U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

75–607 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–506 

REALIZING NASA’S POTENTIAL: PROGRAMMATIC 

CHALLENGES IN THE 21ST CENTURY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 15, 2011 

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

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

MARK WARNER, Virginia 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas, Ranking 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

ELLEN L. DONESKI, Staff Director 

JAMES REID, Deputy Staff Director 

BRUCE H. ANDREWS, General Counsel 

ANN BEGEMAN, Republican Staff Director 

BRIAN M. HENDRICKS, Republican General Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on March 15, 2011 ............................................................................ 1 

Statement of Senator Nelson .................................................................................. 1 

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

Statement of Senator Boozman .............................................................................. 3 

Statement of Senator Rubio .................................................................................... 29 

WITNESSES

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

Administration, prepared statement .................................................................. 5 

Dr. Woodrow Whitlow, Jr., Associate Administrator, Mission Support Directorate, NASA ........................................................................................................ 22 

Douglas R. Cooke, Associate Administrator, Exploration Systems Mission Directorate, NASA ................................................................................................... 23 

William Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator, Space Operations Directorate, NASA ........................................................................................................ 24 

Dr. Edward J. Weiler, Associate Administrator, Science Mission Directorate, 

NASA ..................................................................................................................... 45 

Leland D. Melvin, Associate Administrator, Education, NASA ........................... 48 

Dr. Jaiwon Shin, Associate Administrator, Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate, NASA ................................................................................................... 48 

APPENDIX

Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV, U.S. Senator from West Virginia, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 59 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV 

to NASA Associate Administrators ..................................................................... 60 

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

Douglas R. Cooke .............................................................................................. 63 

William Gerstenmaier ...................................................................................... 67 

Leland D. Melvin .............................................................................................. 68 

Edward J. Weiler .............................................................................................. 70 

Woodrow Whitlow, Jr. ...................................................................................... 71 

Response to written questions submitted to NASA Associate Administrators 

by: 

Hon. Bill Nelson ............................................................................................... 71 

Hon. Mark Warner ........................................................................................... 73 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. John Boozman to: 

Douglas R. Cooke .............................................................................................. 76 

William Gerstenmaier ...................................................................................... 77 

Leland D. Melvin .............................................................................................. 78 

Dr. Jaiwon Shin ................................................................................................ 79 

Article dated May 24, 2011 entitled, ‘‘NASA Administrator Selects Orionbased Design for MPCV Development Phase’’ ................................................... 80 

(1) 

REALIZING NASA’S POTENTIAL: 

PROGRAMMATIC CHALLENGES IN THE 

21ST CENTURY 

TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Bill Nelson, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. Good afternoon. The meeting will come to 

order. 

I’m going to dispense with an opening statement, and I want to 

call on Senator Hutchison to make a statement. 

I do want to say that Doug Cooke has led NASA’s exploration initiatives for over 2 years, and he is going to retire. And this is going 

to be a significant loss. Your dedication throughout your distinguished career of over 37 years has been very evident in the roles 

that you have had, from defining the Space Shuttle entry flight-test 

program, advising the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, 

serving as deputy manager of the International Space Station, and, 

most recently, the role that you have now as Associate Administrator of the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate. And I want 

you to know how much we are appreciative of the extraordinary 

service that you’ve given, upwards of four decades, to your country 

and to America’s space program. 

So, Mr. Cooke, we’ll miss you, but I’m sure we’ll continue to see 

you. And we will continue to seek your advice and counsel. 

Senator Hutchison. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

very much all of the work that you do, collectively. 

I have been working with the Chairman, now, for the last couple 

of years to have a plan for NASA, going forward, that we believe 

protects NASA’s mission and is a balanced program that invests in 

the commercial sector, but has an emphasis on the NASA mission 

being accomplished, and being sure that it will be accomplished. 

2 

I am pretty critical—and the Chairman has been, as well—of the 

last 2 years’ budget requests from the administration. Part of the 

concern is that there is a sudden change in direction, and there is 

concern that the senior leadership of the agency remains uncommitted to the full, faithful, and timely implementation of the law 

that we worked very hard to pass last year when we saw the budget submission from 2 years ago—well, from, actually, the beginning 

of this year. It—no, the beginning of last year, I guess. It is the 

law and it isn’t an advisory framework. 

When we wrote the NASA Reauthorization Act of 2010, this committee provided a balanced portfolio for NASA, with robust investment in science, research and development activities, and the continuation of human spaceflight and exploration development. The 

law prioritizes the continuation of work on the Orion crew exploration vehicle and redirects the agency’s efforts to develop a heavy 

launch vehicle to carry Orion beyond low-Earth orbit. 

To meet these requirements, we directed the Administrator to 

use as much existing technology as possible from the Shuttle and 

Constellation programs to shorten the development timeline, reduce costs, and maximize the use of taxpayer funds that have already been dedicated to our human spaceflight program. In carrying out that effort, the Administrator is directed to modify and 

extend existing contracts for the relevant technology to get started 

quickly, and to prevent the loss of critical skills and infrastructure. 

Yet, 5 months have passed since the law’s passage and we’re still 

waiting for signs that the agency will comply with these directions. 

To my knowledge, not one major contract has been modified in furtherance of the requirements of the law that was passed by Congress and signed by the President. In fact, Mr. Chairman, a final 

report was due from NASA, 2 months ago, outlining its plans for 

the capsule and the heavy-lift vehicle, including related contract 

modification determinations. What we received was a preliminary 

report lacking much of the information required by the law. And 

now, 2 months later, we’re still waiting for compliance with even 

this modest reporting requirement. 

With these requirements still unresolved, we now must consider 

the President’s FY 2012 budget request. Once again, the request 

appears to ignore many of the priorities that the law has established for human spaceflight. Specifically, the request reduces the 

funding for the Orion capsule and the heavy-lift vehicle by more 

than $1.3 billion below what we authorized for FY 12. At the same 

time, the request proposes a significant increase to the very same 

areas prioritized in the administration’s last budget request, which 

Congress rejected. 

The NASA Reauthorization Act was designed to promote investment in commercial crew capabilities while prioritizing the rapid 

development of a national launch system to resume exploration. 

This will allow us to develop an important backup capability along 

the way to fully develop a launch system for exploration, and it 

assures access to low-Earth orbit from a domestic source, should a 

commercial crew provider fail to provide reliable and safe capability. 

The fact that this budget request that is before us today dramatically reduces funding for the heavy-lift launch vehicle and Orion 

3 

capsule while proposing a 70-percent increase for commercial crew 

is another illustration that the administration is not taking the 

steps necessary to embrace the priorities we established, and implement the law. 

I have similar concerns with the budget request provisions related to space technology. Last year, we rejected the notion that we 

would invest in technology for the sake of doing so. We determined 

that we would not support investment in undisciplined research 

that was not closely tied to a specific mission. Yet, the budget request would transfer significant funding from exploration technology development, which is mission-specific, critical, and defined, 

to the general space technology line that has much less discipline. 

Taken together, the commercial crew funding and space technology 

proposals in this budget request bear an unmistakable resemblance 

to last year’s budget request. The outline the President put forward 

was rejected, but now it seems to be coming back in another form. 

Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to see another year pass, where we 

don’t have the focus that Congress passed and the President 

signed. So, I do hope that you can help us see that perhaps we’re 

mistaken, that perhaps you are not going back to focusing just on 

the commercial side and leaving our basic NASA missions without 

the priority that Congress has put on the agency. We’re here to 

make sure that NASA is strong and that America’s place in the 

world, in space exploration, is preeminent. That is our goal. I think 

it’s our common goal, but I don’t think that we are in sync on how 

we get there. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator NELSON. Senator, you’re exactly right, that January report was entirely inadequate. 

The Senator from Arkansas is the new Ranking Member on 

Science and Space Subcommittee. 

I want to welcome you. Did you want to have any opening comments? 

Senator BOOZMAN. Yes, sir, if it’s appropriate. 

Senator NELSON. OK. If you can truncate it, and then we’ll get 

right on in. But, please. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m pleased to be 

serving as the Ranking Member of the Science and Space Subcommittee. I look forward to working with you, Chairman Nelson 

and Chairman Rockefeller and our full-committee Ranking Member, Senator Hutchison. 

I want to welcome the witnesses. Certainly, you all are so accomplished. You represent thousands of NASA professionals across the 

country who are working hard and innovating, every day. And we 

certainly look forward to your testimony. 

Last year, Congress received a budget request for NASA that 

started a lengthy conversation among Members of Congress, the 

administration, and many stakeholders. At the end of this process, 

Congress overwhelmingly passed a bill, with more than 400 votes 

between the two chambers, and the President signed it last fall. 

4 

The new law provides a balanced set of activities for NASA to 

utilize the world-class skills and expertise of its work force. This 

includes significant investment in science, technology development, 

and the continuation of our human spaceflight activities, including 

the use of the International Space Station, which is now complete. 

The law also redirects activities related to our exploration program, 

where we have had challenges for a long time in developing a follow-on to the Space Shuttle. 

I believe we need to bear in mind a few points as we consider 

the President’s budget request for Fiscal Year 2012. 

First, we should take a closer look at areas where the administration proposes significant deviations from the law. There’s not 

been a significant passage of time between the passage of the law 

and the current request. The administration needs to, therefore, 

justify deviations from what Congress directed. Simple differences 

of opinion on policy are not enough. We must understand why the 

administration now proposes that we reprioritize funding to items 

like commercial crew transportation and space technology and 

away from the rocket and capsule that will allow us to resume the 

Nation’s legacy as explorers. 

Congress made many of these choices and decisions last year. We 

need to know what has changed in the last 5 months to prompt the 

budget request’s alternative focus, counter to the clear direction of 

the new law. 

Second, if NASA’s budget will be reduced, like many other agencies, we need to fully analyze opportunities to limit overlap or duplication with other agencies to reduce some of these expenditures. 

Third, we must carefully consider our investment priorities for 

NASA and how those affect our national defense and economic security needs. 

America’s preeminence in space is more than a source of national 

pride. It is a source of strategic advantage. We need to ensure that 

our investment preserves our intellectual and physical infrastructure, at a time where other nations, including China, are investing 

heavily to close the gap with us. 

Finally, the programs at NASA must be executable and sustainable. NASA’s history is rich with major breakthroughs and breathtaking achievements. The recent history, however, is also rich with 

examples of cost overruns, development delays, and poor technical 

choices. We no longer have the luxury of spending money on ships 

that never fly and satellites that never reach orbit. NASA must 

change some of its practices with respect to contracting and procurement. Its programs must focus on accomplishments that directly advance current mission objectives. Focused research and development is a key to operating in a constrained budget environment. 

And with that, I yield back. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Senator. 

OK. We’ve got all the Associate Administrators of NASA here. 

We want to get right into the nuts and bolts of what the budget 

should be for this agency, given the environment. 

[The prepared statement of the Administrator follows:] 

5 

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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to 

submit this statement for the record as part of the Committee’s hearing today entitled Realizing NASA’s Potential: Programmatic Challenges in the 21st Century. I 

want to thank you and all the Members of the Committee for the longstanding support that you have given to NASA. These are exciting and dynamic times for NASA. 

The challenges ahead are significant, but so are the opportunities we have to 

achieve big things that will create a measurable impact on our economy, our world, 

and our way of life. 

The President’s FY 2012 budget request of $18.7 billion for NASA continues the 

Agency’s focus on a reinvigorated path of innovation and technological discovery 

leading to an array of challenging destinations and missions that increases our 

knowledge, develop technologies to improve life, to expand our presence in space for 

knowledge and commerce, and that will engage the public. With the President’s 

signing of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111–267) on October 11, 2010, 

NASA has a clear direction and is moving forward. NASA appreciates the significant effort that advanced this important bipartisan legislation, particularly efforts 

by the leadership and Members of this Committee. This is a time of opportunity for 

NASA to shape a promising future for the Nation’s space program. 

Because these are tough fiscal times, tough choices had to be made. But the proposed FY 2012 budget funds all major elements of the Authorization Act, supporting 

a diverse portfolio of programs, while making difficult choices to fund key priorities 

and reduce other areas in order to invest in the future. A chart summarizing the 

President’s FY 2012 budget request for NASA is enclosed as Enclosure 1. 

We have an incredible balance of human space flight, science, aeronautics and 

technology development. Within the human space flight arena, our foremost priority 

is our current human spaceflight endeavor—the International Space Station—and 

the safety and viability of the astronauts aboard it. The request also maintains a 

strong commitment to human spaceflight beyond low Earth orbit. It establishes critical priorities and invests in the technologies and excellent science, aeronautics research, and education programs that will help us win the future. The request supports an aggressive launch rate over the next two years with about 40 U.S. and 

international missions to the ISS, for science, and to support other agencies. 

At its core, NASA’s mission remains fundamentally the same as it always has 

been and supports our new vision: ‘‘To reach for new heights and reveal the unknown so that what we do and learn will benefit all humankind.’’ This statement 

is from the new multi-year 2011 NASA Strategic Plan accompanying the FY 2012 

budget request, which all of NASA’s Mission Directorates, Mission Support Offices 

and Centers helped to develop, and encapsulates in broad terms the very reason for 

NASA’s existence and everything that the American public expects from its space 

program. Just last week, we completed the Space Shuttle Discovery’s STS–133 mission, one of the final three shuttle flights to the International Space Station. Discovery delivered a robotic crewmember, Robonaut-2 (R2), and supplies that will support the station’s scientific research and technology demonstrations. We recently 

made some preliminary announcements about program offices to carry out our future work. And we plan to release three additional high-priority solicitations spanning Space Technology’s strategic investment areas. NASA brings good jobs and bolsters the economy in communities across the Nation. Our space program continues 

to venture in ways that will have long-term benefits, and there are many more milestones in the very near term. 

Our human spaceflight priorities in the FY 2012 budget request are to: 

• safely fly the last Space Shuttle flights this year and maintain safe access for 

humans to low-Earth orbit as we fully utilize the International Space Station; 

• facilitate safe, reliable, and cost-effective U.S.-provided commercial access to 

low-Earth orbit first for cargo and then for crew as quickly as possible; 

• begin to lay the ground work for expanding human presence into deep space— 

the Moon, asteroids, eventually Mars—through development of a powerful 

heavy-lift rocket and multi-purpose crew capsule; and 

• pursue technology development that is needed to carry humans farther into the 

solar system. Taken together, these human spaceflight initiatives will enable 

America to retain its position as a leader in space exploration for generations 

to come. 

At the same time, we will extend our reach with robots and scientific observatories to expand our knowledge of the universe beyond our own planet. We will 

6 

continue the vital work to expand our abilities to observe our planet Earth and 

make that data available for decision makers. We will also continue our 

groundbreaking research into the next generation of aviation technologies. Finally, 

we will make the most of all of NASA’s technological breakthroughs to improve life 

here at home. 

With the FY 2012 budget, NASA will carry out research, technology and innovation programs that support long-term job growth and economic competitiveness and 

build upon our Nation’s position as a technology leader. We will educate the next 

generation of technology leaders through vital programs in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. And we will build the future through those investments in American industry to create a new job-producing engine for the U.S. 

economy. 

This year we honor the legacy of President John F. Kennedy, who 50 years ago, 

set the United States on a path that resulted in a national effort to produce an unprecedented achievement. Now, we step forward along a similar path, engaged in 

a wide range of activities in human spaceflight, technology development, science, 

and aeronautics—a path characterized by engagement of an expanded commercial 

space sector and technology development to mature the capabilities required by increasingly challenging missions designed to make discoveries and reach new destinations. 

NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD) continues to rewrite textbooks and 

make headlines around the world. Across disciplines and geographic regions worldwide, NASA aims to achieve a deep scientific understanding of Earth, other planets 

and solar system bodies, our star system in its entirety, and the universe beyond. 

The Agency is laying the foundation for the robotic and human expeditions of the 

future while meeting today’s needs for scientific information to address national concerns about global change, space weather, and education. 

• The Mars Science Laboratory will launch later this year and arrive at Mars in 

August 2012. It will be the largest rover ever to reach the Red Planet and will 

search for evidence of both past and present life. 

• The Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR) mission will launch in 

early 2012 and become the first focusing hard X-ray telescope to orbit Earth. 

• Research and Analysis programs will use data from an array of sources, including spacecraft, sounding rockets, balloons, and payloads on the ISS. We will 

continue to evaluate the vast amounts of data we receive from dozens of ongoing 

missions supported by this budget. 

• A continued focus on Earth Science sees us continuing development of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO–2) for launch in 2013 and other initiatives 

to collect data about our home planet across the spectrum. 

• The budget reflects the scientific priorities for astrophysics as expressed in the 

recent Decadal Survey of the National Academy of Sciences. The budget supports small-, medium-, and large-scale activities recommended by the Decadal 

Survey. 

• The Radiation Belt Storm Probe mission will launch next year, and development of other smaller missions and instruments to study the Sun will get underway here on the ground. 

With the appointment of a new Chief Scientist NASA will pursue an integrated, 

strategic approach to its scientific work across Mission Directorates and programs. 

As we continue our work to consolidate the Exploration Systems and Space Operations Mission Directorates (ESMD and SOMD), both groups will support our current human spaceflight programs and continue work on technologies to expand our 

future capabilities. 

• We will fly out the Space Shuttle in 2011, including STS–135 if funds are available, and then proceed with the disposition of most Space Shuttle assets after 

the retirement of the fleet. The Shuttle program accomplished many outstanding things for this Nation, and in 2012 we look forward to moving our retired Orbiters to museums and science centers across the country to inspire the 

next generation of explorers. 

• Completing assembly of the U.S. segment of the ISS will be the crowning 

achievement of the Space Shuttle’s nearly 30-year history. The ISS will serve 

as a fully functional and permanently crewed research laboratory and technology testbed, providing a critical stepping stone for exploration and future 

international cooperation, as well as an invaluable National Laboratory for nonNASA and nongovernmental users. During FY 2011, NASA will award a cooperative agreement to an independent non-profit organization (NPO) with responsiVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:03 Aug 22, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75607.TXT JACKIE
7 

bility to further develop national uses of the ISS. The NPO will oversee all ISS 

research involving organizations other than NASA, and transfer current NASA 

biological and physical research to the NPO in future years. 

• In 2012, we will make progress in developing a new Space Launch System 

(SLS), a heavy-lift rocket that will be the first step on our eventual journeys 

to destinations beyond LEO. 

• We will continue work on a Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) that will build 

on the human safety features, designs, and systems of the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle. As with the SLS, acquisition strategy decisions will be finalized 

by this summer. 

• NASA will continue to expand commercial access to space and work with our 

partners to achieve milestones in the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) Program, the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) effort, and an 

expanded Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) program. As we direct resources toward developing these capabilities, we not only create multiple means 

for accessing LEO, we also facilitate commercial uses of space, help lower costs, 

and spark an engine for long-term job growth. While the request is above the 

authorized level for 2012, NASA believes the amount is critical, combined with 

significant corporate investments, to ensure that we will have one or more companies that can transport American astronauts to the ISS. With retirement of 

the Space Shuttle in 2011, this is a top Agency priority. 

• Most importantly, NASA recognizes that these programmatic changes will continue to personally affect thousands of NASA civil servants and contractors who 

have worked countless hours, often under difficult circumstances, to make our 

human spaceflight, science, and aeronautics programs and projects successful. 

I commend the investment that these dedicated Americans have made and will 

continue to make in our Nation’s space and aeronautics programs. These are 

tremendously exciting and dynamic times for the U.S. space program. NASA 

will strive to utilize our workforce in a manner that will ensure that the Nation 

maintains NASA’s greatest asset—the skilled civil servants and contractors— 

while working to increase the efficiency and cost-effectiveness in all of its operations. 

• The 21st Century Space Launch Complex program will focus on upgrades to the 

Florida launch range, expanding capabilities to support SLS, MPCV, commercial cargo/launch services providers, and transforming KSC into a modern facility that benefits all range users. The program will re-plan its activities based 

on available FY 2011 funding to align with 2010 NASA Authorization’s focus 

areas, including cross organizational coordination between 21stCSLC, Launch 

Services, and Commercial Crew activities. 

NASA’s Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) continues to improve 

the safety, efficiency and environmental friendliness of air travel. 

• Our work continues to address the challenge of meeting the growing technology 

and capacity needs of the Next Generation air travel system, or ‘‘NextGen,’’ in 

coordination with the FAA and other stakeholders in airspace efficiency. 

• NASA’s work on green aviation technologies that improve fuel efficiency and reduce noise continues apace. 

• We also continue to work with industry to develop the concepts and technologies 

for the aircraft of tomorrow. The Agency’s fundamental and integrated systems 

research and testing will continue to generate improvements and economic impacts felt by the general flying public as well as the aeronautics community. 

The establishment last year of the Office of the Chief Technologist (OCT) enabled 

NASA to begin moving toward the technological breakthroughs needed to meet our 

Nation’s space exploration goals, while building our Nation’s global economic competitiveness through the creation of new products and services, new business and 

industries, and high-quality, sustainable jobs. By investing in high payoff, disruptive technology that industry cannot tackle today, NASA matures the technology required for our future missions in science and exploration while improving the capabilities and lowering the cost of other government agencies and commercial activities. 

• In OCT’s cross-cutting role, NASA recently developed draft space technology 

roadmaps, which define pathways to advance the Nation’s capabilities in space 

and establish a foundation for the Agency’s future investments in technology 

and innovation. NASA is working collaboratively with the National Research 

Council (NRC) to refine these roadmaps. The final product will establish a 

8 

mechanism for prioritizing NASA’s technology investments, and will support the 

initial Space Technology Policy Congress requested in the NASA Authorization 

Act. 

• As leader of the Space Technology Program, OCT will sponsor a portfolio of both 

competitive and strategically-guided technology investments, bringing the agency a wide range of mission-focused and transformative technologies that will enable revolutionary approaches to achieving NASA’s current and future missions. 

• In FY 2012, a significant portion of the Exploration Technology Development 

Program is moved from ESMD to Space Technology. These efforts focus on developing the long-range, exploration-specific technologies to enable NASA’s deep 

space human exploration future. The integration of Exploration Technology activities with Space Technology creates one robust space technology budget line, 

and eliminates the potential for overlap had NASA’s space technology investments been split among two accounts. ESMD will continue to set the prioritized 

requirements for these efforts and will serve as the primary customer of Space 

Technology’s Exploration-specific activities. 

• OCT continues to manage SBIR and STTR, and integrates technology transfer 

efforts ensure NASA technologies are infused into commercial applications, develops technology partnerships, and facilitates emerging commercial space activities. 

Recognizing that our work must continuously inspire not only the public at large 

but also students at all levels, NASA’s Education programs this year focus on widening the pipeline of students pursuing coursework in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). As President Obama has said, ‘‘Our future depends 

on reaffirming America’s role as the world’s engine of scientific discovery and technological innovation. And that leadership tomorrow depends on how we educate our 

students today, especially in math, science, technology, and engineering.’’ 

• The FY 2012 request for NASA’s Office of Education capitalizes on the excitement of NASA’s mission through innovative approaches that inspire educator 

and student interest and proficiency in STEM disciplines. NASA’s education 

program in FY 2012 and beyond will focus and strengthen the Agency’s tradition of investing in the Nation’s education programs and supporting the country’s educators who play a key role in inspiring, encouraging, and nurturing the 

young minds of today, who will manage and lead the Nation’s laboratories and 

research centers of tomorrow. 

• Among NASA’s Education activities will be a continued Summer of Innovation, 

building on the successful model piloted with four states this past year. 

All of these activities place NASA in the forefront of a bright future for America, 

where we challenge ourselves and create a global space enterprise with positive 

ramifications across the world. The FY 2012 budget request provides the resources 

for NASA to innovate and make discoveries on many fronts, and we look forward 

to implementing it. See Enclosure 2 for a more detail summary of each activity. 

Conclusion 

As we enter the second half-century of human spaceflight, the Nation can look 

back upon NASA’s accomplishments with pride, but we can also look forward with 

anticipation to many more achievements to come. The NASA Authorization Act of 

2010 (P.L. 111–267) has provided us with clear direction that enables the Agency 

to conduct important research on the ISS, develop new launch vehicle and crew 

transportation capabilities to go beyond the bounds of LEO, utilize a dazzling array 

of spacecraft to study the depths of the cosmos while taking the measure of our 

home planet, improve aviation systems and safety, develop new technologies that 

will have applications to both space exploration and life on Earth, and inspire the 

teachers and students of our country. In developing and executing the challenging 

missions that only NASA can do, we contribute new knowledge and technologies 

that enhance the Nation’s ability to compete on the global stage and help to secure 

a more prosperous future. 

These are tough fiscal times, calling for tough choices. The President’s FY 2012 

budget request makes those choices and helps NASA realize its potential and meet 

the challenges of the 21st Century. We look forward to working with the Committee 

on its implementation. 

9 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration President’s FY 2012 Budget Request Detail—Full Cost View 

Budget Authority, $ in million 

Actual 

FY 2010 

CR 

FY 2011 

Auth 

Act 

FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 

Science 4,497.6 4,469.0 5,005.6 5,016.8 5,016.8 5,016.8 5,016.8 5,016.8 

Earth Science 1,439.3 1,801.8 1,797.4 1,821.7 1,818.5 1,858.2 1,915.4 

Planetary Science 1,364.4 1,485.7 1,540.7 1,429.3 1,394.7 1,344.2 1,256.8 

Astrophysics 647.3 1,076.3 682.7 758.1 775.5 779.8 810.9 

James Webb Space 

Telescope 438.7 373.7 375.0 375.0 375.0 375.0 

Hellophysics 608.0 641.9 622.3 632.7 653.0 659.7 658.7 

Aeronautics 497.0 501.0 579.6 569.4 569.4 569.4 569.4 569.4 

Space Technology 275.2 327.2 512.0 1,024.2 1,024.2 1,024.2 1,024.2 1,024.2 

Exploration 3,625.8 3,594.3 3,706.0 3,948.7 3,948.7 3,948.7 3,948.7 3,948.7 

Human Exploration 

Capabilities 3,287.5 2,751.0 2,810.2 2,810.2 2,810.2 2,810.2 2,810.2 

Commercial Spaceflight 39.1 612.0 850.0 850.0 850.0 850.0 850.0 

Exploration Research and 

Development 299.2 343.0 288.5 288.5 288.5 288.5 288.5 

Space Operations 6,141.8 6,146.8 5,508.5 4,346.9 4,346.9 4,346.9 4,346.9 4,346.9 

Space Shuttle 3,101.4 1,609.7 664.9 79.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 

International Space 

Station 2,312.7 2,779.8 2,841.5 2,960.4 3,005.4 3,098.0 3,174.8 

Space and Flight Support 

(SFS) 727.7 1,119.0 840.6 1,306.8 1,340.7 1,248.1 1,171.2 

Education 180.1 182.5 145.8 138.4 138.4 138.4 138.4 138.4 

Cross-Agency Support 3,017.6 3,018.8 3,111.4 3,192.0 3,192.0 3,192.0 3,192.0 3,192.0 

Center Management and 

Operations 2,161.2 2,402.9 2,402.9 2,402.9 2,402.9 2,402.9 

Agency Management and 

Operations 766.2 789.1 789.1 789.1 789.1 789.1 

Institutional Investments 27.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Congressionally Directed 

Items 63.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Construction and 

Environmental 

Compliance and 

Restoration 452.8 448.3 394.3 450.4 450.4 450.4 450.4 450.4 

Construction of Facilities 389.4 397.9 384.0 359.5 362.9 360.0 

Environmental 

Compliance and 

Restoration 63.4 52.5 66.4 90.9 87.5 90.4 

Inspector General 36.4 36.4 37.0 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 

NASA FY 2011 18,724.3 18,724.3 19,000.0 18,724.3 18,724.3 18,724.3 18,724.3 18,724.3 

PROGRAM SUMMARIES

Science 

The President’s FY 2012 request for NASA includes $5,016.8 million for Science. 

NASA continues to expand humanity’s understanding of our Earth, our Sun, the 

solar system, and the universe with 56 science missions in operation and 28 more 

in various stages of development. The Science budget funds these missions as well 

as the research of over 3,000 scientists, engineers, technologists, and their students 

across the Nation. NASA is guided in setting its priorities for strategic science missions by the recommendations of the NRC decadal surveys. The Agency selects competed missions and research proposals based on open competition and peer review. 

NASA’s science efforts continue to advance a robust and scientifically productive 

program while making difficult choices commensurate with the Government-wide 

priority to constrain the Federal budget. 

The challenges we face have been amplified by the failed launch of the Glory satellite on March 4. This loss is tragic and underscores the challenging nature of the 

10 

space business. Reliable and affordable access to space is vital to NASA’s science 

program The FY 2012 budget request includes $1,797.4 million for Earth Science. NASA’s 

constellation of Earth observing satellites provides much of the global environmental observations used for climate research in the United States and abroad. 

In early FY 2012, NASA plans to launch the National Polar-orbiting Operational 

Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) Preparatory Project (NPP), continuing 

selected climate data records and becoming an integral part of the Nation’s operational meteorological satellite system for weather prediction. We also plan to select 

new Venture Class science instruments and small missions in FY 2012. 

The Aquarius instrument on the Argentine Sate ́lite de Aplicaciones Cientı ́ficas 

(SAC)-D mission (launching later this year) will deliver the first global ocean salinity measurements to the science community in FY 2012. The Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO–2), Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM), and the Global 

Precipitation Measurement (GPM) missions will be in integration and testing in FY 

2012. The first two NRC Decadal Survey missions, Soil Moisture Active/Passive 

(SMAP) and the Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite-2 (ICESat-2), will both 

enter into development during FY 2012. This budget request also funds robust Research and Analysis, Applied Science, and Technology programs. In this climate of 

fiscal austerity there are some important capabilities that will not be developed in 

order to keep others on track in more constrained future years. Development of the 

second two Tier 1 Decadal Survey missions, the Deformation, Ecosystem Structure, 

and Dynamics of Ice (DESDynI), and the Climate Absolute Radiance and 

Refractivity Observatory (CLARREO), has been deferred resulting in launch dates 

no earlier than 2020. NASA will continue pre-formulation work on the DESDynI 

and review international partner options. However, the FY 2012 request enables the 

Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment Follow-on (GRACE–FO), the PreAerosols-Clouds-Ecosystems (PACE), and the Tier 2 missions Surface Water and 

Ocean Topography (SWOT), and Active Sensing of CO2 Emissions Over Nights, 

Days, and Seasons (ASCENDS) to go forward as planned. The Science budget request includes $1,540.7 million for Planetary Science in FY 

2012. NASA and its partners consider the period from October 2010 to August 2012 

(the length of a Martian year) to be the ‘‘Year of the Solar System.’’ 

The Juno mission will launch in August 2011 and arrive at Jupiter in 2016. The 

Gravity Recovery And Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) mission, following launch in 

September 2011, will enter lunar orbit and help determine the structure of the 

lunar interior from crust to core; the mission will advance our understanding of the 

thermal evolution of the Moon by the end of its prime mission in FY 2012. A newly 

installed webcam is giving the public an opportunity to watch technicians assemble 

and test NASA’s MSL ‘‘Curiosity,’’ one of the most technologically advanced interplanetary missions ever designed. More than one million people have watched assembly and testing of Curiosity via a live webcam since it went on-line in October. 

Curiosity will launch in early FY 2012 and arrive at Mars in August 2012; it will 

be two times as large and three times as heavy as the Spirit and Opportunity rovers, and will focus on investigating whether conditions on Mars have been favorable 

for microbial life and for preserving clues in the rocks about possible past life. The 

MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry and Ranging (MESSENGER) 

spacecraft will arrive at Mercury later this month and will complete its first year 

in Mercury orbit in March 2012. MESSENGER’s instruments will map nearly the 

entire planet in color, image the surface in high resolution, and measure the composition of the surface, atmosphere and nature of the magnetic field and 

magnetosphere. During its nearly decade-long mission, the Dawn mission will study 

the asteroid Vesta and dwarf planet Ceres—celestial bodies believed to have 

accreted early in the history of the solar system. Dawn will enter into orbit around 

Vesta this summer and will depart in 2012 for its encounter with Ceres in 2015. 

NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) have selected the five science instruments for the 2016 ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter mission. The budget also supports 

robust Research and Analysis and Technology programs. 

NASA recently received the new National Academy of Sciences Decadal Survey 

for Planetary Science, entitled Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013—2022. We are grateful to the Academy and to all the Survey participants 

for their hard work and thoughtful recommendations . NASA will use this survey 

to prioritize ongoing programs and future mission opportunities. 

The FY 2012 budget request includes $682.7 million for Astrophysics (not including an additional $375 million for the James Webb Space Telescope [JWST] which 

is detailed below). This is a golden age of space-based Astrophysics, with 14 observatories in operation. Astrophysics research, technology investments, and missions 

aim to understand how the universe works, how galaxies, stars and planets origiVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:03 Aug 22, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75607.TXT JACKIE
11 

nated and developed over cosmic time, and whether Earth-like planets and life exist 

elsewhere in the cosmos. 

The FY 2012 budget request reflects the scientific priorities of the new National 

Academy of Science Decadal Survey entitled, ‘‘New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics.’’ The budget includes additional funding for the Explorer 

mission selection planned for 2012, sustains a vigorous flight rate of future astrophysics Explorer missions and missions of opportunity, and increases investments 

in recommended research and technology initiatives. Funding is also provided for 

pre-formulation investments in recommended large missions beyond JWST, while 

work on the Space Interferometry Mission (SIM) and Joint Dark Energy Mission 

(JDEM) has been brought to a close, consistent with the recommended Decadal Survey program. SOFIA will complete its open door flight testing and conduct the first 

competed science observations in FY 2012. The Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope 

Array (NuSTAR) mission will launch in early 2012. The NASA Astrophysics budget 

also supports continuing operations of Hubble, Chandra, and several other astrophysics observatories in space. The budget increases funding for the core Astrophysics research program, including sounding rocket and balloon suborbital payloads, theory, and laboratory astrophysics. 

The FY 2012 budget request includes $375 million for the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). JWST is now budgeted as a separate theme, reflecting changes implemented in FY 2011 to improve management oversight and control over this critical project, as recommended by the Independent Comprehensive Review Panel’s 

(ICRP) report in November 2010. The project, previously managed within the Astrophysics Division, is now managed by a separate program office at NASA Headquarters. Management of this JWST organization at Headquarters now reports directly to the NASA Associate Administrator and the Associate Administrator for 

Science. The Goddard Space Flight Center has implemented analogous changes, 

with JWST project management now reporting directly to the Center Director. 

JWST was the top priority large mission recommended in the previous NRC Decadal 

Survey and is considered a foundational element of the science strategy in the new 

Decadal Survey for Astronomy and Astrophysics. During 2010, JWST completed its 

most significant mission milestone to date, the Mission Critical Design Review. Cost 

growth and schedule issues identified following this milestone led to the formation 

of the ICRP. The ICRP report concluded that the problems causing cost growth and 

schedule delays on the JWST project are associated with cost estimation and program management, not technical performance. The $375 million funding in 2012 

gives the program a stable footing to continue progress while the agency develops 

a revised program plan that includes a realistic assessment of schedule and lifecycle 

cost. The revised schedule and lifecycle cost will be reflected in the 2013 Budget request. 

The FY 2012 budget request includes $622.3 million for Heliophysics. NASA’s 

heliophysics satellites provide not only a steady stream of scientific data for NASA’s 

research program, but also supply a significant fraction of critical space weather 

data used by other Government agencies for support of commercial and national security activities in space. Those agencies use the data to protect operating satellites, 

communications, aviation and navigation systems, as well as electrical power transmission grids. The spacecraft also provides images of the Sun with ten times greater 

resolution than high-definition television in a broad range of ultraviolet wavelengths. On February 6, 2011, the two STEREO spacecraft reached 180 degrees separation; when combined with SDO, these spacecraft will enable constant imaging of 

the full solar sphere for the next eight years, as the solar cycle peaks and begins 

to decline again. These three spacecraft working together and in combination with 

NASA’s other solar observatories will give us unprecedented insight into the Sun 

and its dangerous solar storms that could threaten both satellites and humans in 

space as well as electric power systems on Earth. NASA has begun development of 

a mission, called Solar Probe Plus, that will visit and study the Sun from within 

its corona—a distance only 8.5 solar radii above its surface. 

The FY 2012 budget will enable completion of the Radiation Belt Storm Probes 

mission for launch in FY 2012 as well as the completion of development of the Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph (IRIS) Explorer mission. In FY 2012, the 

Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) mission will enter its assembly and integration 

phase, the Solar Orbiter Collaboration with ESA will undergo Mission Confirmation 

Review, and the Solar Probe Plus mission will enter into the preliminary design 

phase. NASA has increased funding for the next Explorer mission selection planned 

for 2012 to enable selection of up to two full missions, as well as instruments that 

may fly on non-Explorer spacecraft. The budget also supports robust Research and 

Analysis and Sounding Rocket operations programs. The National Academy of 

12 

Sciences has begun work on the next Decadal Survey for Heliophysics and we anticipate its release in the spring of 2012. 

Aeronautics Research 

The FY 2012 budget request for Aeronautics is $569.4 million. As an industry, aviation contributes $1.3 trillion to the Nation’s economy and employs over one million people. Airlines in the U.S. transport over one million people daily, but during 

peak travel times the air traffic and airport systems in the U.S. are stretched to 

capacity. Environmental concerns, such as aircraft noise and emissions, limit increased operations and the expansion of airports and runways. In response to these 

challenges, the Nation is pursuing the realization of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). NextGen will accommodate more aircraft operating 

within the same airspace, including aircraft with widely varying performance characteristics. The President recently challenged the Nation to increase its competitiveness in advanced technologies. NASA meets this challenge with aeronautics research to create the safer, more fuel-efficient, quieter, and environmentally responsible aircraft and air traffic management procedures needed to make NextGen a reality. 

• The Aviation Safety Program conducts research to ensure that current and new 

aircraft and operational procedures maintain the high level of safety which the 

American public has come to count on, even as aviation systems become more 

complex. Last year, the Program published guidelines on automation, displays, 

and alerting technologies for future aircraft cockpit designs based on data collected from real flight crews during simulations of high-air-traffic-density operations. Further increases in air traffic will require even higher levels of automation without sacrificing safety. NASA is addressing this need by developing new 

methods to verify and validate complex aircraft and air traffic control systems 

and further developing human performance models to be applied in the design 

of automated systems. The Program is also developing data mining methods 

that will enable the discovery of safety issues through automated analysis of the 

vast amounts of data generated during flight operations. These methods will enable a new, proactive approach to aircraft maintenance and design to avoid the 

occurrence of safety issues, rather than a reactive approach after a safety-related incident occurs. 

• Reductions in environmental impact will be achieved not only through new aircraft, engines, and fuels, but also through improved air traffic management procedures. The Airspace Systems Program is developing these procedures in order 

to provide the flexibility needed to add capacity to the system as air travel demands increase. Last year, we partnered with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Boeing, Sensis, United Airlines, and Continental Airlines to complete joint simulations of new Efficient Descent Advisor (EDA) procedures, and 

in FY 2012, the Program will deliver documentation of the results to the FAA. 

EDA procedures are a key component of the FAA’s 3D–Path Arrival Management program and NextGen and can save hundreds of pounds of fuel and carbon dioxide emissions per participating flight, while reducing noise over surrounding communities. In FY 2012, we will also accelerate field trials of new 

procedures enabled by Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS–B) 

technology. This effort will demonstrate near-term and mid-term ADS–B application benefits and provide airlines with data to support their strategic decisions related to the significant investments they need to make to equip their 

aircraft with ADS–B capability. 

• The Fundamental Aeronautics Program seeks to continually improve technology 

that can be infused into today’s state-of-the-art aircraft, while enabling gamechanging new concepts, such as Hybrid Wing Body (HWB) airframes, tilt-rotor 

aircraft, low-boom supersonic aircraft, and sustained hypersonic flight. In FY 

2012, the Program will accelerate research on a number of key enabling technologies identified through four conceptual design studies completed last year 

in collaboration with industry and academia. The Program will also expand the 

measurement of emissions generated when using non-petroleum alternative aircraft fuels. In FY 2012, we will develop instrumentation and operating procedures in preparation for a flight test campaign using the NASA DC–8 aircraft 

operating at relevant altitudes and cruise speeds. This will provide the firstever data to improve our understanding of alternative fuel impact on contrail 

formation, an important factor in aviation climate impact. 

• The Integrated Systems Research Program evaluates and selects the most promising ‘‘environmentally friendly’’ engine and airframe concepts emerging from 

the fundamental research programs for further development, integration, and 

13 

evaluation in relevant environments. Last year, we completed the last of 80 

flights to explore the stability and control characteristics of the sub-scale X–48B 

HWB aircraft. In FY 2012, we will conduct the first-ever testing of an Hybrid 

Wing Body non-circular fuselage section fabricated using a new low-weight, 

damage-tolerant concept for composite aircraft structures. Beginning this year, 

the Program is also addressing the growing requirement to integrate unmanned 

aircraft systems (UAS) into the national airspace system. Current FAA regulations are built upon the condition of a pilot being on-board the aircraft. The Program will therefore generate data for FAA use in rule-making through development, testing, and evaluation of UAS technologies in operationally relevant scenarios. U.S. leadership in aerospace depends on ready access to technologicallyadvanced, efficient, and affordable aeronautics test capabilities. NASA’s Aeronautics Test Program makes strategic investments to ensure the availability of 

these ground test facilities and flight test assets to researchers in Government, 

industry, and academia. In addition to this strategic management activity, the 

Program will continue with the development of new test instrumentation and 

test technologies. The Program is modifying a Gulfstream III business jet in 

order to flight test a new approach to reducing drag on an aircraft by adding 

carefully engineered surface roughness to the wings. This new flight-test capability will enable us to test this drag reduction concept for the first time at the 

altitudes and speeds at which commercial aircraft typically cruise. 

NASA cannot do all of these good things alone. Our partnerships with industry, 

academia, and other Federal agencies are critical to our ability to expand the boundaries of aeronautical knowledge for the benefit of the Nation. These partnerships 

foster a collaborative research environment in which ideas and knowledge are exchanged across all communities and help ensure the future competitiveness of the 

Nation’s aviation industry. They also directly connect students with NASA researchers and our industrial partners and help to inspire students to choose a career in 

the aerospace industry. 

Space Technology 

The FY 2012 budget request includes $1,024.2 million for Space Technology, a 

modest increase above the FY 2012 levels projected in the NASA Authorization Act 

of 2010, consistent with the priority the Administration is placing on research, technology and innovation efforts across the Federal government. In FY 2012, Space 

Technology includes funding for longstanding Small Business Innovation Research 

and Small Business Technology Transfer programs (SBIR and STTR), technology 

transfer, crosscutting space technology programs formulated in FY 2011, and exploration technology programs that are being transferred into this account. NASA technology development activities under Space Technology will transform the Nation’s 

capabilities for exploring space. Through this effort, NASA advances crosscutting 

and exploration-specific technology, performs technology transfer and technology 

commercialization activities, develops technology partnerships with other Government agencies, and coordinates the Agency’s overall technology investment portfolio. 

The Office of the Chief Technologist (OCT) manages Space Technology. 

Space Technology is the central NASA contribution to the President’s revitalized 

research, technology and innovation agenda for the Nation. NASA’s Space Technology portfolio responds with investments that reach all corners of the Nation— 

wherever there are innovative ideas and technical challenges to be solved. Advanced 

technologies are required to enable NASA’s future science, aeronautics, and exploration missions. As demonstrated over many years, these same advanced technologies find their way into products and services available every day to the public. 

NASA’s space technology is an innovation engine that invests in the high payoff, 

high-risk ideas and technologies of tomorrow that industry cannot tackle today. This 

unique work attracts bright minds into educational and career paths in STEM disciplines, enhancing the Nation’s technological leadership position in the world and 

leaving a lasting imprint on the economic, national security, and geopolitical landscape. Through these technological investments, NASA and our Nation will remain 

at the cutting-edge. 

In FY 2010 and the first quarter of FY 2011, NASA focused on planning, formulating and implementing the Space Technology project elements. The Agency received 1,400 responses to six Space Technology Requests For Information (RFIs) released during FY 2010. These inputs were invaluable in finalizing future Space 

Technology solicitations and demonstrate a strong interest in, and need for, significant NASA investment in space research and technology. NASA released solicitations for the ongoing Flight Opportunities and SBIR/STTR programs. In December 

2010 NASA released the inaugural Space Technology Graduate Fellowships call. 

Consistent with provisions of the NASA Authorization Act, the Agency plans to reVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:03 Aug 22, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75607.TXT JACKIE
14 

lease three additional high-priority solicitations spanning Space Technology’s strategic investment areas. NASA also recently developed a draft set of 14 space technology roadmaps, which define pathways to advance the Nation’s capabilities in 

space and establish a mechanism for prioritization of NASA’s technology investments. Consistent with the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, NASA’s space technology roadmaps are being evaluated and improved through a community-engaged 

process managed by the NRC that will produce a range of pathways and recommended priorities that advance the Nation’s space capabilities. 

NASA’s Partnership Development and Strategic Integration activities develop key 

space technology partnerships and guide NASA’s space technology investment decisions. OCT provides a primary entry point to industry and Government agencies for 

technology transfer and commercialization, interagency coordination and joint activities, intellectual property management, and partnership opportunities. The Office is 

also responsible for development of an Agency technology portfolio and strategically 

coordinates Agency technology investments through Center and Mission Directorate 

advisory committees and through the space technology roadmaps to ensure that 

Space Technology investments serve NASA’s missions as well as the interests of 

other Government agencies and the Nation’s aerospace industry. 

The Agency’s space technology investments include the Small Business Innovation 

Research and the Small Business Technology Transfer programs (SBIR and STTR). 

Small businesses have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years. 

NASA invests at least 2.5 percent of its extramural research and development in 

the SBIR program. The STTR program makes awards to small businesses for contracts for cooperative research and development with non-profit research institutions, such as universities. For STTR, NASA’s investment exceeds 0.3 percent of its 

extramural research and development. For FY 2012, higher maximum awards for 

SBIRs are allowed, with Phase I awards that can reach $150,000 and, for Phase 2, 

up to $1 million. Also in FY 2012, NASA is aligning the SBIR and STTR topics with 

space technology roadmaps and the National Aeronautics Research and Development Plan, while coordinating with Centers and maintaining a Mission Directorate 

steering council to continue to improve our rate of mission infusion. 

Crosscutting Space Technology Development (CSTD) activities invest in broadly 

applicable technologies though early-stage conceptual studies, ground-based and laboratory testing, relevant-environment flight demonstrations, and technology 

testbeds, including the ISS. The NASA Mission Directorates, other Government 

agencies, and industry are the ultimate customers for Crosscutting Space Technology Development products. Within this element, there are three investment 

areas: Early Stage Innovation, Game Changing Technology and Crosscutting Capability Demonstrations. Early Stage Innovation funds space technology research 

grants and fellowships to accelerate space technology development through innovative projects with high risk/high payoff. It also funds the NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC) effort, which studies the viability and feasibility of space 

architecture, system, or mission concepts. It includes the Center Innovation Fund 

to stimulate and encourage creativity and innovation within the NASA Centers, and 

provides the prizes for the Centennial Challenges competitions that seek innovative 

solutions to technical problems in aerospace technology. Through ground-based and 

laboratory testing, Game Changing Technology proves the fundamental physical 

principles of those technologies that can provide transformative capabilities for scientific discovery, and human and robotic exploration. Specifically for small satellites, the Franklin subsystem technology development activity matures subsystem 

technology in laboratory environments. Crosscutting Capability Demonstrations 

proves the most promising technological solutions in the relevant environment of 

space. Technology Demonstration Missions prove larger-scale system technologies in 

the space environment, whereas the Edison small satellite missions demonstrate the 

utility of these innovative space platforms for NASA’s future missions. Flight Opportunities utilizes the capabilities of the commercial reusable suborbital space transportation and parabolic flight services industries to test technologies. Seventy percent of the CSTD funds will be awarded competitively, with solicitations open to the 

broad aerospace community to ensure engagement with the best sources of new and 

innovative technology. Industry, academia and the NASA Centers will participate 

in the development of CSTD products. In FY 2012, CSTD will engage hundreds of 

graduate students and researchers though grants and fellowships, initiate dozens of 

ground and flight technology demonstrations, initiate tens of technology studies, and 

formulate its first demonstration missions. 

In FY 2012, a significant portion of the FY 2010 Exploration Technology Development Program, as well as new exploration technology activities in planning for FY 

2011, will move from ESMD to Space Technology. For traceability, the transferred 

activities have been consolidated in a specific budgetary element within Space TechVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:03 Aug 22, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75607.TXT JACKIE
15 

nology: Exploration Technology Development (ETD). NASA plans to capitalize on 

technical synergies in the project elements from Crosscutting Space Technology Development and Exploration Technology Development by managing these programs 

in an integrated manner. Technologies within ETD enable NASA to conduct future 

human missions beyond LEO with new capabilities that have greater affordability. 

Technologies for future human exploration missions are matured through groundbased and laboratory testing, relevant environment flight demonstrations, and technology testbeds, including the ISS. Technologies matured through demonstration 

flights may then be designed into future NASA human exploration missions with 

acceptable levels of risk. Exploration is the ultimate customer for Exploration Technology Development products. In addition to ongoing-guided Exploration-specific 

technology development activities, in FY 2012, NASA will use 30 percent of the 

funds within this account to fund competitive awards, drawing proposals from industry, academia, and the NASA Centers for innovative Exploration-specific technologies and demonstration missions. 

Exploration 

The FY 2012 budget request for Exploration is $3,948.7 million. In FY 2012 and 

beyond, NASA’s Exploration programs will continue to support the U.S. economy by 

enabling safe, reliable and cost effective U.S.-provided commercial access to LEO for 

crew and cargo as soon as possible. Included in this budget request is funding for 

three new, robust categories or ‘‘themes’’ that will expand the capabilities of future 

space explorers far beyond those we have today: Human Exploration Capabilities, 

Commercial Spaceflight, and Exploration Research and Development. These systems 

and capabilities include launch and crew vehicles for missions beyond LEO—the 

Moon, asteroids, and eventually Mars, affordable commercial crew access to the ISS, 

and technologies and countermeasures to keep astronauts healthy and productive 

during deep space missions, and to reduce the launch mass and cost of deep space 

missions. 

The FY 2012 budget request includes $2,810.2 million for Human Exploration Capability (HEC). HEC is the successor to the Constellation Systems theme; programs 

and projects under HEC will develop the launch vehicles and spacecraft that will 

provide the initial capability for crewed exploration missions beyond LEO. In particular, HEC’s Space Launch System (SLS) Program will develop the heavy-lift vehicle that will launch the crew vehicle, other modules, and cargo for these missions. 

The Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) Program will develop the vehicle that will 

carry the crew to orbit, provide emergency abort capability, sustain the crew while 

in space, and provide safe re-entry from deep-space return velocities. NASA is currently developing plans for implementing the SLS and MPCV programs, including 

efforts to transition the design and developmental activities of the Constellation 

Program. A major element of the transition involves shifting design and developmental efforts away from a closely coupled system (Ares I and Orion) to a more general launch vehicle (the SLS) and crew vehicle (the MPCV). 

Consistent with direction in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, the Agency has 

developed a Reference Vehicle Design for the SLS that is derived from Ares and 

Space Shuttle hardware. The current concept vehicles would utilize a liquid oxygen/ 

liquid hydrogen core with five RS–25 Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME)-derived 

engines, five-segment solid rocket boosters, and a J-2X-based Upper Stage for the 

SLS. This would allow for use of existing Shuttle and Ares hardware assets in the 

near term, with the opportunity for upgrades and/or competition downstream for 

eventual upgrades in designs needed for affordable production. For the MPCV, 

NASA has chosen the beyond-LEO design of the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle as 

the Reference Vehicle Design for the MPCV. The Orion development effort has already benefited from significant investments and progress to date, and the Orion 

requirements closely match MPCV requirements as defined in the Authorization 

Act, which include utilizing the MPCV for beyond-LEO crew transportation and as 

backup for ISS crew transportation. 

NASA will evaluate the Reference Vehicle Designs this spring and incorporate results of industry studies that the Agency solicited earlier this Fiscal Year. In particular, one of the greatest challenges for NASA is to reduce the development and 

operating costs for human spaceflight missions to sustain a long-term U.S. human 

spaceflight program. We must plan and implement an exploration enterprise with 

costs that are credible, sustainable, and affordable for the long term under constrained budget environments. As such, our development efforts will be dependent 

on sufficiently stable funding over the long term, coupled with a successful effort 

on the part of NASA and the eventual industry team to reduce costs and to establish stable, tightly-managed requirements. 

16 

NASA plans to approach affordability comprehensively in pursuit of exploration 

beyond LEO to increase the probability that key elements are developed and missions can occur within a realistic budget profile. For all development activities, we 

will emphasize innovative acquisition and program management approaches, including risk management, to reduce recurring and operations costs. In doing so, plans 

for bringing the MPCV and SLS vehicles online with lower costs will be as credible 

and realistic as possible, and significant efforts will be made to ensure cost risks 

will be well understood. Overall, NASA’s designs and acquisition strategies for the 

MPCV and SLS Programs will not be solidified until all of the pertinent knowledge 

on cost and safety is obtained to ensure an affordable and executable solution. 

NASA expects to finalize acquisition strategies this summer, and will obtain independent, external assessments of cost and schedule for SLS and MPCV design options during the spring or summer timeframe. We will share this information with 

the Congress—including Members of this Committee—as soon as we are able to do 

so. The FY 2012 budget request includes $850.0 million for the Commercial 

Spaceflight theme in Exploration. This effort will provide incentives for commercial 

providers to develop and operate safe, reliable, and affordable commercial systems 

to transport crew and cargo to and from the ISS and LEO. This approach will provide assured access to the ISS, strengthen America’s space industry, and provide a 

catalyst for future business ventures to capitalize on affordable access to space. A 

vibrant commercial space industry will add well-paying, high-tech jobs to the U.S. 

economy, and will reduce America’s reliance on foreign systems. 

In 2010, NASA further expanded its successful Commercial Crew Development 

(CCDev) Program by initiating CCDev2 in October 2010. In doing so, we solicited 

proposals to further advance commercial crew transportation system concepts and 

mature the design and development of system elements, such as launch vehicles and 

spacecraft. Depending on available funding in FY 2011, we expect to select a series 

of CCDev2 proposals for award early this year. Once finalized, the resulting CCDev2 

agreements should result in significant maturation of commercial crew transportation system capabilities, with consideration given to NASA’s draft human certification requirements and standards or the industry equivalent to those requirements 

and standards. 

Beginning in FY 2012, NASA proposes to take the accomplishments and lessons 

learned from the successes of the first two rounds of CCDev and incorporate them 

into a new initiative called CCDev3. This initiative will facilitate the development 

of a U.S. commercial crew space transportation capability with the goal of achieving 

safe, reliable and cost effective access to and from LEO and the ISS. Once the commercial crew transportation capability is matured and available to customers, NASA 

plans to purchase transportation services to meet its ISS crew rotation and emergency return obligations. 

For CCDev3, NASA plans to award competitive, pre-negotiated, milestone-based 

agreements that support the development, testing, and demonstration of multiple 

commercial crew systems. The acquisition strategy for CCDev3 is still in development, but it will feature pay-for-performance milestones, a fixed Government investment, the use of negotiated service goals instead of detailed design requirements, 

and a requirement for private capital investment. 

In calendar year 2011 work on NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) Program will continue under the Commercial Spaceflight theme, using 

previous-year funding. Both of NASA’s funded COTS partners continue to make 

progress in developing their cargo transportation systems, based in part on NASA’s 

financial and technical assistance. In particular, on December 8, 2010, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) successfully launched its Falcon 9 vehicle, and demonstrated separation of the Dragon spacecraft and completion of two full orbits, orbital maneuvering and control, reentry, parachute decent and spacecraft recovery 

after splashdown in the Pacific Ocean. For its part in COTS, NASA’s second funded 

partner, Orbital Sciences Corporation (OSC), recently began integration and testing 

of its Cygnus Service Module and Taurus II launch vehicle. Both companies are expected to complete their remaining COTS demonstration flights in late 2011 or early 

2012. 

The FY 2012 budget request for ESMD includes $288.5 million for Exploration Research and Development (ERD). The Exploration Research and Development (ERD) 

theme will expand fundamental knowledge that is key to human space exploration, 

and will develop advanced exploration systems that will enable humans to explore 

space in a more sustainable and affordable way. ERD will be comprised of the 

Human Research Program (HRP) and the Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) Program, which will provide the knowledge and advanced human spaceflight capabilities required to implement the U.S. Space Exploration Policy 

17 

In FY 2012, HRP and its associated projects will continue to develop technologies, 

countermeasures, diagnostics, and design tools to keep crews safe and productive on 

long-duration space missions. As astronauts journey beyond LEO, they will be exposed to microgravity, radiation, and isolation for long periods of time. Keeping 

crews healthy and productive during long missions will require new technologies 

and capabilities. Therefore, continued research is required to study how the space 

environment, close quarters, heavy workloads, and prolonged time away from home 

contribute to stress, and then develop technologies that can prevent or mitigate 

these effects. More specifically, in FY 2012, HRP will support approximately 15–20 

biomedical flight experiments on the ISS and deliver the next-generation space biomedical ultrasound device to enhance the Station’s human research facility capability. Other activities will include development of a training program for ultrasound 

diagnosis of fractures and the evaluation of blood analysis technology for astronaut 

health monitoring. Additionally, HRP projects will deliver an enhanced design tool 

for vehicle radiation shielding assessments and release the second version of an 

acute radiation risk model. In the area of behavioral health and performance, researchers will complete a sleep-wake actigraphy report on the ISS crew. In order 

to support its research requirements, HRP will release two NASA Research Announcements addressing space radiation health risks and human physiological 

changes associated with spaceflight. 

AES will continue projects from the Exploration Technology Development program 

that are close to application and closely tied to human safety in space. In FY 2012, 

AES will assume responsibility for developing and demonstrating innovative prototype systems to provide basic needs such as oxygen, water, food, and shelter that 

can operate dependably for at least a year. AES will demonstrate these systems in 

ground testbeds, Earth-based field and underwater tests, and ISS flight experiments. In FY 2012, AES will use a ground testbed to demonstrate the reliability 

of life support system components, and a portable life support system for an advanced space suit will be tested in a vacuum chamber. Ground-based analog field 

tests and underwater tests will validate a prototype Deep Space Habitat, where the 

crew will live during transit on long missions, and a Space Exploration Vehicle that 

will allow the crew to closely approach an asteroid, explore its surface, and conduct 

surface exploration outside the vehicle. AES plans to use innovative approaches for 

the rapid development of system concepts, such as small, focused teams of NASA 

engineers and technologists working with industry partners to gain hands-on experience. AES will pilot these processes to improve the affordability of future exploration programs. 

Space Operations 

The FY 2012 budget request includes $4,346.9 million for Space Operations, funding the Space Shuttle Program retirement, the International Space Station Program, the Space and Flight Support Program. 

The FY 2012 budget request for the Space Shuttle Program is $664.9 million. In 

2011, the Shuttle is slated to fly out its remaining missions. On March 9 Discovery 

completed mission STS–133, carrying supplies to ISS, as well as the permanent a 

Multi-purpose Module (PMM), a Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM) transformed to remain on orbit, expanding the Station’s storage volume. In April 2011, 

Endeavour, STS–134, will carry the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) and attach 

it to the Station’s truss structure. The final Shuttle mission, STS–135, is targeted 

for late June of this year, if funding is available. During the mission, Atlantis will 

deliver critical supplies to the ISS and recover and return to Earth an ammonia 

coolant pump module that failed on the Station last year. 

Following the completion of the remaining missions in 2011, the Space Shuttle 

Program will focus on transition, retirement, and disposition of program assets and 

workforce. Approximately 1.2 million line items of personal property (e.g., equipment) are associated with the Space Shuttle Program, with about 500,000 of these 

line items associated with the Space Shuttle propulsion system elements (the Reusable Solid Rocket Motor, the Solid Rocket Booster, the External Tank, and Space 

Shuttle Main Engines). As part of this effort, NASA will assess Space Shuttle property (including main propulsion system elements) applicability to the Space Launch 

System. 

On April 12, 2011, we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of human spaceflight, 

and the 30th anniversary of the first flight of Space Shuttle Columbia on STS–1. 

NASA recognizes the role the Space Shuttle vehicles and personnel have played in 

the history of space activity, and looks forward to transitioning key workforce, technology, facilities, and operational experience to a new generation of human 

spaceflight exploration activities. 

18 

The FY 2012 budget request includes funding for Space Program Operations Contract (SPOC) Pension Liability. The United Space Alliance (USA) notified NASA of 

its desire to terminate all defined pension benefit plans as of December 31, 2010. 

USA has consistently incorporated and billed the maximum allowable costs into 

their indirect rates, but the recent deterioration of the equities and credit markets 

has caused their plan to be underfunded by an estimated $500-$600 million. The 

Space Program Operations Contract, which accounts for almost all of USA’s business base, is a cost-type contract covered by the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS). 

These standards stipulate that any costs of terminating plans are a contractual obligation of the Government (if deemed allowable, allocable, and reasonable). NASA 

and USA entered into an agreement under which USA froze their pension plans as 

of December 31, 2010 and deferred any decision about terminating their plan until 

after December 31, 2011, allowing NASA to address this issue, if it arises, with FY 

2012 funds, if appropriated. USA and NASA have instituted a working group to discuss pension termination options and have met with the Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation to discuss potential options. If funding remains after the pension plan 

termination, it will be used to defray Space Shuttle closeout costs that would otherwise require FY 2013 funding. If there is a shortfall, it will reduce available Space 

Shuttle funds for closeout and some activity could move later than planned. We will 

keep Congress informed as this issue evolves. 

The FY 2012 budget request for the International Space Station (ISS) Program is $2,841.5 million, of which $1,656 million is for operations, research, and utilization, and $1,186 million for crew and cargo transportation. The ISS has transitioned 

from the construction era to that of operations and research, with a 6-person permanent crew, 3 major science labs, an operational lifetime through at least 2020, and 

a growing complement of cargo vehicles, including the European Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) and the Japanese H–II Transfer Vehicle (HTV), the second flights 

of which are taking place even as we speak. The FY 2012 budget request reflects 

the importance of this unparalleled research asset to America’s human spaceflight 

program. 

In addition to conducting research in support of future human missions into deep 

space, astronauts aboard the ISS will carry out experiments anticipated to have terrestrial applications in areas such as biotechnology, bioengineering, medicine, and 

therapeutic treatment as part of the National Laboratory function of the Station. 

In support of this effort, NASA has recently released a Cooperative Agreement Notice (CAN) for a independent Non-Profit Organization to manage the multidisciplinary research carried out by NASA’s National Laboratory partners. This organization will 1) act as a single entry point for non-NASA users to interface efficiently 

with the ISS; 2) assist researchers in developing experiments, meeting safety and 

integration rules, and acting as an ombudsman on behalf of researchers; 3) perform 

outreach to researchers and disseminate the results of ISS research activities; and 

4) provide easily accessed communication materials with details about laboratory facilities, available research hardware, resource constraints, and more. The FY 2012 

budget request for ISS reflects increased funding for the transportation required to 

support this research. 

