skill . . . . The other we looked at 

are those critical skills that only people at NASA or in the industry are likely 

to have. Those we think it’s very important to preserve. And we need to consciously go out and do that . . .. an example would be the large solid segmented 

solid rocket motors. It’s an art as well as a science to build those things safely. 

And if we lose that capability it will very hard to get back. Ability to work with 
11

liquid hydrogen, liquid oxygen—we would like to see us learn how to do that in 

space as well as here on earth. So those special skills we have to find a way to 

preserve, for sure.’’

The Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee Statement of Task specifies that the evaluation parameters for the review should include, ‘‘Implications for 

transition from current human space flight operations’’ and ‘‘Impact on the nation’s 

industrial base and competitiveness internationally’’, among several other parameters. To that end, the Committee’s presentation of options for human spaceflight 

plans and architectures included discussion of the workforce. With the Committee’s 

report, consideration of workforce issues is apparent in the analysis of options for 

potential heavy-lift launch vehicles.

• Impact of Alternative Launch Vehicles on Workforce

Æ Shuttle Extension 

‘‘Extending the Shuttle would have a beneficial impact on the near-term workforce issues. Some workforce reductions would be indicated by the reduced 

flight rate proposed, but there would be several years in which to manage 

these reductions. In 2015, when the Shuttle finally retires, no NASA crew 

launch system would be available for several more years, and then the problem of maintaining key workforce skills would resurface. If however, the commercial crew option were to be ready by 2016 or so, some national competence 

in crew launch would be nearly continuous.’’

Æ Ares V (with Ares I) vs. Ares V Lite dual launch 

‘‘Programmatically, the choice of the Ares V (together with Ares I) unquestionably has less impact on current workflow or contracts. However, the. Ares V 

Lite preserves some of the investment already made for Ares I, and would possibly allow some of the contract structure to stay in place.’’

Æ NASA heritage vs EELV [Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle]-heritage 

super-heavy vehicles 

‘‘The EELV-heritage super heavy would represent a new way of doing business 

for NASA, which would have the benefit of potentially lowering development 

and operational costs . . . . However, this efficiency of operations would require significant near-term realignment of NASA. Substantial reductions in 

workforce, facilities closures, and mothballing would be required. When the 

Committee asked NASA to assess the cost of this process, the estimates ranged 

from $3 billion to $11 billion over five years . . . . The transition to this way 

of doing business would come at the cost of cutting deeply into a the internal 

NASA capability to develop and operate launchers, both in terms of skills and 

facilities.’’

Æ Ares V versus Shuttle-derived family 

‘‘The Committee viewed the decision between the Ares V family and the Shuttle-derived family as one driven by cost and capability. The development cost 

of the more Shuttle-derived system would be lower, but it would be less capable than the Ares V family and have higher recurring costs. There are potential workforce and skill advantages associated with the use of the more-directly Shuttle-derived system, but the long gap between when the Shuttle is retired in 2011, or even 2015, and when the Shuttle-derived heavy-lift launcher 

becomes available in the early to mid-2020s would diminish the potential 

value of the workforce continuity associated with Shuttle derivatives.’’

In the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics’ September 15, 2009 hearing on 

Options and Issues for NASA’s Human Space Flight Program: Report of ‘‘Review of 

U.S. Human Space Flight Plans’’ Committee, Dr. Edward Crawley, a member of the 

Committee, provided technical commentary in support of testimony by the Committee chair, Mr. Norman Augustine:

‘‘And they are the problem is that the—the options—the differing of the options 

tend to do different things. So, for example, the ones that continue to use the 

solid rocket boosters like Ares 1 and Ares 5 preserve that aspect of our national 

capability and workforce skills. Some of the other options tend to preserve other 

aspects of workforce skills. The—the one piece of—that—that does come through, 

however, is the options that have some variant or another that—that preserve—

that extend the shuttle, or shuttle heritage systems do tend to preserve the workforce capabilities preferentially.’’

U.S. Space Industrial Base 

The U.S. space industrial base is closely coupled to the aerospace workforce because the capabilities of the industrial base and the business opportunities pursued 
12

by the aerospace industry must be coordinated with and supported by the skills and 

talent of the U.S. aerospace workforce. 

The Aerospace Commission recognized the importance of these elements to U.S. 

leadership in space: ‘‘Global U.S. aerospace leadership can only be achieved through 

investments in our future, including our industrial base, workforce, longterm research and national infrastructure.’’

The space industrial base includes a diverse set of sectors. One accounting of the 

various sectors is provided in the Report of the Interagency Aerospace Revitalization 

Task Force, February 2008:

• ‘‘Civil

• Air (e.g., air traffic management system, safety regulation, accident investigation, 

environmental permitting, noise and emission standards)

• Space (e.g., weather satellites, air and space-based Earth monitoring, International 

Space Station, Space Shuttle, Hubble Space Telescope, robotic missions to the 

planets

• Commercial

• Air (e.g., aircraft manufacturing, air carriers, general aviation, airport operations)

• Space (e.g., space launch, launch vehicles and satellite manufacturing, telecommunications, remote sensing)’’

In addition, a broader range of associated businesses and suppliers support the 

aerospace industry and also rely on its technical workforce and technologies. It is 

important to note that for every prime aerospace contractor, there are several subcontractors and suppliers that support aerospace programs.

• Status of the U.S. Space Industrial Base

The 2002 report of the Aerospace Commission concluded that ‘‘aerospace capabilities and the supporting defense industrial base are fundamental to U.S. economic 

and national security. While the nation’s defense industrial base is strong today, the 

nation is at risk in the future if the United States continues to proceed without a 

policy that supports essential aerospace capabilities.’’ The Commission recommended 

several elements of a policy, among them were some that related to the aerospace 

industrial base:

Æ ‘‘Removing barriers to international sales of defense products;

Æ Sustaining critical technologies that are not likely to be sustained by the commercial sector, e.g. space launch, solid boosters, etc.; and

Æ Stable funding for core capabilities, without which the best and brightest will 

not enter the defense industry.’’

In 2008, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) conducted a 

study that involved reviewing studies on export controls and the U.S. space industrial base, examining the results of a survey on the U.S. space industrial base that 

was performed by the Department of Commerce and analyzed by the Air Force Research Laboratory, and assessing the health of the space industrial base and whether export controls are having any adverse impacts, especially on lower-tier contractors. The report, Briefing of the Working Group on the Health of the U.S. Space Industrial Base and the Impact of Export Controls, found that:

1. ‘‘Overall financial health of the top tier manufacturers in the space industrial 

base is ‘‘good’’, but there are areas of concern within the broader health of the 

industry’’

2. ‘‘As earlier studies have documented, the ability of the government and industry to meet program execution commitments remains inadequate’’, and

3. ‘‘The space industrial base is largely dependent on U.S. defense/national security budgets’’.

• Critical Space Industrial Base Space Capabilities

The Aerospace Commission comments on the need to ‘‘maintain and enhance critical national infrastructure.’’ As stated in the Commission’s report, ‘‘The federal government must assume responsibility for sustaining, modernizing, and providing critical, often high-risk, defense related technologies and infrastructure when it is in the 

nation’s interest. This includes critical design capabilities, solid rocket boosters, radiation hardening, space launch facilities, critical research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) infrastructure, Global Positioning System (GPS), and frequency 

spectrum.’’
13

The report of the Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee also notes 

the importance of the industrial base and workforce for solid-rocket motors: ‘‘Special 

attention needs to be devoted to assuring the vitality of those portions of the workforce that represent critical and perishable skills that are unique to the space program. One example is the design and manufacturing of very large, solid-propellant 

motors.’’

The production of solid rocket motors has been a critical element of the space industrial base that supports the Space Shuttle program; however the Department of 

Defense has counted on that industrial base for its programs, such as the Navy’s 

Trident D–5 missile program. One issue for the hearing is what are the full ramifications of decisions on human spaceflight for associated defense and national security programs that use the same industrial base? In addition, what are the implications for other Federal government users of that industrial base if NASA’s human 

spaceflight plans no longer require the capabilities that have established elements 

of the space industrial base, and would other agencies be willing to carry that industrial base to support their programs?

• Health of Lower-Tier Suppliers

According to the CSIS report, the space industry over the last decade has been 

fraught with ‘‘high volatility, high risk, market bubbles and financial losses’’. The 

industry is recovering from that period, especially in the national security space sector, and although the space manufacturers are experiencing improved financial 

health, ‘‘margins remain thin and below the average for the general aerospace/defense industry particularly the 2nd and 3rd tier’’, according to the report. The 2nd 

and 3rd tier of the industry is also weak in depth. In some areas there might be 

‘‘only one domestic supplier’’ or a ‘‘financially weak supplier’’. The health of these 

lower-tiers is important to monitor, because the 2nd and 3rd tier of the industry 

are an important source of innovation.

• Dependence of Space Industrial Base on Defense

Overall, the CSIS report states that the dependence of the U.S. space industrial 

base on the U.S. defense/national security budgets ‘‘implies that the national security community ‘owns’ the U.S. space industrial base, and must either provide for the 

health of the industry (‘arsenal strategy’) or encourage it (and enable it) to participate 

more in the global market place to broaden its economic base’’.

• Export Controls

The CSIS report discusses several factors that affect the health of the U.S. space 

industrial base, including the rapid pace of growing space capabilities in foreign nations and the ability of foreign companies to compete in the global marketplace, a 

situation that U.S. export control policies may have encouraged. The report found 

that ‘‘Export controls are adversely affecting U.S. companies’ ability to compete for 

foreign space business—particularly the 2nd and 3rd tier.’’

A January 2009 Special Report of the Aerospace Industries Association, The Role 

of Space in Addressing America’s National Priorities, echoes the CSIS findings, especially the influence of export control policies on the industrial base. In addition, the 

report states that: ‘‘Many U.S. companies, particularly second- and third-tier suppliers, increasingly rely exclusively on sales to the U.S. government or are considering 

exiting the space business altogether. Absent a healthy, cutting edge, U.S. space industrial base, our government could be forced to rely on foreign suppliers for key 

components.’’

• Coordination for Space Industrial Base

The importance of the industrial base for the nation’s future in space was also 

raised in the NRC’s 2009 report, America’s Future in Space: Aligning the Civil Space 

Program With National Needs. The report recommends that the President task senior executive-branch officials to coordinate space-related budgetary, policy, infrastructure and other issues across Federal agencies, including ‘‘responsibility and accountability for stimulating, nurturing, and sustaining a robust space industrial 

base, including the commercial space industry.’’

• Human Spaceflight

The report of the Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee discussed 

potential alternatives for a human spaceflight architecture to transport humans to 

low-Earth orbit and to destinations beyond low-Earth orbit. In considering those potential alternatives, especially for a heavy-lift launch vehicle that would be needed 

for human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit, the Committee discussed some of the 

potential implications for the industrial base. A sample of those comments include:
14

• ‘‘If a decision is made to human-rate the EELV systems and NASA were to 

abandon the Ares I system but retain the Ares V heavy-launch capability, the 

solid rocket motor industrial base would need to be sustained until the Ares 

V generated demand. The DoD may have to consider support to the solid rocket motor industrial base in recognition of both civil and NSS needs. If both 

the Ares I and Ares V programs were abandoned, a detailed civil and military 

analysis would need to be accomplished to ascertain the interdependence of 

technical and production capabilities between large solid rocket motors that 

are needed to support the nation’s strategic strike arsenals and the large segmented solid-rocket motors supporting human-rated systems for NASA.’’

• ‘‘The Committee considered as an issue the commonality with the national 

space industrial base. The Ares V uses engines from the RS–68 family, with 

commonality in the industrial base with those used on the EELVs by National 

Security Space. Both the Ares V and the more-directly Shuttle-derived vehicle 

have commonality in the solid-rocket motors with vehicles used in National Security Space.’’

• ‘‘The Committee viewed the decision between the Ares V family and the Shuttle-derived family as one driven by cost and capability. The development cost 

of the more Shuttle-derived system would be lower, but it would be less capable than the Ares V family and have higher recurring costs. There are potential 

workforce and skill advantages associated with the use of the more-directly 

Shuttle-derived system, but the long gap between when the Shuttle is retired 

in 2011, or even 2015, and when the Shuttle-derived heavy-lift launcher becomes available in the early to mid-2020s would diminish the potential value 

of the workforce continuity associated with Shuttle derivatives.’’
15

Chairman GORDON. Indulge us for about three or four minutes. 

We have some business to take care of. 

On November the 19th, Mr. John Garamendi from California was 

appointed to fill the final vacancy on this Committee. Mr. 

Garamendi was most recently the Lieutenant Governor of California and I am sure will be a great contributor to the Committee 

as we move forward. So we all want to welcome him. 

This past week, Mr. Lipinski and Ms. Edwards graciously resigned their seats on the Technology and Innovation and Energy 

and Environment Subcommittees to make room for Mr. Garamendi. 

Members should have an updated subcommittee roster in front of 

them reflecting the addition of Mr. Garamendi to those subcommittees. 

And at this time, I would ask unanimous consent that the Committee approve the rosters. All in favor say aye. Opposed? 

Before we conclude this, let me just give you a little overview of 

John Garamendi. He has really 34 years’ public service before he 

comes to us in the House of Representatives. He started off not like 

me but like many of you in the state legislature. In 1974, he was 

elected to the Tennessee General Assembly, and in 1976, he was 

elected to the State Senate, later becoming the Senate Majority 

Leader and while there, among other things, he chaired the Joint 

Committee on Science Technology. And Ralph, I am afraid you and 

I are the only ones—this is sort of scary—but that person with the 

sweater on back there, Mr. George Brown, we are the only ones 

that remember him I am afraid, that are still members. 

Mr. HALL. I remember Tiger T. 

Chairman GORDON. Well, you remember Herbert Hoover, too. So 

interestingly, John served with George Brown in the California 

State Legislature on their Science and Technology Committee and 

worked together in a lot of areas. Later John was the State Insurance Commissioner from 1991 to 1995, and then in 1995, President 

Clinton appointed him to be the Undersecretary of Interior where 

he served in 1998. Then he went back to California, was reelected 

the Insurance Commissioner and most recently was Lieutenant 

Governor. As you can see, he has had a hard time holding onto a 

job, and we hope we will have him here a little bit longer. 

But interestingly, he is not the only public servant in their family. He and his wife married and then went into the Peace Corps, 

and Mrs. Garamendi, for eight years, was in the Clinton Administration as the Assistant Director of the U.S. Peace Corps, and she 

continues her public service as the Deputy Secretary of California, 

Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, and is now the Assistant Manager at the California Exposition and State Fair. And 

as most all of us here know that serving in Congress is a team 

sport and that John, we are glad that you have a good teammate 

with you. 

And so with that, we will now begin the hearing, and the Chair 

will yield to our very able Chair of the Aviation and Space Subcommittee. And let me thank you, Gabrielle, and your staff for really the good work that you have been doing reviewing NASA in so 

many ways here. So I will yield to you for an opening statement. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to members of the 

Committee. First of all, I would like to——
16

Chairman GORDON. Gabrielle, I am sorry, if you don’t mind. 

John, would you like to say anything before we yield to Gabrielle? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Yes. Thank you for the privilege of serving on 

the Committee, and I look forward to working with all of the members of this Committee on the issues that are terribly important to 

this entire Nation, and in fact, the entire earth on which we live. 

Thank you for the privilege. 

Chairman GORDON. Gabrielle, I yield again. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, I would 

like to welcome our panelists for being here today. Thank you so 

much. I know that we have had 69 hearings so far this year. This 

is the last of our Subcommittee, and it is really a testament to the 

hard work of our staff for being able to make sure that we are able 

to provide such quality information to the United States Congress 

and to the American people. 

This hearing is the latest in a series that the Committee and the 

Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee have convened over the past 

several months on the critical factors that both the Administration 

and the Congress will need to consider when we make our decisions on the future direction and funding for NASA and in particular for NASA’s human space flight and exploration activities. 

We decided to hold those hearings, including last week’s hearing 

on human space flight safety, because it is so important for the 

White House and for Congress to understand truly what is at 

stake. I personally believe that a great deal is at stake, not just in 

the near term, but certainly for decades to come. And I believe that 

we need to keep the long-term perspective front and center when 

we look at the potential impact on the workforce and the space industrial base on pending decisions for NASA’s future. Because it is 

not just a question of jobs, although each and every one of us who 

serves in the Congress and are responsive to our constituents, 

know that jobs are vitally important, but it is truly the quality of 

jobs that we need to be paying attention to as well. 

As we will hear today, aerospace jobs are high-paying, they are 

high-quality jobs, jobs that will enable us to compete and to lead 

in the 21st century, using those skills that we know have been so 

critical and vital to building the robust economy that has produced 

the Nation as a true international leader. These are jobs that we 

would like to have more of, and they are certainly the kind of jobs 

that we don’t want to see go away, and this is already happening 

across the country and I think we will hear that from our witnesses 

today. 

Finally, these are the kinds of jobs that can excite and inspire 

our young people to pursue careers in science and engineering, 

something that this Nation needs to have happen. Yet if those jobs 

go away, even for awhile, it can be very, very difficult to get back 

these jobs. It is really the health of the workforce and of the space 

industrial base which is so important. 

So let me just make sure all members know that contracts with 

the commercial sector account for more than 80 percent of NASA’s 

budget. Those contracts encompass work done by large established 

aerospace firms, and we are going to hear from some of those folks 

today, but also work done by emerging companies that offer the 

promise of new capabilities to meet the agency’s needs and prod-
17

ucts and services provided to NASA by non-aerospace companies 

both large and small. Given that, it is clear that support for NASA 

is also support for this commercial sector and for the jobs that the 

sector creates and the innovations that make it possible. 

The President and this Congress thus have serious decisions to 

make in the coming weeks and the coming months. We need to decide whether we as a Nation are finally going to provide the resources NASA needs to carry out the important missions the Nation has given it or not. We need to decide whether we are going 

to maintain our commitment to a robust program of exploration involving humans and robots to use the words of the fiscal year 2010 

NASA budget request, a program that successive Congresses have 

authorized and funded or not. 

And if the President would recommend some manner of course 

change, we collectively would need to figure out how to make any 

such change in a way that protects the American taxpayers’ dollars, preserves crew safety and maintains America’s position as the 

world leader in space. 

Make no mistake about it. The decisions we collectively make 

about the future of our space program will have a lasting impact 

on our workforce, our industrial base, and our standing in the 

world. 

Several of our witnesses today are going to discuss the investments in our space program, or conversely, cutbacks in our space 

investments and the ripple effect that it will have on both large 

companies and small companies as well. 

Mr. Chairman, I also serve on the Armed Services Committee 

where we have healthy discussions about what these workforce impacts will mean to the defense of our Nation, the protection of our 

country and of course, to our industrial base as well. 

Just in closing, you know, oftentimes it is a little bit cliche ́ I 

guess. We look at the quote behind you, the Proverb, ‘‘Where there 

is no vision, the people perish.’’ This is profound, and it is something that we as Members of Congress know is very important but 

also for the President of the United States to have that clear vision 

of the future. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Giffords follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN GABRIELLE GIFFORDS

Thank you for yielding time to me, Mr. Chairman. I would like to start by welcoming our witnesses to this morning’s hearing. This hearing is the latest in a series 

that the Committee and the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee have convened 

over the past several months on the critical factors that the Administration and 

Congress will need to consider when we make our decisions on the future direction 

and funding for NASA, and in particular for NASA’s human space flight and exploration activities. 

We decided to hold those hearings, including last week’s hearing on human space 

flight safety, because it is important for Congress—and the White House—to understand what is at stake. I personally believe that a great deal is at stake—not just 

in the near-term, but for decades to come. And I believe that we need to keep that 

long-term perspective front and center when we look at the potential impact on the 

workforce and the space industrial base of pending decisions on NASA’s future. Because it’s not just a question of the number of jobs, although our witnesses will testify that tens of thousands of jobs will be impacted by those decisions, it’s also the 

quality of the jobs that should be a significant consideration. 

As we will hear today, aerospace jobs are high-paying, high-skilled jobs—jobs that 

will enable us to compete . . . and lead . . . in the 21st century, not just in space 
18

but back here on Earth too. They are the jobs that we would like to have more of, 

and they are certainly the kind of jobs that we don’t want to see go away, as is 

already happening across the country. Finally, they are the jobs that can excite and 

inspire our young people to pursue careers in science and engineering, something 

that this nation needs to have happen. Yet if those jobs go away, even for awhile, 

it can be very difficult to get the best of those young people back. So the health of 

the workforce and of the space industrial base is important, because the commercial 

sector is critical to the success of NASA’s missions. 

Contracts with the commercial sector account for more than 80 percent of NASA’s 

budget. Those contracts encompass work done by large established aerospace firms, 

work done by emerging companies that offer the promise of new capabilities to meet 

the agency’s needs, and products and services provided to NASA by non-aerospace 

companies both large and small. Given that, it is clear that support for NASA is 

also support for the commercial sector and for the jobs that sector creates and the 

innovations that it makes possible. 

The president and this Congress thus have serious decisions to make in the coming weeks and months. We need to decide whether we as a nation are finally going 

to provide the resources NASA needs to carry out the important missions the nation 

has given it . . . or not. We need to decide whether we are going to maintain our 

commitment to a ‘‘robust program of exploration involving humans and robots’’ to 

use the words of the FY 2010 NASA budget request—a program that successive 

Congresses have authorized and funded . . . or not. 

