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

73–126PDF 2012

AN OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS 

AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION BUDGET 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2012 

Serial No. 112–68 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

VACANCY 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Wednesday, March 7, 2012 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Chairman, Committee on 

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

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

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 18 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 21 

Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry Costello, Ranking Minority 

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

Representatives, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics ............................. 23 

Witnesses: 

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

Administration 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 28 

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

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 48 

Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

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

Administration .....................................................................................................

Name ......................................................................................................................... 77 

Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record 

Additional Material Submitted by Hon. Charles F. Bolden, Jr., as Requested 

During Hearing .................................................................................................... 108 

Letter to Chairman Ralph M. Hall from Charlene M. Anderson, Associate 

Director, the Planetary Society ........................................................................... 112 

Additional Information ............................................................................................ 115 

(1) 

AN OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 3:08 p.m., in Room 2318 

of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ralph M. Hall [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 
2 

RALPH M. HALL, TE)(Jl.S 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, TEXAS 

RANKING MEMBER 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

2321 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6301 

(202) 225-6371 

www.science.house.gov 

An Overview of the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration Budgetfor Fiscal Year 2013 

Wednesday, March 7, 2012 

2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

The Honorable Charles F. Bolden Jr., Administrator National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 
3 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

An Overview of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Budget for 

Fiscal Year 2013 

Wednesday, March 7, 2012 

2:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

The purpose of the hearing is to review the Administration's FY 2013 budget request for the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration and examine its priorities and challenges. 

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

Administration 

Background 

NASA is our nation's civil aeronautics and aerospace research and development agency. 

Created by COnh'feSS in 1958 in response to the Soviet Union's successful launch of Sputnik, 

NASA was formed by evolving and expanding the mission of the National Advisory Committee 

on Aeronautics, which was established in 1915. NASA's achievements are well known and 

unmatched: successfully launching six manned missions to the moon; launching a series of space 

telescopes including Hubble; launching satellites to orbit or fly-by every planet in the solar 

system (Pluto is no longer considered a planet, but a NASA mission - New Horizons - is 

scheduled to fly-by in 2014); orbiting satellites around Earth that measure our atmosphere, 

oceans, and topography; building and operating (in conjunction with the Russians) the 

International Space Station; and conducting leading-edge aeronautics research. 

NASA's name is instantly recognized throughout the world and is considered a source of 

inspiration for people of all nationalities. It leads the world community in new discoveries, 

advancing our understanding of Earth, the solar system, and universe. 

In addition to its headquarters, the agency operates nine research facilities 

• Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 

• Kennedy Space Center, Merritt Island, FL 

• Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 

• Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, OH 

• Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX 

• Ames Research Center, Mountain View, CA 

• Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards Air Force Base, CA 

1 
4 
5 

For FY2013 NASA is requesting $17.711 billion, a decrease of$58 million from its FY2012 

appropriation. The request is $750 million less tban amounts received in FY2011; and is about 

$1 billion less than amounts received in FY2009 and FY201O. 

For each of the Fiscal Years 2014 - 2017, the budget topline request is the same as FY2013, 

though the agency considers the out year numbers to be 'notional.' 

There are three initiatives in this year's request that are drawing the most attention: (I) cuts to 

the Planetary Sciences budget and withdrawing from the European Space Agency's planned 

2016 and 2018 Mars missions; (2) requesting substantially higher amounts for commercial crew 

(compared to current year's funding) while constraining agency investment in a heavy-lift launch 

system; and (3) combining hypersonic and supersonic research into a single project to focus on 

fundamcntal research for high-speed flight. More on these initiatives will be discussed later in 

this charter. 

The graph highlights 

the continuing 

decreases in funding 

proposed - and 

received - by NASA 

since 2009. 

Science Mission Directorate 

22 

21 

20 

18 

17 

16 

Science Mission Directorate TOTAL 

Earth Science 

Planetary Science 

Mars Program 

AstrophYSics 

James Webb Space Telescope 

He!iophY5iC5 

IS = millions) 

NASA Funding Profile 

FYll Req 

~/ 

~~ ;fY12ReQ 

~ It 

~ -FYlO 

Actual 

l\ FY13 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 20166 2017 

FYll FY12 FY13 FY13 Req vs. FY12 Est. 

Actual Estimate Request $$$ %%% 

$4,919.7 $5,013.7 $4,911.2 -$162.5 -3.2% 

1,721.9 1,760.5 1,784.8 24.3 1.4% 

1,450.8 1,501.4 1.192.3 -309.1 -20.6% 

547.4 5870 S60.8 -226.2 ·385% 

631.1 672.7 659.4 -13.3 -2.0% 

476.8 518.6 627.6 109.0 21.0% 

639.2 620.5 647.0 26.5 4.3% 

3 
6 

Earth science. The Earth Science division at NASA advances the state of Earth System science 

through climate studies, spaceborne data acquisition, research and analysis, and predictive 

modeling. Spaceborne and airborne instruments are utilized to measure the Earth's atmosphere, 

oceans, sea ice, land surfaces and the interaction of these elements in the ecosystem. There are 

currently 16 missions in operation, including two new missions launched in 20 II - Aquarius and 

the Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (Suomi NPP). The remaining 14 missions are all 

in extended operations, with many well beyond their designed lifetimes. 

The budget request for FY2013 of$1.78 billion reflects a modest increase of$24.3 million over 

the FY2012 estimate. This increase is reflected in expected higher costs for launch vehicles for 

the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 and the Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) spacecraft. 

This budget delays the launch readiness date of the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) 

mission but continues formulation and development of the recommended decadal survey 

missions including the Earth Venture instrument demonstrations. 

Planetary science. The goal of NASA's planetary science program is to ascertain thc contcnt, 

origin, and evolution ofthe solar system and the potential for life elsewhere. Within this 

framework, NASA has embarked on a program strategy of flyby, orbit, land, and rove. In 2011 

alone, missions to Jupiter (JUNO), Mars (Mars Seience Laboratory MSL), and the moon 

(GRAIL) were launched. While GRAIL is already at its destination, MSL will arrive at Mars in 

August 2012 and JUNO is expected to arrive at Jupiter in July 2017. Additionally, spacecraft are 

currently operating in orbit around the moon, Mercury, Mars, Saturn, and the asteroid Vesta; the 

rover Opportunity is operating on the surface of Mars; and New Horizons is 2/3rds of its way to 

Pluto. 

The budget request for NASA's planetary science program is $1.19 billion for FY2013, a 

decrease of$309 million (20.6 percent) from the FY2012 estimate of$1.5 billion. The Mars 

Exploration Program sees the bulk of this decrease, going from $587 million in FY2012 to 

$360.8 million in FY2013. The proposed budget effectively ends the planned joint NASA -

European Space Agency (ESA) 2016 and 2018 Mars missions and calls into question the future 

of the Outer Planets program. 

NASA recently stood up a Mars Program Planning Group (MPPG) to develop a revised and 

more affordable Mars Exploration program with the goal of delivering an initial framework to 

Congress in March 2012. However, a full proposal is not due until late summer 2012. This latest 

re-plan effort eomes to the dismay of the planetary science - and particularly the Mars sciencecommunity. The most recent decadal survey (delivered last year) for planetary science 

recommended a Mars sample return mission as its top priority and indicated that any flagship 

mission that would not lead to a Mars sample return should be shelved for other high priority 

missions, such as a mission to Jupiter's moon Europa. While the report acknowledged the 

necessity of scaling flagship missions appropriately to anticipated funding and recommended descoping such missions to achieve the science objectives less expensively, the report did not 

suggest abandoning flagship missions altogether as this budget proposes. 

Astrophysics. The goal of NASA's Astrophysics program is to discover how the universe works, 

how it began and developed into its present form, and search for Earth-like planets. Among the 

highly-visible successes for the program in 2011 was the Nobcl Prize in Physics awarded to 

4 
7 

NASA Astrophysicist Adam Reiss using data he derived from the Hubble Space Telescope, and 

the Kepler spacecraft which has been instrumental in the discovery ofthousands of possible 

exoplanets including the first such rocky exoplanet within a habitable zone of its parent star. 

The Astrophysics Division currently operates II spacecraft, including the Hubble Spacc 

Telescope and Kepler. The Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR) is currently 

scheduled to launch on March 21, 2012. 

The budget request for Astrophysics was $659.4 million, a decrease of$13.3 million compared 

to the FY2012 estimate. The budget does not provide for the Wide Field Infrared Survey 

Telescope (WFIRST) which was named the top priority mission identified by the New Worlds, 

New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics decadal survey for 2011-2021. 

James Webb Space Telescope. Beginning in FY20l2, the James Webb Space Telescope 

(JWST) was taken out from under the Astrophysics division and was given its own budget line. 

After an extensive re-planning effort, NASA re-baselined JWST to a total life cycle cost of$8.8 

billion and a launch readiness date of October 2018. Based on this effort, the funding profile for 

FY2013 and beyond increased significantly, with the bulk of the increases in the early years of 

the re-plan. As such, JWST received a request for FY2013 of$627.6 million, an increase of 

$109 million over the FY2012 estimate. 

Heliophysics. NASA's Heliophysies program focuses on understanding the Sun and its 

interactions with the Earth and the solar system. This research is achieved through a suite of 

missions ranging from spacecraft in Earth's orbit, those stationed at LaGrangian points and 

around the Sun itself, to suborbital sounding rockets. Taking full advantage of a system-wide 

observational capability enables heliophysics research that looks at the entire space environment. 

The Heliophysics division currently operates 16 missions including Voyager, which launched in 

1977, the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) and the Solar Terrestrial Relations 

Observatory (STEREO). The Radiation Belt Storm Probes (RBSP) is scheduled to launch in 

September 2012. 

The budget request for FY2013 is $647 million, an increase of$26.5 million. This budget 

reflects an increased cost for launch vchicles and a modest investment in Sounding Rocket 

Sustainer Motor design activity. The proposed budget continues investments in the joint NASAEuropean Space Agency (ESA) Solar Orbiter Collaboration mission targeting launch in January 

2017 and the Solar Probe Plus mission targeting launch in July 2018. 

5 
8 

Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate 

FYll FY12 FY13 FY13 Req vs. FY12 Est. 

Actual Estimate Request SS$ %%% 

Aeronautics Mission Research TOTAL $533.5 $569.4 $551.5 -$17.9 -3.1% 

Av:a::cn Sa;e,:'/ 67.3 80.1 81.1 1.0 1.2% 

A"'5pace 5' .... 5~err$ 87.2 92.7 93.3 0.6 0.6% 

=lmda('r'en:ai Ae'cnall:;C5 206.3 186.3 168.7 -17.6 -9.4% 

Ae~cnaLl::C5 ies: 76.4 79.4 78.1 -1.3 -1.6% 

n,:e~#a:ecl Sys:errs =lesea"ch 75.9 104.2 104.0 -0.2 -0.2% 

Ae"c S:"a:egv &. \1anagef'ren: 20.4 26.7 26.4 -0,3 -1.1% 

(5 =n<:; ens] 

NASA's aeronautics programs are conducted by the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate 

(ARMD) and focus on long-term investments in fundamental aeronautics research to improvc 

aviation safety, efficiency and air traffic management. The ARMD includes four NASA centers: 

Ames Research Center (CA), Dryden Flight Research Center (CA), Glenn Research Center (OH) 

and Langley Research Center (V A). 

The ARMD FYI3 budget request represents a 3.1 % decrease in funding from the previous year, 

dropping from $569.4M in FY2012 to $551.5M in FY2013. Major programmatic changes this 

year include combining funding for hypersonic research with supersonic research and 

transferring "entry, descent and landing" (EDL) research to the Space Technology account. The 

transfer ofEDL research accounts for a significant amount ofthe ARMD funding reduction in 

FY13. 

The ARMD program areas include; 

• Aviation Safety develops technologies to improve aviation system-wide safety, 

advances the state-of-the-art of aircraft systems and flight crew operations, and addresses 

the inherent presence of atmospheric risks to aviation. 

• Airspace Systems - devclops and explores fundamental concepts and technologies to 

increase throughput of the National Airspace System and achieve high resource 

efficiency, and transitions key technologies from thc laboratory to the field. 

• Fundamental Aeronautics conducts fundamental research to improve aircraft performance 

and minimize environmental impacts, research for low boom supersonic aircraft, and improving 

the effectiveness of rotary wing vehicles. 

• Aeronautics Test Program - manages NASA's aeronautics test capabilities in 

partnership with the Department of Defense. 

• Integrated Systems Research Program - conducts integrated system-level research to 

accelerate transitioning into major aircraft and operations systems. 

6 
9 

• Aeronautics Strategy and Management - identifies new innovative aviation concepts 

through "seedling funds" that provide research and analysis of early stage concepts. Also 

funds ARMD's institutional expenses, as wcll as NASA's portion ofthc Joint Planning 

and Development Office (a program within NextGen) costs. 

Over the last decade, the budget for ARMD has shrunk from a peak of approximately $1 B to just 

$551.5M in the FY2013 request and remains flat in the budget run out over the next 5 years. 

Significant reductions in ARMD infrastructure and personnel have reduced necessary funding 

levels but a key question remains as to the impact on its mission areas. 

Human Exploration and Operations 

Exploration TOTAL 

Elp'o'a::cn S,/S:€r'Y'S Jeve; 

(C(Y'ri'€'c:a: Space!: :gh: 

(S=rr',:'cn.sl 

Exploration Systems Development 

FYll FYl2 

Actual Estimate 

$3,821.2 $3,712.8 

2,982,1 3,C07.: 

6068 ~C6 C 

232.3 2997 

FY13 FY13 Req vs. FY12 Est. 

Request $$$ %%% 

$3,932.8 $220.0 5.9% 

2.769,4 ·5237.7 ·79'., 

829.7 S":'23.7 lO~ .,::,,; 

333.7 $: ... 0 : ::'.3:~ 

Exploration Systems Development is responsible for designing and building three systems that 

will form the centerpiece of America's future space exploration beyond Earth's orbit; the Space 

Launch System heavy lift rocket, the Orion Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle, and the associated 

Exploration Ground Systems necessary to prepare the systems for launch. Collectively, they will 

enable long-term human exploration of the Moon, asteroids, or other destinations in the Solar 

System such as Mars. In addition, the NASA Authorization Act of2010 directed NASA to 

develop these systems as a backup capability to reach low Earth orbit to service the International 

Space Station if commercial or Russian systems are unavailable. NASA is planning for an initial 

test launch of the SLS and Orion in 2017. 

The president's FY2013 request for Exploration Systems Development is $2.77 billion, a 

decrease of$237.7 million (7.9 percent reduction) from the FY2012 estimate. The Orion Multi 

Purpose Crew vehicle sees the largest decrease, going from $1.2 billion in FY20 12 to $1.02 

billion in FY2013 (14.6 percent reduction). The request also cuts the Space Launch System 

budget from $1.8 billion in FY2012 to $1.74 billion in FY2013 (3.5 percent reduction). The 

request increases the Exploration Ground Systems budget from $304 million in FY2012 to $404 

million in FY2013, a $100 million addition (32.8 percent). 

Commercial Spaceflight 

Similar to the approach used by NASA since 2006 to develop dual launch systems for 

commercial cargo delivery to the ISS using two separate programs to fund the effort (the 

Commercial Orbital Transportation Services and Cargo Resupply Services programs), NASA 

plans to fund development of a commercial crew capability using two separate budget accounts. 

NASA's Exploration account funds the partial development of commercial crew systems with 

industry partners contributing varying amounts of their own money, while the Space Operations 

7 
10 

account (which will be discussed later) will be used to procure transportation services on a fixed 

price basis. 

NASA's Commercial Crew program is working with commercial partners to develop the systems 

necessary to safely transport astronauts to and from the ISS in the 2017 timeframe. NASA has 

funded space act agreements with various commercial partners and plans to make additional 

awards this summer for further commercial crew systems development. 

The president's FY2013 request for commercial crew is $830 million, an increase of $424 

million, or 104 percent above the FY2012 estimate. 

Exploration Research and Development 

NASA's Exploration Research and Development proh'Tam funds the development of new 

technologies needed to enable extended human space exploration. The program is comprised of 

two parts. The first is the Human Research Program which in 2011 flew 11 major medical 

experiments and added new ISS biomedical capabilities like second generation ultrasound for 

medical imaging, and the jointly developed ESAINASA muscle atrophy research and exercise 

system. The second is the Advanced Exploration Systems program which began in 2012 and 

continues several of the Exploration Technology Development and Demonstration projects such 

as portable life support systems for advanced space suits and a radiation assessment detector for 

the Mars Science Lab. 

The president's FY2013 request for Exploration Research and Development is $334 million, an 

increase of$34 million (11.3 percent) above the FY2012 estimate of$299.7 million. 

Space Operations 

Space Operatiom TOTAL 

Space Shu:::€-

n:E'na:'cna: Sr.;ace S:a:;on 

SpacE Eo: :';gh: Suppc~: 

(S=rr "ens1 

Space Shuttle 

FYll 

Actual 

$5,146.3 

:,592.9 

2,713.6 

839_8 

JA2.S 

~56 7 

FY12 

Estimate 

$4,187.0 

556.2 

2,8299 

8009 

123.5 

4";5_5 

FY13 FY13 Req vs, FY12 Est 

Request $$$ %%% 

$4,013.2 -$l73.S -4.2% 

70.6 ·":35.6 -87 3=: 

3,007.6 177.7 6 3:': 

935.0 13~.1 16.7' , 

":1.1 -52.4 -66 7."i 

655.6 210.1 47_2~( 

In July 2011, the Space Shuttle flew its final mission following the completion and re-supply of 

the ISS. In FY2012 and FY2013 the Space Shuttle program undergoes final transition, 

retirement, and disposition of program assets, and will focus on identifying assets that can be 

transferred to future exploration programs and dispositioning property no longer needed. This 

includes the processing and delivery in FY2012 of the Space Shuttle orbiters for museum 

displays. 

8 
11 

The president's FY2013 request is $70.6 million, a decrease of$485.6 million or 87.3 percent 

from the FY2012 estimate. The FY2012 estimate included a one-time payment of$470 million 

for pension requirements related to the close out of the program that are not included in FY2013. 

International Space Station 

The ISS is now a functional, permanently erewed research laboratory and technology tcst bed for 

exploration and international cooperation, as well as a National Laboratory for non-NASA and 

potential non-governmental users. The NASA Authorization Act of20 I 0 directs NASA to take 

actions "necessary to ensure the safe and effective operation, maintenance and maximum 

utilization of the u.s. segment of ISS through at least September 30,2020." Now that assembly 

is complete, NASA faces a critical window for ISS utilization and research before a notional 

program end date of2020. The Administration's request provides for continuous operations and 

maintenance to ensure the ISS remains viable as a National Lab through 2020. As noted earlier, 

funding to procure commercial crew or cargo transportation is in the ISS Crew and Cargo 

Transportation program within the ISS budget. 

The president's FY2013 budget request for the International Space Station is $3.0 billion, an 

increase of $178 million, or 6.3 percent above the FY2012 estimate of $2.83 billion. 

Space and Flight Support 

Space and Flight Support is made up of a number of programs providing capabilities that play 

critical roles in several NASA missions. For example, the 21 st Century Space Launch Complex 

program funds modernization at the Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Air Force 

Station to benefit multiple users. The Space Communications and Navigation program operates 

NASA's extensive network of ground-based and orbiting communications hardware and 

software necessary to receive vast quantities of data generated by NASA's fleet of crewed 

vehicles and robotic spacecraft. The Human Space Flight Operations (HSFO) program ensures 

that NASA's astronauts are prepared to safely carry out current and future missions. The Launch 

Support Program funds various NASA missions that require expendable launch vehicle services. 

The Rocket PropUlsion Test program maintains NASA's wide variety of test facilities for use by 

NASA, other agencies, and commercial partners. Together these efforts comprise the Space and 

Flight Support se!,'l11ent of NASA's budget. 

The president's FY2013 budget request for Space and Flight Support is $935 million, an increase 

of$134 million (16.7 percent) above the FY2012 estimate of$801 million. 

9 
12 

Education 

FYll FY12 FY13 FY13 Req vs. FY12 Est. 

Actual Estimate Request $SS %%% 

Education TOTAL 

Aeros:Jace Research and Career Deve 

Space G~an: 

EP5Co:{." 

STE:'1 Education & Accountability 

\hno"'';,/ ljn'v. =!esea~ch Educ P~Dg 

S"':"E\l Ecluc. e •. Acccun:abi l ;:'/ P"ojec:s 

(5=« 'en:;! 

145.4 

70.4 

45.;; 

2~.9 

75.0 

255 

46.5 

~E:.!>='" ri'en:a· ;>"o~"a(r:o S:" rrLl is:e Corrpe:::;'.'e =:esea"ch 

136.2 

56.2 

35.9 

17.3 

80.0 

30.0 

500 

100.0 ·36.2 ·26.6% 

33.0 ·23.2 -41,3% 

2-+.0 -j"; 9 -35.:;~.:-

9.0 -5.;; -<45.0;"; 

67.0 ·13.0 '16.3% 

30.0 00 OO(~ 

37.0 -13.0 -26.0,~~ 

The President's FY 2013 request for NASA's Education program is $100M, a $36.1M dccrease 

(26 percent) from the FY12 estimated budget of$136.1M. The proposed budget run out for five 

years is flat at $100M. The FY13 request includes: 

• Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education and 

Accountability 

o $37M for STEM Education and Accountability projects; 

o $30M for the Minority University Research and Education Program (MUREP); 

• Aerospace Research and Career Development 

o $24M for the National Space Grant College and Fellowship Program (Space 

Grant); and 

o $9M for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research 

(EPSCoR). 

The budget request aligns the projects within the priorities of the OSTP STEM Committee fiveyear strategic plan. The Office of Education proposes to allocate 63 percent of its funding in 

support of Space Grant, EPSCoR, and MUREP with the remaining funds supporting education 

efforts at NASA Centers and grantees. 

The STEM Education and Accountability program was established as a new programmatic 

structure in FY2012. The program provides funding for NASA-unique STEM education 

opportunities, including internships, launch initiatives, and grants, and provides students and 

educators with NASA's STEM content. The program also supports a competitive process for 

science museums, NASA centers and planetariums to enhance education and outreach activities 

related to space exploration, aeronautics and space science. The STEM Education and 

Accountability prol,'f31TI budget has been decreased by 16.3 percent in the FY2013 request. 

MUREP supports multi-year research grants at Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 

Hispanic Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges. Additionally, MUREP funds scholarships, 

internships, and mentoring for K-12 students. The MUREP budget remains flat at $30M in the 

FY2013 request. 

10 
13 

Space Grant supports undergraduate and graduate students with scholarships, internships and 

research challenges through a national network of 52 consortia representing over 1,000 

universities, colleges, and state and local agencies in 50 states, the District of Columbia and 

Puerto Rico. In FYII, Space Grant programs reached over 21,000 higher education participants. 

For FY2013 the request proposes reducing the Space Grant budget from $38.9M (FY20I2) to 

$24.0 M (38.3 percent). 

EPSCoR develops academic research projects to establish competitive activities in states with 

modest research infrastructure in an effort to make the organization more competitive in 

attracting non-EPSCoR funding for research. EPSCoR funds states and regions that do not 

traditionally compete for Federal aerospace-related research activities. The EPSCoR budget has 

been decreased by 48 percent in the FYI3 President's request. 

11 
14 

Chairman HALL. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will come to order. I say good afternoon to you and welcome 

to today’s hearing entitled, ‘‘An Overview of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Budget for the Fiscal Year 

2013.’’ In front of you are packets containing the written testimony, 

biography, and truth in testimony disclosure for today’s witness, 

the Administrator of National Aeronautics and Space Administration, our friend, Charles F. Bolden. 

I recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

Mr. Bolden, I want to thank you, as always, for taking time from 

your very busy schedule and appear before our Committee. I understand you were with the Senate all morning, so you must be real 

warmed up and ready to go here for us. I realize a lot of work and 

effort goes into these appearances and takes time and takes your 

time, and we appreciate it. And I also understand that this makes 

this a very long day for you, you and your staff. And I thank you 

again. 

We are here today to discuss the President’s 2013 budget for 

NASA. The proposal essentially comes in at the same spending levels as of this fiscal year, although when taking into account inflationary effects, the agency’s purchasing power is slightly diminished. But given the tough fiscal times we are in, I think the agency’s top-line request is reasonable. 

NASA’s human spaceflight activities accounts for about 45 percent of the agency’s budget, supporting the International Space 

Station, development of a new heavy-lift launch system, and development of commercial crew and cargo capabilities. I continue to be 

deeply concerned that the Commercial Cargo Program’s schedule 

keeps slipping to the right. All of us understand how important 

commercial cargo is to our International Space Station, and it is 

my sincere hope that both SpaceX and Orbital will complete successful demonstration flights later this spring, to be continued. 

Commercial crew gives me greater pause, however. I have yet to 

be convinced that a viable commercial market is going to emerge 

for human orbital missions other than NASA-funded ferry flights 

to and from the Station. Yet NASA continues to subscribe to the 

theory that there is a sufficient market to sustain at least two commercial crew launch systems and is putting large sums of tax dollars at risk to pursue this strategy. I hope my misgivings are 

wrong, but based on what I have seen to date, I am not optimistic. 

I am also troubled by NASA’s inability to impose crew safety requirements on participants in the upcoming round of the Commercial Crew Development Program. The third phase, which will kick 

off this summer, funds participants under Space Act Agreements to 

design fully integrated launch systems. While I understand that 

companies have every incentive to comply with NASA’s safety 

standards, it is my strong conviction that at this stage of design, 

there should be no discretion about safety. NASA should have unfettered insight of the systems before companies begin actual production. 

Lastly, with regard to the Human Spaceflight Program, I continue to be frustrated that the Space Launch System and Orion 

crew capsule are not being developed quickly enough. Current 

plans indicate they won’t be operational until 2021, which conceiv-
15 

ably comes after the International Space Station is retired. SLS 

and Orion deserve higher priority. Should the Russians or commercial providers suffer any disruptions, we will have no means of getting our crews to or from the International Space Station. 

Turning now to NASA’s science portfolio, I am generally pleased 

with the budget request but do have issues with two related programs; NASA’s decision to withdraw from the 2016 and 2018 

ExoMars Mission with the European Space Agency and the proposed reduction to the Planetary Sciences budget. 

For the last several years, both Congress and NASA have repeatedly expressed the desire to more fully collaborate with international partners to help defray the costs of future flagship missions. There is a growing acknowledgement from many quarters 

that NASA simply can’t afford to go it alone, and if we are to pursue ambitious missions that promise to do exciting science, NASA 

needs to engage and work with other nations to share in the burden of funding, building, and operating these very complex projects. 

The ExoMars missions are of high importance and visibility to 

the Europeans and NASA, seemingly in good faith, agreed in 2009 

to join forces with the European Space Agency. But with the unveiling of the 2013 budget, NASA has reneged on its commitment, 

forcing the Europeans to search for other partners if they hope to 

keep ExoMars alive. 

There is no doubt in my mind that NASA’s decision to withdraw 

from ExoMars seriously imperils the ability of ESA to keep moving 

forward with this program. It also imperils NASA’s ability to be 

viewed as a trustworthy partner on any future collaborations. 

The decision likewise flies in the face of the latest planetary 

decadal survey which named Mars sample return as its top priority. It ignores the wisdom of our own community of scientists 

who labored hard to put together a well-reasoned roadmap. 

Speaking now about Planetary Sciences, as well as Mars, I am 

puzzled that NASA would choose to cut one of its most productive 

and successful Science Programs in this era of tough choices. Typically good behavior is rewarded but in this instance it appears that 

NASA’s successes at Mars, Saturn, and Mercury have garnered the 

opposite reaction. 

Mr. Administrator, I trust you will take these concerns in the 

sober spirit in which they were delivered and convey them to the 

White House. We want NASA to succeed in all its endeavors, but 

we seem to disagree on how best to achieve that goal. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:] 
16 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RALPH M. HALL

Mr. Bolden, I want to thank you, as always, for taking time from your busy schedule to appear 

before our committee. I realize a lot of work and effort goes into these appearances, and I also 

understand you testified this morning before the Senate Commerce Committee, making this an 

especially long day for you and your staff. 

We're here today to discuss the President's 2013 budget request for NASA. The proposal 

essentially comes in at the same spending level as this fiscal year, although when taking into 

account inflationary effects, the agency's purchasing power is slightly diminished. But given the 

tough fiscal times we are in, I think the agency's top-line request is reasonable. 

NASA's human spaceflight activities account for about 45 percent of the agency's budget, 

supporting the International Space Station, development of a new heavy-lift launch system, and 

development of commercial crew and cargo capabilities. I continue to be deeply concerned that 

the commercial cargo program's schedule keeps slipping to the right. All of us understand how 

important commercial cargo is to our International Space Station, and it is my sincere hope that 

both SpaceX and Orbital will complete successful demonstration flights later this spring. 

Commercial crew gives me greater pause, however. I have yet to be convinced that a viable 

commercial market will emerge for human orbital missions other than NASA-funded ferry 

flights to and from ISS. Yet NASA continues to subscribe to the theory that there is a sufficient 

market to sustain at least two commercial crew launch systems, and is putting large sums of tax 

dollars at risk to pursue this strategy. I hope my misgivings are wrong, but based on what I've 

seen to date, I'm not optimistic. 

I am also troubled by NASA's inability to impose crew safety requirements on participants in the 

upcoming round of the Commercial Crew Development program. The third phase, which will 

kick off this sununer, funds participants under Space Act agreements to design fully integrated 

launch systems. While I understand that companies have every incentive to comply with 

NASA's safety standards, it is my strong conviction that at this stage of design, there should be 

no discretion about safety. NASA should have unfettered insight of the systems before 

companies begin actual production. 

Lastly, with regard to the human spaceflight program, I continue to be frustrated that the Space 

Launch System and Orion crew capsule are not being developed quickly enough. Current plans 

indicate they won't be operational until 2021, which conceivably comes after the ISS is retired. 
17 

SLS and Orion deserve higher priority. Should the Russians or commercial providers suffer any 

disruptions, we will have no means of getting crews to or from ISS. 

Turning now to NASA's science portfolio, I am generally pleased with the budget request, but 

do have issues with two related programs: NASA's decision to withdraw from the 2016 and 

2018 ExoMars missions with the European Space Agency, and the proposed reduction to the 

Planetary Sciences budget. 

For the last several years, both Congress and NASA have repeatedly expressed the desire to 

more fully collaborate with international partners to help defray the costs of future flagship 

missions. There is a growing acknowledgement from many quarters that NASA simply can't 

afford to go it alone, and if we are to pursue ambitious missions that promise to do exciting 

science, NASA needs to engage and work with other nations to share in the burden of funding, 

building and operating these complex projects. 

The ExoMars missions are of high importance and visibility to the Europeans, and NASA, 

seemingly in good faith, agreed in 2009 to join forces with the European Space Agency (ESA). 

But with the unveiling of the 2013 budget, NASA has reneged on its commitment, forcing the 

Europeans to search for other partners if they hope to keep ExoMars alive. 

There is no doubt in my mind that NASA's decision to withdraw from ExoMars seriously 

imperils the ability ofESA to keep moving forward with the program. It also imperils NASA's 

ability to be viewed as a trustworthy partner on any future collaborations. 

The decision likewise flies in the face ofthe latest planetary deeadal survey which named Mars 

sample return as its top priority. And it ignores the wisdom of our own community of scientists 

who labored hard to put together a well-reasoned roadmap. 

Speaking now about Planetary Sciences - as well as Mars - I am puzzled that NASA would 

choose to cut one of its most productive and successful science programs in this era of tough 

choices. Typically good behavior is rewarded, but in this instance, it appears that NASA's 

successes at Mars, Saturn, and Mercury have garnered the opposite reaction. 

Mr. Administrator, I trust you'll take these concerns in the sober spirit in which they were 

delivered, and convey them to the White House. We want NASA to succeed in all its endeavors, 

but we seem to disagree on how best to achieve that goaL 

I now recognize my good friend and fellow Texan, Eddie Bernice Johnson, for her opening 

statement. 

