U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

93–890PDF 2015

SEARCHING FOR THE ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE: 

AN UPDATE ON THE PROGRESS OF 

THE JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 24, 2015 

Serial No. 114–11 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR, 

Wisconsin 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

MARK TAKANO, California 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE

HON. STEVEN PALAZZO, Mississippi, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama, 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland, 

AMI BERA, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

March 24, 2015 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Steven Palazzo, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Space, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 13 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 15 

Statement by Representative Donna F. Edwards, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 16 

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

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

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 18 

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

Witnesses: 

Dr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator, Science Mission Directorate, 

NASA 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 20 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 23 

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

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 29 

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

Mr. Jeffrey Grant, Vice-President & General Manager, Space Systems, Northrop Grumman Corporation 

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

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

Dr. John Mather, Senior Project Scientist, James Webb Space Telescope, 

Goddard Space Flight Center, NASA 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 61 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 63 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 71 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Dr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator, Science Mission Directorate, 

NASA ..................................................................................................................... 88 

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

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) .................................................. 136 

Mr. Jeffrey Grant, Vice-President & General Manager, Space Systems, Northrop Grumman Corporation .............................................................................. 146 

Dr. John Mather, Senior Project Scientist, James Webb Space Telescope, 

Goddard Space Flight Center, NASA ................................................................. 154 
Page

IV 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Prepared statement submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, 

Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 162 
(1) 

SEARCHING FOR THE ORIGINS OF THE 

UNIVERSE: 

AN UPDATE ON THE PROGRESS OF THE 

JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE 

TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steven Palazzo 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 

Chairman PALAZZO. Before we get started this morning, I would 

like to welcome a special group of students that we have visiting 

us here today, Lake Burke High School in Virginia. Welcome to the 

Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Space. Thank you 

all for being here. I woke a couple of them up, I see. That is good. 

We haven’t even got started yet. 

The Subcommittee on Space will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recesses of the Committee 

at any time. 

Welcome to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘Searching for the Origins of 

the Universe: An Update on the Progress of the James Webb Space 

Telescope.’’ I recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

The James Webb Space Telescope represents a significant investment by the U.S. taxpayer and holds the promise of producing revolutionary science that one day may rewrite textbooks. It could 

change the way we perceive our universe, as well as our place in 

it. That is a lot to live up to. 

JWST continues the heritage of space-based great observatories. 

Leveraging the accomplishments of the Hubble Space Telescope, 

the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, the Chandra X-ray Observatory, and the Spitzer Space Telescope, James Webb will provide 

revolutionary astronomical measurements in the long-wavelength 

visible and the mid-infrared range of spectrum. This will allow scientists to see light from the first stars, view the development of 

galaxies, and study the development of planets. The infrared range 

that the telescope will operate in allows the telescope to see 

through cosmic dust, view faint and dim targets, and observe phenomena such as redshift from the expanding universe. James 

Webb’s unique vantage point from the Sun-Earth L2 is also an 

ideal location that will enable the observatory to make precise infrared measurements. 

The scientific returns from these observations will be compounded even more if James Webb remains on schedule and overlaps with existing observatories that continue to return significant 

science, or new assets such as the Stratospheric Observatory For 

Infrared Astronomy and the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite 

that promise to complement James Webb’s capabilities. 

This enormous potential is balanced by the sobering history of 

James Webb’s development. Initially planned to cost $1.6 billion 

and launch in 2011, the program ballooned to a lifecycle cost estimate of nearly $9 billion and slipped seven years to a 2018 launch 

date. James Webb’s history is well known, and I do not wish to 

open old wounds, but Congress would be complicit in any future 

delays or overruns if it failed to maintain proper oversight of this 

program. 

Despite the significant progress made by NASA and the contractors, the program is not out of the woods yet. It is now entering 

the critical integration and testing phase where unforeseen problems typically arise. These unplanned technical challenges could 

threaten the cost and schedule reserves during this critical period. 

Recent issues with the cryocooler, a critical component that is necessary for proper measurements, reinforce the need for persistent 
14 

monitoring and oversight. The sheer technical complexity of this 

program demands it. 

Even after the telescope is fully assembled, shipped to Kourou, 

and launched into space, all of us will still be crossing our fingers 

that this massive spacecraft will arrive at its intended destination 

and execute its intricately choreographed origami-like deployment. 

Everyone involved in this project is working to make it a success: 

the engineers and technicians, the contractors, the managers and 

scientists at NASA, and even the Members and Senators here on 

the Capitol Hill. 

In 2011, the House of Representatives voted to cancel the program after its cost estimates skyrocketed and threatened not only 

other astrophysics missions, but also Science Mission Directorate 

activities. The contagion of escalating costs even threatened other 

national priorities at NASA. Planetary science and even exploration programs have sacrificed funding to buttress James Webb 

and keep the program on track. With a statutory cost cap of $8 billion for development, Congress expressed both an endorsement and 

a limitation. For the sake of all of NASA’s programs, I hope that 

James Webb will launch in line with its updated schedule and current cost projections. 

Even after launch, issues related to James Webb will remain. For 

instance, what will happen to the additional funding poured into 

the Science Mission Directorate to cover James Webb’s overruns? 

Will the Astrophysics account maintain funding profiles consistent 

with these augmentations? Will the other programs and projects 

within the Science Mission Directorate return to their historical 

proportions after James Webb is launched? Will Exploration programs recoup the funding transferred to the James Webb program, 

or will these proportions represent the new norm? 

With overall budgets remaining flat or only increasing marginally, how the other $600 million a year devoted to James Webb will 

be reallocated after launch is one of the most important decisions 

facing NASA and Congress. In light of decreasing budget requests 

from the Administration for Exploration, it may be appropriate to 

reconstitute the programs that sacrificed funding to cover James 

Webb’s cost growth. 

Before I conclude, I would like to take the opportunity to thank 

GAO for their diligent work on the James Webb program. As the 

program matures, questions are shifting from whether or not the 

cost, schedule, and technical plans are adequate to whether NASA 

and the contractors are executing to those plans. I hope GAO will 

continue to provide this Committee with insight into this complex 

program so that we can all ensure its ultimate success. I also hope 

that NASA and the contractors heed the GAO’s advice and recommendations. More specifically, I hope that in the future, NASA 

and the contractors will allow the GAO access to information and 

personnel so that they can fulfill their statutorily required task to 

monitor this program on behalf of Congress. GAO’s recent report 

highlighted instances where their access was limited. Transparency 

and accountability are tenets of sound program management and 

oversight. I trust that won’t be a precedent for future engagements. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Palazzo follows:] 
15 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE

CHAIRMAN STEVEN PALAZZO

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) represents a significant investment by 

the U.S. taxpayer and holds the promise of producing revolutionary science that one 

day may rewrite textbooks. It could change the way we perceive our universe, as 

well as our place in it. That is a lot to live up to. 

JWST continues the heritage of space-based ‘‘Great Observatories.’’ Leveraging 

the accomplishments of the Hubble Space Telescope, the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, the Chandra X-ray Observatory, and the Spitzer Space Telescope, JWST 

will provide revolutionary astronomical measurements in the long-wavelength visible and the mid-infrared range of spectrum. This will allow scientists to see light 

from the first stars, view the development of galaxies, and study the development 

of planets. 

The infrared range that the telescope will operate in allows the telescope to see 

through cosmic dust, view faint and dim targets, and observe phenomena such as 

redshift from the expanding universe. JWST’s unique vantage point from the SunEarth L2 is also an ideal location that will enable the observatory to make precise 

infrared measurements. The scientific returns from these observations will be compounded even more if JWST remains on schedule and overlaps with existing observatories that continue to return significant science, or new assets such as the Stratospheric Observatory For Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) and the Transiting Exoplanet 

Survey Satellite (TESS) that promise to complement JWST’s capabilities. 

This enormous potential is balanced by the sobering history of JWST’s development. Initially planned to cost $1.6 billion and launch in 2011, the program 

ballooned to a life-cycle cost estimate of nearly $9 billion and slipped 7 years to a 

2018 launch date. 

JWST’s history is well known, and I do not wish to open old wounds, but Congress 

would be complicit in any future delays or over-runs if it failed to maintain proper 

oversight of this program. Despite the significant progress made by NASA and the 

contractors, the program is not out of the woods yet. It is now entering the critical 

integration and testing phase where unforeseen problems typically arise. These unplanned technical challenges could threaten the cost and schedule reserves during 

this critical period. Recent issues with the cryocooler, a critical component that is 

necessary for proper measurements, reinforce the need for persistent monitoring 

and oversight. The sheer technical complexity of this program demands it. Even 

after the telescope is fully assembled, shipped to Kourou, and launched into space, 

all of us will still be crossing our fingers that this massive spacecraft will arrive 

at its intended destination and execute its intricately choreographed origami-like deployment. 

Everyone involved in this project is working to make it a success. The engineers 

and technicians at the contractors, the managers and scientists at NASA, and even 

the Members and Senators here on the Capitol Hill. In 2011, the House of Representatives voted to cancel the program after its cost estimates skyrocketed and 

threatened not only other astrophysics missions, but also other Science Mission Directorate activities. The contagion of escalating costs even threatened other national 

priorities at NASA. Planetary science and even exploration programs have sacrificed 

funding to buttress JWST and keep the program on track. With a statutory cost cap 

of $8 billion for development, Congress expressed both an endorsement and a limitation. For the sake of all of NASA’s programs, I hope that JWST will launch in line 

with its updated schedule and current cost projections. 

Even after launch, issues related to JWST will remain. For instance, what will 

happen to the additional funding poured into the Science Mission Directorate to 

cover JWST over-runs? Will the Astrophysics account maintain funding profiles consistent with these augmentations? Will the other programs and projects within the 

Science Mission Directorate return to their historical proportions after JWST is 

launched? Will Exploration programs recoup the funding transferred to the JWST 

program, or will these proportions represent the new norm? With overall budgets 

remaining flat or only increasing marginally, how the over $600 million a year devoted to JWST will be reallocated after launch is one of the most important decisions facing NASA and Congress. In light of decreasing budget requests from the 

Administration for Exploration, it may be appropriate to reconstitute the programs 

that sacrificed funding to cover JWST cost growth. 

Before I conclude, I would like to take the opportunity to thank GAO for their 

diligent work on the JWST program. As the program matures, questions are shifting 

from whether or not the cost, schedule, and technical plans are adequate to whether 

NASA and the contractors are executing to those plans. I hope GAO will continue 
16 

to provide this Committee with insight into this complex program so that we can 

all ensure its ultimate success. I also hope that NASA and the contractors heed the 

GAO’s advice and recommendations. 

