U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

20–915PDF 2017

EXAMINING THE NATION’S CURRENT 

AND NEXT GENERATION 

WEATHER SATELLITE PROGRAMS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

July 7, 2016 

Serial No. 114–86 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

DARIN LAHOOD, Illinois 

WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

MARK TAKANO, California 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

HON. JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

JOHN MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

MARK TAKANO, California 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

July 7, 2016 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Jim Bridenstine, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

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

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 4 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 6 

Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Enviorment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

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

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13 

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

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 78 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 80 

Witnesses: 

Dr. Stephen Volz, Assistant Administrator, National Environmental Satellite, 

Data, and Information Services, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 14 

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

Mr. David Powner, Director, Information Technology Management Issues, 

Government Accountability Office 

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

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 32 

Mr. Ralph Stoffler, Director of Weather, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, 

U.S. Air Force 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 51 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 53 

Ms. Cristina Chaplain, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, Government Accountability Office 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 62 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 64 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 82 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Dr. Stephen Volz, Assistant Administrator, National Environmental Satellite, 

Data, and Information Services, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ................................................................................................................. 104 

Ms. Cristina Chaplain, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, Government Accountability Office ............................................................................. 114 

(1) 

EXAMINING THE NATION’S CURRENT 

AND NEXT GENERATION 

WEATHER SATELLITE PROGRAMS 

THURSDAY, JULY 7, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim Bridenstine 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 

LAMAR S. SM!TH, Texas 

CHAIRMAN EDD!F. BERNICE JOHNSON, Tex;;s RANKING MEMBER 

<t:ongrcss or the !inited ~tatcs 

if\ou.sc of 1Rcprcscntatiocs 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

2321 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE 8UJLD!NG 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6301 

1202) 225-6371 www.scienco.house.gov 

Subcommittee on Environment 

Examining the Nation's Current and Next Generation Weather Satellite 

Programs 

Thursday, July 7, 2016 

J 0:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

Witnesses 

Dr. Stephen Volz, Assistant Administrator, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and 

Information Services, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration · 

Mr. David Powner, Director, Information Teclmology Management Issues, Government 

Accountability Office 

Mr. Ralph Stoffler, Director of Weather, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, U.S. Air Force 

Ms. Cristina Chaplain, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, Govemment 

Accountability Office 
3 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HEARING CHARTER 

Thursday, July 7, 2016 

TO: Members, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

FROM: Majority Staff, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

SUBJECT: Environment Subcommittee hearing "Examining the Nation's Current and Next 

Generation Weather Satellite Programs" 

The Subcommittee on Environment will hold a hearing titled Examining the Nation's 

Current and Next Generation Weather Satellite Programs on Thursday, July 7, 2016, at 10:00 

a.m. in Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building. 

Hearing Purpose: 

The purpose of this hearing is to examine the operational and planned weather satellite 

systems of the United States, as well as the partnerships that ensure accurate and timely 

forecasting capabilities. 

Witness List 

• Dr. Stephen Volz, Assistant Administrator, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and 

Information Services, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Mr. David Powner, Director, Information Technology Management Issues, Government 

Accountability Oftlce 

• Mr. Ralph Stoffler, Director of Weather, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, U.S. Air 

Force 

• Ms. Cristina Chaplain, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, Government 

Accountability Oftlce 

Staff Contact 

For questions related to the hearing, please contact Majority Staff at 202-225-6371. 
4 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. The Subcommittee on Environment will 

come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare 

recesses of the subcommittee at any time. 

Welcome to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘Examining the Nation’s 

Current and Next Generation Weather Satellite Programs.’’ I recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

I’d like to first thank our witnesses for being here today. This 

committee has a longstanding interest in the weather satellite programs of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as 

evidenced by our continued oversight of these programs spanning 

multiple Congresses. I am also pleased to have the Department of 

Defense here today to discuss their weather satellite missions and 

the cooperation and coordination between the DOD and NOAA that 

result in expert forecasts that save lives and property. 

After the National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental 

Satellite System, NPOESS, partnership failed to curb costs or yield 

benefits, the Administration directed NOAA and the DOD to develop individual polar-orbiting weather satellite programs. This has 

come to fruition with NOAA’s Joint Polar Satellite System, JPSS, 

the first of which is slated to launch in March of 2017. Given that 

we are currently relying on the experimental-turned-operational 

Suomi NPP, it is my hope that this program suffers no further 

delays, and this launch date is met. 

There has been improvement in the JPSS program over the past 

few years, but there are still potential causes of concern, which we 

will explore today. Meanwhile, the DOD began its own weather satellite program, the Defense Weather Satellite System, DWSS. However, this plan was scrapped in 2012, and the Department is now 

planning a new generation called the Weather System Follow-On, 

WSF. 

In the meantime, the DOD currently relies on its existing satellite system, the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program, DMSP. 

These DOD satellites, much like NOAA’s existing fleet, are ageing 

rapidly. One of them, DMSP–19, failed earlier this year, increasing 

the fragility of the system. The possibility of data gaps looms large 

as both agencies look to create a more robust satellite architecture. 

Further complicating these issues is the reliance the agencies 

place on themselves and our international partners for critical 

weather data. For polar-orbiting satellite data, there are three primary orbits. The early-morning orbit is operated by the DOD, the 

mid-morning orbit by EUMETSAT’s MetOp program, our 

partnering satellite agency in Europe, and the early-afternoon orbit 

by NOAA. Eighty percent of the data that goes into our numerical 

weather models comes from polar-orbiting satellites. Since we rely 

so heavily on these satellites, it is important for these orbits to continually be filled. 

While these government satellites systems play an important 

role in providing data that predicts weather, I also want to highlight the growing role of the private sector. Let me be absolutely 

clear: I am not in any way suggesting the privatization of NOAA. 

Some people have suggested that, or the National Weather Service. 

However, the advancements of the commercial weather satellite industry have real potential to improve our forecasting capabilities, 
5 

as well as provide gap mitigation in the event one of our satellites 

suffers a failure or further delays. 

NOAA has released a Commercial Space Policy, a draft of its 

Commercial Space Activities Assessment process, and is currently 

operating a commercial weather data pilot program to test and 

validate private sector data for integration into its numerical 

weather models. I applaud NOAA’s progress, and look forward to 

further action on this front. This Committee will remain vigilant in 

its oversight responsibilities to ensure that Americans have the 

best possible weather forecasts to save lives and property. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Bridenstine follows:] 
6 

COMMITTEE ON 

SCIENCE, SPACE, & TECHNOLOGY 

Lamar Smith, Chairman 

For Immediate Release 

July 7, 2016 

Media Contacts: Kristina Baum 

{202) 225-6371 

Statement of Environment Subcommittee Chairman Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.) 

Examining the Nation's Current and Next Generation Weather Satellite Programs 

Chairman Bridenstine: Good morning and welcome to this morning's Environment 

Subcommittee hearing entitled "Examining the Nation's Current and Next Generation 

Weather Satellite Programs." I'd like to first thank our witnesses for being here today. 

This Committee has a longstanding interest in the weather satellite programs of the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. as evidenced by our continued 

oversight of these programs spanning multiple Congresses. I am also pleased to have 

the Department of Defense here today to discuss their weather satellite missions and 

the cooperation between the DOD and NOAA that result in expert forecasts that save 

lives and property. 

After the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) 

partnership failed to curb costs or yield benefits, the Administration directed NOAA 

and the DOD to develop individual polar orbiting weather satellite programs. This has 

come to fruition with NOAA's Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS), the first of which is 

slated to launch in March of 2017. Given that we are currently relying on the 

experimental-turned-operational Suomi-NPP, it is my hope that this program suffers no 

further delays, and this launch date is met. There has been improvement in the JPSS 

program over the past few years, but there are still potential causes of concern which 

we will explore today. 

Meanwhile, the DOD began its own weather satellite program, the Defense Weather 

Satellite System (DWSS). However, this plan was scrapped in 2012, and the Department 

is now planning a new next generation program called the Weather System Follow-On 

(WSF). 

In the meantime, the DOD currently relies on its existing satellite system, the Defense 

Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP). 

These DOD satellites, much like NOAA's existing fleet. are ageing rapidly. One of 

them, DMSP-19, failed earlier this year, increasing the fragility of the system. The 

possibility of data gaps looms large as both agencies look to create a more robust 

satellite architecture. 

Further complicating these issues is the reliance the agencies place on themselves 

and our international partners for critical weather data. For polar orbiting satellite 
7 

data, there are three primary orbits. The early-morning orbit is operated by the DOD, 

the mid-morning orbit by EUMETSAT's MetOp program, our partnering satellite agency 

in Europe, and the early-afternoon orbit by NOAA. Eighty percent of the data that 

goes into our numerical weather models comes from polar-orbiting satellites. Since we 

rely so heavily on these satellites, it is important for these orbits to continually be filled. 

While these government satellites systems play an important role in providing data that 

predicts weather, I also want to highlight the growing role of the private sector. Let me 

be absolutely clear: I am in no way suggesting the privatization of NOAA. However, 

the advancements of the commercial weather satellite industry has real potential to 

improve our forecasting capabilities, as well as provide gap mitigation in the event 

one of our satellites suffers a failure or further delays. 

NOAA has released a Commercial Space Policy, a draft of its Commercial Space 

Activities Assessment process, and is currently operating a commercial weather data 

pilot program to test and validate private sector data for integration into its numerical 

weather models. I applaud NOAA's progress, and look forward to further action on this 

front. 

This Committee will remain vigilant in its oversight responsibilities to ensure that 

Americans have the best possible weather forecasts to save lives and property. 

### 
8 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I now recognize the gentlewoman from 

Oregon, the Ranking Member, Ms. Bonamici, for an opening statement. 

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

you for your ongoing interest in the important issue of improving 

weather forecasting, and thank you to all of our witnesses for being 

here today. 

The data collected by NOAA’s weather satellites are the backbone of NOAA’s weather prediction capabilities and support weather forecasting activities around the globe. NOAA, in coordination 

with its interagency and international partners, is working diligently to move the national weather satellite system into a robust 

state so we will have the certainty and continuity of accurate and 

reliable forecasts and severe storm warnings. 

In addition to providing uninterrupted weather observations in 

the near term, NOAA is actively assessing what new capabilities 

will be required beyond the 2020s to protect American lives and 

property during extreme weather events. I am looking forward to 

hearing about both of these efforts. 

As we’ve discussed in the past, however, both the geostationary 

and polar weather satellite programs—GOES and JPSS—have experienced schedule delays, significant cost growth, technical performance concerns, and management challenges. Although any and 

all remaining challenges must be addressed, I am pleased to note 

that NOAA has made significant progress, and we expect to soon 

be celebrating the successful launches of GOES–R and JPSS–1 satellites. 

It is critical that these programs remain on schedule to minimize 

the potential risk to the collection of observations and data that are 

needed for NOAA’s weather forecasting activities. Even the bestlaid plans can be met with unanticipated events, a launch failure, 

or a potential satellite malfunction, for example. I will be listening 

for an update on the status of NOAA’s contingency plans in the 

event that we do face a gap in data continuity, and I look forward 

to hearing about NOAA’s efforts to put the weather satellite programs on a path to the robust state that the 2013 independent review team recommended. 

In addition, the strength of our civil weather satellite system relies heavily on the interagency and international partnerships that 

NOAA has in place over decades. This morning’s hearing provides 

the opportunity for us to learn more about NOAA’s work with the 

Department of Defense and the communication among partners on 

future weather satellite planning efforts. 

As we look ahead, NOAA’s partnerships are expected to extend 

to commercial entities. NOAA is taking concrete steps toward implementing its commercial weather data pilot program in response 

to direction in the fiscal year 2016 Omnibus Appropriations Act. In 

fact, I understand that Dr. Volz will be attending an industry day 

workshop immediately following our hearing where he will receive 

feedback from companies interested in participating in the pilot 

program. I’m encouraged that NOAA has implemented the commercial weather data pilot program promptly and has provided an 

open dialogue throughout the process. 
9 

Finally, the planned launches of both GOES–R and JPSS–1 satellites should not mark the conclusion of NOAA’s programmatic efforts but rather should be the figurative launching pad of the planning and development of our next generation of weather satellites. 

I look forward to hearing about both NOAA’s polar follow-on program and its long-term architecture plans. 

And before I yield back the balance of my time, I’m going to note, 

Mr. Chairman, I do need to run to a markup, and I’m going to do 

my best to get back as soon as possible. My colleague Mr. Grayson 

will take over until I can get back. 

And I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:] 
10 

OPENING STATEMENT 

Ranking Member Suzanne Bonamiei (D-OR) 

of the Subcommittee on Environment 

House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Environment 

"Examining the Nation's Current and Next Generation Weather Satellite Programs" 

July 7, 2016 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our witnesses for being here today. 

The data collected by NOAA's weather satellites are the backbone of NOAA's weather 

prediction capabilities and support weather forecasting activities around the globe. 

NOAA, in coordination with its interagency and international partners, is working diligently to 

move the national weather satellite system into a robust state so we will have certainty and 

continuity of accurate and reliable forecasts and severe storm warnings. In addition to providing 

uninterrupted weather observations in the near term, NOAA is actively assessing what new 

capabilities will be required, beyond the 2020s, to protect American lives and property during 

extreme weather events. I am looking forward to hearing about both of these efforts. 

As we have discussed in the past, however, both the geostationary and polar weather satellite 

programs, GOES and J-P-S-S, have experienced schedule delays, significant cost growth, 

technical performance concerns, and management challenges. Although any and all remaining 

challenges must be addressed, I am pleased to note that NOAA has made significant progress, 

and we expect to soon be celebrating the successful launches of the GOES-Rand JPSS-1 

satellites. 

It is critical that these programs remain on schedule to minimize the potential risk to the 

collection of observations and data that are needed for NOAA's weather forecasting activities. 

Even the best laid plans can be met with unanticipated events-a launch failure or potential 

satellite malfunction, for example. I will be listening for an update on the status of NOAA's 

contingency plans in the event that we do face a gap in data continuity and I look forward to 

hearing about NOAA's efforts to put the weather satellite programs on a path to the "robust" 

state that the 2013 Independent Review Team recommended. 

In addition, the strength of our civil weather satellite system relies heavily on the interagency and 

international partnerships that NOAA has had in place over decades. This morning's hearing 

provides the opportunity for us to learn more about NOAA's work with the Department of 

Defense and the communication among partners on future weather satellite planning efforts. 

As we look ahead, NOAA's partnerships are expected to extend to commercial entities. NOAA 

is taking concrete steps toward implementing its Commercial Weather Data Pilot program in 

response to direction in the FY 2016 Omnibus Appropriations Act. In fact, I understand that Dr. 

Volz will be attending an Industry Day workshop immediately following our hearing, where he 

will receive feedback from companies interested in participating in the pilot program. I'm 

1 
11 

encouraged that NOAA has implemented the Commercial Weather Data Pilot program promptly 

and has provided an open dialogue throughout the process. 

Finally, the planned launches of both the GOES-Rand JPSS-1 satellites should not mark the 

conclusion of NOAA's programmatic efforts, but rather should be the figurative launching pad 

of the planning and development of our next generation of weather satellites. I look forward to 

hearing about both NOAA's Polar Follow-On Program and its long-term architecture plans. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

2 
12 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. The gentlelady yields back. 

I’d like to now recognize the Ranking Member of the full Committee, Ms. Johnson, for a five-minute opening statement. 

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

Let me welcome the witnesses, and I’m pleased to see that Dr. 

Volz and Dr. Powner are here again to provide updates on our nation’s critical weather satellite development programs, JPSS and 

GOES–R. I am looking forward to hearing from both of you and 

Mr. Stoffler and Ms. Chaplain about the relationship between the 

Department of Defense and NOAA and how that partnership helps 

meet both civilian and defense needs. 

I want to be clear that NOAA’s weather satellite programs play 

a critical role in ensuring the continued health of our weather forecasting capabilities, and they support weather forecasting activities 

around the globe. Although both JPSS and GOES–R has experienced significant cost growth and management and technical challenges during this development, I am pleased to learn that NOAA 

has responded to recommendations from GAO and others and that 

we expect to have both satellites launched within the year. 

However, as we will hear today, there is still more work to be 

done. Concerns about a potential gap in our satellite coverage must 

be addressed and NOAA must apply lessons learned to ensure future programs do not face identical challenges. 

As I’ve said before, we must take all necessary steps to ensure 

that there is not a gap in satellite coverage in support of our 

weather forecasting capabilities. The successful launch of these satellites is critical to ensure our nation maintains its weather forecasting capabilities. However, it represents the first step, not the 

last in NOAA’s ever-evolving efforts to protect American lives, 

property, and critical infrastructure. 

I look forward to hearing more about NOAA’s plans to maintain 

and improve the Nation’s weather forecasting capabilities. I thank 

you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing, and I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 
13 

OPENING STATEMENT 

Ranking Member Eddie Bernice .Johnson (D-TX) 

House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Environment 

"Examining the Nation's Current and Next Generation Weather Satellite Programs" 

July 7, 2016 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to our witnesses. I am pleased to see both Dr. 

Volz and Mr. Powner here again to provide updates on our Nation's critical weather satellite 

development programs J-P-S-S and GOES-R. I am also looking forward to hearing from both 

Mr. Stoffler and Ms. Chaplain about the relationship between the Department of Defense and 

NOAA, and how that partnership helps meet both civilian and defense needs. 

Let me be clear: NOAA's weather satellite programs play a critical role in ensuring the 

continued health of our weather forecasting capabilities, and they support weather forecasting 

activities around the globe. 

Although both J-P-S-S and GOES-R have experienced significant cost growth, and 

management and technical challenges during their development, I am pleased to learn that 

NOAA has responded to recommendations from GAO and others, and that we expect to have 

both satellites launched within the year. 

However, as we will hear today, there is still more work to be done. Concerns about a 

potential gap in our satellite coverage must be addressed, and NOAA must apply lessons learned 

to ensure future programs do not face identical challenges. As J have said before, we must take 

all necessary steps to ensure there is not a gap in satellite coverage in support of our weather 

forecasting capabilities. 

The suecessfullaunch of these satellites is critical to ensure our Nation maintains its 

weather forecasting capabilities. However, it represents the first step, not the last, in NOAA's 

ever evolving efforts to protect the American lives, property, and critical infrastructure. I look 

forward to hearing more about NOAA's plans to maintain and improve the Nation's weather 

forecasting capabilities. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time. 
14 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I’d like to thank the Ranking Member 

for her opening statement. 

I’d like to introduce our witnesses today. Our first witness today 

is Dr. Stephen Volz, Assistant Administrator for the National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Services at the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Dr. Volz has a doctorate 

in experimental condensed matter physics from the University of 

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and a master’s in physics from Illinois and a bachelor’s in physics from the University of Virginia. 

Our next witness today is Mr. David Powner, Director of Information Technology Management Issues at the Government Accountability Office. Mr. Powner received his bachelor’s degree in 

business administration from the University of Denver and attended the Senior Executive Fellows Program at Harvard University. 

Our third witness today is Mr. Ralph Stoffler, Director of Weather and Deputy Chief Of Staff for Operations at the U.S. Air Force. 

Mr. Stoffler received his bachelor’s of science in meteorology from 

the University of Oklahoma in Norman—Boomer—and his master’s 

degree in systems management from the University of Southern 

California Los Angeles. 

Our final witness today is Ms. Cristina Chaplain, Director of Acquisition and Sourcing Management at the Government Accountability Office. Ms. Chaplain received her bachelor’s degree magna 

cum laude in international relations from Boston University and 

her master’s degree in journalism from Columbia University. 

I’d like to now recognize Dr. Volz for a five-minute opening statement. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. STEPHEN VOLZ, 

ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, 

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE, 

DATA, AND INFORMATION SERVICES, 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 

Dr. VOLZ. Good morning, Chairman Bridenstine, Ranking Member Bonamici, who unfortunately had to depart, and Members of 

the Committee. I’m Dr. Stephen Volz, as indicated, Assistant Administrator for NOAA’s Satellite, Environmental, Data, and Information Service called NESDIS. 

The United States depends on NOAA to collect and provide the 

critical Earth observations and information needed for weather 

forecasts, for disaster preparedness, all-hazards response and recovery, for the protection of critical infrastructure and natural resources, and also for the continued economic vitality of the nation. 

Currently, NOAA’s observation portfolio is strong and will soon 

be even stronger. NOAA has launched, with support from our partners, international and interagency, two missions over the last 18 

months, first, the space weather Deep Space Climate Observing— 

Observatory satellite or DSCOVR in February of 2015 and also the 

ocean-observing satellite Jason-3 just earlier this year. 

Within the next year, NOAA plans to launch the next-generation 

geostationary and polar-orbiting environmental satellites GOES–R 

and JPSS–1 and the COSMIC–2A radio occultation constellation of 
15 

satellites. These launches are only the beginning of a series of nextgeneration satellites soon to take flight. 

But a significant portion of what NESDIS does is not just in 

space. All elements of the integrated observing system with satellites, ground operations, assured satellite communications, reliable data archives are essential for our continued mission success. 

Beginning with the launch of JPSS–1, NESDIS will bring online in 

stages, a new upgraded ground operating system with enhanced reliability security, and lower data latency. This ground system will 

operate, ingest, and process data, providing information to users 

around the globe. 

Similarly, for GOES–R we’re deploying six new ground antennae 

enhanced to handle the increased data rate expected from GOES– 

R while staying within the narrow accessible frequency range allowed for our satellite transmissions. 

In fiscal year 2016, NOAA received funding from Congress to initiate the polar follow-on, the extension of the polar constellation. 

With this critical funding, the JPSS program now includes five 

polar-orbiting satellites, Suomi NPP, JPSS–1, 2, 3, and 4. This series of satellites supported by a NOAA industrial collaboration over 

the past years and into the future years is making excellent 

progress now on the Polar Follow-On, procuring the critical instrument long lead items so that we can ensure the delivery of these 

satellites on cost and on schedule. 

Earth’s weather systems are a global phenomenon, and NOAA’s 

satellites are only one piece of a global observing constellation. We 

are able to accomplish what we do because our many productive 

and mutually beneficial scientific and operations partnerships built 

up over years of cooperation and formal agreements that are 

underpinned by a full, open, and timely data-sharing policy. These 

partnerships allow us to ensure the continued operation of the robust global constellation needed to meet the needs of our users and 

stakeholders. 

In order to produce trusted, reliable data that our nation depends on every day, quality, validated observations are needed 

from multiple polar orbits, as Mr. Chairman Bridenstine mentioned. Continuing our partnerships now 30 years strong, NOAA 

and the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites, or EUMETSAT, have agreed to share the burden of 

the polar-orbiting satellite for the next 25 years. NOAA and 

EUMETSAT will continue splitting coverage for the two primary 

orbits, the midmorning and afternoon, and openly sharing data 

from our—with our respective missions. 

Within the United States, interagency collaboration allows us to 

leverage the capabilities, the capacity, and the infrastructure of 

other U.S. agencies such as with NASA, which is NOAA’s acquisition agent, and with the Department of Defense. The United States 

Air Force Defense Meteorological Satellite Program, or DMSP satellites, provide observations for the third early-morning orbit that 

is important for us. And NOAA operates the ground system development and oversees daily operations of the DMSP satellites out of 

our NOAA Satellite Ops Facility in Suitland, Maryland. These 

partnerships continue to provide excellent value for the U.S. Government as a whole. 
16 

Looking to the future, we are now preparing for the future observing system, evaluating changes in technology, emerging partnership opportunities, and national trends. Partnerships with the 

commercial sector and academic institutions can provide flexibility, 

including more innovative observing approaches, potentially enhancing our overall observing system reliability. 

This year, through the Commercial Weather Data Pilot, NESDIS 

is working with the emerging commercial Earth observation community to explore the present capabilities to meet NOAA’s observing requirements. Our comprehensive system study will consider 

all sources as we map out the observing system of the future. Our 

goal is to deploy an observing system within stable budget requirements but which is also agile and resilient and is responsive to the 

rapidly changing capabilities and technology of the future. 

We appreciate Congress’ strong support and we look forward to 

answering questions during the hearing today. Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Volz follows:] 
17 

WRITTEN STATEMENT BY 

STEPHEN M. VOLZ 

ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR 

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE, DATA, 

AND INFORMATION SERVICE 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

HEARING TITLED 

EXAMINING THE NATION'S CURRENT AND NEXT GENERATION WEATHER 

SATELLITE PROGRAMS 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

July 7, 2016 

Chairmen Bridenstine, Ranking Members Bonamici, and Members of the Committee, I am Dr. 

Stephen Volz, the Assistant Administrator ofNOAA's National Environmental Satellite, Data, 

and Information Service (NESDIS). Thank you for the opportunity to participate in today's 

hearing, and I am pleased to join the other witnesses Mr. Steffler from the United States Air 

Force (USAF), and Mr. Powner and Ms. Chaplain from the Government Accountability Office. 

NESDIS supports NOAA's mission of science, service, and stewardship through our satellite 

missions, data centers, data and information products, services, and use-inspired science. It is an 

end-to-end responsibility that underpins NOAA's value to the Nation. The United States depends 

on NOAA to provide satellite data and imagery for meteorological and space weather forecasts 

and emergency services. NESDIS' responsibility is to collect and provide the critical satellite 

Earth observations and other essential environmental information needed for disaster 

preparedness, all hazards response and recovery, and the protection of the Nation's critical 

infrastructure and natural resources. The 24 hours-per-day, 7 days-per-week, 365 days-per-year 

global coverage provided by NESDIS generates an uninterrupted stream of environmental data 

products. These products and information enable services used across the country in preparation 

for weather, oceans, and climate events that impact our daily lives, and national safety, and 

provide essential information for national, regional, and local emergency managers and officials. 

The reach ofNESDIS extends across many weather and hazard events, from supporting the 

forecasting of severe droughts in California to monitoring ash from volcanic eruptions over the 

Alaska Peninsula. Our nation's most dangerous and costly hurricanes have been closely 

monitored by forecasters and the general public alike using observations and analyses based on 

data from NESDIS satellites. NESDIS data and infonnation also provide foundational support 

for a constantly evolving array of applications and products used for the monitoring and research 

of Earth and its space environment. All of this is achieved through an increasingly capable global 

constellation of environmental satellites. 
18 

While NOAA continues to provide the highly accurate and reliable delivery of data, information, 

products, and services the organization is known for, we are now also taking time to assess the 

current state of the enterprise and evaluate changing technology, emerging partnership 

opportunities, and national trends. In the coming years, NOAA's satellite constellation will 

undergo significant enhancements and experience fundamental changes. NOAA's satellite 

systems are moving beyond the operation of distinct and separate ohserving systems to an 

integrated global observation system that can more efficiently merge observations from polar and 

low-Earth orbits with geostationary and other orbits, and that is sensitive to emerging 

technologies in both satellite and ground systems. 

