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

73–605PDF 2012

SECURING THE PROMISE OF 

THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION: 

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2012 

Serial No. 112–72 

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 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

VACANCY 

VACANCY 

VACANCY 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

March 28, 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 ..................... 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12 

Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry Costello, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................... 13 

Witnesses: 

Mr. William H. Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator, Human Exploration 

and Operations Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 14 

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

Mrs. Cristina Chaplain, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, U.S. 

Government Accountability Office 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 27 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 29 

Air Force Lieutenant General Thomas P. Stafford, Chairman, Nasa Advisory 

Council ISS Operational Readiness Task Force 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 44 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 46 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 49 

Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Mr. William H. Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator, Human Exploration 

and Operations Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration .......................................................................................................... 66 

Mrs. Cristina Chaplain, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, U.S. 

Government Accountability Office ...................................................................... 91 

Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record 

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgements ........................................................ 98 

(1) 

SECURING THE PROMISE OF 

THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION: 

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2012 

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

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:36 a.m., in Room 2318 

of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ralph Hall [Chairman 

of the Committee] presiding. 
2 

EDUiE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

2321 RAYBURN HOUSE OFF!CE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515~6301 

(202) 225-6371 

Full Committee Hearing 

Securing the Promise of the International Space Station: 

Challenges and Opportunities 

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 

9:30 a.m. to 11 :30 a.m. 

2318 Raybum House Office Building 

Mr. William H. Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator, Human Exploration and 

Operations Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Ms. Cristina Chaplain, Director, Acquisition & Sourcing Management, U.S. 

Govemment Accountability Office 

Lt Gen Thomas P. Stafford, Chairman, NASA Advisory Council ISS Operational 

Readiness Task Force 
3 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Securing the Promise of the International Space Station: Challenges and 

Opportunities 

Introduction 

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 

9:30 a.m. II :30 a.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

Assembly of the International Space Station (ISS) is complete, and NASA's focus is shifting from 

assembly and activation, to utilization and maintenance. The decision to extend the life of the ISS thru 

at least 2020 provides an unprecedented opportunity to perform promising scientific research. But will 

NASA be able to take full advantage of the research possibilities of the ISS? Currently, the U.S. 

laboratory section is about 50 percent utilized, and there are fUnding and access constraints that could 

affect the quantity and effectiveness of future research. Is NASA's funding for ISS research sufficient 

to allow a robust program? Has NASA adequately planned to enable effective research on the ISS? 

How much access will NASA have now that the Space Shuttle is no longer in service? What is the 

role of our international partners? 

This hearing will review NASA's plans for conducting ISS research, and ensuring that essential spares, 

facilities, transportation and other resources are adequate to meet the research needs on the ISS (hru 

2020. This hearing is not intended to focus on NASA's commercial crew program or the Russian 

Soyuz system which all members of the international partnership are using for crew access for the next 

several years. 

Witnesses 

Mr. William H. Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator, Human Exploration and Operations Mission 

Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Ms. Cristina Chaplain, Director, Acquisition & Sourcing Management, U.S. Government 

Accountability Office 

Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Stafford, Chairman, NASA Advisory Council ISS Operational Readiness Task 

Force 

Page 10f6 
4 

Background 

The International Space Station partnership consists of Canada, Europe, Japan, Russia and United 

States. These entities have cooperated for two decades on design, development, operation and 

utilization of the ISS. The first element was launched in 1998, and the ISS has been permanently 

occupied since November 2000. 

Now that the assembly of the ISS is complete, the focus has shined from assembly and activation of 

the systems, to the maintenance and utilization of the facility. The majority of supplies and spare parts 

were traditionally delivered by the Space Shuttle. But since the Space Shuttle was discontinued in July 

of last year, NASA and the international partners must now rely on a combination of existing foreign 

and emerging domestic commercial launch systems to supply spares and other supplies to the ISS 

through at least 2020. NASA took advantage of the last two Shuttle missions to fully stock the ISS and 

deliver large spare parts and other components that could not be delivered on smaller vchicles. As a 

result, NASA believes that the sparing needs of the ISS arc met for the remainder of this year. But 

NASA could face delivery shortfalls in the future. 

Meeting ISS Requirements 

Section 503 of the NASA Authorization Act of2010 [P.L. 111-267] directed NASA to assess its plan 

to ensure that essential spare parts, equipment and systems were available to support ISS through 2020. 

The same Act directed the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to evaluate and report on the 

accuracy and level of confidence in NASA's assessments. 

The reviews were to include "the essential modules, operational systems and components, structural 

elements, and permanent scientific equipment on board or plannedfor delivery ... required 10 ensure 

complete, effective and safe functioning andfull scientific utilization of the ISS through September 30, 

2020. "I In January 20 II NASA reported to Congress that the ISS could be effectively maintained 

through 2020 with a combination of existing international, and planned domestic commercial re-supply 

vehicles. 

Table 1 below shows NASA's assumptions as reported by GAO in December 2011 2 Table 1 assumes 

two European ATV flights beyond 2014 (in 2016 and 2019) that arc not currently agreed to by ESA. 

Table 1 also assumes three Japanese HTV flights beyond 2016 that are not currently agreed to by 

JAXA. 

1 Section 503, p,l, 111-267 

2 U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-12-162, International Space Station: Approaches for Ensuring Utilization 

through 2020 Are Reasonable but Should Be Revisited as NASA Gains More Knowledge of On-Orbit Performance, 

December 2011 

Page 2 016 
5 

Table 1: NASA's Planned Vehicle Launches for 2012 to 2020 to Resupply the ISS 

Vehicles 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 

ATV .---------------- 1 

Source GAO analys'5 based on NASA documents 

Note: This table does not include flights by the Russian Soyuz or Progress vehicles 

2018 2019 2020 

1 

Even though NASA's calculation of total launch capacity assumes the extra ATV and HTV flights 

shown above, a slight capacity shortfall remained. In December 2011 GAO noted, "Although NASA 

expects domestic commercial launch vehicles to deliver the bulk oj cargo required by the ISS through 

2020, NASA strategic planning manifests indicate that NASA may not have sufficient capability to 

carryall the cargo that could be needed on the ISS. The manifests show that, when anticipated growth 

in national laboratory demands and margin Jar unJoreseen maintenance need, are accountedJor, the 

current number offlights NASA is planning Jar may not cover all of NASA's anticipated needs 

beginning in 2014." See Figure I below. Total.;;apacity(trousands) 

Catendaryear 

c=J DomesHclcomm(lrcmi 

..,lntornahonaIPilrt"m 

~Othercargo 

c=J Nalionallabgrowlh 

~COflt",genCyma+nte"am:e 

Source GAO ~n~lys,s 0.1 NASA <lata 

TotaJ demand (lr-ousands) 

" 

2017 2019 

Figure 1: Cargo Capability of U.S. Commercial and International Partner Vehicles vs. NASA's ISS Sparing Needs 

from 2012 to 2020' 

3 U.s. Government Accountabillty Office, GAO~ 12~ 162, Internatlonal Space Station: Approaches for Ensuring Utilization 

through 2020 Are Reasonable but Should Be Revisited as NASA Gains More Knowledge of On~Orbit Performance, 

December 2011 

Page 3 016 

Total 
6 

Based on NASA data provided to GAO, Figure I illustrates the shortfall in capacity needed to 

adequately service and utilize the ISS through 2020. As noted earlier, this chart contains assumptions 

about ATV flights in 2016 and 2019, and HTV t1ights beyond 2016, that artifIcially inflate the 

available launch capacity illustrated by the vertical bars. In the near term, the amount of launch 

capacity assumed in 2012 willlikcly be reduced due to schedule delays by the current domestic 

commercial providers. However, NASA believes the 2012 sparing needs have been met by the extra 

deliveries from the last two Space Shuttle missions. In the invitation to this hearing the Committee 

requested NASA to provide current estimates of the sparing requirements through 2020, and launch 

capacity based on current international commitments and realistic appraisals of the 

domestic/commercial providers. 

Funding and Management of ISS Research 

Amounts shown in mIllions of dollars 

ISS Research 

Biologica! & Physical Research 

Non-Profit Orga ni zation 

Multi-User System Support* 

-4< MUSS is the infrastructure to support research 

FY2012 

225.5 

58.3 

15.0 

152.1 

FY2013 

229.3 

60.3 

15.0 

154.0 

Figure 2: ISS Research Funding, NASA's FY20!3 Budget Proposal' 

FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 

227.4 231.3 238.3 241.7 

56.8 58.1 60.7 60.4 

15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 

155.6 158.2 162.6 166.3 

Figure 2 shows NASA FY2013 budget request for ISS Research. Funding for NASA's Human 

Research Program is not shown because it is managed in the Exploration Research and Development 

account. The NASA FY2013 ISS Research budget is $229.3 million which includes $60.3 million for 

NASA-sponsored Biological and Physical Research, $154 million for the infrastructure to support the 

research, and $15 million to administer the new non-profit entity, the Center for the Advancement of 

Science in Space (CASIS). Given that the US section of the ISS is only about 50 percent utilized, is 

the FY2013 budget enough to support quality research? This topic will be discussed in more detail 

below. 

