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

40–598PS 2008

NASA’S FISCAL YEAR 2009

BUDGET REQUEST

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 13, 2008

Serial No. 110–75

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona

JERRY MCNERNEY, California

LAURA RICHARDSON, California

PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,

Wisconsin

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

JO BONNER, Alabama

TOM FEENEY, Florida

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia

(III)

C O N T E N T S

February 13, 2008

Page

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

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

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Chairman, Committee on Science

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 14

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 16

Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Minority Ranking Member,

Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ......... 18

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 19

Statement by Representative Mark Udall, Chairman, Subcommittee on Space

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

Representatives .................................................................................................... 20

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 22

Statement by Representative Tom Feeney, Minority Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 23

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

Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member, Committee

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

Prepared Statement by Representative Nick Lampson, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 25

Prepared Statement by Representative Laura Richardson, Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ................. 26

Prepared Statement by Representative Harry E. Mitchell, Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ................. 26

Witness:

Dr. Michael D. Griffin, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 27

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 31

Discussion

Aeronautics Funding ............................................................................................ 44

Climate Research ................................................................................................. 45

The Future of Human Space Flight ................................................................... 46

Russian Transportation ....................................................................................... 47

Impact of Funding Shortfalls on ISS Program .................................................. 48

Chinese Lunar Plans ........................................................................................... 49

The Alpha Magnetics Spectrometer .................................................................... 50

Contingency Flights and the ISS ........................................................................ 52

The FY 2009 NASA Budget and Ares and Orion Test Flights ......................... 53

Spending, Mars and Near-Earth Objects ........................................................... 54

Shuttle Replacement Funding and Schedule ..................................................... 57

Russia and the Gap .............................................................................................. 58

Water Issues ......................................................................................................... 59

The NAOMS Project ............................................................................................ 60

Page

IV

Mars Science Laboratory ..................................................................................... 61

Potential Use of Chinese Launch Capabilities .................................................. 62

Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. Michael D. Griffin, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) ............................................................................................ 66

Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record

NASA Report to Committees on Appropriations regarding Alpha Magnetic

Spectrometer (AMS), February 2008 .................................................................. 90

NASA Material for the Record: Assessment of Chinese Capabilities to Mount

a Human Lunar Mission ..................................................................................... 107

(1)

NASA’S FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET REQUEST

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2008

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in Room

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

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

2

3

HEARING CHARTER

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NASA’s Fiscal Year 2009

Budget Request

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2008

10:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M.

2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

Purpose

On Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 10:00am, the Committee on Science and

Technology will hold a hearing on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request and NASA’s proposed Fiscal Year

2008 Operating Plan.

Witness:

Dr. Michael D. Griffin, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Overview

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which was established in 1958, is the Nation’s primary civil space and aeronautics R&D agency. The

current civil service workforce consists of approximately 18,400 employees, of which

approximately 16,310 are full-time, permanent civil servants. NASA has ten field

Centers, including the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) FFRDC. Although there

have been discussions in the past regarding the future disposition of NASA’s Centers (e.g., potential closure or privatization of one or more Centers), NASA Administrator Griffin has stated his intention to maintain ‘‘ten healthy Centers.’’ In October

2007, NASA assigned work for the Exploration initiative’s Constellation Program to

each of the ten NASA Centers.

NASA conducts research and development activities in a wide range of disciplines

including aeronautics, astrophysics, heliophysics, planetary science, Earth science

and applications, microgravity research, and long-term technology development.

NASA also operates a fleet of three Space Shuttles and is assembling and operating

the International Space Station (ISS). NASA also maintains a space communications network that supports both NASA missions and other federal agency requirements. Almost 90 percent of NASA’s budget is for contracted work. In addition, a

number of NASA’s scientific and human space flight activities involve collaboration

with international participants.

In January 2004, President Bush announced his ‘‘Vision for U.S. Space Exploration’’ (VSE). According to the President, the United States is to do the following:

• ‘‘Implement a sustained and affordable human and robotic program to explore

the solar system and beyond;

• Extend human presence across the solar system, starting with a human return

to the Moon by the year 2020, in preparation for human exploration of Mars

and other destinations;

• Develop the innovative technologies, knowledge, and infrastructures both to explore and support decisions about the destinations for human exploration; and

• Promote international and commercial participation in exploration to further

U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests.’’

With respect to the Space Shuttle, the President’s policy stated that NASA should:

• ‘‘Focus use of the Space Shuttle to complete assembly of the International

Space Station; and

• Retire the Space Shuttle as soon as assembly of the International Space Station is completed, planned for the end of this decade.’’

4

With respect to development of a new human transportation system, the President’s policy states that the U.S. shall:

• ‘‘Develop a new crew exploration vehicle to provide crew transportation for

missions beyond low Earth orbit;

• Conduct the initial test flight before the end of this decade [i.e., before end of

2010] in order to provide an operational capability to support human exploration missions no later than 2014.’’

Budgetary Information

NASA’s proposed budget for FY 2009 is $17.6 billion, an increase of 1.8 percent

over the FY 2008 President’s request for NASA and an increase of 2.9 percent over the FY08 appropriation for NASA, when the recession of $192.5 million contained

in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2008 [P.L. 110–161] is added. Attachment 1 summarizes the FY09 budget request and its five-year funding plan. It

should be noted that NASA’s budget has been restructured from three main appropriations accounts—Science, Aeronautics, and Exploration; Exploration Capabilities;

and Inspector General—to seven accounts—Science; Aeronautics; Exploration; Space

Operations; Education; Cross Agency Support; and Inspector General—as directed

in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY08. As part of the budget restructuring, NASA shifted from a full-cost budget, in which each project budget included

overhead costs, to a direct cost budget. All overhead budget estimates are now consolidated into the Cross Agency Support budget line. NASA has stated that maintaining a full cost budget with seven appropriations accounts would be overly complex and inefficient. The direct cost budget shows program budget estimates that

are based entirely on program content. Individual project managers continue to operate in a full-cost environment, including management of overhead costs.

Attachment 2 compares the NASA budget plan that accompanied the President’s

Vision initiative with the actual funds requested (or planned to be requested per the

FY09 budget request’s five-year plan) by the President for the years FY06–FY13.

As can be seen, the President’s requests have been significantly less (i.e., typically

on the order of a half-billion dollars or more in the early years) than what was projected by the Administration as being needed to carry out the Exploration initiative

and NASA’s other core missions. The cumulative shortfall over that period is in excess of $4 billion.

The FY08 appropriation for NASA contained in the Consolidated Appropriation

Act of 2008 maintains the President’s FY08 request of $17.3 billion for NASA.

Under the terms of the Consolidated Appropriation, NASA is to submit to Congress

by March 15, 2008 an Operating Plan that reflects how the agency will allocate its

FY08 appropriation within the constraints of the Consolidated Appropriation. Administrator Griffin has been asked to discuss the FY08 Operating Plan at the hearing.

To put the FY09 budget request into context, NASA has been tasked with flying

the Shuttle safely until the end of the decade and then retiring the Shuttle fleet;

assembling, operating, and utilizing the International Space Station; completing the

development of a new Crew Exploration Vehicle/Crew Launch Vehicle by 2014; pursuing human exploration of the Moon no later than 2020; and conducting science

and aeronautics programs. The NASA Authorization Act of 2005, which was signed

into law in December 2005, authorized an FY08 funding level for NASA of $18.69

billion; the FY08 NASA budget request and appropriation was $17.3 billion, not including $192.5 million in rescissions as directed. The Committee intends to reauthorize NASA this year.

With respect to NASA’s contract management practices, NASA remains on GAO’s

‘‘high risk’’ list for its contract management practices. With respect to its financial

management, an independent audit for FY07 was unable to provide ‘‘an opinion on

the consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 2007.’’ Although NASA took several actions to comply with the Federal Financial Improvement Act of 1996, the

audit found that the agency’s financial management systems ‘‘are not substantially

compliant’’ with the Act. NASA will need to address other ‘‘material weaknesses’’

identified in the audit.

Program Areas

Space Science

The President’s FY09 budget requests $3.1 billion in direct program dollars (previous budget requests were prepared in full cost accounting and included overhead

costs) to fund NASA’s space science programs, including Heliophysics, which seeks

to understand the Sun and how it affects the Earth and the solar system; Planetary

5

Science, which seeks to answer questions about the origin and evolution of the solar

system and the prospects for life beyond Earth; and Astrophysics, which seeks answers to questions about the origin, structure, evolution and future of the universe

and to search for Earth-like planets. The proposed budget represents an effective

decrease of $264.7 million in direct program dollars from the FY08 appropriation.

Most of that decrease is attributed to a transfer of the management and budget for

ground based communications systems—Deep Space Mission Systems and Near

Earth Networks programs—from the Heliophysics Division to the Space Operations

Mission Directorate, which is implementing a plan to consolidate all of NASA’s communications activities into its Space and Flight Support Program.

Space Science topics and issues related to the FY09 budget request include the

following:

Programmatic Balance and New Initiatives—The FY09 budget request provides increases (as compared to the FY08 budget appropriation) for research and

analysis (R&A) programs, which fund grants to analyze science mission data and

are an important means of training future space scientists and engineers. R&A accounts had been cut in the recent years, a trend that threatened the health of space

science disciplines. The FY09 request increases funding for small mission projects

(balloons, airborne platforms, and small space missions) that help train young scientists and engineers and provide frequent opportunities for science return. The

President’s FY09 budget initiates work on a flagship planetary science mission to

the Outer Planets (Jupiter’s moon Europa, and Saturn’s moon Titan are two possible destinations) and a joint mission with DOE, Joint Dark Energy Mission

(JDEM), to investigate dark energy in the universe. The FY09 budget includes plans

to begin studies on a ‘‘cost constrained Solar Probe mission’’ that would improve our

understanding of the solar wind. It also includes funding to explore technical approaches for a medium-class mission to detect and characterize exoplanets that

would be initiated in FY10. This effort is intended to replace the Space

Interferometry Mission (SIM) that was previously reduced to a technology development activity by NASA, a decision reversed by the Omnibus appropriations act,

which included an explanatory statement that said ‘‘With the funds proposed, NASA

is to begin the development phase of the [SIM] program. . .’’ NASA also includes

$67.3 million in support of a Mars Sample Return mission to take place in 2018 and

2020. Most of the proposed new missions have been identified as priorities in National Research Council reports. NASA has indicated that it will phase these initiatives to fit within the budget, however the bulk of development costs will occur toward the middle of the next decade, which is beyond the horizon of the FY09 budget

and its five-year run-out. In addition, the new initiatives are not supported by a new

infusion of funding into the overall science account; new initiatives in Earth and

space science are paid for by cutting back funding in other science areas.

Mars Exploration—The FY09 budget request reduces the programmatic content in

the Mars Exploration budget by $156.5 million from the FY08 appropriation. The

FY09 decrease results from moving funds that were allocated to a 2011 Mars Scout

mission [now scheduled for 2013] to help fund new initiatives in the Earth sciences

program. The President’s FY09 request decreases the Mars Exploration budget by

$918 million, in direct dollars, for FY09 through FY12. NASA’s plans for Mars Exploration include the launch of a Mars Science Laboratory in 2009, a Mars Scout

mission in 2013 and a 2016 mission that has yet to be defined.

After 2013, NASA plans to focus the program on developing a Mars Sample Return mission, which has been a high priority in National Research Council (NRC)

reports. The President’s FY09 budget request does not include funds to initiate a

Mars Sample Return. According to NASA officials, a Mars Sample Return mission

would be launched in two parts, in 2018 and 2020, and would cost in the range of

$4 billion dollars, some fraction of which NASA anticipates to be funded by international partner(s). NASA plans to conduct architecture studies over the next year

and is discussing potential international collaboration on a sample return mission.

A National Research Council report released in late 2007, Grading NASA’s Solar

System Exploration Program: A Midtern Review, raised several concerns regarding

a future Mars Sample Return mission including the need for investment in a technology development program to reduce the major engineering risks associated with

a Mars Sample Return mission. These engineering challenges are likely to require

long lead times to ensure the technology is mature in preparation for a mission’s

development phase. A topic that may be raised at the hearing is what the potential

shift in NASA’s Mars Exploration program is and how the science and engineering

community is involved in this change in focus.

6

Ambitious Program Containing Several Major New Initiatives—The President’s FY09 budget requests funds for several new space science initiatives, many

of which have estimated budgets over $500 million and are anticipated to launch

with international or interagency collaboration:

Outer planets mission—NASA estimated level of $2 billion for U.S. portion

New Frontiers mission—NASA estimated level of $840 million

Joint Dark Energy mission—NASA estimated level of $600 million for NASA

Exoplanet mission—NASA estimated level of $600 million for NASA

Solar Probe mission—NASA estimated level of $750 million

Large, complex missions have the potential to encounter technical challenges, and

there are a number of past examples of such missions that have encountered similar

instances of cost growth and schedule delays. Members may wish to ask NASA for

specific details on its approach to successfully completing these initiatives within a

budget limited to inflationary growth.

Technology Development—Recent NRC reports recommend that NASA invest in

technology development outside of the mission project lines. One NRC report states,

‘‘The committee is concerned because NASA has not invested in required technology

and shows little indication of reversing this trend. If this trend is not reversed immediately, the number and types of missions that the agency will be able to undertake

in the future will be severely reduced.’’ Inadequate technology development has been

identified as a major factor in mission cost growth. The President’s FY09 budget request cuts technology development program lines and continues the trend noted by

the NRC. For example, the FY09 budget virtually cancels a flight technology validation program and cuts programmatic content for technology development in the

planetary sciences by $65.7 million over the FY09–FY12 period. NASA officials told

Committee staff that technology development will occur within the mission budget

lines as needed. Members may wish to probe the implications of the proposed cuts

to NASA’s technology development programs on NASA’s ability to pursue several

new missions and to maintain schedule and cost discipline in executing them.

Congressional Direction—The President’s FY09 budget request supports Congressional direction for NASA to initiate an outer planets mission and a Joint Dark

Energy Mission, but departs from Congressional direction for NASA to begin development of the Space Interferometry Mission. NASA’s plan for SIM is to consider its

technical approach as one of several candidates that will compete for an exoplanet

mission. The FY08 consolidated appropriation provides full funding and support for

the Mars Exploration Program, while the FY09 budget request cuts the program

over the FY09–FY12 period. The FY08 appropriation directs NASA to request a new

start for a Solar Probe mission in FY09, however the FY09 budget requests no funds

in FY09 and only $3.4 million in FY10 for initial concept work on a Solar Probe

mission that it plans to launch by 2015. The explanatory text accompanying the

FY08 appropriation supports the Arecibo Observatory and directs NASA to provide

additional funding for Arecibo. NASA officials told Committee staff that the FY09

budget does not include any NASA funds or plans for Arecibo and that NASA did

not need Arecibo. The explanatory text accompanying the FY08 appropriation for

NASA notes Congressional support for the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) experiment, which was intended to fly on the Shuttle for attachment to the ISS, and

directed NASA to prepare a report, within 30 days, on options for flying AMS.

NASA, to date, has not provided Congress with the report.

Earth Science

The President’s budget for FY09 requests $1.4 billion in direct dollars for Earth

science research, applications, Earth observing missions, education and outreach,

and technology development. The proposed FY09 Earth science budget represents an

increase of approximately $87.2 million over the FY08 budget appropriation, as compared in direct dollars. The FY09 budget requests $910 million over the FY09–FY13

period to execute five new missions based on recommendations in the National Research Council’s Earth sciences decadal survey. $570 million is made available from

cuts to the science programs and the rest is obtained restructuring other Earth

Science activities. The first two missions are identified as the Soil Moisture ActivePassive (SMAP) and ICESat-II; the additional three will be identified by the end

of 2008, one of which will be a technology demonstration mission in the $100–$200

million range. NASA’s Earth science budget also requests funds to continue several

missions currently under development, including the Landsat Data Continuity Mission, the Glory mission, the NPOESS Preparatory Project (NPP), the Global PrecipiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:33 Aug 08, 2008 Jkt 040598 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL08\021308\40598 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
7

tation Measurement mission (GPM), Aquarius, and the Orbiting Carbon Observatory.

The proposed FY09 budget requests increases to the Earth science research and

analysis (R&A) accounts reversing a trend of cuts and flat funding in previous budget requests. The R&A accounts fund grants for fundamental research, technology development, training of graduate students, theory research, and data analysis, in essence the intellectual underpinning for the program.

Earth Science topics and issues related to the FY09 budget request include the

following:

Research to Operations—The 2005 NASA Authorization Act directs NASA to prepare a report with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

each year, on how Earth science programs will be coordinated in the following year.

The Act also directs NASA to provide transition plans for ‘‘existing and future Earth

observing systems found to have potential operational capabilities.’’ The first plan,

which was delivered to Congress in June 2007, identified forums that have been established to coordinate NASA and NOAA Earth science programs. Over the last

year, NASA and NOAA have coordinated plans to address climate measurements

that were eliminated in the restructuring of the NPOESS program and in planning

for the GOES–R system, among other activities. The decisions have not come easily

and have involved consultation with OSTP and OMB and input from the National

Research Council. Even with this process, decisions have only recently been made

to restore climate instruments to the NPOESS Preparatory Project (NPP). NASA

has not yet manifested the Total Solar Irradiance Sensor (TSIS) to a satellite platform, however an announcement is expected in March 2008. Within the next few

years, several Earth science missions will be launched and NASA will begin to formulate new missions in response to the Earth science decadal survey; planning for

research to operations will be an important consideration. It is not clear whether

or not the FY09 request incorporates a budget for planning and transitioning research to operations.

Earth Science Applications—The National Research Council’s Earth sciences

decadal survey recommended that ‘‘Socioeconomic factors should be considered in the

planning and implementation of Earth observation missions and in developing an

Earth knowledge and information system.’’ The FY08 Consolidated Appropriation provided $15 million in additional funds for NASA’s Applied Sciences program,

which applies the research results of NASA’s Earth science missions to decisionmaking tools in the areas of climate, ecosystems, agriculture, water, disaster management and other areas that benefit society. Members may wish to ask whether

NASA plans any changes to the Applied Sciences program in keeping with the emphasis on the societal benefits of Earth science research that was discussed in the

decadal survey. Members may wish to ask more specifically whether NASA’s Applied Sciences programs include, or plan to include, activities that would help State,

local, private, and federal bodies adapt to and mitigate the impacts of climate

change discussed in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments.

Aeronautics Research

The President’s FY09 budget requests $446.5 million for Aeronautics Research,

which includes aviation safety, airspace systems, fundamental aeronautics, and aeronautics test program. NASA states that its Aeronautics Research is now aligned

with the National Aeronautics R&D Policy and the National Plan for Aeronautics

R&D and Related Infrastructure, which were developed by the Administration over

the past two years. From a direct cost perspective, the FY09 budget for Aeronautics

represents an effective $65.2 million decrease from the FY08 appropriation. After

FY09, the NASA Aeronautics funding would essentially stay level through FY13,

thus continuing to decline in purchasing power. As a point of comparison, NASA

Aeronautics funding was about $1.85 billion (2006 dollars) in 1994—the current

budget request is thus only about 24 percent of that level.

The aeronautics community relies upon NASA for aeronautical research and development. Beginning in late 2005, NASA began restructuring its aeronautics program to move away from a program that included technology demonstration projects

and R&D that led to greater technology maturity towards a program focused on

more fundamental research. These changes in NASA’s Aeronautics program occur

at a time when the Next Generation Air Transportation System R&D initiative

known as NextGen is ramping up. NextGen is intended to transform the existing

air traffic control system to accommodate projected growth in air passenger and

cargo rates over the next decade. As part of this modernization, NextGen aims to

develop a more efficient; and more environmentally friendly national air transporVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:33 Aug 08, 2008 Jkt 040598 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL08\021308\40598 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
8

tation system, while maintaining safety. The development of NextGen is being overseen by the Joint Planning and Development Office (JDPO), a joint initiative of the

Department of Transportation, NASA, Commerce, Defense Homeland Security, and

the White House OSTP. FAA has traditionally relied on NASA for a significant portion of the R&D related to air traffic management as well as research to help address substantial noise, emissions, efficiency, performance, and safety challenges

that are required to ensure vehicles can support the NextGen vision.

Aeronautics topics and issues related to the FY09 budget request include the following:

Potential ‘‘Technology Gap’’ for NextGen—NASA’s redirection of its aeronautics

research priorities raised Congressional concern last year regarding the possibility

of a significant ‘‘technology gap’’ in a number of key NextGen technology areas.

While some progress has been made in the past year as a result of JDPO’s completion of concept of operations, planning and architecture documents (and the first

ever plan for research and development, including agency roles and responsibilities),

much work remains to be done in adequately planning, resourcing, and scheduling

research activities. The $25 million reduction in NASA’s budget from FY08 to FY09

for Airspace Systems—which funds the agency’s air traffic management work in

support of NextGen—does not generate confidence in NASA’s ability to meet its future JDPO responsibilities and specifically in affecting the ‘‘technology gap’’ in an

urgent manner.

International Space Station

The President’s FY09 NASA budget requests $2.06 billion for the International

Space Station (ISS) program for on-orbit assembly, launch processing activities, operations and continuation of research payload and experiment deliveries to orbit.

The FY09 budget funds the delivery and operation of the habitability modifications

to allow an increase in ISS crew size to six. Up to this point, the ISS was limited

to three crew members, thus limiting the amount of research that could be performed as assembly and operational responsibilities required considerable attention.

NASA’s plan to complete the ISS will meet the commitment to the International

Partners. In addition, a key challenge facing the ISS Program will be the need to

purchase alternate cargo and crew transportation services after the Shuttle is retired, which is scheduled for 2010. NASA’s FY09 budget request includes $2.6 billion for the purchase of cargo transportation services over five years, $600 million of

which is committed to purchases of crew transportation from Russia through FY11.

From a direct cost perspective, the proposed FY09 budget represents an effective increase of $247 million from that appropriated in FY08.

ISS topics and issues related to the FY09 budget request include the following:

ISS Cargo and Crew Transportation Services In the Post-Shuttle Era—The

Commercial Crew and Cargo Program is NASA’s effort to foster the development of

a cost-effective commercial space transportation capability for the post-Shuttle Era.

This capability will initially be utilized to carry cargo to the ISS; future options

could involve developing a crew transportation capability. The development of the

commercial cargo/crew transportation capability is being funded in the Constellation

budget. Once the services have been demonstrated, the operational responsibility for

the program will move to the ISS program within the Space Operations Missions

Directorate.

As the Space Shuttle nears retirement, NASA’s stated preferred solution for ISS

crew and cargo delivery and return requirements is to use commercial services provided by space transportation companies. NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) project is intended to facilitate U.S. private industry’s development of cargo and crew space transportation capabilities with the goal of demonstrating reliable, cost effective access to low Earth orbit. NASA had initially selected two partners for its COTS project under Space Act Agreements. One partner

failed to meet NASA’s milestones and NASA terminated the Agreement. With the

recent GAO decision rejecting a challenge by the terminated partner to NASA’s plans to utilize a Space Act Agreement rather than a government contract, NASA

is now working toward choosing one or more additional funded partner(s), and a decision is expected in February 2008. If NASA’s preferred solution of using commercial services is not attainable, NASA will need to rely on alternatives such as continued purchases of Russian Progress vehicles, European Automated Transfer Vehicles

(ATV), or Japanese H–II Transfer Vehicles (HTV). Those alternatives, however,

would require some time to procure. Furthermore, purchases of Russian capabilities

beyond 2011 will require negotiations to address requirements of the Iran, North

Korea and Syria Non-Proliferation Act (INKSNA). A Request for Proposals (RFP)

will be sent out for Phase 2 of the COTS program in April 2008 with a contract

9

award by the end of the year. An issue that could be raised at the hearing is when

the State Department would need to initiate negotiations to ensure NASA does not

face a shortfall in cargo transportation capability—should it be forced to purchase

such capabilities from Russia.

Establishing ISS Program Service Life—NASA indicates that while the FY09

budget run out does not presently allocate funds for operating ISS beyond 2016, it

is not taking any action to preclude it. Likewise, out year projections do not include

costs to retire and decommission ISS. An issue that could be addressed at the hearing is what impact a possible U.S. departure would have on the ISS international

partners.

International Space Station Research—The ISS is intended to serve as an onorbit facility where R&D in support of both human exploration and non-exploration

purposes and other exploration technologies is to be conducted. However, the ISS

research budget, which is book-kept in the Exploration Systems (ESMD) budget has

been significantly cut back in recent years to help fund the Crew Exploration Vehicle/Crew Launch Vehicle and for other purposes.

Space Shuttle

The President’s FY09 budget requests $2.98 billion to operate and maintain

NASA’s three Space Shuttles, and to conduct five ISS assembly flights in FY09. Assembly flights include the launch of the last major power element for the ISS and

other significant infrastructure and international partner hardware. From a direct

cost perspective, the proposed budget represents an effective decrease of $285 million from that appropriated in FY08.

Space Shuttle topics and issues related to the FY09 budget request include the

following:

Maintaining the flight schedule—NASA plans to complete six Shuttle flights in

FY08—five for ISS assembly and one Hubble Space Telescope servicing mission. In

FY09, NASA plans to fly five additional missions. This tempo has not been achieved

since the Columbia accident. So while NASA should be commended for not allowing

schedule pressures to detract from its safety focus, the frequent delays encountered

since return to flight after the Columbia tragedy pose daunting challenges to the

agency’s flight manifest and its plan to conduct all missions in the window available.

Fly-out of Planned Shuttle Missions—NASA’s Shuttle manifest shows two logistics flights before the Space Shuttle is retired by the projected September 2010 date.

However, the Administration has not committed to completing these two so-called

‘‘contingency’’ flights although the funding necessary to accomplish them is included—assuming the flights are carried out by October 2010. Furthermore, as previously indicated, the window for all Shuttle flights grows smaller when missions

are delayed and may have an impact on whether these two logistics missions can

be flown. These two missions will carry spares for the ISS that only the Space Shuttle can accommodate, and the program considers the flights as necessary rather

than ‘‘nice-to-have.’’ Provision of such spares is paramount to maintaining the extended health of the ISS.

Space Shuttle Program Transition and Retirement—There will be a significant level of effort required for program shutdown after the Shuttle’s retirement in

FY10. NASA’s FY09 budget request’s five-year plan does not include funds or a plan

to address Space Shuttle program transition and retirement past FY10 even though

NASA acknowledges that there will be costs associated with the shutdown. While

NASA indicated that concrete plans and budgets would be included in the FY09 request, this did not materialize. NASA recently told the Committee that initial cost

estimates for transition that reached into the billions of dollars are still being refined and that the agency’s present goal is to bring this down to less than $500 million. Currently, NASA estimates the cost at approximately $1.2 billion. According

to NASA, attainment of this level of reduction is dependent on decisions to be made

on the state in which the orbiters will be preserved and what Space Shuttle buildings and facilities can be effectively used by the Constellation Program or others.

In addition, a drastic ‘‘step function’’ may occur in the number of Civil Service Full

Time Equivalents (FTEs) and the number of contractor personnel supporting the

Space Shuttle. NASA is currently refining its schedule for moving personnel off of

the Space Shuttle. The most recent estimates for personnel remaining on the Shuttle program by year are listed below:

10

Exploration Initiative

The President’s proposal for NASA’s FY09 budget provides $3.50 billion for Exploration Systems to fund Constellation Systems, which includes the development,

demonstration, and deployment of the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) and

the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) as well as associated ground and in-orbit

infrastructure; and Advanced Capabilities, which includes human research to support ISS and future exploration; a lunar precursor robotic program; microgravity research; and technology development to support Orion and other exploration programs. From a direct cost perspective, the proposed FY09 budget represents an increase of $357.4 million from that appropriated in FY08. In addition, the President’s request for the Constellation program increases from that appropriated in FY08 by

$576.3 million.

Exploration topics and issues related to the FY09 budget request include the following:

CEV and CLV schedule and budget—The President’s Vision statement directed

NASA to have the CEV operational no later than 2014. The NASA Authorization

Act of 2005 directed the NASA Administrator ‘‘manage human space flight programs

to strive to achieve. . .launching the Crew Exploration Vehicle as close to 2010 as

possible’’ subject to the proviso that the Administrator shall ‘‘construct an architecture and implementation plan for NASA’s human exploration program that is not

critically dependent on the achievement of milestones by fixed dates.’’ NASA originally said that its budget plan would deliver an operational CEV in 2014. However,

in FY07, NASA concluded that ‘‘As a result of this analysis over the past two months,

the FY 2008 budget request does not support a 2014 initial operational capability,

but March 2015, even before the FY07 CR impact. . .’’ At last year’s budget hearing

before the Committee, the NASA Administrator said that while the reduction in

funding caused by the 2007 Continuing Resolution extended the operational date to

September of 2015, NASA terminated some lower priority activities to buy back

some schedule for the CEV. This returned NASA to the March of 2015 date. The

FY09 budget request funds activity levels that maintain NASA’s commitment to

reach initial capability for both Orion and Ares I by March 2015 and thus does not

permit acceleration of such operational capability. However, NASA states that while

it can only commit to the March of 2015 date, it will strive to improve upon that

milestone, to effectively reduce the gap in U.S. manned transportation capability

caused by the retirement of the Space Shuttle. Meeting this date will require timely

resolution of design issues that have surfaced, particularly in the Ares I program.

An October 2007 GAO report on Ares I found that ‘‘requirements instability,’’ ‘‘technology and hardware development knowledge gaps,’’ an ‘‘aggressive schedule,’’ and

‘‘projected funding shortfalls’’ represent significant challenges for the program. Although NASA states that threats to Orion and Ares I projects are being worked

through using a rigorous risk management process, an area of concern due to its

potential impact on NASA’s ability to maintain its scheduled operational date of

March of 2015 is the level of reserves through FY10. These are characterized by

NASA as minimal, less than eight percent. Another area of concern that could have

ramifications for weight and cost is whether Orion will be designed to make land

or water landings. A decision from NASA is expected by March of 2008.

Reduced funding of Exploration Technology Development—The Exploration

Technology Development Program (ETDP) provides new technologies that will enable NASA to conduct future human missions and reduce risk and life cycle cost.

ETDP investments reduce the risk of infusing new technologies into flight projects

by maturing them to the level of demonstration in a relevant environment. For example, one project is developing technologies for atmospheric management, environVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:33 Aug 08, 2008 Jkt 040598 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL08\021308\40598 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
11

mental monitoring and control, advanced air and water recovery systems, and waste

disposal for use inside crew habitats. Despite the critical role technology development plays in reducing the risks of future space travel, funding for exploration technology development is being reduced by $42.9 million from that appropriated in

FY08. Funding surpassing that provided in FY08 is not projected to occur until

FY10 at the earliest.

Lunar Robotic Precursor Program (LRPR)—NASA’s LRPR includes the Lunar

Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), which will take high-resolution images of the Moon,

map resources, and assess the lunar environment for future exploration, and the

Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS), which will explore the

darker region at the lunar poles. The combined mission is scheduled to launch in

late 2008 on an Atlas V. The LRPR will also manage the development of two small

lunar landers that are being initiated through the Science Mission Directorate’s

FY09 budget plans.

Space Communications

The President’s FY09 budget requests $582.9 million for Space Communications

and Navigation, about $280 million above the FY08 appropriation, as compared in

direct dollars. Most of the increase was acquired from the transfer of the Deep

Space Network and Near Earth Network from the Science Mission Directorate. The

transfer was part an effort to consolidate the management and budget for all space

communications activities within the Space Operations Mission Directorate. The

FY09 budget includes $154 million to develop two replacement satellites for the

Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS), which provides in-orbit communications links between on-orbit systems [e.g., the Shuttle, ISS, Hubble, and nearEarth orbiting satellites]. Other agencies also rely on TDRSS. The communications

support provided by TDRSS is projected to decline by 2011. These replacements will

ensure TDRSS support until 2016.

