U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

66–784 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 109–1136 

NASA BUDGET AND PROGRAMS: 

OUTSIDE PERSPECTIVES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND SPACE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 7, 2006 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

LISA J. SUTHERLAND, Republican Staff Director 

CHRISTINE DRAGER KURTH, Republican Deputy Staff Director 

KENNETH R. NAHIGIAN, Republican Chief Counsel 

MARGARET L. CUMMISKY, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SAMUEL E. WHITEHORN, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel 

LILA HARPER HELMS, Democratic Policy Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND SPACE 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on June 7, 2006 ................................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Hutchison ............................................................................ 1 

Statement of Senator Bill Nelson ........................................................................... 2 

Statement of Senator Sununu ................................................................................ 3 

WITNESSES

Bolden Jr., Charles F., Major General, U.S. Marine Corps (Retired); CEO, 

JackandPanther, LLC .......................................................................................... 22 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24 

Pawelczyk, James A., Ph.D., Associate Professor of Physiology, Kinesiology 

and Medicine, The Pennsylvania State University ........................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

Torbert, Dr. Roy B., Director, University of New Hampshire Space Science 

Center .................................................................................................................... 14 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16 

Voorhees, Dr. Peter W., Chair, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Northwestern University ...................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

APPENDIX

Karas, John, Vice President, Space Exploration, Lockheed Martin, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 37 

Lewis, Mark J., Chief Scientist, U.S. Air Force, prepared statement ................. 39 

Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska, prepared statement ................... 37 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison to: 

Dr. Roy B. Torbert ............................................................................................ 43 

Dr. Peter W. Voorhees ...................................................................................... 44 

(1) 

NASA BUDGET AND PROGRAMS: 

OUTSIDE PERSPECTIVES 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7, 2006 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND SPACE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m. in room 

SD–562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Kay Bailey 

Hutchison, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS 

Senator HUTCHISON. Good afternoon. We are very pleased that 

you are here. This is a very important session for us. Certainly my 

ranking member, Senator Nelson, and I are very focused on this 

science section of the NASA mission, but I want to especially point 

out that Senator Sununu asked for this hearing and asked to make 

this one of the focuses of this subcommittee. So, Senator Sununu, 

thank you very much for that. 

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Last year Congress enacted and the President signed the NASA Authorization Act of 2005. This was a bill 

that I co-sponsored with Senator Nelson and others on the Committee, and it was the first time in 5 years that Congress passed 

an authorization bill for NASA. It was very important to us that 

there be a legislative foundation, a commitment to NASA’s mission. 

That is why we thought that the President’s vision for exploration 

should get the Congressional approval and we added parts that 

came from Congress to make it even stronger. 

We believe that we have authorized the minimum funding levels 

needed to support the Vision for Exploration and the ongoing scientific activities of NASA, including the assembly and full utilization of the International Space Station, in a way that would avoid 

disruptions caused by any kind of abrupt shift in NASA’s focus and 

goals. 

We know that the NASA budget eventually requested by the President is $1.1 billion less than the amount authorized by the 

NASA Authorization Act. While that is not unusual to have budget 

requests that are less than the authorized amounts, this is a crucial time for transition. The end result of the shortfall in the funding request is a series of painful decisions for Michael Griffin, the 

NASA Administrator, and to which, of course, the research community has reacted—and rightfully so. 

2 

I am not one who believes that the Federal Government should 

fund all programs just because we have done it in previous years. 

We have to have accountability and adjustments to assure that we 

are making the best use of taxpayer dollars. 

I am convinced, however, that in many cases where reductions 

and cuts have been made in science and research programs in 

NASA, that we are not justifying the mission that NASA has for 

rejuvenating the creativity in our scientific community. The underlying value of the things that we have been doing on the Space Station and the missions that NASA has had in science in the past 

and the positive impacts of those efforts have added to the economic competitive and security interests for all of our country. So 

I refuse to accept that a fully and adequately funded space program is something that we cannot afford in this Nation. 

Finally, there is a practical reason why the President should require that we have realistic funding levels, and that is to succeed 

in the Vision for Exploration. At a time when the President is 

working with Congress on a new competitive initiative, which includes doubling the research budget of the National Science Foundation, it would be shortsighted to squeeze the research budget of 

NASA and other areas of research in the same physical science 

fields. 

We have invited witnesses here today because I believe that we 

can put our minds together to come up with the funding and to 

keep the focus on science. I believe that our committee is absolutely 

solid on this point. We have invited you because you have important opinions on this subject. 

We also believe that sharing resources with other agencies of the 

government who have scientific missions as well could better use 

the expenditures that we can make in research. That would mean 

cooperative NASA scientific activities, along with the Department 

of Defense, DARPA, the Department of Energy, and the National 

Science Foundation. 

In our authorization bill, we did ask those agencies to work with 

NASA to determine where there were duplications or where putting money together could come to a better result. Finding efficiencies and eliminating duplication, as well as sharing resources 

for common objectives can help alleviate the pressure for additional 

funding for NASA, and this is an area that I certainly want to explore. 

So I do thank you. After the statements from our colleagues, I 

will introduce each of the panel members. My Ranking Member, 

Senator Nelson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator BILL NELSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

The age-old question, can you have guns and butter in a Nation, 

and a Nation wants to have both, so too it is with this little Federal agency NASA. Can you have science and human exploration? 

And the answer is we need both. 

We accommodated for that in the NASA authorization bill that 

we passed last year, but the Office of Management and Budget 

came along and underfunded the NASA budget by $1.1 billion. So, 

3 

Senator Sununu, this being a concern of yours, as it is of ours, on 

the cutting of science programs, we can alleviate that if we can get 

the appropriators to fund at the authorized level instead of the 

level that is recommended by OMB. 

When you look at a little agency that is less than 1 percent of 

the entire Federal budget, you are looking at an agency that means 

so much to the future of the country because of its cutting-edge 

science exploration and inspiration for the people. That is not, in 

this Senator’s opinion, an agency that you want to go whacking 

away at its budget. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. 

Senator Sununu. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. SUNUNU, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to 

be here, and I appreciate all of the effort you have put into both 

the authorization bill and other issues of science that have come 

before the Committee. 

This is an area that has enormous impact not just on the particular programs that we might talk about today, but I think, as 

we will hear from the panelists, on focusing the attention, providing a platform for future generations of scientists as well. 

And to that extent, I am very pleased to welcome, in addition to 

our other panelists, Dr. Roy Torbert who works at the University 

of New Hampshire, who I met probably 8 or 10 years ago when I 

was first elected to Congress and became familiar with the work 

that he does at UNH as a professor and a director of the Space 

Science Center there, working with graduate students and undergraduate students on a range of basic science projects, the very 

kinds of projects that I think would be most impacted by the budget proposals that Senator Nelson spoke of. They are the kinds of 

projects that extend the limits of our knowledge in the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe that support our future missions 

within the space program, and they are the kinds of efforts that 

simply cannot be done or duplicated anywhere else. 

The private sector does not have an interest in this kind of work 

because it does not have a rate of return, because it does not have 

predictable future cash-flows, even though 10 or 15 or 20 or 40 

years from now someone might say, you know, this is actually a 

technology that was first used on a particular Explorer mission. No 

one can predict that today. No one can predict future practical applications or market applications of these technologies. No one else 

would do this work if government did not step forward and say we 

have an interest in providing the support for this scientific exploration. 

So I think that is the essence of the concerns shared by the members of this subcommittee and I think by our panelists as well. Dr. 

Torbert has really been a great advocate for those areas of scientific investigation, but also a good teacher, a good administrator 

of a program that I think is in many ways a model for others 

around the country. So I am pleased to welcome Roy and pleased 

to be here to hear from our other panelists. 

4 

Thank you. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, thank you, Senator Sununu, for really 

making a point of not letting this hearing be delayed. 

I am going to introduce all four of you and then ask you to speak 

in this order. I have no idea why the order is what it is. That is 

above my pay grade, but I am going to read my script. 

Dr. Peter Voorhees is the Engelhart Professor and Chair of the 

Department of Materials Science and Engineering at Northwestern 

University. Dr. James Pawelczyk is an associate professor at Pennsylvania State University. Dr. Torbert, as has been mentioned, is 

Director of the Space Science Center at the University of New 

Hampshire. General Charles Bolden has the distinction of being an 

astronaut. He was a pilot on the trip that was taken by my colleague, Senator Nelson, and Senator Nelson asked for you to be a 

witness today. We are very pleased. After you left NASA, you went 

to the Marine Corps and served capably in the Marine Corps before 

retirement, and you have just been inducted into the Astronaut 

Hall of Fame. So we are very pleased that all of you are here. 

I want to mention that there were two specific people we asked 

to be here who could not, but who are submitting for the record 

their testimony. Dr. Mark Lewis, the Chief Scientist of the U.S. Air 

Force. I asked him to talk about the cooperative role in aeronautics 

research that NASA and the Department of Defense through the 

Air Force could utilize. And John Karas, the Vice President for 

Space Exploration of Lockheed Martin Space Systems. They will 

provide written testimony. 

So with that, let me start with you, Dr. Voorhees. 

STATEMENT OF DR. PETER W. VOORHEES, CHAIR, 

DEPARTMENT OF MATERIALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, 

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 

Dr. VOORHEES. Thank you very much. Chairwoman Hutchison, 

Ranking Member Nelson, and Members of the Committee, thank 

you for inviting me to testify today. My name is Peter Voorhees. 

I am the Frank C. Engelhart Professor and Chair of the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at Northwestern University. I was a member of the National Research Council Space 

Studies Board and Chair of the Committee of Microgravity Research. Through my tenure as Chair, I have become familiar with 

the microgravity program and many of the areas within the physical sciences that are at the core of NASA’s human exploration effort. 

The future of research at NASA is being threatened as never before. I believe that a strong physical sciences research program is 

crucial to both capitalizing on NASA’s significant investment in the 

area and to enabling the human spaceflight program. Only by supporting an ongoing physical sciences research program will NASA 

be able to avoid failures, that could have been anticipated by physical sciences research, and implement the President’s vision for 

human spaceflight in the most cost-effective and rapid fashion. 

The rationale for continuing physical sciences research at NASA 

lies in both the past and the future. Since 1990, NASA has been 

investing significant resources, measured in billions of dollars, in 

developing and maintaining a community of researchers in the 

5 

microgravity sciences area. In 2003, the National Research Council 

study, Assessment of the Directions in Microgravity and Physical 

Sciences Research, found the quality of the investigators in the program to be excellent, and the research has impacted the fields in 

which it was a part. Ending the physical sciences research program 

will deprive the Nation of important discoveries in fields ranging 

from wetting and spreading dynamics of fluids on surfaces to relativity and precision clocks and negatively impact the ability to 

perform high quality research on the International Space Station. 

Just as important as this past investment is the profound impact 

that physical sciences research can have on the future of NASA’s 

human exploration effort. This is because important technology required for space exploration is affected by gravitationally related 

phenomena that are poorly understood. This lack of understanding 

hampers the design of a vast array of devices such as those for heat 

transfer, the prevention and detection of fires, fluid handling, and 

materials repair such as brazing and welding, among many others. 

An example of the importance of physical sciences research is illustrated by the need to prevent and detect fires in a reduced gravity environment. We have had thousands of years of experience detecting and fighting fires on Earth. In contrast, our experience with 

combustion phenomena and microgravity or partial Earth’s gravity 

is limited to, at most, 50 years. As a result, our understanding of 

flame propagation issues that impact spacecraft safety is very limited. It is, thus, not surprising that research in this area continues 

to uncover new and unexpected results. Although fires on the 

spacecraft are an unlikely event, if one should occur, it could be 

catastrophic not only for the mission, but for the entire human exploration of space effort. Given our lack of understanding of how 

fires behave in reduced gravity environments and the crucial importance of this to the human exploration effort, I can think of few 

stronger rationales for a vigorous combustion research program. 

There are numerous other examples of the importance of physical 

sciences research in the human exploration of space effort as well. 

In order to capitalize on the past investment and to ensure a future for the human exploration effort, it is crucial to retrain a 

broad spectrum of physical sciences research at NASA. The importance of continuity in a research program cannot be overemphasized. Continued support of this community is essential in engaging 

the best researchers, producing the students interested in working 

with NASA upon graduation, and performing the ground-breaking 

research that is essential to accomplishing NASA’s human 

spaceflight goals. The level of support needed to continue funding 

a cadre of 250 investigators, which is the minimum number needed 

for a viable program, is quite modest compared to that formerly invested in the Office of Biological and Physical Research. Many investigators have recently had their programs terminated. If this 

support is not made available in the very near future, these scientists will be reluctant to return to microgravity research and the 

remaining researchers will also likely leave the program. 

It is important to realize that funding physical sciences research 

will not diminish in any way NASA’s future plans for human exploration. Rather, it will be an essential enabler of this effort. Finally, 

continuation of funding will allow NASA to reap the benefits of 

6 

many years of funding high-impact research that is focused on 

gravitationally related phenomena. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today, and 

I look forward to responding to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Voorhees follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. PETER W. VOORHEES, CHAIR, DEPARTMENT OF

MATERIALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

Introduction 

Chairwoman Hutchison, Ranking Member Nelson, and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. My name is Peter Voorhees. I 

am the Frank C. Engelhart Professor and Chair of the Department of Materials 

Science and Engineering at Northwestern University. I was a member of the National Research Council Space Studies Board and Chair of the Committee for Microgravity Research. Through my tenure as Chair I have become familiar with the 

microgravity program and many of the areas within the physical sciences that are 

at the core of NASA’s human exploration effort. 

I believe that a strong physical sciences research program is crucial to both capitalizing on NASA’s significant past investment in this area and to enabling the 

human spaceflight program. In 2004 President Bush provided a clear vision for 

NASA’s human spaceflight effort and NASA has fully embraced the goal of returning humans to the Moon and eventually sending humans to Mars. However, to accomplish these goals research in the physical sciences is necessary to gain a more 

complete understanding of effects of microgravity on a wide range of processes as 

well as develop a variety of technologies to ensure the safety and success of these 

missions. Only by supporting an ongoing physical sciences research program will 

NASA be able to avoid failures that could have been anticipated by an ongoing 

physical sciences research program, and to implement the President’s vision in the 

most cost-effective and rapid fashion. 

The Development of the Physical Sciences Research Program 

The evolution of NASA’s physical sciences research program provides important 

lessons for how to formulate a successful research program to enable human space 

exploration. NASA’s physical sciences research program began as the materials 

processing in space effort during the Skylab era. The program was singularly focused on performing experiments in space. As a result, many of the experiments 

were ill-conceived and few yielded new insights into the physical phenomena that 

were operative in space or impacted their respective scientific communities. In the 

early 1990s a new paradigm for research was initiated in the fluids, materials, combustion and fundamental physics research areas. In order to attract the best researchers, a concentrated out-reach effort was undertaken and a rigorous peer review system was instituted. In addition, a large ground-based research program was 

created that ensured that ideas were refined and scientific questions identified that 

could be answered only through space flight experiments. As a result the ‘‘shoot and 

look’’ approach to performing experiments during the Skylab era was replaced by 

carefully conceived hypothesis driven experiments. At its peak there were approximately 500 investigators in the program and it supported 1,700 research students. 

The 2003 National Research Council (NRC) study ‘‘Assessment of the Directions 

in Microgravity and Physical Sciences Research’’ found the quality of the investigators in the program to be excellent. On the basis of an analysis of the citations of 

the papers published, prominence of journals in which the papers appeared, the influence of the research on the content of textbooks, documented influence on industry and the quality of the investigators in the program, we found that the microgravity program has had a significant impact on the fields of which it was a part. 

For example, 37 members of the fluids program were fellows of the American Physical Society, the materials science program produced some of the most highly cited 

papers in the area of solidification and crystal growth, and the fundamental physics 

program was funding six Nobel laureates. Many billions of dollars were invested in 

creating this successful and influential program. 

NASA should take great pride in the creation of this high quality physical 

sciences research program in the fluids, combustion, materials and fundamental 

physics areas. It evolved into one of the jewels in NASA’s crown. With the growth 

in the quality of the program, NASA became the primary source of funding for research in areas such as crystal growth, low temperature physics, and low Reynolds 

7 

number and interfacial fluid flow, making NASA stewards of these important and 

broad scientific areas. 

In early 2001 it became apparent that the International Space Station (ISS) program was facing major cost overruns. These financial constraints led to a major reduction in the microgravity research that had been planned for the ISS. Many of 

the experimental facilities that were planned were either reduced in size or delayed 

and the number of crew aboard the ISS was cut, making it difficult to perform experiments during the construction phase of the project. As a result, flight experiments were delayed or effectively canceled. The catastrophic loss of the Columbia 

orbiter in 2003 placed even more severe restrictions on the ability to transport samples and experimental equipment to and from the ISS. 