And if the president would recommend some manner of course change, we collectively would need to figure out how to make any such change in way that protects 

the American taxpayers’ money, preserves crew safety and maintains America’s position as the world leader in space. 

Make no mistake about it. The decisions we collectively make about the future 

of our space program will have a lasting impact on our workforce, our industrial 

base, and our standing in the world. As a result, I want our witnesses to give us 

their views on what we need to consider when making those decisions so that the 

outcome will inspire our best and brightest to pursue careers in aerospace—careers 

that will be vital to our future competitiveness, national security, and quality of life. 

And I hope that they will also share their views on which outcome is going to best 

help maintain and strengthen critical skills and capabilities this nation will need 

if it is to remain a leader in space activities. I ask because I worry that if we make 

the wrong decisions and waver in our commitment, we will not be keeping faith 

with that generation of young people we are seeking to inspire. 

As today’s hearing will make clear, the decisions we will be making will also have 

a profound impact on the future health of our space industrial base. Several of our 

witnesses will discuss the ways in which investments in our space program—or conversely, cutbacks in our space investments—have a ripple effect on the health of an 

array of businesses, both large and small, that are scattered across the nation. 

Those impacts extend beyond the business community focused on civil space to include impacts on the continued viability of suppliers of capabilities critical to our 

national security. 

As someone who also serves on the Armed Services Committee, I am keenly sensitive to the need not to take actions with our civil space program that could have 

an adverse impact on the industrial base that also supports our national security. 

I thus would like our witnesses to give us their views on the weight we should 

give to space industrial base concerns as we decide whether to support and fund 

a meaningful exploration program at NASA or not. You know, it’s become almost 

a cliche to quote the saying carved on the wall behind us: ‘‘Where there is no vision, 

the people perish.’’ However, we quote it because it contains a profound truth. Thus, 

as the president and Congress consider NASA’s future, we need to see the potential 

impacts of our decisions as clearly as possible. 

This hearing and the ones that have preceded it are all aimed at giving this Congress—and hopefully the Administration too—the clarity of vision that we will need 

to make informed choices about the future of America’s space program and its 

human space flight activities. Each of you who are testifying here today has an important role to play in that effort, and I look forward to your testimony. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Ms. Giffords. You know, I think 

just like Humpty Dumpty, if we lost this NASA workforce, it would 

be very difficult, if not impossible, to put back together. They have 

unique skills, unique institutional knowledge and so I compliment 

you on having this very important hearing. 
19

I now recognize Mr. Hall for an opening statement. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I will waive my 

opening statement. If I run across one my group has prepared for 

me, I will send it to you. Thanks. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Hall. Your brevity is always 

appreciated. 

If there are other members that would wish to make opening 

statements, your statements will be added to the record. 

And at this time, I would like to yield the gavel to our gentlelady 

from Arizona to conduct her hearing. 

Excuse me, Mr. Olson. If you have an opening statement, we 

would welcome that. Certainly being in the heart of the NASA 

workforce, I am sure that again you have unique knowledge there. 

Mr. OLSON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a brief opening statement, and I appreciate your recognition, and thank you for 

calling this morning’s hearing. 

The decisions we make on the future direction and funding of 

NASA is a topic of tremendous importance to our Nation. The state 

of the economy and jobs have been at the forefront of this Congress 

since we convened in January. Attempts to stem the tide of rising 

double-digit unemployment have not worked, and against this 

backdrop, we are facing decisions about NASA which will have a 

profound affect not only on jobs but also on the critical knowledge, 

skills and production capabilities needed to maintain our aerospace 

and defense capabilities into the 21st century. This sector of our 

economy employs over 260,000 men and women and accounts for 

about 60 percent of our total exports. 

I would like to thank our witnesses for appearing here today. I 

realize that each of you has spent a considerable time and effort 

preparing for this hearing, and I look forward to hearing from you 

so that our Subcommittee can have the value of your expertise. 

Today we focus on the impact of NASA’s funding levels on the 

current workforce which I am particularly interested in but also on 

the enormous scope of the challenge facing the aerospace industry 

as a whole. There are many issues: A workforce approaching retirement without the opportunity to teach the next generation of scientists, engineers, technicians and program managers; a highly 

skilled contractor force at risk of losing their jobs as a result of the 

human spaceflight gap; number three, decreased opportunities for 

future engineers and scientists which will reduce interest in the 

critical STEM education fields. In a perverse way, that could only 

come from Washington. 

We are concerned about a shortage of engineers and scientists. 

We are concerned about attracting young, high-quality students to 

the aerospace field. We are concerned about America losing important strategic manufacturing capabilities, and yet, we are pursuing 

policies that in many ways may be exacerbating these very problems. 

And the debate about job creation, the intent was to create highquality jobs that paid good wages and reward important skills. 

Those are the very jobs that are the norm in the aerospace industry. 

The automotive industry has been decimated. In last week’s 

Aviation Week included an article about how the automotive indus-
20

try is looking toward aerospace for their displaced manufacturing 

technical workforce. We cannot, cannot, let a similar fate befall our 

aerospace industries, the industries we depend on for our national 

defense are simply too important to lose. 

The decisions we are making in Washington have effects far beyond the obvious. I have stated repeatedly that we must continue 

to stay the course with the Constellation program and not just because of the significant job loss that would follow were we to cancel 

it. Stopping and starting a major program is not how you develop 

a technical workforce, attract workers, inspire engineers or stabilize a local or national economy. 

Companies and communities are watching us, but so, too, are impressionable young students who may go into science and engineering fields. And if I may digress for just a minute, I would like to 

tell one story from the campaign trail, knocking on doors in the 

Clear Lake area where I grew up. 

I knocked on the door, no one answered, left my literature, 

moved down the street, got a good two to three blocks down the 

street and a young man chased me down—it was pretty early in 

the morning—to talk. He is not very presentable, looks like he was 

in some boxer shorts, a robe, some flip-flops, but he was a young 

man who worked at Johnson Space Center and very concerned 

about the future of human space flight. And what I remember 

about him is, you know, this young engineer, he was actually taking care of his young daughter, very typical of the people we want 

to attract to the aerospace industry as employees. This young man 

had grown up wanting to be part of the next effort to put human 

beings back on the moon. He was inspired by what the aerospace 

industry, what NASA had done in the past. We can’t forget that. 

If we aren’t willing to commit to aerospace, why should he or why 

should someone like him? 

I yield back my time, Madam Chairwoman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Olson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE PETE OLSON

Madam Chairwoman, thank you for calling this morning’s hearing. The decisions 

we make on the future direction and funding of NASA is a topic of tremendous importance to our nation. The state of the economy and jobs have been at the forefront 

of this Congress since we convened in January. Attempts to stem the tide of rising 

double digit unemployment have not worked. Against this backdrop of rising unemployment, we are facing decisions about NASA which will have a profound effect on 

not only jobs, but also on the critical knowledge, skills, and production capacities 

needed to maintain our Aerospace and Defense capabilities and compete in the 21st 

century. This sector of our economy employs over 262,000 men and women and accounts for about 60 percent of our total exports. 

I’d like to thank our witnesses for their appearance today. I realize that each of 

you has spent considerable time and effort preparing for this hearing, and I look 

forward to hearing from you so that our subcommittee can benefit from your expertise. 

Today we will focus on the impact of NASA’s funding levels on the current workforce, which I am particularly interested in, but also on the enormous scope of the 

challenge facing the aerospace industry as a whole. There are many issues including: 1) a workforce approaching retirement without the opportunity to teach the 

next generational of scientists, engineers, technicians and program manager, the 

valuable lessons learned through years of experience, 2) a highly skilled contractor 

workforce at risk of losing their jobs as a result of the human space flight gap, 3) 

decreased opportunities for future engineers and scientists which by definition can 

and will reduce interest in the critical STEM education fields. 
21

In a perverse way that could only come from Washington, we are concerned about 

a shortage of engineers and scientists. We are concerned about America losing important strategic manufacturing capabilities. We are concerned about attracting and 

retaining young, high quality students to the Aerospace field. Yet we are pursuing 

policies that in many ways may be exacerbating these very problems. In the debate 

about job creation, the intent was to create high quality jobs that pay good wages 

and that reward important skills. Those are the very jobs that are the norm in the 

aerospace industry. The automotive industry has been decimated. Last week’s Aviation Week included an article about how the automotive industry is looking toward 

aerospace for their displaced manufacturing and technical workforce. We cannot let 

a similar fate befall our aerospace industries. The industries we depend on for our 

national defense are simply too important to lose. 

The decisions we are making in Washington have affects far beyond the obvious. 

I have stated repeatedly that we must continue to stay the course with the Constellation program, and not just because of the significant job loss that would follow 

were we to cancel it. Stopping and starting a major program is not how you develop 

a technical workforce, attract workers, inspire future engineers, or stabilize a local 

and national economy. 

Companies and communities are watching us, but so too are impressionable students who may go into science and engineering fields. If we aren’t willing to commit 

to aerospace, why should they? 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield back by time.

Ms. GIFFORDS. [Presiding] Thank you, Mr. Olson. 

We have a distinguished panel of witnesses appearing before us 

today, and I would like to introduce them at this time. 

First up we have Mr. David Thompson who is President of the 

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. He will discuss key trends and issues in the aerospace workforce and the industrial base from the perspective of a major aerospace professional 

society, and he is also President and CEO of Orbital. Welcome, Mr. 

Thompson. 

I am very pleased that today we have with us Ms. Marion Blakey 

who is President and Chief Executive Officer of the Aerospace Industries Association. She will provide the Subcommittee information on the industry perspective on key issues for the U.S. aerospace workforce and the industrial base, and we are very glad to 

have you this morning. 

Mr. A. Thomas Young, who is Executive Vice President of Lockheed Martin Corporation. Mr. Young is retired now, but he will 

provide perspective based on his extensive industry and government experience in leading major space projects. Welcome, Mr. 

Young. 

And finally, Mr. Richard Aubrecht who is Vice Chairman, Vice 

President of Strategy and Technology at Moog, Incorporated, and 

he will provide the Subcommittee his perspective of an aerospace 

supplier company. 

Welcome all. As our witnesses should know, you will each have 

five minutes for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony 

will be included in the record for the hearing, and when you have 

completed your spoken testimony, we will begin with questions. 

And each member will have five minutes to answer and get responses to their questions, and we hope to have a healthy discussion today. 

So I would like to begin the discussion with Mr. Thompson. 
22

STATEMENT OF DAVID THOMPSON, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN 

INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. Chairwoman Giffords, Chairman 

Gordon, Ranking Member Hall, and distinguished members of the 

Committee and Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to address several topics of great importance to the U.S. 

aerospace sector and to the Nation as a whole. 

As President of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics for the 2009–2010 year, I am proud to represent a constituency of more than 36,000 aerospace, engineers, scientists and other 

professionals as well as thousands of aerospace students from all 

50 states and many overseas locations. Indeed, for nearly 80 years, 

AIAA has been the principal professional society for aerospace engineers and scientists in America and around the world. 

On behalf of AIAA, I would like to express our appreciation to 

this Committee to its leadership and space and aeronautics policy 

and for its interest in the aerospace workforce and industrial base. 

I am pleased to respond to the three questions that you have 

asked relating to the effects of NASA’s direction and funding on the 

country’s aerospace sector. 

Your first question asked about most significant concerns regarding the aerospace workforce and industrial base. AIAA’s response 

to this question is as follows. 

Aerospace systems are of considerable importance to U.S. national security, economic prosperity, technological vitality, and 

global leadership. Aeronautical and space systems protect our citizens, armed forces, and allies abroad. They connect the fartherest 

corners of the world with safe and efficient air transportation and 

satellite communications, and they mentor the earth, explore the 

solar system and study the wider universe. 

The U.S. aerospace sector also contributes in major ways to 

America’s economic output and high technology employment. Aerospace research and development and manufacturing companies 

generated approximately $250 billion in sales in 2008 or nearly 

1.75 percent of our country’s Gross National Product. They currently employ about 650,000 people throughout our country. U.S. 

Government agencies and departments engaged in aerospace research and operations add another 125,000 employees to this sector’s workforce, bringing the total to over 775,000 people. Included 

in this number are more than 200,000 engineers and scientists, one 

of the largest concentrations of technical brain power on earth. 

However, the U.S. aerospace workforce is now facing the most serious demographic challenge in its 100-year history. Simply put, 

today, many more older, experienced professionals are retiring from 

or otherwise leaving our industrial and governmental aerospace 

workforce than early career professionals are entering it. This imbalance is expected to become even more severe over the next five 

years as the final members of the Apollo-era generation of engineers and scientists complete 40- or 45-year careers and transition 

to well-deserved retirements. In fact, around 50 percent of the current aerospace workforce will be eligible for retirement within just 

the next five years. 

Meanwhile, the supply of younger aerospace engineers and scientists entering the industry is woefully insufficient to replace the 
23

mounting wave of retirements and other departures that we see in 

the near future. In part, this is the result of broader technical career trends as engineering and science graduates from our country’s universities continue, a multi-decade decline even as the demand for their knowledge and skills in aerospace and other industries keeps increasing. 

Today only about 15 percent of U.S. students earn their first college degree in engineering or science, well behind the 40 or 50 percent levels seen in many European and Asian countries. Due to the 

dual-use nature of aerospace technology and the limited supply of 

visas available to highly qualified, non-U.S. citizens, our industry’s 

ability to hire the best and brightest graduates from overseas is 

also severely constrained. As a result, unless effective action is 

taken to reverse current trends, the U.S. aerospace sector is expected to experience a dramatic decrease in its technical workforce 

over the next decade. 

Your second question concerns the implications of a cutback in 

human spaceflight programs. AIAA’s view on this is as follows. 

While U.S. human spaceflight programs directly employ somewhat less than ten percent of our country’s aerospace workers, its 

influence on attracting and motivating tomorrow’s aerospace professionals is much greater than its immediate employment contribution. For more than 50 years, the excitement and challenge of 

human spaceflight have been tremendously important factors in 

the decisions of generations of young people to prepare for and to 

pursue careers in the aerospace sector. This remains true today as 

indicated by hundreds of testimonies AIAA members have recorded 

over the past two years, a few of which I will show in brief video 

interviews at the end of my statement. 

Further evidence of the catalytic role of human space missions is 

found in a recent study conducted earlier this year by MIT which 

found that 40 percent of current aerospace engineering undergraduates cited human space programs as the main reason they 

chose this field of study. 

Therefore, I think it can be predicted with high confidence that 

a major cutback in U.S. human space programs would be substantially detrimental to the future of the aerospace workforce. Such a 

cutback would put even greater stress on an already weakened 

strategic sector of our domestic, high-technology workforce. 

Your final question centers on other issues that should be considered as decisions are made on funding and direction for NASA, particularly in the human spaceflight area. 

In conclusion, AIAA offers the following suggestions in this regard. Beyond the previously noted critical influence on the future 

supply of aerospace professionals, Administration and Congressional leaders should also consider the collateral damage to the 

space industrial base if human space programs were substantially 

curtailed. Due to low annual production rates and highly specialized product requirements, the domestic supply chain for space systems is relatively fragile. Many second- and third-tier suppliers in 

particular operate at marginal volumes today, so even a small reduction in their business could force some critical suppliers to exit 

this sector. Human space programs represent around 20 percent of 

the $47 billion in total U.S. space and missile system sales from 
24

2008. Accordingly, a major cutback in human space spending could 

have large and highly adverse ripple effects throughout commercial, defense and scientific space programs as well, potentially triggering a series of disruptive changes in the common industrial supply base that our entire space sector relies on. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address these important questions this morning. I look forward to your additional questions. And 

now I would like to let you hear from several of my fellow AIAA 

members on this topic. 

[Video] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID W. THOMPSON

Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall, and distinguished members of the Committee: 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to address a subject of great importance 

to the aerospace sector and to the nation as a whole. At a time when our country 

is intensely focused on economic recovery and employment growth, it is especially 

relevant to underscore that aerospace engineering and manufacturing enterprises in 

America directly employed about 650,000 people in 2008 and generated total industry sales of $240 billion, or almost 2% of our GDP last year. Aerospace jobs are relatively high paying, with average manufacturing wages in the sector being some 50 

percent higher than in the average industry. In addition, the sector employs nearly 

200,000 engineers and scientists, one of the largest concentrations of technical 

brainpower on Earth. Moreover, the aerospace sector produces state-of-the-art products that are in high demand around the world, generating a record trade surplus 

of approximately $60 billion on total exports of almost $100 billion last year. This 

placed the sector at the top of all U.S. export industries, including agriculture. Altogether, factoring in its ancillary industries and multiplier effects, our domestic aerospace sector today supports approximately five million American jobs. 

Behind all of these numbers, of course, are the actual men and women who work 

in the aerospace sector and whose creativity, expertise, and dedication propel it forward. As President of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics for 

the 2009–2010 year, I am proud to represent a constituency of more than 36,000 

aerospace professionals and students who work in all 50 U.S. states. Indeed, for 

nearly 80 years, AIAA has been the principal professional society for aerospace engineers and scientists in America and around the world. 

In the short videos that accompanied my oral testimony, we heard professionals 

discuss what inspired and motivated them to join the aerospace workforce in the 

first place. Now I would like to explore in a more systematic fashion the factors that 

attract and retain members of the nation’s aerospace workforce, while highlighting 

the critical importance of a credible, long-term U.S. government commitment to 

human space flight that ensures that our country continues to benefit from a vibrant aerospace sector. I will address in order the three questions that the Committee has posed to me on today’s hearing topic.

1. As the leader of a major aerospace professional society, what do you 

view as the most significant concerns and trends regarding the U.S. 

aerospace workforce—government and contractor—and industrial base?

The aerospace sector is steadily moving towards the edge of a steep demographic 

cliff. Aerospace workers are the foundation of the industry’s current success, yet 

unique workforce demographics present unprecedented challenges for its future. Up 

to half of the current aerospace workforce will be eligible for retirement within five 

years; nearly 15% are eligible to retire immediately. Furthermore, the U.S. aerospace workforce composition does not match national demographic averages. Compared to the total U.S. workforce, America’s aerospace industry and related government agencies have a disproportionately large percentage of workers aged 40–55, 

and a disproportionately small percentage of workers younger than 40. Within the 

U.S. workforce as a whole, the number of employees over age 50 amounts to less 

than 17% of the total; meanwhile, in the aerospace sector, that bracket accounts for 

58% of the total. While current economic conditions have temporarily delayed many 

older aerospace professionals from exiting the workforce, the demographic challenges remain stark. If talented young engineers and scientists are not recruited, 

retained, and developed to replace the generation that is near retirement, then the 
25

U.S. stands to lose the critical economic and national security benefits of the domestic aerospace industry. 

Moreover, enrollment rates in our country’s college engineering programs have 

been dropping. The U.S. ranks well behind other countries in the percentage of students earning their first university degree in engineering or science. In many leading European and Asian countries, the percentage of undergraduates receiving their 

initial degree in engineering or science is between 40 and 50%. In the United States, 

the corresponding figure is 15%. 

At the advanced-degree level, the U.S. also is declining in the number of degrees 

earned by its citizens. The proportion of Ph.D. degrees earned by U.S. citizens is 

dropping as well: 34 percent of doctoral degrees in science and 56 percent of doctoral 

degrees in engineering in the United States are awarded to foreign-born students. 

To make matters worse, the U.S. ranks behind the European Union and China in 

Ph.D. degrees awarded in science and engineering. The European Union surpassed 

the U.S. nearly 20 years ago, and China will likely surpass us in 2010. 

In terms of maintaining and strengthening the industrial base, R&D expenditures 

keep the aerospace sector strong and help maintain U.S. leadership in this area. In 

the early 1990s, after implementation of the R&D tax credit legislation, private expenditures on R&D rose. Yet even with this incentive, U.S. industry R&D funding 

is lagging. Perhaps as a result, American companies are lagging in patents. In 2005, 

only four American companies ranked among the top 10 corporate recipients of patents granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. And to further add 

to this disconcerting R&D situation, federal research funding is lagging as well. 

While AIAA enthusiastically applauds the Committee’s efforts to fully fund the 

America COMPETES Act and to increase R&D funding more generally, at least 

until recently the amount invested annually by the federal government in research 

in the physical sciences, mathematics, and engineering combined has continued its 

long-term decline.

2. How important is a commitment to a robust human spaceflight program 

to the preservation of the workforce, professional skills and capabilities, 

and the industrial base? If a decision were made to cut back or otherwise change direction in human spaceflight programs, what would be 

the implications for the workforce and industrial base?

In terms of preserving and enhancing the specialized workforce that characterizes 

a vibrant aerospace sector able to contribute to both economic well-being and national security, a credible long-term commitment to human spaceflight on the part 

of the U.S. government is indispensable. As the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight 

Plans Committee (better known as the ‘‘Augustine Commission’’) recently noted, 

‘‘human exploration of space can engage the public in new ways, inspiring the next 

generation of scientists and engineers, and contributing to the development of the 

future workforce in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM).’’ 

Likewise, the Augustine Commission acknowledged the important role that space 

flight plays in promoting the nation’s commercial interests and sustaining its aerospace industrial base. 

When federal commitment to human space programs wavers, the adverse impact 

on the stock of human capital and related economic output can be highly disruptive. 

