U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

20–838PDF 2017

AN OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROPOSAL 

FOR THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

March 17, 2016 

Serial No. 114–68 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

DRAIN LAHOOD, Illinois 

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 

DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

MARK TAKANO, California 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE

HON. BRIAN BABIN, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

AMI BERA, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

March 17, 2016 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Brian Babin, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Space, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 24 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 26 

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

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

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 28 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 30 

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

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 32 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 34 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 37 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 38 

Witnesses: 

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

and Space Administration 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 39 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 42 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 51 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

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

and Space Administration ................................................................................... 73 

(1) 

AN OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROPOSAL 

FOR THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 

THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2016 

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, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian Babin [Chairman 

of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 

Chairman BABIN. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to 

declare recesses of the Subcommittee at any time. 

I’d like to welcome everyone today to the hearing entitled ‘‘An 

Overview of the Budget Proposal for the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration for Fiscal Year 2017.’’ 

And I recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

The first and perhaps most important point that I want to make 

today is that NASA is a worthwhile investment for the taxpayer 

and for our nation. Space is as important to our future as were the 

frontiers of land, sea, and air that we faced in the past. NASA’s 

mission to explore outer space and to use outer space for the benefit of our nation and for mankind is an endeavor worthy of a great 

nation, which we are. 

NASA as an agency, its employees, and contractors deserve our 

praise. I represent the 36th District of Texas and the home of the 

Johnson Space Center. I can say from personal experience talking 

with the folks out at Johnson that, regardless of the budgetary and 

policy differences in Congress and within the Administration, they 

are very passionate and are dedicated to NASA’s mission. 

Unfortunately, this Administration has once again done a disservice to NASA, its employees, and our nation by providing a 

budget request that ignores the budget agreement, requesting mandatory funding for NASA. I had hoped that the Administration 

would demonstrate leadership by proposing a realistic budget, but 

instead, we were presented with a list of unfunded priorities. 

The Administration has also once again disregarded the priorities of previous bipartisan NASA funding bills that the President 

signed. For example, even if we include the so-called mandatory 

budget request, the budget proposal cuts the Space Launch System, 

or SLS, and Orion crew capsule by $840 million and the Planetary 

Science Division by $133 million. Without the mandatory funding, 

SLS and Orion are cut by $1 billion. Planetary Science is cut by 

$261 million. This is not acceptable. This is a budget that takes our 

human spaceflight program nowhere fast. This budget undermines 

our space program and diverts critical funding to lower-priority 

items. 

I have been, and continue to be, concerned that the support in 

Congress and at NASA for the SLS and Orion programs is not 

matched by the Administration. The Administration consistently 

requests large reductions for these programs despite the insistence 

of Congress that they be priorities. Orion and SLS are strategic national assets and must be sufficiently funded. 

Proposed cuts to the Planetary Science Division are equally disturbing. The pipeline for outer-planet missions has been woefully 

under-prioritized. It is critical that our nation maintain a robust 

outer-planet exploration program. 

Already, the effects of this diminished cadence are being felt. To 

keep their staff employed, planetary science institutions increasingly seek funding from foreign space agencies to compensate for 

the lack of projects. This results in transference of valuable skills 

and knowledge out of the United States to countries like China. 

Experienced planetary scientists are also transitioning to other 

fields, while young scientists are choosing to not enter the field at 

all, gutting our national capacity in planetary science. This is dis-
25 

turbing and unacceptable and just plain bad for America from 

many viewpoints. 

It is important that NASA maintains a balanced portfolio of 

science activities. Unfortunately, year after year, this Administration has requested disproportionate increases for Earth science activities, activities that are already funded by more than a dozen 

other federal agencies. This year, the President’s proposal seeks to 

increase the science budget by $111 million, a six percent increase. 

This amounts to a 70 percent increase since 2007. If this money 

had been put toward our human spaceflight program, I don’t think 

that we would be spending hundreds of millions on Russian launch 

services. 

The request also dilutes NASA’s existing Earth science research 

portfolio by conducting other agencies’ work. It is developing climate sensors for NOAA and land-imaging capabilities for USGS. 

While NASA certainly has the expertise to do this work, they don’t 

have the budget or the requirements. NOAA is tasked with maintaining operational climate measurements, and USGS is tasked to 

maintain Landsat measurements. This budget makes NASA the 

piggy bank for other agencies. That must end. 

If NASA is tasked to do other agency’s work, it should do so on 

a reimbursable basis, as it does successfully for other programs 

such as the Joint Polar Satellite System and the Geostationary 

Operational Environmental Satellite System. 

Our nation has been spacefaring since 1958, only 58 years. And 

while we have accomplished great things in these 58 years, there 

is so much more to learn and to discover and to put to practical 

use for the benefit of our nation and all mankind. But we as a nation will not be leading this journey unless we adequately fund 

NASA’s human spaceflight and planetary science missions. 

Other nations, such as China, are working overtime to displace 

American and become the global leader in space exploration. The 

consequences of America getting it right or wrong are not immediate, but they are enormous. The rules are going to be made by 

those countries that are on the surface of the moon and Mars, not 

those that have stayed home. 

I want to thank Administrator Bolden for his testimony, and I 

look forward to a robust discussion. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Babin follows:] 
26 
27 
28 

Chairman BABIN. And now, I recognize the Ranking Member, the 

gentlewoman from Maryland, for an opening statement. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Chairman Babin, and 

thank you for calling this hearing to examine the fiscal year 2017 

budget request for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA. 

I’d like to start by joining you in welcoming our good friend and 

inspiring leader and exemplar of public service, Administrator General Charlie Bolden. Thank you, General Bolden, for your service 

to our nation. And we are very fortunate to have you at the helm 

of our nation’s space agency for your consistency, your steadfastness. 

Mr. Chairman, our space program is a shining example of what 

we can accomplish as a nation when we harness the talents of our 

workforce and the capabilities of our industry, academia, and international partners. The fiscal year 2017 budget request for NASA is $19 billion, a 

1.3 percent reduction from the enacted appropriation for fiscal year 

2016. And I would like to say that I was very pleased with that 

enacted appropriation. And so while this proposal is a good starting 

point for the Administration for this morning’s discussion, I hope 

that we can at least get to the $19.3 billion level that Congress appropriated for NASA in fiscal year 2016. It’s a gentle dance that 

we do every year. 

I’m pleased that the request proposes to revitalize our nation’s 

aeronautics research activities with an exciting initiative to use ‘‘Xplanes’’ to demonstrate technologies leading to cleaner, quieter, and 

more efficient aircraft. Demonstrating and applying advanced technologies is important to maintaining our competitive edge and sustaining the significant economic benefits that commercial aviation 

provides. 

And I’m heartened that the request proposes increases above the 

levels provided in the fiscal year 2016 appropriations for the safety, 

security, and mission services account, which, among other things, 

provides the funding to operate NASA’s field centers, including the 

Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland. 

I’m also pleased that the request would sustain a robust science 

program composed of research and data analysis grants and small 

and medium and large missions, including development of high-priority missions such as the James Webb Space Telescope, the WideField Infrared Survey Telescope, the Europa Clipper, the Mars 

2020 Rover, and the Solar Probe Plus missions. NASA’s science 

programs are furthering our knowledge of our home planet and 

opening new windows into our universe. And if humanity is one 

day to extend its presence beyond Earth, we will need the scientific 

understanding to do just that. We’ll also need to take a series of 

steps along a pathway involving technology development, demonstration of operational capabilities, and development and testing 

of exploration systems to make that move. 

And while NASA has developed a ‘‘Journey to Mars’’ strategy 

that provides an initial outline of a pathway to Mars, we shouldn’t 

have to say it again, but we need a baseline roadmap and structure 

to support such a multi-decadal endeavor, and we need that now. 

Such a roadmap would help put in sharp focus the impacts that the 
29 

proposed reductions to the Space Launch System and the Orion 

crew vehicle, a combined 22 percent from the fiscal year 2016 enacted level, would have on making progress towards the humansto-Mars goal. 

Frankly, I’m a little bit puzzled by the deja vu we’re experiencing 

with the proposed reductions to the SLS and Orion programs. I 

share that concern that the Chairman has expressed from the levels Congress appropriated just this past fiscal year in 2016. 

Even more puzzling and somewhat concerning is a continued talk 

of targeting an internal date for the first crewed Orion and SLS 

flight and the EM–2 mission in 2021 when the resources being requested are actually geared to a 2023 date, and so that needs some 

explaining. The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel raised caution 

about this kind of approach in its 2015 annual report when it said 

‘‘NASA has briefed the ASAP on measures... that appear to be 

making safety tradeoffs in order to maintain a 2021 EM–2 launch 

schedule.’’ The ASAP went on to say ‘‘while the desire to fly crew 

on Orion as soon as possible is understandable, NASA is building 

a long-term exploration program and adjustments to the near-term 

schedule or mission content that result in far safer systems can be 

an advantageous trade.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, I know that you and I and many of our colleagues 

here this morning want to get to Mars sooner rather than later, 

but we must establish an enduring system that will get us there 

and back safely time and time again. To do so, we need to ask ourselves some important questions. Will Congress and NASA be able 

to establish the budgetary and programmatic discipline required to 

meet this goal? Will this committee and the Congress be true to 

providing the funding stability, sustainability, and constancy of 

purpose that we and others have said are critical for NASA as we 

prepare to transition to a new Administration less than a year from 

now? How will we navigate the bifurcated 2017 budget request, including both mandatory and discretionary funding, to provide the 

necessary stability? 

And, Mr. Chairman, we owe our next generation a vibrant space 

agency, in partnership with industry, academia, and international 

partners, to continue its historic mission and to pursue the goal of 

one day sending humans to the surface of Mars. The future is now. 

The choice is ours, and it’s up to us to ensure the future of our 

space program is a bright one. 

I want to also acknowledge the presence here today of our future, 

Kendra Wood, who’s an intern in my office and a graduate of the 

University of Maryland Eastern Shore. She is a superstar, and we 

owe it to her generation, also to our visitors from Spelman College, 

a senior at Spelman, Antonia Hill, who’s visiting with us here 

today. And so let’s keep these young people in mind as we talk 

about the future of space. 

And I yield the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Edwards follows:] 
30 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE

RANKING MEMBER DONNA F. EDWARDS (D–MD) 

Chairman Babin, thank you for calling this hearing to examine the Fiscal Year 

2017 budget request for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration— 

NASA. 

I’d like to start by joining you in welcoming a friend, an inspiring leader, and an 

exemplar of public service, Administrator Charlie Bolden. Thank you, General Bolden, for your service to our nation. We are fortunate to have you at the helm of our 

nation’s space agency. 