More specifically, I hope that in the future NASA and the contractors will allow 

the GAO access to information and personnel so that they can fulfill their statutorily required task to monitor this program on behalf of Congress. GAO’s recent 

report highlighted instances where their access was limited. Transparency and accountability are tenets of sound program management and oversight. I trust that 

won’t be a precedent for future engagements. 

Chairman PALAZZO. At this time I now recognize the Ranking 

Member, the gentlelady from Maryland, for an opening statement. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good 

morning and welcome to our distinguished panel of witnesses. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling this hearing to 

evaluate the development of the James Webb Space Telescope— 

known as JWST—and discuss the science that the observatory will 

enable. This hearing also comes at a fortuitous time, on the eve of 

the 25th anniversary of the Hubble Space Telescope, and as an 

aside, I can remember when this exact same discussion, perhaps 

about the cancellation of Hubble, was part of the conversation in 

Congress, and thank goodness 25 years later, looking back on that, 

that we didn’t do that because of the amazing, amazing work that 

has been done and the learning that has taken place over the 

course of those years, but that was the conversation more than 25 

years ago, and a good thing that Congress didn’t take those actions. 

Launched in April 1990, Hubble was the first major optical 

space-based observatory orbiting above the distortion of the atmosphere, and above rain, clouds, and light pollution. Many of today’s 

younger generation have grown up with Hubble, and I dare say 

that most Americans have seen the awe-inspiring image taken by 

Hubble of the iconic Eagle Nebula capturing the famous ‘‘Pillars of 

Creation.’’ 

JWST is the next generation astrophysics observatory following 

Hubble. More capable and sensitive than Hubble, JWST is optimized to study infrared light from the universe, which will allow 

JWST to observe the first galaxies formed in the Universe. In addition, JWST will see solar systems forming in our galaxy and possibly detect the presence of liquid water on planets around other 

stars—an indicator that such a planet may indeed harbor life. 

Mr. Chairman, that is exciting and that is why I just can’t wait 

for JWST to be launched and working. But I also recognize, as the 

Chairman has indicated, that the road to building JWST has not 

been an easy one. The observatory’s history of cost growth and 

schedule delays has not gone unnoticed by the Congress. An independent review panel found in October 2010 that a substantial 

funding increase would be needed to complete the observatory. As 

a consequence, NASA re-baselined the project in 2011 with a 

lifecycle cost estimate of $8.8 billion and a launch readiness date 

of October 2018. Congress indeed has done its share and funded 

JWST annually consistent with that re-baseline. We need to continue to do so. 

The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 

2012 directed the Government Accountability Office to report on 

the project on an annual basis. I appreciate GAO keeping Congress 

informed of that. With a launch now a little more than three years 
17 

away and major integration tests looming ahead, NASA will be 

under pressure to demonstrate that it can meet the launch date 

within the cost estimate, and although the latest GAO report concludes that JWST remains on schedule and on budget, GAO also 

reported that ‘‘technical challenges with JWST elements and major 

subsystems, however, have diminished the project’s overall schedule reserve and increased risk.’’ 

At today’s hearing, I hope to get answers on the following questions: What progress is being made in preparing scientific investigations and scientists who will capitalize on JWST’s unique capabilities? And with three years until launch, what technical challenges and associated risks still remain? What steps are being 

taken by NASA and its contractors to ensure that cost and schedule commitments are met? And finally, what is the level of confidence that NASA will be able to meet the October 2018 launch 

date? 

Again, I want to thank our witnesses for appearing before our 

Subcommittee, and I do look forward to your testimony, and Mr. 

Chairman, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Edwards follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE

RANKING MEMBER DONNA F. EDWARDS

Good Morning, and welcome to our distinguished panel of witnesses. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing to evaluate the development of 

the James Webb Space Telescope—known as JWS—and discuss the science that the 

observatory will enable. This hearing comes at a fortuitous time, on the eve of the 

25th Anniversary of the Hubble Space Telescope. Launched in April 1990, Hubble 

was the first major optical space-based observatory orbiting above the distortion of 

the atmosphere, and above rain, clouds, and light pollution. Many of today’s younger 

generation have grown up with Hubble, and I dare say that most Americans have 

seen the awe-inspiring image taken by Hubble of the iconic Eagle Nebula capturing 

the famous ‘‘Pillars of Creation.’’ 

JWST is the next generation astrophysics observatory following Hubble. More capable and sensitive than Hubble, JWST is optimized to study infrared light from 

the Universe, which will allow JWST to observe the first galaxies formed in the Universe. In addition, JWST will see solar systems forming in in our galaxy and possibly detect the presence of liquid water on planets around other stars—an indicator 

that such a planet may harbor life. Mr. Chairman, that is exciting and why I just 

can’t wait for JWST to be launched and working. 

But I also recognize that the road to building JWST has not been an easy one. 

The observatory’s history of cost growth and schedule delays has not gone unnoticed 

by the Congress. An independent review panel found in October 2010 that a substantial funding increase would be needed to complete the observatory. As a consequence, NASA rebaselined the project in 2011 with a life cycle cost estimate of 

$8.8 billion and a launch readiness date of October 2018. Congress has done its 

share and funded JWST annually consistent with that rebaseline. We need to continue doing so. 

The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2012 directed the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) to report on the project on an annual basis. 

I appreciate GAO keeping Congress informed. With launch now a little more than 

three years away and major integration tests looming ahead, NASA will be under 

pressure to demonstrate that it can meet the launch date within the cost estimate. 

And although the latest GAO report concludes that JWST remains on schedule and 

on budget, GAO also reported that ‘‘[T]echnical challenges with JWST elements and 

major subsystems, however, have diminished the project’s overall schedule reserve 

and increased risk.’’ 

At today’s hearing, I hope to get answers on the following questions: 

• What progress is being made in preparing scientific investigations and scientists 

who will capitalize on JWST’s unique capabilities? 
18 

• With three years until launch, what technical challenges and associated risks 

still remain? 

• What steps are being taken by NASA and its contractors to ensure that cost and 

schedule commitments are met? And 

• What is the level of confidence that NASA will be able to meet the October 2018 

launch date? 

• Again, I want to thank our witnesses for appearing before our Subcommittee, 

and I look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. 

I now recognize the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Smith. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Space exploration is an investment in our future—often the distant future. It encourages innovation and improves Americans’ 

quality of life. It inspires the next generation to pursue careers in 

math, engineering, science, and technology. The James Webb Space 

Telescope, or JWST, is an example of such an investment. The astrophysics community identified the program as the top priority in 

2001. The telescope will far surpass in size, power, and capability 

any previous space-based observatory launched by NASA. JWST is 

set to orbit nearly one million miles from Earth in the Earth-Sun 

Lagrange point. It is expected to observe the origin of the galaxies, 

provide insights into the early formation of stars and planets, and 

characterize exoplanets. 

The search for exoplanets and Earth-like planets is a relatively 

new but inspiring area of space exploration. Scientists have discovered hundreds of planets and solar systems in our own galaxy that 

we never knew existed. By developing and using new telescopes in 

conjunction with JWST, we may find biosignatures of life on other 

planets. For example, when examined from a distance, Earth’s atmosphere contains large amounts of oxygen. When looked at 

through a large infrared telescope, like JWST, this biosignature 

would be detectable. 

The Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite, or TESS, is currently 

on track to launch in 2017. This telescope will survey the brightest 

stars close to Earth to find exoplanets. The survey will provide 

prime targets for JWST and future ground-based and space-based 

telescopes. TESS has a two-year planned mission life. It is critical 

to launch JWST in 2018, so enough overlap exists with the telescopes to maximize the scientific return. 

As the top priority mission in the 2010 astrophysics survey, the 

Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope, or WFIRST, will also contribute to the characterization of exoplanets. If funded properly, it 

could launch in time to significantly overlap with JWST. This 

would maximize the scientific return of both telescopes. Each is designed to view different but complimentary parts of the infrared 

spectrum needed to determine the composition of the atmosphere 

of exoplanets. 

WFIRST could also have a coronagraph for detecting imaging capabilities. This means the telescope will be able to help determine 

the chemical composition of a planet. The potential science to be 

gained from the combined use of these telescopes illustrates why it 

is important JWST be completed and launched in 2018. However, 

just as important to being launched on time, JWST must be completed within the congressionally mandated spending caps for the 
19 

program. If JWST is unable to do this, it affects the ability to build 

future telescopes, like WFIRST. 

I look forward to hearing how development of the James Webb 

Space Telescope is progressing. 

And Mr. Chairman, before I yield back, let me apologize to Members and our witnesses today that I have another Committee that 

is in the process of marking up a bill that I need to go to and will 

be back I hope sometime soon. So while this is the most important 

hearing in D.C. today, I will just have to absent myself for a few 

minutes, so thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FULL COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN LAMAR S. SMITH

Space exploration is an investment in our future—often the distant future. It encourages innovation and improves Americans’ quality of life. It inspires the next 

generation to pursue careers in math, engineering, science, and technology. 

The James Webb Space Telescope, or JWST, is an example of such an investment. 

The astrophysics community identified the program as the top priority in 2001. 

The telescope will far surpass in size, power, and capability any previous spacebased observatory launched by NASA. 

JWST is set to orbit nearly one million miles from Earth in the Earth-Sun Lagrange point. It is expected to observe the origin of the galaxies, provide insights 

into the early formation of stars and planets, and characterize exoplanets. 

The search for exoplanets and Earth-like planets is a relatively new but inspiring 

area of space exploration. Scientists have discovered hundreds of planets and solar 

systems in our own galaxy that we never knew existed. 

By developing and using new telescopes in conjunction with JWST, we may find 

biosignatures of life on other planets. 

For example, when examined from a distance, Earth’s atmosphere contains large 

amounts of oxygen. When looked at through a large infrared telescope, like JWST, 

this biosignature would be detectable. 

The Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite, or TESS, is currently on track to 

launch in 2017. This telescope will survey the brightest stars close to Earth to find 

exoplanets. The survey will provide prime targets for JWST and future groundbased and space-based telescopes. 

TESS has a two year planned mission life. It is critical to launch JWST in 2018, 

so enough overlap exists with the telescopes to maximize the scientific return. 

As the top priority mission in the 2010 astrophysics survey, the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope, or WFIRST, will also contribute to the characterization of 

exoplanets. 