Deep Space Network—In a report to the Committee in April 2006, the GAO raised

concerns about the DSN’s aging and fragile infrastructure. While NASA is working

toward consolidating its space communications into a single integrated network architecture, an issue that could be raised at the hearing is why NASA, despite warnings about aging, DSN’s funding for the next five years is essentially flat.

Education

The President’s budget proposes $115.6 million in FY09 to support NASA’s Education program, including projects targeted at higher education, minority university

research and education, elementary and secondary education; and the E-education

project, which supports development of technology products, services, and applications, as the informal education project, which seeks to expand student, educator,

and public learning in STEM areas. The proposed FY09 budget represents a reduction of $10 million from the FY08 budget appropriation. The cuts were allocated

across the portfolio of programs. A recent National Research Council review of

NASA’s K–12 education program recommended an increased use of partners in its

pre-college education programs, definition of realistic project goals, and development

of a plan for project and program evaluations.

In addition to the projects included in NASA’s education office, the Science Mission Directorate, for example, includes educational programs through some of its divisions and individual space missions. Members may wish to ask whether NASA is

taking appropriate steps to maximize the effectiveness of the agency’s investments

in education, including how these investments relate to STEM education.

12

13

14

Chairman GORDON. Welcome, everyone. I know this is a bit of an

odd day because of the snow. Mr. Udall and I rode. Mr. Udall was

stuck, but he was supposed to have arrived at the airport at a

quarter until 10:00, and so hopefully he is on his way, and I am

sure other Members are dealing with their own various problems.

But Dr. Griffin, we, you were here on time, and we respect that

and feel like that we need to move forward this important hearing.

So with that, this committee will come to order.

Today’s hearing will be Congress’s first opportunity to review the

President’s fiscal year 2009 NASA budget request. The fiscal year

2009 budget request is not just a collection of funding levels and

program descriptions. Rather, it defines the Administration’s priorities for NASA and its vision for what NASA should be doing in

the coming years.

In that regard, this budget request and Congress’s disposition of

that through the authorizing and appropriations process this year

will in large measure define the state of the Space and Aeronautics

Program that will be inherited by the next President. So the stakes

are high.

As many of you know, this year marks the 50th anniversary of

the dawn of the U.S. Space Program and the establishment of

NASA. It also marks the 50th anniversary of the establishment of

the Science and Technology Committee. We and NASA were a direct result of the Soviet Sputnik launch, an event that sent

shockwaves throughout the American Government and the American public. In fact, our committee was established in part to help

define an appropriate American response to Sputnik and to oversee

America’s fledgling Space Program.

Now, 50 years after NASA’s birth I think that this committee

needs to take a hard look at where NASA is headed and whether

or not the course that the current administration has set NASA on

is an appropriate one and one that should be followed by the next

Administration, whether it be Democrat or Republican. We need to

develop a Congressional consensus on what NASA should be doing

and equally important, on what level of resources this nation is

willing to commit to NASA.

I thought we had achieved such a consensus in the NASA Authorization Act of 2005, which was passed by the Congress and

signed by the President. Yet the Administration’s actions since that

time, unfortunately, have not helped to maintain that consensus.

In particular, I believe that the Administration has to date failed

to provide resources to NASA that are adequate for what it has

asked NASA to do and what it agreed in the Authorization Act.

And that is not just my opinion. If you review our committee’s

hearings over the past several years, you will find bipartisan expressions of concern over the mismatch between NASA’s tasks and

the resources it has been given. We see the impact of that approach

to NASA through the budget request that we are reviewing today.

Thus, we see an Aeronautics Program that continues on a downward path, despite clear consensus or Congressional direction that

echoes our belief that NASA’s aeronautics R&D activities are critical to our competitiveness, the safety and effectiveness or efficiency of our aviation system, and our quality of life, and despite

15

clear evidence that our current air traffic control system is antiquated and under severe stress.

In the science area, the situation is uncertain. The good news is

that NASA has at least taken steps consistent with Congressional

urging and direction to initiate new Earth science missions recommended by the National Academies in its recent Decadal Survey.

The bad news is that the funding for those Earth science missions doesn’t reflect any new commitment on the part of the Administration to enhance NASA’s overall Science Program. Instead,

funding for those missions will be provided by shifting money from

other Earth science research activities as well as other NASA

science accounts in the coming years.

In short, a musical chairs approach to science funding. Yet the

successive cuts to NASA’s aeronautics portfolio and uncertain outlook for NASA Science Program have not resulted in any corresponding dividends for NASA’s Human Space Flight Program or

its Exploration Initiative that could be cited as rationales for the

Administration’s approach to NASA. Quite the opposite. In NASA’s

Exploration Program, the FY09 budget request provides no funds

to reduce the looming gap in U.S. human access to space once the

Shuttle is retired, in spite of widespread concern about this potential impact.

Indeed, given the low levels of reserves allocated to the Constellation Program over the next several years, it is hard to have

confidence even in NASA’s stated 2015 delivery date for the Crew

Exploration Vehicle, a date five years after the Shuttle is retired.

In addition, NASA’s Technology Program, something that should

be the bedrock of R&D agency, has been progressively whittled

away to the point it is largely an afterthought in the fiscal year

2009 budget request. And then there is the issue of the parting

gifts left to the next Administration in the form of unfunded and

underfunded requirements for the fiscal year 2009 NASA request.

For example, the five-year runout for the Shuttle program that

accompanies the fiscal year 2009 request contains no money for

Shuttle retirement and transition costs past 2010, even though

NASA agrees that such funds will be required. Instead, any money

needed for Shuttle retirement and transition costs will have to

come out of the Exploration Account, which itself will already be

facing large funding requirements in 2011, if the Lunar Program

proceeds under NASA’s planned schedule.

NASA’s five-year budget contains no funding for the replacement

of the Deep Space Network, even though NASA concedes it needs

to happen if NASA is to have the capability to support all of the

important space missions that will be occurred, occurring in the

coming decades.

And, finally, I am concerned that the Administration’s five-year

budget request does not appear to allocate sufficient funding to

meet the International Space Station’s utilization and operations

requirements after the Shuttle is retired. Indeed, NASA itself identifies ISS cargo and crew transportation as, and I quote, ‘‘The

greatest program and budget risk’’ to the ISS program.

I could go on, but I hope my point is clear.

16

NASA and its Space and Aeronautics Research Programs are important, important to our standing in the world, important to our

nation’s scientific and technological future and foundation, and important to our quality of life.

Dr. Griffin and his team are dedicated and hardworking and represent some of the best and brightest in the Nation. Yet I am

afraid that this budget and the vision for NASA that it represents

fails them in several important ways. I hope that Dr. Griffin will

help the Committee to address these issues both today and in the

coming months. We need a sustainable and productive Space and

Aeronautics Program for America, one that can be embraced by the

next President and the next Congress. And that is what I want us

to focus on this year as we work to reauthorize NASA.

With that, I want to welcome once again to the hearing today Dr.

Griffin. I look forward to your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BART GORDON

Good morning. And welcome, Dr. Griffin.

Today’s hearing will be Congress’s first opportunity to review the President’s Fiscal Year 2009 NASA budget request.

I expect that there will be much in that budget request that Members will want

to discuss today and in subsequent Committee hearings.

Yet the FY09 budget request is not just a collection of funding levels and program

descriptions.

Rather, it defines the Administration’s priorities for NASA and its vision for what

NASA should be doing in the coming years.

In that regard, this budget request—and Congress’s disposition of it through the

authorizing and appropriations process this year—will in large measure define the

state of the space and aeronautics program that will be inherited by the next President.

So the stakes are high.

As many of you know, this year marks the 50th anniversary of the dawn of the

U.S. space program and the establishment of NASA.

It also marks the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Science and Technology Committee.

We—and NASA—were a direct result of the Soviet Sputnik launch, an event that

sent shockwaves throughout the American government and the American public.

In fact, our Committee was established in part to help define an appropriate

American response to Sputnik and to oversee America’s fledgling space program.

Now—50 years after NASA’s birth—I think that this committee needs to take a

hard look at where NASA is headed, and whether or not the course that the current

Administration has set NASA on is an appropriate one. . .and one that should be

followed by the next Presidential Administration, whether it be Democratic or Republican.

We need to develop a congressional consensus on what NASA should be doing,

and equally importantly, on what level of resources we this nation is willing to commit to NASA.

I thought we had achieved such a consensus in the NASA Authorization Act of

2005, which was passed by Congress and signed by the President.

Yet, the Administration’s actions since that time unfortunately have not helped

to maintain that consensus.

In particular, I believe that the Administration has to date failed to provide resources to NASA that are adequate for what it has asked NASA to do and what

it agreed to in the Authorization Act.

And that’s not just my opinion—if you review our Committee’s hearings over the

past several years, you will find bipartisan expressions of concern over the mismatch between NASA’s tasks and the resources it’s been given.

We see the impact of that approach to NASA throughout the budget request that

we will be reviewing today.

Thus, we see an aeronautics program that continues on a downward path, despite

clear congressional direction that echoes our belief that NASA’s aeronautics R&D

activities are critical to our competitiveness, the safety and efficiency of our aviation

17

system, and our quality of life—and despite clear evidence that our current air traffic control system is antiquated and under severe stress.

In the science arena, the situation is uncertain.

The good news is that NASA has at last taken steps—consistent with congressional urging and direction—to initiate new Earth science missions recommended by

the National Academies in its recent Decadal Survey.

The bad news is that the funding for those new Earth science missions doesn’t

reflect any new commitment on the part of the Administration to enhancing NASA’s overall science program.

Instead, funding for those missions will be provided by shifting money from other

Earth science research activities as well as from other NASA science accounts in

the coming years——— In short—a ‘‘musical chairs’’ approach to science funding.

Yet, the successive cuts to NASA’s aeronautics portfolio and the uncertain outlook

for the NASA science program have not resulted in any corresponding dividends for

NASA’s human space flight program or its exploration initiative that could be cited

as rationales for the Administration’s approach to NASA.

Quite the opposite. In NASA’s exploration program, the FY09 budget request provides no funds to reduce the looming ‘‘gap’’ in U.S. human access to space once the

Shuttle is retired, in spite of widespread concern about its potential impact.

Indeed, given the low levels of reserves allocated to the Constellation program

over the next several years, it is hard to have confidence even in NASA’s stated

2015 delivery date for the Crew Exploration Vehicle—a date five years after the

Shuttle is retired.

In addition, NASA’s technology program—something that should be the bedrock

of an R&D agency—has been progressively whittled away to the point it is largely

an afterthought in the FY09 budget request.

And then there is the issue of the ‘‘parting gifts’’ left to the next Administration

in the form of unfunded and underfunded requirements in the FY09 NASA request.

For example, the five-year runout for the Shuttle program that accompanies the

FY09 request contains no money for Shuttle retirement and transition costs past

2010, even though NASA agrees that such funds will be required.

Instead, any money needed for Shuttle retirement and transition costs will have

to come out of the Exploration account—which itself will already be facing large new

funding requirements in 2011 if the lunar program proceeds under NASA’s planned

schedule.

NASA’s five-year budget contains no funding for the replacement of the Deep

Space Network, even though NASA concedes it needs to happen if NASA is to have

the capability to support all of the important space missions that will be occurring

in the coming decades.

Finally, I am concerned that the Administration’s five-year budget request does

not appear to allocate sufficient funding to meet the International Space Station’s

utilization and operations requirements after the Shuttle is retired.

Indeed, NASA itself identifies ISS cargo and crew transportation as ‘‘the greatest

program and budget risk’’ to the ISS program.

I could go on, but I hope my point is clear.

NASA and its space and aeronautics research programs are important—important

to our standing in the world, important to our nation’s scientific and technological

foundation, and important to our quality of life.

Dr. Griffin and his team are dedicated and hardworking and represent some of

the ‘‘best and brightest’’ in the Nation.

Yet I am afraid that this budget and the vision for NASA that it represents fails

them in several important ways:

• It fails to fully exploit and nurture the impressive capabilities NASA has, and

it fails to position NASA for a sustained and productive future.

• Instead I’m afraid that the Administration’s budget and vision for NASA simply set the agency up for increased problems down the road.

• And most fundamentally, I have to ask whether it is credible to believe that

we will be able to successfully carry out the human lunar program proposed

by the Administration—while still maintaining a balanced NASA portfolio

overall—if the NASA budgetary outlook doesn’t improve.

• If it isn’t credible, then we will need to determine whether there are any

changes to be made that will still keep us moving forward in a balanced manner under the funding likely to be available to NASA.

I hope that Dr. Griffin will help the Committee to address these issues both today

and in the coming months.

18

We need a sustainable and productive space and aeronautics program for America—one that can be embraced by the next President and the next Congress.

And that’s what I want us to focus on this year as we work to reauthorize NASA.

With that, I again want to welcome you to today’s hearing, Dr. Griffin, and I look

forward to your testimony.

Chairman GORDON. And now the Chair recognizes Mr. Hall for

an opening statement.

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Chairman. And my thanks, too, to NASA

Administrator Mike Griffin, who is, I think, doing a superb job

leading and managing the agency during this especially difficult

time as NASA strives to complete the International Space Station,

retire the Shuttle, and build a new human-rated launch system

with an escape module.

The fiscal year 2009 NASA budget request continues to treat

NASA favorably, especially when compared to other federal non-defense, discretionary programs. The fiscal year 2009 request proposes to increase NASA’s funding by 1.8 percent compared to the

last budget request, and the percentage is even higher when compared to the agency’s fiscal year 2008 appropriations that was

signed into law late last year.

Having said that, NASA is under enormous financial strain as it

seeks to safely fly out Shuttle to its planned retirement in 2010,

while concurrently paying for the design and construction of the

new Constellation System and maintaining a balanced and

robustly-funded science and aeronautics research portfolio. There

are many in this room, myself among them, and in the space and

science community, who would argue that more money is needed,

but the broader federal budget realities make that possibility very

difficult at this time.

Given the current budget profile, I believe Administrator Griffin

is making the right choices. And I also believe it is vitally important that NASA continues to keep the Constellation Program on

schedule to meet a 2015 launch date, if not sooner, and it is essential that we minimize, to the greatest degree possible, the amount

of time that the U.S. goes without a manned space-launch capability. The prospect of being entirely reliant on our international

partners for access to and from space is one that could have serious

implications for America’s space supremacy.

Our country needs the Constellation System. It will offer many

new capabilities, most notably the ability to go beyond low Earth

orbit on long duration missions, and it will also be a much safer

vehicle, providing its crews a far more reliable means of escape in

the event of a launch mishap.

I understand the need for phasing out Shuttle to free up resources for the development of the Constellation. But Congress

should be mindful that this budget request, and particularly the

Constellation program budget, is very, very lean, with little margin

to cover unanticipated cost increases. If there are surprises, either

Congress will have to provide the resources to address them, or be

prepared to accept a gap of greater than five years. So I urge

NASA, industry, and Congress to work together to ensure we get

back to space as soon as possible.

Equally important is the need to maintain a skilled workforce to

support Constellation. We cannot afford to lose these people such

as we did between Apollo and Shuttle, and the longer the gap, the

19

greater the risk that we won’t be able to retain the talented pool

of engineers and technicians who currently support Shuttle. I guarantee that if our government’s commitment to the Constellation

Program begins to waver, or if the gap extends and we can’t provide meaningful jobs that have clear promise for a predictable and

robust launch schedule, we will lose these folks to other industries.

The cost of time and money to train replacements will be enormous.

Finally, Dr. Griffin, knowing that you have a complex assembly

mission now underway, and knowing of all the problems we face,

the budget cutbacks, all of us greatly appreciate your willingness

to take time out of a very, very busy schedule to appear before this

committee and help us as you have done since you have occupied

the position you are in. And I thank you.

Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I yield back to you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RALPH M. HALL

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this morning’s hearing. And my thanks too,

to NASA Administrator Mike Griffin, who is doing an absolutely superb job leading

and managing the agency during this especially difficult time as NASA strives to

complete the International Space Station, retire the Shuttle, and build a new,

human-rated launch system.

The Fiscal Year 2009 NASA budget request continues to treat NASA favorably,

especially when compared to other federal non-defense, discretionary programs. The

FY09 request proposes to increase NASA’s funding by 1.8 percent compared to the

last budget request, and the percentage is even higher when compared to the agency’s FY08 appropriations that was signed into law late last year.

Having said that, NASA is under enormous financial strain as it seeks to safely

fly out Shuttle to its planned retirement in 2010, while concurrently paying for the

design and construction of the new Constellation system and maintaining a balanced and robustly funded science and aeronautics research portfolio. There are

many in this room—myself among them—and in the space and science community,

who would argue that more money is needed, but the broader federal budget realities make that possibility difficult.

Given the current budget profile, I believe Administrator Griffin is making the

right choices. And I also believe it is vitally important that NASA continues to keep

the Constellation program on schedule to meet a 2015 launch date, if not sooner,

and it is essential that we minimize, to the greatest degree possible, the amount

of time that the U.S. goes without a manned space-launch capability. The prospect

of being entirely reliant on our international partners for access to and from space

is one that could have serious implications for America’s space supremacy.

Our country needs the Constellation system. It will offer many new capabilities,

most notably the ability to go beyond low Earth orbit on long duration missions, and

it will also be a much safer vehicle, providing its crews a far more reliable means

of escape in the event of a launch mishap.

I understand the need for phasing out Shuttle to free up resources for development of Constellation. But Congress should be mindful that this budget request, and

particularly the Constellation program budget, is very, very lean, with little margin

to cover unanticipated cost increases. If there are surprises, either Congress will

have to provide the resources to address them, or be prepared to accept a gap of

greater than five years. So I urge NASA, industry, and Congress to work together

to ensure we get back to space as soon as possible.

Equally important is the need to maintain a skilled workforce to support Constellation. We cannot afford to lose these people—such as we did between Apollo and

Shuttle—and the longer the gap, the greater the risk that we won’t be able to retain

the talented pool of engineers and technicians who currently support Shuttle. I

guarantee that if government’s commitment to the Constellation program begins to

waver, or if the gap extends and we can’t provide meaningful jobs that have clear

promise for a predictable and robust launch schedule, we will lose these folks to

other industries. The cost of time and money to train replacements will be enormous.

20

Mr. Griffin, knowing that you have a complex assembly mission now underway,

all of us greatly appreciate your willingness to take time out of your busy schedule

to appear before this committee. Thank you.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Hall.

Let me just quickly point out, many of you have been in this

room many times before. We have not ostracized our former Chairmen. We are just in the process of trying to renovate some, and I

think even Mr. Sensenbrenner’s photograph may be recovered. We

are not sure, though.

Mr. Udall, you are recognized.

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Dr. Griffin. This hearing marks the beginning of our consideration of

NASA’s fiscal year 2009 budget request as well as providing us

with an opportunity to engage with Dr. Griffin on a range of

NASA-related issues.

NASA has been in the news in both positive and not-so-positive

ways over the last year. In particular, I would note that our committee has had to ask the Government Accountability Office to analyze air safety data from the National Aviation Operations Monitoring Service pilot survey because NASA had refused to do so. We

are all disappointed that we had to take that step, but rest assured

that I intend to continue my oversight of this and other issues that

need our subcommittee’s attention.

Turning to the budget request at this point, it is clear that NASA

faces significant challenges in carrying out the tasks that the Nation has asked it to assume, and those challenges have been made

more difficult by the inadequate NASA budgets that have been

sent over to the Hill from the White House over the past several

years.

I had hoped that this budget request for NASA, which represents

President Bush’s last budget submission, would have reflected an

intention by the Administration to finally address the impact of the

previous shortfalls, yet in the main it does not.

The budget request has been described as a ‘‘stay-the-course’’

budget, and I do believe that that is an all-too-accurate description.

This budget continues the underfunding of the agency that has

became painfully apparent in 2004, when the White House announced a major human and robotic exploration initiative, including returning American astronauts to the Moon by 2020, while

making a virtue of the fact that it was only adding a billion dollars

in new money to NASA’s budget over the first five years of the

Moon-Mars Initiative.

Since that time, it has sent over NASA budget requests that

have consistently fallen short of what the Administration itself had

said would be needed to establish or to enable NASA to carry out

the initiative and its other core missions. Now, despite the fact that

there is a projected five-year gap in the U.S.’s capability to get its

astronauts into space after the Shuttle is retired, and despite the

fact that the exploration initiative’s Constellation Program currently has reserves of less than eight percent to cover any problems

the development program might encounter over the next two years,

the Administration has chosen not to request any additional funding for the Constellation Program in this latest budget request, deVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:33 Aug 08, 2008 Jkt 040598 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\FULL08\021308\40598 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
21

spite Congressional encouragement from both sides of the aisle to

do so.

That is not a great message to send to NASA and the contractor

teams that are working so hard to implement the President’s initiative. Nor does it send a good signal to the next President, whoever

it might be, that the Exploration Initiative is a priority worth continuing.

What are the other ways in which this NASA budget request

stays the course?

Well, it continues the practice of marginalizing NASA’s aeronautics R&D program, in spite of Congressional concern and direction to the contrary over the past several years. It is clear that the

Nation’s aviation system is under severe stress, and NASA research will be needed if we are to move successfully to a next generation air traffic management system while protecting the environment and maintaining safety. The Administration’s current approach to NASA’s aeronautics enterprise simply is not going to get

the job done.

In the space operations arena, staying the course unfortunately

means continuing the practice of leaving unfunded and underfunded liens for the next Administration to deal with, whether it

be the costs of Shuttle transition and retirement, Deep Space Network replacement, or logistical support of the International Space

Station, that is a troubling approach given the already over-constrained nature of NASA’s out-year budgetary plan.

Here is one area, however, where ‘‘stay-the-course’’ was not followed, at least in part, and that is in NASA’s Science Program. It

appears that NASA did take steps in the fiscal year 2009 budget

request to respond to concerns expressed by many in the science

community and in Congress. The budget request contains new

starts for high priority Earth Science missions recommended by the

National Academies in its recent Decadal Survey, something I

strongly support.

In addition, funding is allocated to augment NASA’s Research

and Analysis activities and to revitalize the sub-orbital research

program, actions that will help train the next generation of space

scientists and engineers. In addition, NASA has announced that it

intends to undertake an ambitious series of new missions, including JDEM, a Solar Probe, an exoplanet detection mission, a Mars

Sample Return Mission, a major Outer Planets Mission, as well as

a significant increase in its lunar science initiative. It sounds very

exciting and promising. However, the reality is that no new money

is being requested for NASA’s science account to carry out all these

new initiatives beyond what had previously been assumed. It is

going to affect money as simply being transferred between science

accounts. That sounds a lot like the approach the Administration

used to pay for the Exploration Initiative and Human Space Flight

Programs, and we see how well that has worked.

In addition, the bulk of the funding requirements for these new

initiatives occurs beyond this budget’s planning horizon, in short,

finding the necessary money will be the task of the next President

and future Congresses. I hope that we will be able to undertake at

least some of the worthwhile new initiatives being proposed. I am

a strong supporter of a robust and exciting science program, but we

22

only have to recall the Administration’s Project Prometheus and

the JIMO mission to know that bold announcements don’t always

translate into real programs.

Well, I don’t want to belabor the point, but it is clear that NASA

faces a number of important challenges. I intend to work hard this

year to develop legislation to reauthorize NASA, and today’s hearing will provide important input to that effort.

Again, Dr. Griffin, welcome, and Mr. Chairman, I would yield

back the balance of my time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MARK UDALL

Good morning.

I want to join my colleagues in welcoming Administrator Griffin to today’s hearing.

This hearing marks the beginning of our consideration of NASA’s fiscal year 2009

budget request, as well as providing us an opportunity to engage Dr. Griffin on a

range of NASA-related issues.

Dr. Griffin, NASA has been in the news in both positive and not-so-positive ways

over the last year. In particular, I would note that our Committee has had to ask

the Government Accountability Office to analyze air safety data from the National

Aviation Operations Monitoring Service (NAOMS) pilot survey because NASA had

refused to do so.

I am disappointed that we had to take that step, but rest assured that I intend

to continue my oversight of this and other issues that need our subcommittee’s attention.

Turning now to the FY 2009 budget request, it is clear that NASA faces significant challenges in carrying out the tasks that the Nation has asked it to assume— and those challenges have been made all the more difficult by the inadequate NASA

budgets that have been sent over to the Hill from the White House over the past

several years.

I had hoped that this budget request for NASA—which represents President

Bush’s last budget submission—would have reflected an intention by the Administration to finally address the impact of the previous shortfalls, yet in the main it

does not.

The budget request has been described as a ‘‘stay-the-course’’ budget.

Unfortunately, that is all too accurate a description.

Thus, this budget request continues the underfunding of the agency that became

painfully apparent in 2004 when the White House announced a major human and

robotic exploration initiative—including returning American astronauts to the Moon

by 2020—while making a virtue of the fact that it was only adding a billion dollars

in new money to NASA’s budget over the first five years of the Moon-Mars initiative.

Since that time, it has sent over NASA budget requests that have consistently

fallen short of what the Administration itself had said would be needed to enable

NASA to carry out the exploration initiative and its other core missions.

Now, despite the fact that there is a projected five-year gap in the U.S.’s capability to get its astronauts into space after the Shuttle is retired. . .

. . .and despite the fact that the exploration initiative’s Constellation program

currently has reserves of less than eight percent to cover any problems the development program might encounter over the next two years. . .

. . .the Administration has chosen not to request any additional funding for the

Constellation program in this latest budget request, despite congressional encouragement from both sides of the aisle to do so.

That’s not a great message to send to the NASA and contractor teams that are

working so hard to implement the President’s initiative.

Nor does it send a good signal to the next President, whoever it might be, that

the exploration initiative is a priority worth continuing.

What are the other ways in which this NASA budget request ‘‘stays the course’’?

Well, it continues the practice of marginalizing NASA’s aeronautics R&D program, in spite of congressional concern and direction to the contrary over the past

several years.

It is clear that the Nation’s aviation system is under severe stress, and NASA research will be needed if we are to move successfully to a next generation air traffic

management system while protecting the environment and maintaining safety.

23

The Administration’s current approach to NASA’s aeronautics enterprise simply

is not going to get the job done.

In the Space Operations arena, ‘‘staying the course’’ unfortunately means continuing the practice of leaving unfunded and underfunded liens for the next Administration to deal with—whether it be the costs of Shuttle transition and retirement,

Deep Space Network replacement, or logistical support of the International Space

Station.

That is a troubling approach, given the already over-constrained nature of NASA’s

outyear budgetary plan.

There is one area, however, where ‘‘stay-the-course’’ was not followed—at least in

part—and that is in NASA’s science program.

Thus, it appears that NASA did take steps in the FY09 budget request to attempt

to respond to concerns expressed by many in the science community and in Congress.

Thus, the budget request contains new starts for high priority Earth Science missions recommended by the National Academies in its recent Decadal Survey, something I strongly support.

In addition, funding is allocated to augment NASA’s Research and Analysis activities and to revitalize the sub-orbital research program—actions that will help train

the next generation of space scientists and engineers.

In addition, NASA has announced that it intends to undertake an ambitious series of new missions, including JDEM, a Solar Probe, an exoplanet detection mission, a Mars Sample Return mission, a major Outer Planets mission, as well as a

significant increase in its lunar science initiative.

It sounds exciting and promising.

However, the reality is that no new money is being requested for NASA’s science

account to carry out all these new initiatives beyond what had previously been assumed—money is simply being transferred between science accounts.

That’s sounds a lot like the approach the Administration used to pay for the Exploration initiative and human space flight programs—and we see how well that has

worked. . .

In addition, the bulk of the funding requirements for these new initiatives occurs

beyond this budget’s planning horizon—in short, finding the necessary money will

be the task of the next President and future Congresses.

I hope that we will be able to undertake at least some of the worthwhile new initiatives being proposed—I am a strong supporter of a robust and exciting science

program.

But we only have to recall the Administration’s Project Prometheus and the JIMO

mission to know that bold announcements don’t always translate into real programs.

Well, I don’t want to belabor the point: It is clear that NASA faces a number of

important challenges.

I intend to work hard this year to develop legislation to reauthorize NASA, and

today’s hearing will provide important input to that effort.

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

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Feeney is recognized for an opening

statement.

Mr. FEENEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing today. Between the Chairman, Ranking Member Hall,

and Chairman Udall, I think they have outlined virtually all the

major challenges facing NASA in the upcoming years to be considered by this committee.

I want to welcome the NASA Administrator, Michael Griffin, to

our committee. We are fortunate for your leadership. I think that

Mr. Hall said it very well. We are also fortunate for the retirement

of the term ‘‘spiral development’’ from NASA’s lexicon, and that is

a step forward.

With the passage of time we run the risk of reverting back to

pre-Columbia behavior. As the Columbia Accident Investigation

Board observed, ‘‘NASA has usually failed to receive budgetary

support consistent with its ambitions. The result is an organization

straining to do too much with too little.’’

24

Both the legislative and the executive branch are susceptible of

lapsing into this behavior.

On Capitol Hill, we are often eager to assign new missions to

NASA. This compliment stems from NASA’s incredible ability to

perform the most difficult of assignments. Last November’s solar

array repair conducted by Astronaut Scott Parazynski proves a recent example of such seemingly effortless success in the face of an

unexpected and daunting challenge.

But I agree with the notion that has been pointed out by both

Chairman Gordon and Chairman Udall that at times the Administration has fallen short of funding its own priorities. But I would

also point out that in the fiscal year 2007 Omnibus/Continuing

Resolution, Congress appropriated to NASA $545 million less than

the President’s request with that reduction and then some coming

from NASA’s current and future Human Space Flight Programs. In

the recently passed fiscal year 2008 Omnibus, Congress further reduced the agency’s funding request through a $192.5 million rescission.

Today, the Administration’s fiscal year 2009 budget request of

$17.6 billion is 1.8 percent above last year’s request. After factoring

in inflation, NASA’s resources are shrinking in real terms while

the agency is charged with maintaining America’s preeminence as

a space-faring nation.

Maintaining such preeminence includes developing a new generation of human space flight vehicles to replace the Space Shuttle.

As the Columbia Accident Investigation Board correctly noted, ‘‘It

is the view of the Board that the previous attempts to develop a

replacement vehicle for the aging Shuttle represented a failure of

national leadership.’’

The Board went on to state, ‘‘Continued U.S. leadership in space

is an important national objective. That leadership depends on a

willingness to pay the costs of achieving it.’’ Administrator Griffin, I know you understand this truth, and you

have been a great advocate in front of this committee and everywhere you go, pointing out to Americans the importance of the task

laid out before you and the entire NASA team. The outstanding

question is whether anyone else is listening.

Yield back the balance of my time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Feeney follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE TOM FEENEY

Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding today’s hearing. I want to again welcome

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin to our committee. We are fortunate for your

leadership. We are also fortunate for the retirement of the term ‘‘spiral development’’ from NASA’s lexicon.

With the passage of time, we run the risk of reverting back to pre-Columbia behavior. As the Columbia Accident Investigation Board observed:

NASA has usually failed to receive budgetary support consistent with its ambitions. The result. . .is an organization straining to do too much with too little.

Both the legislative and executive branches are susceptible of lapsing into this behavior.

On Capitol Hill, we are often eager to assign new missions to NASA. This compliment stems from NASA’s ability to perform the most difficult of assignments.

Last November’s solar array repair conducted by Astronaut Scott Parazynski provides a recent example of such seemingly effortless success in the face of an unexpected and daunting challenge.

25

But in the FY07 Omnibus/Continuing Resolution, Congress appropriated to NASA

$545 million less than the President’s request with that reduction—and then some—

coming from NASA’s current and future human space flight programs. In the recently passed FY08 Omnibus, Congress further reduced the agency’s funding request through a $192.5 million rescission.

Today, the Administration’s FY09 budget request of $17.6 billion is 1.8 percent

above last year’s request. After factoring in inflation, NASA’s resources are shrinking in real terms while the agency is charged with maintaining America’s preeminence as a space-faring nation.