The challenges posed by these recent events, the need to retire the Shuttle by 

2010, as well as develop the Crew Exploration Vehicle have placed great pressures 

on NASA’s budget. These financial constraints have resulted in a major reduction 

in the size and scope of the physical sciences research program. For example, with 

breathtaking speed and no external input, NASA eliminated the Office of Biological 

and Physical Research, and the Physical Sciences division within the office. The 

number of principal investigators has been reduced to less than 100 with still more 

reductions proposed. NASA’s physical sciences research effort is on the verge of 

elimination. FY07 is the last chance to keep physical sciences research at NASA 

alive. 

Rationales for Physical Sciences Research at NASA 

The raison d’eˆtre for physical sciences research at NASA lies in both the past and 

future. Since 1990 NASA has been investing significant resources, measured in the 

billions of dollars, in developing and maintaining a community of high quality researchers in the microgravity sciences arena. The focus of this research is to use 

the microgravity environment to study a broad range of physical phenomena. The 

research spans from the basic to the applied, and will continue to impact both the 

scientific communities, of which the research is a part, as well as industry. As a 

result of the rigorous peer review of this research, important discoveries have been 

made in fields ranging from the wetting and spreading dynamics of fluids on surfaces to relativity and precision clock experiments. Moreover, many of the space 

flight experiments that flow from this program require the unique microgravity environment that is provided by the ISS and thus make use of a national asset that 

has been very costly to create. Ending the physical sciences research will squander 

the investment made in building the physical sciences research program and negatively impact the ability to perform high quality research on the ISS. 

Just as important as this past investment is the likely impact of the physical 

sciences program on the future of NASA’s human exploration effort. A vibrant physical sciences research program is the key to successfully accomplishing the President’s Vision for Space Exploration, since important technology required for space 

exploration is controlled by gravitationally related phenomena that are poorly understood. This lack of understanding hampers the design of a vast array of devices 

such as those for heat transfer, the prevention and detection of fires, fluid handling, 

controlling the transport and movement of Lunar and Martian soils, and materials 

repair such as brazing and welding, among many others. The need for research in 

these areas is discussed in detail in the NRC report ‘‘Microgravity Research in Support of Technologies for the Human Exploration and Development of Space and 

Planetary Bodies.’’ Given the central importance of these areas in fostering the 

human exploration of space effort, the impact of a physical sciences research program on one of NASA’s central missions could thus be profound. As illustrations, 

I shall focus on two such examples: heat transfer systems and fire prevention and 

detection. 

Thermal control is critical for spacecraft; excess heat must be rejected into space 

and moved from one section of the craft to another. In the past NASA relied on single-phase heat transfer systems, for example systems that involve only a liquid to 

transfer heat. However, there are clear advantages of employing systems that involve both a liquid and vapor (two phases), such as those used on the Earth. This 

allows one to employ the significant amount of heat required to transform a liquid 

to a vapor or a vapor to a liquid in the heat transfer process. This significant heat 

of vaporization or condensation allows the heat to be transferred in a far more efficient manner than with a single-phase system. The successful operation of such systems on the Earth frequently requires that the less dense vapor sit above the more 

dense liquid which, due to the presence of gravity, occurs naturally in a terrestrial 

environment. However this density driven stratification would not be present in 

space. This is but one of the many challenges of using such systems in space. Nevertheless, the advantages of using such a system in a spacecraft are significant. Given 

8 

the enhanced efficiency, a multi-phase heat transfer system would save considerable 

space and mass. Heat pipes have also been proposed as possible heat transfer devices. These have the advantage of being completely passive where the motion of 

the fluid is driven by the surface tension of the liquid, but they also involve evaporation and condensation to transfer heat. 

The central reason why heat transfer systems that involve multiphase flow are 

not more commonly used in spacecraft is that the dynamics of flow in systems with 

more than one phase, such as a vapor and liquid, in a microgravity or partial 

Earth’s gravity environment are not well understood. A ground-based and flight program focused on the dynamics of flow in these multiphase systems could provide the 

insights to allow these higher efficiency devices to be used in the human spaceflight 

effort. While there are constraints on the mass and space available in the limitedduration environment of the Shuttle or ISS, the constraints placed on long-duration 

flights to Mars or even the Moon are even more stringent. Thus, the availability of 

high efficiency heat transfer devices, that occupy less space and have a smaller 

mass than existing devices, would open up much needed space for food and water. 

It is only through research in this area that these devices will be embraced by the 

spacecraft engineering community. 

A second example of the importance of physical sciences research is in preventing 

and detecting fires in a reduced gravity environment. We have had thousands of 

years of experience detecting and fighting fires on Earth. In contrast our experience 

with combustion phenomena in microgravity or partial Earth’s gravity is limited to 

at most fifty years. As a result, our understanding of the flame propagation issues 

that impact spacecraft safety is very limited, and research in this area continues 

to uncover new and unexpected results. For example, flames can spread along surfaces in the opposite direction to that on Earth, flames extend over electrical insulation 30 to 50 percent faster in microgravity than under normal conditions, and smoldering under microgravity conditions is less bright and more difficult to detect than 

on the ground. All of these results were determined from basic research conducted 

in only the past 10 years and have had a documented effect on the fire fighting procedures on spacecraft. Given the limited number of experiments performed in microgravity and the surprising results thus produced, there is much still to be learned. 

Although fires on a spacecraft are an unlikely event, if one should occur it could 

be catastrophic not only for the mission but for the entire human exploration of 

space effort. The absence of any safe refuge on a spacecraft, and possibly lunar base, 

makes detecting and preventing small fires essential. Moreover, the design of lunar 

habitats that mitigate the effects of possible fires requires knowledge of how fires 

propagate in structures in partial Earth’s gravity. Physics based simulation codes 

exist for fires in Earth-based structures, but none exist for micro or partial gravity 

environments. Given our lack of understanding of how fires behave in microgravity 

environments and the critical importance of this to the human exploration effort, 

I can think of few stronger rationales for a vigorous combustion research program. 

Such a program must involve an active ground-based program and, due to the long 

duration of many combustion experiments, ready access to the ISS may be required. 

Going Forward 

In order to leverage the past investment in physical sciences research and to ensure a successful future for the human exploration effort, it is crucial that a broad 

spectrum of physical sciences research in NASA be retained. The importance of continuity in a research program cannot be overemphasized. Continued support of this 

community is essential in engaging the best researchers, producing the students interested in working with NASA upon graduation, and performing the ground-breaking research that is essential to accomplishing NASA’s human spaceflight goals. The 

level of support needed for this continuity is quite modest given that a cadre of 250 

investigators, each of whom requires $130 thousand, would lead to a $32.5 million 

per year program, a very small investment compared to the $1 billion of the former 

Office of Biological and Physical Research. This represents the minimum support 

needed to keep a physical sciences research program alive at NASA. Many researchers have recently had their programs terminated. If this support is not made available in the very near future these scientists will be reluctant to return to microgravity research and the remaining researchers will also likely leave the program. 

As a result NASA will find itself in the same position as it was in the late 1980s: 

without an organized and influential microgravity research program. Unfortunately, 

NASA will never have the time or the resources to recreate a physical sciences research community. Therefore it is absolutely imperative that NASA fund physical 

sciences research at no less than $32.5 million for FY07. 

To avoid many of the pitfalls of the past, it is essential that the program involves 

both ground-based research and spaceflight experiments. One of the crucial lessons 

9 

of the early microgravity program is that only through the testing and refinement 

that is possible with ground-based theoretical and experimental research can experiments be performed in space that will yield reliable results. It is essential that both 

the ground-based and spaceflight research be rigorously-peer reviewed. 

The future of research at NASA is being threatened as never before. It is important to realize that funding physical sciences research will not diminish in any way 

NASA’s future plans for human exploration. Rather it will be an essential enabler 

in this effort. Finally, continuation of the funding will allow NASA to reap the benefits of many past years of funding of high impact research that is focused on gravitationally related phenomena. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to responding to your questions. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you very much. That was very good. 

Dr. Pawelczyk. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES A. PAWELCZYK, PH.D., ASSOCIATE 

PROFESSOR OF PHYSIOLOGY, KINESIOLOGY AND MEDICINE, 

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY 

Dr. PAWELCZYK. Madam Chairperson, members of the Committee, good afternoon. I thank you for the opportunity to discuss 

the impact of NASA’s science cuts on the President’s Vision for 

Space Exploration. 

My comments are formulated from diverse perspectives. First of 

all, I am a former astronaut researcher and I flew on the Space 

Shuttle in 1998. Second, I have recently helped evaluate NASA’s 

biological research for the Institute of Medicine and the National 

Research Council, as well as assess the progress of the National 

Space Biomedical Research Institute in Houston. Finally, I am a 

life scientist. I am a physiologist at Penn State, and my NASA research funded program was recently terminated more than a year 

in advance of our scheduled completion date. I am not bitter. 

Maybe a little. 

The Vision for Space Exploration has caused dramatic change at 

NASA. Research that contributes to exploration goals takes precedence over experiments with intrinsic scientific importance and impact, and the entity responsible for funding such work, the former 

Office of Biological and Physical Research, has been absorbed into 

the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate. 

Now, I agree with Mr. Griffin’s view that aligning research with 

exploration goals is a good thing. However, naive or wholesale 

elimination of scientific themes is not. Funding for biological and 

physical research has declined almost 75 percent over a 2-year period, and this includes the cancellation of virtually all research 

equipment for the International Space Station that supports animals and plants, the elimination of 20 percent of the funding for 

external research grants, and the premature termination of 84 percent of these grants. Approximately 500 life science graduate students in 25 states are going to be affected by this. 

Now, on a January interview with the Orlando Sentinel, Mr. 

Griffin was asked about the lessons learned from Challenger and 

Columbia, and he stated the following, ‘‘If you spend much time on 

this stuff and aviation accidents, a common theme is that of not listening to the signals the hardware is sending—the test results, the 

flight results, the dissenting opinions of the people involved. So a 

common theme is not listening. And I don’t mean actively shutting 

10 

out. I mean being so focused on what we’re trying to do that we’re 

not aware of what nature is telling us.’’ 

I think those insights are remarkably prophetic, and today I find 

myself before you as one of those dissenters. While I share Mr. 

Griffin’s passion for the human exploration of space, my goal today 

is to ensure that you are, in fact, aware of what nature is telling 

us about humans in space. 

Simply put, the biological risks associated with exploration class 

spaceflight are far from being mitigated. Musculoskeletal 

deconditioning remains of paramount concern. The rate of 

osteoporosis in astronauts today equals that of patients with spinal 

cord injury and it exceeds that seen in post-menopausal women by 

a factor of 10 or more. 

Extrapolating from published studies of astronauts and cosmonauts, we can offer these preliminary estimates of the changes that 

would occur if humans made a 30-month trip to Mars starting 

today. Every single one of them would lose 15 percent of their bone 

mineral or more, and 80 percent would lose at least 25 percent of 

their bone mineral. More than 40 percent of them would lose greater than half of their bone mineral in their hip and in their femur, 

and that would set them up for catastrophic fracture. About 20 percent would lose more than a quarter of their exercise capacity, and 

approximately 40 percent would experience a decline in leg muscle 

strength of 30 percent or more. And these changes would occur despite the fact that astronauts are using the best countermeasures 

available currently. To my knowledge, no engineer would accept a 

spaceflight system where such degradation is expected, nor should 

it be so for astronauts. 

NASA’s Bioastronautics Roadmap is the comprehensive plan to 

document and reduce the biological risks of spaceflight, and in 

2005, NASA’s chief medical officer asked the Institute of Medicine 

to evaluate the road map. Despite the alarming data that I just described to you, we found a concern for these risks varied widely 

among astronauts, flight surgeons, and mid-level management. 

None of the 183 proposed risks mitigation strategies have been implemented for spaceflight and approximately two-thirds of these 

strategies were considered to be so incompletely developed that 

they would not be addressed further. 

The problem is simply this. Biology has become the non-science 

at NASA. The Science Mission Directorate, which is the flagship, 

includes just four focus areas: astrophysics, Earth science, 

heliophysics, and planetary science. Biology does not appear at all. 

The next generations of space life scientists, who are the graduate 

students like my own, perceive a bitter lesson that is difficult to 

assuage. As a result of a shell game of agency-wide reorganization, 

life sciences are not recognized, valued, or funded adequately within science anymore. So to restore that scientific credibility, I think 

we need a coordinated strategy, and I’ll offer you several recommendations. 

First, add sufficient funding to the budget both to answer the 

questions essential for the vision and to replace the Space Shuttle 

in a timely fashion. 

11 

Second, articulate a time frame for delivering and completing a 

risk mitigation plan and vet that plan with the external scientific 

community. 

Third, develop a comprehensive plan for conducting research on 

the International Space Station without the Space Shuttle. Include 

in that capability for six people or more and the logistics to keep 

them supplied. 

And finally, establish sufficient oversight to hold NASA accountable to these goals. 

Make no mistake about this. In the long term, we are retaining 

and accumulating human risk to spaceflight in order to progress 

with an underfunded Vision for Space Exploration. I think we have 

an ethical obligation to our current and future space explorers and 

to the American public to do better. Given sufficient resources, I remain optimistic that NASA can deliver the rigorous translational 

research program that the scientific community expects and the 

American people deserve, and I sincerely thank you for your vigilant support of our Nation’s space program. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Pawelczyk follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES A. PAWELCZYK, PH.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF

PHYSIOLOGY, KINESIOLOGY AND MEDICINE, THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

Abstract—At the midpoint between the Apollo program and a human trip to 

Mars, NASA’s recent reductions to scientific funding are unprecedented. In particular, the thoughtfully conceived architecture to explore the Moon, Mars and 

beyond has produced large reallocations of research funding that jeopardizes the 

stability and future of space life sciences. Given current budgets, NASA does 

not appear to have sufficient resources to fully engage the help of the external 

science community to complete the President’s Vision for Space Exploration. 

Madame Chairperson and members of the Committee: 

Good afternoon. I thank you for the opportunity to discuss the changes NASA has 

made to its research funding. I have been a life sciences researcher for 20 years, 

competing successfully for the past 13 years for grants from NASA. From 1996–1998 

I took leave from my academic position at The Pennsylvania State University to 

serve as a payload specialist astronaut, or guest researcher, on the STS–90 

Neurolab Spacelab mission, which flew on the Space Shuttle Columbia in 1998. 

Since Neurolab I have had the privilege to serve as a member of NASA’s Research 

Maximization and Prioritization (ReMAP) Taskforce. More recently I helped evaluate NASA’s Bioastronautics Research Program for the Institute of Medicine, NASA’s 

International Space Station Research Plan for the National Research Council, and 

the progress of the National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI). 

During a January 19, 2006 interview with the Orlando Sentinel, Mr. Griffin 

shared his thoughts about his first 9 months in the position of NASA Administrator. 

When asked about the lessons learned from the Challenger and Columbia accidents, 

he stated the following: 

If you spend much time on this stuff and aviation accidents, a common theme 

is that of not listening to the signals the hardware is sending—the test results, 

the flight results, the dissenting opinions of the people involved. So a common 

theme is not listening. And I don’t mean actively shutting out. I mean being 

so focused on what we’re trying to do that we’re not aware of what nature is 

telling us [emphasis added]. 

Those insights are remarkably prophetic, and today I find myself before you as 

one of those dissenters. I share Mr. Griffin’s passion for the human exploration of 

space, but I must conclude with equal conviction that biological adaptation is a serious risk to an extended human presence in space, and that the scientific research 

necessary to ensure the health and safety of future astronaut crews beyond lowEarth orbit is far from complete. 

ReMAP—Antecedent to the Vision for Space Exploration 

For several years, NASA has recognized and responded to its need to complete 

necessary research in a fiscally responsible manner. In the spring and summer of 

12 

2002 NASA launched the Research Maximization and Prioritization Task Force, 

commonly known as ReMAP. Chaired by Rae Silver of Columbia University, the 

Task Force included two National Medal of Science awardees, one Nobel Prize winner, and more than a dozen members of the National Academy of Sciences, representing the breadth of translational research in the biological and physical 

sciences. 

ReMAP was asked to prioritize 41 areas of research in the former Office of Biological and Physical Research. What was unique to ReMAP was our challenge to 

consider both the physical sciences and biological sciences simultaneously. This resulted in spirited debate and intellectual foment of the highest caliber. When we 

completed our task, highest priority was assigned to 13 areas that informed two 

broad, often overlapping, goals: One is the category of intrinsic scientific importance 

or impact; research that illuminates our place in the universe, but cannot be accomplished in a terrestrial environment. The other goal values research that enables 

long-term human exploration of space beyond low-Earth orbit, and develops effective 

countermeasures to mitigate the potentially damaging effects of long-term exposure 

to the space environment. It should be no surprise to you that over the past 17 

years other review panels, both internal and external to NASA, have named similar 

goals. 

