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

65–048PDF 2011

THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE 

ADMINISTRATION’S FISCAL YEAR 2012 

BUDGET REQUEST 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 2, 2011 

Serial No. 112–3 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DAVID WU, Oregon 

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 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

HON. STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

DAVID WU, Oregon 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Date of Hearing 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 14 

Witness: 

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

and Space Administration 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 16 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 18 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 30 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

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

and Space Administration ................................................................................... 66 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Submitted Statement by Representative Jerry Costello, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 96 

Submitted Statement by Representative Randy Neugebauer, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 97 

(1) 

THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE 

ADMINISTRATION’S 

FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET REQUEST 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ralph M. Hall 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 
2 
3 

HEARING CHARTER

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

A Review of the Federal Aviation Administration’s 

Research and Development Program 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2011

10:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M. 

2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

Purpose 

The purpose of the Committee hearing is to review the Administration’s FY 2012 

budget request for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and examine 

its priorities and challenges. 
4 

Witness 

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

Space Administration 

Background 

Agency Overview 

NASA is the nation’s primary civilian space and aeronautics research and development agency, carrying out a diverse set of missions and projects designed to expand our understanding of Earth, the Solar System, and the universe. NASA operates the Space Shuttle fleet, the International Space Station, and a number of satellites in orbit around Earth and throughout the solar system. It also undertakes 

activities in technology development and transfer, education, outreach, and participates in a number of interagency initiatives such as nanotechnology, information 

technology, climate change research, and the Next Generation Air Transportation 

(NextGen) program. 

NASA was established by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (P.L. 

85-568) and was formed by merging the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics (NACA) with selected space and aeronautics research projects from the defense department. In its first year, President Eisenhower requested $125 million for 

NASA. Today, the agency’s budget is more than $18.7 billion (less than half of one 

percent of the federal budget), with about 83 percent of the total budget paid to commercial entities on a contract basis. NASA employs about 18,300 full time equivalent civil servants and another 43,000 contractors. In addition to its headquarters 

office in Washington, DC, NASA has nine field centers: 

• Ames Research Center, Mountain View, CA 

• Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards Air Force Base, CA 

• Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, OH 

• Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 

• Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX 

• Kennedy Space Center, Merritt Island, FL 

• Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 

• Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL 

• Stennis Space Center, Bay St. Louis, MS 

The Jet Propulsion Laboratory, located in Pasadena, CA, is a NASA-sponsored 

federally funded research and development center. NASA also owns the Wallops 

Flight Facility in Wallops Island, Virginia and the Michoud Assembly Facility east 

of New Orleans, Louisiana. 

FY2012 Budget Request 

NASA’s budget request for FY 2012 is $18.7 billion, the same amount appropriated by Congress for FY 2010 and continued thus far in FY 2011. The budget 

request also displays the succeeding four out-year budget assumptions (FY2013 - 

FY2016) to give Congress an indication of near-term spending plans for programs, 

projects and activities. The FY 2012 budget request assumes the same topline 

spending level through FY2016, but unlike previous budgets, NASA’s FY2012 request qualified their out-year assumptions as ‘notional.’ However, NASA’s ‘notional’ 

assumptions are significantly higher than those in OMB’s FY2012 agency request 

(OMB’s Blue Books) by an aggregate of $2.33 Billion. In spite of this significant difference, NASA officials advised the Committee that they are using their higher outyear assumptions for planning purposes. 

NASA is proposing to modify its current account structure in two ways: (1) 

to divide ‘‘Aeronautics and Space Technology’’ into separate accounts; and (2) merge the ‘‘Space Operations’’ and ‘‘Exploration 

Systems’’ Directorates into one account. The latter may occur by 

this summer. 

Key Highlights and Programs from the FY2012 Budget Proposal 

Earth Science. NASA’s Earth Science programs seek approaches for providing sustained, simultaneous spaceborne climate measurements to advance knowledge of the 

Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, sea ice, land surfaces, and the interaction of these elements in the ecosystem, including the impact of humans. Key elements include 
5 

flight programs to develop satellite observation missions; research analysis to understand the flight data; developing technologies for new measurement approaches; and 

advancing the use of Earth science measurements to inform environmental policy 

decisions. 

• Compared to last year’s budget, the FY2012 Earth Sciences request - $1,797.4 

million - is $4.4 million less, a decrease of 0.2%. 

• NASA operates 13 satellite missions making global observations and has 

seven missions in formulation or under development, with Glory, Aquarius, 

and NPOESS Preparatory Project (NPP) scheduled for launch in 2011. 

• Delays start of the DESDynI and CLARREO missions. 

Astrophysics. NASA’s Astrophysics programs seek to discover how matter, energy, 

space and time behave under the extraordinary range of conditions within our universe; explore how the universe began and evolved; and characterize planetary systems orbiting other stars in a search for Earth-like planets. NASA operates 13 satellite missions including the Hubble Space Telescope, which has taken hundreds of 

thousands of astronomical images shedding light on many of the greatest mysteries 

of astronomy. 

• Compared to last year’s budget, the FY2012 Astrophysics request - $682.7 

million - is $51.2 million higher, an 8.1% increase. 

• NASA’s successor to the Hubble Space Telescope is the James Webb Space 

Telescope (JWST). Last year, an external review panel determined that JWST 

will require up to $1.5 billion in additional funding and at least another year 

before it will be ready for launch. In an effort to get the cost and schedule 

growth under control, JWST’s program and project management was moved 

out of the Astrophysics management structure. NASA is currently conducting 

a ‘bottoms-up’ review to establish a new cost and schedule baseline that will 

be reflected in next year’s budget request. The FY2012 budget request reduces JWST funding, ensuring that it will not meet the current launch date 

of 2014. 

Planetary Science. NASA’s Planetary Science program conducts robotic missions 

throughout our solar system to answer fundamental questions about its origins and 

evolution. Planetary science data supports NASA’s longer term human exploration 

agenda including the use of robotic Mars rovers, (i.e. Spirit and Opportunity), and 

orbiters, (i.e., Odyssey and Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter) to map water and minerals on or near Mars surface. NASA’s Near Earth Observation (NEO) program 

hunts for asteroids that are potential impact hazards to Earth. 

• Compared to last year’s budget, the FY2012 Planetary Science request - 

$1540.7 million - is $55 million higher, a 3.7% increase. 

• NASA and the European Space Agency have established a joint program office to coordinate future Mars missions beginning in 2016. 

• Higher launch vehicle costs is severely impacting program, leading to reduced 

number of launches-per-decade unless lower-cost launchers become available. 

Heliophysics. Heliophysics seeks to understand the Sun and its impact on the 

Earth’s magnetosphere, ionosphere, and atmosphere. The extended solar environment extends beyond the orbit of Pluto, but here on Earth solar particles and fields 

effect high-altitude winds, radio and radar transmissions, the electrical power grid, 

and spacecraft electronics. NASA operates 14 heliophysics missions using 26 spacecraft including the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) and the Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory (STEREO). Many Heliophysics missions have been 

extended beyond their original lifetimes, including the Voyager spacecraft launched 

in August 1977. 

• Compared to last year’s budget, the FY2012 Heliophysics request - $622.3 

million - is 19.6 million less, a 3.1% decrease. 

• The United States may have to eliminate one or more instruments from the 

Solar Orbiter Collaboration - a joint mission with the European Space Agency 

- due to the high cost of a launch vehicle. Under the agreement, the US provides the launcher and several of the instruments. The mission is being led 

by the European Space Agency. 

Aeronautics Research. NASA’s Aeronautics research programs provide direct and 

indirect benefit to the public. Fundamental research in traditional aeronautical disciplines and relevant emerging fields enable revolutionary changes which lead to a 

safer, more environmentally friendly and more efficient national air transportation 

system to benefit the flying public. Aeronautics research is conducted through five 

programs: Aviation Safety; Airspace Systems; Fundamental Aeronautics; Integrated 
6 

Systems Research; and the Aeronautics Test Program. NASA’s Aeronautics research 

is a significant contributor to the FAA’s Next Generation Air Transportation System 

(NextGen) program. 

• Compared to last year’s budget, the FY2012 Aeronautics request - $569.4 million - is $10.2 million less, a 1.8% decrease. 

Space Technology. For FY2012, NASA is proposing to create a new budget line 

for Space Technology (in last year’s budget request, it was combined with Aeronautics Research). The program consists of technology development and innovation 

projects that are broadly applicable to the Agency’s future missions in science and 

exploration while providing space technologies that can improve the capabilities and 

lower the cost of other government agencies and commercial space activities. It is 

managed by the Office of Chief Technologist, who reports directly to the Administrator. Space Technology has three programs: Early Stage Innovation; Game Changing Technology; and Crosscutting Capability Demonstrations. 

• Compared to last year’s budget, the FY2012 Space Technology request - 

$1,024.2 million - is $452 million higher, a 79% increase. Note, however, that 

last year’s request was never enacted. 

• The Space Technology program also absorbs existing programs, including the 

Innovative Partnership Program, portions of the Exploration Technology Program, and the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR)/Small Business 

Technology Transfer (STTR) Programs. 

Exploration Systems and Human Spaceflight. See the section Human Space Flight 

and the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 below for a fuller explanation of changes 

and issues. 

Space Operations. The Space Operations Mission Directorate (SOMD) manages 

the Space Shuttle program; oversees the operation of the International Space Station, including payloads on the ISS; provides launch services for other NASA directorates, mainly for Space Science missions; manages the Space Communication and 

Navigation (SCaN) program, providing communications between Earth and missions 

in space (Shuttle, ISS, and deep space science missions); through the Human Space 

Flight Operations program, provides training for NASA astronauts and supports 

their health and safety; develops future space launch complex upgrades; and manages rocket testing capabilities through the Rocket Propulsion Test program. 

• Compared to last year’s budget, the FY2012 Space Operations request - 

$4,346.9 million - is $540.9 million less, an 11.1% decrease. This largely reflects the pending retirement of Shuttle. 

• STS-133 Space Shuttle Discovery is currently at the International Space Station. NASA must safely fly the two remaining Space Shuttle missions while 

preparing for the Shuttle’s retirement later this year. 

• NASA will support utilization of the International Space Station though at 

least 2020. 

• The FY2012 budget request includes $548 million in pension liability for the 

Shuttle’s prime contractor United Space Alliance. 

Education. NASA’s education programs are designed to increase the number of 

students who are proficient in, and choose to major in, and pursue careers in STEM 

fields. NASA works through mutually beneficial relationship s with over 500 colleges and universities, hundreds of K-12 schools and districts, and over 400 museums and science centers to provide education experiences. 

• Compared to last year’s budget, the FY2012 Education request - $138.4 million - is $7.4 million less, a 5.1% decrease. 

Cross Agency Support. Cross Agency Support (CAS) is comprised of two themes, 

Center Management and Operations, and Agency Management and Operations. Together they manage all nine NASA centers and their personnel; agency acquisitions; 

financial management; maintenance and operation of facilities; ensure safety and 

mission success; sustain Agency-wide critical capabilities; and information technology. 

• Compared to last year’s budget, the FY2012 CAS request - $3,192.0 million 

- is $80.6 million higher, a 2.6% increase. 

Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration. The Construction 

and Environmental Compliance and Restoration (CECR) account provides for design 

and execution of facility construction and revitalization projects, demolition projects, 

and environmental and restoration activities. The Environmental Compliance and 

Restoration program is to clean up pollutants from past activities. 

• Compared to last year’s budget, the FY2012 request - $450.4 million - is $53.1 

million higher, a 13.4% increase. 
7 

• The FY2012 request supports cleanup of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory 

(CA), in preparation for dispositioning the property. 

Inspector General. Supports auditors, investigators, and analysts to prevent and 

detect fraud, waste and abuse and mismanagement. 

• Compared to last year’s budget, the FY2012 request—$37.5 million—is $500 

thousand higher, a 1.4% increase. 

Human Space Flight and the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 

Last year Congress passed the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, which was signed 

by the President on October 11th (P.L.111-267). The Act provided policy guidance 

and recommended funding levels agreed to by the Congress. Yet the Administration’s FY2012 budget request diverges significantly from the Authorization Act in 

a number of ways in the area of human spaceflight. Much of the Act was in direct 

response to the Administration’s FY2011 request to cancel development of the Constellation Program (consisting of a new launch system, Ares 1 and Ares 5; and the 

Orion crew capsule) as the successor to the Space Shuttle, which will be retired 

from service later this year. 

In lieu of Constellation, the Administration’s FY2011 budget sought $6 billion to 

fund development of multiple commercial crew transport services (three or four, according to NASA), arguing that emerging commercial companies had the capability 

to safely design, build and operate launch systems and crew capsules to carry astronauts to and from low–Earth orbit. Despite repeated requests by the Committee 

throughout 2010, NASA failed to provide a credible plan or the basis for its $6 billion estimate to Congress. As a result, Congress in its 2010 NASA Authorization Act 

strongly disagreed with the Administration’s proposal. 

Instead, the Act provided $10.8 billion (through 2013) for continued development 

of a Shuttle- and Constellation-derived launch system (newly designated the Space 

Launch System and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle) that would assure a backup capability to access the International Space Station for the U.S. and our international 

partners in case commercial proposals fail to materialize. The Act also directed 

NASA to proceed immediately with its development with the goal of making the system operational by 2016. 

The Space Launch System (SLS) and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) were 

to continue to focus on developing the advanced human safety features of the Orion 

project, and be capable of evolving into a heavy lift launch system that could eventually carry 130 tons to orbit to enable human exploration missions beyond Earth 

orbit. Congress envisioned that the SLS and MPCV would get maximum benefit 

from the more than $10.3 billion that had previously been spent on the Constellation system. During the previous 18 months, major Constellation components 

achieved a number of milestones including successful flight tests of the Ares 1–X 

and the Orion launch abort systems, and a ground demonstration of a five-segment 

solid rocket motor that was to have powered the Ares 1. 

In the area of commercial crew the Authorization Act provided $1.3 billion over 

three years to ‘‘continue or expand activities and agreements initiated in FY2010 

that reduce risk, develop technologies, and lead to other advancements that will 

help determine the most effective and efficient means of advancing the development 

of commercial crew services.’’ 

The following table compares the policy and funding guidance that Congress established in the NASA Authorization Act with the Administration’s FY2012 budget 

request. Over the next two years (FY2012 - FY2013) the Administration’s request 

underfunds development of the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and Space Launch System/Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle by more than $2.4 billion, a 31 percent decline. In 

the area of Commercial Spaceflight the Administration significantly augmented 

amounts already authorized for commercial Cargo Resupply Services and Commercial Crew. 

Although NASA is seeking to fund development of multiple commercial crew systems, NASA will not own the systems and will shoulder additional costs to ′′rent 

seats′′ on a per mission basis. NASA has inserted a new line in the FY2012 budget 

called Mission Operations Sustainment that will be used to pay the per seat rental 

if and when a new commercial crew industry has been established. Despite repeated 

requests to NASA to provide the cost basis or assumptions used to estimate the future cost for commercial seat rental, NASA did not provide that information to the 

Committee. As a result the table below assumes that $415 million requested in 

FY2013 will be necessary for seat rentals, which is roughly similar to the cost to 

rent seats on the Russian Soyuz. 
8 
9 

Last year NASA used $50 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act to fund five study proposals called Commercial Crew Development (CCDev 2). 

NASA initiated a second request for proposals (CCDev 2) and plans to award funding once the FY2011 appropriation is finalized. CCDev 2 currently has no budget 

allocation so these funds will further reduce the amount available for Human Exploration Capabilities but is not reflected in the above chart. 
10 

Chairman HALL. All right. The Committee on Science, Space and 

Technology will come to order, and I say to you good morning and 

thank you for being here. Charlie, I think it is a good morning. I 

know you are a good guy and likeable and admired hero, and for 

some of the things I say about the Administration, I am not talking 

about you directly. But you are a big guy, and I know you are going 

to handle it. 

I welcome all of you here to the hearing entitled the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration Fiscal Year 2012 Budget 

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

witness, Administrator Charles F. Bolden. 

I recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

I want to thank Administrator Bolden for appearing before our 

Committee today. There are a number of significant issues facing 

our Nation’s space program, and I look forward to a frank and open 

discussion on the issues. 

I am concerned that the future of our space program is in very 

serious jeopardy and has been since the President ran a line 

through the word Constellation. With the retirement of the Space 

Shuttle, NASA faces a critical period and needs to focus its limited 

resources to sustain our leadership in space. 

As everyone knows we are in a challenging budget environment. 

In times like these it is more important than ever for NASA to 

have credible, realistic plans that can be understood and can be defended. It must execute the programs it has with efficiency and 

thrift and work closely, I think, with the Congress to abide by congressional legislation. It is my personal opinion that someone over 

at the White House seems to have very little interest in working 

with the Congress. The President made a speech to the Nation just 

last January told all of us that we had not only to work together, 

and that is a good speech, we should work together, that we even 

had to sit together that night. His speech was great. It was just 

two years too late. When the speech was shorter two years ago, I 

counted the words in the January speech, 5,602 words. Two years 

ago the words seemed to have narrowed down to two words, we 

won, with no real cooperation sought from the Republican side. 

In the area of human spaceflight, I am concerned about having 

assured access to the International Space Station for the United 

States and our international partners so it can live up to its promise as a vital research laboratory. That is why Congress several 

years ago authorized a follow-on system called Constellation. The 

Constellation program was guided by the safety recommendations 

of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. Its goals and designs 

were well understood and endorsed by successive Republican and 

Democratic Congressmen working together. I am sure you have 

heard that from many of us. 

Yet last year the President, without warning, cancelled Constellation in favor of a commercial crew proposal that assumed 

spending at least $6 billion over five years on the development and 

demonstration of up to three or four privately owned and operated 

commercial crew systems with no or very few details. 