Maintaining such preeminence includes developing a new generation of human

space flight vehicles to replace the Space Shuttle. As the Columbia Accident Investigation Board correctly noted:

It is the view of the Board that the previous attempts to develop a replacement

vehicle for the aging Shuttle represented a failure of national leadership.

The Board went on to state:

Continued U.S. leadership in space is an important national objective. That

leadership depends on a willingness to pay the costs of achieving it.

Administrator Griffin, I know you understand this truth. The outstanding question is whether anyone else is listening.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Feeney. You know, although

it may have been said different ways, I think it is clear that there

is bipartisan agreement that the, what NASA is asked to be doing,

is not properly matched with NASA’s funding. And as we go

through this year and as we try to develop a consensus reauthorization, we are going to have to deal with that reality.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JERRY F. COSTELLO

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for overseeing this budget hearing and

thank Administrator Griffin for coming in today. As NASA begins to phase-out the

Shuttle and enters into a new era of space exploration, it is imperative that Congress gives the Agency the resources necessary for success.

As Members of the Science and Technology Committee, we need to make sure that

our children receive the best education possible and are particularly engaged in the

sciences. I think this committee took an excellent step to assure our children’s competitiveness in the science and technology fields by passing the COMPETES Act last

year. NASA’s space exploration programs and Shuttle missions have always been

an integral component to engaging and exciting America’s youth about the possibilities of science and research.

Mr. Chairman, we must assure that NASA has the right tools at its disposal to

move beyond the Shuttle program, to return to the Moon, and to send our astronauts to Mars. I commend you for your stewardship of this committee and I look

forward to learning about the plan for NASA’s future. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lampson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN NICK LAMPSON

This year as we celebrate NASA’s 50th anniversary, we are tackling new challenges for the next 50 years. But I fear that we will be caught behind the curve

again as we were in 1957. Just two months ago the Associated Press reported that

China will build a new family of rockets—a move that would boost China’s capabilities to put satellites in space and voyage to frontiers previously accessible only to

the United States. Japan put a probe into orbit around the Moon not too long ago

and India is likely to join the rivalry soon, with plans to send its own lunar probe

into space in April.

Although these programs are in the developmental stages—they signal the need

to recommit to NASA—to the Vision—especially in the areas of science, exploration

and aeronautic research and development.

I am most concerned about the nearly five-year space flight gap that will leave

us without access to space and dependent on potentially unstable allies. And while

your budget request states that the agency strives to bring Ares and Orion on-line

26

sooner, I fear that this gap will not only have economic and strategic consequences,

but it will leave a vacuum of hope and inspiration for our children.

Martin Luther King discussed ‘the fierce urgency of now’; we do not have the luxury of ‘cooling off’ or ‘gradualism.’ Our allies are challenging America’s historic

dominance in space and technology. They are challenging our very identity as pioneers. Your budget provides $2.6 billion to purchase crew and cargo transportation services from potentially unstable allies. It is mind-boggling that we would spend our

constituents’ hard earned money in Russia or China and not here. $2.6 billion in

the American space economy will help retain jobs, spur development, and encourage

our youth to pursue math and science.

While I have long been a proponent of returning to the Moon and going to Mars,

I believe it is not just about the destination. We all know the mission will spur technology and business and improve our quality of life. But there is also the

unquantifiable return on our investment—and that is the excitement in children’s eyes when they watch a launch or tell you that they want to be an astronaut.

We must shorten the gap and fulfill NASA’s mission to conduct exploration and

science in space. And launching the AMS will fulfill NASA’s stated strategic goals

of completing the ISS and using it for scientific research as well as the Vision’s goal

of greater space exploration. Thank you for being here today and I look forward to

hearing your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Richardson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE LAURA RICHARDSON

Thank you Chairman Gordon for holding this important hearing today. I would

also like to thank Dr. Griffin for taking the time to come and testify before the Committee this morning.

Since its inception in 1958, NASA has been the leading agency for American and

global innovation. The launch of Explorer 1 on January 31, 1958 sparked a new era

in American space exploration, technological innovation, and general interest in the

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics fields. Maintaining that interest

is a top priority for this committee, and I am confident that under the leadership

of Chairman Gordon this committee is committed to preserving our nation’s role as

leaders in these fields. Certainly the ‘‘America COMPETES’’ legislation was a step

in that direction. However we must be mindful that the budget request and subsequent appropriations process demonstrates more than anything else the level of

commitment we provide to NASA.

Certainly the President’s budget is not perfect but I am reluctantly encouraged

by the overall increase, albeit a small one (1.8 percent over the FY08 request) in

the proposed NASA budget. Any amount under last year’s request would send the

wrong message to NASA, an agency that is a source of national pride, not to mention an agency that is critical to our security efforts.

In an age of climate change, NASA’s space science programs are critical to our

understanding of planet Earth. This knowledge should have a direct impact on the

policy decisions Congress makes as we move forward. In reviewing the President’s

budget I noticed a decrease in the space science programs and the Earth science

programs so I am curious to know how NASA will work within these limited constraints.

In the area of Aeronautics research I am particularly concerned about aviation

safety. I am particularly disturbed by the $25 million dollar reduction in NASA’s

budget for Airspace Systems. Our air traffic control system is antiquated, and the

number of close calls on the runways of America’s airports is growing. Consumer

safety is always a top priority, and should never be compromised.

Finally I am troubled by the reduction in spending for NASA’s education program.

These programs are critical to increasing student interest in STEM fields, as well

as developing diversity in these fields as well. I am interested in hearing what

NASA plans to do in terms of outreach given these budget shortfalls.

In conclusion I want to commend NASA for all the good work they have done in

the past. I lend my full support to the vital work they do everyday, and I know with

Congress’s full legislative and fiscal support they will continue to do good work.

Mr. Chairman I yield back my time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE HARRY E. MITCHELL

Thank you, Mr. Chairman

27

NASA conducts vital research and development projects that help us learn about

our surroundings.

Arizona State University, which is located in my district, is home to researchers

who on many of these important NASA research projects.

To maintain America’s competitiveness in science and technology, we must do

more than merely keep up. We must lead, and commit ourselves to providing the

resources necessary to keep us at the forefront of this kind of cutting edge research

and development.

However, we must do so in a responsible manner. As Members of this committee,

we have an obligation to exercise vigorous oversight, and ask tough questions to determine whether NASA is spending our federal dollars appropriately.

In October, we learned that NASA spent $11 million taxpayer dollars creating and

conducting a survey of airline pilots on potential safety lapses in our nation’s aviation network, before evading requests to release the data and refusing to stand behind the results of their own study.

For an agency with so many incredible accomplishments, this episode was certainly not its finest hour.

I certainly hope NASA is planning to be more careful with its future funding.

I look forward to hearing from Dr. Michael Griffin about NASA’s proposed budget

for Fiscal Year 2009 as well as the Operating Plan for Fiscal Year 2008.

I yield back.

Chairman GORDON. Now, thank you for listening to us pontificate, and Dr. Griffin, you are the one that we came here to hear

today, and so now you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL D. GRIFFIN, ADMINISTRATOR,

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

(NASA)

Dr. GRIFFIN. Thank you, Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member

Hall, Chairman Udall, Ranking Member Feeney, thank you very

much. It is a pleasure to be here to discuss our budget request of

$17.6 billion.

I want to highlight briefly the key features of this request, as

well as to outline some areas where I will need the Committee’s

help, and then, of course, I want to answer your questions.

Last week Shuttle Atlantis delivered the European Columbus

module to the International Space Station. Next up is Endeavor

with the Japanese Kibo Logistics Module and the Canadian Dextre

Manipulator Arm. After that Discovery delivers the Kibo Pressurized Module. With these flights we are honoring our nation’s commitments to our international partners on station and meeting the

most prominent milestones of the program.

Throughout four Presidential Administrations and over 20 Congressional votes authorizing tens of billions of dollars for its development, the Space Station remains an established feature of U.S.

space policy. Its development is the largest task ever performed by

the civilian agencies of the United States or our international partners. Such international partnerships are an integral part of our

next steps out beyond low-Earth orbit toward what President Kennedy called this new ocean.

NASA is also taking the necessary steps to insure that space exploration is not simply all government, all the time. That is not the

way the American West was developed, it is not how the greatest

aviation system in the world was developed, and it ought not to be

the way we develop the space frontier. Now is the time, and we are

the people to make provisions for the contribution of the commercial space sector to our nation’s overall space enterprise.

28

I believe that we can open the ISS to purchases by NASA of

cargo and crew services developed and provided by commercial entrepreneurs in companies both large and small. For this purpose

NASA’s budget for ’09 provides $173 million to leverage private investments in developing and demonstrating commercial space

transportation capability. Now, more than $2.6 billion is budgeted over the next five years

to purchase cargo and crew services to support ISS operations. I

would prefer to use as much of that as possible to purchase transportation services from American commercial companies rather

than foreign entities.

However, while I believe that we will have U.S. commercial cargo

transport services over the next few years, along with European

and Japanese capability, it is my carefully-considered assessment

that U.S. commercial crew transport vehicles will not likely be

available by 2012. The prospective purveyors of such services, of

course, claim otherwise and actually I wish them all possible success. No one hopes more than I that they are right and I am wrong.

But our ability to sustain the station cannot be held hostage to

hope.

Thus, given existing legislative restrictions, we will require explicit authorization by the Congress to make further extraordinary

payments to Russia in order to provide crew transport to the station after 2011, for our astronauts, as well as those of our international partners to whom we have obligations.

Chairman Gordon and the Members of this committee, we will

need your help with this. NASA needs this legislative authorization

in 2008, because Russia requires 36 months of lead time to fabricate new Soyuz vehicles, and thus we need to finalize contractual

agreements late this year if we expect to fly in the spring of 2012.

For reference, NASA’s current contract with Russia is worth about

$780 million through 2011.

Now, I yield to no one in my belief that we need to minimize our

dependence on the Russian Soyuz and protect against proliferation

of weapons technology to our adversaries. It is dangerous to the

United States to find itself dependent upon any external entity for

a strategic capability, and space transportation is just that. I have

been outspoken to the point of bluntness on this matter since being

confirmed as Administrator in April of ’05. I deplore the posture in

which we find ourselves. It is unseemly in the extreme.

But today there is no other viable option. We are today reliant

upon the Russian Soyuz for the substance of the International

Space Station. Because this is fact and because I am guided by

facts, I am glad that there are Russian services to buy and that

Russia is a member of the Space Station Partnership. Their participation gives the United States time to develop U.S. cargo and crew

transport systems while preserving the tens of billions of dollars we

have invested in the ISS. But we will need your help not only in

supporting our budget request but also with legislation authorizing

NASA to purchase Russian crew transport for the ISS after 2011.

Some have suggested that this dilemma can be avoided by continuing to fly the Shuttle past the currently-planned retirement in

2010. I must be clear. We will remain dependent upon the Russian

Soyuz System until a new commercial crew vehicle is qualified for

29

orbital flights of six months duration or until the Ares and Orion

Systems are deployed because the Soyuz provides emergency crew

return for all astronauts and cosmonauts on-board ISS. Delaying

space Shuttle retirement does not solve that problem. In fact, it exacerbates it.

Money spent flying the Shuttle after 2010 is not available for

Ares and Orion, which causes the gap between Shuttle retirement

and deployment of new systems to grow, and with it the duration

of dependence upon Russian systems.

Further, I share the view of the Columbia Accident Investigation

Board to which Mr. Feeney referred earlier and which the Columbia, the CAIB referred to as an inescapable conclusion, quoting:

‘‘Because of the risk inherent in the original design of the Space

Shuttle, because that design was based in many aspects on now obsolete technologies, because the Shuttle is now an aging system but

still developmental, it is in the Nation’s interest to replace the

Shuttle as soon as possible as the primary means for transporting

humans to and from Earth orbit.’’ For this very reason the Board

expressed dismay at how, ‘‘previous attempts to develop a replacement vehicle for the aging Shuttle represent a failure of national

leadership,’’ and called for a rigorous vehicle safety re-certification

if the Shuttle were to be operated past 2010.

So that brings us to today, with the budgetary resources currently projected, especially for the critical development years of ’09,

and ’10, we can realistically forecast Ares and Orion becoming

available in early 2015. That said, the engineering and design

teams for Orion and Ares in Houston, Huntsville, Cape Canaveral,

Cleveland, Denver, Norfolk, California, and many, many other

parts of the country are trying to beat that prediction. And so,

again, I hope they are right and I am wrong, but leaving budgetary

issues aside, especially those in the next couple of critical years,

the earliest date we could possibly bring Ares and Orion on line

would be in the fall of 2013. And that would cost additional money.

Now, the past several appropriation cycles have resulted in funding reductions for exploration in favor of other priorities. This has

delayed our ability to bring these new systems on line. Because of

the strategic importance of these first elements of the Constellation

System, because of the unseemly posture of U.S. reliance on Russia

for strategic capability, because American taxpayers are today paying Russian aerospace engineers to do work that should be done by

Americans, because we will face growing competition from the advancing Chinese space program, and because we are in the middle

of a difficult, once-in-a-generation transition from the Shuttle to a

new human space flight system, I ask that Congress fully fund

NASA’s exploration effort. It is critical to our nation’s leadership in

space.

Now, despite the demands of this once-in-a-generation transition,

the budget request provides an appropriate balance between

human space flight, Earth and space science, and aeronautics research. NASA is operating 55 science missions today, hearing into

the farthest reaches of the universe, digging among the rocks of

Mars, monitoring our sun’s behavior, and conducting research on

the causes and affects of global warming on our planet.

30

The ’09 budget provides $910 million over the next five years for

high-priority Earth science missions as recently defined by the National Academy of Sciences. Our nation’s investment in Earth

science is paying dividends, and we are shifting funds from other

science disciplines because of the recognition on the part of the

public and policy-makers of the value of global warming research

coming from NASA’s Earth scientists.

NASA’s satellites supply more global climate change data than

those of any other organization in the world, and we remain the

largest contributor to the Interagency Climate Change Science Program. We plan to launch 14 new science missions in the next two

years, and in late August or early September we plan to launch the

much-anticipated final Space Shuttle servicing mission for Hubble.

As these missions are completed, funds become available for new

missions.

That said, I must report to you per the NASA Authorization Act

of 2005, major program reporting requirements, that NASA’s current development cost estimate of about $325 million for the Glory

Earth Science Mission has exceeded the 30 percent threshold and

cost growth. Thus, it will require explicit authorization in the next

18 months to continue. Glory is a high-priority mission for Earth

science, and I hope you will allow it to continue.

In aeronautics we are aligning our research efforts with the

many other agencies in the Federal Government also conducting

such research. In partnership with a number of agencies of the

JPDO we are conducting fundamental research on environmental

safety and capacity challenges facing our nation’s air transportation system. We are developing world-class aeronautics expertise,

and we are closely coordinating the use of our research and test facilities with that of other federal agencies. We are also pursuing innovative partnerships with commercial companies to better leverage private investment toward national goals in aeronautics and

other areas.

In conclusion, Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall, I want

to thank this Committee for its time and attention. We have many

challenges, but I believe the greatest challenge we face is to maintain a unified purpose throughout the difficult transition from

Shuttle to Constellation. Space exploration is not for the faint of

heart nor for those who are easily distracted.

I recently spoke at Calvin College in Grand Rapids where Congressman Vern Ehlers taught physics for 17 years. In that speech

I explained how the leaders of the House Science and Technology

Committee, whose pictures used to adorn these walls, spoke passionately of the need for a unifying space policy in the wake of the

Space Shuttle Columbia loss. The President heeded that advice in

issuing the Vision for Exploration, which after almost two years of

informed debate, culminated in the NASA Authorization Act of ’05.

That legislation, enacted with strong bipartisan majority, codified

into law the unifying vision called for by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. I personally believe that it is the best civil space

policy this nation has had since the time of Apollo. It provides a

unified direction as to where we are headed, a sense of purpose,

and a lasting legacy for the crew of Columbia and those among our

nation’s leaders who recognize the strategic importance of space exVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:33 Aug 08, 2008 Jkt 040598 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\FULL08\021308\40598 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
31

ploration. Most importantly, it is the law of the land, and today we

at NASA are turning that law into concerted action.

Former Chairman of the House Science Committee, Congressman Bob Walker from Pennsylvania, framed the issue perfectly in

a speech shortly after Columbia: ‘‘For every generation choices are

made that lead to greatness or to mediocrity.’’ So it is all a matter

of what each generation in its time here on Earth chooses to do

with its energy, resources, and intellect.

I want to thank this committee for having chosen a path that

leads to greatness, and I ask for your help in staying that course.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Griffin follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL D. GRIFFIN

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to

appear today to discuss the President’s FY 2009 budget request for NASA. The

President’s budget request for NASA is $17.6 billion, a 2.9 percent increase over the

net budget authority enacted for 2008, along with a steady, five-year runout commensurate with inflation. This increase demonstrates the President’s commitment

to funding the balanced priorities he set forth for the Agency in space exploration,

Earth and space science, and aeronautics research. We are making steady progress

in achieving these goals. I ask for your continued support as you consider the President’s FY 2009 budget request for NASA.

When I testified before this committee last year, I spoke about the Administration’s balanced priorities for our nation’s civil space and aeronautics research goals

as set forth by the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109–155) and the Vision

for Space Exploration. NASA’s mandate is clear, and the NASA Authorization Act

of 2005, as well as the level of funding appropriated to NASA in FY 2008, tells me

that Congress broadly endorses the balanced set of programs the Agency has put

forward in this era of limited budget growth.

I have said this in other forums, but it warrants repeating here: at present funding levels, NASA’s budget is sufficient to support a variety of excellent space programs, but it cannot support all of the potential programs we could execute. No plan

or level of funding can fully satisfy all the many constituencies we have. Balanced

choices must be made. But they cannot continually be remade and revisited if there

is to be steady progress toward our common, defined objectives.

As the Columbia Accident Investigation Board noted, and as stakeholders acknowledged in ensuing policy debates, it would have been far worse to continue with

the prior lack of strategic direction for human space flight, to continue dithering and

debating and inevitably widening the gap between Shuttle retirement and the availability of new systems. Until and unless the Congress provides new and different

authorization for NASA, the law of the land specifies that we will complete the

International Space Station, retire the Shuttle, design and build a new space flight

architecture, return to the Moon in a manner supporting a ‘‘sustained human presence,’’ and prepare the way to Mars.

We are doing those things as quickly and efficiently as possible. System designs

for the early elements have been completed, contracts have been let, and consistently solid progress is being made with a minimum of unexpected difficulty. True,

the progress might be slower than all of us would prefer, but applying resources in

the right direction, irrespective of pace, is always productive—and we are doing

that. The Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle and the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle, as

they are presently taking form, are the building blocks for any American future beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO).

Given that this endeavor will be our first step beyond LEO for crewed spacecraft

since 1972, I believe that bypassing the Moon to venture directly into deep space—

a proposal some have suggested revisiting—poses unacceptable risk. Returning to

the Moon and consolidating the gains to be made thereby will set us properly on

the path toward Mars. I believe that the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 remains

the finest policy framework for United States civil space activities that I have seen

in forty years. And, I thank this committee for its leadership role in crafting this

legislation. I ask for your continued support and leadership as we progress toward

achieving the worthy National objectives laid out in the Act.

In the invitation to testify today, you asked that I be prepared to discuss NASA’s

initial FY 2008 Operating Plan, submitted to the Committee on February 1, 2008.

32

I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have on the details. In summary, the initial Operating Plan provides aggregate funding of $17.3 billion, at the

level of the President’s FY 2008 request. Pursuant to the rescission of $192.5 million

in NASA unobligated balances in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L.

110–161), aggregate funding in NASA’s FY 2007 Operating Plan is reduced by $185.2 million, and prior year balances are reduced by $7.2 million. Implementation

of direction in P.L. 110–161 has resulted in a total reduction of $620.9 million in

planned NASA activities, consisting of the rescission of $192.5 million, offsets for

programmatic augmentations totaling $345.2 million, and site-specific Congressional

interest items totaling $83.2 million. Finally, in accordance with Congressional direction, NASA has established seven Agency appropriations accounts in the FY 2009

budget request. As a result, the budgets for NASA’s programs and projects are requested only in terms of direct costs, not the additional indirect costs associated

with operating the Agency’s field Centers, safety and mission success and Agency

management and operations. The direct budgets will continue to reflect labor, travel, and procurement costs associated with each program and project. The indirect

costs are now budgeted solely within the Cross Agency Support account, and not in

the NASA programs and projects. We will strive to ensure that these changes are

transparent to our stakeholders.

I am appreciative of the action by the Committees on Appropriations and Congress in providing regular FY 2008 appropriations for the Agency at the level of the

President’s request, including essentially full funding for the Orion, the Ares I, the

Space Shuttle, and the Space Station. This total FY 2008 appropriations level, with

some adjustments within the total, will enable NASA to meet critical priorities in

accordance with the direction from the Congress and the President.

Highlights of the NASA FY 2009 Budget Request

I am pleased to report that the FY 2009 budget represents a substantial step forward in responding to the recommendations of the National Research Council’s

(NRC) first decadal survey of Earth Science, released in January 2007. The five-year

budget runout requests $910 million for priorities enumerated in the report. Funding will support development of two Decadal Survey new mission priorities—the Soil

Moisture Active/Passive (SMAP) mission scheduled to launch as early as 2012, and

the Ice, Clouds, land Elevation Satellite II (ICESat II) scheduled to launch in

2015—as well as formulation of three additional decadal survey missions.

Working closely with NOAA, we also are making significant progress toward restoring climate sensors that had been removed from the tri-agency National PolarOrbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) in 2006. The FY

2009 budget request of $74 million for NOAA supports the addition of a Clouds and

the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) instrument onto NASA’s NPOESS

Preparatory Project (NPP) satellite, set to launch in 2010; instrument development

and ongoing analyses to identify a suitable satellite platform for hosting the Total

Solar Irradiance Sensor (TSIS); and development of climate data records. These actions, which will be implemented through close coordination between NASA and

NOAA, come in addition to the inclusion of the Ozone Mapping and Profiler Suite

(OMPS)-Limb sensor on the NPP satellite that was announced earlier in 2007.

The Agency’s FY 2009 budget request also reflects a number of exciting developments in the space sciences, including an increase in the number of new missions,

a new initiative in lunar science and initiation of plans for high priority missions

in Astrophysics and Planetary Exploration. The FY 2009 request includes an increase of $344 million over five years for Lunar Science in order to better understand our Moon. NASA’s Science mission directorate, with support from the Exploration directorate is developing two small lunar landers, and the Science Mission

Directorate is initiating a series of new and exciting missions headed to the Moon

over the next decade. Meanwhile, we are focusing our Mars program after 2013 on

a Mars sample return mission to launch by 2020, and have identified funds to initiate development of an outer planets flagship mission to be selected in October of

this year for launch by 2017. The budget also significantly increases Research and

Analysis funds in the space sciences to gain better value from the missions we are

flying, and so too, it increases the funding and, therefore, the flight rate of our suborbital rocket and balloon research programs in the space sciences.

Our Aeronautics Research portfolio is positioned to address the challenges facing

the Next Generation Air Transportation System, while also developing world-class

aeronautics expertise and capabilities. Research is aligned with the National Plan

for Aeronautics Research and Development and Related Infrastructure, approved by

the President in December 2007. In FY 2009, we will conduct a key test to advance

our understanding of aircraft aging and durability, and develop algorithms to optimize the use of crowded airspace and airports. We will continue work on blendedVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:33 Aug 08, 2008 Jkt 040598 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL08\021308\40598 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
33

wing-body aircraft, which may reduce fuel consumption and emissions, as well as

aircraft noise. Additionally, NASA’s Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate continues to strengthen partnerships with academia, industry, and other government

agencies to accomplish its strategic goals.

NASA’s commitment to its exploration objectives is clearly reflected in the FY

2009 budget request. As assembly of the Space Station nears completion, NASA will

increasingly focus its efforts on continuing the development of the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle and Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle. This budget request maintains

Orion initial operational capability in March 2015, and full operational capability

in FY 2016, though we are striving to bring this new vehicle on line sooner. In FY

2008, we will see the completion of the formulation phase for major elements of the

Constellation program; both Orion and Ares I will undergo their preliminary design

reviews. We will conduct the first Ares ascent development flight test with the Ares

I–X in the Spring of 2009, and we will continue to conduct research and develop

and test technologies through the Advanced Capabilities Human Research and Exploration Technology Development Program. The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter

(LRO)/Lunar Crater Observation Sensing Satellite (LCROSS), an important part of

NASA’s lunar exploration strategy, is on track for launch at the beginning of FY 2009. The Agency is also requesting $173 million to provide incentives for entrepreneurs—from big companies or small ones—to develop commercial transport capa- bilities to support the International Space Station. With more than $2.6 billion in

NASA funds available over the next five years to purchase cargo and crew services

to support Space Station operations, our objective and strong preference is to use

these funds to purchase these services from American commercial companies wherever possible.

While I would prefer that the United States have domestic alternatives to purchasing crew transport services from Russia, I am glad that the Russians are our

partners and have such capabilities, because the consequences if they were not

available are far worse. If NASA astronauts were not on-board the Space Station,

our National Laboratory in space simply would not survive. If there is no Space Station, there is no market for the commercial providers we are trying to help bring

into existence, and our international partnership would simply fall apart. So in

order to keep these objectives viable, NASA may need to obtain additional crew and

cargo transport services from our international partners if U.S. commercial services

are not yet demonstrated and available.

In the area of Space Operations, NASA’s FY 2009 budget request will allow us

to continue to expand the Space Station, complete the supporting truss structure

and solar arrays, and deliver the final component of the Japanese laboratory. This

will round out the set of three space laboratories aboard the Station, with one each

from the U.S., Europe, and Japan. In addition, FY 2009 will mark another milestone

for the Space Station Program—for the first time, the Station will be able to support

a full-time crew of six astronauts. With three major scientific facilities available to

them, these larger crews will be busy as Station kicks off a new era in microgravity

research aboard this National Laboratory in orbit. Critical to these achievements,

the Space Shuttle is scheduled to fly four times in FY 2009. During that year, NASA

also plans to launch payloads on eight expendable launch vehicles. FY 2009 will also

see the consolidation of the Deep Space, Near-Earth, and Space Communications

networks into a unified Space Communications and Navigation (SCaN) architecture

within the Space Operations Mission Directorate.

NASA is continuing to transition from the Space Shuttle to new Exploration systems, and will need a complement of critical tools and authorities necessary for the

transformed Agency to execute its mission. This transition is the largest and most

daunting since the end of the Apollo program and the beginning of the Space Shuttle program. It dictates that we obtain the authorities needed to ensure sufficient

support in the future. We hope to discuss the details of these legislative requests

with Members of Congress in the weeks ahead.

The remainder of my testimony outlines the FY 2009 budget request for NASA

in greater detail.

Science Mission Directorate

In 2007, NASA successfully launched four new orbital and planetary science missions (THEMIS, AIM, Phoenix, and Dawn), almost 20 sub-orbital science missions,

and two major airborne Earth science campaigns. This past year also saw the first

test flights of the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) 747

airborne infrared observatory, as well as the provision of rapid-response airborne remote sensing aid to the California wildfire emergencies. In addition, 2007 was a

year of remarkable scientific discovery about the Earth, the Sun, the planets and

the universe. For example, data from the Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite

34

(ICESat), the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), and other satellites have provided dramatic new insights on ice sheet changes in Greenland and

Antarctica. The Solar TErrestrial RElations Observatory (STEREO) satellites (A

and B) have provided the first three dimensional images of the sun and the structures of the heliosphere. These new 3–D views, along with unprecedented observations from Hinode (Solar-B), NASA’s Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS) mission, and the Aeronomy of Ice in the Mesosphere (AIM) satellite are revolutionizing knowledge of the variable Sun and its

interactions with the Earth. Also, the Cassini spacecraft radar imagery of Titan revealed large lakes of methane in Titan’s North polar region, indicating a

hydrological cycle. Finally, a new map provides the best evidence to date that normal matter, largely in the form of galaxies, accumulates along the densest concentrations of dark matter. Mapping dark matter’s distribution in space and time

is fundamental to understanding how galaxies grew and clustered over billions of

years.

NASA’s FY 2009 budget request provides $4.44 billion for the Agency’s Science

portfolio to study the Earth, our Sun and its heliosphere, our solar system, and the

Universe. This funding enables NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD) to start

major new missions, to increase research and analysis funding, and to operate and

provide ground support for 55 operating science missions, including 13 Earth science

mission extensions. It provides support for over 3,000 current operating research

and analysis grants, while continuing to develop high priority missions in Earth

Science, Heliophysics, Planetary Science and Astrophysics, consistent with the priorities established by the NRC’s decadal surveys.

Pursuant to requirements of the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109–555),

and consistent with the latest notification provided to the Committee on February

11, 2008, NASA is in the process of producing more detailed reports on budget adjustments and schedule changes which have occurred since NASA submitted its FY

2006 and FY 2007 Baseline Reports under the Act. Detailed reports are in work and

planned for submission to the Committee in March 2008 on Aquarius, Glory, Herschel, Kepler, NPP, and OCO. In addition, Glory has exceeded the 30 percent cost

threshold triggering additional requirements as provided in the Act. Initial notifications are now in work under the processes established by act the Act for schedule

changes for GLAST and SOFIA. The FY 2009 budget request for Earth Science provides $1.37 billion to help us

better understand the Earth’s atmosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere,

and biosphere as a single connected system. In addition to 14 operating missions,

the request includes funding for seven missions in development. The Landsat Data

Continuity Mission and Ocean Surface Topography Mission (to launch in 2008) continue the decades-long time series of land cover change and ocean surface height

data, respectively. Glory targets the impact of aerosols on climate. The National

Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) Preparatory

Project (NPP) paves the way for the future national weather system and continues

essential measurements from the NASA Earth Observing System (EOS), Aquarius,

and the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO), set to launch in 2008. Aquarius and

OCO will make the first-ever global measurements of ocean surface salinity and atmospheric carbon dioxide, respectively. The request specifically increases funding for

OCO and the Aquarius missions to maintain development schedules. The Global

Precipitation Measurement (GPM) mission will extend the rainfall measurements

made by the Tropical Rainfall Measurement Mission (TRMM) to the global scale.

The request retains the GPM core mission launch readiness date.

The budget request responds to the Earth Science Decadal Survey by establishing

a funding wedge of $910.0 million over the budget runout to initiate five new Earth

Decadal Survey missions for launch by 2020, while continuing to implement seven

precursor missions for launch between 2008 and 2013. NASA will continue to contribute to the President’s Climate Change Research Initiative by collecting data sets

and developing predictive capabilities that will enable advanced assessments of the

causes and consequences of global climate change.

The Heliophysics budget request of $577.3 million will support missions to understand the Sun and its effects on Earth, the solar system, and the space environmental conditions that explorers will experience, and to demonstrate technologies

that can improve future operational systems. The request increases budgets for

Sounding Rockets, Research Range, and Research and Analysis to achieve a more

robust level of small payload opportunities. In addition to supporting 16 currently

operational missions, the request supports the Interstellar Boundary Explorer

(IBEX) mission focused on the detection of the very edge of our solar system and

the Coupled ion-Neural Dynamics Investigation (CINDI) ‘‘Mission of Opportunity’’

that will provide new insight on the Earth’s ionospheric structure, both of which are

35

planned for launch in 2008. In early FY 2009, the Solar Dynamics Observatory

(SDO) to study the Sun’s magnetic field is planned for launch, and the Geospace

Radiation Belt Storm Probes (RBSP) mission will begin development. RBSP will improve our understanding of how the Earth’s radiation belts are formed and how

solar output modifies the Earth’s Van Allen radiation belts. Further, the five-year

budget funds a new Solar Probe mission which has long been sought by the U.S.

scientific community and is recommended highly in the most recent Heliophysics

decadal survey. The Planetary Science budget provides $1.33 billion to advance scientific knowledge of the solar system, search for evidence of life, and to prepare for human exploration. The budget supports an array of eight currently operating spacecraft and

rovers traveling to or now studying Mercury, Mars, the Asteroid Belt, Saturn, and

Pluto, in addition to a series of instrument missions of opportunity. The budget request augments Lunar Science to include a series of small robotic lunar satellites

to begin development in FY 2009 and initiates an outer planets flagship mission,

planned for launch in 2016 or 2017. The request includes continuation of funds for

all five of NASA’s operating Mars missions, the development of a Mars Science Laboratory in 2009 and a Mars Scout mission in 2013. The Mars Program is redirected

to focus on the Mars Sample Return mission after the Scout 2013 opportunity, while

expanding U.S. participation on the ESA/ExoMars mission by selecting two instrument Missions of Opportunity for study and technology development. With the New

Horizons spacecraft continuing on its way to Pluto, the request realigns the New

Frontiers Program’s Juno Mission to Jupiter to be consistent with a 2011 launch

date, and funds initiation of the next New Frontiers mission. An open competitive

solicitation for the next mission is planned for release near the end of this calendar

year. The request continues support for the operating Discovery mission and for the

development of the new Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) Discovery mission, the latter of which will use high-quality gravity field mapping of the

Moon to determine the Moon’s interior structure.