The Task Force wrestled with the question whether one goal could be prioritized 

over the other. In the history of the United States space program both goals have 

been important, though their relative importance has changed over time. The limited amount of biological and physical research that occurred during early space exploration, particularly the Apollo era, focused on the health and safety of astronaut 

crews in a microgravity environment. Significant research questions that did not 

contribute directly to a successful Moon landing received lower priority. In contrast, 

more regular access to space provided by the space shuttle afforded an opportunity 

for ‘‘basic’’ research to take higher priority; the proliferation of space based research 

in the physical and biological sciences over the past twenty years is a testament to 

this fact. 

Thus, the relative priority of these two goals of research—enabling long-term 

human exploration of space and answering questions of intrinsic scientific merit— 

has shifted during NASA’s history. This conclusion is critical, as it suggests that one 

goal can receive higher priority over the other, though this ranking may change depending on NASA’s definition of programmatic needs at a particular point in time. 

When the President announced the Vision for Space Exploration in January of 

2004, the relative balance between these two categories of research changed again. 

Items in NASA’s research portfolio that most contributed to exploration goals would 

take precedence over experiments with intrinsic scientific importance and impact, 

and substantial realignment has occurred as a result. At the same time, the Office 

of Biological and Physical Research, the entity responsible for funding biological and 

physical research at NASA, was absorbed into the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate. 

I share Mr. Griffin’s view that aligning research with exploration goals is a good 

thing. However, naı ̈ve or wholesale elimination of scientific themes is not, and biological and physical research has certainly suffered from this effect. To the alarm 

of the scientific community, the process that began with ReMAP has taken a dangerous turn. Areas that we rated as highest priority, including those that contribute 

to exploration goals, have been de-scoped or eliminated completely. 

Where is ‘‘Science’’ at NASA Today? 

In many ways, the reorganization of ‘‘science’’ at NASA orphaned biology, and I 

encourage caution when you and your colleagues use the term in your discussions. 

Logically, ‘‘science’’ would seem an appropriate, generic label for research activities 

that occur throughout the agency. However, within NASA it appears to have a more 

specific meaning, often referring exclusively to the activities funded by the Science 

Mission Directorate, which includes the following disciplines only: 

• Astrophysics—the study of matter and energy in outer space. 

• Earth Science—the study of the origins and structure of our planet. 

• Heliophysics—the study of planets, interplanetary space, and the sun. 

• Planetary Science—the study of the origins, structure, and features of planets 

beyond our own. 

Please note that the term, ‘‘biology,’’ or the study of life, does not appear at all. 

To my more skeptical colleagues, the science of biology is disappearing at NASA. 

The available evidence provides some support for this conclusion. While the 

Science Mission Directorate has suffered modest cuts, over the past 2 years, funding 

13 

for biological and physical research (i.e., science not managed by the Science Mission 

Directorate) has decreased almost 75 percent, from $1,049 million in FY05 to $274 

million in the FY07 Budget Summit. This includes the cancellation of virtually all 

research equipment for the International Space Station that supports animals and 

plants, the elimination of 20 percent of the funding for external research grants, and 

the premature termination of 84 percent of these grants. Approximately 500 life 

science graduate students in 25 states will be affected. 

The next generations of space life scientists perceive a bitter lesson that is difficult to assuage: as the result of a shell game of agency-wide reorganization, life 

science is no longer recognized or valued within NASA. 

Biological Research is Essential and Obligatory to the Vision for Space 

Exploration 

I wholeheartedly endorse the President’s goal to return humans to the Moon and 

Mars, but the current reductions in biological research funding appear sorely at 

odds with this goal. Simply put, the biological risks associated with exploration-class 

spaceflight are far from being mitigated. 

This conclusion is based on analysis of 30 years of NASA-sponsored research. 

Since the days of Skylab, NASA-funded investigators conducted an aggressive and 

successful biological research program that was robust, comprehensive, and internationally recognized. Beginning with those early efforts, and continuing with our 

international partners on the Mir and the International Space Station, we have 

built a knowledge base that defines the rate at which humans adapt during 

spaceflight up to six-months duration, with four data points exceeding one-year duration. 

Musculoskeletal deconditioning remains a paramount concern. In the past 2 years 

our ability to differentiate the trabecular bone network in the hip has helped us to 

appreciate that the risk to bone during spaceflight may be even greater than we 

previously anticipated. The rate of osteoporosis in astronauts equal patients with 

spinal cord injury, and exceeds that seen in post-menopausal women by a factor of 

10 or more. Extrapolating from published studies of astronauts and cosmonauts 

spending up to 6 months in low-Earth orbit, we can offer preliminary estimates of 

the changes that would occur if humans made a 30-month trip to Mars today: 

• 100 percent of crew members would lose more than 15 percent of their bone 

mineral in the femur and hip. 

• Approximately 80 percent would lose more than 25 percent of their bone mineral. 

• More than 40 percent would lose greater than 50 percent of their bone mineral. 

• Approximately 20 percent would lose more than 25 percent of their exercise capacity. 

• Approximately 40 percent would experience a decline in leg muscle strength of 

30 percent or more. 

Each of these predictions takes into account the fact that astronauts would be 

using the best countermeasures available currently! To my knowledge, no engineer 

would accept a spaceflight system where such degradation is expected. Nor should 

it be so for astronauts. 

What is the Status of NASA’s Human Biological Risk Mitigation Plan? 

In 2005 NASA’s Chief Medical Officer asked the Institute of Medicine to evaluate 

NASA’s Bioastronautics Roadmap, the comprehensive plan to document and reduce 

the biological risks to human spaceflight. Despite the alarming data I just described 

to you, we found that concern for these risks varied widely among astronauts, flight 

surgeons, and mid-level management. None of the 183 proposed risk mitigation 

strategies had been implemented for spaceflight, and approximately two-thirds of 

these strategies were considered to be so incompletely developed that they would not 

be addressed further. 

In his 2001 book, Enlightened Experimentation: The New Imperative for Innovation, Harvard Business professor Stefan Thomke offered the following four rules for 

enlightened experimentation: organize for rapid experimentation; fail early and 

often, but avoid mistakes; anticipate and exploit early information; and combine 

new and old technologies. While these principles are recognizable in NASA’s Constellation System architecture, they are wholly absent in the implementation of 

NASA’s Bioastronautics Roadmap. 

We desperately need to increase human capabilities in space by translating findings from cell culture to reference organisms and mammalian models such as mice 

and rats to future flight crews. Translational research is the ‘‘gold standard’’ of the 

14 

NIH, and it is what the research community, and the American people, should expect from the International Space Station. We need the capability to house and test 

model organisms on the ISS. But equally important, we need adequate time for crew 

to prepare and conduct these experiments, and that time can be found only when 

the ISS moves beyond the core complete configuration. The potential return is immense; the application of this research to our aging public could become one of the 

most important justifications for an extended human presence in space. 

Challenges for the Future 

Earlier this year, Congress received The National Research Council’s review of 

NASA’s plans for the International Space Station, which identified several serious 

concerns about NASA’s prioritization process for current and planned life and physical sciences research. 

First, allocations to research did not appear to be based on risk, but convenience. 

Second, little emphasis was given to future lunar or Martian outposts, opting instead for short stays on the Moon. Third, the current ISS payload and the processes 

used to prioritize research areas appeared to be neither aligned with exploration 

mission needs nor sufficiently refined to evaluate individual experiments. Finally, 

no process was in place to plan or integrate future research needs that may not be 

recognized currently. 

To restore scientific credibility at NASA, a coordinated strategy is necessary. I 

offer several recommendations for your consideration: 

• First, add sufficient funding to NASA’s budget, both to answer the questions essential to the Vision for Space Exploration and to replace the Space Shuttle in 

a timely fashion. An addition of $150 million would restore biological funding 

to the level of the President’s FY06 budget request, but a minimal biological research program, directed primarily to external investigators, could be conducted 

with the addition of approximately $50 million/year. 

• Second, articulate a time frame for delivering and completing a risk mitigation 

plan for humans exploring the Moon and Mars, and vet both the plan and the 

time frame with the external scientific community. 

• Third, develop a comprehensive plan for conducting research on board the International Space Station without the space shuttle, including addition of essential 

equipment for animal research, deployment of a crew of at least six people, and 

logistics that are sufficient to keep these crews safe and supplied. 

• Finally, establish sufficient oversight to hold NASA accountable to these goals. 

Madame Chairperson, members of the Committee, make no mistake about this: 

in the long-term, we are retaining and accumulating human risk to spaceflight in 

order to progress with an under-funded Vision for Space Exploration. We have an 

ethical obligation to our current and future space explorers, and to the American 

public, to do better. Given sufficient resources, I remain optimistic that NASA can 

deliver the rigorous translational research program that the scientific community 

expects, and the American people deserve. I sincerely thank you for your vigilant 

support of the Nation’s space program, and the opportunity to appear before you 

today. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Torbert. 

STATEMENT OF DR. ROY B. TORBERT, DIRECTOR, 

UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SPACE SCIENCE CENTER 

Dr. TORBERT. Madam Chair, Senator Sununu, Senator Nelson, I 

also want to thank you today for the opportunity to address important issues about NASA science. My name is Roy Torbert. I am a 

professor of physics at the University of New Hampshire and the 

Director of the Space Science Center, which participates in all the 

divisions of NASA science. I am now a lead investigator in a strategic mission for the Heliophysics Division: the Magnetospheric 

MultiScale Mission, or MMS. I have served as Dean of the College 

of Engineering and Physical Sciences, where the future of a technical workforce was my daily concern. I also serve on the NASA 

15 

Advisory Council Science Subcommittee for Heliophysics, although 

I do not speak for them today. 

First, I would like to commend the American people, and you as 

their representatives, for their significant investment in NASA 

science. The United States has benefited a great deal from this investment. Not only is our technological base strengthened, but our 

competitiveness in the world and our educational investment in the 

future are greatly enhanced by NASA science leadership. 

However, there is justifiable concern in the space science community today about future NASA funding. The Administrator has 

been forced to reduce the run-out for the Science Mission Directorate by some $3.1 billion to accommodate the requirements of the 

shuttle, the station, and the new Crew Exploration Vehicle, and 

even before the Fiscal Year 2007 budget proposals, NASA science 

had suffered a reduction. The request for the SMD in Fiscal Year 

2007 is now less in real dollars than was appropriated in Fiscal 

Year 2004. 

I make two points. First, the present budget has some significant 

impacts on NASA’s ability to carry out its scientific program. And 

second, there are structural problems that drive up the cost of 

major science missions that are compounding our problem. Both of 

these conditions are severely limiting the frequency and variety of 

future NASA science missions. 

Second, the immediate impacts. The NRC report, An Assessment 

of Balance in NASA’s Science Programs, shows that many of 

NASA’s programs have suffered even more than the overall budget 

numbers would imply. The Solar Terrestrial Probe, for example, 

within SMD now operates with about 75 percent of the funding 

that it had in 2004. As a result, the original 2010 launch of my program MMS has now slipped to 2013, and we find it very hard to 

recruit new students and engineers for a program whose launch 

date recedes faster than real time. 

The NASA strategic planning process is stretching out the missing sequences of programs like Solar Terrestrial Probes by many 

years, but in doing so, the ability of key missions, STEREO, MMS, 

and the key ionospheric mission, GEC, to support each other have 

been compromised. In particular, the GEC mission has been deferred ‘‘indefinitely’’ beyond 2015. Indefinite postponement certainly forces many scientists to question the viability of their fields 

in the future. 

In dealing with these impacts, NASA will preserve its strategic 

missions. The science community is worried about the extraordinary reductions in the smaller opportunities that form the basis 

for student involvement, and these include the Explorer, Discovery, 

and the Earth Pathfinders. They provide exciting science missions 

for a modest investment where students first learn the space 

science and engineering trade. 

But the Explorer program has been cut back by half. There have 

been no Explorer AO’s since 2003 and none expected for 2008. The 

Low Cost Access to Space program launch rate has been cut back 

by half. This year, in fact, it did not accept any remote launch site 

proposals. Even regular sites like the launch sites like Poker Flat 

are in danger by 2009. And the sustaining research and analysis 

budget has been cut back by 15 percent. 

16 

The NASA advisory subcommittees are now concerned about two 

findings of the NRC Balance report. I should mention that the first 

finding we accept, that NASA really is being required to do too 

much with too little at the present time. First, the balance between 

large and small missions is no longer optimal, and the cost to complete space and Earth science missions really needs to be scrutinized. 

Why is it that the costs of major NASA and other space agency 

missions have grown far faster than technical inflation? 

Most importantly, we simply do not have enough highly trained 

citizens to sustain our technical economy as the Gathering Storm 

report has made very clear. The retirement of baby boomers at 

NASA calls into question how we can sustain the Vision for Exploration over the long haul. I submit to you that the NASA science 

programs are a critical source of this needed native talent. 

Two other factors are in my written testimony, the management 

of risk and the full cost accounting procedures at NASA. 

NASA is a mission agency with exciting goals to accomplish, but 

it needs a sound technical basis, which is provided by the proper 

mix of supporting research and focused development. NASA should 

preserve programs that help train the next generation of space scientists and engineers. NASA should restore the vitality of the Explorer, Low Cost Access to Space, and the research and analysis 

programs, and we would like to ask the Congress, in considering 

the budget level for NASA as a whole, to give high priority to restoring funding for the space science enterprise as a whole. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Torbert follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. ROY B. TORBERT, DIRECTOR, 

UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SPACE SCIENCE CENTER

Introduction 

Madame Chair, Senator Sununu, Senators, I want to thank you for the opportunity today to address important issues that face the NASA science enterprise. My 

name is Roy Torbert. I am a professor of physics at the University of New Hampshire, and I represent the University as Director of the Space Science Center within 

the Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans and Space. The Institute has 56 faculty 

who participate in nearly every division of the NASA science effort, as well as theoretical and ground activities supported by other state and Federal agencies, including NSF, NOAA, DOE, and DOD. The Institute presently supports 30 engineers, 57 

graduate students, and over 70 undergraduates. I myself have served as principal 

investigator on several scientific instruments for NASA and am now a lead investigator in an upcoming strategic mission for the Heliophysics Division: the 

Magnetospheric MultiScale Mission, or MMS. I have also served the University as 

Dean of the College of Engineering and Physical Sciences, where the future of a 

technical workforce, an issue to which I will return, was a daily concern. Presently, 

I also serve on the NASA Advisory Council Science Subcommittee for Heliophysics. 

Although this committee has just been constituted and I cannot speak for the committee, I will address some of the issues that the committee has begun to consider. 

First, and most importantly, I would like to commend the American people, and 

you as their representatives, for their significant investment in NASA science. Scientists like me know how difficult it has become to find funding for the many worthy causes that come before you, and we deeply appreciate your continued support. 

It is a signature achievement of our Nation that it finds the means and the will 

to look beyond the pressures of everyday concerns, to lift our horizons to explore 

questions about our place in the universe, our relations to our Sun and nearby planets, and how the Earth and its environment have functioned in the past and how 

they may fare in the future. 

17 

Of course, I also believe that the United States has benefited a great deal from 

this investment: not only is the technological base of our country strengthened by 

NASA innovations, but our prestige and competitiveness in the world and our educational investment in the future technical workforce are greatly enhanced by NASA 

science leadership. 

The Space Science Budgetary Challenge 

However, there is considerable anxiety in the space science community today 

about the future of science funding within NASA. In short, the Administrator has 

been forced to reduce the 5-year run out of the Science Mission Directorate (SMD) 

by some $ 3.1 billion to accommodate the requirements of returning the shuttle to 

flight status, to service the ISS, and to develop a new Crew Exploration Vehicle for 

service by 2014. The funding for SMD will therefore grow at only 1 percent real dollars over this period, and long-planned projects are being stretched out beyond the 

retirement age of many active scientists in the field. Even before these budgets were 

proposed for FY07, NASA science programs had sustained a reduction in scope. 

When the Vision for Exploration was first proposed in 2004, the SMD budget was 

$ 5.5 billion and projected to grow to $7 billion in FY08. The request for SMD in 

FY07 before you is now $5.33 billion, which is less in real dollars than was appropriated in 2004. 

In this testimony, I would like to lay before you two main points. First, the 

present budget has some significant impacts on the ability of NASA to carry out its 

planned scientific program; and second, there are structural problems, namely, 

workforce issues, risk management approaches, and full-cost accounting mechanisms, that, by driving up the costs of major science missions, make these impacts 

even more severe. Both of these conditions are combining to severely limit the frequency and variety of science opportunities in the near future. First, let us consider 

the immediate impacts to our space science program. 

Immediate Impacts in the Basic Space Science Mission 

The budget numbers above would certainly require that NASA limit its plans for 

science. Some programs have suffered even more than these numbers imply. As an 

example, the Solar Terrestrial Probe line, within SMD, which supports the upcoming STEREO solar mission, and which will support MMS, now operates with about 

75 percent of the funding projected in 2004. As a result, the 2010 launch date announced in 2004 for MMS has now slipped to 2013. It is very hard to recruit new 

students and engineers for a program whose launch date recedes faster than real 

time! As detailed in a recent, thorough report of the National Academy, entitled ‘‘An 

Assessment of Balance in NASA’s Science Programs,’’ many of the programs within 

other divisions, both within SMD and also within the Exploration Systems Mission 

Directorate (ESMD), such as microgravity life and physical sciences, have suffered 

even more severe reductions. 