The FY2008 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161) directed NASA to engage the National 

Research Council (NRC) "to conduct a "decadal survey" of life and physical sciences research in 

microgravity and partial gravity to establish prioritiesfor researchfor the 2010-2020 decade." In 

April 2011 the NRC completed their repOli entitled, Recapturing a Futurefor Space tXpioration: Life 

and Physical Sciences Researchfor a New Era. 

The National Academics report raised a number of concerus about the administrative and 

organizational oversight oflife and physical sciences research, about the overall priority and declines 

in NASA funding for research, and about the need to rejuvenate the pipeline of graduate students, 

4 Does not include the Human Research Program funded by NASA's Exploration Research and Development 

Page 4 of6 
7 

scientists, and engineers to improve the translation of fundamental and appl ied research to space 

exploration needs. 

In the words of the report, " ... a vibrant and ultimately successful life and physical sciences space 

research program is a partnership between NASA and the scientific community at large. The present 

program, however, has contracted to below critical mass and is perceivedfrom outside NASA as 

lacking the stature within the agency and the commitment of resources to attract researchers or to 

accomplish real advances." 

The report noted that the scientific community has dwindled in the last decade due to declines in 

NASA's life and physical sciences research from approximately $500 million in FY2002 to less than 

$200 million in FY20 I 0, with much of the latter going to the Human Research Program. 

ISS National Laboratory 

The NASA Authorization Act of2005 designated the U.S. portion of the ISS as a National Laboratory. 

The Act also directed NASA to develop a plan to "increase the utilization of the ISS by other Federal 

entities and the private sec/or ... ," The National Laboratory designation was intended to stimulate ISS 

research and strengthen relationships among NASA, other Federal entities, academic and private 

institutions to pursue national advancement of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. 

In 2011 NASA formed a new division within the Human Exploration and Operations Directorate to 

coordinate and manage ISS research. NASA's Space Life and Physical Sciences Research and 

Applications Division (SLPSRA), "oversees basic and mission driven scientific research in support of 

human space flight and crew health and safety, overseeing basic and applied scientific research in life 

and physical sciences and serves as agency liaison with the ISS National Laboratory management 

organization. " 

In 2011 SLPSRA sought proposals from qualified entities to manage the ISS National Lab and on July 

13,2011 selected the Center for Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS). Until this time, NASA 

had managed the ISS National Lab, and sought to facilitate utilization of the ISS to conduct basic and 

applied research, technology development and industrial processing by U.S, federal, state and local 

government entities, and U.S. commercial, academic and non-profit entities. 

It is unclear when this new organization will be able to accomplish these objectives, while striking a 

balance between basic and applied research, technology development and industrial processing. 

Already there have been management changes at CAS IS. On March 5t11 the Executive Director of 

CASIS resigned after less than six months on the job. 

Over the coming months, NASA and CASIS will need to coordinate their efforts to ensure there is no 

disruption of current research activities. CAS IS will need to engage with other non-NASA agencies, 

academic institntions and private industry to expand opportunities for research. This work is an 

important step in fulfilling the promise of the ISS, and the Committee will be monitoring this activity. 

Page 5 of 6 
8 

Chairman HALL. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will come to order. Good morning. 

Before we get started, I would like to ask our witnesses to indulge us for just a few minutes to take care of some Committee 

business. It is my understanding that Ms. Johnson as the Ranking 

Member of the full Committee has some housekeeping that she 

wants the Committee to undertake regarding the Democratic Caucus Subcommittee Ranking Member assignments and rosters. It 

will just take a minute or so. The proposed modified roster is in 

front of each of you. 

I now recognize Ranking Member Johnson to explain and make 

a motion regarding the change in the Democratic Caucus Subcommittee ranking Member assignments and rosters. Ms. Johnson. 

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

We have a couple of Subcommittee vacancies to fill on the Democratic side, and pursuant to direction from the Democratic Caucus 

of the Committee, I move that the following Subcommittee assignments be made: Mr. Costello of Illinois to serve as Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, and that Ms. 

Bonamici of Oregon to serve on the Subcommittees on Research 

and Science Education and Technology and Innovation. 

Chairman HALL. Without objection, it is so ordered. Now I ask 

unanimous consent that the Committee adopt the revised roster in 

front of them reflecting these appointments as outlined by Ranking 

Member Johnson, and hearing no objection, the revised roster is 

adopted. Amen. 

I would like to welcome everyone to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘Securing the Promise of the International Space Station: Challenges 

and Opportunities.’’ In front of all the members are packets containing the written testimony, biographies, and the Truth in Testimony disclosures for today’s witnesses. I recognize myself now for 

five minutes for an opening statement. 

I want to welcome everyone to today’s hearing, and once again 

thank our witnesses for their time and their preparation and for 

sharing their experience and wisdom on the important topic of the 

International Space Station. The title of hearing describes what we 

hope NASA can accomplish, and that is ‘‘Securing the Promise of 

the International Space Station.’’ 

The ISS is an extraordinary engineering achievement, and it is 

a remarkably successful international collaboration that presents 

us an unprecedented opportunity to accomplish beneficial scientific 

research. I would like to see the ISS live up to its promising potential. I would like to see it enable scientists and researchers to do 

innovative research, the kind of lifesaving biomedical research that 

can only be done in space. Fulfilling the promise of the ISS would 

not only serve humanity, it would also strengthen America’s leadership in science, technology, and education. 

I am often painfully reminded that NASA will rely on our Russian partners for crew transportation to International Space Station for the next several years; however, for the purposes of today’s 

hearing, we are not focusing on crew. 

Fortunately there are a number of options for delivering the supplies and equipment necessary to conduct the research and utilize 

the International Space Station. Our international partners con-
9 

tribute three different launch systems that are vital for maintaining and utilizing the International Space Station, and there are 

two domestic commercial cargo capabilities that will be tested later 

this year. In fact, the most recent European Automated Transfer 

Vehicle, the ATV, was launched Friday and should dock to the 

Space Station sometime around 6:30 p.m. today, this very day. We 

are reliant on the Russian Progress, the European Automated 

Transfer Vehicle and the Japanese H–2 Transfer Vehicle, but 

NASA does not have agreements with the European Space Agency 

to supply more Automated Transfer Vehicles after 2014, or with 

the Japanese Space Agency to supply H–2 Transfer Vehicles after 

2016. 

Now that NASA has finished International Space Station construction, I hope the incredible potential of the space station is not 

squandered because research funding is shortchanged, or because 

of poor coordination managing the U.S. National Lab, or because 

of reductions in launch capacity to support it, or because NASA 

just can’t get the job done. 

The President cancelled Constellation by running a line through 

it because of, so he said, someone else’s failure to act, and he has 

become pretty adept at naming mistakes after other people other 

than himself. Sometimes he needs to look in the mirror and tell us 

why we are losing the pipeline and why we are going to get $5 gasoline. 

I also want to reiterate again that the NASA Authorization Act 

of 2010 directed that the Space Launch System and the Orion crew 

capsule be designed to provide a backup capability for access to the 

space station. After spending tens of billions of dollars to build the 

space station, Congress wanted to ensure that a national capability 

to access it was not jeopardized by overreliance on untested commercial propositions. 

Supplying and utilizing the International Space Station is simply 

too important to be left to others. Yet, NASA is pacing the development of Space Launch System and Orion to be operational around 

2021, which could occur after the International Space Station’s retirement. That is risky and borders on being outrageous. America’s 

continued leadership in space, and our national security, depend in 

large part on developing and maintaining this critical capability. I 

can’t stress enough the importance of accelerating this launch system to ensure we have an alternative method to transport people 

and cargo to the International Space Station as well as to launch 

future missions beyond low Earth orbit. 

I look forward to today’s hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RALPH M. HALL

I want to welcome everyone to today’s hearing, and once again thank our witnesses for their time and preparation, and for sharing their experience and wisdom 

on the important topic of the International Space Station. The title of our hearing 

describes what we hope NASA can accomplish, ‘‘Securing the Promise of the International Space Station.’’ The ISS is an extraordinary engineering achievement. And 

it is a remarkably successful international collaboration that presents us an unprecedented opportunity to accomplish beneficial scientific research. I would like to see 

the ISS live up to its promising potential. I would like to see it enable scientists 

and researchers to do innovative research—the kind of life-saving biomedical re-
10 

search—that can only be done in space. Fulfilling the promise of the ISS would not 

only serve humanity, it would also strengthen America’s leadership in science, technology and education. 

