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

98–478 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 114–173 

EXAMINING THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2016 

BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE NATIONAL 

AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE, SCIENCE, 

AND COMPETITIVENESS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 12, 2015 

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

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

DAVID SCHWIETERT, Staff Director 

NICK ROSSI, Deputy Staff Director 

REBECCA SEIDEL, General Counsel 

JASON VAN BEEK, Deputy General Counsel 

KIM LIPSKY, Democratic Staff Director 

CHRIS DAY, Democratic Deputy Staff Director 

CLINT ODOM, Democratic General Counsel and Policy Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE, SCIENCE, AND COMPETITIVENESS 

TED CRUZ, Texas, Chairman 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

GARY PETERS, Michigan, Ranking 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on March 12, 2015 ............................................................................ 1 

Statement of Senator Cruz ..................................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Peters ................................................................................... 2 

Statement of Senator Nelson .................................................................................. 3 

Statement of Senator Gardner ............................................................................... 33 

WITNESSES

Hon. Charles F. Bolden, Jr., Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration ..................................................................................................... 4 

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

APPENDIX

Hon. Marco Rubio, U.S. Senator from Florida, prepared statement ................... 43 

Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Charles F. Bolden, Jr. by: 

Hon. Roger F. Wicker ....................................................................................... 43 

Hon. Roy Blunt ................................................................................................. 48 

Hon. Marco Rubio ............................................................................................. 50 

(1) 

EXAMINING THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 

2016 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE NATIONAL 

AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 2015 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE, SCIENCE, AND COMPETITIVENESS, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:38 a.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Cruz, Chairman 

of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Cruz [presiding], Gardner, Blunt, Peters, and 

Nelson. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS 

Senator CRUZ. The hearing will come to order. Good morning, everyone, and welcome. 

We gather here this morning not simply to examine the President’s budget request but to begin to lay out a vision for the future 

of NASA and human exploration. As we begin the process of putting together a road map for the future of NASA, there is one vital 

question that this committee should examine: Should NASA focus 

primarily inwards or outwards beyond low-Earth orbit? 

Since the end of the last administration we have seen a disproportionate increase in the amount of Federal funds that have 

been allocated to the Earth Science Program at the expense of and 

in comparison to exploration and space operations, planetary 

science, heliophysics and astrophysics, which I believe are all rooted in exploration and should be central to the core mission of 

NASA. 

As I observed at our last hearing, the first priority for the space 

component of this subcommittee is to work to refocus NASA’s energies on its core priority of exploring space. I know that that is a 

passion of the professionals at this fine institution. I see good signs 

that the current goals set out for human exploration are being 

achieved, as witnessed in December with the incredibly successful 

launch of the Orion EFT–1, and yesterday at Orbital ATK’s solid 

rocket motor test in Utah, the engine that will power the space 

launch system into deep space. 

But we need to use that momentum and get back to the hard 

sciences, to manned space exploration, and to the innovation that 

has been integral to the mission of NASA. We also need to provide 

2 

the men and women that work at NASA with clear and consistent 

long-term mission objectives so that they do not find themselves 

continually pouring time and energy into projects, only to see them 

swept up and carried away by the ever-changing winds of politics. 

Science needs to drive NASA’s mission, rather than the political 

winds of Washington. Short-changing these projects will surely 

have an adverse impact on encouraging our nation’s best and 

brightest to continue to want to work with NASA. 

As the Chairman of this Subcommittee, I am looking forward to 

being an outspoken champion not only for NASA and not only for 

the Johnson Space Center, but for everyone within the NASA family who plays a key role in advancing human exploration and promoting the hard sciences. 

As former NASA astronaut, Dr. Mike Massimino, mentioned at 

our last hearing, young Americans are interested in space-related 

STEM careers and see themselves as future space entrepreneurs. 

It’s critical that we begin to refocus the core priorities of NASA so 

that greater and exciting new opportunities can emerge and be realized. It is time for man once again to leave the safety of the harbor and to further explore the deep, uncharted waters of deep 

space. 

I now recognize the Ranking Member, Senator Peters. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s wonderful to 

serve with you on this committee, and I look forward to working 

with you in the years ahead. 

This month we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the National 

Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, or NACA. Congress created 

NACA in 1915 because even though the Wright Brothers had invented powered flight in the U.S. in 1903, by the beginning of 

World War I the U.S. lagged behind Europe in aviation technology. 

Within decades of NACA’s creation, the U.S. was leading the 

world in aviation once again. We put the P51 Mustang in the sky, 

a fighter that proved so critical to the success of the Allies against 

Hitler. And later, in 1947, we were the envy of the world when 

Chuck Yeager’s X–1 rocket plane broke the sound barrier. 

But when the Soviet Union placed the first artificial satellite in 

orbit around the Earth, the U.S. was once again behind. Congress 

responded this time by folding the efforts of NACA into the newly 

established National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or 

NASA, in 1958. 

By 1969, NASA put astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin 

on the Moon, and in the decades following, NASA sent probes to 

explore the worlds of our solar system, built telescopes in space to 

peer to the edges of the universe, built a research outpost in space 

permanently tended by a crew of international astronauts, and 

made it possible to study the planet that we call home from space. 

Over the past century, the investments we have made in our civil 

aeronautics and space programs look pretty modest compared to 

the returns. Safe and reliable commercial air transportation, communication satellites, space-based imagery, and spinoff techVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:02 Feb 05, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\98478.TXT JACKIE
3 

nologies from human spaceflight have provided our country extraordinary economic benefits. 

The Apollo and Space Shuttle programs inspired generations of 

American students to pursue education in math, science, and engineering, many of whom went on to lead a revolution in computing 

and information technology. Just a few years back, I visited a high 

school in my home state of Michigan and I witnessed firsthand 

NASA’s continued ability to inspire. All of the students were gathered in the gym to watch a large projector screen that connected 

them directly to U.S. astronauts on the International Space Station. And when the astronauts asked if any of the students planned 

to pursue degrees in the STEM fields, hundreds of hands shot up 

across the auditorium. 

Today, it is simply impossible to imagine the world devoid of the 

scientific understanding that NASA has enabled us to achieve. Because of NASA, we know our planet is a fragile oasis in an unimaginably vast space. We know every point in the universe is 

speeding away from us at an accelerating pace, driven by some unseen force called dark energy. We know our galaxy is filled with 

billions and billions of planets, many of them possibly very much 

like our Earth. And we have seen actions and evidence of black 

holes, whose mind-bending physics remind us of how much we 

have to learn about the fundamental nature of space and time. 

I see NASA’s budget as a strategic portfolio of investments aimed 

at improving the well-being of our country and of our civilization. 

Like any portfolio, we must carefully choose our investments and 

remember that the balance of the overall portfolio is of the utmost 

importance. We must avoid false choices between robotic exploration, human exploration, the study of the universe, or the study 

of our home planet. We must avoid the temptation to view NASA’s 

mission as a set of competing priorities. Rather, we should seek a 

set of complementary initiatives that will pay returns to our civilization for centuries to come. 

I want to thank you, Administrator Bolden, for your service to 

our country and your appearance before the Subcommittee today. 

And I want to thank you, Chairman Cruz, for holding this hearing, 

and Ranking Member Nelson for everything you have done and 

continue to do for our space program and for the example that you 

set for this committee. 

Although my position on this committee is new, my passion for 

science and technology is not, and I am truly excited about my opportunity to serve as Ranking Member for the Subcommittee, and 

I look forward to our discussion today. Thank you. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you very much. 

I would offer the Ranking Member of the full committee, Senator 

Nelson, an opportunity to give a statement as well. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. Well, you’re very gracious, Mr. Chairman, and 

I want to compliment you. At the last hearing I said even though 

the temperature outside was 10 degrees, that blossoms were breaking out all over Washington by virtue of the very supportive statements that you had made about NASA, of which you have continVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:02 Feb 05, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\98478.TXT JACKIE
4 

ued those very supportive statements. I want you to know how 

much the NASA community and NASA family is appreciative of 

that support. 

I want to point out that in some quarters it seems to be fashionable to say that Earth Science is not a part of the exploration program, and yet I would point out that tonight there is the launch 

of a mission called MMS. It has to do with a magnetosphere, and 

it will be a mission to gauge space weather—in other words, nuclear explosions from the surface of the sun—and how that affects 

our life here on Earth, GPS, various other satellites. 

So Earth Science directly relates to everything that we’re doing 

in exploration, and I would draw that distinction for folks who 

think that it’s not fashionable that NASA be a part of Earth 

Science. 

The other thing is that I want to compliment the Ranking Member, to see someone so enthusiastic as Senator Peters is, is indeed 

extremely gratifying. 

And furthermore, I would like to congratulate the Administrator. 

He is now going on 7 years. His hair was dark when he started. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator NELSON. The fact that he’s been able to get everybody 

in the harness over there at NASA, now without a deputy, although the nominee for deputy is sitting in the front row, and he 

has got everybody in the harness pulling in the right direction, all 

in the same direction, which is a significant accomplishment for the 

Administrator. 

So I just wanted to pass around those compliments to you, to 

Senator Peters, and to the Administrator. Thank you. 

Senator CRUZ. Well, thank you very much, Senator Nelson, and 

it has been a pleasure the last 2 years serving on this committee 

with you as the Chairman of the Subcommittee, and I’m looking 

forward to the next 2 years continuing to serve with you and with 

the new Ranking Member, Senator Peters. 

We have a lot of work to do, and we are blessed to have a Subcommittee with some talented and dedicated members on both 

sides of the aisle who are committed to the core mission of NASA. 

With that, I’m very pleased to introduce and welcome the distinguished Administrator of NASA, the Honorable Charles Bolden. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR., 

ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS 

AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

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

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Peters, I want to, first of 

all, on behalf of the entire NASA family, congratulate the two of 

you on your positions. I look forward to working with you. 

It was interesting sitting here listening to everyone speak because I really appreciate the work that this committee has done 

through the years. It was here that the 2010 Authorization Act was 

crafted, and that is the present road map on which we work. So 

I commend the Committee and look forward to continuing to work 

with you all. The President is proposing a Fiscal Year 2016 budget of $18.5B 

for us that builds on the 2015 appropriation and the significant inVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:02 Feb 05, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\98478.TXT JACKIE
5 

vestments that the Administration and the Congress have made in 

America’s space program over the past 6 years. 

Thanks to the hard work of our NASA team and partners all 

across America, we’ve made a lot of progress on our journey to 

Mars. In fact, we have now progressed farther on this path to sending humans to Mars than at any point in NASA’s history, and this 

budget will keep us marching forward. 

The support of this subcommittee and the Congress are essential 

to this journey. The International Space Station is a critical first 

step in this work. It’s our springboard to the rest of the solar system, and we’re committed to extending Space Station operations to 

at least 2024. 

Thanks to the grit, determination, and American ingenuity, we 

have returned ISS cargo resupply missions to the United States, 

in-sourcing these jobs and creating a new private market in lowEarth orbit. Under a plan outlined by the Administration early in 

its term, we also have awarded two American companies, SpaceX 

and Boeing, fixed-price contracts to safely and cost-effectively 

transport our astronauts to the Space Station from U.S. soil. This 

will end our sole reliance on Russia. It’s critical that we receive the 

funding requested for the 2016 budget so that we can meet our 

2017 target date and stop writing checks to the Russian space 

agency. 

Our newest, most powerful rocket ever developed, the Space 

Launch System, or SLS, has moved from formulation to development, something no other exploration-class vehicle has achieved 

since the agency built the Space Shuttle. The Orion spacecraft performed flawlessly on its first trip to space this past December. The 

SLS and Exploration Ground Systems are on track for launch capability readiness by November 2018, and the teams are hard at work 

on completing technical and design reviews for Orion. 

Our budget also funds a robust science program with dozens of 

operating missions studying our solar system and the universe. 

New Horizons is preparing for its arrival at Pluto in July, and 

Dawn is now in orbit around the dwarf planet Ceres. Before we 

send humans to Mars, robots are paving the way. We are at work 

on a Mars Rover for 2020 and have begun planning a mission to 

explore Jupiter’s fascinating moon Europa. 