The science community, through the NASA strategic planning process, has been 

attempting to deal with these reductions in an orderly manner, by stretching out 

the development and launch plans when possible. Below are timelines for one such 

example of the Solar Terrestrial Probes, as extracted from the ‘‘2005–2035 Roadmap 

for Heliophysics’’ from the SMD roadmapping effort. The original sequence of missions in 2003, as diagrammed in the top panel, was thought to contain sufficient 

overlap in development so that complementary fields within the Heliophysics division of SMD, such as solar physics (STEREO mission), magnetospheric physics 

(MMS), and ionospheric physics (Geospace Electrodynamics Connections, GEC) 

could each contribute to the division goals of understanding the structure and dynamics of our solar system, its basic physical principles, and how the Sun influences 

the space and atmospheric environment around the Earth. The 2005 roadmap accepted the new budget realities, as outlined in the bottom panel, but now key missions have been stretched out. In particular, the GEC mission, which is the backbone of NASA research into ionospheric physics, has been deferred ‘‘indefinitely, beyond 2015.’’ ‘‘Indefinite postponement,’’ as a development timeline, certainly forces 

many scientists in the NASA enterprise to question the viability of their fields in 

the future. 

18 

I must point out that these schedule realignments, as painful as they are, resulted 

from budget reductions prior to those proposed for 2007. The new actions forced on 

the Administrator, as outlined above, are just beginning to have their impact. It is 

appropriate that NASA, as primarily a mission agency, will adjust major mission 

schedules to preserve, as much as possible, its strategic vision. 

What is causing considerable anxiety in the science community is the anticipated 

and extraordinary reductions in the smaller mission opportunities and sustaining 

research programs that form the support for much of the university-based research 

where students are involved. Small missions, such as those in the Explorer, Discovery, and Earth System Science Pathfinders programs, provide projects where 

new concepts are tested for a modest investment and where students first learn the 

space science and engineering trade. 

This is particularly true of the Low Cost Access to Space (LCAS) effort that provides sounding rockets, balloons, and aircraft flight opportunities in a time line that 

falls within the educational program of a graduate student. Since 2000, the historical launch rate has dropped in half (from about 30 to 15 missions per year), with 

anticipated further reductions as a result of the 2006 budget. This year, NASA 

would not accept proposals for remote launch sites for sounding rockets, a critical 

capability for this program which often requires that the scientist and student 

teams launch their payloads directly into the specific region of space under study. 

The present run out budget places even the regular launch facilities, such as those 

at Poker Flat in Alaska, in danger by 2009. 

The Explorer Program Is at Risk 

The Explorer program (see http://explorers.gsfc.nasa.gov/) is another prime example of these impacts. Explorers are the original science missions of NASA, dating 

back to the very first satellite, Explorer I. They are universally recognized as the 

most successful science projects at NASA, providing insights into both the remotest 

part of our universe and the detailed dynamics of our local ionosphere. The Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) now stands as our only sentinel to measure, insitu, large mass ejections from the sun and the energetic particles that are a danger 

to humans in space. TRACE and RHESSI, study the dynamics of the solar surface 

where large solar storms originate, storms that often threaten satellites and other 

technological assets that we depend upon. Another Explorer, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, continues to provide startling insights into the early structure of the Big Bang. Explorers are among the most competitive solicitations in 

NASA science, and offer opportunities for all comers to propose new and exciting 

ideas that are selected on the basis of science content, relation to overall NASA strategic goals, and feasibility of execution. The figure below details the budgetary prospects for Explorers. The FY07 proposed run out for Explorers will mean a program 

that is reduced by over half from its proposed FY04 guidelines. 


torb1.eps
19 

In the 1990s, the Explorer program size mix was adjusted downward from the 

original ‘‘full Explorer’’ class to smaller satellites, labeled Medium-Explorers 

(MIDEX) and Small Explorers (SMEX). This was done to enhance the rate of new 

missions, in the face of limited funding and the cost growth of Explorers, a growth 

which had followed that of missions in general, an issue to which I will return. Even 

smaller, so-called ‘‘University Explorers’’ or UNEX, were also proposed but abandoned. For a number of years, this strategy allowed an Announcement of Opportunity (AO) every year, for either a single MIDEX or two SMEX class satellites. 

There has not been a single AO for Explorers since 2003 and the next possible opportunity is now 2008. That means there will be a 5-year gap in Explorer launches 

after the upcoming IBEX launch in 2008. Many university institutions have concluded that the years and dollars of up-front investment, necessary to put forward 

a successful proposal for the Explorer Program, can no longer be justified in the face 

of such limited prospects. 

I would encourage the Congress to work with NASA to restore the vitality of both 

the Explorer and LCAS programs. 

Concerns About the Research and Analysis (R&A) Budgets 

A specific concern to university-based scientists is the impact on the sustaining 

Research and Analysis (R&A) budgets. The R&A program initiates many of the new, 

small scientific avenues that eventually lead to the major mission concepts that 

NASA pursues. They are highly competitive, maximize the science investment of ongoing missions by allowing all scientists to use available data, and are heavily 

weighted toward student and young faculty participation. These are moderate-term 

efforts, usually lasting three to four years, where new research and particularly theoretical approaches are explored. The Administrator has been forced by his budget 

realities to propose an immediate reduction of 15 percent in these programs. That 

may not seem catastrophic at first sight, but a sudden reduction in any long term 

program can have large effects. Because in any given year, approximately two thirds 

of the budget is already committed, next year the budget available for new grants 

must be reduced accordingly by 50 percent, on average. In some programs, it has 

been announced that it will be as much as 80 percent. If the budget were allowed 

to inflate, this rate would slowly recover in the next few years, but, with the present 

budget prospects, there is skepticism about its future. There is universal acceptance 

that these realities will inevitably reduce the number of new students who enter 

university programs like mine. 

I have emphasized the budget impacts to programs with which I am associated, 

but nearly all science programs, both within SMD and Exploration Systems, are 

similarly affected, in some cases even more so. For example, the Earth Science division depends to a larger extent on the R&A program, and is therefore more severely 


torb2.eps
20 

reduced. The newly constituted NASA science advisory subcommittees will be forced 

to re-align strategic plans to available budgets and are beginning to study how the 

recently completed Roadmaps and the NRC Decadal Study plan can best be executed. Of particular concern are two findings of the above-mentioned NRC ‘‘Assessment of Balance’’ report (finding #’s 2 and 4): that the balance between large and 

small missions within NASA science activities is not optimal, and that the cost-tocomplete of space and Earth science missions should be scrutinized. As shown here, 

much of the mission stretch-out in programs like STP and Explorers occurred even 

before the recent FY07 budget proposal, when the NASA Science Enterprise as a 

whole enjoyed budgets that were kept at least even with inflation, and sometimes 

even better. How much worse will it be if SMD must live with a declining inflationadjusted budget? 

I would encourage the Congress to augment the small mission and R&A effort in 

the NASA science budget. 

What Are Factors Increasing the Costs of NASA Missions? 

Why is it that the costs of the major NASA and other space agency missions have 

grown far faster than inflation? Or even technical inflation? I will offer three possible reasons, that all probably contribute, and some recommendations to address 

these problems. 

First, it is clear that nearly all space projects require a great deal of technical 

competence, and a correspondingly competent workforce. There has been a steady 

erosion of that workforce, not only at NASA but across the entire country, and this 

fact has been decried from many quarters. The NRC report, ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering Storm,’’ makes this case most energetically. Other technical industries have 

been able to compensate somewhat by tapping the pool of highly-trained immigrants 

and foreign students, and often outsource work abroad. As spacecraft are ITAR sensitive items, this pool is not available to NASA or to its outside space-enterprise 

partners, even to us at universities, because of the constraints of the law. All the 

space programs at NASA, DOE, NOAA, and the DOD feel this shortage acutely. And 

the situation will shortly be worse. NASA recently commissioned the NRC to study 

how the workforce necessary to carry out the Vision for Exploration can possibly be 

maintained, given the impending retirement of much technical talent with the baby 

boomers. I was invited to participate in that study where it became clear that the 

real shortage lies in the lack of engineers and scientists who had actually built, 

hands-on, space hardware and know how the hardware can be integrated and function within larger, more complex systems. I submit to you that the NASA science 

programs are a critical source of this needed native talent, whether they remain in 

NASA science programs or move out into the larger industrial base. Education at 

its very best is a process of discovery, of trial-and-error, and the efficacy of learningby-doing has been proven over many years. NASA science is a natural partner for 

universities by providing a wide-array of opportunities for student participation 

where a mistake does not lead to a catastrophic loss of life or operational mission 

capability. I recently read a sobering article in Newsweek about students at MIT 

who opted out of the technical curriculum. They often cited a lack of excitement that 

could sustain them through a grueling educational program: it just wasn’t ‘‘cool.’’ 

For many, many students, NASA science provides the ‘‘coolness’’ factor. From robots 

on Mars, to solar storms, to questions about the origin of the Universe, NASA 

science is an exciting enterprise. In this light and in view of the key role of NASA 

science in the ‘‘Gathering Storm’’ report, it is unfortunate that NASA is not a component of the President’s new ‘‘American Competitiveness Initiative.’’ It is particularly discouraging that, at the critical moment when NASA science programs are 

needed most urgently by our educational institutions, we are forced to consider how 

to down-size their participation. 

NASA needs to maintain its investment in space science programs that allow universities to attract and engage undergraduate and graduate students in all aspects 

of mission development and deployment—from proof of concepts studies, to proposal 

submittal, to prototype development, to launch, data analysis, and publication. 

Whether these programs have short or long time horizons, there are ways to allow 

the next generation of space scientists to participate in all aspects of an exciting 

NASA mission. 

A second factor in the cost of science projects is the management of risk. Since 

the first Explorer I, NASA science projects have been extraordinarily successful. But 

over the years, the management procedures and quality assurance burden for 

science projects has grown to an almost unsustainable level, and has been driven 

to be commensurate more with manned missions, without any quantifiable impact 

in actually improving the final reliability of science missions, as far as many scientists can discern. I think the American people accept that the space business is 

21 

risky, especially during launch and re-entry. Administrator Griffin has observed 

that, since 2 percent of these launches never achieve orbit, it makes no sense to 

spend hundreds of millions of dollars on procedures that might improve the reliability of payloads far beyond that, and I emphasize there is debate whether we are 

actually achieving more reliability. We have all learned that unnecessary risk in 

manned space programs has tragic consequences and clearly more must be done to 

minimize that risk. It is equally true that not taking risks in leading-edge science 

projects has undesirable results: not only must science continue to push the technological envelope where failure is a risk that accompanies new ideas, but these 

projects provide opportunities for training staff and students in an environment 

where failure is not life-threatening, where a student can gain hands-on experience 

in the real work of building state-of-the-art instrumentation, and, having gained 

this expertise, these students can go on to form the workforce of future operational 

and manned missions. 

Now, no scientist likes the idea of failure. Not only are increasingly precious resources lost, and explanations to committees such as yours required, but even more 

importantly, many valuable years of all our team members, especially students, and 

even whole careers, are put at risk. With my university team, I have watched fifteen 

years of hard work vanish in the first few seconds of launch; in this case, a European launch. I can tell you that the silence that followed was agonizing. But that 

team picked itself up, worked with both NASA and ESA to rebuild those four satellites, and today this mission is on-orbit and returning remarkable results. Exploration, in its very nature, engages adversity, and it is the manner in which we overcome it that defines us as a nation. 

I note that NASA SMD is presently undertaking a top-to-bottom review of the risk 

categories of its missions, and the processes that are appropriate for each class of 

mission. In that review, it is important that the ‘‘one-NASA’’ approach still allow 

a clear differentiation of different levels of missions, from manned shuttles and 

CEV’s to very inexpensive sounding rockets. The scientific community applauds this 

effort, and wishes to work with the NASA centers to fashion procedures and processes that are appropriate to each of these levels, and that can be both cost effective 

and successful. 

Third, and finally, there are some issues of accounting for costs that, quite frankly, are mystifying to the science community. NASA science centers have recently 

moved to a new accounting system, so-called Full Cost Accounting, which, on the 

surface, is a step forward, in that missions must account for all the costs associated 

with their full execution. Previously, there were center-based budgets, where the 

costs of maintaining needed expertise were carried in different accounts than the 

missions themselves. If these budgets were re-distributed to the mission budgets 

which then paid the costs, we would achieve more budget transparency. But, we 

cannot see where this distribution has been done. Furthermore, there is an inherent 

risk in this approach when the number of missions decreases, as seems to be the 

present case. If there is a certain amount of funding required to maintain center 

expertise, then a smaller number of missions must show higher required levels of 

funding to bear the fixed base costs, and therefore fewer missions and so on. The 

LCAS program stands in particular danger from this dilemma as the launch rate 

slowly dwindles. Taken to its ridiculous limit, pretty soon you have one single very 

expensive mission. 

Summary 

What is it that the science community is asking of NASA and this Congress? 

Through some serious work of the Advisory committees, we will be examining with 

NASA the balance of large and small programs. We realize that NASA is first-andforemost a mission agency with exciting goals to accomplish. But these goals and 

missions cannot be accomplished without a sound technical and scientific basis 

which is provided by the proper mix of supporting research and focused development. We will be asking NASA to consider programs that help educate and train 

the next generation of space scientists and engineers. We will be asking NASA to 

evaluate the proper level of risk for science missions to allow science multiple opportunities to provide the technical progress and student training so that future 

manned and un-manned major missions can be reliably and affordably carried out. 

We would like to examine how the new center financial systems can be structured 

to provide faithful cost accounting in a manner that does not improperly burden 

science missions. And, we would ask the Congress, in considering the budget level 

for NASA, to give high priority to restoring funding for the science enterprise as a 

whole. 

22 

I thank you for this opportunity to discuss the budget implications for the NASA 

science program, one of our Nation’s precious assets that we all want to nurture to 

an ever more inspiring and productive future. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Dr. Torbert. 

General Bolden. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR., MAJOR GENERAL, 

U.S. MARINE CORPS (RETIRED); CEO, JACKANDPANTHER, LLC 

Mr. BOLDEN. Madam Chairman, Senator Nelson, Senator 

Sununu, I am honored to be afforded the opportunity to address 

you this afternoon on the very critical issue of budget and programs for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

As you have already mentioned, Madam Chairman, on my first 

flight, it was my honor to serve as a crew mate with a member of 

this subcommittee, Senator Bill Nelson, an experience that established a bond of friendship with him and his family, Grace, Nan 

Ellen, and Billy, that my family and I cherish to this day. Between 

my third and fourth flights on the Shuttle, I served as the Assistant Deputy Administrator of NASA here in Washington under then 

NASA Administrator Dan Goldin. My primary responsibilities involved spearheading a review of NASA’s budget and its primary 

programs and projects and formulation of recommendations for program restructuring to fit within the budget constraints established 

by the Administration and the Congress of the United States. I left 

the space agency and active involvement in our space program in 

June 1994, so I feel that it is appropriate that I be classified as an 

outsider in offering my perspectives on the issues before this subcommittee. 

NASA today finds itself faced with challenges of redefining and 

reorganizing in order to support and carry out the President’s 

Space Exploration Initiative and enable us to maintain our scientific and technological leadership in the world while we progress 

in a timely manner in our efforts to return humans to the lunar 

surface and on to Mars. At this time, some of us are beginning to 

understand fully the statement credited to the late Dr. Bob 

Gilruth, who was Director of the Johnson Space Center in what 

may be called the golden age of human spaceflight, when he said 

‘‘People will realize how difficult it was to go to the Moon when we 

try to return.’’ 

While we have a pretty good grasp on the technology to accomplish this mission, I am not certain we have the national will or 

determination to do it. I do not mean to insult anyone’s intelligence 

here today, but I do wish to remind all of us that exploration of 

any sort is risky, expensive, and unpredictable. While we may be 

able to continue many of the science and exploration programs on 

which we have been embarked over the past 40-plus years, we cannot do them on the cheap and we cannot do them in series. Human 

exploration and science experimentation and research are necessarily parallel endeavors that are mutually supportive if we are 

to realize success in either. 

From my perspective, you in the Congress and the President 

must see your way to expanding funding for NASA by some marginal amount that would enable Dr. Griffin to retain emphasis on 

many of the science and aeronautics programs that are being reVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:07 Jun 10, 2011 Jkt 066784 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\66784.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
23 

duced or cut. As an example, building a vehicle or set of vehicles 

to take humans to the Moon and on to Mars, without continued 

emphasis on the life science research to understand more fully the 

environmental and human factors challenges that must be overcome to successfully allow humans to survive these journeys, is a 

certain recipe for disaster and ultimate failure. 