Despite repeated requests from former Chairman Gordon and 

myself, NASA never provided the basis for its cost estimates or a 
11 

credible plan showing how the needs of the United States and our 

international partners could be met at a lower cost or on a faster 

development cycle than Constellation. 

So last year, after intense and often contentious debate Congress 

passed the NASA Authorization Act of 2010. The bill was a product 

of compromise, and no one got everything they wanted. But the Act 

contained policy elements and funding guidelines that could allow 

the space program to move forward. 

Specifically the Act provided $10.8 billion over three years for the 

newly-designated Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and Space Launch 

System to assure the capability to supply and support the International Space Station for the United States and our international 

partners in case commercial proposals fail to materialize. 

The Act also urged NASA to capitalize on investments already 

made in the Constellation program in order to save money, maintain a skilled workforce and minimize further development delays. 

With regard to Commercial Crew, the Act authorized $1.3 billion 

over three years for activities that, as the authorization bill states, 

‘‘reduce risk, develop technologies, and lead to advancements that 

will help determine the most effective and efficient means of advancing the development of commercial crew services.’’ Commercial 

crew was not ignored, but to be perfectly clear, it was not and is 

not Congress’ first priority. Our first priority is to continue with 

the development of the Space Launch System and Multi-Purpose 

Crew Vehicle. 

Yet the Administration’s fiscal year 2012 budget proposal completely flips the priorities of the Act, significantly increasing Commercial Crew funding while making deep cuts to the Human Exploration Capabilities accounts which Congress clearly intended to 

serve as our assured access to space. 

Members of this Committee have been some of NASA’s most ardent supporters in the House, and we take the NASA Authorization Act, all of us take it very seriously. We expect NASA to make 

good faith efforts to abide by the policy direction and funding limitations in the law and to cease its efforts to delay resumption of 

full development of an assured access system. The new budget proposal disregards, yes, ignores, our authorization law. 

Knowing that we face a very difficult budget environment for 

years to come, it is more important than ever that NASA have 

credible plans, execute them well, and work closely with Congress 

to abide by the legislative direction. 

We would like to work together with you to maintain our human 

spaceflight program. 

In order to do this, NASA should embrace the policy direction 

that has been agreed to, which would help reduce the surprise, 

frustration and anger from those who have been your greatest supporters. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RALPH HALL

I want to thank Administrator Bolden for appearing before our Committee today. 

There are a number of significant issues facing our nation’s space program, and I 

look forward to a frank and open discussion on the issues. 
12 

I am concerned that the future of our space program is in serious jeopardy. With 

the retirement of the Space Shuttle, NASA faces a critical period and needs to focus 

its limited resources to sustain our leadership in space. 

As everyone knows we are in a challenging budget environment. In times like 

these it is more important than ever for NASA to have credible, realistic plans that 

can be understood and defended. It must execute the programs it has with efficiency 

and thrift, and work closely with the Congress to abide by legislation. 

In the area of human spaceflight, I am concerned about having assured access to 

the International Space Station for the U.S. and our international partners so it can 

live up to its promise as vital research laboratory. That is why Congress, several 

years ago, authorized a follow-on system called Constellation. The Constellation program was guided by the safety recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. Its goals and design were well understood and endorsed by successive Republican and Democratic Congresses. 

Yet last year the Administration, without warning, cancelled Constellation in favor of a commercial crew proposal that assumed spending at least $6 billion over 

five years on the development and demonstration of up to 3 or 4 privately owned 

and operated commercial crew systems. 

Despite repeated requests from former Chairman Gordon and myself, NASA never 

provided the basis for its cost estimates or a credible plan showing how the needs 

of the U.S. and our international partners could be met at a lower cost or on a faster 

development cycle than Constellation. 

So last year, after intense and often contentious debate Congress passed the 

NASA Authorization Act of 2010. The bill was a product of compromise, and no one 

got everything they wanted. But the Act contained policy elements and funding 

guidelines that could allow the space program to move forward. Specifically the Act provided $10.8 billion over three years for the newly-designated Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle and Space Launch System to assure the capability to supply and support the International Space Station for the U.S. and our 

international partners in case commercial proposals fail to materialize. 

The Act also urged NASA to capitalize on investments already made in the Constellation programs in order to save money, maintain a skilled workforce, and minimize further development delays. With regard to Commercial Crew, the Act authorized $1.3 billion over three years 

for activities that ‘‘reduce risk, develop technologies, and lead to advancements that 

will help determine the most effective and efficient means of advancing the development of commercial crew services.’’ 

Commercial crew was not ignored, but to be perfectly clear, it was not - and is 

not - Congress’ first priority. 

Yet the Administration’s FY2012 budget proposal completely flips the priorities of 

the Act, significantly increasing Commercial Crew funding while making deep cuts 

to the Human Exploration Capabilities accounts which Congress clearly intended to 

serve as our assured access to space. 

Members of this Committee have been some of NASA’s most ardent supporters 

in the House and we take the NASA Authorization Act very seriously. We expect 

NASA to make good faith efforts to abide by the policy direction and funding limitations in the law, and to cease its efforts to delay resumption of full development of 

an assured access system. 

Knowing that we face a very difficult budget environment for years to come, it 

is more important than ever that NASA have credible plans, execute them well, and 

work closely with Congress to abide by legislative direction. 

We want to work together with you to maintain our human spaceflight program. 

In order to do this, NASA should embrace the policy direction that has been 

agreed to, which would help reduce the surprise, frustration and anger from those 

who have been your greatest supporters. 

Chairman HALL. I now recognize Mrs. Johnson for her opening 

remarks. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome 

back to the Committee, Administrator Bolden. 

I want to congratulate you and your agency on STS–133, and I 

understand that the mission has been very productive to date, and 

I look forward to the crew’s safe return to Earth next week. 

I had another appointment, so I missed it, and I kept telling the 

people going, I might not miss it because it might not go up that 

day but it did. 
13 

Today is the Congress’ first opportunity to review the President’s 

fiscal year 2012 budget request for NASA. This budget request is 

coming over in a very challenging budgetary environment with the 

appropriations for fiscal year 2011 still undecided even though we 

are now 5 months into that year. I can only imagine the challenges 

that you are facing in trying to plan and carry out the challenging 

activities that the nation has asked you to undertake when the 

budgetary sands keep shifting. 

I hope that we are able to resolve our current appropriations impasse soon, but I also hope that an agreement doesn’t come at the 

expense of critical investments this Nation needs to make to prepare for the future. I consider NASA to be one of those critical investments. 

One only has to look at all the advances, new technologies and 

inspiration that NASA has delivered over the years to realize that 

the people of NASA are one of our Nation’s vital resources and we 

need to support them and their important missions in space and 

Earth science, aeronautics and human spaceflight and exploration. 

I could spend my entire time listing just some of the fruits of our 

past investments in NASA that have become embedded in our daily 

lives whether they be as broad in scope as global satellite communications or as specific as smoke detectors, cordless power tools, 

digital mammography, body imaging and firefighter breathing systems. 

Other nations increasingly are recognizing the benefits a strong 

and active space program can deliver, and as a result, we see them 

being willing to make the necessary investments to build their 

space capabilities. However, I am worried that we here in America 

are forgetting how important these R&D investments are to our future and how critical this skilled workforce is to our future competitiveness. 

I am a great admirer of you, Mr. Bolden, and the inspirational 

leadership that you bring to NASA. I am also a supporter of the 

President who wishes you to be successful in this policy initiative. 

However, I have to say that I am disappointed in the budget request that is before us today, especially in light of all the work that 

Congress undertook last year to forge a constructive path forward 

for the Nation’s space program. 

While last year’s Authorization Act was by no means a perfect 

bill, it did clearly articulate Congress’ intent that NASA pursue a 

meaningful human spaceflight and exploration program that builds 

on all the work that has been done over the past five years. I had 

thought the Administration agreed with the compromise that was 

enacted into law, but I am afraid I do not see it reflected in the 

proposed NASA budget request. The request cuts NASA’s overall 

budget plan and its human exploration budget even further than 

before, delays the development of the next generation vehicles and 

eliminates any concrete destinations or milestones beyond the 

International Space Station. 

This is an unfortunate situation for a number of reasons, but its 

most damaging impact will be on both our existing, highly skilled 

workforce and on the young people who are inspired by NASA to 

dream of careers in science and technology. The start-stop approach to finding funding goals that we have seen over the past 
14 

several years can only cause us to lose the best and brightest of 

both groups, and they will never be replaced. It will not be easy. 

We are really not getting them ready, so we cannot afford to lose 

the ones we have. 

I know that you have great sympathy for the budget and the 

pressures that NASA is facing, as do we. That is why I am hoping 

and expecting that the Administration would provide some constancy of funding and direction to the Agency, and I am afraid that 

I don’t see it in the budget that has been submitted to Congress. 

So where do we go from here? I think that the most constructive 

approach for all of us here is to consider the budget request that 

you will present today as the beginning of a discussion, not the 

end. We are going to need you to tell us what you can do with your 

budget, not what you can’t do. We need to know about spaceflight 

goals that have been set forth in successive NASA authorization 

acts. We want to know what is possible. We need to know not just 

what you cannot do. Make no mistake about it. This is a critical 

period for NASA. Our leadership and preeminence in space and 

aeronautics is at stake. Resting on our laurels from prior accomplishments is not an option. Sustained investments in research, 

technology and development must be made, not just for our sake, 

but for our Nation’s sake. Without this sustained investment in the 

years ahead, NASA will be hard-pressed to foster the innovation 

needed to inspire young generations to pursue scientific and technical careers, and that would be a bad sign for our Nation. 

I want to work with you, Administrator Bolden, and with Chairman Hall to ensure that NASA continues to instill pride and to inspire by pushing back the frontiers of knowledge through exploring 

and living in space, advancing science and engineering and developing innovative technologies. 

I want to again welcome you, and I hope that we can work together to see that we have a more positive NASA program. I yield 

back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you Chairman Hall, and welcome back to the Committee, Administrator 

Bolden. I want to congratulate you and your agency on the successful launch of 

STS-133. I understand that the mission has been very productive to date, and I look 

forward to the crew’s safe return to Earth next week. 

Today is the Congress’s first opportunity to review the president’s Fiscal Year 

2012 budget request for NASA. This budget request is coming over in a very challenging budgetary environment, with the appropriations for FY 2011 still undecided 

even though we are now five months into that year. I can only imagine the challenges you are facing, Mr. Administrator, in trying to plan and carry out the challenging activities that the nation has asked you to undertake when the budgetary 

sands keep shifting under you. 

I hope that we are able to resolve our current appropriations impasse soon, but 

I also hope that an agreement doesn’t come at the expense of the critical investments this nation needs to make to prepare for the future. I consider NASA to be 

one of those critical investments. 

One only has to look at all of the advances, new technologies, and inspiration that 

NASA has delivered over the years to realize that the people of NASA are one of 

our nation’s vital resources, and we need to support them and their important missions in space and Earth science, aeronautics, and human space flight and exploration. I could spend my entire time today listing just some of the fruits of our past 

investments in NASA that have become embedded in our daily life, whether they 

be as broad in scope as global satellite communications or as specific as smoke de-
15 

tectors, cordless power tools, digital mammography, body imaging, and firefighter 

breathing systems. 

Other nations increasingly are recognizing the benefits a strong and active space 

program can deliver, and as a result we see them being willing to make the necessary investments to build their space capabilities. However, I am worried that we 

here in America are forgetting how important these R&D investments are to our 

future, and how critical this .skilled workforce is to our future competitiveness. 

Mr. Bolden, I am a great admirer of you and the inspirational leadership you 

bring to NASA I am also a supporter of the president who wishes him to be successful in his policy initiatives. However, I have to say that I am disappointed in the 

budget request that is before us today, especially in light of all the work that Congress undertook last year to forge a constructive path forward for the nation’s space 

program. 

While last year’s Authorization Act was by no means a perfect bill, it did clearly 

articulate Congress’s intent that NASA pursue a meaningful human space flight 

and exploration program that builds on all of the work that has been done over the 

past five years. I had thought that the Administration agreed with the compromise 

that was enacted into law, but I am afraid that I do not see it reflected in the proposed NASA budget request. The request cuts NASA’s overall budget plan and its 

human exploration budget even further than before, delays the development of the 

next generation vehicles, and eliminates any concrete destinations or milestones beyond the International Space Station. 

That is an unfortunate situation for a number of reasons, but its most damaging 

impact will be on both our existing highly skilled workforce and on the young people 

who have been inspired by NASA to dream of careers in science and technology. The 

start-stop approach to funding and goals that we have seen over the past several 

years can only cause us to lose the best and brightest of both groups, and they are 

not going to be easily replaced. 

Mr. Bolden, you know that I have great sympathy for the budgetary and other 

pressures NASA is facing. That is why I was hoping and expecting that the Administration would provide some constancy of funding and direction to the agency, but 

I’m afraid that I don’t see it in the budget that has been submitted to Congress. 

So where do we go from here? I think that the most constructive approach for all 

of us here is to consider the budget request that you will present today as the beginning of the discussion, not the end. We are going to need you to tell us what you 

can do with your budget to meet the human spaceflight goals that have been set 

forth in successive NASA Authorization Acts-not simply tell us what you can’t do. 

And if additional resources are needed to realize those goals, we need to know that 

too. 

Make no mistake about it, this is a critical period for NASA. Our leadership and 

preeminence in space and aeronautics is at stake. Resting on our laurels from prior 

accomplishments is not an option. Sustained investments in research, technology, 

and development must be made. Without this sustained investment in the years 

ahead, NASA will be hard-pressed to foster innovation needed to inspire our younger generations to pursue scientific and technical careers. That would be a shame. 

I want to work with you, Administrator Bolden, and you, Chairman Hall, to ensure that NASA continues to instill pride and to inspire by pushing back the frontiers of knowledge through exploring and living in space, advancing science and engineering, and developing innovative technologies. 

With that, I again want to welcome you to today’s hearing, Administrator Bolden, 

and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you, Ms. Johnson, for a great opening 

statement, and if there are Members who wish to submit additional 

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

this point. 

Chairman HALL. At this time I would like to and am proud to 

introduce the witness. Charles F. Bolden Jr., was appointed NASA 

Administrator by President Obama and was sworn in on July 17, 

2009. He is an astronaut, having flown on four Shuttle missions, 

including the mission that deployed the Hubble Space Telescope. 

Prior to being appointed Administrator, Mr. Bolden served in the 

United States Marine Corps for 34 years. During his service he was 

an aviator, having flown 100 missions in Southeast Asia during the 
16 

Vietnam War. He was a test pilot. He held a number of commands. 

Mr. Bolden retired from the Corps with a rank of Major General. 

He is a true patriot, and we are very proud to have him here 

today. He is also a friend of mine, admired by many. I observed 

him just several weeks ago as he nurtured the care of those that 

had lost others in carrying out the space program out at the cemetery here. I was with him last Thursday as he welcomed everybody 

for a great day and a day of pride that we launched successfully, 

and he is a true patriot, and we are very glad to have him before 

us today. 

I recognize you, sir, for five minutes, but we would be more lenient with you since I had to read all these things to you here. If 

you need more time, you take it. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES F. BOLDEN JR., ADMINISTRATOR, 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. BOLDEN. Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Johnson, Members of this Committee, thank you very much. And Chairman and 

Ranking Member, let me congratulate both of you on your new 

leadership roles. I want to thank you and all the Members of the 

Committee for the longstanding support that all of you have given 

to NASA. 

We have a common passion for space exploration and the benefits it brings our Nation. As you take on your new responsibilities, 

I look forward to continuing our work together in the same collegial 

fashion as we have in the past. And I would like to take the liberty 

of also thanking you, Chairman Hall, for getting space back into 

the name of this Committee. It was missing for many years, and 

it is now back in the name. So I do appreciate that. 

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to show a very 

short video clip that we brought with us, if that is okay. 

Chairman HALL. And who would object? 

[Video] 

Mr. BOLDEN. Thank you for the time to show that video, Mr. 

Chairman. Not a day goes by that I don’t think and pray about 

Gabby. All of us in the NASA family continue to pray for her 

speedy and full recovery. 

The International Space Station is our anchor for future exploration, and our crew members aboard ISS are truly serving on the 

frontiers of human experience. We are delighted that with the authorization bill passed and signed into law last fall, the station will 

continue as a global resource for another 10 years. 

It is my privilege today to discuss the President’s fiscal year 2012 

budget request of $18.7 billion for NASA. Despite the commitment 

to fiscal restraint, I am pleased that we are proposing to hold funding at the level appropriated in 2010, which of course, continues to 

be our spending level under the continuing resolution. This budget 

request continues the agency’s focus on a reinvigorated path of innovation and technological discovery, leading to an array of challenging destinations and missions that engage the public. 

The Authorization Act of 2010 gave NASA a clear direction. 

We’re moving forward to implement the details of that Act with 

this fiscal year 2012 budget. The President’s budget for NASA 
17 

funds all major elements of the Act while supporting a diverse 

portfolio of key programs. 

Because these are tough fiscal times, we also had to make some 

difficult choices. Reductions were necessary in some areas so we 

can invest in the future while living within our means. This budget 

maintains a strong commitment to human spaceflight and the development of new technologies. It invests in the excellent science, 

aeronautics research and education programs that will help us win 

the future. It carries out programs of innovation to support longterm job growth and a dynamic economy that will help us out-innovate, out-educate and out-build all others in the world. 

[Chart] 

Along with our budget proposal, last week we published our 2011 

strategic plan. NASA’s core mission in support of this vision that 

is on the chart remains fundamentally the same as it has since its 

inception in 1958. Just this past week, we launched STS–133 on 

the Shuttle Discovery, one of the final three Shuttle flights to the 

ISS. Along with supplies that will support the station’s scientific 

research and technology demonstrations, Discovery has also delivered a robotic crew member, Robonaut 2, R2. The Glory Earth 

Science Mission will launch from California this week on a mission 

to help us better understand Earth, its atmosphere and the variables affecting our climate. Our space program continues to venture in ways that will have long-term benefits, and there are many 

more milestones in the very near term. 