If funded properly, it could launch in time to significantly overlap with JWST. 

This would maximize the scientific return of both telescopes. Each is designed to 

view different but complimentary parts of the infrared spectrum needed to determine the composition of the atmosphere of exoplanets. 

WFIRST could also have a coronagraph for direct imaging capabilities. This 

means the telescope will be able to help determine the chemical composition of a 

planet. 

The potential science to be gained from the combined use of these telescopes illustrates why it is important JWST be completed and launched in 2018. 

However, just as important to being launched on time, JWST must be completed 

within the congressionally mandated spending caps for the program. If JWST is unable to do this, it affects the ability to build future telescopes, like WFIRST. 

I look forward to hearing how development of the James Webb Space Telescope 

is progressing. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Mr. Smith. 

At this time I would like to introduce our witnesses. Our first 

witness today is Dr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for 

NASA’s Science Mission Directorate. He previously served as Deputy Director of the Space Telescope Science Institute managing the 

Science Program for both Hubble and the James Webb Space Tele-
20 

scope. Dr. Grunsfeld has worked for NASA since 1992 and is a veteran of five space shuttle flights. Dr. Grunsfeld received a bachelor’s degree in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and both a master’s degree and doctorate in physics from 

the University of Chicago. 

Our second witness, Ms. Cristina Chaplain, has been a U.S. Government Accountability Office employee for 23 years and currently 

serves as the Director of Acquisition and Sourcing Management. In 

this capacity, she is responsible for GAO assessments of military 

space acquisitions and NASA. She has led reviews of the Space 

Launch System, the International Space Station, and the James 

Webb Space Telescope, among others. Prior to her current position, 

Ms. Chaplain worked with GAO’s Financial Management and Information Technology Teams. She received her bachelor’s in international relations from Boston University and a master’s degree in 

journalism from Columbia University. 

Our third witness is Mr. Jeffrey Grant. Mr. Grant has served in 

numerous positions within Northrop Grumman and is currently 

Sector Vice President and General Manager of Space Systems at 

Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems. Prior to joining Northrop 

Grumman, Mr. Grant was Vice President and Chief Technical Officer for Astrolink International LLC. Before joining the private sector, Mr. Grant served for 21 years in the CIA in the National Reconnaissance Office. Mr. Grant received a bachelor’s of science in 

ocean engineering from the Florida Institute of Technology. 

I now recognize our Ranking Member, Ms. Edwards, to introduce 

our final witness. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am honored today to introduce Dr. John Mather, who is the 

Senior Project Scientist on the James Webb Space Telescope and 

a Senior Astrophysicist in the Observational Cosmology Laboratory 

at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. I am also proud to say 

that Dr. Mather is a resident of the 4th Congressional District of 

Maryland. Seldom does this Committee—Subcommittee—have the 

privilege of welcoming as a witness a dedicated federal civil servant 

who is also a Nobel Prize laureate, but today we do. 

Among his many awards and accomplishments, Dr. Mather, 

along with George Smoot, received the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics 

for work in cementing the Big Bang theory of the universe, an effort characterized by the Nobel Prize Committee as ‘‘the starting 

point for cosmology as a precision science.’’ We welcome Dr. Mather 

to today’s hearing and look forward to his testimony. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. 

I would like to remind our witnesses, please limit your testimony 

to five minutes. Your entire written statement will be included in 

the record, and at this time we will open testimony to Dr. 

Grunsfeld. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. JOHN GRUNSFELD, 

ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, 

SCIENCE MISSION DIRECTORATE, NASA 

Dr. GRUNSFELD. Chairman Palazzo, Ranking Member Edwards, 

and Members of the Subcommittee, I am delighted to appear before 
21 

you to discuss the status of the James Webb Space Telescope program. 

Our mission at NASA is to innovate, explore, discover and inspire. Science at NASA seeks to answer fundamental questions 

about our universe and our place in it. To view the first stars in 

the universe, study distant galaxies, probe newborn stars and planetary systems, and measure the composition of the atmospheres of 

planets around other stars, and to let us study our own outer solar 

system in detail, as never before possible, we are building the 

James Webb Space Telescope. 

This next great space observatory remains within budget and on 

track to meet its October 2018 launch date. Built to image and 

study the faint infrared signals from the earliest stars and galaxies, JWST features a 21.5-foot diameter primary mirror, making 

this the largest telescope ever constructed for space. JWST will extend our view of the universe, building on the great discoveries 

made by the Hubble Space Telescope, and as the chairman said, 

many other observatories, with truly transformational exploration 

capabilities. 

Since re-planning the program nearly four years ago, JWST has 

remained within its yearly budgets. Critical to our success has been 

adequate funding reserves, enabling the project to address issues 

as they arise without deferring significant work. The project has 

done an excellent job doing this and remains on schedule. The FY 

2016 budget request for the James Webb Space Telescope is the 

same amount called for in the 2011 re-baseline, another indicator 

that the plan is sound. 

JWST is a complex observatory, operating at cryogenic temperatures, the first of its kind. As a result, we included additional 

schedule reserve above NASA’s usual formula, totaling 13 months 

of funded schedule reserve. This reserve was distributed throughout the span of the project to allow for resolution of issues as they 

occur. In nearly four years, this reserve has been reduced by only 

three months so that as of today, we have ten months of funded 

schedule reserve. In fact, we have more schedule reserve today 

than we had planned to at this point and more than is customary 

for NASA missions at this stage. 

This year is an important year for JWST development. We will 

complete all of the planned work on the Integrated Science Instrument Module. The 18 mirror segments will be mounted to their 

support structure. The five sunshield membranes will be manufactured and work will continue on the acquisition of parts and integration of the spacecraft bus. After 2015, almost all of the manufacturing will be complete. Our future activities on JWST will involve 

integration of major hardware elements and testing of those components. 

As has been noted, there are several technical areas that currently have the greatest attention from management. For example, 

the Mid-InfraRed Instrument requires a special refrigeration unit, 

or cryocooler, to cool its detectors to roughly minus 449 degrees 

Fahrenheit. The design and development of this cryocooler has 

proven to be quite challenging. Today, two-thirds of the cryocooler 

hardware has been delivered. The remaining third of the hardware 
22 

is undergoing final assembly and testing with a planned delivery 

in three months. 

NASA worked closely with GAO in support of the yearly studies 

of the JWST program. In response to the latest GAO recommendations, the JWST project initiated a cost-risk analysis of the Northrop Grumman prime contract portion of the JWST program. The 

results of this analysis show that as of July 2014, the program 

budget is sufficient to complete the Northrop tasks on schedule including accommodation for anticipated risks. The GAO also recommended NASA make changes to our performance evaluation 

plans for JWST’s award fee contracts. In response, NASA has 

modified its performance evaluation plans for the NASA–Northrop 

and NASA–Exelis contracts fee for the award fee determination. 

The JWST team has been making exceptional progress with significant accomplishments being realized on all of the project elements. Now, nearly four years into the re-plan, the program is 

within budget and on schedule with adequate reserves for both 

budget and schedule. We are soon to enter the exciting and challenging integration and test phase. The rigorous cost, schedule and 

risk controls that have been employed over the last four years give 

me confidence that we will be ready to launch this ambitious observatory in 2018. 

The scientific promise of the James Webb Space Telescope is 

great. The team engaged in its development is world-class in its experience and capabilities. Programs like the James Webb Space 

Telescope demonstrate to the world that NASA leads the way in 

expanding the frontiers of human inquiry and innovation. When we 

build projects like JWST, we push industry to stretch beyond their 

capabilities, and they rise to the task, strengthening our competitiveness. 

The success of JWST is a result of a great team working together 

including your Subcommittee and GAO, and I want to thank you 

both for your efforts. 

I am happy to answer any questions you have about this fantastic observatory. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Grunsfeld follows:] 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Dr. Grunsfeld. 

I now recognize Ms. Chaplain. 

TESTIMONY OF MS. CRISTINA CHAPLAIN, 

DIRECTOR OF ACQUISITION AND SOURCING MANAGEMENT, 

U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE (GAO) 

Ms. CHAPLAIN. Chairman Palazzo, Ranking Member Edwards, 

and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me 

today to discuss the GAO’s work on the James Webb Telescope. As 

you may know, we were reported—we were mandated to report annually on the program after it experienced a 78 percent cost increase over its baseline and a 52-month delay. At the time the program was being re-planned, there were significant concerns raised 

about optimistic estimates, low reserves, ineffective oversight, and 

poor communication. In response to our mandate, we have issued 

three detailed reports on James Webb. Also, we have been assessing James Webb as part of our broader annual assessment of 

NASA’s major projects known as the Quick Look, and I am happy 

to say that that report is being released today. 

This year, we reported that James Webb is still on track with its 

2011 cost and schedule baselines. A great deal of progress has been 

made in developing individual components of the telescope and in 

overcoming some technical challenges. However, the project is beginning to lose schedule reserve as it has struggled to resolve 

issues such as workmanship and manufacturing problems with the 

cryocooler dedicated to the MIRI instrument. We reported that 

overall schedule reserve had declined to 11 months, and another 

month was lost since our report was issued. While 10 months is 

still a lot of time and well within the criteria the program follows, 

there are still reasons to be concerned about the decline. 

First, the project faces the very difficult phases of integration 

and testing. Most space projects encounter problems they did not 

expect to encounter in this phase. Second, a number of activities 

have to happen sequentially. The further you go into integration, 

the less flexibility you have to resolve problems in parallel. Third, 

there are several elements near the project’s critical path which 

further limits the project’s flexibility. 

The types of technical problems James Webb is experiencing are 

not unusual for a complex and unique project. They are an inherent aspect of pushing technological design and engineering boundaries. What is important when managing such a project is having 

a good picture of risk, which can shift day to day, and having good 

tools for mitigating risks as they surface and knowing how they affect your ultimate cost and schedule goals. 

NASA has taken an array of actions following the 2011 re-plan 

to enable the program to have better insight into risk. However, we 

reported that NASA had not updated the cost and schedule estimate known as the Joint Confidence Level, or JCL, nor had the 

contractor updated the risk analyses that underpin the estimate. In 

conducting our work in 2014, we determined that a current and 

independent cost-risk analysis was needed to provide the Congress 

with insight into the remaining work on the Northrop Grumman 

prime contract, the largest and most expensive portion of the work 

remaining for James Webb. 
30 

A key reason for this determination was and continues to be the 

significant potential impact that any additional cost growth on 

James Webb would have on NASA’s broader portfolio science 

projects. Our preference would have been for NASA to have updated the JCL and to have addressed the fundamental flaws of documents that supported it. We were unable to conduct this analysis, 

though, because Northrop Grumman did not allow us to conduct 

anonymous interviews of technical experts without a manager 

present. 