End 
18 

Chairman HALL. I now recognize my good friend and fellow 

Texan, Eddie Bernice Johnson, for her opening statement. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Hall, and let me say 

good afternoon and welcome back, Administrator Bolden. Today 

might not be as smooth sailing as you would like. 

Today’s hearing is an important one to this Committee because 

NASA is a critical part of the Nation’s research and development 

enterprise, as well as being a source of inspiration for our young 

people and a worldwide symbol of American technological prowess 

and goodwill. We need NASA to succeed. 

It almost goes without saying that NASA’s success will depend 

not just on the amount of funding it receives, but also on whether 

it is given tasks that are executable, policy direction that is clear, 

and a funding environment that is more predictable than it has 

been in recent years. 

Which brings me to NASA’s fiscal year 2013 budget request, a 

request that cuts NASA’s budget by about a half percent. The good 

news is that the cut is only a half percent, which can be taken as 

good news given the fiscal challenges the government is facing. 

On the other hand, I think that the important role that NASA 

plays in pushing innovation and in meeting daunting scientific and 

technological challenges argues for a bigger commitment to the 

agency than either the Administration or Congress is currently 

making. I fear that years from now we are going to question why 

we didn’t recognize how important it is to maintain our investments in research and innovation and to continue to provide the 

means to inspire our young students, even in challenging economic 

times. 

That said, NASA’s constrained funding makes it doubly important for us to make sure that the budget request before us is one 

that is well constructed and sustainable. I know that NASA Administrator Bolden has one of the toughest jobs in town and will 

argue forcefully in his testimony that it is, and I respect that. I respect the hard work, and I respect everything he has done to implement whatever budget he is given. 

Yet as Members of Congress, we have to take a hard look at the 

priorities in this budget and be convinced that they make sense. 

Based on what I have seen so far, I have to say that I still have 

unanswered questions about it. 

For example, this year’s NASA budget request would cut NASA’s 

Planetary Exploration Program by over $300 million, a 21 percent 

cut, with more cuts in the outyears. It is hard for me to believe 

that such cuts won’t do significant damage to our Planetary Exploration Program, a program that has been a highly-successful scientific undertaking that has captured the imagination of people 

around the world. I want to know why such cuts were made, and 

what, if anything, could we gain by making them. 

More broadly, I am puzzled by the de facto priorities contained 

in this year’s NASA budget request. That is, this budget would cut 

funding for NASA’s overall Science Program. It would cut funding 

for NASA’s Education Program. It would cut funding for NASA’s 

Aeronautics Program. It would cut funding for the operation of 

NASA’s centers and headquarters, and it would cut funding for the 

Space Launch System and the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle 
19 

Programs. Despite SLS and Orion being called out as an agency 

priority by NASA, and despite Congress’s direction that they be 

available as a crew in cargo transportation backup capability if 

needed. 

On the other side of the balance sheet, funding for space technology would increase by almost 22 percent, and funding for 

NASA’s Commercial Crew Program would more than double to almost $830 million. 

I can understand providing more funding to NASA’s Space Technology Program. Investing in technology is an investment in the 

agency’s future, and NASA’s Space Technology funding has lagged 

in recent years. 

I have a lot more difficulty understanding the rationale for cutting all of the worthy programs I listed a minute ago in order to 

provide such a huge increase for the Commercial Crew Program. It 

is not because I have anything against the companies who are pursuing commercial crew contracts. I have heard them testify. They 

can be very exciting. Their enthusiasm is infectious, and I wish 

them all well. 

But as a steward of the taxpayer’s dollars, I cannot let enthusiasm override the need for responsible oversight. Administrator 

Bolden, you are probably tired of hearing me ask the same questions year after year, but I still haven’t gotten answers from the 

agency that would justify endorsing the course you are taking. 

For example, NASA still has not provided us with an independent cost and schedule estimate for the Commercial Crew Development Program, and we basically have to take it on faith that 

your budget requests are neither too small nor too large and that 

these vehicles will show up before it is too late for them to provide 

more than a year or two of support for the International Space Station. 

Neither has NASA provided us with a good estimate of what it 

will cost the taxpayer for NASA astronauts to make use of these 

commercial crew services. But we do know that in using NASA’s 

own budgetary projections, the full cost per seat, when NASA’s 

share of the development cost is factored in, is likely to be much 

greater than we are being charged by the Russians. 

That might be justifiable if the government’s investment was 

opening up large new markets, but as I said last year, so far the 

only potential non-NASA markets you have identified to Congress 

are super-wealthy space tourists and non-U.S. astronauts. And I 

can’t justify to my constituents the expenditure of their tax dollars 

so that the super rich can have joy rides. 

And finally, NASA has yet to provide a convincing explanation 

of why it reversed course and scrapped its plan to use FAR-based 

contracts, contracts that allow NASA to ensure that its safety and 

performance requirements are met for whatever systems it funds. 

I will not belabor the point, but Congress is going to need a lot 

more concrete justification than it has been given to date if we are 

to have confidence that the expenditures NASA is asking us to 

make would be money well spent. 

And so I know there will be much to discuss today, Mr. Bolden, 

and I, again, want to thank you for being here, and I look forward 

to your testimony. 
20 

I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 
21 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Good afternoon, and welcome back, Administrator Bolden. 

Today's hearing is an important one for the Committee, because NASA is a critical part o[the nation's research 

and development enterprise, as well as being a source of inspiration for our young people and a worldwide 

symbol of American technological prowess and good will. 

We need NASA to succeed. 

It almost goes without saying that NASA's success will depend not just on the amount offunding it receives, but 

also on whether it is given tasks that are executable, policy direction that is clear, and a funding environment 

that is more predictable than it has been in recent years. 

Which brings me to NASA's Fiscal Year 2013 budget request-a request that cuts NASA's budget by about a 

half percent. 

The good news is that the cut is only a half percent, which can be taken as good news given the fiscal challenges 

the governmcnt is facing. 

On the other hand, [ think that the important rolc NASA plays in pushing innovation and in mceting daunting 

scientific and technological challenges argues for a bigger commitment to the agency than either the 

Administration or Congress is cUlTently making. 

I fear that years from now, we are going to question why we didn't recognize how important it is to maintain our 

investments in research and innovation and to continue to provide the means to inspire our students even in 

challcnging ceonomic timcs. 

That said, NASA's constrained funding makes it doubly important for us to make sure that the budget request 

beforc us is one that is well eonstmetcd and sustainable. 

I know that NASA Administrator Bolden, who has onc ofthe toughest jobs in this town, will arguc forcefully in 

his testimony that it is. 

I respect him and the hard work that he has done to implement whatever budget he is given. 

Yet, as Members of Congress, we have to take a hard look at the priorities in this budget and be convinced that 

they make sensc. 

Based on what I have seen so far, I have to say that I still have unanswered questions about it. 

For example, this year's NASA budget request would cut NASA's planetary exploration program by over S300 

million-a 21 % cut. with morc cuts in the outycars. 

It is hard for mc to believe that such cuts won't do significant dm11agc to our planetary exploration program-a 

program that has been a highly successful scientitlc undertaking that has captured the imaginations of people 

around the world. 

I want to know why such cuts wcre made, and what-if anything-would be gained hy making thcm. 

More broadly, I am puzzled by the de facto priorities coutained in this ycar's NASA budget request. 

1 
22 

That is, this budget would cut funding for NASA's overall Science program; it would cut funding for NASA's 

Education program; it would cut funding for NASA's Aeronautics program; it would cut funding for the 

operations of NASA 's Centers and Headquarters: and it would cut funding for the Space Launch System and 

Orion Multipurpose Crew Vehicle programs-despite SLS and Orion being called out as an agency priority by 

NASA, and despite Congress's direction that they be available as a crew and cargo transportation backup 

capability if needed. 

On the other side of the balance sheet, funding for Space Technology would increase by almost 22 percent, and 

funding for NASA's Commercial Crew program would more than double to almost $830 million. 

I can understand providing more funding to NASA's Space Technology program-investing in technology is an 

investment in the agency's future, and NASA's Space Technology funding has lagged in recent years. 

I have a lot more di fficulty understanding the rationale for cutting all of the worthy programs I listed a minute 

ago in order to provide such a huge increase for the Commercial Crew program. 

It's not because I have anything against the companies who are pursuing commercial crew contracts-I have 

heard them testify before our Committee and find their enthusiasm infectious. I wish them well. 

But as a steward of the taxpayers' dollars, I cannol let enthusiasm override the need for responsible oversight. 

Administrator Bolden, you are probably tired of hearing me ask the same questions year after year, but I still 

haven't gotten answers from the agency that would justify endorsing the course you are taking. 

For example, NASA still has not provided us with an independent cost and schedule estimate for the 

Commercial Crew development program, and we basically have to take it on faith that your budget requests are 

neither too small nor too large--and that these vehicles will show up before it is too late for them to provide 

more than a year or two of support to the International Space Station. 

Neither has NASA provided us with a good estimate of what it will cost the taxpayer for NASA astronauts to 

make use ofthese commercial crew services, but we do kuow that, using NASA's own budgetary projections, 

the full cost per seat when NASA's share of the development costs is factored in, is likely to be much greater 

than we are being charged by the Russians. 

That might be justifiable if the government investment was opening up large new markets, but as I said last year, 

so far the only potential non-NASA markets you have identified for Congress are super-wealthy space tourists 

and non-U.S. astronauts-and I can'ljustify to my constituents the expenditure or their tax dollars so that the 

super-rich can have joy rides. 

And finally, NASA has yet 10 provide a convincing explanation of why it reversed course and scrapped its plan 

to use FAR-based contracts-contracts that allow NASA to ensure that its safety and performance requirements 

are met for whatever systems it funds. 

I will not belabor the point-Congress is going to need a lot more concrete justification than it has been given to 

date if we are to have confidence that the cxpenditures NASA is asking us to make would be money well spent. 

Well, Administrator Bolden, we have much to discuss today. 

I again want to thank you for your service, and I look forward to your testimony. 
23 

Chairman HALL. The gentlelady yields back. Thank you, Ms. 

Johnson. 

And if there are Members who wish to submit additional opening 

statements, your statements will be added to the record at this 

point. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JERRY COSTELLO
24 

~ And I'm pleased to see that NASA is making good on its commitment to 

funding its share of the Shuttle contractor workforce pension plan. 

~ NASA has also had important accomplishments in science and aeronautics 

research that have advanced our knowledge and delivered benefits to our 

society. 

~ At the same time, NASA faces significant challenges. 

~ NASA's FY 2013 budget proposes $17.7 billion for our nation's space 

and aeronautics program, maintaining NASA funding at an essentially flat 

level with respect to the FY 2012 enacted appropriation. 

~ Recognizing the severity of our fiscal environment and the fact that many 

agencies are experiencing cuts, the administration's FY 2013 budget 

request for NASA signals continued support for the future of our nation's 

space and aeronautics program. 
25 

~ This budget proposal maintains several key congressional priorities, 

including continued development of the Space Launch System and 

Multipurpose Crew Vehicle, operating the International Space Station, and 

facilitating development of the next generation air transportation system. 

~ However, the fact that NASA seeks to maintain such challenging and 

important priorities within a flat budget outlook requires that we take a 

close look at the alignment among NASA's requested resources, plans, and 

capabilities. 

~ First, NASA's request to facilitate the development of commercial crew 

transportation systems to the ISS is well in excess of that appropriated for 

the commercial crew program in FY 2012 and the level authorized for FY 

2013. In addition, the approach for working with private industry to 

acquire those systems has been in flux. I am interested in hearing from the 

Administrator how NASA will ensure the safety of those systems for 

carrying NASA astronauts in light of its inability to mandate adherence to 
26 

its safety requirements, as well as what factors in his view are necessary to 

meet the current commercial crew timeline. 

~ Second, the planetary science budget takes a serious cut and impacts not 

only NASA's overall Mars exploration efforts, but effectively ends U.S. 

involvement for the 2016 and 2018 European Space Agency-led missions 

to Mars. I have particular concerns about NASA's decision to cease 

exploration for new planet missions that have yielded results and new 

discoveries. I would like to hear from the Administrator on the agency's 

rationale for proposing such disproportionate cuts to planetary science, 

what NASA's plans are for future Mars programs, and ifhe is concerned 

that this shift will make the U.S. look like an unreliable partner. 

~ Third, now that Congress has passed an FAA Authorization bill that the 

President has signed into law, I am interested in hearing from the 

Administrator how NASA will ensure that NASA's contributions to the 

next generation air transportation system-NextGen-remain on track so 
27 

that the American people can benefit from increased safety, efficiency and 

effectiveness in air transportation for generations to come. 

> Finally, it goes without saying that NASA has inspired countless 

individuals to pursue education and careers in science, technology, 

engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. I would like to hear 

from the Administrator on the implications of the proposed $36 million 

reduction to NASA's education program on NASA's ability to leverage its 

inspiring mission activities in STEM education activities. 

> I welcome Administrator Bolden and look forward to his testimony. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 
28 

And before introducing our witness, I would like to ask unanimous consent to insert into the hearing record at this point a letter 

dated March 7, 2012, submitted by the Planetary Society. 

Hearing no objection, it is so ordered. 

[The information may be found in Appendix 2.] 

Chairman HALL. Mr. Administrator, thank you for being here, 

and I am honored to get to introduce you again. Charlie Bolden 

serves as Administrator of NASA. He is well known to members of 

the Science Committee, so I can be brief. 

He retired as a Major General from the United States Marine 

Corps after serving 34 years, many of them as a Marine aviato,r 

and flew over 100 missions in southeast Asia during the Vietnam 

War. During his 14 years as a NASA astronaut, Charlie flew four 

Shuttle missions, commanding two of them. His flights included deployment of the Hubble Space Telescope and the first joint U.S. 

Russian Shuttle mission. President Obama nominated Charlie as 

Administrator, and on July 17, 2009, he was sworn in. 

Charlie, it is good to have you here today. I thank you, and as 

our witness should know, spoken testimony is limited to five minutes. Afterwards, the Members of Congress will have five minutes 

each to ask questions. 

The Chair is able to provide some flexibility for you, understanding the hard day you have already had and you probably are 

expecting the situation is going to be similar. But I am proud to 

turn the floor over to you, Mr. Bolden. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES F. BOLDEN JR., 

ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS 

AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. BOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Johnson, and Members of the Committee. Today it is my privilege to 

discuss the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget request for NASA. 

All of us at NASA are very grateful to the Congress and especially 

to this Committee for the strong level of support we continue to receive. 

Our requested budget, as has already been mentioned, is $17.7 

billion, and it will enable NASA to continue to execute the bipartisan space exploration plan agreed to by the President and the 

Congress in 2010. 

Despite the constrained fiscal environment facing the Nation, 

this request supports an ambitious civil space program that puts 

us on a path to achieving a truly exciting set of goals; to send humans to an asteroid and ultimately to Mars and to broaden human 

activity in low-Earth orbit. 

International Space Station assembly is now complete, allowing 

us to focus on full utilization of the Station’s research capabilities. 

NASA is operating a fleet of spacecraft to investigate Earth, the 

solar system, and the universe. All of this is critical to ensuring 

America’s continued leadership in space exploration as well as our 

stewardship of Earth. 

The fiscal year 2013 request supports the implementation of key 

priorities of NASA. First, American astronauts continue to live and 

work in space onboard the International Space Station, conducting 
29 

research to benefit life here on earth and prepare us for deep space 

human exploration. NASA is committed to making this national resource available to a broader scientific and commercial research 

communities. 

We are also committed to ensuring that American companies 

launching from American soil transport our astronauts and their 

cargo to the Space Station. This year we will see the first commercial cargo flights to the International Space Station, and with Congressional approval of the funding request we are on track to have 

American companies transporting our astronauts to the Station by 

2017. 

Second, NASA is on track to develop a flexible deep-space launch 

system that will ultimately be the most capable in history. The 

Space Launch System or SLS heavy lift rocket and the multipurpose crew vehicle Orion will carry American astronauts below lowEarth orbit and into deep space within the next decade. We are 

pushing forward with contracting and design efforts to advance this 

crucial Next Generation Space Exploration System. Our fiscal year 

2013 budget request supports our plans for an uncrewed SLS flight 

in 2017, and a crewed test mission by 2021. 

Third, we propose to continue progress toward the launch of the 

world’s most advanced telescope in 2018. The James Webb Space 

Telescope will operate deep in space to orbit the sun and look out 

into space from its vantage point, nearly one million miles from 

Earth. Over the past year, NASA has made important adjustments 

to JWST management and put the project on a sound financial 

footing. NASA is confident that the fiscal year 2013 budget request 

supports a 2018 launch for JWST. 

NASA’s budget request supports a portfolio of innovative science 

missions resulting in a stream of data from orbits around the sun, 

Mercury, the moon, the asteroid Vesta, Mars, and Saturn. We now 

have missions on the way to Jupiter, Pluto, Mars. Sixteen Earth 

science missions currently in orbit study earth as an integrated 

system. The Hubble, Spitzer, Chandra, and Fermi space telescopes 

continue to make ground-breaking discoveries on an almost daily 

basis. 

Last year the Messenger Spacecraft entered orbit around Mercury. The ebb and flow satellites began mapping the gravity field 

of the Moon, and Juno, launched last August, is on its way to Jupiter. 

However, tough choices did have to be made, so we will not be 

moving forward with the planned 2016 and 2018 ExoMars Mission 

we had been planning with the European Space Agency. Instead, 

NASA is developing a new integrated strategy for Mars missions 

to ensure that the next steps for Mars exploration will support 

science and human exploration goals with advanced space technology developments. 

Our plan, including the framework for a mission to take advantage of the 2018 to 2020 launch opportunity, is targeted for completion hopefully in time to support the fiscal year 2013 appropriations process. The fiscal year 2013 request supports this approach, 

and it will be informed by extensive coordination with the science 

community and our international partners and of course, the Congress. 
30 

The fiscal year 2013 budget request continues to support robust 

Mars exploration, including two spacecraft currently orbiting Mars, 

the Opportunity rover on the surface, a multi-year exploration of 

Mars by the Mars Science Laboratory Curiosity, and the planned 

2013 MAVEN Mission to explore Mar’s upper atmosphere. 

The fiscal year 2013 budget request supports continued advances 

in new aviation, science, and space technologies, absolutely essential to enable NASA to achieve its ambitious goals. At the same 

time NASA technology research seeds innovation, supports economic vitality, and helps to create new jobs and expanded opportunities for our skilled workforce. 

With the 2013 request, NASA will conduct aeronautics research 

to enable the realization of the Nation’s Next Generation Air 

Transportation System or NextGen, and the safer, more fuel efficient, quieter, and environmentally responsible aircraft that will 

operate with NextGen. 

To inspire the next generation of scientists and explorers and to 

foster the development of the U.S. workforce, NASA’s education 

programs will focus on demonstrable results and capitalize on the 

agency’s ability to engage students and educators. To help today’s 

young people envision their future in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, that is our goal. 

NASA is grateful to the American people and to you, their representatives here on this Committee, for your continued support in 

these difficult and challenging times. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for this opportunity to 

make these remarks, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bolden follows:] 
31 

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

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, today it is my privilege to discuss the President's FY 2013 

budget request for NASA. Our requested budget of $17.7 billion will enable NASA to execute the 

balanced program of science, space exploration, technology, and aeronautics agreed to by the President 

and a bipartisan majority of Congress. 

Despite the constrained fiscal environment facing the Nation, this request supports a robust civil space 

program that puts us on a path to achieving a truly exciting set of goals. We are working to send humans 

to an asteroid and ultimately to Mars, to peer deep into space to observe the first galaxies form, and to 

broaden human activity in low-Earth orbit (LEO). We have completed assembling and outfitting of the 

U.S. segment of the International Space Station (ISS), allowing us to focus on full utilization of the 

Station's research capabilities. NASA is making air travel safer and more efficient, learning to live and 

work in space, and operating a fleet of spacecraft to investigate the Earth, the Solar system and the 

Universe. 

The FY 2013 request supports the implementation of key priorities for NASA. 

First, since the historic construction of the International Space Station (ISS) was completed in 2011, and 

now that all the international partners have agreed to its extension to at least 2020, we must enhance its 

utilization to insure the success of this national laboratory. For over eleven years, international crews of 

space explorers have been living on orbit, both building the International Space Station and conducting a 

diverse research program continuously. NASA is committed to making this National resource available 

to the broader scientific and co=ercial research co=unity. Key to its sustainment is the availability of 

a U.S. co=ercial crew and cargo delivery capability as soon as possible. NASA is working with 

American companies to establish the next generation of safe and efficient vehicles for access to LEO and 

the ISS. In calendar year 2012, we will see the first co=ercial cargo flights to the ISS, demonstrating 

the innovation and capabilities of our industry partners and providing a path forward to ease our sole 

reliance on Russian transport of astronauts. We will continue to work with our industry partners to 

develop end-to-end systems for transporting crew and cargo to orbit. I am committed to ensuring that 

American companies, launching from U.S. soil, are providing the cargo and crew transportation services 

that we need to keep the ISS functioning. We are making steady progress on these launch services. Later 

this spring and summer, we expect that both of our private company partners, SpaceX and Orbital 

Sciences, will complete demonstration flights of their cargo vehicles to Station and actually berth with the 

ISS, marking a major milestone in our goal to establish co=ercial space capabilities for low-Earth orbit 

travel. Some modification of the Iran, North Korea, Sytia Non-proliferation Act (INKSNA) provisions 

will likely be required for the continued operation ofISS and other space programs after 2016. The 
32 

Administration plans to propose appropriate provisions and looks forward to working with the Congress 

on their enactment. 

Second, with the FY 2013 budget request, NASA is moving out on plans to develop a flexible launch 

system that will ultimately be the most capable in history. The Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and 

the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (Orion MPCV) will carry American astronauts beyond low-Earth 

orbit and into deep space within the next decade. Following a thorough analysis of alternatives, NASA 

has established architecture for SLS and the Orion MPCV, In recent months we have continued to push 

forward with contracting and design efforts to make this system a reality, At the same time, we are 

moving forward on a critical effort to develop the technologies and capabilities required to support our 

ambitious exploration goals, Our FY 2013 budget request supports our plans for an uncrcwed SLS test 

flight in 2017 and a crewcd tcst mission by 202 L 

Third, we plan to continue progress toward the launch of the world's most advanced telescope in 2018, 

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) will operate deep in space to orbit the sun nearly one million 

miles from Earth, From that vantage point, JWST will look out into space and back in time almost as far 

as it is possible to look, Over the past year, NASA has engaged in a thorough review of JWST, made 

important adjustments to management, and put the project on a sound financial footing, Since we 

completed this new plan, the project has met 19 of20 FY 2011 milestones (with one deferred without 

impact), and has met all FY 2012 milestones to date on or ahead of schedule, NASA is confident that the 

FY 2013 request supports a 2018 launch of JWST. 

Fourth, The FY 2013 budget request supports continued advances in new technologies, The National 

Research Council (NRC) has detcnnined that future U.S, leadership in space requires a foundation of 

sustained technology advances, but that the U.S, space program is now living on the innovation funded in 

the past. Our focus on new space technologies is absolutely essential to enable NASA to achieve its 

ambitious goals, At the same time, NASA technology research seeds innovation, supports economic 

vitality and helps to create new jobs and expanded opportunities lor a skilled workforce, Space 

technology investments address long-tenn Agcncy technology priorities and technology gaps identitied 

by NASA Mission Directorates and within the Agency's draft space technology roadmaps. On February 

1,2012, the NRC released its final review of NASA's Draft Space Technology Roadmaps, The report, 

which notes that NASA's technology base is largely depleted and identifies sixteen top-priority 

technologies necessary for NASA's future missions, which also could benefit American aerospace 

industries and the nation, This NRC assessment will help guide NASA's technology priorities in the 

years to come, 

NASA's budget request supports a portfolio of innovative science missions that will explore the diverse 

planetary bodies of our solar system, unravel the mysteries of our universe and provide critical data about 

our home planet. Currently operating missions continue to return a stream of data from orbits around the 

Sun, Mercury, thc Moon, the asteroid Vesta, Mars, and Saturn, We now have missions on the way to 

Jupiter, Pluto and Mars. Sixteen Earth Science missions in orbit study the Earth as an integrated system. 

The Hubble, Spitzer, Chandra, and Fenni space telescopes continue to make groundbreaking discoveries 

on an almost daily basis, In calendar year 20 J I, the MESSENGER spacecraft entered orbit around 

Mercury, Ebb and Flow began mapping the gravity field of the Moon, and Juno launched on its way to 

Jupiter, Also in 2011, Aquarius produced the first global view of ocean surface salinity and the Suomi 

National Polar-orbiting Partnership satellite began making observations of Earth's weather and climate, 

In 2012, we will launch the Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array to study massive black holes, 

supernovae and other high-energy sources in the universe, and will launch the Radiation Belt Storm 

Probes into Earth's Van Allen belts, In 2013, we will launch the next land observing mission (the 

Landsat Data Continuity Mission) and complete environmental testing of the Global Precipitation 

2 
33 

Measurement mission, the Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) and the Mars 

Atmosphere and Yolatile Evolution (MA YEN) mission. 

In view of these key priorities for NASA and of our constrained fiscal environment, we will not be 

moving forward with the 2016 and 2018 ExoMars missions we had been studying with the European 

Space Agency. Instead, NASA is developing a new, integrated strategy for Mars missions to ensure that 

the next steps for Mars exploration will SUppOlt science and human exploration goals and take advantage 

of advanced space technology developments. NASA will complete this integrated plan, including the 

framework for a mission to take advantage of the 2018 or 2020 launch opportunities, no later than this 

summer and, hopefully, in time to support the FY 2013 appropriations process. The FY 2013 request 

supports this approach, and this process will be infonned by coordination with the science community 

and our international partners. The FY 2013 budget request continues to support robust Mars exploration 

including two spacecraft orbiting Mars, the Opportunity rover on the surface, a multi-year exploration of 

Mars by the Curiosity Mars Science Laboratory, and the MA YEN mission to explore the Mars upper 

atmosphere. The August landing of Curiosity will be among the most difficult technical challcnges that 

NASA has ever attempted and Curiosity's mission of exploration will far eclipse anything humanity has 

attempted on the surface of Mars in the past. We look forward to receiving a treasure trove of data from 

the surface of Mars to hclp answer questions about its past and present habitability. 

With the 2013 request, NASA will conduct aeronautics research to enable the realization of the nation's 

Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen), and the safer, more fuel efficient, quieter, and 

environmentally responsible aircraft that will operate within NextGcn. Through the aeronautics research 

we conduct and sponsor with universities and industry, NASA helps to develop the technology that 

enables continuous innovation in aviation. As a result, U.S. companies are well positioned to build on 

discoveries and knowledge resulting from NASA research, turning them into commercial products that 

benefit the quality of life for our citizens, provide new high-quality engineering and manufacturing job 

opportunities, and enables the United States to remain competitive in the global economy. 

The request also continues NASA's dedicated efforts to inspire the next generation of explorers. NASA 

can provide hands-on experience and inspiration as few other agencies can. To foster the development of 

the U.S. workforce, NASA's education programs will focus on demonstrable results and capitalize on the 

Agency's ability to inspire students and educators through unique missions and the big challenges that 

help today's young people envision their future in science, technology, engineering and mathematics 

(STEM). NASA Education is one of many Federal government programs that support STEM education. 

NASA Education is working with other agencies through the National Science and Technology Council's 

Committee on STEM Education to fund coordinated and effective student and teacher opportunities. 

NASA will focus its resources on demonstrated areas of strength in its unique role in STEM education, 

freeing resources for other Agency priorities. NASA brings many assets, beyond funding, to support the 

Administration's emphasis on STEM education. Our people, platfonns like the International Space 

Station, and our facilities across the Nation all contribute to strengthening STEM education. 

NASA is grateful to the American people, and their representatives here on the Committee for thc 

continued support for NASA despite the difficult resource challenges facing our Nation. A more detailed 

description of NASA 's balanced program of science, space exploration, technology development, and 

aeronautics is provided below. 

3 
34 

Science 

NASA's Science Mission Directorate develops and operates innovative spacecraft missions and 

instruments that help researchers deliver new discoveries of the Earth, the Sun, the planetary bodies in our 

solar system, and the universe beyond. The FY 2013 budget request for Science is $4,911.2 million. 

NASA's Earth Science Program advances knowledge of the integrated Earth system--the global 

atmosphere, oceans, land surfaces, icc sheets, ecosystems and interactions among them. The FY 2013 

budget request for Science includes $1,784.8 million for Earth Science. In 2011, NASA successfully 

launched Aquarius/SAC-D, a cooperative ocean surface salinity mission conducted with the Argentine 

Space Agency, and with our partner the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and 

the Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (SNPP). SNPP is the first step in developing the Nation's 

next-generation climate and weather monitoring missions. During calendar year 2012 NASA will select 

the first small satellite mission under the Earth Venture program as recommended in the National 

Research Council's deeadal survey for Earth science. The FY 2013 budget will fund all three 

components of the Earth Venture program: this new small mission, the on-going EV -I airborne science 

campaigns, and the first EV-I instrument of opportunity. FY 2013 will see the launch of the Landsat Data 

Continuity Mission and the completion of environmental testing for the Global Precipitation 

Measurement mission. The FY 2013 budget will also fund continued development of the first two Tier 1 

decadal survey missions, Soil Moisture Active Passive mission and ICESat-2. Finally, the FY 2013 

budget will fund continued development of three key missions to assure delivery of sustained Earth 

observations (GRACE-Follow on, OCO-2, and the SAGE-III instrument that will fly on the ISS) and fund 

the continued operation of 16 missions currently in orbit as well as research using the resultant data. The 

FY 2013 budget request for Earth Science sustains support for focused research, applications, and 

technology deVelopment activities that redeem the investment in our ongoing missions, while positioning 

us to accomplish essential new missions in the future. NASA's Earth Science program leads to improved 

prediction services by other agencies, providing direct tangible benefIts to communities, businesses, and 

citizens. 

NASA's Planetary Science Program explores the content origin and evolution of the solar system and 

the potential for life beyond Earth. The FY 2013 budget request for Science includes $1,192.3 million for 

Planetary Science. In the second half of 20 11, NASA launched Juno on its way to Jupiter, GRAIL to the 

Moon, and the Mars Science Laboratory to the Red Planet. GRAIL's "Ebb" and "Flow" spacecraft will 

conduct their mission to map the Moon's gravity field and interior structure during the first half of 20 12. 

The Mars Science Laboratory rover Curiosity will land in Galc Crater on Mars on August 6'h The FY 

2013 budget request funds the operation of Curiosity on Mars. The FY20J3 budget will also fund the 

beginning of development of the next Discovery mission that will be selected from among three 

candidates completing their studies in 2012. In FY2013, NASA will be completing development of the 

LADEE mission to the Moon and the MAVEN mission to Mars for launch in late calendar ycar2013/carly 

FY2014. Also in FY 2013, NASA will continue the development of the OSIRIS-REx mission to return 

samples from an asteroid, and will continue operation of the Dawn (the asteroid Vesta), Juno (Jupiter), 

Cassini (Saturn), New Horizon (Pluto), and MESSENGER (Mercury) missions. However, the resources 

available over the budget horizon are insufficient to enable either a future Mars or Outer Planets flagship 

mission as identified by last year's Planetary Science decadal survey. 

NASA remains committed to a vigorous pro,,1fam of Mars exploration and continuing America's 

leadership role in Mars exploration within the available budget. As stated above, NASA is discontinuing 

its effort on instruments for the joint (NASA/European Space Agency) 2016 ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter 

mission and the 2018 mission that NASA had been exploring with the European Space Agency (ESA). 

Instead, NASA will develop an integrated strategy to ensure that tbe next steps for Mars exploration will 

support science as well as long-term human exploration goals. This process will be infonned by 

4 
35 

coordination with the science community and international community. NASA is developing a plan for a 

reformulated medium-class robotic science Mars mission, within available resources, to take advantage of 

the favorable location of Mars and Earth in 2018 or 2020. NASA's plan is to work with potential 

international partners including ESA and the science community to layout an initial framework for this 

mission over the next several months and produce a mission architecture by this summer. To keep this 

effort moving forward in FY 2012, resources, totaling approximately $30 million, arc proposed for work 

towards a revised mission. The budget request includes $62 million in FY 2013 for this mission. 