Those thousands of individuals and dozens of communities that experienced the termination of the Apollo program in the early 1970s can attest to this, as well as 

those who have been or will be adversely affected by the winding down of the Space 

Shuttle program. One danger in such a context—apart from the impact on individuals—is that the levels of human capital needed to sustain a robust national human 

space program will drop below critical mass. Another is that young Americans deciding on a career path will eschew space-related fields, as nominally appealing as 

these might be, due to a justifiably heightened perception of career uncertainty. In 

that regard, a stable, long-term commitment to human space flight by the U.S. government is necessary to ensure that space technology retains its allure as a career 

choice for today’s students. 

The concentration of aging R&D and manufacturing employees was significantly 

inspired by NASA’s early Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs, and later was motivated and retained in part by the sustained effort behind the Space Shuttle and 

International Space Station programs. In other words, to attract individuals into 

joining and remaining part of the aerospace workforce, we need first to capture their 

imagination and later provide them with worthwhile, long-term projects to work on.

3. What issues regarding the workforce and industrial base do Congress 

and the White House need to consider as decisions are made on the 
26

funding and future direction for NASA, particularly for human 

spaceflight and exploration?

Space and missile systems sales accounted for about $47 billion—or around 20%— of the U.S. aerospace industry’s $240 billion in total revenues in 2008. Domestic 

space and missile direct employment generated nearly 80,000 high-technology jobs 

last year, representing work by hundreds of companies in all 50 states. While 

human spaceflight programs like the Space Shuttle and International Space Station 

represented only about 25% of space and missile sales, and a corresponding fraction 

of direct employment, their influence on the supply of future aerospace professionals 

is much greater. 

By way of concluding my testimony, I commend for your consideration an illuminating result from the Survey of Aerospace Student Attitudes, a 2009 national 

study—led by Dr. Annalisa Weigel of MIT—of over 600 undergraduates in aerospace 

engineering departments from 23 schools across the country. Fully 40 percent of 

current aerospace engineering students cited human spaceflight specifically as the 

area that first sparked their interest in an aerospace career. This data provides a 

powerful reason for continuing our nation’s human space program and funding it 

at adequate levels for a sustained period. Clearly, human space flight plays a critical role in ensuring that our country’s young people persist in cultivating their 

STEM-related talents in order to pursue a career option that inspires them. In turn, 

their dedication and achievements will make our country a stronger, better place 

in which to live in the 21st century. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to address you today.

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. I appreciate your testimony. Ms. Blakey, please. 

STATEMENT OF MARION C. BLAKEY, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION 

Ms. BLAKEY. Good morning, Chairman Giffords, and I want to 

say thank you to you and to Ranking Member Hall and to all of 

those on the Committee for this opportunity. This really is an important opportunity to address the future direction and funding for 

NASA and what it will mean for the U.S. workforce, aerospace and 

our industrial base. 

Our members are deeply concerned about these issues, so I am 

delighted that you are taking a serious review. Your decisions regarding NASA’s programs will undoubtedly affect our current and 

future workforce and the industrial base. According to NASA, there 

are about 45,000 work-year equivalent contractors. AIA further estimates that NASA indirectly supports 151,000 contractors. Under 

current plans for the Shuttle’s retirement and the transition to the 

Constellation program, the current number of contractors will drop 

by over 4,000 by the year 2013. The resulting impacts we believe 

have to be carefully considered. 

Aerospace talent lost to other industries may be unrecoverable. 

New workers take years to train. Moreover, if we lose certain facilities that manufacture high-tech technologies, it may take years and 

additional resources to bring them back. 

Another crucial relationship NASA has with the aerospace workforce is the agency’s ability to attract and educate future workers. 

The state of education for our young people, I don’t think I have 

to tell this Committee, is alarming. This is evidenced by poor preparation for science, technology, engineering and mathematics, 

known as the STEM fields; low graduation rates in those fields, especially when you compare it to other nations; and a lack of interest in STEM fields overall. The latest national test scores show 

that in math, fourth-graders are 62 percent below proficient, 

eighth-graders are 69 percent below proficient. In science, fourth-
27

graders are 68 percent below, and eighth-graders are 73 percent 

below proficient. 

I thought this was interesting. In a study done by Raytheon, 

most middle-school students said they would rather do one of the 

following than do their math homework. Now get this, clean their 

room, eat their vegetables, go to the dentist, or take out the garbage than do their math homework. It tells us something. 

By comparison, India and China respectively graduate 6 to 10 

times more engineering students each year. If this continues, the 

United States runs a real risk of losing its educated engineering 

edge over other nations. 

One of the reasons for the lack of interest in aerospace and defense could be the uncertainty surrounding funding for NASA programs. A commitment to a robust human spaceflight program we 

believe will help attract and retain such workers. A reduction of 

programs, consequently, would be highly detrimental, both for our 

aerospace community and for our national security. 

Just as the recent Wall Street crisis turned young people away 

from financial careers, a lack of job security in aerospace will dim 

the light of attraction. 

Young people seek out companies with exciting opportunities. For 

example, Lockheed-Martin was hiring for the Crew Exploration Vehicle, and they had 10 highly qualified resumes for each available 

job. Some of our other member companies are doing exciting work. 

SpaceX has gone into ISS commercial resupply service contracts, 

for example, and these kinds of contracts are going to be magnets 

for young people because they are inspiring. 

To help spur enthusiasm for the aerospace industry, AIA itself 

is innovating. One of our exciting endeavors is the Team America 

Rocketry Challenge, or TARC, for middle- and high-school students. 

Participating in TARC is inspirational, and we have gathered more 

than a few stories about our young people who now work in aerospace as a result of their TARC experience. 

While AIA and NASA are vigorously engaged in the supply side 

of the equation, it is the demand side that has to be addressed by 

Congress to provide resources needed for important aerospace 

projects. These projects provide young people exciting programs on 

which to work. A robust and sustainable space exploration program 

is key to building the workforce. Maintaining our workforce depends on continuing stable and robust funding for our Nation’s 

space programs. Space programs don’t just come off the shelf. They 

take years to develop and build. Fluctuating budgets and delayed 

programs adversely affect the schedule, production and maintenance of a skilled workforce. Budget shortfalls deeply impact agencies like NASA that have been asked to take on many important 

projects simultaneously. 

Our space industrial base designs, develops, produces and supports our spacecraft, satellites, launch systems, support infrastructure. These systems are often produced in small or even single 

numbers. We need to keep the base healthy. 

Therefore, in closing I want to say that we ask Congress to remain mindful that interruptions or cancellations negatively impact 

large companies, and they can be catastrophic to small firms who 

often are the only entities with the unique abilities to produce 
28

1 2008 AIA ‘‘Member Needs Assessment’’ Report. 

small but critical components on which the larger infrastructure 

depends. 

The United States has enjoyed preeminence in aerospace in great 

part due to our space program. That leadership is now in danger. 

While Congress considers the future of NASA’s funding and direction, we must continue to assure our continuing leadership in space 

exploration by investing in our young people and providing cuttingedge programs to attract them. I believe the vitality of our Nation 

as a whole depends on a healthy renewable workforce. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Blakey follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARION C. BLAKEY

Good morning Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall and members of the 

Committee. I am grateful for the opportunity to testify before you today on the importance of the future direction and funding for NASA and what that will mean for 

the U.S. aerospace workforce and industrial base. 

As the largest aerospace trade group in the United States, the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) represents nearly 300 manufacturing companies with over 

631,000 high-wage, highly skilled aerospace employees across the three sectors: civil 

aviation, space systems and national defense. This includes the thousands of workers who make the satellites, space sensors, spacecraft, launch vehicles and ground 

support systems employed by NASA, DoD, NOAA, NRO and other civil, military and 

intelligence space efforts. Our member companies export 40 percent of their total 

output, and we routinely post the nation’s largest manufacturing trade surplus, 

which was over $57 billion in 2008. Aerospace indirectly supports 2 million middle 

class jobs and 30,000 suppliers from every state. The aerospace industry continues 

to look to the future, investing heavily in research and development and spending 

more than $100 billion since 1995. 

Our members are deeply concerned with the issues of workforce and the industrial base, so I am delighted that you are undertaking a serious review. In our most 

recent ‘‘Member Needs Assessment,’’ a lack of a trained technical workforce for the 

future was an extremely urgent industry issue for our membership.1 As part of our 

response, AIA produced the report, ‘‘Launching the 21st Century American Aerospace Workforce,’’ which documented the rising concerns over the future of our aerospace workforce, and detailed how our industry is addressing this issue, including 

recommendations on how to partner with government to improve our education system. 

Last year, AIA also produced a seminal report entitled: ‘‘The Unseen Cost: Industrial Base Consequences of Defense Strategy Choices.’’ This report provided analysis 

on how certain defense decisions made by policymakers could impact the future of 

our industrial base from a national security perspective. Among our conclusions: 

Government decisions directly impact the ability of our industry to mobilize and 

these decisions could either weaken—or preserve—the capacity to do so rapidly. 

Thus, policymakers need to be keenly aware of the long-term impact that policy can 

have on our industrial base. 

Our nation’s space endeavors are encountering this same challenge, which this 

hearing has been convened to examine today. 

Much of our industry’s success can be attributed to the growth of our nation’s 

space program and we are proud of NASA and industry’s many achievements. 

American astronauts have been aboard the International Space Station continuously 

since 2000; our probes are en route to, or have reached, all the planets of the solar 

system and have explored the surfaces of the moon, Venus and Mars. Our telescopes 

are looking deep into the cosmos and satellites gaze upon the Earth, monitoring climate change. NASA has led these achievements in partnership with our industry. 

Now NASA is at a crossroads in deciding its future options for space exploration. 

The U.S. human space flight program is being debated by policymakers. 

While this is an issue for the Administration and Congress to deliberate, your decisions regarding NASA’s programs will undoubtedly affect our current and future 

aerospace workforce and industrial base.
29

2 2008 AIA Facts & Figures. 

3 2009 NASA Workforce Transition Strategy, 3rd edition. 

4 Ibid. 

5 2007 Brevard County Development Board. 

6 2009 Aviation Week Workforce Study. 

7 2008 American Society for Engineering Education, ‘‘Engineering by the Numbers.’’

NASA and the Aerospace Workforce

Concerns over the Current Workforce and Industrial Base 

NASA’s programs play a critical role when it comes to the aerospace workforce, 

which supports everything from its launch vehicles to satellites. 

According to NASA there are about 45,000 ‘‘work year equivalent’’ contractors. 

AIA further estimates that about 151,000 contractors are indirectly enabled by 

NASA.2 And according to NASA’s latest workforce transition strategy there are 

4,600 civil servant ‘‘full-time equivalents’’ working on the current programs of 

record, Shuttle and Constellation, and as many as 21,200 contractor ‘‘work year 

equivalents’’ in 2009.3

Under current plans for the Shuttle’s retirement and the transition to the Constellation program, NASA projects a drop of almost 7,000 contractor ‘‘work year 

equivalents’’ in the next two years and will recover only 1,200 the two years following. In other words, contractors will drop to 17,000 from 21,200 by 2013.4

Some regions will be hit hard by the transition. In Brevard County alone, Shuttlerelated activity in Florida supports a workforce level of approximately 9,235 contract 

employees, (not including Federal workers). The total estimated shuttle-related annual payroll for this workforce is estimated at $600 million. Additionally, the shuttle 

program provides an estimated secondary economic contribution to the state, above 

salaries, of approximately $2 billion.5

I bring these points up to highlight the impact NASA’s human space flight program has on the lives of so many Americans. Brevard County is but one example. 

As Congress and policymakers deliberate over the future of NASA, we should reflect 

on the unique skills of these men and women and the regions that benefit directly 

from these programs. 

NASA is linked to the health of our industrial base. While the loss of a person’s 

job is no small matter, especially in light of today’s economic environment, we must 

also view these jobs as a national resource critical to our nation’s technological capability and our national security. 

Aerospace talent lost to other industries may be unrecoverable; new workers may 

take years to train. Additionally, if we lose certain facilities that manufacture hightech technologies, it may take years and additional resources to bring them back. 

Among the issues affecting the health of our industrial base that need to be considered by the White House and Congress are: How to maintain required skills for 

the duration of the shuttle’s operation, how to maintain the workforce skills required for utilization of the ISS and how to transition the workforce to other current 

and new NASA programs.

Concerns over the Future Workforce 

Another crucial relationship NASA has with the aerospace workforce is its ability 

to attract and educate future workers. In fact, the demographics of our industry reflect an influx of young workers who entered our industry during exciting times in 

our space program. 

Developing the aerospace workforce of the future is a top issue for our industry. 

As the leader of the largest U.S. aerospace trade association, the most significant 

concerns and trends facing the U.S. aerospace workforce and industrial base at the 

present time include the impending retirements within the next decade. Today, 13 

percent of our workforce is eligible to retire. By 2013, retirement eligibility for some 

job functions like R&D and program managers will be around 20 percent.6

The state of education for our young people is also in peril, including poor preparation for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, also known as STEM 

fields; low graduation rates of students in those fields, especially when compared 

to other nations, and a lack of interest in STEM fields overall. 

Currently, the U.S. annually graduates just 74,000 engineers—covering all fields 

in the discipline. Further, many of these students are foreign nationals who return 

home shortly after graduating—which lowers the number of new domestically employable engineers under 60,000.7 By comparison, India and China respectively 
30

8 2005 National Academies: Rising Above the Gathering Storm. 

9 2007 National Assessment of Education Progress, U.S. Dept. of Ed. 

10 2009 Experience Industry Survey. 11 2007 National Academies: Building a Better NASA Workforce. 12 2008. ‘‘Launch into Aerospace’’ (Report) 

graduate six and ten times more engineering students each year.8 If this continues, 

the U.S. runs a real risk of losing its skilled engineering edge over other nations. 

The latest national test scores show that, in math, fourth graders are 62 percent 

below proficient and eighth graders are 69 percent below proficient. In science, 

fourth graders are 68 percent below proficient, while eighth graders are 73 percent 

below proficient.9

In a study done by Raytheon, most middle school students said they would rather 

do one of the following instead of their math homework: clean their room, eat their 

vegetables, go to the dentist or take out the garbage. 

This lack of interest seeps into interest in aerospace. For example, in a recent survey 60 percent of students majoring in STEM found the aerospace and defense industry an unattractive place to work.10

One of the reasons for a lack of interest in aerospace and defense could be the 

uncertainty of NASA programs.11 commitment to a robust human spaceflight program will help attract students and hold workers. 

If a decision were made to reduce programs, the implications would be detrimental for our aerospace community and national security. Just as the recent Wall 

Street crisis turned young people away from financial careers, a lack of job security 

in aerospace will also hurt. Google has captured the magic to attract young people, 

while space, despite its history and potential, has lagged behind. 

Young people want to work for companies with exciting opportunities. For example, when Lockheed Martin was hiring for the Crew Exploration Vehicle they had 

25 high-qualified resumes for each job. There are other companies are doing exciting 

work; for example, the commercial resupply to the International Space Station service contracts at SpaceX. Young people are inspired by the projects they get to work 

on. To help bring enthusiasm for the aerospace industry, AIA is being innovative. We 

run the Team America Rocketry Challenge, or TARC, for middle and high school 

students. 

TARC starts off with a regional competition, with students teamed in many cases 

with real rocket scientists, with qualifiers coming to the Washington, D.C. region 

for the national competition. Their challenge requires them to achieve a designated 

flight time and altitude all while safely returning a raw egg payload. The winning 

team goes on an all-expense paid trip to the international competition for the 

‘‘Trans-Atlantic Trophy.’’ Last year our students were in Paris; a year before, in 

London. Plus, the top-scoring teams get invited by NASA to participate in a more 

demanding Student Launch Initiative. 

The excitement of participating in TARC is inspirational; we have heard more 

than a few stories about young people who now work in our industry because of 

their TARC experience. 

Since our first contest in 2003, one of the participants majored in aerospace engineering at the Naval Academy and is in the Navy in Florida flying helicopters. Another is a software engineer working on tanks, and a third is an aerospace engineer 

at an aviation company. And there are more success stories like these. 

In a survey of participants we found that TARC has a strong impact. For example: 83 percent became more interested in science and math as a result of TARC. 

Almost 70 percent became more interested in a STEM career as a result of TARC 

and 81 percent gained a better understanding of how math, science, and technology 

are used to solve problems in the real world. 

Many of AIA’s members also have their own exciting STEM initiatives. Among 

these are Raytheon’s ‘‘Math Moves U’’, Boeing’s ‘‘Space Camp’’, Northrop Grumman’s ‘‘Flights of Discovery’’ and Lockheed Martin’s ‘‘Space Day.’’ Our companies are 

literally investing millions of dollars to help inspire and attract the future aerospace 

workforce. 

AIA CEOs have also publicly announced that this is an issue for our industry and 

have committed to actions to address STEM, as described in AIA’s ‘‘Launch into 

Aerospace’’ report.12 Such actions include: encouraging industry professionals to participate in mentoring and other volunteer activities; earmarking corporate grants for 

educational programs, and making government a partner in achieving the future 

technical workforce. 

NASA’s Office of Education is also very involved in STEM programs. In fact, the 

report I mentioned earlier: Launching the 21st Century American Aerospace Work-
31

force, helped catalyze a joint industry-education forum last week at NASA to discuss 

ways in which we can collaborate on this important issue. 

While AIA and NASA are vigorously engaged in the ‘‘supply’’ side of the equation, 

it’s the ‘‘demand’’ side that also has to be worked on by Congress by providing the 

resources needed for important aerospace projects. These, in turn, provide young 

people with exciting programs to work on. A robust and sustainable space exploration program is key to building the workforce.

What can Congress do? 

Most importantly, maintaining our workforce depends on continuing stable and 

robust funding for our nation’s space programs. By their very nature, space programs take several years to develop, test and build. Fluctuating budgets and delayed programs adversely affect the schedule, production and maintenance of a 

skilled workforce. Budget shortfalls also deeply impact agencies like NASA that 

have been asked to take on many important projects simultaneously. 

We need the Administration and Congressional leadership to conceive of and treat 

space as a ‘‘singular enterprise,’’ for which the decisions and strategies of the many 

agencies using space are coordinated at a White House level. This will better leverage and align our nation’s space endeavors. 

Our space industrial base designs, develops, produces and supports our spacecraft, 

satellites, launch systems and supporting infrastructure. These systems are often 

produced in small, or even single, numbers. We need to keep this base healthy. We 

ask that Congress remains mindful that interruptions or cancellations negatively 

impact large companies and can be catastrophic to smaller firms—which often are 

the only entities with the unique abilities to produce small but critical components 

on which huge portions of our infrastructure and security depend. 

To maintain and capitalize on our leadership in space exploration, the federal government needs to ensure support for U.S. space exploration, provide for maximum 

utilization of the International Space Station and support NASA’s science and aeronautics programs. 

Congress and the White House must also help instill an exciting direction for 

NASA’s efforts that could include: a robust commercial space sector that provides 

cargo resupply to the International Space Station; exploration plans that go beyond 

low earth orbit; cutting-edge space and aeronautics designs; utilizing the national 

laboratory aboard the ISS for innovative research; U.S. leadership that promotes 

peaceful international cooperation in the pursuit of interests important to all of humanity, and earth observation programs to help study our planet and address important issues such as climate change. 

While we want to have a young workforce looking out to space we also need to 

ensure we have the right skill set looking back at the Earth. Observing the Earth’s 

environment takes a global perspective—a perspective space-borne systems supply. 

How can we draw young people toward this special skill set? I would suggest that 

one approach would be for our agencies that use space imagery, such as NASA, 

NOAA, USGS, the EPA and others, to work with companies that make this imagery 

widely available to the public. Let’s find ways to make these services both exciting 

and educational to draw our next generation into Earth sciences, geology and even 

cartography.

Supply and demand 

What can drive more engineering-minded students into the discipline of aerospace 

and aeronautics? I believe the opportunity to expand human spaceflight is the ideal 

type of project. An industry that can inspire them must remain vibrant and active. 

Over decades, our space programs and workforce have helped fuel our economy 

and advance our technologies. 

The United States has enjoyed preeminence in aerospace in great part due to our 

space program. That leadership is now in danger. The primary threat comes not 

from competitors’ actions but from our own aging demographics and potential failure to act, both of which could be detrimental to our future aerospace and space 

programs. 

The generation of aerospace talent that won the Moon Race and the Cold War is 

reaching retirement age, while our Shuttle workforce is also aging. Unfortunately, 

America is not producing the volume and quality of engineers, designers and technicians needed to even begin replacing those who have served so well for so long. 

While Congress considers the future of NASA’s funding and direction we must 

also continue as the world leader in space exploration by investing in our young people and providing cutting-edge programs for them work on. The vitality of our nation depends on a vital workforce.
32

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Ms. Blakey. Mr. Young? 

STATEMENT OF A. THOMAS YOUNG, EXECUTIVE VICE 

PRESIDENT (RET.), LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION 

Mr. YOUNG. Chairwoman Giffords and Committee members, it is 

a privilege to present my views on the importance of our aerospace 

workforce to our country. 

Spaceflight in general and specifically human spaceflight is one 

of the more challenging endeavors of our time. It is truly the domain of rocket scientists. However, successful spaceflight requires 

more than an expertise in rocket science. Intellectual capability is 

clearly necessary. However, without significant experience and continuity of participation, the intellectual capability is far from sufficient. 