Yesterday, we announced three new program offices to carry out 

our future work. NASA brings good jobs and bolsters the economy 

and communities across this Nation. 

[Chart] 

This chart shows at a very high level the scope of our activities 

for fiscal year 2012. Our priorities in human spaceflight in the fiscal year 2012 budget request are to maintain safe access for American astronauts to low Earth orbit as we fully utilize the International Space Station; facilitate safe, reliable and cost-effective 

U.S.-provided commercial access to low Earth orbit for American 

astronauts and their supplies as soon as possible; begin to lay the 

groundwork for expanding human presence into deep space, the 

moon, asteroids and eventually Mars through the development of 

a powerful, evolvable heavy-lift rocket and multipurpose capsule; 

and pursue technology development to carry humans farther into 

the solar system. These initiatives will enable America to retain its 

position as a leader in space exploration for generations to come. 

At the same time, in our other endeavors, our priorities are to 

extend our reach with robots and scientific observatories to learn 

more about our home planet and the solar system and peer beyond 

it to the origins of the universe; pursue ground-breaking research 

into the next generation of aviation technologies; and carry out dynamic education programs that help develop the next generation of 

science, technology, engineering and mathematics professionals. 

That is a lot, but NASA thrives on doing big things. We have vastly 

increased human knowledge, and our discoveries and technologies 

have improved life on Earth. 

There has been some concern that NASA is abandoning human 

spaceflight. This simply is not true. 
18 

[Chart] 

These charts illustrate the percentage of NASA’s budget that 

supports human spaceflight. As you can see, it is a substantial portion, 44 percent in this chart. If I remove the cost of facilities and 

other support, it is 57 percent of our budget. 

[Chart] 

Here is human spaceflight broken out with its slice of the pie 

alone. We devote some resources in closing out the Shuttle program. As the centerpiece of human spaceflight and the critical anchor for our future deep space exploration, the International Space 

Station gets the largest portion of funds. The next generation of vehicles, the evolvable heavy-lift rocket and the multipurpose crew 

vehicle, received 39 percent of our human spaceflight budget. Our 

continuing efforts to facilitate commercial access to space receive a 

significant boost but still represent almost the smallest piece of our 

human spaceflight pie. 

I want to commend the NASA workforce, both civil servants and 

contractors, across the Nation for their dedication to our missions 

during this time of transition and change. These workers are our 

greatest assets, and they make us all proud. They fully understand 

the risks of our exploration and welcome the challenge. They will 

be the ones making tomorrow happen. 

These are exciting and dynamic times at NASA. The challenges 

ahead are significant, but the opportunities are great. We have to 

achieve big things that will create a measurable impact on our 

economy, our world and our way of life. 

I thank you for the time to make my statement, and I look forward to your questions, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bolden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, today it is my privilege to discuss 

the President’s FY 2012 budget request of $18.7 billion for NASA. This request continues the Agency’s focus on a reinvigorated path of innovation and technological 

discovery leading to an array of challenging destinations and missions that increases our knowledge, develop technologies to improve life, to expand our presence 

in space for knowledge and commerce, and that will engage the public. With the 

President’s signing of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111–267) on October 11, 2010, NASA has a clear direction and is moving forward. NASA appreciates 

the significant effort that advanced this important bipartisan legislation, particularly efforts by the leadership and Members of this Committee. This is a time of 

opportunity for NASA to shape a promising future for the Nation’s space program. 

Because these are tough fiscal times, tough choices had to be made. But the proposed FY 2012 budget funds all major elements of the Authorization Act, supporting 

a diverse portfolio of programs, while making difficult choices to fund key priorities 

and reduce other areas in order to invest in the future. A chart summarizing the 

President’s FY 2012 budget request for NASA is enclosed as Enclosure 1. 

We have an incredible balance of human space flight, science, aeronautics and 

technology development. Within the human space flight arena, our foremost priority 

is our current human spaceflight endeavor—the International Space Station—and 

the safety and viability of the astronauts aboard it. The request also maintains a 

strong commitment to human spaceflight beyond low Earth orbit. It establishes critical priorities and invests in the technologies and excellent science, aeronautics research, and education programs that will help us win the future. The request supports an aggressive launch rate over the next two years with about 40 U.S. and 

international missions to the ISS, for science, and to support other agencies. 

At its core, NASA’s mission remains fundamentally the same as it always has 

been and supports our new vision: ‘‘To reach for new heights and reveal the unknown so that what we do and learn will benefit all humankind.’’ This statement 

is from the new multi-year 2011 NASA Strategic Plan accompanying the FY 2012 
19 

budget request, which all of NASA’s Mission Directorates, Mission Support Offices 

and Centers helped to develop, and reflects NASA’s proposed direction and priorities. 

Our human spaceflight priorities in the FY 2012 budget request are to: 

• safely fly the last Space Shuttle flights this year and maintain safe access for 

humans to low-Earth orbit as we fully utilize the International Space Station; 

• facilitate safe, reliable, and cost-effective U.S.-provided commercial access to 

low-Earth orbit first for cargo and then for crew as quickly as possible; 

• begin to lay the ground work for expanding human presence into deep 

space—the Moon, asteroids, eventually Mars—through development of a powerful, evolvable heavy–lift rocket and multi–purpose crew capsule; and 

• pursue technology development that is needed to carry humans farther into 

the solar system. Taken together, these human spaceflight initiatives will enable America to retain its position as a leader in space exploration for generations to come. 

At the same time, we will extend our reach with robots and scientific observatories to expand our knowledge of the universe beyond our own planet. We will 

continue the vital work to expand our abilities to observe our planet Earth and 

make that data available for decision makers. We will also continue our 

groundbreaking research into the next generation of aviation technologies. Finally, 

we will make the most of all of NASA’s technological breakthroughs to improve life 

here at home. 

With the FY 2012 budget, NASA will carry out research, technology and innovation programs that support long-term job growth and economic competitiveness and 

build upon our Nation’s position as a technology leader. We will educate the next 

generation of technology leaders through vital programs in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. And we will build the future through those investments in American industry to create a new job–producing engine for the U.S. 

economy. 

This year we honor the legacy of President John F. Kennedy who 50 years ago 

set the United States on a path that resulted in a national effort to produce an unprecedented achievement. Now, we step forward along a similar path, engaged in 

a wide range of activities in human spaceflight, technology development, science, 

and aeronautics—a path characterized by engagement of an expanded commercial 

space sector and technology development to mature the capabilities required by increasingly challenging missions designed to make discoveries and reach new destinations. 

NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD) continues to rewrite textbooks and 

make headlines around the world. Across disciplines and geographic regions worldwide, NASA aims to achieve a deep scientific understanding of Earth, other planets 

and solar system bodies, our star system in its entirety, and the universe beyond. 

The Agency is laying the foundation for the robotic and human expeditions of the 

future while meeting today’s needs for scientific information to address national concerns about global change, space weather, and education. 

• The Mars Science Laboratory will launch later this year and arrive at Mars 

in August 2012. It will be the largest rover ever to reach the Red Planet and 

will search for evidence of both past and present life. 

• The Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR) mission will launch in 

early 2012 and become the first focusing hard X–ray telescope to orbit Earth. 

• Research and analysis programs will use data from an array of sources, including spacecraft, sounding rockets, balloons, and payloads on the ISS. We 

will continue to evaluate the vast amounts of data we receive from dozens of 

ongoing missions supported by this budget. 

• A continued focus on Earth Science sees us continuing development of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO–2) for launch in 2013 and other initiatives 

to collect data about our home planet across the spectrum. 

• The budget reflects the scientific priorities for astrophysics as expressed in 

the recent Decadal Survey of the National Academy of Sciences. The budget 

supports small-, medium-, and large-scale activities recommended by the 

Decadal Survey. 

• The Radiation Belt Storm Probe mission will launch next year, and development of other smaller missions and instruments to study the Sun will get underway here on the ground. 
20 

With the appointment of a new Chief Scientist, NASA will pursue an integrated, 

strategic approach to its scientific work across Mission Directorates and programs. 

As we continue our work to consolidate the Exploration Systems and Space Operations Mission Directorates (ESMD and SOMD), both groups will support our current human spaceflight programs and continue work on technologies to expand our 

future capabilities. 

• We will safely fly out the Space Shuttle in 2011, including STS–135 if funds 

are available, and then proceed with the disposition of most Space Shuttle assets after the retirement of the fleet. The Shuttle program accomplished many 

outstanding things for this Nation, and in 2012 we look forward to moving 

our retired Orbiters to museums and science centers across the country to inspire the next generation of explorers. 

• Completing assembly of the U.S. segment of the ISS will be the crowning 

achievement of the Space Shuttle’s nearly 30–year history. The ISS will serve 

as a fully functional and permanently crewed research laboratory and technology test bed, providing a critical stepping stone for exploration and future 

international cooperation, as well as an invaluable National Laboratory for 

non-NASA and nongovernmental users. During FY 2011, NASA will award a 

cooperative agreement to an independent non–profit organization (NPO) with 

responsibility to further develop national uses of the ISS. The NPO will oversee all ISS research involving organizations other than NASA, and transfer 

current NASA biological and physical research to the NPO in future years. 

• In 2012, we will make progress in developing a new Space Launch System 

(SLS), an evolvable heavy–lift rocket that will be the first step on our eventual journeys to destinations beyond LEO. 

• We will continue work on a Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) that will 

build on the human safety features, designs, and systems of the Orion Crew 

Exploration Vehicle. As with the SLS, acquisition strategy decisions will be 

finalized by this summer. 

• NASA will continue to expand commercial access to space and work with our 

partners to achieve milestones in the Commercial Orbital Transportation 

Services (COTS) Program, the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) effort, 

and an expanded Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) program. As we direct resources toward developing these capabilities, we not only create multiple means for accessing LEO, we also facilitate commercial uses of space, 

help lower costs, and spark an engine for long-term job growth. While the request is above the authorized level for 2012, NASA believes the amount is 

critical, combined with significant corporate investments, to ensure that we 

will have one or more companies that can transport American astronauts to 

the ISS. With retirement of the Space Shuttle in 2011, this is a top Agency 

priority. 

• Most importantly, NASA recognizes that these programmatic changes will 

continue to personally affect thousands of NASA civil servants and contractors who have worked countless hours, often under difficult circumstances, to 

make our human spaceflight, science, and aeronautics programs and projects 

successful. I commend the investment that these dedicated Americans have 

made and will continue to make in our Nation’s space and aeronautics programs. These are tremendously exciting and dynamic times for the U.S. space 

program. NASA will strive to utilize our workforce in a manner that will ensure that the Nation maintains NASA’s greatest asset—the skilled civil servants and contractors—while working to increase the efficiency and cost–effectiveness in all of its operations. 

• The 21st Century Space Launch Complex program will focus on upgrades to 

the Florida launch range, expanding capabilities to support SLS, MPCV, commercial cargo/launch services providers, and transforming KSC into a modern 

facility that benefits all range users. The program will re-plan its activities 

based on available FY 2011 funding to align with 2010 NASA Authorization’s 

focus areas, including cross organizational coordination between 21st CSLC, 

Launch Services, and Commercial Crew activities. 

NASA’s Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) continues to improve 

the safety, efficiency and environmental friendliness of air travel. 

• our work continues to address the challenge of meeting the growing technology and capacity needs of the Next Generation air travel system, or 

‘‘NextGen,’’ in coordination with the FAA and other stakeholders in airspace 

efficiency. 
21 

• NASA’s work on green aviation technologies that improve fuel efficiency and 

reduce noise continues apace. 

• We also continue to work with industry to develop the concepts and technologies for the aircraft of tomorrow. The Agency’s fundamental and integrated systems research and testing will continue to generate improvements 

and economic impacts felt by the general flying public as well as the aeronautics community. 

The establishment last year of the Office of the Chief Technologist (OCT) enabled 

NASA to begin moving toward the technological breakthroughs needed to meet our 

Nation’s space exploration goals, while building our Nation’s global economic competitiveness through the creation of new products and services, new business and 

industries, and high–quality, sustainable jobs. By investing in high payoff, disruptive technology that industry cannot tackle today, NASA matures the technology required for our future missions in science and exploration while improving the capabilities and lowering the cost of other government agencies and commercial activities. 

• In OCT’s cross-cutting role, NASA recently developed draft space technology 

roadmaps, which define pathways to advance the Nation’s capabilities in 

space and establish a foundation for the Agency’s future investments in technology and innovation. NASA is working collaboratively with the National Research Council (NRC) to refine these roadmaps. The final product will establish a mechanism for prioritizing NASA’s technology investments, and will 

support the initial Space Technology Policy Congress requested in the NASA 

Authorization Act. 

• As leader of the Space Technology Program, OCT will sponsor a portfolio of 

both competitive and strategically-guided technology investments, bringing 

the agency a wide range of mission-focused and transformative technologies 

that will enable revolutionary approaches to achieving NASA’s current and 

future missions. 

• In FY 2012, a significant portion of the Exploration Technology Development 

Program is moved from ESMD to Space Technology. These efforts focus on 

developing the long–range, exploration–specific technologies to enable NASA’s 

deep space human exploration future. The integration of Exploration Technology activities with Space Technology creates one robust space technology 

budget line, and eliminates the potential for overlap had NASA’s space technology investments been split among two accounts. ESMD will continue to set 

the prioritized requirements for these efforts and will serve as the primary 

customer of Space Technology’s Exploration–specific activities. 

• continues to manage SBIR and STTR, and integrates technology transfer efforts ensure NASA technologies are infused into commercial applications, develops technology partnerships, and facilitates emerging commercial space activities 

Recognizing that our work must continuously inspire not only the public at large 

but also students at all levels, NASA’s Education programs this year focus on widening the pipeline of students pursuing coursework in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). As President Obama has said, ‘‘Our future depends 

on reaffirming America’s role as the world’s engine of scientific discovery and technological innovation. And that leadership tomorrow depends on how we educate our 

students today, especially in math, science, technology, and engineering.’’ 

• The FY 2012 request for NASA’s Office of Education capitalizes on the excitement of NASA’s mission through innovative approaches that inspire educator 

and student interest and proficiency in STEM disciplines. NASA’s education 

program in FY 2012 and beyond will focus and strengthen the Agency’s tradition of investing in the Nation’s education programs and supporting the country’s educators who play a key role in inspiring, encouraging, and nurturing 

the young minds of today, who will manage and lead the Nation’s laboratories 

and research centers of tomorrow. 

• Among NASA’s Education activities will be a continued Summer of Innovation, building on the successful model piloted with four states this past year. 

All of these activities place NASA in the forefront of a bright future for America, 

where we challenge ourselves and create a global space enterprise with positive 

ramifications across the world. The FY 2012 budget request provides the resources 

for NASA to innovate and make discoveries on many fronts, and we look forward 

to implementing it. See Enclosure 2 for a more detail summary of each activity. 
22 

CONCLUSION

As we enter the second half-century of human spaceflight, the Nation can look 

back upon NASA’s accomplishments with pride, but we can also look forward with 

anticipation to many more achievements to come. The NASA Authorization Act of 

2010 (P.L. 111–267) has provided us with clear direction that enables the Agency 

to conduct important research on the ISS, develop new launch vehicle and crew 

transportation capabilities to go beyond the bounds of LEO, utilize a dazzling array 

of spacecraft to study the depths of the cosmos while taking the measure of our 

home planet, improve aviation systems and safety, develop new technologies that 

will have applications to both space exploration and life on Earth, and inspire the 

teachers and students of our country. In developing and executing the challenging 

missions that only NASA can do, we contribute new knowledge and technologies 

that enhance the nation’s ability to compete on the global stage and help to secure 

a more prosperous future. 

These are tough fiscal times, calling for tough choices. The President’s FY 2012 

budget request makes those choices and helps advance all of these bold aims, and 

we look forward to working with the Committee on its implementation. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your support and that of this Committee. I would 

be pleased to respond to any questions you or the other Members of the Committee 

may have. 
23 

BIOGRAPHY OF THE HONORABLE CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR. 

Nominated by President Barack Obama and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, retired 

Marine Corps Major General Charles Frank Bolden, Jr., began his duties as the 

twelfth Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on 

July 17, 2009. As Administrator, he leads the NASA team and manages its resources to advance the agency’s missions and goals. 

Bolden’s confirmation marks the beginning of his second stint with the nation’s 

space agency. His 34–year career with the Marine Corps included 14 years as a 

member of NASA’s Astronaut Office. After joining the office in 1980, he traveled to 

orbit four times aboard the space shuttle between 1986 and 1994, commanding two 

of the missions. His flights included deployment of the Hubble Space Telescope and 

the first joint U.S.-Russian shuttle mission, which featured a cosmonaut as a member of his crew. Prior to Bolden’s nomination for the NASA Administrator’s job, he 

was employed as the Chief Executive Officer of JACKandPANTHER LLC, a small 

business enterprise providing leadership, military and aerospace consulting, and 

motivational speaking. 

A resident of Houston, Bolden was born Aug. 19, 1946, in Columbia, S.C. He graduated from C. A. Johnson High School in 1964 and received an appointment to the 

U.S. Naval Academy. Bolden earned a bachelor of science degree in electrical science 

in 1968 and was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Marine Corps. After 

completing flight training in 1970, he became a naval aviator. Bolden flew more 

than 100 combat missions in North and South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, while 

stationed in Namphong, Thailand, from 1972–1973. 

After returning to the U.S., Bolden served in a variety of positions in the Marine 

Corps in California and earned a master of science degree in systems management 

from the University of Southern California in 1977. Following graduation, he was 

assigned to the Naval Test Pilot School at Patuxent River, Md., and completed his 

training in 1979. While working at the Naval Air Test Center’s Systems Engineering and Strike Aircraft Test Directorates, he tested a variety of ground attack aircraft until his selection as an astronaut candidate in 1980. 