The Astrophysics budget provides $1.16 billion to search for answers to fundamental questions about how the universe works, how we got here, and whether we

are alone. The request supports a restart of the Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope

Array (NuSTAR) Small Explorer with a launch date of no-earlier-than 2011, increases funding for sounding rocket payloads, balloon payloads, detector technology

and theory, and initiates the Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM) in FY 2009. The

Astrophysics suite of operating missions includes three Great Observatories (Hubble

Space Telescope, Chandra X–Ray Observatory and the Spitzer Space Telescope),

which have helped astronomers unravel the mysteries of the cosmos. The request

will support the Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST), which is now

planned for launch in May, 2008, to begin a five-year mission mapping the gammaray sky and investigating gamma-ray bursts. It also provides funding for the Kepler

telescope, which is planned for launch in February 2009, to detect planets in the

‘‘habitable zone’’ around other stars. SOFIA will begin science operations in 2009,

significantly earlier than previously planned. The request supports development of

the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE), which will conduct an all-sky survey, and the James Webb Space Telescope, which will explore the mysterious epoch

when the first luminous objects in the universe came into being after the Big Bang.

Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate

In 2007, the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) continued to pursue high-quality, innovative, and cutting-edge research that develops revolutionary

tools, concepts, and technologies to enable a safer, more flexible, environmentally

friendly, and more efficient national air transportation system. ARMD’s research

also plays a vital role in supporting NASA’s space exploration activities. ARMD’s

program content and direction is consistent with the National Aeronautics Research

and Development Policy, as well as the follow-on National Plan for Aeronautics Research and Development and Related Infrastructure that the President approved on

December 21, 2007.

A primary goal across all of the programs in ARMD is to establish strong partnerships with industry, academia, and other government agencies in order to enable

significant advancement in our nation’s aeronautical expertise. NASA has put many

mechanisms in place to engage academia and industry, including industry working

groups and technical interchange meetings at the program and project level, Space

Act Agreements for cooperative partnerships, and the NASA Research Announcement (NRA) process that provides for full and open competition for the best and

most promising research ideas.

ARMD has established over 35 Space Act Agreements with industry partners and

more are in the works. We have ensured that all Space Act Agreements are negoVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:33 Aug 08, 2008 Jkt 040598 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL08\021308\40598 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
36

tiated so that results of collaborations will be broadly disseminated. To date, NASA

has selected 346 proposals for negotiation of award through the NRA process from

more than 70 different universities and 60 different companies and non-profits.

NASA investment in NRAs will increase steadily from FY 2009 ($72 million)

through FY 2013 ($100 million).

We have also strengthened our partnerships with other government agencies. For

example, NASA and the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) have established quarterly reviews to ensure close coordination, and NASA participates in all

major JPDO planning activities. In addition, NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration have developed a joint program plan for the Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS) effort with well defined roles and responsibilities. Also, NASA and the

U.S. Air Force have established an Executive Research Council that meets at

least twice a year to ensure close coordination and collaboration. Lastly, NASA and

the Army have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to coordinate research efforts on rotorcraft.

In FY 2009, the President’s budget for NASA requests $446.5 million for Aeronautics Research. ARMD is directly addressing the fundamental research challenges

that must be overcome in order to enable the JPDO vision for the Next Generation

Air Transportation System (NextGen).

NASA’s Airspace Systems Program has partnered with the JPDO to help develop

concepts, capabilities and technologies that will lead to significant enhancements in

the capacity, efficiency and flexibility of the National Airspace System. In FY 2009,

NASA’s budget request will provide $74.6 million for the Airspace Systems Program

to conduct trajectory analyses for service-provider-based automated separation assurance with time-based metering in an environment with two to three times capacity and with delay and separation comparable to or better than that achieved today.

In addition, the Airspace Systems Program will develop algorithms to generate robust, optimized solutions for airport surface traffic planning and control. These surface models will be developed as a basis for the optimized use of super-density airports, integrated airport clusters, and terminals where demand for runways is high.

NASA’s Fundamental Aeronautics Program conducts research in all aeronautics

disciplines that enable the design of vehicles that fly through any atmosphere at

any speed. The FY 2009 budget request, amounting to $235.4 million, will enable

significant advances in the Hypersonics, Supersonics, Subsonic Fixed Wing, and

Subsonic Rotary Wing projects that make up the Fundamental Aeronautics Program. These projects focus on creating innovative solutions for the technical challenges of the future: increasing performance (range, speed, payload, fuel efficiency)

while meeting stringent noise and emissions constraints; alleviating environmental

and congestion problems through the use of new aircraft and rotorcraft concepts;

and facilitating access to space and re-entry into planetary atmospheres. A wide variety of cross-cutting research topics are being pursued across the speed regimes

with emphasis on physics-based multi-disciplinary analysis and design, aerothermodynamics, materials and structures, propulsion, aero-servo-elasticity, thermal protection systems, advanced control methods, and computational and experimental

techniques.

The FY 2009 budget request for NASA’s Aviation Safety Program is $62.6 million.

The four projects within the Program (Integrated Intelligent Flight Deck, Integrated

Resilient Aircraft Control, Aircraft Aging and Durability, and Integrated Vehicle

Health Management) will develop cutting-edge tools, methods, and technologies with

close coordination among them to improve the intrinsic safety attributes of current

and future aircraft that will operate in the NextGen. In FY 2009, the Program will

demonstrate aircraft engine safety and reliability improvements using advanced

sensing technologies and new methods for modeling engine gas flow characteristics.

In addition, ballistic tests will be used to study the effect of aging on the impact

resiliency of composite fan-blade containment structures for aircraft engines.

Multiple flight and simulation tests will evaluate technologies to protect aircraft

during hazardous situations. For example, simulations will evaluate technologies enabling aircraft to land safely even when flight control surfaces are partially damaged or malfunctioning, and flight tests will examine forward-looking, multi-frequency radar systems for early detection of potential hazardous icing.

Finally, NASA’s Aeronautics Test Program (ATP) will continue to safeguard the

strategic availability of a critical suite of aeronautics test facilities that are deemed

necessary to meet Agency and national aeronautics needs. The FY 2009 budget request for the ATP is $73.9 million, which will enable strategic utilization, operations, maintenance, and investment decisions for major wind tunnel/ground test facilities at Ames Research Center in California, Glenn Research Center in Ohio, and

Langley Research Center in Virginia, and will support specific aircraft and test bed

37

aircraft at Dryden Flight Research Center, also in California. ARMD has established

the National Partnership for Aeronautical Testing with the Department of Defense

to pursue a coordinated approach to managing DOD–NASA aeronautical testing facilities. In FY 2009, ATP will continue to reduce the deferred maintenance associated with its facilities and will also invest in new test technologies ensuring a

healthy set of facilities and the new capabilities needed for future programs. In addition, ATP plans to continue off-setting the user rates for its facilities through the

funding of a portion of the indirect costs resulting in competitive prices. Simultaneously, the Program will continue to move toward a long-term strategic approach

that aligns the NASA and DOD facilities to meet future requirements with the right

mix of facilities and appropriate investments in facility capability.

Exploration Systems Mission Directorate

In 2007, the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) delivered as promised and will continue to do so in 2008. Major development work is underway; contracts are in place, and our future Exploration plan is executable. By the end of

2008, ESMD will see its first spacecraft launched from the NASA Kennedy Space

Center, Florida. This Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) and the Lunar Crater

Observation Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) will help NASA scout for potential lunar

landing and outpost sites. Additionally, in 2008, NASA will continue to plan how

best to transition any needed Shuttle workforce and infrastructure to the Constellation program.

The FY 2009 budget request of $3.5 billion for Exploration will support continued

development of new U.S. human space flight capabilities and supporting research

and technologies, and will enable sustained and affordable human space exploration

after the Space Shuttle is retired at the end of FY 2010. The budget request provides stable funding to allow NASA to continue developing our next-generation U.S.

human space flight vehicles while also providing research and developing technologies for the longer-term development of a sustained human presence on the

Moon. Budget stability in FY 2009 is crucial to maintaining a March 2015 Initial

Operational Capability for the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle and Ares I Crew

Launch Vehicle. There is minimum flexibility through 2010, so Congressional support for budget stability is critical. Additionally, ESMD will continue to work with

other nations and the commercial sector to coordinate planning, leverage investment, and identify opportunities for specific collaboration on lunar data collection

and lunar surface activities.

The FY 2009 budget request for Constellation Systems Program is approximately

$3.0 billion. The Constellation program includes funding for the Orion and Ares, as

well as for ground operations, mission operations, and extra-vehicular activity

projects and a dedicated in-house effort for systems engineering and integration.

Last year, the Constellation program made great strides and it will continue to do

so in 2008. We have tested real hardware; we have tested landing systems; and we

have logged thousands of hours in wind tunnels. So far, NASA engineers have conducted almost 4,000 hours of wind tunnel testing on sub-scale models of the Ares

I to simulate how the current vehicle design performs in flight. These wind tunnel

tests, as well as NASA’s first scheduled demonstration test flight for Ares I, known

as Ares IX, are scheduled for spring 2009 and will lay the ground work for maturing

the Ares I final design.

Constellation has an integrated schedule and we are meeting our early milestones. In fact, all major elements of the Orion and Ares vehicles were placed under

contract by the end of 2007. Currently, NASA has civil servants and contractors on

board for the Constellation program serving at all ten Agency Centers, as well as

in more than 20 states. In 2008, NASA will continue efforts to define the specific

work the Agency’s Centers will perform in order to enable astronauts to explore the

Moon. Preliminary work assignments covering elements of the Altair human lunar

lander and lunar surface operations, as well as the Ares V, were announced in October 2007.

During 2007, ESMD completed a series of key project review milestones, including

a System Definition Review for the Orion project in August and for the Ares I

project in October. During these reviews, each project examined how its proposed

requirements impact engineering decisions for the functional elements of the system. The Orion and Ares I teams are currently assessing design concepts, and are

moving toward finalized reference designs that meets their requirements. This reference configuration will be the starting point for the design analysis cycle that

leads to Preliminary Design Reviews for the Orion and Ares I projects, in turn leading to an integrated stack review by the end of December 2008. A Preliminary Design Review is a crucial milestone, during which the overall program verifies that

38

the preliminary design meets all requirements within acceptable risk limits and

within the cost and schedule constraints.

In FY 2009, NASA is requesting $173 million for the Commercial Crew and Cargo

Program and its associated projects. Full funding is essential to maintaining NASA’s promised $500 million investment in this program to spur the development of U.S.

commercial space transportation services to and from the Space Station, while also

providing substantial savings to the taxpayer compared to NASA government-owned

and operated capabilities. Technical progress continues to be made by our remaining

funded partner, as well by as several of our unfunded partners. NASA plans to sign

a Space Act Agreement with a new funded partner in the coming weeks.

The Agency’s FY 2009 budget request provides $453 million for activities in

ESMD’s Advanced Capabilities theme, which seeks ways to reduce the risks for

human explorers of the Moon and beyond by conducting research and developing

and maturing new technologies. In 2008, NASA’s Human Research Program will

focus on the highest risks to crew health and performance during exploration missions. We also will develop and validate technologies that serve to reduce medical

risks associated with human space flight. For example, NASA will continue its work

to understand the effect of space radiation on humans and to develop effective mitigation strategies. During 2008, NASA also will continue to research ways to reduce

the risks to future explorers. Research on-board Space Station will include human

experiments, as well as biological and microgravity experiments. In 2009, the Advanced Capabilities Exploration Technology Development program will conduct a

range of activities, including testing prototype ablative heat shield materials;

throttleable Lox Hydrogen engines suitable for a human lunar lander; and lightweight life support systems for Orion. The program also will deploy and test advanced environmental monitoring systems on the Space Station to advance the safety of crew members, and will continue to test in-situ resource utilization technologies as well as life support and cryogenic fluid management.

In response to Congressional direction contained in the Explanatory Statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110–161), ESMD will

fund in 2008 a robotic lander project managed by NASA’s Marshall Space Flight

Center in Alabama as a path-finder for an anticipated network of small science

landers based on requirements for NASA’s expanded lunar science program. The

first lander mission is planned to fly in 2013–2014. NASA’s Exploration Systems

and Science mission directorates will continue to work together combining resources

to ensure that the goals of the science lander are achieved.

NASA’s LRO and the LCROSS have a planned launch later this year from Kennedy Space Center. These dual-manifested spacecraft are in the assembly, integration, and test phase and are making excellent progress toward launch. The knowledge generated by these missions will enable future outpost site selection and new

information about resources within the permanently shadowed craters at the lunar

poles. The LRO/LCROSS missions represent NASA’s first steps in returning to the

Moon.

Lastly, facility, infrastructure, property, and personnel transitions from Space

Shuttle to Constellation continue to be a major activity. NASA transition activities

are focused on managing the evolution from current operations of the Space Shuttle

to future operations of Constellation and emerging commercial services, in a safe,

successful and smooth process. To date, NASA has met all of its milestones and disposition targets. This joint effort between the Space Operations Mission Directorate

and ESMD includes the utilization and disposition of resources, including real and

personal property, personnel, and processes, to leverage existing Shuttle and Space

Station assets for NASA’s future Exploration activities. Formalized Transition

Boards are working to successfully achieve this outcome. An initial Human

Spaceflight Transition Plan was developed in 2006. An updated NASA Transition

Plan, supported by key metrics, is being refined and will be released this year.

Space Operations Mission Directorate

The Space Shuttle and Space Station programs both enjoyed a highly successful

and productive year in 2007. The Space Shuttle flew three missions during the year,

continuing the assembly of the Station and expanding its capabilities. The June

2007 flight of Atlantis on STS–117 added a truss segment and new solar arrays to

the starboard side of the Station to provide increased power. In August, Endeavour

brought up another truss segment, supplies, and became the first Orbiter to use a

new power transfer system that enables the Space Shuttle to draw power from the

Station’s solar arrays, extending the duration of the Shuttle’s visits to Space Station. On the same mission, STS–118, teacher-turned-astronaut Barbara Morgan conducted a number of education-related activities aboard the Space Station, inspiring

students back on Earth and realizing the dream of the Teacher In Space Project for

39

which she and Christa McAuliffe trained more than two decades ago. In October

2007, Discovery flew the STS–120 mission, which added the Harmony node to the

Station and featured a space-walk to disentangle a snagged solar array.

The STS–120 mission paved the way for Station astronauts to conduct a series

of ambitious space-walks and operations using the Station’s robotic arm to move the

Pressurized Mating Adapter-2 and Harmony node in preparation for the addition of

the European Columbus laboratory and the Japanese Kibo laboratory in 2008.

These space-walks are particularly challenging and impressive, as they are carried

out entirely by the three-person Expedition crews, without benefit of having a Shuttle Orbiter, with its additional personnel and resources, docked to the Station.

NASA looks forward to upcoming Space Shuttle missions and Space Station Expeditions in 2008, which will feature the delivery, docking, and activation of key scientific assets from two of our International Partners: the European Columbus laboratory, launched just last week aboard Shuttle Atlantis, and the pressurized module of the Japanese Kibo laboratory, to be launched in April. In addition, a major

contribution from Canada, the Special Purpose Dextrous Manipulator—or Dextre— will be delivered to the Station, along with the Japanese Experiment Logistics Module, in March. Dextre, the final component of the remote manipulator system provided by Canada, will act as the ‘‘hand’’ on the robotic arm, allowing astronauts to

conduct operations and maintenance activities from inside the Space Station, rather

than via space-walks. In late summer, the crew of STS–125 will become the final

Shuttle crew deployed to a non-Station orbit, as they conduct the last Hubble Space

Telescope servicing mission from the Space Shuttle. This mission will outfit the telescope with the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph and the Wide-Field Camera 3, as well

as replace components to extend Hubble’s operational life. The Space Shuttle FY 2009 budget request of approximately $3.0 billion would

provide for four Shuttle flights to support assembly of the Space Station. This would

include the flight of the Japanese Kibo laboratory’s Exposed Facility, and the delivery of the final Station Truss segment. The FY 2009 budget request includes about $2.1 billion for ISS International

Space Station activities, reflecting the presence of a permanent six-person crew and

three major research facilities aboard Station.

After the Space Shuttle retires at the end of FY 2010, NASA will use alternative

means to transport cargo and crew to the Space Station. The Agency’s first choice

for such services is domestic, commercial capability, the development of which is the

focus of the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) effort. ESMD is

funding the first phase of COTS under the Commercial Crew and Cargo Program,

which will demonstrate this capability via funded and unfunded Space Act Agreements. SOMD will manage the second phase of the effort, covering actual cargo— and potentially crew—delivery services to the Space Station. Until such time that

operational commercial means are available for resupplying the Station, NASA will

look to its international partners to provide cargo resupply capability, much of

which will be provided as part of the partners’ contributions to the International

Space Station Program. NASA has contracted with Roscosmos to provide Soyuz and

limited cargo services through the end of FY 2011, as permitted under the Iran,

North Korea and Syria Non-proliferation Act of 2005 (P.L. 109–112). NASA is monitoring the progress of potential domestic commercial providers to develop cargo and

crew transportation services to the Space Station, and the Orion project is on track

to reach its Initial Operational Capability in March 2015. The Administration is

considering options to maintain a U.S. crew presence aboard the Space Station after

the retirement of the Shuttle and before the advent of Orion. Purchasing crew

transportation services domestically is NASA’s preferred method to meet the needs

of the Space Station. Another option may be to seek relief from the provisions of

the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Non-Proliferation Act of 2005 for additional Soyuz

services to keep a U.S. crew presence on the Space Station until either domestic

commercial crew transportation services, or Orion, become available. We will keep

the Congress fully informed of our plans.

NASA remains focused on, and committed to, flying out the remaining Space

Shuttle missions safely and completing the assembly of the Space Station. Beyond

those aims, one of the challenges NASA faces as we approach the end of the Shuttle

era is the smooth disposition of personnel and infrastructure. SOMD and ESMD

have been working hand-in-hand to ensure that needed skills and facilities are retained and put to productive use during the development and operational phases of

the Orion, Ares I, and Ares V projects. In FY 2009, the Agency’s transition milestones will include the transfer of Pad 39B and Mobile Launch Platform #1 to Constellation, after the Hubble Servicing Mission. In addition, the Space Shuttle Program is reviewing whether the Space Shuttle Atlantis will be retired in FY 2008

or used to conduct existing missions within the planned manifest.

40

The Space Flight Support Program’s FY 2009 budget request of $733 million

would help mitigate outyear costs associated with the Delta II launch pads. The request also reflects the consolidation of the Agency’s space communications projects

into the Space Communications and Navigation Program. Finally, it includes funding for the development of two satellites to replenish the Tracking and Data Relay

Satellite System, planned for launch in 2012 and 2013.

Education

The FY 2009 budget request for Education totals $115.6 million and furthers

NASA’s commitment to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)

education. NASA’s primary objectives for Education are to: (1) contribute to the development of the Nation’s STEM workforce through a portfolio of initiatives for students at all levels; (2) attract and retain students in STEM disciplines while encouraging them to pursue higher education that is critical to NASA’s workforce needs;

and (3) engage Americans in NASA’s mission through strategic partnerships with

STEM education providers.

NASA is committed to ensuring that its future workforce is fully prepared to handle a variety of challenging scientific and technical careers. NASA’s Office of Education encourages student interest in STEM through the Agency’s missions, workforce, facilities, and innovations in research and technology. The FY 2009 budget request reflects a balanced portfolio of investments which takes into account Congressional priorities, the NASA Strategic Plan, and recommendations from the National

Research Council, as well as the priorities of the education community. NASA Education is the critical link between the Agency’s scientists and engineers and the education community. NASA Education translates the Agency’s missions into educational materials, services, and opportunities for students and learners of all ages.

NASA strives to support the role of educational institutions, which provide the

framework to unite students, their families, and educators for educational improvement.

In 2008, NASA’s Office of Education will continue to collaborate with Agency mission directorates and field Centers to assist educators in promoting scientific and

technical literacy while attracting and retaining students in STEM disciplines and

careers. NASA Education will also continue its work with other Federal agencies engaged in educational activities, along with public and private partners to leverage

the effectiveness and reach of its efforts.

Cross-Agency Support

The FY 2009 budget request for activities within Cross-Agency Support includes

funding for developing and maintaining NASA’s technical capability including the

Agency’s vital mission support functions. Cross Agency Support provides a focus for

managing technical capability and Agency mission support functions. This budget

area consists of three themes: Center Management and Operations; Agency Management and Operations; and, Institutional Investments. Cross Agency Support is not

directly identified or aligned to a specific program or project requirement but is necessary to ensure the efficient and effective operation and administration of NASA.

The most significant change is in the area of Agency Management and Operations. Agency Management and Operations provides for the management and oversight of Agency missions and functions and for the performance of many Agencywide activities. Agency Management and Operations is divided into five programs:

Agency Management; Safety and Mission Success; Agency Information Technology

services; Innovative Partnerships Program; and, Strategic Capabilities Assets Program.

• The FY 2009 budget request provides $414.6 million for Agency Management

which sponsors and supports an executive-based, Agency-level functional and

administrative management agenda. Agency Management delivers policies,

controls, and oversight across a range of functional and administrative management service areas and also provides for independent technical assessments of Agency programs. It delivers strategic planning services. It assesses

and evaluates NASA program and mission performance. It sponsors and directs the Institutions and Management agenda in procurement, human capital, real property and infrastructure, security and program protection, diversity, equal opportunity, and small business. Agency Management also provides for the operational costs of Headquarters as an installation, including

salaries, benefits, training and travel requirements of the Headquarters workforce, as well as the resources necessary to operate the Headquarters installation.

• The FY 2009 budget request provides $163.4 million for Safety and Mission

Success activities to provide the critical resources required to strengthen and

41

enable the fundamental and robust cross checks applied on the execution of

NASA’s mission. The engineering; safety and mission assurance; and health

and medical independent oversight and technical authority which are essential to NASA’s success and were established in direct response to recommendations of the Challenger and Columbia Shuttle accident board recommendations for independent funding of these efforts. The Safety and Mission Success program directly supports NASA’s core values and serves to improve the likelihood for safety and mission success for NASA’s programs,

projects, and operations. Safety and Mission Success includes the corporate

work managed by the offices of the Chief Safety and Mission Assurance (including the NASA Safety Center), Chief Engineer (including the NASA Engineering and Safety Center), the Chief Health and Medical Officer, and the Director of the Independent Verification and Validation Facility.

• The FY 2009 budget request for Agency Information Technology services is

$163.9 million which encompasses cross-cutting services and initiatives in IT

management, applications, and infrastructure necessary to enable the NASA

Mission and improve security, integration and efficiency of Agency operations.

In FY 2009 significant emphasis will be placed on consolidation of networks

and network management, improved security incident detection, response and

management, further consolidation of desktop/laptop computer services, data

center assessment for consolidation, and application portfolio management

leading to consolidation. NASA is using an enterprise architecture approach

to assess current assets, capabilities and costs for services and developing requirements, projects and procurements for transition to the desired consolidated state. Additionally, the underlying infrastructure and systems to instill

strong authentication and access to information systems in alignment with

HSPD–12 will progress significantly in FY 2009. Critical work will continue

under the Integrated Enterprise Management Program to improve business

processes by minimizing data redundancy, standardizing information and

electronic data exchanges, and processing. Also, NASA will continue participation in several federal E–Government initiatives and Lines of Business to

improve services to citizens and gain efficiencies across the government.

• The FY 2009 budget request for Innovative Partnerships Program activities

is $175.7 million. This program provides leveraged technology investments,

dual-use technology-related partnerships, and technology solutions for NASA.

This program also facilitates the protection of NASA’s rights in its inventions

and the transfer of that technology for commercial application and public benefit. In addition, the Innovative Partnerships Program implements NASA’s

Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer

Programs which seek out high-technology small businesses to address key

technology needs for NASA. The program also manages a Seed Fund to address technology needs through cost-shared, joint-development partnerships.

The Centennial Challenges Program, which is also managed by the Innovative Partnerships Program, consists of prize contests to stimulate innovation

and competition in new technologies for solar system exploration and other

NASA mission areas. NASA has already benefited from Centennial Challenge

competitions, and last year awarded $450,000 in prize money for the Astronaut Glove Challenge and Personal Air Vehicle Challenge. The Innovative

Partnerships Program also transfers NASA technology for public benefit, as

documented in NASA’s annual ‘‘Spinoff’’ publication. ‘‘Spinoff 2007’’ documented 39 new examples of how NASA innovation has been successfully

transferred to the commercial market place and applied to areas such as

health and medicine, transportation, public safety, consumer goods, homes

and recreation, environmental and agricultural resources, computer technology, and industrial productivity.

• Finally, NASA is requesting $28.0 million in FY 2009 for the Strategic Capabilities Assets Program, a focused activity designed to ensure that critical

Agency capabilities and assets for flight simulation, thermal vacuum testing,

arc jet testing, and microgravity flight services are available to NASA missions when needed. Strategic Capabilities Assets Program assets are also

used by other government agencies, industry, and academia to improve the

Nation’s position in the global market place as well as its defense capabilities.

The Strategic Capabilities Assets Program budget request covers the direct

and associated costs required to sustain key test capabilities and assets including operating staff, preventive maintenance, subsystem repairs, and component replacements required to keep the assets in ‘‘ready for testing’’ condition. Incremental costs to conduct specific tests are borne by individual proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:33 Aug 08, 2008 Jkt 040598 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL08\021308\40598 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
42

grams and reimbursable customers. The Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate budget request includes $73.9 million for the Aeronautics Test Program

(e.g., wind tunnels and flight testing) and the Science Mission Directorate

budget request includes $41.9 million for High-End Computing Capability

(e.g., the Columbia super computer), which are also managed as Strategic Capabilities Assets. Centralized management at the Agency-level allows NASA

to better prioritize and make strategic investment decisions to replace, modify, or disposition these capabilities and assets.

Conclusion

NASA has a lot of hard work ahead, but the Agency continues to make steady

progress in managing its challenges. We are deploying our workforce to carry out

the great task before us. Last fall, the Agency assigned new leadership roles and

responsibilities for exploration and science missions to NASA’s ten field Centers

across the country in order to help restore the core technical capabilities across the

Agency as we transition from the Space Shuttle to new capabilities. I ask your continued help to ensure that this nation maintains a human space flight capability.

In a short span of years, we have already taken long strides in the formulation

of strategies and programs that will take us back to the Moon and on to Mars and

other destinations in our solar system. Indeed, a generation from now, astronauts

on Mars will be flying and living aboard hardware America is funding and designing

today, and will be building in the near future. This is a heady legacy to which we

can aspire as we develop the next U.S. human space exploration vehicles. The foundation of this legacy will include work we plan to carry out in FY 2009.

As I said earlier in my testimony, NASA is committed to executing the exciting

programs and projects within the President’s FY 2009 budget request. Having

reached a steady state on a balanced set of priorities, we now have a sense of purpose to make steady progress toward achieving our goals for continued leadership

in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research.

Chairman Gordon, with your support and that of this committee, we are making

the right strategic choices for our nation’s space program. Again, thank you for the

opportunity to appear before you today. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have.

43

44

DISCUSSION

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Griffin, for your testimony

and more importantly for your service to our nation.

In respect of your time we are going to try to do a tag team. Mr.

Udall and Mr. Feeney have already gone. We are going to temporarily adjourn, which I hope is no more than two or three minutes,

as they come back, and then we are going to go vote, and we will

be back.

Dr. GRIFFIN. As always I am at your——

Chairman GORDON. So let us just, everybody stay tuned, and we

will hopefully in just in a matter of two or three minutes be started

again.

Dr. GRIFFIN. Yes, sir.

[Recess.]

AERONAUTICS FUNDING

Mr. UDALL. [Presiding] The Committee will come back to order.

I would note for everybody who is here that Ranking Member

Feeney and others have informed me that we will see a series of

procedural votes throughout the rest of this hearing, so we are

going to proceed with questions for Dr. Griffin, and hopefully everybody here, the Members here will have a chance to direct their

questions.

Dr. Griffin, I will yield myself five minutes.

Dr. Griffin, as you know, I have long been concerned about the

state of NASA’s aeronautics programs, especially those focused on

aviation safety and on improving the efficiency of the Nation’s air

traffic management system. The erosion of the aeronautics budgets

over the last seven years or more calls into question the ability of

NASA to continue to make significant contributions to either of

those important areas.

That is not just my view. It is a warning voiced repeatedly by

multiple hearing witnesses over the last several years. As I look at

the ’09 budget request, I am struck by the fact that all three of the

main NASA aeronautics research accounts, that is Aviation Safety,

Airspace Systems, and Fundamental Aeronautics are each essentially flat over the next five years. That to me is a keep-alive strategy driven by inadequate budgets rather than a strategy that is

geared toward identifying the key challenges facing aviation and

building R&D programs and budgets to address those challenges.

So let me do this. Let me ask you if you were to receive additional funding from Congress, aeronautics funding, because obviously you aren’t going to get it from this ONB, what would you consider to be the highest priority for those additional funds; aviation

safety, next gen air transportation systems support, or something

else?

Dr. GRIFFIN. Thank you. Sir, I would want to provide a detailed

answer on that for the record because our program does not contemplate the addition of funds to it. But loosely speaking I would

offer that I know that we are meeting in conjunction with the FAA

and our other partners all of our obligations on NextGen. There is

always more research to be done, but the FAA will tell you that

NASA is meeting its obligations to the JPDO on NextGen.

45

Aviation safety is, again, a well-funded program. We are doing

numerous activities in cooperation with the FAA on aviation safety.

I am pretty happy with that.

So I would probably put additional money into fundamental aeronautics research to get at the underlying aeronautical science advances. I was thrilled with our work on blended wing body systems

last year and the potential advantage that such a system has to increase efficiency, reduce emissions, enhance safety, provide quieter

rides, all of those things for future air transport. Fundamental aeronautics and NASA could, one could always do more work with

more money.

CLIMATE RESEARCH

Mr. UDALL. Well, thank you for peering over the horizon for the

Committee, and I do agree that investment in more fundamental

research would really pay dividends.

Let me turn to climate research. I am encouraged by your plans

to start work on the, to the high-priority Earth science missions

recommended by the National Academies, and I am also glad to

hear that at last there appears to be some progress on finding

homes for the climate instruments that have been removed from

NPOESS spacecraft as you are well aware.

However, I am unclear about NASA’s plans for at least one of

those instruments, the total solar irradiance sensor. I think it is

also known by its acronym, TSIS, and specifically can you tell me

when a decision will be made as to how and when the TSIS instrument will be flown, what is driving the decision on where to manifest the instrument, what is your responsibility, NASA’s that is, regarding the instrument, especially in 2008 and 2009 fiscal years?