NASA's Astrophysics Program seeks to discover how the universe works, explore how the universe 

began and evolved and search for Earth-like planets. The FY 2013 budget request for Science includes 

$659.4 million for Astrophysics. NASA will continue to conduct science operations flights of the SOFIA 

aircraft in 2012 and 2013 as we upgrade its science instruments, and will continue parallel development 

of efforts leading to achievement ofa full operational capability in 2014. The FY 2013 budget will fund 

the early stages of development of the next Astrophysics small Explorer mission to be selected early in 

calendar year 2013. Also in 2013 NASA will complete development of its instrument contributions to 

Japan's Astro-H mission for launch in FY 2014. The FY2013 budget enables NASA to continue 

development of the GEMS Explorer mission toward a launch in 2015. Finally, the FY 2013 budget will 

fund the operation of eleven Astrophysics missions currently in operation, including the Hubble, Spitzer, 

Chandra, and Fenni space telescopes. 

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is an infrared telescope designed to study and answer 

fundamental astrophysical questions ranging from the formation and structure of the universe to the origin 

of planetary systems and the origins of life. The FY 2013 budget request for Science includes $627.6 

million for JWST. A scientific successor to the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) and the Spitzer Space 

Telescope, JWST will be used by intemational teams of astronomers to conduct imaging and 

spectroscopic observations. The Observatory will be located in an orbit ncar the second Sun-Earth 

Lagrange point (L2), approximately 1.5 million km from Earth. The telescope and instruments will be 

operated at a temperature offorty degrees above absolute zcro (40 Kelvin) shielded from the heat of the 

Sun by a large sunshicld, to enable the Observatory to achieve unprecedented sensitivity over its entire 

wavelength range. NASA completed a new baseline cost and schedule for JWST at the end of calendar 

year 2011, and is now implementing that new ba~eline. AlliS JWST primary mirror segments have been 

completed. NASA expects to take delivery of all four JWST instruments in FY2012-2013. In FY 2013, 

NASA will bcgin sunshield fabrication and continue development of the Integrated Science Instrument 

Module and the ground segment. 

NASA's Heliophysics Program seeks an understanding of the Sun, and the complex interaction ofthe 

coupled system comprising the Sun, Earth, other planetary systems, thc vast space within the solar 

system, and the interface with interstellar space. The FY 2013 budget request for Science includes $647.0 

million for Heliophysics. Later this year, NASA will launch the Radiation Belt Stonn Probes mission, 

and the FY 2013 budget will fund completion of its checkout and its early operations. The FY 2013 

budget will fund completion and launch of the IRIS small Explorer mission as well as beginning of the 

development of the next small Explorer to be selected in early in calendar year 2013. FY 2013 will be a 

peak year in the development of the Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) mission to be launched in 2015. 

The FY 2013 budget will also fund the continued formulation of the Solar Probe Plus mission and 

development of the Solar Orbiter Collaboration with ESA. NASA expects to receive the new NRC 

Hcliophysics decadal survey this spring, and will use it to shape the FY 2014 budget request in this area. 

Also during FY 2013, NASA will continue developmcnt of environmental operational satellites for 

NOAA on a reimbursable basis. These include the Joint Polar Satellite System, Geostationary 

Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES-R series), Jason 3, and the Deep Space Climate 

Observatory. Funding for these programs is in the Department of Commercc budget request for NOAA. 

5 
36 

In addition to the space missions emphasized ahove, the FY 2013 budget funds NASA's Science Mission 

Directorate to continue to sponsor competitively-selected research hy universities, industry, and 

government laboratories across the nation. Using data from these missions, the nation's scientific 

corrununity pursues answers to profound scientific questions of interest to all humanity as well as 

questions that enhance our national capability to predict environmental change including severe stonns, 

droughts, and space weather events, and thereby enhance our economic and environmental security. 

Aeronautics Research 

NASA aeronautics research will enable the realization of the nation's Next Generation Air 

Transportation System (NextGen), and the safer, more fuel efficient, quieter, and environmentally 

responsible aircraft that will operate within NextGen. Through the research we conduct and research we 

sponsor with universities and industry, we help to develop the technology that enables continuous 

innovation in aviation. American companies are well positioned to build on discoveries and knowledge 

resulting from NASA research, turning them into commercial products, benefiting the quality of life for 

our citizens, providing new high-quality engineering and manufacturing joh opportunities, and enabling 

the United States to remain competitive in the global economy. NASA's FY 2013 budget request for 

aeronautics is $551.5 million to continue our tradition of developing new concepts for aeronautics 

applications. 

The FY 2013 request for Aeronautics Research includes $168.7 million for the Fundamental 

Aeronautics Program which seeks to continually improve technology that can be infused into today's 

state-of-the-art aircraft, while enabling game-changing new concepts such as Hybrid Wing Body 

airframes, tilt-rotor aircraft, low-boom supersonic aircraft, and sustained hypersonic flight. In FY 2010 

and 20 II we conducted emissions measurements for alternative non-petroleum fuels derived from coal 

and biomass that showed dramatic reductions in particulate emissions in the vicinity of airports. In FY 

2013 the Program will perfonn emissions measurements behind aircraft operating at relevant altitudes and 

cruise speeds to provide the first-ever data on the impact of alternative fuels on contrail formation, an 

important factor in aviation climate impact. In FY 2013 the Program will also increase its research on 

composite materials to enable airframe weight reductions beyond those achieved with cUlTent materials 

and structural dcsign concepts. 

NASA is combining hypersonic and supersonic research into a single project to focus on fundamental 

research for high-speed flight. Research into hypersonic flight is also relevant to the Department of 

Defense and NASA will retain critical core competencies and national asset testing capabilities to 

continue productive collaborations with DoD. Responsibility for fundamental research on entry, decent, 

and landing technologies will be transferred to Space Technology to increase synergy with the Agency's 

exploration and science missions. NASA will continue to work with DOD to maximize the efficiencies 

of cUlTent assets and investments and increase partnership to accomplish common goals. These 

realignments will enable NASA to focus on higher-priority rescarch to improve the safety and minimize 

the environmental impacts of cUlTent and future aircraft and air traffic management systems. The FY 

2013 request for Aeronautics Research includes $104.0 million for the Integrated Systems Research 

Program. This program evaluates and selects the most promising environmentally friendly engine and 

airframe concepts emerging ti'om the fundamental research programs for further development, 

integration, and evaluation in relevant environments. Last year, the Program completed a major study by 

three aircraft manufactures to identify the critical technologies needed to simultaneously reduce 

cmissions, fuel bum, and noise in aircraft entering service in 2025. In FY 2013, the Program will start a 

3-ycar focused research effort on thesc technologies to advance their technology readiness. The Program 

is also addressing the emerging desire to integrate Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into the National 

Airspace System. CUlTent Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations arc built upon the 

6 
37 

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 ofUAS technologies in operationally relevant 

scenarios. 

Reductions in environmental impact will be achieved not only through new aircraft, engines, and fuels, 

but also through improved air traffic management procedures, which is the focus of the Airspace 

Systems Program with $93.3 million requested for FY 2013. Last year the Program advised the FAA on 

new air traffic management concepts for morc efficient routing of flights during their cruise phase. We 

also completed evaluations of concepts for new fuel-efficient arrival procedures and will deliver 

requirements for those concepts to the FAA this year. In FY 2013 the Program will begin demonstrations 

to verify that several new procedures for air traffic management during an·ival and taxiing to the gate that 

arc enabled by NextGen Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) technology can work 

together seamlessly. 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 Aviation Safety Program, with $81.1 million requested for FY 2013, 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 expect. In FY 2011, the Program advanced data mining methods that 

permit the discovery of flight operations and aircraft maintenance issues through automated analysis of 

the vast amounts of data generated during flight operations and by sensors onboard aircraft. These 

methods have enabled the development of new software for aircraft central maintenance computers on 

both business jet and large commercial aircraft that can identify the early stages of hardware faults 30 to 

50 flights earlier than previously possible. This allows airline maintenance personnel to address 

equipment issues before they cause a disruptive maintenance delay at the airport gate. The Program also 

focuses on mitigating environmental hazards to aviation and in FY 2013 will conduct a flight campaign to 

characterize ice water content at high altitudes in tropical regions as a first step to understanding the 

causes of severe loss of power due to engine icing that has occurred on a number of occasions. 

u.S. leadership in aerospace depends on ready access to technologically advanced, efficient, and 

affordable aeronautics test capabilities. NASA's Aeronautics Tcst Program, with $78.1 M requested for 

FY 2013, 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 developing new test instrumentation and test 

technologies. Last year the Program completed nearly $50 million worth of upgrades to major facilities 

funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. These upgrades provide improved 

research capabilities at Glenn and Ames Research Centers for aircraft and engine ieing research, and tiltrotor designs for a new generation of rotorcraft. New capabilities were also added to the Langley 14x22 

Subsonic Wind Tunnel that will enable researchers to measure noise signatures from novel aircraft 

designs at a fraction of the cost of noise measurement acquired by flying real aircraft over airport 

microphone arrays. NASA's Aeronautics Test program enables and sustains U.S. leadership in aerospace 

yielding high quality jobs and ultimately a productive Aerospace sector. 

The Aeronautics Stratcgy and Management Program provides for research and programmatic support 

that benefits each of the other five Programs, and has a requested budget of $26.4 million for FY 2013. 

The Program manages Directorate functions including Innovative Concepts for Aviation, Education and 

Outreach, and Cross Program Operations. 

NASA is making meaningful contributions to the aerospace community, but we cannot do all these good 

things alone. Therefore, 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 

7 
38 

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. 

Human Exploration and Operations 

In 2011, NASA combined the Exploration Systems and Space Operations Mission Directorates to create 

the Human Exploration and Operations (HEO) Mission Directorate. HEO encompasses everything from 

the ISS and the commercial cargo and crew vehicles that will support it, to NASA's new exploration 

vehicles, whieh will take astronauts beyond LEO. HEO also includes research and technology 

development efforts that will enable deep space exploration, as well as critical infrastructure and 

operational capabilities that ensure NASA's ability to conduct testing, launch science missions, and 

communicate with its spacecraft across the solar system. As NASA reformulates its Mars exploration 

plans, we will ensure that the next steps for Mars exploration will take into account long-term human 

exploration as well as science goals. 

The FY 2013 budget request includes $2,769.4 million for Hnman Exploration Capabilities, which the 

Agency proposes to rename Exploration Systems Development. This program includes development of 

the Orion MPCV, SLS heavy-lift launch vehicle, and the supporting ground infrastructure required for 

NASA's future crewed missions of exploration beyond LEO and into deep space. The amounts requested 

align with the plan developed and supported by an independent cost analysis performed last summer. 

NASA's Orion MPCV will carry astronauts to, and support operations at, a variety of destinations in our 

solar system for periods of up to 21 days. NASA has recently completed a number of tests on Orion 

MPCV, including a test of the main parachute, and a series of water drop tests on the l8,000-pound Orion 

MPCV Boiler Plate Test Article. The Orion ground test article will undergo and complete acoustic, 

modal, and vibration environment compatibility testing at Lockheed Martin Denver during fiscal year 

2012. The results of these tests will help improve the design for the actual flight vehicle. In May, the 

Orion Crew Module primary structure will be moved to Kennedy Space Center in Florida for the stat1 of 

Assembly, Integration, and Production. NASA plans to conduct an uncrewed high-energy-atmospheric 

entry test mission of the Orion MPCV in FY 2014. Designated Exploration Flight Test-l (EFT-I), this 

flight test will provide critical data to influence key design decisions. EFT -1 will also validate innovative 

new approaches to space systems development and operations to reduce the cost of exploration missions. 

For EFT-I, an early production variant of the Orion MPCV spacecraft will be integrated on a Lockheed 

Martin-procured, heavy class launch vehicle. The flight test will provide an opportunity to significantly 

inform critical design elements by operating the integrated spacecraft hardware and software in flight 

environments that cannot be duplicated by ground testing. 

On September 14, 2011, NASA announced the design of the SLS, which will initially be capable of 

lifting 70-100 metric tons before evolving to a lift capacity of 130 metric tons for more demanding 

missions. NASA has worked diligently to accomplish the contracting and design work necessary to 

support a 2017 initial flight mission for the SLS. In FY 2013, SLS will continue detailed preliminary 

design and development and undergo a preliminary design review to evaluate the 

completeness/consistency of the program's preliminary design in meeting all requirements with 

appropriate margins, with acceptable risk, and within cost and schedule constraints. This comprehensive 

review will determine the program's readiness to proceed with the detailed critical design phase of the 

project. 

8 
39 

The SLS will use a liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propulsion system, building upon the investment 

made by the Nation over the last forty years. The vehicle's core stage will utilize existing Space Shuttle 

Main Engines (SSME RS-2SD) for the initial capability. NASA's use of the SSME inventory will reduce 

initial design costs and take advantage of an existing human-rated system. NASA plans to modify and 

use the existing SSME contract with Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne to acquire RS-2SD engine servicing 

and testing for the initial launch systcm. 

The upper stage of the SLS needed for the full-up SLS capability will also use a liquid hydrogen and 

liquid oxygen propulsion system that includes the J-2X, a new upper stage engine previously planned for 

use in the Ares-I vehicle. NASA is negotiating a modification to the Ares I Upper Stage contract with 

Boeing to develop the SLS core stage and upper stage, including avionics. SLS will also utilizc the 

existing J-2X contract with Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne to continue developing the upper stage engine. 

NASA has been running J-2X components through a series of tests. In November and December 2011, 

the Agency conducted three J-2X engine tests, firing the motor for a total of 680 seconds. These were the 

last often engine test firings completed in 2011. In January and February of2012, NASA also conducted 

a series of J-2X Power Pack Assembly tests. These tests are part of a series of over 100 power-pack and 

integrated engine tests that NASA has planned to complete the engine design and certify the J-2X for usc 

in the SLS Upper Stage. 

NASA plans to use five-segment solid rocket boosters for the initial capability test flights of the SLS. We 

will conduct a competition to develop the follow-on boosters based on performance requirements. In 

support of this effort, on Febmary 9,2012, the Agency released a NASA Research Announcement (NRA) 

for Advanced Booster Engineering Demonstration and Risk Reduction. Proposals are due in April and 

contract awards are expected in October 2012. 

On February 1,2012, NASA also released a draft for an NRA, for advanced development of key 

technologies in propulsion, avionics, structures and materials, and other areas. The final release is 

planned for March, with proposals due in May and contract award in October 2012. 

Exploration Ground Systems (EGS) will develop the necessary ground systems infrastructure at the 

Kennedy Space Center and operational plans and procedures to prepare, assemble, test, launch and 

recover the Exploration architecture elements for long-term beyond-Earth orbit exploration. EGS will 

focus on the life cycle ofa launch complex as an integrated system (from development, activation, 

operations, maintenance of capabilities to manufacture, assemble, test, checkout, launch, and recover 

flight hardware) to enable more efficient and cost-effective ground processing, launch and recovery 

operations. 

The FY 2013 budget request includes $829.7 million for the Commercial Spaceflight theme. This eff0l1 

will support commercial providers to develop and operate safe, reliable, and affordable commercial 

systems to transport crew and cargo to and from the ISS and LEO. 

As part of the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program - NASA's commercial cargo 

effort - NASA has partnerships with Space Exploration Technologies, Inc. (SpaceX) and Orbital 

Sciences Corporation (Orbital) using funded Space Act Agreements. These agreements includc a 

schedule of fixed payment performance milestones culminating in a demonstration mission to the ISS that 

includes vehicle launch, spacecraft rendezvous, ISS berthing, and re-entry for disposal or return to Earth. 

Both COTS partners continue to make progress in developing and demonstrating their systems. Based on 

the success of their first COTS demo flight in December 2010, SpaceX plans to fully develop and 

assemble their next vehicle with the capabilities and equipment necessary to complete rendezvous and 

berthing demonstration to the ISS, thus potentially combining milestones that had been planned for 

separate flights. If successful, this will accelerate the completion of the COTS Space Act Agreement and 

9 
40 

enable delivery of cargo under the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contract. This mission is 

tentatively planned for April 2012. Orbital Sciences is currently mating the main engines for its Antares 

vehicle to the core stage in preparation for an integrated static !lre later this year. The maiden t1ight ofthe 

Antares is planned for the second quarter of2012 and the COTS demonstration mission is planned for the 

third quarter. The pad complex at Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia is being readied and space flight 

hardware, including the !lrst Pressurized Cargo Module, two Antares core sections, and a Castor-30 upper 

stage, has alrcady been delivered to Wallops Flight Facility. 

The Commercial Crew Program (CCP) aims 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 and ISS. Since 2009, NASA has conducted two CCDev 

competitions, soliciting proposals from U.S. industry to further advance commercial crew space 

transportation system concepts and mature the design and development of elements of the system. During 

the second CCDev competition, known as CCDev2. NASA awarded four funded Space Aet Agreements 

that are currently being executed with Blue Origin, The Boeing Company, Sierra Nevada Corporation, 

and SpaceX, all of which are making good progress in achieving their milestones. NASA has also signed 

Space Act Agreements without funding with three additional companies: Alliant Techsystems, Inc., 

United Launch Alliance, and ExcaJibur Almaz, Incorporated. 

Under the CCP, NASA plans to pattner with U.S. industry, providing technical and !lnancial assistance to 

facilitate industry's development of an integrated crew transportation system. In the longer tenn, once 

those entities arc certi!lcd, NASA plans to buy transportation services from eommercial entities for U.S. 

and U.S.-designated astronauts to the ISS. 

Congress appropriated $406 million for CCP in FY 2012 which reflected a suhstantial reduction from 

NASA's request for this program. The FY 2012 appropriation enables the Agency to move forward with 

its plans to support the development of commercial services that may eventually support crew 

transportation and rescue capabilities in support of ISS. However, the constrained budget environment 

necessitated a reassessment of NASA's overall strategy for this Program. On Deeember 15,2011, NASA 

announced a modi!lcd competitive acquisition strategy designed to make the best use of available 

resources and to pursue the most effective path to the achievement ofa commercial crew capahility. 

Instead of using firm-fixed price contracts for the next phase of the Program, the Agency plans to 

continue using multiple, competitively awarded and funded Space Act Agreements for another round of 

CCP. NASA will use procurement contracts to certify these capabilities before they arc used to support 

ISS. Using competitive Space Act Agreements instead of contracts at this juncture will allow NASA to 

maintain multiple partners during this phase of the Program, and provide NASA with the flexibility to 

more easily adjust to various funding levels. This new acquisition strategy will allow NASA to preserve 

greater competition and maintain momentum to provide a U.S.-based commercial crew launch capability 

at the earliest possible time. 

NASA is pleased with the steady progress of U.S. commercial providers in developing domestic cargo 

and crew transportation services. NASA currently has contracts for cargo services and intends to 

purchase crew services from U.S. providers once they are certi!led to our crew requirements. Obtaining 

needed eargo and crew transportation services from U.S. providers is NASA's preferred method for 

sustaining and fully utilizing the ISS. Nevertheless, given current funding levels for the development of 

U.S. crew transportation systems, we anticipate the need to purchase Soyuz crew transportation and 

rescue capabilities into 2017. As NASA has previously testi!led, modification of the Iran, North Korea, 

Syria Non-proliferation Act (INKSNA) provisions will likely be required for the continued operation of 

ISS and other space programs after 2016. The Administration plans to propose appropriate provisions 

and looks forward to working with the Congress on their enactment. NASA is evaluating how this issue 

10 
41 

impacts the development of U.S. crew transportation systems and NASA's acquisition of services for the 

ISS and goods and services for other NASA human spaceflight activities, given the possibility that some 

U.S. domestic providers will need to use Russian goods and services. In addition to the need driven by 

the ISS transportation requirements, NASA will require Russia-unique critical capabilities for the life of 

the ISS, such as sustaining engineering for the Russian built U.S. owned Functional Cargo Block, that are 

not available elsewhere. 

The FY 2013 budget request includes $333.7 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 and capabilities 

that will enable humans to explore space in a more sustainable and affordable way. ERD is comprised of 

the Iluman Research Program (HRP) and the Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) Program, which will 

provide knowledge and advanced human spaceflight capabilities. NASA's Office of the Chief 

Technologist (sec below) coordinates closely with ERD to ensure that NASA's long range, crosscutting 

Space Technology research is complementary to ERD's human exploration focused work. 

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. ISS crews arc 

conducting relevant human medical research to develop knowledge in the areas of clinical medicine, 

human physiology, cardiovascular research, bone and muscle health, neurovestibular medicine, diagnostic 

instruments and sensors, advanced ultrasound, excrcise and pharmacological countermeasures, food and 

nutrition, immunology and infection, exercise systems, and human behavior and performance. While this 

research is aimed at enabling astronauts to push thc boundaries of exploration beyond low-Earth Orbit 

(LEO), NASA anticipates that investigations conducted aboard ISS may havc broad application to 

terrestrial medicine, as well. For example, the growing senior population may bencfit from experimcnts 

in the areas of bone and muscle health, immunology, and from the development of advanced diagnostic 

systems. 

The AES Program is pioneering new approaches for rapidly developing prototype systems, demonstrating 

key capabilities, and validating operational concepts for future human missions beyond Earth orbit. AES 

activitics are uniquely related to crcw safety and mission operations in deep space, and are strongly 

coupled to future vehicle and exploration capability development. Early integration and testing of 

prototype systems will reduce risk and improve affordability of exploration mission elements. Thc 

prototype systems dcveloped in the AES Program will be demonstrated in ground-based test beds, field 

tcsts, underwater tests, and flight experiments on the ground and then on the ISS. Many AES projects 

will evolve into larger integrated systems and mission elements that will be tested on ISS before we 

venture beyond Earth orbit, thus leveraging the value ofthc Station as a vital exploration test-bed. 

The FY 2013 budget request includes $70.6 million for the Space Shuttle Transition and Retirement 

(T&R). In 2011, the Shuttle flew out its remaining missions safely. On February 24, Discovery launchcd 

on mission STS-133, calTying supplies to ISS, as well as the permanent a Multi-purpose Modulc 

(PMM)-- a Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM) transformed to rcmain on orbit, expanding the 

Station's storage volume. On May 16, Endeavour, STS-134, carried the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer 

(AMS) and attached it to the Station's truss structure. The final Shuttle mission, STS-135, launched on 

July 8, delivered critical supplics to the ISS. With the landing of Atlantis on July 21, 20 II, the 30-year 

Shuttle Program was brought to a close. The Space Shuttle Program is now focused on the transition of 

key assets and infrastructure to future programs, and the retirement, and disposition of Program assets. 

In FY 2012, NASA is funding United Space Alliance's (USA's) Space Program Operations Contract 

(SPOC) Pension Liability. During the Shuttle Program, USA consistently incorporated and billed the 

maximum allowable costs into their indirect rates, but the deterioration of the equities and credit markets 

II 
42 

caused their plan to be underfunded by a currently estimated $522 million. The estimate will fluctuate 

until payout in the summer of2012. The variance is protected in the transition and retirement budget linc 

item. 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, 20 I 0, and defen'cd any decision about tenninating their plan until after NASA 

received its FY 2012 appropriation, allowing NASA to address this issue with FY 2012 funds. Iffunding 

remains after the pension plan termination, it will be used to defray Space Shuttle closeout costs that 

would otherwise require FY 20B funding. If there is a shortfall, it will reduce available Space Shuttle 

funds for closeout and some activity could move later than planned. NASA will keep Congress informed 

as this issue evolves. 

The FY 2013 budget request includes $3,007.6 million for the International Space Station (ISS) 

Program. This funding will support ISS Operations and Maintenance, ISS Research, and ISS Crew and 

Cargo Transportation. The ISS has transitioned from the construction era to that of operations and 

rcsearch, with a 6-person permancnt 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 Japanesc H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV). Thc FY 2013 budget request reflccts the 

importance of this unparalleled research asset to America's human spaceflight program. 

In the NASA Authorization Act of2005 (P.L. 109-155), Congress dcsignated the U.S. segment of the ISS 

as a National Laboratory, and directcd the Agency to seek to increase the utilization of the ISS by other 

Federal entities and the private scctor. NASA has made grcat strides in its effort to engagc other 

organizations in the ISS program, and thc Agency now has Memoranda of Understanding with five 

Fcderal agencies and Space Act Agreements with ninc companies and universities. In the NASA 

Authorization Act of2010 (P.L. 111-267), Congress directed that the Agency enter into a cooperative 

agreement with a not-for-profit organization to manage the activities of the ISS National Laboratory. To 

this cnd, on August 31, 20 II, NASA finalized a cooperative agreement with the Center for the 

Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS) to manage the portion of the ISS that operates as a U.S. 

National Laboratory. CASIS will be located in the Spacc Life Sciences Laboratory at Kenncdy Space 

Center in Florida. The independent, nonprofit research management organization will hclp ensure the 

Station's unique capabilities are available to the broadest possible cross-section of U.S. scientific, 

technological and industrial communities. CASIS will develop and manage a varied Research and 

Development portfolio based on U.S. national needs tor basic and applied research; seek to establish a 

marketplace to facilitate matching research pathways with qualified funding sourccs; and stimulate 

interest in using the national lab for research and technology demonstrations and as a platfonn for 

science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. The goal is to support, promote 

and accelerate innovations and new discovcries in science, engincering and technology that will improve 

life on Earth. 

The FY 2013 budget request includes $935.0 million for Space and Flight Support (SFS). The budget 

request providcs for critical infrastracture indispensable to the Nation's access to and usc of space, 

including Space Communications and Navigation (SCaN), Launcb Services Program (LSP), Rocket 

Propulsion Test (RPT), and Human Space Flight Operations (HSFO). The SFS budget also includes 

investment in the 21st Century Spacc Launch Complex, whose primary objective is to modernize and 

transform the Florida launcb and range complex at the Kennedy Spacc Center to benefit current and 

future NASA programs, along with othcr emerging users. Fiscal Year 2013 is an important period for 

NASA's Space Communications and Navigation (SCaN) Program. The Program is rcsponsible for 

NASA's Tracking and Data Rely Satcllites (TORS) that provide a critical backbone for space 

communications. FY 2013 will include the scheduled launch TDRS-K, an additional satellite in the 

12 
43 

system; completion ofTDRS L integration; and the development ofTDRS-M, which will be ready for 

launch in 2015. These spacecraft will refurbish this important network as aging TDRS are retired after 20 

years of service to the Nation. Also under constmetion is a 34-meter antenna at the Deep Space 

Network's Canberra Decp Space Communication Complex, with plans to build a second, to replace the 

aging 70-meter antenna. These antennae in the Southern Hemisphere will be particularly important as the 

Earth's rotation brings this site into the best range for tracking NASA's deep space missions in the 

coming decade. In preparation for supporting NASA's space science program, SCaN is developing space 

communications technology, including the Lunar Laser Communications Demonstration and the Laser 

Communication Relay Demonstration, which will lead to the capability of handling the huge increase in 

scientific data expected from NASA's planned spacecraft. Additionally, this capability could enable 

greater bandwidth and capabilities to support expanded education, participatory engagement, and 

interactive exploration opportunities. SCaN also anticipates the launch of its SCaN Test-bed in June on 

the Japanese Space Agency's HTV cargo vehicle. The test-bed, composed of three Software-Defined 

Radios, will provide the bridge to advance technological innovation by actual testing in the real space 

environment. As a pathfinder it will be madc available to industry, academia and other Government 

agencies. 

The Launch Services Program (LSP) has several planned NASA launches in FY 2013, including the, 

Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM), Tracking and Data Relay Satellite (TDRS)-K, and Interface 

Region Imaging Spectrograph (IRIS), and will continue to provide support for the development and 

certification of emerging launch services. In FY 2013, the Rocket Propulsion and Test (RPT) program 

will continue to conduct test facility management, maintenance, sustaining engineering, operations, and 

facility modernization projects required to keep the test-related facilities in the appropriate state of 

operational readiness. The RPT program will continue to assist in rocket propulsion testing requirements 

definition for low Earth orbit and in-space propulsion systems and relatcd technologies 

Technology 

The Office of the Chief Technologist (OCT) coordinates the Agency's overall technology portfolio. OCT 

ensures that NASA's investments are cost-effective and that they are aligned with the Agency's near- and 

far-term goals. Over the last year, OCT has cngaged thousands of technologists and innovators to 

develop and test cutting-edge technologies distributed across the country. While the NRC conducted its 

review of NASA's technology roadmaps, OCT worked with mission architecture teams to identify key 

technology areas requiring immediate investment. Using these internal, cross-Agency working groups, 

NASA selected nine technologies to receive priority funding based on their criticality in extending human 

presence beyond low Earth orbit and their ability to dramatically further scientific exploration of the solar 

system. These "Big 9" projects are: Laser Communications Rclay Demonstration, Cryogenic Propellant 

Storage and Transfer, Low Density Supersonic Decelerators, Composite Cryogenic Propellant Tanks, 

Robotic Satellite Servicing, Hypersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerators, Deep Space Atomic Clock, 

Large-Scale Solar Sail, and Human-Robotic Systems. 

On February 1,2012, the NRC released its final review of NASA's Draft Space Technology Roadmaps. 

The NRC identified sixteen top-priority technologies necessary for future missions, and which could also 

benefit American aerospace industries and the nation. The sixteen were chosen by the NRC from its own 

ranking of 83 high-priority technologies out of approximately 300 identified in thc draft roadmaps. In the 

coming months, OCT will lead an agency-wide analysis and coordination effort to inform future 

technology investments on the basis of the NRC report. 

The FY 2013 request for Space Technology is $699 million and funds on-going high-priority space 

technology projects that will increase the nation's capability to operate in space and enable long-term 

13 
44 

human exploration and develop efficiencies for deep space science missions. In FY 2013, NASA will 

begin to see major milestones achieved within Spacc Technology's "Big 9" efforts. Designed to deliver 

data rates that will enable new class of deep-space exploration missions, the Laser Communications Relay 

Demonstration project will begin ground validation activities of advanced laser communication systems. 

Enabling precise landing of higher-mass payloads to the surface of planets, the Low Density Supersonic 

Decelerators effort will complete three critical full-scale tests to demonstrate parachute and inflatable 

decelerator performance required prior to supersonic-speed flight demonstration. The Composite 

Cryogenic (low-temperature) Propellant Tank project will design and build a five-meter-diameter 

composite cryogenic propellant tank that will yield lower mass and lower cost rocket propellant tanks. 

The Cryogenic Propellant Storage and Transfer demonstration mission will conduct ground tests of the 

critical technologies required to enable long-term storage and handling of cryogenic fluids in space in 

preparation for a flight demonstration. While these projects will make visible individual steps in FY 

2013, they are part of a broader portfolio of activities that Space Technology will pursue in order to 

gcnerate new technologies for use by NASA, other government agencies, and U.S. industry. 

Within Space Technology, NASA funds Crosscutting Space Technology Development at $293.8 million 

to enable NASA to develop transformational, broadly applicable technologies and capabilities that are 

necessary for NASA's future science and exploration missions, and also collaborates on the aerospace 

needs of other government agencies and the U.S. space enterprise. NASA's CSTD activities are funded 

through a mix of competitive and strategically-guided projects to attract a broad array of participants. 

Investments support research fellowships, NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC), Centennial 

Challenges, suborbital flight opportunities, and advancements in small satellite technologies and systems. 

NASA also funds Exploration Technology Development at $202 million to invest in the long-range 

technologies required for humans to explore beyond low Earth orbit. ETD technologies are higher risk 

investments that complement architecture and systems development efforts within Exploration by 

maturing breakthrough technology prior to integration with operational capabilities. As projects are 

matured, new projects are selected competitively to provide the opportunity to develop the best ideas, 

innovations, approaches and processes for the future human space exploration efforts. 