I am often painfully reminded that NASA will rely on our Russian partners for 

crew transportation to ISS for the next several years; however, for the purposes of 

today’s hearing, we’re not focusing on crew. Fortunately there are a number of options for delivering the supplies and equipment necessary to conduct the research 

and utilize the ISS. Our international partners contribute three different launch 

systems that are vital for maintaining and utilizing the ISS, and there are two domestic commercial cargo capabilities that will be tested later this year. In fact, the 

most recent European Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) was launched Friday and 

should dock to the Space Station around 6:30 this evening. We are reliant on the 

Russian Progress, the European Automated Transfer Vehicle and the Japanese H– 

2 Transfer Vehicle (HTV), but NASA does not have agreements with the European 

Space Agency to supply more Automated Transfer Vehicles after 2014, or with the 

Japanese Space Agency to supply H–2 Transfer Vehicles after 2016. 

Now that NASA has finished ISS construction, I hope the incredible potential of 

ISS is not squandered because research funding is shortchanged, or because of poor 

coordination managing the U.S. National Lab, or because of reductions in launch 

capacity to support it, or because NASA just can’t get the job done. 

I also want to reiterate that the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 directed that 

the Space Launch System and the Orion crew capsule be designed to provide a backup capability for access to the ISS. After spending tens of billions of dollars to build 

the space station, Congress wanted to ensure that a national capability to access 

it was not jeopardized by overreliance on untested commercial propositions. 

Supplying and utilizing the ISS is simply too important to be left to others. Yet, 

NASA is pacing the development of Space Launch System and Orion to be operational around 2021, which could occur after ISS retirement. America’s continued 

leadership in space, and our national security, depend in large part on developing 

and maintaining this critical capability. I cannot stress enough the importance of 

accelerating this launch system to ensure we have an alternative method to transport people and cargo to ISS as well as to launch future missions beyond low Earth 

orbit.I look forward to today’s hearing and I now recognize my good friend from 

Texas, Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson. 

Chairman HALL. I now recognize my good friend from Texas, 

Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson. 

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

morning. I want to join Chairman Hall in welcoming all of our witnesses to today’s hearing, and in addition, I would like to express 

my appreciation in particular to one of the witnesses, Lieutenant 

General Thomas Stafford, for his decades of service to this country 

and his continuing effort to strengthen and promote the Nation’s 

civil and military aerospace capabilities. 

As this Committee attempts to better understand the needs of 

our civil space program in these times of fiscal pressures, it is important to take a close look at one of the most important elements 

of the Nation’s human spaceflight program, namely, the International Space Station. 

While the road to its completion has been a long one, with many 

twists and turns along the way, the Space Station stands as one 

of the engineering marvels of the modern age, and a testament to 

American ingenuity and perseverance. Now, there is a lot one could 

say about the International Space Station, but I think the citation 

that accompanied the award to the ISS team of the 2009 Collier 

Trophy, one of the aerospace profession’s premier awards, sums up 

what has been accomplished. That is, ‘‘the design, development, 

and assembly in space of the world’s largest spacecraft, an orbiting 

laboratory, promising new discoveries for mankind and setting new 

standards for international cooperation in space.’’ 

I would go further, and also note that it is an accomplishment 

that has had great inspirational value for our young people, as evi-
11 

denced by the intense interest of our students in talking to the orbiting astronauts and in developing science projects that might fly 

on the Station. 

However, while we can talk about the promise offered by the ISS 

in enabling future space exploration as well as carrying out basic 

and applied research that can benefit life here on Earth, its success 

in fulfilling that promise is not assured. We will only realize its 

promise if NASA and Congress ensure that the necessary steps are 

taken to make the ISS a productive research facility and technology test bed, and that is what we need to address at today’s 

hearing. 

I understand the importance of trying to maintain uninterrupted 

access to ISS, and I know that we will hear testimony today on 

some of the challenges in doing so. However, we should not forget 

that the purpose of cargo and crew transportation systems is to 

support the utilization of the Space Station, not as ends in themselves. 

The reality is that the ISS is a perishable commodity, and ‘‘the 

future is really now’’ in terms of utilizing this unique facility. While 

some may hope to extend its agreed-upon service life past 2020, we 

need to make sure that the eight years that remain until the current end of the ISS program are used effectively to answer the research and engineering questions that can only be answered by on 

the ISS. 

In short, we need clear, prioritized and integrated utilization 

plans from NASA, and we need to be assured that those plans are 

being carried out, both by NASA and by the independent International Space Station research management organization, CASIS, 

that was set up for that purpose. The former director of CASIS 

raised a number of serious concerns in her recent resignation letter, and this Committee will need to better understand what the 

situation at CASIS is, given its important role in International 

Space Station utilization. 

As a result, Mr. Chairman, I hope that this Committee will convene another hearing before this session of Congress is over to examine all of the issues faced by the research community in trying 

to utilize the space station, as well as in carrying out related 

ground-based research and development. We need to hear from representatives of that community in addition to the testimony we will 

get from our distinguished panel testifying before us today. 

Before I close, I would just like to make one more point. Namely, 

if we want to ensure that the space station carries out the needed 

research and technology activities in a timely and productive fashion, we have to be willing to make the needed investments. The 

ISS research budget is stagnating, and the agency’s life and microgravity research budget has been cut deeply over the past decade. 

That does not seem to me to be a formula for success. 

I am afraid that we get numb from the continued chipping away 

at NASA’s accounts by both Congress and successive Administrations. However, those continued cuts have had a negative impact 

on NASA’s ability to carry out its missions that we should not ignore. In spite of those negative impacts, the budget resolution that 

we will be voting on later this week would make additional cuts to 

the account that funds NASA and other R&D agencies. I hope that 
12 

this Congress thinks twice before we embrace such cuts to an agency that is so important as NASA. 

In closing, I again want to welcome our witnesses and look forward to the testimony, and I yield back the balance of time that 

I don’t have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Good morning. I want to join Chairman Hall in welcoming all of our witnesses 

to today’s hearing. In addition, I would like to express my appreciation in particular 

to one of those witnesses—Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Stafford—for his decades of service 

to this country and his continuing efforts to strengthen and promote the Nation’s 

civil and military aerospace capabilities. 

As this Committee attempts to better understand the needs of our civil space program in these times of fiscal pressures, it is important to tak a close look at one 

of the most important elements of the Nation’s human spaceflight program, namely, 

the International Space Station. 

While the road to its completion has been a long one, with many twists and turns 

along the way, the ISS stands as one of the engineering marvels of the modern age, 

and a testament to American ingenuity and perserverance. There is a lot one could 

say about the ISS, but I think the citation that accompanied the award to the ISS 

team of the 2009 Collier Trophy—one of the aerospace profession’s premier 

awards—sums up what has been accomplished. That is, ‘‘the design, development, 

and assembly in space of the world’s largest spacecraft, an orbiting laboratory, promising new discoveries for mankind and setting new standards for international cooperation in space.’’ 

I would go further and also note that it is an accomplishment that has had great 

inspirational value for our young people, as evidenced by the intense interest of our 

students in talking to the orbiting astronauts and in developing science projects that 

might fly on the Station. 

However, while we can talk about the promise offered by the ISS in enabling future space exploration as well as carrying out basic and applied research that can 

benefit life here on Earth, its success in fulfilling that promise is not assured. We 

will only realize its promise if NASA and Congress ensure that the necessary steps 

are taken to make the ISS a productive research facility and technology test bed, 

and that is what we need to address at today’s hearing. 

I understand the importance of trying to maintain uninterrupted access to the 

ISS, and I know that we will hear testimony today on some of the challenges in 

doing so. However, we should not forget that the purpose of cargo and crew transportation systems is to support the utilization of the ISS, not as ends in themselves. 

The reality is that the ISS is a perishable commodity, and ‘‘the future is now’’ in 

terms of utilizing this unique facility. While some may hope to extend its agreedupon service life past 2020, we need to make sure that the eight years that remain 

until the current end of the ISS program are used effectively to answer the research 

and engineering questions that can only be answered on the ISS. 

In short, we need clear, prioritized, and integrated utilization plans from NASA, 

and we need to be assured that those plans are being carried out, both by NASA 

and by the independent ISS research managemenet organization, CASIS, that was 

set up for that purpose. The former director of CASIS raised a number of serious 

concerns in her recent resignation letter, and this Committee will need to better understand what the situation at CASIS is, given its important role in ISS utilization. 