What is the status of the instrument development team, is the

team fully funded, and if so, have those funds actually been dispersed yet to the team? And when does the instrument, the TSIS

instrument, need to fly in order to avoid data gaps in the total

solar irradiance measurements?

A lot of question. Thank you for dealing with all of them.

Dr. GRIFFIN. That is a lot of questions. Yes, sir. And to answer

all those in an appropriate fashion I will again provide a detailed

answer on the record. Let me give you, again, a top-level summary.

Our immediate priorities are to fly VIRS and CERES instruments, the highest priorities that we have. TSIS is important. The

measurements that it makes is critically important, but we have

ongoing other ways to make that measurement so that the flying

of TSIS by itself is not our immediate highest priority.

The instrument development team is funded at a lower level, of

course, than they would like, but it is funded, and we are looking

for the right flight for TSIS. We haven’t found it yet. We will identify that to you as soon as we can, but, again, I want to close the

summary answer here by saying that the continuity of the measurement is, that TSIS makes is what is most important. We have

other sensors which are going to insure the continuity of this particular measurement, and so the exact date on which we fly TSIS

is not our first priority at the moment.

46

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Dr. Griffin. The Chair is honored and excited to recognize the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr.

Hall, Judge Hall, from the great State of Texas.

Mr. HALL. Any Udall is all right with me. Chairman, thank you.

THE FUTURE OF HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT

Mike, NASA has given us a good plan to replace the Space Shuttle with the Ares 1 for crew access to space and later add the Ares

5 for heavy cargo to space, and it is a plan that I support and

which the Congress has agreed to. Nonetheless, there are a lot who

continue to second guess this architecture and suggest that we

might be able to use one of the existing Atlas 5 or Delta 4 launchers to take our crews into space.

I know NASA has looked at this closely, and I am sure you have

made the right decisions, but would you summarize again for us

the factors that led NASA to conclude that a new launch vehicle

was needed for the Orion spacecraft? And go slow where even I can

understand it.

Dr. GRIFFIN. Yes, sir. I have dealt with this question a lot. At the

top level, let me point out what is at issue here. At the top level,

I think we need to recognize that it is not a question——

Mr. HALL. You know, you cause that bell to ring for some reason.

I don’t know how that happens.

Dr. GRIFFIN. I must.

Mr. HALL. But go ahead.

Dr. GRIFFIN. It is not a question of whether we are going to use

a new system for Constellation or an existing system. If that were

the trade, I would be on the side of using the existing system.

What has not been recognized is that there is no system today

which can meet the Constellation requirements.

So the question is are we going to upgrade the EELV family to

meet Constellation needs, or are we going to upgrade the Shuttlederived family to meet Constellation needs? No system in existence

today can meet our needs. So the question is would we use a Shuttle-derived architecture or an EELV-derived architecture. When we

examined the situation closely, it turned out that the lowest-risk

solution, the highest-performance solution, and the lowest-cost solution was obtainable by using our Shuttle hardware heritage as

opposed to our EELV hardware heritage. There is nothing wrong

with either system, but when the issues of performance, cost, and

risks are considered, the Shuttle-derived won.

I think that is the kind of decision that you would want me to

make.

Mr. HALL. Let me go a step further and ask a quick question. I

think yesterday in California there was a group of leading space,

I guess so-called space policy experts. They may be experts, discussing the direction and content of vision for space exploration.

They are particularly critical about using the Moon as an interim

step for eventually traveling to Mars. Would you care to share any

thoughts about the need for a lunar program since we have been

there——

Dr. GRIFFIN. Well——

Mr. HALL.—more than once?

47

Dr. GRIFFIN.—yes, sir. I am always intrigued by the idea that

since we have spent a few days on the Moon that the place is now

uninteresting for all future time and that we should ignore it and

head straight for Mars. So first of all, I believe that people will find

the Moon to be an exciting and interesting place for human beings

in the future, and I strongly support its inclusion as an appropriate

destination for humans, as I do Mars.

The argument that this group of space policy experts is putting

forth comes down fundamentally to one about the choice of destinations. They do not see the Moon as a valuable destination. I do.

They would prefer that the funds that we are presently allocating

toward returning to the Moon and then going to Mars be utilized

to put large telescopes near one of the Lagrange points to visit

near-Earth asteroids and to go more quickly to Mars.

I regard that as foolish frankly. The Moon is three days and a

quarter million miles from home. When we return to the Moon, we

will not have been there for 50 years. The Lagrange points, even

granting as I absolutely do, their immense value as sites to host

large telescopes, are a million miles away and weeks away from

home going and coming. The near-Earth asteroids, which I also am

interested in and believe should be an appropriate destination, are

many months away from home, and Mars is further yet.

So a correctly-orchestrated space program would take us outward

from Earth orbit to the nearest possible destination, which is the

Moon, and then would take us outward from there to successively

farther destinations as we consolidate our capabilities and consolidate our gains. That is the program we have in place. That is the

program that this Congress passed in the 2005 Authorization Act.

It is the properly-arranged program.

So I just—I cannot agree with so-called space policy experts who

believe that the Moon is not an appropriate goal for our exploration

efforts.

Mr. HALL. I saw Buzz Aldrin just a little bit ago, and he sure

doesn’t look like a guy that 40 years ago that he was up there. He

must have been five when we sent him up.

Dr. GRIFFIN. Buzz is my hero. I wish to be in his condition at

that age.

Mr. HALL. Mine, too. I wished he would have stepped off first,

and I think he was scheduled to. He says he was.

Dr. GRIFFIN. But anyway, let us move past that one.

RUSSIAN TRANSPORTATION

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Hall. We will let the bells

continue. Once again, Dr. Griffin, we are going to do a tag team

here.

In your testimony you spent a lot of time discussing the need for

Russian transportation after the 2011, during this gap period.

Dr. GRIFFIN. I did, sir.

Chairman GORDON. And you also talked about how you are going

to be, move forward with the negotiated contract and that you can’t

do that without some change in the Korean and Syrian Non-Proliferation Act. So do you expect the Administration to send us a formal request for that legislative action?

48

Dr. GRIFFIN. Yes, sir. My comments today were in the nature of

a heads up.

Chairman GORDON. The Administration will be sending something?

Dr. GRIFFIN. I hope so. I have initiated those conversations within the Administration. It is my intent to seek such a request, coordinate. Obviously it requires a coordination among many agencies, but I intend to do everything I can to press it forward simply

because of the timelines involved. As I point out, our authorization

to utilize Russian services expires in 2011.

Chairman GORDON. Right. You made that point.

Dr. GRIFFIN. So if we want to fly in—— Chairman GORDON. I understand that but—— Dr. GRIFFIN. Okay. Yes, sir.

Chairman GORDON.—to be successful you are going to have to

have this initiated from the Administration.

Dr. GRIFFIN. That is correct, sir. And I intend to press for that.

Chairman GORDON. Okay.

Dr. GRIFFIN. I do not have that authorization yet. I intend to—— Chairman GORDON. And when would you expect that you would

have that?

Dr. GRIFFIN. I need it by this summer.

Chairman GORDON. No, no, no. I mean, when would you expect,

when there is a timeframe, when would you expect the Administration to decide this was worthy and then to make the request?

Dr. GRIFFIN. I don’t know.

Chairman GORDON. When do you think it would be too late if

they didn’t?

Dr. GRIFFIN. It needs to be done within this Administration, so

prior to next January.

Chairman GORDON. And through the legislative process also.

Dr. GRIFFIN. Yes, sir.

IMPACT OF FUNDING SHORTFALLS ON ISS PROGRAM

Chairman GORDON. Okay. Dr. Griffin, as you know, NASA has

been forced to operate in a very constrained budgetary environment

in recent years as we have discussed today. I want to make sure

that this committee is aware of any areas in this budget request

that there are funding shortfalls that a future Administration and

Congress will need to deal with.

In that regard, how confident are you that sufficient funding has

been set aside in NASA’s five-year runout budget to pay for the ISS

crew and cargo transportation?

Dr. GRIFFIN. Wow. That calls for a conclusion of the witness,

which as a former prosecutor I think you are familiar with. Let me

offer you the range of possibilities if I might.

In March of ’07, we did, in the course of preparing the Space Station Utilization Plan that this committee asked for and which we

have furnished you, we did a very careful assessment of crew and

cargo requirements, and to utilize the station after it is assembled,

we came up with a range from 32.5 metric tons to just under, call

it 45 metric tons of cargo, depending on the degree that the U.S.

laboratory is utilized. If it is fully utilized, it is the 45 metric tons,

and if it is less, though, it would be 32 metric tons.

49

The, I don’t want to quote specific numbers, because it affects

procurement actions, but I can phrase it this way: If we utilize the

station only at the low end of our estimates, then future commercial procurements of cargo would have to do no worse than we are

doing today at a time when, of course, we will be in much more

of a hostage situation than we are today. Today we have alternatives and after the Shuttle is retired, we won’t.

So looking forward at the minimum possible utilization of the

station with 32 metric tons of cargo, looking past 2010, we would

have to do at least as well as we are doing today for a contractual

price. If we are fortunate enough, as I hope we would be and I

know you are, too, to get a heavy utilization of the station, then

at the 45 metric ton level, then we would have to do somewhat better in the outyears than we are doing today with our commercial

procurement of cargo. And I don’t consider that to be very likely.

Chairman GORDON. So——

Dr. GRIFFIN. I hope I was clear without quoting numbers that I

don’t want to quote in public.

Chairman GORDON.—to avoid either significant additional funds

or cannibalizing other programs, everything has to go just right, no

inflation, and the Russians have to not take advantage of their hostage position.

Dr. GRIFFIN. Or other potential suppliers in that same timeframe. Yes, sir. That would be correct.

CHINESE LUNAR PLANS

Chairman GORDON. I think it might be beneficial, Dr. Griffin, we

had a conversation yesterday at which time I said to you that approximately three years ago when we were discussing the ability

of China to get to the Moon and a timeframe, that you somewhat

poo-poo’d their ability, that they did not have the infrastructure,

and you really weren’t particularly concerned about that.

Have you changed your, I won’t say changed. Has your opinion

been more informed, or have you gained additional information,

and what is your thought about that situation now?

Dr. GRIFFIN. I have gotten a lot of questions on that lately, sir,

and I would be happy to answer this one. And I don’t mind if you

say that I changed my mind. I often do that in response to new

data.

Chairman GORDON. Yes. Sure. Which is—there is nothing wrong

with that.

Dr. GRIFFIN. You are correct. A few years ago I was not particularly concerned about Chinese primacy in human space flight relative to that of the United States. Since then their accomplishments, as well as their stated plans, combined with my visit to

China, combined frankly with an assessment of what is available

from open sources on the Internet, lead me to believe——

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Griffin, if you don’t mind, again, we are

trying to accommodate your time. We are going to go, I think this

is important for the broader view for us to know. We are going to

have to go vote, and Mr. Hall had a question first.

Mr. HALL. Would you say that you are less poo-poo’d toward

China now than you were?

50

Dr. GRIFFIN. Yes, sir, I would, and I am, I can extend my time

here to as long as you need.

Chairman GORDON. No. I think as long as there are questions,

but I hate for there to be gaps.

Mr. Lampson will take over, and I wish, if you would, please, so,

for the broader audience to complete that answer.

Dr. GRIFFIN. Complete that answer. I will do so, sir.

So, and as I was saying, as well as an assessment of what is

available from open sources, in particular the capability of the

Long March 5 and the Chinese dual launch processing capability

that they have already demonstrated, I have become convinced that

it is possible for China to mount a human lunar mission toward the

end of the next decade and quite possibly before we are able to return. I can provide that, the analysis that leads me to that conclusion for the written record if you would like. There is nothing in

it which is classified or in any possible way, so if you would like

that analysis for the written record, I can provide it.

Mr. LAMPSON. [Presiding] I think it would be appropriate—— Dr. GRIFFIN. Okay.

Mr. LAMPSON.—for us to have that.

Dr. GRIFFIN. I would be happy to do that. And in summary, I

think that a human lunar mission is clearly within Chinese capabilities by a decade from now should they choose to do it, and their

own outline of plans convinces me that they may well be. [See Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record.]

Mr. LAMPSON. I think it is something that we need to take a special note of, and my opinion, what I believe personally that we may

be in a bigger period of challenge today than what we were in

1957. We just don’t hear the beeps. Somehow or other we have got

to start hearing them before they become a roar.

I think his time has expired, and I got those words in under his

time, and I will recognize myself for five minutes and continue

questioning Dr. Griffin.

Again, I, too, want to add my welcome.

Dr. GRIFFIN. Thank you.

THE ALPHA MAGNETICS SPECTROMETER

Mr. LAMPSON. I want to turn our attention to the alpha magnetics spectrometer about which we have had many conversations,

and I know that you know that I believe that it is not only an important scientific research initiative but one that represents a significant international scientific collaboration. And so I have got a

whole long series of questions, and if you will keep them as short

as possible, I will try to get through them as easily as we possibly

can.

But how important do you believe it is for the United States to

be seen as a reliable partner in international scientific undertakings such as this?

Dr. GRIFFIN. I know where this is going. I will try to be short

with my answers. I am well on record as believing that when the

United States makes commitments, they should be kept.

Mr. LAMPSON. And obviously believing that, would you also agree

that NASA should strive to meet its commitment to the International AMS Partnership if a practical way can be found to do so?

51

Dr. GRIFFIN. I, again, of course, we should strive to meet our

commitments if it is possible to do so.

Mr. LAMPSON. Congress hasn’t yet received the, NASA’s report

on the AMS Project that was requested in the appropriation, and

speaking as an engineer with many years experience in various

space projects, what do you think would be the lowest cost, lowest

risk way to deliver the AMS experiment to space in a timely manner?

Dr. GRIFFIN. The report that you seek is awaiting clearance within the Administration. It will be provided to you as soon as we can

do it. But to answer your question directly, the AMS was designed

to go on-board a Space Shuttle, and that is the clearly lowest cost,

most straightforward, lowest risk approach to putting it on orbit.

I mean, other means are possible, but that is the most straightforward way. [See Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record

for the report on the AMS.]

Mr. LAMPSON. Okay. Do you have the authority to add an additional Shuttle flight to the manifest on your own, or would you

need to be directed to do so?

Dr. GRIFFIN. I do not have that authority. If I had that authority,

I would have added the Shuttle flight, and we would not be having

this discussion.

Mr. LAMPSON. Consequently, if you lack that authority to add the

Shuttle space flight on there, who would need to direct you to do

so? OMB or Congress?

Dr. GRIFFIN. Well, OMB does not provide direction to NASA.

OMB provides advice to the President, who directs NASA.

Mr. LAMPSON. So it would be—— Dr. GRIFFIN. Of course, superceding even that is the law of the

land. Now, the budget that Congress has appropriated for me and

the authorization that Congress has provided to me does not include at this point an additional Shuttle flight. Every Shuttle flight

that we plan to fly has been identified for the Congress and has

been the subject of appropriated funds.

So I have neither permission from the President nor authorization nor appropriation from Congress to fly another Shuttle flight.

Mr. LAMPSON. So neither the President nor OMB has indicated

to you that it intends to direct you to add an additional Shuttle

flight to fly the AMS experiment?

Dr. GRIFFIN. Well, again, the OMB does not direct NASA however much they might wish to. The—but the Administration has

not requested funds for an additional Shuttle flight, and the Congress has not authorized or appropriated such funds. So I, as the

Administrator, do not make space policy. I carry it out, and no,

none of my governing entities has asked me to do this flight.

Mr. LAMPSON. By when would Congress have to direct you to

take all necessary steps to fly an additional Shuttle flight to deliver

the AMS experiment to space for it to be possible by the time the

Shuttle is scheduled to be retired? End of the year, end of the fiscal

year, end of the calendar year, later than that?

Dr. GRIFFIN. The end of this calendar year, January, ’09 at the

latest, or it is a done deal, because our manifest is coming to a

close. We are flying the flights that we are authorized to fly with

the hardware that we have bought and with the contracts that we

52

have in place. If the Congress chooses to add another flight to our

manifest, they need to tell me this year, within this calendar year.

CONTINGENCY FLIGHTS AND THE ISS

Mr. LAMPSON. Okay. I am concerned that the current approach

to the ISS assembly may wind up jeopardizing its future viability.

Specifically the NASA manifest currently book keeps as contingency flights, the two Shuttle flights that are intended to fly critical spares and logistics to the ISS prior to the Shuttle’s retirement.

It is my understanding that OMB doesn’t consider those two

flights to be part of the baseline Shuttle manifest. Is that correct?

Dr. GRIFFIN. Sir, I can’t get into what different offices in the Executive Office of the President think or don’t think. I have, since

my time as Administrator, I have used several words inappropriately to my nearly everlasting regret. One of those was labeling

those flights contingency flights. I was speaking too much as an engineer and not recognizing the policy import of that. In fact, those

flights carry up, they are designed to carry hardware to support

the station in the event of failure of certain systems. And given

what we have experienced in terms of the failure rate of existing

on-board systems, the spare units and other logistics material that

those flights are manifested are not contingency flights. They are

not contingency flights. They are necessary flights if we are to sustain the station through the five-year gap between retirement of

the Shuttle and the deployment of Ares and Orion. Because that,

every bit of statistical information we have says that that equipment will be needed.

And I deeply regret any confusion I have caused this committee

by labeling them some years ago as contingency flights. They are

spare hardware, and they are necessary in one fashion or the other.

The question becomes what is the easiest method to get them up,

and that is with the Shuttle.

Mr. LAMPSON. And they are required if we want to ensure that

the ISS remains a viable and useful facility after the Shuttle is retired?

Dr. GRIFFIN. If you want to ensure that the ISS remains vital

and useful as opposed to gambling on it, then, yes, sir, they are required.

Mr. LAMPSON. If you are not permitted to fly those flights or if

we don’t provide the resources, whatever is necessary, what other

critical options, if any, does NASA have to deliver those needed

spares and logistics?

Dr. GRIFFIN. Well, those flights, the funding for those flights is

at present in our budget. So we can fly those with what we have.

Now, credible, there are no immediately credible alternatives because the systems that I am talking about would have to be remanifested on expendable vehicles with, and fitted with automated

rendezvous and docking systems and such that don’t currently exist

that we are hoping will be developed for other commercial crew and

cargo.

So like other aspects of space station logistics support, they

would have to be manifested on systems that don’t yet exist.

53

Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you very much. Dr. Griffin, my time is expired, and I yield to Mr. Feeney of Florida.

THE FY 2009 NASA BUDGET AND ARES AND ORION TEST

FLIGHTS

Mr. FEENEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we run back and

forth here in the rain and everything else, I think I know what you

are thinking. You are probably admiring the efficiency and the

work habits of the United States Congress, Mr. Administrator, but

again, we appreciate you being here.

Dr. GRIFFIN. Maybe you could take another break or two after

that last round of questions.

Mr. FEENEY. Well, I hope mine will be, I hope mine won’t be so

taxing.

You know, I would like to point out that the budget that you re- quested this year is $17.6 billion. My numbers show that if adjusted for inflation since 1992, the budget would have been in today’s dollars $20.3 billion, which means roughly a $3 billion real

cut relative to the NASA budget in 1992, almost a 20 percent reduction during the 1990s and the early part of the new millennium.

And I think all of us have, you know, felt the challenge and the

pain of dealing with that.

I want to ask you as we talk about completing the International

Space Station, several weeks ago there was some public discussion

about the schedule possibly slipping for the Ares 1–Y and the early

Orion test flights. Could you set the record straight for us and

right now according to your latest reviews are you anticipating that

there might be such slippage? And if there is going to be a decision

about whether there is likely to be slippage, when do you anticipate

that decision?

Dr. GRIFFIN. First of all, I will comment on your remark about

the decrement in the budget over the ’90s. Yes. It is absolutely

true. In real dollars we lost some ground, several billion dollars

during the 1990s which has not been recouped since then. So you

are right.

Regarding the Ares 1–Y flight, there was some discussion a few

weeks ago in, within NASA and including a memo that was released prematurely, saying that we were going to move the Ares 1– Y flight date. Now, the goal behind that thinking was to offer the

highest confidence of preserving the IOC, the initial operational capability date, the IOC date for the finished system. So it was just

a matter of shuffling the deck chairs around to get the most comfortable seating for everybody.

We, after looking at it more carefully, in fact, decided not to

move that, the Ares 1–Y test flight date at this time. We don’t have

a need to move it at this time, and so we are not going to do it.

So I would say that is in abeyance indefinitely. If we do decide to

shuffle our flight test schedule, you have my absolute commitment

to share that information with your staff, make sure that everybody is on-board as to what our flight test schedule is.

I do want to reserve the right to plan the flight test schedule in

the most sensible engineering manner possible, and we, I am not

saying that we would never move our dates around, but right now

we are not doing that.

54

Mr. FEENEY. In terms of completing the Shuttle mission, if it becomes necessary because of slippage or time tables or desirable to

fly the last two contingency, you said we are no longer referring to

these as contingency missions.

Dr. GRIFFIN. Well, I will never be able to get rid of it, but I wish

I had not used that term.

Mr. FEENEY. The so-called—the re-supply missions. If it becomes

necessary to do that after 2010, do you have an estimate of what

the cost would be to continue the Shuttle operations on a monthly

or annual basis?

Dr. GRIFFIN. Well, we, having bought all the hardware already

and having included in the budget that which is necessary to fly

the manifest out to those last couple of flights, if, you know, if we

didn’t get an appropriation, for example, in 2010, until December

as opposed to September, and or if the schedule slipped or anything, there would be no problem flying the last couple of Shuttle

flights out through the end of calendar year 2010.

So the program is not sensitive to whether the last flight occurs

in September of 2010, or December of 2010. We don’t care.

Now, to go beyond that, okay, we have to keep contractors in

place and contracts alive that we intend to cancel. And so that then

brings into play the carrying cost of the whole Shuttle infrastructure, which is around $3 billion a year just to own the fleet and

keep it active. Now, I can provide, I said around $3 billion. If you would like

for the record, I can give you a more-detailed answer, but the number, the carrying cost for the Shuttle fleet is around $3 billion a

year, and I need to end that in 2010, so that I can move on with

new systems.

Mr. FEENEY. Very good. I will yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Feeney. Thank you for the

good job you are doing as our Ranking Member on this subcommittee.

SPENDING, MARS AND NEAR-EARTH OBJECTS

Mr. Udall is recognized, former Chairman—Rohrabacher. Excuse

me. Rohrabacher is recognized. Former Chairman and Ranking

Member of the Space Subcommittee.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, and I will commend

my Chairman, Subcommittee Chairman, Mr. Udall. He is doing a

good job. I would be very happy to be mistaken for Congressman

Udall and also let me note that, Mr. Chairman, you are doing a

great job, and both the Subcommittee Chairmen and the Committee Chairman in dealing with space issues. I would applaud

those leaders who are showing bipartisan and I would say very responsible approach in working with those of us who on the other

side of the aisle to try to make sure that we fund the space program and make it successful. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Also some accolades for Administrator Griffin.

Dr. GRIFFIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I consider you to be, I have been here 20

years now. When I got on this committee, I was sitting way over

on the other side there, and I was at first. Twenty years ago I came

in here, and of all the NASA Administrators that I have seen come

55

through here you are the most innovative and creative and responsible [inaudible]. I say that without hesitation. So I congratulate

you for keeping a positive spirit in the midst of a—must be a—just

a bureaucratic challenge that would just overwhelm so many other

people. We talked today about the $17.6 billion that is being requested.

You have taken an approach that development of new technology

and encouraging private sector investment, as well as restructuring

NASA to be more efficient, are ways that can put those dollars to

better use. So although it is easy for us just to focus on the dollar

amount, that doesn’t tell the whole story, and in fact, if we gave,

we just keep up with inflation but would have less innovation, it

would not be serving the interest of the American people.

So I would congratulate you on not just taking the approach that

we just need to back up the federal truck and shovel more dollars

out in to the NASA building. Instead that we prioritize efficiently.

With that said, I liked your answer in terms of EELV versus

Shuttle technology upgrade. I would like to learn more about that

[inaudible].

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Rohrabacher, I think that particular

microphone——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Maybe I am not up close enough.

Chairman GORDON. Okay.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I was leaning back.

Chairman GORDON. Okay. Okay.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That Red Bull that I had earlier today—— Chairman GORDON. We are all intensely interested in your—— Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. The, what, in terms of actually spending

the money, you mentioned, of course, the 2005 Space Authorization, which laid a roadmap, and again, I take great pride in that,

because I participated in that. And it was, of course, President

Bush, who after a long, long time gave us at least a roadmap to

look at, which other Presidents had not done.

But you talk about Moon and Mars as destinations, and you talk

about the step approach. Are we spending, of the $17.6 billion, is

there money being spent now on developing technologies that are

not necessary for the first steps but are only being spent for a preparation for a Mars expedition?

Dr. GRIFFIN. No, sir. The appropriations law for ’08, the situation, of course, is a bit complicated. This committee, the Congress

has authorized us to develop a sustained lunar presence and to prepare the way for Mars, and I am not quoting exactly, but that is

the thrust of it.

However, the fiscal year 2008 Appropriations Act enjoins us from

spending any money on any technology that would be just for

Mars. And so we are not doing that this year.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, that is the right answer.

Dr. GRIFFIN. I would hope that that could be removed in future

years.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, it depends on how close we are getting.

You know, quite frankly, I believe by the time we go to Mars, that

there will be such different technology capabilities, hopefully better

technology capabilities, available to us that it might be wasteful to

spend money right now on putting together technology that might

56

not be used for 20 years and then 20 years from now there would

be other technology that would be better.

Dr. GRIFFIN. Well, yes, sir. I agree, but literally interpreted the

restriction puts questions on our utilization of the Space Station to

study the adaptability of human beings to long-term space flight.

So——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I see.

Dr. GRIFFIN.—we are not interpreting it that way because I think

the Congress wants us to do research on the Space Station, but the

reason for doing research on the Space Station is for voyages farther away than three days, which is where the Moon is.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, there was questions about the Space

Station, whether or not that decision that was made so long ago

was a right decision or wrong decision, and what you just brought

up was a complication of that.

Dr. GRIFFIN. You are right. I have chosen to move past the Space

Station decision——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right.

Dr. GRIFFIN.—to accept it as done, finish the station, and then

let us get on outward beyond Earth orbit.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And if you would, if the Chairman would indulge me for just a few more moments, the Arecibo telescope and

the near-Earth object mission that obviously is of great concern to

me and I think to the American people as well, you made it very

clear that you are willing to help, and NASA should be part of this,

but that you don’t have the budget for it.

If we, indeed, come back with an authorization for NASA that is

above the $17.6 billion budget request that you have, and we have

included money specifically for a near-Earth object identification

project and response project, as well as the Arecibo telescope,

which is essential, absolutely essential if we are going to discover

if there is a near-Earth object heading to the Earth, would that be

agreeable to you?

Dr. GRIFFIN. Well, sir, if the Congress authorizes an activity and

appropriates funds for it and the President signs that law, then, of

course, it is agreeable to me. I will carry it out. I mean, of course.

We are within the parameters of our existing funding for nearEarth object surveys. We are doing that, and in fact, accelerating

it slightly to meet the stated intent of Congress. Beyond the few

million that we are spending on it, I can’t go today because I have,

again, neither Presidential direction, Congressional authorization,

or appropriation. So——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, those of us who think, who believe that

this is a vital program and could well be important to the survival

of the planet would, are going to try to work with you and make

sure that you are not just given the responsibility but also have

some extra resources for that.

Dr. GRIFFIN. Well, I, too, am quite interested in the near-Earth

objects. So I would find it agreeable.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And one last area, and that is I want to congratulate you for your strong stand on permitting the commercial,

potential commercial servicing of station for both supplies and

crews as a means of promoting technology development and also

saving money. So thank you very much.

57

Dr. GRIFFIN. Thank you, sir.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. And now Mr.

Lampson is recognized.

SHUTTLE REPLACEMENT FUNDING AND SCHEDULE

Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just to carry on from where I was a little while ago, just a quick

question. We have had a lot of conversation about the gap, and the

NASA Authorization Act of 2005 directed NASA to develop and deploy an operational human space transportation system to replace

the Shuttle as close to 2010, as possible. The Authorization Act indicates launching a crew exploration vehicle as close to 2010.

At any rate, what specific actions, if any, has the Administration

taken to comply with that Congressional direction?

Dr. GRIFFIN. The budget request that the Administration has

made provides sufficient funds at 65 percent statistical confidence

to deploy Ares and Orion, the Shuttle replacement that you speak

of, by March of 2015. And that is as close to the end of Shuttle retirement as possible with the level of funding that is allocated.

Mr. LAMPSON. Well, given the Congressional direction in the Authorization Act, has the Administration provided or why hasn’t it

provided any additional funding to the Constellation Program to

narrow the space flight gap?

Dr. GRIFFIN. Well, clearly the Administration has not provided

the funding to narrow that gap. I can’t speculate as to why.

Mr. LAMPSON. Did NASA request additional funds to do so?

Dr. GRIFFIN. NASA has had many discussions within the Administration on this topic, and as I know that you know, we have many

priorities, many funding priorities in the Nation, all of which clamor for first attention. And the funding, the priority of closing the

gap between Shuttle retirement and deployment of new systems

did not make it to the top.

Mr. LAMPSON. What do you consider to be the most realistic options for narrowing the gap?

Dr. GRIFFIN. Well, the most realistic option at this point would

be, I hate to say it this way, but add money. We answered this

question for your colleague, Senator Nelson, on the record last November, and at this point about the earliest achievable date, again,

the earliest technically credible date that I could sign up to would

be the fall of 2013, say September of 2013, and we would need a

billion dollars extra in ’09, and a billion dollars in ’10, to do that,

for a total of about two billion, as best we can tell today.

With the past decisions that have already been taken and which

are behind us, I can today not—I cannot credibly promise anything

earlier than 2013, at this point.

Mr. LAMPSON. Was that put on the table in this budget process?

Was that request specifically made? Because the law says do it as

close to 2010 as possible, ’13 is closer than ’15, and if that is the

wishes of Congress, did the President consider or did you consider

or how——

Dr. GRIFFIN. Well, I certainly considered it, and I cannot go into

all of the discussions and debates that have been held within the

Administration as part of the process to generate a budget request,

but certainly we worked very hard to understand what was needed,

58

which was why I was able to give that answer to Senator Nelson

on the record, and again, that priority was not judged to compete

with other priorities that the Nation has.

Mr. LAMPSON. Would a billion dollars at this point move it, move

that date to 2013, or what is the——

Dr. GRIFFIN. Well, the rate of progress is roughly one month for

$100 million. Okay. Roughly. Now, and, again, $2 billion then

should equal 20 months but actually equals about 20 months actually from where we are. So that is the way to judge it. It is—you

can buy additional progress at about $100 million per month.

Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you very, very much, and Mr. Chairman,

I will yield back my time. Thank you.

Dr. GRIFFIN. Again, we have answered all that for your colleague.

Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you.

RUSSIA AND THE GAP

Chairman GORDON. And Ms. Patterson, we thank you for your

attention and attendance here today, and Mr. Udall, let us see. I

guess I should go to—Mr. Rohrabacher, I understand that you have

a clean-up question?

I think that is where we are. Actually, we are——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, thank you very much. I want to focus

on your, the subject area of Russia and payments to Russia and the

complications that we face.

Right now we are, of course, dependent on Russia during this period, the gap.

Dr. GRIFFIN. Yes. That is correct, sir.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. And I think you said it was $100 or

$700 million worth of contracts. Is that right?

Dr. GRIFFIN. The current contract has a total value of about $780

million, and that expires in—at the end of 2011.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. And you would expect that we need to

have another contract?

Dr. GRIFFIN. I do if we are to utilize the station.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And what would that contract, how much

would that contract be for?

Dr. GRIFFIN. Well, I don’t know yet.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You don’t know.