NOAA's Current Satellite Observation enterprise 

The breadth of space-based observational capabilities and observing platforms operated by 

NOAA ranges from satellites in the polar orbit- providing global coverage- such as the 

NOAA/NASA Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (Suomi NPP), Jason-2 and-3, Polarorbiting Operational Environmental Satellites (POES), and the Defense Meteorological Satellite 

Program (DMSP), to satellites in geostationary orbit, such as NOAA's Geostationary 

Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES)- providing regional coverage- which orbit nearly 

22,240 miles away, and the nation's first operational satellite in deep space, the Deep Space 

Climate Observatory (DSCOVR), nearly one million miles away, midway between the Sun and 

the Earth. 

Polar and Low-Earth Orbit Satellites 

NOAA's polar-orbiting operational environmental satellites provide full global coverage for a 

broad range of weather and environmental applications, supporting both short-term weather 

forecasting and long-term climate records. NOAA's current operational polar-orbiting satellites 

include NOAA-15, NOAA-18, NOAA-19, and Suomi NPP. 

Placed in the afternoon orbit, the NOAA/NASA Suomi NPP satellite is NOAA's primary 

operational polar-orbiting spacecraft and provides critical observations to support NOAA's three 

to seven-day operational weather forecasts, operational weather "nowcasting" in Alaska and 

polar regions, and environmental monitoring and prediction. Launched in October 20 II, Suomi 

NPP's Advanced Technology Microwave Sounder and Cross-track Infrared Sounder instruments 

provide data to NOAA's operational numerical weather prediction models. The Visible Infrared 

Imaging Radiometer Suite instrument provides a wide range of environmental observations, data, 

and imaging capabilities including critical environmental products relating to snow and ice 

cover, clouds, fog, aerosols, fire, smoke plumes, dust, vegetation health, phytoplankton 

abundance, and chlorophyll. The satellite also includes the Ozone Mapping and Profiler Suite 

which takes global measurements of stratospheric ozone levels. Combined, these instruments 

have revolutionized forecasters' ability to make long range forecasts. 

The NOAA/NASA Suomi NPP satellite continues to function well, completing its fourth year on 

orbit on October 28, 2015. The vehicle and instruments arc all operating within specifications, 

though the scan drive motor on the A TMS instrument is showing signs of aging. A program of 

drive motor reversals was undertaken last year in order to extend the life of the motor. 

2 
19 

Also in low-Earth orbit, NOAA operates both the Jason-2 and Jason-3 satellites as part of the 

international Ocean Surface Topography Mission. The Jason mission is a partnership among 

NASA, France's Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES), the European Organisation for the 

Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT), and NOAA NESDIS. The Jason 

satellites provide sea surface height measurements using satellite altimetry. These data, provided 

operationally with a low latency, are used in studies and forecasts for tsunami dynamics, El Nino 

Southern Oscillation, eddy dynamics, ocean boundary currents and coastal and shallow water 

tides. Ocean heat content is also derived from Jason observations, and is an important factor in 

magnifying hurricane intensity, and impact to coastal communities such as the Gulf Coast states 

and eastern seaboard. The U.S. Navy's ability to conduct tactical and strategic operational 

planning depends upon accurate ocean models that include satellite altimetry data. On June I, 

2016, CNES handed NOAA official operational control of the Jason-3 satellite which is now 

taking operational, highly-detailed measurements in conjunction with Jason-2. 

The Constellation Observing System for Meteorology, Ionosphere, and Climate (COSMIC) 

mission, a joint research mission between the United States and the National Space Organization 

of Taiwan (NSPO), launched six satellites in a low-Earth orbit constellation in 2006. COSMIC 

data are used to provide three-dimensional profiles of temperature, humidity, and pressure 

measurements of the atmosphere, and provide electron density in the ionosphere. COSMIC data 

provide measurements of these atmospheric qualities in a manner complementary and 

independent of observations from the Suomi NPP satellite. Data collected by COSMIC are 

especially useful for forecasting tropical cyclones, including typhoons and hurricanes, because 

COSMIC is able to provide critical observations of water vapor, the fuel that drives tropical 

cyclones. These measurements are high resolution in the vertical direction, allowing scientists to 

determine how much water is present at what height in the atmosphere. The COSMIC satellites 

are aging, and currently only four of the original six are operating. 

Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites 

In geostationary orbit, NESDIS operates GOES-13 in the "GOES-East" position at 75° Wand 

GOES-15 in the "GOES-West" position at 135° W. GOES-14 is available as an on-orbit spare, 

located at 105° W. 

NOAA's two operational GOES satellites provide consistent and reliable monitoring of the entire 

Western Hemisphere and are critical for identifying and tracking severe weather, snow storms, 

and tropical cyclones. In addition to providing crucial near-real time imagery, on-board sensors 

detect cloud formation, land and ocean temperatures, as well as monitor activities of the sun like 

solar flares, which can disturb Earth's magnetic field. NOAA also uses GOES to identify when 

emergency locator beacons on ships and planes or with hikers and snowmobilers have been 

activated. The GOES satellites relay the alert to first responders so that they may initiate search 

and rescue activities, while the SARSA T instruments on the NOAA POES and EUMETSAT 

Metop satellites provide precise locations of activated beacons. 

GOES-East and GOES-West are providing data every 15 minutes to weather forecasters to 

support their forecasts and warnings. Although GOES-West experienced a component anomaly 

3 
20 

(i.e., loss of one of the two remaining star trackers) in April 2015, the satellite continues to 

operate on the single remaining star tracker and continues to meet all user performance 

requirements. The GOES-West Solar X-Ray Imager and X-Ray Sensor are acting as primary 

instruments, providing operational measurements, for NOAA's Space Weather Prediction 

Center. In November 2015, the GOES-East sounder filter wheel stalled. However, the imager 

continues to operate normally and is meeting all essential NWS weather forecasting needs. The 

current on-orbit spare, GOES-14, is in normal configuration, instead of storage mode 

configuration, to provide quick services as a backup. GOES-14 has been periodically providing 

!-minute Super Rapid Scan Operations to help algorithm developers, research partners, and 

forecasters prepare for the advanced capabilities available on the next-generation R-series 

geostationary satellites. All of the GOES-14 payload instruments are fully functioning without 

any performance degradation. 

DSCOVR 

NOAA's DSCOVR satellite is currently positioned approximately one million miles away in 

order to meet NOAA's operational requirement for continuous measurement of solar wind. The 

DSCOVR satellite will become the nation's first operational deep space satellite later this month, 

when NOAA's Space Weather Prediction Center expects to officially transition their operational 

solar wind data from NASA's Advanced Composition Explorer research satellite to data 

provided by DSCOVR. 

National Centers for Environmental Information 

These observing systems generate comprehensive environmental observations that are integrated 

and harmonized with other data collected by NOAA observing systems (e.g. radars, ships, buoys, 

aircraft, etc.) and observing systems operated by other nations. These data form the basis of the 

most comprehensive collection of national and global Earth environmental observations 

available for retrospective analyses and applications. NESDIS is the official source for 

atmospheric and space weather, climate, coastal, oceanographic, and geophysical environmental 

data and information. Access to reliable and accurate long-term records of this data and 

information is critical to satisfying the Nation's wide range of businesses, education, and 

government needs, including policies and decisions that have an impact on water and energy 

management, manufacturing, transportation, defense, food production, public health, and many 

other socio-economic issues. NESDlS' authoritative data and information products enable 

decision makers to make confident knowledge-based determinations about maximizing 

opportunities and minimizing threats from the environment. 

The Future of NESDIS Data and Observational Systems 

Next Generation Satellite Systems 

With the next generation of environmental observation satellites on the horizon, NOAA is poised 

to once again significantly improve weather forecasting and severe weather prediction. The 

DSCOVR satellite lifted off from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station on February 11,2015, and 

Jason-3 was launched less than a year later on January 17, 2016. Within the next year, NOAA 

4 
21 

plans to launch GOES-R, JPSS-1, and the first six COSMIC-2 satellites, which is the next step in 

building NOAA's future constellation. 

The first satellite in NOAA's next generation geostationary satellite series, GOES-R, is 

scheduled to launch November 4, 20 I 6. It will be known as GOES-16 once operational, and will 

scan Earth five times faster at four times the image resolution and triple the number of spectral 

channels than the current GOES generation. This increase in data and information means 

improved satellite imagery of severe weather will be available, giving forecasters even more 

tools to issue timely warnings during severe weather events. In addition, improved space weather 

observations from GOES-R will complement those from the newly launched DSCOVR mission, 

providing a comprehensive look at incoming solar storms and at the underlying solar activity that 

generates these storms. 

The GOES-R Series will also carry the first lightning mapper ever flown in geostationary orbit. 

The revolutionary Geostationary Lightning Mapper (GLM) will map total lightning (in-cloud 

and cloud-to-ground) continuously over the Americas and adjacent ocean regions providing 

hemispherical lightning observations for the first time. Increases in lightning flash rate are often a 

predictor of impending severe weather, meaning the total lightning data from GLM has the 

potential to increase lead time for the issuance of severe thunderstorm and tornado warnings. 

Following GOES-R, NOAA's JPSS-1 satellite is scheduled for launch no later than the second 

quarter ofFY 2017. Once operational, the satellite will be known as NOAA-20. JPSS-1 has five 

highly-sensitive instruments on board, the same type as those currently being successfully flown 

on the NOAA/NASA Suomi NPP satellite. Five years of operations with the NOAA/NASA 

Suomi NPP satellite have prepared NESDIS, and its users, for the great performance and value 

of this breakthrough operational polar-orbiting satellite. With the launch of JPSS-1, NESDIS will 

deliver to operations a new, upgraded ground system with enhanced reliability, security, and data 

timeliness. This system will not only operate NOAA's JPSS-1, Suomi NPP, and other polarorbiting spacecraft, but will also ingest and process their data, providing information to users 

around the globe. 

After commissioning is completed, the JPSS-1 satellite will fly one half orbit ahead of Suomi 

NPP in the same orbital plane. This means that JPSS-1 will operate about 50 minutes ahead of 

Suomi NPP, allowing for important overlap in observational coverage. The data from both 

satellites will provide critical observations and continue to be entered into National Weather 

Service numerical weather prediction models, thereby continuing the improvements in medium 

and long-term weather forecasts and severe weather prediction. 

Launched on April 15, 2006, four of the six COSMIC satellites are operating six years beyond 

their design life and are in need of replacement. ln order to maintain and increase the level of 

coverage provided, NOAA plans to launch COSMIC-2A in early 2017 and is considering 

COSMIC-2B in 2020 (contingent on the outcome of an ongoing evaluation of possible 

commercial solutions). The COSMIC-2 constellation will include advanced technology that will 

significantly increase the geographic coverage, quantity, and quality of observations. Under a 

partnership agreement between the United States (NOAA and the USAF) and NSPO, the 

COSMIC-2 mission will develop and deploy an operational constellation of 12 Global 

5 
22 

Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Radio Occultation satellites. The first six will be launched 

into an equatorial orbit and augment the current COSMIC satellites. Replacement of the polarorbit could occur through a commercial data buy or could be satisfied through launch of 

COSMIC-2B into polar-orbit to replace the aging COSMIC satellites. The COSMlC-2 program 

is expected to provide up to 8,000 temperature and humidity measurements worldwide per day, 

almost ten times the number of daily measurements that COSM IC-1 currently provides, which 

we anticipate will increase the benefits to weather forecasting. If the GNSS RO polar-orbit data 

are not replaced before the remaining four COSMIC satellites fail, there may be degradation to 

NWS forecasts. 

These launches are only the beginning of a series of next-generation environmental observing 

satellites to take flight. Development of both the GOES-R Series and JPSS satellites are in 

progress. GOES-S is nearing completion of satellite integration and preparations for its 

environmental test campaign, while the GOES-T and -U component development is well 

underway. JPSS-1 took another step closer to its launch in early 2017 with the integration of its 

fifth and final instrument in February 2016. In April 2016, the satellite began environmental 

testing, the next step in launch preparation. All four JPSS-2 instruments are in the parts 

procurement, sub-assembly integration, and test phase. Some significant risks have been 

successfully addressed as these instruments progress. The spacecraft work for JPSS-2 was 

initiated in July 2015, and the first review milestone for it was successfully conducted last fall. 

NOAA has also received funding and approval from Congress in the FY 2016 appropriations bill 

for the JPSS Program to initiate the Polar Follow On (PFO) JPSS-3 and JPSS-4 satellites. With 

this funding, the JPSS Program now includes five polar-orbiting satellites, each with critical 

sounding and imaging instruments, and a versatile ground segment. These are: Suomi NPP, 

JPSS-1, JPSS-2, JPSS-3, and JPSS-4. They enable the JPSS program to provide polar coverage 

through the 2030s to ensure continuity and robustness of critical polar-orbiting weather satellite 

observations. 

The President's FY 2017 budget has proposed $393 million for the development of JPSS-3 and4. This is an increase of$23 million from the 2016 enacted budget for PFO, and it shows 

continued commitment by the Administration to this critical program that will help to sustain 

coverage of the afternoon polar orbit that is so critical to U.S. weather forecasting. 

Enterprise Ground and Space Architectures 

A significant portion of what NESDIS docs is not just in space, but on the ground as well. 

Everything from satellite operations to data ingestion, validation and calibration, distribution, 

product development, and archiving occur through ground systems and data management 

centers. NESDIS is preparing for the future by integrating ground services in order to leverage 

technology to achieve efficiencies, accelerate the development and delivery of operational 

products, reduce cost and risk, and consolidate functions where possible, while improving 

cybersecurity, communications and data archiving capabilities. In order to facilitate the 

development of integrated systems and the creation of state-of-the-art science products, NESDIS 

has already begun a transition to enterprise algorithms. Currently, work is being conducted to 

update NOAA Heritage Cloud, Cryosphere, Volcanic Ash, and Aerosol algorithms to work on 

6 
23 

data from JPSS satellites and to migrate software databases for several POES and GOES 

algorithms in order to bring consistency across the GOES-R and JPSS suite of products. NESDIS 

is also ensuring user readiness not only with the NWS, but also to meet the broad set of NOAA 

mission needs across the National Ocean Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the 

Office of Marine and Aviation Operations. 

Architecture Studies and Future Planning 

In 2015, NESDIS began a comprehensive review of all observing system requirements and 

capabilities to determine potential challenges and begin identifying possible solutions. The 

purpose of the NOAA Satellite Observing System Architecture Study is to determine the most 

cost effective space segment architecture for performing NOAA weather, space weather, and 

environmental remote sensing missions, beyond the current program of record for operations 

beginning in the 2030s. The study is working to identify the user needs that drive NOAA 

missions and develop new concepts and options for Earth observing instruments and their spacebased platforms. This also means conducting observing system analyses while considering 

system complexity. cost, risk, and launch options. The goal is to seek and maintain constellations 

which can be met with stable budget requirements, and which are agile and resilient. 

Partnerships 

The combined effect of NOAA's next generation of GOES-R Series and JPSS/PFO satellites will 

provide a significant improvement over NOAA's previous observing capabilities and will 

provide critical observations through the mid-2030s. Earth's weather systems are a global 

phenomenon, however, and NOAA's satellites are only one piece of the global observing 

constellation. 

NOAA and NESDIS accomplish much of what we do because of the scientific and data 

exchange with our partners, built on years of cooperation and formal agreements that are 

underpinned by a full, open, and timely data sharing policy. Successful partnerships allow us to 

meet our mission cost-effectively and to be more responsive to the needs of our users and 

stakeholders. Our key foreign partners, including Europe and Japan, maintain very capable and 

reliable observation systems, providing NOAA access to their critical data at no charge. To 

support this international collaboration, the NOAA coordinates global solutions to shared 

challenges through multilateral organizations, maintaining and expanding bilateral partnerships, 

and continually promoting the adoption of full and open data policies. 

In addition, interagency collaboration allows us to leverage the capabilities, capacity, and/or 

infrastructure of other U.S. agencies in support of the NESDIS mission, and vice versa. These 

partnerships have the potential to provide a better return on investment for the U.S. Government 

as a whole. 

Currently, NOAA shares data, and sometimes instruments, with several international satellite 

programs. In return, NOAA receives access to in situ data from countries around the world, and 

satellite data from missions including the Metcosat and Metop series of satellites from 

EUMETSAT, Himawari-8 from the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA), GCOM-WI from the 

7 
24 

Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, COSMIC from the National Space Organization of 

Taiwan (NSPO), the Sentinel series from the European Commission and Jason-2 and -3 in 

partnership with NASA, CNES, and EUMETSA T. The Argos program, which represents one of 

these long standing collaborative efforts, has lasted over 30 years and is utilized for wildlife 

tracking, weather buoys, and other environmentally-critical assets. Our partners for the Argos 

program include the CNES, EUMETSAT, and the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO). 

Cospas-Sarsat is another example of a shared international satellite resource that aides in a search 

and rescue system, with NOAA providing a platform on our space vehicles for partnering 

instruments. The governing parties of the system are the U.S. (NOAA), France (CNES), Russia 

(Morsviazsputnik), and Canada (National Search-and-Rescue Secretariat) and are the signatories 

to the International Cospas-Sarsat Programme Agreement (ICSPA, 1988).The future of robust 

and cost-effective global Earth observation relies on the continuation of existing, and the 

cultivation of future, interagency and international partnerships. 

In order to produce the three- to seven-day weather outlooks that our nation depends on every 

day, data and information are needed from three complementary polar orbits. In order to provide 

these forecasts, critical for the timely notice of severe weather events, NOAA and EUMETSA T 

have agreed to share the burden of operating polar-orbiting satellites for the next twenty five 

years. Under this agreement, known as the Joint Polar System Agreement, NOAA and 

EUMETSA Twill split responsibility for the two primary orbits and agree to openly share data 

from our respective missions. EUMETSA T satellites cover the mid-morning orbit while NOAA 

is responsible for the afternoon orbit--continuing a partnership that began under the 1998 Initial 

Joint Polar-orbiting Operational Satellite System Agreement. NWS Alaska region has used 

imagery from the USAF DMSP to supplement imagery from NOAA POES and Suomi NPP and 

Metop satellites. Recently, NOAA has included some DMSP data from the third orbit, early 

morning, into its NWP models. While these data have been available, the DMSP data are not 

optimized for input into the NWS NWP, therefore, loss of the data would not degrade the model 

output. NOAA is monitoring the development of the Weather Satellite Follow On to determine 

how and whether these data could be useful for NWP. 

NOAA's geostationary satellites join the EUMETSA T's Meteosat satellites and JMA's 

Himawari-8 satellite to form a virtual global geostationary constellation. This coordinated global 

constellation is reinforced by mutually supportive back-up agreements between NOAA and JMA 

and NOAA and EUMETSA T in recognition of the necessity of a global commitment to 

uninterrupted observations, and the full, open, and timely sharing of global environmental data 

and information. 

Within the United States, NOAA has strategic partnerships with both NASA and the Department 

of Defense to achieve the level of robust and reliable Earth observations required by the nation at 

all times. We have been working closely with NASA, our acquisition partner, to build and 

operate NOAA's next-generation operational environmental satellite constellations, the JPSS and 

GOES-R Series programs. 

NOAA also works closely with the USAF on several missions in a coordinated project-based 

partnership. Primary command and control for the USAF's DMSP is jointly managed by NOAA 

and the USAF 50th Operations Group Detachment L both operating out ofNOAA's Satellite 

8 
25 

Operations Facility in Suitland, Maryland. NOAA specifically operates the ground systems 

development and oversees daily operation of the DMSP satellites. Operations are also supported 

by a back-up facility located at Schriever Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, Colorado, under 

the leadership ofthc 6th Space Operations Squadron. 

Five USAF DMSP satellites, launched between 1997 and 2009, are currently operational. Flying 

in the early-morning polar orbit, these satellites monitor global information such as clouds, 

precipitation, ice, snow cover, temperature, water vapor, and wind speed, and arc essential 

contributors to the global polar constellation. 

Another coordinated project, the DSCOVR mission, is a partnership between NOAA, NASA and 

the USAF. NOAA is responsible for operating the satellite as well as processing, distributing, 

and archiving the data, while NASA held the responsibility of preparing the spacecraft and its 

instruments (with support from NOAA), developing the ground segment, and managing the 

launch and activation. The USAF funded and oversaw the launch services for the spacecraft and 

provided the launch vehicle, a Falcon 9 Rocket, via their launch services contract with SpaceX. 

The USAF is also partnering with NOAA, NASA, and NSPO to launch and operate COSMIC-2. 

The USAF will provide two space weather payloads that will fly on the first six satellites 

(COSMIC-2A). These include the Radio Frequency Beacon transmitter and the Jon Velocity 

Meter instruments. 

NOAA has partnered with CNES, the Department of National Defense of Canada (DND), and 

the USAF in the Cooperative Data and Rescue Series program for the continuity of the Argos 

data collection and the Search and Rescue Satellite Aided Tracking (SARSAT) missions from 

polar orbiting satellites. CNES and DND have built the Argos and SARSA T payloads, and 

NOAA is developing plans with USAF to integrate these sensors onto a commercially hosted 

payload via the USAF Hosted Payload Solutions contract. Execution of this program, with a 

launch readiness date in early FY 2021, will ensure continuity of both the Argos and SARSA T 

missions. 

Future Commercial Partnerships 

The first 50 years of satellite weather observations have been dominated by government 

observing systems, assets, and partnerships. However, the environmental observing community 

is now on the cusp of a shift in space-based weather observations toward commercialization. We 

recognize that partnerships with the commercial sector and academic institutions could provide 

flexibility and allow for innovative approaches to augmenting and potentially fulfilling national 

observing requirements more easily. 

For NOAA, this opens up the possibility that some environmental observation requirements may 

be met or supported by observations obtained from commercially owned and operated observing 

systems. To explore this possibility effectively, NOAA has developed a Commercial Space 

Policy, which details the principles the agency will apply when considering commercial 

solutions to meet mission requirements. NESDIS, in accordance with the policy, is developing 

the Commercial Space Activities Assessment Process that will guide our engagements with 

9 
26 

industry as new space systems are defined, developed, and deployed. Engagement with the 

commercial sector involves an open dialogue in which mission requirements are explained and 

updated, and the production processes and contractual relationships are clearly defined. 

Underpinning this dialog, and NESD!S' observatory system planning, is a commitment to 

continue delivering essential products and services to the National Weather Service, and other 

key users, without interruption or degradation. 

On May 24,2016, NESDIS released a Request for Information (RFJ), which closed on June 13, 

2016, to support NOAA's Commercial Weather Data Pilot (CWDP) and to assess GNSS RO 

commercial opportunities to meet NOAA's needs. The CWDP will evaluate commercial data to 

demonstrate the quality of the data and its impact on weather forecast models, as well as 

informing NOAA's process for ingesting, evaluating, and utilizing commercial data in the future. 

The RFI is the first step to potentially bring radio occultation data from commercial companies 

to NOAA. The RFI seeks pre-launch data in order to facilitate broad participation and will gather 

the latest industry input as we consider what criteria will be included in a subsequent Request for 

Proposals (RFP), the next step in carrying out the Pilot. NOAA will use the results of the FY 

2016 CW DP to inform how funds will be spent on commercial sources of data. In FY 2017, the 

President's Budget requests funding to continue activities started in CWDP in FY 2016, and 

provides an opportunity for NOAA to assess whether to acquire Global Navigation Satellite 

Systems radio occultation instruments for COSMIC-28 mission or to pursue a GNSS RO 

commercial data buy. 

Conclusion 

The importance of environmental satellites to monitor and understand our planet's complex 

systems was realized over 50 years ago with the launch of the world's first weather satellite. 

Since then, that single satellite has grown into a global network of systems with increasingly 

capable satellites, models, and processing and distribution systems that provide an ever growing 

catalog of products, information and services. Along with the rest of the environmental 

observing community, NOAA's NESDIS has continued to evolve, becoming a leader in this 

global endeavor. 

Looking toward the future, NESDIS will continue to effectively provide the highly accurate and 

consistent delivery of data, information, products, and services that our users expect and the 

Nation depends on, while developing future systems to respond to changing technology, 

emerging partnership opportunities, and national trends. 

With several ofNOAA's next generation weather and climate satellites (including JPSS-1, 

COSMIC-2 and GOES-R) set to launch in the near future, similar constellation growth is 

occurring within our partner organizations, as well as an emerging relationship with the 

commercial sector and an increased focus on data integration, curation and fusion, this is a 

particularly exciting and evolutionary time for NESDIS and the global observing system. 

10 
27 

SUMMARY WRITTEN STATEMENT BY STEPHEN M. VOLZ 

NESDIS supports NOAA's mission of science, service, and stewardship through our satellite missions, 

data centers, data and information products, services, and use-inspired science. It is an end-to-end 

responsibility that underpins NOAA's value to the Nation. NESDIS' responsibility is to collect and 

provide the critical satellite Earth observations and other essential environmental information needed for 

disaster preparedness, all hazards response and recovery, and the protection of the Nation's critical 

infrastructure and natural resources. These products and information enable services used across the 

country in preparation for weather, oceans, and climate events that impact our daily lives, and national 

safety, and provide essential infonnation for national, regional, and local emergency managers and 

officials. NOAA acquires data from its own systems and through domestic and international partnerships. 

NESDIS utilizes imagery and data for numerical weather prediction models from polar-orbit (NOAA 

Suomi NPP, EUMETSAT Metop,joint US-French-EUMETSAT Jason-3 and -3, NOAA POES, Air 

Force DMSP, COSMIC, Japan GCOM-Wl), geostationary orbit (NOAA GOES, Japanese Himawari-8, 

EUMETSAT Metop, Indian), and Deep Space (DSCOVR). While these satellites are designed for 

weather and space weather monitoring and forecasting, data and data collection services on these 

satellites are being used for other applications such as environmental monitoring, search and rescue, and 

data relay. In addition to space-based data, through the National Centers for Environmental Information, 

NOAA has access to other data collected by NOAA and foreign observing systems such as, radars, ships, 

buoys, and aircraft 

The recently launched satellites, DSCOVR and Jason-3 have recently been declared operational missions. 