The ISS transportation budget also supports NASA’s continued use of the Russian 

Soyuz spacecraft for crew transportation and rescue services, pending the availability of a domestic crew transportation system, as well as U.S. commercial cargo 

transportation. The ISS transportation budget supports NASA’s Cargo Resupply 

Services suppliers as they continue to make progress towards fielding their cargo 

resupply vehicles, which will be critical to the maintenance of ISS after the retirement of the Space Shuttle. We anticipate that the first commercial resupply flight 

will take place by the end of this year, and that both providers will have their systems operational in 2012. 

The FY 2012 budget request for Space and Flight Support (SFS) is $840.6 million. 

The budget request provides for critical infrastructure indispensable to the Nation’s 

access and use of space, including Space Communications and Navigation (SCaN), 

Launch Services Program (LSP), Rocket Propulsion Testing (RPT), and Human 

Space Flight Operations (HSFO). The SFS budget also includes investment in the 

21st Century Space Launch Complex, intended to meet the infrastructure requirements of the SLS, MPCV, and commercial cargo/launch services providers. It will 

increase operational efficiency and reduce launch costs by modernizing the Florida 

launch capabilities for a variety of NASA missions, which will also benefit nonNASA users 

In FY 2012, the SCaN Program will continue to improve the robustness of the 

Deep Space Network (DSN) through its efforts to replace the aging 70m antenna 

capability with 34m antennae, launch Tracking and Data Relay Satellite (TDRS) K 

and continue the development of TDRS L. In the area of technology, we will conduct 

19 

on-orbit tests using the Communication Navigation and Networking Reconfigurable 

Testbed (CoNNeCT), integrate the optical communications system on the Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) spacecraft, and begin operational space mission use of Disruption Tolerant Networking communications. The 

SCaN operational networks will continue to provide communications and tracking 

services to over 75 spacecraft and launch vehicles during FY 2012. The LSP has several planned NASA launches in FY 2012 including the NPOESS Preparatory Project 

(NPP), MSL, Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR), TDRS–K, and 

RBSP, and will continue to provide support for the development and certification of 

emerging launch services. The RPT Program will continue to provide test facility 

management, and provide maintenance, sustaining engineering, operations, and facility modernization projects necessary to keep the test-related facilities in the appropriate state of operational readiness. HSFO includes Crew Health and Safety 

(CHS) and Space Flight Crew Operations (SFCO). SFCO will continue to provide 

trained crew for ISS long-duration crew rotation missions. CHS will identify and deliver necessary core medical capabilities for astronauts. In addition, CHS will gather 

astronaut medical data critical for determining medical risk as a result of 

spaceflight and how best to mitigate that risk. NASA has enlisted the National Research Council to conduct an independent study of the activities funded within 

NASA’s HSFO program, focusing on the role, size, and training requirements of the 

human spaceflight office after Space Shuttle retirement and Space Station assembly 

completion. 

The FY 2012 budget request also establishes a new line item called Mission Operations Sustainment, which will address future Space Operations functions essential 

to NASA’s human spaceflight mission, including funding to purchase U.S. commercial crew transportation services to and from ISS once they are developed, and key 

ground and space infrastructure improvements required by the Space Network (SN) 

in order to accommodate anticipated demand in the outyears; the Mission Operations Sustainment budget would be utilized to fund this performance gap. Although 

the exact amount of funding required for these needs is unknown, it is clear that 

NASA’s human spaceflight mission cannot be sustained without resources provided 

by Missions Operations Sustainment beyond FY12. The Agency will perform the 

requisite technical and program analysis and planning, and the results will be reflected in the FY 2013 budget request. 

Education 

The FY 2012 budget request for Education is $138.4 million. This budget request 

furthers NASA’s commitment to inspiring the next generation of explorers in the 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, or STEM, disciplines. In FY 

2012, NASA will continue to strongly support the Administration’s STEM priorities 

and to capitalize on the excitement of NASA’s mission to stimulate innovative solutions, approaches, and tools that inspire student and educator interest and proficiency in STEM disciplines. The Agency’s education strategy will increase its impact on STEM education by further focusing K–12 efforts on middle-school pre-and 

in-service educator professional development. It includes an increased emphasis on 

providing experiential opportunities for students, internships, and scholarships for 

high school and undergraduate students. NASA higher education efforts will increasingly target community colleges, which generally serve a high proportion of minority students, preparing them for study at a four-year institution. NASA will use 

its unique missions, discoveries, and assets (e.g., people, facilities, education infrastructures) to inspire student achievement and educator teaching ability in STEM 

fields. 

In FY 2012, NASA will support the Administration’s STEM education teaching 

and learning improvement efforts, including the America Creating Opportunities to 

Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science (America 

COMPETES) Reauthorization Act of 2010, Race to the Top and Educate to Innovate, 

while continuing efforts to incorporate NASA missions and content into the STEM 

education initiatives of other Federal agencies. This may include providing competitions and challenges, supporting clearinghouses of Federal STEM education resources, providing high quality professional development, and other engagements. 

NASA will continue the Summer of Innovation (SoI) Pilot through partnerships 

with organizations that currently work with girls, minorities, and low-income students in grades 4–9 in summer and extended learning settings. The SoI project will 

deepen and broaden the efforts of communities and schools to successfully engage 

these students by providing high-quality, inquiry-based content, customized support, 

and access to NASA people, facilities and technology. 

NASA will continue to partner with universities, professional education associations, industry, and other Federal agencies to provide K–12 teachers and university 

20 

faculty with experiences that capitalize on the excitement of NASA discoveries to 

spark student interest and involvement in STEM disciplines. Examples of experiences include research and hands-on engineering in our unique facilities and on a 

variety of real-world platforms that include high-altitude balloons, sounding rockets, 

aircraft, and satellites. NASA will also partner with science centers, museums, planetariums, and community-based education providers to allow informal educators to 

engage students in NASA’s real-time, cutting-edge science and engineering discoveries and challenges. The FY 2012 budget request places increased emphasis on 

cyber-learning opportunities and the use of the ISS National Laboratory to engage 

students (at all levels) in launch activities, research and engineering grants, and 

courses based upon NASA science and engineering. 

In FY 2012, the Agency aims to increase the availability of opportunities to a diverse audience of educators and students, including women, minorities, and persons 

with disabilities. An example is the Innovations in Global Climate Change Education project that will be implemented within the Minority University Research 

and Education Program (MUREP). The project provides opportunities for students 

and teachers to conduct research using NASA data sets to inspire achievement and 

improve teaching and learning in the area of global climate change. 

Cross-Agency Support 

The FY 2012 budget request includes $3,192.0 million for Cross Agency Support, 

which provides critical mission support activities that are necessary to ensure the 

efficient and effective operation and administration of the Agency. These important 

functions align and sustain institutional and program capabilities to support NASA 

missions by leveraging resources to meet mission needs, establishing Agency-wide 

capabilities, and providing institutional checks and balances. Within this budget request, NASA has taken steps to reduce its administrative expenses, including a partial hiring freeze and reduced travel. 

NASA’s FY 2012 budget request includes $2,402.9 million for Center Management 

and Operations, which funds the critical ongoing management, operations, and 

maintenance of nine NASA Centers and major component facilities. NASA Centers 

provide high-quality support and the technical engineering and scientific talent for 

the execution of programs and projects. Center Management and Operations provides the basic support required to meet internal and external legal and administration requirements; effectively manage human capital, information technology, and 

facility assets; responsibly execute financial management and all NASA acquisitions; ensure independent engineering and scientific technical oversight of NASA’s 

programs and projects in support of mission success and safety considerations; and, 

provide a safe, secure, and sustainable workplace that meets local, state, and Federal requirements. Cross Agency Support also funds salary and benefits for civil 

service employees at NASA Centers who are assigned to work on Center Management and Operations projects. In addition, the account contains Center-wide civil 

service personnel costs, such as institutionally-funded training. 

NASA’s FY 2012 budget request includes $789.1 million for Agency Management 

and Operations, which funds the critical management and oversight of Agency missions, programs and functions, and performance of NASA-wide activities, including 

five programs: Agency Management, Safety and Mission Success, Agency Information Technology Services, Strategic Capabilities Assets Program, and Agency Management and Operations Civil Service Labor and Expenses. Agency Management 

supports executive-based, Agency-level functional and administrative management 

requirements, including, but not limited to: Health and Medical, Environmental, Logistics, General Counsel, Equal Opportunity and Diversity, Internal Controls, Procurement, Human Resources, and Security and Program Protection. Agency Management provides for the operational costs of Headquarters as an installation; institutional and management requirements for multiple Agency functions; assessment 

and evaluation of NASA program and mission performance; strategic planning; and, 

independent technical assessments of Agency programs. 

Safety and Mission Success activities are required to continue improving the 

workforce, and strengthening our acquisition processes, including maintaining robust checks and balances, in order to improve the safety and likelihood of mission 

success for NASA’s Programs throughout their lifecycles. The engineering, safety 

and mission assurance, health and medical independent oversight, and technical authority components are essential to NASA’s success. They were established or modified in direct response to several major Government accident and mission failure investigation findings in order to reduce the likelihood of loss of life and/or mission 

in our human and robotic Programs. The budget request also supports operation of 

three activities that each provides a unique focus in support of the independent 

oversight and technical authority implementation: the Software Independent 

21 

Verification and Validation (IV&V) program; the NASA Engineering and Safety 

Center (NESC); and the NASA Safety Center located at the Glenn Research Center. 

Agency Information Technology Services (AITS) encompasses Agency-level crosscutting services and initiatives in Information Technology (IT) innovation, business 

and management applications, and infrastructure necessary to enable the NASA 

Mission. AITS includes management of NASA’s scientific and technical information; 

identity, credential and access management services; overarching information security services; enterprise-level business systems; and, other Agency operational services, such as e-mail, directory services, and enterprise licenses. NASA’s Security Operations Center (SOC) will continue to mature capabilities to improve security incident prevention, detection, response, and management. NASA will continue implementation of major Agency-wide procurements to achieve: (1) consolidation of IT 

networks leading to improved network monitoring, management and reliability; (2) 

consolidation of desktop/laptop computer services and mobile devices to achieve improved security and enable NASA Centers and programs to realize improved efficiencies; (3) consolidation of Agency public website/application management to improve the Agency security posture and to facilitate access to NASA data and information by the public; (4) minor enhancement and maintenance of integrated Agency 

business systems to provide more efficient and effective Agency operations; and, (5) 

reduction in overall Agency data centers and related infrastructure currently funded 

outside the AITS budget. 

The Strategic Capabilities Assets Program (SCAP) funds key Agency test capabilities and assets, such as an array of flight simulators, thermal vacuum chambers, 

and arc jets, to ensure mission success. SCAP ensures that assets and capabilities 

deemed vital to NASA’s current and future success are sustained in order to serve 

Agency and national needs. All assets and capabilities identified for sustainment either have validated mission requirements or have been identified as potentially required for future missions, either internally to NASA or by other Federal entities. 

The Agency Management and Operations Civil Service Labor and Expenses funds 

salary and benefits for civil service employees at NASA Headquarters, as well as 

other Headquarters personnel costs, such as mandated training. It also contains 

labor funding for Agency-wide personnel costs, such as Agency training, and workforce located at multiple NASA Centers that provide the critical skills and capabilities required to execute mission support programs Agency-wide. 

Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration 

The FY 2012 budget request includes $450.4 million for Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration. NASA Construction and Environmental 

Compliance and Restoration provides for the design and execution of all facilities 

construction projects, including discrete and minor revitalization projects, demolition 

of closed facilities, and environmental compliance and restoration. The FY 2012 

budget request includes $397.9 million for the Construction of Facilities (CoF) Program, which funds capital repairs and improvements to ensure that facilities critical 

to achieving NASA’s space and aeronautics programs are safe, secure, sustainable, 

and operate efficiently. The Agency continues to place emphasis on achieving a sustainable and energy-efficient infrastructure by replacing old, inefficient, deteriorated 

buildings and horizontal infrastructure with new, efficient, and high performance 

buildings and infrastructure that will meet NASA’s mission needs while reducing 

the Agency’s overall footprint and future operating costs. The CoF program 

prioritizes this budget based on risk of impact to NASA and Center missions, safety 

issues and accessibility. The FY 2012 budget request includes $52.5 million for the 

Environmental Compliance and Restoration (ECR) Program, which supports the ongoing clean up of sites where NASA operations have contributed to environmental 

problems. The ECR Program prioritizes these efforts to ensure that human health 

and the environment are protected. This program also supports strategic investments in sustainable environmental methods and practices aimed at reducing 

NASA’s environmental footprint and lowering the risk of future cleanups. 

Senator NELSON. I want to start with you, Dr. Whitlow. I want 

you to tell us if a budget or continuing resolution were to be passed 

with the $298 million cut that would come off of a cross-agency 

support account, which is what passed the House of Representatives, how many jobs would that be that would be lost? 

22 

STATEMENT OF DR. WOODROW WHITLOW, JR., ASSOCIATE 

ADMINISTRATOR, MISSION SUPPORT DIRECTORATE, NASA 

Dr. WHITLOW. With a cut of that magnitude, coming this time of 

year, which is halfway through the Fiscal Year, we estimate that 

it would require us to reduce about 4,500 contractor jobs across the 

agency. And that’s about half of our onsite contractor work-year capability. 

Senator NELSON. And do you recall, out of those 4,500, how many 

there would be cut from the Johnson Space Center? 

Dr. WHITLOW. It’s over 800; it’s approximately 850. 

Senator NELSON. And how many from the Kennedy Space Center? 

Dr. WHITLOW. Somewhere—a little smaller than that, but I could 

take that for the record and get you an exact number. 

[The information requested follows:] 

The FY 2011 Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 112–10), which was 

enacted on April 15, 2011, funds NASA Cross Agency Support (CAS) at the FY 2011 

President’s Request level. If the provision included in H.R. 1—directing a $298M reduction to NASA’s Cross-Agency budget—had been enacted, the reductions would 

have occurred so late in the operating year that they would have resulted in thousands of layoffs to on-site contractors, with 50 percent of NASA’s contractor workforce at risk. That level would equate to over 4,500 layoffs across all of NASA’s Centers. The number of impacted jobs at KSC would have been approximately 730. As 

the reduction was not included in enacted legislation, the Agency did not proceed 

to make specific determinations for implementing such direction and no NASA Centers were identified for such an action. 

Senator NELSON. Somewhere close, you said—— 

Dr. WHITLOW. Yes. 

Senator NELSON.—to the 800 that would be lost—— 

Dr. WHITLOW. Correct. 

Senator NELSON.—in the Johnson Space Center. 

Dr. WHITLOW. Correct. 

Senator NELSON. And explain that—since there are only 6 

months left in the fiscal year, what would be the impact of implementing that cross-agency support cuts so late in the fiscal year? 

Dr. WHITLOW. Well, the cross-agency support budget provides for 

the maintenance operation and management of our field centers 

and the associated installations across the agency. We have been 

spending at a rate that assumed no reductions to the cross-agency 

support budget this fiscal year. So, we now would have to take that 

full cut in half of the year, a cut of that magnitude would be equivalent to shutting, say, two of our smallest centers, and we would 

not be able to provide the capabilities to operate our facilities 

across the agency. 

Senator NELSON. And what are the two centers that would shut 

down? 

Dr. WHITLOW. Well, it’s the equivalent to, say, two small centers. 

I have not considered any two specific centers, but just two smaller 

centers. Yes. 

Senator NELSON. But, it could be something like Dryden? Could 

be something like Ames? 

Dr. WHITLOW. It would be—— 

Senator NELSON. Could be something like Stennis? 

Dr. WHITLOW. Yes, two of the smaller centers. But, we have not 

identified any two centers. 

23 

Senator NELSON. OK. 

Mr. Cooke and Mr. Gerstenmaier, you heard what Senator 

Hutchison said. And there have been too many headlines recently 

that said that NASA can’t, and won’t, build a heavy-lift launcher. 

Now, that, of course, is not what the authorization law says. What 

is it that you understand the NASA authorization law to require? 

Either one of you. 

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS R. COOKE, 

ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, EXPLORATION SYSTEMS 

MISSION DIRECTORATE, NASA 

Mr. COOKE. Thank you, Senator Nelson. 

Also, before I get started, I would like to thank you for your very 

kind remarks. I certainly appreciate your leadership and incredible 

efforts to work with your colleagues and staff and the administration to pass the Fiscal Year 2010 Authorization Act. 

The Authorization Act laid out an approach to a heavy-lift vehicle and a crew vehicle, which we, honestly, have taken very seriously with an expiration, and have been working on it since the Act 

was signed. We have decided on a reference design vehicle that was 

called out for in the Act, which are Ares and Shuttle-derived, for 

the launch vehicle. The crew vehicle, the MPCV, or multipurpose 

crew vehicle, reference design vehicle was chosen to be the Orion 

spacecraft that we have under development at this point. So, those 

are our reference design vehicles. We are working with those in, I 

believe, accordance with the Authorization Act. We have teams in 

place that are putting more detail on those designs. 

We’re looking at alternative designs to challenge and/or validate 

those concepts. We think that’s appropriate, in order to be able to 

answer the hard questions that we’ll undoubtedly have to answer, 

in terms of our final selections. 

So, we are moving ahead. We actually have sent up notifications 

now for program offices for the crew vehicle, MPCV, at Johnson 

Space Center; and the heavy-lift vehicle, at Marshall Space Flight 

Center; and a commercial crew office, at Kennedy Space Center. 

So, we are moving it out. We also have procurement teams that are 

looking, in detail, at the contracts that we currently have for Ares– 

1 and for the Orion Spacecraft, and mapping those requirements to 

understand the scope of those contracts and how our existing work 

fits, or doesn’t. We have been through, on the crew vehicle, working 

with procurement and legal, and have a procurement determination that the MPCV is within scope of the Orion contract. 

So, I would say that we are moving with all haste, in my view, 

to try and get to final decisions and designs, making sure we have 

efficient contracting approaches, making sure that we are looking 

at efficiencies down the road. It is a constrained budget environment, so it’s important that we look at all the possibilities for gaining efficiencies in our programs and projects. We’re looking at the 

oversight models for these contracts, so that we don’t have more 

people overseeing the contractors than necessary. It’s going to be 

more of a risk-based approach. 

Senator NELSON. OK, let me just stop you here. I want to get to 

more specifics. 

Mr. COOKE. OK. 

24 

Senator NELSON. Do you understand the authorization law to say 

that you should start designing in the range of 70 to 100 tons that 

is evolvable to 130 tons? 

Mr. COOKE. Yes, sir. 

Senator NELSON. OK. 

Mr. COOKE. And—— 

Senator NELSON. Then why do we hear commentary—and is it 

a misstatement—that NASA cannot afford to build a rocket with 

the capability of 130 tons, when, in fact, that’s not what the law 

says? The law says that you start and that becomes evolvable, 

which is what you’ve just testified. 

Mr. COOKE. Yes. Our approach is that we are looking at an 

evolvable design, starting in the 70- to 100-metric-ton range, that’s 

called out in the Authorization Act, which is appropriate for first 

steps. That is evolvable, ultimately, to 130 metric tons. We are 

working through understanding how that fits, in terms of costphasing over the years, in order to develop that initial capability 

and then evolve it. Based on our own studies, a fairly natural progression, in terms of developing that capability. So, I can tell you 

that our teams are approaching it that way. 

Senator NELSON. Well, it’s been reported to have been said by 

the agency Chief Technologist, Bobby Braun, that the development 

of a heavy-lift capability will not be available for a decade. Now, 

that’s not consistent with what you’ve said right here, nor is it consistent with discussions with the Administrator. 

Mr. COOKE. I can tell you what the teams are doing, that are actually doing the work on this, they are working within the budget 

guidelines that we have, in an integrated way, between the crew 

vehicle and the heavy-lift vehicle, to map out a program plan of 

budget and schedule to develop these capabilities, both of them, in 

an evolvable way, to get to the earliest possible dates on flying. 

They’re not finished with that work, so I don’t have a date to give 

you. But, I can tell you that they are working in an integrated 

fashion to come up with that earliest possible availability. 

Senator NELSON. Mr. Gerstenmaier, do you have anything to 

add? 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM GERSTENMAIER, ASSOCIATE 

ADMINISTRATOR, SPACE OPERATIONS DIRECTORATE, NASA 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. I think Doug described it pretty well. 

We’re working very hard to make sure we have a credible plan 

to go forward. It’s taking us a little time for the teams to get together and integrate, to make sure that we’ve got a program that 

can deliver and meet the budget constraints that we understand 

that are out in front of us. So, we’re not doing this lightly. We understand the Authorization Act. We think it gives us a good guidance. The teams are fully moving in that direction, and will be 

ready to update the report in the spring/summer timeframe, and 

give you the latest outcome from the report or from what the teams 

have done over the past several months. 

Senator NELSON. Well, let me ask you this. Now, we’ve talked in 

more generalities here. I want to know how soon can you be testing 

the initial heavy-lift capability with the proposed funding levels? 

25 

Mr. COOKE. That is the subject of our current studies. They are 

working toward getting a date. They are trying to get test flights 

as early as 2016, but that remains to be finalized and worked in 

a integrated fashion. But, they are trying to get to a date of that 

timeframe. 

Senator NELSON. When do you think you’ll have that answer? 

Mr. COOKE. We plan to update our report as Bill said, in the 

spring/summer timeframe. We have to get through a series of decisions and our procurement approaches in the next couple of months 

to be able to do that. 

Senator NELSON. Senator Hutchison? 

Senator HUTCHISON. Let me just put a fine point on the first series of questions that the Chairman asked. And that is—one of the 

things I said in my opening statement, is that it doesn’t seem like 

the contracts are being modified to address the law that uses the 

technologies that we have, taking the next step forward. But, it is 

our understanding that you received a general counsel opinion from 

NASA that said that you could, without violating any prohibitions 

on new starts, move forward, setting up the program offices and 

starting the implementation of the law. And it is further my opinion that you now are setting those offices up. 

This is my question: Are there any legal impediments, in the 

minds of those of you who are running the operations at NASA, to 

your moving immediately to the modification of useful contracts, 

initiation of aggressive vehicle design efforts for the heavy-launch 

vehicle, and other requirement of the Act? 

Mr. Cooke or Mr.—— 

Mr. COOKE. As you said, we are setting up program offices, and 

we have the notifications up here. I think the time is almost up for 

that timeframe. In terms of the specific contracts that we have, for 

instance, on the crew vehicle, MPCV, we have changed and scaled 

back some work on that, partially due to budget, but also, as we 

do that, we are focusing it toward where the future lies, in terms 

of the Authorization Act. 

In terms of the existing contracts for Ares–1, which includes the 

first stage, upper stage, and avionics unit, and J2X engine, we are 

progressing on those and focusing that work on work that would 

apply to heavy-lift vehicles. It is a little different, in that it was 

going from a lower-performance vehicle to a heavy-lift vehicle. But, 

we have focused efforts on those contracts to be as specific as possible to this future of a heavy-lift vehicle. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Am I to take, then, from your answer that 

you are—where the contract is one that will be ongoing, but with 

modifications, that you are beginning to make those modifications, 

so that you will keep your experienced workforce going to the next 

transition vehicle or launch system? 

Mr. COOKE. We are, at this point, focusing those in that direction. We still have to come up to agency decisions, in terms of final 

procurement regulations on how we would make the set of acquisition decisions for a heavy-lift vehicle, and would then have to apply 

those specific contracts for Ares–1, if they can apply to that vehicle, 

provided that that is where we get to in those decisions. 

There are a number of things feeding that decision. And that is 

that we are assessing those contracts for whether or not the curVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:03 Aug 22, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\75607.TXT JACKIE
26 

rent contracts have this new capability within scope. So, there is 

a significant effort on understanding that. 

There are also studies that we have at Marshall Space Flight 

Center looking at alternate concepts that will either validate or 

challenge this approach, one of which is looking at LOX-Rp engines, one is looking at what we call a modular approach. 

We also have industry participation and study contracts that we 

have had out on the street and that they have been working to over 

the last few months. They’re 6-months contracts that will help advise us to make sure that we get to a decision of cost-effective vehicle, making sure that we have the input and assess those inputs 

from, not only our internal teams, but industry teams, as well. 

So, we have not gotten to final decisions on the acquisition on the 

heavy-lift vehicle or the crew vehicle, because we need to understand how these current contracts apply, whether that is the best 

value for the American people and the government; and we need 

to understand the phasing of those contracts, in an integrated 

sense, within the budget constraints that we see. 

So, I hope that is—— 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HUTCHISON. I’m trying to get a—just a clear answer to 

whether you are going in the direction that the law asked you to 

go, or actually told you to go. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HUTCHISON. And are you doing that? And are you doing 

it in a timely way? 

Mr. COOKE. I believe that the work that we have ongoing is 

headed in that direction, for those specific contracts we have underway. We have not gotten to the final decisions on the final design 

of the heavy-lift vehicle. 

Senator HUTCHISON. But, you’re moving along the—— 

Mr. COOKE. Yes. 

Senator HUTCHISON.—lines that the law requires. I’m not—— 

Mr. COOKE. Yes. 

Senator HUTCHISON.—saying you have to—— 

Mr. COOKE. I believe so. 

Senator HUTCHISON.—have designated—— 

Mr. COOKE. Right. 

Senator HUTCHISON.—who your final contract is going to be with. 

Obviously, you have all the procurement issues there. 

Mr. COOKE. Right. 

Senator HUTCHISON. But, are you moving toward the type of use 

of present technology, but with the further mission, beyond the 

present one, of using our technology but also being able to adapt 

it later for beyond-Earth orbit, and all of the relevant pieces of 

that? 

Mr. COOKE. As I understand your question, I believe we are. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. 

My time is up, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask one other question. 

And that would just be: Are you satisfied that—after the April 

Shuttle, that we will then move on to the last one, that is now 

scheduled for June, to finish the delivery of everything that we believe will be needed for the International Space Station? And the 

27 

equipment that we will need for it, and any of the other pieces, in 

that June mission, that we’re going to need for repair and whatever 

it will take, over the period that we are not going to have Americans being able to go in shuttles? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Yes. We’re moving out fully to support STS– 

135, as you’ve described, from a manifest standpoint. We’ve identified all the cargo that we need to carry on that flight. We’re starting to identify what cargo we might return from Space Station, because that’s a critical capability we’ll lose temporarily, when the 

Shuttle goes down, until the new commercial providers come online. So, we’re moving out for that mission. The only concern is 

that, if we got a significant budget cut somewhere here in the CR 

activity, that could potentially cause some concerns for us to execute that flight, just from a budget standpoint. Unless we get a 

pretty dramatic budget cut, we plan to go execute that mission. 

We see that mission as extremely critical to us. What that mission provides for us is, it gives us some margin that, if the commercial providers are a little bit late, and they don’t fly in late 2011 

and in 2012, as they’ve been planning, then we’ve got some time, 

through 2012, that we’ll have enough supplies pre-positioned on 

Space Station that we can continue to do quality research, we continue to keep our crew size at six onboard, stationed through that 

period of 2012 all the way until 2013. If we don’t have that Shuttle 

flight, then it’s absolutely mandatory that the commercial cargo 

providers come online at the end of this year and early into 2012. 

I don’t think that’s a prudent strategy. We need some margin. 

Even in a shuttle world, we thought we understood where we 

were going to go fly, then we had the tank problem that slowed us 

down a couple months. I would expect small problems to show up 

in a commercial provider’s side, as well. We need some margin to 

do that, and that’s the criticality of STS–135 for us. It provides us, 

essentially, that 1 year of margin that can really make or break the 

critical research onboard Space Station. 

We really want to get to where we’re utilizing the Station as a 

full-up research facility, getting the most out of the crew, the most 

out of the research we’ve got on orbit. And to do that, we need to 

get the Station resupplied with the Shuttle while we can use that 

asset, and then we can let the commercial providers come online 

throughout the period of 2012 and into 2013. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, thank you very much, because that allays my concerns, to a great extent. Because this—if we aren’t 

going to use the Space Station, we have thrown a whole lot of 

money away and we have let down our allies, who have made significant contributions to the Space Station. And it was a concern 

of the Chairman’s and myself, both—that we weren’t going to fully 

stock it. And, in fact, the payload that we’re taking up in April, the 

spectrometer, was something that we insisted on, in the previous 

administration, with the previous Administrator. And so, I’m very 

pleased that we’re going to take that, because I think it has great 

potential for research. And then, beyond that, we just have to stock 

so that we do address the eventuality that you have addressed. It’s 

just not good policy not to. 

Let me just end by saying that, I believe that the sentiment on 

the Hill now is that this would be the last temporary continuing 

28 

resolution that we will pass, and that we must go to the long-term 

continuing resolution that takes us through the end of the Fiscal 

Year, so that you know what you’re going to have to spend, so that 

the Department of Defense knows what it has to spend. And I 

think there are certain areas of our budget that we cannot allow 

to continue to go in 2-week increments. It’s just not feasible. And 

certainly, NASA is one of those that, I have been bringing up repeatedly, must be in a long-term CR. And that must be the next 

one, after this 3-week one that is before us. 

So, I do thank you very much. 

And I thank you for indulging me a little beyond my time. 

Senator NELSON. And again, Senator Hutchison, thank you for 

your continued vigilance throughout this process. 

And thank you, Mr. Gerstenmaier, for a very clear answer about 

the cargo of STS–135 and the importance of that last Shuttle flight. 

Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And again, thank you, Mr. Cooke, for your service to your country in so many different ways. 

I’m a little confused that in talking about this, we’re talking 

about long-range plans in reference to the budget. Are you referring to the administration’s budget, or are you referring to the 

guidelines that were submitted by the authorization bill that became law that everyone worked so hard to get done? 

Mr. COOKE. Actually, we are looking at the budget request that 

came out this year, as we study these approaches. We’re also looking at a more unconstrained way, in terms of budget, to show more 

or less how early these kind of capabilities could be brought online. 

Senator BOOZMAN. But, in the questions that you answered, 

again, were you talking about the President’s budget or the proposed authorized budget that’s in law? 

Mr. COOKE. We are looking, in these studies, at the President’s 

requested budget. We are looking more broadly than that, at what 

it takes beyond that in an unconstrained sense, in terms of dates 

and that sort of thing. 

Senator BOOZMAN. So, again—so, you’re looking at it in terms of 

the President’s budget, versus what the authorization is, in regard 

to my hearing the answers to your questions. 

Mr. COOKE. That is a primary objective of these studies, yes. 

Senator BOOZMAN. So, who changed the budget? Who made that 

decision? 

Mr. COOKE. Obviously, the budget that is in the request is in request and we have the Authorization Act. And I think the answers 

that we’ll have will answer to each. 

Senator BOOZMAN. When was it changed? 

Mr. COOKE. The point at which we started to study the President’s request was when we received that, when it was rolled out. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Well, I assume that you guys had input prior 

to that. 

Mr. COOKE. We did work back and forth in terms of impacts of 

various approaches. So, yes, we were aware of that process. 

Senator BOOZMAN. In recent testimony before the House, Administrator Bolden stated that—meeting the 2016 deadline for less— 

for the space-launch system and the multipurpose crew vehicle, 

29 

was difficult to get done. But, then he went on to say that he 

wasn’t saying he couldn’t do that. For the Fiscal Year 2012—2012 

request, it has $1.3 billion less than the amount authorized for the 

two systems. It seems to represent a self-fulfilling prophecy. Is 

there any way that you believe that you could actually meet the 

2016 contingency availability of the systems at the funding levels 

projected in the Fiscal Year 2012 request? 

Mr. COOKE. We are still working that, sir. That is what will be 

a part of our results later this spring and summer. As a part of 

that effort, in terms of stating whether we can or can’t meet the 

2016 date, the wording that we had in our initial report talked to 

whether or not we thought we could meet that date. When we 

talked about it there, we also qualified that by saying that we realize that it was important that we—let me just step back. When we 

talked about that, that was our initial study, based on conventional 

development approaches and costing methods, and we said that in 

the report. We realize that, in moving forward, we need to come up 

with more efficient approaches to how we develop these space vehicles than we have in the past. 