NASA is a leader in Earth Science, and our constantly expanding 

view of our planet from space is helping us better understand and 

prepare for these changes. NASA has 21 research missions studying Earth, and the last year alone we launched an unprecedented 

five more. We are at work on humanity’s first voyage to our home 

star, a mission that will repeatedly pass through the Sun’s outer 

atmosphere. Senator Nelson also mentioned a little bit earlier that 

we will launch the MMS mission tonight. 

NASA’s Hubble, Chandra and Kepler Space Telescopes explore 

the universe beyond our solar system. Hubble’s successor, the 

James Webb Space Telescope, is taking shape right now out in 

Maryland, and the new mission is in development to extend 

Kepler’s pioneering work in finding planets. 

Technology drives science, exploration, and our journey deeper 

into the solar system and to Mars. With the President’s request, 

NASA will continue to maintain a steady pipeline of technology to 

6 

ensure that we continue to lead the world in space exploration and 

scientific discovery. 

NASA is also with you when you fly, and we’re committed to 

transforming aviation by dramatically reducing its environmental 

impact, maintaining safety in more crowded skies, and paving the 

way toward revolutionary aircraft shapes and propulsion systems. 

Mr. Chairman, America’s space program is not just alive, it’s 

thriving. The strong support we receive from this subcommittee 

and the entire Congress is making that happen, and I particularly 

appreciate the generous Fiscal Year 2015 appropriation. 

As the President said in his State of the Union address, and I 

quote, ‘‘We are pushing out into the solar system not just to visit, 

but to stay, part of a reenergized space program that will send 

American astronauts to Mars,’’ unquote. NASA looks forward to 

working with the Congress to make this vision a reality. 

I would be pleased to respond to any questions you and the Committee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bolden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR., ADMINISTRATOR, 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss NASA’s FY 2016 budget request. The President is proposing an 

FY 2016 budget of $18.5 billion for NASA, building on the significant investments 

the Administration has made in America’s space program over the past six years, 

enabled through the strong and consistent support by this Committee and the Congress. This request will allow NASA to continue to lead the world in space through 

a balanced program of exploration, science, technology, and aeronautics research. 

NASA is an outstanding investment for our Nation not only because we uncover 

new knowledge, but because we raise the bar of human achievement, inspiring the 

next generation of scientists, engineers and astronauts. 

The FY 2016 request includes $4,505.9 million for Exploration with $2,862.9 million for Exploration Systems Development, $1,243.8 million for Commercial Space 

Flight, and $399.2 million for Exploration Research and Development. This funding, 

with critical investment from each of NASA’s mission directorates, supports NASA’s 

plans to, as the President said in his State of the Union speech, continue our journey to Mars and push ‘‘out into the solar system not just to visit, but to stay[.]’’ 

NASA has made tremendous progress on this journey, and we will continue to 

progress, with building momentum, through the years to come. 

As part of our strategic, stepping stone approach to deep-space explorations, 

NASA is facilitating the development of a U.S. commercial crew transportation capability with the goal of launching NASA astronauts from American soil in the next 

couple of years. This initiative to facilitate the success of U.S. industry to provide 

crew transportation to low Earth orbit will end our sole reliance on Russia and ensure that we have safe, reliable and cost-effective access to the ISS and low-Earth 

orbit. Commercial Products Contracts allowed potential providers to better understand and align with NASA human spaceflight requirements and gave NASA early 

insight into vehicle designs and approaches. NASA has now entered the development and certification phase with the award of two FAR-based, fixed-price Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contracts to American companies to 

transport our Astronauts to and from the ISS. SpaceX and Boeing have laid out 

milestones with the goal of certified commercial crew capability in 2017. The contractors are committed and at work. Our approach has emphasized competition and 

redundancy to ensure that NASA’s human safety and certification requirements are 

met, we achieve the best value for the American taxpayer, and we end our sole reliance on Russia for transportation services. Now, we need the funding necessary to 

execute this plan to completion. With continued support from the Congress, crews 

will again launch to the ISS from American soil by 2017. 

Technology drives science, exploration and economic opportunity. NASA will continue to maintain a steady pipeline of technology to ensure that we continue to lead 

the world in space capabilities. NASA’s FY 2016 request includes $724.8 million for 

Space Technology, to conduct rapid development and infusion of transformative 

7 

space technologies that enable NASA’s missions and advance our country’s dynamic 

aerospace industry services. Over the next two years, NASA will execute several inspace demonstrations including: a deep space atomic clock for advanced navigation, 

green propellant and four small spacecraft demonstrating pioneering new technologies. This summer, NASA plans to again test our Low Density Supersonic Decelerator off the coast of Hawaii to continue proving in flight the new technologies 

critical for landing larger payloads on the surface of the Red Planet. Informed by 

the results of FY 2014 testing of solar array and thruster designs, NASA continues 

development of a high-powered solar electric propulsion capability to enable future 

exploration missions and meet needs of U.S. aerospace industry. We will continue 

to progress toward a 2019 demonstration of space-to-ground laser communications, 

a capability that both American industry and NASA mission teams are eager to explore and harness. But the most exciting piece of our technology investments is the 

broad portfolio of research grants and other early stage investments, where the new 

technologies that will change the way we operate in space have a chance to move 

from ideas to components, to demonstrations of new systems and capabilities. These 

early stage investments are building stronger links between NASA and academia, 

and providing unique opportunities for the NASA workforce to innovate. 

In December, NASA completed the first orbital test flight of the Orion crew vehicle, including a successful high speed reentry through the atmosphere. The Exploration Flight Test 1 (EFT–1) mission of Orion was nearly flawless. For the first time 

in a generation, a deep-space U.S. exploration vehicle has splashed down in the Pacific, and what we are learning from this test gives us increasing confidence in the 

systems we are designing. 

Just as we have recently tested Orion by sending it on a shorter version of its 

future missions, we are continuously testing and experimenting on the International 

Space Station (ISS) in preparation for long-term missions in deep space. The Administration has committed to extending operation of the International Space Station 

to at least 2024. The FY 2016 request includes $4,003.7 million for Space Operations, including $3,105.6 million for ISS. Two commercial providers are now under 

contract to supply cargo to this critical asset, making the extension possible and giving us increasing confidence in our long-term strategy. This month, NASA will 

launch astronaut Scott Kelly on a one-year mission aboard the ISS to learn more 

about how to live and work in space for the long term. We will compare his vital 

signs to those of his twin brother, Mark, here on Earth in a first-ever experiment 

using identical twins to learn more about the effects of living in space. This is just 

one example of the vital knowledge and technology that our outpost in space will 

provide over the coming decade. The Space Station is the cornerstone of our exploration strategy, a nearby outpost in space where humanity is taking its early steps 

on its journey into the solar system. 

For the next step on the journey, NASA is developing the required deep-space exploration infrastructure while we plan for the earliest missions. NASA has established Agency Baseline Commitments for the Space Launch System (SLS) and Exploration Ground Systems (EGS), each of which supports a launch capability readiness date for Exploration Mission 1 (EM–1) of November 2018. EM–1 is the first 

mission for SLS and Orion. NASA remains on schedule for this EM–1 launch readiness date for SLS and EGS. Baseline cost and schedule for Orion are now being developed. NASA’s budget request provides the funding needed to keep SLS, Orion, 

and EGS on track. NASA will determine the integrated launch date for the EM– 

1 mission after all critical design reviews are complete, later this year. SLS and 

Orion are critical to human spaceflight beyond low-Earth orbit as part of an 

evolvable, sustainable, and affordable exploration program. 

The journey to Mars runs through cis-lunar space. NASA’s initial deep-space mission will launch to a ‘‘Distant Retrograde Orbit’’ around the Moon. NASA will use 

this region of space to test and demonstrate operation of human-rated vehicles farther from Earth than ever before. In late 2020, NASA plans to launch an advanced 

solar electric propulsion based spacecraft to redirect a small asteroid or a boulder 

from a larger asteroid to lunar orbit. In 2025, launched by SLS, Orion will carry 

a two person crew on a 25–28 day mission to rendezvous with the asteroid in cislunar space. Orion will dock with the robotic spacecraft attached to the asteroid in 

lunar orbit for about five days. NASA’s planning leverages development efforts from 

existing programs across NASA mission directorates, and provides a critical opportunity to exercise our emerging deep space exploration capabilities. 

As NASA strives to achieve the dream of sending humans to Mars, it is important 

to remember we are already there. For 40 years, increasingly advanced robotic explorers have studied the Red Planet. This has dramatically increased our scientific 

knowledge and helped pave the way for astronauts to travel there. Our latest Mars 

spacecraft, MAVEN (Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN), arrived last SepVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:02 Feb 05, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\98478.TXT JACKIE
8 

tember to study the upper atmosphere and joined a fleet of orbiters and rovers on 

the surface. Next year, we will send the InSight (Interior Exploration using Seismic 

Investigations, Geodesy and Heat Transport) lander to study the planet’s deep interior. In 2020, a new rover, building on the incredible success of Curiosity, will help 

us prepare for the arrival of humans at Mars. The Mars 2020 rover will address 

the highest priority Mars science objectives recommended by the Planetary Decadal 

Survey and will carry exploration technology investigations to help plan future 

human missions. 

Mars is a key destination, but only one point on humanity’s journey of discovery. 

Ours is a journey of understanding reaching through our Earth system, across our 

solar system, and beyond, deep into the universe. The FY 2016 budget request includes $5,288.6 million for Science to continue that mission, with $1,947.3 million 

for Earth Science, $1,361.2 million for Planetary Science, $709.1 million for Astrophysics, $620.0 million for the James Webb Space Telescope, and $651.0 million for 

Heliophysics. 

NASA’s Planetary Science program continues to expand our knowledge of the 

solar system, with spacecraft in place from the innermost planet to the very edge 

of our sun’s influence. After nine years and three billion miles of travel, the New 

Horizons spacecraft awakened and began to prepare for its arrival in the Pluto system in July. Right now, Dawn is approaching the dwarf planet Ceres. Juno is speeding toward Jupiter where it will not only send back unprecedented data from a first 

ever polar orbit of our giant neighbor, but will also demonstrate how solar power 

can work at great distances from the sun. With the FY 2016 request, NASA will 

continue development of a robotic asteroid rendezvous and sample return mission, 

dubbed OSIRIS–REx, planned for launch in 2016. OSIRIS–REx will approach the 

near-Earth Asteroid Bennu, map the asteroid, and collect a sample for return to 

Earth in 2023. Looking further to the future, NASA is planning a mission to explore 

Jupiter’s fascinating moon Europa, selecting instruments this spring and moving toward the next phase of our work. 

The most important planet we study is the one on which we live—Earth. Today, 

21 NASA-developed research missions orbit Earth and provide a quantitative understanding of our complex planet, its origins and its future. In the last year, we have 

launched an unprecedented five Earth Science missions, starting with the Global 

Precipitation Measurement Core Observatory (GPM) that already has observed Hurricane Arthur’s brush of the East Coast last July. The Soil Moisture Active Passive 

(SMAP) mission, launched in January, will give us for the first time ever, a picture 

of soil moisture on a global scale, allowing scientists to monitor droughts and predict 

flooding caused by severe rainfall or snowmelt. New research missions in formulation include PACE, the Pre-Aerosol, Clouds and ocean Ecosystem continuity mission, 

that observes ocean color, aerosols, and clouds; NISAR, the NASA–ISRO Synthetic 

Aperture Radar mission, being developed in partnership with the Indian Space Research Organization to measure complex processes such as ecosystem disturbances 

and ice-sheet collapse; and CLARREO, the Climate Absolute Radiance and 

Refractivity Observatory Pathfinder that will begin pre-formulation this fiscal year. 

The Landsat series of satellites is a cornerstone of our Earth observing capability. 

The world relies on Landsat data to detect and measure land cover/land use change, 

the health of ecosystems, and water availability. The President’s FY 2016 request 

recognizes Landsat’s critical importance and sets out a multi-decadal plan for an 

Earth-observing architecture that ensures data continuity and reliability. The Sustainable Land Imaging program partnership with the Department of the Interior’s 

U.S. Geological Survey will include flight of a thermal-infrared free flyer and an upgraded Landsat-9 mission, while infusing new technological developments for future 

missions and ensuring consistency with the existing 42-year Landsat data record. 