Mr. Chairman, our space program is a shining example of what we can accomplish as a nation when we harness the talents of our workforce and the capabilities 

of our industry, academia, and international partners. The Fiscal Year 2017 budget request for NASA is $19 billion—a 1.3 percent reduction from the enacted appropriation for Fiscal Year 2016. While this proposal is good 

starting point for this morning’s discussion, I hope that we can at least get to the 

$19.3 billion level that Congress appropriated for NASA in Fiscal Year 2016. 

I am pleased that the request proposes to revitalize our nation’s aeronautics research activities with an exciting initiative to use ‘‘X-Planes’’ to demonstrate technologies leading to cleaner, quieter, and more efficient aircraft. Demonstrating and 

applying advanced technologies is important to maintaining our competitive edge 

and sustaining the significant economic benefits that commercial aviation provides. 

And, I’m heartened that the request proposes increases above the levels provided 

in the FY 2016 appropriations for the Safety, Security, and Mission Services account 

which, among other things, provides the funding to operate NASA’s field centers, 

including the Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland. 

I am also pleased that the request would sustain a robust Science program composed of research and data analysis grants and small, medium, and large missions, 

including development of high-priority missions such as the James Webb Space Telescope, the Wide-field Infrared Survey Telescope, the Europa Clipper, the Mars 2020 

rover, and the Solar Probe Plus missions. 

NASA’s science programs are furthering our knowledge of our home planet and 

opening new windows into our universe. And, if humanity is to one day extend its 

presence beyond Earth, we will need the scientific understanding to do so. 

We will also to need to take a series of steps along a pathway involving technology 

development, demonstration of operational capabilities, and development and testing of exploration systems to make that move. 

While NASA has developed a Journey to Mars strategy that provides an initial 

outline of a pathway to Mars, we need a baseline roadmap and structure to support 

such a multidecadal endeavor. Such a roadmap would help put in sharper focus the 

impacts that the proposed reductions to the Space Launch System (SLS) and the 

Orion crew vehicle—a combined 22 percent from the FY 2016 enacted level—would 

have on making progress toward the humans-to-Mars goal. 

Frankly, I am puzzled by the deja vu we are experiencing with the proposed reductions to the SLS and Orion programs from the levels Congress appropriated for 

Fiscal Year 2016. Even more puzzling and somewhat concerning is the continued 

talk of targeting an internal date for the first crewed Orion and SLS flight—the 

EM-2 mission—in 2021 when the resources being requested are geared to a 2023 

date. 

The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel raised caution about this approach in its 

2015 Annual Report when it said, ‘‘NASA has briefed the ASAP on measures.that 

appear to be making safety trade-offs in order to maintain a 2021 EM-2 launch 

schedule.’’ 

The ASAP went on to say, ‘‘While the desire to fly crew on Orion as soon as possible is understandable, NASA is building a long-term exploration program, and adjustments to the near-term schedule or mission content that result in far safer systems can be an advantageous trade.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, I know that you, I, and many of our colleagues here this morning 

want to get to Mars sooner rather than later. But we’ve got to establish an enduring 

system that will get us there and back safely, time and time again. To do so, we 

need to ask ourselves some important questions. 

• Will Congress and NASA be able to establish the budgetary and programmatic 

discipline required to meet this goal? 

• Will this Committee and Congress be true to providing the funding stability, 

sustainability and constancy of purpose that we and others have said are critical for NASA as we prepare to transition to a new Administration less than 

a year from now? 
31 

• How will we navigate the bifurcated FY 2017 budget request, including both 

‘‘mandatory’’ and discretionary funding, to provide the necessary stability? 

Mr. Chairman, we owe our next generation a vibrant space agency, in partnership 

with industry, academia, and international partners, to continue its historic mission 

and to pursue the goal of one day sending humans to the surface of Mars. The future is now. The choice is ours. It is up to us to ensure the future of our space program is a bright one. 

Thank you and I yield back. 
32 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. 

I now recognize the Chairman of our full committee, Mr. Smith. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And Administrator Bolden, welcome. I’m glad you’re here. 

Mr. Chairman, this committee has demonstrated time and again 

that U.S. leadership in space is a bipartisan priority. I believe that 

many of the hardworking scientists, engineers, and innovators 

working at NASA share our interest in ensuring America leads the 

world in space. 

There are some areas of agreement between the Committee and 

the Administration in NASA’s fiscal year 2017 budget request. But 

this proposed budget continues to tie our astronauts’ feet to the 

ground and makes a Mars mission all but impossible. This budget cuts funding for human exploration by nearly $1 billion, and robotic exploration by almost a quarter of a billion dollars. 

The budget request once again underfunds the Space Launch System and Orion programs. This Administration cannot continue to 

tout plans to send astronauts to Mars while strangling the programs that will take them there. 

The Administration also attempts to redistribute funding within 

NASA’s Science Mission Directorate. For example, Jupiter’s moon 

Europa is one of the most promising destinations we have in our 

own solar system for finding life beyond our planet. However, this 

year’s request of only $17 million for the Europa mission is incredibly disappointing considering the mission’s potential. This represents roughly a 90 percent reduction from the fiscal year 2016 

level. 

However, support for other priorities such as the James Webb 

Space Telescope, the Transitioning Exoplanet Survey Satellite, and 

the Wide-Field Infrared Space Telescope is encouraging. Missions 

like these, as well as their search for exoplanets and signs of life 

in other areas of our universe, captivate the American public’s 

imagination. 

Overall, though, there is a lack of balance in the science account 

request. One of the most glaring examples is the disproportionate 

increase in the Earth Science Division receives at the expense of 

other science divisions and human and robotic space exploration. 

This represents a 70 percent increase for the Earth Science Division since the fiscal year 2007 request. Over the same period, 

NASA’s overall yearly budget has only increased 20 percent. 

The Earth science budget request is 42 percent more than the 

planetary science budget request. In fact, the planetary science 

budget request is a reduction of $113 million over last year’s level. 

The Earth science request also is more than the Astrophysics Division, the James Webb Space Telescope, and the Heliophysics Division combined. There are 13 other federal agencies involved in 

Earth science research but only one that is responsible for space 

science and exploration, and that’s NASA. 

This budget also proposes $223 million to fund the uninspiring 

Asteroid Retrieval and Redirect Mission. On April 15, 2010, the 

President directed NASA to conduct a crewed mission to an asteroid by 2025. Then, with the 2014 budget request, the Administration changed course and directed NASA to redirect an asteroid to 

orbit the moon and then visit that asteroid in lunar orbit. Then, 
33 

last year, NASA decided to only remove and redirect a boulder 

from a larger asteroid. 

Originally scheduled for 2017, then 2020, this budget request 

now slips the first robotic launch to 2021. The crewed encounter 

will also slip to 2026 and more likely later based on SLS mission 

requirements. In practical terms, the President’s own budget delays 

the ARM beyond the next Administration’s second term. 

All of NASA’s advisory bodies have criticized the project. International interest is absent. The scientific community is 

unimpressed. The Administration continues to push this mission on 

NASA without any connection to a larger exploration roadmap and 

absent support from the scientific community or NASA’s own advisory committees. 

It is NASA’s responsibility to provide a compelling plan for space 

exploration and execute it. It is Congress’s responsibility to ensure 

NASA’s budget is prioritized and funded. This committee will do 

everything in its power to support American leadership in space. 

Mr. Chairman, before I yield back, let me compliment Administrator Bolden because I think he is a committed public servant. I 

think he is doing the best job anybody can do under the circumstances. And I have a hunch if he were writing this budget, it 

might vary slightly from the Administration’s proposed budget. 

You don’t need to respond to that, Administrator Bolden, we all 

have our different priorities. But this is simply to say I appreciate 

the job that you’re doing, and I continue to be impressed with your 

sincerity and dedication. 

With that I’ll yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:] 
34 
35 
36 
37 

Chairman BABIN. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I concur. 

I now recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Johnson of the full 

committee, for a five minute statement. 

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

Let me comment before my time starts on how pleased I am to 

hear those remarks from my Chairman. And I really agree with 

him, and that’s extraordinary. 

Let me say good morning to everyone and to acknowledge that 

I have a student here with me today, Adia Moss, who is a senior 

at Spelman, and hasten to say that I appreciate the long and distinguished service to our nation and your steady leadership of 

NASA, General Bolden. We know that this is a challenging and exciting time in the agency’s history. I know how passionately you 

care about the nation’s space and aeronautics program, and I look 

forward to hearing your testimony today. 

Today’s hearing marks the beginning of the Committee’s consideration of the President’s fiscal year 2017 NASA budget request. 

The $19 billion budget request is a strong endorsement by the 

President of the important role that NASA plays. We send budgets 

out of here with a lot less, and then we complain about what the 

President is doing, which is, to them, a lot less. 

This is not to say that this is perfect for a NASA budget request, 

but I do agree with all the elements of it. It is a good starting 

point. It is Congress’s deliberations. It is our responsibility to send 

what we feel is a responsible budget because it is what our focus 

should be today, what we want NASA to accomplish, and what we 

are willing to invest in NASA to do it so that we can achieve those 

objectives. 

It may be tempting for some of us to spend our time criticizing 

the President for what they consider shortcomings in his budget request, but I think it’s not a good use of anybody’s time. The President has submitted his NASA budget request to Congress. It is now 

our job to determine the funding that NASA will receive and the 

policies it will follow. If we fail to do that, we will have no one to 

blame but ourselves. 

That said, there is much to recommend in this NASA budget request. For example, I’m excited by the aeronautics initiative. I 

know the important role that aviation plays in our economy and 

our society, and NASA’s R&D has long provided the underpinnings 

of new capabilities in aviation. I’m also pleased by the investments 

made in NASA’s science and technology activities. History shows us 

that these investments will pay dividends in increased knowledge 

and new technological capabilities. 

On the other hand, I’m disappointed that the funding for the 

Space Launch System and the Orion spacecraft, the systems that 

are essential elements of the nation’s future human exploration initiatives, have been cut in this budget request. We can change that 

if we wish. Such cuts add just one more challenge to those already 

facing the team of dedicated men and women who are working so 

hard to turn these exploration goals into reality. I would anticipate 

that Congress will reaffirm its support for SLS and the Orion by 

the time this year’s funding deliberations are complete. 
38 

Which brings me to one final observation, namely, we will have 

a new President by this time next year. I know that there are those 

in NASA who feel the pressure to accomplish as much as possible 

on the new exploration systems before a new Administrator takes 

power. That’s understandable. But it can wind up doing more harm 

than good. In its latest report, the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel 

has raised concerns that perceived schedule pressure, whether external or self-imposed, can lead to excessive levels of risk being 

taken on in order to try to meet arbitrary deadlines. That’s not the 

path to a sustainable or a successful program. 

I hope that NASA management and workers will heed the 

ASAP’s concern and not defer needed testing or make overly optimistic commitments in a shortsighted attempt to keep those programs alive in advance of a new Presidential Administration taking 

power. To all those NASA and contract employees, I would simply 

say, Congress supports SLS and Orion and commercial crew, and 

we will continue to do so no matter what we say here to make the 

news or the record. We will do this in spite of a new President taking office. We know that what we do actually is rocket science. So 

take time and the testing needed to do it right. 