Dr. GRIFFIN. Because we haven’t had those discussions with our

Russian partners but——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But we need——

Dr. GRIFFIN.—for a similar level of performance it is unlikely

that it would be less than today’s value.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. And the legislation and legislative

help that you need in order to, we need to pass some legislation

right now, and you might, if you could alert us to that, what we

need to do to facilitate.

Dr. GRIFFIN. The Administration needs to come forward with a

formal request. As I said earlier, my remarks today are in the nature of a heads up, that I am working this within the Administration, but that the Congress needs to grant an exemption to NASA

from Iran, North Korea, Syria Non-Proliferation Act. That is the

action that would be required later this year.

59

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Having worked on that legislation, I think I

put some weasel words into the legislation that might be interpreted by a lawyer to be able to get us out of a mess like that.

Have your lawyers determined that those weasel words were not

adequate enough to help you out of this problem?

Dr. GRIFFIN. Well, the—I am not an attorney, but our attorneys

within the Administration, our attorneys’ understanding of that as

you put it, weasel word, is it applies to an emergency—— Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right.

Dr. GRIFFIN.—of a highly-temporary nature. So, for example, if

we needed to pay to get crew off the station in an emergency during a time period that wasn’t covered by the exemption, we could

do that, but we could not open up a multi-year procurement for the

delivery of goods and services to the station along the lines of the

contract we have today. Your weasel words are inadequate to approve that.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Sorry about that. One last note. The—I,

again, I commend you for your creative approach to the re-supply

station, which includes this opening up to commercial bidding for

services for both supply and for crew, that same approach in terms

of offering contracts or giving reward to the private sector for developing alternatives to having something done within NASA itself,

I have, as you know, a piece of legislation aimed at establishing a

national endowment, which would provide prizes, we need to provide prizes for the development of new technologies that could be

useful to NASA and aerospace in general.

Do you have any thoughts on that legislation?

Dr. GRIFFIN. Not in any sort of detail that I would—— Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay.

Dr. GRIFFIN.—want to air here. Broadly speaking I think that

the prize activity that we have seen so far has been very promising

and certainly gets, brings attention to space. I hope that it can be

found to have some longer-lasting value as well.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. It seemed to me that if we should, if we see

something that works and seems to have been of value, that we

could expand upon it, and the whole prize notion serves the taxpayers well because you don’t have to pay off unless someone has

actually achieved what is laid down as the purpose of the prize.

WATER ISSUES

So thank you very much again for your great leadership at

NASA, and I have one other question that my staff was looking for.

Western Governors have—they are looking at—they are worried

that Landsat thermal infrared capabilities are not going to serve

their interests looking at their water issues. Do you know anything

about that?

Dr. GRIFFIN. I don’t, sir. If you supply it for the record, we will

answer it for the record. I—but I am unfamiliar with that concern.

I am sorry.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yeah. One of the great paybacks that the

space program has had for humankind and especially for the American people is our ability to help us make determinations as to

where water resources should be used and how and some of our

critical, you know, analysis of what is going on in the land from

60

space. So that is really something, whenever we can get a payback

for the American people by helping them work their way, find the

answers to water shortages, et cetera.

Thank you very much.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. As we have

discussed, this committee is going to be spending a lot of time this

year looking at water and looking at how we can find efficiencies

both in the industrial and the residential section.

And again, my apologies to Ms. Richardson for my block, and I

think Mr. Udall is going to be our cleanup man.

THE NAOMS PROJECT

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Griffin, if I might, I

would like to turn back to discussion about NAOMS. I got a series

of questions I would like to direct your way and then ask you to

answer the questions.

Do you plan to make any additional data releases beyond what

is already been made public? What is the current status of your

plan to have the Academies review, National Academies, that is,

the NAOMS Project, and have they started their review, what specifically have you asked the Academies to do? When do you anticipate that the review would be completed, and do you have any

plans to revisit the decision to terminate the NAOMS Project, and

if so, when?

Dr. GRIFFIN. I will try to remember all those questions, and I will

ask you for help if I screw up.

With regard to plans to resume NAOMS, no. We have no plans

to resume NAOMS. We think that all of the goals of NAOMS with

regard to aviation safety are being accomplished in coordination

with the FAA on, with ongoing programs. So it is not that we don’t

like those goals, we think we are pursuing them outside of the context of NAOMS.

We do plan additional data releases this year. We provided a

heavily-redacted version to meet my end-of-the-year commitment

on New Year’s Eve. I am sorry for that. It was the best we could

do. We have named a program manager at the Glenn Research

Center. That program manager will report directly to the office of

the Administrator at NASA. The purpose of that effort for that program manager will be to draft and issue a request for proposals

from various firms to, with an appropriate statistical data redaction capability to go over the NAOMS survey data and appropriately redact confidential commercial information and to protect

respondent anonymity while releasing the maximum possible intellectual content in the data.

When I talk about the data, again, this is a matrix of data,

29,000 rows by several hundred columns. So it is an enormous

amount of data. We must be very certain that we don’t compromise

individual identities and that we don’t release voluntarily-supplied

commercially-confidential information.

The original contractor on the NAOMS study was supposed to do

that, but as I pointed out in prior hearings, we have found cases

where that was not done, and we need to be more careful before

we release it.

61

You asked about the—but we will provide staged releases over

the course of the year as the data is studied. We will do it as often

as we can, and we will keep you informed.

Now, the un-redacted data, I know that the Congress is furnishing that to the GAO to allow its assessment of the potential

utility of the NAOMS data, and I applaud that. Additionally, we

are working with the National Research Council, National Academies, as you mentioned. We would like them to examine the data

for its potential utility. NASA has been criticized for saying that

we don’t see much utility to this data and have moved on with

other programs with the FAA, but in case we are wrong, I would

like to have the National Academy take a look at the un-redacted

data and judge for, judge independently if there is value in it.

To do that initially has been a bit of a problem because our early

inputs from the Academy were that any data which comes to them

has to be released publicly. That, of course, is not possible. However, the people who were making those statements weren’t attorneys, and it turns out that when their attorneys and ours have spoken, that they believe they have a way forward to treat this data

with appropriate confidentiality, which is necessary while assessing

it in its un-redacted form for potential utility. And if that works

out, then I will be very happy.

Mr. UDALL. Do you have a sense of the timeline?

Dr. GRIFFIN. That will occur over the course of this year. I cannot, I mean, the National Academy takes the time it takes, and in

my prior experience getting anything out of them in much less

than a year is not feasible. So I would say over the course of this

year as soon as reasonably possible.

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Dr. Griffin.

MARS SCIENCE LABORATORY

Mr. Chairman, if I might, I would ask a final question seeing my

time is about to run out for the record, and I want to turn back

to the New Earth Science and Space Science missions that have

been proposed.

As I said in my initial statement, I am excited to see where that

leads us. I am concerned about the price tags that are associated

with them, and I wanted to direct a general question, which is why

should we be confident that NASA can actually carry out the proposed new missions under the science budgets assumed for the future? And especially using the Mars Science Laboratory, the MSL,

as an example, that is is supposed to be launched next year. It is

facing, as I understand it, new development problems, although it

was subject to a serious review not that long ago.

I know the Committee would be interested in knowing what the

problems of the MSL are, how serious are they, and what we can

do to fix them. And then how confident are you that we will be able

to meet its ’09 launch date and then more broadly, what steps is

NASA taking to insure that the same types of problems that have

afflicted MSL don’t afflict the proposed new missions.

Dr. GRIFFIN. Do you want me to answer now or for just the

record?

62

Mr. UDALL. I would defer to the Chairman as to how much time

we have left and would certainly be more than happy with comments for the record or right now.

Chairman GORDON. If you want to summarize and then you can

provide additional information for the record.

Dr. GRIFFIN. We will answer in full for the record. Let me give

you a quick summary. MSL is having heat shield problems. Our

earlier assumption on using what we call SLA, super lightweight

ablative, like we use on the Shuttle external tank, that it would

make an adequate heat shield for MSL did not survive actual tests.

So we are going to a material called pica, which is a stronger

ablator. That is going to cost several tens of millions of dollars.

In addition, there are, I would not say other developmental problems, but just increased costs. Things have gone more slowly than

we would like. We still believe at this point that we can make the

September of ’09 launch date. If that changes, we are looking at options to launch in ’10, and options to launch in ’11.

So, Mars Science Lab is a flagship mission in the Mars Program.

It is very crucial to us. It is something that has never been done

before. I mean, development problems are to be expected, and I

don’t honestly consider that the problems they are having are, I

wouldn’t call them out of family. I have great confidence in the

Mars Science Lab Team. I really do, which is not to say that they

aren’t overrunning some, and we are going to have to figure out a

way to deal with that. And we will give you a more complete answer on the record.

Mr. UDALL. Thanks, again, Dr. Griffin, for being here today.

Dr. GRIFFIN. Thank you, sir.

POTENTIAL USE OF CHINESE LAUNCH CAPABILITIES

Chairman GORDON. It appears that Mr. Rohrabacher has one

more question.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I don’t want to take up Mr. Baird’s time unless—well, thank you.

Just very quickly. I certainly am supportive of what you have

outlined for us today about the need for cooperation with Russia,

and I think that the cooperation with Russia has served America’s

interest.

Dr. GRIFFIN. I do, too, sir.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would suggest on the other hand that cooperation with China has not served our interest. In fact, we have

learned a lot from the Russians, and in fact, every time we have

cooperated in space with the Chinese they have basically stolen our

technology, and we see them knocking our, or knocking satellites

out of the air.

Is there at this time any plan to permit American satellites to

be launched on Chinese rockets or any other type of cooperation

with the Chinese government?

Dr. GRIFFIN. I don’t know, sir. I have no such plans, but I don’t

know what other entities may be planning.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. Before we

bring the hearing to a close, I want to thank our witness for testifying before the Committee today. The record will remain open for

63

additional statements from the Members and for answers to any

follow-up questions the Committee may ask of the witnesses.

The hearing is now adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

(65)

Appendix 1:

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

66

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Michael D. Griffin, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon

Q1. In material requested for the record from the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee on July 24, 2007 entitled ‘‘NASA’s Space Shuttle and the International Space Station Programs,’’ Associate Administrator Bill Gerstenmaier

was asked what NASA would do if neither the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) capabilities nor non-U.S. vehicles (ATV–Europe, HTV–

Japan) were available to meet NASA’s logistics schedule for ISS. In his reply,

Mr. Gerstenmaier stated that NASA ‘‘has strategies to react within the appropriate timeframes if the development does not proceed per schedule.’’

Q1a. What are these strategies?

A1a. NASA envisions a mixed fleet strategy to support Space Station cargo requirements, with a strong preference toward U.S. commercial services. If neither COTS

nor non-U.S. vehicles are available to meet logistics needs for operating and maintaining the ISS, NASA would have to actively and aggressively manage spacecraft

systems degradation in a manner that minimizes the probabilities of loss of systems

and loss of vehicle until such time as the needed transportation services become

available. The ISS partnership took similar measures during the period when the

Shuttle was grounded following the Columbia accident to minimize logistics needs,

so NASA has experience in operating with transportation constraints. It should be

noted that progress continues to be made in the COTS program, with a newly funded Space Act Agreement signed. With regard to logistics support for the Station,

NASA recently released an RFP for commercial resupply. In addition, the European

ATV has recently demonstrated a successful docking to the ISS, and in doing so delivered 1,150 kg of dry cargo, as well as propellant, oxygen and water.

Q1b. How would NASA go about implementing these strategies?

A1b. The prioritizing and pre-positioning of system spares minimizes International

Space Station systems degradation. This may be augmented by successful execution

of the two contingency flights if they can be accomplished before retirement of the

Space Shuttle in 2010. In addition, NASA would take measures to closely monitor

and manage consumables.

Q2. Has NASA made any changes across the agency to the requirements for background investigations for HSPD–12 rebadging while a pending lawsuit continues? Has NASA changed the timetable for compliance? What is the status of

the HSPD–12 program at each of the Centers?

A2. NASA continues to implement HSPD–12 in accordance with regulations and

guidance applicable to all federal executive departments and agencies. Badging compliance within NASA continues to progress toward successful rebadging by October

27, 2008, as required.

The litigation to which you allude, filed with the United States District Court,

Central District of California, involves 28 contractor employees at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in California, out of a working population of about 8,000. To

date, no other NASA employees, contractors, or locations are directly involved. The

lead agency in the litigation is the Department of Justice, which represents NASA

and other involved federal agencies in court.

The District Court has issued a preliminary injunction and, subsequently, provided additional guidance to clarify the injunction. In accordance with the Court’s

clarification, NASA will begin issuing badges to JPL employees whose investigations

have been completed (not including the 28 named plaintiffs). JPL employee background investigations which are not yet complete have been halted, which is also

in accordance with the Court’s clarification. NASA will continually monitor HSPD–

12 compliant badging measures at JPL to ensure they remain in compliance with

any future Court rulings.

NASA will comply fully and promptly with applicable court orders as interpreted

by and advised by the Department of Justice. The processing and outcome of this

litigation is within the federal judicial system and, therefore, further comment by

NASA would not be appropriate.

Q3. In answering a question for the record in last year’s hearing, NASA told the

Committee that as Constellation System Requirements Reviews (SRR) are comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:33 Aug 08, 2008 Jkt 040598 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL08\021308\40598 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
67

pleted, it would gain a clearer understanding of the demands for future workforce skills, thus forming the foundation for making future decisions on the appropriate numbers and mix of skilled workers needed to safely fly the Shuttle

through 2010 and to transition to the CEV. Now that the SRRs have been completed, when do you expect to provide the numbers and mix of skilled workers

needed to complete the Shuttle flights and transition to CEV?

A3. NASA is focused on managing the evolution from current operations of the

Space Shuttle to future operations of Constellation and emerging commercial services, in a safe, successful and smooth manner. This joint effort between the Space

Operations and Exploration Systems Mission Directorates includes the utilization

and disposition of resources, including real and personal property, personnel, and

processes, to efficiently leverage existing Shuttle and Space Station assets for future

Exploration activities, including the Orion Ares I, and Ares V projects. NASA is

managing human space flight workforce issues within the broader context of the

Agency’s transition activities, described in the NASA Human Space Flight Transition Plan. To augment these transition processes and ensure close cooperation and

partnering between NASA and industry, a Human Capital Council comprised of

human resources directors from the prime contractors and Centers has been formed

and meets quarterly. Supporting the efforts of the Human Capital Council, NASA

and its prime contractors conduct frequent formal and informal Technical Interchange Meetings including a broad range of participants. NASA also tightly integrates transition workforce planning into its acquisition and budget development activities.

In addition to contract awards, Constellation workforce requirements maturation

has provided more clarity and better insight into future workforce and skill mix

needs. This information, combined with updated Shuttle workforce analysis and

more refined Transition and Retirement requirements, forms the basis of workforce

information included in the NASA Workforce Transition Strategy submitted to the

Subcommittee on March 31, 2008. This report will be updated and submitted to the

Congress every six months. We expect to have further refinement of workforce numbers and skill requirements in NASA’s FY 2010 budget submit, and will continue

to take place through subsequent annual budget preparation processes.

Q4. Dr. Griffin, your testimony indicates that ‘‘$2.6 billion in NASA funds [is] available over the next five years to purchase cargo and crew services to support

Space Station operations.’’ What portion of those funds is encumbered to purchase crew and cargo services provided by the Russians through 201I?

A4. Of the approximately $2.6B in NASA funds budgeted from FY 2009 through FY

2013 to purchase cargo and crew services to support the International Space Station, approximately $589M is budgeted for Russian services from FY 2009 through

FY 2012 (note: NASA is permitted to purchases Russian services through the end

of calendar 2011—the beginning of FY 2012).

Q5. Dr. Griffin, NASA is conducting educational activities in parts the Science Mission Directorate, for example, in addition to the programs included in the agency’s Education office. What are NASA’s goals, across the agency, for education?

What steps is NASA taking to maximize the effectiveness of the agency’s investments in education, including how these investments relate to science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education?

A5. NASA’s Agency goals in education are outlined in both the 2006 NASA Strategic Plan and the NASA Education Strategic Coordination Framework: A Portfolio

Approach. In 2006 and beyond, NASA will pursue three major education goals:

• Strengthen NASA and the Nation’s future workforce—NASA will identify and

develop the critical skills and capabilities needed to ensure achievement of

NASA’s mission. To help meet this demand, NASA will continue contributing

to the development of the Nation’s science, technology, engineering, and

mathematics (STEM) workforce of the future through a diverse portfolio of

education initiatives that target America’s students at all levels, especially

those in traditionally under-served and under-represented communities.

• Attract and retain students in STEM disciplines—NASA will focus on engaging and retaining students in STEM education programs to encourage their

pursuit of educational disciplines and careers critical to NASA’s future engineering, scientific, and technical missions.

• Engage Americans in NASA’s mission—NASA will build strategic partnerships and linkages between STEM formal and informal education providers.

Through hands-on, interactive educational activities, NASA will engage stuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:33 Aug 08, 2008 Jkt 040598 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL08\021308\40598 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
68

dents, educators, families, the general public, and all Agency stakeholders to

increase Americans’ science and technology literacy.

All of NASA’s education efforts are part of an integrated Agency-wide approach

to human capital management. Within the NASA Strategic Plan, education is identified as a crosscutting function that supports all of the Agency’s strategic goals and

objectives.

NASA will continue the Agency’s tradition of investing in the Nation’s education

programs and supporting the country’s educators who play a key role in preparing,

inspiring, exciting, encouraging, and nurturing the young minds of today who will

manage and lead the Nation’s laboratories and research centers of tomorrow. As the

United States begins the second century of flight, the Nation must maintain its commitment to excellence in STEM education to ensure that the next generation of

Americans can accept the full measure of their roles and responsibilities in shaping

the future.

Questions submitted by Representative Mark Udall

Q1. Last November, Ernst & Young (E&Y) disclaimed an opinion on NASA’s financial statements for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2007 and 2006. The disclaimer resulted from NASA’s inability to provide E&Y auditable financial

statements and sufficient evidence to support the financial statements throughout the fiscal year and at year-end. What seems to be the problem in NASA receiving a clean opinion? Are you satisfied that you are on your way to securing

a clean opinion? When do you project NASA will receive a clean opinion?

A1. Toward the objectives of obtaining an unqualified opinion and eliminating material weaknesses in internal controls, NASA has developed a Comprehensive Compliance Strategy (CCS) that focuses on ensuring compliance with Generally Accepted

Accounting Principles (GAAP) and other financial reporting requirements. The CCS

also covers the standards and requirements necessary to cure deficiencies noted in

recent audit and related reports. The CCS serves as the basis for implementing comprehensive proactive corrective actions and provides the guiding principles for executing effective financial management functions and activities with internal control

and compliance solutions inherently embedded in the processes.

In the first quarter of FY 2008, NASA undertook an internal review and engaged

a nationally-recognized accounting firm to perform an in-depth analysis of requirements for NASA to be in compliance with GAAP and other applicable financial

standards, to demonstrate such compliance through auditable evidence, and to operate with robust and comprehensive internal controls. Validation of this framework

and plans to implement the required actions to conform NASA policies and procedures to this framework were completed in the second quarter of FY 2008. An assessment of the remedial actions necessary is underway, and upon completion of the

assessment, timing and phasing for resolution will be determined. The CSS provides

the critical path milestones for NASA to resolve the FSAO material weakness.

The Property, Plant and Equipment material weakness is comprised of issues primarily related to the agency’s reliance on contractors to ‘‘report property values at

periodic intervals without robust agency-wide detect controls,’’ and difficulties ensuring the completeness of balances for certain legacy assets.

In November 2007, NASA implemented a new policy and related procedures for

identifying the cost of individual assets throughout the asset’s acquisition life cycle.

This policy change was based on guidance received from the Federal Accounting

Standards Advisory Board (FASAB). These changes support the verification and reconciliation of asset values for those assets developed through new contracts (post

November 2007) and certain large preexisting contracts. For legacy assets, like the

Space Station and Space Shuttles, NASA does not have the necessary supporting

information available to provide auditable book values for the Space Shuttle and the

International Space Station (ISS). Together, Shuttle and ISS related assets currently represent over $14.0B of the total $20.6B PP&E net asset value reported in

the September 30, 2007 fiscal year-end financial statements. While certain of the

existing Shuttle and ISS assets will be transitioned for use on other NASA programs, much of this issue may become moot with the passage of time, as the Shuttle

is to be retired in 2010, and the ISS is being depreciated based upon a 15-year specification life through 2016. While the ISS depreciation schedule naturally leads to

2016 as an outside date for resolution of this issue, NASA is presently developing

and evaluating a variety of alternatives with a view to achieving a more timely, albeit still cost efficient and effective, solution for this issue.

69

Q2. E&Y identified two significant deficiencies, which are considered to be material

weaknesses. Material weaknesses were found in NASA’s controls for (1) financial

systems, analyses, and oversight used to prepare the financial statements, and

(2) assuring that property, plant, and equipment and materials are presented

fairly in the financial statements. These material weaknesses have been reported

for several years. NASA recently appointed a new CFO. What expectations have

you placed on the CFO to correct these long standing material weaknesses?

A2. Toward the objectives of obtaining an unqualified opinion and eliminating material weaknesses in internal controls, NASA has developed a Comprehensive Compliance Strategy (CCS) that focuses on ensuring compliance with Generally Accepted

Accounting Principles (GAAP) and other financial reporting requirements. The CCS

also covers the standards and requirements necessary to cure deficiencies noted in

recent audit and related reports. The CCS serves as the basis for implementing comprehensive proactive corrective actions and provides the guiding principles for executing effective financial management functions and activities with internal control

and compliance solutions inherently embedded in the processes. A key component

of the compliance process is NASA’s newly developed Continuous Monitoring Program (CMP) which provides the overall framework of management controls that

NASA uses to assess and evaluate its (i) internal controls, (ii) compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), and (iii) evidence that balances and

activity reported in its financial statements are auditable (accurate and complete).

The CMP ensures that ongoing management reviews and validations of financial

data, financial statements and internal controls are performed when and as required.

NASA’s Chief Financial Officer, Hon. Ronald R. Spoehel, joined the Agency in

September of 2007 and has led efforts to resolve the Agency’s long-standing material

weaknesses. But more than just focusing on correcting past weaknesses, Mr.

Spoehel has refocused these efforts toward a comprehensive compliance strategy

proactively promoting ongoing, full compliance by NASA with legal and regulatory

requirements for financial reporting. Supporting this strategy is the aforementioned

comprehensive monitoring program that provides insight into issues as they arise

and into the steps being taken to resolve those issues.

Q3. Last year, NASA attributed the absence of an Enterprise Architecture and an

Integrated Work Plan for the Next Generation Air Transportation System to the

lack of agreement among JDPO member agencies on specific gap needs and how

they need to be addressed. Now that both documents cited by NASA have been

issued, are we closer to a better refined technical roadmap and resource plan?

In your view, how can we optimize NASA’s contribution to developing the next

generation Air Transportation System?

A3. NASA’s aeronautics research is aligned with the goals of the National Aeronautics Research and Development Policy, the National Plan for Aeronautics Research and Development and Related Infrastructure, the findings and recommendations of the National Research Council Decadal Study, and the planning documents

for Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) as created by the Joint

Planning and Development Office (JPDO).

NASA’s Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) has worked closely

and diligently with the JPDO member agencies in the development of the NextGen

R&D Plan and has come to agreement on the plan elements and specifically the

ARMD contributions. Version 1 of the R&D Plan was completed in 2007; however,

it is presently being incorporated into the Integrated Work Plan (IWP) which currently remains a draft document. The IWP will include comprehensive coverage of

the NextGen operational improvements, roadmaps, as well as the R&D plan. The

JPDO has initiated an effort on March 13, 2008, to conduct a gap analysis to reexamine potential R&D gaps in the context of the IWP including updated roadmaps

and operational improvements. NASA ARMD is collaborating directly with the

JPDO as part of a multi-agency team to conduct this assessment. As the IWP further matures, ARMD’s research programs will review their investment portfolios to

ensure the most appropriate support for NextGen.

Q4a. Dr. Griffin, at a hearing on Near-Earth Objects held by the Subcommittee on

Space and Aeronautics in the fall of 2007, expert witnesses testified on the need

for the planetary radar capabilities of the Arecibo Observatory to characterize

potentially hazardous near-Earth objects in a timely fashion. NASA officials recently told Committee staff that NASA does not need the Arecibo Observatory

and that optical telescopes can provide any necessary data. The language accompanying the FY 2008 Omnibus appropriations states that ‘‘NASA is directed to provide additional funding for the Arecibo Observatory.’’ How does

70

NASA plan to comply with the Congressional direction to provide funding for

Arecibo?

A4a. NASA has committed $538,110 of FY 2008 planetary science funding to researchers that are using the Arecibo radar facility for planetary science, including

NEO characterization efforts. No NASA funds were provided directly for Arecibo facility operations. Arecibo is operated by a NSF-funded FFRDC.

Q4b. Could you please elaborate on NASA’s position on Arecibo?

A4b. The President’s budget request for NASA supports researchers that use the

Arecibo radar facility for planetary science, including NEO characterization efforts,

but does not provide funds for Arecibo facility operations. Arecibo is operated by an

NSF-funded FFRDC. Should Arecibo capabilities be reduced or the facility be closed,

NASA will be able to continue its work using other capabilities available within the

Agency’s Deep Space Network or other available facilities.

Q4c. Has NASA met with NSF on the future of Arecibo?

A4c. Yes, NASA and NSF managers have met on this issue twice in the past year.

The future of Arecibo has also been openly discussed by NASA and NSF representatives to NASA’ and NSF-funded science researchers at a recent meeting in March

2008 at the National Academy of Sciences.

Q5. Does NASA have a back-up plan should the Deep Space Network operations

break-down before a new system is in place? If so, could you please provide a

copy of that plan?

A5. There is no risk of a complete ‘‘break-down,’’ so there is no back-up plan for

a Deep Space Network (DSN) operations break-down. Rather, the critical nature of

DSN operations is protected with multiple redundancies that enable a high reliability for all critical operations of NASA spacecraft, as measured by performance

metrics requiring 95 percent network availability. Actual performance is approximately 99 percent. All maintenance and operations activities, including those targeting obsolete equipment, are designed to maintain the redundancy that ensures

this availability, and no plans are underway to reduce this performance requirement. The DSN consists of three deep-space communications facilities placed approximately 120 degrees apart around the world: at Goldstone, in California’s Mojave Desert; near Madrid, Spain; and near Canberra, Australia. Each DSN facility

consists of at least four deep space stations equipped with ultra-sensitive receiving

systems and large parabolic dish antennas (34-meter High Efficiency and Beam

Waveguide antennas, as well as 26-meter and 70-meter antennas). Later this year

the DSN will produce a document that will provide a plan to keep the DSN operational to the 2020’s.

Questions submitted by Representative Charlie Melancon

Q1. My district is close to the Michoud facility, which provides jobs for many people

in my district. This facility has played a large part in the assembly of the Space

Shuttle. Recently a contract to start assembling parts of the Constellation system

was awarded for the Michoud facility. To continue sustained work in Michoud,

there needs to be no or a minimal gap between these two programs. In your

briefing materials, you indicate that the Shuttle program will be retired in 2010.

In 2009, you expect the Orion and Ares I production and operation to commence.

Q1a. When do you expect to complete assembly of the Shuttle program?

A1a. The last Space Shuttle mission is planned to be launched by September 30,

2010. NASA will assemble enough Space Shuttle External Tanks at the Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF) to fly the Shuttle safely and maintain critical workforce skills

through the end of the Space Shuttle program.

Q1b. Currently most of the work completed in Michoud is at a minimal staff, prototype level, correct?

A1b. No. The same External Tank (ET) production line is in place and certified to

produce the hardware.

MAF will complete production of External Tanks for the Space Shuttle in 2010.

Starting in 2008, MAF begins preparations to start production assembly of upper

stage tanks by Boeing for the Ares I launch vehicle. Lockheed Martin plans to use

MAF for selected Orion Primary Structure production. NASA will select a new

multi-program Facility Operations and Maintenance contractor in early FY 2009;

NASA is still studying the scope and work required to conduct that function for all

71

the NASA programs which will use MAF. Production and test of the Ares V Core

Stage and Ares V Earth Departure Stage will begin ramping up in FY 2011; NASA

is still studying the tasks and contracts for Ares V work. NASA is considering early

Ares V risk reduction and skill retention manufacturing tasks at MAF, but in 2008,

these are only being evaluated for a later decision. Work required at MAF to retire

the Space Shuttle External Tank production after 2010 is still under study.

Q1c. When do you expect operations to return a level similar to that of the Shuttle

assembly?

A1c. There will be a ramp down from External Tank production and a ramp up for

Orion primary structure and Ares I Upper Stage work, but total facility utilization

will not be the same as ET production until the lunar elements (Ares V Core Stage,

Earth Departure Stage) ramp up around 2015.

The development schedule for the Constellation program is paced in large part by

available resources—primarily annual appropriated budgets, but also by technology

readiness, and the availability of skilled workforce and unique facilities.

Q1d. To help bridge the workforce gap, are there any efforts underway to accelerate

work on the Ares V program—either through early risk mitigation studies or

conceptual design development?

A1d. Yes, both of these are being considered; however, requirements maturity,

funding availability, and workforce availability are the driver elements. Congressional support for NASA’s full FY 2009 budget request will help ensure stable and

adequate funding so that an effective workforce transition will be implemented

based upon dynamic, yet relatively predictable programmatic and mission requirements. Awarding lunar contracts on the schedule supported by the FY 2009 budget

request provides evidence of emerging opportunities, reduces workforce concern and

uncertainty about the impending human space flight gap, and facilitates workforce

strategy development and mitigation plans.

Q1e. Can you discuss what steps NASA is taking to ensure we don’t lose our highly

skilled technical workforce in this region?

A1e. NASA is considering component production for additional External Tank elements as both a flight manifest risk reduction activity and a critical skills retention

activity. Additionally, NASA is considering early Ares V beneficial activities and

skills bridging or retention activities. The Agency is also completing specific workforce and skill mix requirements and availability analyses. Collectively, these will

drive the forward decision-making in this area.

As NASA reaches the end of the Space Shuttle Program, specific Space Shuttle

contract actions will be used to retain workers needed for Space Shuttle even as

new Constellation work is competed with industry. NASA is assisting in the development and implementation of contract workforce retention plans for each Space

Shuttle prime contractor, with a focus on communication and future work. Several

of the four prime contractors are implementing monetary retention incentives. As

appropriate, the contractor community is using a range of tools, such as cross-training, to demonstrate a future path for employees, as well as embedding personnel

with operational experience in the design phases of Constellation’s vehicles.

Q2. Currently, Michoud manufactures the Space Shuttle External Tank.

Q2a. What role will Michoud play in the Constellation system?

A2a. MAF will play a critical role as a multi-project strategic production facility for

Constellation. Orion and Ares I Upper Stage prime contractors currently plan to use

Michoud. The Constellation Program has future plans for production of Ares V Core

Stage and the Earth Departure Stage at MAF.

Q2b. How much as been allocated to award contracts at Michoud?

A2b. Contracts for Orion and Ares I Upper Stage production have been awarded to

Lockheed Martin and Boeing, respectively. Those contracts have some work being

performed at Michoud, such as manufacturing of the Orion primary structure and

upper stage core and instrument unit ring, as well as other locations around the

country. The contract structure does not allocate funding for a particular location,

but rather an end item.

Q2c. Can you provide me your best estimate on approximate workforce numbers for

the Michoud facility on the Orion, Ares I and Ares V programs in the coming

years?

72

A2c. Due to the recent award of the Boeing Upper Stage Contract and recent plans

by Lockheed Martin to bring additional design work to Michoud, the estimates are

dynamic and not yet available. Additionally, this year, the new Michoud Maintenance and Operations contract will be awarded, further driving the workforce estimate. Preliminary workforce estimates are included in the NASA Workforce Transition Plan submitted to the Subcommittee on March 31, 2008. This report will be

updated and submitted to the Congress every six months.