As a result, Mr. Chairman, I hope that this Committee will convene another hearing before this Session of Congress is over to examine all of the issues faced by the 

research community in trying to utilize the ISS, as well as in carrying out related 

ground-based R&D. We need to hear from representatives of that community in addition to the testimony we will get from the distinguished panel testifying before 

us today. 

Before I close, I would just like to make one more point. Namely, if we want to 

ensure that the ISS carries out the needed research and technology activities in a 

timely and productive fashion, we have to be willing to make the needed investments. The ISS research budget is stagnating, and the agency’s life and microgravity sciences budget has been cut deeply over the past decade. That does not 

seem to me to be a formula for success. 

I am afraid that we get numb from the continued chipping away at NASA’s accounts by both Congress and successive Administrations. However, those continued 
13 

cuts have had a negative impact on NASA’s ability to carry out its missions that 

we should not ignore. In spite of those negative impacts, the budget resolution that 

we will be voting on later this week would make additional cuts to the account that 

funds NASA and other R&D agencies. I hope that this Congress thinks twice before 

we embrace such cuts to an agency as important as NASA. 

In closing, I again want to welcome our witnesses, and I look forward to your testimony. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening 

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

point. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBER JERRY COSTELLO

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today’s hearing to review the International 

Space Station and what NASA is doing to make sure it can be used effectively 

through at least 2020. 

Some have called the ISS the greatest engineering feat ever. After a dozen years 

of assembly in space, we now have a fully functioning orbital laboratory, and I commend the men and women of NASA and its contractors for making ISS asssembly 

look easy, because it was far from that. 

The ISS Program was awarded the coveted Collier Trophy by the National Aeronautic Association in recognition of its singular achievement in designing, developing, and assembling in space this unique orbiting outpost. 

With all that it took to get the ISS to where it is today, we must ensure it is fully utilized so U.S. taxpayers can see a return on their investment of over $50 billion. 

Congress stressed the importance of ISS utilization in numerous authorization 

and appropriations Acts. 

For example, the 2010 NASA Authorization Act directed NASA to ‘‘take steps to 

maximize the productivity and use of the ISS with respect to scientific and technological research and development, advancement of space exploration, and international collaboration.’’ 

Before we can make concrete plans for sending humans to explore far-away places 

like Mars, we need to better understand how to deal with such unknowns as radiation and bone loss and how human beings react to being in a closed environment 

in space for months, even years, at a time. 

The ISS is a unique platform that will help us do the research necessary to gain 

such understanding. 

Furthermore, the ISS will provide other federal agencies and industry with unparalleled microgravity facilities to do research on their own, and in September 2011, 

NASA awarded a cooperative agreement to an independent, non-profit entity to expand such non-NASA research as part of the U.S. National Laboratory. 

That organization, however, is off to a rocky start, given the abrupt resignation 

of its Executive Director. 

With the clock ticking on getting the ISS to a full and productive state, I hope 

to understand how NASA will ensure that this independent entity will enhance and 

augment ISS research, as directed in the 2010 Authorization Act. 

I want to welcome this distinguished panel of experts and hope their insights can 

help shed further light on how we can better position the ISS to enable it to reach 

its full potential, including the possibility of it contributing to medical or other 

breakthroughs to make life better here on Earth. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman HALL. At this time, I would like to introduce our witnesses. Our first witness is Mr. William H. Gerstenmaier, Associate 

Administrator of the Human Exploration and Operations Mission 

Directorate at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

As a supporter of human spaceflight, I am very grateful to Mr. 

Gerstenmaier’s dedication and long-term service to the Nation. Mr. 

Gerstenmaier began his career with NASA in 1977 and has steadily advanced in the ranks. Over the past 20 years, he has been instrumental in the successful management of NASA’s human space 
14 

exploration program, and welcome, Mr. Gerstenmaier. Welcome 

very much. 

And our second witness is Mrs. Cristina Chaplain, the Director 

of Acquisition and Sourcing Management for the U.S. Government 

Accountability Office. Ms. Chaplain has a degree from Boston University and from Columbia University, and has been with GAO for 

over 20 years. She has conducted a number of assessments for 

NASA’s major acquisition programs including a recent review on 

utilization and sustainment of the International Space Station. Ms. 

Chaplain, we thank you and your staff at GAO for your service and 

look forward to your testimony today. 

As impressive as our first two witnesses are, I have saved what 

my speechwriter wrote here, the best for the last. I will let you all 

make that decision. It is as bad as judging a baby contest, and I 

know better than that. Our third and final witness is retired U.S. 

Air Force Lieutenant General Thomas P. Stafford, one of the most 

unusual men I know and one of the dearest friends I have. He is 

Chairman of the International Space Station Advisory Committee. 

Tom’s many accomplishments are legendary, and his distinguished 

service was acknowledged again when we recently awarded the 

prestigious 2011 Wright Brothers Memorial Trophy for his ‘‘pioneering achievements that have led the way to the Moon, to greater international cooperation in space, and to a safer America.’’ And 

just one person per year gets that recognition. General Stafford had 

played instrumental roles in many of America’s successes in space, 

from the Gemini rendezvous and Apollo X missions with my other 

good friend, Gene Cernan, to the Apollo-Soyuz mission in 1975 that 

laid the groundwork of trust and mutual respect among former adversaries that has been so critical to the success of today’s International Space Station. Tom, thank you for your service to America 

and for testifying before us today. 

And as our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited 

to five minutes, after which Members of the Committee will have 

five minutes to ask their questions. We won’t hold you to the five 

minutes. You are too valuable to us and your time is too valuable. 

You took your time to get ready to come here and give us this testimony, so we will be very lax on that. 

I recognize our first witness, Mr. William Gerstenmaier of NASA. 

STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM GERSTENMAIER, ASSOCIATE 

ADMINISTRATOR, 

HUMAN EXPLORATION AND OPERATIONS MISSION 

DIRECTORATE, 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Thank you. As you have already stated, the 

ISS represents an unparalleled capability for human space-based 

research that cannot be pursued on Earth as well as a platform for 

the development of exploration technologies. The ISS is the most 

sophisticated space research facility ever built. It contains state-ofthe-art research laboratories from Russia, Europe, Japan, and the 

United States. It has amazing robotic capabilities from Canada. 

The facilities for research include a combustion rack, a fluid facility 

rack to investigate low-gravity fluid motion, external payload at-
15 

tach capabilities for Earth and deep-space viewing, and a window 

observation facility, among many other unique facilities. ISS is 

truly a model for engineering development and international collaboration. 

This facility was not easy to construct and faced huge challenges 

during its development. Approximately 37 shuttle flights and approximately 1,000 hours of space walks, or 162 EVAs, went into its 

construction. Every shuttle flight had to occur precisely as scripted. 

The teams had to deal with loss of Columbia in mid-assembly, and 

numerous in-flight challenges such as loss of the wrist joint on the 

Canadian arm early in assembly, loss of all onboard computers on 

board the space station, and a tear in the solar ray blanket. 

The budget challenges were also huge. However, through it all, 

the amazing ISS team constructed this wonderful facility that we 

have on orbit today. The team showed an unbelievable ability to 

deal with unexpected problems and keep working together to complete construction. They did with behind-the-scenes detailed planning. The teams worked to keep open the option for extra shuttle 

flights beyond the original plan manifest. This work gave decision 

makers options later to add these flights. In space operations, 

knowing when to make decisions is often as important as the decision itself. 

We are now facing a transition in ISS. We no longer need to 

focus on assembly, but we need to turn this dedicated team to 

using this amazing facility in space. The ingenuity, drive, and focus 

will now be applied to using the ISS for the benefit of all humankind. Through the conclusion of ISS expedition 28 in October of 

2011, approximately 1,250 research investigations were performed 

that involved 1,309 principal investigators from 63 countries 

around the world. Of these, U.S. principal investigators under 

NASA’s sponsorship conducted 475 investigations, 38 percent of 

that total. Expeditions 29 to 32, which covers the period from October of last year, 2011, to September of 2012, will include 259 investigations. In other words, approximately 20 percent as many investigations were performed in these two post-assembly expeditions as 

had been achieved in the prior 28 expeditions combined. We are 

starting to begin serious use of the International Space Station. 

The ISS teams as well as the research community need to be 

ready for this next phase. However, this utilization will not be 

easy. There will be start-up transients with commercial cargo. The 

teams have planned ahead with ATV, HTV, and STS–135. We will 

have about a year for the commercial providers to come online. 

Nothing in space is ever easy. The teams have the cargo ship to 

Japan for the HTV launch this summer. The cargo for the C2 mission is ready at KSC for launch on April 30th. The ATV will hopefully dock to the ISS tonight with critical supplies and research 

equipment. The teams have solid plans for the next year. We have 

always been dependent upon the Russians for crew rescue, but now 

we have a single method for crew transportation. This is a tremendous responsibility for the Russians. 