With that, Administrator Bolden, I again want to welcome you. 

I look forward to your testimony. And I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FULL COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (D–TX) 

Good morning. I would like to join the Chairman in welcoming Administrator 

Bolden to today’s hearing. 

Administrator Bolden, I appreciate your long and distinguished service to our nation and your steady leadership at NASA during a challenging and exciting time 

in the agency’s history. I know how passionately you care about the nation’s space 

and aeronautics programs, and I look forward to hearing your testimony today. 

Today’s hearing marks the beginning of the Committee’s consideration of the 

President’s FY 2017 NASA budget request. This $19 billion budget request is a 

strong endorsement by the President of the important role that NASA plays in advancing America’s R&D enterprise, and I appreciate his willingness to attach a high 

priority to NASA in this, his last Federal budget request. 

That is not to say that it is a perfect NASA budget request or that I agree with 

all elements of it. But it is a good starting point for Congress’s deliberations. 

Because that is what our focus should be today-what do we want NASA to accomplish and what are we willing to invest in NASA so that it can achieve those objectives. 

It may be tempting for some to want to spend their time criticizing the President 

for what they consider shortcomings in his budget request, but I think that is not 

a good use of anyone’s time. 

The President has submitted his NASA budget request to Congress. It is now our 

job to determine the funding NASA will receive and the policies it will follow. If we 

fail to do that, we will have no one to blame but ourselves. 

That said, there is much to recommend in this NASA budget request. For example, I am excited by the Aeronautics initiative-I know the important role that aviation plays in our economy and our society, and NASA’s R&D has long provided the 

underpinnings for new capabilities in aviation. 

I also am pleased by the investments made in NASA’s science and technology activities. 

History shows that those investments will pay dividends in increased knowledge 

and new technological capabilities. On the other hand, I am disappointed that the 

funding for the Space Launch System and the Orion spacecraft—the systems that 

are essential elements of the nation’s future human exploration initiatives—has 

been cut in this budget request. 
39 

Such cuts add just one more challenge to those already facing the team of dedicated men and women who are working so hard to turn those exploration goals into 

reality. I would anticipate that Congress will reaffirm its support for SLS and Orion 

by the time this year’s funding deliberations are complete. 

Which brings me to one final observation, namely, we will have a new President 

by this time next year. I know that there are those in NASA who feel the pressure 

to accomplish as much as possible on the new exploration systems before a new Administration takes power. 

That is understandable, but it can wind up doing more harm than good. In its 

latest report, the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel has raised concerns that perceived schedule pressure—whether external or self-imposed—can lead to excessive 

levels of risk being taken on in order to try to meet an arbitrary deadline. That’s 

not the path to a sustainable or a successful program. 

I hope that NASA management and workers will heed the ASAP’s concerns and 

not defer needed testing or make over-optimistic commitments in a shortsighted attempt to keep those programs alive in advance of a new Presidential administration 

taking power. To all those NASA and contractor employees I would simply say: Congress supports SLS and Orion and Commercial Crew, and we will continue to do 

so when a new President takes office. We know that what you do actually is ′′rocket 

science′′, so take the time and the testing needed to do it right. 

With that, Administrator Bolden, I again want to welcome you, and I look forward 

to your testimony. 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you. 

They have called votes, so we’re going to move right along here. 

I’d like to introduce our first and our only witness today, and 

that is Hon. Charles F. Bolden, Jr. General Bolden has been the 

Administrator of NASA since 2009, and he’s a man who has devoted his entire career in service to our country, and I thank him 

for that. 

Prior to becoming Administrator, General Bolden served for 34 

years in the Marine Corps, including 14 years as a member of 

NASA’s Astronaut Office. General Bolden has traveled to orbit four 

times aboard the space shuttle, including the flight the deployed 

the Hubble Space Telescope. General Bolden has several honorary 

doctorates from a variety of prestigious universities and received 

his bachelor’s in electrical science from the U.S. Naval Academy. 

I would add that General Bolden and I share the honor of having 

our sons graduate from the U.S. Naval Academy as well. His son 

Che is a Naval aviator currently, and my son Leif was a Navy 

SEAL. 

Now, let’s hear from General Bolden for the next five minutes. 

Thank you, General. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR., 

ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

Hon. BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And to you 

and the Members of the Committee, it is indeed a pleasure and an 

honor to discuss with you today President Obama’s $19 billion fiscal year 2017 budget request for NASA. 

And as I had to do the day before yesterday, I want to make sure 

that my position is not mischaracterized by the Chairman and others. This is my budget, and I had to battle—— 

Chairman SMITH. Then I’ll have to retract all those nice compliments I gave you. 

Hon. BOLDEN. That’s why I want to make sure that the compliments are earned and not just said to be nice. 
40 

I am very proud of this budget, and I think all of you know that 

when it comes budget time, you go into deliberations, and I have 

two sets of deliberations. I go into deliberations with the Administration, and then I come and what I would like to do is be involved 

in the deliberations with the Congress on how the budget turns 

out. 

So I’m very proud of the budget that we’re presenting today because it builds on what I think was an incredible budget from this 

Congress in fiscal year 2016, and I cannot thank you enough for 

that. You made us feel needed and appreciated, and we want to 

keep doing that. So that’s what we tried to do with this budget. 

It’s been my honor to serve as the NASA Administrator throughout the Obama Administration and, as we submit what is likely my 

final budget—yes, ma’am—I am proud of the many things this 

agency has accomplished on behalf of the American people with the 

resources the President and the Congress have committed to us 

over the past seven years. Together, we have enabled our nation 

to continue leading the world in space exploration and scientific 

discovery. 

Two weeks ago, American astronaut Scott Kelly returned home 

from the International Space Station after 12 months working off 

the Earth for the Earth. His year in space will pay scientific and 

medical dividends for years to come, helping pave the way for future astronauts to travel to Mars and beyond. Commander Kelly 

significantly advanced our Journey to Mars, and I trust that you 

join me in saluting his service to our nation. 

NASA is closer to sending American astronauts to Mars than at 

any point in human history, and this budget will keep us moving 

forward. The support of this committee and the Congress is essential to this journey. The International Space Station is the cornerstone of our exploration strategy. Thanks to the determination and 

ingenuity of American industry, we have returned space station 

cargo resupply launches to U.S. soil, in-sourced jobs, and helped establish a new private market in low-Earth orbit. 

American companies are now ferrying supplies to our astronauts 

on the space station from the United States with Orbital ATK set 

to launch again later this month and SpaceX targeting a resupply 

mission in early April, both from the Kennedy Space Center. In 

July, Orbital will conduct a return-to-flight mission from the Wallops Flight Facility. 

Thanks to the Administration’s decision to invest in American industry and to the full funding we received from Congress for 2016, 

spearheaded by this Committee, this Committee was the first to 

propose full funding for the President’s commercial crew program, 

and I really appreciate that. But now Boeing and SpaceX continue 

to make great progress towards certification in 2017 to safely 

transport our astronauts to the space station from U.S. soil, ending 

our sole reliance on Russia once and for all. 

NASA is making significant progress on the Journey to Mars, developing our newest, most powerful rocket ever built, the Space 

Launch System and Orion crew vehicle, as part of the sustainable 

and affordable deep space exploration system. This budget supports 

the agency’s baseline commitment for an un-crewed test flight of 

SLS and Orion in 2018 and a crewed flight by 2023. With addi-
41 

tional funding provided by the Congress, the teams will continue 

to work toward an earlier launch date for the first crewed mission 

and are already designing and procuring long lead hardware for 

subsequent missions. 

The budget also increases funding for habitation systems development, a key component of our steppingstone strategy to send humans to Mars. The President’s budget funds a robust science program with dozens of operating missions studying our solar system, 

the universe, and the most important planet in our solar system, 

Earth. This coming July 4, Independence Day, the Juno spacecraft 

will orbit Jupiter while the Cassini spacecraft will prepare to execute its dramatic grand finale, orbits of Saturn. OSIRIS–REx will 

launch to a near-Earth asteroid to collect a sample for return to 

Earth in 2023. In 2017 and 2018, NASA will launch seven exciting 

space science missions, including the James Webb Space Telescope. 

Before we send humans to Mars, robots are paving the way with 

Mars InSight now targeted for launch in 2018. Another Mars rover 

set to launch in 2020, joining the Curiosity and Opportunity rovers 

now exploring the red planet and work underway to define the next 

Mars mission for 2022. 

We are formulating missions to explore Jupiter’s moon Europa, 

as well as WFIRST designed to study dark energy, perform galactic 

and extragalactic surveys, and explore exoplanets. We’re accelerating the building of Landsat 9 as part of our sustainable landimaging architecture to continue our 40-year record of high-quality 

measurements of Earth’s land cover. 

NASA technology drives exploration. With this request, NASA 

will continue to conduct rapid development and incorporation of 

transformative missions—space technology missions to enable future human and robotic missions, increase capabilities of other U.S. 

agencies, and address aerospace industry challenges. Space technology investments will ensure that we continue to lead the world 

in exploration and scientific discovery. 

NASA’s aeronautics program advances U.S. global leadership by 

developing and transferring key enabling technologies to make 

aviation safer, more efficient, and more environmentally friendly. 

With this request, NASA aeronautics is ready to take the next step 

to develop and fly X-plane demonstrators in partnership with industry and academia, including ultra-efficient subsonic transport 

experimental aircraft in the world’s first low-boom supersonic flight 

demonstrator. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the support that we have received 

from this committee through the years, and I look forward to your 

questions. And I, too, would like to commend the young ladies who 

are in the audience today, all of them, but a special shout-out to 

the ones from Spelman since that is also the alma mater of my wife 

and my daughter. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bolden follows:] 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 

Chairman BABIN. Yes, sir, thank you. I appreciate you very, very 

much. 

And we stand adjourned—excuse me. We stand in recess until 

five minutes after this vote, okay? 

Ms. EDWARDS. He was like, easy. 

Chairman BABIN. No, don’t go anywhere, General. All right. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman BABIN. I would like to call us back to order after our 

recess and again thank General Bolden for his testimony. 

And now I’d like to recognize myself for five minutes of questions. 

And again, thank you for being here, General Bolden. I’d like to 

ask you a question about the budget, of course. The former space 

shuttle commander Eileen Collins was testifying before our committee probably less than, what, three weeks ago maybe about the 

decision to cancel the Constellation program. That was not made 

by NASA at all but by the White House. She said, ‘‘I believe the 

program cancellation decisions that are made by bureaucracies behind closed doors and without input by the people are divisive, 

damaging,’’ and she said ‘‘cowardly, and many times more expensive in the long run.’’ Similar complaints of White House meddling 

with NASA’s programs counter to NASA’s own program managers 

surrounds the SOFIA telescope aircraft, the Orion crew vehicle, 

Space Launch System, and various Mars missions. 