Q3. NASA remains on Government Accountability Office (GAO’s) ‘‘high risk’’ list for

contract management practices, and an independent audit for FY 2007 found

that NASA’s financial management systems are not substantially compliant

with the Federal Financial Improvement Act of 1996.

Q3a. How will this affect NASA’s ability to enter into contracts to begin development

and construction for the Constellation modules?

A3a. NASA’s status on the GAO High-Risk List will not impact the Agency’s ability

to enter into contracts. NASA’s High-Risk Corrective Action Plan seeks to improve

the effectiveness of its program/project management across the board, including

monitoring and analyzing contractor performance; life cycle cost/schedule management practices; cost estimating practices; and associated business processes.

Q3b. How will this affect NASA’s ability to effectively execute the Enhanced Use

Leasing authority it is seeking from Congress?

A3b. NASA’s status on the GAO High-Risk List will not impact the Agency’s ability

to effectively execute the Enhanced Use Leasing authority. NASA’s High-Risk Corrective Action Plan seeks to improve the effectiveness of its program/project management across the board, including monitoring and analyzing contractor performance; life cycle cost/schedule management practices; cost estimating practices; and

associated business processes.

Questions submitted by Representative Charles A. Wilson

Q1. While NASA acknowledges that assuring the safety, health and performance of

astronauts is critical to the success of the Exploration Systems Mission, funding

for the Human Research Program has been dramatically reduced in recent years

with no significant growth in funding requested for FY 2009 and beyond. It remains hard to reconcile this funding plan with the criticality of keeping and

maintaining the health and safety of our astronauts. The issue on the current

Shuttle mission to the International Space Station illustrates the importance of

astronaut health to mission success. What is NASA’s plan and funding, particularly for Human Health Countermeasures and Exploration Medical Capability,

to develop the necessary understanding of the effects of zero and partial gravity

environments on humans, develop and verify effective countermeasures, retire

risks, and deliver required medical care to astronauts on exploration missions?

A1. NASA believes that crew safety, health, and performance is the Agency’s highest priority and will ensure that adequate resources are available to address the

human health risks associated with our nation’s exploration missions. To that end,

NASA’s Human Research Program (HRP) has developed a risk-based management

approach to assess all human health risks associated with the planned architecture

for exploration missions. These risks were baselined in the HRP Program Requirement Document in May 2007, and are currently being reviewed by the Institute of

Medicine of the National Academies. By addressing the risk-associated gaps in

knowledge, technology, and countermeasures in a time-phased manner, HRP will

mitigate and retire these risks as required to meet the exploration mission plans.

Using these risks and gaps as the framework, the program ensures that appropriate resources are allocated to tasks to address gaps and in-turn to mitigate

human health risks associated with space exploration. Based on its Integrated Research Plan established in December 2007, HRP’s assessment is that there is sufficient funding to address all near-term gaps in knowledge, technology, and countermeasures associated with the return to the lunar surface. If through further analysis it becomes evident that there is a budget shortfall in any of the identified

human health risks, NASA will take immediate steps to address this resource issue

to protect crew health and safety.

Regarding the Human Health Countermeasures and Exploration Medical Capability areas of research, HRP has identified the following human health risks associated within these areas:

• Risk of Accelerated Osteoporosis

73

• Risk of Orthostatic Intolerance During Re-Exposure to Gravity (dizziness,

fainting)

• Risk of Inaccurate Assessment of Cardiovascular Performance

• Risk Factor of Inadequate Nutrition

• Risk of Compromised EVA Performance and Crew Health Due to Inadequate

EVA Suit Systems

• Risk of Impaired Performance Due to Reduced Muscle Mass, Strength and

Endurance

• Risk of Operational Impact of Prolonged Daily Required Exercise

• Risk of Bone Fracture

• Risk of Invertebral Disc Damage

• Risk of Renal Stone Formation

• Risk of Cardiac Rhythm Problems

• Risk of Reduced Physical Performance Capabilities Due to Reduced Aerobic

Capacity

• Risk of Crew Adverse Health Event Due to Altered Immune Response

• Risk of Impaired Ability to Maintain Control of Vehicles and Other Complex

Systems

• Risk of Therapeutic Failure Due to Ineffectiveness of Medicine

• Risk of Inability to Adequately Treat an Ill or Injured Crew Member

HRP is currently funding tasks that address the mitigation of risks associated

with Human Health Countermeasures and Exploration Medical Capability. Examples of tasks that are providing significant progress include the following:

• HRP has recently completed ISS data collection on a countermeasure to mitigate the risk of renal stone formation

• HRP has recently completed an Antarctic nutrition study on efficacy of Vitamin D supplementation using the Antarctic ground facility as an analog for

space flight. This study undertaken jointly with the National Science Foundation, measured the dose of vitamin D needed to reach and maintain a desirable vitamin D status in the absence of sunlight

• HRP uses the ISS as a research platform to understand the effects of longduration space flight on humans and to develop/test countermeasures that reduce the medical risks of human space flight. HRP is currently undertaking

or developing ISS research that addresses Accelerated Osteoporosis, Orthostatic Intolerance, Altered Immune Response, Cardiovascular Performance,

Inadequate Nutrition, Reduced Aerobic Capacity, Cardiac Rhythm Problems,

Inability to Adequately Treat an Ill or Injured Crew Member, and Impaired

Ability to Maintain Control of Vehicles and Other Complex Systems

• HRP is currently undertaking or developing research in its ground-based facilities, such as its joint bed-rest facility with the National Institutes of

Health, that addresses: Accelerated Osteoporosis, Impaired Performance Due

to Reduced Muscle Mass, Strength and Endurance, Compromised EVA Performance and Crew Health Due to Inadequate EVA Suit Systems, Bone Fracture Risk, and Operational Impact of Prolonged Daily Required Exercise

In order to leverage resources to help ensure the timely development and validation of countermeasures and technologies, NASA and HRP partner with academia,

other federal agencies (e.g., National Institutes of Health, Department of Energy),

international space agencies (e.g., Canadian Space Agency, European Space Agency,

Russian Space Agency), and private industries to mitigate the human health risks

associated with exploration. HRP also uses national research announcements to provide an opportunity for universities, non-profit and commercial organizations to provide high-quality research that will directly benefit the Agency and create more effective research partnerships between NASA and the national biomedical research

community. A key cooperative agreement is with the National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI), a consortium of 12 academic institutions from across the

Nation. The goal of this important partnership is to conduct research to understand

the effects of microgravity on humans, and to develop effective countermeasures to

mitigate the risks associated with space flight. In support of NASA, NSBRI defines,

selects and conducts external space biomedical research associated with human exploration risks for approximately 60 grants involving investigators at more than 70

institutions in 22 states across the United States. NASA/NSBRI steering committee

and discipline teams jointly coordinated this research.

74

Finally, the research that HRP undertakes serves to inform the space flight

health standards as maintained by the Office of the Chief Health and Medical Officer. These documents establish NASA’s space flight crew health standards for the

pre-flight, in-flight, and post-flight phases of human space flight. The Space Flight

Health Standards for Human Performance apply to all NASA human space flight

programs.

Q2. The Innovative Partnerships Program (IPP) provides technology solutions for

NASA programs and transfers NASA technologies to the private sector for nonNASA applications. While the IPP budget remains essentially constant over the

period FY 2009 to FY 2013, the funding for Technology Transfer Partnerships

is estimated to decrease over this period in addition to reductions taken in prior

fiscal years. In today’s economic situation it is important to take every opportunity to stimulate the Nation’s economy. What is NASA’s plan for technology

transfer to the private sector and what can be done to provide greater economic

benefit from this critical function?

A2. All of the NASA IPP program elements contribute to increased commercial activity. Consequently, traditional ‘‘technology transfer out’’ is only one of several

ways in which IPP contributes to the Nation’s economic development. IPP consists

of the following program elements: Partnership Development, which includes traditional Technology Transfer Out, Intellectual Property Management, and dual-use

Technology Development Partnerships; Technology Infusion, which includes the IPP

Investment Seed Fund and the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR)/Small

Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs; Innovation Incubator, which includes Centennial Challenges as well as new initiatives such as facilitating the purchase of services from the emerging commercial space sector.

IPP’s Technology Transfer Out function involves licensing of NASA technologies

for commercial application and other public benefit. In FY 2007, IPP facilitated signing of 35 license agreements and 598 software use agreements. The Intellectual

Property Management function enables the reporting of new NASA invention disclosures. As a result of IPP’s FY 2007 and prior years efforts, over 100 NASA patent

applications were filed and 93 patents awarded in FY 2007. The Intellectual Property Management function therefore complements the Technology Transfer Out

function by facilitating protection of the technology that becomes the subject of

NASA licenses.

IPP facilitates NASA’s entering into dual-use Technology Development Partnerships. From NASA’s perspective, the primary purpose of these partnerships is to

provide needed technology and capabilities for NASA’s Mission Directorates, Programs, and Projects at less cost through investments and partnerships with private

and other external entities. At the same time, these partnerships enable industrial

entities to jointly develop commercially applicable technologies at less cost to them.

In addition, industry can take advantage of the Agency’s unique capabilities and facilities through partnering. The technology spectrum of interest to NASA is so broad

that it is difficult to imagine a key industrial sector that could not benefit from

partnering with NASA. In FY 2007, IPP facilitated NASA’s entering into over 200

such partnerships with private and other external entities.

Similarly, IPP’s Investment Seed Fund is designed to enhance NASA’s ability to

meet mission technology goals by providing seed funding to address barriers and initiate cost-shared, joint technology development partnerships. Seed Fund projects encourage, to the maximum extent possible, leveraging of funding, resources, and expertise from non-NASA partners, NASA Programs and Projects, and NASA Field

Centers. Over the life of IPP’s Investment Seed Fund, which spans FY 2006–2007,

IPP’s $15.9 million investment has generated 67 partnerships and resulted in $26.3

million in private capital investment contributed by industrial partners and $20.0

million in contributions from NASA’s other programs and projects for a total of

$62.2 million for the advancement of Agency critical technologies also having significant commercial applicability.

IPP’s SBIR/STTR program provides the small business sector with the opportunity to provide mission use technology for NASA. At the same time, historically

about 30 percent of NASA’s phase II SBIR/STTR technologies have been commercially applied in key sectors such as aviation, agriculture, automotive manufacturing, advanced materials, communications, electronics, environment protection,

sensors, robotics, medicine, manufacturing, heating/air conditioning, optical instrumentation, computing, and software development.

Centennial Challenges is IPP’s program of prize contests to stimulate innovation

and competition in NASA mission areas. By making awards based on actual

achievements, instead of proposals, Centennial Challenges seeks novel technological

solutions to NASA’s mission challenges from non-traditional sources of innovation

75

in academia, industry, and the public. As a byproduct, Centennial Challenges is

sparking inventive genius and real technology advances created by individuals, academia, and corporations of all sizes, thus providing the basis for future commercial

applications and related private capital investment.

NASA recently made a selection in a competitive procurement to provide commercial parabolic aircraft flight services to simulate multiple gravity environments. IPP

will utilize this contract to initiate a new activity—Facilitated Access to the Space

environment for Technology development and training (FAST). FAST will provide

partnership opportunities involving technology development that relies on limited

exposure to the microgravity environment. FAST has the dual objectives of demonstrating the purchase of commercial services from the emerging commercial space

sector, and advancing maturity of dual-use technologies through use of those services.

Regarding advancements in IPP program implementation efficiencies, IPP is in

the process of improving its website and its publications, Spinoff Magazine,

TechBriefs Magazine, Innovation Magazine, for the purposes of generating increased

interest in, and making licensing, partnership development, as well as other opportunities available to a broad range of entities, nationwide. Also, IPP is improving

its information technology capabilities that are expected to increase new technology

reporting compliance and improve partnership development management.

Accordingly, the IPP program, through its various program elements, therefore

provides the opportunity for a broad spectrum of industry, large and small companies alike, to contribute to NASA’s missions and simultaneously enhance their own

competitive positions in international markets. IPP also challenges the ingenuity of

grass roots citizens, inviting entrepreneurs, inventors, and students alike to create

innovative technology and thereby contribute to NASA’s missions, as well as to help

build the foundation for the Nation’s future economic prosperity.

Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall

Science Research to Operational Capability

Q1. The National Research Council has reported several times on the difficulties of

the transition of research assets developed by NASA to operational assets managed by NOAA. In particular, one criticism is that while there have been transitions that have been successful; the transition of assets is, by and large, an ad

hoc process.

Q1a. Has there been any progress on the development of some type of standardized

procedure or memorandum of understanding between NASA and NOAA that

would provide guidance for future transitions of assets?

A1a. Substantial progress has been made by NASA and NOAA to ensure maximum

coordination in the design, operation, and transition of missions, where appropriate,

and to prepare transition plans for the existing and future Earth observing systems

found to have potential operational capabilities. Specific examples are outlined

below.

In December 2005, the NASA Associate Administrator for the Science Mission Directorate (SMD) and the Department of Commerce (DOC) Deputy Under Secretary

for Oceans and Atmosphere approved the Interagency Agreement on Terms of Reference for the NASA Earth Science—NOAA Joint Working Group (JWG) on Research and Operations. The Director, NASA Earth Science Division, and the Assistant Administrator, NOAA Satellite and Information Services, oversee the JWG. The

JWG Co-Chairs are the Associate Director for Research, NASA Earth Science Division, and the Director, Climate Program Office, NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. In October 2006, the Director, NASA Earth Science Division, and

the Assistant Administrator, NOAA Satellite and Information Services, established

a NASA–NOAA Roundtable that meets approximately quarterly for oversight of

JWG functions.

In April 2006, the JWG convened a NASA–NOAA Workshop on Research and Operations Transition Opportunities on five themes: (1) observing capability transition;

(2) mission extension; (3) Earth system data records; (4) accelerating the operational

use of research data; and (5) tools and standards. Results of the workshop were outlined in the annual report submitted to Congress in July 2008 regarding coordination of Earth science programs for NASA and NOAA as required by Section 306 of

the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109–155). The next update to this annual

report will be submitted to the Committee in the coming weeks.

Since the June 2006 Nunn-McCurdy certification of the National Polar-orbiting

Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS), the JWG supported the

76

NASA and NOAA joint effort to mitigate the loss of climate instruments. In January

2007, NASA and NOAA jointly transmitted ‘‘Impacts of NPOESS Nunn-McCurdy

Certification on Joint NASA–NOAA Climate Goals’’) to the White House Office of

Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). The four highest-ranked measurement capabilities listed in the report were total solar irradiance, Earth radiation balance,

ocean surface topography, and vertical profiles of ozone.

In April 2007, NASA and NOAA agreed to equally share the cost to incorporate

the Ozone Mapping and Profile Suite Limb instrument on the NPOESS Preparatory

Project (NPP) set to launch in June 2010. In January 2008, NASA and NOAA

agreed to modify the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) instrument, which was intended for launch on the first NPOESS spacecraft now delayed to January 2013. The CERES instrument will be launched on NPP to provide

continuity with CERES data recorded on NASA’s Aqua and Terra satellites. In

2008, NASA and NOAA will jointly develop a plan to fly a Total Solar Irradiance

(TSI) instrument on a platform-of-opportunity.

In January 2008, the NASA–NOAA Roundtable established a research-to-operations joint working team (R2OJWT) to develop processes to transition the NASA

satellite nadir altimetry research measurement capability to NOAA for operational

service. As noted above, the satellite nadir altimetry measurement capability had

the third highest priority in the NASA–NOAA report to OSTP on mitigating the impact of the Nunn-McCurdy certified NPOESS.

The R2OJWT was instructed to consider the guidance provided in the report ‘‘Satellite Observations of the Earth’s Environment: Accelerating the Transition of Research to Operations’’ published in 2003 by the National Research Council (NRC)

Committee on NASA–NOAA Transition from Research to Operations, known as the

CONNTRO Report. The Roundtable will provide oversight guidance of the

R2OJWT’s activities.

Valuable lessons learned by the R2OJWT will guide the establishment of an Interagency Transition Office (ITO), which will be jointly staffed by NASA and NOAA.

While funds are not now available to fully implement all CONNTRO Report recommendations, NASA and NOAA intend to formally implement an ITO activity.

Q1b. If not, do you plan on reaching out to NOAA to develop such guidance?

A1b. As outlined above, NASA and NOAA have an ongoing process to achieve the

transition of NASA satellite measurement capabilities designed for research purposes to NOAA satellite measurement capabilities for operational utilization of the

data. NASA and NOAA have chosen the satellite nadir altimetry capability to be

the first satellite measurement capability for transition from NASA to NOAA.

International Participation Limited by ITAR

Q2. With respect to collaborating with our international partners on current and future missions, how severely does ITAR impede NASA’s ability to work with foreign scientists, engineers, and space agencies? Based on your experience working

under the ITAR regime, do you have any recommended changes that maintain

the spirit of ITAR but that provides meaningful relief? If so, what are they?

A2. Although the Department of State has recently taken steps to address certain

ITAR-related impediments, including actions in furtherance of the President’s ex- port control reform directives of January 22, 2008, some ITAR requirements continue to impact NASA’s ability to work with its international partners. The most

common ITAR concerns for NASA and its contractors relate to export license process

requirements, license restrictions regarding anomaly resolution, and restrictions affecting foreign governmental employees with dual-nationalities. These problems result in schedule delays, cost overruns, the need for workarounds, and the inability

of contractors to perform necessary work with NASA’s international partners in the

absence of proper export control authorizations; they may also impede the ability

of NASA and its contractors to expeditiously take action to assure operations safety

and mission success. Accordingly, NASA has been working closely with the Department of State since 2001 on proposals to obtain its own export authority and other

improvements to address these challenges. The centerpiece of this effort for NASA

has been the pursuit of an appropriately-circumscribed ITAR exemption, modeled on

the Arms Export Control Act’s Foreign Military Sales exemption utilized by the Department of Defense and its contractors. This approach is consistent with the recommendations of both the Congressionally-chartered International Space Station

(ISS) Independent Safety Task Force (IISTF) report of February 21, 2007, which

found that ITAR restrictions ‘‘are a threat to the safe and successful integration and

operations of the [International Space] Station’’ and recommended that the Department of State ‘‘grant immediate relief in the form of an [ITAR] exemption,’’ and the

77

May 18, 2007, NASA Advisory Council endorsement of an exemption ‘‘to facilitate

NASA’s critical tasks in implementing the [U.S. Space Exploration Policy] and other

NASA programs.’’ Recently, the State Department advised NASA to seek legislative

authority as a prerequisite to the Department’s promulgation of an exemption to facilitate the implementation of NASA’s programs, including the U.S. Space Exploration Policy. NASA will continue to work closely with the State Department and

other agencies of the Government on this recommendation and other appropriate

avenues to address NASA’s ITAR-related concerns and those of its contractors.

Earth Science Decadal Survey

Q3. Last year, the National Research Council released its report, ‘‘Earth Science and

Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond’’

in which they identified 17 critical missions that should be undertaken in the

next decade. Based on the usefulness of this information to the operational and

scientific communities studying climate change, does NASA have a plan to work

with NOAA regarding the prioritization, funding and management of these missions? If not, why not?

A3. Yes. The National Research Council’s Decadal Survey (NRC, 2007), the first

such survey for NASA Earth Science and NOAA, recommended fourteen and two

satellite missions, respectively, to launch during 2010–2020. One additional mission

was recommended for NASA and NOAA to jointly implement for launch in 2010–

2013. The Decadal Survey mission priorities are the principal determinant of the

priority of NASA’s Earth Science satellite missions beyond those currently in development.

At NASA’s invitation, NOAA participated in NASA-sponsored community workshops in June and July 2007 to initiate scientific discussions of, and begin defining

data products from, the four near-term missions assigned to NASA by the Decadal

Survey. A report of each workshop is available at http://nasascience.nasa.gov/

earth-science. One of these four (CLARREO) is the mission the NRC recommended

for joint NASA/NOAA implementation. In addition, NOAA is also exploring, with

NASA participation, concepts for a satellite ocean vector winds mission that can

meet NOAA mission requirements, which the Decadal Survey named the ‘‘eXtended

Ocean Vector Winds Mission’’ (XOVWM).

Each Agency will prioritize, fund, and manage the missions and mission elements

for which it is responsible. For the joint NASA/NOAA mission recommended by the

NRC (CLARREO), the NRC recommendation contained a first-order distribution of

responsibilities for the Agencies—it was recommended that NASA should fund and

manage the spectrally resolved measurements, while it was recommended that

NOAA should fund and manage the broadband measurements. On a reimbursable

basis, NASA has been supporting NOAA on studies of the XOVWM mission.

A more complete description of NASA/NOAA collaboration in Earth Science, including activities related to Decadal Survey and other NRC recommendations, is reported to Congress annually in a report required by Section 306 of the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109–155).

National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite (NPOESS)

Q4a. Last month, the Executive Committee (EXCOM) for the National Polar-orbiting

Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) met for its regular

quarterly meeting. As I understanding it, during that January EXCOM, there

was a decision to keep the VIIRS instrument as part of the NPP satellite (the

first NPOESS satellite), which has caused an eight-month slip in the timeline

for launch. How did this eight-month slip occur?

A4a. The delay in the launch readiness date of the NPP satellite is driven entirely

by delays in the delivery of the Visible Infrared Imager Radiometer Suite (VIIRS)

instrument.

Q4b. What is the EXCOM doing to ensure that further slips will not delay the satellite any longer?

A4b. VIIRS has been built and is undergoing a series of tests to qualify for the NPP

mission. To enable timely actions to keep NPP on schedule, the EXCOM meets approximately quarterly with high-level management of the manufacturers preparing

VIIRS for deployment on NPP. In addition, the EXCOM meets at quarterly intervals

with the NPOESS Program Executive Officer (PEO), who has oversight of delivery

of VIIRS on NPP. The EXCOM receives monthly status reports from the PEO. In

January, the EXCOM directed the PEO to meet biweekly with the leadership team

78

of the VIIRS contractor to ensure that the Government concerns are being addressed. The PEO delivers a report on the outcome of those meetings to the

EXCOM.

Q4c. What is the effect to the program if further delays are experienced?

A4c. The additional cost to NASA associated with an eight-month delay from September 30, 2009, to June 2, 2010 is a total of $42.2M. The additional amount for

an eight-month delay covers the following costs:

• A technical support workforce and infrastructure are required to maintain already-built instruments, equipment, and facilities to be available at launch.

The major NASA-provided items are the spacecraft; the Advanced Technology

Microwave Sounder (ATMS) instrument; the Science Data System (SDS)

Product Evaluation and Analysis Tool Elements (PEATES) for the atmosphere, ocean, land, ozone, and sounder; the launch vehicle; and the management for the NPP mission. The ATMS has already been integrated into the

spacecraft and the PEATES are ready to perform their tasks. The subtotal

for these activities is $22 million.

• In 2008 and 2009, NASA will modify the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) Flight Model (FM) 5 instrument and the spacecraft,

and integrate CERES with the NPP spacecraft and ground data system.

These minor modifications can be undertaken without significantly impacting

technical risk or schedule for NPP. The cost for activities related to the

CERES instrument is $17.7M, primarily for data production and product generation. The purpose of placing the CERES instrument on NPP is explained

below. In January 2008, the EXCOM agreed with the NASA decision to add

the only remaining CERES instrument to NPP. The CERES FM5 instrument

had been scheduled to fly on the first NPOESS spacecraft to provide continuity with CERES data recorded on NASA’s Aqua and Terra satellites,

which will be operating beyond their design lifetimes at the time of the

planned launch of NPP. Programmatic slips have delayed the first NPOESS

launch to January 2013. A gap of CERES top-of-atmosphere radiation budget

data in a changing climate system would require doubling the length of the

data set to quantify the impact of clouds on the global integrated climate system.

• The eight-month delay will increase a variety of pre-operational costs totaling

$2.5M.

Should a delay occur after the scheduled launch date of June 2, 2010, the cost

to NASA to maintain instruments, infrastructure and activities in readiness for an

NPP launch is $4.1M per month. This monthly amount covers costs for the spacecraft, ATMS instrument, CERES instrument, PEATES science data system, launch

vehicle, and a variety of pre-operational activities. A delay penalty will increase

launch vehicle costs from $0.6M per month before June 2, 2010, to $1.3M per month

after June 2, 2010.

Restrictions on Purchasing Russian Launch Services

Q5. Given the possibility that COTS (Commercial Orbital Transportation System)

could fail to produce a viable cargo delivery capability and that the Iran, North

Korea and Syria Non-Proliferation Act (INKSNA) bars NASA from purchasing

launch services from Russia after 2011, what is NASA’s backup plan to service

and maintain ISS after 2011 if INKSNA is amended?

A5. NASA has always envisioned a mixed fleet strategy. If neither COTS nor nonU.S. vehicles are available to meet logistics needs for operating and maintaining the

ISS, NASA would have no alternative but to actively and aggressively manage

spacecraft systems degradation in a manner that minimizes the probabilities of loss

of systems and loss of vehicle until such time as the needed transportation services

become available. It should be noted that the European ATV has recently successfully docked to the ISS. The ISS partnership took measures during the period when

the Shuttle was grounded following the Columbia accident to minimize logistics

needs, so we have experience in managing with transportation constraints.

Q6. NASA’s FY 2009 budget request includes $2.6B to purchase ISS transportation

services through 2013. In order for NASA to purchase Soyuz flights after 2011,

Congress must amend the INKSNA. Assuming the Administration plans to seek

an amendment for INKSNA, when should Congress expect to receive the request?

79

A6. On April 14, 2008, NASA submitted to the Congress a proposed amendment to

extend the exception for payments to Russia for Soyuz crew transportation and rescue services until the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle reaches Full Operational Capability or a U.S. commercial provider of crew transportation and rescue services

demonstrates the capability to meet ISS mission requirements. It also extends

through the life of the ISS the exception for payments for Russian-unique equipment and capabilities, such as sustaining engineering and spares (for example, acquiring Russian equipment for use in training in the U.S., and hardware, such as

spares, to outfit the Russian-built, but U.S.-owned, Zarya module). NASA looks forward to working with the Congress on enactment of this legislation that is crucial

for the long-term operation of the ISS.

Rational for Ares Development

Q7. Using material from the Exploration Systems Architecture Study, or other studies if appropriate, please detail for the record why the requirements of a lunarcapable Orion spacecraft dictate the development of Ares, and why Orion is incapable of using other launch vehicles. In the event that a future loss of the Ares

launch vehicle causes a stand-down, is there any contingency scenario that

would permit Orion to be launched to the ISS on any currently existing launch

vehicles either international or domestic?

A7. NASA evaluated many launch vehicle options that could be utilized for human

space exploration missions. Over two years ago, the Agency conducted a very thorough study of architectural alternatives to meet our needs for International Space

Station resupply and return to the Moon during the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS). The principal factors considered during ESAS were the desired

lift capacity, the comparative reliability, and the development and life cycle costs

of different approaches. A primary driver for developing the Ares I launch vehicle

is that NASA required a human-rated launch vehicle to transport the crew into lowEarth orbit. The Ares I is comprised of components used in a human-rated vehicle

(Space Shuttle), because the identified safety projections for the selected Shuttle-derived solution are approximately two times that of the Evolved Expendable Launch

Vehicle (EELV) based Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) solutions.

Among these approaches, NASA considered existing vehicles, such as the EELV

fleet, to meet crew and cargo transportation needs. The additional information following outlines in depth why NASA decided to move forward with the Ares launch

vehicles after careful consideration and study of other launch alternatives.

NASA does not have a contingency option to fly the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle on any other vehicle, regardless of whether it is a domestic commercial, international commercial or foreign government vehicle. The Orion was built to meet

specifications of the Ares Crew Launch Vehicle. Modifying Orion to fit other EELVs

would be beyond NASA’s budget and require significant changes to the EELVs.

Additional information

February 2008

Why NASA Chose to Utilize a Shuttle-Derived Crew Launch

Vehicle Instead of Human Rating an Evolved Expendable

Launch Vehicle

NASA evaluated many launch vehicle options that could be utilized for human

space exploration missions. The principal factors considered were the desired lift capacity, the comparative reliability, and the development and life cycle costs of different approaches. Among these approaches, NASA considered existing vehicles,

such as the EELV fleet, to meet crew and cargo transportation needs. This white

paper outlines why NASA decided to move forward with the Ares launch vehicles

after careful consideration and study of other launch alternatives.

Developing NASA’s Exploration Architecture

NASA is developing the Exploration architecture to safely and affordably transport humans and cargo beyond low Earth orbit (LEO). This multi-purpose architecture is not simply a ‘‘ferry to the International Space Station (ISS),’’ or a ‘‘Shuttle

replacement.’’ Instead, by utilizing tested human space elements, it includes the

Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLLV) to deliver up to 70–75 metric ton (mT) of cargo

to Trans Lunar Injection (compared to the Apollo/Saturn capability of approximately

47 mT).

80

NASA studied hundreds of commercial, Government and concept launch vehicle

and architecture systems prior to 2005, culminating in the release of the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS). NASA studied Space Shuttle-derived,

EELV-derived as well as ‘‘clean sheet’’ launch vehicle architectures in cooperation

with the U.S. launch industry, and concluded that the Ares I and V system architecture provided the optimal solution for both LEO and beyond LEO applications. Figures of Merit (FOMs) used during the studies—cost, reliability, human safety, programmatic risk, mission performance and schedule—were applied to drive out the

best alternative in the analysis. Additional considerations included legal requirements from the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109–155), workforce skills

and industrial capabilities. After a thorough analysis of the entire Exploration architecture requirements, EELV solutions were ultimately determined to be less safe,

less reliable, and more costly than the Shuttle-derived solutions in development.

The ESAS concluded that NASA should adopt and pursue a Shuttle-derived architecture as the next-generation launch system for exploration missions due to their

significant advantages, particularly with respect to safety, reliability, and cost. The

extensive flight and test databases of currently flying hardware/software give a very

strong technical and safety foundation with clearly defined and understood elements

to anchor next-generation vehicles and minimize development costs and risks to

flight crew. In addition, NASA’s approach allows the Nation to leverage significant

existing ground infrastructure investments (Kennedy Space Center (KSC); Michoud

Assembly Facility (MAF), etc.) and personnel with significant human space flight experience. Overall, NASA’s Shuttle-derived approach was found to be the most affordable, safe, and reliable approach, both by leveraging proven human rated vehicle

and infrastructure elements and by using common elements across the architecture.

While NASA continues to conduct trade studies aimed at refining the Ares V architecture for minimum development risks and operational costs, the Agency is committed to the fundamental Ares I/V approach established over two years ago.

The next section of this white paper explores some of the specific reasons why

NASA chose the Ares architecture for future space flight missions, both manned and

unmanned.

The Ares versus the EELV

Vehicle Performance: The EELV crew transport options examined were those of

the Delta IV and Atlas V families. The study focused on the heavy lift versions of

both Delta (currently flying) and Atlas families (drawings only), and confirmed that

none of the medium versions of either vehicle had the capability to accommodate

the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle lift requirements. The Medium class EELVs,

with no additional solid boosters, significantly under performed by approximately

40–60 percent. The option of using small, strap-on solid boosters was eliminated for

safety reasons in the Orbital Spaceplane Safety Study conducted in 2004. Both

EELV-heavy vehicles were assessed to require significant modification for humanrating, particularly in the areas of avionics, telemetry, structures, and engine selection. Additionally, both the Atlas and Delta Heavy classes required development of

new upper stages to achieve the lift performance required to launch Orion. Ares I

is designed to launch the 23.3 mT Orion vehicle, which consists of the crew and

service modules, into LEO. The Ares can also launch a 20.3 mT Orion to the inclination of the ISS.

The ESAS assessment showed that lunar missions requiring more than three

launches dramatically reduced the probability of mission success. Therefore, NASA

issued an architecture goal to minimize complex on-orbit assembly, and also placed

a limit to no more than three launches for a mission. For lunar missions, this

equates to a launch vehicle design with a lift capability near 100 mT or greater to

LEO. Early in the trade study process, NASA identified the current EELV fleet, if

used for lunar cargo missions, would require more than seven launches per lunar

mission. This very high number of flights per mission is unacceptable from a mission success probability standpoint and did not meet the NASA goal of three

launches maximum.