Bolden’s NASA astronaut career included technical assignments as the Astronaut 

Office Safety Officer; Technical Assistant to the Director of Flight Crew Operations; 

Special Assistant to the Director of the Johnson Space Center; Chief of the Safety 

Division at Johnson (overseeing safety efforts for the return to flight after the 1986 

Challenger accident); lead astronaut for vehicle test and checkout at the Kennedy 

Space Center; and Assistant Deputy Administrator at NASA Headquarters. After 

his final space shuttle flight in 1994, he left the agency to return to active duty the 

operating forces in the Marine Corps as the Deputy Commandant of Midshipmen 

at the U.S. Naval Academy. 

Bolden was assigned as the Deputy Commanding General of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in the Pacific in 1997. During the first half of 1998, he served as 

Commanding General of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Forward in support of 

Operation Desert Thunder in Kuwait. Bolden was promoted to his final rank of 

major general in July 1998 and named Deputy Commander of U.S. Forces in Japan. 

He later served as the Commanding General of the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar in San Diego, Calif., from 2000 until 2002, before 

retiring from the Marine Corps in 2003. Bolden’s many military decorations include 

the Defense Superior Service Medal and the Distinguished Flying Cross. He was inducted into the U.S. Astronaut Hall of Fame in May 2006. 

Bolden is married to the former Alexis (Jackie) Walker of Columbia, S.C. The couple has two children: Anthony Che, a lieutenant colonel in the Marine Corps who 

is married to the former Penelope McDougal of Sydney, Australia, and Kelly 

Michelle, a medical doctor now serving a fellowship in plastic surgery. 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 

Chairman HALL. Thank you, Mr. Bolden. I think most of you 

know that our Committee rules limit questioning to five minutes. 

I will recognize myself for five minutes. 

Mr. Bolden, as I said in my opening remarks, I want us to have 

the safest possible assured access to the space station that meets 

the goals of the United States and our international partners, and 

I know you want that same thing. 

Trying to stimulate commercial competition is a worthy goal that 

I support but not at the expense of insuring the safest, most robust 

system for our astronauts. Norm Augustine’s committee report said 

while there may be potential benefits of commercial services that 

transport crews to the low-Earth orbit, there are simply too many 

risks at the present time not to have a viable fallback option for 

risk mitigation. 

Congress has taken these concerns to heart and expressed them 

in the policy and funding direction in the NASA Authorization Act 

and in subsequent appropriations measures including the fiscal 

year 2011 continuing resolution. Yet, NASA’s fiscal year 2012 

budget request once again seeks to reverse Congressional priorities 

by proposing increased funding for commercial crew activities and 

significant reductions in the multipurpose crew vehicle and space 

launch system that builds on the experience, the workforce of the 

Shuttle, the workforce of Republicans and Democrats alike and the 

Constellation program to ensure that we have the capabilities to do 

the things in space that are strategically important for the United 

States. 

Mr. Bolden, frankly we are exasperated that NASA is not listening to our message, and I guess maybe you are listening to our 

message and maybe your advice falls on non-receptive ears. I don’t 

know what the problem is, but I think for this Committee here, we 

would appreciate if you could just justify why NASA is proposing 

the reductions to the human exploration capabilities budget that is 

clearly our priority. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I get your message loud and clear 

and so does the President, and as I mentioned, I think the budget 

does in fact reflect following your guidance. 

As I mentioned, these are very difficult times. Things have 

changed significantly since last year when we all thought that we 

were on a certain path. I took a look at the priorities that were established for us in human spaceflight, and I will tell you, it was 

probably 2004. You will remember better than I. But I came with 

John Blaha, former astronaut. The two of us came up to brief you 

on potential future human spacecraft when we were trying to decide how we were going to execute the vision for space exploration, 

and John Blaha got down on his knees at your desk and took a pad 

of paper and started drawing guidelines and descriptions of why a 

certain spacecraft could not work or would not work. And you made 

the statement to us that you understand all that but I need to understand something else and I need to take this message back to 

the NASA Administrator. We will not lose another crew in 

spaceflight, and if we do, somebody will have hell to pay. Those 

words have stuck with me, and I do not intend to have to pay any 

debt on losing a crew. So safety of our crews is always my number 

one priority. 
31 

When I looked at how we get them safely to the International 

Space Station on American-made rockets, the best way to do that, 

and we can discuss this in the coming months, but the best, most 

efficient, perhaps fastest way to do that is by relying on the commercial entities that are well-along in their development programs 

to provide access to low-Earth orbit while NASA engages exploration, uses the evolvable heavy-lift vehicle and crew exploration 

vehicle to go do exploration beyond low-Earth orbit. 

So I think we are complying with the major elements of the Authorization Act, and we made the adjustments in the balance inside 

that Act that now causes the consternation because we wanted to 

make sure that I put number one priority, safety of the crew. The 

heavy-lift launch vehicle and the multipurpose crew vehicle, while 

they are exploration vehicles, and everybody needs to understand 

that. They are not being built to double as low-Earth orbit vehicles. 

That is inefficient. I think anybody around here knows that when 

you try to build one system to do everything, you end up with nothing. 

So we are building, we are going to build an exploration system, 

heavy-lift launch vehicle and multipurpose crew vehicle. Anything 

that can go beyond Earth orbit can go to low-Earth orbit. It is just 

very inefficient and a big waste of money. But the exploration systems will have the capability of providing backup should any commercial entity fail. And failure is not meant they failed to produce. 

They will produce because the commercial entities have produced 

for years. Orbital, that is one of our competitors right now in both 

the COTS program and the CRS program and has announced that 

they intend to compete in commercial crew. Orbital has a record of 

success since the 1980s and 1990s. They have launched 155 successful space launches. Many of my satellites that are on orbit 

today were put there by Orbital sciences. So they can produce. Anyone who would try to convince you that they cannot, that American 

industry cannot produce, is just not being factual and they are not 

being truthful and they are being disingenuous. 

So we have made the decision that safety of the crew is number 

one priority. The quickest, most efficient, safest way for me to get 

them there is through relying on commercial entities to handle to 

access to low-Earth orbit, and then my focus on safety for crews 

that are going beyond low-Earth orbit. 

Chairman HALL. I don’t know how much more time I have, but 

30 years ago or over 30 years ago when I first came up here, I was 

lucky enough or fortunate enough to be on this Committee. And I 

took trips to the areas that launched our people. You and many 

other brave men and women that made the program such an American program, something we were so proud of, and I had hoped at 

that time that some day commercial people could, that the private 

sector could launch these things and take it away from the government. But knowing that it took the tax basis, the background of all 

of the people of the United States to make it go, I realized that was 

going to be a long time coming. I think you have the opinion that 

it is basically here or that we are hoping that we can reach that. 

And I hope that we can all get together. You and I differ on this, 

and some of us differ on it. Some of our Members here are good, 

valuable Members, agree with you 100 percent. 
32 

So you have support on this Committee and you have my support, but I want to get together with the people that can make it 

go and be sure they can make it go. And I don’t want to close the 

bidding to anybody in the world, but I want them to do more than 

just sign a contract. I want them to show as you say that they can 

do what they are contracting to do and not go halfway and look 

back over their shoulder and say so sorry. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Chairman HALL. That is what we have to guard against, and I 

thank you for your answer. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. At this time, I recognize Mrs. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. I am not really sure where 

to begin. You have indicated that NASA has planned the last Shuttle mission, STS–135 if funds are available. Recognizing that the 

appropriations for 2011 have not been even finalized, what priority 

does STS–135 have relative to the priorities of NASA otherwise? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congresswoman, STS–135 is on my schedule, and 

I intend to fly STS–135 in June. I have a launch date. I think it 

is June 28, and unless this Congress does something that changes 

the fiscal status of present conditions, and you can do that. I mean, 

if you take drastic action and significantly reduce the amount of 

money that I get whenever we get a 2011 budget, then it could 

change things. But right now, I anticipate that reasonable people 

can disagree and that the Congress is going to come to agreements 

that will not cripple NASA and the rest of the Nation, and we will 

fly STS–135. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, and I yield back, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. At this time I will recognize the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bolden, less than a 

year ago the President gave a speech and said that he actually 

wanted to increase NASA’s budget by I think $6 billion. The White 

House budget is now I think $2.5 billion less than NASA’s flat line 

budget. You imply in your testimony that there are going to be sufficient resources for the heavy-lift rocket, for the crew vehicle and 

for landing systems for missions to I guess Mars, moon and the asteroids. 

It seems to me that vision without resources is a fantasy and 

that it is not really credible to say you can complete all those missions with the resources that have been designated, and I just wondered if you would respond to that. There are a lot of professionals, 

a lot of NASA professionals, that just say it can’t be done, and you 

and the Administration are saying it can be done. 

Mr. BOLDEN. So you are the only one that I have heard in the 

last few weeks that I am saying that anything can be done. Everybody else tells me I am saying it can’t, and I do believe it can. 

Mr. SMITH. So you stand by your budget and think you are going 

to accomplish all that with the resources that you have designated? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, sir, I do. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Would you please give me a timetable and a 

cost for the missions, not to Mars. That is just I think off the books 
33 

and too expensive. But give me a cost and a timetable for the missions back to the moon and to the asteroids. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congressman, I am unable to give you a timetable 

at this particular time because we need to find out first of all what 

my 2011 budget is going to be. I am spending right now at the 

2010 spending level hoping that that doesn’t get dramatically reduced below that. If it does, all bets are off because as we get 

close—I don’t intend to be preaching to the choir here, but I just 

want to remind everybody, the closer we get to the end of the fiscal 

year, if I get a drastic reduction in my budget, it all hits at one 

time and all bets are off. We have got to go back to the drawing 

board. I don’t anticipate that that is going to happen. It is my hope 

that we will be able to continue spending at the 2010 level or higher, and then I think we are planning to bring to the Congress in 

the summer a plan for a multipurpose crew vehicle and evolvable 

heavy-lift system that will enable us to meet targets set by the 

Congress and the President, and those targets to date are an asteroid in the timeframe of 2025 or so and a mission to or around the 

moon with a follow-on landing some time in the ’20, ’30s. So those 

dates I still stand by. 

The other date that you gave me in the Authorization Act, 2016 

for a heavy-lift launch vehicle and a multipurpose crew module, 

those were difficult meeting even under the proposed 2011 budget 

and the amounts, the level of the Authorization Act. And that was 

what I said in my 90-day report, that I can’t—I did not say we 

could not do it. What I said was given the level of funding in the 

2010 Authorization Act, you have now made it very difficult for me 

to be able to execute the development of a heavy-lift launch system 

and a multipurpose crew vehicle that is flying in 2016. I have not 

said I cannot do that, but I don’t want to mislead anyone and make 

them think that I am saying we can do it. 

There are a lot of industry representatives sitting behind me 

here who will tell you that we, together as a team, are going to be 

challenged no matter how much money you give us. But we will 

make our effort to do what it is that the Congress and the President—— 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Bolden, let me squeeze in one more question and 

that is I was glad to see I think an eight percent increase in the 

astrophysics program. A lot of that is going to be directed to the 

search for Earth-like planets. What is the latest development in 

that area and what do you expect us to learn in the next couple 

of years? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congressman, you sound like someone who is interested, so I will tell you the results from WISE and results to date 

from the Kepler observatory have been next to phenomenal. We 

have identified, and I can’t hold it in my brain, the numbers, but 

we have just in the last year identified literally hundreds if not 

thousands—— 

Mr. SMITH. What about the future, the next couple years? 

Mr. BOLDEN. We are going to fly additional missions that will 

just build upon that knowledge. Kepler is not done. WISE is shut 

out, but we are looking at a follow-on to WISE. You know, I would 

love to fly something that goes around Venus and looks back at 

Earth because I am not an astrophysicist or any of that stuff, but 
34 

my science experts tell me that if we can put something like a 

WISE satellite in a Venus orbit looking back at Earth, when it 

comes to near-Earth objects, for example, things that will threaten 

this planet, we will have a much better look at them, a much better 

ability to make early determinations on their trajectory. And I 

know this is hokey stuff to some people and they will want to laugh 

me off the planet but potentially will save the planet one of these 

days. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Bolden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you. At this time the Chair recognizes 

the gentleman from Oregon, Congressman Wu. All right. The 

gentlelady Ms. Edwards. I recognize Ms. Edwards and I am proud 

to. 

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

Administrator. 

I just have a question that goes to the consistencies between the 

authorization and your budget, and I think there are a number of 

areas where—what I am trying to read is whether the authorization that we only just recently approved kind of matches your 

budget priorities. And so I would appreciate your speaking to that, 

and then further going to the details of the Earth sciences. And my 

concern is that I think where we try to step up our investment in 

Earth sciences, it seems that, you know, some of that is being sacrificed in this budget. And so I would like you to address that and 

address, if you will, the continuing resolution as we have known it, 

and I think we will see some evolution of that over the next couple 

of weeks, and what the budget impact of the CR would be on the 

Earth sciences component, stretching out some of these programs. 

And in some cases, I guess I wonder whether, you know, once you 

began to stretch out or cancel these programs, the investment that 

we have already made in them might cancel out any potential savings from cancelling them. So I am a little unclear about that, and 

if you could give us some insight into those areas of the budget proposal, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, ma’am. Congresswoman, let me go back to October of last year. Some of you will remember I was making phone 

calls to you as debate was going on on the floor of the House about 

the Authorization Act. I was criticized for being out of the country. 

Nonetheless, I don’t think that any of you knew that I was because 

I was on the phone to you all night when we debated the level of 

authorization or even the passage of the authorization bill. At that 

time we had not had an election. The fiscal environment in the Nation was a lot different than it was one month later when the 

President finally signed the bipartisan Authorization Act. 

So things really changed between the time that this Congress labored to develop the 2010 Authorization Act and the time that the 

President signed it and now. We always face the budgetary problems that we do today, but none of us have taken the time to sit 

down and say, okay, we are really going to deal with it. 

So the 2012 budget made our first effort to say we are really 

going to deal with the fiscal reality, and so we took a cut. We made 

some very difficult choices in all of our programs. The Earth 

science programs to which you question, many of them went back 

to the dates of launch that were planned when I became the NASA 
35 

Administrator. If you remember, when we proposed the President’s 

2011 budget, we were really happy because we had a significant 

amount of plus-up for Earth science. We were going to pull programs like DESDynI and CLARREO forward by as much as two 

years. We had Earth science missions that were going to be flown 

that we didn’t even know that we could put on the books. Today 

things have really changed, and so in the case of those two as examples, CLARREO, DESDynI, they are now back to the original 

dates when I became the administrator which is about 2018. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Administrator, let me just ask you. So if you 

add together the investments that have already been made in 

DESDynI and GPM and the Joint Dark Energy Mission and 

CLARREO, add all of those things together, are we really getting 

savings by cancelling or stretching these out? 

Mr. BOLDEN. We have no choice but to stretch out DESDynI and 

CLARREO because we don’t have the money available that we 

were going to use to bring them forward. And it appears that we 

are stretching them out. We are taking them back to the original 

launch dates. Those two. JDEM is no longer on NASA’s books. We 

are looking for other dark energy missions to replace that. The one 

that I think came out of the Astrophysics Decadal Survey was 

WFIRST which is a major mission of significant cost that we may 

or may not be able to bring into this decade, so it may have to wait. 

I don’t see any reason to take any of our Earth science missions 

off the table right now. I am doing everything I can to preserve 

those missions. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, you can just answer this for the record when 

you can, but I really would appreciate a response from the Administration on the effect that these kind of program cuts have on experiments that provide satellite reporting that help us in the 

present—understanding and tracking tropical storms in Florida 

and the Gulf Coast, monitoring wildfires in California, tornado formations in the middle of the country. I mean, these have actually 

present-day impact when you look at the kinds of cuts that are 

being proposed. 

So if you are telling me that maybe it is that we are not going 

to have any storms, maybe we are not going to have any wildfires 

or tornados, that would be really cool. You would be quite a projectionist. But the reality is we won’t have the tools to look at these 

things in the way that we need to that cost human lives, cost property and damage and impact our commerce. And with that I close. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congresswoman, I will take that for the record, and 

I would say I thank you for your observation. We are in dire straits 

as a Nation when it comes to weather and climate prediction. 

NPOESS is a satellite system jointly done by NOAA, NASA and 

the Department of Defense which is no longer there. We have had 

to break it up because of problems that we had, and we really do 

need to take a focused look at our Earth science programs so that 

we make sure that we don’t allow gaps to occur in the coverage for 

things like weather. 

I need to get people thinking about Earth science as the study 

of our planet, its atmosphere, its oceans and the topography, the 

land, so that we don’t do dumb things like think we can do away 

with an Earth science satellite because it is talking about global 
36 

warming. That is not what I do. I don’t do global warming. I do 

Earth science. And so we should talk more about. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t do global 

warming, either. We are sure on the same side there. 

Thank you, Ms. Edwards. Now, I recognize one of the real veterans of this Committee, Mr. Rohrabacher, the gentleman from 

California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Did somebody say global warming? I want to 

thank you, General, for mentioning Earth objects. And again, too 

many people take this issue so lightly, and it would surprise no one 

if tomorrow there was a discovery made that an object was heading 

toward the Earth that could cause tremendous loss of life, and we 

would be caught flat-footed. So those of us who are willing to take 

the laughs, et cetera, and the scoffing, are playing a very important 

role in protecting a large number of people on this planet. 

I understand in your budget you are taking care of certain usage 

of the Arecibo telescope that will ensure that that important part 

of identifying objects that could threaten the Earth stays in play. 

Let me know about NPOESS. Had that project, NPOESS project, 

been on time and on budget, we wouldn’t be worried about anything right now, would we? We would have all the money we want. 