Similarly, funding increased science exploration and experimentation through employment of robotic vehicles and remote sensing 

and satellite data-gathering, without continued improvement in our 

ability to safely send humans beyond Earth’s bounds and on to 

other heavenly bodies, literally defeats our innate human drive and 

curiosity to explore the unknown and venture from this planet in 

search of ways to improve our lives here at home. In the very simplistic and perhaps somewhat naive words scribbled on a rough 

space exploration drawing by a young third grader in 1992, 

Samantha Aignier, ‘‘You’ll never know unless you go.’’ I think you 

all have a copy of Samantha’s picture that I keep on my wall to 

remind me. 

Perhaps the greatest casualty of NASA’s failure to adequately 

fund a balanced program of human exploration and science and 

aeronautics research will be the continued deterioration in interest 

in science and math among our elementary and secondary school 

students, not to mention the college and post-graduate students 

who see no value in pursuing the fields of science and engineering 

where each year brings less and less funding for research to the 

university campuses. Where once students in elementary school responded with enthusiasm in large numbers that they wanted to be 

astronauts when they grow up, most no longer hold this aspiration 

when I visit the campuses around the United States to talk about 

my exploits as a test pilot and an astronaut. Many of today’s students do not even know that we still have Americans in space 

every single day on the International Space Station. They want to 

know when we are going back into space and when are we going 

to the moon and on to Mars. 

A closing thought on what I believe continues to be one of the 

greatest benefits of human space exploration, the incredible opportunity for international engagement and cooperation in a common 

goal. I feel that a primary reason that Russia exists today in relative peace and prosperity is due to the continued support and cooperation we gave to them from the days of the Apollo-Soyuz test 

project in 1975 through the fall of the Soviet Union, continuing on 

to today. We have an opportunity to forge the same kind of alliance 

with the people of China by fully welcoming them into the family 

of space-faring nations and opening opportunities to them to join 

with us in the peaceful human and robotic exploration of space. As 

is a common practice in our military, peaceful engagement with potential adversaries frequently makes them long-term partners in 

pursuit of the common goal of international peace and stability. 

Likewise in science and technology research, as well as human 

space exploration, engagement with our potential adversaries has 

the great advantage of focusing our efforts on common peaceful 

pursuits and advancing the cause of humankind here on Earth. 

We already know how difficult it is to get humans safely into 

space and back home to Earth. We need not make it even more difVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:07 Jun 10, 2011 Jkt 066784 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\66784.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
24 

ficult by holding the NASA budget down to a level where we are 

forced to make the choice between scientific and technological research and human exploration, thus decreasing our chances of successfully pursuing either. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to share some of my 

thoughts with you today. I too look forward to questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bolden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES F. BOLDEN JR., MAJOR GENERAL, U.S. MARINE CORPS (RETIRED); CEO, JACKANDPANTHER, LLC 

Madam Chairman and distinguished Members of this Subcommittee: I am honored to be afforded the opportunity to address you this afternoon on the very critical 

issue of budget and programs for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). A quick review of my background and qualifications to be here might 

be appropriate. I am a career officer of the United States Marine Corps, now retired 

after 341⁄2 years of active service, 14 of which were spent assigned to the NASA Astronaut Office at the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas as a pilot 

astronaut. At the time of my retirement, I was completing my service as Commanding General of the Third Marine Aircraft Wing headquartered at the Marine 

Corps Air Station Miramar, San Diego, California. During my tenure in the Astronaut Office, I flew four space shuttle missions—two as a shuttle pilot and two as 

mission commander. On my first flight it was my honor to serve as a crew mate 

with a Member of this Subcommittee, Senator Bill Nelson, an experience that established a bond of friendship with him and his family—Grace, Nan Ellen, and Billy— 

that my family and I cherish to this day. Between my third and fourth flights on 

the shuttle, I served as the Assistant Deputy Administrator of NASA here in Washington under then NASA Administrator, Dan Goldin. My primary responsibilities involved spearheading a review of NASA’s budget and its primary programs and 

projects and formulation of recommendations for program restructuring to fit within 

the budget constraints established by the Administration and the Congress of the 

United States. I left the space agency and active involvement in our space program 

in June 1994, so I feel that it is appropriate that I be classified as an outsider in 

offering my perspectives on the issues before this Subcommittee. 

As was the case in 1992 when I came to Washington to assist with Administrator 

Goldin’s efforts to redefine and streamline the agency, NASA today finds itself faced 

with the challenges of redefining and reorganizing in order to support and carry out 

the President’s Space Exploration Initiative and enable us to maintain our scientific 

and technological leadership in the world while we progress in a timely manner in 

our efforts to return humans to the lunar surface and on to Mars. At this time some 

of us are beginning to understand fully the statement credited to the late Dr. Bob 

Gilruth, Director of the Johnson Space Center in what may be called the golden age 

of human space flight, when he said ‘‘People will realize how difficult it was to go 

to the Moon when we try to return.’’ While we have a pretty good grasp on the technology to accomplish this mission, I’m not certain we have the national will power 

or determination. I do not mean to insult anyone’s intelligence today, but I do wish 

to remind all of us that exploration of any sort is risky, expensive, and unpredictable. While we may be able to continue many of the science and exploration programs on which we have been embarked over the past forty plus years, we cannot 

do them on the cheap and we cannot do them in series. Human exploration and 

science experimentation and research are necessarily parallel endeavors that are 

mutually supportive if we are to realize success in either. While the NASA Administrator, Dr. Mike Griffin, is making a very commendable effort to fit it all into today’s 

NASA budget, it’s like trying to fit fifteen pounds of stuff into a five pound sack. 

From my perspective, you in the Congress and the President must see your way to 

expanding the funding for NASA by some marginal amount that will enable Dr. 

Griffin to retain emphasis on many of the science and aeronautics programs that 

are being reduced or cut. As an example, building a vehicle or set of vehicles to take 

humans to the Moon and on to Mars without continued emphasis on the life science 

research to understand more fully the environmental and human factors challenges 

that must be overcome to successfully allow humans to survive these journeys is a 

certain recipe for disaster and ultimate failure. Similarly, funding increased science 

exploration and experimentation through employment of robotic vehicles and remote 

sensing and satellite data gathering without continued improvement in our ability 

to safely send humans beyond Earth’s bounds and on to other heavenly bodies literally defeats our innate human drive and curiosity to explore the unknown and 

25 

venture from this planet in search of ways to improve our lives here at home. In 

the very simplistic and perhaps somewhat naı ̈ve words scribbled on a rough space 

exploration drawing by a young third grader in 1992, Samantha Aignier, ‘‘We’ll 

never know if we don’t go!’’ 

Perhaps the greatest casualty of NASA’s failure to adequately fund a balanced 

program of human exploration and science and aeronautics research will be the continued deterioration in interest in science and math among our elementary and secondary school students, not to mention the college and post graduate students who 

see no value in pursuing the fields of science and engineering where each year 

brings less and less funding for research to the university campuses. Where once 

students in elementary school responded with enthusiasm in large numbers that 

they wanted to be astronauts when they grow up, most no longer hold this aspiration when I visit the campuses around the U.S. to talk about my exploits as a test 

pilot and astronaut. Many of today’s students don’t even know that we still have 

Americans in space every single day on the International Space Station. They want 

to know when we’re going to return to space and go to the Moon and Mars. 

I’d like to offer a closing thought on what I believe continues to be one of the 

greatest benefits of human space exploration—the incredible opportunity for international engagement and cooperation in a common goal of furthering our understanding of this universe in which we live. Experts site all kinds of reasons for the 

peaceful cooperation of Russia and the United States today, but I feel that a primary reason that Russia even exists today in relative peace and prosperity is due 

to the continued support and cooperation we gave to them from the days of the 

Apollo-Soyuz Test Project in 1975 through the fall of the Soviet Union continuing 

to today. We have an opportunity to forge the same kind of alliance with the people 

of China by fully welcoming them into the family of space-faring nations and opening opportunities to them to join with us in the peaceful human and robotic exploration of space. As is a common practice in our military, peaceful engagement with 

potential adversaries frequently makes them long-term partners in pursuit of the 

common goal of international peace and stability. Likewise in science and technology 

research as well as human space exploration, engagement with our potential adversaries has the great advantage of focusing our efforts on common, peaceful pursuits 

and advancing the cause of humankind here on Earth. We already know how difficult it is to get humans safely into space and back home to Earth. We needn’t 

make it even more difficult by holding the NASA budget down to a level where we 

are forced to make the choice between scientific and technological research and 

human exploration thus decreasing our chances of successfully pursuing either. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to share some of my thoughts with you 

today. Best wishes in your deliberations on the future of our national space program 

and the legacies it will leave to future generations. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you very much. I appreciate all of 

your viewpoints. 

I want to start, Dr. Voorhees, with you. You suggest that the research in microgravity has matured substantially over the years, 

but now we may be in danger of losing that momentum. Could you 

lay out what would be the next step? What do you see out there 

in the near term that we may be missing because we are not pursuing what we can do in the International Space Station? 

Dr. VOORHEES. I think there are so many things that we are 

going to be missing that it is difficult to contain them in a short 

answer to your question, but let me hit on some highlights. 

There are questions in fundamental research that stretch from 

things such as how fluids behave in a microgravity environment. 

Experiments are going on right now, amazingly enough, even with 

all the challenges on the Station, looking at how colloids behave in 

space. These are models for crystallization of materials that are 

used on the ground. So we have this basic research effort underway 

on this that is underway in the microgravity program. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Expand on that a little bit. What does a colloid crystal—— 

26 

Dr. VOORHEES. OK. Imagine if you took a liquid and you disperse 

it and it is in very, very small particles, and these are particles 

that are smaller than the diameter of your hair, for the most part. 

In microgravity, you do not have to worry about these colloids settling down as you do on the ground. These colloids are marvelous 

models for the behavior of materials on the ground, how materials 

transform from a liquid to a solid. You start off with a random 

array of atoms in a liquid and it becomes a solid. The same sort 

of thing happens with colloidal crystals in space. So that is a very 

basic fundamental question that the microgravity program has 

been addressing. 

But there are also issues that bear directly on the human exploration of space effort. I mentioned the combustion program. This is 

not just me saying that combustion is important. Every National 

Research Council study that has looked at the microgravity program in the past 10 years has recommended this is an important 

area to do research in. We simply do not understand how combustion works in a microgravity environment, and let me give you 

some examples. 

If you were to start a fire on this piece of paper and you had a 

slow flow of air along the paper, on the ground the fire may burn 

in this direction. In microgravity, it burns in the other direction. 

So qualitatively different behavior in what you see in space and 

you see on the ground. And you would not know this unless you 

had the combustion research program underway within NASA. 

The thing that we have found is that the NASA engineers are 

extremely interested in this information and very quickly incorporate this information into spaceflight safety procedures. But if 

you are not doing the research, you are never going to know. 

Let me give you one other example. There is a very popular program that the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

makes, and it is a program that can be used to understand how 

fires propagate in buildings. It has been downloaded many thousands of times. If you were to ask NASA what happens in a fire 

on a lunar base, do you have a program that would simulate the 

evolution of the fire through this lunar base or through a spacecraft, the answer is it does not exist. And it is only through research in the combustion area that these programs can be developed. 

So there is this enormous range of research underway from the 

very basic, which is the colloids, to the very applied, very closely 

related to human exploration and development in the space effort. 

Senator HUTCHISON. One of the things that we put in the authorization bill that was new, in an effort to be creative on the money 

side, was to designate the U.S. portion of the Space Station a national laboratory. We did that because we thought perhaps there 

would be private sector research that would be beneficial to a company that could help pay for the cost of the Station and hopefully 

mitigate some of the reductions in funding from NASA that are not 

going into the research that we would all like to see. 

This is open to anyone. Do you have any thoughts about how we 

could start pursuing those outside sources for the research in 

microgravity conditions that would stretch our dollars? We have 

27 

public/private partnerships in NIH and ACI and there is no reason 

not to have it on the Space Station. Can you help us flush that out? 

Dr. VOORHEES. I think the challenge of industrial research on the 

Station is the expense involved in transporting equipment and 

samples up to the Station and getting them back down. So that 

means for industries in general to do research on the Station, you 

have to find research that involves very lightweight materials, very 

lightweight experiments, and one that can be turned around relatively quickly, which is why some of the research that industry 

has been interested in, in the biological crystallization area, is a potential candidate for this. 

The challenge of doing that kind of research like biological crystallization, for example, is the turnaround time and the difficulty 

of getting samples up and samples back and doing it quickly and 

on a timely basis. The time scale for biological crystallization research is very, very short, and so it has been difficult, I think, to 

engage many companies to become involved in that research. So I 

think it is a difficult thing to do actually. 

On the other hand, I think designating the ISS as a national laboratory is a fantastic idea, one that I have been saying is exactly 

what we should be doing a long time because it is essentially a laboratory that allows people to do experiments in reduced gravity. 

That is what it really is and I think that is the way it should be 

looked at. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, any other ideas on that subject? We 

are certainly looking for ways to maximize that designation and get 

some things going. So maybe if you think about it, you could provide written ideas later. 

Senator Nelson. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Well, I think the testimony from each of 

you has dramatically demonstrated why you cannot put 10 pounds 

of potatoes in a 5-pound sack and why we need to do each of the 

things that you have talked about: studies on the magnetosphere, 

Dr. Torbert; particles and how they behave in space, Dr. Voorhees; 

Dr. Pawelczyk, what is going to happen to the life sciences. Are the 

three of us, as former astronauts, going to mutate? 

Dr. PAWELCZYK. Hopefully not. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BILL NELSON. And, General Bolden, as that little girl 

said, you are not going to know unless you do it. 

So all of this should come together. And that is what supposedly 

we have a science program in NASA for. That is why we have an 

International Space Station, which, by the way, I would like to see 

the Chinese involved with, General Bolden, as well. You were very 

accurate that as the thaw occurred between the United States and 

the Soviet Union, we already had this relationship in space that 

started way back at the time that we were mortal enemies, as two 

super powers. But here we have an International Space Station 

that we can do part of what you all are talking about and still keep 

the human dream and spirit and character of the American people 

alive, which is to explore the unknown. 

So I am going to continue to agitate in what Senator Hutchison 

and I helped put together last year as a thoughtful approach to 

how NASA ought to be funded over the next 3 years. I will conVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:07 Jun 10, 2011 Jkt 066784 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\66784.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
28 

tinue to agitate to try to fund to that level. Otherwise, you have 

the choices that are being made very painfully by Dr. Griffin. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator Nelson, if I can say something. Because of 

where you come from, you understand the need for continued emphasis on space exploration from the standpoint of a technology 

workforce. It is the same thing in academics and in science and engineering. If we drive students and post-doctoral scholars away 

from the sciences and engineering because we do not have the 

money to fund it right now, you cannot turn it back on. It does not 

happen. Someone does not get a Ph.D. in weeks, and unless we 

maintain the interest in the life sciences and materials sciences 

and the other types of things that we have done both on the Shuttle and the International Space Station, we are going to find ourselves falling even more behind than many of us feel we are doing 

right now in terms of technological countries in the world. So for 

what it is worth. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Yes, sir, Dr. Torbert. 

Dr. TORBERT. Senator Nelson, I would like to add two points, 

both of which you mentioned there. One is this business about the 

ongoing programs for students, how you really cannot turn it off. 

I mentioned the GEC, which stands for the Geospace Electrodynamics Connection. This is a program in ionospheres which is 

really suffering. It is not a program I work in right now, but it is 

a classic case. There is a wonderful group at the University of 

Texas at Dallas, Senator, which has led the way in this research, 

which in fact suffers exactly this problem, that if opportunities do 

not come along that they can continue, then that whole line of research, that whole line of student interest may soon vanish. 

The other one is that in science, as well as the manned program, 

the international aspect is really important. Science is an international effort. I myself have launched on a European spacecraft 

that ended up being launched on a Soviet launch vehicle. It was 

a wonderful experience and just like the manned program, it really 

is a way to foster peace, and it is an excellent program for the 

country to support. 

Dr. VOORHEES. I would like to amplify on this issue as well because the microgravity program is an example of what happens 

when you do not put a program together carefully. If you look at 

the early pre-1990s microgravity program, the research that was 

done for the most part was rather ill-conceived and did not lead to 

very new and interesting science. In 1990, NASA decided to start 

building up this community, and it took about 10 years to do this. 

So if NASA was to cut the research now and not fund going forward, it will be another 10 years just to get back to where we are 

now. 

Dr. PAWELCZYK. If I may pick up with that exact comment in the 

life sciences arena, I can assure you with the way that the ISS is 

designed at this point in time, we will never be able to do the research that we were able to do in the 1990s, and it is for the simple 

reason that we will have no capability to house or support research 

animals on board the International Space Station. 

We talk about these issues such as bone research, and only within the past 2 years did we recognize what a mistake we had been 

making with that among Americans. Many of you have had bone 

29 

scans, DEXA studies, and you get your rate of bone mineral loss. 

Well, that is sort of a lumped figure. We take a slice through a 

bone and we put the density of it all together. We now have the 

ability, only in the past 2 years, to compartmentalize that, look at 

the inside of bone versus outside of bone. What we have learned 

from astronauts is that the rate there is about 2.5 percent in that 

spongy trabecular bone. It is much, much greater than the outside 

part. 