You might ask the question, why isn’t intellectual expertise adequate and why is experience and continuity of participation so critical? Spaceflight is a one-strike-and-you-are-out business. Hundreds, and for large projects, thousands of people can do everything 

correctly and one individual can make one mistake that can be mission catastrophic. Now, while eliminating human error is a necessary aspect of successful spaceflight, we must recognize that 

human error cannot be totally eliminated and that human mistakes will occur. 

There are not many endeavors that are characterized as one 

strike and you are out. For most activities a significant error can 

occur, it can be recognized and corrected without major consequences. 

Some correlate spaceflight and commercial aircraft operations. I 

do not want to minimize the challenges of commercial aviation. 

However, airplanes land safely every day with significant problems, 

an option that is not available in the world of spaceflight. 

Decades of experience and the dedication of extraordinary people 

who have made spaceflight their career has resulted in a way of 

doing business that greatly minimizes the probability of human 

error having a catastrophic result. It is the foundation of the extraordinary successes of the space program. 

A safety net is required to prevent human error from becoming 

catastrophic. Testing, independent validation and inspection are 

elements of the safety net. If we test as we fly and fly as we tested, 

we will find and eliminate most problems. For some areas, such as 

software, a full test program is unrealistic requiring the use of an 

independent validation approach. In some special circumstances, 

such as the installation of a solid rocket motor, only inspection can 

provide the necessary safety net. It is the disciplined implementation of the safety net without compromise that is a foundation of 

missile success. A slight deviation from this disciplined approach 

can be the most damaging of human errors. 

Unfortunately, failure reports are populated with deviations with 

names such as faster-better-cheaper, acquisition reform, we must 

take more risk, commercial practice, etc. Why do we accept these 

deviations which I will call miracle solutions? Many are the result 

of trying to put 10 pounds into a 5-pound bag. Others are in response to the criticism that we are too conservative and need to 

take more risk, and others are associated with the premise that 
33

commercial practices are better. While there is some merit to each 

of these miracle solutions, and we should constantly be responsive 

to better ways of doing business, most have been toxic to a one 

strike and you are out enterprise. 

I would like to offer a few examples. Mars ’98 consisted of an orbiter, lander and two probes, all failed. Mars ’98 was a faster-better-cheaper program with an inadequate budget. Risks were accepted in the absence of sufficient funding resulting in catastrophic 

failure. 

A Titan IV with an important and expensive national security 

payload failed, because the failure was a human error in documenting a number, simply writing down the wrong number. This 

failure occurred in an era of acquisition reform where emphasis 

was shifted from mission success to cost. The cost focus resulted in 

eliminating aspects of the safety net that would have most likely 

caught the error and eliminated the failure. 

In the 1990s, during the epoch of faster-better-cheaper, acquisition reform, take more risk, commercial practices, et cetera, the 

Aerospace Corporation documented $11 billion worth of failures. 

My purpose has been to highlight the unforgiving nature of 

spaceflight, the need for uncompromising discipline and to recognize that it is a one-strike-and-you-are-out business. I have tried to 

emphasize that spaceflight is not a typical technological activity. 

Because of the special characteristics of spaceflight, a workforce 

is required that has the culture and capabilities aligned with these 

characteristics, a workforce with the necessary intellectual 

strengths and possibly even more important, the experience and 

longevity to establish the sensitivity as to what is required for 

spaceflight success. 

Today in government, universities and industry we have such a 

workforce. It has evolved over decades of extraordinary successes 

and tragic failures. Exceptional men and women have invested 

their professional careers, and the United States has invested significant resources to achieve the spaceflight workforce we have 

today. It is truly a national treasure. Without a challenging and 

meaningful space program, this national capability will atrophy. It 

can only be maintained by inspiring use. It has a limited shelf life. 

As we debate the future of our space program, we must do so recognizing the importance of our spaceflight workforce and the role 

it will play in the success or failure of the space program of the 

future. Without proper attention and recognition of its importance, 

we could make changes that destroy what we have carefully built. 

I do not suggest change is to be avoided. I do suggest careful 

thought is necessary. A fundamental rule when debating change is 

do no harm. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF A. THOMAS YOUNG

Chairman Gordon and Mr. Hall, 

It is a privilege to appear before this distinguished committee to present my views 

on the importance of our aerospace workforce to the United States. 

Spaceflight in general and specifically human spaceflight is one of the more challenging endeavors of our time. It is truly the domain of rocket scientists. However, 

successful spaceflight requires much more than an expertise in rocket science. Intellectual capability is clearly necessary; however, without significant experience and 

continuity of participation, the intellectual capability is far from sufficient. 
34

Why isn’t intellectual expertise adequate? Why is experience and continuity of 

participation so critical? Spaceflight is a ‘‘one strike and you are out’’ business. Hundreds and for large projects, thousands of people can do everything correctly and one 

individual can make one mistake that can be mission catastrophic. While eliminating human error is a necessary aspect of successful spaceflight, we must recognize that human error cannot be totally eliminated and that human mistakes will 

occur. There are not many endeavors that are characterized as ‘‘one strike and you are 

out.’’ For most activities a significant error can occur, be recognized and corrected 

without major consequences. Some correlative spaceflight with commercial aircraft 

operations. I do not want to minimize the challenges of commercial aviation; however, airplanes land safely every day with significant problems. An option that is 

not available in the world of spaceflight. 

Decades of experience and the dedication of extraordinary people who have made 

spaceflight their career has resulted in a way of doing business that greatly minimizes the probability of human error having a catastrophic result. It is the foundation. of the extraordinary successes of the space program. 

A ‘‘safety net’’ is required to prevent human error from becoming catastrophic. 

Testing, independent validation and inspection are elements of the ‘‘safety net.’’ If 

we test as we fly and fly as we tested, we will find and eliminate most problems. 

For some areas, such as software, a full test program is unrealistic requiring the 

use of an independent validation approach. In some special circumstances, such as 

the installation of a solid rocket motor, only inspection can provide the necessary 

‘‘safety net.’’ It is the disciplined implementation of the ‘‘safety net’’ without compromise that is a foundation of missile success. A slight deviation from this disciplined approach can be the most damaging of human errors. 

Unfortunately, failure reports any populated with deviations with names such as 

faster-better-cheaper, acquisition reform, we must take more risk, commercial practice, etc. Why do we accept these deviations which I will call ‘‘miracle’’ solutions. 

Many are the result of trying to put ten pounds into a five pound bag. Others are 

in responses to the criticism that we are too conservative and need to take more 

risk and others are associated with the premise that commercial practices are better. While there is some merit to each of these ‘‘miracle’’ solutions and we should 

constantly be responsive to better ways of doing business, most have been toxic to 

a ‘‘one strike and you are out’’ enterprise. 

I would like to offer a few examples. Mars ’98 consisted of an orbiter, lander and 

two probes—all failed. Mars ’98 was a faster-better-cheaper program with an inadequate budget. Risks were accepted in the absence of sufficient funding resulting in 

catastrophic failure. 

A Titan IV with an important and expensive national security payload failed. 

Cause of the failure was a human error in documenting a number which resulted 

in failure. This failure occurred in an era of ‘‘acquisition reform’’ where emphasis 

was shifted from mission success to cost. The cost focus resulted in eliminating aspects of the ‘‘safety net’’ that would have most likely caught the error and eliminated the failure. 

In the 1990’s, during the epoch of faster-better-cheaper, acquisition reform, take 

more risk, commercial practices, etc., the Aerospace Corp. documented 11B$ of mission failures. 

My purpose has been to highlight the unforgiving nature of spaceflight, the need 

for uncompromising discipline and to recognize that it is a ‘‘one strike and you are 

out’’ business. I have also tried to emphasize that spaceflight is not a typical technological activity. Because of the special characteristics of spaceflight, a workforce is 

required that has the culture and capabilities aligned with these characteristics. A 

workforce with the necessary intellectual strengths and possibly even more important, the experience and longevity to establish the sensitivity as to what is required 

for spaceflight success. 

Today in government, universities and industry we have such a workforce. It has 

evolved over decades of extraordinary successes and tragic failures. Exceptional men 

and women have invested their professional careers and the United States has invested significant resources to achieve the spaceflight workforce we have today. It 

is truly a national treasure. Without a challenging and meaningful space program, 

this national capability will atrophy. It can only be maintained by inspiring use. It 

has a limited shelf life. As we debate the future of our space program, we must do 

so recognizing the importance of our spaceflight workforce and the role it will play 

in the success or failure of the space program of the future. Without proper attention and recognition of its importance, we could make changes that destroy what 

we have carefully built. I do not suggest change is to be avoided. I do suggest careful 

thought is necessary. A fundamental rule when debating change is ‘‘do no harm.’’
35

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Young. Dr. Aubrecht? 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD AUBRECHT, VICE CHAIRMAN OF 

THE BOARD, VICE PRESIDENT, STRATEGY AND TECHNOLOGY, MOOG, INC. 

Dr. AUBRECHT. Thank you for this opportunity to address the 

Committee. The thing I would like to do this morning is to illustrate with a very specific example the long-term effect of the NASA 

programs. 

I am with Moog out of Buffalo, New York, and I have spent most 

of my 40-year career as an engineer and a technologist with Moog. 

We started doing NASA work in the late ’50s, early ’60s on programs like the Gemini, Apollo and later on on the Space Shuttle. 

We have a technical specialty referred to as precision motion control, and the places that it is applied primarily on the NASA 

launch vehicles is steering the rocket engines. So if you see the 

Shuttle when it is launched, you see it comes up and sort of rolls 

over, well, we are the guys at the back end that are moving the 

rocket engines to be able to steer it in a launch phase. 

Similarly, when the Shuttle is landing, you have to move the 

flight control surfaces. Those are hydraulic actuators that move 

those. That is the specialty that we developed during that time period. 

Based on that knowledge and heritage and experience that we 

had with that, we later then took that and evolved it for both commercial aircraft as well as military aircraft. So it is referred to 

today as fly by wire flight controls. Well, what does that mean? 

You have a computer that just connects with a wire to the actuators, and because of all of the concerns in terms of safety and reliability on these, these are very complicated, redundant systems. 

And our position with that all started with the work that we did 

with NASA in the 1960s. 

In the last ten years, we have won all of the major contracts 

around the world on fly by wire flight controls. We are doing complete flight control system on the F–35 for the DoD. We won all of 

the contracts for the 787 at Boeing doing a complete flight control 

system there, and the one that I think is more significant as far 

as your consideration here is that we won the same contract on the 

A350 at Airbus. This is the first time that Airbus has gone outside 

of Europe for this kind of technology. Why is that? Because the 

very best fly by wire flight control technology is in Buffalo, New 

York, and it all stems back to the work we did with NASA in the 

1960s. 

We have had a similar experience on the unmanned NASA programs as well, starting all the way back with things like Viking 

and Voyager, all the deep-space probes, and more recently on the 

Mars science lab and the other Mars missions. 

So we have been developing similar kinds of technology. So what 

do these do? When you have a satellite, you have to be able to position the antennas and the solar arrays, and as you see the animations of satellites when they are all—see the small thrusters that 

activate and position the satellite? That is what we do, supply all 

sort of precision motion control in those satellites. And again, this 

started with our work with NASA in the 1960s. Today we are the 
36

world leading company for supplying those sorts of things to the 

DoD for all of their satellites, all the commercial satellites around 

the world. We are the supplier to the Europeans, to the Indians, 

to the Japanese for all that sort of hardware. 

The same way that we have had the evolution of that from the 

NASA technology, we see the same thing going on today. What it 

does is it gives you the opportunity for the NASA programs to develop the core technologies and the core knowledge, and as a couple 

people have indicated already, knowledge is not the matter of 

drawings and documents and reports. That is not where the knowledge is. The knowledge is in the people who develop it, and they 

have the ability then to be able to say, well, okay. Here is this 

other problem coming in for a military vehicle. What are we going 

to do with all that? You all go back to the NASA technology we developed to begin with as the core for doing all of that. So that is 

how we have been able to develop this kind of position we have 

worldwide. 

But it is not just us. We literally have hundreds of suppliers for 

the kind of hardware that we supply for NASA in the same way 

that NASA pushes us to find new technical boundaries and to push 

the envelope all the time. We do the same thing with our suppliers. 

So the leverage that you get out of this is not just a couple of 

companies with this, it is literally hundreds of companies that advance the technologies. For many of our suppliers, their NASA 

work is only maybe 1 or two percent of their sales, but it accounts 

for—probably 80 percent of their technology advancement comes 

out of this sort of work that they do on these NASA programs. 

And it is not just us. I can see upstream and downstream from 

where we are in these systems, and it is the suppliers of those sort 

of hardware because I follow their technologies as well. And they 

have seen the same kind of effect. 

So I would suggest that our experience with the NASA programs 

is not a singularity. We see it all the way through the suppliers 

and all the other companies that are around. 

The other point that I would make is that other people around 

the world understand this model of using space programs to lead 

the technology. The Europeans have clearly done it. When I first 

started with Moog in the 1960s, I worked in Europe, and this was 

right when Airbus was getting put together, you see. So why did 

the Europeans put Airbus together? They looked at it and they 

said, we really can’t compete with the United States on manned 

space, given where they were at at that point in time. But they 

wanted to have a program to lead their companies to develop better 

technologies. So they chose to do it in commercial aircraft because 

they couldn’t keep pace with the United States on the manned 

space program. 

So you follow that whole history forward and look recently at 

what the Chinese are doing. Why do the Chinese have a manned 

space program? For exactly the same reason that the United States 

had a manned space program in the 1960s. They are looking for 

that to increase the quality and the competency of the companies 

in China. It is exactly the same sort of model. 

So I would suggest that the Congress at this point in time is at 

a critical choice point. The Constellation program is clearly the 
37

next chapter in our history in space, and you have a choice. You 

can either adequately fund it and consistently fund it so you can 

maintain the sort of base that we have to be able to not only do 

the work for NASA, to be able to take and to continuously leverage 

this and to maintain the U.S. leadership in space technologies and 

aerospace technologies applied to all kinds of aircraft, military, 

commercial, business jets, satellites, all of that. It all is going to 

come from the consistent funding of the Constellation program. 

And a couple people have indicated, you can’t have ups and 

downs in all of that. As a company, you have to maintain a consistent workforce if you are going to maintain this capability, and 

you can’t have up one year, down the next year. It has to be a consistent funding stream really to make this work. 

So as I say, you have a very critical set of decisions to make here 

in terms of are you going to consistently and adequately funds the 

Constellation program because I think if you do, we can maintain 

this sort of world leadership that we have. I can see it in our technologies. We won a very significant number of the contracts already on Constellation, and we hired a number of people already. 

We have increased our employment almost by 100 in Buffalo to 

support the Constellation program already. And these are the best, 

brightest people. You say, so why is that? A couple of people have 

talked about it in general terms. Specifically, I can see from my 

own experience in working with it and with my colleagues, NASA 

programs are really, really hard problems. Tom talked about that 

in terms of the fact that there is zero tolerance for failure on all 

of that. That is a really, really hard problem. What that does is attract the very best and the very brightest engineers, and bright engineers attract other bright engineers. And that is how we have 

built the company over the last 60 years. 

So I am hoping that the Constellation program will get the adequate funding that it needs, and we will be able to continue the 

sort of technology evolution we have had in our company. 

Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Aubrecht follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD AUBRECHT

I am very pleased to have been invited to testify at the 10 December 2009 Congressional Hearings relative to NASA’s programs and budget. 

I have spent almost my entire 40-year career with Moog Inc. as an engineer and 

technologist. For the past 15 years, I have concentrated on developing Moog strategies and technology plans with our managers, engineers and technologists. Since 

Moog has had an over 40-year relationship with NASA as a supplier of control components and systems, a significant piece of our plans relate to our NASA work. 

These technology plans have enabled us to develop a very clear understanding of 

the relationship between the technologies we develop for NASA projects and the 

growth in Moog’s other aerospace businesses. 

Beginning with the Gemini Program in the 1960’s, Moog has supplied the actuators to steer NASA’s launch vehicles’ rocket engines. Subsequently, we have supplied ever more sophisticated control components for the Apollo and then the Space 

Shuttle. For the Space Shuttle, we also supplied actuators for the flight control surfaces that guide the orbiter’s flight path during the time it flies like an airplane. 

The technologies we developed and the experience our engineers gained provided 

the foundation, knowledge and heritage to begin developing similar control components for military and then commercial aircraft. Most recently, we have become the 

supplier of the complete flight control systems for the DOD’s F–35, Boeing’s 787, 

and Airbus’ A350. Our experience on the Space Shuttle was clearly the essential 

starting point for Moog to have developed the technical experience and enabled us 
38

to have been selected as the supplier for the flight control systems for these programs. 

In addition, Moog has developed a variety of other control components and systems with NASA for other launch vehicles, and various deep space and orbiting satellites such as Mars Science Laboratory and DAWN. As with the rocket engine 

steering controls, these NASA programs have always been the most challenging and 

pushed the envelope. Moog’s NASA experience on all these applications has enabled 

us to also provide the world’s best technologies for similar applications on DOD and 

commercial launch vehicles, all types of satellites and various missile interceptors. 

NASA has a history of setting very ambitious goals that drive the need for new technologies, designs and capabilities that are beyond what the Commercial space 

projects are willing or able to undertake. Once the capability and reliability of the 

components are demonstrated on NASA projects, the Commercial space suppliers 

are then confident in using these components on their vehicles. Not only Moog’s 

technologies benefit from these NASA projects. Our products incorporate technologies and components from several hundred companies. While some of these components are relatively standard, our innovative solutions for NASA require the majority of our vendors to push their designs to a higher level as well. So the benefit 

of the NASA programs becomes very widely spread. While I do not profess to be familiar with all aspects of the NASA vehicles, I am familiar with the technologies 

and components adjacent to our components. I can see the companies supplying 

these adjacent components have also similarly benefited from their NASA work. 

It is no accident that the USA aerospace prime contractors and the hundreds of 

subcontractors have developed leadership positions on the vast majority of the relevant technologies. The NASA programs have clearly enabled USA companies to develop and maintain these leadership positions. A leadership position can be measured as a combination of performance, reliability, weight and cost. It is also clear 

that the Chinese, having watched NASA’s successes, have embarked on a very ambitious manned space program. Their expectation is for their space program to provide 

Chinese aerospace companies with the experience to challenge the USA’s leadership 

in commercial space and commercial aircraft. 

NASA’s Constellation Program is the next chapter. NASA’s goals for the Constellation Program will again challenge all the suppliers to imagine, develop and 

create the next generation of space-related technologies. 

The fundamental question Congress needs to address is:

Does Congress want to continue to consistently fund NASA programs such as 

Constellation to maintain the USA’s leadership position in aerospace technologies?

The key word in that question is ‘‘consistently’’. The relevant technologies are embodied in the engineers and technical staff who work on the NASA programs. Technologies are documented in drawings and reports. However, the application of the 

technical knowledge is totally dependent on the people who have developed the technology. Without consistent funding by NASA, companies are not able to keep the 

engineers and technical staff employed. If funding is inconsistent, technical capabilities wither as people move on to other programs or to other companies. 

One of our major concerns relative to the Constellation Program is that having 

already been awarded a number of contracts for the Constellation Program, we have 

hired a large number of engineers and technical staff to support our contractuallyobligated schedules set by NASA’s current schedule. If the Constellation Program’s 

funding is reduced and stretched out, we will have to lay-off a number of these people. We have a core group of people who have spent the past 20 or 30 years working 

on space-related programs. A number of these people will be retiring in the next 

several years. The new people we have hired to work on the Constellation Program 

are the next generation who need to learn from the senior people and then become 

the core group to apply their skills to the next generation of commercial space, military space, and other aerospace applications. 

As with our experience on previous NASA programs, we continually grow by moving into adjacent technologies to our current core capabilities. The Constellation 

Program has provided us the opportunity to again expand our technical capabilities. 

We were surprised in several competitions that companies who had previously supplied specific technologies to NASA had either declined to bid, because they no 

longer have the ability to design the required components, or that they apparently 

submitted a weak technical proposal. This is an additional indication that consistent 

NASA funding is required if the USA is to maintain and advance its aerospace technology capabilities. 

The Constellation Program is at a critical decision point for the country and specifically for the Congress. On one hand, you can decide to fully and consistently fund 
39

the Constellation Program and the USA can maintain its leadership position in 

aerospace technology. On the other hand, you can decide to select one of several 

seemingly lower cost options. In which case, I strongly believe the USA will rapidly 

lose its leadership position, most likely to the Chinese. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Dr. Aubrecht and to all of our panelists for the very compelling testimony. 

At this point, we are going to begin our first round of questions. 

The Chair will recognize herself for five minutes, but we have, I 

know, a variety of Members that want to speak. So let us really 

try to keep under the five minutes so we can move quickly. 

OPINION OF THE PANEL: IMPACT OF DECISION TO AUGMENT

OR FLAT-FUND HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT AND EXPLORATION

PROGRAMS

I want to follow up on what Dr. Aubrecht presented to us and 

this decision that we are going to be making as Members of Congress, and of course the Administration will as well. We can either 

support a significant augmentation to NASA’s budget to carry out 

a meaningful human space exploration program without having to 

gut other NASA initiatives, or we can keep NASA on a flat-funding 

profile and put our human spaceflight and exploration program 

frankly on hold for the unforeseeable future. What we eventually 

decide to do will have profound and very long-term effects. And so 

because of the consequences in front of us, we really need to get 

this right. 