While elements of current EELVs can be utilized to develop a 100 mT LEO equivalent launch vehicle (boosters, engines, etc.), the lack of acceptable EELV boost

stage performance (compared to Shuttle-derived hardware) drives the need for an

additional Liquid Oxygen (LOX)/Liquid Hydrogen (LH2) stage to reach orbit. The

EELV-derived solutions required two upper stages as well as additional strap on

core boosters to provide the necessary lift capability to minimize launches for onorbit assembly. These characteristics were deemed to decrease mission safety and

reliability while increasing costs to unacceptable levels based on NASA requirements. NASA did not pursue ‘‘clean sheet of paper’’ designs because it was deemed

too risky and expensive.

81

Crew Safety/Reliability: The current EELVs were designed to carry unmanned

payloads. Modifying the EELV design to meet the Human-Rating Requirements

would require changes in areas such as flight termination system changes to add

a time delay for an abort scenario and in-flight crew control/abort capabilities. The

use of EELVs for crew transportation would also require NASA to invest significant

funds into pad modifications required for crew access/emergency egress that currently does not exist at the EELV launch site. Based on ESAS assessments, the

Shuttle-derived launch vehicle was highest-rated in terms of crew safety by about

a factor of two over other options (Loss of Crew approximately 1/2000). This confidence for crew safety is driven by the extensive history of the Shuttle system,

which far surpasses the experience base for any other existing system. To add to

the reliability of the system, the Ares I hardware is recovered and inspected for any

system anomalies. In addition, Shuttle propulsion systems are already ‘‘humanrated’’ which mitigates one of the highest programmatic risks for a launch vehicle.

Leveraging systems that are already human-rated reduces the uncertainties and

risks associated with human-rating the new CLV. In addition, the current EELVs

have a booster structural Factor of Safety (SF) of =1.25, where NASA requires that

all structures have a 1.4 Factor of Safety (NASA Standard NASA–STD–5001). If the

Agency were to accept the reduced SF of the EELVs, a large engineering and development effort would be required to validate structural integrity relative to NASA

Standard and would likely eventually lead to some structural redesign of select systems. In addition, main propulsion systems would require modification, for example,

the RL–10 upper stage engine would also require human-rating in areas such as:

Redundancy upgrades; increased subsystem robustness; fault detection; isolation

and recovery; engine redlines; safe in-flight shutdown mode; and, any design

changes from structural assessments. For Atlas V, RD–180 American co-production

and human-rating would be required adding greater challenges. From a human-rating perspective, the RD–180 will require additional redundancy and increased

robustness in select systems. Finally, for Delta IV, several modifications would be

required to human-rate the RS–68 including extensive health monitoring, increased

robustness of subsystems, and elimination of the fuel-rich environment at liftoff

which would pose a crew hazard.

Life Cycle Costs: The Ares I and Ares V combination for lunar missions provides

significantly lower non-recurring cost than that of the current EELV launch vehicle

families. The Shuttle-derived launch vehicle combination allows for a ‘‘1.5 launch’’

solution whereas the EELV architectures required two HLLV launches with more

expensive hardware costs. It was determined that the total EELV-derived CLV plus

EELV-derived Cargo Launch Vehicle (CaLV) Design, Development, Test, and Evaluation (DDTE) costs are approximately 25 percent higher for EELV-derived versus

selected Shuttle-derived architecture.

The launch cost for human-rated, EELV-derived systems is significantly higher

than the current cost of a medium-class EELV. This launch cost also does not include the non-recurring development investment required to meet the Orion’s lift requirements and human-rate these systems, which has been estimated to cost in the

several billions of dollars. In order for the unmanned payload customers to not incur

the unnecessary additional costs for human-rated systems on the EELV, the EELV

providers would likely need a unique human-rated variant which would increase the

costs.

NASA continued to refine its launch recommendations post-ESAS. In early 2006,

NASA modified the architecture from a four-segment Reusable SRB (RSRB)/single

Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) upper stage CLV, and a five-segment RSRB/Expendable SSME Core/J–2X Earth Departure System (EDS) CaLV to a five-segment

RSRB/single J–2X upper stage CLV, and five-segment RSRB/RS–68 Core/J–2X EDS.

After careful analysis, NASA elected to forgo the modification of the SSME for altitude-start and proceed directly to development a common J–2X engine for both the

Ares I upper stage and the Ares V Earth departure stage, which sends the Orion

crew capsule/lunar lander combination to the Moon. This new approach eliminates

a top ESAS-identified risk—SSME altitude start—and addresses another risk—J–

2X development—sooner thereby lowering overall Exploration risks and costs. In addition, the inordinate expense of using five SSMEs with each cargo launch made the

selection the relatively simple (and much less costly), utilizing the expendable RS–

68 engine with the added advantage of using a common engine to meet both Department of Defense and NASA needs. With this approach, engine development for the

Ares I provides a significant and direct ‘‘down payment’’ on the Ares V test and development plan. Selecting common hardware not only maximizes non-recurring investments and reduces overall life cycle cost; it also gets NASA closer to enabling

a lunar transportation system. Concentrating efforts on two major propulsion develVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:33 Aug 08, 2008 Jkt 040598 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL08\021308\40598 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
82

opments rather than on five, as was originally proposed, will reduce development

costs by hundreds of millions of dollars and save billions in operations costs. These

combined changes represented a projected savings of over $5 billion in life cycle

costs over the initial ESAS recommendations.

Infrastructure and Capability Retention: While NASA will continue to use existing U.S. expendable launch vehicles for the robotic exploration missions (five to

eight launches per year), the Ares V system leverages heritage human-rated systems such as the Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor; the Solid Rocket Booster, as well as

heritage infrastructure, including the MAF in Louisiana; and the Vertical Assembly

Building and crawler and launch complex 39 at KSC in Florida. To sustain the manufacturing infrastructure capability required for the Ares V between Shuttle retirement and the first human lunar launch, NASA’s Exploration architecture (Shuttlederived Ares I) ensured America’s industrial base for production of large solid rocket

systems, high-performance liquid engine systems, large lightweight stages, largescale launch processing infrastructure, and the current production level of solid propellant fuels is available to support the Ares V. If NASA selected the EELV-based

CLV options, this would have required a significant amount of ‘‘keep alive’’ costs to

maintain the industry and Center infrastructure and skills assets for eventual use

on Ares V development.

External Reviews: Several external reviews have been conducted with regard to

NASA’s launch vehicle selection, with all reviews to date supporting the direction

of the Agency. NASA’s conclusions regarding the Space Shuttle-derived Ares I and

V vehicles have received agreement by the Department of Defense (DOD) and results were validated by Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports. In 2005, the DOD reviewed NASA’s analysis and

concurred with NASA’s approach. A joint recommendation was formally submitted

in a memorandum to the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy,

Dr. John Marburger, in August 2005.

In October 2006, CBO concluded a study on the NASA’s selection of the Ares I

and Ares V launch vehicles (‘‘Alternatives for Future U.S. Space Launch Capabilities Report’’). The CBO report contrasted CBO’s analysis with the recent NASA

ESAS report and resulting implementation approach and identified a number of observations, highlighting four main points:

1. Fewer launches per exploration mission increases overall mission reliability;

2. NASA’s Shuttle-derived launch vehicle approach is the most economical option when minimizing the number of launches;

3. Since CBO cost results are consistent with NASA’s ESAS conclusions, and

since NASA also based its launch decisions on safety and reliability (not assessed by CBO), NASA’s selection of a Shuttle-derived launch vehicle is further validated by the CBO study; and

4. The CBO estimates for the NASA-selected launch vehicles are within NASA

budget projections.’’

And the most recent report from the GAO in November 2007 (‘‘Agency Has Taken

Steps toward Making Sound Investment Decisions for Ares I but Still Faces Challenging Knowledge Gaps Report’’) noted that ‘‘NASA has taken steps toward making

sound investment decisions for Ares I.’’ The GAO report also noted that:

‘‘Furthermore, NASA’s decision to include the J–2X engine and five-segment

booster in the Ares I design in order to reduce long-term operations and support

cost is in line with the practices of leading commercial developers that give

long-term savings priority over short-term gains. The Ares I project was also

proactive in ensuring that the ongoing project was in compliance with NASA’s

new directives, which include elements of a knowledge-based approach. NASA’s

new acquisition directives require a series of key reviews and decision points

between each life cycle phase of the Ares I project that serve as gates through

which the project must pass before moving forward . . . We found that the Ares

I project had implemented the use of key decision points and adopted the recommended entrance and exit criteria for the December 2006 Systems Requirements Review and the upcoming October 2007 Systems Definition Review.’’

Summary

NASA is designing transportation architecture, not just a point solution for access

to LEO. In deciding on this architecture, NASA considered principal factors such as

performance, reliability and development and life cycle costs when comparing alternatives. NASA also took into consideration the growth path to heavy lift capability

83

which results from the choice of a particular launch vehicle family. To grow significantly beyond today’s EELV family for lunar missions requires essentially a ‘‘clean

sheet of paper’’ design, whereas the Ares V design makes extensive use of existing

elements, or straightforward modifications of existing elements, which are also common to Ares I. The Shuttle-derived launch vehicle architecture selected by NASA

meets all of the goals and objectives to achieve the exploration mission, while also:

• Providing the best possibility of meeting stakeholder and customer requirements, including legal mandates, within the funding available and timeframe

desired; Providing the safest, most reliable and cost effective launch vehicle

for NASA missions;

• Maximizing leverage of existing, human-rated systems and infrastructure;

• Leveraging collaboration between the retiring Shuttle Program and emerging

Constellation projects by sharing lessons learned and transitioning valuable

resources, ranging from a specialized workforce to a unique launch infrastructure;

• Creating the most straightforward growth path to later Exploration launch

needs; and

• Ensuring the industrial base for production of large solid rocket systems, high

performance liquid engine systems, large lightweight stages and critical, large

scale launch processing infrastructure.

Questions submitted by Representative Tom Feeney

Shuttle Retirement

Q1. As NASA continues to shut down vital Shuttle suppliers and close out contracts,

when will we reach ‘‘the point of no return,’’ making it prohibitively expensive

to purchase consumables and spares for future flights? How does NASA intend

to ensure a sufficient number of spares remain available to support Shuttle operations through 2010 and just as importantly, that the workforce and industrial

base will remain intact for the transition to Constellation?

A1. NASA already has contract vehicles in place to ensure that the current manifest of Space Shuttle missions is fully supported with all required consumables and

spares, and the Agency has begun to modify contracts to reflect the final orders of

Space Shuttle Program hardware. Recent examples of this include modifications to

the Reusable Solid Rocket Motor (RSRM) contract with ATK and the Super Lightweight External Tank contract with Lockheed Martin.

As detailed in the report submitted to the Committee in April 2008 regarding

NASA’s initial Workforce Transition Strategy, the Agency indicated its greatest

management challenge is managing our extremely talented, experienced, and geographically dispersed workforce as we transition from operating the Space Shuttle

to utilizing the International Space Station and expanding our reach to the Moon,

Mars, and beyond. The joint effort between the Space Operations and Exploration

Systems Mission Directorates includes the utilization and disposition of resources,

including real and personal property, personnel, and processes, to leverage existing

Shuttle and Space Station assets for future Exploration activities, including the

Orion Ares I, and Ares V projects. Formalized Transition Boards are working to successfully achieve this outcome, and, to date, NASA has met all of its milestones and

disposition targets. As required by the FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act

(P.L. 110-161), NASA will update the Agency’s Workforce Transition Strategy report

every six months to keep the Congress informed of progress on transition activities.

Shuttle Closeout Costs

Q2. The Space Shuttle budget does not contain any funds for program closeout activities after 2010, and represents an as-yet-to-be-determined threat to the Constellation program, currently estimated at about $1.2B. Are there sufficient reserves in the Constellation program to handle this? Will these costs generate

shortfalls that could affect NASA’s ability to meet the proposed operational date

of March 2015?

A2. The FY 2010 budget formulation will produce the most detailed and accurate

Transition and Retirement estimate to date, which is expected to be less than previous estimates given the increased maturity of requirements, more clearly defined

process guidelines, and better overall understanding of the type and scope of work

to be accomplished. As part of NASA’s FY 2010 budget formulation process, the

84

Constellation program will evaluate estimated costs and determine the best strategy

for budget adoption. Although currently carried as a threat, the Constellation program is notionally prepared to accept a threshold cost of $450M that will come from

program reserves. However, the goal is to keep these costs to an absolute minimum.

Any costs greater than this amount may have an adverse impact on the Orion Crew

Exploration Vehicle Initial Operational Capability of March 2015.

Shuttle Extension

Q3. If the Shuttle schedule slips and it becomes necessary or desirable to fly the last

two contingency Shuttle missions after 2010, can NASA estimate the cost of extending the Shuttle program on a monthly or quarterly basis? Is there a ‘pointof-no-return’ after which is would be too late to attempt, and how would any

plan to extend the Shuttle program beyond 2010 affect the liens on the Constellation program?

A3. NASA cannot continue flying the Space Shuttle past FY 2010 while maintaining a balanced overall program of science, exploration, and aeronautics and aggressively developing the next-generation exploration systems under the Constellation

program. There are two main reasons for this. First, maintaining even a minimal

capability to launch two Shuttle flights per year after FY 2010 would require nearly

the same infrastructure and vendor capabilities we have today, at a cost of approximately $2.7–$4.0B per year. Unless an equal amount was added to the NASA budget to offset these costs, the funds would have to come at the expense of higher priority activities in science, exploration, and aeronautics. Second, the Constellation architecture is designed to take advantage of Space Shuttle infrastructure, production

capabilities, and workforce once they are no longer needed for flying the Shuttle.

If the Shuttle were kept flying past 2010, these capabilities could not be released

for Constellation’s modification and use. As a result, keeping Shuttle flying past

2010 would only compound the problem of getting Constellation into service and exacerbate the gap in U.S. human space flight capabilities. It will also be extremely

difficult to keep the Shuttle workforce engaged as Shuttle fly out is extended. A very

dedicated workforce is needed to safely operate this complex machine. Ending on a

planned date, known well in advance, is much easier for the workforce and planning

than a floating end date.

Q4. If Congress directed (and funded) NASA to manifest another mission to fly the

AMS, does NASA have the necessary parts and equipment available? What

would be required to put the mission together and what are the constraints?

What is the cost estimate?

A4. NASA is planning to have enough hardware on hand to maintain a crew rescue

option, also know as Launch-on-Need (LON), through the last planned flight of the

manifest, STS–133. In principle, after STS–133 this hardware could be turned

around to fly AMS and additional hardware to the ISS. However, there would be

considerable, nontrivial costs and technical impacts associated with adding such a

mission to the end of the manifest in either FY 2010 or FY 2011. NASA has estimated that doing all the work necessary to add an additional flight to the Space

Shuttle manifest in FY 2010 would cost approximately $300–$400M. Maintaining

the capability of launching one to two Shuttle flights per year after FY 2010 would

cost approximately $2.7–$4.0B per year. The later the decision to add a flight is

made, the more costs will be incurred to re-enable needed capabilities that are

planned for phase out over the next two years.

This new mission could be assembled using the hardware now being built to support a contingency crew rescue flight for the last mission on the current manifest,

STS–133. The biggest piece of flight hardware production, and the pacing item for

flying an additional flight, would be completing production of the external tank. If

NASA were directed by Congress to fly an additional Space Shuttle mission to accommodate AMS, we would probably use the external tank (ET–138) that is now

assigned to the STS–133 crew rescue mission. In that case, NASA would be required

to complete the partially-built ET–139 (which right now is only being built up to

the sub-assembly level to maintain critical workforce skills) to serve as the crew rescue tank for the new AMS mission.

If AMS could be flown before the end of FY 2010, most of the contracts, sub-contracts, vendors, and workforce would still be in place to safely fly the mission. However, much work would need to be done to enable an additional flight in FY 2010,

and it remains to be seen whether a flight could be safely added before the end of

that fiscal year. This rough estimate of $300–$400M includes anticipated costs of

procuring flight hardware, maintaining launch and landing personnel at Kennedy

Space Center, and retaining other critical sustaining engineering and processing

85

personnel through the end of FY 2010. NASA’s $2.7–$4.0B estimate to maintain the

capability of flying past FY 2010 is based on the level of effort required to maintain

the contracts, workforce, and infrastructure needed to support safely flying the

Space Shuttle system at a sustained but reduced flight rate. In addition, delaying

the retirement of the Space Shuttle and the subsequent refocusing of Shuttle workforce, facilities, and resources on the Constellation Program would negatively impact

the development and schedules of the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle and the Ares

family of launchers.

Medium Lift Launchers

Q5. Many of NASA’s science missions have been launched on the Boeing Delta II,

arguably one of the most reliable launch vehicles ever built.

Q5a. What is the current status of the Delta II system?

A5a. Delta II production has ceased, but it remains an operational program and

NASA has missions flying on the launch vehicle into 2011. United Launch Alliance

(ULA) has enough parts to build several more vehicles. NASA will consider using

those vehicles should missions arise needing that class of vehicle. Some of the major

components are out of production, which would need to be re-started to produce vehicles beyond those in inventory.

Q5b. Are there any options in which Delta II production could continue, and if so,

will it come at a price that NASA can afford?

A5b. Delta II production could be re-started, but the cost is much too large for

NASA to pay for. In addition to the cost of re-starting production, there is also the

cost of vehicle infrastructure that needs to be considered. NASA is unable to afford

those costs by itself, either. The two-pad configuration at Cape Canaveral Air Force

Station (CCAFS), 17A and 17B, will likely be reduced to one pad in 2009 or 2010.

Q5c. Other than the Orbital Sciences latest COTS award for a potential Taurus II,

what steps is NASA taking to ensure continued access to an affordable, reliable

medium-lift launcher?

A5c. Taurus II is being considered as an option for future medium-lift missions.

ATK/Planet Space are considering re-starting the Athena product line to include an

Athena III medium-class launch vehicle. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 launch vehicle is another

possibility, and the development of that vehicle is well underway. NASA has been

asked by Orbital and ATK to participate in both companies’ engineering development processes. Unfunded Space Act Agreements are being developed currently to

support those efforts.

NASA is considering buying future launch services in all classes in blocks—buying

a group of services instead of purchasing them one at a time. This is desirable to

the extent that it generates efficiencies for production by the manufacturers or is

advantageous to the government. Manufacturers are able to buy their hardware in

quantity, which reduces costs. Delta II launchers have been purchased in this manner. NASA has had a good experience purchasing services in this manner, and it

appears to make sense for the future. Internally, work continues on fine-tuning the

manifest between 2011 and 2015 to see what the missions in each class, small, medium and large, are likely to be.

In April, NASA released a Request for Information to gather information on the

small- and medium-class mission set from potential launch service providers.

Constellation

Q6. Based on experience to date with the Orion and Ares programs, what do you

consider the three highest risks, and what steps are being taken to address

them?

A6. A context on ‘‘risk’’ is required to answer this question. The current development projects within Constellation are not the leap forward in technology that previous efforts, such as X–33, were. This increases NASA confidence in them. In addition, the Constellation Program utilizes an active risk management approach, which

involves regularly identifying, evaluating, and retiring the risks, which are affecting

the program. Although NASA has many challenges, we are on track and making

progress in managing these challenges. The greatest challenge NASA faces is flying

the Space Shuttle to complete assembly of the ISS prior to retiring the Shuttle in

2010, while also bringing the new U.S. human space flight capabilities on-line soon

thereafter. Stable funding for Constellation is needed to assure a timely transition

86

between Shuttle and the Orion and Ares I as well as proper management of funding

reserves. One of the top Constellation Program technical risks is the development of the

Ares I upper stage engine, J2X. Currently, the J2X is one of the critical path items

within the Program. In an effort to retire the development risk of the J2X, the Program has decided to add resources to the development to make it more robust. This

change incorporates additional testing hardware and tests to increase the confidence

of success. This enhancement also includes early activation of the alternate test

stand, additional tests, and additional engines for testing.

Another technical risk within the Constellation Program is the Ares Thrust Oscillation induced by the internal configuration of the reusable solid rocket motor. During design analysis, it was observed that there is a possibility that the thrust oscillation could cause unacceptable structural vibration. A ‘‘tiger team’’ was created to

further study the potential issue and to develop mitigation strategies. Mitigation options identified to date could include stiffness and dampening design changes to the

Ares I first stage, Interstage, LOX and LH2 Tank Barrel and Instrument Unit

structures. The problem is actively being worked and on a path to implement a ‘‘so- lution’’ this summer.

Aeronautics

Q7. Two years ago, when NASA began reshaping the Aeronautics Research Mission

Directorate, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) expressed concern about

its inability to take new—but relatively immature—technologies developed by

NASA and transition them to the NextGen program. Have NASA and FAA come

to any agreement with respect to transitioning research, especially the level of

technical readiness?

A7. NASA Aeronautics, the FAA Air Traffic Organization (ATO), and the JPDO are

working collaboratively to establish a process to transfer technologies from fundamental research and development (R&D) into implementation for the NextGen. This

process, which ensures research is sufficient and appropriate to enable NextGen,

has top-level commitment from Dr. Jaiwon Shin, NASA Associate Administrator for

Aeronautics and Ms. Victoria Cox, FAA Vice President for Operations Planning

Services, Air Traffic Organization. A coordinating committee that includes both FAA

and NASA representatives oversees four initial research transition teams that are

organized around the NextGen Concept of Operations framework. This framework

connects the FAA’s Operational Evolution Partnership elements with the NASA research. The JPDO has an important role in the transfer in that they will inform

the Integrated Work Plan with progress. The teams are working to plan near-term

R&D transition in areas such as surface management and long-term transition in

areas such as dynamic airspace allocation. With regards to an initial collaborative

Research Transition Team activity, more than 35 participants from FAA service

units, NASA, MITRE/CAASD, and industry attended a workshop in Washington,

DC, in February 2008, to focus on integration of NASA and FAA research plans,

schedules, roadmaps, and coordinated simulations for near term NextGen Trajectory

Management objectives.

Budget Accounts

Q8. Please describe the efforts NASA has underway and planned to implement the

new account structure directed by the FY 2008 Appropriations Omnibus legislation.

A8. NASA is undertaking all activities required for implementing a new appropriations account structure as directed. NASA has so far accomplished the following:

• Modified the Agency budget systems to implement the new appropriations account structure;

• established new Treasury accounts to implement the directed change in appropriations account structure;

• developed all required materials for the President’s budget systems and documentation that enabled submission of the President’s FY 2009 budget request

for NASA in compliance with the new appropriations account structure;

• developed and submitted to Congress a NASA FY 2009 Congressional justification that complies with the new appropriations account structure;

• identified software, procedure, and report modifications that are required for

NASA’s core financial systems to comply with the new appropriations accounts;

87

• tested the interface between the Meta Data Manager that defines the Agency

account, program and project structure and the financial system with no identified issues;

• completed unit testing of the financial system, transferring budget in the new

structure through the Agency to the Centers and the projects with no identified issues; and

• initiated the first of three rounds of system integration testing (SIT) on July

1. This will test the ability of the system to appropriately manage funds

through commitment, obligation, costing and disbursement, as well as accounts payable and receivable.

The remaining required activities are as follows:

• September 2008—complete system integration testing phase; and,

• October 2008—release new system upgrade and associated policies and procedures.

Question submitted by Representative Dana Rohrabacher

Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM)

Q1. The configuration of the Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM), the followon to Landsat to be launched in 2011, currently omits the thermal infrared

(TIR) imagery capability found on Landsat-7 and on Landsat-5. This capability

is of great interest to a wide range of Landsat users, particularly those concerned with managing water resources over the Western region of the US. The

only generally equivalent alternative TIR capability currently resides on the

Terra satellite. However, that satellite supports a mission with significant differences and priorities from Landsat and cannot effectively provide the flexibility

nor the historical continuity a LDCR TIR sensor would offer. Furthermore,

Landsats 5 & 7, and Terra have exceeded their design lives.

Thus, what is the likelihood NASA will incorporate a Landsat-equivalent TIR

(e.g., a passively cooled microbolometer) onto the LDCM or onto a similar spacecraft to be operational in the 2011 timeframe?

A1. Launch of a thermal infrared imaging capability in 2011 is unlikely. Currently,

NASA does not have the funding for a thermal imager, nor was a requirement for

thermal imaging included in concept development for the LDCM, though accommodations for a thermal-type instrument have been included in the LDCM spacecraft contract. Recent heightened interest in thermal data has led NASA to explore

options for thermal infrared imaging, and this work is ongoing. Approaches to a

thermal imaging capability are being considered, and will be outlined in the report

submitted to Congress regarding LDCM data continuity as requested in the Explanatory Statement accompanying the FY 2008 Consolidated Omnibus Appropriations

Act (P.L. 110–161). NASA anticipates submitting this report to the Subcommittee

in the July timeframe. In early/mid CY 2009, LDCM will complete a Mission Confirmation Review and consistent with NASA management policies for space flight

missions, a firm cost and schedule commitment will be made following that review.

Once confirmation is complete, it is likely that the launch date for LDCM, as currently defined, will move beyond the 2011 date identified in the early concept phase

and listed in the FY 2009 budget request.

(89)

Appendix 2:

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

NASA MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

March 2008

Assessment of Chinese Capabilities to Mount a Human

Lunar Mission

Chinese space officials have openly discussed plans to conduct space walking demonstrations next year, orbital rendezvous and docking operations by 2010, and a

robotic lunar landing mission by 2012. Based upon a careful review of open source

information concerning the capabilities of the Shenzhou crew vehicle and the

planned Long March 5 rocket, it is my considered judgment that, although China’s public plans do not include a human lunar landing, China will have the technical

wherewithal to conduct a manned mission to the surface of the Moon before the

United States plans to return.

While initial Chinese mission(s) to the Moon would not have the long-term sustainability of our own plans for lunar return, I believe China could be on the Moon

before the United States can return.

China is prosecuting a fully indigenous program of human space flight development. They have adapted the design of the Russian Soyuz vehicle to create their

own Shenzhou, which is more spacious, more capable, and better suited for long duration space missions than its Russian antecedent. China plans to conduct its first

space walks and orbital rendezvous operations in 2008 and 2010, and to build a

small space station in the next few years. All of this has been openly announced.

Their accomplishments so far give me no cause to doubt their ability to carry out

these plans.

With the first manned Shenzhou flight in October 2003 China surpassed by itself

the accomplishments of all six U.S. Mercury missions in the early 1960s. The second

Shenzhou flight in 2005 demonstrated most of the accomplishments of the first

three U.S. Gemini missions in 1965. They will soon demonstrate the rendezvous and

docking capabilities pioneered by the U.S. in the Gemini program in 1966, by docking a Shenzhou spacecraft with another Shenzhou, or with an orbital module left

by a prior mission.

These examples illustrate a fundamental difference between the development of

the Chinese human space flight program, and that of the U.S. and Russia. Because

China can follow established technical paths, they do not have to verify the basic

feasibility of their approach. They need only to demonstrate that their systems work

as designed to accomplish tasks which are by now well understood. Thus, each step

in space can take them to a new capability plateau, eclipsing the equivalent of several pioneering but tentative steps in an earlier era. The United States required

twenty-one human space flights to reach the Moon in the 1960s. China should not

need so many.

The second major initiative for which the Chinese have demonstrated significant

progress is the development of the Long March 5 launch vehicle. They have conducted several rocket engine tests over the past two years, and plan to conduct demonstration flights in 2008–11. The Chinese have advertised its capability as 25 metric tons (mT) to low Earth orbit (LEO), rivaling or surpassing the largest expendable

launch vehicles available today, which have a capacity of approximately 20 mT, or

slightly greater. I believe that China’s concerted, methodical approach to the Long

March 5 development, along with recent construction of a new launch facility on

Hainan Island, puts them on track to bring the Long March 5 online by 2013–14,

their stated intention. NASA’s Ares I rocket, which will have similar capabilities,

will not be fully functional until March 2015, according to current plans.

Third, China has developed and demonstrated a dual launch processing capability. This capability, together with the 25 mT-to-LEO capacity of the Long March

5, allows China to reach the ‘‘tipping point’’ critical to executing a manned mission

to the Earth’s Moon. As one possible approach, this can be done by means of two

dual-launch sequences.

The first Long March 5 would place, in Earth orbit, a lunar lander similar in size

and mass to the Apollo Lunar Module, about 14 mT, together with a lunar orbit

injection (LOI) stage weighing 6 mT. With a second Long March 5 launch, the lander and LOI stage would be joined in Earth orbit by a 25 mT Trans-Lunar Injection

(TLI) stage. The two payloads would rendezvous and dock automatically, as the Russian Soyuz and Progress vehicles do at the International Space Station today. After

docking, the TLI stage would send the combined payload to the Moon. Injection into

lunar orbit would be accomplished by the LOI stage, leaving the lander poised to

wait for a few weeks—or even months if necessary—for the second launch sequence.

108

The second pair of Long March 5 launches would place in Earth orbit a crewed

Shenzhou vehicle and LOI stage with one launch, and a TLI stage with the other.

As in the earlier sequence, the Shenzhou would rendezvous and dock with the TLI

stage, which would send the combined stack to the Moon. The LOI stage would decelerate the Shenzhou into lunar orbit, where it would then dock with the waiting

lander. The Shenzhou would differ from today’s Earth-orbital version in two respects. It would require larger propellant tanks to allow it to depart lunar orbit for

the return to Earth, and it might require a thicker heat shield to withstand atmospheric entry upon return from the Moon. Neither of these modifications presents a

significant challenge. The lunar version of Shenzhou would weigh about 11 mT, considerably less than the 14 mT lunar lander, so the delivery of a lunar-capable

Shenzhou to lunar orbit presents no difficulty.

After rendezvous, the Shenzhou crew would transfer to the lander, land on the

Moon’s surface, remain for several days, depart, rendezvous again with the

Shenzhou, and return to Earth. (Parameters and assumptions for this scenario are

summarized in the attached Technical Notes.)

What is fundamentally different about the dual-launch capability that the Chinese have demonstrated, and could well develop for the Long March 5, is that it

enables human lunar missions without requiring a 120 mT class vehicle like the

Apollo-era Saturn V, or our planned Shuttle-derived Ares V. This technique is not

particularly cost-effective and is not easily scaled to a sustainable operation, but it

does offer a path to ‘‘boots on the Moon’’ without the development of a heavy-lift

launch vehicle.

Apart from the lunar lander itself, this approach requires for its implementation

only modest developments beyond the existing Shenzhou and the Long March 5 vehicles. The new elements for a lunar mission are the TLI and LOI stages, which

would be essentially the same aside from the size of the propellant tanks employed,

and which would utilize the upper-stage engines from the Long March 5, with modest improvements. This is a minor developmental excursion from Long March 5

technology.

China has not announced any intention to develop a human lunar lander. However, I note that China recently launched its first robotic lunar orbiter mission, and

has announced plans for a robotic lander by 2012 and a robotic sample return mission in the 2017–2020 timeframe. The developments in communications, tracking,

guidance, navigation, and control required to execute robotic lunar orbital and lander missions are identical to those for a manned system, irrespective of whether or

not the lander itself is scalable to human missions. Inasmuch as the design parameters of the Apollo lunar lander are widely known and well within today’s state-ofthe-art, the development of a similar vehicle by the Chinese should not present a

significant problem.

Pending development of a Chinese manned lunar lander, a fly-by or orbital mission around the Moon could easily be executed with the Shenzhou spacecraft and

a single pair of Long March 5 launches, as outlined above. Indeed, as a matter of

prudent engineering development, I would fully expect China to execute such a mission prior to a lunar landing. This would be completely analogous to the inspirational Apollo 8 mission during the Christmas season of 1968.

109

110