If we just would have run that one project, all of the money for 

heavy lift, all of that, would have been available because it has all 

been wasted. Your most important job, General, is to make sure 

that never happens again and that we never waste billions of dollars by having programs managed so inefficiently as that program 

was managed. 

I would like to place in the record, Mr. Chairman, a letter for the 

record of 50 leaders, a letter signed by 50 leaders from the space 

community, including former NASA executives and former astronauts and one former chairman of this very committee, talking basically—I would like to submit this letter for the record at this 

point, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

OPEN LETTER TO CONGRESS

01 March 2011 

Dear Members of Congress: 

We, the undersigned space leaders-over 50 of us, are strong supporters of human 

spaceflight. We are writing to urge you to fully fund NASA’s plan to use commercial 

companies to carry crew to the Space Station because it is critical to the health of 

the Nation’s human spaceflight efforts. 

Among us are former NASA executives and advisors, former astronauts, CEOs 

and directors of firms large and small, space scientists, space journalists, and others. We include 14 former NASA astronauts, 5 former NASA senior executives, 13 

educators and nonprofit leaders, and 24 space industry leaders from a wide variety 

of firms and institutions, both large and small. 

We are a diverse group, but we are only a tiny fraction of the Nation’s citizens 

who support U.S. leadership in human space flight and the development of competitive commercial human spaceflight. 

By creating competition, and using fixed price contracts, NASA’s commercial crew 

program offers a much less expensive way of transporting NASA astronauts to the 

Station than any other domestic means. Funding NASA’s Commercial Crew program would lower the cost of access to low Earth orbit, thus enabling more of 

NASA’s budget to be applied to its focus on exploration beyond low Earth orbit, and 

better enabling the kind of program laid out in NASA’s authorization bill. 
37 

NASA’s competitive commercial crew program is the best way to restore US 

human launch capability after the Space Shuttle retires later this year, to ensure 

NASA’s long-term role in the International Space Station, and to open up budget 

resources to send crew beyond Earth orbit. 

Moreover, by being less expensive than other approaches to Space Station crew 

transport, the Commercial Crew program represents one of the best means to prevent damage to NASA’s human spaceflight capabilities in the face of across the 

board spending cuts being discussed by Congress. 

After the Space Shuttle retires, Russia is set to carry American astronauts to the 

Space Station. By hiring American businesses, NASA’s Commercial Crew to Space 

Station program also generates thousands of high tech American jobs across states 

ranging from Florida, to Alabama, to Texas, to California, to Virginia, to Colorado, 

to Nevada, and to Maryland, rather than sending these jobs overseas to Russia to 

build Soyuz capsules and rockets. 

For these important reasons, we fully and enthusiastically support full funding for 

NASA’s commercial crew to Space Station program and urge you to support this 

program as well in your votes this year. 

Sincerely, 

The undersigned, listed alphabetically 

Dr. Loren Acton, Mr. Bretton Alexander 

Former NASA Astronaut, 

Professor, Montana State 

University, Bozeman, Montana 

President, Commercial Spaceflight 

Federation, Alexandria, Virginia 

Mr. Eric Anderson Mr. Jeffery S. Ashby, USN, Ret. 

CEO, Space Adventures, Chairman 

of the Board, Commercial 

Spaceflight Federation, 

Seattle, Washington 

Former NASA Astronaut, Colorado 

Spring, Colorado 

Dr. Jim Bell Mr. Ken Bowersox, USAF Ret. 

Professor, ASU School of Earth 

and Space Exploration, 

President, The Planetary 

Society Phoenix, Arizona 

Former NASA astronaut, Vice 

President of Mission Assurance and 

Astronaut Safety, Space Exploration 

Technologies Corp., Hawthorne, 

California 

Dr. Jay Buckey Ms. Heather Bulk 

PFormer NASA Astronaut, 

Dartmouth, New Hampshire 

President and CEO, Special Aerospace 

Services, Boulder, Colorado 
38 

Dr. Robert Farquhar Dr. G. Wayne Finger, P.E. 

Senior Mission Designer, KinetX 

Corp., Fairfax, Virginia 

Vice President, Aerospace & Defense, 

Reynolds, Smith & Hills, Inc., 

Jacksonville, Florida 

Dr. Louis K. Friedman Dr. Owen Garriott 

Former Executive Director, The 

Planetary Society, Pasadena, 

California 

Former NASA Astronaut, Huntsville, 

Alabama 

Mr. Richard Garriott Mr. Jeffrey Greason 

Space Adventures Astronaut, 

Austin, Texas 

CEO, XCOR Aerospace, Mojave, 

California 

Mr. Gerald D. Griffin Dr. Leroy P. Gross, MD, MPH 

Former Director, NASA Johnson 

Space Center, Former Deputy 

Director, NASA Kennedy 

Space Center, Former Deputy 

Director, NASA Dryden Flight 

Research Center, Hunt, Texas 

CEO, Innovative Health Applications, 

LLC 

Dr. Jeffrey Hoffman Dr. Rick Holdridge 

Former NASA Astronaut, and MIT 

professor, Cambridge, 

Massachusetts 

Chairman of the NM Spaceport 

Authority, Las Cruces, New Mexico 

Mr. James Muncy Mr. Elon Musk 

Co-Founder, Space Frontier 

Foundation, Alexandria, 

Virginia 

CEO and CTO, Space Exploration 

Technologies Corp., Hawthorne, 

California 

Dr. George D. Nelson Mr. Joseph E. Palaia, IV 

Former NASA Astronaut, 

Bellingham, Washington 

Manager, NewSpace Center, Vice 

President, 4Frontiers Corp., New 

Port Richey, Florida 

Mr. Robert Poole Ms. Jayne Poynter 

Former Member, Bush-Cheney 

Transition Team, Director, The 

Reason Foundation, Los 

Angeles, California 

President, Paragon Space Development 

Corp., Tucson, Arizona 

Mr. Bob Richards Dr. Russell L. ′′Rusty′′ Schweickart 

CEO, Moon Express Inc. Google 

Lunar X Prize Team, 

Sunnyvale, California 

Former NASA Astronaut, Sonoma, 

California 

Col. Richard Searfoss, USAF Ret. Col. Jim Voss, USAF Ret., 

Former NASA/Shuttle 

Commander, Chief Test Pilot, 

XCOR, Mojave, California 

Former NASA Space Shuttle Astronaut 

and Director of Advanced Programs, 

Sierra Nevada Corporation, Space 

Systems, Louisville, Colorado 

Mr. Robert Walker Dr. Jack Burns 

Former Chair, House Science 

Committee, Chairman, Wexler 

and Walker, Public Policy 

Associates, Washington, D.C. 

Professor, University of Colorado, 

Former Chair, NASA Advisory 

Council Science Committee, Denver, 

Colorado 
39 

Mr. Andy Chaikin Mr. Robert Cenker 

Space Historian/Science 

Journalist, Arlington, Vermont 

Former NASA Astronaut, East 

Windsor, New Jersey 

Mr. Keith Cowing Mr. Tom Crabb 

Former Payload Manager, NASA 

Space Station Program, 

Founder, SpaceRef 

International, Reston, Virginia 

President, ORBITEC, Madison, 

Wisconsin 

Dr. Peter Diamandis Dr. Michael Drake 

Chairman and CEO, X Prize 

Foundation, Playa Vista, 

California 

Head, Lunar and Planetary 

Laboratory, University of Arizona, 

Tucson, Arizona 

Mr. Art Dula Mr. Edward Ellegood 

CEO, Excalibur Almaz, Houston, 

Texas 

Former Director, Spaceport Florida 

Authority, Director of Aerospace 

Development, Embry-Riddle 

Aeronautical University, Daytona 

Beach, Florida 

Prof. G. Scott Hubbard Prof. Millie Hughes-Fulford 

Former Director NASA Ames 

Research Center, Stanford 

University, Dept. of 

Aeronautics and Astronautics, 

Palo Alto, California 

Former NASA Astronaut, University of 

California 

San Francisco, California 

Mr. Michael Joyce Mr. Dale Ketcham 

President & Founder, Next Giant 

Leap Google LLC Lunar X 

Prize Team, Boulder, Colorado 

Director, Spaceport Research & 

Technology Institute, Merritt Island, 

Florida 

Dr. John Logsdon Mr. David Masten 

Founder, Space Policy Institute, 

George Washington 

University., Washington, D.C. 

CEO, Masten Space Systems Inc., 

Mojave, California 

Mr. Taber MacCallum Mr. Robert Meyerson 

CEO, Paragon Space Development 

Corp., Tucson, Arizona 

Program Manager, Blue Origin, LLC, 

Kent, Washington 

Mr. Bill Mitchell Mr. Brewster Shaw, USAF Ret. 

Chairman, Environmental 

Tectonics Corporation/ 

NASTAR, Southampton, 

Pennsylvania 

Former NASA Astronaut and Vice 

President and General Manager, 

Space Exploration Division, Boeing 

Houston, Texas 

Mr. Mark Sirangelo Ms. Patti Grace Smith 

Chairman, Sierra Nevada 

Corporation Space Systems, 

Former Chairman of the 

Board, Commercial 

Spaceflight Federation, 

Louisville, Colorado 

Former FAA Associate Administrator, 

and Aerospace Consultant, 

Washington, D.C. 
40 

Mr. George F. Sowers Mr. Craig E. Steidle, Rear Admiral U.S. 

Navy, Ret. 

Vice President for Business 

Development and Advanced 

Programs, United Launch 

Alliance, Denver, Colorado 

Former NASA Associate Administrator 

for Exploration, U.S. Naval 

Academy, Department of Aerospace 

Engineering, Annapolis, Maryland 

Dr. S. Alan Stern Dr. Kathryn Thornton 

Former NASA Associate 

Administrator for Science, 

Niwot, Colorado 

Former NASA Astronaut, 

Charlottesville, Virginia 

Mr. Lee Valentine Mr. Robert W. Werb 

Chairman and Executive Vice 

President, Space Studies 

Institute, Mojave, California 

Chairman of the Board, Space Frontier 

Foundation, Nyack, New York 

Mr. George Whitesides 

Former NASA Chief of Staff, 

President and CEO, Virgin 

Galactic, Los Angeles, 

California 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. These credentialed experts are urging that 

NASA fully fund the use of commercial companies to carry crew to 

the space station because it is that in and of itself is a strategy 

that is critical for the Nation’s success in our space efforts. Furthermore, they point out that funding of NASA’s commercial crew 

program would lower the cost of low-Earth orbit, thus enabling 

more of NASA’s budget to be applied to its focus on exploration beyond low-Earth orbit and better enabling the kind of program laid 

out in the NASA authorization bill. 

Let me note it makes no more sense today to have government 

employees being the ones who manage and operate and build all 

the space transportation vehicles than it would be if we said 20 

years ago or 30 years ago, no, I am sorry, all of the jet airplanes, 

all of our jet airliners, have to be built and operated by a government-run airline. No, we have reached a technological stage when 

indeed the private sector can plan a major role in reducing the cost 

of what it takes for government employees and government programs to operate. 

So I, number one, am one person I know at least on this Committee that sides with you and the Administration on at least trying to make sure that we maximize the benefit that the private sector can provide perhaps in partnership with NASA because that is 

what it is about. 

Mr. Bolden, the 2010 authorization painted a stark line between 

low-Earth orbit operations for which it demanded a commercial 

process and the exploration applications for which it relied on for 

the standard NASA development process. Does your budget request 

support this structure of having that line between those two approaches? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congressman, I am not sure I fully understand the 

question, but I would like to say I have been unfortunately remiss 

in effectively articulating the connection among all the NASA programs. We are trying to get rid of stovepipes because we are trying 

to stay within the budget, fulfill our obligation to live within the 
41 

elements of the 2010 authorization act and then when it comes to 

human spaceflight keeping our crews safe. 

The International Space Station as I mentioned earlier is the anchor for all future exploration. That is our moon right now. What 

is going on at the International Space Station with a full six-person 

crew and today an additional six plus one in Robonaut, in R2, that 

we are developing technologies, we are understanding science that 

we will need to send humans beyond Earth orbit. So it is the anchor. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. We also have a lot of investment in this— 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But we are talking about an investment of 

money. How much money will be saved, for example, if we would 

rely on this private commercial transportation of crew to the space 

station and back as compared to if we simply kept the Space Shuttle going for another 10 years? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congressman, I wish I could answer that question, 

but that would be pure conjecture because we haven’t flown a single commercial crew flight yet, and I don’t want to try to blow 

smoke. I don’t know. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, let me conjecture—— 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —and I would conjecture that we are talking 

about saving billions and billions of dollars as compared to keeping 

the Shuttle going or developing other kind of craft only by a NASA 

program because at least these companies will be investing hundreds of millions of dollars of their own money. Now, how much 

money have private companies, and which private companies, have 

invested their money that is not coming from our budget. We are 

actually having people come in from the outside, releasing further 

money from NASA to do other things. How much money are we expecting from the private sector? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Sir, I will take that for the record, but I can tell 

you, I do know it is substantially more than we have paid in our 

fixed cost for the COTS program and we will pay in our fixed cost 

for the cargo resupply mission. 

So the private entities have already invested substantially more 

than we have. I will take it more for the record because I think 

your staffs were briefed earlier this week on some dollar figures, 

and they tried to give me that and I couldn’t remember it so I said 

I would take it for the record. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, General. 

Chairman HALL. At this time I recognize Mr. Clarke, the gentleman from Michigan for five minutes. 

Mr. CLARKE. Thank you, Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Johnson. Administrator Bolden, thank you for being here. 

I have got a series of questions, and all of them relate to the impact of the proposed CR and the President’s budget on NASA’s ability to produce technology that can create jobs. And you know, I 

don’t have any space centers or rocket manufacturers in the district 

I represent. I am from Detroit, and I represent metro Detroit. We 

do make cars. And back 40 years ago NASA released some structural analysis program technology that auto manufacturers were 
42 

ultimately able to use to make better front ends, to design better 

front ends, and steering linkages. 

Most recently, their research in advanced fuels and fuel technology I believe has a lot of potential to help us make better plugin hybrid vehicles and alternative fuel vehicles. Essentially it is 

this, is that NASA technology has meant better automotive technology which means that Detroit is able to sell better cars and that 

creates more jobs for the people that I represent. What if any is 

the impact of the proposed CR and the President’s budget on these 

types of initiatives that can be commercialized to create good jobs 

in our country? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congressman, I don’t want to speculate on what the 

impact of a potential CR would be, but in the President’s budget, 

it will allow us to continue the technology and technological innovation that has always been the hallmark of this Administration. 

And if I may, I would suggest that you go back home and brag 

about Detroit’s part in STS–133. Detroit is aboard STS–133 in the 

person, if you will, of R2, Robonaut. Robonaut is a product of a 

three-year space act agreement between General Motors and 

NASA. It was done on our nickel and General Motors’ nickel. It 

was not in anyone’s budget, but it was exploration technology that 

came back from the old Constellation program. General Motors 

came to us and said we are having to pay hospital costs, injury 

costs, on our workers who are putting the rain panel into cars because they are having to exert so much pressure to put that panel 

in place. Can you help us? And together we started developing R2. 

R2 now, I don’t know whether it is in operation yet on the GM production line, but the intent is that R2 will take the place of humans in doing some of this high-level maintenance reducing injuries. And General Motors continues their work in the SSA on the 

International Space Station now because R2 will be unfurled in the 

springtime and then will begin to do a series of evolutions that are 

both General Motors’ projects as well as NASA’s projects. So you 

and the people of Detroit are on board the International Space Station. 

Mr. CLARKE. Well, thank you. That gives me more reason to support your agency and serve on this Committee. 

A couple questions I have deal with the refocus of your agency 

on commercial development and also the impact of the proposed 

cuts on NASA education programs. But just for a backdrop, you 

know the President recently said that our economic crisis was this 

generation’s Sputnik moment, and decades ago when the Soviet 

Union launched Sputnik, that created huge public and political 

support for massive R&D investment that ended up creating a lot 

of economic development and spurred investment in education. A 

lot of people went into math, science and technology fields. Some 

of the investments Ranking Member Johnson noted in NASA resulted in technology that was applied to the manufacturing of calculators, the microchip and other technologies that we use in everyday life. How does your agency’s reorientation, especially your focus 

on commercial development, really square with that long-term commitment to overall economic activity for our country? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congressman, the President has said the Nation 

that out-educates wins. You will probably know that education is 
43 

a passion of mine, and we have put serious investment into education through programs like the Summer of Innovation, that we 

piloted last year and will continue the next two summers. 

We now have an Office of Chief Technologist. His focus is on 

working with academia, industry and just general researchers. Trying to find innovative ways to bring value to our own economy, to 

grow our economy if you will. Those things are still covered in the 

President’s 2012 budget, not to the extent that they were in the 

President’s proposed 2011 budget, but still I think effectively covered—we have got to demonstrate that we can do what we say we 

can do. 

So while I would love to have more money for technology demonstrations, NASA has a history of promising a lot in technology 

demonstrations and then squandering the money. We do not intend 

to do that. We intend to work with centers like the Glenn Research 

Center, the Langley Research Center, Ames Research Center and 

others and actually bring some of this technology development to 

the forefront where industry and academia are participating. If you 

go out to Colorado where one of our competitors in commercial crew 

development program is building their rocket, they bring college 

students in, and they work alongside engineers. That is not NASA, 

but that is a commercial entity that is supporting NASA and the 

future of commercial spaceflight. They are bringing college students in to get them excited about being a part of this program. 

Chairman HALL. You know, in my brief 8 weeks as Chairman of 

this Committee, I have my first real problem. We recognize those 

who I am to call upon to speak for five minutes by the time they 

get here. There are two who got here at identically at the same 

time, Mr. Rigell and Mrs. Adams. Not only that, they sat down at 

exactly the same time, and knowing Mr. Rigell as a gentleman, 

Mrs. Adams is a very lovely lady, I am going to recognize Mrs. 