NOAA's current GOES and polar-orbiting systems are providing data for National Weather Service and 

the nation's weather enterprise. Next generation satellites, GOES-R will launch on November 4, 2016, 

and the JPSS-1 satellite will launch no later than 2Q FY 2017. NOAA is making good progress on 

GOES-S,-T,-U, and the JPSS-2 and Polar Follow On (JPSS-3 and -4). With the Air Force and Taiwan, 

NOAA is preparing for COSMIC-2A launch in FY 2017. NOAA is assessing how commercial solutions 

can be used to meet its Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Radio Occultation data with 

COSMIC-2 capabilities in the polar-orbit. 

NESDIS has initiated a comprehensive review of all observing system requirements and capabilities to 

determine potential challenges and begin identifying possible solutions. The purpose of the NOAA 

Satellite Observing System Architecture Study is to detennine the most cost effective space segment 

architecture for performing NOAA weather, space weather, and environmental remote sensing missions, 

beyond the current program of record for operations beginning in the 2030s. 

NESDIS recognizes that the commercial sector provides opportunities for meeting space-based weather 

observations. NOAA has developed a Commercial Space Policy, which details the principles the agency 

will apply when considering commercial solutions to meet mission requirements. NESDIS is developing 

the Commercial Space Activities Assessment Process that will guide our engagements with industry as 

new space systems are defined, developed, and deployed. NESDIS is in the midst of implementing a 

Commercial Weather Data Pilot and to assess GNSS RO commercial opportunities to meet NOAA's 

needs. 

NOAA intends to leverage data from a global network of systems, including commercial sources, with 

increasingly capable satellites, models, and processing and distribution systems that provide an ever 

growing catalog of products, information and services to meet its data requirements 
28 

Natrona! Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1 NOAA Satellite and Information Service 

Stephen Volz 

Assistant Administrator for Satellite & Information Services 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

Dr. Stephen Volz is the NOAA Assistant Administrator for Satellite and 

Information Services. NOAA:s Satellite and Information Service is dedicated 

to providing timely access to global environmental data from satellites and 

other sources to promote, protect and enhance the Nation's economy, security, 

environment and quality of life. In this role Dr. Volz leads the acquisition and 

operation of the nation's civil operational environmental satellite system. He also 

leads efforts tOr research and development of products and programs to archive 

and provide access to a variety ofEarth observations via three national data centers. 

Dr. Volz is a leader in the international Earth observation community, serving as 

the NOAA Principal to the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS). 

In this capacity he leads efforts to coordinate global satellite-based observations 

among international space agency partners to further the development of a Global Earth Observation System of 

Systems. In addition, Dr. Volz serves as the Co-Chair of the NOAA Observing Systems Council, a group that 

coordinates observing systems requirements and provides resource recommendations for NOAA's observation 

platforms. He is also a member of the NOAA Executive Council, NOAA's executive decision-making body. 

Dr. Volz previously served as the Associate Director for Flight Programs in tbe Earth Science Division ofNASA:s 

Science Mission Directorate. As the Program Director, Dr. Volz managed all of :'\!ASA's Earth Science flight 

missions and associated activities. Within this flight portfolio, Dr. Volz managed a line of Principle Investigator 

(PI) led missions in airborne science, small satellites, and instrument missions of opportunity, including the 

development of the Announcements of Opportunity to solicit the science and mission proposals, along with 

their subsequent evaluation and selection. Steve managed within the flight program a suite of Distributed Active 

Archive Centers (DAACs) that process, distribute, and archive all of NASA:s Earth science data, as well as the 

science research data products developed from these and other satellite remote-sensing data. Dr. Volz worked 

with domestic and international space agencies to actively support and promote partnerships and collaboration to 

further NASA and the nation's Earth science remote-sensing objectives, and to maximize the beneficial utilization 

ofNASA:s Earth science data. 

Dr. Volz has 26 years professional experience in aerospace. Prior to serving as the Flight Program Director, Dr. 

Volz was the Earth Science program executive for a series of Earth Science missions, including E0-3 GIFTS, 

CloudSat, CALIPSO, and ICESat, and he led the Senior Review for the Earth Science operating missions. Dr. 

Volz worked in industry at Ball Aerospace and Technologies Corporation from 1997-2002, where he was the 

Project Manager for the Space Infrared Telescope Facility supcrfluid helium cryostat and otber flight projects. 

From 1986-1997 Dr. Volz worked for NASA:s Goddard Space Flight Center as an instrument manager, an 

I&T Manager, a systems engineer, and a cryogenic systems engineer on missions and instruments including the 

Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE), among others. 

Dr. Volz is a member of several professional societies, including the American Physical Society (M'82), the American 

Astronomical Society (M'87), the American Geophysical Union (M'02), and the American Meteorological 
29 

Society (M'08). He is a senior member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (JEEE), an active 

member of and participant in the Geoscience and Remote Sensing Society (GRSS), and a member of the GRSS 

Administration Committee (AdCom) for the period of2013-2017. He is the recipient of several awards,including 

the Silver Snoopy Award from NASA's astronaut team in 1994 for his work as the instrument manager and team 

lead for the Space Shuttle cross bay mounted Supcrfluid Helium On Orbit Transfer (SHOOT) e.xpcriment, the 

Goddard Space Flight Center John Boeckel Award for Engineering Excellence (1992), and the Ball Corporation 

Award of Excellence from the Ball Aerospace and Technology Corporation (BATC) in 2001. 

Dr. Volz has a doctorate in Experimental Condensed Matter Physics from the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign (1986), a master's in Physics from Illinois (1981), and a bachelor's in Physics from the University of 

Virginia (1980). He has more than 20 publications in peer-reviewed journals. 

Dr. Volz is a native-born \Vashingtonian, and lives in Betbesda with his wife Beth and his two teenage daughters. 
30 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. Powner, you’re recognized for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. DAVID POWNER, DIRECTOR, 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT ISSUES, 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. POWNER. Chairman Bridenstine, Ranking Member Johnson, 

and Members of the Subcommittee, since my December testimony 

before this subcommittee, we have continued to review the JPSS 

program and NOAA’s policies and procedures for determining the 

life span of existing and future satellites. Accurately depicting 

these life spans is important, given potential gaps in coverage and 

the timing of the out-year satellite acquisitions. 

This morning, I will provide an update on the JPSS program, the 

latest of our estimate on the potential gap, a security assessment 

of the ground stations, and some observations about the Polar Follow-On program. 

JPSS’s launch date of March 2017 is on target according to 

NOAA despite the program missing interim milestones for the 

spacecraft, ATMS, and the ground segment. This is the case since 

the program had sufficient costs and schedule reserves built into 

it. This committee’s persistent questioning of these reserves over 

the past several years demonstrates the important role your consistent oversight has played. 

We still remain concerned about the launch date because the 

launch readiness date just slipped one month from December 2016 

to January 2017. Two key areas to watch are the August ground 

station delivery and the upcoming thermal vac test, which is to 

start at the end of this month. 

So with the March 2017 launch date and a three month checkout 

period, which is somewhat optimistic, JPSS–1 is expected to be the 

primary operational satellite in the early afternoon orbit around 

June 2017 or roughly a year from now. 

I’d like to display a chart that I showed at the December hearing. 

[Slide.] 

At that hearing I testified and NOAA agreed that it was extending the NPP life span from October 2016 to 2020. That’s the red 

arrow at the top of the chart. At that time, we questioned whether 

it should be extended the full four years given NOAA’s assessment. 

Since then, we’ve learned that NOAA now labels this four-year extension as fuel-limited life, and it is not the expected life of the 

spacecraft and sensors. This is just another instance where NOAA’s 

charts and satellite life spans have been misleading to the Congress. 

Another key question is whether the ATMS instrument on NPP 

will last until J–1’s ATMS becomes operational. We testified in December about the ATMS issues, and they continue. 

Just recently, we made recommendations to NOAA to develop a 

policy for updating its fly-out charts to include having these life 

spans consistently and accurately reported based on detailed analyses. We believe this rigor in developing the fly-out charts is critical for NOAA to rebuild trust with both this committee and with 

the appropriation committees. 
31 

Mr. Chairman, I’d now like to turn to the ground station security 

findings and recommendations. This is an important area because 

NOAA has reported several incidents regarding access to its 

ground system, including hostile probes and unauthorized access. 

To its credit, NOAA has a systems security plan, has performed detailed penetration tests, and is working to address known 

vulnerabilities. However, NOAA has determined that the JPSS 

ground system is at high risk of compromise due to the significant 

number of controls that are not fully implemented. 

[Slide.] 

As this next chart displays, NOAA has been working on over 

1,000 critical and high vulnerabilities on the current ground station 

and hundreds more have been identified from penetration tests on 

the ground upgrade. Just last night, NOAA provided an update on 

open vulnerabilities and they report decreasing roughly 1,500 open 

critical and high vulnerabilities down to about 1,200, a decrease of 

300. Of concern are the critical vulnerabilities associated with the 

current operational ground station. These actually increased slightly. No one needs to close these vulnerabilities much quicker. Some 

areas to address these vulnerabilities include applying recommended patches and implementing stronger access controls. 

Turning to the follow-on program, we are all for robust constellations and avoiding any potential gaps like the one we hope does not 

occur between NPP and J–1, but proposals to build J–3 and 4 to 

store nearly 3 and six years respectively need to be supported by 

cost-benefit analyses of different storage and launch scenarios. In 

addition, these continuity decisions need to be balanced with minimizing program costs. 

In conclusion, NOAA has done a solid job coming out of the 

NPOESS debacle and being on the verge of the J–1 launch. Monitoring the remaining tests in the ground station delivery is important in these remaining months to see if the March 2017 launch 

date holds. 

Regarding the gap between NPP and J–1, ATMS aware is the 

critical watch list item. NOAA also needs to more accurately inform 

Congress of satellite life spans and potential gaps in coverage, and 

finally, they need to better secure ground stations to avoid security 

incidents involving the loss of critical weather data. 

This concludes my statement. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Powner follows:] 
32 

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. ET 

Thursday, July 7, 2016 

GA0-16-773T 

United States Government Accountability Office 

Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Environment, 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

House of Representatives 

POLAR SATELLITES 

NOAA Faces Challenges 

and Uncertainties that 

Could Affect the 

Availability of Critical 

Weather Data 

Statement of David A. Powner 

Director, Information Technology Management Issues 
33 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this materia! separately. 
34 

POLAR SATELLITES 

NOAA Faces Challenges and Uncertainties that Could 

Affect the Availability of Critical Weather Data 

What GAO Found 

As highlighted in a May 2016 report, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration's (NOM) Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) program has 

continued to make progress in developing the JPSS-1 satellite for a March 2017 

launch. However, the program has experienced technical challenges which have 

resulted in delays in interim milestones. In addition, NOM faces the potential for 

a near-term gap in satellite coverage of 8 months before the JPSS-1 satellite is 

launched and completes post-launch testing (see figure). NOM has also begun 

planning for future polar satellites. However, uncertainties remained on the best 

timing for launching these satellites, in part because of the potential for some 

satellites already in orbit to last longer. NOM did not provide sufficient evidence 

that it had evaluated the costs and benefits of launch scenarios for these new 

satellites based on updated life expectancies. Until this occurs, NOM may not 

make the most efficient use of investments in the polar satellite program. 

Calendar years 

On-orbltche{;kout Potential gap B!M Expected fife 

Source; GAO analysis based on National Oceanic amlAtmosphelicAdministmtion and National Aeronautics and Space 

Admmistrat~<.ttHlata. j GAQ..-16.773T 

Note: The afternoon orbit is one of three primary polar orbits providing needed coverage for 

numerical weather models 

As noted in a draft GAO report, NOM publishes "ftyout charts" depicting satellite 

time!ines to support budget requests and appropriations discussions. The agency 

regularly updates its charts when key changes occur, However, the charts do not 

always accurately reflect data from other program documentation such as the 

latest satellite schedules or assessments of satellite availability. NOM also has 

not consistently documented its justification for chart updates or depicted 

lifetimes for satellites beyond their design life, and has not finalized a policy for 

updating its charts. As a result, the information NOAA provides Congress on the 

f!yout charts is not as accurate as it needs to be, which could result in less-thanoptimal decisions. 

GAO reported in May 2016 that, although NOM has established information 

security policies in key areas recommended by guidance, the JPSS program has 

not yet fully implemented them. Specifically, while the program has implemented 

multiple relevant security controls, it has not yet fully implemented almost half of 

the recommended security controls, did not have all of the information it needed 

when assessing security controls, and has not addressed key vulnerabilities in a 

timely manner. Furthermore, NOM has experienced 10 key information security 

incidents related to the JPSS ground system, including incidents regarding 

unauthorized access to web servers and computers. Until NOM addresses 

these weaknesses, the JPSS ground system remains at high risk of compromise. 

------------- United States Government Accountability Office 
35 

Chairman Bridenstine, Ranking Member Bonamici, and Members of the 

Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in today's hearing on an 

important satellite acquisition program within the Department of 

Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

In 2010, NOAA initiated the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) program 

with assistance from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA). NOAA launched the first satellite in the JPSS program in 

October 2011, and plans to launch the next satellite by March 2017. 

NOAA also plans to launch other similar satellites in the future. 

The JPSS program is critical to the United States' ability to maintain the 

continuity of data required for weather forecasting. According to officials 

at NOAA, a gap in polar satellite data would result in less accurate and 

timely weather forecasts and warnings of extreme events, such as 

hurricanes, storm surges, and floods. Such degradation in forecasts and 

warnings would place lives, property, and our nation's critical 

infrastructures in danger. Given the criticality of satellite data to weather 

forecasts, the possibility of a satellite data gap, and the potential impact of 

a gap, we added this area to our High-Risk List in 2013 and it remained 

on the High-Risk List in 2015. 1 

This statement summarizes a recently issued report and key findings from 

a draft report on (1) the status of the JPSS program and plans for future 

satellites, (2) NOAA's efforts to depict and update satellite timelines; and 

(3) the JPSS program's implementation of key information security 

protections. Specifically, this statement is based on a May 2016 report 

detailing NOAA's progress on the JPSS satellite program with respect to 

schedule and key risks, its efforts to plan and implement a follow-on polar 

satellite program, and the JPSS program's implementation of key 

information security protections. 2 More detailed information on our 

objectives, scope, and methodology can be found in the issued report. 

1Every 2 years, at the start of a new Congress, we call attention to agencies and program 

areas that are high risk due to their vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and 

mismanagement, or are most in need of transformation. See GAO, High Risk Series: An 

Update, GA0-13-283 (Washington, D.C .. Feb. 14, 2013) and High Risk Series: An 

Update, GA0-15-290 (Washington, D.C .. Feb. 11, 2015) 

2GAO, Polar Weather Satellites: NOAA Is Working to Ensure Continuity but Needs to 

Quickly Address Information Security Weaknesses and Future Program Uncertainties, 

GA0-16-359 (Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2016). 

Page 1 GA0-16-773T 
36 

Background 

This statement is also based on a draft report that includes the results of 

work we performed for the House Committee on Appropriations for 

information on NOAA's efforts to depict and update polar satellite timeline 

information. For our draft report, we reviewed NOAA policies, procedures, 

and documentation on recent updates to it satellite timelines, compared 

the timeline updates to other agency documentation and support 

materials, and interviewed agency officials. We reviewed information from 

the draft report with agency officials and made technical changes as 

appropriate. This draft report is currently at the Department of Commerce 

for official comment. We expect to issue the report by September 2016. 

The work upon which this statement was based was conducted in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Since the 1960s, the United States has operated polar-orbiting satellite 

systems that obtain environmental data to support weather observations 

and forecasts. These data are processed to provide graphical weather 

images and specialized weather products. Data from polar satellites are 

also the predominant input to numerical weather prediction models, which 

are a primary tool for forecasting weather days in advance-including 

forecasting the path and intensity of hurricanes. These weather products 

and models are used to predict the potential impact of severe weather so 

that communities and emergency managers can help prevent and 

mitigate its effects. 

Polar-orbiting satellites circle the earth in a nearly north-south orbit, 

providing global observation of conditions that affect the weather and 

climate. Each satellite makes about 14 orbits a day. As the earth rotates 

beneath it, each polar -orbiting satellite views the entire earth's surface 

twice a day. 

Currently, the polar-orbiting satellites that are considered primary 

satellites for providing input to weather forecasting models are a 

NOAA/NASA satellite (called Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership, 

or S-NPP), two Department of Defense (DOD) satellites, and a series of 

European satellites. These satellites cross the equator in early morning, 

Page 2 GA0-16-773T 
37 

mid-morning, and early afternoon orbits, with S-NPP in the early 

afternoon orbit. NOAA, the Air Force, and a European weather satellite 

organization also maintain older satellites that provide limited backup to 

these operational satellites. Figure 1 illustrates the current operational 

polar satellite constellation. 

Figure 1: Configuration of Operational Polar Satellites 

Notional local equatorial crossing times 

Sources: GAO, based on NPOESS Integrated Prognlm Offiee, NaliMa! Oceanit: and Atmospheric Administration, and Department ol 

Defense data; Natt<ma! Aeronaullc$ and Spaee Adrnini!>lral.iorVGoddard Space Flight Center Scleotlfu: Visuali:tabon Studio (earth); 

S-NPP image provided courtooy ofUnovNSlly ofWisconsin-Mad•son Space Sr;~ern;e and Eog~rnoenng Center, I GA0·1S..773T 

Note: DMSP- Defense Meteorological Satellite Program; Metop- Meteorological Operational; S- NPP ~Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership. 

According to NOAA, 80 percent of the data assimilated into its National 

Weather Service numerical weather prediction models that are used to 

produce weather forecasts 3 days and beyond is provided by polarorbiting satellites. Specifically, a single afternoon polar satellite provides 

NOAA 45 percent of the global coverage it needs for its numerical 

weather models. NOAA obtains the rest of the polar satellite data it needs 

from other satellite programs, including DOD's early morning satellites 

and the European mid-morning satellite. 

NOAA is currently executing a major satellite acquisition program to 

replace existing polar satellite systems that are nearing the end of their 

expected life spans. NOAA established the JPSS program in 2010 after a 

Page 3 GA0~16-773T 
38 

prior tri-agency program was disbanded due to technical and 

management challenges, cost growth, and schedule delays.3 The JPSS 

program guided the development and launch of the Suomi-National Polarorbiting Partnership (S-NPP) satellite in 20114 and is responsible for two 

other planned JPSS satellites, known as JPSS-1 and JPSS-2. The 

current anticipated launch dates for these two satellites are March 2017 

and December 2021, respectively. More recently, NOAA has also begun 

planning the Polar Follow-On program, which is to include the 

development and launch of a third and fourth satellite in the series in July 

2026 and July 2031, respectively. These are planned to be nearly 

identical to the JPSS-2 satellite. 

NOAA has organized the JPSS program into flight and ground projects 

that have separate areas of responsibility. The flight project includes a set 

of five instruments, the spacecraft, and launch services. The ground 

project consists of ground-based systems that handle satellite 

communications and data processing. The ground system's versions are 

numbered; the version that is currently in use is called Block 1.2, and the 

new version that is under development is called Block 2.0. Among other 

things, Block 2.0 is to enable the JPSS ground system to support both the 

S-NPP and all planned JPSS satellites. 

Since 2012, we have issued reports on the JPSS program that 

highlighted technical issues, component cost growth, management 

challenges, and key riskss In these reports, we made 15 

recommendations to NOAA to improve the management of the JPSS 

program. These recommendations included addressing key risks, 

establishing a comprehensive contingency plan consistent with best 

practices, and addressing weaknesses in information security practices. 

3

The National Polar -orbiting Operational Environmental Sate!Hte System was a tri-agency 

program made up of NOAA, the Department of Defense, and NASA. It was disbanded in 

2010. 

4

S-NPP was originally planned as a demonstration satellite, but due to schedule delays 

that had the potential to lead to satellite data gaps, NOAA made the decision to use it as 

an operational satellite. This means that the satellite's data are used for climate and 

weather products 

5

See GA0-16-359; Polar Weather Satellites: NOAA Needs To Prepare for Near-term Data 

Gaps, GA0-15-47 (Washington, D.C .. Dec. 16, 2014); Polar Weather Satellites: NOAA 

Identified Ways to Mitigate Data Gaps, but Contingency Plans and Schedules Require 

Further Affention, GA0-13-676 (Washington, D.C.: Sept 11, 2013); and Polar-Orbiting 

Environmental Satellites: Changing Requirements, Technical Issues, and Looming Data 

Gaps Require Focused Attention, GA0-12-604 (Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2012). 

Page 4 GA0-16-773T 
39 

As we reported in May 2016, the agency had implemented 2 

recommendations and was working to address the remainder. In 

particular, NOAA established contingency plans to mitigate the possibility 

of a polar satellite data gap and began tracking completion dates for its 

gap mitigation activities. NOAA has also taken steps such as performing 

a new schedule risk analysis, and adding information on the impact of 

space debris to its annual assessment of satellite availability. We have 

ongoing work reviewing the agency's progress in implementing these 

open recommendations. 

NOAA Continues to Develop JPSS Satellites, but Faces Remaining 

Challenges and Uncertainties Regarding Future Decisions 

Over the past year, the JPSS program has made progress in developing 

the JPSS-1 satellite, but continues to face challenges as it approaches 

the early 2017 launch date. The program completed all instruments on 

the JPSS-1 satellite and integrated them on the spacecraft by early 2016. 

As of December 2015, the JPSS program reported that it remained on 

track to meet its committed launch date of March 2017. 

However, as highlighted in our May 2016 report, the JPSS program 

continues to face challenges as it approaches the early 2017 launch 

date. 6 Specifically, the JPSS program had experienced delays ranging 

from 3 to 10 months on key components since mid-2014, as well as 

technical challenges on both the flight and ground systems. For example, 

the program recently experienced multiple issues in completing a 

component on the spacecraft, called a gimbal,7 which moved the 

component's planned completion date forward by almost a year before it 

was completed in March 2016. These issues in turn delayed the 

beginning of the JPSS-1 satellite's environmental testing. The gimbal 

issue also was a factor in the program choosing to move back its launch 

readiness date-the date that the JPSS-1 satellite is planned to be ready 

for launch-from December 2016 to January 2017. 

Regarding the JPSS ground system, the program experienced an 

unexpectedly high number of program trouble reports in completing the 

GA0-16-359. 

7 A gimbal provides articulation for selected antennas responsible for transmitting stored 

data to communication satellltes and ground systems 

PageS 
40 

upgrade to block 2.0, which is needed for security and requirements 

improvements in tandem with the JPSS-1 satellite's launch. A key 

milestone related to this upgrade was recently delayed from January to 

August 2016. 

While NOAA satellite timelines show continuous coverage in the 

afternoon orbit, the JPSS program still faces the potential for a near-term 

gap in satellite coverage. As we reported in May 2016, NOAA had 

increased the estimated useful life for S-NPP by up to 4 years. Under this 

new scenario, a near-term gap in satellite data would not be expected 

because S-NPP would last longer than the expected start of operations 

forJPSS-1. 

However, subsequent NOAA documentation showed this 4-year period as 

"fuel limited life." NOAA officials explained that this extended period is 

based on expected fuel availability, and does not take into account the 

likelihood that the instruments and spacecraft will fail before the satellite 

runs out of fuel. In other words, the extended useful life depicts the 

satellite's maximum possible life, not its expected life. 

As a result, the JPSS program continues to face a potential gap of 8 

months between the end of S-NPP's expected life in October 2016, and 

when the JPSS-1 satellite is launched and completes post-launch testing 

in June 2017. Figure 2 shows the potential gap period. 

Figure 2: Timeline for a Potential Gap in Polar Satellite Data in the Afternoon Orbit 

Source: GAO analysis based on Nabonal Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Aeronaulics and 

SpawAdmlni:>1ratK>ndata ! GA0-16-n3T 

Note: The afternoon orbit is one of three primary polar orbits. A single afternoon polar satellite 

provides NOAA 45 percent of the global coverage it needs for its numenca! weather models. 

PageS 
41 

The June 2017 completion date also assumes a 3 month period for the 

JPSS-1 satellite's on-orbit checkout. However, based on on-orbit 

checkout periods from past polar satellites, it is likely that checkout could 

take longer than this, potentially lengthening the gap. As a precedent, it 

took the JPSS program about 2 years to fully validate the highest-priority 

data products from the S-NPP satellite. If S-NPP unexpectedly fails 

sooner, or the JPSS-1 launch date is delayed, a longer gap could result. 

Uncertainties Remain on Key Future JPSS Development Dates 

In addition to its work in completing the JPSS-1 satellite. NOAA has 

begun planning for new satellites to ensure the future continuity of polar 

satellite data. In a new program, called the Polar Follow-On (PFO), NOAA 

plans to build two new satellites, JPSS-3 and JPSS-4, that are copies of 

the JPSS-2 satellite. Like JPSS-2, these satellites are to include all three 

key performance parameter instruments, as well as a fourth 

environmental sensor. NOAA plans to complete development of JPSS-3 

and JPSS-4 several years ahead of their planned launch date. In the 

nearer term, NOAA plans to build a smaller satellite that can provide a 

replacement for some data produced by one of the most essential JPSS 

instruments. 

NOAA's decisions on what PFO will include are based on what the 

agency calls a robust constellation: creating a situation where it would 

take two failures to create a gap on data from key instruments, and where 

the agency would be able to restore full coverage in a year in the event of 

a failure. 

We reported in May 2016 that NOAA has taken several steps in planning 

the PFO program, including establishing goal launch dates and high-level 

budget estimates. However, it had not completed formulation documents 

such as high-level requirements, a project plan, or budget information for 

key components. 

In addition, uncertainties remain about whether early development of 

JPSS-3 and JPSS-4 is necessary to achieve robustness. For instance, in 

its initial calendar for PFO, NOAA considered lifetimes of 10 years or 

more for the JPSS-1 and JPSS-2 satellites, while NOAA charts used for 

budget justification continue to show only 7 year lifetimes. If satellites are 

likely to last longer than expected, there could be unnecessary 

redundancy in coverage. Until NOAA ensures that its plans for future 

polar satellite development are based on the full range of estimated lives 

of potential satellites, the agency may not be making the most efficient 

use of the nation's sizable investment in the polar satellite program. 

Page7 GA0-16-773T 
42 

As a result of this uncertainty, we recommended that NOAA evaluate the 

costs and benefits of different launch scenarios for the JPSS PFO 

program, based on updated satellite life expectancies, to ensure satellite 

continuity while minimizing program costs. NOAA concurred and noted 

that it had evaluated the costs and benefits of different launch scenarios 

using the latest estimates of satellite lives as part of its budget 

submission. However, the agency did not provide sufficient supporting 

evidence or artifacts showing that it had evaluated costs and benefits of 

launch scenarios in this way. 