In order to collect unbiased data, interviewees must be assured 

that their opinions on risk and opportunities remain anonymous. 

This is a key best practice and a fundamental part of our methodology. Unbiased data would have allowed us to provide a credible 

assessment of risks remaining for the work ahead. Any time we are 

denied access to people or documents, we are concerned since it 

could be a sign that an entity is afraid of what we will find, but 

I will balance that by noting that the program and Northrop have 

been very candid with us in discussions about risk and in supplying information about risk and that our relationships have otherwise been very productive. 

Moreover, in response to our findings, NASA agreed to undertake 

its own cost-risk analysis of the Northrop contract, which was provided to us shortly before the hearing. NASA is also using a new 

analysis of earned value management data, which should provide 

the project with additional insight on how current risks affect cost 

and schedule goals. These analyses look promising, and we look 

forward to assessing them in our next review. What will be important for NASA is to see the results of these analyses to manage its 

program and to candidly report on its progress to Congress. 

Thank you, and I am happy to answer any questions you have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Chaplain follows:] 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Ms. Chaplain. 

I now recognize Mr. Grant. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. JEFFREY GRANT, 

VICE-PRESIDENT & GENERAL MANAGER, 

SPACE SYSTEMS, NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION 

Mr. GRANT. Chairman Palazzo, Ranking Member Edwards, and 

distinguished Members of the Committee, it gives me a great deal 

of pleasure to appear before you today on behalf of the men and 

women of Northrop Grumman who are working on the James Webb 

Space Telescope, and I am honored to appear with you today with 

these three other distinguished witnesses. 

Mr. Chairman, it has been over just three years ago since I last 

appeared before the Committee and discussed the program, and I 

am really pleased to report today that the program remains on 

track, both in terms of schedule and funding for successful 2018 

launch. That is not to say that we have not had challenges. A program of this complexity will invariably be confronted by significant 

hurdles. We have successfully met the challenges we knew about 

in 2011 and most of those that have occurred since. The MIRI 

cryocooler, our latest challenge, has proven a difficult one but one 

that we continue to make significant progress in completing the 

last subassembly of that complex cooler. 

Those Members of the Committee that were here three years ago 

may recall the path that we laid out to get to a 2018 launch. It was 

very challenging, but we communicated that it was executable. We 

have a solid design as evidenced by the successful spacecraft critical design review that occurred in January of 2014 and a renewed 

focus and a plan that we are now executing to. 

The major technical risk reduction work is in fact behind us and 

we are now entering the phase of the program where the major 

risks are in the integration and test phase. Now, despite that, we 

anticipate that new challenges will emerge, and we recognize the 

need to do better at addressing these. That is why we continue to 

incorporate risk reduction activities into the plan to increase our 

confidence of meeting that launch schedule. For example, the optical telescope pathfinder will be used to trailblaze the optical testing 

at the Johnson Space Center in 2017, and the sunshield full-scale 

development model will undergo another full-scale deployment test 

this summer. In addition, we will be performing early mating of the 

Optical Telescope Element and the spacecraft bus this summer in 

advance of the flight mate in 2017. 

Mr. Chairman, the 2011 re-baseline has been instrumental in 

our ability to manage challenges with prudent cost and schedule 

reserve across the fiscal years. The distributed schedule slack has 

proven crucial in our ability to manage problems as they have occurred within allowable reserves. In fact, all major subsystems 

have above plan schedule margin remaining, and we currently are 

maintaining 10 months of funded slack in our schedule. With less 

than four years to go before launch, this amount of schedule contingency is appropriate for a program of this type and provides adequate contingency for unexpected challenges that may arise. 
52 

Similarly, we continue to evaluate actions to contain cost and our 

financial controls have been designed to ensure contractual discipline to avoid unintended cost. 

I want to assure the Committee at every level that Northrop 

Grumman remains dedicated to a successful mission overcoming 

these hurdles. As we move closer to the 2018 launch date, the next 

few years will be critical. Our immediate focus is finishing the fabrication and assembly of the spacecraft and sunshield, integrating 

optics onto the assembled back plane and completion of the MIRI 

cryocooler. The focus will then shift to integration and testing of 

the Optical Telescope Element, the Integrated Science Instrument 

Module, and assembling the spacecraft and sunshield into a single 

system. This Committee’s support is essential to keeping the program on cost and on schedule for that 2018 launch. 

Mr. Chairman, I hope that my pride and enthusiasm in JWST 

and our partners is evident. From the technicians in the clean 

room to our CEO, Northrop Grumman remains fully committed to 

the success of this mission. I want to assure the Committee that 

we are taking our role seriously and are doing our part to address 

the technical and programmatic challenges before us. We remain 

confident in launching in 2018 within the congressionally mandated development cost. 

I look forward to working with NASA as it leads this amazing 

effort and with the Committee to ensure that this program is a success. So I want to thank you again for asking me to appear before 

your Committee and welcome your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grant follows:] 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Mr. Grant. 

I now recognize Dr. Mather. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. JOHN MATHER, 

SENIOR PROJECT SCIENTIST, 

JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE, 

GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER, NASA 

Dr. MATHER. Chairman Palazzo, Representative Edwards, and 

Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the warm welcome. 

I am pleased to appear before you to discuss the scientific mission of the James Webb Space Telescope. I have been a telescope 

builder all my life. Since I was about eight years old, I have wanted to know how did we get here. When I was a kid, nobody really 

knew, so I became a telescope builder. Quite a few years later, I 

won a Nobel Prize, but despite our progress, profound questions remain, and I think JWST is the most important project I could be 

working on. 

JWST will be the premier observatory of the next decade. To understand JWST’s scientific mission, we need to briefly review our 

current picture of the universe. The picture has been painted almost entirely, thanks to work initiated at NASA and made possible 

by longstanding Congressional support. 

We know today that the universe is nearly 13.8 billion years old. 

For the first 400,000 years after the Big Bang, the universe had 

no distinct objects in it and was a hot soup of fundamental particles such as free protons and electrons. Light could not travel 

very far through that hot soup. Around the 400,000-year mark, the 

universe went from being opaque to transparent. The afterglow of 

this era is what we see as the cosmic microwave background. Our 

NASA team won the Nobel Prize in 2006 for its study of this radiation. 

The emergence of the first stars probably came when the universe was a few hundred million years old. We think that these 

first stars were 30 to 300 times as massive as our Sun and millions 

of times as bright, burning for only a few million years before exploding in supernovae, but we have never seen them. Even Hubble 

can’t see them. JWST will let us see them. 

So why do we need an infrared telescope to see that first light? 

Imagine light leaving the first stars nearly 13.4 billion years ago 

and traveling through space and time to reach our telescopes. We 

are essentially seeing these objects as they were 13.4 billion years 

ago, but because the universe has been expanding, the light was 

emitted by these first stars and galaxies as visible or ultraviolet 

light actually got shifted to redder wavelengths by the time it 

reached us. So we need to see it in the infrared. 

Also, to unravel the birth and early evolution of stars, we need 

to be able to peer into the hearts of dense and dusty cloud cores 

where star formation occurs. These regions cannot be observed at 

visible light wavelengths as the dust makes such regions opaque. 

JWST’s infrared instruments will let us do that. 

JWST will also look for planets in other solar systems. The first 

planet outside our solar system was discovered in 1992. Since then, 

we have come to the realization that planets are in fact quite common. One essential objective of JWST is to observe planets orbiting 
62 

in the habitable zone of their star where it is possible for liquid 

water and perhaps even life to exist. 

An infrared telescope needs to be cooled down to a lower temperature so it does not emit too much of its own infrared light. To 

make it cold, we need to put it in deep space where it can be 

shielded from the heat and light of both Earth and the Sun. It 

needs to be shielded from the infrared energy produced by its own 

spacecraft, so JWST will have a tennis-court-sized sunshield that 

will unfold in space. One of JWST’s four instruments also requires 

a refrigerator that uses gaseous helium to keep its detectors at 

about negative 449 degrees Fahrenheit. 

At this point, I would like to show you a 1-minute animation of 

the deployment of the Webb telescope. Let me see if it going to go. 

Yes, so it is going. JWST’s primary mirror will be composed of 18 

hexagonal units made of beryllium, a material light enough that 

you could pick up one of those units yourself but which can be machined and polished until it has essentially perfect curvature. If 

you were to stretch this material the length of the United States, 

the difference between the peaks and valleys would be about three 

inches. This is an amazing telescope. 

JWST is an excellent example of what can be done by international partnerships to solve very difficult engineering challenges. 

The United States is leading a very capable partnership that includes the European and Canadian space agencies. Scientific discoveries know no boundaries, and international cooperation has 

been very successful for NASA. 

Beyond its scientific returns, JWST will also be an amazing educational tool as Hubble has been. Nearly every science classroom 

in the country has posters and teaching materials from Hubble. 

Every astronomy textbook is illustrated with Hubble pictures. 

NASA materials are proven to be among the most useful to classroom teachers, and JWST will provide great new material. 

We are an exceptional country for even dreaming up something 

like JWST, and we are close to seeing this dream realized. Astronomers will use the telescope to make stunning discoveries and rewrite our textbooks again. 

Thank you for listening, and I would be happy to answer any 

questions you have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Mather follows:] 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Dr. Mather. 

I thank the witnesses for their testimony, reminding Members 

that Committee rules limit questioning to five minutes. The chair 

will at this point open the round of questions. The chair recognizes 

himself for five minutes. 

Dr. Grunsfeld, GAO’s testimony indicates that the JWST program has ten months of reserve left, down one month from December. The program is now entering the critical integration phase and 

all the subsystems are at risk of becoming the critical path and 

driving the overall project schedule. This limits flexibility precisely 

at the time flexibility is most needed. Are you confident that the 

current plan is robust enough to address the risks facing the program? 

Dr. GRUNSFELD. Thank you, Chairman, for that question. 