Funded based on a percentage of the Agency's total extramural R&D, the Small Business Innovative 

Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs continue to support research 

and development performed by small businesses through competitively-awarded contracts. Estimated at 

approximately $173.7 million in FY 2013, these programs produce innovations for both Government and 

commercial applications. SBIR and STTR provide the high-technology small business sector with the 

opportunity to develop technology for NASA, and commercialize that technology to provide goods and 

services that address other national needs based on the products of NASA innovation. 

Partnership Development and Strategic Integration, funded at $29.5 million, comprises key Agency 

responsibilities managed by OCT: technology partnerships, technology transfer and commercialization, 

and thc coordination of NASA's technology investments across the Agency through technology portfolio 

tracking and technology road-mapping. By providing coordination between Mission Directorates and 

Centers, and identifying collaboration opportunities with other government agencies and performing 

technology transfer, NASA can deliver forward-reaching technology solutions for future science and 

exploration missions, and help address significant national needs. 

Within this portfolio, OCT cngages in national tcchnology development initiatives such as the National 

Robotics Initiative, the National Nanotechnology Initiative and the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership, 

and seeks partnerships with external entities for collaborative technology development. OCT engages the 

larger aerospace community including other Government agencies, and where there are mutual interests, 

develops partnerships to efficiently develop breakthrough capabilities. 

14 
45 

Education 

The FY 2013 request includes $100 million for NASA's Ol1ice of Education to develop Science 

Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education activities that only NASA can provide. 

The funding request would allow undergraduate and graduate students to work alongside NASA scientists 

and engineers through internships and fellowships at NASA centers. It includes educator professional 

development, helping our country's educators become proficient in STEM topics, and providing them 

opportunities to practice hands-on investigations. NASA will also continue to support the institutions 

where learning takes place. Through the Space Grant and Minority University Research and Education 

projects, NASA will work with hundreds of universities and community colleges, strengthening their 

capacity to train the next generation of scientists and engineers, encouraging student design challenges, 

and connecting faculty with NASA research. And, because we know inspiration doesn't just happen in a 

classroom, we will engage learners in NASA content at our visitor centers and in partnership with 

museums, science centers, planetariums and other intormal education venues. 

NASA is one of many Federal government programs that support STEM education. NASA is working 

with other agencies through the National Science and Technology Council's Committee on STEM 

Education to effect optimal revisions to fund coordinated and effective student and teacher opportunities. 

NASA will focus its resources on demonstrated areas of strength in its unique role in STEM education. 

NASA brings many assets to support the Administration's emphasis on (STEM education beyond 

funding. Our people, platforms like the ISS and our facilities across the Nation all contribute to 

strengthening STEM education. 

Recognizing that the nature of our work is inspirational to learners and educators, NASA will leverage the 

talents of our workforce to support the critical STEM education needs of our Nation. In collaboration with 

other Federal agencies, NASA willlcverage unique assets like the International Space Station (ISS), to 

provide meaningful experiences. In March, Educator Astronaut Joe Aeaba, a tormer middle and high 

school teacher, will begin a six-month mission onboard the ISS. During his time in space, he will work 

closely with our education team on the ground to share his experience with classrooms across America. 

Cross-Agency Support 

The FY 2013 budget request includes $2,847.5 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 hiring slowdown and reduced 

travel. 

NASA's FY 2013 budget request includes $2,093.3 million for Center Management and Operations, 

which funds the critical ongoing management, operations, and maintcnance of nine NASA Centers, as 

well as associated major component facilities. NASA Centers continue to provide high-quality support 

and the technical engineering and scientific talent for the execution of programs and projects. Tbis 

tcchnical expertise represents a true national resource. Center Management and Operations provides the 

basic support required to meet internal and external legal and administrative requirements; effectively 

manage human capital, inforn1ation tcchnology, 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 Fedcral requirements. 

15 
46 

NASA's FY 2013 budget request includes $754.2 million for Agency Management and Operations, 

which funds the critical management and oversight of Agency missions, programs and functions, and 

performance of a broad spectrum of NASA-wide activities. These programs include Safety and Mission 

Success activities, essential to reducing the likelihood ofloss oflife and likelihood of mission success in 

our human and robotic programs. Safety and Mission Success funding supports the maintenance of 

independent safety, health, medical and engineering assessments of systems and processes, as well as the 

perfonnance of the broad risk assessments, mitigations, and acceptance related to critical Agency 

decisions. Agency Information Technology Services (AITS) encompasses Agency-level cross-cutting 

services and initiatives in Information Technology (IT) innovation, busincss and management 

applications, and infrastructure neccssary to enable the NASA Mission. The Strategic Capabilities Assets 

Program (SCAP) ensure that vital Agency test capabilities and assets, such as flight simulators and 

thermal vacuum chambers are sustained in order to scrve Agency and national needs. The Agency 

Management and Operations account 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 2013 budget request includes $619.2 million for Construction and Environmental Compliance 

and Restoration. NASA Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration provides for the 

design and execution of all facilities const11lction projects, including discrete and minor revitali7.ation 

projects, dcmolition of closed facilities, and environmental compliance and restoration. 

The FY 2013 budget request includes $552.8 million for the Construction of Facilities (CoF) Program, 

which fimds 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 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. In August 2011, NASA opened the Agency's first building designed for "NetZero" energy operations, the Propellants North Administration and Maintenance Facility at the Kennedy 

Space Center in Florida. Two active programs that result in NASA achieving greater efficiencies and 

reduced operating eosts are NASA's demolition program and recapitalization program, in which old 

inefficient facilities are replaced with new, efficient, consolidated facilities. Twelve horizontal 

infrastructure projects that sllstain our major utility systems are included in this request; completion of 

these projects will reduce our usage of potable and process water, electricity and steam. 

The FY 2013 budget request includes $66.4 million for the Environmental Compliance and 

Restoration (ECR) Program, which supports the ongoing clean-up of sites where NASA operations bave 

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. 

Conclusion 

NASA's FY 2013 budget request of$I7.7 billion represents a substantial investment in a balanced 

program of science, exploration, technology and aeronautics research. Despite the constrained budget 

16 
47 

environment facing the Nation, this request supports a robust space program that keeps us on a path to 

achieving a truly audacious set of goals. NASA is working to send humans to an asteroid and ultimately 

to Mars, to observc the first galaxies form, and to expand the productivity of humanity's only 

permanently-crewed space station. We are making air travel safer and more efficient, learning to live 

and work in space, and developing the critical technologies to achieve these goals. The corning year will 

include the first commercial cargo flights to the ISS, a nuclear powered robot the size of a small car 

landing on the surface of Mars, and the launch of the Nation's next land observing satellite. We have 

spacecraft studying the Sun, circling Mercury, cruising to Pluto and investigating almost everything inbetween. In the face of very difficult times, the American people continue to support the most active, 

diverse and productive space program in the world. We at NASA arc honored by our fellow citizens' 

continued support and we are committed to accomplishing the goals that Congress and the President have 

laid out for us. The program described and supported by our FY 2013 budget request represents our plan 

to accomplish those goals. 

17 
48 

Chairman HALL. All right. I thank you, sir, for your testimony, 

and I remind Members that Committee rules limit questioning to 

five minutes, and the Chair will open—at this point open the round 

of questions. The Chair recognizes himself for five minutes, and I 

will try to stay within the five minutes. I will stay within the five 

minutes. 

Charlie, NASA continues, we think, to ignore a provision in the 

2010 Authorization Act to develop the Space Launch System and 

Orion and Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle in time to provide a 

back-up capability to reach International Space Station if the Russians or the commercial companies are unable to perform. 

Using NASA’s very best case scenario, commercial crew capabilities will not be available any earlier than 2017, and the Space 

Launch System and Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle would not 

be operational before 2021, after the Space Station’s current 

planned life. NASA has reduced the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle budget by $200 million in this fiscal year 2013 request. 

In the interim, what plan does NASA have in place to access 

International Space Station should the Russian Soyuz or the commercial system be unavailable or not work for some reason? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, regretfully as I think everyone here 

knows, we have set ourselves up for a 2017 first availability of any 

capability beyond the Russians to take crews to the International 

Space Station. That is regrettable, but it is due to a lack of execution prior to now, and we are trying to correct that. 

I would say what is critical is that we not extend the gap between now and when we do have an American capability to get humans back into space any farther than it is right now, and that is 

why we are asking for the funds that we are, to support the Commercial Crew Development Program. 

Chairman HALL. In July or August NASA’s Commercial Crew 

Program plans to give, I think, 300 million to 500 million to multiple companies using Space Act Agreements instead of more typical government contracts. According to NASA’s Office of General 

Counsel, Space Act Agreements do not permit NASA to impose design or safety requirements on the contractors. 

I don’t understand how we can be assured that NASA is developing safe systems, and safety is so important if it is prohibited 

from imposing any requirements or performance tests from the 

companies? And what recourse does the government have if these 

companies fail to perform or go out of business? And what, if anything, will NASA own after making these expenditures? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congressman, the main recourse I have is that I 

pick the winner. My pledge to this Congress has always been that 

safety is foremost as long as I am the Administrator. 

While it is true that we don’t have the opportunity to impose requirements and specifications under Space Act Agreements, in response to continued prodding from the Aerospace Safety Advisory 

Panel, a panel empowered by this Congress, we have now developed a set of design requirements for a human-rated vehicle, as 

well as human-rating standards for the same vehicles. And the industry companies, American companies have participated in the development of those standards and everyone has access to that now. 
49 

So whereas a year ago a company would have said I am reluctant 

to bid because I don’t know what requirements you are going to impose upon me, that argument—no longer holds water. Everyone 

has in their possession the design requirements for a human-rated 

vehicle that they will have to comply with when they enter into a 

contract. Everyone knows what the human-rating standards are. 

So for minor things about human rating they know what they 

are. So I have people who are working with the companies right 

now that can look at how they are designing and developing their 

vehicle, and we will get a very good feel for whether or not they 

are serious about designing to those standards. They can’t fool us. 

So I may not be able to impose the requirements yet, but they 

know what requirements they are going to have to meet once we 

enter into a contract with them. 

Chairman HALL. Well, Charlie, you have some control over the 

Office of the General Counsel, don’t you, and they are subject to 

your suggestions, your demands, your requests. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I do, but I don’t have control over 

the law, and I don’t have control over procurement regulations and 

the job of my general counsel, and it is one that I respect dearly 

because he is a Marine, and he is the world’s greatest fighter pilot 

formerly, and so I respect his opinion, and he tells me that I need 

not stray from procurement law, and I am happy with that. 

And I assure you, again, in all seriousness, safety is my number 

one concern, and I will make sure that we don’t fly any American 

astronauts on any spacecraft if it is not safe and it doesn’t meet 

our requirements. 

Chairman HALL. But safe to me is you ought to permit NASA to 

impose these safety requirements and have it in writing in the contracts, and that would give you more substance to take them on for 

in our behalf. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congressman—— 

Chairman HALL. Why not do that? 

Mr. BOLDEN [continuing]. You just used a key word when you 

said impose on the contractor. They are partners right now. They 

are not contractors, and it is a subtle difference, but it is a difference. When they become contractors, when we put a request for 

a proposal out, somewhere between 14 and 20 months after we go 

through this Space Act Agreement process, they will bid on that 

proposal. They are then contractors, and once they sign on the dotted line, then they have hard requirements with which they have 

to comply. 

If we have any indication from our teams in their facilities between now and when our contract is met that they are not seriously approaching the standards that we need, they won’t win the 

contract. I can say that upfront. So if someone thinks they are 

going to fool us or say that they will put political pressure on us 

later because I have no other choice, they are sadly mistaken. We 

know, and they know. We know that they know what the requirements are. We know that they know what the human rating—— 

Chairman HALL. My time is over, and I thank you so much. I 

may write you about that. Thank you. 

Mr. BOLDEN. I will make them comply. 
50 

Chairman HALL. Now recognize Ms. Johnson for her five minutes. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Administrator Bolden, you know as well as I know that NASA 

is a unique source of inspiration for our young people, and it really 

is distressing to see the assessment of the value of NASA’s education activities. 

Your total request for fiscal year 2013 is about $59 million less 

than you were appropriated by the Congress in fiscal year 2012. I 

know that many people are sitting here listening to you, think 

yeah, yeah, yeah, but at the same time the fiscal year 2013 budget 

request for education is $36 million less than appropriated for fiscal year 2012. 

And I understand that you had to make difficult choices, yet with 

all of the puts and takes, the optics of education taking the lion’s 

share of the agency’s reduction just does not sit well with me. 

So how is it that during your priority setting, as Dr. Holdren told 

us, education didn’t stack up well against other agency programs 

or STEM education programs in other agencies? Could you elaborate on that? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congresswoman, I won’t comment on Dr. Holdren’s 

statement if he said that, but I would say education had to stack 

up well. Education is very important. It is critical, and what we are 

doing that is a little bit different than we have ever done before 

is one of the first things that I did when I came in was we established and we had an education summit, and we brought in, and 

I think I mentioned this to you before, we brought in 25 of the most 

expert people we could find in foundations and educational institutions to help us determine which direction we should go in. They 

recommended we form a design team to help us reform NASA’s 

Education Program, and that is what we are trying to do now. 

There is also the President’s desire is to more adequately collaborate among agencies so that we don’t have duplication of effort, and 

that is under Dr. Holdren’s leadership in the Co-STEM, the Committee on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math, and what 

we are doing is giving that collaborative organization an opportunity to set some goals for all of us. One of the things I mentioned 

is we have to be able to measure. I have to be able to get metrics 

that say my programs are effective, and I think in the end we will 

be able to do that, and you will find that we are even more effective 

than we are right now. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Okay. Can you tell me where are you in terms of 

getting the measurements in place? 

Mr. BOLDEN. We have been working for 2–1/2 years now to establish those metrics, and I think they are, the metrics are now well 

established, and we can have Mr. Melvin and his folks come in and 

talk about what they are. We have tried to work them out with 

educational institutions and foundations, and so I think we have 

the metrics established. 

The measurement of those, as I think most people understand, 

is not something that happens in a week or a day or a month. We 

are talking about years in the making to be able to verify that your 

program was successful. 
51 

But we do have measures from the Summer of Innovation Program that is now getting ready to go into its third summer that 

we have had a measurable affect on the interest of children, students, mainly in middle school. That was our focus. The interest of 

students in STEM education and following STEM courses, and we 

definitely have metrics that show that the effectiveness of our work 

with teachers is much better than it has ever been before. We now 

have teachers who proudly stand in front of a class and feel they 

know what they are talking about when they talk about math and 

science, and they are not afraid to teach it. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes, and I believe that, but I am trying to figure 

out what did you give up by giving up this $36 million? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Well, Congresswoman, I think what we gave up 

was the number of different places that we would be able to reach, 

not the programs themselves, and Leland and I had a discussion 

about this yesterday, and if you look at EPSCoR or you look at 

Space Grant, the content is not affected. What is affected is the 

number of schools or the number of communities that we will be 

able to reach for some period of time, and we are trying to find 

ways to overcome that. 

NASA is now much better than ever in utilizing social media. I 

don’t have any statistics, I don’t have any metrics to show this. My 

guess is we are probably reaching more students today although we 

are spending less money and getting into fewer areas than we ever 

reached before through Facebook, iTunes, apps. NASA has probably as many apps out there now that are available to students as 

anybody, and we didn’t have that before. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Chairman HALL. The gentlelady yields back. 

I recognize Mr. Sensenbrenner for five minutes. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. General, thank you for coming. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Thank you. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Trying to squeeze programs into whatever 

the President says you have got available I know is a very difficult 

job, and you have got to pick some winners and losers. I know that 

programs talk about hardware and delivery systems and stuff like 

that. I am kind of concerned about people, and we are all in favor 

of having more jobs available and haven’t done a very good job in 

that during the current recession. 

But delays in developing the new Space Launch System resulted 

in the loss of about 10,000 jobs, and do you think the private sector 

will be able to absorb these 10,000 jobs as a result of increased reliance on the private sector, or are we going to be having some highly-trained engineers who know a lot about developing spacecraft to 

just go off into another area of endeavor? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congressman, regretfully the answer to that question is regional. If you would ask me about Texas, we have had incredible success in placing our employees who have lost their job 

because the petrochemical industry has sucked them up. If you are 

talking about Florida, that is probably the area that is the hardest 

hit, and it is because we have been unsuccessful in working with 

the State of Florida to get them to bring high-tech jobs, alternative 

high-tech jobs into the area. 
52 

But the lieutenant governor and I are working diligently to try 

to find companies that want to come into Florida and utilize the 

talent that we have there. 

So it is a slog. We are going to get there. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. What is NASA doing to ensure that we 

don’t lose these people forever? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congressman, what we are trying to do particularly 

with the NASA workforce, unfortunately, I have to differentiate between the civil service workforce and the contractor workforce because I actually have very little control over the contractor workforce and what happens to them other than going out and using 

more of our money to hire contractors instead of focusing on programs and keep the civil service workforce. 

In the case of the civil service workforce, we are trying to do everything we can to retrain people where necessary, to make lateral 

moves so that we put them in the proper skill, the proper position 

to utilize their skills, and in some cases in my visits to the centers 

I am asking people to come in and say, hey, I am not happy doing 

what I am doing. I think I would be better at doing this and asking 

for a move into another field if they think there is something else 

they can do. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Now, we spend about $3 billion a year on 

the Space Station. We have two astronauts up in the Space Station 

now, which I think is probably the most expensive jobs program in 

the universe. 

Ms. Johnson has complained about some changes. How about reducing the Space Station budget and perhaps reducing the billion 

and a half per job that we create up there? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congressman, I would disagree with you in your assessment that it is an expensive jobs program. The Space Station 

Program is not a jobs program at all. The Space Station Program 

is the most incredible technological achievement of this Nation and 

the world, and I would refer anybody to, not just to NASA’s website 

but to the website of any of our other four international partners. 

This document which shows—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. What portion do they, the partners pay 

for—— 

Mr. BOLDEN. Every partner pays a proportional amount. Russia 

and the United States pay the lion share because only we know 

how to build spacecraft the way we do, but every partner is required to put in a certain amount, and we don’t—there is no exchange of funds. Let me make sure everybody understands that. 

We work with our partners on a barter arrangement. So we may 

get a spacecraft from them for an opportunity for one of their astronauts to fly, or we may get some other component from them for 

some service, but there is no exchange of funds. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay. I have one more series of questions 

relative to the James Webb Space Telescope. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. It currently has a cost overrun of 900 percent, and that is shameful, and that is shocking. What would happen if we said we weren’t going to give you anymore money on 

this? You are going to have to do with what is on the baseline, and 

my second question and this is not facetious, is that telescope going 
53 

to be strong enough to see the bottom of the financial hole that we 

have dug for it? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congressman, I would say first of all, James Webb 

has the potential to expand our understanding of our universe 

many times more than the Hubble Space Telescope has done, and 

we never dreamed of what Hubble would do. 

I don’t think you can put a financial price tag or a value on the 

incredible achievements of the Hubble Space Telescope. If I were 

to go through the benefits in this document and try to put a dollar 

value on it and divide it by the number of people who have worked 

on the International Space Station Program in the 12 or so years 

we have been flying, I think you would be marveled at the small 

cost per person to do this. So I don’t think we can attach financial 

value to this. It is unfortunate, because we are talking about lifesaving drugs, we are talking about medical—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I know about all of that, but one thing I 

have experienced in the 30 years that I have been on this Committee is that NASA always seems to have cost overruns on everything, and with the James Webb Telescope it is 900 percent. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congressman, if I were to show you instruments or 

satellites such as Juno and GRAIL, who are—Juno is on its ways 

to—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. You are dancing around the question about 

the Webb Telescope. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Since I became the NASA Administrator, and I did 

not do this, by the way. This started in 2009, before I became the 

Administrator, NASA adopted a process called Joint Cost Level. We 

are looking at cost in schedule, and we are making sure that we 

can guarantee an 80 percent probability of success on missions. 

Juno, GRAIL, MAVEN, other projects that have been conducted in 

my time as the NASA Administrator have no cost overruns. In fact, 

some of them have under-run their cost estimate. All of them have 

been delivered on time. The James Webb Space Telescope in the 

last year and a half since we have brought out this re-plan to this 

Congress and got it approved, James Webb is on target. Every 

milestone it was supposed to reach except one has been reached on 

time. That one was deferred because we needed to do that for another reason not related to our ability to do it. Cost is on cost. 

So I think we have adopted a new way of pricing that makes us 

much more attendant to cost and schedule, and I don’t think you 

are going to see the overruns that we have historically had. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the Chair. 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman yields back. 

I now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Miller, 

for five minutes. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Bolden, there are obvious ethical concerns with revolving door government. Some of this has to do with the appearance of impropriety and sometimes the conduct goes beyond the appearance of impropriety. 

The ethical concerns behind the Procurement Integrity Act 

seemed pretty evident. That prohibits former federal officials who 

oversaw certain procurements from going to work for the contractor 
54 

that they gave those contracts to, from getting paid by the very 

folks that they had given business to. 

And those apply to all procurements above a certain dollar value 

but apparently not to all kinds of contracts, including apparently 

the Space Act Agreements, and NASA is using Space Act Agreements extensively in the acquisition of commercial crew capabilities. There are hundreds of million of dollars involved, and it seems 

to be important to the integrity of the agency that Congress and 

the American people have the ethical expectations that the Procurement Integrity Act is designed to protect apply to the acquisition of commercial capabilities. 

Is it correct that the post-employment restrictions of the Procurement Integrity Act do not apply to Space Act Agreements for those 

acquisitions, for those procurements, and if they don’t, do you think 

Congress should make them apply? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congressman, I cannot answer that question, and 

I will get you an answer for the record. 

Mr. MILLER. Okay. Well, you may have difficulty with the next 

question, too, because it is along the same general lines. 

Your policy directive 1050.1(l), which deals with the use of Space 

Act Agreement, says that agreements may be used only when the 

agency’s objective cannot be accomplished through the use of a procurement contract, grant, or cooperative agreement. NASA has decided, however, to use Space Act Agreements for the Commercial 

Crew Acquisition. That appears to be a reversal of the earlier decision to use contracts that did have the restrictions. 

Can you explain that decision? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MILLER. Okay, and is your rationale consistent with your 

policy directive limiting the use of those agreements? 

Mr. BOLDEN. And Congressman, I won’t ask you to read it for me 

again because I don’t remember all that you said, but the simple 

explanation for the reason that I went from a—my plan, the acquisition strategy to enter into a contract to put out a request for proposal for Commercial Crew was the fact that the 2012 appropriation from the Congress was half of what we had explained to the 

Congress we would need to conduct a viable Commercial Crew Program. 

The GAO and other oversight organizations came to the Congress 

and came to me and said we think you need to relook at your acquisition strategy, because we don’t think you can do what you said 

you could do, and I agreed with them reluctantly. 

And so in order to maintain competition, in order to give more 

companies an opportunity to participate in the production of a system, not an individual vehicle like we did through the Commercial 

Crew, the earlier program that we had, my decision was that we 

would prolong the period of time utilizing Space Act Agreements 

where we would continue to partner with industry and not go into 

contracts. 

If I had had to enter into a contract, if I had had to submit a 

request for proposal in February as I had planned, at $406 million 

I would have had to select one contractor, and the cost, the subsequent cost on that contract would, I think, have been—I would not 

have been able to afford it. 
55 

And so that was the basis for my decision to extend the period 

of time that we were utilizing Space Act Agreements. 

Mr. MILLER. Well—— 

Mr. BOLDEN. It may have been legal to do so, but it would not 

have made sense. It would not have made financial sense. 

Mr. MILLER. The traditional Procurement Law requirements that 

the Space Act Agreements get around don’t apply. I just talked 

about one of them, the Revolving Door concerns. What are the concerns, what are the provisions or safeguards that drive up cost 

and—— 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congressman, I just have to ask. I am confused because the implication is that we have selected a company that is 

violating the Revolving Door rule, and I don’t know of any. So, if 

you are asking me to justify why we selected a company that has 

someone who was involved earlier in the decision to do Space Act 

Agreements, I would be glad to answer that question, but I don’t 

know whether you are dealing in a hypothetical or whether you are 

alluding—what you are implying is that we have violated the law. 

Mr. MILLER. You seem to have gone to view some of the restrictions that appear to have good sense behind them, that those are 

a problem, and they might drive up costs. I would like to know why 

they are a problem. Should they perhaps not apply to any contracts, or if there is, in fact, good sense behind them, why aren’t 

they applying to these contracts? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Sir, the problem with going with a contract at $406 

million is that I would only have one company to be awarded a contract if they would be willing to accept a contract at that price. I 

don’t think I could have gotten, I may have found one company. 

The one thing I do not want to find, the situation I do not want 

to find myself in ever again or my successor is where there is only 

one alternative to taking humans to space without going to a foreign entity. I would like to have and my purpose in stretching this 

out is to hopefully have at least two American companies, not two 

alternatives, Russia and an American company, but two American 

companies who can provide transportation to low Earth orbit. 

Mr. MILLER. It is—I understand my time has expired. You said 

you would get back to me on whether the Procurement Integrity 

Act Revolving Door Provision should apply. Please do. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, sir. I will. 

Mr. MILLER. All right. Thank you. 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. 

Palazzo, for five minutes. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Administrator, for appearing here today. 

My questions today are offered in the context of my continued 

frustration that NASA seems to be an agency without a clear mission. As we wrap up the Shuttle Program and send the orbiters to 

museums, we so, too, lose expertise and a skilled workforce to other 

opportunities. It just adds that some of those opportunities are outside of the aerospace industry. 

Meanwhile, our access to the ISS is limited to the Russians, a 

reliable partner, but not without concerns after this last fall’s 

launch mishaps. And I wondered what our European partners feel 
56 

about our future human programs when they see our schizophrenic 

nature in mission planning. 

After 50 years of leadership in human spaceflight this heralded 

agency faces the question of what is next. It is my commitment as 

Chairman of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee that we 

come together to advance common, worthwhile goals and protect 

America’s legacy of space leadership. Having said that I would like 

to ask you a few specific questions. 

Mr. Administrator, I am extremely pleased with the critical role 

the Stennis Space Center has in support of SLS, COTS, and 

CCDev, but I want to make sure those investments are comparable 

to the investment and resources and infrastructure at the Kennedy 

Space Center. 

Stennis’s role is prior to flight, and there seems to be a disparity 

in investment. Can you speak to that? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congressman, Stennis is playing a critical role right 

now, and they are doing something that the Kennedy Space Center 

is not doing, and that is test firing on a routine basis. We have 

quite a bit of activity going on at Stennis, and that required us to 

make investments in upgrading the test stands, and I think we are 

doing that. 

We have been able to attract not only interest from the traditional engine manufacturers but now some of the newcomers. So I 

think our investment in Stennis is doing exactly what we want to 

do and bringing benefit to the area in terms of testing that we are 

doing. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Okay. So the concern is that the investment in 

Kennedy is not going to get so far ahead because there is some additional investment that needs to go into Stennis for the 21st century launch facility. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congressman, you heard me say once before while 

we were both together for the anniversary at Stennis, and I didn’t 

make this up. I have heard it. All roads to space lead through Stennis, and that is a true statement, because we don’t fly an engine 

that hasn’t been tested at the Stennis Space Center. 

So my development of test stands or my upgrade of test stands 

has to pace the development of the vehicles that we are planning 

to fly at Kennedy. 

So 21st century launch facility, the exploration ground systems, 

we are trying to piece all of that such that we end up with a system, all of its integral parts coming together at the same time. I 

think you are very aware J–2X is something that while we won’t 

need it for a number of years, we are trying to get some testing 

behind us on the J–2X. If I weren’t worried about that, I would say, 

okay. Let us hold off for a few years before we test J–2X. I don’t 

think that would be prudent because, you know, we probably would 

not be able to find any problems that we may have with it, and it 

would not be ready when we need it. 

So I think the answer to your question is we are trying to pace 

the improvements, the construction, and the development at all of 

our centers such that everything keeps pace and comes together in 

the case of SLS MPCV in 2017, when we fly our first uncrewed 

launch. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Parallel path. 
57 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Okay. Also I have seen in the news media reports 

that NASA is making investments in other agency rocket test 

stands at the expense of the agency’s primary rocket test facility 

at Stennis. Are you approving those investments at other centers? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congressman, I am not aware of an investment 

that we are making in another agency test stand. I will take that 

for the record. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Plum Brook, $150 million investment. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Oh, that is, but that is our test facility, and that 

investment is one of long standing. This is not a new budget item 

or a new investment. It has been ongoing, and we are just trying 

to make sure that Plum Brook is ready when it is time to take, 

whether it is Orion or any other vehicle there, that it will be ready 

to test. 

Mr. PALAZZO. So you don’t think that is a duplication of test facilities? 

Mr. BOLDEN. No. They are totally different. Plum Brook and 

Stennis, Plum Brook is a vacuum, it is a chamber that we can simulate conditions in space for a vehicle itself, whereas Stennis, as 

you know, is a facility where we simulate the operating conditions 

of an engine. 

So totally different. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Administrator, I appreciate it. My time has expired. I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Maryland, Ms. Edwards, for five minutes. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Johnson and General Bolden, I appreciate your being here as well 

for your leadership. 

I know that today we are focused on the long-term goals and 

flight missions beyond earth and NASA’s activities to develop the 

capabilities of the program, and I do want to highlight and appreciate the breath of life that has been breathed into the work at 

Goddard Spaceflight Center on Earth Science missions and the continued work at—with the James Webb Space Telescope. And unlike 

some of my colleagues, I really do see a value in James Webb as 

does my friend over in the Senate who breathed life into the James 

Webb Space Telescope in the appropriations process when some on 

the other side frankly wanted to zero it out entirely. 

But I do have some concerns about Goddard’s budget and the reduction of $180 million this year, and it is not specifically about 

Goddard, but it goes to the question of the priorities for the agency 

and your overall vision and strategies. 

I am concerned when I look at the budget and it proposes increased funding for ground support systems without a completed 

design for a commercial vehicle. It bucks the recommendations of 

a decadal survey by ending the ESA, the European Space Agency 

partnership for planned Mars missions in 2016 and 2018, and it 

doesn’t follow through on the authorization that was passed in 

2010. 

This creates an atmosphere, I think, of great uncertainty by, certainly by members of this committee about our ability to maintain 

U.S. leadership in a number of the areas that we have pioneered. 
58 

And so to that point, I look at every program in your budget and 

it seems to take a hit except for the commercial crew, and in that 

one request it is $829 million, more than double what has been appropriated for fiscal year 2012, two-thirds more than what is authorized for 2013. And according to your staff if NASA is not appropriated at the requested level and instead receives something close 

to last year, it will slip the operational date for commercial services 

to 2018. 

I wonder if you can tell me how we can expect support on this 

Committee for a 104 percent increase when you have yet to provide 

us, despite being asked numerous times, frankly, General, a credible cost and schedule estimate that justifies an annual funding 

stream lending to the operational date that you indicated. 

And I wonder if you also could tell us why you don’t have plans 

any longer to have an independent cost assessment and schedule 

estimate done despite assurances that you made last fall that one 

would be done, and if that is true, I wonder why you are abandoning it. 

And then lastly, going to the acquisition strategy, I wonder— 

since you permit NASA’s safety requirements that you have considered to be risky by your own staff—how you can project with any 

confidence that our astronauts will be able to fly safely on a commercial spacecraft to the International Space Station by 2017. 

I know that is a lot to take in, but it does raise some concerns 

with me anyway about projecting goals and costs for something 

that we haven’t even proven yet, and if that is true, why do we 

need to spend that money for 2013? It seems to me we need to get 

something that is more of a sure shot from you before we authorize 

spending levels when we are cutting in other critical parts of the 

agency and the agency’s mission. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congresswoman, when we made the initial assessment of what would be required for a Commercial Crew Program, 

we did a number of things. We went to industry and asked them 

themselves, which I understand is sending the fox to the henhouse, 

some say, but we did get independent assessments of whether or 

not that was reasonable, and the estimate that we originally 

brought in for $850 million was something that was supported by 

people that said if you want to have a commercial crew capability 

by 2016, then you need $850 million, and I think—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. Did you say you got that independently from the 

industry? I am so confused. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Oh, no, no, no, no, no. No, ma’am. I said we got estimates from industry. I think, you know, the Augustine Committee got the original estimates from industry, the Aerospace Corporation took a look, and I would get back to you on what other 

entities we had look, but $850 million was the estimate that we 

had for bringing in a viable commercial crew capability by 2016. 