Twenty-five years ago this April NASA deployed the Hubble Space Telescope. 

Hubble is still doing amazing science, and the last textbook that will have to be revised because of its discoveries has not yet been written. In just slightly over three 

years, NASA plans to launch the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), Hubble’s 

successor, and continue to reveal the unknown with the largest observatory ever put 

into space. This amazing telescope is taking shape right now in suburban Maryland, 

where this year the mirrors will be installed on the telescope backplane. The ‘‘heart’’ 

of the telescope that holds its instruments successfully completed a nearly fourmonth test in a cryogenic thermal vacuum chamber. NASA’s Astrophysics program 

operating missions include the Hubble, Chandra, Spitzer, and Kepler telescopes, the 

Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) airborne observatory, 

and other missions that together comprise an unrivaled resource for the study of 

our universe. With the FY 2016 request, NASA will continue development of the 

Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS). TESS will extend the pioneering 

work of the Kepler Space Telescope, which showed us that virtually every star in 

9 

the sky has a planetary system. TESS launches in 2018 and will discover rocky 

exoplanets orbiting the nearest and brightest stars in the sky in time for Webb to 

conduct follow-up observations. NASA will also continue pre-formulation of the 

Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST), the top priority for large-scale missions of the most recent National Academy of Science Decadal Survey in Astronomy 

and Astrophysics. 

Just as the most important planet that we study is the Earth, the most important 

star that we study is our own. NASA’s Heliophysics Program is monitoring the Sun, 

near-Earth space, and the space environment throughout our solar system, with 29 

spacecraft making up 18 missions. These missions work toward one goal: to better 

understand the sun and its interactions with the Earth and solar system, including 

space weather. The FY 2016 request supports development of NASA’s Solar Probe 

Plus (SPP) mission, planned for launch in 2018. SPP will be humanity’s first voyage 

to our home star and will repeatedly pass through the Sun’s hot outer atmosphere. 

NASA will also begin science operations of the Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) 

mission to investigate how magnetic fields around Earth connect and disconnect, explosively releasing tremendous amounts of energy in a process called magnetic reconnection. 

NASA’s Aeronautics research is making air travel cleaner, safer, and more efficient. Every U.S. aircraft and U.S. air traffic control tower has NASA-developedtechnology on board. NASA’s FY 2016 budget request includes $571.4 million for 

Aeronautics to fulfill the Agency’s strategic research agenda, addressing the most 

critical challenges facing the aviation sector. NASA is improving safety and reducing 

development costs of new aviation technologies, developing integrated air traffic 

management tools to expand airspace capacity with more fuel-efficient flight planning and diminish delays, and researching next generation aircraft configurations, 

efficient engines, and low carbon propulsion systems such as hybrid electric technology systems. NASA is enabling the future of unmanned and autonomous flight 

by providing technical data and analysis to directly inform FAA rulemaking related 

to Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), funding technology development to address 

emerging needs for UAS integration, and initiating fundamental research in autonomous systems for aviation. Also in FY16, NASA is initiating a series of flight demonstrations focused on environmental performance, and expanding our portfolio of 

rapid-turnover feasibility demonstrations to infuse new ideas into our research program. NASA’s aeronautics research continues to play a vital leadership role to air 

travel and commerce by enabling game-changing technologies and innovation that 

allow the U.S. aviation industry to continue to grow and maintain its global leadership role. NASA is truly with you when you fly. 

NASA’s spacecraft are voyaging beyond the solar system, we are developing a mission to pass right through the Sun’s atmosphere, and our spacecraft are exploring 

the planets in between. The venerable Hubble Space Telescope is looking back into 

deep time, Kepler is demonstrating the prevalence of planets around other stars, 

and the James Webb Space Telescope is on the way. An early version of Orion 

splashed down in the Pacific, Astronaut Mark Kelly is preparing for a one-year mission in space, and the Space Launch System is on track for a November 2018 launch 

capability. NASA is embracing its mission as never before. NASA looks forward to 

working with the Committee and the Congress to make this vision a reality. 

Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to respond to your questions and those of other 

Members of the Subcommittee. 

10 

ATTACHMENT

Senator CRUZ. Thank you very much, Administrator Bolden. 

Thank you for joining us here this morning, and thank you for your 

many, many years of honorable service to our nation. 

I’d like to start by asking a general question. In your judgment, 

what is the core mission of NASA? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I’ve given that a lot of thought over 

the last few days, and so I went back and looked at the original 

Space Act of 1958. I won’t quote it, but essentially our core mission 

from the very beginning has been to investigate, explore space and 

the Earth environment, and to help us make this place a better 

place. So that’s the nut of it right there. 

And, I have to admit, another core part of it, because we have 

multiple—if you want to say multiple cores, which is hard—aeroVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:02 Feb 05, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\98478.TXT JACKIE

312BUDGE1.eps
11 

nautics is an essential part of what NASA does. It is the Big A in 

NASA. If someone from another planet came down and looked at 

our budget, they probably would not believe that, because it is the 

least funded or the skimpiest funded portion of the budget, but 

we’re working on it. 

Senator CRUZ. Well, there’s no doubt that there are multiple important priorities within NASA. But I would suggest that almost 

any American would agree that the core function of NASA is to explore space. That’s what inspires little boys and little girls across 

this country. It’s what sets NASA apart from any other agency. It’s 

the mission that landed man on the moon. It has the potential to 

explore new worlds beyond our imagination. 

You and I have had this conversation many times. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator CRUZ. And you know that I am concerned that NASA, 

in the current environment, has lost its full focus on that core mission, and I want to talk for a minute about the current budget. 

If you look at the current budget of NASA, and if you compare 

2009 to 2016, we can see from 2009 to 2016 that Earth Sciences 

has had a 41 percent increase in the budget. In contrast, exploration and space operations, what I would consider the core function of NASA, has seen its budget drop 7.6 percent. And looking at 

the remainder of the elements, Planetary Sciences is a 3 percent 

increase, Heliophysics is a 10 percent increase, and Astrophysics is 

a 10 percent increase. 

In my judgment, this does not represent a fair or appropriate allocation of resources, that it is shifting resources away from the 

core functions of NASA to other functions. Do you share that assessment? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I am very interested in your chart. 

However, I will say one thing. It is interesting to note that there 

is a decrease in exploration or human spaceflight when, in fact, 

that was somewhat intentional because we were trying to get the 

cost of exploration down as we reached farther out into the solar 

system. It used to cost us $2B a year to maintain the Space Shuttle, whether we flew it or not. Today, NASA pays—I want to say 

we now have two contracts that are in the neighborhood of about 

$6.8B that will give us 16 fights on a combination of Boeing and 

SpaceX missions, carrying American astronauts to space. That will 

probably take place over about maybe three or 4 years. 

So I think that decrease is actually a little bit of what we were 

trying to do, get the cost of flying humans into space down. That’s 

what’s driving the market, is reducing launch costs. 

So the fact that Earth Science has increased, I’m proud to say 

it has enabled us to understand our planet far better than we ever 

did before because it’s absolutely critical. 

If I go back to what used to be my home state, and your state, 

the state of Texas, we have the Texas Soil Observation Network, 

which is strongly supported by NASA. Senator, I don’t need to tell 

you, when I lived in Houston, the elevation sank a matter of inches 

over the period of time that I lived there, and that was because we 

were pumping water out of the ground and we just didn’t realize 

what was going on. 

12 

But now, because of some of NASA’s efforts, we have satellites 

that are able to look and actually measure the difference in gravitational field of Earth, and we can tell that we’re emptying out the 

aquifers, and that’s just looking at our environment, trying to make 

sure that we have a better place for all of us in which to live. I 

think that’s critical. 

Senator CRUZ. I am confident, though, that it’s not your testimony to this subcommittee that NASA has all the resources it 

needs—— 

Mr. BOLDEN. Oh, no. 

Senator CRUZ.—for space exploration—— 

Mr. BOLDEN. No, no, no. 

Senator CRUZ.—and that it has suddenly gotten less expensive 

and more affordable. Indeed, as you know, the first hearing this 

subcommittee had, we heard from expert testimony as to the real 

challenges if we are going to go back to the Moon or to Mars or 

beyond, that it’s going to require a significant investment. And I 

would suggest that this chart does not suggest that the investment 

of budgetary resources is going where it should, and let me note 

one specific matter. 

This past December, Orion completed a nearly flawless maiden 

unmanned test flight on the Exploration Flight Test 1 mission. But 

despite the success of SLS and Orion, the President’s budget re- quest cuts funding by over $441 million. Does the Administration 

lack confidence in SLS and Orion and their ability to get American 

astronauts to space beyond low-Earch orbit in the 2021 timeframe? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, quite the contrary. I think the Administration has the utmost confidence in us, and that’s the reason that 

they presented the bill for $18.5B that they did to the Congress. 

The President trusts me to take whatever amount of funds the 

Congress appropriates to us and appropriately balance that across 

our portfolio because we do have multiple things for which we are 

responsible. 

The fact that we now have a set date where the launch complex 

at the Kennedy Space Center and SLS will be ready for flight in 

November 2018; the fact that we’re going to have a set date when 

Orion will be ready to be integrated with SLS and we’ll have that 

this summer; the fact that we had a successful test on the solid 

rocket booster out at Promontory Point, Utah 2 days ago; the fact 

that we now have two contractors who are upgrading their facilities at the Kennedy Space Center and at Cape Canaveral Air Force 

Station so that we can launch American astronauts to space from 

American soil in 2017; the fact that we now have a robust competition for American companies to get cargo to space where that used 

to be the job of the government; I think that speaks highly to the 

confidence that the Administration and hopefully this Congress has 

in our ability to do exactly what you want us to do. 

I would say—you asked me about your chart—there’s a lot of 

chartsmanship. I’m not sure what you include in exploration, for 

example. So by my statements, I was not acknowledging that I 

agree with the numbers on the chart. I don’t want everyone to say 

I accept the numbers on the chart, because when you talk about 

exploration, a lot of times people don’t count the launch complex. 

You can’t go anywhere if you don’t have a place from which to 

13 

launch. A lot of times people don’t count commercial crew and 

cargo. We can’t go anywhere if we don’t have a robust, sustainable 

low-Earth orbit infrastructure. 

So there are a lot of things that people don’t count. We can’t go 

anywhere if the Kennedy Space Center goes under water and we 

don’t know it. That’s understanding our environment. 

So, as Senator Nelson said, it is absolutely critical that we understand Earth’s environment because this is the only place that 

we have to live. Having had an opportunity to view it from a place 

where—I look around and I’m not sure anybody else here has had 

that opportunity. We’ve got to take care of it, and the only way we 

can take care of it is that we know what’s happening. And the only 

way we know what’s happening is to use instruments that we developed in NASA, and we do it better than anybody else. I’m proud 

to say that. 

I always come and brag on my workforce. We do it better than 

anybody else in the world, and that allows us to get data to you 

and Members of the Congress and the Administration, who make 

decisions. We don’t make decisions. We don’t give you opinions. We 

give you data. 

So I’m very proud of what we’ve done, and I’ll go back and take 

it for the record to see whether we agree with the numbers on the 

chart, Mr. Chairman. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

The chart shows an increase in the Earth Science budget from 2009 to 2016 of 

41 percent. In the FY 2009 Appropriation, the Earth Science Division’s fraction of 

the full-Agency budget was 9.1 percent, while in the President’s Budget Request for 

FY 2016, this fraction is 10.5 percent. Therefore, in absolute terms, the Earth 

Science fraction of the Agency’s budget has increased by only 1.4 percent. This modest increase supports missions such as Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO–3), Climate Absolute Radiance and Refractivity Observatory (CLARREO) technology demonstration, and research & analysis. It also supports the transfer of activity from 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to NASA for developing certain Earth-observing satellites (which takes advantage of NASA expertise 

in developing Earth-observing satellites). 