As I mentioned in my testimony, we have a plan that was assembled at the time of the Joint Confidence Level estimate through the 

2011 re-plan that laid out how we will use all of our schedule reserve, and that is based on a history of similar projects and something that we have shared with the GAO extensively. That burndown plan assumes that risk is mitigated as we go along the 

project to solve problems that we discover, and so far the project 

has been doing really well on solving problems without using that 

schedule reserve, and as I mentioned, as a result, we are carrying 

10 months of schedule reserve, which is a little bit more than we 

expected to have at this time. That is the best posture to be in, to 

have a little bit more schedule reserve than you expect because we 

are getting into the test and integration phase where things, you 

know, might pop up that we haven’t anticipated with this large, 

complex observatory, especially as we go into the testing at the 

Johnson Space Center with the optics starting with the pathfinder 

and then the optics in a couple of years. 

So I am confident that with 10 months of schedule reserve and 

the known problems we have now that we have adequate schedule 

reserve for the July 2018 launch—sorry. The October 2018 launch. 

Chairman PALAZZO. And this is another question, Dr. Grunsfeld. 

The President’s budget request for Fiscal Year 2016 is for $620 million. This is consistent with the JWST’s 2011 re-plan budget. We 

are aware that in the original plan, Fiscal Year 2016 was expected 

to require less funding because development of instruments and 

components was anticipated to have been completed. However, 

with so much integration and testing left to complete, are you confident that the $620 million is still sufficient? 

Dr. GRUNSFELD. We have the $620 in the 2016 request, and the 

out years, which are notional requests, the same numbers that 

were in the original re-plan, and in those numbers there is a considerable amount of budget reserve, and in the same way as schedule reserve, that budget reserve is there to solve problems. 

Now, in Fiscal Year 2015, we have allocated a lot of that reserve 

for known problems through the end of the fiscal year, and we plan 

ahead with known problems to try and use reserves. So at the 

present time, the $620 million Fiscal Year 2016 request we believe 

is adequate to complete all of the work as the funding going out 

to launch. 
72 

Chairman PALAZZO. Dr. Grunsfeld, and this is also for Dr. 

Mather if he cares to answer, how would a cost overrun or schedule 

slip affect other Astrophysics projects, Science Mission Directorate 

programs or overall NASA priorities, and what would NASA cut to 

ensure that the JWST stays on schedule? 

Dr. GRUNSFELD. Well, the first priority is to keep JWST on cost 

and on budget—sorry—on budget and on schedule, and we are 

working very hard to do that. We have adequate cost reserves and 

adequate schedule reserve, I believe, to make the October 2018 

launch without, you know, any kind of a cost overrun. 

As you know, any time you have a portfolio of projects and programs, and NASA has quite a few, in the event something overruns, you have to look at what the tradeoffs are. I think it is instructive to look at the Astrophysics budget historically over many 

decades, starting with the great observatories, and certainly 

through the last ten years, and you will see that if you look at the 

combination of Astrophysics plus James Webb Space Telescope, 

that budget has been essentially flat. You know, there were very 

limited transfers, if any, from other programs into James Webb, 

and so, you know, the cost growth has been contained within this 

general Astrophysics budget. So we are confident that with the 

budget we have and with the schedule reserve we have, we will be 

able to make it on cost and on schedule. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Dr. Mather, would you care to add to that? 

Dr. MATHER. I think actually I agree with that he said quite 

well. Thanks. 

Chairman PALAZZO. So no one wants to really throw out there 

what NASA would cut to ensure James Webb Space Telescope 

stays on schedule? I don’t blame you. Probably not smart. 

Ms. Chaplain—and then I will move on to questions—are there 

any preliminary observations on the updated cost-risk analysis that 

NASA performed that you can share? 

Ms. CHAPLAIN. So we just received the analysis fairly recently. 

We need to do more in-depth assessments. But on the surface, they 

look pretty good, and NASA indicated it followed not only its own 

good practices but GAO’s as well, so we look forward to assessing 

them. 

We have also looked at the other earned value management analysis that they are employing that takes earned value management 

a step further and looks at risks integrated with cost and schedule 

and can do more predictive things for the program, and on that 

surface, that looks good as well. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Okay. So you haven’t had a chance to definitely dig into it to confirm that they followed NASA’s best practices as well as GAO’s best practices but they told you they did but 

you are going to dig into it—— 

Ms. CHAPLAIN. Right. 

Chairman PALAZZO. —when you have more time? 

Ms. CHAPLAIN. Yeah, we need to look at the underlying data and 

talk with them about what they did. There are certain methodological things they probably didn’t do that we would have done like 

interview the engineers separately and get a good story on what 

they thought their costs and risks were at that point, but the methodology they did employ does—is in line with good practices. 
73 

Chairman PALAZZO. And so it also would probably be too early 

to ask you whether or not you have recognize any weaknesses in 

their analysis? 

Ms. CHAPLAIN. Correct. The only—you know, right now we can’t 

say what the weaknesses are. Correct. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Well, thank you. 

At this time I yield to the Ranking Member, Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and again, 

thank you to the witnesses. 

I want to follow up in looking at the schedule reserve in light of 

what still needs to be done, particularly as we enter the integration 

and testing phase. 

Dr. Grunsfeld, you mentioned—or I think Ms. Chaplain actually 

mentioned that we hadn’t—there hadn’t been a JCL since the 2011, 

and so my question—and I understand that is a really intensive 

process and we don’t want to do something that is going to take 

us away from the game of actually getting the work done, but what 

is it that we could learn in a JCL or some formation of that that 

gives us the kind of confidence that we need going into this integration and testing phase that the reserves that are available are 

sufficient to meet the problems that inevitably will occur? Dr. 

Grunsfeld and then Ms. Chaplain. 

Dr. GRUNSFELD. The Joint Confidence Level assessment is a 

great tool and it is based on a probabilistic assessment so looking 

at the probabilities of future events when you don’t know how long 

individual parts will take to assemble, how much they will actually 

cost. So it is a great tool after the study phase of a mission when 

we are actually looking at the designs, and we want to predict, you 

know, 3, 4, five years out into the future. When you are actually 

in implementation of a project and you have real hardware and you 

know what the individual schedules are in great detail, it doesn’t 

make really sense to do a probabilistic forecast because you already 

have the information that is contained in those probability distributions. So it is really just an inappropriate tool to use in a very mature project. 

Now, a cost-risk analysis is a much more sensitive thing—sensible thing to do because now you have actual costs, actual risks. 

You can’t assign probabilities to those risks, and that is what the 

cost-risk analysis takes into account and is a best practice by GAO. 

Ms. EDWARDS. So Ms. Chaplain, do you agree with that? 

Ms. CHAPLAIN. We would recommend that you update the JCL 

at any rate. It is a good practice to be especially updating the cost 

and schedule estimates themselves, and especially because the program as it has had more experience could feed that experience into 

the models. Well, you did say it is an intensive process and we recognize that. Once you have the model down and everything in 

place, it is not as difficult to update. But as far as updating even 

the cost and schedule pieces of that estimate, it is a good practice 

to do that on a regular basis. 

Ms. EDWARDS. I guess I just wonder if we have some—if there 

are some elements that we already have in place that allow us the 

luxury of being able to have a greater confidence in the program 

and then it is going to meet the cost, the budget and assuming the 

risks. Dr. Grunsfeld? 
74 

Dr. GRUNSFELD. Thank you. I think the salient point is that right 

now we are in the middle of managing a complex project, and there 

are various time scales on which we do that. To perform a new 

Joint Confidence Level assessment, we would end up in some number of months with a new estimate and we could measure against 

that, but it is kind of like, you know, changing the goalpost over 

time if we get numbers that are different. We think it is much 

more sensible and as a practical management approach is—and we 

accepted the cost-risk analysis but really is to manage the program 

with the cost, with the reserves, measure how we are doing, and 

that is why we are using the earned value management, which is 

a management tool including some predictive measures, and then 

we can measure whether we are ahead or behind those predictions, 

and all of the predictions were based on the original JCL. If we 

ended up somewhere where we had a very large perturbation, then 

it would make more sense to go back and say okay, based on this, 

you know, perturbation adjustment, whatever it is where we have 

to re-baseline, then we would definitely do the JCL. I think in the 

meantime, based on our program guidelines, we will continue to do 

the cost-risk analysis and especially continue to manage on the 

daily, monthly, quarterly basis our earned value management and 

our standard project management processes. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

I want to go to Mr. Grant really quickly. So one of the big risks 

right now is the status of the technical design of the cryocooler, and 

so I wonder if you can tell me whether the problems that you were 

faced with are finally behind us? And you indicated in your prepared statement that all the cooler subsystems have been delivered 

to Goddard and JPL except one. What subsystem is that and when 

will it be shipped to JPL? 

Mr. GRANT. Ms. Edwards, the cryocooler program is a very difficult technical challenge. I think in my prepared statement that I 

describe it as at operating at 6 degrees Kelvin, very much colder 

than previous cryocoolers we have built, and it deploys. It is separated from the instrument package by about 30 feet. The mechanical complexities, the heat transfer complexities, the exported force 

complexities have made this a very challenging job, in fact, more 

challenging than we anticipated. 

We have made great progress, though. We have delivered components to Goddard and to JPL, and we are now down to the CCA. 

It is the cryocooler assembly that is in test today, bake-out testing, 

and we are—we have got significant performance measurements 

made that show it meets its spec, which is great news, and now 

we are in the final stages of assembly, and we are scheduled to deliver that to JPL in June of this year. 

Ms. EDWARDS. So we will be asking about that because I think 

the problem is that we are gone down now to 10 months of reserve, 

and the question is, how much of the cryocooler that has been such 

a problem is going to eat into that reserve to leave enough reserve 

to stay on budget and on cost for the integration and testing phase, 

and with that, I think my time is like just done. Thanks. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize Mr. Brooks from Alabama. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
75 

Dr. Grunsfeld and Dr. Mather, will you please provide examples 

of how the James Webb Space Telescope, the Stratospheric Observatory For Infrared Astronomy, the Transiting Exoplanet Survey 

Satellite, or TESS, as it is commonly known, will work together in 

exoplanet research? 

Dr. GRUNSFELD. Certainly, and I appreciate that question. The 

Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite is very much like the Kepler 

satellite that has discovered thousands of planets orbiting stars in 

our galaxy. Kepler has been staring at a region of space that is 

rather far away from the Earth, and it sees as the planet goes between us and the stars a little blink of light. The Transiting 

Exoplanet Survey Satellite is going to be very similar except instead of looking at this one distant region of space and the constellation Cygnus, it is going to survey all the nearest stars around 

our home solar system, around the Earth, and so it is going to give 

us the address of where there are transiting exoplanets around 

each of those stars. 