The point here is that this White House ignores NASA’s input 

but then tells you and your Associate Administrators to defend 

their decisions before Congress. And as you mentioned a while ago, 

maybe it’s not just all of his decisions. That’s what we’d like to find 

out. 

Did the White House consult you about this idea to fund NASA 

through mandatory spending accounts? 

Hon. BOLDEN. No, sir, they did not, but we had extensive discussions after we saw the budget and—because I asked the question 

of what’s the difference when I had my conversation or at least 

passing words between me and the OMB Director, I was assured 

that our budget is $19 billion. And so if you ask me to define for 

you what the difference is between mandatory and discretionary, 

I’m going to take it for the record—— 

Chairman BABIN. Right. 

Hon. BOLDEN. —because my budget is $19 billion. 

Chairman BABIN. Okay. And then without this mandatory spending, it looks like the White House’s proposed budget for NASA is 

about $1 billion less than Congress appropriated last year, which 

was $19.2 billion. The White House is wasting everyone’s time with 

its mandatory spending proposal and trying to obfuscate that 

they’re proposing to cut NASA’s budget by $1 billion. A continuing 

resolution would be better than this request. And why are you advocating a cut to NASA? 

Hon. BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I’m not advocating a cut to NASA. We are advocating a $19 billion budget, and to be quite honest, the 

reason it wasn’t $19.3 billion was because we had no idea that the 

’16 budget was going to be $19.3 billion. As I said before, we were 

all startled pleasantly to receive a $19.3 billion budget from the 

Congress. Had we had to pass our final numbers in prior to—had 
52 

we had the benefit of knowing what the ’16 budget was going to 

be, we would have asked for even more. 

But as I said before, I am very happy with the $19 billion settlement that we came up with in our negotiations with the Administration. And, you know, I think there are many other things that 

had to be compensated for, and that’s the reason that I think they 

chose to use mandatory and discretionary. 

There are some things that we didn’t count on last year, dealing 

with the census, dealing with some of our partners, for example, 

dealing with refugees. There are a lot of different issues that come 

up that come from the discretionary spending pool, and so, you 

know, the President has really tried to push research and development, technology development from the moment he became President, and this represented a way to do that. 

And I think if you look at what is in the mandatory section, it 

is mostly technology development, engineering type things, whether it’s in human exploration, science, or anywhere. 

Chairman BABIN. I understand, but with a nearly $20 trillion national debt, and the biggest problem being mandatory spending 

side of spending, that’s a tough nut to crack. 

Hon. BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Chairman BABIN. And I’d like to ask you about SLS and Orion. 

In this year’s budget request the Administration continues to play 

the game of back-and-forth with Congress on SLS and Orion funding, negatively impacting the schedule for getting American astronauts back into deep space exploration. 

NASA is formally committed to launch the first crewed mission 

of SLS and Orion known as EM–2 no later than 2023. The fiscal 

year 2017 request funds this commitment. At the same time, NASA 

says that it is internally planning for an EM–1 launch in 2021. 

Why doesn’t NASA simply request funding for a 2021 launch date? 

Hon. BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, the funds that we requested and 

came in the President’s budget request support our detailed estimate of how much it would cost and what the time would be to fly 

the first human mission in SLS and Orion, and that is 2023, utilizing a process that we call joint confidence level process, and it 

gives us a 70 percent confidence that our numbers are correct. So 

when we went through the formal process of evaluating based on 

what we assume the budget might be, that’s how we came up with 

the 2023 time. 

The Congress, when they appropriated more than was requested, 

that’s the number that we use when we say we’re working an internal number. You know, if the Congress decides that they want to 

plus SLS up every year, you would be on a path to an earlier 

launch. And the earlier launch, I don’t know what that date would 

be, but it would be earlier than the President’s budget request 

number. 

Chairman BABIN. Okay. Thank you very much. 

I’d like to recognize the gentlewoman from Maryland, please, 

for—— 

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

I want to follow on this date of the internal 2021 date versus the 

external 2023, but I want to go to a different place. The Aerospace 

Safety Advisory Panel in its 2015 annual report said that ‘‘NASA 
53 

had briefed the ASAP on measures... that appear to be making 

safety tradeoffs in order to maintain a 2021 EM–2 launch schedule.’’ And if ASAP thought it was important enough to raise, General Bolden, the question is whether there is pressure that’s been 

either perceived or real with regard to safety tradeoffs. 

And so I wonder if you’ve had an opportunity to talk to ASAP 

about this and what are you doing to ensure that the agency isn’t 

making near-term trades in trying to meet a schedule that could 

wind up negatively affecting the safety needed throughout a longterm exploration program? 

Hon. BOLDEN. Ms. Edwards, I talk to the ASAP all the time. I 

generally make the ASAP meetings when I travel to wherever they 

are, and Admiral Dyer and I have phone calls back and forth. 

I would emphasize to everyone, though, as the ASAP states in 

their report, we have done an awful lot over the last 5, six years. 

When you look at SLS core stages in production at Michoud, we 

just had a big test firing, 500-second firing on the main engine 

down at Stennis. The well for the Orion crew module was completed, and it’s been shipped to the cape so—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. Right. So those are the technologies. 

Hon. BOLDEN. Those are our accomplishments. 

Ms. EDWARDS. I’m talking about safety and the ASAP’s—— 

Hon. BOLDEN. Yes. 

Ms. EDWARDS. —concern with safety and whether this pressure 

to meet a 2023 external goal—2021 rather, whether that is too 

much to ensure the safety of the mission. 

Hon. BOLDEN. No one puts more emphasis on safety than the Administrator, than I do, and I share the ASAP’s concern that we not 

be blindly progressing toward a particular date, and that’s the reason that we have emphasized to the Congress before that, as far 

as we are concerned, as far as the date that the agency is committed to, it’s 2023. 

You know, if we are able to—there are two things that the ASAP 

pointed out in the report that you cite, and I’ll use the terms they 

use. They talked about sufficiency and timing when it comes to 

their concern about safety. Sufficiency is the level of funding we 

get. The most important thing is timing. When you get appropriations late each year, that means we’re operating with less money 

than we need. We’re holding on purchasing long lead items. We’re 

holding on everything. It’s disastrous to industry. They can’t plan. 

So that’s the concern that the ASAP has. 

And I think—I hope the Congress doesn’t miss their message. It’s 

a message to all of us that it’s not just important—it’s not just important to have a certain amount of money, but you need to be able 

to have a program, a development program that can count on getting the money when you need it. We went through this with—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, I—— 

Hon. BOLDEN. —commercial crew and—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. I mean, look, I share that concern, but let’s remember that we also went through, for different reasons, the Columbia disaster or Challenger disaster where there were these 

pressures for time—— 

Hon. BOLDEN. Yes. 
54 

Ms. EDWARDS. —that ended up in what ultimately sacrificed 

safety and cost lives. And I just want to make sure that we are 

paying attention to those things here. 

I want to go on to another—it would be great, I think, Mr. Chairman, if you were to hold a hearing at some point or other just examining this specific concern around safety that ASAP has raised 

and maybe we can get to the bottom of this. 

I want to ask you about Earth science in my time remaining. 

Some people have criticized the level of funding that’s been given 

to Earth science in the 2017 budget request. We heard that here 

today. And I think what’s so often not understood is how NASA’s 

Earth science missions and research affect the daily lives of Americans. And so I would like you to give us some concrete example of 

how Earth science missions and research have actually benefited 

the American people and our economy. 

Hon. BOLDEN. I’ll give you two, I think, really good examples. We 

have two missions. One is called SMAP, Soil Moisture Active Passive. The other one is called GRACE, and I don’t remember what 

the acronym stands for, but it looks at changes in Earth’s gravity, 

and it can therefore tell us what’s in a water reservoir under the 

surface of Earth. Those two missions have been used to help us 

with water issues out on the West Coast, as well as around the 

world. So they have both economic and strategic value. 

We look at a program called SERVIR that Earth science supports 

where we provide 30 years of archived Earth science data and realtime data from our Earth science satellites around the world to 

help farmers in crop planting, water resources management, disaster relief. An earthquake occurs somewhere and an Earth science 

satellite is put, you know, at work right away to try to help the 

disaster managers determine what to do. So those are just a couple 

of examples of what is done. 

Today, for example, in Texas and Louisiana we probably have a 

UAVSAR mission. It’s an airborne mission, not a satellite, airborne 

mission out of Armstrong with a synthetic aperture radar—— 

Chairman BABIN. That is happening. 

Hon. BOLDEN. —that’s helping to look at levees and dams and 

the like to detect where there may be leaks so that we can warn 

a community if—you know, we don’t do the warning but we provide 

the data to the state and local leaders so that they can make decisions. 

We’ve been credited with contributing to saving thousands of 

lives In Bangladesh last year with SMAP because it predicted it 

would—it enabled us to predict floods—flooding in the annual rains 

in Bangladesh. So those are concrete examples of how our Earth 

science program is not just a national program, it is an international program highly respected and counted on by nations 

around the world. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. 

Let’s see. The next one is Mr. Rohrabacher, the gentleman from 

California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. Thank you very much. 
55 

General, I notice—welcome. Important I share the Chairman’s 

and other people’s admiration and gratitude to you—— 

Hon. BOLDEN. Thank you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —for the service you’ve been to our country 

both as a Marine and both in your current position. I notice you’re 

wearing a green tie. 

Hon. BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Does that mean you’re Irish? 

Hon. BOLDEN. I am Irish through my daughter Kelly, who was 

born today. So—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. Kelly—— 

Hon. BOLDEN. —she is Kelly O’Bolden, born on St. Patrick’s Day. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Now, let’s see, there’s Kelly and there’s—and 

then we have Scott Kelly. 

Hon. BOLDEN. Scott Kelly, yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So maybe you could answer me. The question 

is I understand that the Mars rover has picked up these pictures 

that have been identified as various elements of a former civilization, and I do understand that they have found an ancient bottle 

of Guinness on Mars, is that correct? 

Hon. BOLDEN. I will go back and check that. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. 

Hon. BOLDEN. I’ll take that for the record. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And could it be that leprechauns were ancient aliens, space aliens? 

Hon. BOLDEN. I will take that for the record also, sir. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. Let me know about the line of questioning that we just had, and that is the projects that you outlined 

and our friends on the other side of the aisle are pushing for NASA 

to be involved in. We have no question about whether there is 

value to these Earth-related projects. The question is only whether 

they should be part of the NASA budget, and that’s our main area 

of debate here. 

And certainly if—now, I won’t put you on the spot, but the fact 

is if we weren’t doing some of the Earth science things and NASA’s 

budget could stay the same. If we took those items and put them 

into NOAA and other places that they belong or the USGS, for example, you know, then I would take it that you would not be as 

adamantly insisting how important they are, but maybe somebody 

else could be paying for it. 