So I would like to ask each of our panelists to briefly just touch 

on the most significant potential impacts that Congress and the 

White House should be aware of as we prepare to make these decisions. And Dr. Aubrecht, I will go back to you, and we will work 

our way from right to left. 

Dr. AUBRECHT. I think the critical thing is what I was just finishing on is the quality of the people that you have working on the 

Constellation program to begin with. If you are unable to maintain 

that base, you are going to lose it. People talked about the upcoming retirements. We are facing exactly that. The people that we had 

that did the Space Shuttle and did the Apollo program, they are 

about to retire, and the thing we are looking for the Constellation 

program to be is the transition to the next generation of people and 

to do the mentoring that you need for those people to get the maximum benefit out of the experience that we have had. It goes from 

person to person. It is not in the drawings. 

So I think that is the critical factor, is this direct transition from 

one generation to the next. If you don’t do it now, it won’t happen. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you. Mr. Young? 

AUGUSTINE REPORT: BUDGET AND FUNDING ISSUES

Mr. YOUNG. The Augustine Report in my mind——

Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Young, can we have you push your microphone. 

Mr. YOUNG. My apologies. Okay. The Augustine Report did some 

real service in an area that I think we knew, but it took something 

like that to make it happen and that is number one, that the cur-
40

rent NASA budget and the current NASA program is not executable in human spaceflight, not marginal. 

The second thing I think that the report really highlighted was 

that there is no human exploration program at the current budget 

level. Now, I am defining human exploration as beyond going back 

and forth to the Space Station. 

So I think we are faced with kind of a profound decision and that 

is I personally am a believer that great countries do great things, 

and I think human spaceflight, you know, falls in a category of one 

of those great things. I am also a fiscal conservative, I might say. 

But I strongly believe that if we do not approach this from what 

is in the best interest of the country as opposed to a budget issue, 

then I fear we are going to end up with the wrong answer. And 

as I said in my statement, this capability that we have built, and 

we should not underestimate how hard it was to build and how 

hard it will be to rebuild and how significant it is today, but if we 

don’t use it in a bold and inspiring way, it is going to disappear 

on us. 

So I think that we are really making a decision that is not a 

budget decision. We are not making a jobs decision. We are not 

even making a hardship on the people who might lose their job. We 

are making the decision as to what is in the best interest of the 

country, and how do we utilize this resource that we have developed with so much investment, both in human investment and dollar investment. 

So I worry quite a lot as to whether or not as a country we are 

going to approach this issue in a manner that it deserves and the 

country deserves. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Young. Ms. Blakey? 

Ms. BLAKEY. I share the concerns of my fellow panelists, and so 

not to be redundant on that, I would mention a couple of other dimensions. This also has, this decision, has genuine impact on our 

national security because you must remember that some of these 

particularly smaller companies with unique capabilities and technologies such as Moog utilizes in fact also support that fragile national security supply chain, and when the programs are not there, 

they simply cannot maintain them and maintain any kind of integrity to their shareholders. So this is a significant issue. 

Another issue that I think is important is that this country sees 

itself as a space-faring Nation. At the same time, we know, those 

of us who are following this closely, that it is very likely that the 

next boots on the moon will be Chinese. We know that we have 

very definite competition for the leadership in space from a number 

of countries, India as well as China, Russia. You know, this is very 

well-documented, and the resources are being applied there. But 

when you look back at it, our country does see itself that way, and 

that is important to our national psyche. 

Back during the Apollo program, the numbers were around 50, 

55 percent in terms of public support for the U.S. role in space. 

Those numbers in a recent poll—this was 2005 but not when we 

were trying to go beyond lower earth orbit—we at 77 percent. 

So I simply would echo the thought that all these things matter, 

and budget should follow policy, not the other way around. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you. Mr. Thompson? 
41

Mr. THOMPSON. To preserve today’s and to attract and retain tomorrow’s specialized workforce which underpins all sectors of a vibrant aerospace industry, a robust, credible and long-term commitment by the United States Government to our future human 

spaceflight program is indispensable. As the Augustine Commission pointed out, human exploration of space will inspire the next 

generation of scientists and engineers and will in a very tangible 

way contribute to the broader development of the future workforce 

that our country needs in a variety of sectors, all supported by 

science, engineering and technology. 

STIMULUS FUNDS AND HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT FUNDING FOR

NASA 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you. Mr. Olson. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. One thing we have 

been working very hard on in the Texas delegation is to identify 

viable sources of increased funding for NASA and one of those we 

think would be entirely appropriate given what was passed for is 

the economic stimulus plan that was passed back in the February 

timeframe. And this is a question for Mr. Thompson and Ms. 

Blakey. Has either the AIAA or the AIA taken a position about proposals to have stimulus funds used to help mitigate anticipated 

human spaceflight deficiencies and the resultant loss to aerospace 

workforce? 

Ms. BLAKEY. We are very interested in and sympathetic to more 

flexible use of the TARP funding, stimulus funding. We do see that 

there is certainly an enormous support for some of the purposes of 

that money, to give the kind of support to our infrastructure, and 

infrastructure is a broad word, but space is certainly a vital part 

of our infrastructure. And we believe that those kinds of resources 

could be very appropriately applied. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I agree, while AIAA has not yet taken a formal 

position on your question, I believe our individual and corporate 

members would be highly supportive of the actions that you suggest. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you very much. Just to echo Ms. Blakey’s 

comments, these are exactly the jobs that that stimulus package 

was supposedly passed to produce, high-quality, high-tech jobs that 

stimulate and ensure America’s future and in this case, ensure our 

dominance in human spaceflight which again we should never, ever 

relinquish. 

COOPERATION WITH FOREIGN NATIONS

One other question and this is sort of about our indigenous capabilities. One thing the Augustine Commission talked about was 

more cooperation with foreign nations, and at yesterday’s Aerospace and Women Luncheon, the NASA Administrator, Charlie 

Bolden, emphasized the Obama Administration would utilize space 

exploration for diplomatic purposes by encouraging greater cooperation with foreign nations. 

Assuming this cooperation means utilizing the capabilities from 

other nations and have them play larger roles, larger mission roles, 
42

supplying mission work, how would this be balanced with the Administration’s priority to save and create jobs? That is for everyone. 

Ms. BLAKEY. Well, I certainly would make the case that this is 

a case of growing our activities, and in the long run, the pie becomes larger, not smaller. It is not a question of dividing it up into 

little pieces. It really is a question of whether a shared mission is 

there. And we see the compelling work. 

Let us just use the work at the International Space Station alone 

because there we are finding that after all the investment, multination investment and contributing to building, we are now beginning to see some of the fruits of that. And this is in the areas 

where cell cultural biology experiments that are going on are addressing problems that we share across the globe. Salmonella is 

one of them. You know, this is something that affects the globe as 

a whole. Staph infections. Now, you know the pharmaceutical companies will find that this is an area that they additionally will be 

happy to put resources into as we begin to see payoff. 

So I do believe it is a question of additional jobs on multi levels 

that you can see from this kind of international cooperation. 

Mr. OLSON. Any other comments? I just wanted to, Mr. Thompson, commend you for that video. That is exactly—that was the kid 

I was talking about walking the streets on the campaign trail. That 

is exactly that person, and we can’t forget the power of human 

spaceflight to inspire you. 

And with that, Madam Chairwoman, I yield back my time. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Olson. The Chair will recognize 

Mr. Wu. 

Mr. WU. Thank you, Madam Chair. At this time, I would like to 

yield my time to the gent lady from Florida who represents her 

congressional district and state’s interest in space exploration so 

well, Ms. Kosmas. 

EFFECTS OF POST-SHUTTLE GAP OF U.S. ACCESS TO SPACE

ON MAINTAINING INSPIRATION; AND GAP IN U.S. INDUS- TRIAL PRODUCTION OF HEAVY LIFT VEHICLE

Ms. KOSMAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Wu, and also Madam 

Chairman. I am happy to be here today. I represent the Kennedy 

Space Center in Florida, and obviously the workforce issue is huge 

for us in this current economically stressed time but in the big picture that you all have described, important to us as a Nation I believe. 

I wanted to ask, I was at the Kennedy Space Center Monday of 

this week and addressed 700 sixth-graders, along with some former 

astronauts, to encourage them in the STEM fields and also attended earlier this week a forum that was put together including 

the Space Foundation and DoD where there was an effort to—

Norm Augustine was the keynote speaker and also emphasized the 

need for education in these areas in order to keep these things 

moving forward, as well as the shared information between 

manned space exploration and our Department of Defense and national security issues. So much of what you all have said is very 

familiar to us, and as Committee members, I think it has been 

made clear to us that both a sustained commitment to human 

spaceflight and a sustained commitment to the funding necessary 
43

to make it happen are required ingredients for what Ms. Blakey 

described as U.S. preeminence, and we all agree I believe on this 

Committee that it is necessary for us to do that for a lot of obvious 

reasons. 

My concern is that the gap if the Shuttle, if the manifest is completed in 2010 or even early 2011 that we will have as much as 

perhaps a five-year gap before we can pick up again on human 

space exploration, and during that time period we will be relying 

on the Russian Soyuz, how seriously do you see this gap as with 

regard to the inspiration that we have described as being necessary 

to attract the next generation but also at the same time, that gap 

with regard to the industrial base and the potential loss of opportunities for the industries that help us to make not only the manned 

space exploration but as you described the commercial and DoD infrastructure necessary to be successful at it? So any one of you may 

answer the question. Number one is the gap and the Russians flying our astronauts to the International Space Station, and number 

two is the gap with regard to the industrial production. 

Mr. YOUNG. I guess somebody has to volunteer. The gap is unfortunate. The gap will not inspire, but the gap is in reality I think 

is a legitimate question of, you know, new folks entering it and how 

could those of us who were stewards of the program allow the gap 

to happen. And it is a legitimate question. 

I think it fundamentally happened because we were not willing 

to fund the program at a level necessary to safely finish out the 

Shuttle program and in parallel develop the necessary resources to 

not have a gap. In other words, we chose a relay race where rather 

than smoothly handing off the baton, we heaved it up ahead, hoping there was somebody there to catch it in the process. So I think 

unfortunate but you know a reality. 

Why don’t I stop at that point? Somebody else may want to add. 

Dr. AUBRECHT. In our case, because we have the Constellation 

contracts already started, we have transitioned a lot of the people 

who were supporting the Shuttle program are now working on the 

Constellation program. So for us, it is not that much of a problem, 

provided the Constellation is funded. 

But I would worry, your other point about the Russians supplying that, I mean, if you think about it, so you are totally dependent on the Russians at this point in time to keep the Space 

Station. As you may be aware, you just can’t leave the Space Station up there. You have to continuously bring fuel up there. Gravity and solar drag is pulling the Space Station down. So if there 

is an interruption in the fuel going up to the Space Station, it is 

coming down one way or another. And so you are totally dependent 

on the Russians for doing that. I would worry about that. 

Mr. YOUNG. If I could come back and just add to Dick’s point and 

your second part of your question dealing with, you know, what do 

we do now so to speak, I made a point in my statement which I 

strongly believe, this workforce capability that we have has a limited shelf life. And it is not something we can put on the shelf, you 

know, waiting for the next system. And we will only get through 

this so-called gap era in a reasonably positive fashion is if we have 

the kind of work that Dick is talking about for these people to do. 

In other words, if we really can employ them, all the skills won’t 
44

match but many will. But it is critical to have the challenging work 

that will assure that that capability doesn’t, as I said earlier, atrophy. 

INSPIRING THE NEXT GENERATION FOR SPACE EXPLORATION

Ms. KOSMAS. I guess my question—that answered a part of a 

workforce and industrial-based question, but my question, the big 

one is, if we have a five-year gap, how do we inspire? What is the 

best way that we can inspire the next generation to be engaged in 

space exploration if in fact we have handed off our delivery of our 

astronauts to the Space Station to the Russians? How do we say 

to the next generation the kind of inspiration that we saw Mr. 

Thompson among your folks? How do we get that to happen during 

this gap? 

Ms. BLAKEY. I think it does depend very much on our continuing 

activities on ISS. Again, we are seeing results up there. That is a 

very exciting thing, and people want to be a part of that. They 

want to be a part of exciting launches, like the Ares I–X this fall. 

I mean, you know, everyone said, yes. You know, we had a very 

successful launches early stage on our new program. At the same 

time, there is very exciting work that is being done commercially 

as well. SpaceX, Orbital, they are doing some excellent work that 

I think people understand gives a commercial opportunity to resupply the Space Station. 

So there is a lot that could happen in the gap, and I hope that 

we don’t focus entirely on the fact that it is a Russian seat that 

is getting our astronauts up there at, by the way, $50 million a 

pop. So it is not free, either. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Ms. Kosmas? 

Ms. KOSMAS. Yes? Is my time up? 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Your time is up. 

Ms. KOSMAS. Thank you. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you. Also, it is important that everyone 

recognizes that we have had a gap in the past. I personally believe 

that we will get through the gap as long as we have a strong, committed vision and a program for the future. 

Now the Chair will recognize the very distinguished Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a deep interest in 

this subject, having devoted something like 50 years of my life to 

trying to teach STEM ed to future elementary school teachers. My 

colleagues who love to teach the advanced courses thought I was 

crazy because I also would have loved to teach the advanced 

course, but I felt an obligation to try to educate young kids. If you 

don’t get them excited about math, science, engineering in the elementary school, they are not likely to pursue it in high school. 

They will take the minimum requirement but that is it. If they do 

that and then go to the university and say, well, you know, I would 

like to be an engineer, they suddenly find they have to spend an 

extra year or two at the university and they are likely to decide 

not to. So a very important factor this is, making certain that all 

of our elementary and secondary schools are dead serious about 

good math, science and engineering instruction, and I hope all of 

you in your professions will keep emphasizing that as well. 
45

THE METRIC SYSTEM

I was interested in the comments of—I think it was Mr. Young 

made the comments about the importance of getting things right, 

and I recall when we lost a $159 million satellite on a trip to Mars 

because NASA used the metric system and the engineering contractor used the English system of units. I immediately introduced 

a bill to require that all NASA contractors had to use the metric 

system. The NASA administrator came to me and begged me, literally begged me, to drop the bill and forget about it because he 

would take care of it administratively, which he did not do. I think 

that is something that we should do. That I think is one of the 

stupidest errors that ever occurred in spaceflight, and it is so elementary. 

So I would hope that you would encourage the Congress to get 

over their phobia about the metric system and at least set an example in NASA of how to do it right, and hopefully the rest of the 

country—it is happening by itself with the international trade we 

have. But that is a very slow, torturous way to do it. And the biggest mistake people take, by the way, is trying to teach people how 

to convert from one system to another. That is not the way to 

learn. The way to learn is simply to use it, and very shortly you 

will have it. 

REVITALIZING AND IMPROVING THE AEROSPACE WORKFORCE

I would appreciate any comments on that, but I do have a specific question for Ms. Blakey. Some years ago I sponsored the resolution establishing an interagency aerospace revitalization task 

force which did fine work and reported on it. Ms. Blakey, I know 

you were involved in that. Can you give me a summary and perhaps others could as well of what impact this has had if any on 

trying to develop a better workforce and more numerous engineers 

graduating? Is there any follow-up to that? 

Ms. BLAKEY. I think that task force was spot-on in the impetus 

to have the agencies pull together and begin combining resources 

as well as combining programmatically so that it was greater than 

the sum of the parts, if you will. 

We feel very strongly that the time has again come, Congressman Ehlers, to have an interagency group that really should function on the highest level. We believe the White House should coordinate this, and it should be for all those agencies that have responsibility for space programs that they come together, and you 

really do begin to look at the impact that they are having and the 

ways that redundancies as well as synergies can develop. And it 

will have a huge impact, we think, on STEM issues because again, 

there are a lot of resources out there, but they all need to be pulling in the same direction. 

Mr. EHLERS. Well, we do have a President who is interested in 

science and has made some very good appointments in the areas 

of science. So perhaps with your help and my help we can try to 

bring this to the forefront again. I think that would be very, very 

helpful. 

One last thing. I want to compliment you, Ms. Blakey, on your 

comment that budgets should follow policy. That doesn’t happen 
46

very often around the Congress, but it is a very important statement and we should all keep that in mind and really, really work 

hard on developing a policy so that the budgets will in fact follow 

the policy. 

With that, thank you very much, and I will yield back. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Ehlers. The Chair will now recognize Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you 

to our witnesses today. This is something that at least in the time 

that I have served on this Committee we have been deeply concerned about. Where are the next generation of engineers, scientists and leaders for whom NASA is actually a platform, really, 

for other kinds of technology and research. And so that is really 

where the investment really pays off throughout our industrial 

base and not just specifically focused in the space program. 

In September of this year I hosted a gathering actually in this 

room of women and minority businesses, entrepreneurs, really invested and interested in the commercial space industry and their 

role in it, many of them young who had just come out of undergraduate and graduate school and were starting their own businesses. The space program is what led them to their creativity and 

innovation. Back in the back of the room in the last few rows were 

young people, African-American and Latino students in our local 

schools, girls and boys, who sat. You could see the inspiration happening in their eyes as they listened to business leaders, as they 

listened to researchers, as they saw and took photographs with astronauts. 

So I think that we have a great opportunity right now to in some 

ways reinvent our space and space exploration for this latest generation. And so I am interested to hear from you where you think 

there are opportunities both for the agency to reach out to communities and schools and inspire this next generation and opportunities for the private sector to do the same thing because my experience in the county that is the home to the Goddard Space Flight 

Center is sort of like it is getting better but Goddard is kind of over 

there and the rest of us are outside, and we need to bring those 

two things together. We need to bring it together through the private sector but also through the agency itself. And so I wonder if 

any of you have any comments about that, at least from a policy 

perspective, how we can help make that leap. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Perhaps I could provide part of the perspective 

there from an AIAA point of view. We have advocated for some 

years now that the Administration, with the support of the Congress, adopt policies that would be specifically focused on increasing the country’s scientific and engineering workforce at several 

levels. One of those levels would center on providing incentives for 

colleges and their students to expand their educational programs in 

the relevant technical fields. 

The second recommendation was more focused on companies, 

particularly those that work under government aeronautics and 

space contracts to provide incentives for workforce development so 

that we can reduce the attrition. Once a young engineer or scientist 

comes into our industry, that today results in about half of those 
47

entry-level technical professionals not staying in the industry for 

the majority of their career. 

And finally, despite our best efforts to increase the domestic supply of well-qualified aerospace engineers and scientists, it is AIAA’s 

view that that alone will not be sufficient to fully address the problem that our country is going to face over the next decade or so. 

And so we further advocate a reexamination of immigration laws 

and visa levels so that we can more effectively attract from around 

the world the best and brightest young people that want to come 

to our country and build their lives and careers here to strengthen 

our aerospace sector and the Nation as a whole. 

In addition, within this general framework, AIAA and a number 

of other engineering societies across a variety of fields have advocated the pursuit of policy specifically focused on emphasizing the 

two middle initials in the STEM acronym, namely technology and 

engineering. I think we are further behind in those areas or we 

risk falling further behind in those areas than we perhaps do in 

the bracketing letters of science and math. All are important, but 

as we look out over the next decade, the challenges in engineering 

and technology may even be worse, more severe, than the challenges in the basic sciences and math. 

Thank you, and I am sure we could go on, but my time is expired, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Dr. Aubrecht, did you want to add something real 

quick? 

Dr. AUBRECHT. Yes, just to come back to the point that you made 

there in terms of immigration policy. We employ about 9,000 people 

in 26 countries around the world. We are headquartered in Buffalo, 

and that is where the center of our aerospace business is, but we 

have taken this technology into all kinds of other fields. And a 

number of cases where we would like to bring people in from outside the United States, and we just simply have a terrible time trying to get visas for these people to come in. 

So I don’t think we are going to be able to meet the needs from 

a technological staffing standpoint unless you open up the immigration. People from all over the world would just love to come to 

the United States and work on these programs. This is where it is 

happening, but they just can’t get the visas. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Dr. Aubrecht. The Chair recognizes 

Mrs. Fudge. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank 

you, all of you. 

EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS/

ADVOCATING MATH AND SCIENCE

Let me just preface my brief comments by first saying that I happen to represent NASA Glenn, and certainly we have a critical 

stake in human exploration, aeronautics research and space research and technology. 

But I do have a couple of questions. The first one really is probably more a comment. Ms. Blakey, you cited that 69 percent of 

eighth-graders are below the proficient level in mathematics. The 

Department of Education just came out with numbers that indicate 

in my district, in the City of Cleveland, that number is 92 percent. 
48

Ninety-two percent of eighth-graders are below the proficient level 

in mathematics. 

I hear often, because we have a lot of high-tech businesses in our 

area and we talk about immigration, we talk about a number of 

things. But I just have to say, not necessarily for a response, but 

that if this country knows we have those kinds of problems, we 

know what needs to be done. We just need to have the will to get 

it done because I believe every child well-taught can learn. 

So I don’t think that we need to focus all of our attention on trying to bring somebody in here to take care of the short term but 

to teach young people coming up through the system so that we 

have our own base to do the kinds of things that need to be done. 