The advantage we have of a planet that transits, that goes between us and the star, is that we can actually then measure the 

components of the atmosphere as that starlight goes through the 

atmosphere of the planet, and so having the locations and types of 

all of these exoplanets will allow the James Webb Space Telescope 

to do spectroscopy or to break the light from those atmospheres 

into its component colors and allow us to determine, you know, 

whether there is water vapor in the atmosphere, whether there is, 

you know, characteristics that might indicate even high-altitude 

clouds, for instance, color changes that would tell us the composition of those atmospheres. So this is an extraordinarily exciting 

possibility. 

The Stratospheric Observatory For Infrared Astronomy works in 

a different wavelength than James Webb Space Telescope. The 

Hubble Space Telescope operates from the near-ultraviolet to the 

near-infrared and encompasses the colors that we see—visible 

light. The James Webb Space Telescope picks up in that near-infrared and extends out to the mid-infrared and the SOFIA observatory 

extends from the mid-infrared further out, and so there are many 

objects where we want to do spectroscopy to understand the composition, for instance, of molecular clouds that contain organic materials, very much like what we are made out of, and it will be the 

synthesis of the Hubble, the James Webb Space Telescope, the 

SOFIA observatory and also on the ground, the ALMA, Atacama 

Large Millimeter Array, that is really going to be able to put together the picture of how these objects work—how these objects, 

you know, were formed, how they evolve, how organic molecules in 

these objects formed that eventually may have seeded planets like 

the Earth before we were around. 

Mr. BROOKS. Dr. Mather, do you have anything to add? 

Dr. MATHER. Yeah, just a few things. One thing to mention about 

the Stratospheric Observatory is that they can fly frequently with 

different instruments that are improved as the technology improves, and they have already included—there are some extremely 

high-spectral resolution equipment. Spectral resolution separates 

the colors into over 100,000 different wavelengths, and from that 

you can determine isotopic compositions and all kinds of remark-
76 

able details about the things you are looking at. So it is very complementary to and different from the other observatories we were 

talking about. So it is not something we could put into the James 

Webb Telescope. 

Mr. BROOKS. As you all may recall, there was an initial problem 

with the Hubble Telescope that required astronauts going up to fix 

it. Should we encounter a difficulty with the James Webb Space 

Telescope and the need to repair it, can it be repaired, and if so, 

how? 

Dr. GRUNSFELD. I have already volunteered that if there is a 

problem, you all can send me. 

Mr. BROOKS. We will need a spacecraft first. I hope NASA 

still—— 

Dr. GRUNSFELD. We will need a spacecraft, and if we have problems, it may be a one-way trip, which you all say I will deserve. 

Mr. BROOKS. Well, I prefer the two-way trip. 

Dr. GRUNSFELD. But the first thing is that we are working extraordinarily hard, and the folks on the project and at Northrop 

Grumman and all of the contractors to make sure that we don’t 

need to go to James Webb for servicing. There is an enormous 

amount of redundancy built in for the actuating parts of the James 

Webb Space Telescope because it does have to origami, unfold like 

a transformer. So we have dual motors, we have dual sensors, a lot 

of testing to make sure that everything will deploy as required. 

While there is no servicing or fixing designed into it, as a relatively small mitigation, we are putting rendezvous sensors on the 

outside of the spacecraft so that if we ever had to go there for some 

reason or if, you know, there was some future reason to go, we 

would be able to, you know, align a spacecraft for docking. But otherwise there is no planned servicing. 

Mr. BROOKS. So if I understand correctly, the James Webb Space 

Telescope is designed for docking but right now we are inhibited 

because we do not have a vehicle that can get us there. Is that a 

fair statement? 

Dr. GRUNSFELD. I wouldn’t quite say it is designed for servicing 

or for docking, but because it has a payload adapter ring, which is 

how it was attached or will be attached to the Ariane 5 rocket, that 

ring is, by definition, a place that one could interface with, and we 

just think it is prudent to put on some sensors, some little stickers 

essentially with fiducial marks so that if we ever did have to go 

there, we would know how to orient ourselves. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see my time is expired. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize Mr. Beyer. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I thank all of you for 

being with us today. 

I have some science questions on JWST, and now that we have 

a Nobel Prize-winning physicist here, Dr. Mather, Dr. Grunsfeld 

said that JWST extends our view of the universe, and you said it 

the most important project you could be working on, so three quick 

questions. 

Will this give us insight into dark energy and dark matter? Second, the Planck Epoch, zero to ten the negative forty four seconds 

before the Big Bang, I understand from visiting CERN that we can 

only get so far back in understanding how close we are to zero. 
77 

Does this help us get farther back? And finally, the asymmetry of 

matter and antimatter, you know, the present and the universe, 

will this help us understand that fundamental asymmetry? 

Dr. MATHER. Gosh, such easy questions. 

Mr. BEYER. It is $8.8 billion. 

Dr. MATHER. So I will answer them. For the dark energy, which 

was discovered based on measurements with the Hubble Space Telescope, we will be able to pursue the same technique only a lot better because we can see farther and we can use infrared light to do 

it. So we know the supernovae, which are used as standard candles, are better candles, better standards measured in the infrared. 

So number one, yes, we will pursue the dark energy. 

Dark matter is observed indirectly because it has gravitation. So 

it bends light, and we have seen that in many places, sometimes 

even—recently we found a supernova that was seen four times in 

different places as the light was bent four different directions 

around a galaxy and between. So we will be continuing to pursue 

that method of measuring the presence of dark matter through its 

gravitational effects. 

About the Planck Epoch, that is probably outside our territory. 

That is something that we expect to pursue through measurements 

of the polarization of the cosmic microwave background radiation, 

and there is already work underway, and there was a probably 

false alarm about a year ago that I am sure you saw where claims 

were made about gravitational waves of the early universe. Better 

measurements will come out soon, I think. We certainly expect 

them. 

About the asymmetry of matter and antimatter, I don’t know of 

any measurement that we could make that would affect that question. It is one of the most puzzling mysteries of science, and we 

know that there is no place in the universe that has got—that is 

like a dark matter—sorry—an antimatter galaxy. If there were, we 

would see an area where the two regions were colliding and there 

would be annihilation energy coming out. So we are pretty sure the 

whole universe is full of ordinary matter, and there isn’t any antimatter left except tiny traces. So we will work on it but I don’t 

think we are going to answer that question. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Dr. Mather, very much. 

Dr. Grunsfeld, I was looking at the very sophisticated piece of literature here, our comic book, and it talks about how JWST is going 

to be in orbit around this theoretical point L2, a straight line from 

the Sun to the Earth L2. It is very cool, but what is at L2 that is 

going to allow that to orbit around? All my understanding of orbiting is, it is based on gravitational forces, and—or is it just self-correcting engines on the satellite itself? 

Dr. GRUNSFELD. The L refers to Lagrange, which was a mathematician, and he computed that there would be these points in 

space where the gravitational force of the Earth and the Sun are 

balanced such that it is kind of stable so that if you put something 

there it would stay there. And so if you think about the Earth and 

the Sun, between the Earth and the Sun there is a point that you 

can orbit and an object would get dragged along by the Earth at 

the same speed as the Earth as it rotates the Sun. We call that 
78 

the L1 Lagrange point, and we just sent the DSCVR mission there, 

for instance. 

The L2 point is on the other side of the Earth and it is an imaginary point just because there is nothing there—James Webb will 

be there. But it is gravitationally stable but it is not perfectly stable. If James Webb were to drift off, we would have to fire some 

little jets to come back, and so that is that point. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Dr. Grunsfeld. 

And one last question. Mr. Grant, Ms. Chaplain talked about her 

difficulty doing the anonymous interviews with Northrop Grumman 

folks without a manager present. We had a lot of discussion here 

on secret science, on transparency. What was Northrop Grumman’s 

problem with allowing the anonymous interviews or the interviews 

without managers present? 

Mr. GRANT. The issue that we had when this request was made 

was, a request to interview about 30 of our—we call them CAMs, 

cost accountant managers, which are reasonably junior employees. 

They are responsible for small work packages. And I became concerned when the interview technique, it wasn’t just anonymous but 

isolating our junior employees with a group from GAO, and these 

are people who are not prepared to come testify before Congress or 

in fact in this kind of environment, and so I had a great fear that 

this interview technique would result in frankly my employees 

being very, very concerned. This is not how they would normally 

do their business. And so in my discussions with Ms. Chaplain, I 

offered in fact some alternatives. We are very open to having transparency and full access to the data, but this kind of process to our 

individual employees concerned me enough that I said we will take 

the management of JWST aside but I wanted somebody from the 

functional organization so a mechanical engineer assigned to the 

James Webb Space Telescope program would have his functional 

manager with him in this interview process. So she is accurate in 

saying no manager so I was willing to separate the JWST team 

management from this interview process but unwilling to send 

these employees in by themselves. So that is the essence. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman PALAZZO. The chair now recognizes Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Grunsfeld and Dr. Mather, how would a cost overrun or 

schedule slip affect other Astrophysics projects, Science Mission Directorate programs or overall NASA priorities? And you can decide 

who goes first on that. 

Dr. GRUNSFELD. Well, Mr. Johnson, thank you for that question. 

The first part of my answer is that currently we are on budget, on 

schedule. We have adequate budget reserves and schedule reserves 

to make our October 2018 launch date. 

Mr. JOHNSON. But that wasn’t the question. The question was, 

how would a cost overrun or schedule slip affect those projects? 

Dr. GRUNSFELD. In the event we were to encounter some problem 

that required, you know, a cost overrun or some kind of slip, as we 

balance all of our projects and programs, you know, we manage 

sometimes to an ensemble level, and it is just the realities of Federal budgeting process. So if some project does overrun, then we 

have to look at, you know, future projects typically to delay them 
79 

or, you know, change the phasing of funding to allow to keep, you 

know, the projects that are close to completion on track. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Dr. Mather, do you have anything to add to that? 

Dr. MATHER. No. He says the same thing I would say. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. Do you have a list of what those priorities 

might be? What would NASA cut to ensure JWST stays on schedule? Do you have any specifics? 

Dr. GRUNSFELD. So at the moment, in the Astrophysics budget 

and the JWST budget, you know, if you look at the sum of those 

two, you know, that is approximately the historical level of the 

NASA Astrophysics budget, and as the chairman said in his opening remarks, one of the big questions going forward in future budget eras is where will the funding for the James Webb Space Telescope go as it ramps down from its main development phases, and 

NASA has not yet decided on what that future mission might be. 