The only way we can look at that any further is to actually go 

in and sample that bone. We cannot do it in a human. We need 

a research animal to do that, and we do not have that capability, 

the capability that we did have when we were flying laboratories 

on the Shuttle. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Well, you all have made my case very eloquently I might add. I would just add to what General Bolden has 

said, that we are here in a once-in-a-generation transition in 

human launch capability. You cannot delay this because the Shuttle is going to be shut down. We have a multi-billion dollar investment up there, the International Space Station, that we need to 

have the ability to get to with a sufficient crew so that we can do 

some of these experiments. So we have got to do this transition. 

Now, how do you get it all done if you do not have enough 

money? And you do not. And that is the thesis of this whole thing. 

I think it is going to be incumbent upon us to go to work on this. 

Madam Chairman, I would just say, as I would point out to everybody, that General Bolden has just been inducted last month 

into the Astronaut Hall of Fame. That is just like other halls of 

fame that you have heard about, the baseball, the football, and so 

forth. It is a distinct honor to be named to that. So my congratulations to General Bolden. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Thank you, sir. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. 

Senator Sununu. 

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you. 

Dr. Torbert, you mentioned GEC. In your testimony you talk 

about the indefinite postponement and the message that that sends 

and the impact that it has on individual researchers looking at 

their chosen path, their chosen field. 

Could you talk a little bit more about this type of situation and 

the impact it can have on recruiting? And in the particular case of 

GEC, what does happen to those researchers? Are there other opportunities that they can pursue? What might be typical for a situation where a mission is postponed for the individual researcher? 

Where might they end up? 

Dr. TORBERT. Usually what happens in that case, this particular 

individual like in GEC is a tenured faculty member like myself, 

they will try to keep themselves entertained. That is usually what 

we went into science for. And they usually can. Some part of the 

research can continue. He is an individual about my age and so it 

is hard to teach older dogs newer tricks. 

The real impact is that the line of students that he can recruit 

into that program, the line of students who may stay in space 

science or go into industry or go into the technological base, that 

line is stopped. Then the faculty look for different ways to invest 

30 

their faculty resources, which are about our most precious level of 

resource. 

So in that sense, over a long period, programs can accommodate. 

We will look for new areas of research. They may not be in the 

NASA area. I think that is a tragic loss. But they may go into different areas that—either physics or chemistry or whatever—they 

deem appropriate. 

The real loss is that in this particular case, there are key questions of low-Earth orbit, ionospheric interaction with spacecraft, 

how the atmosphere interacts with the ionosphere with the sun 

and the input in the materials that we do put in the atmosphere 

and how that transports into the whole dynamics of that system. 

That whole line of thought is lost. Then it takes sometimes 50 

years for somebody to say well, we did work on this 50 years ago. 

Let us try to remember what we did. 

Senator SUNUNU. Are there any skill sets or areas of expertise 

where you are particularly concerned at this point in time, given 

where you see the budget is headed? 

Dr. TORBERT. I would say the biggest impact—and I should mention I participated in an NRC panel that was invited by NASA to 

look for the future workforce in the Vision for Exploration. It was 

concluded in that panel that the key lack was scientists and engineers who had really performed hands on, built space instrumentation and knew how it functioned among larger systems. In that 

case, if you do not have those individuals, what we found—and this 

is a big driver, I think, in some of the cost of missions—you tend 

to overplan, overmanage. You tend to go through a whole period in 

which you do not know and have to train yourself instead of having 

gone through that procedure first and having gone through those 

mistakes. 

I know when I was a graduate student, we had a very sensitive 

instrument, a detector, that we had to use, and it was always said 

by the graduate students you really were not a graduate student 

until you broke it. Like all the other graduate students, I said, 

well, that is not going to happen to me. I can tell you the look on 

my face when I went in to my faculty member and said, well, I just 

broke the equivalent of my entire year’s salary. What are we going 

to do about this? Fortunately, I only broke it once, and that is the 

way that graduate students learn. 

Exploration really challenges adversity, really challenges the limits, and we must train scientists and engineers to go through that 

process so that when we do plan big manned missions, big operational missions, we have people who know what they are doing. 

This is a critical part. 

Senator SUNUNU. Dr. Voorhees, I want to ask you the same question. In your area of expertise and in your personal experience, is 

there a particular skill set that you are most concerned about given 

the projected changes in the science budget? 

Dr. VOORHEES. I think the issue is engaging graduate students 

in the future. I have had this experience just recently in my laboratory with an experiment that was formerly canceled and now has 

been reenergized or refunded as a result of the 15 percent funding 

that has been given to the Station. I went in to one of my students 

and I said, well, it looks like we are going to be able to finally do 

31 

the spaceflight experiment. She was just enamored. She was so excited about this. That excitement is what you lose when you do not 

have the funding that is connected with NASA. 

A number of my students have worked with NASA engineers. A 

number of the students in this microgravity program have ended 

up at NASA field centers as scientists. That pipeline will entirely 

disappear if there is not the seed corn that is being put into the 

research program in the universities. 

Senator SUNUNU. Dr. Torbert, it seems to me that we maximize 

that benefit, the inspiration, excitement, recruitment, when we are 

able to fund a variety of different types of investigations, a variety 

of different types of experiments that draw on different disciplines 

and different expertise. You mentioned in your testimony the value 

of the smaller mission opportunities. You mentioned Explorer, Discovery, and Pathfinder programs. Can you provide any other specific examples of smaller science missions and what you view their 

value and success to be? 

Dr. TORBERT. I should not say just in our missions. There is the 

Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe I mentioned in my testimony. That is from the astrophysics side. There are planetary discoveries to asteroids. There are also planetary missions that may 

be even larger that do not come to the multi-billion level, such as 

Cassini and the former Galileo program. I also mentioned the 

sounding rocket program, and this goes across all the disciplines at 

NASA, the microgravity, also aircraft opportunities in the sounding 

rocket program, balloon programs. These are programs that come 

in the lifetime of a graduate student so that there is a particular 

ownership they take from designing the experiment, all the way 

through flying it, all the way through analyzing it. 

Senator SUNUNU. I am sorry. What do you consider the life of a 

graduate student to be? 

Dr. TORBERT. I will not talk about my life. 

Senator SUNUNU. Is that 12 or 15 years or is that 3—— 

Dr. TORBERT. Hopefully not. We shoot for 4 to 5 years of a graduate student. 

Senator SUNUNU. So a 4- to 5-year time frame. And what kind 

of an overall cost for these lower cost missions? 

Dr. TORBERT. Well, a typical satellite mission, which is probably 

mid between those, usually will support three to four graduate students during that period, and with the NASA center costs and 

whatever, it comes to a couple of million dollars. 

Senator SUNUNU. Which is extremely small compared to some of 

the larger missions. 

Dr. TORBERT. We think we get a lot of bang for the buck. 

Senator SUNUNU. General Bolden or Dr. Pawelczyk, do you have 

any thoughts about striking the right balance between bigger efforts, bigger scientific missions and some of these lower cost missions? 

Dr. PAWELCZYK. Senator, I am not sure I would choose the bigger 

cost versus lower cost as the metric there, but I would try to think 

about scientific return. You have heard the theme here of graduate 

students as well. I would also think about that, projects that can 

fund large numbers of students and can continue to maintain technological excellence in the United States. 

32 

Let me give you a couple thoughts related to that. I think graduate students are the greatest virtue that I have working at a university. I refer to them as boundless enthusiasm unchecked by reality, and they teach me every day that they can do things that I 

never thought that they were able to do. 

I also know, being at Penn State University, that we have a couple things that we value greatly. We value the longevity of our football coaches. We also value our land grant status, and we greatly 

value our space grant status as well in providing that. We have not 

even mentioned the space grant program here yet, which has also 

received enormous cuts and goes directly into funding students 

throughout each of the 50 States. As that program is scaled back, 

that is going to have an additional impact here that is really going 

to hurt us. We need to think about that one as well. 

So I would really think about that student metric. I think you 

can quantify it pretty well. NASA has pretty good databases started on that. And you will see that effect right there. I see it every 

week when students come in and say I would love to work with 

you, and I say, I am sorry, but we have just lost our funding in 

that area and you are going to have to go somewhere else. 

Senator SUNUNU. General? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, let me talk a little bit about my experience 

in the Marine Corps 9 years after leaving the space program. I was 

amazed at how much we use technology developed to support humans in space. Today when you send a Marine out with 150, sometimes 200 pounds on his or her back, you would like not to be able 

to do that. You would like to be able to give them a lot less stuff 

to pack but with the same capability. In some cases we can do that 

with communication systems, with, quote/unquote, guidance and 

navigation systems that have come through basic research, 6–1, 6– 

2 research. 

I have sat on study boards for the National Academy looking at 

science and technology development for the Navy and the Marine 

Corps. One was called, ‘‘Navy Needs in Space,’’ and it was amazing 

when you have people who tell you I do not need space, just give 

me my Classic Wizard and my GPS. 

There is nothing that we do today in the military that does not 

rely on technology developed in space or for space. People talk 

about wasting money in space exploration. I have not seen a dime 

that we have spent in space to date. It all gets spent down here 

to develop systems that come about from the research that we do 

on orbit or just trying to get somewhere. 

Sometimes we fail, but that also helps us determine a way not 

to do things. When you go back and look at electrophoresis operations in space that was the big thing—several staffers probably 

remember that. We were going to make very pure drugs because 

we were going to do it in microgravity. Well, it turned out that was 

not necessarily the best place to do it, but we were able to determine ways to change the process, to alter and perfect the process, 

so that it could be done much more cost effectively and much better 

here on Earth, but it was because of what we had found in doing 

that experimentation in space. 

Like I said, space exploration is expensive, risky, and unpredictable. Frequently we come up with something serendipitously that 

33 

we never, ever imagined, and it goes off to the military or it goes 

off to some laboratory or something. 

But basic research has got to be done. It has got to be funded 

by DOD, by NASA, by somebody, and it is best done so that we get 

the most bang for the buck when it is done across the board. NASA 

is not the only government organization that is cutting back on 

funding for basic research today. We are not unique in that respect, 

and that does trouble me. 

Senator SUNUNU. Well, I thank you. I want to close with one observation and one invitation. 

The observation is certainly related to that last point. We have 

discussed and debated in this committee and in other committees 

in Congress the concept of a competitiveness initiative, and by and 

large, the core element of that has been increases in our funding 

for basic sciences. The chair and others have advocated for a greater emphasis on fundamental research, investment in the physical 

sciences through the National Science Foundation and other avenues. This science mission at NASA should obviously be part of 

that. To the best of my knowledge, it was not made a part of the 

Administration’s competitiveness proposal, and I think that is 

something that we need to look at. 

There have been a number of proposals related to competitiveness that I have not supported because they have not been sufficiently focused on basic sciences. But if we are going to do anything 

in this area, I think that the science elements within NASA and 

the science budgets within NASA ought to be part of that. 

Finally, the invitation is to each of our panelists. Is there anything that you would like to offer that we have not been insightful 

enough to question you on? 

Dr. PAWELCZYK. Let me just offer one area of research very briefly, and that is the area of fractional gravity. We have spoken a 

great deal about going to space and accessing space, but being in 

space provides us the opportunity to look at the range of gravitational fields that are less than what we experience here on Earth 

when we are in that free-fall environment and rotate something to 

induce the centrifugal field. 

When I gave you the projections I did, I gave them to you assuming that the Martian environment would confer no safety to human 

bone or muscle or the cardiovascular system. That is the conservative estimate that I have to apply because I am worried about 

people like Charlie. I do not know if I am right or not. 

What if that fractional environment does confer some benefit? 

Then a lot of these problems go away. We do not have to worry 

about whether or not we are going to need to rotate that Martian 

spacecraft to induce a gravitational field. Those are things in the 

structures that will be required to do that. We do not know those 

things, the answers to those questions right now, because we have 

not put that capability or we have removed that capability from the 

ISS, where storing fractional gravity research environments on the 

ISS is of extreme value for down the road, and it really is an investment in the future. 

Dr. VOORHEES. You brought up the competitiveness initiative. In 

the microgravity sciences, the overlap between what gets done at 

NASA and in many other agencies is close but, nevertheless, disVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:07 Jun 10, 2011 Jkt 066784 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\66784.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
34 

tinct. So in this area, the ISS and access to these microgravity platforms is like going to a national laboratory, like taking a sample 

to a synchrotron, for example, an x-ray source. The same sort of 

basic research that is done in the microgravity sciences is very 

much related to the things that go in the other agencies in the 

competitive initiative. 

Dr. TORBERT. One item that I mentioned I do think we need to 

work on ourselves. It is certainly the case that NASA desperately 

needs some remediation in the area of funding, but I mentioned the 

area of risk. I think this is important. You heard it in two aspects. 

You heard the fact that we take risks in doing exploration. That 

is an important thing. It is also important in science to have a variety of missions, and the more that we can fund, more inexpensive 

missions, reduce the cost of science missions, or as I pointed out 

in my testimony, differentiate the level of risk so that at the lower 

level we can take more risks. At the higher manned space level, of 

course, we have to be as risk-free as we can, but it is not absolutely 

risk-free. There is nothing risk-free about that endeavor. I think 

this is an important thing for NASA and its colleagues in universities to work together to do because if we can reduce the costs of 

these missions, then we can have more variety of them, we can 

take more chances, we can find some of those things out that we 

do not know, and this is an important contribution to the Nation’s 

space program. 

Senator SUNUNU. And do you think there is too great a level of 

discouraging risk at this point? 

Dr. TORBERT. At present, most of the science community is discouraged by the level of risk mitigation. That is a natural thing. 

Let me tell you how it comes about. NASA tries to be, as I said, 

a ‘‘one-NASA’’ organization. There are very good processes and procedures that go throughout the program. And the good thing about 

it is there are managers and engineers who work with the manned 

space program, and then they come and work on various science 

programs. That way the NASA science personnel get a variety of 

experiences, which is all for the good. 

But that has a sort of a diffusion tendency by which the procedure we had in this manned program can be applied to the sounding rocket program. Well, that is all good and true if you have 

those kind of resources, but we want more flights and to take the 

risk in the sounding rocket program which we cannot take in the 

manned program and everywhere in between. This is something we 

need to work on. 

By the way, the SMD, the Science Mission Directorate, has just 

started a top-to-bottom review of its risk processes and we will be 

working very hard with that committee to see that we can fashion 

procedures that are both cost-effective and successful. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

By the way, the concern you stated is one that I have, that 

NASA should be every bit as much a focus in the competitiveness 

initiative. We did try to push that along with cooperation agreements and requirements in the most recent bill that we passed on 

the competitiveness initiative, but I would love for you to look at 

it, if there are other things we can do. NASA has a uniqueness because of the Space Station and the microgravity conditions that no 

35 

one else is going to have and fully utilize. So we do need to make 

sure that we are as committed to NASA and certainly the National 

Science Foundation in this competitiveness initiative as we can be. 

Dr. Pawelczyk, you said that we are not using animals anymore 

and that has degraded the potential for the life sciences. Is the reason that we are not using animals because of funding cuts or is it 

because we are not putting the laboratory in the Space Station that 

would allow us to do that type of research? 

Dr. PAWELCZYK. The answer is both of the above. So the facilities 

for housing animals on the International Space Station have been 

eliminated, the animal habitats. So they are not being funded anymore. They were approaching flight readiness. 

If you look at then the constraining factors, assuming that were 

restored, there are sort of three different things that you have to 

balance and think about. You have to think about just getting stuff 

up there, how much mass you can actually take up on the shuttle 

with you, and we are sorely constrained on that now. It is a reason 

to encourage as rapid a development as possible of the cargo 

version of the crew exploration vehicle because it will provide a 

great deal of uncrewed up-mass. 

We are also constrained by crew time. You are going to want people who are going to want to check in on these research animals 

as well, and that is part of the thing of getting to the six-person 

crew. 

And then power is the last one as well. 

When you look at all three of those, probably the most constraining factor is the up-mass, and that then also leads you to 

think more creatively about what can we do with our international 

partners in terms of looking at the autonomous transfer vehicle, for 

example, to bring up animals on board with that. 

We will probably not be able to do all of the in-depth research, 

given the cancellation of things like the centrifuge accommodation 

module, but there is great value in simply having an animal up 

there for a long period of time and trying to look for the floor effect—to what point do some of these systems degrade—and then to 

using interventions like, for example, nutraceutical approaches. 

How can we modify with diet, for example, rates of bone loss and 

certainly pharmaceutical trials as well. So just having animals up 

there alone will provide some benefit. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. That is very helpful. 

As you know, in our Authorization Act of 2005, we did provide 

the necessity for NASA to give us a research plan for the International Space Station, and it is now on the website as of last 

week. Have any of you looked at that and is there anything that 

needs to be added to the body of knowledge that we have put forward today regarding that particular research plan, its inadequacies, anything else that you would want to focus on that it is not 

doing? Or, if there are good parts of it, tell us that as well. 