Adams for five or six or seven or eight minutes. Whatever she 

wants. 

Mrs. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Bolden, I want to commend you for your statement, the safety of our crew members is 

our priority, and I don’t think you will see anybody in this Committee that disagrees with that statement. 

I am going to go back to the authorization bill and the budget 

request. NASA told Congress in January there was no way it could 

meet the 2015 flight schedule deadline for multipurpose crew vehicle and space launch systems, citing among other things, financial 

constraints. Based upon the request for $1.2 billion less for these 

systems than what was authorized by Congress. I am concerned 

that you are really not interested in meeting this deadline at all, 

coupled with the recent interview with your chief technologist, Mr. 

Robert Braun, he was quoted as saying that a new vehicle for 

NASA’s spaceflight is, ‘‘Let us call it, think about it as a decade if 

you want to put a timestamp on it.’’ Is this your timetable? This 

is something I want to know. Is this what you believe Congress has 

authorized? 

And then the NASA authorization bill stated that the space 

launch system and the multipurpose crew vehicle should act as a 

back-up in case the commercial crew is not ready in time. And 

again, is this something you are pursuing? I want to state that 
44 

when you were earlier speaking, you said that this would not be 

a productive use of the cost and time and ability of NASA, or something similar to that. And it struck me as interesting that you said 

that we would not use this as a capability of this vehicle. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, ma’am. We would not want to use an exploration vehicle as a low-Earth orbiting vehicle because it would indicate two things had happened, one, we had either had a loss, a 

physical loss, of a low-Earth orbiting vehicle, whether it is Soyuz 

currently or whether it was an Orbital or a Boeing or a Space X 

or any other vehicle. It would mean that we had lost a vehicle and 

crew, and that would be why we would have to rely on a government back-up. I don’t ever want to get to that day that I have 

failed in my effort to keep my astronauts safe if we have to rely 

on Orion or—— 

Mrs. ADAMS. But shouldn’t we have a back-up vehicle? 

Mr. BOLDEN. We should always have a back-up vehicle. We don’t 

have one right now once I land the Shuttle in June. The multipurpose crew vehicle on a heavy-lift vehicle will serve as a backup to 

any system. I ideally would like to have two commercial—— 

Mrs. ADAMS. And a timetable? 

Mr. BOLDEN. The timetable for this? The timetable for commercially available crew access is the 2015, 2016 timeframe, there are 

a lot of people who—that is dependent on. If you ask industry, I 

have been told by them that three years from the day they sign a 

contract, they will be able to fly a commercial crew to orbit. 

So the sooner I can get them through the early stages where we 

are now, the sooner we can sign a contract and make it possible 

for them to fly. 

Mrs. ADAMS. Since I only have five minutes, I want to get as 

many questions as possible—— 

Mr. BOLDEN. Okay. 

Mrs. ADAMS. —because I have a lot of questions. On page 1 of 

your testimony you state, ‘‘The request supports an aggressive 

launch rate over the next two years with about 40 U.S. and international missions to the ISS for science and to support other agencies.’’ Can you please tell the Committee how many of those flights 

are NASA flights? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Those are all NASA-related flights. 

Mrs. ADAMS. NASA flights. 

Mr. BOLDEN. I will get back to you on that, ma’am. 

Mrs. ADAMS. Page 2 you outline the 2012 budget priorities for 

human spaceflight. Can you please tell the Committee where those 

priorities were developed, from the most recent authorization bill 

or sources or other methods? 

Mr. BOLDEN. The priority for human spaceflight has been on the 

record for a number of years as we developed the International 

Space Station. So since that is our only destination over the next 

ten years, that schedule is already laid out, relatively firm. 

Mrs. ADAMS. Through the authorization bill or—— 

Mr. BOLDEN. Long before the authorization bill was even thought 

of 

Mrs. ADAMS. And you said something about global climate 

change, and I just wanted to ask you. I know that you referenced 

global change. That is not climate change? 
45 

Mr. BOLDEN. Change in the climate is it could be global warming, it could be global freezing, it could be anything. 

Mrs. ADAMS. What is global change in your eyes then? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Change is what we are experiencing today. When 

you go out in the middle of the summer and it is blistering hot and 

you come in in the middle of the winter and it is the coldest winter 

you have ever felt, that is climate change. 

Mrs. ADAMS. But you have global change in your testimony. And 

so I am trying to determine, is that global—— 

Mr. BOLDEN. Global climate—— 

Mrs. ADAMS. —change or climate change? 

Mr. BOLDEN. The testimony probably says global climate change 

which says—— 

Mrs. ADAMS. It says global change. That is why—— 

Mr. BOLDEN. I will go back and check. 

Mrs. ADAMS. Thank you. 

Mr. BOLDEN. We missed the word 

Mrs. ADAMS. Thank you. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, ma’am. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you. I now recognize Mrs. Fudge, the 

gentlelady from Ohio, for five minutes. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to see you again, 

Mr. Bolden. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Always good. 

Ms. FUDGE. Administrator Bolden, as you know, I have many 

NASA Glenn employees in my district, as well as we have a NASA 

Glenn Visitor’s Center. I am glad to see that the President’s budget 

request includes a diverse portfolio of initiatives for Glenn that utilizes them as strength and core capabilities. However, I am concerned about anticipated shortfalls in the center management and 

operation funding at NASA Glenn. 

A continuation of fiscal year 2010 level funding as described under the current CR represents an $8 million reduction of what 

is being proposed for fiscal year 2012. I have been to NASA Glenn, 

and the one thing I am certain of is that this is a group of extremely hard-working and brilliant scientists who know how to 

achieve extraordinary things on a tight budget, but I am very concerned about the effects that cuts to the center management and 

operations will have on the contractor workforce and the facility’s 

maintenance at Glenn. 

Could you please just discuss with me how you see these cuts impacting NASA Glenn if government continues operating under the 

CR and will it have similar effects on other centers? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congresswoman, if I understood correctly, if you 

are talking about the amendment to the CR that took—- 

Ms. FUDGE. Yes. 

Mr. BOLDEN. —cross agency support out, I don’t want to speculate on what would happen to any single center, and I really am 

going to violate my rule and I am not going to speculate, I am 

going to tell you what that amount of money equals. That amount 

of money equals a couple of NASA centers. So if in fact the Congress were to pass, you know, that CR, I would have to find a way 

to either stretch money around or—we are talking about the funds 

to run two NASA centers. 
46 

Ms. FUDGE. Correct. 

Mr. BOLDEN. But that is not what I expect to happen. As I said 

earlier, I expect that reasonable people can disagree and come to 

an ultimate agreement that is best for the Nation. And so we continue to expect that we will be operating at a 2010 level through 

the end of fiscal year 2011 and then that we will work to reach an 

agreement on a 2012 budget that follows along the lines of the 

budget that was proposed by the President and I introduced two 

weeks ago, you know, that will fund NASA and allow us to do the 

things that you want us to do. 

Ms. FUDGE. So that there is in fact still a commitment to make 

sure that when we have discussions about the fiscal year 2012 

budget that we were still talking about the same level that was 

proposed in the President’s budget as we go forward? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congresswoman, that is correct if I understand the 

question correctly. When we look specifically at Glenn, Glenn will 

do well under the proposed fiscal year 2012 budget, and I think you 

have had this conversation with Ray Lugo. 

Ms. FUDGE. Absolutely. 

Mr. BOLDEN. And Ray is very conservative. Ray does not like to 

go out and brag about things for fear that someone will take them 

away. Ray understands, as do most of our center directors, that the 

money to the community does not come with a program office designation. The money to the community comes with projects and 

task orders through that program. So the fact that a center does— 

I don’t have enough programs to make sure that every center has 

a program office. But it really doesn’t matter to the people of the 

center. It may matter to people who are looking for titles, but to 

the workers in that community, it is really important that they get 

projects and task orders, and Glenn will do well. 

Ms. FUDGE. Well, certainly obviously I am pleased with the 2012 

budget. I think that Glenn has done well as it relates to that budget, but if you look at fiscal year 2010, you are looking at $196 million to Glenn. In fiscal year 2012, you are looking at $204 million. 

So for the year of 2011, the effect of trying to move forward with 

projects knowing what is happening in 2011 that we are going to 

remain at this 2010 level, is a problem. It is a question. Let me 

not say it is a problem. Let me say that we need to understand better how we function at this fiscal year 2010 level knowing that 

there is much expected as we go into the fiscal year 2012. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, ma’am. I agree. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you so much. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, ma’am. Thank you. 

Chairman HALL. Now the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Rigell. 

Mr. RIGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Bolden, thank 

you so much for being here and providing your testimony. I certainly respect your military service and your bravery as a test pilot 

and now your service with NASA. I think it is a distinguished career. 

In your opening statement, you mentioned that there was, I 

think you characterized it as some concern about NASA’s commitment to manned spaceflight or human spaceflight. I would say that 

doesn’t capture my view. I am deeply troubled and really disturbed 

by it. I think the figure that you referenced, you said look, we are 
47 

allocating 44 percent of our budget to human spaceflight. Well, I 

come to the exact opposite conclusion. That doesn’t reinforce the 

idea that we are committed to human spaceflight. That number in 

my view indicates that we are not as committed as we were, nor 

are we as committed as we should be to human spaceflight. 

I see human spaceflight really as the essential DNA of NASA, 

and I would like for us to get back on a path of really investing 

in human spaceflight as quickly as we can. I think as you said, reasonable people can disagree over these matters, but I am here 

today to petition you and to move back in the direction of allocating 

more toward human spaceflight. 

We can talk about the proper allocation between commercial and 

actual NASA flights, but I still think we need to move in the other 

direction. 

You mentioned also in response to a question offered today that 

the savings of commercial spaceflight versus NASA human 

spaceflight, I believe, your response was, I don’t know. It seems to 

me that that is an essential question that is really fundamental to 

some of the things that we are going to have to deal with here on 

the Committee. Would you please just expound on that answer a 

bit? 

Mr. BOLDEN. I am glad you asked the question because it gives 

me an opportunity to elaborate. When we talk about connecting all 

the aspects of NASA, the NASA portfolio, we cannot separate 

human spaceflight from science. Our science missions may in the 

future utilize the same launch vehicle that we use to launch astronauts into space. Today my science budget is under attack because 

of the rising cost of a launch vehicle. If I can find a way to get a 

cheaper launch vehicle, I can fly more science, that same launch 

vehicle that would take humans to low-Earth orbit. 

So the integrated advantage of going to commercial carriers, to 

adding competition to the mix, whereas today—if you look at Orbital Sciences, Orbital designed the Taurus II not to take humans 

to orbit. They designed it to meet a market that they saw being 

there which was for medium-lift rocket. They say that is where the 

science market is. That is the way that they targeted. We have 

done a little bit of conversation and some analysis of the market. 

So they are very comfortable. Whether they participate in human 

spaceflight or not, they have hit the target because that is where 

the market lies. If they can win in being one of the carriers for humans to low-Earth orbit, they have multiply magnified, you know, 

their profit. They have decreased the cost to orbit for me because 

now all I do is buy service. I don’t operate it, I don’t carry the infrastructure costs, and there is some debate now about how much I 

am really spending on the Kennedy Space Center. There is disagreement even among my own people. We spend a lot of money 

every day, every month, every year, just maintaining the infrastructure of the Kennedy Space Center, whether I fly a Shuttle or 

not. I am trying to get rid of that. 

Mr. RIGELL. Well, on this point, I think we are in full agreement. 

I think that there is a place for a commercial role here, and I think 

that having—as a businessman who is now a representative in our 

Congress, I am instinctively drawn to the statement, you know, 

about competition and having companies compete here. But the 
48 

question specifically is, and I think one that I would ask that you 

maybe circle back around and provide some more information for 

the Committee and for me in particular, is the ability to properly 

develop and answer to that legitimate question of what are the relative costs of NASA putting a human in flight versus the private 

sector. And I think that merits more exploration 

Mr. BOLDEN. Sir, I will get you that answer, and the word you 

just used, that requires more exploration, the reason I can’t give 

you the answer is because exploration is just that. It is something 

that we pursue having no idea what we are going to find. If I 

looked at, you know, putting a dollar value on the A–Train, it is 

a five Earth science satellites that orbit Earth, near polar orbit, 

every day, you know, what is the dollar value on having the A– 

Train there to the people in Haiti many of whom were saved because one of the satellites revealed three areas of the country that 

were subject to landslides with the big Earthquake that we would 

have never found for weeks? What is the value on the people of the 

Gulf Coast for what came out of the A–Train to help us understand 

the Gulf Oil spill? I can’t put a dollar value on that. 

So I appreciate your question and will try to get you an answer. 

Mr. RIGELL. Thank you. My time is expired. Thank you very 

much. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Rigell. I recognize 

the gentlelady from Alabama, Mrs. Sewell, for five minutes. 

Ms. SEWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Bolden. NASA’s proposed budget indicates that there will be $138 million 

for education initiatives, including the Space Grant and Minority 

University Research programs. These are valuable partnerships 

that exist in the State of Alabama where I am from for institutions 

such as the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) and Alabama A&M and the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) 

and University of Alabama. This is a 5.1 percent decrease from the 

nearly $146 million for fiscal year 2011. How will this anticipated 

decrease in funding impact these valuable educational initiatives? 

I, like you, are quite concerned about educating the next generation 

and would like to see those partnerships continue. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congresswoman, like every other agency in the government and like every company in America, we are looking for 

ways to streamline the way we do business. Leland Melvin, who is 

my new Associate Administrator for Education, once chaired and 

now since he is the Associate Administrator, he oversees the work 

of an education design team within NASA. We have gone out and 

we are working with professional educators, colleges and universities, secondary educators, to determine how we can better implement our education program within NASA so that we get the same 

value that we get right now for less money. So the $138 million is a significant amount of money for our education efforts. We are also trying to collaborate much more with 

other agencies. We are working with the First Lady’s White House 

initiative for things such as helping military families. An aspect of 

that is education for military families. We have content that we 

can offer that we don’t spend another dime on. It is already there, 

whether it is talking to astronauts from the International Space 

Station. One of the best things I did when I was flying was we used 
49 

to do something called SAR–X where you get on a ham radio and 

you talk to kids in schools. That is incredible, and that comes at 

almost no cost. 

So we are trying to find better ways that we can implement what 

we have at lower cost. 

Ms. SEWELL. Great. The proposed budget for fiscal year 2012 also provides $1.8 billion to help develop a heavy-lift vehicle, the SLS, 

that will launch the crew. Marshall Space Center in Huntsville, 

Alabama, will likely be a very major contributor in designing that 

heavy-lift vehicle. And in fiscal year 2012, the funding request for 

this project significantly, is it sufficient, I would say, to fully fund 

and sustain the development of the heavy-lift vehicle through 2016 

which is the desired timetable, and are you committed to making 

sure that those funding levels stay about the same? 

Mr. BOLDEN. I am committed to try to make sure that the funding levels remain about the same, and one of the things that you 

will see in our congressional justifications is beginning in 2013 I 

have asked, and I think I have been granted—it remains to be seen 

whether the Congress will agree—that we put human exploration 

in one budget line so that as we go with the development of an 

evolvable heavy-lift system and a multipurpose crew vehicle, that 

we can move the funds around as necessary in each successive year 

so that we marry those programs up when we need them, that 

being the 2020 timeframe is when we will need an integrated 

heavy-lift launch vehicle and crew exploration vehicle that can go 

beyond low-Earth orbit. There may be available systems before 

that time, but I don’t need one for beyond low-Earth orbit until 

2020. 

Ms. SEWELL. Thank you. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, ma’am. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the 

Chairman of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, Mr. 

Palazzo, the gentleman from Mississippi. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Bolden, 

for being here, and like my colleague, Mr. Rigell, thank you for 

your 34 years of service to the Marine Corp. After seeing that you 

have been in Vietnam and had over 100 missions, I doubt there is 

much that I can say or do to rattle you. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Just don’t shoot me. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Or shoot at you, right? Absolutely. I do have some 

questions for you, and one is you have often made the argument 

that access to low-Earth orbit is well-understood enough that we 

can turn this over to commercial providers. How can you be confident that the commercial crews and cargo is sufficiently mature 

enough to justify firm fixed contract, and if so, can you explain 

some of the significant delays in time and cost that are in the 

COTS and the CRS program today? 

Mr. BOLDEN. I am certain that commercial entities can deliver 

because in the past, if you look at the two that I am working with 

right now, at least one of them has been doing it for more than 20 

years. Orbital has been delivering cargo and other things—well, 

not cargo, delivering satellites to orbit since their inception. And if 

I look at just one of the rockets that they prepare for us, Minotaur, 

which is a government rocket that we procure and surplus and 
50 

then it is given to Orbital to prepare. They have 100 percent success rate with Minotaur launches. So I am not concerned about 

their ability to deliver. 

In terms of why have we had setbacks, we are now trying to take 

in some cases existing systems or emerging systems and certify 

them for human spaceflight. So the companies are trying to get as 

much information data as they can while they are doing the COTS 

and CRS programs that can be transferred into a commercial crew 

program so that it cuts down on the amount of time that they have 

to invest in development of techniques and procedures and the like 

for them. And like in a development program, they experienced setbacks. 

I give the example, and I will make it really quick—— 

Mr. PALAZZO. Okay. 

Mr. BOLDEN. If I had had a failure or a problem like Orbital had 

last December before they launched the Dragon capsule on Falcon 

9, where they had a crack in an engine bell, I would still be sitting 

on the ground. We would not have launched. It took me four 

months to get Discovery off the ground successfully on STS–133 

after we found a small crack in foam which revealed a structural 

problem we had in the external tank. Commercial entities do what 

we do, they just don’t have the bureaucracy that we have. 

So we will learn from them, and we will be able to speed up the 

time—decrease the amount of time we have when we do experience 

a delay. 