We have significant efforts in understanding oversight models, 

supporting infrastructure needs, the right level of requirements to 

put on contracts, a number of other areas specific to trying to get 

costs down. So, that would lead you to, probably, a different estimate, in terms of availability date. If we can get efficiencies, that 

tends to bring the date back to the left. 

So, those are the kind of things that we put a lot of effort into 

understanding. And we don’t have the results of that yet, but we’re 

trying in earnest to get dates as early as we can with those approaches. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator NELSON. Senator, those were excellent questions. 

You all are constrained, you’re conflicted because you’ve got to 

defend the President’s request and yet there’s a law, and it’s called 

the NASA Authorization Act of 2010. And the two are in conflict. 

And the President’s budget is not going to be enacted. And we’re 

trying to get from here to there, and stop this $600 billion cut that 

the House came forward with, which, as you said Dr. Whitlow, was 

over 800 jobs, it’s a little less—that was at Johnson—cut; Kennedy, 

almost the same amount. We even missed the 816 jobs cut at Goddard Space Flight Center. We’re trying to get from here to there, 

and the two are in conflict. And the President’s budget is not going 

to be passed in this Congress. So, you all have got to help us get 

there. 

Senator Rubio. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator RUBIO. I just want to build on what the—what Senator 

Boozman’s asked already, and maybe phrase it a different way; 

but, it’s the same question. I think what the Senator was getting 

at, we have this interim report that basically says, ‘‘Look, with the 

amount of money you guys have given us or the amount of money 

that we have, we’re not ever going to be able—we don’t think we 

30 

can build this by 2016, although everyone’s saying that we want to 

build this by 2016.’’ 

And then we get a recommended budget, from the President, that 

actually cuts it even more. So, I think what, one a bigger level, 

what we’re really—I think the question really is, you know, what 

is the level of commitment to getting this done at anytime in the 

near future? Because, certainly these budget requests are statements of vision, or lack thereof. And so, my—I mean, the—and obviously, you’re in a difficult position, or you’re in a unique position, 

I suppose, of having to both speak on behalf of what the agency’s 

vision is and, at the same time, having to explain the President’s 

budget. But, we look at it, at least I do—I mean, this is—I’ve only 

been here a few weeks, but it didn’t make a lot of sense to me that 

you’re saying you’re trying to get something done by a certain period of time, and the money you already have dedicated to it is now 

not enough, but we’re going to cut it even further. 

And I think that’s really what the question goes to the heart of. 

And so, I mean—I guess my question is, How serious is NASA, and 

is this administration, about building these programs? 

Mr. COOKE. I believe NASA is serious about building these programs. The questions that you ask end up being questions of priority and policy that are decided at different levels. I can tell you 

that the people that work at NASA are amazing in their drive to 

implement under the constraints and direction they’re given. We 

have a tremendous workforce that will work tirelessly and commit 

to doing these programs within budgets, and they’ll find the best 

ways to do it. So—— 

Senator RUBIO. But, you would agree that—— 

Mr. COOKE.—that’s where we are. 

Senator RUBIO.—I mean, you would concede that we get a report 

saying, ‘‘The money we have is not enough to finish it by 2016,’’ 

and then a budget comes out that says, ‘‘We’re going to cut that 

inadequate budget even further’’—you would concede that there is 

a conflict there, at least certainly in terms of what it would appear 

like. 

Mr. COOKE. Well, there’s certainty in what you say, the budget 

request, it is less. There’s no doubt about it. It’s numbers that are 

written down. This is a matter of balance and priorities, and it’s 

a NASA priority to develop commercial crew transportation to and 

from Earth orbit. So, it’s a question in policy, I believe, of where 

you draw that balance. All I can tell you is that the folks that work 

for ESMD in human spaceflight will endeavor to develop the systems, and want to develop these systems, within constraints that 

we have. We always do that. 

Senator RUBIO. Well, again, I don’t—never question the professionalism of the folks at NASA, who do a phenomenal job. I would 

just say that, from our vantage point, priorities on paper is one 

thing, what an administration is willing to put its name behind is 

something else. And when they issue a budget that cuts the funding of a so-called priority, obviously people are going to ask questions. 

I wanted to—quite frankly, people are going to doubt—I mean, 

that’s the bottom line—that that truly is a priority, when you’re 

cutting funding to it, like this President’s budget does. 

31 

Kind of an unrelated topic, something I was asked about earlier 

today, minutes before coming here. There was a Government Accountability Office report from 2007 and 2009 that cited NASA losing track of its equipment, more than $8.7 million of equipment, 

in the past 5 years. Could—can you comment, or anyone comment, 

on what’s been done to—are you familiar with that news account? 

And, if so, can you comment at all what steps that have been taken 

to prevent that from happening in the future? If you haven’t read 

that news report, or what have you, (a) that’s problematic, and (b) 

I probably need to share it with you. I was just asked about it. Moments ago, I was handed a copy of it. Is anyone familiar with that? 

Dr. WHITLOW. Yes, we are familiar with the study that’s been 

done to track our equipment. $8.7 million is a significant amount; 

a very relatively small percentage of our total assets, though. So, 

what we’re doing is, we have been implementing programs and efforts to do better tracking of our equipment, and know who signs 

them out, who owns them, who they’re assigned to. We’re making 

every effort that we can to reduce that. 

Senator RUBIO. What kind of equipment more or—because it 

didn’t specify—what kind of equipment are we talking about? 

Dr. WHITLOW. Some of it includes—— 

Senator RUBIO. Obviously, not a rocket. But, I mean, you know. 

Dr. WHITLOW. No. Some of it includes computer equipment and 

other relatively small things. But, over an agency our size, they 

add up to a number of the size that you mention. 

Senator RUBIO. So, there’s—have steps been taken, specifically 

in—as a result of this report, to prevent that from happening in the 

future? 

Dr. WHITLOW. I’d have to take that for the record and get you 

specific steps that are being taken across the agency. 

[The information requested follows:] 

NASA is strongly committed to its responsibility to the American taxpayers for 

the stewardship of government property. While the Agency consistently stays below 

its own internal property Joss benchmark of 0.5 percent property loss and well 

below the accepted ASTM International commercial industry standard of 2 percent, 

NASA continuously assesses people, process and technology improvements to minimize property losses. Some of these recent efforts to help improve our property management accountability include revisions to NASA’s Equipment Management Policy; 

establishment of monthly meetings with Center equipment managers to monitor 

recoverability and corrective actions plans; upgrades to the property management 

system to enhance the computation and rationale behind an identified loss; educational outreach initiatives for the workforce regarding property accountability 

awareness; and logistics reviews at NASA Centers to monitor equipment accountability processes and procedures. 

NASA is also implementing a new policy that will strengthen and enforce user 

accountability for equipment loss to include: (1) providing guidance on the minimum 

level of care NASA expects employees to exercise over equipment and the circumstances under which employees will be held accountable for equipment loss; (2) 

strengthening NASA’s accounting for electronic storage devices that contain NASA 

information or other electronic devices costing less than $500; (3) requiring that all 

packages sent through central receiving are opened and tagged accordingly-regardless of whether they are procured through a purchase card or purchase order; and 

(4) establishing and enforcing property management training requirements for all 

personnel involved in the use, stewardship, and management of equipment, including end users, central receiving warehouse personnel, purchase card holders, and 

property custodians. 

NASA has taken specific actions to mitigate the risk of property loss across the 

Agency. The following specific actions focus on the areas of people, process and technology: 

32 

People 

Pursue the availability and application or mission funds to endorse the training 

and education of equipment management personnel across the agency. This successful approach enabled stakeholders to enroll in webinars hosted by the National 

Property Management Association, NPMA. Over 150 personnel attended courses 

such as: Actions to Reduce Lost Property, Managing Electronics Disposal, Applying 

Industry Leading Best Practices, and lately, the enrollment of 7 personnel to attend 

a National Education Seminar hosted by NPMA. 

Development of a quarterly Equipment Management Newsletter to provide the latest business practices on equipment management, from acquisition to disposal, and 

to keep stakeholders across the agency informed of the latest innovations and initiatives affecting the equipment management program, i.e., physical inventory procedures, the calculation of equipment loss rate, updates to GAO recommendations, 

trading-in equipment, pre-inventory activities, etc. 

Development of an Equipment Management Training Video. NASA has reinforced 

efforts to achieve equipment control through enhanced viewing of our newly developed property management video which stressed the importance of property accountability and the day-to-day management of NASA property. The 14 minute webbased video is available in SATERN and was broadcasted via internal NASA television. The video introduces the ability to provide visibility of total property assets 

and encourages the use of the property management system. In addition to the 

video, continued communication with property personnel occurs via video conferencing and teleconferences. All forums stress the benefits to NASA of personal property reutilization and the value of the Personal Property & Equipment system. 

Development of the Equipment Management Program Website. This website, within LMD, provides a description and/or definitions of the purpose, program objectives, 

program and individual responsibilities, as well as links to governing NASA policies 

and other functional links that offer useful guidance and information on training opportunities to the equipment management community across the agency. 

Process 

Compensating Controls Review Program (CCR) which evaluates the performance 

of NASA Logistics Operations and provides an assessment of center compliance with 

Agency policy and procedures. The current review approach was established as a direct result of General Accounting Office (GAO) and NASA’s Inspector General (IG) 

audits. These external audits identified some of NASA’s property and equipment 

management areas lacking sufficient controls and requiring corrective actions. 

Therefore, the CCR process was instituted to evaluate the adequacy and consistency 

of Agency policy execution and procedural compliance with NASA guidance on 

equipment, disposition, and contractor property, among other areas. 

Baseline Performance Review (BPR) is the Agency’s forum for performance management of its programs/projects and mission support functions and is results-oriented. The BPR serves as NASA’s senior management monthly review of performance integrating vertical and horizontal Agency-wide communication of performance 

metrics, analysis and independent assessment. The BPR encompasses all mission 

activities including the equipment management program and other logistics functions. The forum is designed to be actionable, supporting the Agency decision-making councils. 

Continuously review applicable governing NPDs and NPRs to strengthen or update 

current business practices. The continuous review of equipment management regulations aims to reinforce existing policy and to ensure adherence to Federal regulations. For instance, the Logistics Division will strengthen and enforce NASA’s policy 

on equipment wall-to-wall physical inventory by transitioning from triennial to annual inventory campaigns starting in FY 2013, as well as the revision of the annual 

walk-through inspection, and the policy regarding retention of inactive equipment, 

among other areas. 

Technology 

Completed a Case Analysis on the potential application of Radio Frequency Identification technology (RFID). The Agency investigated the potential application of 

RFID technology to manage its personal property. LMD staff contacted various Federal Agencies to gain from their lessons learned and engaged in a research concluding that an RFID implementation has the potential to reduce inventory cost, reduce equipment loss, and enhance equipment accountability. The study was completed on March 31, 2011, and, based upon this research; the assessment also identified areas of concern regarding the implementation of RFID technology. 

Enhancements to the Personal Property and Equipment (PP&E) System. The continuous review of system capabilities and features enables stakeholders to identify 

33 

system shortfalls and develop remedies to better support policy changes, enhance 

data accuracy, and to accurately generate reports, i.e., equipment loss rate formulas, 

equipment recoverability reports, etc. 

Development of the Personal Plant and Equipment (PP&E) Executive Dashboard. 

The Dashboard will provide the oversight of data elements extracted from the PP&E 

system and Business Warehouse databases. The Dashboard will allow senior officials and the Equipment Program Manager access to total asset visibility and the 

generation of Ad Hoc real-time reports with the purpose to identify trends, 

strengths and weaknesses in the performance of equipment management functions 

across the agency. 

Dr. WHITLOW. But, we take it very seriously, and we are starting 

to implement different efforts as I mentioned, to reduce that number toward zero. 

Senator RUBIO. OK, thank you. 

Thank you. 

Senator NELSON. Mr. Gerstenmaier, let me ask you a softball 

question. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator NELSON. I’ve heard it characterized a lot that commercial capabilities and the heavy-lift development have been portrayed as an either/or capability for NASA. The authorization law 

says that we need both. Do you think we need both? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Yes, I think it’s clear that we need both. We 

need the expiration larger-class rocket to do the things beyond lowEarth orbit, to build and launch the spacecraft to go to the further 

destinations well beyond low-Earth orbit. Then, we’re looking to 

use both commercial cargo—as I described, we have existing service 

contracts in place to resupply the Space Station as the Shuttle is 

retired, so those commercial cargo contracts are in place with two 

companies, SpaceX and Orbital Sciences Corporation—and then 

we’re looking at a new commercial crew transportation capability 

which would also augment the capability we lost from the Shuttle. 

We need that, again, to reduce our reliance upon the Russians for 

crew transport. 

So, the answer to your question is, really, we need both. That’s 

the struggle we have in the budget is how we balance those two 

back and forth, and how we get that right mix between what we 

need in the commercial activity and what we need to do the exploration, to meet the priorities that we’re being asked for both of 

those. Both of those have near-term desires to fly as early as we 

can. That would imply moving money back and forth. What we’re 

trying to do, and what Doug tried to describe to you, is how we try 

to balance those with the programmatic guidance we get through 

the Authorization Act and here, through the administration. 

Senator NELSON. Well, that is a very well-stated answer. And I 

think that that’s genuinely the policy that was set out in the authorization law. And I think that’s genuinely the policy that NASA 

is trying to implement. And yet, the report that came in January 

is interpreted by some as saying that NASA cannot build a new 

heavy-lift launcher and the capsule, as prescribed in the law. And 

much of the time has been discussed about what NASA can’t do. 

And I’d like to hear your thoughts on what NASA can do and what 

you’re already doing toward the implementation of the authorization law. 

34 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Earlier, I think Doug described that pretty 

well. We’ve got some teams set out with a base configuration and 

at least two other configurations to go look at alternate concepts 

of achieving the goals we just described, the heavy-lift launch vehicle and to maximize, as you discussed earlier, what we’ve already 

done in the Orion capsule, to make sure that that carries forward. 

So, we’ve got those teams off, working. 

We also, Doug’s team, put out some requests from industry to get 

their ideas that were not constrained by any of our previous 

thoughts so we can get the best ideas from industry. Doug’s teams 

are sitting there, as Doug described, trying to integrate all those 

activities. 

We’re trying to take a look at the existing contracts we have in 

place to see if those contracts are applicable in the new work that 

we want to go start. We have certain legal requirements. We can’t 

take a contract that was issued for one purpose, and apply it to a 

different purpose without going through all the right legal checks 

to make sure that’s an appropriate use to extend that contract. As 

Doug described pretty clearly, we need to get the best value out of 

that to show that that is the most effective manner to do this procurement activity. 

The teams are working through all those things. Our intent is 

that, by the time we get to late spring, early summer, we will have 

enough of this completed that we can give you a definitive answer 

in our follow-on report about where we head with this and what 

we understand is available and what’s possible as we move forward. 

So, I will tell you that, as Doug’s described and you’ve all described to us, is the NASA team definitely has a can-do attitude, 

if we lay out the right constraints. The authorization law gave us 

those constraints. We understand the President’s budget, as well. 

We can factor both of those in as considerations. And the teams are 

fully running and implementing, as fast as they can, to put together a sound plan that’s affordable and sustainable and realistic 

that we can present to you in the late spring, early summer. 

Senator NELSON. Well, with the new heavy-lift capability, you’re 

the expert, tell us: What about the new destinations that are enabled by the evolvable new heavy-lift capability? What does the Nation stand to gain from that exploration? 

Mr. COOKE. I can address that. 

With the kind of capability that’s laid out in the Authorization 

Act, 70- to 100-metric-ton evolvable to 130 metric tons, we can incrementally be able to go to numerous destinations that are of high 

interest. 

It could be cislunar space. It can be at LaGrange points between 

the Earth and Moon, where we could repair telescopes; we can 

stage missions to the Mars vicinity, potentially. It would get us 

missions to the Moon, with additional capabilities. We can go to 

near-Earth asteroids. We can go to the moons of Mars, which may 

be an interesting step in this progression. 

All of these places hold incredible information that we probably 

don’t even have a clue as to what we’ll find. Every time we go explore, as great nations do, we learn, and we learn things we didn’t 

35 

expect. And those are certainly all incredibly interesting destinations. 

The Moon, itself, is a place that we know much better, now that 

we’ve flown the lunar reconnaissance orbiter, that our organization 

put up and now is being run by the Science Mission Directorate. 

But, we’ve learned more about the Moon than we knew during 

Apollo. Mars has always been a premier destination for our future 

human spaceflight. And there’s incredible science and understanding that we can bring back, in terms of evolution of that planet, whether or not there’s life on that planet. The opportunities are 

incredible. 

And the heavy-lift vehicle that we’ve talked about, and the crew 

vehicle, are the critical first two steps to any of those destinations. 

Those are incredibly important for where we go from here. There 

are additional capabilities that will need to be developed to do 

these missions, but those are two essential steps that are laid out 

for us and that we’re interested in developing and pursuing. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you for that answer. I think that gives 

everybody a vision. You’ve got to get up there, with humans and 

components. Who knows what the technology—by the time we’re 

ready to go to Mars with humans, we might have new technology 

that takes us there in 39 days, instead of the 9 or 10 months, 

which could redo the whole mission. 

So, thank you for that comment. 

Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

In the past year, there have been two failures of the payload 

faring mechanism for the vehicles launching the orbiting carbon observatory, and recently, the Glory mission. This has resulted in the 

loss of these important payloads, both expensive and highly capable 

satellites. 

Two things, Mr. Cooke: Do those losses impact your view of the 

maturity of the commercial companies currently involved in the 

commercial orbital transportation system program to deliver cargo 

to the International Space Station? And are these failures viewed 

as normal growing pains, or do they potentially affect the design, 

manufacturing, or vehicle processing failure? 

Anybody. Whoever’s most qualified. 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Yes, I think I’ll answer those. I’m responsible for the launch services program. 

First of all, the failure was something we didn’t expect, on the 

Glory spacecraft. When we lost the OCO spacecraft, we go into a 

very rigorous mishap investigation board to understand exactly 

what happened on that loss, why the fairing didn’t separate. We 

chartered an independent team that went through all the potential 

failures that could have led up to that. 

They gave us a series of recommendations. One of the areas that 

was the most likely cause of that failure, on the OCO spacecraft, 

was a system that pushes the fairings apart. It was a hot-gas system. Essentially, you ignite a solid propellant; it generates gas and 

pushes the two halves of the fairing apart; you know, much like an 

airbag expands in your car. 

We replaced that system with a cold-gas system on the Glory 

spacecraft. That was a much more reliable system that we thought 

36 

would operate much better. We went back and the mishap board 

had a series of recommendations, probably 50 or so recommendations of things that needed to be changed in the fairing system. We 

went through methodically and made all those changes. So, when 

we had this Glory failure, it was a total surprise to us. We worked 

as hard as we could to make sure that this failure would not repeat, and, for some reason, it repeated. 

We now have a new mishap board looking at it. It’s too early to 

speculate on what the failure was the second time. But, we need 

to go through it methodically, understand what failure occurred, 

and then, more importantly, understand what we missed in our 

process. What did we miss from the first failure to this second failure that caused us to have a repeat failure? This is unacceptable 

to us, to have a repeat failure. You know, we spent a lot of time 

and effort making sure it wouldn’t occur. And we obviously missed 

something. It shows how difficult our business is. I think it shows 

you how much we push the envelope, in terms of spaceflight, that 

things appear simple, and they’re not simple. You know, we’re 

using the state-of-the-art engineering, state-of-the-art systems that 

are really at the limits of what we can do, and we need to be extremely careful. 

So, that implication doesn’t cast any doubt on the commercial 

providers for ISS, but it tells us that we need to be mindful that 

it’s not an easy industry. As I described to you earlier, when I 

wanted the STS–135 mission for extra cargo, that is specifically to 

provide some margin so we’re not putting too much pressure on 

that commercial industry, forcing them to deliver on a schedule 

that’s not realistic, forcing them to cut corners to try to deliver on 

a certain data, and then have a failure which loses cargo to us. 

That would be totally unacceptable. 

So, this Glory failure, to us, is an example of how hard our industry is, how tough it is, no matter who’s doing the work, whether 

it’s NASA or whether it’s a commercial company, whether we’re following oversight of a company, like Orbital, that manufactures the 

two vehicles for OCO and Glory. We just need to watch that process and do due diligence to make sure we deliver quality spacecraft 

when we do that. 

Senator BOOZMAN. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your 

leadership in this area. And again, as Senator Rubio said, being 

new to the process this has been a good hearing. 

But, I think the thing that concerns me is that, last year, as a 

Member of Congress and not directly one that was at the negotiating table, to get an authorization bill that, at the end, I think 

most people felt like was a fair compromise, to go forward, that 

would put us in a good position. And you all were very much involved in that process, through your expertise. And now we have 

a budget that’s come back that simply does not reflect that negotiation, that authorization bill. And so, you have, in a very bipartisan 

spirit, much concern about that. 

And my concern is, is that we’re going to mess around, and the 

President’s Budget bill will not get done. Senator Nelson made that 

statement. I agree with that. And then we have a situation where 

we muddy the waters and then nothing gets done and we’re in 

limbo, now, for another period of time. So, I hope that we can reach 

37 

agreement and then get back on track with the authorization that 

we agreed to, as we go forward. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator NELSON. Senator Rubio. 

Senator RUBIO. Thank you. 

Before my final question, I—and I don’t know if you’ve talked 

about Mr. Vanover. You know, we’ve had a—Mr. James Vanover 

was a 53-year-old swing-arm engineer for NASA, for contractor 

United Space Alliance. And he fell from launch pad 39-A at the 

Kennedy Space Center, in Cape Canaveral, while working on the 

Space Shuttle Endeavor, and died. And so, our condolences to him 

and to his family. I know Senator Nelson shares in that, as well 

as Senator Boozman. He worked at the Kennedy Space Center for 

28 years. And his service to our country doesn’t go unnoticed. I did 

want to say that today, for the record. 

But, let me ask again—all of this, this is an enormously important agency and program for our State. And it’s our first—my first 

hearing as a member of the U.S. Senate, with regards to these 

issues, so I wanted kind of summarize, in my mind, the status of 

where we are and ask what I think is an important question, and 

maybe it’s already been answered. And, if it has, I apologize. But, 

clearly we’re closing down the Shuttle Program. We walked away 

from Constellation. And no one can tell us when we’re going to 

have a replacement for any of these things, but we know it’s not 

going to be 2016, so it’ll be sometime after that, whenever that is. 

And so, we’ll be totally dependent on the Russians, basically, at the 

tune of—what is it—$16 million per seat, to be able to access our 

investment in the International Space Station. I think it’s probably 

the first time in four decades—am I wrong—in—first time in four 

decades that the United States—and maybe longer—will have the 

capability of launching, in a short amount of time, human space 

travel. 

Has there ever been discussion about what contingencies there 

are available to us to access the Space Station if somehow the Russians are no longer available to us or no longer want to cooperate 

with us on—is there thoughts about that? Is that something that’s 

been discussed within the agency? What we would do if we have 

this massive investment and need to service the Space Station, but 

somehow we weren’t to access Russian travel any longer? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. I would say that, from a technical standpoint, the concern is real. If you remember back when we had the 

Columbia tragedy on the Shuttle, and we lost the ability to transport crew for a period of time while we got the Shuttle back to 

flight, we were dependent upon the Russians, at that point, to deliver our crew to the Space Station. And that allowed us to keep 

a crew—and we had to reduce the crew size from three, at that 

time, down to two during that period, but that allowed us to continue. So, it’s extremely important, in our business, to have dissimilar redundancy or have different transportation systems to get 

to Space Station. I think that’s our biggest risk as we go into this 

period. 

I don’t worry about the Russians withholding services from us, 

because, in a sense, they’re dependent for us also on Space Station. 

We have a mutual dependency. We provide attitude control for the 

38 

Space Station for the Russian elements that are up there. So, they 

need us to do that. Our systems also provide power now to the Russian segment, to give them power to their modules. So, they need 

our expertise and they need our astronauts to provide the maintenance of that—those systems, to keep those Russian systems functional. So, we have a mutual dependence. So, it’s to their advantage to have U.S. crew members on board Space Station to help 

keep their facilities operating and keep the overall complex operating. 

So, it’s truly an International Space Station, with interdependencies between us. So, I don’t worry about the—‘‘political’’ may not 

be the right word, but the withdrawal of transporting astronauts, 

for whatever political reasons. We need each other. 

What I worry about more is, Could we have a technical problem 

in their systems that take the Soyuz down for a period of time, that 

we would not be able to have access to the Station. So, it’s clearly 

to our advantage to get a redundant transportation capability 

available, as soon as we can, to help with that robustness. 

Senator RUBIO. So, your testimony sounds like you’re less concerned about—and I think ‘‘political’’ is the right—that somehow 

some political conflict could somehow evolve into something that 

would affect our ability to work with them. You’re more concerned 

about them encountering problems in their own system, them having some sort of technical inability to launch, the way we did, and 

therefore neither one of us could get there, basically. 

What—how would you characterize the—and this, I guess, is to 

everyone—how would we characterize the capabilities—the Russian 

capabilities, from a technological standpoint? I mean, are they—is 

your concern one that is—obviously, anytime you’re dealing with 

something of this magnitude and of this complexity, there’s always 

the opportunity for a breakdown. But, do they have sufficient investment, and do we have sufficient confidence, in their systems to 

think that something like that is unlikely? Or—— 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. You know, they are very committed to what 

they do in space. And they have a different approach to spaceflight 

than we do, I would say. But, they have a very robust approach to 

spaceflight. 

When we increased the crew size on Space Station from three 

crew to six, which we did about a year ago or so, that required 

more Soyuz vehicles to be launched. So, they had to step up their 

production rate of Soyuz vehicles. And they were able to meet that 

challenge and continue. Also, when we increased the crew size—for 

them, they needed additional Progress vehicles, which are their 

cargo resupply vehicles; and they were able to step that up. They’re 

also in the process of upgrading the Soyuz vehicles to a digital 

Soyuz. They were predominantly analog, an analog system to control the vehicle. Now, they’re stepping up to a digital. So, they’re 

making incremental mods and upgrades. 

They work with us quite a bit; we share data back and forth, 

from a technology-understanding standpoint. They give us good insight into what they’re doing. And I think they’re very capable and 

very resourceful. And they’re a good partner to have in space with 

us. 

39 

So, I don’t doubt their technical capability; they’re robust. But, 

I think, as you described and I tried to describe earlier, the business we’re in is very technologically demanding. We operate on the 

edge in many areas. We’re not like an aircraft that has extra performance and has engine-out capability, in some situations. We 

really need the most out of our rockets and our spacecraft. So, 

we’ve just got to stay vigilant. And they’re doing a good job at that, 

but we could potentially have some breakdown that might interrupt service for a period of time. 

Senator NELSON. Don’t worry, we’re going to get to the rest of 

you in a minute. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator NELSON. Mr. Gerstenmaier, the Inspector General has 

indicated that NASA is not making the best use of appropriated 

funds, given the continued restriction from canceling Constellation 

contracts, which besieges us in language that we’re trying to get 

out of the continuing resolution. Is this prohibition compromising 

your implementation of the authorization law? 

Mr. COOKE. I’ll answer that. 

Certainly, we would be happy, and less constrained, without the 

restrictions; however, as I had mentioned earlier, we are tailoring 

the work on our contracts right now, whether it be the Orion spacecraft or the Ares–1 rocket and its various contracts. We’re tailoring 

that work to be as closely in line with the Authorization Act as we 

possibly can. 

So, I think that we’re doing a very good job of spending money 

wisely. We’re making careful choices. That’s being done down at 

the project levels and program level. When we get to the point of 

making final design decisions, I think it will be important to have 

flexibility to make the next moves. But, up to this point, I believe 

that we’ve been managing this pretty effectively. For instance, an 

example would be, if there’s work that is a long-lead item for a 

heavy-lift vehicle, as well as what it would have been for Ares–1, 

we would continue that work. And if there’s a new task that would 

be Ares–1-specific on an Ares–1 contract, we wouldn’t do it or start 

it. So, we’re making those choices. 

Senator NELSON. How much money would you say that NASA 

has had to spend, since the authorize bill became law, by virtue of 

that provision in the appropriations bill requiring the continuation 

of Constellation? How much money has NASA spent since that authorization law that, otherwise, it would not have spent? In other 

words, how much has NASA wasted? 

Mr. COOKE. I would have to take that for the record. 

[The information requested follows:] 

Providing a monetary estimate about how much work will feed forward, or providing an estimate about how much funding NASA spent since the passage of the 

NASA Authorization Act of 2010 that otherwise would not have been due to the prohibition on cancelling Constellation contracts in the FY 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act is not possible, largely because the Administration has not made final 

decisions with regard to the design and acquisition plans for the new Space Launch 

System (SLS), as well as support elements for both the SLS and the Multi-Purpose 

Crew Vehicle (MPCV). Therefore, NASA cannot specifically say, at this time, which 

Constellation elements will or will not feed forward into the new SLS and MPCV 

programs, and as such, we cannot accurately estimate how much money could have 

been saved if not for the funding restriction. 

40 

We would like to note, however, that during this time period, NASA was making 

efforts to focus existing Constellation contracts on work that would likely feed forward to the SLS and MPCV programs—a fact that was recognized by the NASA Inspector General in a letter to Congress on February 2, 2011. 

Mr. COOKE. But, I will tell you that I believe that’s a small 

amount, for instance, we probably would have canceled the Constellation Program office work, for instance, but, honestly, they 

have reduced their support contractors, they have scaled way back. 

And actually, most of their work right now is aimed at helping to 

transition Constellation to what comes next. So, I don’t have a 

number, but everything that we’re doing is to spend our money efficiently. 

Senator NELSON. Mr. Gerstenmaier, back on Senator Rubio’s 

question. Could you quantify what you think is the likelihood, in 

numbers, that—once the Shuttle has flown and we’re entirely reliant on Soyuz, the chance that Soyuz would not fly? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. I can’t give you a quantified number. I could 

work with our experts and try to get some kind of calculated number, but I don’t have one that I could give you. 

Senator NELSON. But, whatever it is, it clearly is in the interest 

of the U.S. Space Program—for that matter, for the Russians, as 

well; for anybody participating on the Space Station—it’s clearly in 

the interest of getting an American launch system, not only for 

cargo, but crew, as well. And that’s another reason that we’re pushing so hard, in this NASA authorization policy that’s been set into 

law, to go on and get it done. Get first done, under that law, the 

commercial capability of taking cargo and crew. And we’ll see, at 

the end of the year, if we’ve got capability of cargo. And then, of 

course, to have the other—the heavy-lift, which is for a different 

purpose—but to have that as a backup, which was part of the stated policy in the authorization law. 

Let me ask you, more specifically, with regard to the Kennedy 

Space Center, that the 21st Century Launch Complex improvements in the President’s request were reduced when compared to 

the levels that were authorized in the NASA authorization law. 

And you all have been explaining that you’ve been moving some of 

your money around in order to take care of that. The GAO reported 

that NASA facilities, clearly, are in a degraded condition and in 

need of improvements, not just at Kennedy, but every place. So, if 

you would, please, explain the need to upgrade those facilities, specifically Kennedy’s launch infrastructure, to enable the long-term 

exploration program to be optimized in order to reduce future operations cost. Can you share that with us, Mr. Gerstenmaier? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Yes. The plan with the funds to do the facility work down at the Kennedy Space Center are—we’re looking, 

kind of, now at doing those as part of the—or heavy-lift launch system or the space launch system. So, we’re looking to put some facility upgrades that will have to occur for the new vehicles we’re 

going to fly out of the Cape, that Doug’s teams are reviewing and 

analyzing. And that’s a piece of it. 