Dr. PAWELCZYK. I have not reviewed the research plan at this 

point, but there is one key issue associated with any of these plans 

that I think is absolutely essential and that is the time frame at 

which it is done. We need clear milestones and simply saying we 

are going to push something to the right is no longer acceptable to 

us. 

36 

I will take the example back to the students. If I knew, for example, that there would be funding coming on board to mitigate these 

very important risks 5 years hence, well, I could at least begin to 

assemble with my life sciences colleagues ways to bridge that 5- 

year period. We would look at virtual classes, pooling across the 

Nation. And we do this very well with video technology now. We 

would look at ways to pool our resources to keep some nascent kernel going to that 5-year goal when we can then explode with that 

research opportunity. If we do not have that time frame, essentially 

it is out in the vapor. We do not know when it is going to happen. 

So a reliable time frame, something we can stick to, is essential. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Any other comments on the scientific plan? 

[No response.] 

Senator HUTCHISON. My chief clerk says that we can distribute 

that plan to you as well, and if you do have comments, we would 

like to have them. 

Well, thank you very much. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Let me just make one concluding comment? 

Senator HUTCHISON. Yes. 

Senator BILL NELSON. I think there is a theme running through 

all of their testimony that the excitement generated by science and 

science research and spaceflight can do wondrous things for us for 

the future. Several of you have described it in terms of your students. We certainly saw this a generation ago when a President 

said we are going to the moon and return in 9 years, and that 

brought forth a whole new generation of engineers and scientists 

and mathematicians that, by the way, in the global context has 

kept us competitive in the global economic arena. That is the challenge for us in the future. 

So I appreciate each of you bringing out that particular aspect 

in the importance of this little agency and what we are doing with 

this budget. I think it has enormous consequences. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Senator Nelson, and thank all 

of you for the time and the great information that you have given 

us today. We are committed on this subcommittee and certainly I 

think we have made great strides in focusing on the scientific basis 

that is the mission of NASA, and we will continue to pursue it. 

Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(37) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS, U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

I welcome our panel of witnesses today, who represent a range of interests in 

NASA programs, especially science and research at NASA. 

I am well aware of widespread concerns being expressed that NASA is having to 

cut into valuable science and research programs in order to pay for building a replacement to the Space Shuttle as soon as possible, among other things needed to 

move forward with the Vision for Exploration. 

I will urge this Committee to support the President’s Vision for Exploration. And 

we support a strong commitment to a broad range of science at NASA. 

NASA has always played an important role in maintaining America’s technological and scientific excellence and enhancing our competitive position in the world. 

The Competitiveness and Innovation bill recently reported by the Commerce Committee recognizes NASA’s continuing importance and the need for maintaining a 

strong commitment to basic research. 

The NASA Authorization Act of 2005, which was initiated by Senators Hutchison 

and Nelson, and which I was an original co-sponsor of, along with Senator Inouye, 

was signed into law last December. It provided a sufficient level of funding authority that would have avoided making most of the cuts in NASA science programs 

that we are hearing about today. 

Unfortunately, the requested amount for NASA for FY 2007 is over a billion dollars less than we authorized. 

We hope that additional moneys can be found to increase NASA’s overall funding 

levels, and will continue efforts to make that happen, in working with our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee. 

I hope that our witnesses today can help us explain why that additional funding 

is necessary, and how those additional funds would be used if they are made available by the Congress. 

I thank the Subcommittee Chairman and Ranking Member for convening this 

hearing and look forward to hearing the panel of witnesses and reviewing other material to be submitted for the record. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN KARAS, VICE PRESIDENT, SPACE EXPLORATION, 

LOCKHEED MARTIN

Madam Chair and members of the Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for 

inviting me to provide Lockheed Martin’s perspective for your hearing on the NASA 

Budget and Programs. 

Lockheed Martin has interests in all of NASA’s mission areas. We are excited 

about, and strongly support, the Nation’s Vision for Space Exploration. We have a 

long successful history of providing spacecraft and mission operations support for 

NASA’s Earth science and planetary exploration programs. We provide key systems 

for the Space Shuttle and International Space Station programs. And we depend on 

NASA’s aeronautics research to design and develop systems for our military aircraft 

programs. 

My statement today addresses U.S. leadership in space exploration and the following four issues: 

1. The criticality of safe and timely return to flight of the Space Shuttle. 

2. The imperative to utilize and effectively transition the skilled and dedicated 

workforce of the Shuttle program during the Shuttle phase-out by 2010. 

3. The challenge of balancing priorities of space exploration, science, and aeronautics. 

4. The importance of inspiring and educating the Nation’s next generation of 

scientists, engineers, and explorers. 

38 

Safe and Timely Return to Flight of the Space Shuttle 

Lockheed Martin is strongly committed to NASA’s number one priority: return the 

Space Shuttle to flight and continue safe operation of the Nation’s Human 

Spaceflight program. Lockheed Martin is a proud industrial partner with NASA on 

the Space Shuttle Program. As the contractor for the External Tank, we are acutely 

aware of the difficulties and challenges inherent in Human spaceflight. Our employees have worked hand-in-hand with NASA to create a safer external tank. As you 

know, the Gulf Coast region has been slow to recover from the devastating effects 

of Hurricane Katrina. Lockheed Martin has provided salary and other financial incentives to help retain employees in the Gulf Coast, and initiated a Hurricane 

Katrina relief fund comprised of corporate and employee contributions. We completed the Return to Flight II External Tank one week ahead of schedule, and have 

just barged the back-up External Tank (ET–118) to the Kennedy Space Center. We 

stand prepared to support the upcoming flight in July. I know I can speak for all 

of NASA’s industrial partners when I say that we are all dedicated to fly the Space 

Shuttle safely until its retirement in 2010. 

Effective Transition of Skilled Workforce 

Workforce transition is the key to ensuring mission success while developing next 

generation systems and minimizing the gap in human spaceflight capabilities. 

NASA’s Human Spaceflight Centers, with their talented and dedicated workforce, 

are the crown jewels of this country’s Civil Space program. NASA is now addressing 

serious workforce and industrial base challenges to ensure successful execution of 

the Vision for Space Exploration. To compound the challenge, it is critical that during this transition, NASA and their industry contractors must also continue to safely fly the Shuttle and complete the International Space Station. A transition on the 

scale that NASA must undertake requires the combined efforts of local, state, and 

Federal Governments as well as industry if it is to be successful. It has been over 

20 years since the United States has developed a new human spacecraft. The current skill mix—focused on Shuttle and Station operations—is not the same mix that 

is needed for development of a new system. Change is always traumatic, but it is 

within the crucible of change that innovation is born. There is precedence for such 

a transition. Lockheed Martin and the Air Force have retired the venerable Titan 

launch vehicle and several key spacecraft programs. Lockheed Martin successfully 

transitioned thousands of employees from these programs to other Lockheed Martin 

programs. During these transitions, we have worked closely with our customers to 

minimize contract termination liabilities; ensure supplier base continuity, including 

critical 2nd-tier suppliers; and ease the start-up of next generation systems. 

Balancing Priorities of Space Exploration, Science, and Aeronautics 

Since Lockheed Martin has interests in all of NASA’s mission areas, any significant changes to NASA’s budget allocations across their Mission Directorates impact 

our business base and earnings. However, we understand that we must join NASA 

in assessing the big picture, adjusting our strategic plans to reflect the Nation’s 

most pressing Civil Space priorities. While it is important that we continue to aggressively pursue scientific discoveries in our solar system—deploying Earth science 

and weather satellites; autonomously searching for the origins, nature, and destiny 

of our universe; continuing the robotic search for life—it is also critical that the U.S. 

remain at the forefront of human space exploration. In fact, robotic scientific research and human exploration complement one another. As Dr. Griffin has succinctly stated, ‘‘the Vision for Space Exploration asserts that the proper goal of the 

Nation’s space program is that of human and robotic exploration beyond low-Earth 

orbit.’’ For example, current planetary orbiters and landers have applicable technologies for Human spaceflight. Administrator Griffin has admirably stepped up to 

these challenges and assumed responsibility for some very difficult decisions. Lockheed Martin strongly supports the Nation’s Vision for Space Exploration, and we 

stand ready to help NASA overcome these challenges. 

Inspiring and Educating the Next Generation of Scientists, Engineers, and 

Explorers 

Finally, any discussion about the future of space exploration must focus on inspiring and educating the next generation of engineers, scientists, and explorers. It is 

our responsibility—in industry, at NASA, across academia, and throughout government—to make sure we are providing the opportunity and the motivation for our 

young people to enter careers of science, engineering, and mathematics. This is the 

only way the United States will remain a leader in developing the critical technologies to take us beyond low-Earth orbit, revitalize our Nation’s industrial base, 

and guarantee a strong defense and national security. Lockheed Martin provides fiVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:07 Jun 10, 2011 Jkt 066784 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\66784.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
39 

nancial support to undergraduate engineering schools, and embraces a number of 

recruitment and mentoring programs to make certain that the talent pipeline stays 

full. To quote Lockheed Martin’s CEO, Bob Stevens, ‘‘Talent is the critical resource 

that’s going to drive success in the 21st century, period.’’ 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide my statement on this important topic. 

Lockheed Martin appreciates the Committee’s interest in maintaining United States 

leadership in space exploration. We look forward to continuing to work closely with 

you on these important issues. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK J. LEWIS, CHIEF SCIENTIST, U.S. AIR FORCE

On October 3, 1967, Major William ‘‘Pete’’ Knight set a piloted airplane speed 

record in the X–15A–2 rocket plane, flying at more than 4,500 miles per hour, over 

six-and-a-half times greater than the speed of sound. Nearly four decades later, this 

milestone accomplishment still holds the record for the fastest flight of a human 

being within a piloted aircraft. Pete Knight’s flight was one of many great accomplishments in the X–15 program, which included over 199 flights beginning in 1959, 

and running through the decade of the 1960s. 

The X–15 pioneered the air-space frontier, gathering valuable information that 

lead to the successful development of reentry and launch vehicles including the 

Space Shuttle. And it also represented one of many great aviation collaborations between the National Aeronautics and Space Agency and the United States Air Force. 

Indeed, there is a time-honored tradition of cooperation between the civilian government aviation sector and military aeronautics research. The record of collaboration between NASA and the Air Force dates to the era of the National Advisory 

Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) and the U.S. Army Air Corps, the precursors of 

both today’s NASA and our modern U.S. Air Force. In the 1920s, NACA performed 

landmark work on engine drag reduction, resulting in the so-called ‘‘NACA cowl’’ 

that greatly reduced the drag force on propeller-driven engines, and made possible 

economical airliners such as the DC–3 that catapulted American aviation to world 

dominance. Used successfully in civilian aircraft, including racing planes in the 

1930s flown by one of my predecessors in the U.S. Air Force Chief Scientist’s office, 

General James H. ‘‘Jimmy’’ Doolittle, the NACA cowl also greatly improved the performance of military aircraft in the years leading up to World War II. NACA’s contribution to the military continued throughout the war, including solving problems 

such as tail buffeting and wing icing, improving the overall range and altitude of 

bombers, and increasing the speed of fighters by up to 50 mph by reducing unnecessary drag. NACA’s contributions to military aviation performance were widely recognized outside the United States; the Battle of Britain was fought over London between German and British fighters that both used NACA-developed airfoils. When 

the superlative P–51 Mustang appeared in German skies in 1944–1945, Nazi military and scientific leaders marveled at its performance, made possible by NACA airfoil research applied to military fighter aircraft design. 

After World War II, this fruitful civilian and military partnership in aviation continued. Then-Major Chuck Yeager’s Bell X–1 flew beyond the speed of sound in October 1947 as part of a joint NACA–USAF cooperative program. Both organizations 

contributed their expertise to the development and flight testing of the X–1 series 

aircraft, and it is fitting that the prestigious Collier Trophy was awarded in 1947 

to a team that included Yeager representing the USAF, NACA engineer John Stack, 

and the president of manufacturer Bell Aircraft, Lawrence D. Bell. In the years that 

followed, NACA contributed directly to the design of supersonic fighter jets for the 

Air Force and the Navy, developing the design principles that enabled routine penetration into the high-speed flight regime. 

The intrinsic value of military and civilian cooperation was clearly recognized in 

the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, which stated that the new agency’s: 

‘‘aeronautical and space activities... shall be conducted so as to contribute 

materially to... the making available to agencies directly concerned with national defense of discoveries that have military value or significance, and the 

furnishing by such agencies, to the civilian agency established to direct and control nonmilitary aeronautical and space activities, of information as to discoveries which have value or significance to that agency . . . ’’ 

The Space Act also mandated: 

‘‘. . . close cooperation among all interested agencies of the United States in 

order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities, and equipment.’’ 

40 

In this spirit, cooperation with the Air Force continued once the Space Act was 

enacted and NASA was created from the various elements comprising the original 

NACA plus those from the Army’s ballistic missile program. Whether in the use of 

military test pilots as the original astronauts or the application of NASA wind tunnels and materials to the design and development of high speed military interceptor 

aircraft, the Air Force and NASA have cooperated at all levels of their organizations. Today, there is not a single aircraft in service with the United States Air 

Force or, for that matter, any of our military branches, that does not benefit from 

NASA’s aeronautical input. Recognizing the importance of continuing this legacy of 

shared cooperative achievement, leaders of both NASA and the Air Force have renewed their commitment to maintaining and strengthening cooperative ties between 

the organizations. This focus on cooperation leverages the capabilities of the two organizations, and though it is endorsed at the top-most levels it permeates the functional organizations and is ultimately enabled by numerous individual researchers. 

Cooperation does not mean duplication, nor does it mean that either agency is 

performing the other’s mission. Rather, it reflects the healthy relationship of two 

mature organizations that have strong specialties but who are, as well, united in 

a common purpose: ensuring continued American air and space dominance in the 

21st century. The Air Force is responsible for system development, test and evaluation, and acquisition of military craft. NASA, on the other hand, has the mission 

of performing cutting-edge aeronautics research, leaving system development and 

acquisition to the civil aeronautics industry. 

This fundamental difference means that, while NASA and the Air Force have 

similar levels of relative involvement in basic (fundamental) research, their respective roles diverge as activities move into the development arena. Since NASA also 

has responsibility for the operation and maintenance of numerous aeronautical test 

facilities, there is also opportunity for mutual cooperation in test and evaluation activities. Thus, while the missions of NASA and the Air Force are independent, their 

common research goals in aeronautics dictate a close research partnership that benefits both parties. 

The original Space Act mandated that NASA has the responsibility for the ‘‘preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space 

science and technology.’’ Given that the military aeronautics revolution is now almost a century old, and the invention of the airplane already over a century, it is 

understandable that some may ask if a continued investment in aeronautical research and development is still relevant to NASA’s mission, or for that matter, to 

that of the Air Force. After all, we have over a century of experience designing aircraft; what more is there to learn or do? Have airplanes really changed very much 

in recent history, and are they likely to change much more in the future? Have we 

solved the most important problems in aeronautical engineering, and are our analysis, design, and testing techniques as good as they will ever need to be? Along with 

such questions is one of overriding concern to the American taxpayer: should the 

resources originally dedicated to atmospheric flight be redirected to more promising 

research areas? 

The answer to all of these questions, for the military, commercial and scientific 

sectors, is that aeronautics remains a vital and blossoming field of human endeavor. 

It is a discipline that is continuing to advance and develop, with great unanswered 

questions and incredible potential for future applications. Aeronautics continues to 

drive technology in other technical disciplines, ranging from computing to materials 

to energy utilization, and it remains an important part of our military capability as 

well as a key component for the continued exploration of space. 

Some might adopt a view that aeronautics is ‘‘mature’’ because the rapid advances 

that characterized the opening decades of flight seem to overshadow more recent accomplishments in the field, at least under superficial inspection. Indeed, the 20th 

Century did see an increase in airplane speed from 10 mph of the original Wright 

Flyer to over 2,500 mph for the SR–71 Blackbird; an increase in altitudes from a 

few feet above the sand dunes of Kitty Hawk to the fringes of the atmosphere; and 

the introduction of such revolutionary technologies as jet engines, automatic flight 

controls, pressurized cabins, and regular passenger air transportation. The first century of aviation transformed our civilian world and ushered in a new era of military 

effectiveness with hitherto undreamed-of capabilities made possible by air power. 

Such capabilities as stealth technology and unmanned systems are among the most 

recent of these successes. We can be certain that advances in this second century 

of aviation may be less overtly spectacular, but ultimately will be no less spectacular 

in the fundamental and profound impacts they will have on both the commercial 

and military sectors. 