NOAA's Timelines for Current and Future NOAA Polar Satellites Are 

Not Consistently Accurate and Useful 

NOAA's National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service 

(NESDIS), regularly publishes "flyout charts" for its satellites which depict 

timelines for the launch, on-orbit storage, and operational life of its 

satellites. Among other things, NOAA uses these charts to support budget 

requests, alert users when new satellites will be operational, and keep the 

public informed on plans to maintain satellite continuity. 

In a draft report currently at the Department of Commerce for comment, 

we reported that NOAA has updated its polar flyout charts three times in 

the last 2-and-a-half years. Key changes that can result in an update 

include adding newly planned satellites; removing a satellite that has 

reached the end of its life; and adjusting planned dates for when satellites 

are to launch, begin operations, or reach the end of their useful lives. 

Among the data NOAA uses in updating its charts are health status 

information of operational satellites, planned schedules for new satellites, 

and analysis from operational satellite experts. 

However, while NOAA regularly updates its charts and most of the data 

on them were aligned with other program documentation, the agency has 

not consistently ensured that its charts were accurate, supported by 

stringent analysis, and fully documented. Specifically: 

• The charts were at times inconsistent with other program data. For 

example, in one out of 10 available instances for comparison, flyout 

chart data did not match underlying program data. JPSS program 

data as of April2015 listed the JPSS-2 satellite launch as November 

2021, but the ftyout chart from that month showed it 4 months earlier, 

in July 2021. 

Page 8 GA0-16-773T 
43 

The flyout charts also inconsistently reflected data from annual 

satellite availability assessments performed by the JPSS program. In 

addition, weaknesses remained in the latest annual availability 

assessment from 2015. For example, NOAA assumed that JPSS-1 

data from key instruments will be available to users 3 months after 

launch. However, based on on-orbit checkout periods from past polar 

satellites, it is likely that checkout could take much longer than this, 

potentially lengthening the gap. 

NOAA did not consistently document the justification for updates to its 

polar satellite flyout charts. For example, the NOAA department 

responsible for providing summary packages for each flyout chart 

update provided justification for the key changes in only one of three 

documentation packages. Furthermore, standard summary 

documents, such as a routing list and information on the disposition of 

comments, were included for only one of the three documentation 

packages for polar fly out charts. 

NOAA also does not consistently depict how long a satellite might last 

once it is beyond its design life. For instance, NESDIS, the NOAA 

entity responsible for satellite operations, recently added a 4-year 

extension to the useful life of the S-NPP satellite. This extension was 

meant to depict maximum potential life, assuming all instruments and 

the spacecraft continue functioning. However, the agency did not 

clearly define this term on its charts, thereby allowing readers to 

assume the agency expects the satellites to last through the end of 

the fuel-limited life period. 

Also, as stated above, in its justification for funding for the Polar 

Follow-on (PFO) program. NOAA considered lifetimes for JPSS-1 and 

JPSS-2 to be longer by several years when compared to the lifetimes 

listed on its fiyout charts. Program officials indicated that the 

estimates they develop prior to a satellite's launch are more 

conservative due to greater uncertainty at that stage. However, 

inconsistencies such as these have the effect of implying that some 

satellites will reach their end-of-life sooner or later than the agency 

anticipates. 

Part of the reason for these process shortfalls is that NOAA has not 

finalized a policy with standard steps to follow when making chart 

updates. Consequently, the information that NOAA provides Congress on 

the flyout charts is not as accurate as it needs to be, which could result in 

less-than-optimal decisions. Furthermore, lack of communication of the 

potential ambiguities inherent in changes to satellite lifetimes could have 

major effects on future decision-making. 

PageS GA0-16-713T 
44 

To address these weaknesses, our draft report includes a series of 

recommendations to NOAA, including requiring satellite programs to 

perform regular assessments of satellite availability, implementing a 

consistent approach to depicting satellites beyond their design lives, and 

revising and finalizing the policy for updating flyout charts. 

The JPSS Program Needs to Address Critical Information Security 

Weaknesses 

Safeguarding federal computer systems and systems supporting national 

infrastructure is essential to protecting public health and safety. Federal 

law and guidance specify requirements for protecting federal information 

and information systems. In particular, the Federal Information Security 

Modernization Act of 2014 (FISMA) requires executive branch agencies 

to develop, document, and implement an agency-wide information 

security program. 

FISMA also requires the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST)8 to develop standards and guidelines for agencies to use in 

categorizing their information systems and minimum requirements for 

each category. Accordingly, NIST developed a risk management 

framework of standards and guidelines to follow in developing information 

security programs. Figure 3 shows an overview of the steps in this 

framework, including components of the risk management lifecycle as 

well as key activities and artifacts. 

8 The Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-283, 128 

Stat 3073 (Dec. 18, 2014), largely supersedes the very similar Federal Information 

Security Management Act of 2002. Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2946 (Dec. 17, 

2002). The 2002 act's requirements that the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology establish standards and guidance for implementation of the act were not 

superseded and continue to apply. 

Page 10 
45 

Figure 3: Overview of the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Risk Management Framework for an Information 

Security Program 

Risk 

Management 

Ufecycle 

Sources: GAO and National Institute of Standards and Technology. ! GA0.1~773T 

As we reported in May 2016, NOAA had established information security 

policies in key areas detailed by FISMA and recommended by NIST 

guidance and the JPSS program had made progress in implementing 

these policies 9 However, we found that the program had weaknesses in 

several areas related to its ground system which, if not addressed, could 

put the JPSS ground system at high risk of compromise. 

Key controls not fully implemented. The JPSS program, using 

NIST guidance on system categorization, identified its ground system 

as a high-impact system, meaning that a loss of confidentiality, 

integrity, or availability could be expected to have a catastrophic effect 

on operations, and identified needed security controls based on this 

classification. However, the program had fully implemented only 53 

9 GA0-16-359 

Page 11 GA0-16-773T 
46 

percent of required security controls, and had fully implemented 

controls in only one area. 

Limitations in Controls Assessment. The program developed an 

assessment plan to identify weaknesses in the controls established by 

the program, and implemented the assessment. However, the 

assessment had significant limitations, including inconsistencies in 

maintaining a valid inventory, uncertainty about the physical locations 

for program components, and a discrepancy between the inventory 

used for testing and the actual live inventory of the program's 

systems. 

Delay in Fixing Critical Weaknesses. In accordance with NOAA 

policy, the program established plans of action and milestones to 

address control weaknesses in both the current and future version of 

its ground system, and had made progress in addressing many of its 

security weaknesses through this process. However, many 

vulnerabilities remain unaddressed because the program did not 

comply with Department of Commerce policy to remediate critical and 

high-risk vulnerabilities within 30 days. 

As of its 2015 assessment of program controls, the JPSS program 

had 146 critical and 951 high risk vulnerabilities on the current 

iteration of the ground system, and 1 02 critical and 295 high risk 

vulnerabilities on the next iteration of the ground system. 

Vulnerabilities remaining open include instances of outdated software, 

an obsolete web server, as well as more than 200 instances of use of 

outdated definitions used to scan and identify viruses. Figure 4 

graphically shows the number of open vulnerabilities on the current 

JPSS ground system over time. 

Page 12 GA0·16-773T 
47 

Figure 4: Open Vulnerabilities Identified on the Current Joint Polar Satellite 

System's Ground System 

1,0M 

, .. 

FY2014 Q3 FY2014Q4 FY2015Q1 

Source: GAO, ba$ed on National Oceanic andAtmospheficMministralion data. j GA0-16-773T 

FY2015Q2 

Note: NOAA identlfles vulnerabl!ities as critical, h!gh. medium, and low rlsk. Critical and high risk 

vulnerabilities pose an increased risk of compromise. 

Without addressing these vulnerabilities in a timely manner, the 

program remains at increased risk of potential exploits. 

Security Incidents Report but Not Consistently Tracked. In 

accordance with NOAA policy, the JPSS program established a 

continuous monitoring plan to track security incidents and intrusions 

and to ensure that information security controls are working. 

Specifically, NOAA officials reported 10 medium and high severity 

incidents related to the JPSS ground system, including incidents 

involving unauthorized access to web servers and computers, 

between August 2014 and August 2015. Of these, NOAA closed 6 

incidents involving hostile probes, improper usage, unauthorized 

access, password sharing, and other IT-related security concerns. 

However, the agency did not consistently track all incidents. 

Specifically, there were differences between what is being tracked by 

the JPSS program, and what is closed by NOAA's incident response 

team. For example, 2 of the 4 incidents that were recommended for 

closure by the JPSS program office are currently still open according 

to the incident report. Until NOAA and the JPSS program have a 

consistent understanding of the status of incidents, there is an 

increased risk that key vulnerabilities will not be identified or properly 

addressed. 

Page 13 GA0-16-773T 
48 

To address these deficiencies, we recommended in our May 2016 report 

that the Secretary of Commerce direct the Administrator of NOAA to 

establish a plan to address the limitations in the program's efforts to test 

security controls, including ensuring that (1) any changes in the system's 

inventory do not materially affect test results; (2) critical and high-risk 

vulnerabilities are addressed within 30 days, as required by agency 

policy; and (3) the agency and program are tracking and closing a 

consistent set of incident response activities. 

NOAA concurred with our recommendations. Regarding critical and highrisk vulnerabilities, NOAA noted that the JPSS program would continue to 

follow agency policy allowing its authorizing official to accept risks when 

remediation cannot be performed as anticipated. However, the program 

did not have documentation from the authorizing official accepting the risk 

of a delayed remediation schedule for critical and high-risk vulnerabilities. 

In summary, NOAA is making progress in developing and testing the 

JPSS-1 satellite as it moves toward a March 20171aunch date, but 

continues to experience issues in remaining ground system development, 

and faces a potential near-term data gap in the period before this satellite 

becomes operational. In addition, NOAA is planning to launch a future set 

of satellites to ensure continuity of future satellite data, but it is uncertain 

which launch timing will best meet the agency's criteria for a robust 

constellation. Without ensuring that its plans for future satellite 

development are based on the full range of estimated lives of potential 

satellites, the agency may not be making the most efficient use of the 

nation's sizable investment in the polar satellite program. 

Further, findings from a draft report show that NOAA's efforts to depict 

and update key polar satellite information, such as timelines and 

operational life, need to be improved. Its flyout charts, used to inform 

users of potential gaps and support budget requests, did not always 

accurately reflect current program data or consistently present key 

information, such as a satellite's lifetime once beyond its original design 

life. This is in part because NOAA has not finalized a policy that includes 

standard steps for updating its charts. Until NOAA addresses these 

shortfalls, it runs an increased risk that its fiyout charts will mislead 

Congress and may lead to less-than-optimal decisions. 

As a part of JPSS ground system development, NOAA has established 

policies in key information security areas called for by guidance. 

However, the program has not fully implemented the policy in several 

Page 14 GA0~16-773T 
49 

areas. For example, the program fully implemented just over half of its 

required security controls, a recent security assessment itself had 

significant limitations, and the program has not remediated critical and 

high-risk vulnerabilities in a timely manner. Until NOAA addresses these 

weaknesses, the JPSS ground system remains at high risk of 

compromise. 

Chairman Bridenstine, Ranking Member Bonamici, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be 

pleased to respond to any questions that you may have at this time. 

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 

(100963) 

If you have any questions on matters discussed in this testimony, please 

contact David A. Pawner at (202) 512-9286 or at pownerd@gao.gov. 

Other contributors include Colleen Phillips (Assistant Director), Shaun 

Byrnes (Analyst-in-Charge), Christopher Businsky, Torrey Hardee, Lee 

McCracken, and Umesh Thakkar. 

Page 15 GA0-16-773T 
50 

Biography 

David A. Pawner is the Director of Information 

Technology Management Issues at the U.S. Government 

Accountability Office (GAO). Dave has more than twenty-five 

years' experience in both the public and private sectors. 

Dave is currently responsible for a large segment of GAO's 

information technology work that focuses on large-scale system 

acquisitions, IT governance, operational systems management, 

and various IT reform initiatives (e.g., IT Dashboard, data center 

consolidation, portfolio management, cloud computing). 

In the private sector, Dave held several executive-level positions 

in the telecommunications industry including overseeing IT and 

financial internal audits and software development associated 

with high speed internet systems. 

At GAO, he has led teams reviewing major modernization efforts at Cheyenne Mountain Air 

Force Station, the National Weather Service, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the 

Internal Revenue Service. He has also led GAO's work on weather satellite acquisitions, cyber 

critical infrastructure protection, and health IT. 

Dave has testified before Congress more than 80 times over the past several years. These and 

other GAO products have led to billions of dollars in taxpayer savings and improvements to a 

wide range of IT acquisitions and operations. Dave has received several GAO awards for his 

work, including several associated with Congressional service. Outside of GAO, he received 

Federal Computer Week's Federal100 award in 2008 and again in 2012. 

Dave holds a bachelor's degree in business administration from the University of Denver and 

attended the Senior Executive Fellows Program at the John F. Kennedy School of Government 

at Harvard University. 

Contact Information 

441 G. Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20548 

pownerd@gao.gov 

(202) 512-9286 (office) 

(202) 744-7134 (cell) 
51 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I’d like to thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Stoffler, you’re recognized for five minutes for an opening 

statement. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. RALPH STOFFLER, 

DIRECTOR OF WEATHER, 

DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR OPERATIONS, 

U.S. AIR FORCE 

Mr. STOFFLER. Chairman Bridenstine, Ranking Member 

Bonamici, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you—— 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Would the gentleman yield for one second? Can you move your microphone to be in front of you? All 

right. Good. 

Mr. STOFFLER. Let me start again then. Chairman Bridenstine, 

Ranking Member Bonamici, and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning 

to discuss space-based environmental monitoring and the partnerships that ensure accurate and timely forecast capabilities. 

Air Force weather is comprised of people, systems, and processes 

that together deliver unique services to the joint war fighter United 

States Air Force and the United States Army. Air Force’s weather 

primary mission is centered on analyzing and forecasting global 

weather and solar impacts on military and combat operations. We 

strive to minimize the impact of weather threats to friendly forces 

while simultaneously capitalizing on weather conditions that maximize the operational advantage over enemy forces and exploit 

enemy weaknesses. 

We achieve our mission with total force airmen, uniformed and 

civil servants around the world, educated and trained on space and 

weather impacts to the war fighting mission. Our airmen serve in 

capacities requiring combat field skills, move-shoot communicate 

skills, combat lifesaver qualifications, and Army airborne and special operations parachutist competencies. We develop theater 

weather-sensing strategies for each operation and leverage all appropriate available data sets. We minimize data gaps by deploying 

Air Force tactical weather centers and incorporating data from 

nontraditional weather sources to develop the environmental picture of the battle space. 

We achieve this through cooperative engagements with our coalition partners, military-to-military engagements, national and international cooperation, and Department of Defense unique programs. 

We analyze and assimilate this data into our operational centers 

and our numerical models to present a unified forecast to the coalition war fighting team for multiple security classification levels. 

The war fighter receives a timely and consistent battle space 

weather picture in the planning and execution phases of an operation that addresses strategic operational and tactical needs. 

In the post-combat portion of operations, we work to normalize 

the impact to nations by training personnel and restoring basic meteorological services, which allows the Department of Defense to 

withdraw its resources to be ready for the next engagement. 

Fundamental to nearly all military operations and all levels of 

the military decision-making process is the information and data 
52 

provided by weather satellites. We fully recognize that the American private sector can provide technological advances and research 

in the science of our craft to provide an essential element to our 

weather enterprise. While this progress is exciting, we must balance our portfolio with constraints in human capital, physical 

means, and prioritization to ensure our future capabilities directly 

correlate to the combat commanders’ war fighting needs. 

Thank you again for the opportunity and privilege to testify before you today. I’m happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stoffler follows:] 
53 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED BY THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT 

SPACE, SCIENCE, AND TECHNOlOGY COMMITTEE 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT 

SPACE, SCIENCE, AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SUBJECT: Weather Satellite Systems and Weather Forecasting Capabilities 

STATEMENT OF: Mr. Ralph 0. Stoftler 

Director of Weather 

July 7, 2016 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED BY THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT 

SPACE, SCIENCE, AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
54 

Introduction 

Chairman Bridenstine, Ranking Member Bonamici, and distinguished members of the 

Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss Air Force's weather satellite systems and 

weather forecasting capabilities. Thank you for the opportunity to join Dr. Stephen Volz from the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). We, at the Air Force, welcome your 

interest and the oppotiunity to discuss these important topics. 

The purpose of my testimony today will be to highlight the Air Force weather forecasting 

capability and operational use of weather satellite systems. 

Weather Satellite Programs 

The Air Force relies on an international family of systems of geostationary (GEO) and lowearth orbiting (LEO) satellites to provide global meteorological coverage. This family of systems 

impact operational missions such as remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), close air support, Special 

Forces, and airborne and space-based intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (lSR) assets. 

In 1962, the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) was first flown to support 

National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) operations. Over the years, the program was transferred 

to the Air Force and has flown in both early and mid-morning LEO orbits. Today, DMSP is t1own 

in the morning orbit per the National Space Policy (2010). 

In accordance with a Deputy Secretary of Defense memo, the Air Force will not take actions 

regarding DMSP-20 that might preclude inclusion of the satellite in the set of alternative solutions 

under consideration for addressing satellite-based environmental monitoring (SBEM) 

requirements until after September I, 2016. lfthe Department decides to launch DMSP-20 in 

order to meet SBEM requirements, it is recognized that we will need to work with Congress to 

request permission and obtain the necessary legislative authorizations and appropriations. 

2 
55 

The Air Force remains focused on executing a two-phased acquisition approach for the 

Weather Satellite Follow-on (WSF) program to meet the remaining three Joint Requirements 

Oversight Council (JROC) validated materiel requirements for SBEM: Ocean Surface Vector 

Winds (Gap 3), Tropical Cyclone Intensity (Gap 8), and Energetic Charged Particle 

characterization (Gap II). The Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) office will work with the 

Space and Missile Systems Center Remote Sensing Systems Directorate (SMC/RS) to develop and 

launch a technology demonstration (designated ORS-6) focused on the nearest term Gaps (3 and 

8) in September 2017. For Phase 2, the current plan is to launch an operational WSF objective 

system to fully meet the three JROC-validated materiel requirements by 2022. 

The DoD and Department of Commerce have enhanced their efforts to manage the family of 

systems risks by elevating the level of interaction to the Under Secretary of the Air Force, Space 

and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (Policy) (OSD(P)) at a senior executive level. The Air 

Force connects with NOAA on use of U.S. assets, and the OSD(P) office engages with them on 

international partnership advocacy. These interactions occur on a continuing basis to ensure 

pertinent weather information is available over the long-term. 

Air Force's Weather Capabilities and Partnerships 

The Air Force is one of the few organizations within the U.S. Government that has a global 

forecasting responsibility. Our meteorological production is more than just providing aviation 

weather services. We provide global weather and climate information to the Air Force, Army and 

Intelligence Community. Our Combatant Commanders demand timely, reliable, and actionable 

meteorological information, on both unclassified and classified networks, so they can understand 

the environmental impacts that affects all phases of military operations. Additionally, we arc 

called to provide weather lead nation capabilities to our coalition and allied partners. We also take 

3 
56 

seriously our role of providing our model data and observations to our United States partners in 

order to improve the nation's weather forecasting capabilities. 

We ·vc seen demand for our products and services increase as decision makers look for tools 

and information to help them better understand risk and prepare for the future. This will require 

us to receive more observations to improve our numerical weather prediction models to meet 

increasing demands for more accurate and reliable forecasts and warnings. 

While our computer predictions have improved, it is the dedication of our skilled Airman that 

make it all possible. Our Total Force Airmen are trained and educated on terrestrial and space 

weather impacts to the warfighting mission. We strive to minimize the impact of weather threats 

to friendly forces while simultaneously capitalizing on weather conditions that maximize the 

operational advantage over enemy forces. We must consider the full range of weather operations 

from climate to microscale weather events, prepared to support operations ranging from 

Humanitarian Assistance in partnership with departments outside the DoD, local field training 

events, to theater campaign plans, and major contingency operations exploiting our capability. 

Our Airmen use Air Force tactical sensors to develop an environmental picture of the battle space 

and minimize our data gaps. We deploy alongside and embed with Air Force fighter squadrons, 

Army battalions. and Special Forces Groups to ensure the warfighter completely understands the 

environmental impacts to their missions. We also produce data on classified models to ensure 

operational security and assessment on foreign capabilities. Air Force personnel uses military 

tactical decision aids to correlate platform or sensor degradation with weather impacts. Our data 

is also fed into DoD command and control systems to ensure planning and operational impacts are 

mitigated or minimized. 

4 
57 

Today's world dynamics drive us to deliver more precise forecasts and assessments. Our 

ability to monitor environmental changes are based on timely access to data with necessary 

assurances that we can trust the data. These data are used by our global short-term terrestrial and 

space weather forecasting systems. The more data we receive, the better our predictions and 

impact assessments become. 

We receive data from our coalition and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) partners 

through cooperative engagements. Additionally, we incorporate interagency and commercial data 

so we can focus our capabilities for the global mission. A global satellite and in situ system of 

systems are necessary to provide us insight into weather affecting military operations worldwide 

over the course of a few hours, days or weeks in advance. 

We have partnerships with academia and private sector for research on specialized models 

such as clouds and aerosols for military unique requirements. Once we receive the information 

within our networks, we work to ensure we can maintain our capabilities during times of crises. 

Today, the Air Force has several operational agreements with NOAA which covers our 

continental United States Doppler radar network, exchanges of data and meteorological satellite 

information, and National Weather Service's continuity of operations plans. We also participate 

on numerous committees and working groups throughout the federal enterprise. With any 

organization, we could always improve our communication within the enterprise. 

Future Capabilities 

We are building a unified framework, which is a scalable system, which allows us maximum 

flexibility to run higher resolution areas, short term forecasts, and longer term forecasts for mission 

planning. We recognize we need to continue to improve our capabilities for areas such as remote 

piloted aircraft, urban operations, space weather observations and warnings, trafficability of land 

5 
58 

forces, global water assessments, and land surface information. We must plan for changes in our 

future weather support for the next generation capabilities and needs, and the Air Force weather 

community needs to be quick, flexible and agile. We need the ability to assimilate our own unique 

military datasets from ground and aerial platforms, our organic environmental sensors, and sensors 

on soldiers. 

ln the future, we do foresee commercial providers potentially providing an essential element 

of data and information within our enterprise. Before we incorporate any data, organic, public or 

commercial, into our models and observational assessments, we must ensure that the data is 

accurate, reliable, and can be validated so that the accuracy of our operational forecasting models 

do not suffer. The Combatant Commander wants assurance from us that we arc providing the best 

weather and climate information for the decision-making process. Our capabilities must precisely 

and predictively provide the right data and information, in the right amount, at the right time, 

especially since DoD will continue to face an increasingly complex global security environment. 

CONCLUSION 

The Air Force weather community is a vital component of the Department of Defense and the 

U.S. Government to ensure our military forces possess a meteorological asymmetric advantage 

over our adversaries, mitigate risks, and become more resilient from the effects of weather. We 

must prepare to continue to show initiative, be adaptable, and be innovative to allow weather 

operations to provide relevant knowledge, data, and information to the Joint Warfighter in this 

increasingly complex world. 

The Air Force remains committed to ensuring our capability supports our global national 

security objectives. Our warfighters deserve our absolute best and we intend to provide it to them. 

I am proud of our in-garrison and deployed weather Airman who deliver critical products and 

6 
59 

services every day to help keep our military safe and mitigate the environmental impacts to our 

sensors and platforms. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you today. I am happy to answer any 

questions you may have. 

7 
60 

BIOGRAPHY 

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 

RALPH 0. STOFFLER 

Ralph 0. Stoffler, a member of the Senior 

Executive Service, is the Director of Weather, 

Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Headquarters, 

U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. In this capacity, 

he is responsible for the development of weather 

and space environmental doctrine, policies, plans, 

programs, and standards in support of Anny and 

Air Force operations. He is further responsible for 

overseeing and advocating for Air Force weather 

resources and monitors the execution of the $320 

million per year weather program. He is the 

functional manager for 4,300 total-force weather 

personnel and interfaces with Air Force major 

commands and the U.S. Army regarding full 

exploitation of Air Force weather resources and 

technology. He also represents the Air Force for 

interagency weather activities with the Department 

of Commerce, the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, and the Federal Aviation 

Administration. Mr. Steffler advises the Secretary 

of the Air Force and Chief of Staff of the Air Force 

on atmospheric and space weather and climate 

Page 1 of2 

matters and is the Department of Defense executive agent for modeling and simulation of the Air and Space 

Natural Environment. 

Prior to his current position, Mr. Steffler served as the Acting Director of Weather and Technical Director for 

the Directorate of Weather. As Technical Director, he was responsible for assessing innovative 

technologies for Space and Atmospheric Weather exploitation with applications to enhance Air Force 

capabilities, to include developing strategies to plan, modify, and integrate relevant weather capabilities to 

the Air Force. 

Mr. Steffler is a retired Air Force colonel with 30 years of service and experience in Army operations, pilot 

instruction, planning, programming, resources, budget, and requirements. He served as a squadron 

commander as we!! as weather division chief and major command functional in Europe. He retired in 2011 

as the Deputy Director of Weather at Headquarters, U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. 

Mr. Steffler was born in Crallsheim, Germany and is a graduate of NOrnberg American High School in 

Germany. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Meteorology from the University of Oklahoma and a 

Master of Science degree in Systems Management from the University of Southern California. 

EDUCATION 

http://www.af.mil/DesktopModu1es/ ArticleCS/Print.aspx?Portalld= 1 &Moduleld=858&Art... 6/22/2016 
61 

1980 Bachelor of Science, Meteorology, University of Oklahoma, Norman 

1985 Squadron Officer School, Maxwell AFB, Ala. 

1989 Master of Science, Systems Management, University of Southern California, Los Angeles 

1995 Air Command and Staff College, Maxwell AFB, Ala. 

1999 Air War College, Maxwell AFB, Ala. 

CAREER CHRONOLOGY 

Page 2 of2 

1. February 1981 -February 1985, Assistant Staff Weather Officer to 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment, 7th 

Weather Squadron, Feucht Army Airfield, Germany 

2. March 1985 October 1987, Chief of Scheduling, 14th Student Squadron, Columbus Air Force Base 

(AFB), Miss. 