When we testified last year, not just me but Bill Gerstenmaier and 

others, we said if we are allocated less than $850 million, it will 

cause the program to move to the right. We didn’t know how much, 

but we estimated that if we went down to—I think the number at 

the time was if we go down to $500 million, which we called the 
59 

floor, then that is going to push the program out to no earlier than 

2017. 

So that is where we are today. We are at 2017. The reason we are asking for the $829 million is because we do not want to see 

it go to the right anymore. The gap between now and 2017 is excessive. A gap that increases would be unacceptable, and that is the 

reason we came back and asked for a restoration of funds for the 

Commercial Crew Program. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I know my 

time has expired. 

I have to tell you, General Bolden, I don’t know how you can 

really legitimately make those estimates when it doesn’t seem to 

me that there is a real plan yet, and so I hope we are not going 

to be coming back to this Committee another year from now and 

saying, you know what? It is not $829 million because we had some 

other things that we have to consider, and we have something 

more real that is a deliverable from the industry. I think that is 

very problematic. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congresswoman, I will take the action to get with 

you and your staff to make sure that I understand what you mean 

when you are asking for a plan and the cost for that plan, because 

I think we have that, and I think we know where we are going, 

and I think we know how much it is going to cost. 

So I will take the action, I will take it to get back with you on 

that. 

Chairman HALL. The gentlelady yields back. 

Recognize Ms. Adams, lady from Florida, for five minutes. 

Mrs. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I see that NASA has requested $41.1 million in the 21 CLC Line 

and Space Operations. There seems to be some confusion about 

how much money is being directed to the ground ops overall. 

Can you explain how much money is being spent on—out of the 

space exploration, space operations, and CECR lines for ground ops 

and modernization projects? 

Mr. BOLDEN. There is about—— 

Mrs. ADAMS. If you have specific dollar amounts that would be 

great. 

Mr. BOLDEN. I will get you the exact number, but I think it is about $504 million for ground operations, but in order to try to be 

clear to the Congress and make it easier, we call ground operations 

21st Century Launch Complex, and that is mostly for commercial 

crew and other assets, and then we have what we call Exploration 

Ground Systems that is for SLS. 

So the bulk of that money goes to Exploration Ground Systems, $47 million of it is for 21st Century, which is for modernization and 

upkeep that makes—modernization, not upkeep, for modernization 

and transformation that makes Kennedy a flexible facility for use 

of commercial and SLS. 

So that piece is confusing because it does serve SLS and other 

users. Exploration Ground Systems is strictly SLS, and that is 

where the bulk of it is. 

Mrs. ADAMS. So I look forward to getting those exact numbers 

from you. 
60 

My understanding is also that Orbital Sciences is ready to 

launch, but their pad in Virginia is not ready for them. Is this true, 

or are there other problems that you would like to share with us? 

Mr. BOLDEN. All I can tell you, Congresswoman, is what the contractor tells us. We do know that the lack of a launch pad is one 

problem right now for Orbital. I am not able to say that they could 

launch today if they had a launch pad. So I would—— 

Mrs. ADAMS. Well, is Kennedy Space Center in danger of similar 

issues, or does NASA have the resources needed to be prepared to 

launch when the time comes? 

Mr. BOLDEN. The reason that we want to spend money now on 

ground systems as I have explained to some of your counterparts 

who are more concerned about the vehicle, is as I told Congressman Palazzo, we are trying to work everything on a parallel pass 

so that we all get to the same date—— 

Mrs. ADAMS. So the question is—— 

Mr. BOLDEN [continuing]. At the same time. No, ma’am. We are 

not going to run into the problem—— 

Mrs. ADAMS. Okay. 

Mr. BOLDEN [continuing]. At Kennedy that we are facing at Wallops. But that—— 

Mrs. ADAMS. Thank you. 

Mr. BOLDEN [continuing]. And for different reasons, though, and 

I can go into that with you later but totally different operation. 

Mrs. ADAMS. I have a couple more questions, and I don’t want 

to get filibustered because I want some answers. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. ADAMS. The price tab for James Webb is now up to 8.8 billion with a B. Essentially NASA is cannibalizing everything in 

science except climate change research and earth science, which 

was untouched to pay for the James Webb. The James Webb Telescope is supposedly an international partnership. 

Can you tell me how much funding of our international partners has been contributed to this project given our $8.8 billion investment, not including the launcher, which NASA gave away to a foreign country? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congresswoman, first of all, I would disagree that 

we have cannibalized the Science Program for James Webb. That 

is not accurate nor true, and the other thing is that the international partners, as I mentioned with the International Space Station, contributes in-kind—— 

Mrs. ADAMS. How much? 

Mr. BOLDEN. They don’t give dollars. They give instruments, the 

launch vehicle is an Orion Spacecraft, which if you compared that 

to the price of an Atlas, it is $450 to $550 million. So it is a contribution in kind. 

Mrs. ADAMS. It is in kind, but you will agree that the climate 

change research part has not been changed? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congresswoman, I would say that we have not 

funded climate change, Earth science to the level that it should be 

funded for what we need to do to respond to the Nation’s needs. 

Mrs. ADAMS. General, I know you have not yet responded to the 

March 5 letter from our colleague, Appropriations Subcommittee 

Committee Chairman Frank Wolf, about discussions among the 
61 

International Space Station partners to include China in the program. 

However, I would like you to respond to the concerns raised by 

Lieutenant General Ron Burgess, Director of Defense Intelligence 

Agency, about how China’s space warfare activity is carried out 

under the guise of China’s civil space program. 

Have you been briefed by the DIA or CIA on China’s espionage 

activities to gain American space technology, especially through 

cyber hacking? Are you concerned about China’s collection efforts 

against NASA engineers, scientists, and your contractors? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congresswoman, first of all, I will just correct for 

the record, Congressman Wolf and I had a long conversation yesterday. I told him I did not want to send him a letter when I could 

talk to him and explain what happened at the heads of agency 

meeting. So that meeting has been had, and he considered that 

adequate response to his letter. 

I am continually informed by members of the intelligence community, I get briefs all the time, I go and read what is called a 

Read Book for me that contains classified information about all of 

our partners and non-partners and their intelligence activities. So 

I am aware of what is going on. 

Mrs. ADAMS. Are you concerned? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Anyone who is not concerned about what is going 

on with our partners and our non-partners would be foolish. Everyone wants our technology, so we need to be—— 

Mrs. ADAMS. Was that a yes? 

Mr. BOLDEN. I am concerned. 

Chairman HALL. The gentlelady yields back her time. 

Recognize Mrs. Fudge, the lady from Ohio, for five minutes. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Johnson. 

Good afternoon, Administrator Bolden. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Good afternoon, ma’am. 

Ms. FUDGE. I was pleased to see that Glenn Research Center is 

well positioned in your request for conducting cutting-edge space 

technology work in fiscal year 2013. With the planned engagement 

of almost 140 FTEs and with the center distribution of over $120 

million requested in fiscal year 2013, I am certainly confident that 

Glenn will answer the call. 

In particular, I note that Glenn will be leading one of the big 

nine space technology projects, specifically cryogenic propellant 

storage and transfer. Stepping back a bit, I would like to give you 

the opportunity to explain to Members why it is so important to 

make investments in space technology and what NASA will benefit 

by doing so. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congresswoman, this is a joke. I could—no, no, no. 

I am going to make a joke referring to Congressman Rohrabacher. 

Your question is incredibly timely. I was going to ask Congressman 

Rohrabacher if he would like to provide the response because we 

spent about an hour and a half together yesterday, my explaining 

to him our efforts in cryogenic propellant storage, the importance 

of doing that as a technology pursuit, the fact that it is the number 

one priority of my Technology Program, my Space Technology Program. 
62 

While it is not vital for us presently, we have to be developing 

that capability to support the heavy-lift launch vehicle when it 

comes available. We will need that capability if commercial companies want to, if they want to pursue ventures beyond low Earth 

orbit someday, as they may, we need to have the capability to put 

propellant depots in space, and we can’t do that today. We don’t 

have the capability because we lack—we need big thermos bottles. 

Let me put it simply. We don’t know how to do that. So that is 

what the program you are talking about and that is the work that 

Glenn will do. Simply. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you. Now, I am concerned about the five percent cut to funding institutional needs in support of NASA centers 

and headquarters. It seems that this account had taken more than 

its fair share of cuts over the past two years. 

What impact will this latest proposed cut have on the centers’ 

abilities to address increasing needs and requirements and on the 

civil servant staff’s ability to meet challenging expectations? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congresswoman, these are very difficult fiscal 

times. I know you know that as well as anyone. We are really trying to tighten our belt. You will hear people complain about cuts 

in travel. Every time you take money away from a center, it impacts, but we are trying to make sure that they are smart reductions. 

So we are looking at reductions in paper usage, in pencils, in 

travel, and we are trying to make sure that we don’t get any muscle, you know, as we do the reductions that are required, trying to 

live within our means with the budget that we have. 

Ms. FUDGE. Okay. Lastly, certainly I was disheartened to see 

that the President’s request for education—and this may have happened earlier and I was late, forgive me—— 

Mr. BOLDEN. That is fine. 

Ms. FUDGE [continuing]. If I am being repetitive. But I was disheartened to see that the President’s request for education at 

NASA reflected a $36 million decrease. Last week my office met 

with the Ohio Space Grant Consortium, and we heard about how 

NASA’s education dollars are impacting the lives of students and 

encouraging them to pursue careers in STEM fields. 

It seems to me that the Space Grant and other education programs at NASA are unique in their ability to inspire our Nation’s 

youth. Can you explain the justification behind the reductions to 

these programs? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, ma’am. We had to establish priorities, and we 

had to decide where we were going to take reductions, and we did 

it essentially across the board. But what we have done with education, as with a number of other programs, is we have looked at 

new ways of doing what we did. 

As I mentioned earlier, I think if you would ask the Space 

Grants if they have increased their reliance upon social media, that 

they get help from us in doing, they may not be able to reach the 

numbers of communities or the numbers of schools that they did 

before, but my guess is they are reaching more students because 

they are doing it by a different means now. 

So we have taken an education design team to try to tailor our 

education efforts. We are putting control, not control, we are put-
63 

ting oversight of our expenditures on education from the centers 

and the programs that have their own independent education and 

outreach funds. We are trying to synergize it such that we spend 

that money more wisely, and we don’t have different centers doing 

different things that when you look at them in total everybody is 

doing the same thing but spending it from a different pot of money. 

So we are trying to be smarter in the way that we reach students, and I think, as I mentioned earlier, when we look at a program such as the Summer of Innovation, which is going into its 

third and final year of the pilot, we will find that the metrics that 

we establish verify that we have, in fact, had a greater impact on 

reaching middle school students, although we didn’t do it the way 

we have traditionally done it. 

The Space Grants were not involved in the types of programs 

that we are doing in the Summer of Innovation, and now in many 

states they are the implementing organization. It was hard for 

them. They don’t like doing that because they love being at the college and graduate level, but we told them you got to go down and 

work with middle school kids, and they are doing that, and we are 

reaching students and teachers. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. I thank you. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith, for 

five minutes. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Bolden, I think you responded to most of my questions 

already either when I was out of the room or in the room, one way 

or the other. I just want to run over a couple real quickly, and then 

I have a couple of new ones as well. 

I understand that the James Webb Space Telescope is on schedule both in regard to resources and timing, and that is fully supported by the Administration. Is that—— 

Mr. BOLDEN. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. There is no possibility it will be before 2018, 

would it? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congressman—— 

Mr. SMITH. It is one of the most important things we could possibly do, but maybe there is no way to speed it up. I don’t know. 

Mr. BOLDEN. That is one that an infusion of funds now would 

help, but if we wait years and say we will increase the funding, it 

won’t make a difference. 

Mr. SMITH. I understand. Also, I understand that you feel 

ASAP’s concerns have been addressed as well? 

Mr. BOLDEN. I do. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. On the Space Launch System, does the Administration fully support it? There has been a slow down in the past, 

and that led some of us to wonder about the seriousness of purpose. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congressman Smith, the Administration fully supports the Space Launch System and Orion and as a demonstration 

of that support we have, as I mentioned earlier, we are test firing 

the J–2X, which is an upper-stage engine. We have moved all of 

the Shuttle main engines over to Stennis for further testing and 
64 

modification. We are actually doing hardware things now that we 

were not doing this time last year. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay, and response to Congresswoman Adams’ questions a few minutes ago, I assume that China is not being considered as a partner with the International Space Station? 

Mr. BOLDEN. China is not, not by the United States, and as I explained when asked that at the heads of agency meeting, I am complying with the law and that I am not allowed to do any bilateral 

activities with China. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

Mr. BOLDEN. And we are not. 

Mr. SMITH. I mean, their space program is a little, is a thinlyveiled cover for, I think, other purposes, and I think we are aware 

of that, too. 

Another question is this. NASA, as NASA begins to plan for the 

first in a series of deep space missions, what studies are underway 

to better determine the impact on the health of the astronauts 

themselves? International Space Station astronauts have had trouble with their vision. There have been other problems as well. 

What kind of studies are being conducted that will anticipate or try 

to address those kinds of health—— 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congressman, we have an ongoing human research 

program that looks at astronaut health, and it has helped us to improve the condition of astronauts as they spend six months on the 

International Space Station. We have continually tried to get funding, unsuccessfully, for a long-term health program for astronauts 

after they leave the program because what we are finding now is 

that there are long-term affects of spaceflight that we will only find 

out about if we have access to the medical records. When someone 

leaves the astronaut office, participation in the longitudinal study 

program as I do is voluntary, and most people don’t do it because 

they have got to go pay for, you know, for the doctor’s visit or medical treatment. 

If we had a program whereby I had lifetime access to an astronaut, their health, and their medical records, it would benefit people, future spaceflight. 

Mr. SMITH. Is anything being done to specifically address the—— 

Mr. BOLDEN. Vision problem? 

Mr. SMITH. Yeah. Vision problem with the astronauts. 

Mr. BOLDEN. We have, what you are talking about increased 

inter-cranial pressure that causes flattening of parts of the eye. We 

don’t fully understand it. 

Mr. SMITH. Nothing can be done to prevent it that you are aware 

of? 

Mr. BOLDEN. We don’t know. It is a question yet to be answered. 

We hope so. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Last question. The Atlas V has proved itself 

100 percent success rate and so forth. The real issue for the commercial crew is the lack of a capsule or a crew vehicle to put on 

top of the rocket. Why wouldn’t we just save ourselves a lot of time, 

perhaps a lot of money, decide on the Atlas V, and then we can go 

forward and focus on developing the crew vehicles? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congressman, what we are doing is we are buying 

a service that requires a complete integrated system, and I think 
65 

what you have seen is that a number of the potential bidders have 

chosen the Atlas V, and they are working, and we have funded to 

a certain extent as a partner ULA, the company that provides the 

Atlas V, to find ways to human rate that launch vehicle. But the 

launch vehicle itself is just a piece of the puzzle. We need a launch 

vehicle and crew capsule, and then when you talk about deep space 

exploration, you need a service module and other things. 

So they all come together. 

Mr. SMITH. That is my point. We ought to be focusing on those 

latter developments rather than spending so much time trying to 

figure out what is the best vehicle to use. Why not use the Atlas 

V, just make that decision right now? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Because every person that produced a module 

doesn’t want to use an Atlas V. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Well, that is up to you all to—— 

Mr. BOLDEN. No. That is actually up to the contractor, to the private industry. What we asked them to do was bring us the best 

system, In response to a question earlier, we are trying to give industry a reasonable amount of time, not forever—— 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

Mr. BOLDEN [continuing]. But a reasonable amount of time to 

put their plans together and do testing that we can observe and 

make sure that they are going to meet the standards, the safety 

requirements—— 

Mr. SMITH. Right. 

Mr. BOLDEN [continuing]. And the human rating standards that 

we have set forth, and they know what they are. It is—we are past 

where they didn’t know what they were. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

Mr. BOLDEN. They know. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, General Bolden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman yields back. 

Recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, for five minutes. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Bolden, I just wanted to begin by saying I was pleased to see 

that in the year that we have been forced to make tough funding 

decisions, your fiscal year 2013 budget request for aeronautics 

R&D Programs prioritizes safety and NextGen, which I think are 

critically important. Despite some concerns that I have about cuts 

to fundamental research, this budget does try to remain true to 

NASA’s aeronautics mission, and I know that oftentimes that ‘‘A’’ 

is forgotten in—the first ‘‘A’’ in NASA is Aeronautics, with all the 

focus on space, but I hope—I am happy to see what is in this budget generally for aeronautics and want to—hope that you continue 

that focus and that Congress will also continue to fund that. 

Now, I want to move now to your plans regarding the Commercial Crew Integrated Capability, and what is going on with that. 

There were a few questions about that earlier about the safety 

issues and how you are dealing with that. And as you said, once 

a design is selected, it will be held to NASA’s safety requirements. 

What I am concerned about is what are the contingency plans 

you have if none of the designs that result from the CCiCap meet 
66 

these requirements. Are you going to be—as the plans evolve, is 

NASA going to be doing any review of the design plans to ensure 

that this does not happen? You know, getting to the point where 

we are expecting, we have put the funding into these. We have 

been expecting that these are going to come through, and then the 

design doesn’t meet the safety requirements. 

So what is NASA doing to prevent that from happening, getting 

stuck in that spot? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congressman, what we have done is we have made 

available to anyone who is interested in even considering potential 

bidding on a commercial crew system, we have provided them with 

the vehicle design requirements for a commercial crew vehicle. 

They have that in hand. We have also provided them with human 

rating standards, and so that there is no question about whether 

they are reasonable or not, industry helped us to develop those requirements and standards, and in some cases they had standards 

that were even more stringent than ours. When that was the case, 

then we said, okay, you can use the NASA standard or you can 

stick with your own company standards. So it is NASA’s standard 

or better. 

And they know what that is, and our thought is that they will 

design to those standards and those requirements as they go 

through this 14 to 20-month interim period before we release a request for proposal. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. So then because that is out there, you expect that 

the plans will meet the standards so that when you get to the end, 

they will have that. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congressman, hope is not a plan, which is what you 

are implying, and I am not, my plan is not hope. We have put what 

we call a PIT team. It is called a Partner Integration Team, and 

every viable vendor that we think stands a reasonable chance of 

submitting a proposal for commercial crew, if they request it, we 

provide to them at their cost a PIT team that comes from the Johnson Space Center, Marshall, anywhere they ask, that acts as, not 

as consultants but just to observe what they are doing, and it is 

a team that they can say, you know, would NASA do it this way. 

And the results that we are seeing from the PIT teams, both the 

reports that I get from Ed Mango and his commercial crew program people, but most especially the comments that I get from 

CEOs of companies that say, you know, this is good, it is great having NASA team in my facility looking at my work and at least telling me that I am headed in the right direction. They won’t tell me 

everything I want to know, but they are telling me I am headed 

in the right direction. 

So that has given us an increased level of confidence that we are 

going to get a good product. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. All right. With my 20 seconds left I know earlier 

on, Mr. Sensenbrenner raised questions about the Space Station. 

You had that, you showed the book that you have about the benefits of the Space Station. So before I go and look at the book, what 

would you tell me is the greatest benefit that we are receiving from 

the Space Station? 

Mr. BOLDEN. The one greatest benefit? 
67 

Mr. LIPINSKI. If you want to go on, it is up to the Chairman how 

long you can go. 

Mr. BOLDEN. No, no, no. No, sir. I would say—I will give you, 

and I will use the name Don Pettit. One of the greatest benefits 

from the International Space Station is it allows a guy like Don 

Pettit, who is in orbit right now, to talk to kids every day. Don 

Pettit is a modern Mr. Wizard, and he mesmerizes kids when he 

talks to them, and some of you have had an opportunity to be in 

on video teleconferences into classrooms. 

That one reason alone makes Space Station worth it. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. The Chairman recognizes the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. McCaul, for five minutes. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Bolden, welcome, and thank you for your service to our country, and I agree with you. The kids. There is nothing better than 

taking an astronaut through the schools and watching them, their 

faces light up, and it piques their interest, and math and science, 

as you know, is so important. And so thank you and your astronauts for what they do. 

I have just a couple of questions on a timeline for things and how 

this is going to go forward under the proposed budget for the SLS 

and Orion. 

Your budget appears to be lower than what was appropriated for 

the program and well below the authorized amount, yet the 

timeline does not change. And so my question is do you really see 

that as a realistic expectation, and if so, where do the efficiencies 

come from that allow you to do that? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Well, we have gone to school on the Constellation 

Program for one thing. So we had a great lessons learned session 

among the people who are now with SLS and MPCV, with the folk 

in the Constellation Program as they phased out. Many of them are 

now SLS, MPCV persons. 

We don’t know for certain the dates we have given, the 2017 date 

for an un-crewed test is pretty hard because that is dependent on 

design and manufacturing. It is pretty much set in place. The 2021, 

crewed mission date could change. Bill Gerstenmaier and his folk 

are telling me we have a number of reviews. We have performance, 

cost schedule reviews that are still to be done in this coming year 

that will allow us to make a better assessment and give us a better 

estimate of when the first crewed mission can be flown. 

But 2021, is a conservative date right now. 

Mr. MCCAUL. For the first crew mission? 

Mr. BOLDEN. For the first crewed mission. 

Mr. MCCAUL. And then 2017 would be the first—— 

Mr. BOLDEN. 2017 is the first uncrewed test of the integrated vehicle. What hopefully you all are excited about is 2014, two years 

from now, we are going to fly Orion. It is a Lockheed Martin run 

test at our request, but they have chosen a Delta IV to put Orion 

on and send it into two highly-elliptical orbits that will allow it to 

make a reentry as it would be doing if it were coming back from 

the moon or an asteroid, and our plan is for it to have a successful 

intact reentry and recovery. It will buy down significant risks from 

the Orion vehicle that we won’t later have to do. 
68 

Mr. MCCAUL. And so then prior to 2021, in terms of human 

spaceflight, we will have to rely essentially on the Russians and 

the Chinese. Is that correct? 

Mr. BOLDEN. No, sir. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Okay. 

Mr. BOLDEN. If we are able to continue the progress that we are 

making right now with the Commercial Crew Program, and Congress does agree to fund at the level that the President has asked 

for this year, we will be no later than 2017, in having an American 

capability to take astronauts to the International Space Station 

and other low-earth orbit destinations. 

There is a possibility that if we are funded at the level requested 

that that could be accelerated, but that, again, the 2017 time is an 

estimate based on, you know, our—what we saw in working 

with—— 

Mr. MCCAUL. Then it would be fair to say that prior to 2017, we 

will have to rely on the Chinese and the Russians. 

Mr. BOLDEN. I wish I could say differently but—— 

Mr. MCCAUL. Yes. 

Mr. BOLDEN [continuing]. We will rely on—— 

Mr. MCCAUL. I wish you could, too. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Is the plan to go back to the Moon or just orbit the 

Moon and then try to hop on an asteroid? I mean, what is the vision here? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congressman, the plan right now is the first destination for humans is an asteroid in 2025. The ultimate destinations for humans is the Martian environment, whether that is 

landing on a moon of Mars or landing on the Martian surface is 

the mid ’20, ’30s, but as the President even says himself, you got 

to walk, crawl before you can get there, and so the asteroid is an 

intermediate step in getting to Mars. 

It is possible that we could put some rovers that are presently 

being developed and tested at the Johnson Space Center, we could 

put them on the moon and run tests with them, but—what we do 

between now and the first crewed mission in 2021, 2025, is still in 

work. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Well, that would be very interesting to watch. 

Last, I got 30 seconds, I know that you are going to have multiple companies participating in this commercial spaceflights, but 

only one at the end of the day is going to be picked. Is that correct? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congressman, I hate to use the term hope. My plan 

is that we will have a minimum of two American companies that 

are capable of providing transportation to low-earth orbit, to the 

International Space Station because that gives us reliable, redundant, routine access to space from an American capability. 

Mr. MCCAUL. And what would be the time frame on that? 

Mr. BOLDEN. 2017 right now, and that, again, we need to be certain that we understand that the 2017 date is forecast or based on 

fully funding the President’s request for commercial crew, which to 

some may seem like an increase, but it is actually saying we really 

meant $850 million is what we need to get us to 2016, 2017. 

And I think I said it but somebody has told me I should make 

sure every member of the committee understands we are only de-
69 

pendent on the Russians for transport to the International Space 

Station. We have no bilateral activities with China in case I 

was—— 

Mr. MCCAUL. No. That is a good point. 

Mr. BOLDEN [continuing]. I confused someone. 

Mr. MCCAUL. I see my time has expired. Thank you so much, Mr. 

Bolden. 

Chairman HALL. Charlie, I am going to hold you to that 2030 

date. I will be 106. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, and I told you, don’t give up. My 

wife and I lived in Japan for two years, and we actually talked 

with some young ladies who were 120. 

Chairman HALL. Young ladies? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Ladies. I am just—yes, sir. There is hope. 

Chairman HALL. Okay. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes the fine gentleman from California, very 

patient, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

want to thank General Bolden for the fine briefing that I had yesterday and for the record, Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure that 

I, again, mention and Representative Fudge helped me bring up 

the issue of cryogenic propellant storage and transfer as a, really 

vital technology, and I was very satisfied with our conversation and 

discussion yesterday as to the importance of that technology and 

recognition of that. 

Let me just mention before I get into some of the transportation 

issues and Space Station as such, there was an article I saw in the 

news, and I get my news on the Internet now, you know, and what 

is the headline news, and asteroid headed toward the world. Okay, 

and that is what it said. So I went, my gosh. An asteroid is headed 

towards the world, and it was the same asteroid that we have 

known about, and they just declared that as it swings around the 

second time, again, people realized and have stated for the record 

that we don’t know what earth’s gravity is going to do to the actual 

course of that asteroid. 

Now, in your NASA budget we do have continued money for detection of objects that could hit the earth, and that is an important 

thing that I have been trying to talk about for a long time, and I 

am glad that is still recognized, but there is still, and Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that this is a very important point, and that 

is we still do not have a plan in place that if that asteroid is, indeed, if shown that its course is altered and it is going to hit the 

world and cause billions of dollars of damage and maybe millions 

of lives lost, we still do not have in place a plan of how to deflect 

one of these. 

And I think that it behooves us that maybe we should pay attention and just, yes, it might not happen for 100 years or 1,000 years 

or it could happen tomorrow. So I would hope that we pay a little 

attention to that, and at least we have kept in a shrinking budget 

the money for detection of these. At least we can tell our people 

they can pray. What do we do about this asteroid about ready to 

destroy our civilization. Well, we can pray about it. 

But now onto some other things. I also in order to maintain our 

leadership I would hope that we maintain a good relationship, 
70 

whether it is on the issue I just described or on other NASA missions, whether it is deep solar missions, exploratory missions or 

whatever, we are going to have to work with our allies and partners, and yet we are now withdrawing from the Joint Mars Programs and several other international partnerships with the European Space Agency. 

What is that going to do? The 2016 Mars Orbiter and the 2018 

Mars Rover Programs. We backed out of those. What is this going 

to do to our ability to be reliable partners, and partnership is so 

important for success as we have a shrinking budget. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congressman, our international partnerships and 

international collaboration are key, and they have been stressed by 

the President since he came in office. It is a part of our international space, our National Space Policy, and we have not stepped 

away from our European friends. I have asked John Grunsfeld, the 

head of my Science Mission Directorate, to put together a team to 

look at how we restructure the Robotic Mars Exploration Program 

so that we can accomplish the objectives that were set out—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Uh-huh. 

Mr. BOLDEN [continuing]. By our joint European American discussions on ExoMars that fill the priorities for the decadal survey, 

the planetary decadal survey, but also support our efforts toward 

human exploration of Mars. 

So that is in the works. He has now assigned Orlando Figueroa, 

a formal NASA employee, some refer to him as a Mars czar, to take 

the leadership in formulating a strategy that we hope to bring to 

the Appropriations Committees and to this committee in time for 

appropriations work. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, as you are fully aware, General, I am 

very concerned that we have committed ourselves to this new mega 

rocket transportation system which may, I think, siphon money 

away from other projects that are vital, and maintaining our reliability with our European partners is vital to the success of our future missions. And if we end up in order to build this big rocket 

that may or may not succeed ten years down the road, if we end 

up putting ourselves in jeopardy with these other type of things, 

whether we are talking about cooperation or other type of projects 

that we need to do, then we haven’t really done a good service for 

our whole space effort. 

But I rely on your judgment. As we have all said, we are grateful 

for your service to the country. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, General. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Thank you. 

Chairman HALL. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Costello, for five minutes. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Administrator Bolden. I had hoped to be here earlier but got tied up. 

I got a couple of brief questions. 

One, I would like to refer to a statement that was recently made 

by the ASAP Panel. They made the following statement, and it is 

minutes from a recent meeting, and I quote. ‘‘What is the purpose 

of the Commercial Space Program? Is it to transport humans to the 
71 

ISS? Is it to nurture a commercial space industry? Or is it something in between?’’ 

The ASAP believes there is now a sea change in the objective to 

be one of supporting industry’s capability to deliver national economic benefit. If we are going to ask the U.S. taxpayers to invest 

in this program, I think that it is necessary that we are absolutely 

clear on what the objective is of the Administration. 

One, I would ask you do you agree with the statement made by 

the ASAP? 

Mr. BOLDEN. I do. 

Mr. COSTELLO. And, two, what—can you explain the primary objective of the Administration? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Joe Dyer and the members of the ASAP and I have 

had this discussion particularly with my senior leadership. The objective of the Commercial Crew Program originally was to service 

the International Space Station, and that is still a primary objective for us. 

When we were funded at the level of $406 million in the fiscal 

year 2012 budget, it caused us to slip the expected delivery date 

of a commercial capability to we think, we hope that we can be no 

later than 2017. But what it did was it put us in a posture that 

we are not guaranteed programmatically that we can have a commercial capability in time to support the International Space Station. So it means that by default the Congress and the Administration have agreed that we are going to develop a commercial capability for the benefit of the American economy, and it will serve 

other purposes, but it may not make it in time to serve the International Space Station. 

And that is why I keep emphasizing the critical importance of 

fully funding the President’s request for Commercial Crew because 

we do not, I cannot afford to have the gap increase from now until 

2017, even farther out. It is a programmatic risk that we have incurred by going to this strategy that we are on now, not a safety 

risk. 

So I do want to make sure that everybody understands that. 

There is no safety risk, no increase in our risk to safety to the 

crews by going with a changed strategy. The risk is in 

programmatics. Until I can get someone under contract and hold 

their feet to the fire as we have had this discussion all day, I can’t 

guarantee a date of delivery. I can never guarantee a date, but I 

sure can get closer when we enter into a contract, and that is 

where I want to get. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Let me ask you about NASA’s involvement in the 

Next Generation of the Air Traffic Control System. As you know, 

I chaired the Aviation Subcommittee, and I am the Ranking Member there now. 

How effective in your opinion has NASA been in working with 

the FAA to move NextGen further to implementation? 

Mr. BOLDEN. I am proud to say we have been incredibly effective. 

If you ask the industry, specifically Continental Airlines, United 

Airlines, Southwest Airlines, who have flown in tests particularly 

in the en route transportation changes that are coming with 

NextGen, they will tell you they see results already that have re-
72 

sulted in millions of dollars of savings in fuel costs just by implementing some of the systems that we have developed. 

Being able to do direct descent, direct ascent to a cruise altitude 

has changed dramatically the cost of fuel for the airline industry. 

Mr. COSTELLO. And when you say that ‘‘we’’ have developed, are 

you talking about NASA? 

Mr. BOLDEN. We are in collaboration with the FAA. Most of the 

work on the NASA part in the en route, the traffic management 

portion that you are addressing—— 

Mr. COSTELLO. Right. 