Several important trends are apparent as we look at aviation progress in the decades to come: 

41 

1. Aerospace engineers will continue to push the boundaries of aircraft height, 

speed, and performance. Automation and unmanned systems will play an everincreasing role in air power, building on the success of Predator and the 

Globalhawk unmanned aircraft. Technologies will be developed that will allow 

us to operate at higher altitudes for more persistence and permit us to fly at 

very high speeds to strike fleeting targets rapidly and accurately. As closing the 

‘‘sensor to shooter’’ loop has enhanced our ability to detect and fire upon a foe, 

closing the ‘‘shooter to target’’ loop with high-speed weapons will further degrade the ability of any foe to act against us. This might be a cruise missile 

able to accurately reach targets 1,000 miles away within mere minutes, or a supersonic-cruising UCAV dispensing advanced penetrating smart munitions. This 

same technology may allow us to use an airplane-like operational model to reduce the cost of launching spacecraft into Earth orbit and provide unprecedented access to the space environment. 

2. Aeronautics will continue to play a key role in the development of space technology for both the Air Force and NASA. Space vehicles are subject to significant aerodynamic forces during launch and reentry. In the modern era, air and 

space vehicles are interdependent, not independent. Each is critically dependent 

upon a robust understanding of the other. This is an area for continuing aeronautics research, and the general topic of flow over reentering surfaces will be 

of great importance in the development of future manned and unmanned spacecraft, including NASA’s planned return to the Moon and visits to Mars. In fact, 

at this very moment, engineers from NASA’s Langley Research Center are 

working with an Air Force team to test a heat shield for the Mars Science Laboratory in the Air Force’s Hypervelocity Wind Tunnel in White Oak, Maryland, 

just a few miles north of Washington, D.C. In the fall, this same NASA-Air 

Force team will begin testing designs for NASA’s manned Crew Return Vehicle, 

the craft that will bring astronauts home from the next series of lunar missions. 

3. Fuel costs and availability, as well as environmental and operational concerns, will also drive another important aviation research push: greater fuel efficiency and use of non-traditional energy sources. To further increase efficiency 

and improve performance, the tremendous advances in material science and 

computers will enable us to build and fly aircraft that can change their shapes 

in flight. 

In each of these areas, engineers at NASA and the USAF are bringing their 

unique capabilities, resources, and mission perspectives to the challenges at hand, 

for the good of our Nation. These cooperative efforts span the range from formal, 

executive-level committees to informal technical exchanges between individual researchers; and cut across programs, projects, personnel, test facilities, and infrastructure. 

Three principal mechanisms describe the nature of Air Force and NASA cooperation: 

• Strategic Partnerships are defined as cooperative arrangements where each organization shares program goals at the highest level consistent with national 

policy. High-level, long-term agreements are currently in place ensuring that 

Air Force’s and NASA’s unique capabilities are closely coordinated. This close 

coordination of strategic goals and objectives supports long-term mission planning, provides a significant reduction in potential duplication of effort, and supports the potential identification of specific cooperative initiatives. 

• Cooperation and collaboration in areas of Mutual Technology Interest encompass 

scenarios where the agencies share common technology interests but not necessarily common programmatic end goals and are typically technology advancement oriented. In this type of cooperation, Air Force organizations and NASA 

leverage mutual interests in technology development to pool financial resources, 

add unique capabilities and/or expertise, and reduce risk by coordinating and 

sharing results from complementary RDT&E tasks and programs. 

• The third mechanism for cooperation is Transactional. Here one organization 

‘‘purchases’’ an expertise or resource from the other organization. In this scenario the providing agency does not necessarily have an interest in the activity 

being undertaken, only a specialized skill or resource, to include facilities, needed for that program. 

A comprehensive list of each of the areas of NASA and Air Force cooperation 

would fill volumes. I will however highlight just a few of the exciting topics we are 

working on together. 

42 

1. As mentioned above, both NASA and the Air Force have a strong interest 

in high-speed flight, into the so-called ‘‘hypersonics’’ regime of Mach 5 and 

above. For the Air Force, this is a field that will enable high-speed weapons and 

eventually better access to space; for NASA, hypersonics is important for the 

design of reentry craft, as well as launch and eventual civil applications. A key 

flight test vehicle that will answer many of our questions regarding hypersonic 

flight is the Air Force’s X–51, and we are drawing on NASA expertise to make 

this program a success. NASA has already flown its own hypersonic craft, the 

X–43A, which set a record for Mach 10 airplane flight in November 2004. But 

whereas the Air Force’s X–51 would have application primarily to weapons systems, the X–43A was a test of a civilian aircraft configuration, fitting well with 

NASA’s mission. Drawing on knowledge that they gained in designing and flying the hypersonic X–43 aircraft, NASA has provided important and valued support to the X–51 program. Personnel from NASA’s Langley Research Center 

have played a principal role in the X–51 design process, including propulsion, 

aerodynamics, and wind tunnel tests. In fact, because of the unavailability of 

Air Force facilities, the Langley Research Center has stepped in as the lead X– 

51 engine test site and has worked tirelessly since last November to ready one 

of their wind tunnels for that purpose. 

2. NASA is also helping the Air Force with FRESH–FX, an experimental program on the fundamental physics of hypersonic flight. This activity will launch 

low-cost experiments on sounding rockets under joint funding with the Australian government. The product of this effort will be an ‘‘experimental flight 

laboratory’’ for the evaluation of numerous high-speed flight phenomena and 

aerospace systems technologies. The scope of this program will include the examination of basic phenomena deemed critical to the eventual development of 

hypersonic technologies; for example, chemical kinetics and combustion in 

airbreathing propulsion, aerodynamics, physics of surface flows and shock 

waves, high temperature effects, integrated adaptive guidance and control systems, sensors, materials and structures, and new instrumentation. An extensive 

NASA team reaching across five NASA Centers will provide technical guidance, 

computational support, and experimental validation and consultation. Our 

NASA partners will perform computational analysis and experimental validation, and will execute both aerodynamic and propulsion tests at NASA Langley, 

as they are doing now for X–51. Last, NASA personnel from Dryden and Wallops Island will support the flight activities with systems integration and 

launch operations. 

3. Some of our collaborations are occurring in lower-speed regimes, but are no 

less exciting. One such effort is the Morphing Wing program, exploring airplanes that can change their shapes in flight to perform better over a wide 

range of mission objectives. Success in this area may one day produce a single 

aircraft capable of conducting attack, reconnaissance, and perhaps other types 

of missions. Rudimentary examples of morphing technology are flying today, including variable-sweep wings of the Navy’s F–14 fighter and B–1B bomber, as 

well as the flaps located on the trailing edge of nearly all military and civilian 

aircraft wings. Compared to these current examples, future applications of this 

technology will seem light-years ahead, using so-called smart materials and advanced actuators to produce large-scale changes in shape and wing function. An 

airplane thus equipped could extend its wings for slow, loitering flight, then fold 

them up and reshape them for enhanced maneuverability and speed. The military applications are obvious, but much of the expertise to accomplish this resides with the engineers at NASA. And the results may eventually lead to better civilian aircraft as well. 

4. A closely-related program in Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) technology is also 

bringing engineers from NASA and the Air Force together in a multidisciplinary 

technology that integrates aerodynamics, controls, and structures to maximize 

aircraft performance. This concept is actually a throwback to the very first airplane: rather than use ailerons or flaps to maneuver their Kitty Hawk Flyer, 

the Wright Brothers’ employed twist or ‘‘warping’’ of the wingtips to control its 

motion. Like that first Wright Brothers’ plane, the wings of today’s high-speed 

aircraft also warp or twist at very high speeds. But unlike the Wright Brothers’ 

plane, this high-speed warping is not deliberate, and usually has negative effects. The Air Force, in cooperation with NASA Dryden Flight Research Center 

and the Boeing Phantom Works, is studying a ‘‘wing warping’’ approach to control this twisting for a net benefit. Once this technology is transitioned to operational aircraft, it promises to significantly improve the high-speed roll maneuverability of the aircraft by actively controlling the wing shape. 

43 

These programs and more demonstrate the value of synergy between the U.S. Air 

Force and our colleagues at NASA. Today we are also working with NASA to apply 

airplane concepts that they developed for scientific missions, specifically long duration atmospheric sampling, to give us long-loitering high-altitude reconnaissance. 

Because of our keen interest in reducing fuel expenses and reliance on foreign fuel 

supplies, the Air Force is working with NASA to identify entirely new shapes for 

airplanes that will be more energy efficient. The result of these activities will be 

concepts for more fuel-efficient airplanes that will make for better long-haul airlines 

or long-range bombers. Concern about aircraft maintenance and combat readiness 

is leading to joint activities in sustainment, inspection, and repair. We are also 

working together across the board on the exploration of new materials for both military and commercial aircraft and spacecraft. Yet another important success story is 

that NASA and the Air Force are now working closely to coordinate our wind tunnel 

facilities. We want to prevent duplication but be certain that the Nation’s aerodynamic testing needs are properly served. 

Finally, I offer some observations regarding NASA’s renewed commitment to 

inter-agency cooperation. Put simply, the Department of Defense, and the Air Force 

in particular, could not have a better partner than the present NASA leadership. 

When Administrator Michael Griffin arrived at NASA, he made it very clear that 

cooperation and interaction with the Department of Defense would be a high priority, and he has honored this commitment. Dr. Griffin and the Associate Administrator for Aeronautics, Dr. Lisa Porter, have been extremely enthusiastic about 

teaming with us and have built a strong working relationship. From the Air Force’s 

view, Dr. Porter is rebuilding and revitalizing an aeronautics program at NASA that 

had sadly declined over many years. Their efforts are logically conceived and intelligently implemented, doing the sorts of things that NASA should be doing while 

recapturing the spark of excitement on the frontiers of aeronautics. Dr. Porter has 

been receptive toward including Department of Defense mission goals among the 

systems applications that NASA’s foundational research efforts will enable. She has 

visited DOD facilities, included DOD experts in review panels, hosted DOD visitors 

to NASA, and encouraged NASA’s workforce to seek expanded ties to their colleagues in the Pentagon and the service laboratories. To this end, we are in the 

process right now of ratifying a Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. 

Air Force and NASA, to formalize and codify the close relationship that is already 

in place. 

As we begin this second century of flight, the United States Air Force sees NASA 

as a valued, indeed critical, partner. Where our mission areas are synergistic, we 

want to pursue logical connections. As we expand upon this special relationship, the 

Air Force appreciates the important differences between NASA’s mission and ours, 

as well as the special responsibilities that NASA has in preserving and continuing 

America’s leadership in aeronautics. Our goal is not to subsume NASA under the 

DOD, nor redirect NASA’s work to military-only activities. Rather, we seek mutual 

benefit and intelligent coordination to maximize the benefits of our Nation’s investments in aeronautics. Together, we are greater than our sum. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON TO

DR. ROY B. TORBERT

Question 1. I was struck by several references in your statement to student interest and involvement in space sciences research. Would you agree that an important 

reason to consider sustaining this sort of research at NASA is to help meet the 

growing crisis in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics education? 

Answer. I believe that this is a major collateral benefit of the investment we make 

in NASA science. The availability of real experiences for students is an educational 

asset like no other. 

Question 2. To what extent do you believe there are opportunities for cooperative 

research between NASA and NSF in the science disciplines with which you are familiar? 

Answer. There are may cooperative efforts that are continually undertaken at 

present. NASA and NSF have an arrangement that divides the responsibilities between them, that has worked very well, but they continue to collaborate where it 

makes sense. 

Question 3. In your written statement, you make reference to launch sites such 

as Poker Flats, run by the University of Alaska in Fairbanks, being threatened by 

cutbacks in small launch payloads. What kind of scientific research is represented 

by those payloads? Do they typically involve students and faculty in the experiments? 

44 

Answer. Poker Flat is the primary remote launch site for the sub-orbital rocket 

program that NASA manages out of Wallops Island (part of GSFC). It probably has 

the largest component of student research of any effort within NASA. Primarily they 

do upper atmospheric and ionospheric research. 

Question 4. The Space Sciences portion of NASA’s budget has steadily increased 

over the past fifteen years to now represent roughly 33 percent of NASA’s total 

budget. The FY 2007 request slows that growth rate to 1.5 percent for FY 2007 and 

1 percent per year after that. It appears from those facts that Space Science is not 

being ‘‘cut’’ but that the potential or previously-planned increase has been reduced. 

What do you believe the ideal ratio of space science funding should be for NASA 

in the future? 

Answer. It is correct that the science portion per se has seen an increase over the 

last 5 years, but it is also correct that the number and diversity of space science 

projects has also dramatically decreased in the last 5 years, as I make clear in my 

written testimony. The science community is reacting to the huge loss of projects 

that have been planned for a long time. This is the conundrum of increased costs 

that I discussed. I believe that NASA and the science committees must really address this dilemma. It will affect even more the financial viability of the Vision for 

Exploration. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON TO

DR. PETER W. VOORHEES

Question 1. What are some of the physical science disciplines or areas of research 

that have the highest potential for benefits on Earth? 

Answer. The physical science program contains research that spans the spectrum 

from applied to basic. Given the rigorous peer review to which the projects have 

been subjected, it is highly likely that these projects will have an impact on the scientific fields of which they are part. and hence provide great benefit to the Nation’s 

scientific and engineering enterprise. 

It is difficult to predict the impact of basic research. For example, NASA invested 

considerable resources aimed at understanding how variations in the surface tension of a liquid-vapor interface can lead to flow of the liquid. These projects lead 

to numerous advances in our fundamental understanding of surface tension driven 

flows. The technological impact of this basic research has recently become clear in 

the development of microchips, such as those used in DNA analysis. A leading approach to move the fluid through the channels on these chips is to use gradients 

in the liquid-vapor surface tension. The understanding of surface tension driven 

flows fostered by NASA funding has been used in the design of these chips. This 

example shows that basic microgravity research can have many unexpected benefits 

to problems of great concern here on Earth. Thus in assessing the potential impact 

of the physical sciences program one cannot neglect areas such as the fundamental 

physics effort with its focus on atomic clocks and low temperature physics. 

Many of the programs in the physical sciences directly impact issues of concern 

here on Earth. The need to generate and use energy efficiently will be important 

in sustaining the economic growth that we have seen in the past. Many of the areas 

funded by NASA impact this effort. For example, microgravity experiments can be 

used to quantify the chemical kinetics of combustion. This information is critical in 

predicting the behavior of combustion engines used in automobiles and aircraft. New 

materials are needed to reduce the weight of vehicles and to increase the operating 

temperature of turbines that are used for propulsion and energy generation. NASA’s 

work on phase formation, solidification, and computational materials science will all 

contribute to this effort. Multiphase flow and boiling are important in transferring 

heat from one region to another. NASA’s work on multiphase flow will provide new 

understanding of these complex phenomena. Other areas where physical sciences research can impact life on Earth is the study of the granular flows that are central 

to many chemical processes on Earth. the wetting and spreading of fluids on surfaces that are so prevalent in many industrial processes, and understanding the 

process by which soot is produced by jet and diesel engines. 

Question 2. Your prepared statement makes reference to research in flame propagation and fire detection and suppression. You describe the value of this research 

for long-duration space flight. What about the value of this research right here on 

Earth? Can it help in controlling or preventing such things as forest fires and fires 

in remote locations? 

Answer.The heat generated by combustion on the Earth leads to strong convection. In a microgravity environment this convection is largely absent. Since this important perturbing effect is not present in microgravity, it is possible to study comVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:07 Jun 10, 2011 Jkt 066784 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\66784.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
45 

bustion phenomena in fundamentally new ways. The understanding that will be developed in such studies will unquestionably be central to our ability to detect and 

control fires on Earth. 

Question 3. In what ways do you believe research in the physical sciences can enhance U.S. innovation and competitiveness? 

Answer. As has been noted in the ‘‘American Competitiveness Initiative’’ by the 

Domestic Policy Council of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, innovation 

and competitiveness are fostered by a robust research program in the physical and 

engineering sciences, support for large scale facilities in which unique measurements can be made, and training the next generation of scientists and engineers. 

The physical sciences program at NASA contributes to all these goals. NASA research in the physical sciences impacts both current and future technologies. As 

mentioned above a future technology, microchips for bio and chemical assays, has 

been impacted by NASA’s basic research on surface-tension driven flows. Research 

sponsored by NASA’s physical sciences program has also impacted current technologies by drastically reducing the cost of producing liquid-phase sintered cutting 

tools, a $1.8 billion industry. The International Space Station (ISS) has the potential 

to be a large-scale research facility, similar to the Nation’s accelerators and 

synchrotrons. Assuming that the necessary facilities, crew time and transport to and 

from the ISS are available, the ISS could function as a facility that eliminates the 

influence of gravity on a wide range of physical processes. As has been outlined in 

many National Research Council studies, this will allow a host of unique experiments to be performed from ultra sensitive atomic clocks to pattern formation during crystal growth. The vast majority of the grants supported by the Physical 

Sciences Division at NASA were given to universities. Thus, prior to the budget cuts 

in the Physical Sciences program, it supported approximately 1,700 graduate and 

undergraduate students. This support not only trained the next generation of scientists and engineers that are needed for the Nation to remain competitive, but 

through exposing undergraduates to research encouraged them to pursue careers in 

science and engineering. 

Æ