Hon. BOLDEN. I would still insist that they’re critically important. Some of you may remember that in 2014 the President’s 

budget request proposed that funding for sustained land imaging, 

the Landsat program, come from the Department of Interior, from 

USGS’s budget—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Hon. BOLDEN. —and the Congress rejected that—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well—— 

Hon. BOLDEN. —and put the funds back in NASA—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Hon. BOLDEN. —simply because they felt that we were the appropriate organization to have it. 
56 

The other agencies of the government, we provide the design, the 

build, the production and checkout for all the imaging satellites, almost all that are—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. 

Hon. BOLDEN. —in the civil sector. The other agencies don’t have 

that capability, and so it’s a partnership, and it’s worked for 43 

years now in the case of Landsat. And, you know, NOAA today has 

an effective orbiting weather satellite—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Hon. BOLDEN. —when they’re a little bit better off than folk 

on—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I do understand NOAA aren’t you compensated from the NOAA budget for what you’re doing with NOAA 

there, as compared to the Geological Survey? 

Hon. BOLDEN. We are indeed. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So I would imagine that if we could actually 

fund these other—the Earth sciences and not take it out of your 

budget, that it would be something that would be positive, but I 

won’t put you on the spot on that. 

The—let’s note that another thing that’s saving us money, however, is the commercial crew. And I want to thank all of my colleagues and thank you for the leadership that you’ve shown in trying to show this cost-saving methodology of bringing the private 

sector in when we can and then letting NASA focus on those things 

that the private sector can’t do. 

And I know that Virgin Galactic right now is deeply involved in 

developing suborbital space transportation, which is terrific. I 

would hope that we could also, for example, have a commercial approach perhaps to lunar missions. And I know that NASA is not 

focused on lunar missions right now, but perhaps the private sector 

could be involved with lunar missions, and we could have some 

kind of involvement there or coordination but let the private sector 

pick up some of the cost of going back to the moon if we can do 

that. 

Hon. BOLDEN. Mr. Rohrabacher, you’re absolutely right, and I 

would say, you know, NASA is on a Journey to Mars. Our destination for the nation—this is what we recommended and what—I 

have to compliment—Chairman Smith isn’t here right now. I complimented Mr. Perlmutter. They wrote an absolutely incredible oped or an article on, you know, the fact that we are the greatest nation in the world. We need to be going to Mars. 

But everyone should understand—and I think we’re 

mischaracterized when they said we’re ignoring the moon. We’re 

going to spend ten years, a decade of the ’20s, in cislunar space. 

And we call it the proving ground. And that is a period of time 

when, if everything works the way we hope, commercial entities, 

entrepreneurial entities, maybe even some of our international 

partners will ask us to assist them in preparing things like landers 

that may put humans back on the surface of the moon on the way 

to Mars. But—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well—— 

Hon. BOLDEN. —this nation has to focus on the big thing, which 

is Mars. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Why—— 
57 

Hon. BOLDEN. If we don’t, then nobody goes there. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, General, I think it’s possible to focus on 

the very next step in the stairway rather than—— 

Hon. BOLDEN. And that’s the ten years in the proving ground. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —rather than focusing on—— 

Hon. BOLDEN. That is the next step. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —the—where you’re going at the end of the 

stairwell. 

One last note very quickly because my time is up, and that is I 

hope that—one of the things we really need is to make sure our 

country and the world is prepared for a possible collision with some 

space rock that could kill millions of people. 

Hon. BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I applaud you, I want to work with you on 

making sure that NASA is playing its role in this global defense 

against an asteroid or—— 

Hon. BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —a meteor. So thank you very much. 

Hon. BOLDEN. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you. 

And I’d like to recognize the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

General Bolden, the New Aviation Horizons project is certainly 

an exciting initiative, and this is a decade-long initiative based on 

funding offsets that are part of the Administration’s 21st century 

‘‘clean transportation’’ plan. What are the potential benefits of the 

X-plane flight demonstrations included in the plan? 

Hon. BOLDEN. Well, there are four demonstrations—demonstrators that we have, you know, right now that we would really like 

to do. The one that we’re attacking first is the low-boom supersonic 

demonstrator. And people ask why that one first, and it’s because 

industry is poised to help us design and build a low-boom supersonic demonstrator. It’s going to increase their ability to compete 

around the world in supersonic transport. 

And we’ve been working on this for number of years now, and 

there are a number of companies like Lockheed, Boeing, Gulfstream that have plans on the drawing board, and they just need 

a demonstrator to help us change—get the FAA to change the regulations prohibiting supersonic flight over ground. 

The other one is Hybrid Wing Body. The Department of Defense 

is very interested—not just civilian aviation but the Department of 

Defense in terms of transport, cargo transport. Hybrid Wing Body 

changes the efficiency of an airplane, increases our fuel efficiency, 

gives them longer range, so that’s a second thing that’s going to 

have an economic and strategic impact for the nation. 

And then finally, hybrid electric systems where we actually 

sometimes you mix electric engines with regular turbine engine 

and other times you just use electric engines. We’ve been collaborating with our partners in the German space agency because they 

are also—they were out in front of us, and so this initiative will 

allow us to kind of catch up with them and assume some of the 

leadership in looking at hybrid electric systems. 
58 

Ms. JOHNSON. What are the implications of not sustaining this 

project over the decade should the funding fluctuate over time? 

Hon. BOLDEN. The bottom-line implication is that the United 

States will lose its place as the leader in aviation and aeronautics. 

We’re struggling to maintain that right now, and that was one of 

the driving forces behind aeronautics coming up with a new strategic plan in 2014 with the six strategic thrusts that were a part 

of that plan. And now, being able to announce with industry, academia, and others about two weeks ago that the President supported this New Aviation Horizons initiative that’s going to allow 

the United States to maintain their leadership. 

Aviation accounts for the largest balance of trade item in this 

country by a long shot, and if we don’t get out in front of everybody 

and do the types of development that will be covered in the New 

Aviation Horizons, we’ll lose that edge. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Does it seem to have the possibility of attracting 

young people to aeronautics—— 

Hon. BOLDEN. No question whatsoever. I go to college campuses 

today, and it hasn’t been that long since we started talking about 

this initiative. Students who are in—studying aeronautical engineering are—they’re ecstatic. They’re beside themselves. 

I had a special assistant from Langley by the name of Mr. Erik 

Axdahl, who is a hypersonics specialist. After his 6 months up here 

with me, he left semi-depressed because he did not hear that the 

United States was going to invest in hypersonics. He now, you 

know, is a little bit happier camper because he feels that he has 

not gone to school and been educated and done stuff because the 

United States is going to maintain their leadership in hypersonics 

because of that. 

And every one of you, hopefully, has a copy of our little flyer here 

and it’s got information on the back, and we’d be more than happy 

to come to your district or to your office or anywhere and help you 

understand some of this. Thanks very much. 

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

Chairman. 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you. 

I’d now like to recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. 

Brooks. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Bolden, first, I’d like to applaud your choice of 

Todd May as Director of the Marshall Space Flight Center located 

in my district. And I’d also like to thank his predecessor, Patrick 

Scheuermann, for his many years of service and leadership at 

NASA, especially at the Marshall Space Flight Center. I’m excited 

about the continued success at Marshall and throughout NASA. 

That having been said, have you designated a NASA center lead 

for rocket propulsion that would be able to integrate all of NASA’s 

expertise in deep space travel on the Journey to Mars? 

Hon. BOLDEN. Congressman, we don’t use the term ‘‘lead center’’ 

anymore. It has a bad connotation for people who were around at 

the time of Challenger. 

But what we have done is we have an effort ongoing. It started 

out as something we call TCAT that I think we explained it to everybody. Now, it’s just baseline services assessment where we’re 
59 

trying to identify centers who have the highest level of capability 

in a particular field. There is no question that the Marshall Space 

Flight Center is the—one of their core capabilities is propulsion, 

and so no question whether we’re talking to DOD or anybody else 

outside of NASA that Marshall is the place that people go when 

they want to discuss in space and leaving the Earth propulsion 

issues. 

Mr. BROOKS. Well, for lack of a better word, I’m going to use it 

again in my next question. While I’m asking about program leads, 

who is program lead for Europa? 

Hon. BOLDEN. The program lead for Europa presently if I—and 

I’ll—let me take it for the record, but as my memory serves me, the 

Jet Propulsion Lab is the lead for procurement things like the 

spacecraft ‘‘bus’’ and others, and then we have other centers that 

are contributing to that. But JPL in your terms would be considered the lead, although they’re an FFRDC, but it’s because of their 

expertise in planetary travel. 

Mr. BROOKS. Well, isn’t JPL a federally funded research and development center? 

Hon. BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BROOKS. And my impression, and correct me if I’m wrong, 

is that federally funded research and development centers, by their 

nature, can only supply one-of-a-kind research and development 

and not be a program manager. 

Hon. BOLDEN. That is—I don’t think that is—let me take that for 

the record. The definition of a program manager—I don’t think 

there’s a prohibition because of their unique experience and expertise in planetary flight, for example, Curiosity and most of our 

Mars missions. JPL is the center that has achieved that for NASA 

for decades. We have been providing precursors on the way to Mars 

since the ’60s, and Jet Propulsion Lab has generally been the lead 

in doing that work. 

So I’ll take it for the record for your strict definition of who can 

be a program manager, but program managers for planetary missions have not always—have dominantly been at JPL. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you. I’ll move on to another area. 

Earlier this week at an appropriations hearing you spoke about 

the need for ‘‘game-changing’’ propulsion. Do you support nuclear 

thermal propulsion and what role do you see it playing in the Journey to Mars? 

Hon. BOLDEN. We are on a Journey to Mars, and most people believe that in the end, nuclear thermal propulsion will probably be 

the most effective form of propulsion to get there. Right now, we 

are funding at a very low level. Development of low-grade nuclear 

fuel so that we don’t have to go through what we go through today. 

So we’re taking a step-by-step approach to getting to nuclear thermal—to the use of nuclear thermal propulsion, but we are years 

away from doing that. 

Again, Marshall is the dominant center. They have most of the 

capability there, and they’re working with some of their local contractors who are helping them with developing nuclear thermal 

propulsion. 
60 

Mr. BROOKS. Congress authorized $20 million for nuclear thermal propulsion for fiscal year 2016. How much is NASA planning 

on spending in fiscal year 2016 on nuclear thermal propulsion? 

Hon. BOLDEN. I’ll take that for the record, Congressman. I’ll just 

take it for the record. I think I remember, but I don’t want to 

guess. 

Mr. BROOKS. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you. 

I’d like to recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Beyer. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Thank you, 

Administrator Bolden, for being with us again. 