Mr. BOLDEN [continuing]. Is done at Ames and the Langley Research Centers. That is our primary focus, and that is what we are 

bringing to the team. It is a DOD, FAA, NASA team trying to do 

this, and so we have delivered as best we can with the funding we 

have our parts of the traffic management portion. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Last question. The proposed budget before us, in 

your opinion what will NASA look like with the proposed budget 

today in the year 2020? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Oh, NASA in the year 2020, we talk about this a 

lot, with the budget that we have today, if we are able to demonstrate that we can accomplish the plans that we have presented, 

you, Members of the Congress, will have much more confidence in 

us, and you are going to increase my budget by the time we get 

to 2020, and I think you will see increased spending in aeronautics 

research, you are going to see totally different types of airplanes 

being designed because we will have a large-scale test bed for commercial and cargo transportation. You won’t hear NASA talking 

about commercial crew because that will have been turned over to 

the private enterprises, and that will not be in my budget. It will 

be a line item for purchase of crew service for transportation. I 

won’t be developing it. It will be industry’s. 

You will see us wanting more money so that we can go to places 

farther away than Mars because we are confident that we are 

going to make it to an asteroid in 2025, and we are confident we 

are going to put humans in the Martian environment, and my 

granddaughter is going to be pressing on somebody because—she 

then wants to take humans to a far more distant planet. 

And I don’t say that with any facetiousness at all. With the 

budget that we have in place, with the vision that the President 

has allowed us to present for him, that is what 2020 is going to 

be. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank you, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you, sir. 

The Chair recognizes the very patient gentleman from Alabama, 

my friend, Mo Brooks. Five minutes. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Bolden, you have said that NASA has made some tough 

budget decisions. As we ponder that statement for a moment, let 

me emphasize some facts. While in fiscal year 2011, NASA’s budget 

was $18.4 billion. In fiscal year 2012, it looks like it is going be 

$17.77 billion. In fiscal year 2013, requesting a cut of $60 million 

to $17.7 billion, at the same time in fiscal year 2011, Federal Government spending went up $141 billion, an increase, while we are 

looking at cuts for NASA, and then we have a Presidential budget 
73 

that seeks to increase spending by $200 billion, from $3.6 to $3.8 

trillion. 

And so I am curious as to why NASA is having to absorb this 

cut atmosphere in the context of a Presidential budget that increases spending by more than $200 billion. 

But having said that, with respect to the human spaceflight fiscal year 2013 budget request, it appears that those decisions targeted the Space Launch System and Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle Program for budget cuts, while doubling the Commercial 

Crew budget over fiscal year 2012’s 406 million appropriated levels 

to 829.7 million, well above the authorized levels. 

Last fall you announced an agreement among NASA, the White 

House, and Congress the top priorities for NASA over the next five 

years. Space Launch System and Orion were stated as top priorities on the list. 

Please explain why just a few months later NASA seems to have 

already changed its priorities, again favoring Commercial Crew 

Transport above development of the Space Launch System and 

those systems required for deep space exploration. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congressman, the budget we supported, that we 

submitted supports an ambitious exploration program. As we have 

always said and you have said, it is difficult times, so we had to 

make some difficult decisions. The three priorities that you mentioned are collaborative. They go together. They don’t stand alone, 

and that was well thought out. Those priorities are SLS and MPCV 

for exploration supported by Robust Technology Development Program. I don’t quite have the Robust Technology Development Program in place yet. ISS, sustainment beyond 2015 to at least 2020. 

I cannot support ISS if I don’t have a commercial crew and cargo 

capability, so that is vital, and then the James Webb Space Telescope to open vistas to our universe that we have never done before. 

They all go together. James Webb will help us with our exploration. Commercial Crew will make it possible for me to take the 

money that I am spending now and helping them develop that capability to put it on exploration and on the subsequent pieces of the 

evolvable heavy-lift launch system. We still have pieces to add, and 

I can only do that if I free myself up from the cost of paying the 

Russians $450 million a year for access to space. 

So they go together. If you isolate any one of them, then the 

agreement that the President made with the Congress falls apart, 

and none of the priorities get accomplished. 

Mr. BROOKS. Can I get to a follow-up question then? The 2010 

NASA Authorization Act, and I emphasize 2010, authorizes $2.6 

billion for the Space Launch System and other necessary support 

for fiscal year 2013, yet the President’s fiscal year 2013, request is 

$1.3 billion or roughly half for Space Launch System, attributing 

the decrease to diversion of approximately $405 million to a new 

account entitled Exploration Ground Systems. 

What percentage of this $1.3 billion, which is half of what was 

expected back in 2010 with the Authorization Act, what percentage 

of that $1.3 billion does NASA plan to actually use for direct development of the Space Launch Vehicle? 
74 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congressman, I don’t have a calculator with me, so 

I will take action to take it for the record to give you the answer 

on the percentage, but as we tried to explained before, we are doing 

parallel development of the—— 

Mr. BROOKS. Well, do you have a range? If you can’t give an 

exact percentage. 

Mr. BOLDEN. I will take it for the record. My brain is tired, and 

I don’t even know how to do the percentage thing right now. 

Mr. BROOKS. May I infer from that that it is clearly not 100 percent, that it is something less than that? I am asking what percentage of the $1.3 billion that you are asking for Space Launch System does NASA plan to use for development of the Space Launch 

Vehicle. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Oh, the amount of money—that is an easy answer. 

One hundred percent of the funds shown for vehicle development 

goes to vehicle development. 

Mr. BROOKS. And that is the $1.3 billion? 

Mr. BOLDEN. And I think that is the $1.3 billion. 

Mr. BROOKS. All right. 

Mr. BOLDEN. The reason that you do not see $1.9 as you saw before is because we made a bad assumption. We assumed that everyone would know that we had to develop ground systems in order 

to have a vehicle, a place for a vehicle to fly. It didn’t work that 

way, so we backed it out, and as I explained earlier, we now have 

two separate accounts that address ground systems. One is 21st 

Century Launch that is mainly for multi-user facilities at the Kennedy Space Center, and then Exploration Ground Systems that is 

totally for the SLS and MPCV. 

And I think the number is about $407 million for Ground Systems totally, and then so what you see in the line item for SLS is 

strictly for vehicle development for the heavy-lift launch vehicle. 

Mr. BROOKS. All right. You have answered my question. Just one 

closing remark. 

Mr. Bolden, I appreciate your service. I also appreciate what you 

have done for NASA and how NASA has represented America so 

well. It truly is American exceptionalism at its best, and I yearn 

for the day where we no longer have to thumb a ride with the Russians, and I yearn for the day when we can have a President that 

we can call the NASA President or the American Exceptionalism 

President for space efforts and exploration like we had in the ’60s 

and in the decades thereafter. 

And anything we can do to help make this President have that 

name, I would love to be able to help you with. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Congressman, I yearn for the day when you and I 

will agree that we have that President. 

Mr. BROOKS. Well, when he will quit cutting NASA, we might get 

to that day. 

Mr. BOLDEN. We will agree to disagree on how good he is. I am 

very happy. 

Chairman HALL. We yearn for the day when we just have a 

nominee. 

Okay. Charlie, you have been great. We thank you for your very 

valuable testimony and members for their questions, and as you 
75 

know, the members may have some questions to ask you, and I ask 

you to please answer those, and I know you will. 

The record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments from Members, and Mr. Administrator, thank you for today. 

You are excused, and this hearing is adjourned. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Thank you very much. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you, Charlie. 

[Whereupon, at 4:59 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
76 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
77 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Hon. Charles F. Bolden, Jr., 

Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Questions Submitted by Chairman Ralph M. Hall, 

Committee on Science, Space and Technology 
78 

"Successful commercial human space flight demands the highest commitment to 

safety; therefore NASA has the goal of fostering a safety culture in the 

commercial space flight industry that ultimately will minimize the risks 

associated with human space flight to LEO. NASA's goal is for Participants to 

demonstrate safety processes that include strong inline checks and balances, 

healthy tension between responsible organizations, value-added independent 

assessments and appropriate data archival, which will increase Government 

confidence in the Participant's approach to safety." 

As a result, NASA will have full insight into the providers' approach to safety during CCiCap as 

the providers meet their milestones associated with the CCiCap agreements. 

b. What recourse does the government have if these companies fail to perform or 

go out of business? 

ANSWER: Under the CCiCap Space Act Agreements (SAAs), NASA is entitled to terminate 

an SAA if a provider misses a milestone and NASA determines that additional efforts are not in 

the best interests of the parties. NASA would consult with the provider prior to exercising this 

termination. If NASA terminates an agreement for the partner's failure to perform, NASA is 

entitled to exercise Government purpose rights in any technical data or inventions developed 

under the agreement. This allows NASA to use the data or inventions to continue the activity by 

or for the Government. Competition and having multiple providers is important in this overall 

strategy. If one company is unsuccessful, we can terminate and continue work with the others 

and still achieve our goals. In the unlikely event that all parties fail, then NASA could continue 

to purchase Soyuz seats for crew transportation and rescue purposes, as the Agency will have 

been doing for several years, assuming appropriate INKSNA relief and pending sufficient 

contracting lead time. 

c. What, if anything, will NASA own after making these expenditures? 

ANSWER: A principal goal of CCiCap is to "seek and encourage the fullest commercial use of 

space," a stated purpose of NASA under the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (the 

"Space Act"), as amended. In order to foster such commercial use, participants in CCiCap retain 

maximum Intellectual Property (IP) rights permitted by law. 

NASA does not obtain rights to use our partner's proprietary data unless special circumstances 

arise, such as termination of the SAA for the partner's default or our partner's failure to make 

commercial use of the technology developed under the SAA. NASA retains "government 

purpose" rights in reported inventions owned by the Participant as required under the Space Act. 

NASA has agreed not to exercise its "government purpose" rights for five years after the end of 

the SAA. NASA's ability to exercise its government purpose rights in inventions is accelerated 

in the event of the participant's default. This means that the data and inventions can be used by 

or on behalf of NASA in future development efforts. 

NASA has determined that title to all tangible property acquired by the participant under the 

CCiCap Agreement will remain with the participant(s). Unlike a procurement contract, the 
79 

purpose of a funded Space Act Agreement is not to obtain property for NASA. Instead, it is to 

stimulate the Commercial Partner's efforts. However, NASA reserves the right to acquire any 

tangible personal property acquired or developed under the SAA from the SAA partner, taking 

into account the amount NASA has already contributed under the Agreement. The specific 

terms applicable to data, inventions and personal property can be found in the model SAA 

attached to the CCiCap Announcement: http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/s:&: 

bin/epsL~olczilacqid= 142~iS. . 

2. NASA officials have asserted that if the FY2013 request of $830M for commercial 

crew is not fully funded for each of the next five years, the program's ability to 

begin routine flights in 2017 \\ill be jeopardized, possibly for several years. Given 

the current fiscal environment, NASA may find it advantageous to, reduce the 

number of contracts down to one or two firms. This would allow the agency to use a 

standard acquisition contract that would permit them to put safety requirements in 

place, and allow the agency to implement stricter insight/oversight. Why not downselect now and put one or two companies under contract, and avoid the uncertainties 

and possible wasted investment of carrying unsuccessful bidders through the 

upcoming phase? 

ANSWER: NASA believes that having multiple companies competing against each other at 

this stage of the Commercial Crew Program will result in lower overall costs for the 

Government and will help enable voluntary adherence to safety requirements. In a traditional 

program with a single prime contractor from the start using a cost-plus contract, the NASA-Air 

Force Cost Model (NAFCOM) cost estimates are approximately $8-IIB for the development of 

an ISS crew transportation capability. Using the current, innovative approach of competing 

Space Act Agreements will result in multiple awards to industry with fixed Government costs. 

NASA estimates being able to cut the development costs substantially and to deliver an ISS 

capability for around $5B. Maintaining competition is a key factor in achieving these savings. 

While the Agency has not established a specific number of awardees for the next phase of the 

Commercial Crew Program, referred to as CCiCap, NASA is planning to have fewer funded 

companies in CCiCap than are currently participating in CCDev2. There are 7 partners in 

CCDev2 (4 funded and 3 unfunded partners). NASA would like to maintain as much 

competition as it can for as long as possible. 

Removing competition by developing a single system from various companies' system elements 

would eliminate most of the commercial aspects of the program. With only one provider from 

which NASA could purchase services, there would be little incentive for the companies to 

expand their commercial market base by selling services to any other customers or to maintain 

reasonable prices. There would also be no incentive for the companies to share in the 

development costs. Having industry share in the cost of development and selling seats to other 

customers in addition to NASA will likely decrease NASA's costs for crew transportation 

services in both the short and long-term. 

3. Now that the life of the International Space Station has been extended to 2020, does 

NASA anticipate negotiating new barter arrangements with our international 
80 

partners to extend their cargo service agreements? 

ANSWER: Yes, NASA is conducting barter discussions with our international partners to 

enable the continuing offset of their respective ISS common system operations cost 

obligations through 2020. 

a. How do NASA and the international partners plan to supply and maintain the 

ISS? 

ANSWER: The ISS Partnership continues to employ the successful mixed fleet strategy to 

supply and maintain the ISS. This fleet includes proven transportation vehicles from Russia, 

Europe and Japan, as well as services that will be provided by Orbital Sciences Corporation 

(OSC) and Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) under the Commercial Resupply Services 

contracts. These U.S. commercial vehicles are scheduled to be demonstrated this year. 

b. How many total future cargo flights have the Europeans and Japanese 

committed to? 

ANSWER: In payment of their ISS Common System Operations Costs obligations 

through 2015, the European Space Agency (ESA) committed to provide five Automated 

Transfer Vehicle (ATV) flights through 2014 and the Japan Aerospace Exploration 

Agency (JAXA) committed to seven H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV) flights through 2016. 

To date, three ATVs have been provided (including ATV -3 currently on orbit) and two 

HTVs have been providcd (HTV-3 is scheduled for launch on July 21,2012). 

c. What is NASA's plan to supply and maintain the ISS if the commercial 

providers continue to experience delays, or are unavailable or out of 

business? 

ANSWER: There is sufficient margin in logistics, consumables and systems spares through 

early 2013, to protect ISS operations for a delay in the start of commercial cargo delivery. 

Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) flights will augment existing resupply capability needed 

to support the crew on-orbit. Those needs continue to be met through the ESA-provided ATV, 

the Roscosmos-provided Progress and Soyuz, and JAXA-provided HTV vehicles now that the 

Space Shuttle has been retired. The U.S. commercial providers are in the process of bringing 

their vehicles on-line to provide the needed resupply capability. Recognizing the challenges of 

initial flights and bringing a new vehicle into operations, NASA and its intemationallSS 

partners previously delivered additional supplies to accommodate potential slips to the CRS 

schedule. The commercial strategy does not rely on a single flight or provider. On May 22, 

2012, SpaceX launched its second COTS demonstration flight, and three days later, the Dragon 

spacecraft was berthed to the ISS. The mission, which accomplished the remaining COTS 

demonstration goals for Space X, was brought to a successful conclusion on May 31, with the 

deorbiting and splashdown of the Dragon capSUle. 

4. The FAA is responsible for licensing commercial launches. Yet, the recently 

passed FAA reauthorization prohibits the 'FAA from regulating "the design or 
81 

operation of a launch vehicle to protect the health and safety of crew and space 

flight participants," until at least October 1, 2015. 

a. Which agency is responsible for regulating the safety of the astronaut crews? 

ANSWER: Although it is not a regulatory Federal Agency, NASA is responsible for ensuring 

the safety of NASA crews/workforce and assets during NASA or NASA-sponsored space 

operations. In addition, NASA retains responsibility for public safety during launch and reentry 

. operations if those operations are not FAA-licensed. In support of those responsibilities, NASA 

is currently developing the certification requirements and program processes for commercial 

transportation of NASA crews to the ISS. 

At some time in the future, both NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) envision 

a scenario where the FAA licenses commercial human spaceflights provided by a robust 

industry, from which NASA and the private sector can purchase transportation services. The 

FAA has already developed processes and procedures for licensing and regulating commercial 

space activities to protect the safety of the public. Additional regulations for the protection of 

crew safety are in development, pending Congressional authority for the FAA to propose crew 

and spaceflight participant safety regulations. 

b. Which agency is responsible for regulating the safety of astronauts on 

commercial sub-Qrbital flights funded by NASA? Could you please describe 

how you are working with the FAA to ensure their ability to verify a vehicle is 

safe? 

ANSWER: NASA is currently only funding research payloads using suborbital providers. 

Flying astronauts is not part of the current programming for suborbital flights funded by NASA. 

NASA has agreements with seven different suborbital flight providers to allow for purchase of 

flight services for research and development payloads. Of these providers, only two are flown 

by pilots and constructed to carry passengers (Virgin Galactic and XCor Aerospace). At this 

time, NASA has no plans to use commercial suborbital flight providers to fly astronauts, civil 

servants or NASA-funded researchers. 

Like all developmental and experimental aircraft, the flight providers are putting their vehicles 

through a rigorous testing profile with continuous improvements until they are capable of 

achieving the desired altitude and vehicle perfonnancc outcomes. 

NASA requires the suborbital providers under contract to obtain approval from the FAA or other 

governing authority for the flight activity. Launch vehicles that fall under jurisdiction of FAA 

Office of Commercial Space Transportation are normally required to be licensed. NASA 

collaborates with the FAA in payload reviews and flight scheduling, but the licensing process 

remains between the flight provider and the FAA. In addition, NASA and the FAA remain in 

regular communications about the progress of the flight providers. 

5. For NASA's first manned mission beyond low Earth orbit, agency officials have 
82 

stated that lunar fly-bys, asteroid missions, and missions to a LaGrange Point are 

under consideration. What steps is NASA taking to develop a habitation module 

and/or a service module to sustain the crew on a long-duration mission? What is 

the next hardware development that NASA is planning beyond SLS and MPCV? 

ANSWER: The Deep Space Habitation project was started in the Advanced Exploration 

Systems (AES) Program in FY 2012. This project is developing system requirements and 

concepts for habitats, and demonstrating habitat mockups in ground-based tests. In parallel, the 

AES Program, in partnership with the Game Changing Development (GCD) program under 

Space Technology, is developing technologies for highly-reliable, next generation life support 

systems, radiation monitoring and protection, advanced space power systems, tire safety, 

logistics reduction, and autonomous mission operations that will be incorporated into a habitat 

mockup around 2015 for integrated testing. The AES Program is also pursuing a commercial 

partnership to demonstrate an inflatable module on the ISS. ISS is being used to look at life 

support systems as well as many components of the new systems. 

• What international contributions are assumed for long-duration missions? 

ANSWER: NASA has continued to build and strengthen international partnerships to meet the 

greater challenges of human exploration including future long duration missions. In addition to 

the on-going research being conducted on the International Space Station (ISS), partnership 

discussions are underway to explore how the ISS can be most effectively used as a test-bed for 

long duration missions. In parallel, the International Space Exploration Coordination Group 

(ISECG) space agencies are coordinating an international effort to define technically feasible, 

programmatically implementable, and sustainable exploration pathways beyond low-Earth orbit 

(LEO), As a result, significant progress has been made and there is now a consensus among 

NASA and the participating ISECG agencies that the next steps for human exploration is 

sending humans sustainably beyond LEO to destinations in cis-lunar space, such as near-Earth 

asteroids, the Moon, the moons of Mars, and eventually Mars. Specific international 

cooperation with NASA in its beyond-LEO exploration architecture will be defined as NASA's 

human space exploration strategic planning and analysis advance, and specific near-term 

opportunities for international contributions to the SLS and Orion MPCV, as well as technology 

demonstrations and robotic missions will be explored as these programs develop. 

6. The current budget request indicates that Mars exploration is not a priority 

for this Administration despite the stated goals of a human mission to Mars 

in the 2030s. 

• Without robotic precursor missions that include sample return, is Mars really 

a planned destination? Does NASA anticipate omitting a sample return 

mission prior to putting astronauts on the surface of Mars or one of its moons? 

ANSWER: While the current fiscal climate required us to make tough choices, it also presented 

an opportunity to reformulate a Mars program optimized to further the nation's and NASA's 

goals in scientific discovery, human space exploration, and technological innovation. Within 

constrained budgets, coordinating these activities makes sense, These goals include the return of 

samples from the Martian surface, and the enabling of human expeditions to Mars in the 2030s. 
83 

NASA is working on a new architecture for Mars exploration aimed at both of these goals, 

beginning with definition of a mission concept to take advantage of the favorable 2018 or 2020 

launch windows within available resources. 

7. Some of NASA's most productive and exciting science missions have been 

flagships, examples being Hubble Space Telescope, Cassini mission to Saturn, 

Galileo mission to Jupiter, and the Mars Science Laboratory. Why has NASA 

chosen to abandon this highly successful class of missions? The normal 

development cycle for a flagship mission often takes a decade or more. When does 

NASA plan to begin planning and formulation of a future flagship mission? 

ANSWER: NASA has not abandoned this class of mission, as evidenced by our continuing 

development of the James Webb Space Telescope. NASA plans a balance among missions 

driven by science objectives. Flagship missions provide the capability to answer the most 

challenging science questions and serve to advance research by the largest fraction of the 

scientific community. Moderate and small missions address unique, exploratory science 

questions, often through Principal Investigator-led missions that enhance the experience of 

the science community in space mission design and implementation. Discoveries from 

some of these smaller missions will likely inform and shape future large flagship missions. 

Currently, budgetary resources do not afford the pursuit of more than one flagship-scale 

science mission at a time in a balanced science program. Thus, NASA's budget request for 

FY 2013 does not initiate any new flagship-class mission. A future determination to 

initiate a flagship-class mission will be driven by science and exploration objectives and 

resource availability. 
84 

Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson 

March 7,2012 Hearing 

on 

An Overview of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Budgetfor Fiscal Year 2013 

1. In all prior communication, including your message accompanying the budget 

justification, NASA has defined its agency priorities as (1) SLS and MPCV for 

exploration, (2) enhancement of the ISS supported by a robust commercial crew 

and cargo program, and (3) JWST. Yet, in your written testimony, you now add a 

fourth priority, space technology. Please explain why you have redefined NASA's 

priorities. 

ANSWER: Space Technology is and has been a priority for NASA, as evidenced by the 

initiation of the separate Space Technology program in 2011 and our request for increased Space 

Technology funding in 2012 and 2013 .. Space Technology is not an end, in and of itself; 

however it is absolutely critical element of NASA's strategy for achieving the Agency's 

scientific and exploration goals. Space Technology can also result in benefits to other 

government and commercial space programs and to life on Earth. The underlying importancc of 

Space Technology, as reflected NASA's budget request has not changed. As the President said 

when laying out the Administration's broader exploration goals for deep space exploration: 

"At the same time, after decades of neglect, we will increase investment -- right away -- in other 

groundbreaking technologies that will allow astronauts to reach space sooner and more often, to 

travel farther and faster for less cost, and to live and work in space for longer periods oftime 

more safely." 

NASA has remained consistently committed to this vision. 

2. Given the slips in the schedules for both commercial cargo and commercial crew 

operational capabilities and the recent difficulties with the Russian Soyuz vehicles, 

why is the Administration unwilling to request funding and support for developing 

the capability for the' MPCV and SLS to serve as backup transportation to low 

Earth orbit, as NASA was directed to do by law? Does NASA consider tbe risk of 

commercial services being unavailable by 2017 to be low? How much additional 

funding would be required, and what is the basis for that estimate? 

ANSWER: NASA believes that commercial crew transportation systems could be available to 

provide services to the Agency and other customers by the middle part of the decade. Given 

reasonable funding levels, NASA is planning for commercial crew capability to be in place in 

2017; but these plans will not preclude earlier availability of services. 

NASA plans to rely on U.S. commercial providers for the delivery of cargo and crew to ISS. 

The Orion MPCV and SLS could be used as a back-up system for transportation to and from the 
85 

ISS, but this would be a very inefficient use of vehicles that are being designed and developed 

for deep-space missions. 

The 2017 date of the uncrewed SLS/MPCV test mission is driven primarily by technical 

development schedules, not funding, and NASA is working to develop these vehicles as rapidly 

as possible, in part through the use of existing contracts. NASA is currently conducting an 

integrated technical, schedule, and cost review, which will be completed late this summer. The 

results of this review will help NASA assess whether it might be possible to accelerate the 

crewed SLS/Orion MPCV test mission, currently scheduled for 2021. 

SLS/MPCV Orion is uniquely designed for deep space travel and will be extremely costly to use 

for low Earth orbit activities. The Commercial Crew Program is the best way to develop crew 

transportation to the ISS. 

3. Congress has established the policy that the U.S. will support ISS utilization and 

operations through at least 2020. 

a. What is NASA doing to prepare for a decision on whether to support the 

ISS beyond 2020? 

ANSWER: The lifetime extension data that NASA and the ISS Partnership have reviewed to 

date indicates that extension to 2028 is technically feasible. The analysis and certification, once 

completed, will determine the ISS structural hardware's ability to operate safely through 2028. 

In addition, current spares procurements and planned procurements assume ISS life at least 

through 2020. The date for determining which spares are required to support beyond 2020 is 

reassessed each year assuming the updated Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) numbers. 

Based on past performance, many of the spares procurements should support ISS beyond 2020, 

but if specific additional spares are required to extend ISS beyond 2020, the procurements 

should be on contract by 2017. 

b. When does that decision need to be made? 

ANSWER: The decision to extend ISS Operations beyond 2020 will need to be made well 

before 2020 to enable a smooth continuation of the program. If the ISS is going to be extended, 

NASA would prefer to have procurements in place by the end of FY 2017 for crew seats, 

logistics vehicles, consumables, and possibly some spare components. An early decision point 

also attracts and better supports ISS research and utilization customers that will be planning to 

wind down their efforts in preparation of ISS deorbit in 2020. 

4. You indicate that NASA will be requesting modification to its waiver of the Iran, 

North Korea, Syria, Nonproliferation Act (INKSNA) which lapses in July 2016. 

What time period for the waiver will you be requesting? Wben can Congress 

expect to receive the request? 
86 

ANSWER: Some modification of the Iran, North Korea, Syria Non-proliferation Act 

(INKSNA) provisions will likely be required for the continued operation ofISS and other 

space programs after 2016. The Administration plans to propose appropriate provisions and 

looks forward to working with the Congress on their enactment. 

5. As you mentioned in your prepared statement, NASA will no longer participate with 

the European Space Agency in previously agreed to collaborative Mars missions in 

2016 and 2018 and is initiating an analysis of how it can implement an integrated 

strategy for long-term human and robotic exploration of Mars. 

a. How is NASA addressing the loss of U.S. leadership and critical capability in 

landing and operating spacecraft on the surface of Mars, a technical skill that 

no other nation currently possesses? 

ANSWER: NASA is working to reformulate a Mars program optimized to further the nation's 

and NASA's goals in scientific discovery, human space exploration, and technological 

innovation. These goals include the return of samples from the Martian surface, and the enabling 

of human expeditions to Mars in the 2030s. NASA is working on a new architecture for Mars 

exploration aimed at these goals, including the definition of a mission concept to take advantage 

of the favorable 2018 or 2020 launch windows within available resources. We plan to have this 

initial architecture ready this summer. Landing large masses on the Martian surface remains a 

necessary part of any strategy for Mars exploration. Therefore, while a loss of some skilled 

personnel after the landing ofMSL is likely, NASA will work to retain critical skills and 

capabilities sufficient to enable the necessary surge in our entry, descent, and landing capacity 

prior to the next landed mission to Mars, thus retaining our leadership in the exploration of the 

Red Planet. 

b. How do you propose to deal with the perception by the international space 

community that the U.S. is an unreliable partner, thus damaging future 

opportunities for international collaborations? 

ANSWER: NASA has a long history of very successful cooperation with nations around the 

world, and a part of that history has from time to time included some decisions by NASA and 

some by our international partners to fe-phase or redesign or even tern1inate planned cooperative 

activities. Our partners are very aware that in all instauces our cooperation is based on the 

availability of appropriated funds, just as we are aware that their participation has similar 

funding constraints. Consistent with the National Space Policy and the Space Act, NASA will 

continue to pursue international cooperation in support of its activities and mutual 

objectives. Currently, NASA has over 500 active agreements with over 100 countries and 

anticipates that international cooperation will remain a cornerstone of all of its future activities. 

6. Has NASA identified the specific path forward for its human exploration program, 

including intermediate objectives, destinations, and options for human exploration 

that maximize the productive use of MPCV and SLS as soon they become available, 

and if not, what is preventing you from doing so? 
87 

ANSWER; NASA's ultimate destination for human exploration is Mars. Consistent with 

policy and law, NASA is planning an asteroid mission as the first part of a capability driven 

approach to explore multiple deep space destinations. Mission analysis and international 

discussions supporting these efforts are ongoing. NASA will ramp up our capabilities to reach --

and operate at -- a series of increasingly demanding targets, while advancing our technological 

capabilities with each step forward. This will include early test and demonstration activities in 

cis-lunar space as called for in the NASA Authorization Act of2010. Along these lines, we will 

fully tap the potential of the ISS. We will also conduct a series of test and demonstration 

flights. For example, we plan test flights of an uncrewed Orion spacecraft in 2014 and of the 

SLS in 2017, followed by a crewed mission in 2021 as part of developing the foundation for our 

longer journeys. NASA's Orion and SLS will enable the Agency to send astronauts beyond 

LEO for the first time since 1972 and will provide the nation a capability and architecture 

designed to also allow flexibility, partnering and technological on-ramps. This approach 

provides a path for a sustainable program to extend human presence into the solar system. 
88 

Congressman Dana Rohrabacher 

March 7,2012 Hearing 

on 

An Overview of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Budget for Fiscal Year 2013 

l. NASA has $229.3M requested for the ISS Research line item. Parts of these funds 

are used for Multi-user System Support (MUSS). MUSS provides strategic, 

tactical, and operational support to all the NASA sponsored payloads and nonNASA sponsored payloads, including five international partner research payloads. 

This includes maintenance and operation of the ISS research infrastructure, 

including research integration, payload engineering, integration, and operations; 

payload systems support etc. 

What percentage of the ISS Research request for FY 2013 will be spent for 

Multi-User System Support, and what percentage will be spent for pure grant 

opportunities? 

ANSWER: The budget for Multi-User System Support (MUSS) in FY 2013 is $154M, or 67 

percent oflhe total ISS Research budget of$229M. The Non-Profit Organization (NPO) budget 

is $15M, or 7 percent of the total ISS Research budget. The biological and physical research 

budget is $60.3M, or 26 percent of the ISS Research budget (approximately $15M is directly 

awarded for grants). However, the remaining funds also support grants through hardware 

development and other activities required by grantees to conduct their research on ISS . 

• \Vhat else does "ISS Research" encompass? 

ANSWER: ISS Research is primarily broken into the three major categories listed above: 

MUSS, NPO, and biological and physical research. 

• What percentage of the ISS research capability is NASA utilizing? What 

percentage remains unused? 

ANSWER: At the rack level, 78 percent of the ISS research locations contain a payload rack 

(18.25 racks of the 23.25 rack capacity, not including 0.75 rack used for systems). NASA 

research outfitting of rack-level facilities is complete, with other rack space being used for 

payload stowage. 

At the sub rack level, averaged across the capacity of each rack, the overall sub-rack volume 

utilization is 72.5 percent (as of the end ofFY 2012). This includes several different types of 

racks. Some racks are fully occupied with equipment for the science objectives. Such 

equipment may be in either continuous or occasional use due to the nature of the science 

supported. Some racks that can support multiple runs of experiments for a discipline could 
89 

support more throughput than is currently being done. Some multipurpose EXPRESS racks are 

only partially occupied with scientific experiments, providing capacity for future users. For 

EXPRESS racks alone, the occupancy at the end ofFY 2012 will be 62 percent. 

Resources for using the pressurized volume support the current throughput with the ability to 

support growth in future up mass and down mass. Crew time is currently 100 percent 

subscribed. 

NASA has rights to 15 external payload sites. Currently, 6 sites are occupied, with 1 additional 

payload to be added on the next HTV flight. The occupancy for external sites at the end ofFY 

2012 will be 47 percent. 