Several Members have discussed the WFIRST mission, Wide-Field 

Infrared Survey Telescope. This was suggested by the Decadal Survey on Astronomy and Astrophysics in the last round and is a 

major priority for Astrophysics and something that we are studying 

in great detail. NASA has not decided to go forward with that. 

Once we do decide that that is a new mission and we are examining that, then the launch date for that would be an adjustable 

parameter based on available budget, technical and, you know, 

something we would manage too. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. Thank you. 

Ms. Chaplain, what does GAO see as the greatest risk to the 

JWST program? 

Ms. CHAPLAIN. At this point the greatest risk is on the technical 

side as they first resolve the technical challenges that face them 

today like with the cryocooler, and as they get deeper in integration and testing, what problems they might encounter there and 

how are they going to fix them. 

The business side is not as much of a risk at this point because 

they do have a lot of schedule reserve, they do have pretty good 

tools in place for managing the program. They are pretty rigorous 

about tracking what is going on, so in our view, the issues now that 

we will be intensely focusing on are technical issues as well as risk 

management issues. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. Well, back to you again, Ms. Chaplain. You 

said your annual Quick Look review of NASA’s major programs 

was just released, so how does JWST compare to other NASA programs in terms of planning, management, performance and execution? 

Ms. CHAPLAIN. So it doesn’t stack up very well when you consider the cost growth that has already occurred. If you take all the 

projects together, there is 29—25.9 percent cost growth overall in 

the development side, but if you took James Webb out of that picture, the cost growth for NASA projects would go down to 2.4 percent. So just its nature, it is a big project on the portfolio. It comprises 33 percent of the major projects right now, so anything that 

happens there does have an impact on other programs, and that 

prior cost growth, though it hasn’t come back, is still there kind of 

overwhelming the other projects at this point. 
80 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. All right. Well, thank you, and thank you 

all for being with us. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time. 

Chairman PALAZZO. The chair now recognizes Mr. Babein—Mr. 

Babin. I just wanted to see if you were going to correct me on it. 

Mr. BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here. Reading your 

bios, very notables, and long ago in the line of questioning, I think 

Dr. Grunsfeld actually did 58 hours of spacewalking in EVAs to do 

some of those Hubble repairs. Is that not the case? 

Dr. GRUNSFELD. That is correct. 

Mr. BABIN. Well, thank you. Thank you for all your distinguished 

careers, and I appreciate you two, and congratulations on your 

Nobel, Dr. Mather. 

I represent Texas District 36, which has Johnson Space Center 

in it, and if I am not mistaken, I think some of this testing, quite 

a bit of the testing, on JWST is going on at Johnson Space Center, 

which I am very proud to represent and certainly want to see great 

big things continue to go and happen at JSC. 

But in light of all the cost overruns and the problems that we 

have had, I do have some questions about the project, and I would 

like to ask Dr. Grunsfeld and Ms. Chaplain how confident you are 

that JWST has enough resources now, both in terms of cost and 

schedule reserves, to execute the commitments that we now—that 

you now have. 

Dr. GRUNSFELD. I am very confident that, you know, as of now 

we have 10 months of schedule reserve and we are maintaining 

adequate budget reserves to meet the October 2018 launch date. 

There are a number of issues that, you know, I worry about, if you 

were to say what keeps me awake at night. We are making great 

progress on the cryocooler. You know, there are a bunch of technical issues. We have a lot of great communication across the 

whole project now from, you know, daily meetings that the project 

manager has and communication with us. We have our new program director. We announced that yesterday, Eric Smith. You 

know, he has, you know, daily, weekly, monthly meetings. We meet 

routinely with GAO to talk about our progress. But there are some 

things that we just don’t control, and for instance, one of those is 

that we have three major tests at the Johnson Space Center in that 

great chamber A, and we are starting some of the testing now on 

the pathfinder, and if any of the Members have an opportunity to 

go there, I highly recommend that you see this. This is where we 

tested the Apollo Command Module. It is enormous, and that reflects the great size of the James Webb Space Telescope. 

But one of my worries has been, you know, that we have three 

multiple-month test periods at the Johnson Space Center, and having lived there for 18 years, I have had to leave my home occasionally for hurricanes. You know, what happens if we are testing during a hurricane. And so I have interrogated the project on what is 

our mitigation, and I have been down to the Johnson Space Center 

several times talking to the engineers and the operators of that 

chamber, and they have great plans in place, and the James Webb 

Space Telescope can actually survive through a hurricane without 

significant interruptions of the testing, and you know, they have 
81 

assured me that even those kind of risks are incorporated into our 

modeling to make the October 2018 launch date. So I am very confident that we have a very sound plan. 

Mr. BABIN. That is great. Thank you. And Ms. Chaplain, did you 

want to add anything to that? 

Ms. CHAPLAIN. So 10 months of reserve is a long time, and the 

cost reserve is very healthy, and I don’t often get to testify on programs with that kind of luxury in terms of reserve, but it is also 

a very complicated program and its test program itself is 7 years— 

integration and testing is seven years long, and the thing to keep 

in mind with 10 months of reserve is, you need certain amounts of 

time for each phase of testing so you can only apply certain 

amounts of reserves with each phases. So if a major problem does 

come up, you don’t necessarily have 10 whole months to fix it without disrupting other parts of the schedule. So we are still concerned 

about schedule but they are in a healthy position at this point. 

Mr. BABIN. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

One other question, and this would be for Dr. Grunsfeld. You actually—both you and Ms. Chaplain addressed this to a certain extent a while ago, but does NASA share GAO’s concern about the 

amount of schedule risk remaining in the program? 

Dr. GRUNSFELD. I would say absolutely. In terms of, you know, 

my personality but also that of Robert Lightfoot, our Associate Administrator, Charlie Bolden, you know, we are all very concerned 

about the risks and the schedule reserve in the sense that we are 

for every single program we manage. You know, I generally would 

not say that I am comfortable with any of our projects because that 

is just my personality and that is one of the ways that we do so 

well in managing our projects and programs is, you know, to stay 

a little bit uncomfortable and keeps us on edge. 

Mr. BABIN. I understand. 

Dr. GRUNSFELD. I am confident but I wouldn’t ever say comfortable until we launch. The best place for a spacecraft like James 

Webb Space Telescope is in space. 

Mr. BABIN. Amen. Thank you very much, all of you, and thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Mr. Babin. 

The chair now recognizes Mr. Posey. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I really appreciate the incredibly wonderful and exciting things 

that you do and what the James Webb Space Telescope will do for 

us. Obviously I have a serious interest in gaining and maintaining 

public support for our space programs. There is a lot of misconception, as you all know. Poll after poll has shown people think we 

spend as much as 25 percent of our budget on our space program 

when you know it is less than one-half of one percent, and they 

hear you are spending over $600 million more on a space telescope 

and they say what is in it for me. I mean, how do you articulate 

to the average American family, who may have no idea what the 

telescope does, how it is going to benefit them? 

Dr. GRUNSFELD. Well, let me start and then maybe ask John 

Mather to comment additionally. 

I mentioned in my testimony that one of the great things we do 

in this country is challenge industry to do hard things in the name 
82 

of science, in the name of fundamental questions about our universe, and when we challenge industry to do that, it forces them 

to grow. It increases our competitiveness. It also attracts the best 

and brightest minds to come to the United States and to rise in the 

United States to help solve these problems, to study astronomy, to 

study astrophysics so perhaps they can win a Nobel Prize in the 

future. 

Mr. POSEY. But that may be a little bit over the head of the average taxpayer is what I am talking about. This booklet you have is 

really excellent material for those of us who already have an interest in it and for a teacher who has a chance to maybe impart that 

hunger into students, but I am just wondering, you know, how we 

quantify, you know, how it benefits the national security, the economic stability or the survival of the species that we make that 

connection when we are talking about this expensive product which 

is very necessary for our future, I think, but that we haven’t really 

managed to connect with the average American about the importance. 

Dr. GRUNSFELD. There are some circles where I can talk about 

the contributions of the James Webb Space Telescope as the largest 

space telescope we have ever built, segmented optics, the first time 

we will have flown a large space telescope with segmented optics 

to, say, national security. The average person that I talk to when 

I am giving an astronaut talk, you know, they don’t have an appreciation of that. 

But I am glad you mentioned, you know, the effect on teachers. 

The Hubble Space Telescope, for instance, reaches more than half 

a million teachers a year, 6 million students a year, and is viewed 

by 9 million people, and those—— 

Mr. POSEY. I heard that. I got that, and I love that—— 

Dr. GRUNSFELD. —are important. 

Mr. POSEY. —but, you know, how do we connect with the average 

American family who is, you know, worried about their job, you 

know, worried about feeding their family, being able to finance 

their kids’ education? How can we explain to them that spending 

the money on this telescope, which I think is very important, obviously, should be that important to them? 

Dr. GRUNSFELD. I think, you know, if you talk about NASA, generally my experience has been that people understand why we invest in NASA. We are investing in America’s future. We are investing in future technology. We are investing in innovation. And most 

people have the same questions that we have as scientists, that 

drove us to become scientists, about, you know, where did we come 

from, where are we going, are we alone in the universe, and that 

NASA is providing the tools to answer those questions. Those fundamental questions are the same for everybody, and when you can 

talk about that we are only spending, you know, less than half of 

one percent of our Federal investment on investing in the future, 

I think people do resonate with that. 

Mr. POSEY. Doctor? 

Dr. MATHER. I would certainly agree that that is why we do it 

and why the public loves us to do it. I used to ride the subway in 

New York City and i would be sitting there with my astronomy 

book, and people would say what is that, tell me about it, where 
83 

did we come from. The public is really interested in this, and when 

they are not working to support their families, they say where did 

I come from, are we the only ones here in this entire universe or 

not, and I think we are getting towards being able to answer their 

questions. People just have a deep passion to know where did we 

come from, our genealogy, our history, everything about how we got 

here to this amazing Committee room here in Washington, D.C. 

They want to know how did that happen. So I think we should help 

them answer that question. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Will the gentleman yield for just a minute? 

Mr. POSEY. Yes, I will yield. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Posey, perhaps Dr. Grunsfeld might want to 

respond to your question by answering us how the JWST program 

has enabled a number of improvements in measuring human eyes 

and the diagnosis of ocular diseases and improved surgery for eyes 

as a connection to people. Dr. Grunsfeld? 

Dr. GRUNSFELD. I would love to talk about that. Thank you very 

much. 