It is important to note that Earth Science is one of NASA’s core missions. The 

Agency’s authorizing statute establishes a list of nine objectives for the Agency, and 

the first of these is ‘‘(1) The expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space.’’ The National Academies’ 2007 Decadal Survey for Earth Science, ‘‘Earth Science and Applications from Space,’’ recommended 

that: ‘‘The U.S. government, working in concert with the private sector, academe, 

the public, and its international partners, should renew its investment in Earth-observing systems and restore its leadership in Earth Science and applications.’’ The 

proposed budget for FY 2016 is still about 20 percent below the actual levels of the 

late 1990s, which was the funding level recommended by the Decadal Survey. The 

increase demonstrates the important role that NASA Earth Science plays in the Nation’s science priorities—including those recognized in the NRC Decadal Survey— 

and confidence in NASA’s ability to effectively implement missions. 

14 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Mr. Administrator. 

I now recognize Senator Nelson for his questions. 

Senator NELSON. Well, I’m going to defer to the Ranking Member 

of the Subcommittee, but let me just point out, budgets are not always as clear as what we think they are. Whereas it does show, 

as you stated, the President’s request from what is existing appropriations, which, by the way, is guided by Senator Shelby and Senator Mikulski, a significant plus-up in commercial crew, in which 

we clearly have an interest, we the United States, in being able to 

put Americans on American rockets and not pay the Russians to 

get to and from the International Space Station. 

But where it looks like that there is, as you said, about a $400 

million reduction in the President’s request for Orion and the 

Space Launch System, look at the other things that go along with 

that, exploration ground systems up $59 million in the President’s 

request, exploration R&D up $93 million in the President’s request. 

And then when you get to something that nobody understands, including this Senator, it also includes part of the exploration, crossagency support, that’s up $84 million. Space technology, which is 

all a part of the exploration program, but it’s a different line item, 

that’s up in the President’s request $129 million. 

So I think just those numbers, just looking at the specific, isolated SLS and Orion, doesn’t tell us the whole story. I would defer 

to the Ranking Member. 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, 

Ranking Member Nelson. 

I want to just follow along with some of the thoughts that both 

of the individuals have brought up. 


312EARTH1.eps
15 

Chairman Cruz, looking at this chart, I think it’s also important 

to note that if you look at a longer timeframe, looking back through 

the Bush Administration, and prior to that the Clinton Administration, it’s my understanding that the money that was spent on 

Earth Sciences was considerably higher during the Clinton Administration than is currently being spent during the Obama Administration. So it is not as if there has been a big increase from a baseline. It’s actually coming back from a major reduction that occurred 

during the Bush Administration. 

I would like to, therefore, enter into the record actually a report 

that we have from the National Academy of Sciences, their ‘‘Earth 

Science and Applications From Space,’’ a midterm assessment that 

was done back in 2007. If I may quote something from the report— 

if I may enter this, without objection? 

Senator CRUZ. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

16 

EARTH SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS FROM SPACE: NATIONAL IMPERATIVES FOR THE

NEXT DECADE AND BEYOND

Committee on Earth Science and Applications from Space: A Community Assessment and Strategy for the 

Future, National Research Council 

Pdf available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11820/earth-science-and-applicationsfrom-space-national-imperatives-for-the 


312NSRT1.eps
17 


312NSRT2.eps
18 


312NSRT3.eps
19 


312NSRT4.eps
20 


312NSRT5.eps
21 


312NSRT6.eps
22 


312NSRT7.eps
23 


312NSRT8.eps
24 


312NSRT9.eps
25 


312NSRT10.eps
26 


312NSRT11.eps
27 


312NSRT12.eps
28 


312NSRT13.eps
29 


312NSRT14.eps
30 


312NSRT15.eps
31 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

A quote from it is that it noted that the Bush-era reductions in 

Earth Science funding were having a ‘‘disastrous consequence on 

Earth observation record.’’ So it seems as if we are trying to correct 

what the National Academy of Sciences, and I know the Chairman 

has mentioned that he wants science to drive our process here, 

which makes sense to have it. But here we have the foremost experts in science in our country saying that the cuts that we saw 

in Earth Sciences were disastrous in the Bush era. 

So I would assume that you are taking a look at those types of 

reports from our experts and are addressing that. So how does this 

year’s requested increase in Earth Science funding address the priorities that you see coming from the scientific community? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator Peters, I think you know very well we are 

guided, particularly in the science arena, by the input of the experts, dominantly by what we call decadal surveys. They are studies by learned people in specific areas that come from the National 

Research Council, and they give us guidance. It’s not mandatory, 

but they give us guidance on how we should put our emphasis. 

So if you look at all of our programs, whether it’s in heliophysics, 

planetary science, Earth science, or the others, we’re generally trying to do what the experts say NASA should be putting its focus 

on. And you’re absolutely right, across the board we’re really trying 

to get the science community back up to the levels of spending of 

prior years, and that can’t all be done at one time. 

So we take what seems to be the most important things told to 

us by the scientific community, put our focus on that, and also we 

try to look at things that are going to contribute ultimately, going 

back to Senator Cruz’ comment to everything that we do. If there 

is a choice to be made, we try to put our focus on what is going 

to enable us to get humans to Mars. As I said before, when you 

look at science, areas like heliophysics, areas like planetary 

science, areas like Earth Science are all critical in providing data 

that helps us to speed our way to Mars. 

We’re looking at radiation. We’re looking at the sun because it 

determines the time of year or the time when you want to launch 

a human on a mission that’s going to take eight months. So it’s important for us to look at all that, and it’s unfortunate that people 

tend to want to talk about one versus the other. 

We are at a time in the agency when we work more synergistically across our mission directorates. Science helps exploration. 

Exploration helps science. Technology development is absolutely 

critical because the most important risks that I have to draw down 

are risks that deal with technology that we don’t have today, and 

that’s why we asked for the increased funding for technology development that we’ve not been able to get. 

So it is absolutely critical that the Committees and the Congress 

trust NASA and some pretty smart people. You ask us to be your 

experts, and I consider myself to be the Congress’ subject-matter 

expert when it comes to exploration science and aeronautics. If I’m 

not doing that well, you ought to fire me, to be quite honest. 

Senator PETERS. Well, it’s clear from your answer how science is 

driving us, including observations of the Earth and the practical 

applications. I think we’re going to talk about it later. Hopefully 

32 

we’ll have time to talk about certainly the spillovers of the work 

of NASA into economic development and small business, but other 

areas of making sure we’re studying our planet have very strong 

economic consequences, particularly, for example, in agriculture. 

I know NASA funds the Global Observatory for Ecosystem Services that’s used extensively by a university in my state, Michigan 

State University, the first land grant university in the country, a 

leader in agricultural sciences. They collect data from LANDSAT 

satellites and distribute those to scientists, educators, and users 

around the world, and have significant applications when it comes 

to the agricultural community in this country that relies on that 

kind of information to plan and to do things related to increasing 

agricultural production. 

Are there other areas like that that you see as incredibly important in terms of just our day-to-day commercial activities here on 

our planet? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, sir, there are. We just recently completed a 

conference, a meeting with policymakers and others in the states 

of California and Nevada about water, water resources, and letting 

them know how our Earth Science assets were available to help 

them understand how to utilize the limited water that’s available, 

to give them hints about drought and flood cycles. I mentioned to 

Senator Cruz the Texas Soil Observation Network. 

Texas is a big state, and Texas has probably the fewest organic 

ways to measure things like soil moisture. Due to the fact that we 

launched the Soil Moisture Active-Passive mission just recently, 

something we call SMAP, we now are able to measure very accurately soil moisture in every state of the union and around the 

globe, and that is becoming essential data to the people in Texas 

in their water resources management. 

Whether you’re talking about farmers or ranchers, you want to 

maximize crop yield. So we need to be able to tell them how to get 

more efficiently and effectively water into their particular areas. So 

those are the kinds of things that I would hope people would not 

overlook when you talk about what we do in Earth Science. It’s 

really about making life better for people on this planet. 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Bolden. Another question for 

you, if I may. 

Since the end of the Shuttle program in 2011, the United States 

has relied on the Russian Soyuz for crew transportation to the 

International Space Station. The Soyuz cost, it’s my understanding, 

has risen from $25 million per seat in 2010 to now more than 

$76M for us to take a ride on the Soyuz up to the Space Station. 

NASA will have paid Russia over $2.1B by the time domestic providers Boeing and SpaceX are able to launch their astronauts in 

2017. 

If you could elaborate for us, please, on how failing to fully fund the $1.2 billion request for commercial crew program affects the 

Space Station program, and more specifically our continued dependence on the Russians. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, because we are now operating on two firm 

fixed-price contracts with Boeing and SpaceX, any amount short of 

the $1.2B that we requested will mean we will have to reduce the 

milestones that the two manufacturers accomplish. We can’t pick 

33 

one over the other. We’re contractually obligated to both. So it will 

mean both will be slowed down and we won’t make 2017. 

That will mean that we’ll have to go back and rely on the Russians continually to provide transportation for our crews, so that 

puts us at risk, as came out in my hearing with the House Appropriations Committee, when we have to depend on someone else to 

get our crews to the International Space Station. We have a great 

relationship. I’m not worried, but I would feel much better if I 

knew I was dependent on two American companies. 

Senator PETERS. Well, I think we would all agree with you. 

Thank you so much. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Thank you very much. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you very much. 

Senator Gardner? 

STATEMENT OF HON. CORY GARDNER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Administrator Bolden, for your time and testimony today. 

It has been an interesting conversation, but I do think it merits 

kind of focusing back in on what we believe NASA’s core mission 

to really be. 

Now, you mentioned that NASA’s core mission going back to the 

1950s, looking at the organic legislation to create the legislation, I 

kind of want to go there. We talked about water management in 

California. We talked about the Texas soil management system. 

I’m sorry, Chairman, I’m not as familiar with the Texas soil 

management perhaps as I should be. But I want to just ask a couple of questions. 

Is there any other agency or department in the Federal Government who is sending Rovers to Mars? There’s not. 

Mr. BOLDEN. No, sir. There is no other nation that has a Rover. 

Senator GARDNER. Are there any other agencies that are looking 

at soil in Texas? 

Mr. BOLDEN. I would hope so, but I—— 

Senator GARDNER. Are there any other agencies—— 

Mr. BOLDEN. We collaborate with—— 

Senator GARDNER. Are there any other agencies that are tasked 

with sending Orion, which you said performed flawlessly—— 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, I get your drift, but—— 

Senator GARDNER. Drift is a good point, because that’s exactly 

what I want to talk about. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator—— 

Senator GARDNER. Because it seems to me that NASA perhaps 

has drifted away from its core mission, and I’m concerned about 

that. We have so many other agencies and departments that are 

looking at our soil sciences and our water management. And I understand the importance of going to space and putting a satellite 

and looking down and measuring and monitoring what we can do, 

but I am concerned that when we talk about how we’re going to 

have a future of robots on Mars, that we’re not funding the Opportunity Rover on Mars in the 2016 budget. So I just want to ask a 

few questions. 

34 

In 2010, President Obama went to the John F. Kennedy Space 

Center, and he committed to a manned mission to Mars, correct? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator GARDNER. On December 5, 2014, Orion launched atop a 

ULA Delta–4 heavy rocket, the Orion–4 Flight Test, and you said 

it, I think—I wrote it down, because I think we tweeted it already—Orion performed flawlessly. 

Mr. BOLDEN. And some people say near flawlessly. 

Senator GARDNER. Near flawlessly, OK. I’ll take the flawless. 

Mr. BOLDEN. I’ll take the flawless. 

Senator GARDNER. A two-orbit, 4-hour flight that tested many of 

the systems most critical to safety, launch, high-speed reentry systems, avionics, altitude control, you name it. It was a success. You 

called it flawless. 

Would you consider Orion and SLS instrumental in achieving a 

manned mission to Mars? 

Mr. BOLDEN. They’re absolutely essential, Senator. And I would 

also say, again, sort of as I talked to Senator Cruz about being 

careful when you draw something out and talk about that one 

thing singularly, there is, to my knowledge—and I will have to take 

this for the record, but to my knowledge, there is only one agency 

of the Federal Government that develops the instruments, launches 

the satellites and the like that explore our planet, to the extent 

that we do, and that’s NASA. 