But then, we don’t want to just make the facilities unique to that 

particular rocket. In the past, in the Vertical Assembly Building, 

the platforms that sit in there are at certain heights for one specific rocket that goes into the Vertical Assembly Building. They’re 

41 

not generic, and you can’t bring another vehicle in to go be processed there, without a dramatic change to the Vertical Assembly 

Building. So, the idea of these funds was to, not only upgrade the 

facilities, from a maintenance standpoint, but also make them 

more flexible for the future, that allows them to be used for multiple purposes. 

Same kind of thing in the launch complex. Many of our control 

consoles and systems are geared to an individual rocket that is 

launching. They’re not generic in nature. So, then, when you want 

to bring in another launch vehicle, you have to standdown range 

interfaces, reconfigure slowdown, it takes more time to bring the 

next rocket in. We can only launch about every 48 to 78 hours, because of range activities. We want more generic capabilities in 

place so that turnaround, from one rocket launch to the next rocket 

launch, is much faster. That helps the throughput, through the 

Kennedy Space Center. 

So, we’re looking forward-looking and doing what Doug needs for 

those near-term rockets, but we’re not doing it solely focused on 

those near-term rockets. We’re taking a broader look, to make sure 

that these facilities we put in place at Kennedy support a broader 

range of rockets, which ultimately allow a higher throughput, 

which allows a lower cost-per-rocket launch at the Kennedy Space 

Center, which is where we want to be in the future. 

So, that’s how we’re using those funds to try to upgrade the facilities and modernize, posture ourselves for the future, and, by 

posturing ourselves for the future, support what Doug has on the 

books today, but as well as the future programs we see coming forward. 

Senator NELSON. And, of course, some of the expenditures that 

have already been made, you can take advantage of. For example, 

how you’ve already reconfigured Pad 39-B. And that can be utilized 

for the future heavy-lift vehicle. 

Dr. Whitlow, a flat-line budget is what we looking like, over the 

next several years, realistically, given this financial environment. 

And it’s going to be critical, in that kind of budget, for NASA to 

change the ways of doing business that it has done in the past. And 

it’s going to have to actively reduce cost. 

Now, the authorization law requires a study that, and I quote 

from the law, ‘‘carefully examines NASA’s structure, organization, 

and institutional assets, and identifies a strategy to evolve toward 

the most efficient infrastructure consistent with NASA’s missions 

and mandates.’’ 

So, share with us what NASA is doing to reduce the fixed and 

operating base cost of the agency. 

Dr. WHITLOW. Well, one of the things, as outlined in the authorization law, is we’re supposed to come forward, within a year, with 

an integrated facilities master plan for the agency. We have already received the master plans for the centers, and we are integrating those so that we can provide the capabilities that the agency needs as we move forward. And our investments that we will 

make are consistent with NASA’s strategies and plans. We’re using 

these facility master plans to guide our investments. 

Currently, there’s a lot of Apollo-era infrastructure in the agency. 

Eighty-three percent of our facilities are over 40 years old, and a 

42 

typical design life is about 30 years. And so, our facilities are older, 

they’re inefficient, and they’re expensive to operate. 

So, we have a strategy where we’re going to become more flexible 

with our facilities, as Mr. Gerstenmaier said, become easier and 

more efficient to operate. We’re going to modernize, over a 40-year 

period, so that, at the end of 40 years, we will have an in infrastructure set where 63 percent is less than 40 years old and, therefore, more reliable and less likely to have emergencies that could 

impact our mission. 

Senator NELSON. So, your answer is, we’re going to have a study? 

Dr. WHITLOW. No. 

Senator NELSON. And the study—— 

Dr. WHITLOW. Our answer—— 

Senator NELSON.—is going to be ready at the end of the year? 

Dr. WHITLOW. The study will be ready at the end of the year. 

But, we are already using the elements of that study to guide our 

investments. And so—— 

Senator NELSON. OK. Give me some specific examples. 

Dr. WHITLOW. Say, I’ll tell you, between 2005 and 2010, we have 

disposed, either through demolition of old, unneeded facilities, or 

through excess of our facilities, approximately 750 facilities, valued 

at over a billion dollars. We’re starting to replace our facilities with 

newer facilities, more efficient, more flexible, more energy efficient, 

and cheaper to operate. So, we are starting to have the strategy to 

build out, across the agency, an infrastructure that is more suitable 

to our mission needs, it’s more efficient to operate, cheaper to operate, given—— 

Senator NELSON. OK. And the question is—— 

Dr. WHITLOW.—what everybody is saying. 

Senator NELSON.—give me an example. 

Dr. WHITLOW. I can tell you, for example, at the Glenn Research 

Center, we’re excessing two older buildings on a plot of land across 

from the main campus, and we’re moving those civil servants, who 

actually are outside of the main perimeter, inside the perimeter at 

the Glenn Research Center, and building a more efficient office 

building. We’ve recently opened a building at the Kennedy Space 

Center that actually produces more energy than it uses. We have 

a LEED Platinum Building, we recently opened at the Ames Research Center, that’s energy efficient and cheaper to operate than 

our older infrastructure. 

Senator NELSON. What are you all going to do with the facilities 

that have extremely low utilization rates? 

Dr. WHITLOW. We currently have a process in place—our NASA 

Capabilities Forum—we’re working with the mission directorates— 

Dr. Weiler, Dr. Shin, Mr. Gerstenmaier, and Mr. Cooke—where 

we’re looking at NASA’s plans and we’re identifying those capabilities. And that—and capabilities of people as well as laboratories 

and facilities—that either we need for the future or we don’t need 

for the future. If we don’t need a capability for a long period of 

time, then the people will be retrained and/or reassisgned, and the 

bricks and mortar will be eliminated. 

Senator NELSON. Well, NASA has some extraordinary, unique facilities, but a number of these facilities are not being utilized very 

heavily. And from the standpoint of NASA, say, for your local poliVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:03 Aug 22, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\75607.TXT JACKIE
43 

tics of closing some facilities at a particular center, since NASA’s 

going to have to do as much as it has in the past, if not more, with 

flat line funding, you all are going to have to make these choices. 

Dr. WHITLOW. Correct. 

Senator NELSON. And that’s going to be, in some cases, uncomfortable. And where it is a unique facility, you’ve got to prepare to 

carve out that unique facility, but it’s got to be utilized more. 

Things like wind tunnels. You know, the Air Force aeronautics— 

we’re going to get to you all in just a second—aeronautics, so much 

is dependent on that. But, is it being utilized? 

Dr. WHITLOW. For example, in aeronautics, we have, over a period of time, eliminated some of our wind tunnels. There’s a wind 

tunnel at the Langley Research Center—and I think it’s their 16- 

foot wind tunnel—we’re in the process of taking down. We’ve got 

the full-scale wind tunnel at the Langley Research Center off of 

NASA’s books. The Propulsion Systems Laboratory, at the Glenn 

Research Center, we took down within the last year. The altitude 

wind tunnel, we no longer needed; we got rid of that facility. So, 

we are aggressively looking at our infrastructure, because we have 

to become more efficient and cheaper to operate. Those things that 

we don’t need we are and will get rid of. 

Senator NELSON. Mr. Gerstenmaier, you’re going to be assuming 

leadership for all of the human spaceflight efforts. What management or cultural changes do you feel are necessary to accelerate the 

goal of moving forward the goals of the NASA authorization law? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Again, I think we have two very talented directorates. You know, Doug’s directorate, the Exploration Systems 

Mission Directorate, has done an amazing job of doing the new development activities and in leading those activities, doing the studies we described earlier. My directorate’s been more focused on operations kind of activities—flying the Shuttle, flying Space Station, 

doing rocket propulsion tests, doing launch services, providing 

space communications, those kind of things. 

I think my directorate has more of a kind of immediate focus, 

more of an operations focus of doing things. Doug has much more 

of the developmental focus. So, I think we can take the strengths 

of both of those directorates and put them together into a very effective organization. Because we want to make sure the things that 

we’re developing are really going to be able to be operated in the 

most efficient manner in the future. Our folks understand how to 

operate those; Doug’s folks know how to develop. We can take the 

best of both of those, from the two directorates, combine them into 

a strong directorate, with a sense of urgency, as called out in the 

authorization law, and we’ve discussed, to try to move forward to 

meet the time lines that we talk about. 

We also know we are in a very budget-constrained environment. 

That will be tough for us to go manage. We need clear direction in 

the budget. We need to make sure we’ve got flexibility in our programs and flexibility in our development, so when the inevitable 

budget swings come, that will come, it doesn’t totally upset the program. So, we’ll build some, I call it, ‘‘agility,’’ some ability to react 

to what we see from the outside, so we don’t have a perfect plan 

that is optimized to just one set of constraints, that if we get a 

slightly different set of constraints, there’s enough resilience, 

44 

enough agility in the system, we can continue move forward and 

ultimately deliver what you’ve asked for us to in the authorization 

law. 

So, I think, in simple terms, what I’m going to try to do is take 

the strengths of both the directorates that are there, both of the 

strong cultures that are there, forward, blend those together into 

a new directorate that will meet the intent of what we’ve been 

asked to go deliver to this country. 

Senator NELSON. What about the program offices for heavy-lift 

launch system, MPCV, and commercial crew development? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Doug’s already taken steps, and you’ll see 

that we’ve put the MPCV and the SLS and the 21st Century 

groups together. And the idea there is, we think there is enough 

commonality between all of those that they need to be worked together. And Dan Dumbacher, Doug has picked and I agree with, 

to lead that activity, from a headquarters perspective. And that’s 

to make sure that we get an integrated look at those activities, that 

they’re not done in isolation, that they’re all moving forward, because they have to all occur in that same direction. 

Doug also has a commercial organization, which we’re going to 

get set up. We’re trying to select someone for that position, to do 

the new commercial crew activity. 

The commercial cargo activity, we’ve left that pretty much more 

at the center-director level. We haven’t done much—we haven’t 

really elevated that to the level at headquarters. I think that’s appropriate for cargo. We can stay fairly lean in the cargo side, but 

the crew side, we clearly need some direction and some guidance 

from up here. They will do that. 

And, as you’re well aware, the Kennedy Space Center will be the 

Center that manages and oversees that commercial crew capability 

down in Florida. And we’re looking to the folks down there to lead 

that activity with a deputy from JSC. And Doug has set all that 

up, and we’ll leave that pretty much set the way it is right now. 

Senator NELSON. Why don’t you flesh that out? What’s that going 

to mean to Kennedy for the Commercial Crew Program Office? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. It’ll be a Civil Service Project Office or Program Office set up at Kennedy Space Center to manage that activity. They will oversee the procurements associated with that activity. They’re in the process right now—and Doug can elaborate— 

they’re ready to do a Commercial Development II procurement activity. They will kind of oversee that activity. Or, excuse me, 

they’re getting ready to award that now. That’ll be there. They’re, 

kind of, wrapping up the CCDev I activity—Commercial Crew Development I activity. And that office will do the day-to-day management of kind of overseeing that, with some guidance from headquarters, from kind of a top-level oversight and level-one requirements standpoint. 

And Doug may want to add something. 

Senator NELSON. Please. 

Mr. COOKE. Right. The office has been a planning office, but has 

been doing all the work in setting up these procurements. They are 

working on the CCDev II procurement right now. That went out in 

October, with proposals back in December. And they’re going 

45 

through the evaluation process right now. That’s being led at KSC 

by Ed Mango’s team. 

That team will become the Program Office, when we’re freed up 

to do that, which should be shortly. But, they’re laying it out. That 

and finishing up that procurement exercise. They are laying out 

the steps for the follow-on procurements that would lead to commercial crew ultimate capability. They would be the oversight center for that development capability. They are getting support from 

JSC, in the areas of crew systems—and Brent Jett, from the Astronaut Office, is a deputy to Ed Mango—and they’re providing the 

expertise that they need from JSC, but it is being led at Kennedy 

Space Center, and they are being very methodical and doing a 

great job of moving that forward. 

Senator NELSON. Do you want to venture any numbers of the 

jobs in that office? 

Mr. COOKE. I will have to take that for the record. 

[The information requested follows:] 

The current total number of Full Time Equivalents (FTE) for the Commercial 

Crew Program across all NASA Centers (not including NASA Headquarters) is 74. 

Of that number, 46 FTE are located at the NASA Kennedy Space Center. When 

fully staffed (anticipated for some time in FY 2012), the total number of FTE for 

the Commercial Crew Program is expected to be approximately 200, with the highest concentration of civil servants located at NASA Kennedy Space Center. 

Mr. COOKE. I’m not sure what the current plan is. It’s not a large 

office. But, they have a setup that they have laid out; it’s been 

based on what they see they need, in terms of developing the requirements for these providers, as well as doing the oversight. 

Senator NELSON. Dr. Weiler, with the loss of Glory, do you anticipate any changes in the Earth Science projects that are currently 

underway? 

STATEMENT OF DR. EDWARD J. WEILER, ASSOCIATE 

ADMINISTRATOR, SCIENCE MISSION DIRECTORATE, NASA 

Dr. WEILER. It was a great loss, Senator. We’re trying to look forward to the next step. 

Basically, there were two instruments on Glory. One was a total 

solar irradiance instrument. The purpose of that is to continue our 

decades-long study of the sun and how much radiation’s actually 

coming to the Earth. That was going to be a new instrument on 

Glory. We’ve now lost that. There are two currently flying solar irradiance instruments. Regretfully, they’re very old. One’s 7 years 

old and I think one’s 11 years old, on different satellites. 

We do, however, have a backup instrument being built, for 

NOAA, called the TSIS, that’s a Total Solar Irradiance Sensor. 

We’ve been in contact with NOAA. We are accelerating that development. We should have that ready to fly sometime in the 2012 

timeframe. And we’ll be working with NOAA to see what kind of 

satellite we might be able to put that on in the near term. We’re 

hoping that the two instruments up there will continue the measurement of that in the near term. 

The other instrument on Glory was a polarimeter. That was, for 

the first time, going to give us some very indepth information on 

the nature of pollution particles, so-called aerosols. We can get information like that by piecing together many other satellites, but 

46 

not so cohesively and excellently as we could have with the Glory 

instrument. We do not have a backup instrument for that ready, 

so what we have done, the Earth Science Division—is commissioned two 100-day studies to look at the feasibility of developing 

a new backup instrument, and also the scientific necessity for 

building a backup instrument, or whether we can wait for a new 

satellite that’s even more sophisticated, I believe, which is planned, 

in the current budget environment, for about 2019 or so. 

So, that’s where we are right now. We’ll have a lot more information—we’ll be happy to share it—perhaps in about 2 or 3 months. 

Senator NELSON. So, with regard to the first part of the instrument, as long as the two up there are going, you can keep that data 

coming. With regard to the second part of Glory, there’s going to 

be a gap for how long? 

Dr. WEILER. Well, again, this instrument was filling a gap, in the 

sense that there’s a certain air bar we have on our climate models, 

because we don’t really know the absolute size and nature of these 

aerosol particles. We can model them, and we can get a pretty good 

estimate of it, but it leaves a certain size air bar. Glory was going 

to reduce the size of that air bar. 

So, it’s not as if it was filling a gap that didn’t exist—I mean, 

filling a data gap that didn’t exist; it was making our air bar smaller. We’ll continue to do the work we’ve been doing. And we’ll either 

decide that it’s so scientifically important that we’ll delay other 

missions to try to replace this instrument quicker, or we’ll wait for 

this newer instrument that’s going to be launched in the timeframe of about 2019. 

Senator NELSON. Is there any thought that you’re going to rebuild Glory? 

Dr. WEILER. Again, we can’t really do what we did on OCO, because Glory was flying on a very old spacecraft that was originally 

developed for something, I think, called Vegetation Lidar Mission, 

about 10 years ago. So, we reused that spacecraft. It wouldn’t make 

any sense to rebuild a spacecraft that’s, basically, obsolete now. So, 

it’s not as simple as OCO, where you could just—really, just take 

the diagrams and build a new one very rapidly. So, we’d have to 

evaluate what it would cost to go out to get a new spacecraft and 

build a new instrument, and cost that versus the value of doing 

that. And again, we’ll know that in about 100 days. 

Senator NELSON. The review of the James Webb highlighted deficiencies in management and budgeting practices at NASA, leading 

to the schedule delay and also the cost overruns. And that’s not 

going to sit well around here, in this budgetary environment. So, 

why don’t you, for the record, justify the importance of James 

Webb’s telescope. 

Dr. WEILER. That’s actually easy, because I’ve spent most of my 

career on the Hubble Space Telescope—more than 30 years; I was 

a chief scientist for about 20 of those years. 

Where we are on James Webb now reminds me of where we were 

on Hubble in the mid-1980s. A lot of people don’t remember, because Hubble is such a great success now that it actually overran, 

300 percent, and was delayed 7 years. When I joined the Hubble 

team in 1978, the launch was scheduled for 1983, at a cost of $400 

million. It wound up getting launched in 1990, for a cost of $1.6 

47 

billion. But, we stuck with it, despite a lot of people who wanted 

to see it canceled. There were a lot of management problems, a lot 

of cost problems, there was a lot of blame all over the place. But, 

we stuck with it and we launched it. And, today, of course, Hubble, 

I would call the biggest scientific success in NASA history. 

Senator NELSON. And no sooner had you launched it than you realized that it had deficient lens. And you had to go up and correct 

those. 

Dr. WEILER. I was telling somebody, I remember sitting in this 

room, Senator, in 1990, defending—collaboration problem. I believe 

the chairman of this committee then was Senator Gore. So, I’ve 

had some experience in this room. 

But, we did fix it. A lot of people didn’t believe we could fix it. 

But, again, the NASA teams stuck together, at Johnson, Kennedy, 

Goddard, the contractors, et cetera, and we fixed it, utilizing the 

Space Shuttle mission in December 1993. 

How is that relevant to James Webb? James Webb, for about the 

same cost in real—in constant dollars that Hubble cost in constant 

dollars, is going to be about 50 to 100 times more sensitive. James 

Webb will enable us to see the universe when the lights first came 

on, the first stars, the first galaxies, going all the way back to 

maybe 100/200 million years after the Big Bang. That’s what we 

know James Webb will do. 

As we learned from Hubble, I can sit here and expound on all 

the things we expect James Webb to do: It’s going to look for extraterrestrial planets; it’s going to study star formation, galaxy evolution. That’s all very interesting and exciting. But, what was most 

exciting about Hubble were the things we didn’t know, the questions we didn’t know how even to ask. When we launched Hubble, 

there was no such thing as ‘‘dark energy.’’ When we launched 

Hubble, there were no extrasolar planets. 

The universe is a big place. And, even though we write textbooks 

about it, the universe out there doesn’t always read our textbooks 

and sometimes surprises us. And I think James Webb is going to 

be that kind of mission for this country, if not for the world. 

James Webb, as some people forget, is not just a U.S. mission. 

The Canadians are deeply involved, and a major partner is the Europeans, just as the Europeans worked on Hubble. It’s an international mission. 

The potential for James Webb to give us excitement to explore 

the universe, perhaps excite some of our school kids in middle 

school to perhaps do something unheard of—consider a career in 

science, engineering, or math—it’s something I deeply feel. I was 

excited. I’m sitting here today, Senator, watching, as a young boy, 

John Glenn and Alan Shepard take off from the Kennedy Space 

Center. That inspired me to decide I wanted to be an astronomer, 

I wanted to go to Northwestern University, and I wanted to work 

for NASA—when I was 13 years old. I hope that things like James 

Webb, our Mars missions, can do that kind of thing to our 12- and 

13-year-olds today, because this country needs scientists and engineers and mathematicians in the future. 

I’m sorry for going on and on, but you asked me to expound. 

Senator NELSON. Amen. How about the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer? 

48 

Dr. WEILER. That’s not a mission that’s funded by my organization, so I’m really not too familiar with it. I believe the physics involved is a search for antimatter particles. It’s a really exciting experiment. I hope it works, and I hope it finds some antimatter particles. But, we don’t fund it, so it’s not under my jurisdiction. It’s 

really under Bill Gerstenmaier’s jurisdiction. 

Senator NELSON. Any comment? 

And then I’m going to turn to you, Senator. 

Any comment? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. DOE is supporting most of the actual science 

on AMS. We’re doing some of the integration activity, and launching it. 

Senator NELSON. Senator. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just real quickly, Mr. Melvin. The funding levels requested for 

education programs are less than those authorized for Fiscal Year 

2012. And I think Congress would like to see increased educational 

activity at NASA. In Fiscal Year 2010, it’s being stated that nearly 

21,000 spacecraft-supported undergraduate and graduate students 

participated in authentics hands-on research. Do you believe/anticipate that we will be able to sustain that level of participation 

under the budget request? 

STATEMENT OF LELAND D. MELVIN, 

ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, EDUCATION, NASA 

Mr. MELVIN. Senator Boozman, I think we’re going to have to use 

our strategic partners to help us continue with the numbers of students that we reach at higher-ed and even in the middle schools. 

We just came through a design team, where we had Norm Augustine and a number of other people looking at, What is NASA’s 

contribution—or what should NASA’s contribution be to helping 

motivate, inspire, and train students? And one of the things that 

they recommended we do was to help with middle school teachers, 

to basically help grow our seed-corn, so that we’ll have more people 

in the colleges and being able to do higher-ed. That was one recommendation. Another recommendation was to ensure that we get 

new partners on board that can maybe take over some of the things 

that we’re doing, supply the NASA content that we have, the rich 

resources of content, to better leverage the resources that we have, 

so we can then maybe increase the pool even bigger. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. And that’s good. 

I think that goes along with you, Dr. Weiler, in the sense, those 

things are so important: exposing young people. 

Dr. Shin, can you briefly describe the NASA aeronautics research 

contributions to the aviation industry, such as the Boeing 787? 

STATEMENT OF DR. JAIWON SHIN, 

ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, AERONAUTICS RESEARCH 

MISSION DIRECTORATE, NASA 

Dr. SHIN. Yes. Thank you, Senator. 

Boeing 787, as you know, is going to be a very exciting airplane. 

According to Boeing’s claim, it will have the lowest fuel consumption of any commercial airliners in the business. We have no reason 

to doubt that, because I—I have visited Boeing production line, asVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:03 Aug 22, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\75607.TXT JACKIE
49 

sembly line, and they have used, extensively, the composite materials on the fuselage and also wings. If you take a look at the 

wings, the shape of the wings, they look dramatically different from 

the conventional wings. And one of the reasons why they were able 

to do that is that the composite material has much stronger 

strength-to-weight ratio, so they can come up with a different design to support the structure and integrity. 

NASA has been working on composite material research for decades—structures and materials. We believe a lot of that capability 

was successfully transferred to industry; certainly to Boeing, but 

not just Boeing, but to general industry. 

Also, another notable technology there is what’s called chevron 

nozzle, and it will reduce the engine noise substantially. So, current days, the environmental impact mitigation is becoming a really growing concern. A lot of airports even have curfews at nights, 

so that puts a 787 also at a higher advantage over, or a more competitive advantage to have quieter airplane. The chevron-nozzle 

concept was grown out of NASA technical community, and we collaborated with engine companies and airplane companies to deliver 

that technology. 

Senator BOOZMAN. OK. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator NELSON. Well, let’s just follow up right there. With the 

aerospace industry being so important—2 percent of our GDP, half 

a million people employed, major U.S. export—you’ve got a pretty 

robust budget in this NASA authorization law as well as the President’s proposal, for aeronautics. What are you doing to target R&D 

spending to make sure it’s consistent with both the industry needs, 

as well as our national needs, for new technologies? 

Dr. SHIN. Yes. Senator, before offering my response, if I may, I 

really appreciate, on behalf of NASA Aeronautics, for your strong 

support during the FAA reauthorization bill, by submitting an 

amendment to keep aeronautics within NASA. So, we very much 

appreciate that. 

Senator NELSON. You didn’t want aeronautics going over to all 

these other agencies, I take it. 

Dr. SHIN. No. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. SHIN. And so, we appreciate your support. 

We are working heavily on NextGen and safety and environmental impact mitigation, as you know, Senator. I think the importance of NextGen is so critical, it is not just the air traffic management system capability, because you have to advance aircraft capabilities and also safety that will be in that national aerospace system. Also, Congress, almost 7 years ago, had the foresight to create 

a Joint Planning and Development Office to come together, departments and agencies, to work together on this very important initiative. For NASA, Aeronautics is investing almost 80 percent that 

will directly or indirectly contribute to NextGen. So, that’s just one 

example of how we are helping, certainly FAA, to implement this 

very important revolutionary technologies and processes, and also 

industry. 

And we just talk about 787. I think we are collaborating with industry, a wide spectrum of industry, to advance, again, safety techVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:03 Aug 22, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\75607.TXT JACKIE
50 

nologies and new aircraft system, engine system capabilities, and 

certainly air traffic management capabilities to put our country, 

continue to be in the leadership position. 

As you mentioned, Senator, I think the aviation industry is one 

of the few industry sectors that brings, still, a trade surplus. In 

2008, the aviation industry brought almost $57 billion of trade surplus to the country. So, we’ve got to stay in the leadership position. 

And I think NASA Aeronautics is positioned to do that. And we 

thank you Congress for congressional continued support on that. 

Senator NELSON. You developed winglet technologies, and that 

has helped save fuel cost. What other research are you doing to reduce fuel consumption? 

Dr. SHIN. Yes. We are doing a development of a low NOX combustor, working with engine companies, and trying to have a substantially lower pollutant coming out of combustors. Also, it is important to make these combustors fuel flexible. So, with the emergence of alternative fuel and biofuels, we have to develop technologies for the combustor that will be working with whatever kind 

of fuel is coming online, next 20 or 30 years. 

And also, we are developing completely new concept of airplanes 

that will be very different from conventional tube and wing configuration. Some of the system studies that we have conducted suggest that combining the smart operations and this new configuration with other state-of-the-art technologies, like a combustor, that 

I mentioned, potentially we could save as much as 40 percent of 

our fuel consumption, compared to the current state-of-the-art. So, 

that’s the kind of target that we are working on. 

Senator NELSON. Would you send us a list of those? 

Dr. SHIN. Certainly will do that. 

[The information requested follows:] 

NASA’s Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate is committed to research that 

promotes fuel efficiency and environmental compatibility while increasing or maintaining aircraft safety. Fuel currently represents the largest operating cost for U.S. 

airlines. Many of the aeronautics research activities currently being conducted by 

NASA have the potential, upon adoption, of reducing fuel consumption. 

NASA systems analysis indicates that new operational procedures currently in development within the Airspace Systems Program (ASP) have the potential, if fully 

adopted into the National Airspace System, to reduce fuel burn by 400 million gallons per year during landing and takeoff phases of flight and an additional 200 million gallons per year during the en route cruise phase of flight. These savings correspond to about 3 percent of the annual fuel burned by U.S. commercial airlines. 

ASP is also developing improvements in ground operations that have the potential 

to reduce fuel burn during airport taxi operations by 15 million gallons per year, 

which would result in a reduction of 2 million pounds of CO2 per year of harmful 

emissions in and around our largest airports. Some key areas of research within the 

ASP focus on developing new capabilities to: 

• Demonstrate near term application of Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS–B) enabled technologies to enable fuel and time efficient arrivals 

(new FY11 initiative); 

• Demonstrate near term application of ADS–B enabled technologies to enable efficient surface operations to reduce fuel, noise, and emissions (FY 2012 Presidents budget request); 

• Demonstrate Efficient Descent Advisor (EDA) technologies with the FAA 3D– 

Path Arrival Management (3D–PAM) to enable continuous descent approaches 

in congested airports for reduced fuel consumption and reduced noise level during landing; 

• Demonstrate non-stop taxi surface operations to reduce fuel-consumption due to 

current stop-and-go throttling operations; 

51 

• Optimize efficient arrivals, departures and surface operations through fuel-saving integrated arrival/departure/surface time management, route modification 

and adaptive speed control; 

• Maximize national airspace efficiency with new processes to address demand/ 

capacity imbalances from weather effects and system wide uncertainties to reduce travel time, distance, and delays which inherently reduce fuel consumption 

and emissions; 

• Enable safe, time and fuel efficient, en route flight with varying weather while 

allowing for reduced distance between aircraft to increase air-traffic volumes; 

and, 

• Reduce airborne and ground hold delays through enabling increases to system 

capacity by bringing to bear available resources and capacity to wherever demand is surging. 

The Fundamental Aeronautics Program (FAP) and Integrated Systems Research 

Program (ISRP) conduct complementary research aimed at reducing the fuel burn 

of aircraft. New concepts and technologies undergo early-stage development within 

FAP. Individual technologies which have matured are then evaluated at an aircraft 

system level in relevant environments (including flight test) within ISRP. Within 

these Programs, research is being conducted on technologies that will improve fuel 

efficiency for a variety of aircraft and have a direct effect on overall fuel consumption for the aircraft industry. Specific areas of research include: 

• New aircraft designs and configurations, including rotorcraft and subsonic vehicles, that are more efficient; 

• Lightweight structural components, such as airframes, to reduce subsonic aircraft operating empty weight; 

• Advanced fuel-efficient engine designs; 

• Ways to reduce subsonic aircraft drag, with minimal impact on operating empty 

weight, for total aircraft energy reduction; and, 

• Some advanced structural and propulsion-related material research intended 

primarily for supersonic aircraft applications will also benefit subsonic aircraft 

by helping to reduce vehicle and propulsion system weight thereby reducing fuel 

consumption. 

Senator NELSON. OK. 

Mr. Melvin, how are you going about evaluating NASA’s education programs? And then, once you get those evaluated, how do 

you go about figuring out how you use that data to improve the 

quality of the education initiatives? 

Mr. MELVIN. Thank you, Senator. That’s one of the biggest areas 

that we’re going to work on with this new redesign of education. 

The evaluation and accountability part of our budget will be trying 

to get more people involved in that area. That’s one of the biggest 

concerns that we’re having: How do you know that dollars we’re 

spending on the programs are actually giving you the results that 

you desire? 

And so, one of the things that we’re looking at doing is also, like 

I said before, partnering with other agencies. The America’s COMPETES Act has us working with NSF and other agencies to see 

what the Federal Government’s national portfolio is in education. 

And that way we can maybe contribute a piece, NSF can contribute 

a piece, and Department of Education can contribute a piece. So, 

we’re going to be utilizing people from NSF to help us with evaluation practices to get better evaluation systems for our programs. 

Senator NELSON. How about the Summer of Innovation that was 

a pilot in 2010? Can you describe some of the accomplishments of 

that pilot project? 

Mr. MELVIN. Senator, we reached about 155,000 students and 

teachers. Many of the projects that we did, some of them were with 

52 

kids helping build wind tunnels. Some Native American students 

were actually making food pods. We had middle school students actually helping program spheres, through the Massachusetts Space 

Grant, where these spheres are actually up on the Space Station, 

so they could have a hands-on experiential activity that’s actually 

being inspired by space. So, those are some of the things that we 

did in 2010. 

We reached about 22,000 students that actually had 30 hours of 

hands-on instruction, with at least 7 hours of NASA content. Now, 

that amount of content is not enough to give us an indication on 

if a kid’s going to go from a ‘‘D’’ to a ‘‘B,’’ but we need to continue 

on with the follow-on activities to ensure that we can start to look 

at working with school districts trying to track the students, to see 

how their performance gets better. So, that pilot did give us some 

indications that 30 hours is a good number of hours for instruction. 

But, we’re going to have to continue with some follow-on project 

progress to definitely see how these students change their grades. 

Senator NELSON. Do you intend to continue the program? 

Mr. MELVIN. Yes, sir. This year, I think 36 proposals have come 

in. We’re in the review process right now. We are going to use the 

resources that we have in the continuing resolution, use those resources to fund the programs that we’re going to have this summer, 

where we actually work with middle school teachers and then they, 

in turn, use the NASA content to instruct middle school students. 