I am going to go to just a couple questions I have. Ms. Blakey, 

again, to you. You mentioned that one of your outreach programs, 

the Team America Rocketry Challenge, you said that this challenge 

starts with a regional competition in which students are teamed 

with real rocket scientists. How are the schools that participate in 

this challenge selected? 

Ms. BLAKEY. We encourage every school in the country to be a 

part of it. We put out information, CDs, we send a great deal out 

to all of the schools, and we also as the National Association of 

Rocketry, which literally, these are rocket scientists, to reach out 

to folks in their own communities because they are employed in 

both government as well as our company facilities around the country and go to the school and say, look, I would like to work as a 

mentor on this program. 

That is the way it starts. It has a very low-entry cost to get involved. These are small rockets. They are not hard to build in theory, but to understand the physics and the engineering and all of 

that, that is the trick. 

So there is not a great barrier to entry. We are trying to get 

schools all over the country. We bring 100 of them here in May out 

to the plains on a Saturday to shoot off their rockets to compete 

against each other, and frankly, the fact that we have also begun 

to get other countries. England and France are now competing 

against us in the international rocketry contest, also gets kids really juiced about this because they know, look, you know, we do really well. We get an opportunity to go to the big air show in London 

this year. 

So there is a lot to it in addition to a lot of prizes. We are trying 

very hard to have this permeate schools everywhere. If there are 

some in your district that might participate, I would love to talk 

to you about it. 

Ms. FUDGE. I would love to talk with you about it as well. 

AIRCRAFT PROPULSION SYSTEMS

My next question is for any member of the panel. Aircraft propulsion systems have major environmental and fuel consumption implications, and specialized skills are needed to assure low emissions, reduced noise and increase the performance of aircraft engines. What policy and funding decisions are needed to make certain that the future workforce of NASA, of industry and universities can provide the needed advances for engines with low emissions, low fuel consumption and utilization of alternative fuels? 
49

Mr. THOMPSON. AIAA has adopted as one of our three strategic 

imperatives for at least the next half-decade the advancement of 

technology specifically focused on improving aircraft propulsive efficiency and reducing related harmful emissions. As part of this initiative, which we believe is critical to the future growth and prosperity of the world’s air transportation network, we advocate that 

the Administration and Congress not lose sight of the important 

work that NASA does in aeronautics, keeping in mind the first A 

in NASA continues to be highly relevant to the industrial sector in 

the United States that must compete worldwide for new orders in 

the aircraft sector and which serves an industry which this past 

year, even during times of economic downturn, moved about 6 million people every day, along with something like 135 tons of cargo 

during every 24-hour period, generating roughly $.5 trillion in 

worldwide revenue. 

So this is a very vital part of NASA’s research program, one that 

AIAA commends to the Congress to ensure that its funding remains at a robust level. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Ms. Fudge. The Chair recognizes Mr. 

Luja ́n. 

EDUCATIONAL INITIATIVES FOCUSED ON MATH AND SCIENCE

TEACHERS

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Madam Chair, thank you very much. And I am glad 

to hear the emphasis in and around education as well. To build 

upon what a few of my colleagues have discussed today, when we 

had some of the national leadership here before the Committee 

back in May, I asked a lot about a program called MUST, Mentoring Underserved in Science and Technology, a program that I 

feared during the budget discussions that would not get the support that it should. We talked about the importance of retaining 

and building the workforce, exposing young people that are in 

these STEM fields in college to getting these scholarship opportunities and getting involved in NASA programs, to provide for further 

job opportunities down the road. And I would certainly hope that 

that is a program that we would be able to advocate together for 

the importance of this for fully funding and expanding this program specifically to see what we can do to try to attract more individuals into these fields. 

Are there any programs that you are working on or that you 

have within the structures of your organizations to mentor teachers, to bring teachers in, to teach them science, technology, engineering, mathematics, to take those experiences during summer 

months back to school districts and traditional school districts 

where they have three months off in the summer, where there may 

be employment opportunities or educational opportunities to take 

that back into the classroom so we can address some of what Ms. 

Fudge was addressing with targeting these young students especially, where I share the same sentiments as Ms. Fudge. We give 

kids a chance and we teach them. They will learn, they will grasp 

it, and they will do phenomenal things. You are all examples of 

that. 

How can we get more people involved? 
50

Mr. YOUNG. If I could comment just a little bit? Thinking about 

my personal case, I grew up in a very rural area. I sit here because 

of two or three math and science teachers who I had in high school. 

That is the only reason I am here today. 

Second comment is that in my corporate life, we wrestle—corporations have modest amount of funds that they can employ in 

helping, so to speak, and we wrestled with how to best do that, and 

obviously corporations can’t be a Department of Education. But our 

conclusion was that we could both leverage what modest funds we 

had with supporting math and science teachers. And we established summer academy, actually I guess we called it, for math and 

science teachers at various locations where we had operations and 

invited teachers there, the objective being to enhance their—being 

proficient and up to date as to what was going on. And I participated in a lot of those programs, and I was extraordinarily impressed at how, with modest investment, you can, you know, leverage through math and science teachers an enormous capability. 

I have got one last comment that is only slightly there but, you 

know, there are other ways to motivate, and we were talking about 

and I go back. One of the things I did in my life, I was mission 

director on a program called Viking. We landed a couple spacecraft 

on Mars, and a couple folks on the program, project scientist 

named Jerry Soffin and a scientist named Carl Sagan, got the idea, 

why didn’t we have a summer intern program on the program and 

invite young, you know, kids who were interested and invite them 

to work, you know, come out and work hand in hand, you know, 

in such a program. 

It is kind of interesting. One of those was David Thompson. 

Without that program, he might today be testifying to the banking 

committee. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Madam Chair, just quickly before I run out of time, 

one thing that I would be interested in visiting more about so we 

can get more individuals like Mr. Thompson here before us, maybe 

we can get some young people involved to follow in your footsteps. 

An interesting program is under way at Los Alamos National Laboratories where Ph.D.s, physicists, engineers, professionals of all 

types, with a modest investment are giving some of their time to 

be able to bring these teachers in during these summer months in 

school districts that we saw serious problems with underperformance, especially in mathematics, where these kids are turning 

around and have some of the highest math scores in the state now. 

Almost 100 percent turnaround. And it is because we brought these 

teachers in to show them what they could show these kids and to 

show these kids that they could go to the moon, that they could design the next, most fuel efficient vehicle, whatever it may be. And 

so to see what more we can do in each of these areas where we 

can have these public/private collaborations and make sure that we 

are making these investments in our kids such that you have the 

workforce that you need to continue to build upon the programs 

and successes that you have brought forward. 

So I appreciate your earnest attention to these areas and look 

forward to working closely with you, Madam Chair in each of these 

areas. Thank you. 
51

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Luja ́n. The Chair will now recognize Mr. Griffith. 

EFFECT OF DELAYING OR INDECISION ON CONSTELLATION

PROJECT

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the effort 

in the educational community. It has been a discussion going on for 

I think three decades. The space program however will be either 

successful or unsuccessful within the next 16 months. The verbal 

expression of commitment to the space program is basically inadequate without national commitment of money and tangible enthusiasm from the executive branch. We will send a message of confusion and indecision to our scientific community. Mr. Augustine said 

it best when he said, get in or get out. It is unfair to the astronauts, it is unfair to the scientific community, and it is unfair to 

those children who have an interest in science that we are trying 

to attract into this absolutely vital, vital part of not only our economy but the development of science for science’s sake. 

I appreciate the concept that maybe we could use this as a diplomatic effort, and I would love to see this as a sideline. But basically, this is research and development. America represents five 

percent of the world’s population. Ninety-five percent live somewhere else. We have seen the benefits of NASA, human spaceflight. 

It has been proven to us over and over again that this has to be 

a national commitment, and leadership has got to come out of the 

executive branch. We are in fact in a space race to the moon with 

the Chinese, and we have not decided to put a team on the court 

yet. 

What better opportunity than a successful launch of Ares I–X to 

segue into a national announcement that we are now committed to 

the moon in 2020, 2019, 2018? What better opportunity have we 

had to say to America’s children, science and math is cool? What 

better opportunity? Imagine had we spent the time that we have 

spent on cap-and-trade, stimulus, healthcare, had we spent that on 

science education and the development of our human spaceflight 

program. We would be sitting here today feeling very good. Today, 

we are very, very anxious. 

I must tell you that my district is Marshall Space Flight Center. 

I am an oncologist. I took care of many of the pioneers, and I have 

seen firsthand in medicine all of the things that NASA has done, 

the development of these unusually specific and special little instruments that we are now able to not only save lives but reduce 

morbidity and increase early diagnosis. 

So there is no question that the scientific community has benefited the rest of America and the rest of the world greatly. We can 

no longer discuss this. This needs to be a commitment from the executive branch and the leadership of Congress. If we delay it, we 

are playing into the hands of our competitors, and we, as America, 

want to win. We are winners. 

I might ask this one question. If we delay this Constellation 

Project, if we—you know, no decision and indecision is in fact is in 

fact a decision. So if we are making a decision to either delay or 

not make a decision, what is the effect of this on our community 
52

and the culture that we have developed in human spaceflight in 

America over the last four decades? 

Anybody can——

Dr. AUBRECHT. Let met take that. A very specific example, they 

said we are right in the middle of starting to execute the contracts 

that we have on the Constellation program. We have hired about 

100 new engineers and technicians in Buffalo to support this program. If there is a break in the program, we are going to have to 

lay off the substantial majority of those people. So what message 

does that pass? It passes the message along is that we are not serious about doing this, and trying to hire other people on later on, 

people would not be interested. 

So I think as I said at the end of my testimony, you are at a 

very, very critical decision point, probably more critical than it has 

been in the last 15 or 20 years because the decisions that have 

been made in the last 15 or 20 years have been, we kind of work 

on it a little and we delay it. We work on it a little more and we 

delay it, and you have come to the end with the Space Shuttle in 

terms of what you can safely fly. So it is now or never. This is the 

time. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Griffith. Next we will hear from 

Mr. Grayson. 

IMPACT OF PREVIOUS DECISIONS ON CURRENT STATUS OF

HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT AND LOSS OF JOBS

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. We seem to have 

reached something resembling a dead end in the space program 

right now, and it is going to take us years to figure out how to go 

in a different direction. I think the Augustine Report is an effort 

to try to simply figure out what direction that ought to be. And I 

am wondering how we reach this point. Sometimes the best way to 

figure out how to go forward is to take a look back. So I am going 

to ask each of you this question. The question is, what should we 

have been doing for the last 35 years in the space program that 

would have led us to a better position than we are in right now, 

a position where we are looking at the loss of thousands of jobs in 

Central Florida and the loss of important skills that will be difficult to replace? Mr. Thompson? 

Mr. THOMPSON. That is a very tough question. I would point out 

that despite the challenges that we face today, the path that the 

country has followed over the last several decades in the human 

spaceflight are a has led to a much broader space industry than existed in the 1960s and the 1970s, so much so that today, using financial and employment metrics as a means of comparison, NASA 

can be congratulated for having spawned a commercial and national security space sector which collectively are much larger than 

our civil space sector. 

So while the programs of the past with the benefit of today’s 

hindsight may not have been ideal, they were effective at developing the applications of space technology originally pioneered by 

NASA during the 1960s such that space today influences the everyday lives of virtually every American, whether it takes the form of 

the timing signals on an automatic teller machine when we go to 
53

the bank or credit card verifications at the gas station or directions 

navigating us through traffic from satellites, much of the underlying technology in these devices that we now take for granted 

traces its origins back to investments made several decades ago by 

government space programs. And so while the path perhaps hasn’t 

been ideal, it has produced unexpected benefits for the economy 

and for the everyday lives of virtually all Americans. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Dr. Aubrecht? 

Dr. AUBRECHT. Yeah. The Space Shuttle was only supposed to fly 

for about ten years. If you will go back and look at the original program of the Space Shuttle, it was only to fly for ten years. It was 

then to be replaced by a next generation manned space vehicle, and 

that should have happened by 1990. We participated in the study 

programs and the design of the preliminary design of those vehicles. It came along to a certain point and then again, the decision 

was made in the Congress that, well, the Shuttle is still flyable, 

NASA can get on with it. We don’t have to fund this new program 

because it was going to be a very large incremental funding in 

order to be able to do this next generation vehicle. And the same 

thing happened again in the mid- to late-’90s. There was another 

study program that went on and again, the same decision. We are 

going to walk away from it. 

So in terms of looking, your question, looking at the past, I would 

suggest that both of those were just gigantic mistakes. The Shuttle 

is 1960s technology. You look at any of the things that is in there, 

and it is incredible that it has had as few a problems that it has 

had. It should have been replaced a long time ago. That was the 

fundamental error that was made with just not replacing it at the 

ten-year cycle when it was originally slated for. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Young? 

Mr. YOUNG. Yeah, I will make three comments. One is when we 

look back, we should not under-recognize there have been some 

enormous successes, and you know, things are flying throughout 

the solar system right now that are mind-boggling. 

But more relevant to your question, I think there are really two 

areas in which we have dropped the ball. One is we transitioned 

from one system to another system. It is true in national security. 

Every one of our national security programs is facing a gap. It is 

true in our weather satellites. We are facing gaps. And it is true 

here. So why have we done that? And I think it is fundamentally, 

you know, driven by inadequate budgets and trying to get 10 

pounds to 5-pound bag. Fundamentally, a whole new business or 

enterprise has developed called gap-fillers, and you know, there are 

programs that you hear about every day, a gap-filler for communications, a gap-filler for this, a gap-filler for the other. So I think 

that is it. 

The third item I would add is we really have fallen back as I try 

to mention on miracle solutions. And my biggest worry is that we 

are going to latch onto another miracle solution to solve this problem as we go forward. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you. My time is up. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Grayson. We have time for one 

final question. Ms. Johnson. 
54

IMPORTANCE OF SCIENCE R&D AND EDUCATION

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. As I sit here and listen to 

the same information every year, this is my 17th year, I am increasingly concerned about how we do look after our scientific research for the future. We are a Nation that is beginning to spend 

less than developing nations on it, and yet, space exploration has 

offered us more than any other type of scientific research that we 

have in the world. With all of the products and the healthcare 

products, I do get concerned about the plan for the future because 

we know that we cannot do this. We cannot do it without good 

minds, and my concern is I have sat here and listened. In my State 

of Texas we have the nucleus of space exploration, and a lot of 

aerospace industry, and I see the involvement with some of the students. You must know that in Texas the majority of the college-age 

students are minorities. And many of the programs that I have 

seen does not have that diversity. And that continues to concern 

me because that means that is going to be the brain power for the 

future. It is going to be the brain power, so we might as well let 

them in and do more for the embracement of their education. We 

are going to require really highly skilled workforce. And I have said 

this so much until I think everybody is probably tired of listening 

to it. But it is so essential. No nation will ever progress or remain 

free without this research. 

And so we have just really got to do it. If I had a choice today 

between food stamps and science, I would go with science because 

in the future, it will offer us so much that we might not even need 

food stamps. But I know each of you, and I know your passion and 

your interest, and I just want to pledge to you that I am going to 

do everything I can. I have seen right here in this room on this 

Committee people that don’t have the appreciation because they 

don’t know what it does. As a matter of fact, when I first came 

here, the person who fought NASA and space exploration is now 

the Chairman of this Committee. 

And so we have got a long ways to go inside, and I hope we can 

get there. Sometimes I feel like I have to preach this sermon, but 

our education must start with K through 12 in order to have a good 

background. And they have to be nurtured and monitored and encouraged to keep on their course. We have got to improve the talents of our teachers, and America COMPETES has some capacity 

to do that. I would like to see it in action because we certainly need 

it for our future. 

Thank you. I don’t have any questions of this panel. And I ask 

unanimous consent to put my statement in the record. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you so much, Ms. Johnson. As we have 

heard, votes have been called, and so I would like to thank again 

our panelists for coming and testifying today. Today’s hearing is 

not going to be the last time that we look at these issues, but it 

is an important time. It is the last time for the members of the Full 

Committee and the Subcommittee to really get a better feel of what 

you all are facing out there on the front lines of this national decision, and frankly, I believe it is a national crisis. 

We have had a chance to pick your brains. We have had a chance 

for you to provide us information. I would like to state that the 
55

record will remain open for two weeks for additional statements 

from members, also for any answers of questions that the Committee may ask of witnesses. But I also understand some of the 

panelists will have additional information that they would like to 

provide to the Committee, and we would welcome that information 

as well. 

With that, the witnesses are now excused, and the hearing is adjourned. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(57)

Appendix: 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
58

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Mr. David Thompson, President, American Institute of Aeronautics and 

Astronautics

Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon

Q1. How would you characterize aerospace jobs in terms of skill levels, pay, and 

turnover as compared to jobs in other high-technology and research institutions? 

What are the key drivers for job growth or reductions in the aerospace workforce?

A1. Historically, many young people with an aptitude for technical subjects have 

been directly inspired by human spaceflight to pursue challenging engineering careers (as was demonstrated by the responses to the AIAA ‘‘When did you know?’’ 

campaign). Their imaginations were captured by the space exploration enterprise, 

providing a sustaining motivation for their career choices. A significant number of 

individuals so inspired became the aerospace professionals who enabled our nation 

to achieve its global technical lead in aerospace, which provided many international 

trade and security benefits to our nation. Other professions offer the opportunity for 

greater compensation than engineering. Human spaceflight provides evidence to 

many bright students that by being engineers, they can contribute to long-term 

goals that they may deem of such great importance that the opportunity to contribute to the achievement of those goals is more important than following a path 

that may offer greater personal wealth. In the long term, removal of the basis for 

such inspiration will reduce the number of young engineers entering the aerospace 

profession, who are needed to replace the current aging workforce. This will thereby 

impact critical national capabilities.

Turnover industry-wide in the first five years of employment is about 20%. Skill 

levels are relatively high and require constant updating as new technologies are developed. 

The level of government spending is the key driver to aerospace job growth or 

shrinkage—in the human spaceflight area and across the board. Nearly three in five 

aerospace jobs are dependent on the federal government, through government 

spending on research and development, or through the government’s role as a consumer of aerospace and aerospace-related systems and components.

Q2. The nation’s space program and the aerospace workforce and industrial base 

that support it are critical elements of the nation’s science and technology infra-
59

structure. How important is the work that your companies and professionals perform on NASA projects as opposed to other projects to our national competitiveness and our capacity for innovation?

A2. First, NASA’s projects tend to be highly visible and inspirational in nature. The 

ripple effects for American leadership by virtue of being first to put a human on 

the Moon are still being felt internationally. The Apollo-Soyuz mission also highlighted the potential of space in foreign affairs and tangibly eased tensions during 

a critical juncture of the Cold War. Skylab expanded the limits and capabilities of 

astronauts in space, as it conducted 2,000 hours of scientific and medical experiments, including eight solar experiments. The Viking missions to Mars awed a generation of schoolchildren and led them to wonder about the planets. Without question, many astronomers today can trace some of their initial professional impetus 

to the images beamed back from the Red Planet. Not much later, the debut of the 

Space Shuttle became the focal point of inspiration and aspiration for a generation 

of students and professionals. As our country seeks to attract more students into 

the ‘‘STEM’’ fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, the type of 

headline projects that NASA historically has undertaken are indispensable. 

Second, since 1958 NASA’s activities have produced countless technological transfers and commercial spinoffs that have boosted our standard of living. These have 

occurred in seven main areas: Health and Medicine (e.g., new polymer coats for 

implantable medical devices); Transportation (e.g., lithium battery power); Public 

Safety (e.g., space suit technologies that protect deep sea divers); Consumer, Home 

and Recreation (e.g., panoramic photography); Environmental and Agricultural Resources (e.g., web-based mapping); Computer Technology (e.g., integrated circuit 

chips to improve network efficiency); and Industrial Productivity (e.g., new technology to improve the welding process). NASA’s activities in space almost inevitably 

contribute to our quality of life on Earth.

Q3. What makes NASA’s human spaceflight programs different from other NASA 

programs or other federally-sponsored research programs with respect to the 

workforce and industrial base that support it?

A3. It has been widely publicized that fewer American college students study engineering than in China or India, both in relative and absolute terms. The focus and 

inspiration that human spaceflight creates, as noted above, helps to ensure that 

more students at least consider a career in the STEM fields than would otherwise. 

Indeed, for over 50 years, NASA’s manned flight programs have provided a locus 

for the burgeoning scientific interest of America’s youth. With 75% of NASA’s workforce now at least 40 years old, it is important for the Agency to retain a powerful 

allure for younger scholars and professionals if it hopes to perpetuate a vibrant culture of innovation and achievement. Without a workforce of sufficient talent and 

size, other countries will find it increasingly easy to surpass the United States in 

space-related technology. Our country would lose a critical edge in both foreign affairs and the global economy.
60

Q4. The aerospace workforce is described as a highly-skilled and highly-trained 

workforce. I’d like to get your insights, as leaders of this community, on what 

it means to develop this highly-skilled workforce? What is entailed in fostering 

a critical skill in this field? And, if decisions are made that disrupt the need 

for those skills and capabilities, how easy or difficult is it to bring those skilled 

workers back online?