We are working to bring commercial crew online as soon as possible. This utilization phase will not be easy for the International 

Space Station team. However, based on their performance in assembly, this team now focused on research and utilization will ac-
16 

complish amazing things. They will build off of the techniques 

learned during assembly and place the necessary international 

agreements for cargo in place at the right time. The research community will also need to be prepared for this new phase. The priority will be on research and utilization and not on assembly and 

maintenance. ISS will bring tangible and intangible benefits to humankind. 

The ISS will provide a facility for the human spaceflight team to 

prepare for voyages beyond low Earth orbit. ISS can be an economic engine and allow companies to use the unique properties of 

space-based research for competitive advantage. The International 

Space Station team will enable productive use of this amazing facility and will grow from the challenges ahead. ISS will be a bridge 

to the future. The teams are prepared. My written testimony expands on these thoughts and adds additional detail. 

I thank this Committee for its support and the chance to respond 

to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gerstenmaier follows:] 
17 

Statement of 

William H. Gerstenmaier 

HOLD FOR RELEASE 

UNTIL PRESENTED 

BY WITNESS 

March 28, 2012 

Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

before the 

Committee on Science, Space and Technology 

U. S. House of Representatives 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today 

(0 discuss the status of the International Space Station (ISS) Program. The ISS represents an unparalleled 

capability for human space-based research that cannot be pursued on Earth, as well as a platform for the 

development of exploration technologies. ISS provides a research and development (R&D) environment 

that allows us to investigate physical processes in a very different environment than that obtainable on 

Earth. Observing from, and experimenting in, the environment of ISS gives us a chance to learn about 

our world and physical processes from a very different frame of reference. The three major science 

laboratories aboard the ISS -- the U.S. Destiny, European Columbus, and Japanese Kibo facilities -- as 

well as external testbeds and observatory sites, enable astronauts to conduct a wide variety of experiments 

in the unique, microgravity and ultra-vacuum environment of Low Earth Orbit (LEO). The ISS supports 

research across a diverse array of disciplines, including high-energy particle physics, Earth remote 

sensing and geophysics experiments, molecular and cellular biotechnology experiments, human 

physiology research (including bone and muscle research), radiation research, plant and cultivation 

experiments, combustion research, fluid research, materials science experiments, and biological 

investigations. It is also a place to conduct technology development effOlts. R&D conducted aboard the 

ISS holds the promise of next-generation technologies, not only in areas directly related to NASA's 

exploration efforts, but in fields that have numerous terrestrial applications, as well. The ISS will provide 

these opportunities to scientists, engineers, and technologists through at least 2020. Beyond being a feat 

of unparalleled engineering and construction, as well as international collaboration, the ISS is a place to 

learn how to live and work in space over a long period of time and foster new markets for commercial 

products and services. The ISS will be critical to NASA's future missions of exploration beyond LEO. 

More importantly, ISS offers many unique benefits to the citizens of the United States and the world. 

The ISS will continue to meet NASA's mission objective to prepare for the next steps in human space 

exploration. The ISS is NASA's only long-duration flight analog for future human deep space missions, 

and it provides an invaluable laboratory for research with direct application to the exploration 

requirements that address human risks associated with deep space missions. It is the only space-based 

multinational research and technology testbed available to identify and quantify risks to human health and 

performance, identify and validate potential risk mitigation techniques, and develop countermeasures for 

future human exploration. 
18 

International Cargo and Crew Transportation Systems 

In order to realize the fuJI potential of the ISS' capabilities, the platform is serviced by a fleet of 

operational international vehicles, U,S, crew vehicles are beginning development and U,S, cargo vehicles 

are in the final stages of development to help ensure robust operations, 

The Russian Soyuz spacecraft, an evolutionary development ofa vehicle that has been flying since 1967, 

provides transportation to and from the ISS for the Expedition crews, Soyuz also ha~ the capability to 

remain docked to the Space Station for the six-month periods required to support these crews, providing 

an on-orbit rescue capability in the event of a contingency aboard the ISS, The ISS can host six 

crewmembers on long-duration missions with the support of two Soyuz spacecraft, There are currently 

four Soyuz crew exchanges per year, 

Recently, a Soyuz vehicle slated for an upcoming flight experienced a problem during pressure testing 

prior to its shipment to the launch site in Baikonur, Kazakhstan, While our Russian partners determine 

the cause of the over-pressurization, the vehicle has been suspended from flight, and a different Soyuz has 

been moved up in the launch sequence. This resulted in a six-week delay to the launch of mission 30S, 

which is now scheduled for launch on May 15, The crew of Soyuz 28S will remain on orbit another six 

weeks for a total of 168 days, Other Soyuz and Progress flights were re-planned for the remainder of 

2012, with Soyuz 31 S launching on July 15, Soyuz 32S launching on October 15, and Soyuz 33S 

launching on December 5, 2012, 

The uncrewed Russian Progress cargo vehicle is used to resupply the ISS with dry cargo, propellant, 

water, and gas; it is also used to boost the orbit of the ISS and control the orientation of the Station, At 

the end of its missiori, Progress is tilled with trash, undocks from the ISS, and is incinerated in Earth's 

atmosphere in a controlled re-entry, There are generally four to five Progress resupply flights to ISS per 

year. These Progress vehicles primarily carry cargo for use in the Russian portion of the ISS, Progress 

46P flew to the Station in January, and Progress 47P, 48P, and 49P are all scheduled to fly to ISS in 2012, 

On August 24, 20 II, the rocket used to launch Progress 44P experienced an anomaly that shut down its 

third stage engine, The vehicle did not reach orbit and landed in the Altai region of Russia, Since the 

Soyuz crew transport spacecraft uses essentially the same launch vehicle as Progress, when the Soyuz 26S 

crew undocked from ISS on September 15,2011 at the end oftheir six-month stay on orbit, the launch of 

the Soyuz 28S crew was delayed, pending return to flight orthe launch vehicle, and the ISS was left with 

a crew of three, A Russian Commission determined the problem was in the engine's gas generator, likely 

due to contamination, NASA conducted its own assessment of the Russian investigation, and agreed that 

the anomaly was not related to a design flaw, and that blockage by contamination was the most likely 

cause, The Russians flew a Progress mission (45P) to ISS without incident, before launching the next 

crew to ISS on Soyuz 28S, The period of reduced crew size was of sufficiently short duration that 

impacts to scientific research aboard ISS were modest. With the docking of Soyuz 28S to the ISS on 

November 16, 201 I, the Soyuz crew exchange capability was restored, and the December 23, 20 II 

docking or Soyuz 29S restored the crew to a full complement to six for a nominal six-month duration, 

As NASA has previously testified, some modification of the Iran, North Korea and Syria Nonproliferation Act (INKSNA) provisions will likely be required for the continued operation of ISS and 

other space programs after the current waiver expires, The Administration plans to propose appropriate 

provisions and looks forward to working with the Congress on their enactment. NASA is evaluating how 

this issue impacts the development ofU,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 

2 
19 

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, 

ISS is also supported by the European Automated Transfer Vehicle (A TV), which has completed two 

success fill missions, The A TV can carry dry cargo, atmospheric gas, water and propellant, and also 

provides trash removal at the end of its mission, As with the Progress, the A TV can boost the Space 

Station's orbit and control the orientation of the ISS, Between now and 2014 (ATV -5), A TV is a vehicle 

NASA and its partners could use to deorbit the ISS in the event of a contingency that would require the 

disposal of the Station (the vehicle for conducting such a contingency deorbit after 2014 is to be 

determined, but will likely involve the Russian Progress vehicle), The third ATV, EdoardoAmaldi, 

launched from the European Space Agency's (ESA) launch complex in French Guiana on March 23, 

2012, and is scheduled to berth at ISS this evening just after 6:30, Eastern, Our current planning shows 

low utility for use of the ATV beyond ATV-5, scheduled to fly in 2014, At that point, propellant systems 

will be full and, from a NASA perspective, ATV would offer no cargo advantages above what can be 

provided by U,S, commercial providers, 

The Japanese H-Il Transfer Vehicle (HTV), which has also completed two successful missions, can carry 

dry cargo, gas and water to ISS, and notably, has both pressurized and unpressurized cargo carriage 

capability, Like the Progress, HTV can also provide trash removal at the end of its mission, The third 

HTV mission is scheduled for launch from the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency's (JAXA) 