Senator NELSON. What does NASA do with a whole bunch of different partners, private and public, in order to increase STEM education? 

Mr. MELVIN. Well, we’ve been working with a number of partners. One example is, we just signed up a new partnership with 

LEGO. Every child in the world knows about LEGO. LEGO is all 

around the world. The LEGO Foundation actually gives out free 

LEGOs to schools, as well as the curriculum associated with it. So, 

on STS–134, we’re sending up LEGOs to space. That way, we can 

have some design challenges with astronauts and with students on 

the ground, to get them as inspired as we can, using the resources 

that we have as a national laboratory on the ISS, also using our 

assets, as astronauts, to help them call into schools, doing 

downlinks, those kinds of things. 

We partnered with Donovan McNabb, from the Redskins, to get 

kids to think about the physics of football. So, we were in his training camp, this past summer, where we had about 400 kids thinking 

about how physics can help them with their football playing. 

Also partnering with musicians, Mary J. Blige and MosDef and 

Donna Karen, we’ve done work with them to let kids start to think 

of alternative careers besides just sports and entertainment. So, 

use the icons that the kids gravitate toward to let them help tell 

the NASA message, use the NASA content. 

We had a case this past summer, during Summer of Innovation, 

where we had the Foundation for Advancing Women Now, Mary J. 

Blige’s foundation—her girls were actually teaching NASA content 

to the Harlem Children Zone students of Geoffrey, Canada, and 

Harlem, New York. So, this is a way that the actual students can 

then reach back and help excite and motivate and inspire, using 

our NASA content. 

53 

Senator NELSON. And how are you using the International Space 

Station to interact with your educational programs? 

Mr. MELVIN. Well, as I said, on the Massachusetts Space Grant, 

they have this little sphere. They’re like little remotely operated 

spheres that float around the Space Station. The students can actually uplink and program them to have competitions from the 

ground. So, that’s one way. Also, using our astronauts to actually 

call in to classrooms, to actually motivate and inspire kids. 

Actually, when I was in space in 2009, we called into Tennessee, 

to Senator Gordon’s district, talked to about 300 or 400 kids to get 

them inspired and motivated. So, however we can use the resources 

on the SEEDs Program, and there are many different types of programs that we’ve used to help motivate and inspire. 

Senator NELSON. Dr. Weiler, you are facing a shortfall in supply 

of plutonium 238. At the funding levels that you’re looking at, how 

long is it going to take before the U.S. has a production capability 

for PU–238? 

Dr. WEILER. Thank you for asking that question, Senator. 

We started working with the Department of Energy in fiscal 

2010. In fiscal 2010, we worked out a agreement, at my level and 

at the DOE equivalent of my level, with OSTP and OMB, that we 

could restart plutonium production at about the 1- to 2-kilogramsper-year level, which would meet our needs at NASA. We submitted that to the Congress but, the DOE-side of the appropriations process did not support it. So, we’ve resubmitted it again in 

2012 in the President’s budget, and we await the appropriations 

process once again. 

In the meantime, because of the CR situation, if we are held at 

the Fiscal Year 2010 level in the Science Mission Directorate, that’s 

about a 20-percent reduction from the President’s Fiscal Year 2011 

request. At that kind of reduction, we will not be able to put our 

15 million in. So, we hope that we can resolve this by the beginning 

of Fiscal Year 2012. We are ready to start funding it, but, we do 

need the DOE’s contribution of the equal $15-million amount. That 

would get us enough plutonium if we were to do a outer-planets 

large mission in the 2020 timeframe, that would be sufficient to 

meet the needs of that mission. 

Senator NELSON. Where does your plutonium come from now? 

Dr. WEILER. It would be coming from Oak Ridge. What we did 

discover, in the process of working together, was that we would 

not—at the beginning of this process, Senator, back in Fiscal Year 

10, it was looking like DOE wanted to build a brand new facility, 

and this would have cost an enormous amount of money. But, once 

we really honed in on what the real requirements were for NASA, 

how much plutonium we really needed, it turned out to be only 1 

or 2 kilograms per year. DOE and Oak Ridge, combined, figured 

out that they could meet that with existing facilities. And that’s 

why the cost has been reduced to only $30 million a year, roughly; 

15 million from each agency. 

Senator NELSON. For the record—why don’t you describe, for the 

record, if you don’t have a supply of plutonium 238, what’s going 

to suffer? 

54 

Dr. WEILER. Ultimately, our existing stocks will run out. I can’t 

give you the exact number. We’ll take that one for the record, as 

to when the stocks would run out. 

[The information requested follows:] 

The number of missions that can be supported with current Pu-238 inventories 

depends on the power required by proposed missions and the planned power 

sources. Based on NASA’s last formally updated projected mission power needs and 

the Department of Energy’s estimates in meeting NASA’s fueled power systems, current inventories can support missions through the 2020 timeframe, including a Discovery-class mission using up to two Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator 

(ASRG) power sources. 

NASA is in the process of reevaluating its mission planning set in light of the recent update to the decadal survey ‘‘Visions and Voyages for Planetary Science in the 

Decade 2013-2022.’’ Regardless of the specific mission planning set, which does 

evolve over time, Pu-238 has been used on a consistent basis and radioisotope power 

systems remain vital for meaningful exploration of the majority of the solar system, 

including significant portions of the Moon and Mars. We continue to exhaust a limited supply, so the speedy restart of domestic production ofplutonium-238 is important to maintaining U.S. leadership in planetary science. 

Dr. WEILER. But, it would preclude our ability ever to do a largescale outer-planets mission, for instance, like a mission to the 

Moon Europa that circles Jupiter, ice-covered moon, where we’re 

very certain that it has an ocean underneath it. Of course, wherever there’s water energy, you have to ask the question, Is there 

possibilities for life? It would certainly preclude a major mission to 

another moon, Titan, which the Cassini Mission has shown us is 

extremely interesting, around Saturn. We’ve discovered liquid 

methane lakes, methane rain on this moon. It has a thick atmosphere. The science community considers it a very high priority for 

the next decade, perhaps, the decade after this one. 

These kinds of missions would not be possible, because, once you 

get out to Jupiter, you’re dealing with about 4 percent the solar radiation that we get here. At Saturn, it’s probably down to 1 percent 

or less. You just cannot use solar panels that far out. So, it would 

stop our many-decades-long exploration of the outer solar system. 

Senator NELSON. Tell me, any one of you six, given the turmoil 

that NASA’s been going through, have you seen any diminution of 

the best and the brightest, when they come out of college, that 

have always wanted to go to work for NASA? 

Dr. WHITLOW. One of the programs we have to replenish our 

pipeline and make sure we have the workforce of the future is our 

Student Career Exploration Program that’s at various centers. In 

any one year, there are about 500 to 600 students in that program, 

in addition we have other programs that we use to help replenish 

our pipeline. In the SCEP Program—that’s Student Career Exploration Program—most of those students end up with NASA employment. We find that, when we advertise for jobs at all levels, we 

get many, many applicants for our jobs. So, there is very high interest in career opportunities at NASA. 

Once we hire people on, we have very aggressive programs to retain our workforce with onboard process. We provide mentors, we 

provide coaches, we provide rewards programs, training, development. And so, not only is there great interest among the community, in coming to work for NASA, but, once we hire people on 

board, they tend to stay for quite a while. 

Senator NELSON. Anybody else? 

55 

Mr. MELVIN. Senator, I think that a lot of the students that come 

to NASA, they just have this fascination with space. And it’s something that I think one of the only agencies in the Nation and the 

world, really, that has the ability to attract people to come work 

at an agency like ours. And so, we do get the best and the brightest. We get a cross-section of different types of students, but everyone comes and works hard and is really dedicated to the mission 

of human exploration and all of our missions at NASA. So, I think 

it’s a combination of students. 

But, I think, if we can help get more students to know exactly 

what we do at NASA, maybe get a better way to get that message 

out using more of these strategic partners, using other assets using 

your offices also to help spread the word, as to the things that we 

do in our mission, I think we’d get even more students inspired and 

motivated. 

Thank you. 

Senator NELSON. Mr. Gerstenmaier, as you know, in the 2010 

authorization law, it provides a series of steps that must be taken 

as you go through the human part of the commercial delivery of 

humans to the ISS. Can you provide us with a status report on the 

compliance with these requirements? 

Mr. COOKE. I’ll take a question for the record, to get you the 

exact details. 

[The information requested follows:] 

P.L. 111–267 outlines specific steps that NASA must take related to commercial 

crew development. These steps include: (1) human rating requirements; (2) commercial market assessment; (3) procurement system review; (4) use of government-supplied capabilities and infrastructure; (5) flight demonstration and readiness requirements; and, (6) commercial crew rescue capabilities. 

NASA plans to satisfy all the requirements in the P.L. 111–267. The current status of these efforts is as follows: 

• Item 1, human rating requirements were provided to Congress in December 20 

10 via the ‘‘Commercial Crew Transportation System Requirements for NASA 

LEO Missions’’ document; 

• Item 2, commercial market assessment was delivered to congress on in April 

2011 via the ‘‘Commercial Market Assessment for Crew and Cargo Systems’’ report. 

• Item 3, procurement systems review; NASA is currently developing the commercial crew transportation acquisition and procurement strategies. Once these 

strategies are finalized, NASA will provide Congress a description of the proposed process and justification of the proposed process. 

• Item 4, use of government-supplied capabilities and infrastructure; NASA is 

currently assessing future infrastructure and capabilities required to support 

future programs. 

• Item 5, flight demonstration and readiness; NASA is developing a human rating 

process and minimum set performance objectives to be achieved be commercial 

crew transportation partners. NASA will certify commercial crew transportation 

providers prior to allowing NASA or NASA sponsored astronauts to fly on any 

commercial crew transportation system. 

• Item 6, commercial crew rescue capabilities; NASA is including crew rescue into 

the set of commercial crew transportation human rating requirements. NASA 

will certify commercial crew transportation providers prior to allowing NASA or 

NASA sponsored astronauts to fly on any commercial crew transportation system. 

Mr. COOKE. But, I know that our office at KSC is—has those requirements in front of them, and that they intend to comply with 

those. But, I can help with a status. 

56 

Senator NELSON. I thought you were retiring. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator NELSON. I thought all of your stuff was going to 

Gerstenmaier. 

Mr. COOKE. We’re working closely together. 

Senator NELSON. All right. Well, can you also give us the full 

market analysis for the commercial crew capabilities? 

Mr. COOKE. That is currently in review at NASA. 

Senator NELSON. And—— 

Mr. COOKE. So, that is work that is being reviewed by our offices 

now. 

Senator NELSON. When are we going to get that? 

Mr. COOKE. I don’t remember the exact date it’s due, but I think 

it’s just a couple weeks in the downstream, that—the plan is. I’ll 

have to go back and look at the exact timing. I believe that was 

a 180-day report. But, we’re—we do have that in review currently. 

Senator NELSON. I happen to be someone that thinks that we can 

develop the commercial crew capability, and that we can do it rather expeditiously. And—in parallel, that we can develop the heavylift rocket—and this is why I keep saying, let’s talk about what we 

can do, not what we can’t do—that if you take the law, which is 

an evolvable system, that we can do that, and we can do it in parallel, while we’re developing the commercial and cargo crew capability to go to the Space Station. But, we need these reports. 

Now, speaking of the report, getting back to the 90-day plan, an 

incomplete 90-day plan—we’re losing time—I want to know if you, 

Mr. Cooke, will commit to bringing us the information as it is 

available, and not waiting around so that we’re not getting it. We 

don’t need a final report. 

What we’re trying to do is keep action going, here. Will you commit to that? 

Mr. COOKE. We are certainly with you on keeping the action 

going. And we have significant steps that we’re taking in the next 

weeks. And we will be happy to report back as we develop that information, in the interim. 

Senator NELSON. Do you have the authority in order to commit 

that you will bring that information to this committee as it becomes available? 

Mr. COOKE. I will certainly do my part. I have to work through 

our system. But, certainly, I’ll do my part to get information available to you. 

Senator NELSON. Does that kind of information—before it comes 

to the Committee, does that have to go to OMB? 

Mr. COOKE. Generally, there is a review that includes the OMB 

and OSTP. 

Senator NELSON. Well, that’s where a lot of the hangup in the 

past have been. It gets stuck over in OMB. How about OSTP? Do 

you get a fairly quick review there? 

Mr. COOKE. We work closely with them, all of them, and we will 

get this data to you as quickly as we possibly can. 

Senator NELSON. Sure, you work closely with them, but that’s 

not the question. 

[Laughter.] 

57 

Mr. COOKE. Well, my intent is to get you data as early as possible. I can tell you that. 

Senator NELSON. Well, you know, if we’re going to save the 

NASA budget, in a time when—you saw what happened in the 

House and what happened in H.R. 1, which this Senator voted 

against last week, and it didn’t get a lot of votes in the Senate. 

But, you can imagine what would happen if other people had their 

way. You can imagine what would happen to our space program. 

So, as we’re trying to protect our space program and the future of 

NASA, we’ve got to have data. And we can’t keep having these 

delays like we’ve had on these reports. 

Now, you have the luxury of retiring, so why don’t you just go 

full bore and bust down some doors, since, when you step on toes, 

it’s not going to make any difference. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COOKE. Well, I promise you I’ll go full bore. And I am committed to staying with this through these steps to get these on 

track. And I certainly will do everything I can to get you information, you and your staff. 

Senator NELSON. You didn’t say whether or not you would step 

on some toes. 

Mr. COOKE. I don’t think I’ve hesitated in the past. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator NELSON. Well, keep after it. 

All right. Well, thank you all for a very comprehensive hearing. 

I think we accomplished what we wanted to. We wanted to get you 

all to lay out what’s going on. And this is a tough time. 

I want to note that the record is going to stay open for a week 

for members of this committee to submit further questions for the 

record. 

And the meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:50 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(59) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

I would like to welcome all of our witnesses here this afternoon to discuss NASA’s 

progress and challenges in implementing the NASA Authorization Act of 2010. No 

conversation on implementation, however, would be complete without also discussing the destructive impact that sporadic funding is having on NASA’s mission 

and priorities. 

NASA continues to be an agency in transition. After 30 years and 135 flights, the 

Space Shuttle program is retiring. Just last week, we watched Discovery’s last mission. There is a great anticipation about what’s next for NASA after the shuttle program comes to a close. 

NASA’s shuttle program has led to major scientific successes and discoveries. It’s 

launched and repaired the Hubble Space Telescope, sent up the world’s most powerful X-ray telescope, opening a window to the universe, and completed construction 

of the International Space Station. The Space Station is of particular interest to 

me—not necessarily because of what it teaches us about space—but because of the 

discoveries it’s made that could improve the lives of every American. The shuttle 

also helped capture the imagination of a new generation of people too young to remember previous missions. 

The space station itself recently passed a milestone of its own. Last November 

marked 10 years of a continuous human presence on the space station. Much of that 

time has been devoted to construction, but the astronauts on board still found time 

to conduct more than 1,200 experiments that supported the research of more than 

1,600 scientists worldwide. 

One very significant discovery is that some bacteria—such as Salmonella and 

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)—become more aggressive in 

causing disease in the station’s microgravity environment. I think everyone here is 

familiar with the enormous public health risk posed by antibiotic resistant bacteria. 

Any progress we can make on this front will pay dividends for years to come. This 

discovery is helping scientists develop potential vaccines for both of these infections 

and, if successful, would save thousands of lives each year. For these reasons and 

for the scientific promise of future exploration, we need to get NASA’s transition 

right. 

Exploration, however, can take many forms and there is one area of the President’s FY 2012 budget request for NASA that particularly concerns me. That’s the 

funding requested for NASA’s education programs. The FY 2012 request is $138 

million, which is nearly $42 million less than what was enacted for FY 2010. Teaching our students science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) has never been 

more important to innovating and competing in this global economy. In recent visits 

to schools in my own state of West Virginia, I have seen first-hand the success these 

programs have in inspiring our next generation of scientists and engineers. NASA’s 

Space Grant Program, for example, can be found in each and every state across the 

country. In my own state, the program funds fellowships and scholarships for students pursuing STEM careers at West Virginia University, Marshall University, 

and other colleges and universities around the state. 

NASA’s EPSCoR—or Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research— 

is another education program working to improve STEM research and development 

in the aerospace field. In West Virginia alone over the past 5 years, this competitive 

program has supported hundreds of students and faculty in their research, resulted 

in millions of dollars in new funding, supported more than 100 scientific papers, and 

led to new patents. This type of program allows every state to fully participate in 

the research activities that lead to new discoveries, create new jobs and educate our 

workforce. 

I would again like to thank our witnesses for being here today. I look forward to 

their testimony. 

60 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV 

TO NASA ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATORS

Commercial Spacecraft/Independent Verification and Validation 

The President’s FY 2012 budget request again prioritizes the development of commercial spacecraft for American access to space. In addition to providing U.S. 

human access to space, commercial spacecraft will be interacting with important 

and irreplaceable national assets such as the International Space Station and NASA 

astronauts. 

Question 1. What actions are being taken to maintain high levels of safety, reliability and availability standards for commercial spacecraft to prevent against catastrophic errors that can and do occur in software development? 

Answer. Providers of commercial cargo services for the International Space Station (ISS) must face the challenges of mastering automated rendezvous, proximity 

operations, and docking with a crewed spacecraft. While these tasks have been demonstrated many times by the Russian Progress vehicle, and twice each by the European ATV and Japanese HTV, the technologies and techniques required for their 

achievement are difficult, but clearly not impossible, to develop. All commercial 

cargo vehicles intended to dock or berth to the ISS must meet the same visiting vehicle standards for each of their ISS missions. These requirements are laid out in 

the ISS Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) Interface Requirements 

Document. These standards include requirements for automated rendezvous and 

joint proximity operations, physical and software interfaces, and overall safety. 

These requirements are consistent with those provided for the ATV and HTV. NASA 

has been working closely with the commercial partners through the demonstration 

phase and will continue to work with them through the CRS missions to ensure that 

these requirements have been verified for each mission. 

NASA is responsible for providing both rescue services and transportation to and 

from the ISS for U.S., Canadian, European and Japanese astronauts. Prior to carrying ISS astronauts, industry providers must meet the ISS interface requirements 

outlined above as well as stringent launch vehicle and spacecraft design, operations 

and safety requirements. The Commercial Crew Program’s 1100 suite of documents 

is based upon NASA Human Rating and Safety Requirements, and incorporates 

launch vehicle, spacecraft and crew systems requirements as well as specifications 

and standards against which commercial crew transportation providers will be 

verified and certified. NASA is continuing to work to mature these requirements in 

an effort to ensure the U.S. is fielding safe systems for future ISS crew transportation needs. In addition, all commercial crew systems will have to meet the same 

safety requirements as other NASA human spaceflight systems. 

For COTS and Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) missions, NASA, SpaceX, 

and Orbital Sciences are taking steps to protect against catastrophic errors that can 

and do occur in software development. Both partners have implemented stringent 

software development and testing processes and have engaged external independent 

verification and validation expertise to ensure software systems function as expected. Extensive joint software testing is scheduled with each partner and the ISS 

program. In addition, each partner is performing hardware in the loop testing to 

check the functionality of the software with redundant strings of computer and avionics equipment that they use in the flight vehicles. 

Question 2. Is NASA prepared to stipulate the use of the NASA IV&V Center 

when issuing Space Act Agreements with commercial entities in support of commercial crew and cargo program contracts? 

Answer. By their nature, Space Act Agreements do not allow the imposition of requirements; therefore NASA cannot stipulate the use of the NASA IV&V Program. 

For cargo-only missions, Space Act Agreements were utilized for capability development as well as the upcoming on-orbit demonstration phase. For the on-orbit 

demonstration phase, the commercial companies proposed demonstrating delivery of 

cargo to the ISS. NASA accepted their proposals, but as part of that acceptance to 

‘‘berth’’ with the ISS and deliver cargo, NASA imposed the condition to meet International Space Station (ISS) Visiting Vehicle Requirements. 

The ISS Visiting Vehicle Requirements require software product assurance from 

an independent party with a clearly defined separate reporting path from the development organization but do not specifically require companies to use NASA’s IV&V 

Program. Space Act Agreement participants may procure NASA IV&V services from 

NASA’s IV&V Program. 

For the Commercial Cargo Resupply Services contract phase, NASA elected to impose the same software assurance requirements as used for the Cargo Demonstration phase, i.e., imposing the ISS Visiting Vehicle Requirements which require software product assurance from an independent party with a clearly defined separate 

61 

* Based upon recent NASA decisions, the IV&V Program and the HQ Office of Safety and Mission Assurance are seeking funds from the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate to fund IV&V for the Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) program, the Space Launch 

System (SLS) program, the Command, Control and Communications Element (CCCE) project, 

and supplemental funding for the Commercial Crew (CCP) program. 

reporting path from the development organization. Again, the participants may 

choose to procure IV&V services from NASA’s IV&V Program. 

For commercial crew missions, NASA is deliberating the application and scope of 

software assurance and IV&V requirements. Currently, commercial crew is just 

starting the second round of short duration Space Act Agreements aimed at early 

capability development. The same rules of engagement for Space Act Agreements 

apply to this early phase of commercial crew capability development as were applied 

to the cargo-only capability development via Space Act Agreements (see above). 

When NASA gets to the point of contracting for development work, and imposing 

technical requirements on the contractor, the appropriate level of IV&V services will 

be considered. 

NASA Independent Verification and Validation Center 

The President’s FY 2012 budget request proposes a level of $32 million for the IV&V Center, a severe and disproportionate cut of $13 million below the FY 2011 

President’s budget request of $45 million and $8 million less than the FY 2010 enacted level of $40 million. 

Question 3. What human safety-critical and mission critical software projects will 

receive Cross Agency Support-funded IV&V in FY 2012 based on the FY 2012 request? 

Answer. Based upon the FY 2012 request NASA conducted a risk-based assessment and identified that IV&V for the following projects will be funded from Cross 

Agency Support: 

Human Safety Critical Software 

• ISS (International Space Station) • Commercial Crew Program—partial support*

Safety and Mission Critical Software 

• MSL (Mars Science Laboratory) 

• JUNO 

• MMS (Magnetosphere MultiScale) 

• SMAP (Soil Moisture Active and Passive) 

• GPM (Global Precipitation Measurement) 

• JWST (James Webb Space Telescope) 

• GRAIL (Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory) 

• MAVEN (Mars Atmosphere and Volatiles Environment) 

• AFSS (Autonomous Flight Safety System)—Independent Assessment only 

Question 4. What risks will NASA now be accepting by either not performing or 

outsourcing IV&V activities on lower priority missions? 

Answer. NASA does not intend to waive or outsource IV&V services for human 

safety critical software. By not performing IV&V on lower priority mission critical 

software, NASA will be accepting the potential risk that; (1) the software developer’s 

verification and validation activities are not adequate to ensure the correctness, 

quality and reliability of the mission’s software; and (2) that NASA software assurance activities are not sufficiently effective at identifying those inadequacies. Not 

performing IV&V on mission critical software reduces the potential to find software 

errors that could contribute to loss of mission, loss or damage of NASA assets, or 

cost and schedule overruns. 

By outsourcing IV&V, NASA will be accepting the risk that the IV&V activities 

performed by other IV&V agents may not be equivalent to the rigorous systems engineering processes employed by the NASA IV&V Program. 

Question 5. Does this budget allow NASA to ensure mission success for basic research, development, and newly proposed programs, such as robotics? 

Answer. The proposed IV&V budget will not allow for the additional assurance 

IV&V brings to mission success for these types of projects; however, NASA will continue to ensure mission success since the fundamental software requirements, controls, and assurance activities that are applied to NASA programs to ensure safety 

and mission success will remain in place. Typically, IV&V is not applied to basic 

research and lower technology readiness level projects. However, if a robotics misVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:03 Aug 22, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75607.TXT JACKIE
62 

sion is selected for NASA IV&V based upon a risk-based assessment, the IV&V may 

be funded from Cross Agency Support. 

Question 6. What is the impact of the FY 2012 budget request on employment levels at the IV&V without additional internal NASA or outside reimbursements for 

services? 

Answer. The FY 2012 request will reduce funding available to contractors equivalent to approximately 40 full-time technical contractor personnel. 

Question 7. Is it realistic to assume that project managers will pay for internal 

IV&V out of project budgets if their projects are subject to budget cuts? 

Answer. NASA applies IV&V services based upon an assessment of risk. Given 

that the Mission Directors are accountable for the safety and mission success of 

their programs, it is realistic for the Chief, Safety and Mission Assurance and the 

Associate Administrators of the NASA Mission Directorates to examine individual 

projects and the risks the projects face, and to determine if additional funding from 

programmatic sources should be applied for IV&V services. 

Question 8. Are there incentives NASA could offer for project managers to use internal IV&V rather than external sources? 

Answer. Other than the obvious incentive of Agency level funding, there are many 

advantages of using the NASA IV&V Program over external IV&V vendors. The following are some examples of those advantages: 

• NASA domain knowledge (17 years of experience) 

• Heritage information (access to technical information on past projects, including 

over 15,000 historical issues) 

• Procurement of services is easy and efficient (NASA to NASA) 

• Shared IV&V tools and methodologies 

Question 9. Please describe the steps that NASA is taking to assist the IV&V Center’s diversification of its customer base within NASA, and with other federal, state, 

and local government entities. 

Answer. NASA management has encouraged collaboration with other government 

entities and has encouraged the NASA IV&V Program to pursue diverse customers. 

Additional IV&V work with other Federal, state and local government entities will 

enhance the IV&V Program’s knowledge and experience base and will help ensure 

core competencies within the workforce are maintained. NASA provides limited 

funds for travel to potential customers’ sites for information exchange and for staff 

to support site visits by potential customers. NASA sends IV&V Program staff to 

government and industry exchanges, which allow the IV&V Program personnel to 

meet with potential customers, understand their challenges, and communicate the 

benefits of the NASA IV&V program. 

NASA Classroom of the Future 

Question 10. Please describe NASA’s plans for continued work with the Classroom 

of the Future (COTF) beyond March 2012. 

Answer. The NASA-sponsored COTF is an activity associated with the NASA 

LEARN Project (Learning Environments and Research Network). Managed by the 

Center of Educational Technologies at Wheeling Jesuit University in Wheeling, 

West Virginia, COTF recently began a one-year extension to a 3-year Cooperative 

Agreement that ended on March 2, 2011. The current extension ends on March 2, 

2012. During this period, COTF will continue its operation of the DLiNfo Webcast 

Channel on the NASA Portal (dln.nasa.gov). It will also continue development and 

management of the NASAtalk.com online suite of collaborative tools for internal and 

external educators. COTF will finalize data acquisition, analysis, and findings leading to a formal presentation to NASA in the area of Learning In Virtual Worlds. 

The report will summarize development, implementation, and related research of 

MoonWorld, a Lunar geology-oriented online, learning experience. Additionally, 

COTF will explore various aspects of creating courses for and delivered through mobile devices. 

Various factors will determine the continuance of COTF’s activities after the conclusion of the current Cooperative Agreement. The Agency is currently developing 

strategies for responding to the recommendations from the NASA Education Design 

Team Review. An effort is also underway to revise the NASA eEducation Roadmap 

that was developed several years ago. The roadmap focused heavily on gaming and 

virtual worlds and will most likely be updated to include significant attention to the 

use of mobile devices in education. COTF’s existing research in learning in virtual 

worlds and its new initiative in creating educational applications for mobile devices 

will strengthen the potential for another and final extension period beyond March, 

2012. In the event that a new solicitation is offered during the coming year, COTF 

63 

will most certainly be a worthy candidate for consideration. Coupled with COTF’s 

successes with management of the DLiNfo Channel and the recognized maturity of 

its NASAtalk.com website, continuance of its partnership with NASA in some form 

is a strong possibility. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON TO

DOUGLAS R. COOKE

Question 1. Since the enactment of the NASA Reauthorization Act of 2010, signed 

into law as P.L. 111–267 by President Obama on October 11, 2010, please summarize your current plans for (a) design, (b) development, (c) procurement strategy, (d) 

schedule, and (e) contract modifications with regard to the Space Launch System 

(SLS) and Orion/Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV). Include in your response actions taken which were not reported in the ‘‘Preliminary’’ report to the Congress 

submitted on January 11, 2011, in partial—that is to say, incomplete—response to 

the reporting requirement of Section 309 of P.L. 111–267. 

Answer. NASA is providing semi-monthly briefings to Committee staff regarding 

the status of SLS and MPCV, and we will continue to do so. In addition, we are 

providing details about our preliminary planning process to the Committee as quickly as possible, per the terms of the May 18, 2011, letter from the Senate Commerce 

Science and Transportation Committee. 

With regard to progress made on the MPCV, please see the attached white paper 

which denotes that we have determined that the Lockheed Martin Orion contract 

will be used for at least the development phase of the MPCV. Further details about 

the MPCV and the SLS planning process will be provided in a follow-on report to 

Congress in the summer timeframe. 

Question 2. What actions have you taken and what and forward progress have you 

made in firming up the design, initiating development and actual contracted work 

for building SLS and MPCV/Orion since enactment of the NASA Reauthorization 

Act of 2010? 

Answer. Since the interim report, the SLS formulation phase continued with multiple parallel activities to help drive down the development and operations costs for 

the SLS. NASA has continued to identify relevant work from the Space Shuttle Program and Ares Project that will be transferred to the new SLS Program, while also 

continuing to define the requirements for the new SLS system. 

NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center has completed its internal Requirements 

Analysis Cycle (RAC) studies in parallel with 13 complementary studies being conducted by private industry under BAA study contracts. The BAA was a competitive 

solicitation, utilizing approximately $7.5 million in FY 2010 dollars to conduct sixmonth studies examining the trade space of potential heavy-lift launch and space 

transfer vehicle concepts. The BAA study contracts focused on achieving affordability, operability, reliability and commonality at the system and subsystem levels 

with multiple users, including other Government, commercial, science and international partners. These trade studies also provided a ‘‘fresh look’’ at innovative 

launch vehicle concepts, propulsion technologies and processes that can be infused 

into the development of the new human exploration missions—information that was 

used to help inform the overall selection and development of the final SLS vehicle 

detailed design. The BAA study contractor delivered their final briefing to NASA on 

April 28, 2011. Data obtained through the interim and final out-briefs helped NASA 

determine the feasibility of meeting top-level mission requirements with notional 

launch vehicle architectures, while defining affordability strategies, streamlining 

systems engineering approaches, and identifying best practices that will be applied 

to the final concept selected to go forward into formal design and development. In 

addition, some BAA respondents proposed approaches with prices below historical 

averages and NAFCOM calculations. The RAC teams delivered their final results 

the week of February 14, 2011. The RAC activity consisted of a NASA multi-Center 

formulation activity that studied various launch vehicle configurations, including 

the NASA Reference Vehicle Design (RVD) to develop and refine the vehicle design 

concepts and to determine whether the NASA Reference Vehicle Design meets the 

SLS mission requirements as well as the Administrator’s goals that the design be 

affordable, sustainable, and realistic. On March 10 and 11, the SLS Program conducted its Mission Concept Review (MCR) which is an initial engineering milestone 

in the program’s formulation lifecycle that evaluated proposed SLS concepts in relation to NASA’s needs and objectives, and determined the program’s readiness to 

begin Phase A (Formulation). During MCR, the SLS team presented the various 

RAC launch vehicle concepts against cost, schedule, and performance requirements. 

This process included describing concepts of operations and risk reduction plans. A 

64 

day of detailed technical briefings was followed by a day of deliberation by an independent review team, which culminated in agreement that the SLS Program was 

ready to brief NASA Headquarters on its readiness to proceed into Formulation, 

with multiple concepts being brought forward for further study. 