A4. A successful career in aerospace engineering requires core competency in math 

and science, demands insight into the nuances of a broad range of technologies, benefits from an aptitude for problem solving, and needs frequent insights in how to 

overcome system integration challenges. Training for the personal mental discipline 

to develop these skills must begin at an early age (no later than middle school) and 

must be accompanied by goals tied to an external source of inspiration that can motivate the personal sacrifice associated with mastering those disciplines. Pre-college 

preparation, a suitable, specialized college education, and often additional graduate 

studies are needed to fully develop the knowledge and professional skills required 

of aerospace engineers. The full formulation of the applicable engineering skills during college and graduate studies must also include opportunities to tackle and solve 

relevant system design, test, and demonstration challenge problems, which necessitate access to suitable laboratories and sponsoring research initiatives. 

At all preparatory education levels, and especially at the start of an aerospace career, aspiring engineers need mentors that have already tackled and mastered design challenges. The mentors transfer the unique knowledge of practical experience, 

processes, and lessons learned from prior successes, and maybe more importantly, 

from prior failures. The young engineers then need the opportunity to apply themselves in programs where their full range of newly acquired skills can be tested and 

honed. Lengthy gaps in support of specific technical areas result in loss of painstakingly acquired knowledge and capabilities, and finite resources and time are subsequently needed to re-learn past lessons and to resurrect what was already done. 

There are several dimensions to that skilled aerospace workforce that one must 

consider; scientist/engineer is one level, technician is another. 

Technician—the workers who process launch vehicles, and work on the production 

floors for satellites and rockets, have unique skills that take either specialized training or on-the-job experience. An error in soldering or welding or fastening connectors can lead to a failure on launch or on orbit, so having qualified people in this 

part of the workforce is very important. There are certification programs available 

at several community colleges near aerospace facilities, and every company maintains a substantial training program. Because these are skilled, disciplined workers, 

they are often attractive to employers outside aerospace. In an area such as Florida, 

where there’s the potential for the loss of thousands of jobs as the Shuttle is retired, 

it’s likely to be difficult to attract these workers back if we need them for a program 

that starts flying 5–10 years in the future. 

Engineer—the people who design, develop, and oversee the production of aerospace systems, as has been mentioned, take far longer to achieve the skills necessary to be a productive worker. Virtually all have undergraduate degrees in a 

technical field, and many have some graduate education. For that to happen generally requires some emphasis on math and science in high school, so the ‘‘pipeline’’ 

to enter the profession is often at least 8–10 years. The evolution from an entrylevel engineer who is qualified to work on specific issues (structures, guidance, propulsion, etc.) to one who is capable of providing technical oversight for a major 

project, a satellite or launch vehicle, is a decades-long process. From one perspective, there are too few scientists and engineers entering the aerospace workforce to 

ensure the necessary population will be there 10 and 20 years in the future. However, because the number of programs has declined significantly across almost all 

areas of aerospace, there are enough scientists and engineers to fill current needs. 

The problem is that as some of those entering now leave for other jobs or other reasons, there is substantial risk that there will be a shortage of experienced engineers 

in the future. That’s a problem that will be very difficult to solve because of the 

long time it takes to train and ‘‘mature’’ that part of the workforce. 

These are not simple programs that can start and stop without significant costs 

both in investment and in institutional knowledge. As you lose the existing workforce in any given program, it is very difficult to attract competent, willing professionals to pick up the pieces. There is then a lag time as those professionals have 

to piece back together the previous program and determine the best approach for 

moving forward. Without some certainty in this programs and this field, it is very 

difficult to maintain—much less grow—the pipeline of competent, competitive professionals to support this sector. 
61

Another facet to consider is that a relationship has existed between the aerospace 

industry and the auto industry that has provided a stopgap during program reductions and changes in vision. Between these two sectors, as one industry faced stagnation and reduction, the existing workforce had some ability to move into the other 

sector. This relationship has served to keep competent experienced individuals employed and increasing their skill sets, and often broadening their approach to overcoming engineering challenges within each discipline. However, with the current uncertainties in the short- and long-term health of the auto industry, there is not an 

apparent safety net for those aerospace professionals if there is a long- or even 

short-term reduction of existing programs and platforms to support.

Questions submitted by Chairwoman Gabrielle Giffords

Q1. Mr. Thompson, you noted that ‘‘one danger . . . is that the levels of human capital needed to sustain a robust national human space program will drop below 

critical mass.’’ How do we know when we’ve reached that critical point? How serious is this issue for what our nation can or cannot do in future human 

spaceflight and exploration?

A1. There are a number of specific technical disciplines needed to develop and integrate subsystems and systems associated with human spaceflight (encompassing 

launch vehicles, spacecraft, and the supporting research and operational infrastructure). Furthermore, there are the disciplines that are needed to support significant 

technical advances in human spaceflight, such as life sciences and microgravity research. Given this array of disciplines, an assessment can be made of the number 

of active professionals and managers with applicable skills at each of the major organizations involved with associated system developments (including both government and industry organizations). If these organizations have identifiable skill gaps 

that are not easily filled, or they have insufficient staff in any specific skill area 

that cannot be easily remediated to cover the projected program needs, then a critical mass does not exist to do the job, and the success of these development programs is at risk. In addition, the demographics of this workforce matters. If the 

available workforce to develop these systems is skewed toward too many who can 

retire soon, then the workforce critical mass is at risk of being lost soon. Furthermore, if the flow of students who are U.S. citizens into applicable college and graduate school curricula is insufficient to provide a pool of prospective capable replacements for impending retirees from the profession, then that is another indicator of 

impending loss of critical mass. 

Once the workforce critical mass is lost, programs either fail, or cannot go forward, which exacerbates the problem by pushing more experienced professionals out 

of the field, often permanently. Subsequently, trying to reestablish the workforce 

critical mass will be exorbitantly costly, will take years to accomplish, and will reduce our national capabilities in the field. This in turn may enable other nations 

to assume the role of the new aerospace and human spaceflight leaders. 

Much of the knowledge for engineering human spaceflight and exploration missions is experiential knowledge. When those professionals who have the experience 

leave the business, those years of important operational knowledge disappear as 

well. It would be very costly and take a long time to grow that operational knowledge in a new workforce, thus limiting what can be done with finite national resources for exploration.

Q2. Aerospace organizations compete with other high-technology institutions for talented workers with education and experience in STEM fields. How easy or difficult is it to attract talent to aerospace positions?

A2. Almost no one comes into aerospace ‘‘casually.’’ The coursework at college is demanding, the compensation is generally below that of comparably educated, technical workers entering the job market, and there are more persons graduating with 

degrees in aerospace engineering than there are available entry-level positions. 

Therefore, the students in aerospace are usually there because they have a passion 

for it. Aerospace also attracts graduates from other disciplines that are critical to 

building aerospace systems—mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, physics, mathematics, chemistry, etc. Again, they enter aerospace because of the excitement of the area, and the downturn in new programs can’t help 

but have a negative effect on our ability to attract the best and the brightest. 

The ability to capture the imagination and to inspire is countered by the lack of 

consistency in programs and the marketplace. Many of the high-tech fields, especially those in automation, computer sciences, and information technology, offer the 

excitement of entrepreneurial opportunities and quick success. That is the also part 
62

of the promise of the growth of commercial space. It offers that additional element 

that attracts this latest generation of STEM professionals. 

Cultural issues remain, however. Many from this new generation of STEM professionals list two specific facets as motivation: the desire to be an integral part of or 

to lead a research program, and the opportunity to work on something that is going 

to have a significant impact on the human condition. On that first point, aerospace 

is very challenging because as a mature technology sector there are generations of 

professionals who have earned leadership roles through experience, expertise, and 

achievement. On the second point, the green technology sector is capturing a lot of 

that exuberance on the edge of technology. The aerospace sector is likely to play an 

increasingly important role in this area, but it has yet to gain the necessary visibility to attract more of young professionals into aerospace.

Q3. How are the knowledge and expertise gathered through our experience with the 

first fifty years of space activities, including the ability to design, develop, and 

operate a human lunar program and space transportation system, being passed 

on to the next generation of aerospace professionals? How perishable is this 

knowledge and expertise?

A3. Many of the young professionals who worked on the Apollo, Gemini, and Saturn 

programs are now in the waning years of their careers. However, if there is a silver 

lining to the current economic downturn, it is that many of these professionals are 

postponing retirement, providing an opportunity to capture their experiences and institutional knowledge to retain that knowledge base. 

That being said, within 10 years many of those remaining professionals will retire, and unless we seize this moment, that opportunity will be lost, and future aerospace professionals will not be able to gain from those experiences and lessons from 

those early programs. 

It has been decades since a vehicle such as the Shuttle was built, or propulsion 

systems of the size and complexity of the Space Shuttle Main Engine or the large 

Saturn V engines. On the other hand, new engines were developed for the Delta IV 

and the SpaceX Falcon series. Satellites far more complex than anything flown in 

the first 20 years of the space are ‘‘routine’’ products today. The people that designed, built, and operated the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo systems, or the early military 

or intelligence systems, had far less accumulated experience and available information than those who will design the next generation system. No question that it is 

important that we capture the experience of the past, but this is an ongoing process, 

done within every aerospace company and, I hope, within the government. In one 

sense, the worst thing we can do in terms of moving forward is to rely too heavily 

on those who built the systems 20, 30 and 40 years ago. We need to have them help 

guide the current generation of professionals, while allowing these extremely bright 

and innovative young people substantial freedom to try things, experiment, and occasionally fail, fix, and recover.

Q4. Your organization represents over 36,000 aerospace professionals and students, 

as you note in your prepared statement. Given that AIAA membership includes 

students, early-career, mid-career, and senior-level aerospace professionals, what 

issues are most important to each of those segments of the workforce and how 

can the needs of the different groups be balanced?

A4. Though there are differences among needs at different stages of professional development, what is similar among the groups is that they all draw inspiration to 

continue to achieve and continue to invest their talents from the continuation of an 

exciting set of spaceflight programs.

Questions submitted by Representative Pete Olson

Q1. In your testimony you talk about the gap that existed between the end of the 

Apollo program and the beginning of the Shuttle program. You said NASA’s 

early Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs attracted young individuals into 

the aerospace workforce, and some of those who remained in the workforce 

formed the core expertise behind the development of the Space Shuttle and later 

the International Space Station programs. As a result, today’s aerospace workforce is generally older than the Apollo workforce was in the 1970’s, and a significant percentage is eligible to retire over the next ten years. How does this 

older workforce make today’s situation more problematic and complicated than 

in the 1970’s? What should be done to minimize the loss of critical skills?

A1. As you point out, in the Apollo era we were starting the development of a skill 

set of doing lunar missions from square one. At that time, we had a comparatively 
63

large resource base to invest in the endeavor, and could afford the building up of 

a skill set starting from scratch. What’s different today is that we indeed do have 

the people currently in the workforce who have the experiential knowledge to help 

us go back to the Moon and we need to retain the investment in them that this 

country has already made. In addition, we do not find ourselves in an era of large 

budgets for space exploration, as was the case in Apollo. We cannot afford to spend 

additional money re-learning the lessons of Apollo that could instead be retained 

simply by keeping the current knowledge base employed. 

Today’s aging aerospace workforce poses at least two problems: 1) There is a need 

to replace these workers with younger engineers, and to capture and transfer the 

experienced engineers’ knowledge and lessons learned for use by those younger engineers; 2) The fresh perspective and thinking provided by young engineers that helps 

to find novel solutions to the problems at hand is less prevalent when the workforce 

demographics and/or hiring gaps limit the number of young engineers involved in 

the profession. To mitigate those problems, programs are needed that justify and 

motivate hiring young engineers combined with incentives to retain the older engineers in organized mentoring and knowledge capture activities. In parallel, programs are also needed to better prepare students for analytical thinking and technical careers at all educational levels. From an engineering workforce perspective, 

the gap between Apollo and the Shuttle is very different than the gap that will likely exist between the Shuttle and the next generation transportation system, or capability. The important ‘‘gap’’ between Apollo and Shuttle was between the development times. The first Saturn I rocket was launched in 1961. The first Apollo-capable 

Saturn V was launched in 1967. 

The first Shuttle launch was in 1981, fourteen years later. It is now almost thirty 

years since the first Shuttle launch, and we are still many years away from the first 

launch of a Saturn or Shuttle-class heavy lift vehicle. 

Not only can we not rely on the Apollo/Shuttle era workforce to produce the next 

generation systems, it would be foolish to do so. Space transportation needs to work 

toward the same kind of incredible advancements that we’ve seen in the satellites 

that the rockets carry to space. In 1963 a Delta rocket placed a communications satellite in geosynchronous orbit. In 2003 a Delta II—an upgraded version of essentially the same rocket with solid rocket boosters—launched the now famous Mars 

Rovers. In December last year, the same rocket launched NASA’s Wide field Infrared Survey Explorer. A Delta engineer, seeing the three rockets, would have known 

exactly what they were and how they would perform. An engineer from the 

SYNCOM-era would find the Mars Rovers to be almost inconceivably complex and 

capable. The same would be true if he or she saw any of the communications satellites that are flowing down our production line today. It is time to turn the clock 

forward, not backwards, on space transportation. We need to do the basic research 

and development so that in 20 or 30 years the United States is once again building 

and operating the finest space transportation vehicles in the world. To do that, we 

need to get young people engaged in exciting, new work. If we have that kind of 

challenge to put in front of them, they will come—just as they did for Mercury and 

Gemini and Apollo. It is not something that industry is able to do on its own—we 

are too constrained by short- and mid-term finances. Industry can do a great job 

delivering the payloads of the next decade or two, using vehicles that are flying now, 

or based on technology that is well in hand. But, that commitment to the future, 

to once again being the best in the world, is exactly the kind of thing that only the 

government was able to do in those earlier days, and that it can and should be doing 

again today.

Q2. Norm Augustine suggested that his panel did not adequately address the erosion 

of the Industrial Base in their report. In your view, is this issue getting the appropriate level of attention from the Administration’s decision-makers? What recommendations do you have for Congress to ensure that impacts to the industrial 

base are properly evaluated and addressed in the current process?

A2. When addressing the issue of a declining industrial base, there are many facets 

that one must consider beyond the ability to support the human spaceflight program. There are two specific topics that have been discussed at length before this 

committee in recent years that are having a tremendous effect upon the national 

aerospace industrial base. The first is inspiring, educating, and retaining a highly 

competent professional workforce that excels in an ever more competitive global 

marketplace. A second issue that has been identified by this committee is the impact that our current export control regime, and specifically the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, has had on our industrial base, while inadvertently helping 

create and assist the growth of industry competitors abroad. 
64

The Congress needs to continue to seek and invest resources into programs that 

encourage more young people to enter the STEM fields, equipping them with ample 

classroom and laboratory learning and training opportunities to foster interest and 

develop core competencies. This country currently lacks sufficient homegrown talent 

with the requisite proficiency to retain our competitive edge. It wasn’t so long ago 

that the U.S. was able to attract the best and brightest students from around the 

world. However, many of those same students now have opportunities at home, and 

are finding a greater global marketplace to sell their talents. To bridge that growing 

gap of talent lost to global competitors, we must commit ourselves to developing our 

youth to support the needs of the next generation workforce. 

After several years of moving towards tightening and retaining export controls, 

there appears to be some recognition of the harmful effect that over-regulation is 

having on our industrial base, and thus on our national and economic security. The 

aerospace industry has already seen a dramatic decline in secondary and tertiary 

subcontractors. Both in Congress and in the Administration, we have begun to see 

a willingness to examine our current policies and consider changes that will help 

increase our competitiveness while retaining technological advantages critical to our 

national security. I believe it is going to require substantial leadership in this area 

if we are to see any meaningful changes. I see this as a major challenge to shoring 

up and hopefully growing our industrial base in the long term.
65

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Ms. Marion C. Blakey, President and Chief Executive Officer, Aerospace 

Industries Association

Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon

Q1. The nation’s space program and the aerospace workforce and industrial base 

that support it are critical elements of the nation’s science and technology infrastructure. How important is the work that your companies and professionals perform on NASA projects, as opposed to other projects, to our national competitiveness and our capacity for innovation?

A1. The work on NASA projects is very important to our companies, large and small 

alike. For some of our larger companies, entire facilities are dedicated to developing 

space programs; for some smaller companies, NASA space programs are their main 

livelihood. As a result, cancelling NASA programs can affect the workforce of entire 

regions. In addition to economic impact, NASA programs are also valued by companies because they help drive innovation. The unique knowledge gained by working 

on space programs has contributed positively to companies’ work in other areas and 

other industries, such as health and medicine. Research that provides cross-cutting 

benefits like NASA programs sustains our national competitiveness and capacity for 

innovation.

Q2. How would you characterize aerospace jobs in terms of skill levels, pay, and 

turnover as compared to jobs in other high technology and research institutions? 

What are the key drivers for job growth or reductions in the aerospace workforce?

A2. As listed by the Bureau for Labor and Statistics, aerospace jobs are high-paying 

compared to other industries. For example, engineers in aerospace product and 

parts manufacturing earn $44.27 per hour compared to $42.58 in other industries. 

Mechanical engineers earn $39.01 per hour compared to $36.02 in other industries. 

Inspectors, testers, sorters, samplers and weighers earn $22.10 per hour compared 

to $15.02 in other industries. Machinists in aerospace earn $19.49 compared to 

$17.41 in other industries. 

The proportion of workers with education beyond high school is larger in the aerospace industry than the average for all industries. In addition to training requirements and high skill-level, workers in defense-related aerospace companies often 

need to be able to obtain a security clearance. Aerospace jobs at the entry level for 

professional occupations primarily require a bachelor’s degree in a specialized field 

such as engineering. At the ‘‘production-level’’ it typically requires a high school diploma and additional vocational training at community colleges and technical 

schools. 

AIA is in the process now of collaborating with other industry associations to compare data including turnover rates. Within our industry, the highest turnover for 

aerospace employees are those with 0 to 5 year experience. Anecdotally, it is speculated that these employees are likely going to other industries such as IT.

Q3. What makes NASA’s human spaceflight programs different from other NASA 

programs or federally-sponsored research programs with respect to the workforce 

and industrial base that support it? What capabilities are most critical to retain 

in the aerospace workforce and industrial base to ensure we continue to maximize our odds of successful and safe human spaceflight?

A3. Making spaceflight programs safe for humans adds an additional, necessary 

component to human spaceflight programs. As we move towards retirement of the 

shuttle and development of a new vehicle it is critical that we have a workforce that 

is experienced in the development and systems integration of human-rated space vehicles. Workers with this type of skill set were most utilized during the Apollo era 

and development of the shuttle in the 70s. In recent times, the major activity at 

the agency has shifted from the development of human-rated vehicles to robotic vehicles. Given this focus, project managers and systems engineers with experience in 

developing human vehicles are rare and their numbers will continue to decrease. 

Utilizing this group’s knowledge to develop our next vehicles and train new professionals in this skill set is necessary now. 

Additionally, the need to maintain our mission operations workforce is also critical. As we move towards a new human-rated vehicle, experienced mission operations personnel working on the shuttle could likely transfer their skill set to the 
66

new vehicle, but if there is a large gap between the retirement of the shuttle and 

the launch of this new vehicle there is a risk of losing these skilled individuals.

Q4. In your written testimony, you note that ‘‘when Lockheed Martin was hiring for 

CEV they had 10 high-qualified resumes for each job.’’ That suggests that aerospace can attract high-quality talent. Once you get that talent, what is needed 

to keep them involved in aerospace as opposed to having them go off to other 

high-technology fields?

A4. AIA is currently coordinating with Aviation Week and NASA on a survey of 

young aerospace professionals and college students to address this question. The 

catalyst for this survey was a finding by Aviation Week that young professionals 

with 0 to 5 years of experience have the highest voluntary attrition rate (almost 

16%) in the industry. We have anecdotal evidence that the key to retaining these 

young professionals is their feelings that they are: 1) doing exciting work, 2) feeling 

engaged and involved, and 3) contributing to work that will make a positive societal 

impact. 

At previous AIA & AIAA sponsored conferences, dedicated panels of young professionals have discussed programs at their workplace that have kept them involved. 

These programs involved teamwork, mentoring programs and working on projects 

where they are active participants and where they can see the results (e.g., an operationally responsive space project that requires a fast turnaround).

Q5. The aerospace workforce is described as a highly-skilled and highly-trained 

workforce. I’d like to get your insights, as leaders of this community, on what 

it means to develop this highly-skilled workforce? What is entailed in fostering 

a critical skill in this field? And, if decisions are made that disrupt the need 

for those skills and capabilities, how easy or difficult is it to bring those skilled 

workers back online?

A5. Keeping an experienced incumbent workforce continuously engaged is critical 

especially in regards to human spaceflight safety (see also #3 above). A gap in mission operations could lead to a decrease in practice of these valuable skills, which 

could jeopardize the safety of future missions. The current gap in development of 

human-rated vehicles (the last program was between Apollo and the space shuttle 

in the 70s) has already lead to a shortage of project managers and systems engineers who have experience with this type of work. 

Development of the future workforce is a concern because it takes several years 

for an aerospace professional to develop, whether they are a technician that requires 

additional vocational training after high school or an engineer that requires at least 

a bachelor’s degree. Consequently, disruptions to inspirational projects could have 

a negative effect on the numbers of young people that pursue these types of careers. 