Tanegashima space center on July 21, 2012, The HTV has unique capabilities needed for ISS, The 

ability to carry large external cargo and transfer large internal racks will continue to make HTV a unique 

asset. Therefore, HTV will continue to be needed beyond 2015, NASA presently envisions that 

approximately four HTVs will be required beyond 2015, 

Sustainability of ISS Operating Systems 

The ISS continues to be a very healthy system operating well within prudent technical margins, and 

consistently demonstrating outstanding steady-state performance that meets or exceeds prior engineering 

estimates, While systems were originally specified to be both reliable and maintainable, the operational 

experience NASA and its Partners are gaining is providing invaluable information on reliability and 

maintainability standards for future application to spacecraft design and mission planning, 

As in any complex system deployed in an extreme environment, occasional component outages or failures 

arc to be expected. This inevitability is compensated through engineering estimates of the mean-timcbctween-failure (MTBFs) and mcan-time-to-repair (MTTRs) for critical components, As in-space 

operational experience accrues, these engineering estimates are gradually replaced by actual operating 

histories of higher fidelity, Since sound engineering design is conservative in practice, operating 

experience often demonstrates that MTBFs and MTTRs are longer in duration than originally estimated, 

and this is proving generally true for most ISS systems, Therefore, we utilize industry-accepted 

techniques to update our reliability estimates yearly and likewise our sparing strategy becomes more 

closely aligned with actual performance, 

The final flights ofthe Space Shuttle enabled pre-positioning of many critical system spares in 

accordance with lifetime predictions, We currently have on board two spare control moment gyroscopes; 

three spare pump packages for the external active COOling system; two main bus switching units; three 

direct current switching units; four battery charge discharge units; ammonia, nitrogen and high pressure 

gas tank assemblies; radiators; antennae; Canadarm2 pitch, roll and yaw joints, and a range of additional, 

but no less critical, components and assemblies, These prepositioned large critical spares as well as ATV 

3 
20 

and HTV allow several years to almost 2020 before the new commercial providers would be required to 

carry this class of spare. Pressurized items. such as crew supplies, food, internal systems spares and 

consumables, and research equipment and samples, need to be regularly supplied. Current NASA 

projections show that the ISS can be operated with effective research and maintained by international 

partner assets through calendar year 2012, and perhaps longer, depending on specific component 

anomalies and research requirements, while the next generation of U.S. commercial resupply vehicles 

comes on line. The research needs both up mass and downmass, which will be carefully monitored in 

order to ensure productive use of the ISS as these new cargo providers begin to provide regular service. 

U.S. Cargo and Crew Transportation Systems 

As you know, NASA is developing and procuring cargo resupply services under two different 

approaches: Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) to develop and demonstrate 

commercial cargo transportation systems; and Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) to procure cargo 

resupply services to and from the ISS. 

Commercial Orbital Transportation Services 

As part of COTS, NASA has partnerships with Space Exploration Technologies, Inc. (SpaceX) and 

Orbital Sciences Corporation (Orbital) using funded Space Act Agreements (SAAs). These agreements 

include a schedule of fixed payment performance milestones culminating in demonstration missions to 

the ISS that includes vehicle launch, spacecraft rendezvous, ISS berthing, and re-entry for disposal or 

return safely to Earth. 

Both COTS partners continue to make progress in developing and demonstrating their systems. 

In December 20 I I, NASA announced its decision to combine the flight objectives of SpaceX 

COTS demonstration flights 2 and 3 into a single mission, which is slated for launch no earlier 

than April 30. SpaceX will attempt to achieve the ISS fly-by mission objectives of the second 

demonstration flight before NASA approves the ISS final approach and berthing objectives 

original1y planned on the third demonstration flight. It is important to note that each of the 

milestone objectives must be achieved before the associated payment is made, and if the mission 

is not able to achieve all milestone objectives, the remaining objectives would need to be 

demonstrated on another flight before payment will be made. 

Orbital has been using NASA assets at Stennis Space Center (SSC) for engine acceptance testing 

and Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) for launch vehicle and spacecraft processing and integration 

as it prepares for its COTS demonstration flights. The launch pad complex construction is the 

responsibility of the Mid Atlantic Regional Spaceport. A short-duration hot-fire lest of the first 

stage system is scheduled immediately after launch pad commissioning. This hot-fire test could 

take place as early as late May 2012. The maiden flight of the Antares launch vehicle is planned 

for launch no earlier than June of20 12, and it will include a Cygnus spacecraft mass simulator. 

Orbital Sciences' COTS demonstration flight to the ISS is slated for no earlier than September of 

2012. 

Commercial Resupply Services 

On December 23, 2008, NASA awarded CRS contracts to Orbital and SpaceX for the delivery of cargo to 

the ISS after the retirement of the Shuttle. NASA anticipates that both providers will have their first 

delivery flights to ISS in 2012. We are assuming, based on current commercial cargo schedules, that one 

4 
21 

or two commercial cargo flights will be flown in 2012. These flights will be in addition to the 

demonstration flights which will carry some cargo. 

NASA ordered 12 CRS flights valued at $1.59B from SpaceX. The first SpaceX CRS flight is 

scheduled for Summer 2012, though this timeframe may be affected by the timing of the COTS 

demonstration flight milestones. There are five missions currently in the processing flow, and 

both cargo and external hardware manufacturing and integration activities are underway. There 

are two missions planned in FY 2013 and then three CRS missions each fiscal year beyond that 

through FY 2016. 

NASA ordered 8 CRS flights valued at $1.88B from Orbital. The first Orbital CRS flight is 

scheduled for December of 20 12, though this may also be affected by the timing of the COTS 

demonstration flight milestones. There are four missions currently in the processing flow, and 

cargo integration activities and detailed planning have begun. The company is slated to fly two 

CRS missions each fiscal year from FY 2013 through FY 2016. 

NASA is pleased with the steady progress both companies continue to make in their cargo vehicle and 

launch systems development efforts. NASA anticipated that our commercial cargo partners would 

experience inevitable start-up challengcs associated with these tcchnologically ambitious endeavors. 

Both the Agency and these partners have spent many years preparing for the full utilization phase of ISS. 

We are beginning to see the fruits of this planning and development this year. 

NASA will also rely on commercial providers for crew transportation and rescue services. The 

Commercial Crew Program (CCP) is a partnership between the Agency and the private sector to 

incentivize companies to build and operate safe, reliable, and cost-effective commercial human space 

transportation systems. In the near term, NASA plans to be a partner with U.S. industry, providing 

technical and financial assistance during the development phase. In the longer term, the Agency plans to 

be a customer for these services, buying transportation services for U.S. and U.S.-designated astronauts to 

the ISS. NASA hopes these activities will stimulate the development of a new industry that will be 

available to all potential customers, including the U.S. Government. 

In the early lifecycle stage of the CCP, referred to as Commercial Crew Development (CCDev), the 

activity was focused on stimulating industry efforts to successfully mature subsystems and elements of 

commercial crew spaceflight concepts, technologies, and capabilities. Subsequently, NASA continued 

this effort with CCDev Round 2 to address crew transportation system concepts to mature the design and 

development of elements of the system, such as launch vehicles or spacecraft. CCDev Round 2 is 

ongoing now, with four funded and three unfunded industry partners. Each partner is making good 

progress in meeting their milestones and these projects should be concluded later this year. 

The next stage of the acquisition lifecycle will be a series of competitively awarded agreements with the 

intent of having multiple partners progress their integrated design and development efforts. This effort is 

referred to as Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCAP) and the specific content, scope, and 

duration ofCCiCAP was communicated in an announcement for proposals, released on February 7, 2012. 

The announcement asks industry to propose a 2 I-month base period that will run from award through 

May, 2014. This base period will include completing major design efforts for an integrated transportation 

system, and also major risk reduction demonstrations and tests such as uncrewed flight tests, abort tests, 

and landing tests. 

The announcement also calls for industry to propose optional milestones beyond the base period to 

achieve a crewed orbital demonstration flight. Goals for such a demonstration flight include achieving at 

least three days on-orhit with a system that could accommodate at least four crew members. NASA will 

5 
22 

decide in the future whether to execute and fund any of the proposed optional milestones, and the 

decisions will be based on a number of factors including available budget and the partners' progress under 

the base period. 

Successful commercial human space flight demands the highest commitment to safety. Therefore, in 

addition to the technical goals, the announcement specifies an overarching goal to ensure the safety of all 

hazardous activities involving humans. NASA is encouraging industry to propose risk reduction and 

safety processes such as strong inline checks and balances, healthy tension between responsible 

organizations, and value-added independent assessments. 

Following the CCiCAP phase will be a "certification" phase, during which NASA will evaluate the 

technical progress of the commercial partners and accommodate changes if necessary to ensure 

compliance with Agency requirements. And finally, NASA plans to competitively award services 

contracts to obtain longer term crew transportation and emergency rescue services for the ISS. 