On June 15, 2011, NASA made a key technical decision about the design of this 

new Space Launch System and will be releasing details about that decision soon. 

The approach considered the ability to accommodate a variety of missions, design 

flexibility, minimizing development risk, workforce considerations, and industrial 

base concerns. This vehicle design is consistent with the basic requirements outlined 

in the law, and will be evolvable to lift at least 130 metric tons in its final configuration. It will maximize the use of heritage hardware and experience, using a LOXhydrogen core and upper stage. In early stages of the program, the design will use 

solid rocket boosters, but will consider a competitive procurement of booster capabilities for the final vehicle design. NASA developed this design after thorough analyses of risk, schedule, and performance. ,.. As a key element of the development 

plan for the integrated system, NASA has included, in partnership with industry, 

innovative approaches to developing and operating this system in a sustainable, efficient way. Though this was a thoroughly analyzed and critical step, it was not a 

final decision for the Administration. 

Currently, NASA has procurement teams who are mapping SLS requirements 

(those outlined in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 and those we are currently 

developing) against the Ares contracts to determine if the new requirements fit the 

scope of the existing contracts. For the SLS, NASA is reviewing each element of 

Ares (First Stage, Upper Stage, Upper Stage J–2X engine and avionics) to determine whether the new SLS requirements are within scope of the current contract. 

However, final acquisition plans for the SLS is not expected until the summer/early 

fall timeframe, and will be provided to Congress as soon as it is available. 

Regarding the MPCV, in accordance with the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, 

the FY 2011 Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, and Administration policy, 

and after careful analysis and very thoughtful deliberations by a senior management team, in late May 2011, NASA Administrator Bolden decided to accept the 

Orion-based reference vehicle design, first outlined in NASA’s January 2011 report 

to Congress, as the Agency’s MPCV. As part of his decision process, the Administrator determined that the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle was already being built 

to meet the requirements of a deep-space vehicle—the current design is sound, and 

testing has proven the vehicle to be the best option for this phase of exploration efforts beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO). Additionally, the Administrator determined that 

the Agency’s current Orion contractual partnership with Lockheed Martin Corporation maps well to the scope of the MPCV requirements outlined in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 and, therefore, the current contract will be used at least for 

the development phase of the MPCV. 

At NASA’s Johnson Space Center, the Orion Project has continued to progress its 

development beyond the PDR-level of maturity that was achieved in late 2009. During FY 2010 and FY 2011’s period of continuing resolution, Orion adopted an incremental approach to design and development. Work became focused on early test articles, such as the Ground Test Article crew module which was recently completed 

and is undergoing testing. Further design work has focused on an early flight test 

configuration to prove out the most critical systems such as parachute and heat 

shield performance. The vast majority of work performed during the transitional period following the transmission of the President’s FY 2011 Budget until present is 

applicable to the MPCV and has furthered progress toward a beyond LEO capability. In addition, detailed assessments of requirements and candidate architectures 

for beyond LEO missions have been assessed, with the purpose of ensuring the detailed requirements for the MPCV were understood such that continuing work 

would be made as applicable as possible. 

Question 3. In early November 2010, you initiated a parallel series of Requirements Analysis Cycle (RAC) team activities to examine possible alternative vehicle 

design concepts. Were those teams informed of (a) the performance capability and 

schedule requirements established in P.L. 111–267, and (b) did they use those requirements as key assumptions on which they based their work? 

Answer. As part of an earlier study, the SLS Program researched all of the stakeholder requirements which included the NASA strategic goals, the HEFT study 

analysis as well as all the Congressional Bills enacted which included the P.L. 111– 

267 2010 NASA Authorization Act to determine the relevant requirements for SLS 

program formulation. Key assumptions and goals that were used in evaluating the 

various RAC SLS options were directly taken from the NASA Authorization Act: (1) 

the vehicle must be able to initially lift 70–100 tons to LEO, and must be evolvable 

to 130 tons or more; (2) the vehicle must be able to lift a MPCV; and (3) begin develVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:03 Aug 22, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75607.TXT JACKIE
65 

opment of the SLS vehicle ‘‘as soon as practicable after the date of the enactment 

of’’ the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 and with the goal of achieving operational 

capability for the core elements not later than December 31, 2016. Other evaluation 

criteria used in assessing the SLS RAC options included total Design Development 

Test and Evaluation (DDT&E) funding required, annual production and operations 

costs. 

Question 4. Have you been waiting or been instructed to wait for the results of 

the RAC activity results before moving out aggressively to modify contracts as they 

pertain to the MPCV/Orion and the SLS? What is the current status of those RAC 

activities? 

Answer. The Marshall Space Flight Center has completed its internal RAC studies in parallel with 13 complementary studies being conducted by private industry 

under Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) contracts. The RAC teams delivered 

their final results the week of February 14, 2011 and the BAA study contractor delivered their final briefing to NASA on April 28, 2011 with the final written report 

delivery to NASA scheduled on May 23, 2011. A Mission Concept Review (MCR) was 

also conducted by an independent review team and determined that the SLS program was ready to enter into the Formulation Phase based on providing feasible requirements and budget data. 

In parallel with the RAC and BAA studies, NASA has been actively evaluating 

the existing contracts for Orion and Ares for use in the new MPCV and SLS Programs. NASA has procurement teams who are mapping SLS and MPCV requirements (those outlined in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 and those we are currently developing) against the Ares and Orion contracts to determine if the new requirements fit the scope of the existing contracts. For the SLS, NASA is reviewing 

each element of Ares (First Stage, Upper Stage, Upper Stage J–2X engine and avionics) to determine whether the new SLS requirements are within scope of the current contract. For the MPCV, NASA’s review of Orion contracts indicated that the 

MPCV is within scope of the Orion contract, and the NASA Administrator recently 

made the decision that the Orion contract would be continued for MPCV development. However, final acquisition plans for the SLS are not expected until the summer/early fall timeframe, and will be provided to Congress as soon as it is available. 

Question 5. How will the RAC study results and conclusions be used in finalizing 

design concepts for the SLS and Orion/MPCV? 

Answer. The final design concept recommendation for SLS extracted the ‘best’ elements from each of the RAC alternatives and combined them into an integrated 

strategy for SLS development. It is expected that the final selection of SLS design 

will have minimal effect on the current MPCV reference vehicle design, since the 

Orion was originally designed to withstand the Ares I launch profile which was likely more severe that any of the SLS design concepts. 

Question 6. The 2012 budget request makes a severe reduction below the authorized amounts for the SLS and Orion/MPCV amounting to a combined $1.3 billion 

less than the amount authorized for FY 2012. What would be the impact on your 

ability to continue developing these vehicles on any kind of aggressive schedule if 

that funding level were adopted by Congress? 

Answer. It is clear that successful development of SLS and MPCV will be dependent on sufficiently stable funding over the long term, coupled with a successful effort 

on the part of NASA and the eventual industry team to reduce costs and to establish stable, tightly-managed requirements. While a 2016 operational capability does 

not appear to be feasible within either projected FY 2012 President’s budget request 

and its out-year funding levels, or within the Authorization Act funding levels, 

NASA is continuing to explore more innovative procurement and development approaches to achieve operational capability as close to this goal as feasible. In this 

context, we are still reviewing overall affordability for the longer-term, and alternative design analysis continues to be part of our strategy. Other technical options 

such as an incremental development approach will be considered based on industry 

input, innovative methodologies for affordability will be explored, and partnership 

opportunities will be pursued with other government agencies with the goal of identifying a significant affordability benefit. 

Question 7. Please explain how the fact that $1.3 billion less was requested for 

SLS and Orion/MPCV in the FY 2012 Request, while the requested level for Commercial Crew development was increased by $350 million ABOVE the authorized 

level for FY 2012, does not represent an effort to reverse the respective follow-on 

launch and crew transportation development priorities established by law in the 

2010 NASA Authorization Act systems development and mission support requirements if those funds are no longer under the supervision of the organization responsible for Exploration activities. 

66 

Answer. NASA believes that the FY 2012 budget request strikes the right balance 

between Human Exploration Capabilities and the development of U.S. commercial 

crew transportation systems to support the ISS and reduce reliance on the Russian 

Soyuz vehicle. Additionally, all major elements of the Authorization Act are included 

in the President’s budget request. 

As the primary means of transportation to the ISS, it is essential that the Com- mercial Crew Program be successful. We believe the $850 million funding level for 

commercial crew is necessary to achieve safe, reliable, cost effective crew transportation capability in time to service the ISS. Without the level of funding provided 

in this budget request, NASA would have to extend its sole reliance on non-U.S. systems for ISS crew transportation. Given that the ISS is being extended to 2020, 

without the Shuttle, it is essential that we help to develop routine, reliable crew 

access to the ISS. By helping to develop commercial crew systems, NASA is free to 

focus on developing beyond-LEO transportation systems. Therefore, NASA has the 

best of both worlds—routine access to the ISS provided by a commercial provider, 

while also having the ability to focus its own human spaceflight efforts on beyond 

LEO exploration—places we haven’t been to before. 

Question 8. As you know, in order to address the concerns of many Members of 

Congress regarding the seeming desire of the Administration to place complete reliance on new, unproven commercial cargo and crew launch and transportation systems, P.L. 111–267 provided a series of ‘‘gates’’ or enabling steps that must be 

taken before any such development program is executed. In your view, is it clear 

to NASA and the Administration that those requirements must be met to the satisfaction of the Congress before any such development program will either be authorized to proceed or receive support for funding through appropriations? 

Answer. It is clear to NASA that P.L. 111–267 outlines specific gates related to 

commercial crew development. These gates include: (1) human rating requirements; 

(2) commercial market assessment; (3) procurement system review; (4) use of Government-supplied capabilities and infrastructure; (5) flight demonstration and readiness requirements; and, (6) commercial crew rescue capabilities. NASA plans to satisfy all the requirements in the P.L. 111–267. 

Question 9. Please provide for the record the current status of NASA efforts to 

ensure compliance with those commercial development requirements. 

Answer. 

• Item 1, human rating requirements were provided to Congress in December 

2010 via the ‘‘Commercial Crew Transportation System Requirements for NASA 

LEO Missions’’ document; 

• Item 2, commercial market assessment was delivered to congress on in April 

2011 via the ‘‘Commercial Market Assessment for Crew and Cargo Systems’’ report. 

• Item 3, procurement systems review; NASA is currently developing the commercial crew transportation acquisition and procurement strategies. Once these 

strategies are finalized, NASA will provide Congress a description of the proposed process and justification of the proposed process. 

• Item 4, Use of government-supplied capabilities and infrastructure; NASA is 

currently assessing future infrastructure and capabilities required to support 

future programs. 

• Item 5, flight demonstration and readiness; NASA is developing a human rating 

process and minimum set performance objectives to be achieved be commercial 

crew transportation partners. NASA will certify commercial crew transportation 

providers prior to allowing NASA or NASA sponsored astronauts to fly on any 

commercial crew transportation system. 

• Item 6, commercial crew rescue capabilities; NASA is including crew rescue into 

the set of commercial crew transportation human rating requirements. NASA 

will certify commercial crew transportation providers prior to allowing NASA or 

NASA sponsored astronauts to fly on any commercial crew transportation system. 

Question 10. Under the 2012 budget request $310 million is taken from Exploration Technology Development program activity and moved to Space Technology, 

carried under the Aeronautics and Space Technology budget line, and under the control of the Chief Technologist. Please provide an explanation of the justification for 

this proposed reallocation of funds and how the Committee can be assured that the 

activities undertaken with those funds will remain guided by exploration systems 

development and mission support requirements if those funds are no longer under 

the supervision of the organization responsible for Exploration activities. 

67 

Answer. As noted, NASA’s FY 2012 budget request moves the majority of content 

and funding that had been included in the FY 2010 Exploration Technology Development Program (ETDP) from the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) 

to the Space Technology (ST) theme managed by the Office of the Chief Technologist 

(OCT). This integration had been proposed in draft FY 2011 appropriations proposals offered in December 2010. NASA agreed with this concept as it would allow 

for synergy between the activities in Space Technology’s Crosscutting Space Technology Development program and the existing efforts funded by ETDP, creating a 

pipeline for maturing both mission-specific and multipurpose technology. 

For traceability, Space Technology has identified these transferred exploration 

specific technologies under a new program called Exploration Technology Development (ETD). ETD funded activities will continue to focus on the long-range, critical 

technologies required to carry out future human exploration missions beyond lowEarth orbit and will reduce risk and life cycle cost of these missions. All future activities within this account will also have a human exploration-specific technology 

demonstration focus. Activities funded through the ETD budget will continue to leverage the existing technical strength of the NASA workforce with at least 70 percent of funds allocated toward directed projects led by the NASA Centers. The ETD 

and Crosscutting Space Technology Development activities are distinguished by 

their customer focus, the balance between competed versus guided projects, and 

cost-share requirements. 

By integrating ETDP within Space Technology, the Agency’s technology portfolio 

will be streamlined and strengthened within an organization focused on development and infusion of cutting edge technology. Integrating ETDP into OCT will 

eliminate the potential for overlap in future technology investments. With management of these investments in an organization focused on technology development, 

greater attention can be applied to meeting the Agency’s beyond LEO technology development priorities. 

The ETD activities are critically focused on NASA’s beyond LEO mission-specific 

Exploration priorities. These priorities have been set by ESMD through the HEFT 

and related planning activities. In FY 2012 and beyond, ESMD will continue to provide prioritized requirements and remain the primary customer for all transferred 

ETD activities (primarily through the ongoing Human Architecture Team). OCT will 

manage its ETD activities based on these priorities. In addition, OCT will conduct 

regular reviews of the ETD projects in implementation. Human spaceflight personnel will be utilized in this review panel. This transfer allows ESMD to focus on 

Exploration vehicle development, but maintain control of the overall strategy, architecture and technology requirements for future beyond LEO human exploration 

plans, while allowing OCT to focus on performing the critical technology development and mission infusion activities. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON TO

WILLIAM GERSTENMAIER

Question 1. What is the current status of efforts to establish the partnership between NASA and a non-governmental organization to manage ISS National Laboratory-allocated research capability? 

Answer. NASA released a Cooperative Agreement Notice (CAN) for an independent non-profit organization to manage the multidisciplinary research carried 

out by NASA’s National Laboratory partners. This organization will: (1) act as a single entry point for non-NASA users to interface efficiently with the ISS; (2) assist 

researchers in developing experiments, meeting safety and integration rules, and 

acting as an ombudsman on behalf of researchers; (3) perform outreach to researchers and disseminate the results of ISS research activities; and (4) provide easily 

accessed communication materials with details about laboratory facilities, available 

research hardware, resource constraints, and more. On July 13, NASA selected the 

Center for the Advancement of Science in Space Inc. (CASIS) to develop and manage the U.S. portion of the International Space Station that will be operated as a 

national laboratory. 

Question 2. As you know, the underlying rationale for the Congressional designation of the U.S. Segment of the International Space Station as a National Laboratory was to ensure that investigators and researchers in a broad range of scientific 

disciplines would have assured access to the unique environment of microgravity to 

conduct experiments. That is also why P.L. 111–267 allocated no less than fifty percent of the U.S. research capacity to the control and use of the non-profit, non-government organization with which NASA is required to undertake a cooperative 

agreement for management of ISS research. Please describe how these requirements 

68 

are being implemented—and that level of utilization protected—under the planned 

consolidation and reorganization of the Space Operations and Exploration Systems 

Mission Directorates? 

Answer. The planned consolidation and reorganization of the Space Operations 

and Explorations Mission Directorates will have no effect on the implementation of 

statutory requirements embodied in P.L. 111–267. NASA is in the process of establishing a dedicated division for ‘‘Space Life and Physical Sciences and Applications’’ 

within the new Human Exploration and Operations Directorate. This division will 

include the Human Research Program, Crew Health Systems, Fundamental Space 

Biology, Physical, and serve as the liaison within NASA for interactions with the 

non-profit ISS National Laboratory management organization once it is established 

under a cooperative agreement. NASA anticipates that positioning these diverse 

areas of research under a single organization will improve communications across 

disciplines and engender greater synergies across the life and physical sciences community. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON TO

LELAND D. MELVIN

Question 1. Mr. Melvin please describe new initiatives or new approaches to 

NASA Education programs that you have begun to execute or plan to implement. 

Answer. In January 2011, President Barack Obama stated that, ‘‘over the next 

10 years, nearly half of all new jobs will require education that goes beyond a high 

school education. And yet, as many as a quarter of our students aren’t even finishing high school. The quality of our math and science education lags behind many 

other nations. America has fallen to ninth in the proportion of young people with 

a college degree. And so the question is whether all of us ’as citizens and as parents’ 

are willing to do what’s necessary to give every child a chance to succeed.’’ This 

speech echoes findings and calls-to-action by numerous committees, reports, professionals in education, and leaders in American industry. In response, the Department 

of Education has identified several strategies to improve science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education and ways in which Federal agencies 

can contribute to the Nation’s STEM improvement efforts. NASA is a strong contributor to the national plan. 

Consistent with Section 202 of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 

2010, NASA works with professional organizations, academia, and state/local education providers to identify and address needs in STEM education. Quality professional development for STEM educators is a prevalent need. Through the education 

staff at NASA’s Centers, NASA works cooperatively with states and school districts 

to identify content needs and opportunities, and with university partners to ensure 

that NASA investments will be effective in improving teaching practice. NASA also 

works through communities of practice to identify content areas and special events 

that supplement informal education programming offered by museums and science 

centers. NASA higher education efforts increasingly target community colleges, 

which generally serve a high proportion of minority students. NASA programs build 

student STEM ability, preparing students for study at a four-year institution. Competitive opportunities support initiatives like the President’s ‘‘Race to the Top’’ and 

the Department of Education’s ‘‘Star Project,’’ which promote state-based education 

reform and identify replicable strategies for improving K–12 education. 

NASA’s education programs aim to increase the number of students who are proficient in, choose to major in, and pursue careers in STEM fields. Improving STEM 

ability, increasing public scientific literacy, increasing the talent pool of future 

STEM workers, and developing the STEM skills of the future workforce are imperatives if the Nation is to remain globally competitive and sustain a strong economy. 

NASA actively works through mutually beneficial relationships with over 500 colleges and universities, hundreds of K–12 schools and districts, and over 400 museums and science centers to provide education experiences, so that all students can 

learn deeply and think critically in STEM disciplines. NASA supports cutting-edge 

undergraduate student research that contributes to NASA missions while training 

the next generation of scientists, engineers, and innovators. NASA targets recruitment and retention of underserved and underrepresented students, including 

women and girls, Hispanics, and students with disabilities. 

NASA is committed to providing equal access to its education activities by providing any student with the opportunity to contribute to the future STEM workforce. NASA is responding by focusing its education investments on areas of greatest 

national need and ensuring that the Agency’s education programs support national 

STEM priorities. With its wealth of science and technology content and its expanVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:03 Aug 22, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75607.TXT JACKIE
69 

sive network of education professionals, NASA is well equipped to address national 

needs such as meeting state requirements for educator professional development. 

NASA provides practical experience and skills development for those who will become the future workforce through internships, fellowships, and student research 

opportunities. NASA is especially qualified to attract students to pursue STEM 

study and careers. It also is able to engage these future workers through inspiring 

NASA missions, fostering collaborative relationships between students and the current workforce and offering students opportunities to work in ‘‘out of this world’’ facilities. Hands-on challenges with expert mentors generate increased interest in 

STEM study. 

NASA has engaged students and teachers in its engineering challenges and scientific discoveries since its inception. From school presentations to seeds flown in 

space, from filmstrips and posters to podcasts and virtual tours through the galaxies, NASA’s education programs have fostered inquiry, built curiosity, and encouraged innovation. Generations of Americans have participated in NASA’s STEM education programs, and thereby learned basic skills, discovered new career paths, and 

developed interests in emerging academic disciplines. 

In 2010, NASA chartered an Education Design Team (EDT) to develop a strategy 

to improve NASA’s education offerings, assist in establishing goals, structures, processes, and evaluative techniques to implement new sustainable and innovative 

STEM education programs. EDT has completed its task, and its recommendations 

are reflected in the FY 2012 education budget for NASA’s Office of Education. 

The FY 2012 budget provides NASA with the resources necessary to continue this 

rich tradition in STEM education through support for the Nation’s students and 

educators, the leveraging of cutting-edge education technologies, and partnerships 

with industry. The budget proposal will: 

• Increase NASA’s impact on STEM education by further focusing K–12 efforts 

on middle school pre-and in-service educator professional development; 

• Increase emphasis on providing experiential opportunities for students, internships, and scholarships for high school and undergraduate students; 

• Emphasize evaluation and assessment, including external independent evaluation, to ensure that investments are providing desirable STEM impacts; 

• Engage strategic partners with common objectives and complementary resources; and 

• Use NASA’s unique missions, discoveries, and assets (e.g., people, facilities, education infrastructures) to inspire student achievement and educator teaching 

ability in STEM fields. 

Question 2. What specific efforts is your organization—or NASA, generally—making to ensure increased and enhanced participation by NASA in interagency efforts 

to enhance the Nation’s competitiveness and capabilities for expansion of academic 

efforts in Science, Engineering, Technology and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines, as 

authorized—and required—by the America COMPETES Act? 

Answer. NASA is actively engaged in collaborations with other Federal agencies 

to ensure the Agency’s programs are supportive of national STEM priorities. The 

NASA Associate Administrator for Education represents the Agency on the National 

Science and Technology Council (NSTC) Committee on STEM Education (CoSTEM). 

It was established pursuant to the requirements of Sec. 101 of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. The NASA Office of Chief Scientist is also participating in the CoSTEM by providing the CoSTEM Executive Secretary, who 

works in close coordination with the Office of Education. 

The CoSTEM serves as part of the internal deliberative process of the NSTC and 

provides overall guidance and direction. The NSTC, a Cabinet-level council, is the 

principal means for the Administration to coordinate science and technology policies 

across the Federal Government. The purpose of the CoSTEM is to coordinate Federal programs and activities in support of STEM education. In accordance with the 

Act, the CoSTEM is reviewing STEM education activities and programs, and the respective assessments of each, throughout Federal agencies to ensure effectiveness; 

coordinating, with the Office of Management and Budget, STEM education activities 

and programs throughout Federal agencies; and will develop and implement 

through the participating agencies a 5-year STEM education strategic plan, to be 

updated every 5 years. 

70 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON TO

EDWARD J. WEILER

Question 1. Please elaborate on the impact to the Agency’s Earth Science mission 

capabilities as a result of the loss of the Glory satellite. What is the status of the 

investigation into the proximate cause(s) of that launch or deployment failure? Are 

there plans to develop replacement vehicle or sensor capabilities on an alternative 

vehicle, and if so, in what time frame and at what cost? 

Answer. The Glory satellite was lost on March 4, 2011, due to a Taurus XL launch 

vehicle failure. The Glory satellite carried two instruments—the Total Irradiance 

Monitor (TIM) and the Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor (APS). TIM was designed to 

measure the amount of solar energy that enters the Earth’s atmosphere while APS 

was designed to identify aerosol composition, scattering properties, and global distribution. Both aerosols and solar energy influence the planet’s energy budget—the 

amount of energy entering and exiting Earth’s atmosphere. An accurate measurement of these impacts is important to anticipate future changes to our climate. 

Given the loss of Glory, NASA must assess if and how to best collect these measurements going forward. 

The on-orbit ACRIMSat and SORCE missions continue to provide measurements 

of total solar irradiance. A next-generation solar irradiance instrument, the Total 

Solar Irradiance Sensor (TSIS), is in the implementation phase as collaboration between NOAA and NASA. Some limited aerosol measurements are being made by the 

on-orbit MODIS instruments on Terra and Aqua, the OMI instrument on Aura, the 

MISR instrument on Terra, and CALIPSO. The VIIRS instruments on NPP and 

planned for JPSS will have limited capacity for measuring global aerosol distributions, but will not measure the scattering properties that are key to determining the 

aerosol contributions to the Earth’s energy balance. The PACE mission in the FY 

2012 President’s Budget for flight in 2020 will carry an aerosol instrument, hopefully as an international collaboration with CNES. 

NASA currently has no plans to refly a near-identical Glory mission. Owing to its 

use of the spacecraft bus from the cancelled Vegetation Canopy Lidar mission, 

which was designed and built more than a decade ago, it would neither be possible 

nor efficient to build a ‘‘carbon-copy’’ Glory-2 mission today. NASA is, however, continuing to pursue the development and flight of the 14 Earth-observing missions 

identified in the FY 2012 President’s budget request for flight between now and 

2020 as well as the competitively selected Venture-class small satellite missions. 

NASA is assessing whether it would be scientifically valuable to fly a copy of the 

APS instrument in 3–4 years and what mission options are possible to fly such an 

instrument. NASA is currently conducting two studies to address possible options 

for, and the cost/schedule of, rapid development and flight of a copy of the aerosol 

polarimetry instrument. The first study focuses on the scientific justification for flying such an APS given the present state of scientific knowledge and the expected 

availability of supporting on-orbit missions. The second study focuses on the technical/cost/schedule feasibility and implementation of the smallest, lowest-cost mission approach that would meet the science objectives. The results of these studies 

will inform the Agency’s go-forward plan for obtaining data on aerosol composition 

and scattering properties. 

Immediately following the Taurus XL launch failure, NASA established a Mishap 

Investigation Board (MIB) to investigate the unsuccessful launch. On March 9, 

2011, NASA announced the selection of the members of the board. The MIB is 

scheduled to conclude its investigation no later than September 6, 2011. 

Question 2. Please provide an update on efforts to ensure timely and cost-effective 

completion and deployment of the James Webb Space Telescope within the context 

of the FY 2012 Budget Request and out-year projections? If funding offsets are required from within Directorate programs, what other programs or missions will be 

impacted, and with what results? 

Answer. Currently, we are developing a realistic cost and schedule baseline for 

the earliest possible launch date for the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) given 

the FY 2011 and 2012 budget constraints. The funding constraints for this baseline 

scenario are the FY 2011 President’s budget request ($471 million in FY 2011) and 

the FY 2012 President’s budget request ($375 million in FY 2012), plus unconstrained budgets in out years. This effort required a detailed analysis of all the work 

that remains to be done including all hardware components as well as a revised integration and test program. This plan will undergo independent review within the 

Agency and by an outside team of experts to insure adequate budget and schedule. 

The JWST baseline will be completed this summer and its result will be part of the 

FY 2013 budget submission. 

71 

Using these FY 2011 and FY 2012 funding levels, the project has developed a 

near-term schedule and milestones for FY 2011 and FY 2012 that will be used to 

track performance and progress until the new baseline is approved. The JWST 

project continues to meet its FY 2011 technical and programmatic milestones within 

cost and on schedule. 

NASA’s detailed plans for JWST for the balance of FY 2011 are contained in the 

Operating Plan that was submitted to Congress in June. No decisions have been 

made on offsets at this time; these will be addressed in the FY 2013 budget submission. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON TO

WOODROW WHITLOW, JR. 

Question 1. How are you maintaining or planning to maintain critical infrastructure and workforce capabilities that will support the SLS and MPCV development 

efforts? What steps are needed to ensure those supporting elements are not lost in 

the transition from current systems to those follow-on systems? 

Answer. The transition from the Space Shuttle Program (SSP) had been an ongoing process for several years, and required extensive detailed planning for critical 

infrastructure and workforce capabilities requirements. NASA has worked to protect 

critical capabilities which, if allowed to degrade or lost entirely, could have significant impact on the Agency’s ability to support future programs. Through the budget 

formulation process, the NASA Capabilities Forum has provided a mechanism to assess Agency capabilities and identify those that are required to support a variety 

of potential future architectures. 

NASA also recognizes the need to become leaner and more flexible in its deployment of civil service capabilities. Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) is an important element of this strategy. By utilizing civil service talent to begin development 

of future exploration capabilities, AES will strengthen the skills and knowledge of 

our workforce for future human space exploration. 

Question 2. What steps are being taken to ensure supporting infrastructure and 

capabilities are maintained or developed to support commercial crew systems development and facility and program integration, especially with respect to ISS operations and sustaining requirements? 

Answer. Assessments have been made of what will be required for long-term 

International Space Station (ISS) integration, operations, and future crew support 

capabilities for the period during which crew services will be provided by commercial crew contractors. Contractor-specific infrastructure needed to provide the service is assumed to be established and maintained by the contractor under their services costs. This will enable contractors to develop the range of capabilities they need 

to support future non-NASA customers while also serving NASA customers. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BILL NELSON TO

NASA ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATORS

Question 1. Please provide estimated impacts, at each NASA center, for the $298 

million cross agency support reductions in the proposed long term House CR 

(H.R. 1). If these reductions were implemented at the beginning of a Fiscal Year 

rather than 6 months into it, as these are proposed to be, how would these estimates change? 

Answer. The FY 2011 Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 112–10), 

which was enacted on April 15, 2011, funds NASA Cross Agency Support (CAS) at 

the FY 2011 President’s Request level. Prior to passage of P.L. 112–10, NASA leadership stated before Congress that the $298 million reduction to NASA’s CrossAgency budget (coming half-way through the Fiscal Year), proposed by H.R. 1, 

would have an operational impact to the Agency equivalent to the shuttering of two 

small NASA Centers. No NASA Centers were identified for such an action. 

A reduction of $298 million to CAS would have represented more than a 10 percent reduction to the account that funds the management, operations and maintenance of NASA’s nine Centers, component facilities and Headquarters. Additionally, 

CAS funds Agency-wide management functions and conducts safety and reliability 

activities to assure NASA mission success. Further, had this provision been successfully enacted, the reductions would have occurred so late in the operating year that 

they would have resulted in thousands of lay-offs to on-site contractors, with 50 percent of NASA’s mission support contractor workforce at risk. As the reduction was 

not included in enacted legislation, the Agency did not proceed to make specific deVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:03 Aug 22, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75607.TXT JACKIE
72 

terminations for implementing such direction; however, the contractor impact of a 

reduction at that level would equate to over 4,500 layoffs across all of NASA’s Centers. 

If the reductions were implemented at the beginning of the Fiscal Year, the impacts still would be severe. The cuts would result in approximately 2,250 contractor 

layoffs. We still would have difficulty providing the capabilities necessary to support 

our Centers. 

Question 2. How much money has NASA spent since the passage of the NASA 

Authorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111–267) that otherwise would not have been due 

to the prohibition on cancelling Constellation contracts in the FY 2010 Consolidated 

Appropriations Act (P.L. 111–117)? 

Answer. Providing a monetary estimate about how much funding NASA spent 

since the passage of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 that otherwise would not 

have been due to the prohibition on cancelling Constellation contracts in the FY 

2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act is not possible, largely because the Administration has not made final decisions with regard to the design and acquisition plans 

for the new Space Launch System (SLS), as well as support elements for both the 

SLS and the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV). Therefore, NASA cannot specifically say, at this time, which Constellation elements will or will not feed forward 

into the new SLS and MPCV programs, and as such, we cannot accurately estimate 

how much money could have been saved if not for the funding restriction. 

We would like to note, however, that during this time period, NASA was making 

efforts to focus existing Constellation contracts on work that would likely feed forward to the SLS and MPCV programs—a fact that was recognized by the NASA Inspector General in a letter to Congress on February 2, 2011. 

Question 3. What steps is the Space Operations Mission Directorate taking to reduce the time required to develop and fly experiments to the International Space 

Station? 

Answer. The International Space Station (ISS) program has implemented the following steps to reduce the time required for science investigators to develop and fly 

experiments: 

• Utilizing a broad agency announcement, the ISS program has selected qualified 

implementation partners that have experience in the design, development and 

operation of space hardware, thus reducing the science investigators’ need to develop this expertise and technology; 

• ISS provides available on-orbit science hardware, facilities, analysis instruments and tools, reducing the need for science investigators to design, build, 

and certify hardware required to conduct their investigations; 

• ISS provides routine conditioned and unpressurized transportation services to 

and from ISS, dedicated to science cargo, at no cost to the science investigator. 