The planetary sciences come up again and again, and I think in 

the opening Chairman’s remarks he talked about why is NASA 

paying for NOAA’s satellite research? Why is NASA paying for 

USGS’s Landsat stuff? So why? Why don’t they pay for—— 

Hon. BOLDEN. In the case of USGS and Landsat it is because the 

Congress refused the President’s budget request to transfer money 

for Landsat into the Department of interior. So this Congress decided that sustained land imaging is really important, and they put 

the money back in the—you know, according to my budget people, 

they put the money back into NASA because we’ve done it for so 

long. I’ll go back and double-check my memory, but I think that— 

that’s pretty simple in that case. 

Mr. BEYER. So you’d be fine to have it in the USGS budget as 

long as we put up there? 

Hon. BOLDEN. As long as the nation continues to do sustained 

land imaging and weather and those kinds of things, I think any 

Administrator is perfectly happy to make sure that we support 

whoever’s doing it. You would also have to transfer the people from 

NASA when you talk about the design and build of satellites because those agencies don’t have the capability to do that. 

Mr. BEYER. Okay. 

Hon. BOLDEN. So this is—we have expertise, and that’s, I think, 

why Congress comes back to us and puts the money in the NASA 

budget. So you’re talking about a little bit more than just transferring money. You’re probably going to transfer people if you really 

want those agencies to do what we do. 

Mr. BEYER. So on the case of the mandatory spending, the $733 

million from—— 

Hon. BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BEYER. —cuts, consolidation, savings, did you do that or did 

the budget—in order to adapt to BCA, the Budget Control Act? 

Hon. BOLDEN. I am told that the Budget Control Act was a large 

factor in the Office of Management and Budget deciding on how to 

divide the money. That is immaterial to me as the NASA Administrator. My conversations with the Director of OMB through his senior people was, look, you have $19 billion that the President is supporting, so that’s—I didn’t—I don’t work with mandatory discretionary. 

Mr. BEYER. Okay. 

Hon. BOLDEN. My Chief Financial Officer, he can understand—— 

Mr. BEYER. Different question then. 

Hon. BOLDEN. Yes. 
61 

Mr. BEYER. You mentioned in your testimony that because we 

were on a continuing resolution we didn’t get the omnibus spending 

until just before Christmas. Would you have requested north of the 

$19.285 billion if you’d known when you were putting the budget 

together that we were going to authorize or actually appropriate 

$19.285 billion? 

Hon. BOLDEN. Congressman Beyer, I always request more money 

then we get and, you know, any Administrator, Director, or anybody that doesn’t go in with a significantly higher number than 

they expect they’re going to get is asking not to get anything. I— 

you know, I think anybody would tell you the NASA Administrator 

always comes in with a higher number then I ultimately get. 

Mr. BEYER. So that’s—— 

Hon. BOLDEN. I do the same thing with the Congress. 

Mr. BEYER. So it’s safe to say that this 1.3 percent reduction is 

at least partly based on the absence of the information about where 

we’re going to end up in fiscal year 2016? 

Hon. BOLDEN. Largely based on that. 

Mr. BEYER. Yes. 

Hon. BOLDEN. Had we known that the Congress was going to appropriate $19.3 billion, I would have been comfortable going in and 

asking for even more than we asked for. 

Mr. BEYER. So there are some cynics who suggested that OMB 

and NASA deliberately understated deep space exploration, Space 

Launch System, Orion, because they knew that the Space Committee and Congress love those and would push them back. 

Hon. BOLDEN. That is—I’ve heard that stated before, but as I 

said again, at the President’s requested budget level, we are on target and we will produce the first flight of SLS and Orion with a 

human crew in 2023, and we have a 70 percent confidence level 

that we can do that. That’s how we came up with the 2023 and, 

you know, we decided 70 percent was the number we want to 

make, and it’s a lot more fancy than I can explain in this hearing, 

but that’s the number we came up with. And if all we got was the 

President’s budget request, we would be launching EM–2 in 2023. 

I do have to say, we are focused on a program to get humans to 

Mars, not the first two flights, and we could spend everything in 

the world on EM–1 and EM–2 and then have nothing left for a sustained program. So we’re using—if you gave me more money, I’d 

buy down risk, go back to Ms. Edwards’ question. There is always 

risk, and more money for me means I can spend more to buy down 

risk. And it—— 

Mr. BEYER. We only have 20 seconds left so very quickly, the 

roadmap, the Journey to Mars, many people have criticized that 

we’re—Congress and NASA are not yet on the same page in terms 

of what that roadmap needs to be. 

Hon. BOLDEN. I think we’re much more on the same page than 

most people are willing to admit. We don’t know how—ultimately 

how we’re going to make the final step from cislunar space to Mars. 

We just don’t know, and it would be irresponsible of me as the 

NASA Administrator to pick a particular design reference mission 

the way we’ve always done in NASA and try to hold everybody to 

that to try to determine what the final architecture is going to be. 
62 

If we decided right now, the question that the Congressman from 

Alabama asked, that says nuclear thermal propulsion is out because I don’t have a budget that sustains nuclear thermal propulsion or VASIMR or any of those advanced propulsion systems now. 

But I’m an optimistic person, and I think that by the time we reach 

the end of the 2020s, the middle of the 2020s, we will have gotten 

sufficient funding from the Congress and the Administration that 

we’ll be well on the way to new types of in-space propulsion. We’ll 

be able to have much more robust environmental control and life 

support systems, and that just—we’re not there yet, and so it 

would be irresponsible of me to try to give you an architecture and 

a roadmap that has milestone flights with a design of a vehicle. 

We’re just not there yet. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, sir, very much. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BABIN. Yes, sir, thank you. I’d now like to recognize 

the gentleman from California, Mr. Knight. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for having 

this. 

Administrator Bolden, I want to thank you. You know I’m going 

to talk about the big A—— 

Hon. BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KNIGHT. —and I appreciate this picture very much. You put 

an American hero on here. He is not looking at green there. He’s 

looking at a lake bed—— 

Hon. BOLDEN. I think he’s—— 

Mr. KNIGHT. —and he’s looking at a B–52. But Bill Dana is an 

American hero and I thank you for putting him on there. 

From 1968 to about 2000 or 2002, hypersonic research went from 

about the height to almost to zero and then we jumped again with 

the X–43 program. We went from the X–43 to the X–51 and then 

again we decided that either money or it wasn’t worth our while. 

Probably the first was the reason why we weren’t going to go into 

hypersonic research. 

Can you tell me what a commitment is from NASA, what a commitment is from Congress to make sure that we continue on with 

hypersonic research so America will be the leaders on hypersonics 

and not China or someone else? 

Hon. BOLDEN. If Congress accepts the President’s proposed budg- et, particularly the part that deals with aeronautics, it’s a $25 million annual amount that NASA’s commitment to DOD, to the integrated government—you know, DOD, intelligence community, everybody else that needs hypersonics, $25 million allows us to maintain our expertise but most importantly our facilities at Langley, 

at Glenn, at Ames. Anything less than that and we’re going to be 

back where we were in those times that you describe where we’re 

down. We’re going to be back where we were when Erik Axdahl left 

to go back to Langley when he felt that there was no future in 

hypersonics. $25 million is the base that NASA needs to retain the nation’s 

primary capability for fundamental hypersonics research. That is 

us. We do that. Nobody else does that. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Perfect statement. You do that. We want NASA to 

be on the leading edge. I think that there are civilian companies 

that would like to jump into that realm at some point, but remem-
63 

ber, typically, NASA will do an awful lot of R&D before private 

companies will jump into the mix. 

Hon. BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KNIGHT. And that is the case here. 

Two other programs I’d like to talk about because you know I’m 

going to talk about aeronautics quite a bit. The first one is the lowboom demonstrator. Now, again, we went through adjusting program for about a three-year period where we put a big old almost 

pitot tube at the end of an F–15 and did some jousting to do a low 

boom so that hopefully us Congressmen from the West Coast can 

fly across this country in 2 hours one day, and we will alleviate 

that restriction from the FAA that’s been going on since 1974 and 

all of these things that—you know, if any of you have ever heard 

of sonic boom, I know you’ve probably heard a thousand and I’ve 

heard a thousand. They’re disrupting, but with a low-boom demonstrator is almost a hum, or a very—you almost—— 

Hon. BOLDEN. Murmur. 

Mr. KNIGHT. —wouldn’t know it. It’s a murmur, exactly. Explain 

how important that would be to the economics of this country, the 

economics of the world if we could get there. 

Hon. BOLDEN. Congressman Knight, it would be critically important to this nation economically because right now, the European 

space agency—well, European aeronautics companies because most 

of their flight is over water. They have said we don’t care. You 

know, we don’t have the regulation that the FAA has put on American aircraft not to fly supersonically over ground. 

So, as you said, the low-boom technology has allowed us to really 

reduce its energy from sound that breaks windows and stuff. The 

low-boom configuration actually causes it to be just a murmur and 

comfortable to people. 

We will have aircraft that will be able to get places much faster. 

Businessmen, for example, can do their business—they can get 

around the world in six hours instead of however much time it 

takes today. Yes, I mean, anybody. 

And, you know, there’s a common misconception. I’ve heard it 

said one of the reasons that people resisted our efforts in this regard was because they said, well, the only reason for having supersonic airplanes is so that rich people can go places fast. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Not true. 

Hon. BOLDEN. That’s—you know, some of us normal people want 

to go places—— 

Mr. KNIGHT. That’s right. 

Hon. BOLDEN. —fast—— 

Mr. KNIGHT. Some of us normal people want to go—— 

Hon. BOLDEN. —also. And I do a lot of intercontinental travel. I 

would love to be able to get into an airplane and go from here to 

Moscow or wherever else I’m going in a couple hours instead of the 

14 hours that it takes today. 

Mr. KNIGHT. And lastly, in my 15 seconds I’m just going to thank 

you. We fully funded SOFIA again. 

Hon. BOLDEN. Yes. 

Mr. KNIGHT. SOFIA is, to me, a moving classroom. It’s not unlike 

the space shuttle. We used the space shuttle in the beginning for 

an awful lot of research and astronauts, but we put teachers on. 
64 

We did many things, as you know, with the space shuttle program. 

We’re doing that with SOFIA, so we take fifth-grade teachers in 

there. They go back and they inspire our fifth-graders to now be 

the next Charlie Bolden. They inspire them to be an astronaut. 

And that is exactly what these types of programs are doing. 

They’re benefiting the country, not just the science that we’re getting out of SOFIA. So I want to thank you for that, too. 

Hon. BOLDEN. Thank you for your support. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you. 

I’d now like to recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Bera. He’s not here? Okay. 

Mr. Perlmutter from Colorado. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thank you. 

Chairman BABIN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. I’m from Colorado and I’m a lot better looking 

than Bera, so it’s okay. 

Mr. Knight sort of highlighted some of the things that have been 

so inspirational recently, whether it’s New Horizons or talking 

about the SOFIA, things like that. And that’s—I got to tell you, I 

serve on two committees. My colleagues have heard this before. 