Why is the lVIUSS function included in the ISS research fnnding line, rather than 

in ISS operations? 

ANSWER: MUSS is basically the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) function related to 

research on ISS. While it is currently booked under ISS Research, it could alternatively be 

reported as part ofISS Systems Operations and Maintenance, since it is O&M work. It is being 

reported in ISS Research because historically it has been reported as part ofISS Research. 

2. NASA is requesting funds to restart Plutonium-238 production to power deep space 

missions, but there is no corresponding request at the Department of Energy, 

which would need to produce the Pu-238. 

Is Plutonium-238 production restarting? 

ANSWER: DoE has started the project definition phase of the Pu-238 restmt effort. This 

assessment is necessary to understand how facilities can be used to begin the production of Pu238. We expect that the study will be complete by the end of calendar year 2013. At the end of 

project definition phase, we will have a better estimate of the schedule and cost to re-establish 

Pu-238 production. 

Is NASA expecting to cover all of the relevant costs moving forward? 

ANSWER: NASA is funding all the costs of conducting the current project definition phase 

assessment (i.e., through FY 2013). How to apportion costs between the agencies will be the 

subject of future discussions between DOE and NASA and will inform future budget requests. 
90 

Congressman Randy Neugebauer 

March 7,2012 Hearing 

on 

An Overview o/the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

BudgetJor Fiscal Year 2013 

1. Administrator Bolden, in recent years NASA has experienced numerous issues of 

cost overruns and missed deadlines. As you well know, the United States' $15 

trillion debt necessitates major cuts in spending and tighter budgets. As a result, 

accurate cost projections and strict adherence to timelines are crucial to keeping 

spending under control and ensuring that important projects are able to continue 

receiving funds each year. What assurance can you provide in the current 

timelines and budgets for Commercial Crew, SLS, MPCV, and the James Webb 

Space telescope? What makes current projections more reliable than previous 

ones and what is NASA doing to ensure that programs come in under cost and 

before the projected timelines? 

ANSWER: NASA recognizes the critical importance of improving cost and schedule 

perfornlance of our one-of-a-kind Research and Development projects, 

In cost management as in technical challenges, we learn from our successes and failures and 

adjust to improve our perfomlance, In recent years, NASA has implemented a series of new 

policies and approaches for improving cost performance, These include: 

Establishment of Key Decision Points which serve as formal gateway review through 

which missions must pass to proceed to the next stage; 

Establishment of Life Cycle Cost targets based on probabilistic independent cost 

estimates; 

Establishment of Joint Confidence Levels to determine those targets based on integrated 

cost and schednle analyses 

Monitoring of cost and schedule performance with independent assessments of Earned 

Value (work accomplished compared to resources expended), 

These changes are benefiting projects currently in development, and projects initiated after 

these measures were put in place will benefit the most Cost perfonnance for recent missions 

has improved, In 20 II, we launched Juno, a planetary science mission to Jupiter. This billiondollar mission launched on time and within budget GRAIL, a twin-spacecraft, half-billion 

dollar mission to study the moon, completed its development at seven percent under the 

Agency's cost estimate, 

The Orion MPCV and SLS programs are developing detailed estimates this year as part of the 

Agency's budget development process, However, NASA is developing this capability under a 

flat-line budget as reflected in the President's Request These estimates will build upon the 

initial cost estimates the programs developed last summer in support of the announced 
91 

Exploration architecture. As part of this process, an external party conducted an Independent 

Cost Assessment that was used to help infonn and reinforce NASA's budget planning 

estimates. Both of these programs are using heritage systems to minimize development risk, 

holding a tight requirements focus, and being implemented in a scaled, evolvable manner with 

a test and flight cadence to drive results. All of these factors have been cited in independent 

and DOD reports on improvement areas. We have also established an independent "best 

practices" and assessment group to look at all of NASA's projects and programs. 

The FY 2013 budget request for Science includes $627.6M for the James Webb Telescope 

(JWST). Thc scientific successor to the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) and the Spitzer Space 

Telescope, JWST will be used by international teams of astronomers to conduct imaging and 

spectroscopic observations. The Observatory will be located in an orbit near the second SunEarth Lagrange point (L2), approximately 1.5M km from Earth. The telescope and instruments 

will be operated at a temperature of 40 degrees above absolute zero (40 Kelvin) shielded from 

the heat of the Sun by a large sunshield, to enable the Observatory to achieve unprecedented 

sensitivity over its entire wavelength range. Over the past year, NASA has engaged in a 

thorough review of JWST, made important adjustments to management, and put the project on 

a sound financial footing. Since we completed this new plan, the project has met 19 of20 FY 

2011 top-level milestones (with one deferred without impact), and has met 19 of21 FY 2012 

milestones through May on or ahead of schedule (the two missed milestones were completed in 

May without impact. All 18 JWST primary mirror segments have been completed and tested. 

The first of the four night instruments was delivered to GSFC on May 29,2012. NASA 

expects to take delivery of the remaining three JWST instruments in FY 2012-2013. In FY 

2013, NASA will begin sunshield fabrication and continue I&T of the Integrated Science 

Instrument Module and development of the ground segment. NASA is confident that the FY 

2013 request supports a 2018 launch of JWST. 

2, How much money did NASA spend specifically on NextGen research and 

development in FY 2011, what are the estimates for FY 2012, and what does the 

Administration expect to spend in FY 20l3? Please detail the operational 

partnership and cost sharing between NASA, the FAA, and any other agencies 

involved in the development of the NextGen system, How effective has this 

partnership been, and excluding funding levels what are the potential barriers or 

delays in deploying the system from NASA's perspective'! 

ANSWER: All four of NASA Aeronautics' research programs contribute directly or 

indirectly to the achievement of NextGen. Airspace Systems Program (ASP) research 

investments in air traffic management-related concepts and technologies and the 

Integrated Systems Research Program (lSRP) contributions to advancing technologies 

needed to support unmarll1ed aircraft systems (UAS) routine access to the National 

Airspace System (NAS) most directly advance NextGen goals. In FY 2011, $96.6M of 

the Aeronautics budget contributed directly to the advancement of NextGen in this 

fashion. In FY 2012, this figure has risen to $122.7M and is projected to be $123.7M in 

FY 2013 based on the FY 2013 President's Budget. Other NASA research focused on 

improving the safety of air transportation and enabling new aircraft technologies which 
92 

improve efficiency, expand mobility choices and reduce the environmental impacts of 

aviation indirectly contribute to NextGen. Total direct and indirect contributions for each 

of those fiscal years are $355. 7M for FY 20 II, $417.8M for FY 2012, and $420.1 M for 

FY 2013. 

NASA coordinates closely with the FAA, other Federal agencies and the aerospace 

industry in planning and executing research to achieve both the near-term improvements 

in air travel and the longer-term NextGen vision. In addition to working closely with the 

FAA as a member agency of the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO), NASA 

and the FAA created research transition teams (RTTs) in order to accelerate progress for 

NextGen advancements in critical areas and effectively transition advanced capabilities to 

the FAA for certification and implementation. Under RTTs, NASA and FAA develop 

joint research plans and fund their respective portions of the planned research according to 

the nature of the research and their relative capabilities. To a limited extent, the FAA 

provides funding to NASA to perform specific studics or simulations through 

reimbursable agreements. A recent GAO report (DI1604) identified RTTs as a federal 

best practice for interagency collaboration. 

This model for cross-agency collaboration and cost sharing has been very effective, 

resulting in several recent demonstrations of advanced technology benefits. One such 

RTT example is NASA's Efficient Descent Advisor (EDA) technology, which will save 

fuel by enabling more efficient alTivals into congested airports. EDA was developed and 

field tested through a three-year collaborative effort between NASA, FAA, Boeing, 

MITRE, Sensis/SAAB, United Airlines and Continental Airlines under a NASA-FAA 

RTT, and then transfelTed to the FAA on November 30, 2011, for certification and 

integration into mid-term (2014-2018) NextGen operations. NASA estimates $300M in 

fuel savings per year during descents if EDA is implemented fleet-wide at the nation's 

busiest airports. For this particular effort, the NASA/FAA procurement cost investments 

were split on a roughly 75/25 basis, not including labor, indirect costs and other in-kind 

contributions. 

NASA transielTed the research results from another RTT to the FAA in August 2011 

regarding tools and methods for in-flight "flow-based trajectory management" in the 

NextGen. Joint work continues under two other RTTs, and NASA and the FAA are now 

building on the RTT model to enhance planning and cooperation in other research areas. 

Also in 20 11, NASA, the FAA, and other federal agencies developed a joint research, 

technology, and demonstration roadmap for enabling UAS access to the NAS, and 

strengthened coordination on UAS operational issues through the UAS Executive 

Committee (EXCOM) that is composed of senior executives from DoD, FAA, DRS, and 

NASA. 

There are a myriad of other coordination activities between NASA and other federal 

departments and agencies for research directly and indirectly related to NextGen 

improvements across the entire NASA portfolio. For example, NASA is coordinating 

with the DoD on aircraft engine improvements through participation on the Steering 
93 

Committee for the DoD's Versatile Advanced Affordable Turbine Engine (V AATE) 

program, and with the FAA in an advisory capacity for the Continuous Lower Energy, 

Emissions, and Noise (CLEEN) program. NASA research partnerships and coordination 

also extend to topics such as rotorcraft, subsonic fixed wing aircraft, alternative fuels, 

aviation safety technologies, and environmentally responsible aviation. 

Advances in technologies that address NextGen operational improvements are critical, but 

several obstacles remain to deployment of broad system-wide improvements. One such area is 

in the verification and validation (V &V) of complex flight systems. Current techniques for 

certifying complex systems are inadequate to provide verification and validation of highly 

automated, non-detenninistic software systems, which are expected to bc a major component of 

NextGen. The V &V of complex flight systems was identified as a critical gap to realize 

NextGen vision by the JPDO, and NASA started its investment for about $20M per year in FY 

2011 to address this gap in close coordination with FAA, industry, and academia. Another area 

that presents a critical gap is the ability to demonstrate system-wide operational concepts. The 

interoperability of individual technology applications in the NAS cannot be effectively tested or 

evaluated in anything but the actual NAS, which cannot be readily conducted for safety concerns 

and other operational issues. Sophisticated system-wide NASlNextGen simulators need to be 

developed to enable NextGen technologies to be safely and effectively evaluated for operational 

benefit and performance. 
94 

Congressman Jerry Costello 

March 7,2012 Hearing 

on 

An Overview of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Budget for Fiscal Year 2013 

1. In response to my question regarding the Administration's primary 

objective of the Commercial Space Program, you responded that you 

agreed with the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel's (ASAP) assessment that 

a "sea change" had occurred. You also remarked that the FY 2012 budget 

level meant that "by default the Congress and the Administration have agreed 

that we are going to develop a commercial capability for the benefit of the 

American economy, and it will serve other purposes, but it may not make it in 

time to serve the International Space Station fl. 

a. Has the White House agreed to the change in the primary objective of 

the commercial crew program to being one of developing a commercial 

capability for the benefit of the American economy? Are you seeking 

an explicit agreement by Congress to the change in objective as part of 

this year's budget process? 

ANSWER: The objective of the Commercial Crew Program is to facilitate the 

development of a U.S. commercial human space transportation capability with the goal 

of achieving safe, reliable, and cost effective access to and from low-Earth orbit (LEO) 

and the International Space Station (ISS). 

This basic objective has remained unchanged since the program was unveiled in the 

spring of2010. NASA plans to use commercial capabilities to provide services to ISS 

once those capabilities have been certified to meet NASA requirements. NASA's 

strategy is to use Federal-Acquisition-Regulation-(F AR)-based contracts for certification 

activities. FAR-based contracts will enable NASA to "certify" commercial crew 

transportation systems for use by NASA [or crew transportation and rescue services. 

Through this process, NASA will ensure that all the necessary NASA safety and 

performance requirements are met. 

b. How are you addressing the programmatic risk, which you acknowledged 

at the hearing, that under the Space Act Agreement approach, you cannot 

guarantee "a commercial capability in time to support the International 

Space Station. " 

ANSWER: The programmatic risk of not being able to guarantee a commercial 

capability in time to support the ISS is not increased because of the use of SA As. NASA 

believes the risk could actually decrease because the commercial providers are 

responsible for detennining the best approach to the design and development of their 

commercial systems which may pennit the providers to maintain a rapid pace of 

technical development. 

The risk in developing a commercial system in time to support the ISS is driven 

primarily by available budgets. NASA's original request for the Commercial Crew 

Program was: 
95 

With the FY 2011 budget request, NASA estimated that a commercial crew capability 

could be in place by 2015. However, the amount available under the FY 2011 

appropriation was $312M ($188M less than requested). Thus, NASA reduced its 

expected progress and initiated CCDev Round 2, which only matured elements of the 

systems instead of overall integrated crew transportation systems. The combined impact 

of the lower than expected budget and having to focus on elements of the system instead 

of an integrated system was that it delayed the expected operational date of commercial 

crew to 2016. 

The amount appropriated in FY 2012 was $406M ($444M less than the newly requested 

amount of$850M). This resulted in a further slippage of the NASA's expected 

operational date to 2017, assuming funding at the level proposed in the President's FY 

2013 request and reasonable technical progress on the part of the commercial providers 

(many of the potential providers have said that they believe they can service the ISS 

before 201 7). 

NASA is planning for commercial crew capability to be in place in 2017; but the 

Agency's plans will not preclude earlier availability of services. If funding levels are 

further reduced or if significant technical difficulties are experienced by the commercial 

providers, then the ability of commercial crew providers to be able to service the ISS by 

2020 may be jeopardized. 

2. What critical measures need to be taken to preserve a crewed SLS/Orion 

flight in 2021 or earlier? What would it take to accelerate the timetable for 

that crewed flight? 

ANSWER: While adequate funding is critical, the 2017 date of the uncrewed 

SLS/Orion MPCV test mission is driven primarily by technical development schedules, 

not funding, and NASA is working to develop these vehicles as rapidly as possible, in 

part through the use of existing contracts. NASA is currently conducting an integrated 

technical, schedule, and cost review, which will be completed late this summer. The 

results of this review will help NASA assess the degree to whieh it might be possible to 

accelerate the crewed SLSfOrion MPCV test mission, currently scheduled for 2021, 

which is primarily driven by budget availability. 

3. You indicate in your statement that you expect Orbital to complete its 

demonstration flight of their cargo vehicle to the Station by this summer. 

Orbital has qualified its ability to do so by saying that this would require the 

upcoming tie-down engine test and Antares maiden flight to proceed without 

any glitches. In light of Orbital's own caveats, please explain the basis for 

your prediction of "summer". 

ANSWER: Orbital Sciences Corporation (OSC) reported to NASA that, pending the 

successful completion a hot fire engine test on the pad and the maiden test flight of the 

Antares, the demonstration flight to the ISS is currently planned to be conducted by the 

end of September 2012. NASA recognizes that further delays are likely due to 

challenges in completing the new commercial launch complex at Wallops Island, 
96 

currently the pacing item, and engineering issues that may be discovered during the 

upcoming test firing and flight. OSC is required to cover any additional costs due to the 

delays since NASA makes payments only upon the successful completion of 

milestones. NASA is closely monitoring OSC's progress and is offering technical 

assistance to help expedite completion of the Commercial Orbital Transportation 

Services (COTS) demonstrations flights. 

4. I understand that the schedule for contracted-for commercial cargo 

flights has slipped significantly, with the first CRS flight now scheduled 

for launch no sooner than later this year. 

a. What is the production status of the hardware needed for CRS flights? 

ANSWER: Below is the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) production status for 

the first two cargo resupply missions for Spacc Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) and 

OSC. 

SpaceX-l Production Status 

Falcon 9-4 launch vehicle - The interstage and first stage are complete and at the 

Cape. The second stage has been manufactured and is in Texas for hot fire testing. The 

Merlin Vacuum engine (MVAC) skirt production is scheduled for completion in June. 

Dragon 3 - All Draco thrusters are complete and installed. Berthing Mechanism is 

installed and checked out. 

~c~X-2 Production Status 

Falcon 9-5 launch vehicle - First stage engine section assembly complete. All nine 

engines installed. MV AC skirt complete. 

Dragon 4 - Pressure system capsule built and leak checks completed. 

Qrbital-l Production Statu~ 

Antares launch vehicle First stage corc delivered to Wallops Flight Facility 

(WFF). First stage engines at Stennis Space Center awaiting hot fire. Upper stack 

avionics cylinder, motor cone, payload cone, and interstage have completed tcsting. Thc 

Castor 30B is in final assembly. 

Cygnus Pressurized cargo module is complete. Service module completed thermal 

vacuum testing. 

Qrbital-2_Produc!ion Status 

Antares launch vehicle First stage core delivered to WFF. Upper stack cylinder and 

payload cone in manufacturing, with scheduled delivery in July. 

Cygnus The service module propulsion system completed. Service module open panel 

testing starting. Pressurized cargo module in final assembly. 

b. Will each company be able to fulfill the CRS flight rates originally 

planned for 2013? If not, what flight rates do you expect will be achieved 

in 2012 and 2013? 
97 

ANSWER: Both SpaceX and OSC are making significant progress in preparing 

for the upcoming demonstration missions to ISS as well as preparing for the first 

CRS missions. Although the original missions planned for 2013 have slipped 

somewhat, NASA is confident that the providers will be executing cargo delivery 

missions to the ISS in the 2012 and 2013 timeframe. 

Both SpaceX and Orbital are currently preparing the hardware and mission 

products necessary to execute the near term CRS flights while they are focused 

on successfully and safely executing the demonstration flights. Once the COTS 

demonstration flights are flown successfully, NASA expects that the CRS 

providers will be able to provide one cargo resupply mission in FY 2012 and up 

to four in FY 2013. 

c. Will Space X and Orbital be ready to resupply the ISS once they have 

demonstrated their capabilities in the upcoming demonstration flights? 

ANSWER: NASA expects that each of the CRS providers will be able to settle 

into a steady production and mission flow onee the capability to deliver cargo to 

the ISS has been demonstrated successfully. NASA is working with both SpaceX 

and OSC in preparation for the upcoming demonstration flights including demonstrating 

simulated delivery of cargo to ISS. NASA is currently working with SpaceX to support 

the first five CRS flights and the Agency is working with OSC to support the first four 

CRS flights. NASA has identified the cargo manifest for the near term CRS missions 

and is working with the CRS providers to integrate the cargo into the Dragon and 

Cygnus vehicles. 

d. What is NASA's contingency plan if any of these CRS flights are further 

delayed? 

ANSWER: There is sufficient margin in logistics, consumables and systems spares 

through early 2013 to protect ISS operations for a delay in the start of commercial cargo 

delivery. On May 22,2012, SpaceX launched its second COTS demonstration flight, 

and three days later, the Dragon spacecraft was berthed to the ISS. The mission, which 

accomplished the remaining COTS demonstration goals for Space X, was brought to a 

successful conclusion on May 31, with the deorbiting and splashdown of the Dragon 

capsule. The second mission also demonstrated launch, orbit and successful recovery of 

a simplified Dragon spacecraft. Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) flights will 

augment existing resupply capability needed to support the crew on-orbit. Those needs 

continue to be met through the ESA-provided Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV), the 

Roscosmos-provided Progress and Soyuz, and JAXA-provided H-II Transfer Vehicle 

(HTV) vehicles now that the Space Shuttle has been retired. The U.S. commercial 

providers are in the process of bringing their vehicles on-line to provide the needed 

resupply capability. Recognizing the challenges of initial flights and bringing a new 

vehicle into operations, NASA and its international ISS partners previously delivered 

additional supplies to accommodate any potential slips to the CRS schedule. The 

commercial strategy does not rely on a single flight or provider. In addition to SpaceX, 

OSC has one demonstration flight and one CRS flight scheduled in 2012. 

5. Have the Research Transition Team (RTTs) been successful in ensuring 

that research and development needed for NextGen implementation is 

identified, conducted, and effectively transitioned from NASA to FAA? 
98 

ANSWER: Close coordination with its partners in other Government agencies is 

critically important for NASA Aeronautics. To enable greater and more timely support 

for the implementation ofNextGen, NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate 

(ARMD) has formed Research Transition Teams (RTTs) with the FAA and Joint 

Planning and Development Office (JPDO) to identify the right technologies to develop 

and conduct well coordinated research including joint field trials to ensure relevancy and 

accelerate acceptance of new air traffic management tools and technologies. Initially, 

four RTTs were formed in 2008 for the technology areas where NASA and FAA jointly 

determined the close collaboration was essential. It is well recognized that the RTT 

construct has been vital to a success in accelerating transition of NASA developed 

technologies to FAA enabling FAA's much speedier evaluation and implementation. 

The four RTTs are described below including several examples of NASA technologies 

that have been recently transitioned or are about to be. 

Under the Efficient Flow Into Congested Airspace (EFICA) RTT, NASA is creating new 

ways to tackle inefficient operations in congested airspace near terminal areas by 

improving legacy air traffic control procedures that limit the number of incoming aircraft 

an airport can handle. During a three-year collaborative effort with the FAA, Boeing, 

MITRE, Sensis/SAAB, United Airlines, and Continental Airlines, NASA developed and 

field tested a new capability called Efficient Descent Advisor (EDA) that gives air traffic 

controllers the ability to better manage incoming traffic in the most fuel efficient manner 

while ensuring that each aircraft meets its scheduled time for arrival, while avoiding 

flight path conflicts between aircraft. EDA helps to determine the best time and place to 

begin a plane's descent so that the plane can make a smooth gliding descent with the 

engines idling all the way down, saving fuel and making less noise as planes fly over 

neighborhoods. 

The EDA technology was transferred to the FAA on November 30, 2011. The FAA Air 

Traffic Organization will evaluate the technology and detennine the appropriate 

allocation of ED A functionality to systems and software builds for implementation in the 

mid-tern1 (2014-2018) NextGen operations. If widely used across the country, the EDA 

tool has demonstrated the potential to reduce local noise and emissions, reduce flight 

time and save $300M per year in wasted jet fuel. Tcst results also showed significant 

reductions in controller workload, helping to maintain aviation's current outstanding 

safety record. 

Under the Flow-Based Trajectory Management (FBTM) RTT, NASA and FAA 

researchers conducted work in tools and methods for in-flight "flow-based trajectory 

management" in NextGen. The FBTM is a set of new software tools and procedures that 

help air traffic controllers identify and deal with potential traffic issues that might occur 

in the upcoming 20 to 60 minutes of flight, such as congestion or bad weather. FBTM 

tools provide practical guidance for modifying flight paths, or trajectories, of one or 

more aircraft in the face of changing conditions. Thc concept of FBTM evolved through 

a series of studies that culminated in 2011 demonstrating an effective method for 

successful management of future aircraft operations at levels 30 percent greater than 

today. FBTM can also be integrated effectively into today's operations without 

additional controller resources. NASA transferred FBTM research results to the FAA in 

July 2011, where the technology will receive additional testing and evaluation. The FAA 

will use FBTM results to help develop and deploy traffic management and controller 

tools to be used in NextGen in the near future. The results support 10 out of 50 

Operation Improvements as described in the FAA's NextGen Implementation Plan. 
99 

Under the Integrated Arrival/Departure/Surface (lADS) RTT, NASA is collaborating 

with the FAA to explore how to use NASA's Precision Departure Release Capability 

(PDRC) to improve the coupling of advanced airspace and surface traffic tools. PDRC 

allows precision scheduling of departing aircraft to allow for smooth integration into 

available slots in the high-altitude overhead streams. The FAA plans to incorporate 

PDRC in Traffic Flow Data Manager (TFDM) Concept Demonstration #2, which 

begins in October 2012. NASA will continue to work with the FAA TFDM team to 

support maturation of the PDRC technology for successful transition over the next 

year. 

Under the Dynamic Airspace Concepts (DAC) RTT, NASA and FAA researchers are 

collaborating on far-term NextGen concepts for demand-capacity management. Under 

this RTT, NASA researchers have delivered results on the Corridors In The Sky 

concept to the FAA to help narrow the scope of needed research for far-term concepts 

on airspace management. This and other concepts for dynamic airspace allocation and 

structuring are at a lower level of maturity, and hence will require longer collaborative 

research efforts with the FAA before technology transition is feasible. 

6. You propose to restructure high-speed flight in the Aeronautics Research 

Mission Directorate. Although you are transferring hypersonics work 

pertaining to entry, descent and landing to the Space Technology office, you 

propose to eliminate research into air breathing propulsion systems. 

Since NASA's time horizon runs well into the next two or three 

decades, are we mortgaging our future by ignoring this possible 

flight regime for civilian flight? 

What is the Administration's policy with regards to the hypersonics 

research needs of DOD? Instead of leveraging NASA's expertise and 

facilities, will DOD need to conduct a separate program? Have you 

discussed this matter with DOD and what are DOD's plans? 

ANSWER: Hypersonic air-breathing technologies require significant further 

development and testing before they can eventually be utilized for civilian applications 

such as transportation or space access. The early steps in hypersonics technology 

development will be military applications. Therefore, NASA Aeronautics is focusing its 

remaining hypersonic research on efforts that directly support the DoD. Flight 

experience gained by the DoD will be leveraged by NASA and will be critical for 

advancing this field for civilian applications. Specifically, NASA is reducing funding for 

hypersonics research related to air-breathing systems, including propulsion technologies 

and structurally integrated thermal protection systems. We are, however, maintaining 

some critical national capabilities related to scramjet propulsion and core competencies 

to provide support for both Agency and DoD missions. NASA's Space Technology 

Program will assume responsibility for the fundamental research associated with Entry, 

Descent, and Landing (EDL). NASA Aeronautics' hypersonic investment will support 

the NASA Langley Research Center's 8-ft High Temperature Tunnel because it is a key 

facility for the DoD's hypersonic programs. 

NASA is also actively working with the DoD to minimize the impact of these decisions 

on their missions. NASA has already met with senior DoD officials who agree that the 

NASA investment does align with the highest hypersonic priorities in the DoD. NASA 
100 

is aware of the DoD plans to expand research in hypersonic flight systems and is 

continuing to discuss options to optimize this collaboration. In the same way that NASA 

supported the development of the USAF X-51 system, we expect DoD collaboration and 

coordination to continue. 

In the meantime, NASA ARMD is focusing its resources on other civil aviation 

transportation priorities. These include a number of future vehicle types including 

advanced rotorcraft, civil transports and even supersonic airplanes. 
101 

Congresswoman Donna Edwards 

March 7,2012 Hearing 

on 

An Overview of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Budget for Fiscal Year 2013 

1. When NASA first contracted for cargo resupply services for the International 

Space Station, initial service flights were anticipated to begin in 2010. At present, 

the two companies involved are between 20-34 months behind schedule in carrying 

out the COTS cargo demonstration flights, a necessary precursor to providing 

actual services. 

a. Since the COTS program also was carried out under Space Act Agreements, 

what do these delays to commercial cargo demonstration flights say about 

likelihood of the private sector's meeting NASA's 2017 schedule for 

operational commercial cre'IY flights? 

ANSWER: The schedule delays experienced by our partners over the life of the Commercial 

Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program are indicative of the challenges associated with 

developing and flying new, highly complex launch vehicles and spaceflight systems. The 

magnitude of the delays is also not outside NASA's experience on previous developmental 

efforts. 

NASA is working with both COTS partners to facilitate their development activities and 

overcome schedule issues. However, safe and successful spaceflight is the primary objective, 

not schedule. 

Similarly, the goal of the Commercial Crew Program is also safe and successful spaceflight. 

Variations from the pre-negotiated milestone dates will be addressed immediately by the 

Commercial Crew Program Office, along with discussions or documentation to ensure a 

complete understanding of the reasons for any changes. In some cases, this could result in the 

planned date of a milestone being changed. With the overall goal of success firmly in mind, the 

Program Office will work with commercial partners when the results of the partners' efforts to 

accurately predict the progress of an aggressive and years-long development activity need to be 

adjusted. 

In addition, most of the current commercial providers have indicated that they believe they can 

be ready prior to 2017. However, NASA's assessment has led to a more conservative estimate 

of 20 17, including predicted budget authority, although earlier delivery of services will not be 

precluded. 

b. In establishing 2017 as the new date of when operational commercial crew 

services will be available, has NASA incorporated all acquisition-related steps 

that need to be followed by the government in the development and 
102 

procurement of such services'? For example, docs the timeline account for 

activities such as solicitation preparation and release; contract competition, 

award, negotiation, potential protest resolution; and certification for operations 

involving U.S. astronauts before commencing commercial crew transport 

services to the International Space Station in 20117 Please provide the steps 

included in the timeline and estimated time required for the completion of each 

step. 

A:"ISWER: NASA has incorporated all the necessary aequisition-related steps that need to 

be followed in order to establish a planned operational date of2017 for commercial crew 

services. The steps and limeline arc shown in the graphic below, assuming adequate 

budgets and technical progress on the part of the commercial partners. Details in this 

strategy are being further refined. 

b. Does the schedule estimate inc Iud e any contingency margin for 

unanticipated delays, given the COTS cargo demonstration program 

participants have experienced delays to date of between 20 and 34 months? If 

so, how much margin has been included, and if not, why not? 

ANSWER: NASA believes it has included margin for longer than anticipated development 

schedules. As mentioned above, most of the current commercial providers have indicated that 

they believe they can be ready prior to 2017. However, NASA's assessment has led to a more 

conservative estimate of2017. Given that there arc multiple systems in development and 

each one has its own development schedule, there is not a specific quantitative amount of 

margin that has been applied to the abovc schedule. The schedule above reflects NASA's 
103 

current, best assessment of when commercial crew services missions will be accomplished, 

assuming adequate budgets and technical progress on the part of the commercial partners. 

2. The Administration appears to insist on a level of rigor in establishing the potential 

cost ofSLS that is not expected for the commercial crew program. Why does the 

Administration continue to request significantly more funding than authorized for 

commercial crew without requiring a comparable level of rigor in cost assessment? 

What would you estimate the confidence level of your cost estimate for the 

commercial crew program, to be, and on what do you base that confidence level? 

ANSWER: During the FY 2013 budget development process, NASA strove to strike the 

right balance between all our human spaceflight capabilities. As the primary means of 

U.S. access to the ISS, NASA wanted to take all steps necessary to provide assured crew 

access to the ISS and to eliminate our sole reliance on foreign systems. 

NASA does not have a "confidence level" associated with the Commercial Crew Program, 

as the budget was not and cannot be developed with a traditional confidence level. 

Confidence levels are obtained when using a parametric cost estimating tool that leverages 

multiple, historical data points for costs for comparable hardware elements. Given that 

NASA does not have multiple, historical data points to compare (the nearest analogy to a 

commercial crew system is NASA's Gemini program), traditional cost estimating tools are 

not appropriate. In addition, NASA is using a unique and innovative acquisition strategy, 

which we believe, will produce a crew transportation system for significantly lower costs 

than predicted using traditional models. NASA's understanding of the cost will be 

improved after seeing the bids from the potential providers, performing analysis on their 

cost estimates and developing estimates for the cost of certification. 

2. NASA justifies its last minnte switch to using Space Act Agreements instead of 

FAR-based contracts in part on the need to accommodate multiple partners. 

a. For the purposes of the commercial crew program, what is your definition of 

multiple"? 

ANSWER: NASA believes that having multiple companies competing against each other at 

this stage of the Commercial Crew Program will result in lower overall costs for the 

Govcrmnent. In a traditional program with a single prime contractor from the start using a costplus contract, the NASA-Air Force Cost Model (NAFCOM) cost estimates are approximately 

$8-11 billion for the development of an ISS crew transportation capability. Using the current, 

innovative approach with fixed Government costs, investment from industry, and maintaining 

competition- NASA estimates being able to cut the development costs substantially and deliver 

an ISS capability for around $5 billion. Maintaining competition is a key factor in achieving 

these savings. 