Mr. PALAZZO. And you know, we are going to be watching closely, 

so it would be nice to see if they can actually come in under budget, 

on time and within cost. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Now, NASA has not always been forthcoming with 

details of its acquisition strategy for commercial cargo and has not 

shared their strategy for commercial crew, but the key to both has 

been to open with a Space Act agreement. Devoid of any meaningful checks and balances followed by an overlapping fixed price contract to the same contractors, it is hard to see how there can be 

a true, full and open competition for the fixed price contracts under 

those circumstances when Space Act selectees are already under 

contract. Why is NASA proceeding in this manner and why avoid 

using a traditional FAR acquisition process? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congressman, we have not decided on the acquisition strategy yet. I have not approved it, so it is not that we are 

not being forthcoming, I am pushing my people now to get to the 

point where we develop an acquisition strategy for commercial 

crew. So the hold-up is us. It is not the commercial entities. They 

are asking for our acquisition strategy. We have given them what 

we call human ratings standards. We gave it to them in the draft 

form. They utilize that. We now have published human ratings 

standards, so we are making as much as we can available to the 

commercial entities as quickly as we can. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Now as you know, Stennis Space Center is in my 

district, and as NASA moves forward with plans for both NASA 

and commercial activities, I want to know if there will be any impact on Stennis and their leadership in rocket propulsion test, and 
51 

will Stennis remain the leader for NASA and commercial rocket 

propulsion? 

Mr. BOLDEN. We made an announcement yesterday that Marshall Spaceflight Center will be the home of the program office for 

the SLS, the space launch system. A sister center that used to be 

a part of Marshall and is now its own entity is the Stennis 

Spaceflight Center. Stennis is the Nation’s center for propulsion 

test. It is where people go, and we are trying to encourage the commercial entities to come and fully utilize the facilities at Stennis, 

to a much greater extent than they do right now. And we are starting to get overtures from some of the commercial entities that say 

we really would like to come down and look at your facilities and 

perhaps use that. 

Ideally, everyone will come to Stennis to test engines. When I 

was there and you had been there the day before at Stennis, I went 

down for the test firing of the second AJ–26 engine produced by 

AeroJet for Orbital. It was incredible. I mean, the morale of the 

people there was absolutely incredible, and they now have completed the test on two engines for a commercial entity that will now 

put those two rockets on the Taurus II that eventually will be 

Orbital’s entry into COTS. 

Mr. PALAZZO. And I have one last, brief question. Many NASA 

facilities are going to require upgrades to continue providing their 

mission for NASA’s future. Are you committing to providing the 

necessary resources to upgrade the test facilities at Stennis? 

Mr. BOLDEN. I am committed to do that, and I think we have 

talked to you about the A–3 test stand. My commitment to complete the work on the A–3 test stand is an example. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Thank you, Mr. Bolden. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman from 

California, Mr. McNerney, five minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bolden, thanks 

for coming and testifying this morning. This is certainly an issue 

that I think everybody is interested in in this country, space exploration, spaceflight and so on. 

I had the opportunity to visit the SpaceX reception here in DC 

a couple weeks ago. Apparently they sent up a vehicle that 

launched, orbited and reentered successfully. What is your assessment of that mission? Was it very successful? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Awesome, in one word. You have to understand 

what the significance of that was. Only three nations up until now, 

and there are many who want to be able to do this. India is one. 

The three nations are China, Russia and the United States that 

have successfully launched something from the planet, put it into 

orbit and then safely deorbited and then recovered it intact. The 

fourth entity to do that became SpaceX in December when they 

launched Falcon 9 and Dragon. I did not go, but I understand what 

you saw was the Dragon capsule that had been pulled out of the 

Pacific Ocean, and you could tell for yourself what condition it was 

in. Their intent is for it to be a reusable capsule. That is why it 

was awesome. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I know that some of these questions have been 

asked before, so I am just going to sort of run over them. You expect this sort of mission to be more cost-effective than NASA could 
52 

do it for reasons that you mentioned. How about compared to Russia or some of the other countries that we have heard NASA may 

use once the space Shuttle stops operating? 

Mr. BOLDEN. We will continue to use the Soyuz spacecraft to get 

our astronauts to and from the International Space Station since 

we have done since the Columbia accident. 

My hope is that as soon as possible we will finally have American-made rockets by American-made companies that will be available to take our astronauts back and forth, do it safely and efficiently. And so that is why I made the tough decision to take some 

of the funding away from heavy lift and MPCV and put it toward 

commercial development because I have to have a way to get my 

crews safely to the International Space Station as soon as possible. 

I don’t think anybody on this Committee wants to have to rely on 

the Russians but they are an incredible partner. They have been 

with us through thick and thin. They rescued us after the Columbia accident and until we were flying Shuttle’s again. They took 

our crews back and forth to space and they continue to do that. I 

don’t want to have to do that forever. I want to have Americanmade rockets and American-made capsules that take our crews to 

low-Earth orbit, and I have been ineffective in explaining the critical value of making that possible as soon as possible. 

I don’t have enough money to give them to bring it in—I am trying to buy down the risk on that. Every dime I can put toward that 

effort buys down the risk. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. You know, I was in industry before I came here, 

and I understand the importance of having multiple suppliers because if you just have one, they are going to—you are at their 

mercy. What is the prospect for having multiple private companies 

in this country capable of carrying out these missions, these transportation missions? 

Mr. BOLDEN. I will give you my guess, and that is only a guess. 

And with all due respect to everybody on this Committee, I don’t 

run a company. I have never run a company. But I talk to people 

who run companies, and they have boards that they have to convince that it is worth the investment. And so I think some of my 

industry partners are still back here. They will tell you, they have 

had to fight to convince their boards that what we are about to do 

is worth the risk. It is a big risk for these companies, and they 

have convinced their boards that they need to put assets against 

it and I am going with them. I think they can do this. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Are there foreign companies doing the same 

thing? 

Mr. BOLDEN. There are foreign companies that are teaming with 

American companies in everything we do. 

It is hard to find any industrial effort today where people are not 

teaming with international partners. The President’s, our own 

space policy, emphasizes the importance of teaming with international partners. The Hubble Space Telescope, which I helped deploy in 1990, would have never been possible without the cooperation of the European Space Agency as a partner. The solar rays 

came from the British Aerospace. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So the last question I have then is are there 

going to be any restrictions on these companies in terms of car-
53 

rying out commercial missions that may have some harm to our 

national security? 

Mr. BOLDEN. There are always restrictions, and that is where 

you have to help me. I am not sure which committees you are on, 

but the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the President, 

all of us are pleading for help from the Congress in streamlining 

the export/import laws so that we don’t continue to penalize American industry. You hurt NASA because I have to rely on my industry partners. When they are held to very strict standards under the 

Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act (INKSNA) and 

you name it—they could give you a whole list of import/export 

laws, there is a happy medium somewhere and we are not there 

right now. We have driven business offshore, and we have got to 

get it back. Just having commercial launch services available is not 

going to bring the business back. We have got to make some 

changes in our export/import laws. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you, and the Chair recognizes now the 

Chairman of Research and Science Education Subcommittee, Mr. 

Brooks, the gentleman from Alabama, for five minutes. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bolden. Mr. Bolden, 

were you aware that a couple of weeks ago when the House was 

debating a continuing resolution for this fiscal year that there was 

an amendment proposed to cut roughly $300 million from the 

NASA budget and divert that to the COTS program? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Oh, yes, sir. I am very much aware of that. We 

talked about it quite a bit. 

Mr. BROOKS. And what harm would be done to NASA if any by 

the diversion of this $300 million if it is left to stand in the Senate? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congressman, you know, if we talk just about that 

amendment to the provision and nothing else, I might be able to 

give you an answer but because I don’t know what is going to be 

the final result of the CR, it would be conjecture for me to guess. 

There may be some offsetting adjustments made in the final CR 

that puts all that money back. So I don’t want to run the risk of 

guessing on something that is not there yet. 

Mr. BROOKS. Well, as it stands right now, would the loss of that 

$300 million adversely affect NASA’s capabilities? 

Mr. BOLDEN. I think I answered a little bit earlier, that amount 

of money—I think what you are asking is that amount of money 

is a couple of NASA centers, maybe, you know, in terms of day-today operations. 

Mr. BROOKS. I am a freshman, but that sounds pretty significant 

to me. Would you agree that that is a significant adverse effect? 

Mr. BOLDEN. That would be a significant adverse effect, but 

again, I am not going to speculate because that is a decision that 

has not been made by the Congress yet, you know, the House has 

passed and the Senate will still have a say. So you are asking me 

to guess on something that the other house of this Congress is 

going to—— 

Mr. BROOKS. Well, I am not asking you to guess about what the 

Senate may or may not do. I am asking you to testify whether 

there is an adverse effect from what the House’s position has been, 
54 

and that is the loss of $300 million to NASA. Do you have a position? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Sir, there is always an adverse impact about any 

decrease in funding. If I look at the effect on contractors, I am told 

that that is about 4,000 contractor jobs. So that is an adverse impact. 

Mr. BROOKS. Given that kind of adverse impact on NASA, what 

effort did either NASA or the White House undertake to communicate that adverse impact to congressmen before they voted in 

order to help protect the NASA budget? 

Mr. BOLDEN. I don’t know what effort the White House made, 

and I just know that whenever we came to the Hill and were asked 

about it, we generally said it would have an adverse impact but we 

tried not to second-guess what the Congress was going to do as we 

always try to do. 

Mr. BROOKS. Well, I am not aware of any effort by NASA or the 

White House to communicate any kind of adverse impact to the 

Members of the House of Representatives from the diversion of 

$300 million from NASA to a local police and deputy program. Are 

you aware of any effort by the White House or NASA to communicate that to House Members before the vote? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congressman Brooks, I am not personally aware, 

but let me take it for the record, and I will get back to you on any 

actions that our folk took because we have been up here over the 

last several weeks or months, and I will find out for you. 

Mr. BROOKS. Well, I am pleased to report that 70 percent of the 

Republicans in the House tried to protect the NASA budget. Unfortunately, 83 percent of the Democrats tried to undermine the 

NASA budget by diverting the programs to a local police officer 

program which I would submit is not an essential function of the 

Federal Government, while NASA is a function of the Federal Government. So I would appreciate anything you can do in the future 

to try to help communicate to House Members or Senators as the 

case may be when these kinds of amendments come up that can 

have that kind of adverse impact on NASA, on 4,000 contractors 

and their jobs, or two NASA centers as you just brought up. 

Moving onto a different matter, going back to April 15, 2010, the 

President made public remarks at the Kennedy Spaceflight Center 

that suggested the moon was no longer a destination for future 

manned missions when he said, ‘‘The simple fact is, we have been 

there before. There is a lot more space to explore.’’ However, in 

looking at your comments today, I am thankful that on page 2 of 

your official statement you mention that the moon is a target. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Sir, the moon is a continuing target for NASA. We 

have ongoing missions to the moon all the time, so lunar exploration remains in our portfolio. 

Mr. BROOKS. What is the targeted date for landing on the moon? 

Mr. BOLDEN. A human landing on the moon? 

Mr. BROOKS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BOLDEN. We don’t have a target date for a human landing 

on the moon because at present that is not one of the missions that 

I think is essential for us to be able to do. 
55 

Mr. BROOKS. So if I am clear on this, we are planning on sending 

scientific instruments, but as of now, NASA has no plans to have 

any human space activity on the moon? 

Mr. BOLDEN. I have no plans that I have brought forth to the 

Congress or anyone. That does not say what is going on inside the 

agency does not include human lunar missions. You know, we are 

developing a lunar rover right now that would completely do away 

with any need for habitats on the surface of the moon. 

So we are always looking at where we can go in the future. That 

is a part of being prepared to do exploration. 

Mr. BROOKS. Well, my time is expired. Thank you for your assistance. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Thank you very much, sir. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, if you are short 

of people that you want to send to the moon, I got several in my 

district that I would like to volunteer for you. 

Next we will have the gentlelady, one of my very favorites, from 

California, Ms. Woolsey—— 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you. 

Chairman HALL. —for three minutes or five minutes. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Last week I had the 

privilege of attending a conference on the subject of energy security, and it was bipartisan, bicameral, and it was clear in our discussions with scientists and experts that the decision-makers in 

our country, which is all of us and others, have to come to terms 

with climate change. You can call it global warming, climate 

change. And so I want to go on record and have always been one 

that is willing to talk climate change and know that we have to 

start addressing it and doing something about it, and I appreciate 

that NASA’s view of the Earth is going to be very helpful in that 

regard. 

And that leads me directly to what I want to talk about and that 

is about being educated and having the right support in order to 

be able to do what you need to do as an agency. President Obama 

has set a goal of recruiting 10,000 teachers in the STEM fields. He 

calls these subjects essential to competing in the 21st global economy. Yet, his proposal for his budget drastically cuts funding for 

NASA’s education programs including the STEM education programs. 

So I ask you, how are we supposed to increase participation in 

STEM if we are cutting the very programs that foster interest in 

STEM in the first place, and how are you, how is your agency adjusting to this? You need those smart people. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congresswoman, the difference between what you 

see in the 2012 budget and what you saw in previous budgets is 

actually the result of action on the part of, thankfully, the Congress. The proposed amount of funding for education from this Administration has been consistent, and it usually is at about the 

$140 million level each year, give or take. And that has been consistent. But what happens, thankfully, is that the Congress usually 

ads money back onto that. So if you say that we have cut spending 

on education, we didn’t cut it. We didn’t add back in what the Congress chose to put on in previous years, if that is not too confusing. 
56 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, it is not confusing because we work very, 

very hard to get that additional funding for STEM. And Chairman 

Gordon was a leader in it, and he worked with Chairman Hall 

when they were in reverse positions and really made something 

positive happen for NASA and for STEM programs. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, ma’am. And Congresswoman, as I mentioned 

before, our focus is on STEM education. The Summer of Innovation 

targets middle school children and most importantly their teachers 

because we want to make middle school teachers very comfortable 

with teaching math, and science. We want them not to run away 

from it. That pilot program last year we understand was very successful. If we can reach 1,000 teachers, multiply that times the 

number of students in a classroom. So that is our big focus. 

The design team that we put in place is trying to, as I mentioned 

to Congresswoman Sewell, I think I can do a better job with $138 

million than we have done in the past because we are going to take 

the recommendations from the design team and we are going to 

redo the way that we do education in NASA. People will have to 

trust us, though, because if everybody makes me go back to doing 

education the way I have always done education, it is $138 million 

and we will get the—you know, insanity is doing the same thing 

over and over and assuming something is going to be different. If 

somebody makes me spend my $138 million exactly the same way 

year after year, I can’t have any effect. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, one of the recommendations I would have is, 

in reevaluating your programs, that you put an extra effort into 

women and minorities joining the STEM fields. 

Mr. BOLDEN. That is a point of emphasis for us. We are active 

on the President’s Council on Women, you know, everywhere. I 

have three granddaughters and a daughter. I have a son, too, but 

I try to take care of the women in my life, so education of women 

and minorities is pretty important since I happen to be one. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, therefore, they can take care of themselves 

if they—— 

Mr. BOLDEN. I want them to take care of me years from now and 

so—— 

Ms. WOOLSEY. That is right. I got it. 

Mr. BOLDEN. —they need to be very well-educated and they need 

to be astronauts and doctors and engineers. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you very much. 

Chairman HALL. I thank the lady, and I recognize Congressman 

Hultgren from Illinois. I got a chance to know Randy very well. He 

accompanied me to watch the Discovery launch, what, last week. 

Thanks for that. I recognize you for five minutes. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Chairman Hall. Administrator, 

thank you so much. I’m hiding in the corner over here. But I just 

wanted to say I really appreciate you being you here. It really was 

a privilege to be down for the launch with Chairman Hall and 

other Members of the Committee last week, and to steal or borrow 

one of your words, it was awesome. So it was great, and it really 

was helpful for us. Everybody there was so informative in really 

helping us understand the mission, and I was so excited to be a 

part of that. So thank you for your work. 
57 

I want to shift gears just quickly. Oftentimes we wear different 

hats here, and I want to get your perspective on something. I also 

sit on the Transportation Committee, Aviation Subcommittee. One 

of the areas that we have worked on and talked about pretty significantly is NextGen, looking at Next Generation Air Transportation System. I know NASA has had a significant part along with 

other departments as well, and I just wanted briefly to get your 

thoughts on NextGen, some of the work there as a key partner 

along with the FAA, Defense Department, other federal agencies. 

What does NASA see as some of the biggest challenges confronting 

NextGen and from your perspective, how do you feel like this 

multi-agency collaboration is going? What can we do to improve 

that, to make sure that lower space travel is going well? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congressman, NextGen is incredibly important to 

this Nation, and I am thankful you asked the question and I will 

try not to take all your time, but I could talk forever about this. 

NASA is heavily involved in NextGen. If you look at what we 

have done in terms of aircraft safety with the Next Generation 

Transportation System development, and if you look at the descent 

and arrival profiles that are being worked on with the FAA and 

DoD, we actually, through Langley Research Center and Ames Research Center, have designed some of the software and the programs that now have allowed us to go through some actual demonstrations of constant descent, constant climb-outs. United Airlines and Continental were participants in tests that we did at 

Denver over the last few years. Those have all proved that—we are 

talking about hundreds of thousands of gallons of fuel saved. 

My aeronautics budget is $588 million or something like that. 