You know, sometimes what we call spinoffs are bit tangential, 

but in this case, and Dr. Mather mentioned it, I was in a very early 

James Webb Space Telescope meeting where they were talking 

about the smoothness of the mirrors, and I started scribbling in my 

notebook to figure out what if you stretched one of those mirrors, 

a single 1.5-meter beryllium mirror, to the size of the United 

States, how big would the bumps be, and he already told you, the 

average bumps would only be about 3 inches tall if you stretched 

those mirrors to the size of the United States. This is an astonishingly smooth surface. In order to generate that amazingly smooth 

surface, you know, the engineers at Ball Aerospace had to come up, 

you know, with algorithms and techniques of measuring what the 

shape of the mirror is to that extremely fine detail, and that is actually—those tools have already been incorporated into the kind of 

techniques and tools that ophthalmologists use to measure the 

shape of the human eyeball in order for the laser surgery and other 

techniques, you know, to correct human vision. And so there is 

many, many examples of these kind of things. 

Mr. POSEY. Well, that was kind of my point, you know. I mean, 

listen, we mostly sell steak in space, you know, and Winn Dixie 

and Publix and all the supermarkets don’t advertise steak, they advertise sizzle, you know, and so we are all interested in the steak 

but the public needs to know a little bit more of the sizzle, you 

know. And if somebody asks about, you know, decrease the possibility or probability of you going blind because of ocular disease by 

50 percent, well, that is something the average guy can identify 

with, you know, rather than—you know, we talk so often in platitudes. 

We want to know where we came from, where we are going to 

go. We realize that ultimately someday, someday humanity will 

have to leave this planet or perish, and we know that, but it is so 

far away that the average family doesn’t want to worry about that 

right now, you know, let 50,000 generations from now worry about 

that. But we have to make our contribution to getting us off this 

planet when the time comes as we go. 
84 

But I find that it is so important to quantify space’s direct benefits to people to gain that public support. Like I said, they want 

some of the sizzle. You know, the meat doesn’t interest them right 

now. They want the sizzle like supermarkets sell. 

Dr. GRUNSFELD. If the chairman would indulge me I have one 

more small story. 

Chairman PALAZZO. The chairman will indulge you. 

Dr. GRUNSFELD. Thank you. I was doing an astronaut visit—so 

I am in a blue flight suit—to a small company outside of Chicago 

called Numerical Precision, and they are a machine shop, and we 

were walking through, and one of the engineers, technicians 

showed me a part that he was building that he was very proud of, 

and it was a little circular ring, and I don’t know why but I recognized it, and it was—most of their work is defense work or much 

of it. And so I started asking him about it, and this is a company 

that had made tools that I used on the Hubble Space Telescope and 

they were very proud of that, and I was there to thank them. 

And so I asked him what program is that for, and he said I don’t 

know. His manager said let me look, and he comes back and he 

says some NASA program, and I think okay, that has piqued my 

interest, you know, maybe I know this part. And it turns out it was 

a part for the James Webb Space Telescope. The story the plant 

manager had told me is that this part was very hard for them to 

make and it is made by a special technique involving machine tools 

that only the United States has been able to refine, and he said 

that by building this difficult part for the James Webb Space Telescope they developed new techniques and they had actually by 

using those techniques been able to attract a lot of business, and 

their biggest problem was not the new business but the ability to 

hire young people to run these machine tools, and he said that by 

working on NASA projects is one of his biggest draws to be able 

to bring in young technicians, and these are people with—high 

school graduates who like to use computers. 

Now, I have a son who is soon to be a high school graduate and 

he spends a lot of time on computers, a little bit different than we 

expect but he is very talented now at, you know, controlling computers for things like computer games, and he is now also the head 

of his robotics team in high school, which is a similar sort of thing. 

So we have plenty of young students who would be great at machining, which is now a very exciting field, and the James Webb 

Space Telescope helped contribute to this company being able to 

hire people, and I certainly think jobs are what a lot of people 

think about, and these are very high-paying jobs. 

Chairman PALAZZO. The chair now recognizes Mr. Lucas. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the 

panel being here and their insights, and if we could for a moment 

slide perhaps back to a few more nuts and bolts. 

The challenge, I think, has been expressed rather clearly by all 

of you that James Webb is so unique or so different than Hubble 

in that whatever we put up has to work the first time. Those of 

us who were paying attention 25 years ago remember the initial 

trauma after the launch of Hubble, the miraculous repair job and 

the wondrous things accomplished from there and all of the service 

work and improvements and additions made, but this is a different 
85 

creature. This is a one-time shot. So I listened very closely to Director Chaplain’s comments about the seven years of testing and the 

various components and this and that and the other. 

Let us talk for a moment about this cryocooler business because 

my understanding is, we have to keep James Webb at an incredibly 

cool temperature to function, and that we are in effect creating 

technology as we go here or developing techniques to make this 

possible. Discuss for just a moment how complicated that particular issue, for instance, is, whoever would care to answer the 

question. Thank you, Mr. Grant. 

Mr. GRANT. I will be happy to. At Northrop Grumman Aerospace 

Systems, we have been building space-qualified cryocoolers now for 

many, many years, and they have flown successfully on many missions, both scientific and meteorological, and so we build these 

cryocoolers that operate at very low frequencies or very low vibrations so they don’t disturb the imaging system that they are attached to, and they have to operate very efficiently so they have 

a very efficient conversion of solar power to the mechanical compressor power. The unique elements of the MIRI cooler are, we 

have to do those things in addition to cooling far colder than we 

have put a space-qualified cooler at before. Coolers we build and 

operate today operate at about 70 degrees Kelvin. This one operates at 6 degrees Kelvin. And the whole observatory is operating 

in the optics at about 40 degrees Kelvin. So the instrument is cooler than the optical background temperature. 

Mr. LUCAS. And reminding us that zero Kelvin is absolute zero. 

Mr. GRANT. Correct, All molecular motion stops. You know, it is 

very cold. So it has to operate very cold and has to operate very 

efficiently. It has to export very low export forces and it has to operate with the cooler separated from the cold head assembly on the 

instrument module by about 30 feet. So there is an array of technical complexities in this cooler that made it far more difficult than 

coolers we have built before. 

I would say the good news is—well, the program started, and 

there wasn’t even going to be a cooler on it. It was going to be a 

dewer, a solid block of gas that would be frozen and then sublimated over time to cool the instrument. That would work, but it 

was very heavy and also runs out of gas. So the cooler has the possibility of operating in fact as some of ours have for decades. 

So we went to the cryocooler design in about 2006, if I recall, and 

since that time, we have made significant progress. Just this past 

year we got data that confirms its flight performance so we know 

it gets cold enough, it is efficient and has low exported forces. 

So we are at the point now in this development where most of 

the subassemblies have been delivered and this one last one is in 

its final stages of integration and test, so we are—it has been a 

very long, tough, challenging road for us to be on, but as we speak 

today, we are very close to the last delivery. 

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Mather, thinking back to 20-some years ago 

when all of the issues were addressed on Hubble and it became 

kind of a ‘‘wow’’ moment for most of the human race that cared, 

all goes well, all the targets are met, all the flight operations are 

smooth, we park it way out there in the proper place, everything 
86 

switches on, are we going to have that magnitude of a ‘‘wow’’ moment again? 

Dr. MATHER. I certainly expect so. I wouldn’t be doing this if I 

didn’t think so, and by the way, I wanted to add one thing to—— 

Mr. LUCAS. Please. 

Dr. MATHER. —his testimony that only one of the instruments requires that cooler. The telescope and the other three instruments 

cool down by themselves just because they are hidden behind the 

big umbrella. So there is a risk but it is not a huge risk if there 

is any problem with that. 

So we are certainly going to point the telescope at beautiful 

things and get great pictures. We expect amazing discoveries ranging from the first stars and galaxies to the formation of stars and 

planets close to him in places like that beautiful eagle nebula. We 

certainly want to see those little exoplanets like Earth if there are 

any orbiting around stars way out there to see if they are wet, like 

do they have oceans. So there is this huge array of wonderful questions to answer, and I think nature may just cooperate and give us 

answers. So that is our plan, and I think it will be very exciting 

times for us. 

Mr. LUCAS. So as they would say in the coffee shops back home, 

if something is winking at us, we will know it. 

Dr. MATHER. Yes. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, gentlemen and ladies. I appreciate it very 

much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Mr. Lucas. We enjoy talking 

about the nuts and bolts as much as Mr. Posey’s steak and sizzle. 

I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony and the Members for their questions. The record will remain open for two weeks 

for additional written comments and written questions from Members. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(87) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
88 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. John Grunsfeld 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 

Responses by Ms. Cristina Chaplain 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 

Responses by Mr. Jeffrey Grant 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 

Responses by Dr. John Mather 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 

(161) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
162 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY FULL COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Good morning. I want to join Chairman Palazzo and Ranking 

Member Edwards in welcoming our witnesses. I look forward to 

hearing from each of you today. 

We are here to discuss the James Webb Space Telescope-JWSTwhich is scheduled to launch in October of 2018. This morning’s 

hearing is not the first this Committee has held on JWST. We held 

a hearing in December 2011 after the project was replanned following an independent review that found significant cost and 

schedule growth. Today we will hear how well NASA and its main 

industry partner, Northrop Grumman, are sticking to that plan. 

And given the complexity involved in building and testing a telescope of JWST’s magnitude, it should come as no surprise that we 

will also hear of the many challenges that need to be addressed before the project is completed. I hope we can be assured today that 

NASA and its partners are taking all necessary steps to keep 

JWST on track. 

We need to provide the necessary Congressional funding to ensure this project gets completed on time and on budget, consistent 

with the National Academies’ decadal survey that ranked this telescope as the top priority for space-based astrophysics over a decade 

ago. I am pleased that Dr. Mather, the 2006 Nobel Laureate in 

physics, is here today to tell us about the transformational science 

that JWST will carry out, including making observations that will 

teach us about how galaxies, stars and planets formed—the very 

roots of our Universe. I also hope to hear about JWST’s capabilities 

for studying extrasolar planets for clues that could signal the potential for life there. The nation has taken on an impressive challenge in developing, building, and completing JWST, and we need 

to be good stewards of our taxpayers’ investment in this project. 

That said, I have no doubt that JWST’s discoveries will rewrite 

the astronomy textbooks, just as the Hubble’s science has already 

done. I can’t imagine a better legacy. Because somewhere in a 

backyard, on a school playground, or in a bedroom with an open 

window on a dark starry night, there’s a child who wonders what 

the Universe is all about, and JWST’s observations will feed that 

child’s imagination and hunger for knowledge.Thank you and I 

yield back the balance of my time. 

Æ