Additionally, the number of schools that offer training in these fields may decrease 

if enrollment in those programs falls. 

If decisions are made that disrupt the need for those skills and capabilities, it’s 

not only a question of how easy it is to bring those skilled workers back online—

it’s very difficult—but also how long. The process of inspiring and training workers 

is decades-long.

Questions submitted by Chairwoman Gabrielle Giffords

Q1. To what extend do agencies such as the DoD count on the industrial base that 

supports NASA activities for defense-related programs? What are the implications for the DoD and national security actives if NASA’s human spaceflight 

plans would no longer require certain industrial base capabilities?

A1. Our space efforts are deeply intertwined between commercial ventures, civil 

programs and national security space programs. Many of the same companies support all three ventures, sometimes with the same equipment. For example, the GPS 

program is administered by the Department of Defense, yet countless civilian and 

commercial applications render the system indispensable. Similarly, commercial, 

civil and national security payloads are often placed in orbit by the same types of 

launchers. Therefore, when one program is canceled or delayed, the impact can easily spread across our space industrial base. 

Reducing our civil space R&D effectively reduces the overall investment to our 

space industrial and technology base. Even though the space industry has the ability to move talent between programs, and to share resources (such as components 

for satellites, launchers or the solid fuel for launch systems which is provided by 

a single company for commercial, civil and national security projects), a reduction 

in any one aspect of R&D ultimately affects the entire resource pool. 
67

NASA’s R&D is largely driven by developing or improving human-rated systems. 

A reduction in human exploration R&D would significantly reduce the overall pool 

of space R&D that benefits the nation.

Q2. Your written statement talks about the importance of a space program that inspires younger people and attracts them to the aerospace workforce, especially 

as increasing numbers of that workforce become eligible to retire. How serious 

is this issue for what our nation can or cannot do in the future of human 

spaceflight and exploration? What economic impact on the aerospace industry if 

the required technical workforce is not there when you need it?

A2. The issue of a retiring workforce and attracting the future workforce is serious. 

According to the latest Aviation Week survey, 17.3% of the engineering workforce 

will be eligible to retire by 2013. In research and development retirement eligibility 

will be 24.8%. Among engineering technicians, 22.1% will be retirement eligible. In 

touch labor, 19.5%. This equates to thousands of the aerospace workforce becoming 

eligible to retire in the next 3 years. 

As this workforce retires, attracting and retaining the future workforce is critical. 

The replacement costs for lost workers are extremely high. For example, replacing 

a young professional in an engineering or technical profession costs approximately 

300% of that individual’s base salary. Keeping a robust human spaceflight and exploration agenda will not only help retain critical skills in industry, but also help 

the private sector avoid having to replace workers at a high price.

Q3. How are the knowledge and expertise gathered through our experience with the 

first fifty years of space activities, including the ability to design, develop, and 

operate a human lunar program and a space transportations system, being 

passed on to the next generation of aerospace professionals? How perishable is 

this knowledge and expertise?

A3. Knowledge management practices are critical for the industry due to complex 

nature of aerospace and defense programs. In Aviation Week’s survey it was found 

that 70 percent of the industry uses ‘‘Intranet Portals’’ for knowledge management, 

followed by 65 percent who use a ‘‘Knowledge/Content management system’’ and 

about 50 percent who utilize an ‘‘apprenticeship’’ model featuring subject matter experts who mentor young professionals. While a computer may be useful for maintaining knowledge, the hands-on learning that comes from an apprenticeship is 

paramount, especially in regards to spaceflight missions that require human safety. 

As mentors with these abilities disappear over the years, their knowledge and expertise perish with them.
68

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Mr. A. Thomas Young, Executive Vice President (Ret.), Lockheed Martin Corporation

Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon

Q1. Having co-chaired a study on the space industrial base, are there finding from 

that assessment and should be brought to bear on the decisions being made on 

NASA’s future and funding?

A1. The Space Industrial Base study was conducted in 2007. At that time, the space 

industrial base was considered healthy with some areas of concern being associated 

with second and third tier suppliers. International competition was cited as rapidly 

growing with U.S. preeminence in space under challenge in many areas. 

The space industrial base will continue to be healthy only if it is used to implement challenging programs. A gap in development challenges will result in significant loss in expertise that will take decades to recover at a very high cost. Decisions 

on NASA’s future and funding must consider the impact upon the industrial base. 

While jobs are important the expertise of the base should be of primary consideration.

Q2. To what extent do agencies such as the Department of Defense count on the industrial base that supports NASA activities for defense-related programs? What 

are the implications for the DOD and national security activities if NASA’s 

human spaceflight plans would no longer require certain industrial base capabilities?

A2. The DOD and NASA utilize and depend upon the same space industrial base. 

A change in direction in the programs of one organization can have significant adverse impacts on the other organization. When making major decisions on direction 

of the DOD or NASA space program, the impact on both organizations must be understood and considered. To assume proper coordination between national security 

and civil space programs, the U.S. needs a national space strategy and a Space 

Council to oversee the strategy’s implementation.

Q3. The nation previously experienced a gap in U.S-provided access to space between 

the end of the Apollo program and the first flight of the Space Shuttle. What 

did we do right and what did we do wrong with respect to the workforce and 

industrial base during that time? What lessons learned are most applicable to 

the current situation and the decisions on NASA’s funding and human 

spaceflight plans that Congress and the White House must make?

A3. A significant difference exists between the end of Apollo gap and the end of the 

Space Shuttle gap. There was no operational requirement for space transportation 

as current exist with the space station. This will result in significant resources 

being used to acquire transportation to and from low earth orbit from Russia. Resources that will not be available to support the U.S. industrial base. 

There are also significant similarities in the respective gaps. Namely, both represent the end of a major program heavily involved in operations and the beginning 

of a development program. The result was and is the loss of technical operating jobs. 

A lesson learned is that critical expertise can be maintained if there is no significant 

technical gap. That is, the following program is initiated in parallel with the program which is being concluded. That is the course we were on with the Constellation program. While technical operating jobs would be lost, critical technical expertise would be maintained in NASA and industry. 

A significant gap in utilizing this technical expertise in program development will 

have a devastating effect on the space workforce.

Questions submitted by Chairwoman Gabrielle Giffords

Q1. In your prepared statement, you state that ‘‘A detailed exploration plan with destinations, dates and implementation plans is needed.’’ What, in your view, is involved in developing such a good plan?

a. What can be held up as a model?

b. What would you recommend Congress do in the absence of such a plan from 

NASA?

A1. There are many examples of NASA programs with excellent plans. Apollo and 

the Mars robotic programs are two superb models. Most successful programs are 
69

characterized by detailed plans that focus the efforts of diverse organizations required to work together to accomplish a defined objective. A primary responsibility 

of leadership is to establish a detailed implementation plan with all the definition 

needed to provide program direction. Destinations, dates, etc. and required elements 

of the plan. 

Failure to provide a detailed implementation plan is a failure of leadership and 

will result in a failed or highly inefficient program. 

A budget without a detailed implement plan is an oxymoron. Congress should 

refuse to approve a budget without first having and approving a detailed implementation plan.

Q2. As a seasoned aerospace professional who has led and overseen the development 

of many complex, expensive military and civilian spacecraft, what, from your 

perspective, are the most significant challenges in implementing NASA’s proposed plan for purchasing commercial crew services for access to low-Earth 

orbit?

a. Does the administration’s estimated price tag of $6 billion and estimated 5-

year time horizon to establish commercial crew capabilities across multiple 

commercial providers make sense?

b. What further information would you want to see in order to develop confidence in the proposed timeline and budget for this type of development 

project?

A2. Space projects are hard. Even with the application of our best capabilities all 

are not successful. We have developed a methodology that maximizes the probability 

of success. This methodology utilizes NASA’s extraordinary leadership and continuity of human spaceflight expertise and the implementation capability of industry which is second to none. This partnership is a model that is tested, proven and 

continuously improved. Why would anyone make a drastic, unproven change to this 

methodology? Risk of such a change are enormous and involve mission, schedule, 

cost, workforce and space program risks. 

I do not believe the $6B cost or 5 year schedule are realistic or supported by experience. I have seen no analysis that support these budget and schedule numbers. 

I would not approve commercial crew without extensive proof of capabilities with 

flight performance. Commercial cargo can be a first step followed by non-NASA commercial crew demonstrations. I do not believe this can be accomplished on a schedule that will allow repetitive commercial crew flights to space stations prior to 2020.

Q3. The FY2011 request proposes $3.1 billion over five years for research in heavylift and propulsion technology. One of the areas this budget line is to emphasize 

is development of a first stage engine, and in particular, a hydrocarbon engine 

that would be used for a future heavy-lift vehicle. The congressional budget justification also indicates the projected level of funding is anticipated to lead to 

an operational engine by the end of the decade.

a. How important is the development of a new first stage engine, and in particular a hydrocarbon engine to development of a future heavy-lift vehicle?

b. Does the proposed budget and timeline make sense, in your view?

A3. The budget and timeline do not make sense to me. I am a strong supporter of 

technology development and I believe a human spaceflight technology program with 

mission focus is needed. However, I believe we have the capability to start heavylift today. Heavy-lift is dependent upon funding authority not a 5 year technology 

program. The $3.1B would be better utilized to start the heavy-lift development.

Q4. How will the absence of a specific exploration goal, timeline, and mission affect 

the advanced technology programs that the Administration is proposing?

a. Are there any lessons learned from previous technology programs that Congress should consider?

b. In your statement, you noted that ‘‘NASA, with appropriate outside support, 

should define the required technology program.’’ What type of outside support 

would be involved and from what institutions?

A4. A technology program without mission focus often results in an inefficient, 

‘‘hobby shop’’ approach. The technology developed in such an environment results 

in technology that satisfies the technologist but not the mission need. 

The Mars robotic program has been a highly effective and focused technology endeavor. Rover, atmospheric entry, landing, electronics, etc., technology development 

have all supported a highly successful program. 
70

I believe the best source of outside support is the National Academies. The Academies National Research Council (NRC) has the capability to make available extraordinary individuals to conduct reviews of NASA’s technology program. Emphasis 

should be given to individuals with space project experience to assure the focus factor is not lost. I should note, I am a member of the National Academy of Engineering and the NRC Space Studies Board.

Questions submitted by Representative Pete Olson

Q1. You have noted that today’s aerospace workforce is generally older than the 

Apollo workforce was at the time of the last major gap between the Apollo and 

Shuttle programs in the 1970’s, and a significant percentage of the current workforce will be eligible to retire over the next ten years. How does this older workforce make today’s situation more problematic and complicated than in the 

1970’s? What should be done to minimize the loss of critical skills?

A1. A healthy workforce requires the contemporary intellectual capability, exuberance and the belief that the impossible is achievable of youth and the experience, 

wisdom and appropriate respect for risk, represented by maturity. Today the aerospace workforce is somewhat unbalanced in the direction of maturity. While retirements will result in the loss of critical skills, this is reality and must be compensated for by attracting the ‘‘best and brightest’’ young professionals to the workforce. This can only be accomplished by having challenging and interesting work, 

the opportunity to work with and learn from extraordinary leaders and the privilege 

to work on projects of sufficiently short duration to allow individuals to see the impact of their contributions. If leadership will establish a program with the cited 

characteristics, the workforce challenges will solve themselves.

Q2. Our subcommittee has received testimony that the funding instability in the 

Constellation program has complicated the challenges of managing workforce retentions, transitions, etc Dr. Ken Ford, chair of the NASA Advisory Council said, 

‘‘The current budget environment is jeopardizing the future of U.S. human space 

flight at a time when NASA has made significant progress toward development 

of the new Space Transportation Architecture.’’ Assuming the President does not 

take an active leadership role in the issues facing NASA’s human space flight 

program, with the likely result that OMB continues to starve NASA of funds in 

an effort to contain a runaway federal budget, how will a no-growth budget environment affect the industry, the workforce and the Aerospace and Defense industrial base? How would the aerospace and defense supplier base be affected 

if the Ares 1 program were terminated?

A2. I have had the privilege to work at several levels in the public and private sector. This has included being Director of NASA’s Goddard space Flight Center and 

President/COO of Martin Marietta. 

A common observation in each of these experience, is that the budget/financial entities are critically important to the success of the organization, but should not be 

the source of strategy or priorities. When the budget organization establishes strategy either by design or absence of leadership, mediocrity is typically the result. 

Leadership of organizations, the President, Corporate Executives, NASA Executives, etc. are responsible to define strategy. Budget entities such as OMB are responsible for funding the established strategy and performance monitoring. 

Impact of Ares I termination on the Aerospace and Defense supplier base depends 

upon the potential replacement program. If there is no replacement or a replacement is scheduled many years in the future, the termination will have a major adverse impact on our national capabilities.
71

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. Richard Aubrecht, Vice Chairman of the Board, Vice President, 

Strategy and Technology, Moog, Inc.

Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon

Q1. The aerospace workforce is described as a highly-skilled and highly-trained 

workforce. What does it mean to develop this highly-skilled workforce? What is 

entailed in fostering a critical skill in this field? And, if decisions are made that 

disrupt the need for those skills and capabilities, how easy or difficult is it to 

bring those skilled workers back online?

A1. The vast majority of the aerospace workforce is engaged in highly specialized 

activities that require years of training and experience to be really effective and productive. There must be a zero tolerance for errors and so one needs an orientation 

and mind set not required to the same degree in producing other products. 

The skill set and culture is built over a period of years. If there is an interruption 

in an organization’s involvement in a particular technology or activity, the skill is 

lost. The difference in the aerospace business is that it consists of thousands of relatively small elements, each of which is critical.

Q2. What is your perspective on critical skills at the second tier levels of industry 

that should be high national priorities to retain?

A2. The first tier, prime contractors, are primarily responsible for the system designs and integration. They are supported by thousands of second and third-tier 

suppliers who have technical specialties. In many cases, there are only two-or-three 

really qualified suppliers of these technical specialties.

Q3. How are the knowledge and expertise gathered through our experience with the 

first fifty years of space activities, including the ability to design, develop, and 

operate a human lunar program and a space transportation system, being 

passed on to the next generation of aerospace professionals? How perishable is 

this knowledge and expertise?

A3. The knowledge and expertise related to manned space is passed on through a 

mentoring process. The drawings, reports and test records provide the data, but 

data is not knowledge. The knowledge comes through a mentoring, experimental 

learning process. This knowledge is very perishable.

Q4. In your testimony, you state ‘‘Once the capability and reliability of the components are demonstrated on NASA projects, the commercial space suppliers are 

then confident in using these components on their vehicles.’’ Isn’t NASA in effect 

a force multiplier? What would be the impact on the commercial sector if NASA 

project work opportunities are reduced?

A4. NASA is a knowledge and technology multiplier, and a pioneer of new technologies. Much of the progress in the commercial aerospace sector would slow dramatically if the NASA projects were to be reduced. NASA projects push boundaries 

so new technologies must be developed to meet these challenges. The commercial 

aerospace companies cannot take the financial risk to push the boundaries.

Q5. Congress and the Members of this Committee have been clear about the mismatch between NASA’s programs and the funding requested to carryout those 

programs. What, if anything, does this mismatch mean for the 2nd and 3rd tier 

of the aerospace industry?

A5. The mismatch has a similar effect on Tier 1, 2 and 3 companies. It is very difficult to maintain the skill sets and knowledge base when funding is inconsistent. 

If funding is consistent, but not adequate, the programs are stretched out and eventually costs increase. There is a body of work that needs to be accomplished for any 

program and a pace at which the work can be efficiently done. Stretching out a program many times leads to very inefficient progress since people are often waiting 

around for someone else to complete a task or make a decision.

Questions submitted by Chairwoman Gabrielle Giffords

Q1. In your testimony, you said you were surprised that in several competitions, 

companies who had previously supplied specific technologies to NASA had either 

declined to bid because they no longer had the ability to design the required 

components, or had apparently submitted a weak technical proposal. You saw 
72

this as an indication that consistent NASA funding is required if the nation is 

to maintain and advance its aerospace technology capabilities. In your opinion, 

are these isolated examples or representative of what will be going on in the industry if consistent NASA funding is not provided?

A1. I do not believe our experience is an isolated example. Many of the NASA programs require unique technologies. It is expensive to maintain these technical capabilities. If NASA does continuously pursue programs and consistently fund the programs, companies cannot maintain the required capabilities. NASA must provide a 

consistent flow of projects if they want the suppliers to maintain the capabilities.

Q2. In your prepared statement, you comment that your company’s ‘‘technology plans 

have enabled us to develop a very clear understanding of the relationship between the technologies we develop for NASA projects and the growth in Moog’s 

other aerospace business.’’ Is there a way to quantify the growth that your company has leveraged from its NASA work in terms of the number of jobs created 

and percentage of new business that is generated?

A2. Currently, the sectors of Moog that produce NASA-related technologies are about $800 million of our sales. Of the $800 million, at least one-half is derived from 

our NASA experience. This $400 million in sales needs about 2,000 employees in 

our facilities and I would estimate about another 2,000 at our suppliers.

Q3. Your written statement talks about the importance of a space program that inspires younger people and attracts them to the aerospace workforce, especially 

as increasing numbers of that workforce become eligible to retire. How serious 

is this issue for what our nation can or cannot do in future human spaceflight 

and exploration?

A3. Attracting the best and brightest younger engineers is absolutely necessary for 

us and all the NASA suppliers to maintain our aerospace capabilities. NASA 

projects, especially the manned space projects, are really hard technical problems. 

To execute these at all, we all need the best and brightest talent. With experience 

on NASA programs, these engineers can then apply their knowledge and skills to 

commercial projects, but this talent pool needs to be constantly renewed.

Q4. In your prepared remarks, you make a striking statement, ‘‘On the one hand, 

you can decide to fully and consistently fund the Constellation Program and the 

USA can maintain its leadership position in aerospace technology. On the other 

hand, you can decide to select one of several seemingly lower cost options’’ and 

lose leadership. What is it about the Constellation Program, as opposed to alternative options for human spaceflight, that you believe is so critical to America’s 

leadership in aerospace technology?

A4. Over the past 50 years, NASA has created the culture, knowledge and experience to execute successful human space flight programs. Human space flight requires extreme attention to thousands of details and a zero tolerance for error. Tom 

Young gave some very illuminating examples of what has happened when NASA attempted to run a human space flight and other programs with a money-saving mentality. There were some very expensive and unnecessary failures and NASA ultimately spent at least the same amount of money as it would have spent if it had 

adequately funded the program from the beginning. 

At this point, some want to believe that commercial entities can be a lower-cost 

option for some of the human space flight requirements. I do not believe the commercial entities have the same orientation relative to risk and loss of life that NASA 

has. From what I have seen, the cost-saving decisions made by the commercial entities have led to failures of their launches. So far, these have been test vehicles and 

some satellites, and not human space flight vehicles. The culture in the commercial 

entities is willing to trade-off the potential loss of life against cost. This value set 

is likely to lead to expensive failures and ultimately higher costs than if NASA were 

to run the program.

Questions submitted by Representative Pete Olson

Q1. Our subcommittee has received testimony that the funding instability in the 

Constellation program has complicated the challenges of managing workforce retentions, transitions, etc. Dr. Ken Ford, chair of the NASA Advisory Council 

said, ‘‘The current budget environment is jeopardizing the future of U.S. human 

space flight at a time when NASA has made significant progress toward development of the new Space Transportation Architecture.’’ Assuming the President 

does not take an active leadership role in the issues facing NASA’s human space 
73

flight program, with the likely result that OMB continues to starve NASA of 

funds in an effort to contain a runaway federal budget, how will a no-growth 

budget environment affect the industry, the workforce and the Aerospace and Defense industrial base?

A1. If the Administration ‘‘continues to starve NASA of funds’’, it will not be possible to make adequate progress on the ‘‘new Space Transportation Architecture’’. 

Any Space Transportation Architecture will be a very complex system of interacting 

subsystems and components, all of which need to be developed in a parallel set of 

design and development activities. Without adequate funding to achieve a critical 

mass of NASA engineers, prime contractors and several levels of subcontractors, the 

likely result will be the same as what happened in the past NASA efforts to develop 

a Shuttle replacement. That is, there will be several years of paper designs, a minimal amount of hardware built and tested, after which the program will be cancelled. 

As was stated by all the panel members in the hearing, the funding needs to be 

sized to the needs of the program; not the other way around.

Q2. The NASA Administrator has emphasized that the Administration would utilize 

space exploration for diplomatic purposes by encouraging greater cooperation 

with foreign nations. Assuming this cooperation means utilizing the technical 

and industrial capabilities from other nations and having them play larger roles 

in supplying hardware and services, what potential negative consequences could 

this policy have America’s capabilities and workforce? What recommendations 

do you have for Congress to ensure that policies designed to increase foreign cooperation do not have adverse consequences for American industry?

A2. Involving foreign nations in the space program can be beneficial. With the 

Space Station, foreign nations developed high-level modules that had relatively few 

and well-defined interfaces to the Station. These modules could be developed mostly 

with their own in country technologies. Therefore, there was not a significant 

amount of leading-edge USA-based technologies needing to be transferred. 

This model is not likely to be applicable to the Constellation Program because it 

is a highly integrated system. In this case, there would have to be a very significant 

amount of technology transfer to the foreign suppliers for them to design their modules and components. With the current export control regulations, processes, and resources, the program delays would be intolerable.

Æ