[The information requested follows:] 

NASA is the Nation’s civil space agency. As such, NASA (among other activities) 

designs, procures, develops, and launches Earth monitoring spacecraft that provide 

critical space-based observations of our planet. Data from NASA Earth-observing research satellites is made available rapidly (often in near-real time), and thus is 

often used by other Federal agencies with ‘‘operational missions’’ to improve their 

operational products, such as weather predictions and disaster response planning 

and execution. In addition to other Federal agencies, state and local governments 

and other organizations routinely use NASA research data for applied and operational purposes. 

NASA solicits and funds a broad suite of research studies to improve our understanding of the Earth and its processes as an integrated system, using measurements from NASA research satellites and also operational and research satellites 

from partner agencies and international partners. NASA researchers also develop 

and demonstrate application products—based on the measurements of the spaceborne constellation and the understanding gained from the research program—that 

deliver direct societal benefit and strengthen our Nation. Because of its unsurpassed 

technical and systems engineering expertise and its role as the Nation’s civil space 

agency, ‘‘operational’’ agencies such as NOAA have utilized NASA services to develop and implement spaceborne Earth observation satellites in support of their 

missions. 

So, if we did not do it, many of the satellites that NOAA operates, once we get them in orbit and hand them off to them, they 

become NOAA satellites, not NASA satellites. But because we have 

the expertise, like the Jet Propulsion Lab, Goddard Space Flight 

Center, and our contractors, when you talk about sensors, there are 

not a lot of people in the world who do the stuff that our people 

do when you talk about sensors. 

So if we stop doing it, it doesn’t mean that’s why I think it’s core, 

because if you take Earth Science out of NASA, the Nation loses 

its dominant capability to do the types of Earth Science investigations that this Nation does. 

35 

So I just caution that if we’re going to talk about core things and 

things that only NASA does, you really do need to look at 

LANDSAT. NASA does not own LANDSAT. LANDSAT belongs to 

the Department of the Interior. But if it were not for NASA producing the LANDSAT satellite because of the expertise that we 

have in developing the instruments, there would be no LANDSAT. 

That’s a 40-year continuous program. 

If you took that away from NASA, we would not have it, the Nation would not have it. Right now, the Department of Defense is 

really hurting for weather satellites. NOAA was really hurting for 

weather satellites a few years ago when we were putting together 

a program that was ultimately canceled called NPOESS that was 

going to be a joint NASA-NOAA-DOD weather satellite. It was finally canceled because the cost had gotten out of hand, we just 

weren’t getting anywhere close. 

NASA, because we are always looking at newer, more state-ofthe-art sensors, had developed sensors that we put on a satellite 

that was called NPOESS Preparatory Project, NPP. NPP is now a 

major weather satellite for NOAA and the National Weather Service that was not supposed to be a weather satellite. If NASA had 

not done that, this nation and other people around the world would 

not be able to do the things that they do about understanding the 

climate, predicting hurricanes and tornadoes, which we can’t predict. 

But, I just caution people about saying, OK, NASA shouldn’t be 

doing this. We are the core producers of instruments and satellites 

that look at this planet. We’re better than anybody else in the 

world, and if you took that out of NASA, you’ve got to put it somewhere, and there are other agencies that do not have that. 

We are known for our program management capability. That’s 

why everybody comes to us to get satellites. I think if you talk to 

Dr. Sullivan over in NOAA, if you talk to any of the secretaries 

about where they would go to get a good satellite, hopefully they 

would tell you they’d come to us. 

Senator GARDNER. Well, given the comments that you made 

about President Obama’s commitment to the manned mission to 

Mars, given your comments about the Orion SLS being instrumental in the manned Mars mission, I still don’t understand why 

we have seen a reduction, then, in the Orion program from 2015 

to 2016, the SLS program from 2015 to 2016. There’s no doubt 

about it that I support science and research funding, but I also 

support identifying priorities and funding priorities. 

So I’m very concerned that this budget document, the document 

that Senator Cruz put forward in a chart, Chairman Cruz put forward in a chart about what NASA’s priorities are, where they’re at, 

and really if we’re seeing the kind of drift that is going to make 

our mission the core mission that I believe it should be, difficult 

to reach. 

The budget request for Earth Science put a little number to this 

41 percent increase. For Fiscal Year 2016, it is $1.95B, a lot of systems monitoring Earth, multiple agencies supporting Earth 

Sciences. But we are without the basic required system to send pioneers to Mars. 

36 

So, a 41 percent increase, but yet NASA, the only agency, the 

only part of our government that is working on sending people out 

there, doesn’t have the basic capacity to do that, while we’re decreasing and increasing our sciences. 

So, I know I’m running out of time, but I’m concerned with the 

small amount of money that we’ve allocated to our mission that’s 

been endorsed by the President. 

Mr. Chairman, I’ll yield back to you. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, may I make a comment? Again, I want to 

make a slight correction. You are absolutely correct that we don’t 

have everything that we need to get humans to Mars. That is not 

in human exploration. That is in space technology. This agency and 

this President have been requesting—we requested a billion dollars 

when I became the NASA Administrator to establish a Space Technology Mission Directorate because the things that we’re missing 

in being able to effectively and safely send humans to Mars, the 

majority of that is not done in the Human Exploration Mission Directorate. I need it to be done in the Space Technology Mission Directorate, and that’s not funded efficiently. 

Senator GARDNER. So why not fund the Mars Opportunity Rover 

in the 2016 budget? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Mars Opportunity Rover, Senator, we are getting 

incredible data from Mars through Curiosity, through Opportunity. 

We’re getting ready to send InSight. We cannot continue to operate 

instruments and missions whose time has passed because I won’t 

be able to put something like Insight on Mars in 2016 that, for the 

first time ever, is going to core deeper into the surface of the planet. I don’t have a Rover that can do that today. 

I have to make choices. Hopefully, you trust me. Senator, my choice since becoming the NASA Administrator was to put $49B on 

human spaceflight and $11B on Earth Science—$498M. I’m sorry. 

Thank you—$498M on human spaceflight and $11B on Earth 

Science. 

Now, if you put that on a chart, the science community is going 

to kill me because that was the fear when I became the NASA Administrator, that I was going to put $498B on human spaceflight 

and I was going to put some measly amount into science. I have 

tried not to do that. I have tried to focus this agency on all the 

things it’s important for us to do. 

So I think the balance overall is good—$498B for human 

spaceflight, $11B for Earth Science. I think that’s a fair allocation 

for funds on the part of this Administration and this agency, and 

it’s unfortunate that everyone doesn’t recognize the fact that we’ve 

done that. That’s significant. 

Senator GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, you’ve been more than generous with the time. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Human space flight dwarfs what we’ve been doing 

in other areas. 

Senator CRUZ. Senator Nelson? 

Senator NELSON. Senator Gardner, every now and then we have 

to put on the green eyeshades and get into the budget. The President’s proposed budget, which you can disagree with, is a 10 percent increase in Earth Science. It is, from $1.773 billion, a $175 

million increase. That’s about 10 percent. 

37 

Now, if you want to solve the problem of what you’re talking 

about, of going to Mars and ramping it up, then what we need is 

more than the President’s request of a half-billion-dollar increase 

for NASA. We could pour the juice, like we did in the Apollo program, where the Nation’s space budget was more like 5 percent of 

the entire Federal budget instead of the existing NASA budget 

being less than a percent of the total Federal budget, and you will 

certainly find this senator supporting you in that. 

What I have tried so hard to do in the past several years, in 

what little bit of influence I have in this committee, is to keep it 

bipartisan. The history of this committee was that it should never 

have even been bipartisan. It was non-partisan, and that’s what 

NASA was. And yet, in the past couple of years, we got into these 

flaps over the sequester, and all of the senators on your side before 

you arrived were voting to cut the NASA budget by $1.5 billion 

from the President’s request in 2015, which would have absolutely 

eviscerated this little agency. 

Thank goodness we are to the point now that we are talking 

about this core mission and trying to explore the heavens and realizing that space flight is not cheap. 

I would also point out to my colleague from Texas that he and 

I are from Gulf states, and on June 1st hurricane season starts, 

and we are so dependent upon the protection from those natural 

disasters that plague the shores of our respective states by being 

able to have the advanced warning by virtue of the accurate predictions of the weather satellites. 

And as the Administrator says, NASA builds them and then 

turns them over to NOAA. And then coming up, here we’ve got the 

Global Participation Measurement, GPM. These are current Earth 

Science missions. What does it do? It predicts extreme weather 

events. The ISS RapidScat, it gives weather forecasting and storm 

tracking. And then I’ll just give you one more. We talked about Soil 

Moisture Active Passing. That’s SMAP that the Administrator already talked about, weather forecasting. 

All of these things, if you would look behind what appears to be 

on the surface and get in, and where you have a disagreement, I 

want to hear about it. But I don’t think, and I certainly don’t think 

the Chairman of the Subcommittee has a disagreement with trying 

to get accurate weather forecasting—— 

Senator GARDNER. And if you listen to my comments, I’m not 

talking about that either. I’m just talking about are we focusing on 

the heavens in NASA or are we focusing on dirt in Texas? So that’s 

what I want to talk about, and I think that’s the point of this discussion, and I think it’s talking about how we can make sure that 

we’re allowing NOAA to do the work that it’s doing in weather, and 

allowing NASA to look at Mars, and allowing our agencies to work 

together to predict weather. Certainly Colorado has had its fair 

share of terrible, terrible and tragic weather events, and that’s 

something that we have to fund, and we will continue to do that. 

I’m just trying to figure out where the proper role and the proper 

mission lies in government. 

But I’ll remind, too, that the sequester was a bipartisan accomplishment. Whether or not we like it and want to change it, it was 

bipartisan. 

38 

Senator NELSON. Well, fortunately, the sequester, thanks to Senator Shelby, did not happen on NASA, or else we would be way behind and we wouldn’t be talking about launching Americans on 

American rockets in 2017. And, by the way, I’m still hopeful that’s 

going to be 2016. The two companies that are competing, Boeing 

and SpaceX, still think they can make 2016 for the first American 

riding the rocket. I am not applying. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to get down in the weeds and ask the Administrator a technical question. 

Mr. Administrator, we’re thinking on the SLS that we’re going 

to have the upper stage as a Delta–4. And yet, because of this senator and others, such as Senator McCain and I were the authors 

in the defense authorization bill saying America has got to start 

changing its rocket engines from the Russian rocket engines, the 

RD–180, and notably the SLS will use the Delta–4 upper stage as 

a stopgap until an upper stage suitable for deep space missions can 

be developed. 

So are we spending wise money human-rating the Delta–4 as an 

interim upper stage when later on we might be shifting to another 

upper stage that we’re going to develop? I know that’s a question 

down in the weeds, but we need to look at that. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, sir. Senator, we are looking at what we call 

the Exploration Upper Stage, and it is our intent that as we go 

along, as I talked about, we’re looking at the total program. We 

would prefer to have the Exploration Upper Stage be the vehicle 

of choice, if you will, and just have to certify that vehicle. But 

again, because we’re looking at the funding available for the EM– 

1 for the very first flight of the integrated system, we’re going to 

fly with what we call the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage, 

which is the Delta–4 upper stage. But eventually we will work our 

way to a single Exploration Upper Stage. 

Senator NELSON. And as you all develop your out-year budgets, 

do you anticipate that ULA’s plans to phaseout the Delta–4 in 2018 

is going to effect the cost and the risk of the SLS program? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, I’m not aware of ULA’s decision in that regard, to be quite honest. What I am aware of is the fact that we, 

along with the Department of Defense, are looking for a way to get 

the U.S. off reliance on engines and launch vehicles that depend on 

engines from other nations. But I don’t have any information that 

talks about when or if ULA is going to phaseout the Delta–4. I’m 

sorry. 

Senator NELSON. And that’s why I bring it up, because of what 

we put in the defense budget about the RD–180 and developing a 

follow-on engine to the RD–180, which is the main engine in the 

Atlas–5. I would hope that there is opportunity for NASA to work 

with DOD on a propulsion system that benefits both defense and 

civil space, particularly with regard to the SLS’s Advanced Booster 

upgrade. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, sir. Senator, we work with DOD continually. 

There is an organization that’s headquartered in the Marshall 

Space Flight Center called the National—I knew I shouldn’t have 

said this. It’s NIRPS, and I will take it for the record to get someone to tell us what NIRPS stands for. [National Institute for Rocket 

Propulsion Systems] But it’s an interagency propulsion study 

39 

group, and much of our work emanates right there where we’re 

talking with the DOD and NASA and others about what the nation 

needs. 