One is Financial Services, the other is this committee, the Science, 

Space, and Technology Committee. And the way we are pushing 

the horizon and moving forward with our science, even though it’s 

kind of herky-jerky at times, we are doing it. And it really—that’s 

what Americans want to see us do, you know, whether it’s in a caucus in, you know, suburban Denver or primary, people want us to 

know—want to know that we can work together. 

And on this Committee, you know, there are places where we 

fight but we work together on a lot of issues. And want to keep an 

eye on the budget obviously. That’s part of our job as Members of 

Congress, want to have good people in an agency like yours who 

we can trust to be good engineers, scientists, mathematicians, technicians, to take on these major tasks which you said and everybody 

knows are not without risk. So the Chairman and I wrote this oped—— 

Hon. BOLDEN. Right. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. —this article on getting us to Mars by 2033. 

And it came from information that we had at a hearing about 3, 

4 months ago. And I just—I’d like to use my prop, this bumper 

sticker, ‘‘2033, We Can Do This’’ because we can. And the responsibility of those of us up here is to provide the financial platform for 

you all to design your program and the building blocks that go into 

place. 

Mr. Rohrabacher was talking about the moon. That may be part 

of your building blocks. I am not a scientist. I can’t determine how 

you want to build the program that gets our astronauts to Mars by 

2033, but I can help you by assuring your agency that Democrats 

and Republicans, Congresses from now until 2033 and Administrations from now until ’33 really do have a major effort in place. 

So how does NASA look at us when we say something like, yes, 

get there by 2033? Is it with a little bit of skepticism I would imagine? 
65 

Hon. BOLDEN. Not at all. When—you know, to have a Member 

of Congress who has a bumper sticker that says we can do this, we 

don’t see—the American public doesn’t see that enough. You know, 

in this day and age what they—what the young people sitting here 

see and hear all the time is we can’t do this, we are not a great 

nation, we are going to be but we’re not right now. That’s just 

bunk. 

We’re the greatest nation in the world. We always have been. 

And if we stay focused—Congressman Edwards used the term constancy of purpose. She probably got that from the same person I 

did, from Admiral Joe Dyer, the Chairman of my ASAP. Constancy 

of purpose means exactly what you and Chairman Smith wrote. 

And you—but you’ve got to believe that. The Congress and the Administration have got to come together and they’ve got to set longterm vision that’s going to go beyond that Administration. Most of 

what I do today I’m never going to see it, you know, but I’m doing 

it for my grandchildren. 

That’s what you all should be doing. You know, you should be 

looking out and saying whoever takes my place, I’m going to brief 

them on why I supported this and make sure that they do it. We 

plan to do the same thing with the incoming Administration, the 

incoming candidates to be quite honest. We want to let them know 

what NASA is doing and what the Congress and the Administration, in spite of what everybody says, you all work pretty well together now and then. 

And so you have set us on a course to Mars. We can get there 

in the 2030s, but it’s a long, hard, risky slog and we’ve got to do 

things on the International Space Station, we’ve got to spend ten 

years in cislunar space. That’s going to allow people like Congressman Rohrabacher talked about who have these visions of doing 

what we once did, putting humans on the surface of the moon. 

NASA can help them, but NASA can’t stop at the moon. If we 

set the moon as our primary objective, that’s it. We’re not going 

any farther than that. So that’s why we’re focused on Mars. And 

we’ve got a pretty good plan that will get us there, but it is stepby-step. We’ve just got to stay together in doing that. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. No, and I appreciate that. I mean, so for us, 

our problem is a pretty, you know, substantial one, which is to find 

the billions of dollars that will, you know, support the effort. And 

I’ve learned some new terms. You know, one-year appropriations, 

multiyear appropriations, and something called no-year appropriations, which I still don’t quite understand. So—but we’re working 

on it, and I think we’re working together and we want to get this 

done. So thank you, sir, for your service. 

Hon. BOLDEN. Thank you. 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you. 

I’d now like to recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, General, 

for your service to our armed forces and NASA. 

Hon. BOLDEN. Thank you. 

Mr. POSEY. I’d like to focus just for a moment on Exploration 

Mission 1 referred to in all our paperwork as EM–1, the first time 

that you’ll fly SLS and Orion together hopefully in 2018. The Government Accountability Office—let me just look at—get his quote— 
66 

and the NASA Inspector General have both cautioned us that Exploration Mission 1 could be delayed because of potential risks for 

the exploration ground systems program. The Administration is requesting $403 million in discretionary spending in fiscal year 2017, 

a reduction of $6.8 million from fiscal year 2016. How will this request impact the Exploration 1 schedule? I mean, I understand we 

can fully fund Orion—— 

Hon. BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. POSEY. —we can fully fund SLS, we can fully fund all the 

airplane research, we can fully fund all the weather stuff, but if we 

don’t have the ground systems in place, nothing’s going to get off 

the ground, General. 

Hon. BOLDEN. Mr. Posey, you’re preaching to the choir. And this 

is what I’ve said to this and other committees for many years. It 

is great to be focused on the vehicles, but unless you have a launch 

complex like the Kennedy Space Center, the world’s most incredible 

multiuser launch complex, unless you have that, you’re going nowhere. 

Mr. POSEY. Yes. 

Hon. BOLDEN. And that’s—you know, when people talk about— 

a critical part of SLS is the ground system. SLS with no ground 

system is worthless. So we’re given a limited budget, we try to take 

the funds that are in the big category of exploration and use them 

so that the ground system, the rocket, and the module get to 

launch day together. And that requires doing what Bob Cabana is 

doing in an incredibly fine manner down at the Kennedy Space 

Center. 

The other thing that has helped is having commercial entities 

that now provide access to low-Earth orbit so that we don’t have 

to worry about that. If you go down to Kennedy now and you look 

at Launch Complex 39A from where Neil Armstrong launched, 

that’s now American ingenuity. That’s SpaceX. And I haven’t seen 

it recently, but everybody tells me it is mind-boggling what they’re 

doing to 39A. That’s American ingenuity, and that’s what’s going 

to take us to Mars. So I could not agree with you more. We’ve got 

to focus on the infrastructure, and that’s exploration ground systems. 

So when I say I want to take $1 million or whatever it is that’s— 

that people think is designated for the rocket because I want to upgrade the security on the exploration ground system, we’re not 

doing that because we’re being frivolous. We see that EGS is not 

going to be ready in time to meet the rocket’s date—— 

Mr. POSEY. Exactly. 

Hon. BOLDEN. —unless we do it that way so—— 

Mr. POSEY. Well, thank you. Those are magic words to my ears, 

General. So I assume, then, that I can be assured that we’re not 

going to end up with an SLS and Orion and lack a ground system 

that’s ready to launch. 

Hon. BOLDEN. I can assure you, sir, that with the President’s 

budget request at that level, the exploration ground system, SLS, 

and Orion will be ready to launch in 2018 together. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. Thank you for that assurance. 

Hon. BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 
67 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you. The Orion program received $1.27 billion 

in fiscal year 2016. The discretionary request from NASA for fiscal 

year 2017 is $1.05 billion. Will this request delay EM–2, Exploration Mission 2, where we’re actually going to put men in here? 

If NASA received $1.27 billion in fiscal year 2017 for Orion, would 

EM–2 be delayed? 

Hon. BOLDEN. At the President’s budget request, EM–2 is scheduled to go in 2023, and that’s our commitment to the President, to 

the Congress, to the nation. As I commented to Congresswoman 

Edwards, if you gave me the levels that you continue to give, then 

we’re going to make sure that we will make 2023. We could make 

it earlier, but I want to get away from people focusing on an earlier 

date because that does bring concerns about safety into the mix, 

and that’s what the ASAP was talking about. 

You know, 2023 is a great date. If that’s what we think we can 

meet with a 70 percent confidence level, increased funding even 

makes it even more certain we’re going to make that date. But the 

team always works to be ready earlier than projected, so we probably could launch earlier than 2023 with increased funding, but we 

have committed to 2023 and we’ll make that at the President’s 

budget request. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see I’m out of time. 

Chairman BABIN. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

I think we’ve got enough time for us to go back through one more 

time. Or do we—did somebody just come in? Yes, we’ve got every— 

I think everybody has already asked question, but let’s go back 

through one more time and let’s may be limit it to about two minutes if that’s okay. 

So my question would be on the mandatory spending, and I’d like 

to—everybody to know the implications of this. And I’m just wondering if the President and the Administration and you are fully 

aware because I heard you mention a while ago whether it’s mandatory or discretionary, it doesn’t matter to you, you just want the 

money, but as us, as Members of Congress, I would like for you to 

be fully aware of the consequences for tapping into mandatory 

spending. 

The budget request includes funding derived from mandatory 

spending such as—and this will be—let me just tell you, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, they’re subject to the PAYGO rule, 

which means that any new entitlement program must be accompanied by a corresponding cut to an existing entitlement or an increase in taxes. In other words, we’ve got to pay for this. 

In order to pay for NASA’s entitlement spending, the President’s 

budget request calls for skyrocketing tax increases across the 

board, as well as cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. And 

other proposed cuts include reduction to student loans, their program, unemployment insurance, and veterans’ benefits. It would 

also create new fees for farmers, hunters, air travelers, increase 

military health care copayments, and federal employee health care 

and retirement costs. It would increase the cost of our Postal Service, mail, reduce U.S. postal services. These proposals would increase the cost of every American’s electricity bill, as well as the 

price they pay at the pump. 
68 

Just a few months ago Congress fully funded NASA at $19.28 

billion without any budget gimmicks, tax increases, or entitlement 

cuts, and now the President is requesting a $1 billion cut to NASA 

and discretionary spending and asking for pie-in-the-sky tax increases, cuts to mandatory benefits, and increased entitlements 

with this mandatory side. 

Why should Americans agree to this budget request when NASA 

would receive more money under a CR, continuing resolution, without any of the pain that this budget request would cause? And I 

would invite you to please look at the President’s budget right here 

and take a look at table S–9, page 129 of the President’s budget. 

We will have nine pages of tax increases and billions of dollars in 

cuts to programs that are already there or increases in taxes. 

So why should Americans agree to this budget request, when we 

have more money under the proposed CR and not have any of the 

pain that this budget request would cause? 

Hon. BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I’m not a budgeteer. 

Chairman BABIN. Okay. 

Hon. BOLDEN. I don’t—— 

Chairman BABIN. Well, I just wanted you to know—— 

Hon. BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Chairman. BABIN. —okay, because we have to look at this. When 

it says mandatory spending, there are implications. There are consequences to this, and the consequences—you’re a veteran. 

Hon. BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Chairman BABIN. That’s just one little aspect of some of the consequences that it would hit veterans. 

Hon. BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I would—if I may, I would say one 

thing—— 

Chairman BABIN. Sure. 

Hon. BOLDEN. —and that was when we started the budget process, we started several billion dollars below where we are because 

we were told that sequester is still a possibility. And it still is a 

possibility. It is not off the table, and that’s something that I think 

the budgeteers at least, you know, when I talk to my guys, they 

are—they always remind me, you know, we do have this thing 

called sequester. So in defense of the budgeteers, I think they’re 

trying to work with the Congress and find a way to get that. It’s 

a limit, but it can be solved somehow. 