3. November 1987- July 1989, Chief, 22nd Air Force Weather Support Unit, Travis AFB, Calif. 

4. August 1989 - October 1991, Commander Detachment 2, 17th Weather Squadron, Travis AFB, Calif. 

5. November 1991- June 1992, Weather Flight Commander, 60th Operations Support Squadron, Travis 

AFB, Calif. 

6. June 1992- June 1994, Chief, Weather Plans, 7th Weather Squadron, supporting U.S. Army in 

Europe/4th Allied Tactical Air Force Central Army Group Weather Support, Heidelberg Army Installation, 

Germany 

7. June 1994- June 1996, Director of Operations, 617th Weather Squadron, Heidelberg Army Installation, 

Germany 

8. July 1996 -June 1998 Chief, Requirements, Weather Division, Directorate of Operations, Headquarters 

U.S. Air Forces in Europe (USAF E), Ramstein Air Base, Germany 

9. July 1998- July 1999, Commander, USAFE Operational Weather Squadron, Sembach Air Base, 

Germany 

10. August 1999 -June 2001, Chief of Reengineering, Directorate of Weather, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, 

the Pentagon, Washington, D.C. 

11. July 2001 - November 2003, Chief Resources and Programs, Directorate of Weather, Headquarters U.S. 

Air Force, the Pentagon, Washington, D.C. 

12. December 2003- June 2007, Chief Weather Division, Air and Space Operations, Headquarters USAFE, 

Ramstein Air Base, Germany 

13. June 2007 - March 2011, Deputy Director of Weather, Directorate of Operations and Training, Deputy 

Chief of Staff, Air and Space Operations, Plans and Requirements, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, 

Washington, D.C. 

14. March 2011 -February 2014, Technical Director for Weather, Directorate of Operations and Training, 

Deputy Chief of Staff, Air and Space Operations, Plans and Requirements, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, 

Washington, D.C. 

15. February 2014 - October 2015, Acting Director of Weather, Deputy Chief of Staff, Operations, 

Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. 

16. October 2015- present, Director of Weather, Deputy Chief of Staff, Operations, Headquarters U.S. Air 

Force, Washington, D.C. 

MAJOR AWARDS AND DECORATIONS 

Legion of Merit 

Meritorious Service Medal with seven oak leaf clusters 

Joint Commendation Medal 

Army Commendation Medal 

Air Force Achievement Medal 

(Current as of November 2015) 

http://www .af.mil/DesktopModules/ ArticleCS!Print.aspx?Portalld= I &Moduleld=858&Art... 6/22/20 16 
62 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I’d like to thank the gentleman for his 

testimony. 

Ms. Chaplain, you’re recognized for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MS. CRISTINA CHAPLAIN, 

DIRECTOR, ACQUISITION AND SOURCING MANAGEMENT, 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Ms. CHAPLAIN. Chairman Bridenstine, Chairman Smith, Ranking 

Member Johnson, Ranking Member Bonamici, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to discuss GAO’s recent 

work on defense weather satellites, DOD’s polar-orbiting weather 

satellites, known as DMSP, currently cross the equator in the early 

and midmorning orbits while NOAA satellites cross the equator in 

the afternoon orbit. DOD will not continue replacing satellites in 

the midmorning orbit as it was decided in the aftermath of the 

NPOESS program that the United States would rely on the Europeans for this orbit. 

In addition, last year, DOD was directed not to launch the last 

DMSP satellite planned for the early-morning orbit in light of Congressional concerns with lack of planning, coordination, and execution of activities to continue meeting DOD’s weather requirements. 

But because the 19th DMSP satellite in the early-morning orbit recently failed prematurely, DOD has put dismantling of its last satellite on hold. 

DOD undertook an analysis of alternatives for future weather 

satellites from 2012 to 2014. We were mandated by the Congress 

to review this study. Undertaking the analysis was a good step. In 

the past, we have found satellite programs did not perform a rigorous analysis or conducted one with a solution already in mind. 

In addition, DOD is considering significant changes to its future 

space architectures to increase resiliency and is operating under a 

constrained budgetary environment, which ultimately means DOD 

needs to find ways to reduce the cost of acquisition either by paring 

back its requirements or doing business differently. A thorough 

analysis of alternatives can help DOD navigate all these challenges. 

Ideally, DOD would have conducted this analysis in the aftermath of the cancelation of NPOESS in 2010. By the time it started 

its analysis in 2012, it was already facing a gap for measuring 

ocean winds and more gaps were looming. The lag in planning for 

a new satellite system is not unique to weather. The GAO has been 

concerned about similar lags from its warning satellites and protected communication satellites. The longer it takes to assess and 

decide on what path to take the more DOD is at risk of facing critical gaps or having to continue buying legacy satellites. 

We found DOD made an effort to plan for future weather satellites with a more cost-effective approach in mind, including consideration of which capabilities DOD needed to provide and which 

could be provided by leveraging other sources of data. The effort to 

rationalize requirements is also a positive step. Too often, past programs sought to answer to many requirements, all with the most 

advanced technologies. The technology and design problems encountered by NPOESS were partly due to problems with reigning 

in requirements. 
63 

We also found the analysis was useful for informing plans for 

new satellites that can measure ocean winds and tropical cyclone 

intensity and for a new space weather sensor that could be integrated on other satellites. However, we found the analysis was less 

useful for informing plans for DOD’s two highest priority capabilities, cloud characterization and theater weather imagery data, now 

facing near-term gaps over the Indian Ocean. While DOD consulted 

with a wide range of stakeholders in conducting the analysis, it did 

not effectively collaborate with NOAA, which represents DOD’s interests to international partners. 

Specifically, NOAA was not involved in the reviews or the analysis or regular discussions with the study leadership team, the discussions were had with the technical consultant to NOAA. The lack 

of formal collaboration and coordination with NOAA contributed to 

an incorrect assumption about the continued availability of critical 

weather data from European satellites. As a result, the analysis 

did not fully assess solutions for these high-priority capabilities. 

Because DOD did not thoroughly evaluate its top-two weather 

priorities during the analysis, DOD is now assessing how to fill 

these gaps leading to additional lags and planning. The failure of 

DMSP satellite and the termination of DMSP–20 have heightened 

the need to do so. It should also be noted that ineffective coordination has been a recurring problem in space notably with the 

NPOESS program but with other space programs as well. 

In closing, we recognize that this type of analysis is extremely 

challenging to conduct, more so given the rigor and scope DOD applied to it. But in light of the importance of cloud characterization 

and theater weather imagery data to DOD’s mission, it was incumbent on the Air Force to work more effectively with NOAA. Since 

our report, they have taken actions, and I can talk about those during the hearing. 

This concludes my statement, and I’m happy to answer any questions you have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Chaplain follows:] 
64 

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10 a.m. ET 

Thursday, July 7, 2016 

GA0-16-769T 

United States Government Accountabllit Office 

Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on 

Environment, Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, House of 

Representatives 

DEFENSE WEATHER 

SATELLITES 

DOD Faces 

Acquisition 

Challenges for 

Addressing Capability 

Needs 

Statement of Cristina T. Chaplain, Director, Acquisition 

and Sourcing Management 
65 

CUI//SSI SENSITIVITY CATEGORY [IF REQUIRED]- DRAFT 

GAO 

Highlights 

Highlights bfGA0.16-769T, a tesllmony before the Subcommittee on Environment, 

COmmlllae on Science, Space, and Technology, House of Representatives 

Why GAO Did This Study 

Weather data are Instrumental for 

planning, executing, and sustaining 

U.S. military operatfons and for 

meeting civilian needs, such as 

weather forecasting and cUmate 

research. As existing weather 

satellite systems age, DOD faces 

potential gaps in its space-based 

weather monftorlog capabilities. As a 

result DOD and other stakeholders, 

including the military services; the 

intelligence community, and U.S. civil 

agencies such as NOAA, are now in 

a precarious position to fill key 

capablllty gaps with Immediate and 

naar-tenn solutions. DOD conducted 

an AOA to identify and compare the 

operational eftactiveness and life 

cycle costs of potential soluticns. 

This testimony is based on a report 

GAO issued in March 2016 on fts 

assessment of DOD's AOA and 

fbcuses on the extent to which It 

infonned DOD's plans for providing 

weather-related capabilfties and 

addressed input from stakeholders. 

GAO reviewed DOD's AOA 

documents and Interviewed DOD 

officials, including stakeholders 

within the military services, and 

NOAA officials. 

What GAO Recommends 

In the March 2016 report, GAO 

recommended that DOD establish 

ronnal mechanisms for coordination 

with NOAA, among other things, and 

DOD concurred. 

View GA0.16-769T. For more lnformailon, cootact Cristina Chaplain at (202) 512-1841 or chaplalnc@gao.gov. 

DEFENSE WEATHER SATELLITES 

DOD Faces Acquisition Challenges for 

Addressing Capability Needs 

What GAO Found 

GAO found In March 2016 that the Department of Defense (DOD), In conducting 

a requirements review and Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) from 2012 to 2014, 

generally performed a thorough review for identifying capability gaps in 

meteorological and oceanographic data-<;lso referred to as weather data-that 

needed to be met and determining the operational benefrt of satisfying these 

gaps. 

In doing so, the AOA determined that some capabilities with military utility could 

be covered by other assets or addressed wfth modeling development. The AOA 

also offered analysis that was useful for infonning plans for a space-based 

solution for three capabilities facing near-term needs: ocean surface vector wind. 

tropical cyclone intensity, and energetic charged particles. GAO found that DOD 

was developing plans based on this analysis for a Weather System Follow-on 

program to address these areas. 

The AOA was less useful for informing plans for two of the highest-priority 

capabilities-cloud characterization and theater weather Imagery data-now 

facing near-term gaps over the Indian Ocean. While DOD consulted with a wide 

range of stakeholders in conducting the AOA, it did not effectively collaborate 

with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which, on a 

case-by-case basis represents DOD's Interests with international partners. 

Specifocally, NOAA was not involved In reviews of the AOA or regular 

discussions with AOA study leadership. The lack of ronnal coordination and 

collaboration with NOAA, such as employing a mechanism that identified roles 

and responsibilities for the two agencies during the AOA, contributed to an 

incorrect assumption about the continued availability of crftical weather data from 

European satellftes. As a result, the AOA did not fully assess solutions for these 

high priority capabilities. 

GAO reported that DOD was exploring options outside of the AOA process for 

mitigating these pending capability gaps, including continued or Increased 

reliance on data provided by international partners, 

------------United States Government AccountabUlty Office 
66 

Chairman Bridenstine, Ranking Member Bonamlci and Members of the 

Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Department of Defense's 

(DOD) efforts to sustain and improve its space-based weather monitoring 

capabilities. Meteorological and oceanographic data-also referred to as 

weather data-are key to providing information for the successful 

planning, execution, and sustainment of U.S. military operations and for 

civilian uses, such as weather forecasting and climate research. As 

DOD's primary existing weather satellite system-the Defense 

Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP)-ages and other satellites near 

their estimated end of life, DOD faces potential gaps in its space-based 

weather monitoring capabilities which may affect stakeholders that use 

them, including the military services, the intelligence community, and U.S. 

civil agencies such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA). Today, I will provide background on DOD efforts 

to replenish its weather satellites and a brief overview of our recent 

review of the analysis DOD conducted to assess options for future 

weather satellites. 

DOD has been challenged to replenish its weather satellites. After two 

unsuccessful attempts to develop follow-on programs from 1997 through 

fiscal year 2012, DOD and other stakeholders who rely on weather 

monitoring data are now in a precarious position in which key capabilities 

require immediate and near-term solutions. From February 2012 through 

September 2014, DOD conducted a requirements review and its SpaceBased Environmental Monitoring (SBEM) Analysis of AHematives (AOA) 

to identify and compare the operational effectiveness and life cycle costs 

of potential solutions for providing SBEM capabilities. An AOA-a key 

analysis in DOD's acquisition process-is intended to inform a decision 

on the most cost effective solution for meeting validated capability 

requirements and Identify a wide range of solutions with a reasonable 

likelihood of providing the needed capabilities. 

My statement is based on a report we issued earlier in March 2016 on our 

assessment of DOD's SBEM AOA and focuses on the extent to which the 

SBEM AOA addressed input from stakeholders and informed DOD's 

Page1 GA0-16-769T 
67 

Background 

plans for providing SBEM capabilities. 1 For that report, we reviewed 

relevant DOD and GAO documents to develop an understanding of the 

requirements and guidance for conducting an AOA and reviewed the 

AOA documents and interviewed DOD officials involved in conducting 

and reviewing the AOA to understand how it was developed. We also 

interviewed users and providers of DOD SBEM data (stakeholders), such 

as military service, intelligence community, and NOAA officials, to gain 

their perspectives on how stakeholder views were incorporated into the 

AOA. Additionally, we interviewed industry officials about ways to 

effectively assess options for providing SBEM capabilities, reviewed 

documents, and Interviewed DOD officials about plans and decision 

making processes for providing future SBEM capabilities. We also 

interviewed NOAA officials about activities of the international SBEM 

community to understand potential effects on DOD's plans. Our work was 

performed in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. 

Since the 1960s, the United States has operated meteorological polarorbfting satellite systems that provide global high-resolution 

observations-such as cloud cover, winds, precipitation, atmospheric 

temperature, and sea ice conditions-Ideal for tactical weather support 

and long-range numerical weather prediction. DOD with its DMSP 

satellites, and NOAA with its Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental 

Satellite {POES) and Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership satellite 

(the first In the Joint Polar Satellite System), rely on each other's satellite 

systems to provide the data to meet their respective needs. 2 NOAA 

established the JPSS program in 2010 to replace aging polar satellites 

and provide critical environmental data used In forecasting the weather. 

NOAA, with assistance from the National Aeronautics and Space 

1GAO, Defense Weather Satellites: Analysis of Altematives Is Useful for Csrtain 

Capabilities, but Ineffective Coctdination Limited Assessment of Two Criffca/ Capabilities, 

GA0-16-252R (Washington, D.C.: March 10, 2016). 

2

Polar-orbiong satellites in low Earth orbit constantly circle the earth in an almost northsouth orbit over the poles. Each successive orbital pass occurs at the same local time of 

day, such as early morning, mid-morning, and afternoon. DOD's DMSP satellites cross the 

equator in the early and mid-morning orbits and NOM's satellites cross the equator in the 

afternoon orbit. The United States also relies on a European satellite, the Meteorological 

Operational satellite, currently crossing the equator in the mid-morning orbit. 

Page2 GA0·16·769T 
68 

Administration (NASA), has developed the Joint Polar Satellite System to 

meet the responsibility for coverage in the afternoon orbit. DOD has been 

involved with two previous efforts to develop a replacement for DMSP, 

both of which were cancelled: 

National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System 

(NPOESS)-Tri-agency program between DOD, NOAA, and NASA to 

replace both DMSP and POES; started in 1997 and cancelled in 2010 

due to escalating costs and schedule delays. 

Defense Weather Satellite System-DOD program intended to 

continue providing weather observations from the morning orbit 

following NPOESS cancellation; started in 2010 and cancelled in 

fiscal year 2012 because the program was considered early-to-need 

with unsustainable costs. 3 

Figure 1 below illustrates the timeline for the past DOD weather satellite 

acquisitions along with the timeline for NOAA's weather satellite 

development. 

31n May 1994, a Presidential Decision Directive required DOD and the Department of Commerce through NOAA to converge their two separate weather satellite programs into 

a single program capable of satisfying both military and civilian requirements. Presidential Decision Directive NSTC-2, Convergence of U.S. Polar-Orbfting Operational 

Environmental Satellfte Systems (May 5, 1994). DOD was responsible for the NPOESS 

acquisition, NOM was responsible for overall program management and satelifte 

operations, and NASA was responsible for facilitating the development and incorporation of new technologies. After NPOESS was cancelled in 2010, DOD was given responsibility 

for covering the early morning polar orbit and started a separate program, the Defense Weather Satellite System. 

Page3 GA0·16-769T 
69 

Figure 1: Time Line of Efforts to Replace DMSP 

2010 2012 (fiscal year) 

Defense Weather Satellite DWSS cancelled due System {OWSS) program 10 costs and timing 

start con1kletatlooe 

·H-~M~· 

••n-----------;1~----,--------------------------------------+-----------·······~ DerenteMeteorologlcal 

Sate~Utt;Program 

(DMSP) ongoing 

2010 

.................................................................................... NPOESS canceHed due 

to etcalaling coats and 

ICtadUtedelaya .... 

DOD and NOM required to daw!op ntW combined system, 

lheNallonaiPolar-orb!thg 

Operauooel EnVIronmental 

Satei!Re System (NPOESS} 

2002 

PrimaryNPOESS 

contract awarded 

Polarorbtt!ng 1t&o-;;;----------lf------L------------------------------------~t:::::::::::·~·:·:··~-~-~·:• 

Emdronmenlal 

Satellltu (POES) 

ongoing 

-- OepatlmentolOefens•lOOO) 

-- N•llantiiOClltnfoand~Admfnfllnllon(NOM) 

&ourq:GAOanatyo:~JciPOO•n<tHOM.Inlannallon I ~111-?Ur 

2010 

NOMINASAJolnt Polar Satellite System 

Program (JPSS) start 

2011 

JPSSprogram 

launchH Suomi 

NalJona!Poltr-otblting 

Partnenhlp uteiHte 

The challenges DOD has faced with replenishing Its current weather 

satellite system, especially considering those encountered under the 

NPOESS program, are not surprising. Our prior work has found that DOD 

and civil government space programs have long been characterized by 

large cost overruns and schedule delays. • The types of management and 

oversight problems we commonly found include: optimistic cost 

estimating, funding gaps, lax oversight, poor contractor performance, 

parts quality problems, and frequent program manager turnover. Our 

reviews In recent years have made a number of recommendations aimed 

at putting DOD on a better footing as It considers and implements 

4GAO, Space Acquisitions: Cha/longos Facing DOD as II Changos Approachos to Space 

Acquisiffons, GA0-16-471T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 9, 2016); GAO, Space Acquisitions: 

Some Programs Have Overcome Past Problems, but Challengss and Uncertainty Remain 

for the Future, GA0-15-492T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 29, 2015); GAO, Polar-Orbiting 

Saloltiles: With Costs Increasing and Data Continuity at Risk, Improvements Needed in 

Tri-agency Decision Making, GA0-09-772T (Washington, D.C.: June17, 2009). 

Page4 GA0-16-769T 
70 

DOD's SBEM Analysis of 

Alternatives Is Useful for 

Certain Capabilities, but 

Ineffective Coordination 

Limited Assessment of 

Two Critical Capabilities 

significant changes for space programs. For example, we recommended 

that when planning for the next phase of competition for launches, the Air 

Force use an incremental approach to the next acquisition strategy to 

ensure that it does not commit itself to a strategy until data is available to 

make an informed decision, and DOD concurred. 5 

Our prior work has shown that DOD satellites have also tended to be 

monolithic-attempting to satisfy the needs of many and to get the most 

capability out of a satellite as possible in light of the high cost of launching 

them. While this approach met the needs of multiple missions, it further 

complicated satellite design. Our work on the NPOESS program has 

shown that without clear lines of authority, conflicts between satellite 

users hampered decisions, such as for requirements. Cost and schedule 

growth in DOD's space programs was sometimes driven by inherent 

technical, design, and engineering risks, but more often than not, our 

reports found that management and oversight problems were behind cost 

and schedule growth. Consequently, as DOD moves forward with its 

efforts to replenish Its weather satellites, careful consideration of ways to 

address or avoid these longstanding challenges may help to deliver 

needed capabilities within cost and schedule goals. 

Our March 2016 report found that DOD made an effort to plan for future 

capabilities with a more cost-effective approach In mind, Including 

consideration of which capabilities DOD needed to provide and which 

could be provided by leveraging other sources of data. Specifically, we 

found that DOD generally conducted a thorough review for identifying 

capability gaps that needed to be met and determining the operational 

benefit of satisfying these gaps. In doing so, the study determined that 

some gaps could be better addressed by non-space-based solutions or 

improvements to modeling. We also found that the AOA offered analysis 

that was useful for informing plans for a space-based solution for three 

capabilities with near-term needs--ocean surface vector wind, tropical 

cyclone intensity, and energetic charged particles-and that other 

capabilities with military utility could be covered by other assets or 

addressed with modeling development. In March 2016 we reported that 

DOD is developing plans based on this analysis for a Weather System 

PageS GA0-16-769T 
71 

Follow-on program to provide ocean surface vector wind and tropical 

cyclone Intensity capabilities, though it may not be available In time to 

avoid short term gaps. For the third capability, energetic charged 

particles, the Air Force has developed a plan to collect data by hosting 

sensors on all of its satellites. 

However, we found that the AOA was less useful for informing plans for 

the two highest-priority capabilities-cloud characterization and theater 

weather Imagery data-now facing near-term gaps over the Indian 

Ocean, because it did not fully assess solutions to provide these 

capabilities. While DOD consulted with a wide range of DOD stakeholders 

in conducting the AOA, it did not effectively collaborate with NOAA (on a 

case-by-case basis, NOAA represents DOD's interests with international 

partners regarding SBEM data). Specifically, NOAA was not Involved in 

reviews of the AOA or regular discussions with AOA study leadership. 6 

The lack of formal coordination and collaboration with NOAA, such as 

employing a mechanism that identified roles and responsibilities for the 

two agencies during the AOA, contributed to an Incorrect assumption 

about the continued availability of critical data from European satellites. 

Specifically, the AOA study determined that the likelihood the gap would 

not be filled was low, based on historical trends, and as a result DOD did 

not fully assess solutions for cloud characterization and theater weather 

imagery data. However, NOAA officials who work closely with 

international partners had an understanding of the plans for European 

satellites at the time, and during the AOA study period, publicly available 

reports from an international coordination group indicated uncertainty 

about extended European coverage over the Indian Ocean. 7 We found in 

March 2016 that because of a potential near-term gap for these 

capabilities, DOD is exploring options outside of the AOA process for 

6While severe! NOAA officials were assigned to ana of 1he AOA working groups, 

according to one NOAA participant, the interaction entailed receiving emai!s rather than 

participating in meetings or regular dialogue throughout the AOA. 

7These reports were published by the Coordination Group for Meteorological Satellites, 

which has a renge of International member organizations, including NOAA and the 

European agency responsible for the Meteosat system, EUMETSAT. Coordination Group 

for Meteorological Satellites, Report of the 41st Meeting of the Coon1inalion Group for Meteorological Sale/lites; (Tsukuba, Japan: July 8-12, 2013); EUMETSA rs Plans for 

Indian Ocean Coverage Beyond 2013 CGMS-41 EUM-WP-15 v1a (July 2, 2013); and 

Report of the 4oth Meeting of the Coordination Group for Meteorological Satellites 

(Lugano, Switzerland: Nov. 5-B, 2012). 

Page6 GA0-16-769T 
72 

mitigating these gaps, including continued or increased reliance on data 

provided by international partners. 

Ideally, DOD could have conducted an SBEM AOA when pursuing new 

acquisitions in the aftermath of the NPOESS cancellation. But because 

the analysis was conducted 2 years later, the AOA team faced pressures 

to complete the study In time to inform decision making for near term 

needs. However, DOD's effort to analyze options in the SBEM AOA, 

including consideration of ways to leverage other sources of data, was a 

positive step toward a more cost-effective approach to providing SBEM 

capabiiHies. As a resun of the AOA's limitations, though, as well as 

cancellations of prior efforts to develop a follow-on system to DMSP, 

DOD is faced with having to quickly Initiate efforts to assess potential 

solutions for near -term capability gaps that were not fully assessed in the 

AOA. 

Because decisions about whether to provide DOD solutions for SBEM 

capabilities are dependent on the availability of data from U.S. civil 

government and international partner satellites, sufficient and reliable 

information to determine the level of risk DOD is willing to take is crucial. 

Formalizing coordination and collaboration to identify roles and 

responsibilities in planning for SBEM capabilities could offer DOD and 

NOAA the opportunity to help ensure effective communication about the 

availability and reliability of data from U.S. civil government and 

international partner satellites and better inform decision making in the 

future. Consequently, to help ensure DOD is sufficiently informed about 

the availability and reliability of data from U.S. civil government and 

international partner satellites as it plans for future SBEM capabilities that 

rely on such satellites, in our 2016 report we recommended that the 

Secretary of Defense ensure the leads of future SBEM planning efforts 

establish formal mechanisms for coordination and collaboration with 

NOAA that specify roles and responsibilities and ensure accountability for 

both agencies. DOD concurred with our recommendation. In March 2016, 

we reported that DOD and NOAA officials stated that since the conclusion 

of the AOA study period, DOD and NOAA have increased their 

communication by discussing ways to leverage international partner 

satellite data and the possibility of establishing and employing formal 

coordination and collaboration arrangements. 

These are encouraging actions, but it is too early to tell whether they will 

be effective or sustainable. We reported in 2012 that past studies and 

reviews examining the leadership, organization, and management of 

national security space have found that there is no single authority 

Page7 GA0-18-769T 
73 

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

responsible below the President for integrating space programs, and 

responsibilities for acquiring space systems are diffused across various 

DOD organizations as well as the intelligence community and civil 

agencies such as NASA and NOAA, who rely on these systems. • This 

fragmentation is problematic not only because of a lack of coordination 

that has led to delays in fielding systems, but also because no one person 

or organization is held accountable for balancing government-wide needs 

against wants, resolving conflicts and ensuring coordination among the 

many organizations involved with space acquisitions, and ensuring that 

resources are directed where they are most needed. 

Recent events have further heightened DOD's challenge in addressing 

gaps in weather monitoring data. Because of a lack of funding, in 

December 2015, the Air Force moved to terminate activities to integrate 

and launch the last DMSP satellite.• Additionally, in February of this year, 

the latest DMSP satellite to be placed in orbit unexpectedly failed. These 

events have increased the risk of some capability gaps occurring even 

sooner. With potential gaps starting as early as this year, It Is important 

for DOD to make decisions in a timely manner, but based on Informed 

analysis that considers stakeholder input. 

Chairman Bridenstine, Ranking Member Bonamici and Members of the 

Subcommittee, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to 

respond to any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee 

may have. 

For further information on this testimony, please contact Cristina Chaplain 

at (202) 512-4841 or chaplainc@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this statement. Individuals making key contributions to this 

testimony Include Emily Bond, Erin Cohen, Brenna Derritt, Juli Digate, 

2012 Annual Report: Opportunifies to Reduce Dup/lcaOon, Overlap and 

Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue, GA0-12-342SP (Washington. 

D.C.: February 28. 2012). 