What the Nation needs is a new launch system, and my caution 

would be don’t focus on the engine because engines on rockets don’t 

work like people think. You don’t go get a new engine and stick it 

on a rocket. You have to have an integrated system. 

So I think what the Air Force secretary has said, Secretary 

James has probably said, if I remember correctly, is what they’re 

looking at is a new launch system for this nation, which would include a new American-made rocket to go with the American-made 

body. But launch systems are systems, are integrated systems. 

As a matter of fact, when you talked about human-rating the 

upper stage, it’s not the upper stage that we human rate. It’s the 

launch system that includes the upper stage. So we human-rate 

SLS, Orion, and the upper stage as an acceptable human-rated 

launch system, and if we change any component, we’ve got to go 

back in and re-rate it. 

So my only caution there is don’t get hung up on the engine but 

focus on the integrated system because that’s what the Nation 

needs. 

Senator CRUZ. Administrator Bolden, in your exchange with Senator Gardner, you told this committee that NASA in your tenure 

had spent $498B on human spaceflight. Now, politicians are famously bad at math, but I just did some quick back-of-the-envelope 

analysis, and NASA’s budget is about $18B. You’ve been administrator seven years. That’s $126B. So I assume you must have 

misspoken because that’s over 300 percent the total budget of 

NASA for your tenure. 

Mr. BOLDEN. That’s what I said. I am now told by my staff that I was right when I gave you the first number, which was $49B, so 

I misspoke. You’re right. 

Senator CRUZ. I assumed it must have been. 

Mr. BOLDEN. You’re absolutely right. 

Senator CRUZ. I just wanted to clarify the record. 

Mr. BOLDEN. You’re absolutely right. 

Senator CRUZ. That $498B, the math was not adding up if that 

number—— 

Mr. BOLDEN. I’m a pilot, a Marine pilot. I should have known 

that. 

Senator CRUZ. Sadly, Congress for some time has demonstrated 

an inability to distinguish between millions and billions, so you’re 

in good company here. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator CRUZ. I want to note, you have spent a great deal of time 

at this hearing defending the importance of Earth Sciences, defending the importance of weather observation. I think everyone would 

agree with that. There’s no one at this hearing that disagrees that 

we need to observe what’s happening with our weather—that we 

need to know more and have weather satellites. 

I would note, though, that Senator Gardner’s questions I think 

were quite accurate. NASA’s core competence is not Texas soil conservation. Now, I’m a Texan. I love our Texas soil. But there are 

a lot of people studying Texas soil. We’ve got a whole U.S. DepartVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:02 Feb 05, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\98478.TXT JACKIE
40 

ment of Agriculture that spends a lot of time and energy studying 

the soil in Texas and everywhere else. 

That ain’t what makes NASA special. And I have to say, if NASA 

ever becomes the place to study Texas soil, you’re going to lose a 

whole lot of bright new engineers who want to go explore the galaxy. 

To my mind, that exchange underscored the central point I made 

at the outset of this hearing. It’s not that Earth sciences are not 

valuable, but in the last 6 years there has been a disproportionate 

increase. We’ve seen Earth Sciences increase 41 percent, and we’ve 

seen exploration and space operations, what should be the core 

mission, what NASA exists to do, decrease 7.6 percent. That, in my 

view, is disproportionate, and it is not consistent with the reasons 

so many talented young scientists have joined NASA. 

So it’s my hope that this committee will work in a bipartisan 

manner to help refocus those priorities where they should be, to get 

back to the hard sciences, to get back to space, to focus on what 

makes NASA special. I am hopeful that this subcommittee will 

move forward with the NASA reauthorization and that in that 

process, we will continue this discussion of getting back to the core 

priorities of NASA. 

With that, I’ll recognize Senator Peters for an additional round. 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would certainly follow on with that. 

It certainly is your core mission to go into space, but also aeronautics, and as I mentioned in my opening comments, we have to 

look at your portfolio as very broad. You provide the tools to study 

deep space. You provide the tools to study Earth Science. So if 

you’re looking at others studying the soil of Texas or the soil in 

Michigan with Michigan State University, it’s NASA that provides 

those scientists with the tools that they need in order to do that 

because of your expertise of going into space. 

But I want to take this last question to talk about another one 

of your core missions, which is aeronautics, which is also closer to 

the Earth, but it has been part of your history. As I mentioned in 

my opening comments, NASA came out of an organization that was 

involved in aeronautics and advancing commercial fight here on 

Earth. If you look at commercial applications for your technologies, 

there’s probably no bigger bang to the taxpayers when it comes to 

your work in aeronautics. 

I appreciated in your opening comments talking about aeronautics and the substantial contributions NASA makes to that industry, which is a multi-billion-dollar industry here for the United 

States, and we want to continue to be the preeminent aeronautics 

country in the world, at least that’s certainly my desire and I hope 

others’ on the Committee as well. 

So I want to refer back to the National Academy’s report that I 

referenced earlier from 2012 which expressed concern at NASA’s 

lack of a dedicated flagship research aircraft. The committee noted 

that existing flight assets can’t achieve a sustained supersonic 

flight or low-boom design goals or demonstrate the system-level capabilities of a highly fuel-efficient, low-noise aircraft. 

So, Administrator Bolden, given the incredible importance of the 

aviation industry to the United States economy and the increasing 

41 

investments being made by our international competitors who are, 

indeed, investing very heavily in this type of innovation, what does 

NASA need to keep America competitive in aeronautics, particularly with regard to low-boom supersonic transport, which is likely 

to be the future for flight across the globe? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, if I can take the opportunity to kind of 

speak to both the comments that you and the Chairman have 

made, particularly about what is our core mission and how we inspire people, I’m really proud to have Dr. Dava Newman, as Senator Nelson mentioned earlier, here to hear most of this as the 

nominee to be the deputy. One of these days you all hopefully, if 

this committee sees to support her, you will have someone who can 

come before the Committee and speak with very much authority 

about what the next generation is interested in and what they 

need. 

I would advise that there is also—and I should not do this, probably, but there is a supporting member sitting in the back row up 

there who is one of Dr. Newman’s former students who can speak 

to her qualifications. 

When we go out and talk to students, as we both do quite a bit, 

in areas of aeronautics, in areas of space science and Earth science, 

young men and women want to know that they will have a place 

to go, and they choose majors in colleges and universities based on 

what this Nation has said its priorities are. 

We are worried about young men and women not wanting to go 

into the field of aeronautics because they don’t see us doing what 

other nations in the world are doing. So your point about focusing 

on aeronautics is critical. 

We hope that we will see some young men and women decide 

that they want to get into the field of optics because that is a dying 

field in the United States, but that is one of the fields that supplies 

NASA’s ability to be the core provider for Earth imaging satellites, 

for Earth sensors and the like. 

Going back to Senator Cruz’s comment, we do not do Texas soil 

conservation. We provide instruments that provide data to the 

plethora of people who do Texas soil conservation. So I did not 

mean to mislead you, Senator, in thinking that NASA—we don’t do 

any of that. We teach people how to use the instruments that we 

create. We teach them how to use the data. I have scientists who 

travel around the world and help people learn how to create 

drought and flood models, for example, from the data that comes 

from NASA-provided satellites. 

We are not the decisionmakers. We are not the people who decide 

what’s good for one area or another. So I probably mislead the 

Committee if I gave you all the impression that that was what 

NASA Earth Science does. NASA Earth Science, like NASA 

Heliophysics, NASA Aeronautics and everything, going back to 

Senator Peters’ question, through our low-boom testing out at the 

Armstrong Flight Research Center over the last few years, we have 

given the FAA and industry optimism that we can, in fact, solve 

the problem of sonic booms that today create havoc for people on 

the ground, break windows, do all kinds of stuff, and we believe 

that we are on the verge of developing technology, vehicle design 

if you will, that will limit the impact of a sonic boom on Earth. It 

42 

will help to deflect it elsewhere, and that’s the whole concept behind low boom, our low-boom studies. 

Due to the work that we did with the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. 

Department of Defense, the Air Force Research Laboratory on inadvertent impact to the ground, which is one of the things that 

kills a large number of military pilots, we worked on an automated 

system that is now credited with the save of an Air Force F–16 in 

Syria. It uses an automated system to recognize that where the 

pilot is going, the trajectory is not good. It’s going to take him into 

a mountain or somewhere into the ground and they’re going to suffer another loss due to inadvertent impact with terrain. That’s the 

kind of work that we do, and that’s vital. 

So we need to have sufficient funding for aeronautics if we’re 

going to continue to do that kind of work, and that’s the point. I’m 

not asking for NASA’s budget to get back up to 4 percent of the 

Federal budget. That would be irresponsible on my part. But I am 

asking that we support the President’s budget as my team has laid 

out and recommended to the President and to this Congress, because we think it’s the most balanced way to bring this nation 

what we need so that we maintain our leadership in space, science, 

exploration, technology, and everything. 

We are the world’s leader. But, boy, there are people nipping at 

our heels. So if I’m not allowed to balance our spending the way 

that we have done right now, we could very easily fall behind in 

some critical areas. 

I really get concerned when we focus on an individual piece, we 

focus like a laser on an individual part of a budget in an agency 

that is multi-missioned. You would change the agency if we 

stopped doing what we have done for more than 50 years today. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you very much, Administrator Bolden. 

Thank you for being here this morning. I think this hearing has 

been helpful. 

The hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks. During that 

time, senators are asked to submit any questions for the record. 

Upon receipt, Mr. Bolden, I would ask you to submit your written answers to the Committee as soon as possible if there are any 

additional questions. 

I want to thank you for being here this morning. 

And, with that, the hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:51 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(43) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO, U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA

Thank you for your testimony Administrator Bolden. I am proud that Florida has 

such a rich history and relationship with NASA. From the earliest launches of rockets that established manned missions, to the Apollo program and the continued support for the International Space Station, Florida is proud to take ownership in 

NASA’s past and will certainly be a part of its future. 

It is important that the Committee examine NASA’s plans for human exploration, 

including collaboration with international partners and commercial space interestsassets that can and should be used in the most effective manner to serve all taxpayers and advance America’s space competitiveness. 

NASA states that its vision is ‘‘to reach for new heights and reveal the unknown 

so that what we do and learn will benefit all humankind.’’ I certainly agree with 

this vision. But in order to achieve it, the agency must have a clear mission with 

a roadmap and timeline outlining how that mission will be accomplished. This clear 

mission should be firmly rooted in space exploration. 

Over the past several years, NASA has consistently increased the funding of earth 

sciences. While there may be admirable research being conducted in this area, I am 

greatly concerned that this large emphasis may detract from the mission and focus 

on NASA. I am interested in hearing more from the Administration on this topic. 

Also, I believe one of the best ways to promote the core mission of NASA is 

through continued support for our commercial partners. In Florida, for instance, 

commercial partners are seeking to use NASA facilities and purchase equipment 

that is underutilized and in need of maintenance. 

According to NASA’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG), NASA is the ninth 

largest Federal Government real property holder, with more than 124,000 acres and 

over 4,900 buildings and other structures with a replacement value of more than 

$30 billion. NASA’s annual operations and maintenance costs have steadily increased, and as of 2012, the Agency had over $2.3 billion in annual deferred maintenance costs. We should examine a way to alleviate these operations and maintenance costs in a way that complements the efforts of both NASA and the commercial 

space industry. 

Again, I believe that NASA and our space program are at their best when we 

have a clearly defined mission and goals that allows the agency and commercial industry to advance American ingenuity and the boundaries of human discovery. It 

is imperative that we continue to have a funded robust space exploration program 

that promotes America’s economic, scientific, and security interests, and that effectively utilizes its resources. Thank you. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. ROGER F. WICKER TO

HON. CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR. 

Question 1. Do you support the mission to Mars? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 2. Why hasn’t NASA requested funding for the 130 ton launch capability 

that will take us to Mars? 