NASA plans to have two to three companies involved in the next phase of SAAs, we believe the 

competitive environment provides strong incentive for the companies to align with NASA's 
104 

certification requirements in order to remain competitive in the future celtification and services 

phases. 

b. What funding level is needed to accommodate multiple partners through 

design and development of commercial crcw systems that is, having them 

ready for certification? Please provide the basis for that estimate. 

ANSWER: NASA believes the President's FY 2013 Budget Request is needed to 

accommodate multiple partners through design and development of commercial crew 

systems, The Agency has not specified an exact number of partners for the next phase of 

the program; however, NASA plans to make multiple awards, depending on the quality, 

number, and overall portfolio benefits of the proposals received. 

For the purposes of developing the budget request, NASA estimated a range of potential CCiCap 

awards from $300-500M per partner. It is assumed this range will support a portfolio of 

multiple partners, However, the actual proposals and resulting negotiations will detennine how 

many partners may be accommodated. There are multiple ways NASA could fund the awards 

by using part or all ofFY 2013 and FY 2014 appropriations. 

4. Why has NASA now decided not to have an independent cost and schedule 

estimate performed for the commercial crew program, despite last fall's statements 

that one would be done? 

ANSWER: Thc Commercial Crew Program continues to refine its cost estimates for the 

development effort, Since the Agency decided to implement the next phase of the program 

under Space Act Agreements (SAAs) instead of contracts, the cost modeling and cost estimates 

are being reworked, Under a SAA, the partner is paid pre-negotiated fixed amounts upon 

successful completion of milestones, not based on costs incurred, The CCiCap Announcement 

for Proposals asks the bidders to estimate their total cost to reach a state of a demonstrated crew 

!light. As a part of the solicitation effort for CCiCap, NASA will perform independent reviews 

of bidders' costs and schedules for validity and comprehension to support the CCiCap 

evaluation. 

Once the CCiCap awards are made, during the summer of2012, NASA will further refine its 

total cost estimates for development, including the value ofperfoIDlance milestones under 

CCiCap, and the NASA Certification effort required to complete design and development and 

finally readiness for services, This effort will be done in the FY 2013 timeframe and at that 

point, NASA intends to employ an independent cost and schedule estimate, At that time, NASA 

should have the detailed data necessary for a valid independent cost estimate to be 

accomplished. The independent review will bc incorporated into the Agency's plans prior to 

any award for a certification contract for commercial crew systems. 
105 

Congressman Brad Miller 

lVIarch 7, 2012 Hearing 

on 

An Overview of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Budget for Fiscal Year 2013 

1. Administrator Bolden, NASA Policy Directive 10SO.1!, which deals with the use of 

Space Act Agreements, states the following: 

"Funded Agreements may be used only when the Agency's objective cannot 

be accomplished through the use of a procurement contract, grant, or 

cooperative agreement." 

NASA has decided to use Space Act Agreements in the next round of Commercial 

Crew acquisition. This decision was a reversal from an earlier decision to use 

regular F AR- based contracts for this round of Commercial Crew acquisition. 

Can you explain why the decision was made to switch from aFAR based 

procurement to a Space Act Agreement-based procurement, and does that 

rationale comport with NASA's own policy directives on the use of such 

agreements? 

ANSWER: The FY 2012 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act provided 

NASA with S406M for the Commercial Crew Program, which was less than half of the 

President's Budget Request and may have required NASA to award a single contract for the 

previously planned Integrated Design Contract (IDC) phase. The Conference Report 

accompanying the FY 2012 Appropriations Act stated, "NASA is directed to work expeditiously 

to alter its management and acquisition strategy for the program as necessary to make the best 

use of available resources and to define the most cost effective path to the achievement ofa 

commercial crew capability." 

Upon perfonning a reassessment as directed, NASA detennined that the most cost effective 

path to the achievement ofa commercial crew capability in light of the $406M appropriation in 

FY 2012, and the uncertainty associated with the FY 2013 budget levels, was to alter the 

Commercial Crew Program acquisition strategy. Rather than moving forward with awarding a 

single firm-fixed price contract for IDC, which would remove future competition for follow-on 

Certification phase of the program, NASA will continue to support the design and development 

of commercial crew transportation through the use of multiple funded Space Act Agreements 

(SAAs). NASA will shift the fonnal design acceptance and certification planning acceptance to 

the follow-on Certification Phase. Utilizing SAAs for the next phase provides tangible benefits 

in terms of cost and schedule flexibility in comparison to FAR-based contracts. SAAs are also 
106 

expected to provide more flexibility to deal with possible variations in funding levels without 

the need for potentially protracted and inefficient contract renegotiations. NASA believes this 

change is consistent with all applicable laws and policy directives. 
(107) 

Appendix 2 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
108 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

Additional Material Submitted by Hon. Charles F. Bolden, Jr., 

as Requested During Hearing 
109 

Material requested for the record on page 34, line 772, by Congo Miller during the March 

7,2012, hearing. 

The post-employment restrictions of the Procurement Integrity Act (41 USC § 423, as 

amended), which prohibit former Federal employees who perform certain duties related 

to Federal contracting from accepting a position with a contractor benefiting from 

particular agency decisions for a year, only apply to government contracts to obtain 

goods or services undcr Title 41 of the U.S. Code. Accordingly, they do not apply to 

grants, cooperative agreements, and other instruments to which the U.S. Government is a 

party such as Space Act agreements. We note additionally that NASA is not using Space 

Act agreements to acquire commercial crew capabilities, but to support the development 

of commercial services that could eventually provide access to low-Earth 

orbit. However, the broad restrictions on post-employment representational activities 

contained in 18 U.S.C. § 207 apply with cqual force to contracts and Space Act 

agreements, and in NASA's experience are more likely to result in restrictions affecting 

an employee's post-employment options than the restrictions in the Procurement Integrity 

Act. Accordingly, NASA believes that the post-employment restrictions contained in 18 

U.S.C. § 207 provide appropriate protection for the U.S. Government for nonprocurement matters, such as Space Act agreements. 
110 

Material requested for the record on page 46, line 1074, by Rep. Edwards during the 

March 7,2012, hearing. 

NASA's ovcrall approach for the next phase of the Commercial Crew program is a nontraditional approach using funded Space Act Agreements (which we have used 

previously in the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program and other 

partnership activities). The approach is characterized by fixed government costs, 

milestone payments, investment from industry, and competition. In addition to the space 

act phase, NASA will procure certification assurance and services under a more 

traditional government contracting, FAR-based model. Using this hybrid approach, 

NASA estimates being able to cut the development costs substantially and deliver an ISS 

capability by 2017-without precluding earlier service- for approximately $5B (consistent 

with the FY 2013 President's budget request). NASA has continued to apply principles 

that support the successful implementation of an acquisition strategy aimed at 

maximizing value for taxpayer investments through competition. This requires NASA's 

commitment to support multiple systems as far along through development as possible, to 

capture the direct value of competition. 

Since NASA is not using a traditional acquisition approach and there are few historical 

spacecraft that are analogous to a crew transportation system, NASA did not use 

NASA/Air Force Cost Modeling (NAFCOM) cost estimates to develop the commercial 

crew budget requests. NASA performed a NAFCOM cost estimate on the Falcon 9 

launch vehicle and the results were several times higher than SpaceX's actual costs, 

which suggests that NAFCOM cost estimating may not be an appropriate tool for 

estimating costs for non-traditional development such as commercial crew. NASA has 

instead continued to refine an estimate of the requircd government investment to 

successfully develop a commercial crew capability for several years using a variety of 

inputs. NASA's budget request for the program drew from the following sources: 

• Industry inputs adjusted by Aerospace Corporation 

• Gemini historical experience (39 months, $2.5-3B) 

• Commercial Crew Request for Information - May 2010 ($1-8B range, with the 

average around $3B) 

• Various data inputs from industry partners participating in Commercial Crew 

Development I and Commercial Crew Development 2 (mostly technical data 

which fed into new cost models) 

• Performance of the commercial cargo providers on similar but different tasks 

Further, NASA has continued to receive detailed information from potential commercial 

partners and independent analysis, providing a general range of$2.5 - $3B per system. 

NASA has received other data from industry in more formal settings, including: Industry 

Days, Program Forums, and One-on-One Meetings with potential commercial crew 

transportation system providers. All these data appeared to substantiate this estimate 

rangc for full commercial crew development costs. Ranges of proportional industry 
111 

investment were between 10 percent and 20 percent, while some were above 50 percent. 

In September 2011, NASA was provided an external assessment by Booz Allen 

Hamilton, which found that NASA's estimates for commercial crew development were 

reasonable. 

In Fcbruary 2012, NASA announced an effort known as Commercial Crew Integrated 

Capability (CCiCap). The overall CCiCap strategic goal is to advance integrated 

commercial crew transportation system concepts to the stage of an orbital-crewed 

demonstration flight capability as soon as possible and maintain crew safety while 

considering additional potential customer standards. NASA plans to award two to three 

funded Space Act Agreements in the July/August timeframe after which NASA will be 

able to further refine estimates of futute funding requirements. 
112 

Letter to Chairman Ralph M. Hall from Charlene M. Anderson 

Associate Director, The Planetary Society 

~. THE PLANETA"Y SOCIETY <.~ 85 South Grand Avenue 

Pasadena. CA 911Q5~1602 USA 

phone: 626-793-5100 

fax: 626-793-5528 

'. .' e-mail:tps@planetary.orq 

• http://pfanetary.org 

CO-FOUNDER 

~~4R'~9~~GAN 

BOARD 01" DIRECTORS 

("C1Jti~1I Director 

alLLNYE 

LOUISO.FRIEDMAN 

Ce"ouncer 

SCOTT HUaSARD 

Profes5or,StanfordUniversily 

WESLEyr.HUNTRESS,JR. 

March 7, 2012 

The Honorable Ralph M. Hall 

Chairman 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Rep. Hall: 

The Planetary Society is deeply troubled with the priorities reflected in NASA's 

FY 13 budget. If implemented, it will portend grave consequences for our nation's 

ability to conduct deep-space science missions and could irreversibly erode 

unique aspects of the space industrial base needed for such missions. 

~::nr::;~~~5~;;~~~~:~P:::~~:~;::lJrat!Jry. Specifically, the disproportionate cut to the Planetary Science budget would force 

LON LEVIN NASA to walk away from planned missions to Mars, to back out of international SkySeVl;'nVentvres 

agreements with the European Space Agency (ESA), delay for decades any 

flagship missions to the outer planets, and radically slow the pace of scientific 

discovery, including the search for life on other worlds. We think this is the 

~~7~::Zf=1~~;:::;:~;;;n5tiM~. -wrong direction for America's space program. 

Planetary Science is the part of NASA that's actually conducting interesting and 

scientifically important missions. Spacecraft sent to Mars, Saturn, Mercury, the 

Moon, comets, and asteroids have been making incredible discoveries, \\1th more 

to come from recent launches to Jupiter, the Moon, and Mars. The country needs 

more of these robotic space exploration missions, not fewer. 

For the first time in human history, we have the tools available to directly test the 

hypothesis of whether there is, or has been, life on other worlds such as Mars or 

Europa. Such a discovery would be a seminal event in human history and would 

have a deep and profound impact on how 'we view our place in the Universe, 

much as Copernicus sparked the Age of Enlightenment 500 years ago with his 

theory that the Earth orbits the Sun, just like any other planet. We stand at the 

dawn of a similar period in which our knowledge and understanding of the 

Universe is poised to take another giant leap forward. 
113 

March 7. 2012 

Ilonorable Ralph T'vl. Hall 

Page 2 

We understand that NASA is undertaking a review to examine options for potential future rvlars 

missions and we support efforts to put the program back on track. but wc arc also adamant that 

decisions for future planetary missions be guided by the most recent Planetary Sciellce Decadal 

Survey of the National Research Council. It took almost two years to forge a consensus of 1700 

planetary scientists and should not be dismissed or watered-dowil. NASA's science programs 

haw achieved great successes based on the decadal-sun'cy process and all should be reluctant to 

abandon it. 

While it may appear attracti,'c to dewlop an integrated strategy for !'lIars science missions and an 

eventual human mission to Mars. the lack of clear goals and tangible program plans on the 

human side suggests the discussion is premature. at best. 

We recognize the intense fiscal and budget pressure the country i:lces. Wt:! unckrstand that 

agency programs arc receiving unprccc'dcnted scrutiny and tilat budgets arc shrinking. Ilo\\'\:\cr. 

today's budget environl11ent is also an opportunity to take stock of what's \\orking and what's 

not working. and to adjust priorities. 

Today. approximately 27 percent oCNASA's budget goes to Science. with 8 percent oCNASA's 

total going to Planetary Science. The human spaccllight program (SOMD+ESMD) consullles 

about 45 percent oCNASA's budget. and the remaining 28 percent goes to aeronautics. 

technology and infrastructure. The Planetary Society is a strong supporter of both human and 

robotic space exploration and a strong advocate for im-cstments in technology. J lo\\'ewr. given 

the impacts of the proposed fY 13 budget. some adjustments arc needed. 

Specifically. the Planetary Society recolllIllends reallocating approximately 3 percent li'om 

within NASA's total budget to rebaseline the share for Science to at lenst 30 percent. and 

restoring the $300 million ClIt to Planetary Science to fund it at $ 1.5 billion. This l11(ld~st 

rebalancing will allow NASA to fully implement the decadal survey for Planetary Science. send 

a mission to Mars and prepare for missions to the outer planets. \\hile allowing NASA to 

continue a robust program of missions in Earth Science. Astronomy and IIcliophysics. 

We arrive at this conclusion primarily because NASA's Science program currently haS:lll 

abundance of compelling \yorld-class science missions with clearly dellned mission goals and 

carefully crafted program plans that arc poised to move out. We believe that a healthy and 

vibrant Seiencc program is an excellent il1\'cstment that will energize. engage. and inspire the 

next generation or scientists. engineers. educators and the public. as has becn the case \vith the 

Mars rovers and many other missions. The diversity and frequency of science mission 

opportunitics laid out by the dceadal SUl'V-CY will significantly contribute to thousands of hightech jobs in the aerospace industry. at rescarch laboratories. and in univcrsities. These programs 
114 

March 7. 2012 

llonorablc Ralph M. Hall 

Page 3 

will stimulate the best and brightest \\'ith interesling and meaningful scienlilic and technical 

ehalknges that \I'illmake our nation stronger and more eOl11pctitin~. 

While we recognize these arc dimcull choices. lye beliew an increase in the share of the NASA 

budget for Scicnce to 30 percent is the best place for the agency to make the most effectiYe usc 

orthc taxpayers' 1110ney allhis time and inloday's budget environment 

We are at the brink of the next rcyolution in scientitic understanding. A great government \\'ill 

kad this pursuil and makes these investments because it \\illmake a difference to our society 

and to our childrcn. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Chariene 

&)J1~~. M. Anderson 

Associate Director 
115 

Additional Information 

Human Exploration 

Exploration Systems Development 

Exploration Systems Development is responsible for designing and building three capabilities 

that will form the centerpiece of America's future space exploration beyond Earth's orbit. These 

systems will enable long-term human exploration of the Moon, asteroids, or other destinations in 

the Solar System such a Mars. The NASA Authorization Act of2010 also directs NASA to 

develop these systems as a backup to reach low Earth orbit to service the International Space 

Station if commercial or Russian systems are unavailable. The Exploration Systems consist of 

the Space Launch System heavy lift rocket, the Orion Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle, and the 

associated Exploration Ground Systems necessary to prepare the systems for launch. NASA is 

planuing for an initial test launch of the SLS and Orion in 2017. 

The president's FY2013 request for Exploration Systems Development is $2.77 billion, a 

decrease of$237.7 million or -7.9 percent from the FY2012 estimate. The Orion Multi Purpose 

Crew vehicle sees the largest decrease, going from $1.2 billion in FY2012 down to $1.02 billion 

in FY2013, a -14.6 percent reduction. The Administration cuts the Space Launch System budget 

from $1.8 billion in FY2012 down to $1.74 billion in FY2013, a reduction of -3.5 percent. The 

Administration increases the Exploration Ground Systems budget from $304 million in FY2012 

to $404 million in FY2013, an increase of$100 million or 32.8 percent. 

Commercial Spaceflight 

Similar to the tvvo account approach used by NASA since 2006 to develop systems for cargo 

delivery to the ISS using the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) and Cargo 

Resupply Services (CRS) programs, NASA plans to fund the commercial crew development 

activities out of two separate budget accounts. NASA's Exploration account funds the partial 

development of commercial systems with the commercial partners contributing varying amounts 

of their own money, and NASA uses the Space Operations account (which will be discussed 

later) to procure transportation services on a fixed price basis. 

[Maybe this paragraph is unnecessary, but I tried to explain the funding situation using a familiar 

example] 

Using the commercial cargo program as an example, since 2006 NASA has used the Commercial 

Orbital Transportation Services program to fund the commercial participants development of a 

capability demonstration to deliver supplies to the International Space Station. Most of that 

funding has been paid out in prior years and will stop completely in FY2012 with NASA hopeful 

that those initial demonstration flights to the ISS occur later this year. NASA uses a different 

account, the Space Operations account, to procure transportation services on a fixed price basis, 

and since 2008 NASA's Cargo Resupply Services program has funded the procurement of 

commercial cargo services (although no demonstrations to ISS have yet taken place) and has 

spent $835 million on CRS thus far. 

Similarly, NASA's Commercial Crew program is working with commercial partners to develop 

the systems necessary to transport human astronauts to and from the ISS in the 2017 timeframe. 

NASA has funded space act agreements with various commercial partners and plans to 
116 

additional awards to multiple providers for further commercial crew systems development later 

this year. 

The president's FY2013 request for commercial crew is $830 million, an increase of $424 

million, or 104 percent above the FY2012 estimate. 

Exploration Research and Development 

NASA's Exploration Research and Development studies advanced exploration systems 

necessary to enable extended human space exploration. The program is comprised of two parts. 

The first is the Human Research Program which in 2011 flew II major medical experiments and 

added new ISS biomedical capabilities like second generation ultrasound for medical imaging, 

and the jointly developed ESAINASA muscle atrophy research and exercise system. The second 

is the Advanced Exploration Systems program which began in 2012 and continues several of the 

Exploration Technology Development and Demonstration projects such as portable life support 

systems for advanced space suit and radiation assessment detector for the Mars Science Lab. 

The president's FY2013 request for Exploration Research and Development is $334 million, and 

increase of$34 million, or 11.3 percent above the FY2012 estimate of$299.7 million. 

Space Operations 

Space Shuttle 

In July 2011, the Space Shuttle flew its final mission following the completion and re-supply of 

the ISS. In FY2012 and FY2013 the Space Shuttle program undergoes final transition, 

retirement, and disposition of program assets. In FY2013 the Space Shuttle program will focus 

on identifying assets that can be transferred to future exploration programs and dispositioning 

property no longer needed. This includes the processing and delivery in FY2012 of the Space 

Shuttle orbiters for museum displays. 

The president's FY2013 request is $70.6 million, a decrease of$485.6 million or 87.3 percent 

from the FY2012 estimate. The FY2012 estimate included a one-time payment of$470 million 

for pension requirements related to the close out ofthe program that are not included in FY2013. 

International Space Station 

The ISS is now a functional, permanently erewed research laboratory and technology test bed for 

exploration and international cooperation, as well as a National Laboratory for non-NASA and 

potential nongovernmental users. The NASA Authorization Act of2010 directs NASA to take 

actions "necessmy to ensure the safe and effective operation, maintenance and maximum 

utilization of the Us. segment of ISS through at least September 30, 2020." Now that assembly 

is complete, NASA faces a critical window for ISS utilization and research before a potential 

program end date of2020. The Administration's request provides for continuous operations and 

ensures adequate maintenance to ensure the ISS remains viable as a National Lab through 2020. 

As noted earlier, funding to procure commercial crew or cargo transportation is in the ISS Crew 

and Cargo Transportation project within the ISS budget. 
117 

The president's FY2013 budget request for the International Space Station is $3.0 billion, an 

increase of$178 million, or 6.3 percent above the FY2012 estimate of$2.83 billion. 

Space and Flight Support 

Space and Flight Support comprises multiple programs providing capabilities that play critical 

roles in several NASA missions. For example, the 21 st Century Space Launch Complex program 

funds modernization at the Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station to 

benefit multiple users. The Space Communications and Navigation program operates NASA's 

extensive network of ground-based and orbiting communications hardware and software 

necessary to receive the vast quantities of data generated by NASA's fleet of crewed vehicles 

and robotic spacecraft. The Human Space Flight Operations (HSFO) program ensures that 

NASA's astronauts are prepared to safely carry out current and future missions. The Launch 

Support Program supports various NASA missions that require expendable launch vehicle 

services. The Rocket Propulsion Test program maintains NASA's wide variety of test facilities 

for use by NASA, other agencies, and commercial partners. Together these efforts comprise the 

Space and Flight Support segment of NASA's budget. 

The president's FY2013 budget request for Space and Flight Support is $935 million, an increase 

of$134 million, or 16.7 percent above the FY2012 estimate of$801 million. 
118 

NASA's aeronautics programs are conducted by the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate 

(ARMD) and focus on long-term investments in fundamental aeronautics research to improve 

aviation safety, efficiency and air traffic management. The ARMD includes four NASA centers: 

NASA Ames Research Center, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, NASA Glenn Research 

Center and NASA Langley Research Center. 

Thc ARMD FYI3 budget request represents a 3.1 % decrease in funding from the previous year, 

dropping from $569.4M in FYI2 to $551.5M in FYI3. Mi\ior porgramatic changes this year 

inelude combining funding for hypersonic research with supersonic researeh and the transfer of 

"entry, descent and landing" (EDL) research to the Space Technology account. The transfer of 

EDL research accounts for a significant amount of the ARMD funding reduction in FYI3. 

Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate Budget 

The ARMD program areas include; 

• Aviation Safety - develops technologies to improve current and future aircraft safety and 

address safety challenges for the Next Generation Air Transportation Program (NextGen). 

• Airspace Systems - conducts research in NextGen technologies that will allow increases in 

capacity, efficiency, and flexibility of the National Airspace System (NAS). 

• Fundamental Aeronautics develops technologies and concepts to reduced aircraft noise, 

improve efficiency and increase air travel flexibility. 

• Aeronautics Test Program - manages NASA's aeronautics test capabilities in partnership 

with the Department of Defense. 

• Integrated Systems Research Program - conducts integrated system-level research to 

accelerate transitioning into major aircraft and operations systems. 

• Aeronautics Strategy and Management - identifies new innovative aviation concepts 

through "seedling funds" that provide research and analysis of early stagc concepts. 

The NASA Authorization Act of2010 stated that "NASA aeronautics research should be guided by, 

and consistent with, the National Aeronautics Research and Development Policy that guides the 

Nation's aeronautics research and development activities." To that end, the Authorization Act 

directed NASA to collaborate with the Department of Defense on aeronautics R&D and the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) on NextGen. The bill also authorized $590M in FY13 and directed 

NASA ARMD to pursue three fundamental goals, including; 

(I) AIRSPACE CAPACITY.-NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate shall 

address research needs of the Next Generation Air Transportation System, including the 
119 

ability of the National Airspace System to handle up to 3 times the current travel demand by 

2025. 

(2) ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY.-The Directorate shall consider and pursue 

concepts to reduce noise, emissions, and fuel consumption while maintaining high safety 

standards and shall pursue research related to alternative fuels. 

(3) AVIATION SAFETY.-The Directorate shall proactively address safety challenges with 

new and current air vehicles and with operations in the Nation's current and future air 

transportation system. 

Over the last decade, the budget for ARMD has shrunk from a peak of approximately $1 B to just 

$551.5M in the FY13 President's request and remains flat in the budget run out over the next 5 

years. Significant reductions in ARMD infrastructure and personnel have reduced necessary 

funding levels but a key question remains as to the impact on its mission areas. 
120 

Cross Agency Support Program 

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY13 Req vs. FY12 Est 

Actual Estimate Request $$$ %%% 

Cross Agency Support TOTAL 2,956.4 2,993.9 2,847.5 -146.4 -4.9% 

Center Mang & Operations 2,189.0 2,204.1 2,093.3 -110.8 -5.0% 

Agency Mang & Operations 767.4 789.8 754.2 -35.6 -4.5% 

($ = Billions) 

The Cross Agency Support Program accounts for about 16% of NASA's budget. It is 

comprised of two separate activities, noted in the table above. Center Management and 

Operations funds the maintenance and operation of facilities at the individual centers, the 

workforce, equipment, tools, and other resources needed to ensure program execution. 

Agency Management and Operations funds headquarters activities such as management 

and oversight of agency missions, programs, functions, and performance of NASA-wide 

mission support activities. 

For FY13, NASA proposes to reduce Cross Agency Support Program by almost 5%, 

mostly through ongoing efforts to scale back basic services such as IT support, and facilities 

maintenance and repair. Efforts are now underway to 'right-size' agency facilities, such as 

consolidating redundant capabilities, mothballing an under-utilized wind-tunnel, and 

closing facilities are associated with the Shuttle program. 
121 

IBudget Authority, $ in millions 

By Appropriation Account 

By Theme 

By Activity 

FY2012 FV2012 ~Y:lt:l~3 FV2013 v FV2012 Est 

Request Estimate $$$ %%% 

Science • 5,011>.$ 5,073.1 ~162;!.i . -3;2% 

Earth Science 1,797.4 1,7605 24,3 1.4% 

Planetary Science 1,540.7 1,501.4 -309.1 -20.6% 

Astrophysics 682.7 672.7 -13.3 -2.0% 

James Webb Space Tel. 373.7 518.6 109.0 21.0% 

Heliophysics 622.3 6205 265 4.3% 

.569.4 569.4 ·11.·9 -3;1% 

1,021j~;Z •• .513.1 125~3 21.8% 

E.xplorati!>11 3,9ij8:1 g,112./!· 220'.6 5;~% 

Human Exploration Cap. 2,810.2 3,007.1 -237.7 -7.9% 

Space Launch Syst 1,800.0 1,807.1 -62.6 -3.5% 

Multi-Purpose Crew Veh 1,010.2 1,200.0 -175.1 -14.6% 

Commercial Spaceflight 850.0 406.0 423.7 104.4% 

Exporation R&D 288.5 299.7 34.0 11.3% 

SpaceOP(lr~tt(1I1S 1J,346.9 4,181.0. 0113.8 4.2% 

Space Shuttle 664.9 556.2 -485.6 -87.3% 

ISS 2,841.5 2,829.9 3,0g7.15 177.7 6.3% 

Space & Flight Support 840.6 800.9 935.0 134.1 16.7% 

E~I!CatiOI'l 138.4 -2!U%. 

tr~ss-Ag~l\CV S'upport 3,192,0. ~4.9% 

Construction-a \:nvir.· 

t9m~li;l~c~ al1dR~.storatIQI'l 

Construction of Facilities 397.9 

Envir. Compliance 525 45.6 66:4: 45.6% 

',:,spector Gliner~1 37:1;· 38•3 ~1 .. 3: -3,4% 

NASA TOTAL 18,724.3 17,770.0 17,711.4 -58.6 -0.3% 

17,771.9 
122 

FY2012 Budget Request 

FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 5 Year 

Notional Notional Notional Notional Total 

5,016.8 5,016.8 5,016.8 5,016.'8 25,084.0 

1,821.7 1,818.5 1,858.2 1,915.4 9,211.2 

1,429.3 1,394.7 1,344.2 1,256.8 6,965.7 

758.1 775.5 779.8 810.9 3,807.0 

375.0 375.0 375.0 375.0 1,873.7 

632.7 653.0 659.7 658.7 3,226.4 

569.4 569.4 569.4 569.11 2,841.0 

1,024.2 1,024.2 1,024:2 1,024.2' 5,121:0 

3,948.7 3,948.7 3,948.1 3,948.1 19,143.5 

2,810.2 2,810.2 2,810.2 2,810.2 14,051.0 

850.0 850.0 850.0 850.0 4,250.0 

288.5 288.5 288.5 288.5 1,442.5 

4,346.9 4,346.9 4;346.9 4,346,9 21,134.5 

79.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 747.1 

2,960.4 3,005.4 3,098.0 3,174.8 15,080.1 

1,306.8 1,340.7 1,248.1 1,171.2 5,901.4 

138:4 138.4 138.4 138.4 692.0 

3,192.0 "3,19Z.0 3,192.0 3,192.0 15,960.0 

'450.4 450.4 450.4· 450.11 2,252.0 

384.0 359.5 362.9 360.0 1,864.3 

66.4 90.9 87.5 90.4 387.7 

37.5 31.S 31.5 37.5 181.5 

18,724.3 18,724.3 18,724.3 18,724.3 93,621.5 11,711.4 17,111.4 17,711.4 
123 

quest 

FY2017 5 Year FY13 v FV12 Runouts 

Notional Total $$$ %%% 

4,914.4 24,568.8 -515.2 -2.1% 

1,772.8 8,994.9 -216.3 -2.3% 

1,198.8 5,746.2 -1,219.5 -17.5% 

710.2 3,475.2 -331.8 -8.7% 

571.1 3,126.0 1,252.3 66.8% 

661.6 3,226.6 0.2 0.0% 

551.5 2,151.5 -89.5 -3.1% 

699.0 3,495.0 -1,626.0 -31.8% 

4,016.5 20,238.8 495.3 2.5% 

2,913.1 14,421.8 370.8 2.6% 

1,884.9 9,284.1 

1,028.2 5,137.7 

829.7 4,148.5 -101.5 -2.4% 

333.7 1,668.5 226.0 15.7% 

4,044.1 20,162.6 -1,571.9 -1.2% 

0.0 70.6 -676.5 -90.6% 

3,243.3 15,812.2 732.1 4.9% 

800.8 4,279.8 -1,627.6 -27.6% 

100.0 500.0 -192.0 -27.7% 

2,841.5 14,231.5 -1,722.5 -10.8% 

450.4 2,420.8 168.8 7.5% 

360.0 1,995.2 130.9 7.0% 

90.4 425.6 37.9 9.8% 

31.0 185.0 -2.5 -1.3% 

17,720.4 88,566.0 -5,055.5 -5.4% 
124 

Office of Education 

The FY 2013 President's request for NASA's Education program is $100M, a $36.1M decrease from the 

FY12 estimated budget of $136.1M. The proposed budget run out for five years is flat at $100M. The 

FY13 request includes: 

Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education and Accountability 

o $37M for STEM Education and Accountability projects; 

o $30M for the Minority University Research and Education Program (MUREP); 

Aerospace Research and Career Development 

o $24M for the National Space Grant College and Fellowship Program (Space Grant); and 

o $9M for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR). 

The budget request aligns the projects within the priorities of the OSTP STEM Committee five-year 

strategic plan. The Office of Education proposes to allocate 63 percent of its funding in support of Space 

Grant, EPSCoR, and MUREP with the remaining funds supporting education efforts at NASA Centers and 

grantees. 

The STEM Education and Accountability program was established as a new programmatic structure in 

FY12. The program provides funding for NASA-unique STEM education opportunities, including 

internships, launch initiatives, grants and provides students and educators with NASA's STEM content. 

The program also supports a competitive process for science museums, NASA centers and planetariums 

to enhance education and outreach activities related to space exploration, aeronautics and space 

science. The STEM Education and Accountability program budget has been decreased by 16.3% in the 

FY President's request. 

MUREP supports mUlti-year research grants at Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic 

Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges. Additionally, MUREP funds scholarships, internships, and 

mentoring for K-12 students. The MUREP budget remains flat at $30M in the FY13 President's request. 

Space Grant supports undergraduate and graduate students with scholarships, internships and research 

challenges through a national network of S2 consortia representing over 1,000 universities, colleges and 

state and local agencies in 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. In FYll, Space Grant 

programs reached over 21,000 higher education participants. The Space Grant budget has been 

decreased by 38.3% in the FY13 President's request. 

EPSCoR develops academic research projects to establish competitive activities in states with modest 

research infrastructure in an effort to make the organization more competitive in attracting non-EPSCoR 

funding for research. EPSCoR funds states and regions that do not traditionally compete for Federal 

aerospace-related research activities. The EPSCoR budget has been decreased by 48% in the FY13 

President's request. 
125 

Æ