9DMSP-20 is in "safe keeping" at Lockhaed Martin's satellite facility in Sunnyvale, 

California, where It receives minimal pre-launch preparation and requires less tasting than 

traditional mission-ready storage. The Pentagon has pushed back a deadline to begin 

dismantling Defense Meteorological Satellite Program Flight 20 until Sept. 1, 2016. 

PageS GA0-16-7691 
74 

{100966) 

Marie Ahearn, Michael Kaeser, Jay Tallon, Oziel Trevino, and Rich 

Horiuchi (Assistant Director). 

Page9 GA0·16-769T 
75 

This Is a work of1he U.S. government and Is not subject to copyright protection In the 

United States. The published product may ba reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from 1he copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 
76 

GAO's Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone 

Connect with GAO 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO's website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select "E-mail Updates." 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages In the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering Information is posted on GAO's website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TOO (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and You Tube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. 

Listen to our Podcasts and read The Watchblog. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact: 

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnel/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

0 Please Prtnt on Recycled Paper. 
77 

Cristina T. Chaplain 

Ms. Chaplain currently serves as a Director, Acquisition and Sourcing 

Management, at the U.S. Government Accountability Office. She has 

responsibility for GAO assessments of military space acquisitions, NASA, and 

the Missile Defense Agency. She has recently led reviews on Defense weather 

satellites, the Global Positioning system, communications satellites, future 

space architectures, the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, satellite user 

terminals, NASA's major space programs, and the James Webb telescope. She 

has also led a variety of other contracting-related and best practice 

evaluations for the GAO. Before her current position, Ms. Chaplain worked 

with GAO's financial management and information technology teams. Ms. 

Chaplain has been with the GAO for 25 years. She received a bachelor's 

degree, magna cum laude, in International Relations from Boston University 

and a Masters Degree in Journalism from Columbia University. 
78 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you for your testimony, Ms. 

Chaplain. 

We have with us—now, we’re going to go a little bit out of 

order—but the chairman of the full committee, a good friend of 

mine from Texas, Mr. Smith, you are recognized for five minutes 

for an opening statement. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be able to go out of turn for an opening statement. And 

I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. 

The Science Committee has held many hearings on NOAA’s troubled weather satellite programs over the years. These problems 

largely stem from the federal government’s ill-fated consolidation of 

civilian and military weather and climate systems, which created 

slow, costly, and inefficient interagency programs to handle our 

weather prediction. 

In 2010, when it became apparent that the National Polar-orbiting Environmental Satellite System was a failure, the Administration canceled it and left the agencies, namely NOAA and DOD, to 

create their own individual polar programs. In NOAA’s case, they 

initiated the JPSS satellite, which unfortunately has continually 

encountered delays, cost overruns and mismanagement. 

Over the last several years, NOAA’s spending for satellite operations has ballooned to account for roughly 40 percent of its total 

budget, over $2 billion. This prevents NOAA from adequately pursuing other important areas of science, service, and stewardship. 

NOAA now proposes to move forward with the next series of 

weather satellites using the same technology, the Polar Follow-On. 

So I am concerned that the same problems that have occurred over 

the last ten years will continue. This Committee needs assurance 

that NOAA will get its government satellite spending under control 

and be able to meet future forecasting needs. Congress should not 

continue to fund an over-budget program that has not performed 

up to its standards. 

So what is NOAA doing differently with its next series of satellites that justifies such high continued funding? I fear the answer 

is nothing. I am also not convinced that NOAA is adequately mitigating the very real possibility of a gap in our weather data. In the 

face of real threats, NOAA should be doing all it can to prevent 

data gaps, yet they continue to drag their feet and not consider all 

options. The growing private sector weather enterprise could mitigate NOAA’s shortcomings through new technologies and sources of 

data, but NOAA shows that it will only take action if forced to do 

so. 

If NOAA is afraid of innovation, maybe they shouldn’t be in the 

business of deciding what technologies are needed for improved 

forecasting. For instance, commercial satellites equipped with the 

latest technology could help prevent data gaps, provide new kinds 

of advanced data, improve current and future model forecasts, and 

do so on a much faster timeline at lower cost than large and slow 

government systems. So why isn’t NOAA considering these? 

NOAA should absolutely consider the help that the private sector 

can provide. In this case, commercial innovation beats the status 

quo of slow, costly government systems. Faster, better, and cheaper 
79 

solutions take vision, competence, and courage. NOAA needs more 

of these qualities. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses 

today about how we can get our nation’s future weather data back 

on track and on time to provide our citizens with the critical 

weather forecasts they need and deserve. 

Let me also say, regrettably, I have another committee markup 

going on at the same time, so I’m going to be shuttling back and 

forth between the committees. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:] 
80 

COMMITTEE ON 

SCIENCE, SPACE, & TECHNOLOGY 

Lamar Smith, Chairman 

For Immediate Release 

July 7, 2016 

Media Contacts: Kristina Baum 

(202) 225-6371 

Statement of Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) 

Examining the Nation's Current and Next Generation Weather Satellite Programs 

Chairman Smith: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to our witnesses for being here 

today. 

The Science Committee has held many hearings on NOAA's troubled weather satellite 

programs over the years. These problems largely stem from the Federal Government's 

ill-fated consolidation of civilian and military weather and climate systems, which 

created slow. costly, and inefficient inter-agency programs to handle our weather 

prediction. 

In 2010, when it became apparent that the National Polar-orbiting Environmental 

Satellite System was a failure, the Administration cancelled it and left the agencies, 

namely NOAA and DOD, to create their own individual polar programs. 

In NOAA's case, they initiated the J-P-S-S satellite. which unfortunately has continually 

encountered delays, cost overruns and mismanagement. Over the last several years, 

NOAA's spending for satellite operations has ballooned to account for roughly 40% of 

its total budget. over $2 billion. This prevents NOAA from adequately pursuing other 

important areas of science, service, and stewardship. 

NOAA now proposes to move forward with the next series of weather satellites using 

the same technology, the Polar Follow-On. So, I om concerned that the same 

problems that have occurred over the last ten years will continue. 

This Committee needs assurance that NOAA will get its government satellite spending 

under control and be able to meet future forecasting needs. Congress should not 

continue to fund an over-budget program that has not performed up to standards. 

So what is NOAA doing differently with its next series of satellites that justifies such high 

continued funding? I fear the answer is nothing. 

I am also not convinced that NOAA is adequately mitigating the very real possibility of 

a gap in our weather data. In the face of real threats, NOAA should be doing all it 

can to prevent data gaps. yet they continue to drag their feet and not consider all 

options. The growing private sector weather enterprise could mitigate NOAA's 

shortcomings through new technologies and sources of data. but NOAA shows that it 

will only take action if forced to do so. If NOAA is afraid of innovation, maybe they 

shouldn't be in the business of deciding what technologies ore needed for improved 

forecasting. 
81 

For instance. commercial satellites equipped with the latest technology could help 

prevent data gaps, provide new kinds of advanced data, improve current and future 

model forecasts, and do so on a much faster timeline at lower cost than large and 

slow government systems. So why isn't NOAA considering these? 

NOAA should absolutely consider the help that the private sector can provide. In this 

case. commercial innovation beats the status-quo of slow, costly government systems. 

Faster, better, and cheaper solutions take vision, competence, and courage. NOAA 

needs more of these qualities. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about how we can get our nation's 

future weather data needs on track and on time to provide our citizens with the 

critical weather forecasts they need and deserve. 

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

### 
82 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Chairman, for your opening 

statement. Thank you to all of our witnesses for their testimonies. 

Members are reminded that Committee rules limit questioning to 

five minutes. The Chair now recognizes himself for five minutes. 

I wanted to start by addressing the issue that we recently had 

on another committee I serve on, the Armed Services Committee, 

with Meteosat-7, which was going to do cloud characterization and 

theater weather imagery over the Indian Ocean, which is critically 

important for our war fighters serving in that part of the world. We 

had hearings on our committee when we learned that Meteosat-7 

was not going to be able to continue doing those functions and that 

the Europeans were not planning to replace it with what we 

thought they were going to plan to replace it with, so we started 

having hearings and trying to figure out what are we going to mitigate this gap with. 

And then, ultimately, we just learned last week that the Europeans are indeed going to launch a new satellite and move 

Meteosat-8 over to a region that is close to where Meteosat-7 was 

so we can get some of the same capabilities back. 

I wanted to ask Mr. Stoffler if you would comment on the process 

that we went through from believing we were secure in a solution 

to not having a solution and then going and finally looking like 

we’ve got a good solution. If you could share with us what the solution is and the process that we went through to get there. 

Mr. STOFFLER. Chairman, I appreciate that question. And certainly you’re very correct. We were planning all along that the Europeans would provide us the capabilities over the Indian Ocean. 

They, like us, have their own priorities and they had to make a 

change to their plans. When we were first informed of that possibility, we looked at all alternative options that were out there. 

Certainly, there are other geostationary capabilities over the Indian Ocean and particularly provided both by Russia and China. 

Our systems are capable of receiving Chinese data, and we did an 

evaluation of that. When we determined the potential of hackings 

that took place at NOAA, we locked our systems down. We had the 

CIO of the Air Force evaluate the situation, and we were told unless this data was really highly operationally needed, we should not 

use it. 

We then went to the Director of Operations to determine if we 

should use it, and the answer was clearly no. Once we were told 

that Chinese data is off the table, we had to find another alternative. 

At that point in time, we began several actions. One was to go 

back to the Joint Staff and advise them of this change. We provided briefings, and we also began an outreach on the military side 

to work with our allies to see what they could do to convince our 

European allies to move over, and of course we outreached to our 

NOAA partners to see what they could do to help us in that regard. 

I think we’ve been very successful, and the end result is we now 

have what I would call a multi-pronged attack to resolve that problem. First, as you’ve already said yourself, Europe has been most 

cooperative. Meteosat-8 is being moved over. It’s going to cover the 

critical components of our operations in Syria and Iraq. We will experience a short gap over eastern Afghanistan, and our plan there 
83 

is to work cooperatively with India to use Indian data to close that 

gap. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Now, would that happen immediately or 

is that—you said we’re going to have a gap. How long is that gap 

going to be? 

Mr. STOFFLER. We don’t think that we’re really going to have a 

gap. Right now, India—the Indian satellite is already operational. 

It’s already there. The data is already available here in the United 

States at a variety of universities. It’s a matter of getting here 

quicker and more efficiently so we can use it operationally. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Okay. 

Mr. STOFFLER. And we’re working in conjunction with our NOAA 

partners to make that happen for us, so we feel very positive that 

we’re going to be able to do that. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. At what point did you guys reach out to 

NOAA to seek assistance? Or did you? 

Mr. STOFFLER. I think certainly at my level we had a lot of informal talks and what the best way forward was, but we didn’t really 

reach out to NOAA formally until after we had made the decision 

that the Chinese data set would not be able to be used. At that 

point in time the Air Force A3 wrote a letter to NOAA, NESDIS 

in particular, asking to see if NOAA could help us possibly moving 

a spare NOAA satellite over the Indian Ocean. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I want to bring up something that I’ve 

heard as an idea. I’m not saying it’s a good idea; I’m saying it’s an 

idea, and I want to get your input on it. During the George W. 

Bush Administration, they established the National Executive 

Committee on Positioning, Navigation, and Timing to coordinate 

and provide high-level guidance for GPS. It was co-chaired by the 

Deputy Defense Secretary, the Deputy Transportation Secretary. 

The executive committee only meets about twice a year, which 

seems doable even for people who are extremely busy, as I know 

you are. The National Executive Committee has a permanent staff, 

working groups, and includes every agency with GPS equities. Is 

it worth considering a national executive committee approach for 

weather to get attention, coordination, and guidance at the highest 

levels when we face these kind of gaps? 

Mr. STOFFLER. Certainly from my perspective, Mr. Chairman, is 

that there are a significant number of coordination activities that 

take place already. We’ve got the Joint Center for Data Assimilation. We also work with the Development Testbed Center, so certainly at my level and below there’s lots of coordination that takes 

place. I find that very effective. 

During the NPOESS era, we actually had a meeting similar to 

that, a senior users’ group meeting where NOAA, NASA, and the 

DOD got together pretty routinely to discuss things in a very highlevel. As you have already attested yourself, the result of that 

wasn’t necessarily positive so I’m not convinced that adding another level of high-level bureaucracy is going to improve the process. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Dr. Volz, what are your thoughts on 

that? 

Dr. VOLZ. Thank you. I think that the points you make is the 

need for greater coordination at the senior executive level. And as 
84 

Mr. Stoffler mentioned, when the Air Force reached out to us after 

their Chinese assessment and asked for assistance, we were able 

to communicate to them our status on GOES but also that we have 

been working for some time with our European partners through 

an international Coordination Group on Meteorological Satellites 

for covering this particular observing system requirement over the 

Indian Ocean. So that had been in work for some time. 

I bring that up because we have global coordination activities already in place for meteorological activities for—across all the major 

met agencies in the world. And this is one example where the need 

for observations over the Indian Ocean was well understood, and 

there had been a history and we knew it was going to be going 

away and there was a path for an interim solution to solve it. 

So I think addressing the collaborative needs wouldn’t necessarily require an executive committee but greater coordination 

between the DOD and NOAA as we serve in that role as the international agent for weather for the United States around the world 

and we have done for many, many years effectively. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. All right. My time is expired. I’d like to 

recognize the acting Ranking Member, Mr. Grayson from Florida. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you. Mr. Stoffler, I want to congratulate 

you on your origins. As I frequently tell the Chair, not everybody 

can be so fortunate as to be from Oklahoma. 

Mr. STOFFLER. That’s correct. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Tell me, what kind of data do DOD satellites collect other than weather data? 

Mr. STOFFLER. If you’re making reference to the defense meteorological satellite program, we have seven different sensors on there, 

and they collect weather information as well as space weather information. 

Mr. GRAYSON. What are the sensors? 

Mr. STOFFLER. Specifically, we have a sounder, we have—— 

Mr. GRAYSON. What’s that? 

Mr. STOFFLER. The sounder is something where we collect information regarding remote sensing of the atmosphere. This is data 

that you would incorporate into the models. The key essential that 

we have on DMSP is the EO/IR capability where we actually take 

pictures of the atmosphere to see the clouds, specifically visible imagery and infrared imagery. 

Mr. GRAYSON. What other sensors? 

Mr. STOFFLER. I’d have to give you a precise breakdown at another time, sir. 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right. Well, give me an idea of what they’re actually used for. What kind of data do they collect? 

Mr. STOFFLER. Well, I mean, the primary mission is we take the 

actual pictures, the IR and the vis, and we incorporate it into a 

cloud depiction forecasting system. That is the primary purpose of 

the DMSP. We use the sounding data and we incorporate it into 

our models from a data simulation perspective, and we use the 

space weather centers in—to support of our ionospheric modeling 

system. So those three are the primary areas. 

Mr. GRAYSON. I got the impression from your testimony that the 

information is used to provide—how shall I put this—weather reports to troops in the field. Is that correct? 
85 

Mr. STOFFLER. From the satellite perspective, we use the data in 

two aspects. One, clouds are very, very important to the war fighter, so if I’m sitting in the AOR and I’m planning a mission or strike 

and the air operations center wants to know five or six hours from 

now where are the clouds going to be, where’s the cloud-free line 

of sight, where am I going to hit the target, DMSP provides this 

data were we can forecast and where those cloud-free areas are 

going to be. So from an RPA perspective, from a strike perspective, 

from a bombing perspective, that’s where that helps. 

The sounding data we use for the long-range forecasts out to 10 

days to actually create numerical weather prediction on the bigger 

range weather features. 

The other thing which the DMSP is very critical for is in the execution phase. If you want to know where a haboob is going to be 

or where you’re going to have severe thunderstorm activity, again 

from an execution point of view, that’s what we use that data for. 

And we make the data available via the DCGS backbone so they 

can actually see it downrange. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Is that information used now or is it just something that’s been used in the past? Let me be more specific. Has 

it been used in the past 30 days? 

Mr. STOFFLER. Yes. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Where? 

Mr. STOFFLER. We use that information each and every day. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Where do you use that? 

Mr. STOFFLER. We use it in, we use it in, we use it in 

CENTCOM, we use it in PACOM, we use it in SOUTHCOM. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Could you be more specific? 

Mr. STOFFLER. Okay. I would say that at Kabul, for example, we 

would use that. At Bagram Air Force Base we would use that. We 

would use it over Syria. We would use it over our operations in 

Iraq. We would use it over places in Russia. We also use it in 

South America. We use it in Korea, and it’s used in northern Europe. So basically any place where there’s a DOD operation going 

on, we would use that data. 

Mr. GRAYSON. I’m surprised to hear you mention South America. 

What’s that all about? 

Mr. STOFFLER. We have some counter-drug operations in South 

America, and we actually have a few weather teams deployed down 

there. 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right. It sounds like the division of labor between you all and NOAA is somewhat ad hoc. Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. STOFFLER. I would not say that it’s ad hoc. Our mission is 

very focused OCONUS on military operations. 

Mr. GRAYSON. But in terms of who covers what, that seems to 

be done almost on a case-by-case basis rather than according to 

some kind of master plan. Is that fair to say? 

Mr. STOFFLER. I think you need to look at what I would call the 

international plan. From an international point of view, from a 

data-providing point of view, NOAA certainly provides from our 

perspective the two geostationary satellites, GOES East, GOES 

West. We use the two European satellites, and we use a Japanese 

satellite. We also use a European one. So I think there is an inter-
86 

national plan of distribution of responsibilities regarding data collections. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Dr. Volz, from your perspective, is the division of 

labor between NOAA and DOD ad hoc or is it according to some 

master plan? 

Dr. VOLZ. I think the missions of the two agencies are very different, and the products and services the two agencies provide are 

different as well. NOAA has a very focused weather forecast alertsand-warnings responsibility for the United States, and as part of 

our global observation generate the numerical weather predictions 

requires global observations. We also have oceans and coastal observation requirements, and products and services we provide. 

When you think about speaking—it’s not my field exactly—but 

what the DOD is providing is a very service-oriented delivery to 

their own resources or their own applications. We provide a general 

observation requirement in weather forecasting for all users, and 

it’s up to our other users to come up with more specific, detailed 

recommendations in forecasts and products for their particular 

service application. 

So I don’t think it’s overlap in terms of the mission requirements. 

Ours are broader and more general to the general populace, and 

DOD has a completely different mission from ours. 

Mr. GRAYSON. My time is up. Thank you all. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Great questions. As somebody who 

serves in the United States military, maybe I can help. When it 

comes to mesoscale forecasting in Afghanistan, which is a smaller 

level, in Afghanistan that’s not where NOAA is going to be serving 

the war fighter. NOAA is focused on the United States of America. 

The DMSP programs and all the weather satellite programs operated by the Department of Defense feed models that will ultimately 

enable me to determine whether or not I can use a laser-guided 

weapon or a GPS-guided weapon for a specific target in Afghanistan or some other part of the world. Of course, I did counter-drug 

operations in Central and South America as a Navy pilot, and I 

was very grateful that we had excellent weather data down south. 

It could have been better, but my goodness, weather in Central and 

South America changes so rapidly. You literally see the thunderstorms growing. 

I’d like to now recognize Mr. Moolenaar from Michigan. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to 

thank our witnesses today. 

I want to begin with Mr. Stoffler. If you—just on—after canceling 

the Defense Weather Satellite System, the Department of Defense 

initiated an analysis of alternatives for space-based environmental 

monitoring, and it’s my understanding that the conclusions of this 

analysis prioritized a number of mission-critical issues for Department of Defense to pursue, and I just wanted to get your perspective. Is Department of Defense pursuing all the mission areas as 

prioritized in this analysis of alternatives? 

Mr. STOFFLER. Thank you for that question, sir, and yes, we are. 

We are pursuing all of them. When we did the analysis, we reviewed the initial requirements of the NPOESS program. We revalidated 11 of the 12 original requirements as having clear military utility, and then we determined that a significant number of 
87 

the needs that we had could be met by existing national and international assets, so we’re focused on—only on buying material capabilities for gaps 3, 8, and 11, i.e., tropical cyclone monitoring, ocean 

vector winds, and the space-based energetic charged particle sensors. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. So you feel that this plan is helping to mitigate 

these gaps? 

Mr. STOFFLER. No question, yes, it is. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Okay. Ms. Chaplain, would you—any comments 

on that assessment at all? 

Ms. CHAPLAIN. A couple things. I would add that the first two capabilities, cloud characterization, theater weather imagery, there 

are still questions about how to meet those capabilities, and DOD 

is still studying that after the AOA. During the AOA, they consulted some with NOAA on the possibility of using European satellites to fill some of those gaps, but because they didn’t consult 

with them enough, they didn’t get information that helped them 

form good assumptions for that study. So that’s a still the question 

up in the air, those two capabilities. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Okay. Thank you for that feedback. 

Mr. Powner, I wondered, I understand that NOAA needs to 

launch the first polar satellite JPSS–1, as well as the follow-up 

JPSS–2 to have a more robust system, and after that, when does 

NOAA need to launch the remaining two satellites? 

Mr. POWNER. Well, I think that’s still in question. When you look 

at—our main concern is the potential gap right here and now between NPP and J–1. I think when you look at the plan for J–2 and 

you look at the follow-on programs, J–3 and 4, those gaps go away. 

They really go—the near-term issue is with ATMS on NPP and will 

it last long enough until we get J–1 up there and transition over 

to the ATMS on J–1. That’s, I think, the key question in the near 

term. 

When you look at the out year, there is a robust constellation 

being planned. In fact, they’re even planning to store satellites 3 

and 4, the follow-on programs, for relatively 2 to three years and 

then 5 to six years. That’s the current plan. So after we get past 

this first hurdle, I think the robustness begins. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Okay. And are we saving money by building 

satellites now? Is that your understanding? 

Mr. POWNER. Well, that’s the key question. When you look at the 

out-years satellites, there’s economies of scale to go ahead and 

build these things quicker, especially if we’re replicating what 

we’re doing on J–2. And we get that. And we ought to take advantage of that. And we also ought to take advantage of some firm 

fixed prices because we’ve done these things. There’s opportunities 

to save money. 

But there’s also a challenge with building them quickly and storing them. There’s a cost with that. And you’ve also got to balance 

that with the annual appropriation process. How do you balance all 

those things? And I just think NOAA needs to be real clear in their 

plans forward that we’re justifying the best decisions to ensure 

robustness but still do it where we’re fiscally responsible. 
88 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. And then are you concerned at all about there 

may be emerging technologies that if we build things now that we 

wouldn’t be able to take advantage of those new technologies? 

Mr. POWNER. Absolutely. I mean, there’s always, you know, leaps 

with some of these technologies that help with the forecasting with 

our observational sensors and the whole bit. So again, you know, 

we don’t want to—there’s some sweet spot in there, and what— 

finding that sweet spot where we store not excessively ensuring 

that we can actually enhance some of the sensors going forward, 

and I think finding that sweet spot, it’s still kind of a TBD in our 

mind. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Okay. Well, thank you very much. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. The gentleman yields back. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Babin, for five 

minutes. 

Mr. BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, witnesses, 

for being here today. 

Dr. Volz, it’s my understanding that NOAA relies on data from 

the three distinct polar orbits, early morning, midmorning, and 

early afternoon, which are all being filled by different partners, 

NOAA, DOD, and the European satellite program, EUMETSAT. 

How important is each orbit? 

Dr. VOLZ. In order to generate accurate forecasts and for our numerical weather modeling, we need distributed data and observations from around the globe as frequently as possible. The models 

we use right now are—rely on all three orbits for provision of data. 

So the timing, those 6:30 a.m., the 9:30 a.m., and the 1:30 p.m. timing are equally important to the generation of our data models in 

our forecasts. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. So the data from each orbit is weighed equally 

when integrated into numerical weather models? Is that the way 

that works? 

Dr. VOLZ. I say the distribution of the timing of the data are 

equally important. You need that snapshot from different times of 

the day. We have different sensors in the different orbits, so some 

are more powerful than others, so the impact of individual measurements from an afternoon orbit may be more than the earlymorning orbit because of the quality of the instrument— 

Mr. BABIN. I see. 

Dr. VOLZ. —but you need at least the weather and temperature 

soundings at those three orbits to support the overall numerical 

weather modeling. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. What would be the degradation of our weather 

forecasts if there was a gap or if a partner decided not to fill a certain orbit? 

Dr. VOLZ. We’ve looked at over the years answering that question 

as we went through the generation of the JPSS program in a few 

years ago looking at what we called data denial studies or analyses 

of the impact of the loss of a particular orbit. And it does show up 

as a reduction in the accuracy of the forecasts in the three- to fiveor seven-day forecast period when you remove one leg of that threelegged stool. And I can give you the specific numbers. I can’t quote 

them off the top of my head, but there is a marked change in the 
89 

accuracy of the forecast in the short-term forecasts with the loss of 

any one of those three. 

Mr. BABIN. Well, if you can’t provide exact figures, can you commit to this committee to do the appropriate research and studies 

to determine the exact benefit, importance of each separate orbit? 

Dr. VOLZ. Yes, sir, we can take that 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. 

Dr. VOLZ. —and respond. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. BABIN. And then I’d like to ask several of you, as with most 

other government satellite acquisitions, weather satellite acquisition efforts consistently have experienced significant cost increases 

and schedule delays. Why is this so, and what can be done to your 

knowledge? Has anyone met cost schedule and performance goals 

with their weather satellite acquisition efforts? And I would say, 

Mr. Powner, if you would go first. 

Mr. POWNER. Well, clearly, I think there’s a lot of lessons learned 

looking at what happened with NPOESS and why we had such 

huge cost overruns in launches and delays in planned launches. 

One of the big things you can start with is the level of complexity 

that was associated with NPOESS. At one time there was an excessive amount of sensors. We got down to five. I think decreasing the 

complexity is the first start in ensuring that our requirements are 

real solid. Many times we ask for so many things in our requirements have a lot of nice-to-haves, but what do we essentially need. 

So that’s been a real lesson learned looking back over the—both 

the GOES and the JPSS programs. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. And how about Colonel Stoffler if you don’t 

mind? 

Mr. STOFFLER. Well, I can certainly echo, sir, what was already 

mentioned, having been part of the NPOESS program. We tend to 

want to really build capabilities, which advances of the future. So 

if you make requirements that take you far in advance, there’s increased risk. And if you look at DMSP, when you go from a capability that has two channels and you try to go to 24 channels, that 

really causes a lot of risk. So certainly from the DOD perspective, 

if you state requirements which are reasonable and allow you to do 

what you need to do, that’s a key way of controlling cost. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. And then we probably have enough time for 

one more answer between Ms. Chaplain or Dr. Volz, whichever one. 