Somebody asked about giving them a cost benefit. If I look at the 

amount of money that the airlines will save just through some of 

the work that came from NextGen, new airplanes and engine designs that we participated in, the estimate is one percent of the 

savings to the airlines will pay for my aeronautics budget. If I 

could find a way if you all could devise some system such that industry put money back into us when we help them realize savings, 

then all of our jobs would be a lot easier. But one percent of the 

projected savings from some of the work that NASA has done in 

NextGen would fund my aeronautics budget. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Well, I want to thank you for that, and I agree 

with you. I think that is part of our job, is to get that message out 

there and to see that although it was great to be down there last 

week, that there is so much more that NASA is doing that we all 

appreciate and see the benefit from. Many of us are frequent air 

travelers coming back and forth to Washington, DC. My district is 

just west of Chicago, so I think I have got the highest number of 

folks who are helping to make sure that our skies are safe, who 

help with air traffic control with O’Hare, one of the busiest airports 

in the world. So I do appreciate your work there. 

I think we have to keep telling that message of the work of 

NASA and collaboration that is happening, the savings that we see 

and the better environment that we have, the cost savings that are 

there. And the thing I am most excited about is the safety, where 

it is has been over two years now since we have had a fatality with 

commercial airlines. So we need to continue that record, and I just 
58 

again want to say thank you for the work that you are doing, and 

hopefully we can tell that story of how collaboration does make our 

lives better and save so much money into the future. So thank you 

so much. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Sir, I thank you for the question and I would just 

ask if you would keep asking aeronautics questions, I don’t get very 

many of them, and I would really like to tell our aeronautics story. 

But we get caught up in human spaceflight. If we can do what you 

say, aeronautics covers everything right up to the edge of the atmosphere. It is the way we get into space, and it is the way we 

come back. Hypersonic aeronautics is entry. It is what SpaceX 

learned how to do to bring the Dragon capsule back. So that is aeronautics. Everybody has got to come back to Earth some time. 

Thank you. 

Chairman HALL. That is exactly five minutes. Well done. And to 

the very patient, Mr. Sarbanes, from Maryland, I recognize you for 

five minutes. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 

for being here today and for your testimony. 

I am a new Member to the Committee, and it seems it is common 

practice to let NASA know if you have a facility in your district, 

so I will present by credentials by saying that I have the Applied 

Physics Lab in my district in Howard County, and they do tremendous work, particularly with respect to deep space exploration 

which I know is one of the areas that is funded by NASA, so I hope 

to learn more about that particular relationship. 

I am also new to this discussion on commercial spaceflight. It is 

a pretty fascinating one. I understand the broad implications, and 

we have a lot of different perspectives in the mix. I had this past 

weekend the opportunity to spend a fair amount of time with Peter 

Diamandis who founded the X Prize, of course, and he really gets 

you going with his vision of things and he has obviously been very 

involved in this. 

I was hoping you could—and again, I apologize because I am getting, you know, this is a curve for me, but with respect to the commercial spaceflight and the costs associated with it, is there a way 

you could just describe kind of the baskets that those costs go into? 

So in other words, I understand there is a cost associated with 

making certain NASA facilities available for, I guess, co-development of the technologies that will help promote commercial 

spaceflight. I gather that once those crews are in place that NASA 

will have costs associated with renting space or seats on those 

flights. And there must be other dimensions of being a partner in 

the development of the commercial spaceflight program that represent part of the expenditures that you lay out. 

So I was wondering if you could just talk about the broad baskets 

that those costs go into, and then the extent to which some of those 

represent kind of transitional costs in effect launching the commercial spaceflight program as opposed to ongoing costs that NASA 

will incur with respect to commercial spaceflight, you know, over 

time. 

Mr. BOLDEN. If I go back to the very beginning of our efforts, the 

COTS program, the Commercial Orbital Transportation System, 

which is just getting cargo to orbit, that was a Space Act agree-
59 

ment with a defined amount of money, like a fixed-price contract 

for all intents and purposes. NASA paid a certain amount—as 

milestones are met by the two participants. The two companies 

were SpaceX and Orbital. And so through the completion of a 

COTS, we will pay them a pre-determined amount of money for 

each milestone they meet. When we move into the CRS which is 

cargo resupply portion, that is where we get into a contractual arrangement, and we have made contractual arrangements with 

those two companies since again, they were the winners. So they 

get paid again as they meet certain milestones. But once they start 

delivering cargo for a set price we will buy the ride to the International Space Station or wherever else we take it. 

When you get into commercial crew, that is the area that has 

some vagueness right now because those prices are not yet determined. There are things that need to be determined. I have to 

present to industry a procurement strategy. That is what we talked 

about a little bit earlier, an acquisition strategy. That is what we 

have not fully developed yet. Once we have a fully developed acquisition strategy, we can sit down with the competitors and say, 

okay, here is what we are going to do. These are the types of contracts we are going to use, whether it is Space Act agreements, 

fixed-price contracts, cost-plus, you name it, and here are some of 

the requirements that you are going to have to meet. We can then 

sit down and say, okay, what is NASA’s percentage of investment 

in this enterprise? Once we decide what that is, then I will have 

essentially a fixed price, a cost—— 

Mr. SARBANES. Let me ask another question. My time is about 

to expire, and I don’t want to go beyond the allotted time if I can 

help it. 

There is a lot of focus on NASA helping to support and develop 

commercialization with respect to human spaceflight. But what are 

some other areas of what NASA does where you see this kind of 

commercial partnering effort going on that maybe you don’t get to 

discuss so much? 

Mr. BOLDEN. The ones that don’t get discussed are the ones we 

do all the time. And just before you came in, we were talking with 

the representative from Detroit. Robonaut 2, R2, is a humanoid 

robot that is now on the International Space Station. It was taken 

there by Discovery last week, STS–133. R2 is the result of a collaboration and a Space Act agreement between General Motors in 

Detroit, and I will get in trouble because they will say it was, well, 

General Motors in Chicago, but General Motors, the automobile 

manufacturing arm of General Motors, and NASA where General 

Motors needed a robot that could relief some of the problems they 

were having with injuries to workers. NASA needed a robot to help 

offset some of the risks to spacewalk crew members, things that a 

robot could do that we wouldn’t even have to send an astronaut 

outside to do. That is one example. 

There are a number of examples like that where we have done 

it on a shoestring because it is technology development. We turn 

a few guys loose in a laboratory somewhere around the country, 

and they go off and pick an industrial partner and develop something that comes into play. How many of them are successful? I 

couldn’t tell you. Most of them don’t work, but that is the good part 
60 

about it. Scientists and engineers love it because they bring college 

kids in. 

We have something now called Small Sats or Micro Sats. Colleges and universities around the country, even secondary school 

kids now are getting involved in Small Sats or Micro Sats. It is 

something that NASA and DoD developed and now we utilize to try 

to reach kids and help them understand that they, too, can participate in space exploration from their classroom. So these are all 

good things. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield 

back. I have no more time, thank you. 

Chairman HALL. He is right on the dot. At this time I will recognize a very, very patient Mr. McCaul, the gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been sitting here 

patiently, and I assure you, next time I will arrive before the gavel 

comes down. 

Chairman HALL. You know, when I was first up here 30 years 

ago, I was the second one here always. I didn’t want to wait until 

the end to talk. 

Mr. MCCAUL. I guess I will close out the proceedings, possibly. 

I plan to attend the April Shuttle launch, and I think that is going 

to be a historic mission. I know Gabby’s husband, Mark, will be 

leading that effort. And you mentioned her in your testimony very 

affectionately. I think we all look forward to the day that she will 

be serving back on this Committee, and there is no greater champion for the human spaceflight program than Gabby. And I remember working with her on the reauthorization. She was obviously opposed to the President’s decision to cancel the Constellation program. One of the last conversations I had with her, in fact, the last 

one, was we were walking onto the House Floor just a day or two 

before the tragic event, and she talked about NASA. She was just 

a staunch advocate for the human spaceflight program, as am I. 

I represent a district that was once held by Lyndon Johnson, and 

on the Houston end of my district in the suburbs, I represent many 

Johnson Space Center employees and contractors. I know in our reauthorization we restored a lot of funding for human spaceflight in 

spite of this Administration’s attempt to kill that, and I guess as 

you present this budget and as I go back home to my district, they 

will want to know what is their future? So I guess what I am asking you is what am I to tell them when they ask me about contracts related to human spaceflight, about the future of human 

spaceflight program. And I know these are some of your dearest 

friends. But what am I to tell my constituents who are part of the 

Johnson Space Center? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congressman, you should tell them that the future 

of human spaceflight is bright and robust and that we need their 

help in rapidly developing new systems so that we can go explore. 

This Nation has not ventured beyond the moon with humans. We 

have been saying we were going to do it forever. I get chastised 

when I talk about wanting to go to Mars. I want to go to Mars. 

When I came into the astronaut office in 1980, I thought I would 

fly on the Shuttle a couple of times, and then I would be among 

those that would be returning to the moon, and then Challenger 
61 

happened. And my dream of ever going to another planet went 

away. 

I don’t want that for my grandkids. So I need their help. We 

have got to develop commercial capability to get to low-Earth orbit 

so that we can continue to support the International Space Station. 

That is our moon right now. That is where we do technology development. That is where we do medical research. That is where we 

do things to make life better on Earth. 

Contrary to what people think, NASA doesn’t do stuff just for astronauts. Most of what we do is returned to Earth in terms of benefits for humankind. And I can go down that you all can do it yourselves. You can look at an EMT ambulance that has the developments that were put in place for the Apollo program. Wireless communications. Congresswoman Johnson listed a whole bunch of 

them in her opening remarks. 

The Nation needs to become unafraid of exploration. We need to 

become unafraid of taking risks. Is it a risk to go with commercial 

entities? For me, no more risk than anything else because I have 

always—every rocket I have flown on, and I have only flown on 

three, four times but three, was built by a commercial entity. It 

was Rockwell when it started and when I finished, I think it was 

Boeing maintained by U.S.A., United Space Alliances. 

Mr. MCCAUL. If I could ask one last because my time is running 

out. I appreciate your passion. I know you are very passionate 

about returning to the Moon. I would hope that I could work with 

you in terms of restoring the morale at some of the employees at 

the Johnson Space Center and assure them that there is a bright 

future ahead. And I think we in the Congress have a responsibility 

to make sure you have the resources to do this. 

You mentioned in your testimony, if I am correct, that it would 

be 2030 before we could get back to the moon. You know, it has 

been 42 years since we landed on the moon. President Kennedy set 

the goal by the end of the decade, and less than ten years we were 

on the moon in 1969. I think a lot of people wonder why now it 

would take almost 20 years to get back to the moon. Most Americans, they don’t understand we landed there so long ago. Why has 

it taken so long to get back? Because like you, I agree with the— 

and you are very passionate about it—with the goal that eventually 

we are going to have to go back to the moon and beyond. So perhaps if you can explain that to me and the American people? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congressman, I need to correct one thing. It would 

not take us until 2030 to go to the moon. If we decided that we 

wanted to go to moon and put humans there, that potentially could 

be done by the end of this present decade, but that is not one of 

the targets that has been produced either by the Congress or the 

President. What has been set forth as targets are 2025 to an asteroid and then the 2030s to be able to get to Mars with a follow-on 

landing. The reason we have not been there is because that has not 

been a goal of the Nation, and you know, we were content to stay 

in low-Earth orbit, which is hard. But it has not been something 

that the Nation thought was important. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Well, no, the prior Administration, President Bush, 

did set that as a goal, the moon, Mars and beyond. So I think that 

was at one point in time the goal for NASA. And Mr. Chairman, 
62 

I hope we can work together to perhaps restore that vision and 

that goal in the Congress which I think is so vitally important and 

I know, Administrator, you agree with. With that, I yield back. 

Thank you. 

Chairman HALL. I thank you, and if the Ranking Member would 

have a final question for the Administrator, please? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Administrator 

Bolden, thank you very much for your time here and your passion 

and your interest and your ability. It is extraordinary that you are 

sitting there defending the President’s budget. I think it is grossly 

inadequate, and I hope that we can help a little bit. I know that 

I heard the gentleman I think from Mississippi mention that we 

had no aviation deaths the last two years. I know that you know 

why. We have got those satellites that are predicting weather and 

making sure that even farmers know when a drought is coming 

and whether for food supply and what have you. Do you know the 

condition of those satellites? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congresswoman, I will get back to you on specific 

satellites and their life expectancy. Most currently on orbit have 

outlived their planned lifetime. We tend to not remember that our 

technology is such that we always build things that last a lot 

longer than we thought. When we ought to be thinking about obsolescence. And so we are behind as a Nation in providing Earth 

science satellites, those that can supply weather and the like, not 

only for civilian use but for the Department of Defense. You talk 

about trafficability. My son is a Marine, and if he is on the ground, 

he needs to know what the soil is going to be like before he goes 

somewhere. That comes from satellites. And so we owe it to these 

young men and women who are doing things for us to provide them 

with satellite systems that are reliable, and we are behind. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. One final question. I know that NASA 

had something to do with helping to rescue those miners in Chile. 

Could you explain that? 

Mr. BOLDEN. I could explain that. I love it. It has nothing to do 

with NASA, no intent, whatsoever. No one in NASA ever dreamed 

that we would be able to do what we did, but when we learned of 

the Chilean miners, the 33 who were trapped were still alive, a 

number of our NASA employees from around the country, three 

doctors and one engineer, had asked if they could go down to Chile 

and just ask around, see what needed to be done. And they started 

finding that, okay, we need to find ways to get food to these people. 

We need to determine what is needed to keep them alive for the 

months that we originally thought they were going to be down 

there. When we bring them back to the surface, how do we triage 

them, how do we get them back to normal. What we used was all 

the lessons we have learned from flying on MIR, the International 

Space Station, and all the way back to Skylab days. 

So we put to work the lessons that we had learned in exploration, things we never thought about. One of our engineers from 

the Langley research center who was a Navy submariner got together with a Chilean submariner who happened to be an engineer 

on the project, and the two of them led the team that designed the 

capsule that brought all 33 miners back to the surface, plus the additional five or six that went down to stabilize everybody. 
63 

So that is one of the most phenomenal success stories that excited the President because nobody ever dreamed we would do that. 

Same thing with the Earthquake in Haiti, same thing with the 

Gulf oil spill. NASA is sort of the Marine Corps of the science and 

aeronautics community. We are the most ready when the Nation 

is least ready. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Well, thank you very much, and I think that the 

life of NASA depends on the life of our Nation. Thank you. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Thank you very much. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you. Those are the things that should be 

better known to school children and everybody else that has ill 

words for the work of NASA. 

I thank you, Mr. Bolden, and I thank you for your very good testimony, and the Members of the Committee will have additional 

questions maybe for you and ask you to respond to those in writing. The record will be kept open for two weeks for additional comments from Members as Mrs. Johnson I think has suggested she 

has some comments she wants back. So you are excused. I really 

do thank you. We appreciate you very much. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And we will 

try to get the responses back to you in a timely manner. 

Chairman HALL. And just before I hit the gavel I want to recognize the gentleman from New York, the long-time chairman here, 

Chairman Boehlert. And with that, we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(65) 

Appendix I: 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
66 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by The Honorable Charles F. Bolden, Jr., Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
(95) 

Appendix II: 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
96 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JERRY COSTELLO

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Fiscal Year 2012 (FY12) budget request. 

NASA’s FYl2 budget provides $18.7 billion and follows the direction Congress laid 

out in the 2010 NASA Authorization bill. However, the administration’s budget proposal raises several questions about NASA’s mission and the future of human space 

flight. 

First, investing in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) 

education programs is necessary to ensure the next generation of our aerospace 

workforce is competitive. For this reason, I applaud NASA’s new focus on working 

with community colleges to prepare students for pursuing STEM education at fouryear universities and building new skills for careers in aerospace. In addition, I am 

pleased NASA will continue its partnerships with schools to ensure students in 4th 

through 9th are exposed to STEM curricula. 

Second, I appreciate NASA’s efforts to complete the development of a multi-purpose crew vehicle and space launch system. I am interested to hear from Administrator Bolden if 2016 is still a viable deadline for completing this work and how 

NASA will continue its work at a reduced funding level. 

Finally, NASA’s aeronautics research program is vital to ensuring the safety and 

security ofthe flying public and the competitiveness of the aviation and aerospace 

industry. In particular, NASA’s contributions to NextGen will play a critical role in 

increasing airspace capacity in the future. I am concerned about the $10.2 million 

reduction from the Fiscal Year 2011 request in aeronautics funding included in the 

FY12 request. This lower request will make it harder to recover from the $143 million reduction in funding for NextGen in Fiscal Year 2010. I am interested to hear 

from Administrator Bolden how this reduction will impact the ongoing work on 

NextGen and other aeronautics and aviation priorities. 

I welcome Administrator Bolden, and I look forward to his testimony. Thank you 

again, Mr. Chairman. 
97 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RANDY NEUGEBAUER

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this full Committee hearing to examine the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s budget request for Fiscal Year 

2012. Administrator Bolden, welcome. 

Since 1958, NASA has played an important role in American innovation and inventiveness. Much of the technological advancement in the United States over the 

last five decades can be attributed to the projects undertaken at NASA. I am confident that it will continue to develop valuable and cutting-edge technologies. 

I am, however, concerned that the Administration’s budget for fiscal year 2012 

does not adequately address our nation’s current fiscal crisis. Americans are earning 

less, over nine percent of our population is unemployed, and families are struggling 

to find ways to make ends meet, yet federal government agencies are not feeling 

that same pain. Our country is on an unsustainable path of spending. We will not 

successfully decrease our $14 trillion debt by increasing spending or even maintaining current spending levels. It is imperative that the federal government make difficult choices to cut spending below current levels, and NASA is no exception. The 

Administration’s proposed budget would maintain NASA funding at Fiscal Year 

2010 levels, but I believe it must be reduced to 2008 levels. 

The cuts will not be pleasant, and they do not imply that NASA’s work is not important or beneficial. I understand that NASA made some difficult choices to reduce 

funding for some programs in this budget proposal, while other programs would see 

an increase in funding. But without immediate, significant reductions in bottom– 

line spending, future generations will have difficulty even paying down the interest 

on our national debt. 

Administrator Bolden, look forward to hearing your testimony. 

Æ