NASA's acquisition strategy balances commercial partner design and schedule flexibility with 

government insight and oversight responsibilities throughout all program phases. Furthermore, it 

accommodates maturation of the commercial partner designs and vehicle programs at varying rates. 

Based on the availability of funding and industry performance, this strategy allows for adjustments in 

program scope, and enables a domestic capability to transport crewmembers to the ISS likely by 2017, 

based on a commercial partner's capability readiness to achieve NASA certification. 

Growth in ISS Utilization 

Completion of the ISS assembly and spares pre-positioning phase is now allowing the Program to focus 

directly on increasing the utilization of ISS laboratories, testbeds and observatory sites. Through the 

conclusion of ISS Expedition 28 in October 20 I I, approximately 1,250 research investigations were 

performed that involved 1,309 principal investigators (PIs) from 63 countries around the world. Of these, 

U.S. Pis under NASA sponsorship conducted 475 investigations (38 percent of the total). Expeditions 29 

to 32, which cover the period from October 20 II - September 2012, will include 259 total investigations. 

In other words, approximately 20 percent as many investigations were performed in these two postassembly Expeditions as had been achieved in the prior 28 Expeditions combined. 

An impressive range of scientific research, technology demonstrations and educational outreach is 

underway. Recent highlights include: 

The Monitor of All-sky X-ray Image (MAXI) instrument, a highly sensitive X-ray slit camera 

externally-mounted for monitoring more than 1,000 X-ray sources in space, including black holes 

and neutron stars, made the first observation, along with the Swift spacecraft, of a relativistic xray burst from a super-massive black hole destroying a star and creating a jet of x-rays. The 

research teams co-published their results in Nature, 476: 421-424 August 2011. 

The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) cosmic-ray particle physics experiment was installed 

and began science operations on May 19, 20 II. AMS has recorded to date the passage of over 13 

billion cosmic ray particle events originating from elsewhere in our Milky Way galaxy. The U.S. 

Department-of-Energy-sponsored collaboration across the U.S., Europe, and Asia is actively 

analyzing these cosmic-ray particle data for potential new physics and astronomy discoveries. 

The AMS Payload Operations Control Center is located at the CERN, Switzerland, which 

conveniently allows coordination with the ground-based Large Hadron CollideI' high-energy 

particle accelerator research activity. 

6 
23 

Flame tests conducted by Principal Investigator Marshall B. Long, Ph.D. of Yale University in 

Connecticut during the Structure and Liftoff in Combustion Experiment (SLICE) yielded stable 

lifted flames that can be simpler to numerically model. SLICE investigates the nature of flames 

under microgravity conditions and the results could lead to improvements in technologies that 

aim to reduce pollution emissions and improve burning efficiency for a wide variety of industries. 

• The same technology that went into building the Canadarm2 and Dextre (the Canadian robots 

that assembled, service and maintain the iSS) were adapted to produce the world's first robot 

capable of performing brain surgery -- neuroArmTM -- on a patient while the patient undergoes 

magnetic resonance imaging. This technology has since been licensed to a private, publicly 

traded medical device manufacturer who will produce a two-armed version that allows surgeons 

to see three-dimensional images, "teel" tissue, and apply pressure during neurosurgical 

operations. 

• The Robotic Refueling Mission (RRM) began operations March 7-9, 2012, marking an important 

milestone in satellite-servicing technology. RRM is designed to demonstrate technologies, tools, 

and techniques needed to robotically service and refuel satellites in orbit. During the gas fittings 

removal task, robot tele-operators at Johnson Space Center directed Dextre to retrieve tools and 

go through the tasks required to remove representative tittings located on the RRM module on 

board lSS. These fittings are used on many spacecraft for tilling fluids and gases prior to launch. 

Future RRM operations will practice robotic satellite refueling and servicing. 

• Robonaut 2 (R2) was launched to ISS on February 24, 20 II. This dexterous humanoid robot was 

developed in partnership with General Motors. It is designed to duplicate the manipulation 

capabilities of a human so that it can handle tools and assist astronauts in performing tasks in 

space, or help workers build cars on the assembly linc. Like Dextre, R2 will be tele-operaled 

from the ground, and it will test a different way to grip and manipulate objects with its humanlike, five-fingered hands. 

Literally thousands of two-minute video submissions were received in areas of physics or biology 

from more than 80 countries for the first YouTube Space Lab global contest sponsored by 

Y ouTube, Lenovo Computers, and Space Adventures, Inc. in cooperation with NASA, ESA, and 

JAXA. This educational project challenges 14-IS-year-olds to design a science experiment that 

can be performed in space, and the top two experiments will be conducted on ISS. 

• Fluid physics experiments conducted by Portland State University in Oregon have led to a greater 

understanding of capillary flow phenomena and subsequent production of open-source code lor 

modeling the behavior of fluids in space. 

• Research on self-ordering systems (published in Nature, 478: 225·228 October 13,2011) 

demonstrates mechanisms relevant to self-replication in primitive chemical environments. 

Colloidal systems for studying the behavior of self-assembling materials for photonic 

technologies are being used by Proctor and Gamble to develop more stable, concentrated 

products. 

Space Act Agreements were signed with the Arizona State University Bio-Design Institute to 

conduct experiments initially focusing on the development of vaccines, and with Surface Optics 

Corporation of San Diego, California to demonstrate proof-or-concept for the lise of hyperspectral imaging in agricultural applications. 

7 
24 

NASA utilizes the ISS for exploration research and technology demonstrations, supporting the fields of 

environmental control, human health and performance, robotics, extravehicular activity, and propulsion. 

The Agency is committed to maximizing the crew time devoted to research and technology 

demonstrations. In addition, NASA makes available ISS attached payload accommodations for use in 

Earth and space science investigations. For example, NASA plans to fly, install, and begin operation of 

the Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment (SAGE Ill) in 2014. NASA's solicitations for science 

instruments of opportunity include ISS as a candidate host platform when applicable. 

A National Laboratory in Orbit 

In the NASA Authorization Act of2005 (P.L. 109-155), Congress designated the U.S. segment of the ISS 

as a National Laboratory, and directed the Agency to seek to increase the utilization of the ISS by other 

Federal entities and the private sector. NASA has made solid strides in its effort to engage other 

organizations in the ISS program. Subsequently, 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 end, NASA issued a cooperative agreement 

notice on February 14, 20 II, and on August 31, 20 I I, the Agency 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 is located in the Space Life Sciences Laboratory at 

Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The independent, nonprofit research management organization will 

help ensure the Station'S unique capabilities are available to the broadest possible cross-section of U.S. 

scientific, technological and industrial communities. NASA, with the hclp of the Office of Science and 

Technology Policy, put out a request for candidates for the permanent board that will guide CASIS' 

efforts in this groundbreaking enterprise. NASA is working with CASIS' interim Board of Directors to 

identify and evaluate a diverse group of outstanding individuals for that board. 

CAS IS will develop and manage a varied R&D portfolio based on U.S. national needs for basic and 

applied research; establish a marketplace to facilitate matching research pathways with qualified funding 

sources; and stimulate interest in using the national lab for research and technology demonstrations and as 

a platform for science, technology, engineering and mathematics education. The goal is to support, 

promote and accelerate innovations and new discoveries in science, enginecring and technology that will 

improve life on Earth. 

NASA's National Laboratory partners can use the unique microgravity environment of space and the 

advanced research facilities aboard Station to enable investigations that may give them the edge in the 

global competition to develop valuable, high technology products and services. Furthermore, the demand 

for access to the ISS will support the providers of commercial crew and cargo systems. Both of these 

aspects of the U.S. segment ofiSS as a National Laboratory will help establish and demonstrate the 

market for research in LEO beyond the requirements of NASA. 

ISS - Benefits to Humanity 

Almost as soon as the ISS was habitable, researchers began using it to study the impact of micro gravity 

and other space effects. In the physical and biological sciences arena, the ISS is using microgravity 

conditions to understand the effect of the microgravity environment on microbial systems, fluid physics, 

combustion science and materials processing, as well as environmental control and fire safety 

technologies. The ISS also provides a test-bed for studying, developing, and testing new technologies for 

use in future exploration missions. Although each space station partner has distinct agency goals for 

station research, each partner collectively shares a unified goal to extend the resulting knowledge for the 

8 
25 

betterment of humanity. In the areas of human health, telemedicine, education and Earth observations 

from space, there are already demonstrated benefits. Vaccine development research, station-generated 

images that assist with disaster relief and farming, and education programs that inspire future scientists, 

engineers and space explorers highlight just some of the many examples of research that can benefit 

humanity, 

ISS crews are conducting 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, exercise and pharmacological countermeasures, 

food and nutrition, immunology and infection, exercise systems, and human behavior and performance. 