Ms. CHAPLAIN. I like to add to that just because our work consistently looks at this question. I would add in addition to the 

issues which are very legitimate, oftentimes satellite programs attempt to invent technology during the acquisition phase, so if they 

run across natural discovery problems during that phase, it has a 

lot of repercussions that drive up costs and schedule. 

In the case of NPOESS, oversight was a very big problem, as 

well as coordination among the three agencies. And I think weather satellites tend to be a little harder to do because of that. They 

span so many communities. You have to bring a lot of stakeholders 

together and work effectively to manage the program right. So I 

think going forward both agencies need to look at that issue. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. That’s great. Did you have something you 

wanted to say, Dr. Volz? 
90 

Dr. VOLZ. Yes, please. I’d like to respond to that. I agree with 

both the points of our GAO representation—representatives have 

made. It’s consistency and clarity, consistency of the requirements 

and clarity of the mission I think which are key. And the NPOESS 

example was a forced marriage between different organizations 

with different service provisions that we talked about earlier. 

And I think the lesson was learned, and it has been applied on 

our JPSS program. In fact, since the 2011 initiation, we have held 

the Q–2 fiscal year 2017 launch date for the JPSS mission for the 

last five years plus. So we’ve been able—with changes and challenges that we have in development, we’ve managed to keep that 

launch schedule on track. And we’ve addressed the changes in requirements by holding to a firm baseline of requirements, and 

that’s the provision of the follow-ons is that we do not want to 

change the mission now when we have a proven instrument, a 

proven complement. We can build it again with reliability and with 

an accurate cost and schedule. 

Mr. BABIN. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time 

is expired. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I’d like to thank the gentleman from 

Texas. 

We’re going to move into a second round, and I’d like to start by 

asking Dr. Volz one of the things that came out of the GAO report 

has been the challenge that we’ve had with the Suomi NPP expected life, and now it’s been extended. I don’t think anybody 

doubts the fact that Suomi NPP is going to be around longer than 

the expected life at the time of its launch. I think one of the concerns we have is that the process and the procedures, the clarity 

for how we go about extending that life, and—from our perspective 

it might look like it’s subjective. Can you give clarity on how you 

make that determination, and then maybe in the future have published standards or something that determine how we move forward so then there isn’t a question about why it was changed. 

Dr. VOLZ. Yes, sir, and thank you. That’s an excellent point. And 

that was part of the dialogue we’ve been having with the GAO over 

the past couple of months about how we do our fly-out charts, how 

we do our projections. One case of terminology, we don’t extend life. 

We update our analysis on the projection of probable life. We don’t 

decide to terminate or to extend; it’s whether the satellite is functioning or not. And we use our analysis, our understanding of its 

performance to see how far we can project that performance into 

the future. 

So what we have done with Suomi NPP, different from our legacy satellites is from the start done statistical analysis of the instrument capabilities, the instrument performance, the spacecraft 

lifetime, the operations of it, how it wears out over time. And based 

on the information from the satellite and the general understanding of our electronic parts and hardware, in the whole aerospace industry, come up with projected probability of success or P 

sub S for these satellites into the future. 

That is our new baseline approach for Suomi NPP, and it will be 

for JPSS and for our GOES satellites going forward. It was not a 

methodology that was applied in the previous years, so when we 

try and apply that same rigor to legacy satellites which don’t have 
91 

the basis of information that we started with, it’s hard to retrofit 

that analysis. So we’re not going to be able look at a POES satellite 

launch 15 years ago and apply the same rigor of analysis that we 

can to JPSS. We don’t have the basis. But our plan is to have a 

transparent process for how we do this on an annual basis, how we 

update our fly-out charts, where the assumptions that are built 

into it are stated, and then we can discuss whether they’re appropriate, but they’re clearly stated for all to see. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. That’s great. We thank you for that. 

When you think about the NOAA-16 satellite that broke up randomly—and I shouldn’t say randomly. It broke up. And do you 

have any clarity on that? And one of the concerns we had is could 

that same fate be the fate of Suomi NPP? 

Dr. VOLZ. So given the—the answer to the first question is I 

don’t have clarity on the exact breakup reasons for NOAA 16. It 

was non-communicative at the time. It had been inert for some 

time, so it spontaneously devolved or broke up. So we don’t know 

the root cause. We can speculate on what they might be. 

But whether it was something internal to the spacecraft or a 

micrometeor object debris, those effects and those risk factors are 

factored into our analysis of Suomi NPP. So we routinely, for example, do debris-avoidance maneuvers for Suomi NPP when we know 

based on our tracking that there are potential conjunctions with 

other debris. So we are mitigating that to the extent that we can, 

that we can see these objects. 

As I mentioned before, the health and status, the battery life, the 

propulsion systems in the satellite we monitor on a regular basis, 

so spontaneous explosion or breakup from anything internal or 

tracking the engineering capabilities very carefully on the spacecraft to know whether or not that’s a possibility and mitigating 

them if we see any effects. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Okay. Got it. I wanted to ask about the 

commercial pilot program, commercial data program. Can you give 

us an update where you are on that and how it’s going? 

Dr. VOLZ. It’s going at a relatively breakneck speed. I know that 

may not seem like that to the commercial side, but to the government side, it is relatively quick. We have—since the—beginning of 

this fiscal year with the authorization for the weather data pilot, 

we have, as you mentioned in you, or I think Bonamici mentioned 

in her opening, we have released our process for evaluation. We released an RFI to the community for opportunities for provision of 

data for us to evaluate as part of the pilot process, and we currently have on the street a draft Request For Quotations from the 

commercial industry to sell data to NOAA, to NESDIS for us to 

evaluate radio occultation data for suitability in our use for weather modeling. We expect that to be closed in a couple of weeks. We 

actually have industry day this afternoon to answer questions, and 

the actual request will go out in early August. And our target is 

to have data on hand from vendors or at least under contract by 

the end of this fiscal year. 

The challenge right now is that the available data is an empty 

set. There are no observing commercial systems out there now providing data that we can use. That’s why we asked for an extension 

to fiscal year 2017. And the RFQ will actually ask for data up 
92 

through April of 2017, for—anticipating the launch of these assets 

in the next 6 months so that we can get those data on board, pay 

for them, and do our evaluation process internally. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Got it. And then, Mr. Stoffler, the two 

highest priorities of course for CENTCOM—cloud characterization 

and theater weather imagery—there are commercial capabilities 

that are out there that might not be in space just yet but are planning launches as early as 2019. One of them would be 

hyperspectral capabilities. Would those capabilities be valuable to 

you for cloud characterization or theater weather imagery? 

Mr. STOFFLER. You are right on the money, Mr. Chairman. Those 

capabilities would be very valuable to us, and we are waiting with 

great anticipation when that data becomes available. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Now, is there a way that the federal 

government on the Department of Defense side could partner with 

a commercial company knowing full well that eventually the commercial company will have customers that aren’t necessarily the 

Department of Defense but could be the agricultural industry, 

could be the insurance industry or the transportation industry, 

shipping industry, but to signal to the markets that there is a demand from the Department of Defense for this kind of capability? 

Are there ways of partnering today so that we can help get this industry going? 

Mr. STOFFLER. We have what’s called a CRADA, a relationship 

with a variety of different organizations, both government and industry, which we can leverage to advance these types of capabilities. We’ve also done—just like NOAA has, our program office has 

gone out and done a request for information to see what’s available 

out there. And as you’ve already indicated, our biggest issue right 

now is that there is nothing to buy. So we’re waiting for that to 

happen. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Is it possible to do a partnership where 

maybe the private sector would provide the data for free to the Department of Defense? In return, the private sector would get an 

EELV launch or some kind of partnership like that? 

Mr. STOFFLER. I’d have to speak to our acquisition agents to give 

you a proper read on that, sir. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Okay. I’d like to recognize the acting 

Ranking Member, Mr. Grayson, for a second round of questioning. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you. Dr. Volz, the 2013 NOAA, NESDIS, 

and NASA independent review team made several recommendations regarding the weather satellite programs and putting them 

on what was referred to as a robust state. Do you know what they 

meant by robust? 

Dr. VOLZ. Yes, sir. The robust means essentially single-fault tolerant or two failures to a gap, which means you can lose any major 

on-orbit asset and have a second one ready to support the same 

mission, provide the same information content without interruption. So that would require redundant capability on orbit at the 

same time. 

We are in that situation, for example, right now with the geostationary satellite constellation. We have two active and one is a 

backup for either of the two so we could lose one and a satellite 

could move over and give us the same coverage. We are not in that 
93 

condition right now in the polar because although we have legacy 

POES satellites, they are not as capable and not as functioning at 

the capacity of the Suomi NPP satellite. 

So when we look at the JPSS–1 and the JPSS–2, getting to the 

JPSS–2 launch so we have both J–1 and a J–2 on orbit both effectively in their prime of life, get you to that condition of robustness 

where you have two fully functioning satellites in their prime lifetime ready to support the mission. 

Mr. GRAYSON. So robustness in this case just means having a 

backup, is that correct? 

Dr. VOLZ. It’s on orbit ready redundancy effectively, yes. 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right. Apart from what you just said, is there 

anything else that needs to be done in order to secure that condition? 

Dr. VOLZ. The robust condition, that is one approach. That is one 

piece of the robustness. It also requires the overall observing system is ready and available and functioning as well, which includes 

not only those two satellites, but as we mentioned that we have 

other assets in the morning orbit from the Europeans and the early 

a.m. orbit from the DMSP and from other partner satellites that 

we have a functioning ground system which is redundant and capable to handle. If we have a hurricane come through in one, we have 

a backup system, we have redundant antennas, et cetera. 

So the overall observing system on the NOAA piece needs to be 

robust and reliable, and the observing system of a global system 

needs to be able to provide the data that we rely on. Quite frankly, 

our partnership with the Europeans is essential as part of our collaborative efforts going through the years. And their constellation 

robustness is as strong, their requirements are as strong as ours. 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right. Regarding NOAA’s commercial weather 

data pilot, what other kinds of data can you consider as being likely or possible for future acquisition? 

Dr. VOLZ. When you talk about the future capabilities, there are 

potentially a number that are likely to be coming around in the 

near term that are not yet available. Chairman Bridenstine mentioned hyperspectral as one possibility. There are a number of 

small satellite or even CubeSat versions of sounders that are being 

planned or—NASA is working on launching and we’re working 

with NASA to understand the planned capabilities there. 

You look for areas where technologies are scalable to smaller size 

or affordable by venture capitalists or small companies and can 

meet our requirements. So those three factors fold in in a couple 

of potentially significant ways, like I mentioned, hyperspectral, 

microwave sounding, and additional radio occultation. 

Imagery has already gone through this transition. We’re not a 

big imagery buyer, but industry is already seeing that there are 

commercial applications. 

Our Commercial Weather Pilot focused on radio occultation first 

and foremost because that was the most mature of these potentially emerging capabilities, but I fully expect that as we continue 

our engagement with the commercial sector, as we look at our strategic plan for the next emerging capabilities for our constellation, 

that there will be others who are reaching that same level of matu-
94 

rity that will need to be evaluated for their suitability for our 

measurements. 

Mr. GRAYSON. So what kind of time frames are you anticipating 

for the other data sets? 

Dr. VOLZ. For the immediate future we’re focused right now on 

the radio occultation in the fiscal year 2016, fiscal year 2017. We 

are looking at options in fiscal year 2017. We’ve issued another call 

for interest on other measurements. Hyperspectral may be one, I 

mean, without tailoring it to specific targets seeing what else is 

likely to be in the market available. We are moving forward on our 

space weather architecture and there are potential, and have been 

expressed interest in providing space weather observations that 

could be useful as well. So these are areas in the ’17 in the nearterm time frame that may be viable for satisfying. 

Our focus has to be on understanding the capabilities and seeing 

how they match our requirements and our observational needs. We 

are a requirements-driven organization, so we look to what our requirements are and how they can best be met. And we consider 

commercial emerging along with government-built as the—what 

would be the best match to meet our mission objectives. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Can you be more specific about what time frames 

we’re talking about, how many years out and so on? 

Dr. VOLZ. Right now for radio occultation we have seen suggestions of launches in the next year. So that would mean we would 

be looking at data from an RO system potentially by this time next 

year or in fiscal year 2017 that would be ready for evaluation. For 

these other hyperspectral, it’s more suggested, and it would depend 

on the maturity and the development pace of the industry itself. I 

would not be surprised to see something in the ’18 to ’19 time 

frame or there’ll be potential demonstrations on orbit at some of 

these others, but it depends on sources and investments by others 

outside of our organization. 

Mr. GRAYSON. My time is up. Thank you all again. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I’d like to thank the gentleman from 

Florida. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Babin—Dr. Babin is recognized 

for five minutes. 

Mr. BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 

Colonel Stoffler, one question I hear that I have for you, let me 

read you a portion of the national space policy signed by President 

Obama in 2010. The Secretary of Commerce through the NOAA 

Administrator, the Secretary of defense through the Secretary of 

the Air Force, and the NASA Administrator shall work together 

and with their international partners to ensure uninterrupted operational polar-orbiting environmental satellite observations. The 

Secretary of Defense shall be responsible for the morning orbit and 

the Secretary of Commerce shall be responsible for the afternoon 

orbit. Are you familiar with this national policy? 

Mr. STOFFLER. Yes, sir, I am. 

Mr. BABIN. Currently, does the DOD have a plan and money in 

the budget for maintaining the morning orbit? If not, why is DOD 

going against national policy? 

Mr. STOFFLER. Sir, at this particular time we’re meeting the national space policy objectives as long as DMSP continues to be in 
95 

orbit. Final decisions haven’t been made on weather satellite follow-on, but if we launch WSF in the morning orbit, I believe that 

we’re meeting the objectives of national space policy. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. All right. I understand that NOAA—this is for 

you, Mr. Powner, I’m sorry. I understand that NOAA needs to 

launch the first polar satellite, JPSS–1, as well as the follow-up 

JPSS–2 to have a more robust system. We’ve mentioned earlier 

this morning. After that when does NOAA need to launch the remaining two satellites? 

Mr. POWNER. Well, I think that’s what’s—currently right now I 

think the plan is to launch in the 2024 and ’26 time frames those 

two satellites and then actually they would be stored for a period 

of time. So, for instance, J–3 I believe the current plan is to launch 

2024 and to store for about 2–1/2 years into 2026. With J–4 the 

plan would be in early 2026 to have it ready to go in storage and 

launch in ’31. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. Thank you. Is NOAA and the federal government actually saving money by building satellites now? 

Mr. POWNER. They could be because of the economies of scale, 

but the—you know, you’ve got to offset that with some of the storage costs. We understand that is in excess of—although if you look 

at what happened with DMSP 20, that ended up being in excess 

of some of the storage costs there. Again, we’ve got to find what’s 

that right area where we’re building it and having this robust constellation that Dr. Volz referred to. 

But also, too, you need to balance that with Congressional budgets. We know that both the GOES program and the JPSS, those 

two programs consume a large portion of NOAA’s budget. So if in 

fact you could address other priorities at some point and hold off 

those out-year satellites, maybe that’s the appropriate thing to do 

that—we would just like to see the analysis provided to Congress, 

not only this committee but we get the same questions from the appropriation committees whether this is the right cadence and sequence for the out-years satellites. And it’s really in NOAA’s court 

to prove that that is the best cadence with those out-year satellites. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. And then one more question for Dr. Volz in regard to the SNPP and the ATMS instrument onboard, if the ATMS 

instrument fails on SNPP, what would be the backup for its measurements until JPSS–1 is operational? 

Dr. VOLZ. We have no immediate backup in orbit for the ATMS. 

However, for the observing system requirements, ATMS is one of 

a number of observations. You asked the question earlier what does 

the loss of one satellite mean, and we can get back to that specific 

answer. The loss of one instrument on one satellite has an impact 

as well, but the system itself has multiple observation points that 

are brought in that are used as part of the numerical weather forecasting modeling. I don’t have the exact result to tell you what the 

specific impact would be for the loss of ATMS. I can get that back 

to you. We’ve done these studies in the past. 

But the overall observing system, as we’ve talked about already 

here, relies on multiple observations from multiple points, so the 

loss of any particular asset, while unfortunate, doesn’t derail the 

entire observing system. It’s an impact that has to be absorbed if 
96 

we don’t have a backup for it in place at the same time, which is 

the point of getting to the robust as quickly as we can. 

Mr. BABIN. Thank you, Dr. Volz, and I’ll—— 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. BABIN. Thank you. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Dr. Babin. 

We’ll go into a third-round as long as people are sticking around. 

You’re not—well, I’ll ask a few questions then if that’s all right. 

I wanted to bring up a couple of challenges that we’ve seen within the Department of Defense and how we’ve applied some solutions in the Department of Defense when it comes to the spacebased communications, for example. We now lease about 80 percent 

of our communications over the horizon from commercial assets. 

Now, that does a number of things for us. Chief among them, it 

gives us the capacity and the throughput necessary to get the information and the high-resolution, motion picture imagery from the 

place where it is to the place that it needs to go. That’s number 

one. But number two, it also distributes the architecture very rapidly in a way where it complicates the targeting solution for our enemies. And of course we’ve seen the Chinese and the Russians both 

advanced anti-satellite directive-sent missiles, which are of concern 

to those of us on this committee and on the Armed Services Committee. What—so that partnership that we have with commercial 

industry to do over-the-horizon indications I think is very valuable. 

We’ve also seen for narrow-band communications, we’ve seen the 

success of Iridium, which was a partnership between the Department of Defense but also international partners, and it was, you 

know, provided—financing initially for Motorola, but eventually 

there was financing from a venture capital kind of capability that 

came together. And now the Department of Defense is using Iridium very robustly around the world. 

I would also say when it comes to remote sensing and imagery, 

we’ve seen the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency move forward on a commercial space policy where they’re buying imagery 

from space from commercial operators and they’re going to continue 

to do that. Again, it complicates the targeting solution for the 

enemy by distributing the architecture, and it also gets us more 

data, better data, higher revisit times, things like this. 

Are there partnerships like that when you think about defense 

weather? Could we develop a partnership similar where maybe we 

have a satellite bus and we attached to it payloads that are necessary for cloud characterization or necessary for theater weather 

imagery? And in this era of defense sequester, which is damaging 

our Department of Defense, create more robust partnerships that 

would be good not only for the Department of Defense in bringing 

down costs because when you purchase from commercial, you ultimately have more customers than just the Department of Defense, 

which shares the cost but also distributes the architecture? 

Mr. Stoffler, could you comment? Are you guys having those kind 

of conversations about bringing down cost, distributing the architecture, and ultimately getting more data, better data, and higher 

revisit times? 

Mr. STOFFLER. I appreciate that question, Chairman, and again, 

you’re right on the money. We are indeed going down that path-
97 

way. The first example of that is already what we’re doing with gap 

11. We’re going to build a very small space weather, and instead 

of sticking it on to one big huge weather satellite, we’re going to 

add that particular sensor to all future Air Force satellites. So by 

using disaggregation and placing individual weather sensors onto 

existing satellites, I think we can get a better picture, a higher refresh rate, and bring down overall costs and of course have more 

resiliency in the constellation as well. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Could you host those sensors on commercial payloads that would even give us more opportunities to 

launch, more opportunities to put those sensors in space? 

Mr. STOFFLER. I would be inclined to say that you probably 

could, but again, it would be to our acquisition experts to make 

that determination. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Okay. One other challenge that I see 

ahead of us, being from Oklahoma, on these issues I don’t really 

have any parochial interest, other than the fact that I have constituents that die from tornadoes. My mission here is to get as 

much data, the right data so that we can ultimately move to a day 

where we have zero deaths from tornadoes. 

Now, I know what we’re talking about generally here is the 

macro scale global initial conditions for weather forecasting, but 

my concern is that as we go forward with a commercial capability, 

we’re going to have a lot of data. And when you think about 

hyperspectral, when that capability comes online, there’s going to 

be a lot of data. One of my concerns is how do we assimilate all 

that data into our models? Is that possible now? What do we need 

to invest in? How can this committee be helpful? 

Mr. Stoffler, I’ll start with you and then will go to Dr. Volz. 

Mr. STOFFLER. Again, a very critical question, and I appreciate 

that, Mr. Chairman. Certainly on the DOD side we recognize that. 

We have developed an architectural design to revamp our entire 

computing system to increase computing capacity, remove legacy 

systems. We’re going to a 4D–Var assimilation scale, and we certainly believe that by the 2021 time frame our new architecture 

will be able to do all the things that you’ve addressed. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. And do we need additional modeling capabilities? Do we need additional computing capacity? Are you saying that you’re good and you have everything you need to move 

out? 

Mr. STOFFLER. I think from an Air Force perspective we’ve developed the plan. The Air Force has been very supportive, and we’re 

on path by 2021 to meet our objectives. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Dr. Volz? 

Dr. VOLZ. I think you pinpoint the exact challenge we have is 

that we’re in an age of explosion of data availability, and the utilization of it effectively is going to be our greatest challenge. And it’s 

not just satellite data. It’s incorporating and merging satellite data 

with in situ ground data, airborne data to get a better holistic 

pitcher of what’s going on. And I think it’s always going to be— 

we’re always going to be running uphill on this and trying to get 

greater computing power. As we bring in more data, as we simulate more data sources, the challenges are going get more and more 

challenging. 
98 

So even though at this point we’ve come a long way in the past 

three years with our high-performance computing within NOAA 

and it’s enabled us to ingest other data sources as part of our gap 

mitigation efforts to support the polar constellations, but now with 

the launch of GOES–R coming on in just a few months, which is 

going to have a significant—60-fold increase in the data rate that 

we see from now-casting, how we integrate those data sets into the 

weather forecast on modeling in the offices is going to challenge us 

as well. 

So there will always be need for incremental and sometimes 

leaps-forward steps in high-performance computing and the modeling to ingest these new data sets. So I would never be comfortable saying we’re good where we are now. We are using what 

we have, but we’re always trying to figure out how to bring these 

other data sets in more efficiently and more effectively. It’s going 

to be an ongoing challenge for as long as we’re working on this. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Excellent. Earlier, Mr. Stoffler mentioned that the Department of Defense is not going to accept data 

from the Russians or the Chinese. Does NOAA have a position on 

that? 

Dr. VOLZ. NOAA does not use Russian or Chinese data in our 

modeling and in our forecasts. We work with the scientific community, with the academic community. Where the data are available 

through our international partnerships, where the data are available for assessment and analysis, and we are working with our academic partners to understand the capabilities. And they are getting 

stronger and better. So there is enticing the availability or the 

quality of the data that are available. We are not at this time using 

them as part of our primary products and services. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. But there’s not a policy position that 

says we won’t use them? 

Dr. VOLZ. I don’t know if there is or not. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Okay. 

Dr. VOLZ. We’re not using them at the moment. I do not know 

what the official policy might be on this. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Okay. I’d like to yield to the acting 

Ranking Member, Mr. Grayson from Florida. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Dr. Volz, the May GAO report reviewed NOAA’s 

basis for initiating work on the polar follow-up satellites on the 

basis that they wouldn’t actually be put into use for a decade or 

more. What is the agency’s position with regard to the GAO’s recommendations and their observations? 

Dr. VOLZ. There are a number of observations in their report, 

and I think Mr. Powner has talked about the challenge of building 

efficiency versus developing stale satellites which sit around for a 

long time. And we’ve look very carefully at the lessons from our 

own POES and from DMSP of how long those satellites should be 

in storage and how much you want to be able to refresh technology. 

And I think the point was made that we need to show how our 

plan is robust and appropriate mixture of stability and requirements but also efficiency and production and procurement. So I believe that the approach that we have as we’re going through this 

year, this calendar year of the final program review of what the approach would be for the launch cadence, for the launch develop-
99 

ment cadence for the PFO instrument satellites will address those 

questions. 

I think what we have is we’re doing two things at once. We’re 

building at the most effective price-wise point to build these satellites, but we’re also building to get to that robust constellation as 

quickly as we can. It only takes one launch failure to disrupt an 

entire plan of what your launch cadence should be. So we want to 

be able to have a satellite in storage and ready when we need it, 

but we don’t want to have it sitting in storage for 20 years. 

I think we’ve got the right balance in the way that we’ve built 

and we plan on testing and storing the satellites, again, taking lessons from other satellite histories to do this appropriately for the 

JPSS PFO program. 

Mr. GRAYSON. When we launch a satellite today, are we putting 

in the same instruments and sensors that we put in 10 or 15 years 

ago? 

Dr. VOLZ. No. The JPSS and the GOES–R satellite series are 

leaps forward in capabilities and instrumentation. It is the next 

generation, particularly for the GOES that we’re seeing in the 

launch this fall. JPSS is leveraging the instruments that were developed in a research basis for the Suomi NPP satellite, which was 

launched in 2011. The JPSS–1 through 4 satellites will have those 

same instruments, so there is effectively consistent performance 

and observations set that we will have for the next 20 years from 

those four satellites. GOES–R will have a similar 20-year period 

from ’16 to the mid-’30s. 

That doesn’t mean our observing system is stagnant at that 

point. We’ve talked about all these other emerging capabilities, the 

other international partnerships that are bringing their satellites 

in for the commercial side. That backbone of those foundational 

measurements that are going to get from JPSS and GOES complement and support the other measurements that come in. And 

then we have the challenges that Chairman Bridenstine just mentioned of merging those different data to an integrated system 

which provides a much more holistic and higher-quality understanding of the environment that we’re trying to provide. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Well, if we’re using dramatically different instruments and sensors than we did 15 years ago, doesn’t it follow that 

we’ll want to do the same thing when we do a launch 10 or 15 

years from now when we basically have to completely revise the 

guts if you will of the satellite before it’s going to have full 

functionality for launching 10 or 15 years from now? 

Dr. VOLZ. Excellent point in that what we’re launching in 15 

years from now or 20 years from now is the next generation following what we have right now. So we are in the process right now 

of starting a next-generation mission assessment and development, 

our architecture studies of what should be the leap after JPSS and 

GOES–R. There’s a generational cycle of major performance upgrades, and whether it’s 10 or 20 years, it’s 20 years roughly where 

you have that basis where you get used to using those instruments 

where all the modeling and all the forecasters are using them, and 

you add incrementally from other satellite observations increased 

capacity. 
100 

And then, as we have this basis for JPSS, we are now looking 

at what should be the thing that follows, launching in the 2030s. 