Answer. NASA’s strategy for incrementally increasing the SLS lift capability is 

driven by the need for lift capacity in each exploration regime. Per the 2010 Authorization Act, NASA is starting with the 70mt initial capability and will advance from 

there to meet exploration objectives, arriving at the Mars-class 130 mt capability 

when it is needed. Our analyses show the 105 metric ton (mt) configuration, made 

possible by the addition of an Exploration Upper Stage, enables a variety of human 

and cargo missions in the proving ground of cis-lunar space, which are necessary 

to prepare for future missions to Mars. Once we are ready for missions to the vicinity of Mars, we will progress to the 130-mt configuration. NASA could not accomVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:02 Feb 05, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\98478.TXT JACKIE
44 

plish these human exploration missions effectively and efficiently without the evolving capabilities of SLS. 

Question 3. How does the rising cost and overall shortage of helium impact 

NASA’s propulsion testing and what cost reduction measures is NASA taking to 

mitigate these rising costs? 

Answer. NASA’s helium contracts were recently re-competed for FY15–19. The 

contract provides a fixed price for helium thru FY 2019. There was a 16 percent 

price increase as compared to the previous (FY10–14) contract period. This was 

partly due to a ∼10 percent increase in FY15 Federal Crude helium pricing. 

Helium is provided by refiners thru the Federal ‘‘In-Kind’’ Program, where the 

crude helium feedstock is supplied and priced by the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) on a yearly basis. Through this program, NASA attains price stability for refined helium and maintains priority status for helium supply per the Helium Privatization Act of 1996 (now expired) and reaffirmed in the Helium Stewardship Act of 

2013 (HSA). 

The rising cost and overall shortage of helium has heightened NASA sensitivity 

to helium pricing and availability and are a catalyst for increased emphasis on reducing helium use and pursuing recovery/reclamation opportunities. Current helium 

reduction initiatives are described below. 

Propulsion Systems 

NASA is working to develop sensors to reduce over purging of hydrogen systems 

with helium. One example is a hydrogen vent line sensor developed by Glenn Research Center (GRC) and demonstrated at Stennis Space Center (SSC). The sensor 

will be tested at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) to move toward FY16 qualification 

for use at Pad 39 B for the Space Launch System (SLS) program. 

Stennis Space Center (SSC) is NASA’s primary rocket test site for large hydrogen 

fueled rockets such as the RS–25, which powered the Space Shuttle in the past and 

will power the Space Launch System (SLS) in the future; and the RS–68, which 

powers the Delta 4 launch vehicle. Hydrogen propulsion requires the use of helium 

as a purge gas and for inerting tanks and lines since it is the only gas with a boiling 

point lower than hydrogen. SSC routinely buys large quantities of gaseous helium 

for these uses to support its testing operations. In support of engine testing, NASA 

includes conservation measures such as changes to operational procedures and a 

focus on reducing leakage in systems which has resulted in reduced helium requirements over the last decade. 

Kennedy Space Center (KSC) is the primary rocket launch site for the RS–25 and 

SLS. KSC also supports launches using the RS–68, which powers the Delta 4 launch 

vehicle at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS). Under a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) project KSC has investigated the potential use of Tridyne 

as a pressuring agent to reduce the mass of the helium required for tank pressurization in flight. KSC is looking at SLS Pad 39 B system mods to reduce helium usage 

for SLS. Currently one proposal is expected to result in reduction of SLS tank pulse 

purges between launch attempts, potentially reducing helium usage by up to 

200,000 standard cubic feet (scf) or more per launch attempt. 

Both KSC and SSC have an ongoing efforts to evaluate and eliminate leakage in 

the miles of gaseous helium (GHe) pipeline systems used to distribute GHe to users. 

Balloon Program 

The NASA Balloon Program is managed out of NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility 

(WFF) and operated at the Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility (CSBF) in Palestine, 

TX. Normal annual operations include 3–4 campaigns with 1–9 missions per campaign. The average annual launch rate is 10 to 16 scientific missions per year 

The Balloon Program Office (BPO) utilizes scientific balloons ranging in size from 

4 million cubic feet (MCF) to 40 MCF. Float altitudes range from 90kft to 150kft. 

Helium is used as the lifting gas in the balloons. If a launch abort is necessary during the inflation process, the balloon is destroyed by releasing the helium into the 

atmosphere in order to protect the scientific payload or the launch crew. At the end 

of a successful mission, the balloon is separated from the flight train by rupturing 

the balloon. This action releases the helium into the atmosphere. BPO standard operations are designed to minimize helium waste. One technique employed is to 

transfer helium between multiple helium ISOPAKs to maximize helium usage. 

One technology interest of the BPO, which potentially would reduce the helium 

requirements, is the safe utilization of a lifting gas substitute, such as hydrogen. 

The BPO is in contact with the Technology Development Office that is monitoring 

development activities in this area. 

45 

NASA continues to explore advanced technologies intended to improve helium sustainability. These projects will focus on the efficient use of helium and/or alternatives to helium. 

Question 4. Is there a process in which NASA can recover helium once it is used 

for testing purposes? 

Answer. Yes. NASA continues to pursue recovery/reclamation opportunities either 

through new technologies or procedural preservation efforts as described below. 

KSC converts bulk liquid helium to high pressure gas for application in our space 

launch programs. Investigations are underway to implement a gas collection/reclamation system as part of a project to test the use of liquid helium (LHe) pumps 

to replace less efficient conventional gas compressors. The intent is to capture and 

reclaim the pump startup purges that previously would have been vented and lost 

to the atmosphere. If successful, the intent is to implement a similar recovery/reclamation system in the planned replacement helium Conversion Compression Facility (CCF) that will support future SLS launches as well as support all other KSC 

customers. 

SLS conducted a review of helium use at our component vendors. VACCO produces much of NASA’s cryogenic valves and disconnects. Early in the Space Launch 

System (SLS) program NASA had a helium reclamation system installed at VACCO 

to reduce the amount of helium used to test and checkout components during development. The system has greatly reduced the helium necessary for VACCO and paid 

for itself several times over. We have also loaned out the system to other government agencies. 

• VACCO is currently forecasting a 70 percent to 85 percent He Reclamation Savings (dependent on a number of specific variables associated with individual 

tests) 

• The initial program projections for Helium Supply cost were ∼$5.3M. However, 

today the current forecast for helium supply costs is just over $1M due to the 

reclamation success. 

NASA has been pursuing helium recovery and reclamation for several years. 

Through the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Program, two particular 

projects have been delivered which demonstrated the ability to separate helium 


312ROGQ1.eps
46 

from a hydrogen/helium gas mixture. The recovered helium meets the stringent purity requirements for reuse. Both systems use fuel cell technology to extract pure 

hydrogen from a mixed hydrogen/helium gas mixture, leaving nearly pure helium. 

The first project was designed by Sierra Lobo, Inc (SLI). SLI delivered a system 

that was installed and tested at NASA Stennis’ E–3 facility. The system demonstrated the ability to output high quality helium from a hydrogen/helium gas mixture. The helium/hydrogen gas mixture was collected, helium extracted and recovered. Below is a picture of a system delivered by Sierra Lobo, Inc. 

The second successful test was conducted by Sustainable Innovations, Inc. (SII) 

in support of SSC. SII delivered a prototype unit in 2014 that successfully demonstrated the ability to capture, separate and compress helium from a mixture derived from test operations. This system featured a subsystem that captured the 

vented hydrogen and helium gas mixture, an electrochemical separation subsystem 

that effectively purified both hydrogen and helium streams, and a compression subsystem that permitted high pressure gas delivery. Each subsystem performed well 

in project tests and the subsystems were shown to integrate seamlessly. 


312ROGQ2.eps
47 

The ability to effectively recover and reclaim helium is heavily dependent on how 

the original helium is used and the quantities involved. Commercial reclamation 

systems do exist but are typically utilized in closed systems and are often limited 

by their throughput, typically requiring the use of collection systems to allow batch 

processing of any contaminated helium. 

With the largest NASA helium uses occurring during launch operations and engine testing, the challenge for NASA is multi-faceted. SSC in partnership with KSC 

has an FY15 Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) initiative that seeks to improve upon the demonstrated technology or develop new alternative cryogenic gas 

separation technology. Additional development is needed to increase the efficiency 

of the recovery process, capture large amounts of mixed gases, and provide real-time 

solid state sensor technologies for characterizing constituent gases. Specific areas of 

interest includes the following technologies: 

• enhanced membrane technologies including Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) 

fuel cells that increase the efficiency, recovery production rate or life span of 

fuel cell based separation technologies; 

• development of alternative cryogenic gas separation technologies; 

• technologies for the rapid capture and storage of high volumes of mixed cryogenic gases; 

• development of zero trapped gas system technologies to improve purge effectiveness; and 

• development of real-time, solid state sensor technologies for monitoring the current state of the system concentration levels and helium/nitrogen purge process 

effectively (e.g., hydrogen, oxygen, water vapor content, etc.). 

For NASA’s Balloon Program Office (BPO), helium is the lifting gas (i.e., the propellant) for BPO missions. Just as other propellants are consumed in the mission, 

helium is consumed in BPO missions. It is not considered feasible to recapture the 

helium at the end of a stratospheric balloon mission, since the termination technique requires the rupture of the balloon envelope to bring the scientific instrument 

back to earth safely. 

In summary, NASA continues to investigate opportunities to recover and collect 

contaminated launch and engine test helium especially for smaller GHe usage quantities or program tests that lend themselves to closed loop systems. 

Question 5. From a cost benefit standpoint, assuming helium cost will only continue to rise, would it not make sense for NASA to research and develop propulsion 

test technology to reclaim and store helium for future use? 

Answer. NASA continues to pursue ways to reduce and/or reuse helium. Some of 

the challenges that must be overcome include scale-up of the technology to allow 

large volumes of mixed gases to be processed and capture of mixed purge gases during test operations without affecting performance of the rocket engine system. The 

programmatic challenge is the upfront cost to deploy the technology, the scale on 

which these systems can operate, and the limited number of areas in which NASA 

could actually use it (primarily for hydrogen transfer line and tank inerting operations). Helium would have to become considerably more expensive (or supply more 

uncertain) to justify a return-on-investment case, or additional funding would be required just based on the principle that conservation of helium is strategically important. 


312ROGQ3.eps
48 

Today helium is the highest value gas used in propulsion testing. NASA’s current 

supply from our ‘‘In-Kind’’ Program managed by the BLM offers price stability and 

priority of supply under the Federal Program. The increased costs of helium and potential impacts particularly when the Federal Helium Reserve closes, makes the helium conversation more important from a product cost and future supply aspect. The 

challenge is how to do it efficiently and in a cost effective manner. 

Question 6. Why has NASA steered ocean science funding away from Stennis 

Space Center? 

Answer. NASA uses the annual omnibus solicitation, Research Opportunities in 

Space and Earth Sciences (ROSES) to compete program elements in the Science 

Mission Directorate, including oceans. These Federal opportunities in ROSES are 

open to all eligible domestic institutions, including Stennis Space Center. Awards 

to successful institutions are made following the NASA peer review process. 

Question 7. No ROSES grants were awarded to the Gulf of Mexico Initiative in 

2014. Is NASA abandoning the Gulf of Mexico Initiative? 

Answer. The Gulf of Mexico is an important region to NASA and the Nation. In 

the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, NASA’s Applied Sciences Program 

undertook the Gulf of Mexico Initiative (GOMI) focused on the Gulf region to help 

build capabilities in applying Earth Science data. Through two special competitive 

grant solicitations, NASA’s Applied Sciences Program sponsored 48 projects to improve the use of Earth observations to support water resources, health, disasters, 

agriculture, and ecosystem management in the Gulf region. 

With the completion of the last GOMI Project in January 2013, the need for a 

dedicated, capacity-building effort focused on the Gulf has been addressed. Other 

competitive research programs in NASA’s Applied Sciences Program and the broader Earth Science Division have and will continue to encompass coastal management 

issues and the Gulf region through peer-reviewed solicitations. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. ROY BLUNT TO

HON. CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR. 

Question 1. Your budget request for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD) is $5.28 billion—roughly 28 percent of the entire NASA budget request of $18.53 

billion. 

Moreover, this request for the Science Mission allocates the largest proportion of funding—$1.95 billion—to the Earth Science account. The Earth Science program 

includes several accounts associated with climate change research. 