Chairman BABIN. Right. 

Hon. BOLDEN. I don’t know how to do that. 

Chairman BABIN. Okay. 

I now recognize the gentlewoman, Ms. Edwards from Maryland. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And just a really quick question. We spent some time over the 

last several Congresses really going to bat for the education budget 

within NASA. Across the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, we felt 

very, very strongly about keeping those within NASA. I noticed 

that this year’s budget request is—one, it’s $5 million less than 

what was enacted in 2016, which is problematic. And what I really 

notice is that the Minority University Research Education project 

is down $2 million. I see a plus up in STEM education and then 

a significant decrease in the Space Grants. 
69 

And I want to speak to the Minority University Research Education because I have been really privileged to see some of the 

fruits of this labor at Morgan State University, which is conducting 

some joint research with NASA. I think it is a great way to get this 

next generation to find these engineers and researchers who are 

out there who are minorities, women, other underserved communities. 

And so this university research education project plays a tremendous role with Historically Black Colleges and Universities and underserved—and minority populations and with getting women also 

engaged in the STEM fields. And so I’m concerned about the decreases. I think this is where the next generation is going to come 

from. And I’ll just let you comment on that. 

Hon. BOLDEN. I share your concern, Congresswoman Edwards. 

Every year, you know, I have to sign a report on funding for 

HBCUs. And it’s either the same or a little bit less, and so that 

is troubling, but when we look at funds that are available—so what 

we’ve tried to do is we’ve tried to let some innovative ways to ensure that we can make HBCUs and minority-serving institutions 

more competitive. One of the ways is in small business. So whereas 

most HBCUs and minority-serving institutions today look for 

grants, we are trying to team them with larger research institutions so that they can learn how to go after contracts so that they 

can enter into contracts with—to allow their professors to actually 

do like—Congressman Perlmutter knows this. The University of 

Colorado Boulder, MAVEN—MAVEN is the University of Colorado 

Boulder. That was the—that’s the principal investigator is a professor—this is a Mars—a critical Mars satellite. 

We ought to be able to get HBCUs and minority-serving institutions to learn from Colorado Boulder so that they can compete for 

contracts so that the students who want to be engineers can actually build satellites. We’re starting little. We’re starting with 

SmallSats or CubeSats. And so while it’s not for MUREP or other 

kinds of programs, we’re finding alternative ways to get money to 

minority campuses. We’re not there yet, but we’re trying to do that. 

We call it Mentor-Protege where a large college takes a small 

HBCU and tries to bring them along. Alabama Huntsville, Morgan 

State, Hampton, they’re unusual. They know how to—you know, 

they have contract offices. Most HBCUs don’t even have a clue, and 

that’s not—that is not a slight on the HBCU. It’s just that they’ve 

never known that that’s available to them also. And so we’ve got 

to spend time doing it. I share your concern. 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you. 

I’ll now recognize Mr. Posey from Florida. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General, just to kind of pick up where we left off last time when 

I ran out of time, let’s suppose that NASA received an extra $1.35 

billion in fiscal year 2017. What would that get spent on? 

Hon. BOLDEN. The first thing it would be spent on buying down 

risk across the board in our programs, and a large portion of it 

would go into human spaceflight. 

And what does that mean, buying down risk? We would go out 

and purchase long lead items for downstream vehicles so that EM– 

3, EM–4, EM–5 would be—the vehicles for those flights would be 
70 

able to begin construction now rather than waiting three or four or 

five years from now. 

We would probably put more money into beefing up our Safety 

and Mission Assurance organization or the Engineering organization to make sure that we satisfy Congresswoman Edwards’ concern and that of the ASAP that we don’t let launch fever or those 

kinds of things happen. And of course, we would try to get as much 

done quickly so that we could launch sooner. But the big focus 

would be on buying down risk. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you. For a long time we talked about EM–2 

being in 2021 and now we’re a big bump to 2023. Could just a matter of funding put that back on track? 

Hon. BOLDEN. Yes, a matter of funding could put EM–2 back on 

track, but all the funding would not go to doing that, again, as I 

said, because what I don’t want to do is put a bundle of money on 

EM–2, have no long lead items having been procured, have tests 

that need to be done and don’t get done and we launch EM–2 earlier and we’re stopped. So—— 

Mr. POSEY. I get that. 

Hon. BOLDEN. —it’s not as—— 

Mr. POSEY. I get that. 

Hon. BOLDEN. It’s not black and white. 

Mr. POSEY. And the economy of having more closer together is 

there, too. I mean, I understand the economic benefits of doing 

that. 

Hon. BOLDEN. Yes. You know, development curve—a funding 

curve for development program has a little hump in it. None of 

ours ever have that. Ours is always straight line. 

Mr. POSEY. Yes. 

Hon. BOLDEN. The work that people like Bob Cabana and Todd 

May and Ellen Ochoa and the program managers do every single 

year, Bill Gerstenmaier, in fitting a development program—and we 

have, I think, five human spaceflight development programs underway, never been done by this agency before. When you talk about 

commercial crew, commercial cargo, suborbital flight, Orion, SLS, 

EGS, and not to mention the science programs, we’ve got a lot of 

stuff that we’re trying to do and all of it is incredibly valuable. We 

don’t have anything that I would say, you know, let’s stop doing it 

because it’s all important for the nation. 

Mr. POSEY. Great. Thank you very much. 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you. 

Let’s see. Now, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Beyer. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General, Congress has expressed in the past—or the concerns 

have been expressed that it’s not safe to have missile rocket 

launches and offshore oil rigs in the same area. In 2015, NASA 

stated that the presence of either temporary or fixed structures at 

or below the sea surface within our range hazard areas, would 

have significant detrimental effects on our ability to conduct aerospace test activities.’’ In addition, there was a warning that ‘‘impact 

with an oil platform would cause catastrophic damage and would 

result in the complete loss of expensive launch vehicles.’’ So Tuesday, the Administration, Secretary Jewell, reversed course on midAtlantic oil and gas leasing program, at least through 2022. Could 
71 

you tell us if offshore oil and gas drilling and exploration off Virginia’s coast is consistent with the activity of NASA Wallops? 

Hon. BOLDEN. Mr. Beyer, I’ll take that for the record. I will say 

one thing about the comment you made. Any spacecraft that impacts anything here on Earth is bad for the—whether there’s an oil 

well there or not, if it comes back to Earth, it’s a bad day. So having an oil well there doesn’t make a difference, but I’ll take it for 

the record to find the answer to your specific question. 

Mr. BEYER. Okay. Good. Because I was trying to quote NASA 

there as much as I could so—— 

Hon. BOLDEN. Yes, sir. And I understand that. I have some incredible people, a lot smarter than I am, and so they’re going to 

educate me so I can answer your question. 

Mr. BEYER. Okay. Good. How about a brief progress report on 

James Webb Telescope, and are we still on track for launch October 2018? 

Hon. BOLDEN. We are on track for launch October 2018, and we 

actually have—I’ll try to get this right—about a 7–1/2 month cost 

and schedule reserve, which we—in all probability we’ll need because there are some critical tests upcoming when we move the 

spacecraft down to the Johnson Space Center, and there’s always 

something that comes up that you don’t anticipate. So it’s the place 

you want to be. But we’re on track right now for 2018. 

Mr. BEYER. It’s very exciting. Thank you, General. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman BABIN. Yes, sir. Thank you. And I believe Mr. Perlmutter, the gentleman from Colorado. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And I just have a few 

thank-yous I want to give. One is to Scott Kelly and his recent 

record-setting journey on the Space Station. And for a short guy 

like me, it was encouraging to hear that he was 2 inches taller 

when he came down than his identical twin brother. 

Hon. BOLDEN. Only temporary. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. I know. It didn’t last long, but still, there’s 

hope. And I want to thank NASA. And yesterday, we had another 

astronaut here testifying, Kathy Sullivan on behalf of NOAA, and 

both of your agencies helped my office recently with major weather—giant weather system Cyclone Winston that clobbered Fiji. And 

we had some constituents who were missing for several days, and 

we were able to get some pictures from your agency, NOAA, some 

others to at least give the family comfort that the part of the island 

where they were wasn’t completely flattened. And after several 

days and—the communications were restored, but it gave comfort 

to the families. So I want to thank you for that. 

Also thank you with respect to the cargo missions. You know, recently one of the companies in Colorado was awarded one of the 

contracts to deliver cargo, Sierra Nevada, up to the space station. 

And lastly, you mentioned the University of Colorado, and 

they’re playing the University of Connecticut today in the first 

round of the NCAA, so I do want to say go Buffs. But TSIS, Total 

Solar Irradiance Sensor—— 

Hon. BOLDEN. Sensor, yes, sir. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. —is what we met about at CU a couple years 

ago, built by CU students, and it’s going to catch a ride to the 
72 

Space Station in 2018. And obviously very proud of the university 

and the kinds of things it does working with NASA and the things 

that it does in terms of getting students involved with outer space. 

So I don’t know if you want to comment on any of those, but just 

thank you for your service again, General. 

Hon. BOLDEN. Sir, my—I appreciate all the compliments. I’ll try 

to make sure we get them out to everybody. I’ll be with Scott next 

week when we go to Moscow for his post-flight. 

But I would go back to Congresswoman Edwards’ question about 

HBCUs and the like and say that’s what we want to do with 

schools like Morgan and Howard and Hampton. We want them to 

have students who are working on spacecraft, and that’s—that 

takes some effort. And, first of all, you have to convince them that 

they can. You’ve got to let them know that opportunities are there. 

You’re not—we use the term inspire all the time. I had a young 

black engineer one time who told me if he heard me say inspire one 

more time he’s going to puke. And I went, what do you mean? He 

said, we can’t inspire anybody until we inform them. And so there 

are kids from my community back in South Carolina and all over 

this country that you all represent who don’t have a clue what they 

can do. And so the first thing—and that’s what NASA tries to do 

with the limited funds we do have in our education program. And I actually have a $19 billion education budget. I know you 

all think I’m being trite when I say that because everything we do 

in NASA is really focused on trying to inspire and inform young 

people about what they can do to be a part of the NASA family. 

And so I’m very, very thankful for the $19.3 billion that you all appropriated for us out of the Congress last year. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thank you. 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you. And this really concludes our hearing, and it’s been an excellent hearing. And I want to thank the 

witness, General Charlie Bolden, for your long illustrious career 

and your leadership of NASA. And I want to thank you on behalf 

of the entire Committee. I’d also like to thank the Committee Members for their very informative and great questions. 

So with that, this hearing is adjourned. 

Hon. BOLDEN. Thank you, sir. 

[Whereupon, at 12:09 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(73) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
74 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by the Hon. Charles F. Bolden, Jr. 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
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 

Æ