And we’ll do that with testing and demonstrations with commercial 

satellite examples, with NASA research and other research satellites that are demonstrating capabilities. And we’ll be able to pick 

from those on-orbit experiments the best step forward as opposed 

to just sitting in an a priori position, saying I know what it should 

be. We get to demonstrate with these research satellites and with 

the commercial side to then decide what’s the most effective path 

forward for the backbone of the next generation, which will be 

launching in the mid-’30s. 

We will start building that in the next few years, but we won’t 

deploy it until after these four satellites, this constellation is gone. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Well, to be as specific as possible, did the agency 

assess the likelihood that the polar follow-on satellites would have 

to be—how shall I put this—updated before being put into actual 

use, having been built now with technology developments coming 

in the next decade or decade and a half? And if so, what was that 

assessment and how much do you think it might cost? 

Dr. VOLZ. Yes, we did, and we actually made a conscious decision 

a year ago, as we rolled out the plan for the PFO, that we would 

hold the requirements baseline for the PFO JPSS–3 and 4 satellites to the same standards we set for JPSS–1 and 2. We did that 

consciously aware of exactly the point I think that Ms. Chaplain 

mentioned is that when you change requirements on the system in 

the middle, you’re basically developing a new system and you lose 

all control of your cost and schedule. We made that conscious decision that this suite of four satellites would be consistent, and we 

have now the contracts in place for the spacecraft, for all the instruments so that we can accurately project and deliver those instruments. 

But the system evolves, and the system then brings other capabilities in addition to the JPSS. So the overall capability of observing is going to increase and improve over time, but this portion of 

it is going to be stable, and the funding and the requirements will 

be well defined and well characterized. 

Mr. GRAYSON. I’m out of time. Thank you all. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I’d like to thank the gentleman from 

Florida for his, quite frankly, great questions. I think you’re hitting 

on a critical thing that we need to be talking about on this committee, and that is technology insertion plans. One of the reasons 

I think commercial is so important—and I want to be really clear. 

I support JPSS. I want to make sure JPSS is fully funded, but I 

do believe commercial is important because commercial satellites 

are being launched with miniaturization of technology, miniaturization of electronics. We’re going to be able to launch a lot more 

satellites in more distributed architectures that again complicate 

the targeting solution for the enemies but also with smaller satellites you can launch more of them, you can launch them more frequently. When you have new technologies that arise, you can put 

them in orbit very rapidly. 

I would also say one of the areas that I’ve been pushing on is 

the hosted payload concept where every time a commercial communications satellite launches, we could test a new sensor on that 
101 

commercial communications satellite, and those satellites are 

launching quite frequently these days. And not only in geostationary orbit but now in the future we’re going to be launching 

them into low-Earth orbit as well. 

I’d like to recognize the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Babin, for the 

final five minutes. 

Mr. BABIN. You bet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just had one 

question for Mr. Powner concerning the fly-out charts and schedules annually published by NOAA. Do they accurately depict the 

state of our satellites in orbit, these fly-out charts? 

Mr. POWNER. Yes, I think the fly-out charts, there’s improvements that could be made. So for—I’ll just point to NPP. The NPP, 

the amount of fuel that’s on there, that’s not what’s really important. What’s important is how long is the spacecraft and the sensors going to last? And we think those fly-out charts should reflect 

that. 

I think Dr. Volz brought up some good things with their availability assessments. They have the data. That data, when you look 

at the 2015 analysis, basically says that I think—I think the life 

span using their data is somewhere in the 2018 time frame, not 

2020. However, that’s dated. 

And I do want to bring up this point on ATMS again because I 

think Dr. Volz is right. His answer was absolutely correct that all 

this data plays into the short-term forecast. But let’s not downplay 

the importance of ATMS and CrIS and the importance of using 

those two instruments together for forecasts. If you don’t have 

ATMS working well, there is an effect on our forecasts, so it’s very 

important that we keep that thing going on NPP until we get J– 

1 up there. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. Thank you. Why is NOAA fiddling with the estimated life span? Is it to make it appear that we are not facing 

a data gap? 

Mr. POWNER. We’ve had great debates over this data gap over 

the years, Congressman, and, you know, in our—we put it on our 

high-risk list, the gap—potential gap in the data here is something 

that is critical. We need to acknowledge it. We need to have appropriate contingency plans in place. I think NOAA has done a good 

job on that, but I think there needs to be even better transparency 

with these fly-out charts and everything, not only this committee, 

but we get the same questions from the appropriators, too. It’s not 

always clear. 

Mr. BABIN. Yes. 

Mr. POWNER. And we just need better transparency. And I think 

we’re moving in that direction, and I think there’s been an acknowledgment of that. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. Mr. Chairman, that’s all I had this morning. 

And thank you, witnesses, too. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Well, thank you. I’d like to thank the 

witnesses for their valuable testimony today and the Members for 

their great questions. The record will remain open for the next two 

weeks for additional comments and written questions from Members. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(103) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
104 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. Stephen Volz 
105 

Global NWP models run every 6 hours and require global observations for every 6 hour cycle to 

achieve the operational forecast skill upon which the NWS depends. At a minimum, two polar 

orbits are required to achieve -90 percent coverage every cycle. 

To date, NOAA has not conducted data denial studies showing the impact from the loss of the 

A TMS instrument specifically. NOAA studies have shown that NWP model forecast skill is 

degraded (i) slightly if observations from only two of the polar orbits are available instead of 

three, (ii) strongly if observations from only a single polar orbit are available, and (iii) severely if 

there are no polar satellites providing data at all. Losing the early morning orbit will have the 

least impact since the microwave instrument on the DoD satellite is marginal for NWP. 

The biggest risk of operating with only two polar orbits, i.e., EUMETSAT mid-morning and 

NOAA early afternoon orbit, is that if that a gap occurs in either of those orbits, NWP skill 

would be severely impacted. 

Question lc: How would NOAA mitigate the loss of ATMS data prior to the launch of 

.JPSS-1? 

Response lc: If the ATMS on Suomi NPP were to fail prior to the launch of JPSS-1, NOAA's 

mitigation plan would include continuing to rely on the soundings provided by Cr!S on Suomi 

NPP, as well as the sounders currently in orbit on the NOAA and non-NOAA polar satellites. 

The mitigating assets, with the exception ofMetop Band Suomi NPP, are all operating beyond 

their design life. While NOAA assimilates some DMSP data, the EUMETSAT mid-morning 

and the NOAA Suomi NPP early afternoon orbits are the critical sources of data for NWS NWP 

models. 

Looking beyond 2020, having a stand-alone sensor, such as Earth Observing NanosatelliteMicrowave (EON-MW) within the Polar Follow On (PFO) program available to provide 

microwave sounding data in the event of the loss of one of NOAA's afternoon polar orbiting 

satellites, as requested in the FY 2017 President's Budget, is expected to significantly reduce the 

resulting loss ofNWP skill due to a loss of A TMS data. 

Further, having a robust radio occultation constellation which would be comprised of equatorial 

and polar-orbiting data such as what NOAA plans with the Constellation Observing System for 

Meteorology, Ionosphere, and Climate (COSMIC-2) constellation and eventually with 

commercial data sources will complement and enhance other existing data sources, partially 

mitigating the loss of A TMS should that occur. 

2 
106 

Question 2: Please describe how NOAA estimates the expected useful life of its satellites. 

How often are these projections revised and what data is used to justify such revisions? 

How does NOAA keep the public apprised of its satellite lifetime projections? 

Response 2: For new satellite designs, NOAA specifies a contractual requirement for design 

life. The requirement for a specified design life influences many design features of a satellite. 

After launch, NOAA operations personnel perform regular health and status monitoring for 

satellites under their command and control. A key metric used to estimate on-orbit lifetime is 

fuel consumption. NOAA operations personnel continuously monitors the health of the 

instruments and spacecraft along with estimated-versus-actual fuel consumption for the GOESNOP and Suomi NPP satellites in order to make predictions of fuel-limited mission life. 

The JPSS/PFO and GOES-R Series satellites will transmit more health and status data, which 

will enable more complete availability assessments. 

For older spacecraft without maneuvering capability (NOAA-15, -18, and -19), lifetime 

assessments are based purely on the projected health of the spacecraft and instruments as 

assessed by NOAA's spacecraft engineers. 

Real-time status of all NOAA on-orbit satellites is posted on the operational web pages. For 

geostationary satellites, see http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Operations/GOES/status.html. For Polarorbiting satellites, see http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Operations/POES/status.html. The results of 

lifetime estimates are shown on NOAA's geostationary and polar t1yout charts: 

http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/flyout schedules.html. 

Question 3: Please explain the importance of communication between NOAA and DOD as 

it pertains to the weather satellite programs. What concrete steps can be taken to improve 

such communication and coordination? 

Response 3: NOAA and DoD have a decades-long history of communication and cooperation at 

all levels of both organizations for acquisition programs, operations, and research for terrestrial 

and space weather. In the recent past, Department of Commerce, NOAA and DoD leaders have 

re-invigorated regular dialogue to coordinate and exchange information that would benefit and 

strengthen an overall U.S. civil-military Earth Observation posture. For example, NESDIS 

Assistant Administrator has continued his predecessor's practice of quarterly dialogue with the 

commander of the U.S. Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center and has expanded dialogue 

to include various Pentagon counterparts. These senior-level dialogues enhance the excellent 

dialogue and operational cooperation at many levels of both agencies. This dialogue is based on 

the strong partnerships at the program and project levels. Major examples include: 

3 
107 

Operations: NOAA has been operating the DMSP spacecraft for over 20 years and the U.S. Air 

Force has staffed an operating location in support of the DMSP program at the NOAA Satellite 

Operations Facility (NSOF) in Suitland, Maryland. Both agencies will continue to support this 

effort through the end of life of the last DMSP spacecraft. The Joint Space Operations Center 

(JSpOC) provides comprehensive space domain awareness and conjunction warning support for 

NOAA's entire fleet of weather satellites and those of our European mission partner. In addition, 

NOAA and the DoD collaborate on satellite contributions to the U.S. Navy's oceanographic 

mission. NOAA, the U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Coast Guard jointly operate the National Ice Center 

which is located at the NSOF. NOAA's Cooperative Data and Rescue Services (CDARS) 

Program is currently planned as a hosted system using the U.S. Air Force Hosted Payload 

(HoPS) contract mechanism. The CDARS Program will provide operational continuity to the 

satellite-assisted Search and Rescue, a service that is used by all DoD services and millions of 

civilian users, and the Argos Data Collection System which provides tracking capabilities for 

environmental monitoring and wildlife tracking. NOAA, the U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force 

exchange significant amounts of data through shared services agreements. This data sharing 

allows NOAA access to DoD acquired data, and DoD access to data NOAA receives from its 

observation platforms and from partnered platforms. 

Acquisition: We have been coordinating efforts on launch of the next generation of the 

COSMIC-2, a follow-on joint collaboration between U.S. Government agencies and Taiwan. 

The U.S. Air Force is providing six Radio Occultation (RO) sensors and the launch vehicle for 

COSMIC-2A, which will be in an equatorial orbit. NOAA also partnered with DoD on the Deep 

Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) spacecraft program, which culminated in a successful 

U.S. Air Force-provided launch vehicle. 

Research: NOAA and the DoD have had frequent dialogue concerning mutual use of hosted 

payloads. NOAA's Total Solar lrradiance Calibration Transfer Experiment (TCTE) is presently 

operating as a hosted payload on the U.S. Air Force's STPSat-3 spacecraft. NOAA, NASA, and 

DoD participate in the Joint Center for Satellite Data Assimilation, a joint effort to maximize the 

utility of data from civil and DoD Earth Observation satellites. DoD and NOAA have 

collaborated in exploring material and nonmaterial options to meet critical DoD meteorological 

and oceanographic capability gaps in cloud characterization and theater weather imagery. 

All of these activities are based on years of collaboration and cooperation that strengthens U.S. 

civilian and military uses of Earth Observation data. 

Question 4: Please describe the analysis NOAA performed to inform the development 

strategy for the JPSS and .JPSS Polar Follow-On programs. 

4 
108 

Response 4: NOAA compared several acquisition approaches before deciding on the strategy 

selected for the JPSS and PFO. After the tri-agency National Polar-orbiting Operational 

Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) was terminated in February 2010, NOAA was 

responsible for continuity of data in the afternoon orbit. The Suomi NPP mission had been 

originally conceived as an NPOESS risk reduction mission and was designed to standards 

acceptable for a research mission. The Suomi NPP flight and ground system were designed for a 

research environment and did not have the necessary security posture or redundancy that an 

operational system required. 

Assuring continuity also necessitated accepting the built instruments and parts from NPOESS 

management regime that were different from NOAA-NASA accepted standards to form the 

JPSS-1 mission instrument suite. As a risk reduction measure for the JPSS-1 mission, NOAA 

and NASA decided to procure a near-clone of the Suomi NPP spacecraft bus for JPSS-1. NOAA 

assessed the overall risk of Suomi NPP and determined that it would accept them and has been 

using data from the Suomi NPP in its operations. 

FY 2012 appropriations allowed the JPSS program to implement its acquisition strategy to 

ensure active management of cost, schedule, and technical risk. The JPSS program used this 

funding stability to establish the program baseline in FY 2013. 

During FY 2012 and early FY 2013, the lessons learned from the NPOESS experience were 

included in extensive analyses to evaluate instrument manifest and design changes and spacecraft 

configuration changes. These changes required assessment of a range of procurement approaches 

for the JPSS program. FY 2012 appropriations that allowed the JPSS program to implement its 

acquisition strategy to ensure active management of cost, schedule, and technical risk. The JPSS 

program used this funding stability to establish the program baseline in FY 2013 

The PFO acquisition strategy includes launch dates that achieve a robust constellation as soon as 

possible. A robust system has two characteristics. First, single fault tolerance - two failures 

must occur to create a gap in the A TMS or CriS sounding data from the afternoon polar orbit. 

This requires at least 2 satellites in the afternoon polar orbit with the ability to deliver ATMS and 

CriS observations. Scccond, the ability to return to single fault tolerance within I year, if it is 

lost; this requires one satellite carrying A TMS and CriS on the ground, which can be ready to 

launch within 1 year. Based on the FY 2017 President's Budget, NOAA will reach this second 

condition by Q3 FY 2022, which is a year before the JPSS-3 contingency mission Launch 

Readiness Date. 

Alternative approaches for how to procure instruments were assessed and NOAA determined 

that the lowest schedule, lowest cost, least risk approach was to leverage the existing instrument 

contracts from the JPSS program to procure the PI'O/JPSS-3 and JPSS-4 instruments. Because 

instruments have historically driven the program's schedule, NOAA is procuring PFO/JPSS-3 

5 
109 

and -4 instruments as a single contract action (block buy) and focusing early year funding on 

those instruments. In addition, NOAA is procuring the PFO/JPSS-3 and -4 spacecraft as fixedprice options on the JPSS-2 spacecraft, and has established a NASA launch services strategy 

with schedule flexibility. The acquisition of PFO (JPSS-3 and JPSS-4) as two additional copies 

of JPSS-2 started in FY 2016. 

These decisions will result in a robust constellation, as well as cost savings compared to other 

acquisition approaches. NOAA uses the acquisition experience and costs to find ways to reduce 

costs in satellite development and operation. NOAA takes advantage of efficiencies in the 

production cadence, as well as lower risk for parts obsolescence and the availability of 

specialized labor to reduce cost and risk. While building satellites ahead of the planned launch 

dates requires additional storage costs, these are typically outweighed by the simultaneously 

procuring multiple copies of the same the design, i.e., a block buy approach. NOAA has 

documented the benefits of this approach with our acquisition strategy. Therefore, PFO's flight 

segment will cost less than its predecessor. JPSS, and less than an approach where the satellites 

are procured one at a time. 

Question 4a: What cost savings, if any, does NOAA anticipate will result from building 

JPSS-3 and -4 to be ready for launch 2 and 5 years ahead of their scheduled launch dates? 

Response 4a: NOAA's decision to use a block buy approach for the PFO/JPSS-3 and -4 

instruments will result in cost savings compared to other acquisition approaches. Block buys 

allow the buyer to take advantage of efficiencies in the production cadence, as well as lower risk 

for parts obsolescence and the availability of specialized labor. While building satellites ahead of 

the planned launch dates by two and five years requires additional storage costs, these are 

outweighed by the advantages offered by block buy approach. 

NOAA is using actual costs expended with the NPOESS and JPSS programs to estimate costs 

and time lines for PFO. The PFO satellites will benefit from the experiences and lessons learned 

from developing the Suomi NPP, JPSS-1, and .JPSS-2 satellites. The majority of the nonrecurring engineering costs for ATMS, Cr!S, Ozone Mapping and Pro filer Suite-Nadir andLimb, and Visible lntrared Imaging Radiometer Suite were incurred during the development of 

the instruments that are currently flying on the Suomi NPP satellite. The instruments on JPSS-1 ,-

2 and PFO/JPSS-3 and .JPSS-4 are essentially copies of the Suomi NPP instruments, with the 

only design or hardware changes are driven by significant performance or production issues 

identified during the development or operation of the initial units. The figure below illustrates 

the cost savings that are being realized with block buys. 

6 
110 

'!I l' 

lll 

l j ~ 

ll 

ref: JPSS 2014 POE v2.1b; 2014PFOv2.2 

NOAA is in the process of updating the PFO Program Office Estimate (POE), but estimates that 

the PFO flight segment development cost (JPSS-3 and JPSS-4) will be lower than the same costs 

for the JPSS Program (JPSS-1 and JPSS-2) as well as lower than the "buy one at a time" 

approach, using constant year dollars. A more complete estimate of savings will be available 

when the PFO Program is baselined in early FY 2017 and will be made available to the 

Committee. 

Question 4b: What are the risks and benefits to keeping the instrument requirements for 

all five JPSS satellites? 

Response 4b: Based on experience with NOAA POES, NOAA believes keeping the instrument 

requirements relatively similar for all five satellites is an acceptable risk. By having stable 

requirements, the NWS weather forecasting system can rely on having access to data that it 

systems are optimized to ingest. The benefits of maintaining requirements are substantial cost 

savings for NOAA and its customers by avoiding non-recurring engineering costs and allowing 

for a block buy approach, as explained above. The inability for programs to control growth in 

requirements was described by Ms. Chaplain in the hearing when describing part of the problem 

with NPOESS. By maintaining the same instrument suite, NOAA is able to provide long-term 

continuity of observations to ensure a consistent, well-calibrated, traceable stream of the same 

7 
111 

critical data for the NWP Global Forecast System and other models that depend on these 

observations to enable protection oflives, property, and economic efficiency. 

The risk of keeping the instruments the same for the five JPSS satellites is a lag in infusing new 

technology as it becomes available, resulting in the need for a major technology refresh. As has 

been the practice, NOAA will ingest and leverage promising data from NASA and other research 

satellites, or from commercial sources to test new advances. For example, while the NOAA 

POES satellites had been stable source of data for NWS weather forecasting, NOAA began 

leveraging high resolution data from EUMETSAT and NASA EOS satellites into its systems. 

This data allowed NWS forecasters to continue to develop forecast products using proven, 

operational data sources while also working with new data and technology side-by-side. 

Question 4c: How does NOAA plan to take advantage of new technologies that may arise 

before next generation satellite designs come online? 

Response 4c: NOAA has had a long practice of ingesting and leveraging new technologies and 

other data sources meet NOAA's operational data requirements. For example, while the NOAA 

POES satellites had been stable source of data for NWS weather forecasting, NOAA began 

leveraging high resolution data from EUMETSAT and NASA EOS satellites into its systems. 

These systems allowed NWS forecasters to continue to develop forecast products and working 

with new data and technology side-by-side. When the Suomi NPP data became available, 

forecasters were ready to embrace the advances that higher resolution data provided. Similarly, 

for space weather, NASA developed and launched a number of space weather missions that 

provided data that NOAA researchers were able to use to develop forecast and warning products. 

Eventually, the NWS stood up the Space Weather Prediction Center, NOAA added a Solar XRay 

Imager to its GOES and POES satellites and leveraged data from the NASA assets. Today, 

NOAA has stated an operational mission for meteorological and space weather. 

Looking to the future, NOAA is seeking to be more agile in its ability to leverage emerging 

technologies and utilize them to meet its operational data requirements. The NOAA Satellite 

Observing System Architecture Study is looking at innovative ways that NOAA can employ 

emerging technologies in future satellite architecture. 

There are numerous avenues that allow NOAA to benefit from the technology marketplace as a 

potential cost effective solution while keeping NOAA's requirements bounded. For example, 

NOAA is collaborate frequently with the NASA Earth Science Technology Office as well as 

NASA's Earth Venture missions, which make use of developmental remote sensing approaches. 

NOAA also leverages international partner data that incorporate advanced technology into its 

data streams and products, and examines the cost, benefit, and utility of commercially provided 

data. 

8 
112 

As part of NOAA's strategy to achieve satellite constellation robustness by 2023 for maintaining 

continuity of polar satellite observations, NOAA plans to begin development of EON-MW. 

EON-MW is a miniature microwave sounder that approximates the atmospheric profiling 

capabilities of the ATMS instrument. NOAA is collaborating with the Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology's Lincoln Laboratory on EON-MW, which includes 2 years of risk reduction efforts 

to further define the EON-MW mission and identify and manage key technical risks. 

Similar to EON-MW, NOAA is also exploring the potential to mitigate against the loss of CriS 

data with a CubeSat based mid-wave infrared sounder. If this concept appears viable, NOAA 

will seek to fund and collaborate with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) to design the 

Earth Observation Nanosatellite-Infrared (EON-IR), which will leverage the JPL CubeSat 

Infrared Atmospheric Sounder mission. 

In addition, NOAA is looking to usc data from the NASA Cyclone Global Navigation Satellite 

System, currently set to launch on November 21, 2016, with plans to demonstrate assimilation of 

mission data into NOAA systems. NASA's new Earth Venture award called Time-Resolved 

Observations of Precipitation structure and storm Intensity with a Constellation of Smallsats will 

observe atmospheric properties in tropical cycles with 12 cubesats. NOAA sees this recently 

announced mission could be a pathfinder for potential future sounding missions that could meet 

NOAA's operational data requirements. 

Finally, as the commercial sector begins to demonstrate new technologies and capabilities that 

NOAA could use to augment its data requirements, NOAA will be open to entering into data 

purchase agreements to gain access to data that has been proven useful. 

Question S: Please describe the status ofthe Block 2.0 upgrade to the JPSS ground system. 

ResponseS: The Block 2.0 upgrades for the JPSS ground system development are fully 

deployed and there have been no major individual test failures. However, the volume and 

complexity of the full scope ofperfonnance testing, requirements verification, and "de-bugging" 

have resulted in schedule performance being slower than planned. Based on both recent flight 

system issues and !,>round system readiness testing performance, we have directed NASA to 

release the January 20, 2017 launch date and requested an interim planning launch date of March 

16, 2017. A firm launch date will be determined in late September 2016 after a thorough review 

of the entire mission. 

Question Sa: Does NOAA still anticipate a 60-day overlap of operations between Block 2.0 

and Block 1.2 as originally planned? Why is this period of overlap important? 

Response Sa: Yes, NOAA still plans for the 60 day overlap of operations between Block 2.0 

and Block 1.2. This period of overlap is important because the user interface changes between 

9 
113 

Block 1.2 and 2.0 are significant and this overlap helps to minimize risk and impact to users. We 

plan to transition users over 30 days, and have the remaining 30 days as margin for uncertainties 

in the transition process. 

10 
114 

Responses by Ms. Cristina Chaplain 

CCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

441 G St. N.W. 

Washington, DC 20548 

August 17, 2016 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

Subcommittee on Environment 

Hearing Questions for the Record 

The Honorable Jim Bridenstine 

Examining the Nation's Current and Next Generation Weather Satellite Programs 

Questions for Ms. Cristina Chaplain 

1. In light of the lack of coordination between DOD and NOAA you highlighted in 

your testimony and answers before the subcommittee, do you believe a National 

Executive Committee for weather would help improve coordination across the 

federal government? 

A National Executive Committee could be a way to address the coordination problems that have 

existed between agencies acquiring weather satellites and potentially enhance coordination 

within the broader user community and other nations. There is one already in place for 

positioning, navigation and timing systems (primarily, the Air Force's Global Positioning System, 

or GPS). The 2004 U.S. Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT) policy 

established a coordinating structure to bring civil and military departments and agencies 

together to form an interagency, multiuse approach to program planning, resource allocation, 

system development, and operations. The policy also encourages cooperation with foreign 

governments to promote the use of civil aspects of GPS and its augmentation services and 

standards with foreign governments and international organizations. As part of the coordinating 

structure, an executive committee advises and coordinates among U.S. government 

departments and agencies on maintaining and improving U.S. space-based PNT infrastructures, 

including GPS and related systems. The executive committee is co-chaired by the deputy 

secretaries of the Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Transportation (DOT), and 

includes members at the equivalent level from the Departments of State, Commerce, Homeland 
115 

Æ 

Security, the Interior, and Agriculture; the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration. 

Through this structure, the departments and agencies have various assigned roles and 

responsibilities. For example, the Secretary of Defense is responsible for the overall 

development, acquisition, operation, security, and continued modernization of GPS. The 

Secretary has delegated acquisition responsibility to the Air Force, though other DOD 

components and military services are responsible for oversight, for some aspects of user 

equipment development, and for funding some parts of the program. DOT has the lead 

responsibility for coordinating civil requirements from all civil departments and agencies. The 

Department of State leads negotiations with foreign governments and international 

organizations on GPS PNT matters and regarding the planning, operations, management, and 

use ofGPS. 

We have not assessed the effectiveness of the GPS executive committee and past reports have 

still highlighted coordination problems. For instance, in 2010, we identified challenges in setting 

requirements for GPS satellites as the DOD process was daunting and confusing to civil 

government agencies.' In 2013, we reported on challenges in coordinating the development of 

back up capabilities for GPS. 2 Nevertheless, having an executive committee structure for 

weather similar to the one for PNT could help to more clearly define roles and responsibilities 

and provide a mechanism that requires departments and agencies to come together as they 

plan for future capabilities and resolve challenges, such as potential gaps in coverage. 

Coordination problems with weather satellites have been an issue for too long not to consider 

mechanisms such as a National Executive Committee. 

1 GAO, Global Positioning System: Challenges in Sustaining and Upgrading Capabilities Persist, GA0-10-636 

(Washington, D.C.: September 15, 2010). 

2 GAO, GPS Disruptions: Efforts to Assess Risks to Critical Infrastructure and Coordinate Agency Actions Should Be 

Enhanced, GA0-14-15 (Washington, D.C.: November 6, 2013). 

Page2