In our current financial environment, where we have enacted budget caps on discretionary spending, why is NASA spending over 10 percent of its total budget on 

the Science Mission and climate change research? 

Answer. The National Aeronautics and Space Act, as amended [P.L. 85–568, 72 

Stat., 426], states the first objective for NASA is to contribute to ‘‘The expansion 

of human knowledge of the Earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space.’’ 

Thus, Earth Science has been part of NASA’s core mission since NASA’s early years. 

The President’s FY 2016 request for Earth Science is slightly over 10 percent of the 

total agency request. This is not much different from actual appropriations for the 

last four fiscal years (FY 2012–2015), which average 10.0 percent, ranging from 9.8 

percent (FY 2013) to 10.3 percent (FY 2014). 

Within the overall NASA Earth Science activity, climate change research remains 

an important—although not the sole—element of Earth Science study. Indeed, 

measurements from many NASA Earth observing research satellites are used routinely by other Federal agencies to improve their operational products and forecasts. 

For example, measurements from NASA’s Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) 

Core Observatory/GPM constellation, Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), and the Jason-2 ocean altimeter mission are used routinely by NOAA 

and the DOD weather services to improve global and regional weather forecasts and 

extreme event predictions. Soil moisture data from GPM, Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), and the Soil Moisture Active-Passive (SMAP) mission 

are used routinely by NOAA and FEMA to produce daily flood hazard forecasts and 

drought monitoring products. Data from the NASA MODIS instruments are used by 

civil and DOD agencies for a variety of environmental forecasts including dust storm 

and visibility predictions. 

NASA collaborates closely with the other Federal agencies involved in climate research, through mechanisms such as the legislatively-mandated U.S. Global Change 

Research Program. However, NASA is the only civil Federal organization that can 

procure, develop, and launch Earth monitoring spacecraft that provide critical 

space-based observations to support research, and then conduct the scientific reVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:02 Feb 05, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\98478.TXT JACKIE
49 

search they bring forward. NASA provides sustained and experimental observations, 

and focuses on space-based platforms to advance research, technology development, 

and national capabilities. These responsibilities are described in the National Plan 

for Civil Earth Observations. The results from these activities are documented in 

peer-reviewed literature, and the resulting information and knowledge are made 

routinely and widely available to scientists, managers, and citizens throughout the 

Nation and the world. NASA’s Earth research covers diverse topics, both long- and 

short-term phenomena and processes, including those associated with droughts, 

floods, fires, air pollution, land cover/land use change, oceans, and polar ice. 

Question 2. The administration’s budget request proposes to cut funding for the 

heavy-lift Space Launch System (SLS) rocket by $343 million. It also proposes to 

cut the Orion crew capsule by nearly $98 million. There is concern that these cuts 

may prevent NASA from meeting its schedule to test Orion and SLS, and its goal 

of a manned SLS/Orion mission by 2021. 

Given all this, how does it make sense to allocate $1.95 billion to Earth Sciences 

and climate change research while underfunding SLS and Orion? 

Answer. The FY 2016 President’s Budget Request is consistent with the outyear 

profile proposed in the FY 2015 Budget and provides the funding level needed to 

keep SLS, Orion, and Exploration Ground System (EGS) on track for the first integrated launch of Exploration Mission-1 (EM–1). We have identified our Agency 

Baseline Commitment for the SLS and EGS which supports a launch capability 

readiness date of November 2018 at 70 percent and 80 percent Joint Confidence 

Level (JCL), respectively, to the EM–1 launch readiness date. The integrated launch 

date for EM–1 is to be determined after all three programs complete their Critical 

Design Reviews (CDRs). The integrated launch date for EM–2 will be set following 

the EM–1 mission. 

While maintaining planned funding levels for SLS and Orion, the FY 2016 Request provides Earth Science with funding to address the priorities set forth in the 

2007 Earth Science decadal survey. 

Question 3. How does climate change research help ensure American leadership 

in deep space exploration? 

Answer. NASA has since 1958 been charged with expanding human knowledge of 

the Earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere. As part of this responsibility, climate change research produces valuable and executable scientific knowledge that is 

actively being applied by the international community, policy makers, and industry 

to better understand the challenges posed by climate change, which in turn improves our Nation’s posture in addressing these challenges now and into the future. 

We conduct climate change research for those reasons rather than to support deep 

space exploration, but studying climate change improves our ability to address and 

plan for its societal and economic impacts, which in turn will help us maintain our 

global leadership in space for science and exploration. 

Question 4. How does climate change research assist in the development, construction, and testing of SLS and Orion? 

Answer. NASA studies climate for many reasons. Any benefits to the development 

and testing of SLS and Orion are secondary. However, many NASA Centers and assets reside in vulnerable locations. The Johnson Space Center, Kennedy Space Center, Stennis Space Center, Michoud Assembly Facility, Wallops Flight Facility, and 

Jet Propulsion Laboratory have significant involvement in NASA’s launch and rocket programs, and each are vulnerable to climate-induced changes. For example, 

Johnson, Kennedy, Stennis, Michoud, and Wallops are vulnerable to sea level 

changes and climate-induced upticks in extreme weather conditions, such as hurricanes and tropical storms. Meanwhile, JPL is vulnerable to geohazards such as 

landslides, earthquakes, wildfires, and even water shortages. NASA assets closely 

monitor changes in the climate that create these increasing vulnerabilities, to 

produce analyzable data to address these vulnerabilities. For example, NASA’s Applied Science Program is dedicated to helping public and private organizations apply 

data from NASA’s Earth-observing satellites and related scientific findings in their 

decision-making activities, to improve the quality of life and strengthen the economy. Both SLS and Orion will make prominent use of NASA Centers, some of which 

are vulnerable to changing environmental conditions. Our study of these changes 

will ultimately help us ensure NASA assets are as secure as possible. 

50 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARCO RUBIO TO

HON. CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR. 

Question 1. The people, facilities and capabilities of NASA at Kennedy Space Center are one of Florida’s most treasured and iconic assets, and I look forward to their 

participation in future Exploration missions. 

However, as a new commercial space industry and marketplace begins to take 

root across the country and abroad, I am concerned the existing Federal regulations 

and requirements at KSC will unfairly disadvantage the State of Florida from competing in these new opportunities. 

How are you now working with the state to help eliminate Federal impediments 

to a more favorable commercial operating environment? What steps are you taking 

to implement the expedited transfer of unneeded NASA assets the State’s spaceport 

authority may be willing to take over and operate in partnership with commercial 

users?’’ 

Answer. NASA has taken a number of actions to significantly reduce impediments 

to commercial operations. One example is the revision of safety requirements for 

commercial operators. Under the new rules, commercial entities operating within 

their own facilities or facilities that they have leased from NASA, need only follow 

OSHA and other relevant Federal safety and environmental requirements. Another 

initiative is related to the development of new commercial facilities on KSC. Such 

facilities may be constructed using Florida State building codes rather than the 

sometimes more restrictive NASA standards. 

NASA has worked with both the State of Florida and commercial entities to provide a number of assets for use by the commercial space industry. Specifically, the 

State of Florida already has a Use Permit to operate the Orbiter Processing Facility 

3 (OPF3) and associated Processing Control Center (PCC) which will be used by a 

commercial space industry company. We have also leased Launch Complex 39A to 

a commercial space launch provider for their use. We are in the final phases of providing the use of the Shuttle Landing Facility and associated land around the facility for a total of approximately 4,000 acres to the State of Florida to develop commercial operations. 

Question 2. Competition is a key to controlling costs over the long-term as well 

as to improving the level of safety. Do you agree with this statement? 

Answer. NASA agrees that competition is one key to controlling costs and helping 

to improve the level of safety. For this reason, supporting multiple competitors in 

our commercial cargo and crew programs is considered critical. 

Question 3. In your opinion, what is the single greatest threat facing American 

access to space? And what is the best option for overcoming that threat? 

Answer. Access to space for NASA should be considered in three categories: 

• crewed missions to Earth orbit (i.e., Commercial Crew Program to transport 

crews to and from the International Space Station [ISS]); 

• uncrewed, expendable launch vehicles putting NASA’s and the civil sector’s satellites in Earth orbit and robotic planetary probes in space; and 

• heavy lift launches beyond low-Earth orbit for both crew and cargo (i.e., NASA’s 

Space Launch System). 

The greatest threat facing American access to space for crewed missions to Earth 

orbit is the current lack of capability to launch astronauts to orbit from U.S. soil. 

NASA’s Commercial Crew Program is our answer to that threat, and we are well 

on our way with the progress our two commercial partners, Boeing and SpaceX, are 

making. The best way to secure this capability is to fully fund the FY 2016 President’s Budget Request, which is required to keep NASA and both of its commercial 

partners on track to achieve first flights of these new crewed vehicles to ISS by the 

end of 2017. 

For uncrewed expendable launch vehicles, NASA has a robust mechanism through 

its Launch Services Program to acquire and manage such services for the launch 

of NASA’s satellites and planetary probes. NASA acquires these launch services on 

a competitive basis, with the vendors responsible to sustain and mature their systems and to deal with supply problems, including engines for their vehicles. The ISS 

cargo resupply endeavor managed under Commercial Resupply Services contracts 

has resulted in new medium class launch capabilities for science missions. NASA 

is evaluating the impact of the recent loss of SpaceX–7. The key for access to space 

in this category is encouraging and promoting an environment of innovation and 

competition for our U.S. commercial launch service providers. 

For heavy-lift launch capability for crews and cargo beyond low-Earth orbit, 

NASA is progressing well in the development of the Space Launch System, and its 

51 

planning its evolution consistent with the 2010 NASA Authorization Act. Careful 

management of this program to both achieve a timely, successful first flight and an 

affordable production and operations cost for future flights is a major focus for 

NASA. 

Question 4. I too often hear in Florida about challenges in launching from the 

Cape, and I fear companies may choose to launch elsewhere because of those challenges. What issues prevent a completely independent commercial launch capability 

in Florida, and what is NASA doing to overcome these issues? 

Answer. Consistent with the 2010 National Space Policy and the 2013 National 

Space Transportation Policy, NASA leadership has been seeking to increase commercial utilization of the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) resources and to allow the 

commercial sector to demonstrate competitive and innovative approaches, to ultimately reduce space exploration costs for several years. In FY 2011, NASA began 

the 21st Century Space Launch Complex (21CSLC) initiative to support launch infrastructure, enable future exploration of the solar system, as well as new commercial opportunities in low-Earth orbit. Its primary purpose is to modernize and transform the Florida launch and range complex at Kennedy Space Center (KSC), Cape 

Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), and Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) into a 

more robust launch capability that could support multiple users. Beneficiaries of 

this activity included current and future NASA programs, other U.S. Government 

agencies, and commercial industry. 

The KSC has developed a multi-use, operational approach with the goal to accommodate commercial launch and reentry activity from KSC property while preserving 

public and property safety, and minimizing Governmental burden. KSC first developed a Future Development Concept with the broader national space community, 

which led to a KSC Master Plan that provides a flexible framework for evolving to 

a multi-user spaceport. This plan, available at: http://masterplan.ksc.nasa.gov/, describes how KSC will continue to transform over the next 20 years as a multi-user 

spaceport supporting government, commercial and other space launch users and 

providers. This 20-year plan describes KSC’s future state, along with the supporting 

business focused implementation and operating framework necessary to enable this 

transformation. 

Given the phase out of Space Shuttle operations, KSC recognized the need to safely manage a multi-use spaceport containing new NASA programs and commercial 

activity. KSC’s current commercial safety policy is a set of requirements which ensures that NASA KSC is exercising reasonable diligence to protect the public and 

Center personnel, and safeguards the success of NASA missions and operations, 

while enabling commercial activities to the maximum possible extent. This supports 

KSC’s commitment to safety while providing commercial partner autonomy in managing their operations. 

One of the challenges in planning for Commercial Operations on KSC property 

has been flexibility in Range Flight Safety Services for launch operations. NASA is 

working with the Air Force (including the 45th Space Wing) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to define and implement the steps necessary to accommodate commercially-provided range flight safety services options for the commercial 

space industry when they launch within the Eastern Range (including from KSC 

property) under an FAA license. 

Æ