Once Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) are available, science investigators 

could have up to five flight opportunities per year to ISS, which will minimize 

time impacts due to flight availability; 

• ISS provides dedicated on-orbit resources including crew time, volume, power, 

data, imagery, service gases, and ambient and conditioned storage of samples 

at no cost to the science investigator. Once commercial crew transportation is 

available, ISS plans to increase the USOS crew to 4 (total ISS crew of 7) in 

order to maximize available crew time for research. 

• ISS has stratified the payload hardware verification and certification process so 

that the hardware developers expend the minimum amount of time to ensure 

their hardware is safe and will operate effectively onboard the ISS. 

Question 4. Please provide a list of the aeronautics research at NASA that has 

the potential to reduce fuel consumption and generate savings for the airline industry. 

Answer. NASA’s Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate is committed to research that promotes fuel efficiency and environmental compatibility while increasing or maintaining aircraft safety. Fuel currently represents the largest operating 

cost for U.S. airlines. Many of the aeronautics research activities currently being 

conducted by NASA have the potential, upon adoption, of reducing fuel consumption. 

NASA systems analysis indicates that new operational procedures currently in development within the Airspace Systems Program (ASP) have the potential, if fully 

adopted into the National Airspace System, to reduce fuel burn by 400 million gallons per year during landing and takeoff phases of flight and an additional 200 million gallons per year during the en route cruise phase of flight. These savings corVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:03 Aug 22, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75607.TXT JACKIE
73 

respond to about 3 percent of the annual fuel burned by U.S. commercial airlines. 

ASP is also developing improvements in ground operations that have the potential 

to reduce fuel burn during airport taxi operations by 15 million gallons per year, 

which would result in a reduction of 2 million pounds of CO2 per year of harmful 

emissions in and around our largest airports. Some key areas of research within the 

ASP focus on developing new capabilities to: 

• Demonstrate near term application of Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS–B) enabled technologies to enable fuel and time efficient arrivals 

(new FY11 initiative); 

• Demonstrate near term application of ADS–B enabled technologies to enable efficient surface operations to reduce fuel, noise, and emissions (FY 2012 Presidents budget request); 

• Demonstrate Efficient Descent Advisor (EDA) technologies with the FAA 3D– 

Path Arrival Management (3D–PAM) to enable continuous descent approaches 

in congested airports for reduced fuel consumption and reduced noise level during landing; 

• Demonstrate non-stop taxi surface operations to reduce fuel-consumption due to 

current stop-and-go throttling operations; 

• Optimize efficient arrivals, departures and surface operations through fuel-saving integrated arrival/departure/surface time management, route modification 

and adaptive speed control; 

• Maximize national airspace efficiency with new processes to address demand/ 

capacity imbalances from weather effects and system wide uncertainties to reduce travel time, distance, and delays which inherently reduce fuel consumption 

and emissions; 

• Enable safe, time and fuel efficient, en route flight with varying weather while 

allowing for reduced distance between aircraft to increase air-traffic volumes; 

and, 

• Reduce airborne and ground hold delays through enabling increases to system 

capacity by bringing to bear available resources and capacity to wherever demand is surging. 

The Fundamental Aeronautics Program (FAP) and Integrated Systems Research 

Program (ISRP) conduct complementary research aimed at reducing the fuel burn 

of aircraft. New concepts and technologies undergo early-stage development within 

FAP. Individual technologies which have matured are then evaluated at an aircraft 

system level in relevant environments (including flight test) within ISRP. Within 

these Programs, research is being conducted on technologies that will improve fuel 

efficiency for a variety of aircraft and have a direct effect on overall fuel consumption for the aircraft industry. Specific areas of research include: 

• New aircraft designs and configurations, including rotorcraft and subsonic vehicles, that are more efficient; 

• Lightweight structural components, such as airframes, to reduce subsonic aircraft operating empty weight; 

• Advanced fuel-efficient engine designs; 

• Ways to reduce subsonic aircraft drag, with minimal impact on operating empty 

weight, for total aircraft energy reduction; and, 

• Some advanced structural and propulsion-related material research intended 

primarily for supersonic aircraft applications will also benefit subsonic aircraft 

by helping to reduce vehicle and propulsion system weight thereby reducing fuel 

consumption. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK WARNER TO

NASA ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATORS

The promise of commercial space: 

Question 1. I have always been interested in innovative ways of financing infrastructure, including by leveraging private sector dollars and by helping to harness 

the competitive and entrepreneurial spirit that drives innovation in our private sector. I believe commercial spaceflight has the potential to save NASA a great deal 

of money by offering lower-cost options for missions that NASA currently must pay 

a lot of money for. Can you talk about the potential for savings NASA can achieve 

through partnerships with private-sector entrepreneurs, and describe how NASA 

can foster a business-friendly climate that will further encourage entrepreneurs? 

74 

Answer. Through our current commercial cargo and crew public-private partnership agreements, NASA is fostering an environment that harnesses the competitive 

and entrepreneurial spirit with U.S. emerging as well as established companies to 

develop and demonstrate new space transportation capabilities. With respect to financing infrastructure, we have seen innovative ways partners meet resource and 

infrastructure needs as they develop their space transportation systems. 

By supporting the development of systems and capabilities targeted toward providing commercial services, NASA has enabled providers to determine how best to 

meet the needs of their eventual customers. A combination of NASA seed money, 

facilities and technical expertise along with existing partner infrastructure and innovation has resulted in the beginning of a vibrant new commercial space transportation industry. 

NASA’s commercial cargo development project (COTS) is an excellent example of 

the cost savings that can result from innovative public-private partnerships. This 

cost savings is described in Appendix B of the recently released ‘‘Commercial Market Assessment for Crew and Cargo Systems,’’ which described an analysis performed by NASA showing the dramatic cost savings achieved in the development 

of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle. 

NASA will continue to foster a business-friendly climate by partnering with industry to understand government and industry needs and enabling development of new 

systems and capabilities. The goal is to achieve reliable cost effective solutions that 

become available to NASA, other Government entities, and private sector customers. 

These partnerships hold the potential to open new markets in space, increase high 

technology jobs in the United States, as well as reduce development and operations 

costs compared with traditional NASA program practices. 

Fixed-price and cost-plus contracting: 

Question 2. Can you describe NASA’s position on fixed-price versus cost-plus contracting? As I understand it, one of the exciting features of the Commercial Crew 

Program, a feature that saves money for the taxpayer, is the use of fixed-price 

agreements. Can you describe some of the advantages of fixed-price commercial procurement? 

Answer. NASA’s approach to contract type selection is to match the unique circumstances of the procurement with the appropriate acquisition mechanism. Given 

the nature of NASA’s mission, many of our procurements are for complicated research and development efforts that involve complex requirements where the likelihood of changes makes it difficult to estimate performance costs in advance. Consequently, due to these complex requirements, significant technical risk, and cost 

uncertainty, a cost type contract is appropriate in such cases. Typically, as a program matures the risk shifts and contract types should also shift toward firm-fixed 

price contracts which are more advantageous to the government since they shift a 

substantial portion of the cost risk to the contractor, thus heavily incentivizing the 

contractor to control costs. 

NASA’s Procurement Tenets were published on August 1, 2008. One of the tenets 

is ‘‘Reducing Cost and Cost Risk for Procurements,’’ which states in part that cost 

risk for each requirement must be properly allocated between NASA and industry. 

Commercial item procurements result in fixed-price contracts and thus shift a substantial portion of the cost risk onto the contractor. For example, NASA pursued a 

commercial contracting model for the ISS Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contracts. These competitive, firm-fixed-price, multiple award ID/IQ contracts will provide commercial cargo resupply services to and from the International Space Station. 

The acquisition strategy for the Commercial Crew Program (CCP) has not been 

finalized at this time. Careful consideration is being given to the appropriate acquisition mechanism for this important program and several reviews are scheduled in 

the next two months to address the approach for our procurement strategy. NASA 

is also incorporating lessons learned from CRS and other programs. We recognize 

the advantages of commercial and other types of fixed-price contracts, where appropriate, and will fully consider their use for CCP. 

International Competitiveness on the Launch Market: 

Question 3. As you know, thirty years ago, the United States has a commanding 

lead in the international launch market—we launched a number of payloads for 

other countries. But today, we’ve lost most of our market share to China, India, 

Russia, and Europe. The Commercial Crew Program would invest new resources in 

the commercial spaceflight sector, which would improve America’s competitiveness 

in the global launch market. How do you think NASA could best work with commercial providers, not just to launch people into space, but also to recapture our lead 

in the international launch market? 

75 

Answer. NASA can best work with commercial partners to help recapture our lead 

in the international launch market by partnering with industry to understand Government and industry needs and enabling development of new systems and capabilities with the goal of achieving safe, reliable, and cost effective solutions that are 

available to NASA, other Government entities, and private sector customers. Key 

factors for customers in the launch market are reliability and affordability. 

Question 3a. How essential is the Commercial Crew Program to ensuring the future of the International Space Station? Also, what is the program’s importance to 

how we get Americans into space and to the International Space Station with the 

retirement of the space shuttle? 

Answer. The Commercial Crew Program is essential to ensuring the future of the 

International Space Station (ISS), and NASA plans to facilitate the development of 

a U.S. commercial crew space transportation capability with the goal of achieving 

safe, reliable and cost effective access to and from Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and the 

ISS after the retirement of the Space Shuttle. Once the commercial crew transportation capability is matured and available to customers, NASA plans to purchase 

transportation services to meet its ISS crew rotation and emergency return obligations. The Agency anticipates the availability of these systems by the middle of the 

decade, contingent upon the availability of appropriated funding. 

In the meantime, NASA intends to continue to purchase seats aboard the Russian 

Soyuz spacecraft until demonstrated commercial crew transportation services and 

rescue services are available in order to maintain a U.S. presence on the ISS and 

to satisfy U.S. obligations to its non-Russian ISS partners. Once U.S. commercial 

transportation services become available, NASA plans to purchase 8 commercial 

crew seats per year (4 seats twice a year) in order maximize ISS utilization. The 

Agency plans to have a period of time where crew transportation and rescue services 

provided by Russian and U.S. commercial vehicles overlap to ensure no gap in services. The current exception to the Iran, North Korea and Syria Non-Proliferation Act 

(INKSNA) for extraordinary payments to Russia for the International Space Station 

(ISS) allows the Agency to purchase or barter for Russian seats and other services 

to July 1, 2016. 

It is important that the Agency look to commercial providers to sustain the ISS 

so that NASA can focus its efforts on developing systems designed to carry astronauts on missions of exploration beyond LEO. This will also have the effect of encouraging the development of crew transportation services that could be purchased 

by other users, as well. 

STEM Education and Commercial Space: 

Question 4. As you are well aware, the commercial spaceflight sector has been attracting substantial attention from the media and the public. A few weeks, ago 

there was a major piece in the New York Times with the title ‘‘Space Tourism May 

Mean One Giant Leap for Researchers,’’ talking about how scientists and educators 

can benefit from low-cost commercial spaceflight. What do you see as the ability for 

commercial spaceflight providers to inspire young people to pursue careers in 

science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) careers? As you know, many of 

our young people are captivated by the idea of being able to travel to space. How 

can NASA tap this energy and work with the commercial spaceflight sector to keep 

exciting students? 

Answer. NASA has a rich history of providing exciting opportunities for students 

to pursue payload and flight project opportunities including historically successful 

projects such as the Reduced Gravity Education Flight Program, and more recent 

opportunities such as the High Altitude Student Platform (HASP), BalloonSat High 

ALtitude Flight (BHALF) competition, the University Student Launch Initiative 

(USLI) competition, High Schools United with NASA to Create Hardware (HUNCH) 

and the CubeSat Launch Initiative. 

Per the requirements of the America Competes Reauthorization Act of 2010 (PL 

111–358; Sec 205), NASA will continue to study and assess the potential impacts 

on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education of a program that would facilitate the development of scientific and educational payloads involving United States students and educators and the flights of those payloads on 

commercially available orbital platforms, when available and operational, with the 

goal of providing frequent and regular payload launches. 

The recent NASA-chartered Education Design Team (EDT) report recommended 

that the NASA Education program place increasing emphasis on providing experiential opportunities for students, internships, and scholarships for high school and undergraduate students; and engage strategic partners with common objectives and 

complementary resources. 

76 

NASA has been given Congressional direction to pursue activities through the 

International Space Station (ISS) National Laboratory Education (NLE) project 

which leverage the resources of entities external to NASA, including commercial 

companies, academic institutions, not-for-profit organizations and other U.S. Government agencies. Collaborative educational activities directly partnered with, or in 

conjunction with, the ISS Program International Partner space agencies are included in the expansion of ISS educational activities. 

Under the ISS National Lab and ISS NLE concept, commercial payloads such as 

the Commercial Generic Bioprocessing Apparatus (CGBA) Science Inserts, the Synchronized Position Hold Engage and Reorient Experimental Satellite (SPHERES), 

and Space Dynamically Responding Ultrasonic Matrix System (Space-DRUMS) are 

poised for additional partnering opportunities and expansion of their educational activities. Some of these payloads will expand their educational scope to incorporate 

content applicable in the both the Kindergarten through 12th grades (K–12) as well 

as at the University level. Activities to include international student participation 

as well as students from traditionally underrepresented and underserved institutions will also be emphasized and considered part of an expansion opportunity. 

Commensurate with the NLE goals, the NanoRacks ISS National Lab payload 

(also known as CubeLab), offers flight opportunities for K–12 schools and Universities to conduct experiments of their own design within the NanoRacks facility. The 

NanoRacks hardware is developed by NanoRacks LLC in partnership with Kentucky 

Space, an ambitious non-profit enterprise focused on R&D, educational and small 

entrepreneurial and commercial space solutions involving several Universities in the 

state of Kentucky. 

The Flight Opportunities program, managed by the Office of the Chief Technologist, helps foster the development of the commercial reusable suborbital transportation industry, an important step in the longer-term path that envisions suborbital reusable launch vehicles evolving to provide the Nation with much lowercost, more frequent, and more reliable access to orbital space. The Flight Opportunities program will competitively secure commercial suborbital flight services and extend the opportunity for flights through a competitive process. By reducing the cost 

of suborbital flights, researchers and students will have increased access to testing 

payloads in a reduced gravity environment. The program has already provided contracts to Armadillo Aerospace and Masten Space Systems to provide developmental 

test flights. One of these vendors will provide flights for the Excelsior STEM mission, a commercial unmanned suborbital mission sponsored by Teachers in Space 

and scheduled to fly in 2011. Experiment kits for the Excelsior STEM mission will 

be assembled by teachers at a Suborbital Flight Experiment Workshop to be held 

August 1–5, 2011 at the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center’s AERO Institute in 

Palmdale, California. NASA hopes to make more opportunities available as more 

commercial suborbital flights are scheduled. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN BOOZMAN TO

DOUGLAS R. COOKE

Question. As you know, the 2010 NASA Authorization Act requires NASA to use 

innovative and non-traditional costing, schedule and procurement strategies in formulating its plans for implementation of the required developments of the Space 

Launch System (SLS) and the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV). This was done 

to ensure that NASA could implement and expedite development activities for those 

systems in an affordable and sustainable manner within a limited resources environment. Can you describe what innovative or alternative approaches have been 

considered and planned for implementation in the SLS and MPCV development activities, and how they contribute to the viability, affordability and sustainability of 

those vehicles? 

Answer. Industry discussions with prime and sub-contractors, and review of data 

from the heavy lift Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) study contracts showed that 

large cost reductions can be realized through innovative management approaches 

and contract vehicles that give clear requirements and allow the contractor to find 

and deliver solutions using industry standards and processes Both SLS and MPCV 

are actively challenging the heritage cost structure and redefining the Programs to 

become more entrepreneurial/affordable. For example, the MPCV Program has met 

with the Orion prime and all of its major sub-contractors to discuss cost/schedule 

drivers and common themes for affordability. During those discussions, the team 

identified and adopted many processes and values such as implementing a development strategy that adopts ‘‘learn early and inexpensively’’ principles; right-sizing reporting requirements, streamlining joint decision making processes, employing an 

77 

incremental (metered) development approach including proposed early flight tests; 

streamlined facility approaches for integrated testing, and distributed and protoflight qualification. Another major affordability approach being implemented is a 

change in organizational processes and values to shift the focus more onto adaptability, affordability and speed. This will be accomplished by NASA insight/oversight 

reform—deploying a smaller/flatter organization, streamlined deliverables and decision processes, and adopting vertical integration in key development, management 

and manufacturing areas. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN BOOZMAN TO

WILLIAM GERSTENMAIER

Question 1. ISS research is about to move into full swing. Can you please describe 

how research on the ISS has grown to date and indicate some of the most important 

discoveries which impact human on Earth? 

Answer. The International Space Station (ISS) is now fully assembled, and includes three major international science laboratories: the U.S. Destiny, European 

Columbus, and Japanese Kibo labs. During Expeditions 0–24 (from September 2000 

to October 2010), 1,149 investigations were conducted aboard Station (including 454 

completed investigations, 734 International Partner investigations, and 25 National 

Laboratory pathfinder investigations (NOTE: data as of January 20, 2011). This 

work involved more than 1,600 scientists and has resulted in more than 310 scientific publications (international count ongoing). In FY 2010 alone, astronauts 

aboard ISS conducted over 250 Station-wide research experiments, including 150 

U.S. experiments, supporting the work of over 400 scientists world-wide. 

In addition to conducting research in support of future human missions into deep 

space, astronauts aboard the ISS carry out experiments anticipated to have terrestrial applications: 

• ISS research has shown that bacteria can become more virulent in microgravity 

(i.e., more aggressive in causing disease). In several cases, scientists have successfully identified the genes responsible for this increased virulence and are 

now developing vaccine candidates. AstroGenetix, Inc. has funded their own follow-on studies on ISS and is now preparing to submit Investigational New Drug 

applications to the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of both salmonella-induced food poisoning and methicillin-resistant Staphaureus (MRSA). 

• Microcapsules are tiny micro-balloons used in cancer treatment to deliver anticancer drugs directly to a tumor site. Microcapsules with improved cancer treatment properties developed on the ISS were reproduced on Earth and were successful in targeting delivery of anti-cancer drugs to successfully shrink tumors 

in ground tests. A device to produce similar capsules on Earth has now been 

patented, and clinical trials of the drug delivery method are planned at M.D. 

Anderson Cancer Center and the Mayo Clinic. 

• A Japanese scientist crystallized the HQL–79 protein (human prostaglandin D2 

synthase inhibitor protein) on the ISS, producing an improved structure that 

identified the location of critical hydrogen bonds that were not previously 

known. This allowed drug design for a candidate treatment to inhibit the progression of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Continuing work is looking at other 

proteins and viruses. 

• Numerous plant growth experiments have investigated both the effects of microgravity, as well as the capability for growing regenerable food supplies for crew. 

Technology developed for a greenhouse flown on the ISS is now widely used on 

Earth, killing 98 percent of airborne pathogens (including Anthrax) for food 

preservation, doctors’ offices, homes, and businesses. 

Research into areas such as biotechnology, bioengineering, medicine, and therapeutic treatment will be enabled by the National Laboratory function of the Station. 

NASA has five Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with other U.S. government 

agencies, and nine agreements with non-government organizations to conduct research aboard the ISS. NASA intends to continue to expand the community of National Laboratory users of the ISS. In support of this effort, on February 14, NASA 

released a Cooperative Agreement Notice (CAN) for an independent non-profit organization to manage the multidisciplinary research carried out by NASA’s National 

Laboratory partners. This organization will: (1) act as a single entry point for nonNASA users to interface efficiently with the ISS; (2) assist researchers in developing 

experiments, meeting safety and integration rules, and acting as an ombudsman on 

behalf of researchers; (3) perform outreach to researchers and disseminate the reVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:03 Aug 22, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75607.TXT JACKIE
78 

sults of ISS research activities; and (4) provide easily accessed communication materials with details about laboratory facilities, available research hardware, resource 

constraints, and more. On July 13, NASA selected the Center for the Advancement 

of Science in Space Inc. (CASIS) to develop and manage the U.S. portion of the 

International Space Station that will be operated as a national laboratory. 

Question 2. What steps are being taken to ensure the availability of up mass and 

down mass to private companies or commercial entities to enable and further expand ISS utilization? 

Answer. The ISS has transitioned from the construction era to an operations and 

research era, with a six-person permanent crew, three major science labs, and an 

operational lifetime through at least 2020. The ISS represents a unique research capability, aboard which NASA, other Government agencies, commercial entities, and 

partner nations can conduct a wide variety of research in biology, chemistry, physics 

and engineering fields. NASA anticipates that this research will support future 

human missions into deep space, and have terrestrial applications. 

In order to provide cargo transportation to and from ISS—for the Agency and for 

users of the Station in its capacity as a National Laboratory—NASA will depend 

on U.S. industry to provide commercial resupply services (CRS) following the retirement of the Space Shuttle. On December 23, 2008, NASA awarded CRS contracts 

to Orbital Sciences Corporation (OSC) and SpaceX for the delivery of cargo to the 

ISS after the retirement of the Shuttle. The CRS contractor will provide an endto end service to deliver, and return or dispose of ISS cargo. NASA anticipates that 

both providers will have their systems operational in 2012. 

NASA ordered 12 CRS flights valued at $1.59 billion from SpaceX. 

• SpaceX will provide pressurized and unpressurized upmass and return services. 

• SpaceX currently has currently completed 14 funding milestones for the four 

CRS missions in process. In addition, one more CRS mission may be turned on 

if progress continues. Finally, two milestones in support of COTS demonstration 

cargo have been paid. 

• The first SpaceX CRS flight is currently scheduled for late January 2012, and 

the company is currently slated to fly three CRS missions each Fiscal Year from 

2012 through 2015. 

NASA ordered eight CRS flights valued at $1.88 billion from OSC. 

• OSC will provide pressurized upmass and disposal services. 

• OSC has currently completed 11 funding milestones for three CRS missions. Finally, 2 milestones in support of COTS demonstration cargo have been paid. 

• The first OSC CRS flight is currently scheduled for the end of the first quarter 

of calendar year 2012, and the company is currently slated to fly two CRS missions each Fiscal Year from 2012 through 2015. 

These commercial services are planned to help support U.S. operations and utilization of the ISS to meet NASA mission objectives, NASA obligations for international utilization cargo under the ISS Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs), and 

the needs of other civil and commercial users of the Space Station. Additional proposed funding for cargo to support U.S. National Laboratory users was included in 

the President’s FY 2012 budget request. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN BOOZMAN TO

LELAND D. MELVIN

Question. The Arkansas Space Grant Consortium has participated in NASA’s Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) for 10 years. 

What kind of impacts can they expect from the President’s FY 2012 Budget Request? 

Answer. The President’s budget request for FY 2012 reflects the need to develop 

a balanced education portfolio for the Agency that supports its efforts in higher education, K–12 student and teacher programs, and informal education. 

NASA anticipates offering a competition in FY 2012 for EPSCoR Research Awards 

and plans to continue the opportunity for states to participate in the Research Infrastructure Development component of NASA EPSCoR. Arkansas NASA EPSCoR will 

be eligible to participate in both of those opportunities. 

79 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN BOOZMAN TO

DR. JAIWON SHIN

Question 1. With your essentially flat budget, how are you further increasing investments into new materials, composite structures, and structural analysis tools 

which have been showing benefits to the aviation and aerospace industries? 

Answer. NASA currently conducts research on materials, composite structures, 

and structural analysis within both the Fundamental Aeronautics Program (FAP) 

and the Integrated Systems Research Program (ISRP) within Aeronautics Research. 

New concepts and technologies undergo early-stage development within FAP. Individual technologies which have matured are then evaluated at an aircraft system 

level in relevant environments (including flight test) within ISRP. 

Recognizing and responding to a growing use of new materials and composite 

structures, beginning in FY 2012, NASA will be increasing the investment in new 

materials, composite structures and structural analysis tools. NASA research will 

focus on the development of new Ceramic Matrix Composites (CMC) materials with 

increased temperature capabilities and models to understand them. Additionally, 

composites structural analysis capabilities will be improved and expanded with the 

creation of new tools to support the design of advanced airframes (including those 

that have come from the recent advanced aircraft concepts studies). Examples of improved capabilities will include analysis of multifunctional structures and science 

based analysis of safety factors. Ultimately this may lead to safer and lighter structures with improved damage tolerance characteristics and a reduction in testing 

time. 

In a related area, NASA will also be expanding research into the lightning effects, 

sensors, and related damage on composite materials. Adequate damage models for 

the effects of lightning strikes on composites do not currently exist. Further, existing sensor and mitigation methods are low maturity and/or heavy resulting in 

weight penalties on aircraft. The expanded research activity would accelerate the 

development of standardized test procedures from FY 2013 to FY 2012 and demonstrate multifunctional sensors that protect and diagnose composites to meet FAA 

requirements in FY 2013. At the same time, funding was reduced for lower priorities, including hypersonics. 

Question 2. What other strategic investments are you making? In what areas of 

research or infrastructure and how do you expect these investments to benefits 

NASA and the United States? 

Answer. NASA Aeronautics fully supports the National Aeronautics Research and 

Development Policy and Plan, in which strategic investments by the U.S. government are identified, in order to ensure our technological leadership in the aeronautics enterprise is maintained and strengthened. Investments being made by 

NASA Aeronautics cover areas including mobility through the air in order to best 

support the realization of the Next Generation Air Transportation System 

(NextGen), safety of flight, air vehicle and air traffic operations, energy efficiency, 

and minimizing the effect of aviation on the environment. With regards to infrastructure, we continue to support the ground testing and experimental flight research capabilities of the Agency and the Nation through strategic management of 

assets as wind tunnels, engine test cells, materials and structures laboratories and 

a variety of subsonic and supersonic aircraft. With the FY 2011 appropriation, we 

have started new efforts in several areas, including providing technology-based solutions to ease the integration of unmanned aircraft systems into the national air 

space and in the development of new approaches for verifying and validating the 

proper function and operation of increasingly complex air vehicles and air traffic 

management systems. 

In FY 2012, NASA is focusing its efforts on areas that directly support U.S. strategies for realizing safer and more efficient flight. These include increased research 

into efficient and safe airport surface operations. Technologies will be integrated 

from the current NASA portfolio to further advance greater utilization of Automatic 

Dependent Surveillance—Broadcast (ADS–B) application technologies providing optimization of airport surface movements with precise scheduling to reduce surface 

and en-route traffic delays and enhance safety. Research into high altitude ice crystal effects on aircraft engines will be increased to improve the probability that 

NASA’s capability will support the Federal Aviation Administration’s new rule-making and thus increase aviation safety for the community in a timely manner. Alternative fuels research will be increased to help advance our understanding of the 

emissions characteristics of these new fuels (including biofuels) as their use in aircraft increases, which is a key factor in substantially reducing the impact of aviation 

on the environment—specifically reducing the gaseous and particulate emissions of 

aircraft. Also beginning in FY 2012, NASA will be increasing the investment in new 

80 

materials, composite structures and structural analysis tools. The primary focus of 

this effort will be in the development of new Ceramic Matrix Composites (CMC) materials with increased temperature capabilities and models to understand them Additional research will be conducted into the effects of lightning strikes on composite 

materials. 

This research will accelerate development of standardized test procedures to support development of sensor concepts, advanced models, and protection methods. 

NASA Aeronautics Research has a long history of directly benefiting the Agency, as 

our in-house aeronautical sciences expertise is brought to bear on agency efforts 

ranging from the design of launch vehicle system to the development of materials 

that allow safe atmospheric entry/re-entry of both manned and unmanned capsules 

and science mission landers. More so though, the taxpayer investment through 

NASA in aeronautics research primarily benefits the U.S. economy and the general 

public. The strategic investment that we are making in FY 2012 will ensure that 

the overall benefits to the U.S. economy that are realized through safe and efficient 

flight operations continue to be realized into the future. The ultimate benefit of 

NASA developed knowledge and technologies is realized when U.S. industry develops superior products aided by NASA research results and collaboration with NASA 

in a fiercely competitive global market, which will not only maintain but advance 

U.S. aviation industry’s pre-eminence in an increasingly global enterprise. 

NASA ADMINISTRATOR SELECTS ORION-BASED DESIGN

FOR MPCV DEVELOPMENT PHASE

NASA has reached an important milestone in defining the next transportation 

system that will carry humans into deep space in accordance with the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, the FY 2011 Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act and 

Administration policy. While NASA is down-selecting and further focusing options 

for developing the heavy-lift Space Launch System (SLS) within the Agency, NASA 

has reached an important milestone with regard to our path forward on the MultiPurpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV). After careful analysis and very thoughtful deliberations by a senior management team, Administrator Bolden has decided to accept the 

Orion-based reference vehicle design, first outlined in NASA’s January 2011 report 

to Congress, as the Agency’s MPCV. 

As part of his decision process, the Administrator determined that the Orion Crew 

Exploration Vehicle was already being built to meet the requirements of a deepspace vehicle—the current design is sound, and testing has proven the vehicle to 

be the best option for this phase of exploration efforts beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO). 

Additionally, the Administrator determined that the Agency’s current Orion contractual partnership with Lockheed Martin Corporation maps well to the scope of the 

MPCV requirements outlined in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 and, therefore, 

the current contract will be used at least for the development phase of the MPCV. 

Moving forward, work on the MPCV will focus only on the deep-space design. 

While the MPCV could be called upon to service the International Space Station 

(ISS)—a backup requirement established by the NASA Authorization Act of 2010— 

it should be well understood that utilizing the MPCV would be a very inefficient 

and costly use of the MPCV deep-space capability. NASA is confident in the ability 

of our commercial partners to provide all currently foreseen support for the ISS. 

Therefore, there is no intention to conduct routine LEO missions with the MPCV. 

It is important to point out that the Administrator’s decision regarding MPCV 

does not reflect a ‘‘business as usual’’ mentality for the Agency. Over the last year, 

the NASA/Lockheed Martin team has shown exceptional creativity in finding ways 

to keep costs down by implementing new management techniques, technical solutions and innovation within the Orion Project. Examples include implementation of 

a new oversight model to ensure the most efficient use of NASA and contractor 

workforce and applying technology such as composite materials, friction stir welding 

and advanced avionics networks to enhance performance as well as affordability 

. . . and that’s just the beginning. These innovations have allowed the Orion team 

to continue technical progress within reduced budget estimates. 

In the coming weeks, NASA will be making further decisions with regard to transportation architecture. In the meantime, NASA is refining the SLS concept and defining strategy alternatives based on detailed Government analysis and completed 

input from industry through Broad Agency Announcement study contracts. Additionally, the MPCV team is focusing on further development of the Ground Test Article, other development design and analysis, as well as coming up with an integrated MPCV/SLS plan that will be affordable, sustainable and realistic. Due diliVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:03 Aug 22, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75607.TXT JACKIE
81 

gence will ensure the best value for the taxpayer with respect to cost, risk, schedule, 

performance and impacts to critical NASA and industrial skills and capabilities. 

Further details about NASA’s analysis and decisions regarding SLS and MPCV 

and their path forward will be provided to Congress in a follow-on report in the late 

spring/summer timeframe. But even when that report is submitted to Congress, 

work will remain ahead for the Agency, particularly as we finalize development 

plans and acquisition decisions per normal Agency processes—decisions that must 

remain consistent with NASA’s Strategic Plan and Agency commitments. For example, NASA will need to hold a Procurement Strategy Meeting to approve the specific 

details for each individual procurement action. 

In conclusion, NASA remains committed to meeting the goals and requirements 

of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, and we look forward to working with Members of Congress as we finalize our plans for achieving human spaceflight exploration of multiple destinations in our solar system. 

Æ