Many investigations conducted aboard ISS will have direct application to terrestrial medicine. For 

example, the growing senior population may benefit from experiments in the areas of bone and muscle 

health, immunology, and from the development of advanced diagnostic systems. 

The ISS also plays an important role in promoting education in the science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics (STEM) fields, inspiring students to pursue scientific and technical careers. Astronauts 

aboard ISS participate in educational downlinks with schools, and engage in communicating with people 

around the world using "ham" radio. The Program also conducts experiments that involve student 

participation. One example is the Synchronized Position Hold, Engage, Reorient, Experimental Satellites 

(SPllERES) facility. SPHERES are three bowling-ball sized spherical satellites that are used inside the 

Station to test telerobotics operations in addition to spacecraft formation flight, autonomous rendezvous 

and docking maneuvers. NASA, along with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency with 

implementation by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have co-sponsored three "Zero Robotics 

SPHERES Challenge" competitions for high school and middle students 1rom the U.S. and abroad. The 

competitions challenge students to write software code, which is uploaded to the robots on ISS, and the 

SPHERES satellites then execute the instructions, such as formation flight and close proximity 

operations. Student finalists were able (0 watch their flight program live on NASA-TV. 

International Partnership Progress 

The ISS Multilateral Coordination Board (MCB) and Heads-of-Agency (HOA) met in Quebec City, 

Canada, February 28 and March I, 2012, to discuss future plans for the ISS, progress on utilization, and 

potential contributions to future human exploration missions. The International Partners reported 

progress on identifying potential technology demonstrations that could be conducted on the ISS. These 

demonstrations correlate closely with the recent report issued by the National Research Council, 

Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board on NASA Space Technologies and Priorities. 

In addition, the MCB and HOA released two documents related to ISS utilization: 

"ISS Utilization Statistics, "Fall 20]1 (inaugural issue), which documents the number and 

thematic areas of research being conducted by each partner. 

"ISS Benefits for Humanity," which launches a new international web portal describing 

achievements of the ISS partnership in the areas of human health, Earth observation and disaster 

response, and education. 

Copies of both documents are available at: 

http://www.nasa.gov/mission pages/station/researchlindex.html 

9 
26 

Conclusion 

We have many challenges and opportunities ahead as we continue to sustain and productively utilize the 

ISS. These include training the next generation of scientists, engineers, and technologists for greater 

challenges as human presence is extended further into the solar system. This mission pull drives us to 

develop innovative solutions that benetit humans on the Earth today. We have two extraordinary assets 

that have never before existed in the history of human space exploration - an experienced international 

partnership encompassing Canada, Europe, Japan, Russia, and the U.S., and a permanently crewed, fullservice space station in low-Earth orbit. Our ability to continue working together as a global team, while 

making the best applied use of our assets, will pace the future progress of space exploration and 

expansion of benefits on Earth. 

Great nations explore in order to advance. Throughout history, nations have progressed and benefited 

from exploration. Exploration drives technological breakthroughs and scientific discoveries that benefit 

society; without exploration, the cycle of innovation and advancement is broken. The ISS Partnership has 

transformed exploration from an effort for the advancement of individual nations, to an endeavor 

committed to the advancement of humankind. 

The ISS has now entered its intensive research phase, and this phase will continue through at least 2020. 

Station will continue to meet NASA's mission objective to prepare for the next steps in human space 

exploration - steps which will take astronauts beyond LEO to destinations such as the asteroids, the 

Moon. and eventually, Mars. The ISS is NASA's only long-duration flight analog for future human deep 

space missions, and it provides an invaluable laboratory for research with direct application to the 

exploration requirements that address human risks associated with deep space missions. It is the only 

space-based multinational research and technology test-bed available to identify and quantity risks to 

human health and performance, identify and validate potential risk mitigation techniques, and develop 

countermeasures for future human exploration. 

Closer to home, NASA's National Laboratory partners can use the unique microgravity environment of 

space and the advanced research facilities aboard Station to enable investigations that may give them the 

edge in the global competition to develop valuable, high technology products and services. Furthermore, 

the demand for access to the ISS will support the providers of commercial crew and cargo systems. Both 

of these aspects of the U.S. segment of ISS as a National Laboratory will help establish and demonstrate 

the market for research in LEO beyond the requirements of NASA. 

NASA appreciates this Committee's ongoing support of the ISS as we work together to support this 

amazing facility that yields remarkable results and benefits for the world. 

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to respond to any question you or the other Members ofthe Committee 

may have. 

JO 
27 

Chairman HALL. I thank you. 

I now recognize Mrs. Chaplain of the GAO to present her testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MRS. CRISTINA CHAPLAIN, DIRECTOR, 

ACQUISITION AND SOURCING MANAGEMENT, 

U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Ms. CHAPLAIN. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Johnson and 

Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting us to talk about 

the International Space Station and the challenges associated with 

maximizing its very unique capabilities. 

Our work touches on a range of challenges facing the space station, and I will go over the major categories of those challenges and 

what we have said in recent years. 

The first area is whether ISS can safely operate for years to 

come. As you know, we recently reported that NASA is doing a 

very credible job in assessing the structural health and safety of 

the International Space Station, and that this is no easy task, 

given the uniqueness of the station and the limitations to making 

these assessments. They are still in the process of conducting structural assessments, however, and there may be issues that get 

pointed out in these assessments in the next few years that need 

mitigation that could affect things like cargo flights in the future. 

The second area we have looked at in recent years is the utilization of the station after its construction. When we did so, we compared the ISS to some national labs. We knew there was no direct 

analog to the ISS, but we looked to see what comparisons were relevant to how the space station and its research was managed. We 

recommended that there be a central management organization established to represent users of the ISS, oversee selections of research, conduct peer reviews, and ensure research is not duplicative. Other labs have used such an approach, and the National Research Council had recommended something similar. NASA is in 

the early stages of implementing this recommendation, and its effectiveness remains to be seen. 

The third area we have looked at in recent years is the development of commercial vehicles under both the COTS program and 

now the crew program. For COTS, we found that NASA had established reasonable controls for their Space Act agreements and they 

tailored them when appropriate. For the crew acquisition strategy, 

we recommended that NASA rethink its strategy in light of receiving about half the funding requested. NASA has restructured its 

strategy. We have not evaluated that revised effort. But throughout 

all this work and following the commercial crew development and 

commercial cargo development, we have recognized that these efforts are inherently risky, and in the latest report we did stress optimistic schedules in the commercial crew providers. 

Because of this, we have always emphasized the importance of 

followed discipline practices and knowledge-based practices for 

these efforts. These include things like not moving programs forward with a lot of unknown about costs, requirements, and technology. As the commercial efforts are entering their most difficult 
28 

phases of development, it is more important that these practices be 

adhered to. 

That concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer any 

questions you have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Chaplain follows:] 
29 

GAO 

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 9:30 a,In. EDT Wednesday, March 28,2012 

GAO-12-587T 

United States Government Accountability Office 

Testimony 

Before the Committee on Science, Space, 

and Technology, House of Representatives 

NASA 

Significant Challenges 

Remain for Access, Use, 

and Sustainment of the 

International Space Station 

Statement of Cristina T. Chaplain, Director 

Acquisition and Sourcing Management 

GAO 

Accountability'" Integrity'" Reliability 
30 

Highlights of GAO-12-587T, a testimony 

before the Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology, House of Representatives 

Why GAO Did This Study 

Construction of the International Space 

Station (!SS) required dedIcation and 

effort on the part of many nations to be 

successful. Further, the funding 

necessary to accomplish this task was 

significant, with the United States 

alone directly investing nearly $50 

billion in its development As 

construction of the on-orbit laboratory 

is complete, now is the time for the 

United States and its partners to make 

use of this investment and recently, 

Congress took steps to extend the life 

of the ISS until at least 2020. 

GAO has cautioned for years that 

NASA should ensure it has a capability 

to access and utilize the space station 

following retirement of the space 

shuttle in 2011. We have highlighted 

the challenges associated with 

transporting Gargo and crew to and 

from the ISS, as well as the difficulties 

NASA faces in ensuring the ISS 

supports its purpose of scientific 

research and in safely operating the 

station, Some risks have been 

realized, For example, commercial 

vehicles are significantly behind 

schedule-with the first launch to the 

space station planned for 2012. 

GAO's statement today will focus on 

the progress NASA has made and the 

challenges the agency faces in 

accessing, ensuring full utilization of, 

and sustaining the ISS. To prepare this 

statement, GAO relied on prior relevant 

work on the ISS and NASA's 

commercial cargo and crew efforts and 

conducted a limited amount of 

additional work to update planned flight 

information. 

View GAO·12-587T, For more information, 

contact Cristina Chaplain at (202) 512~4841 or 

chaplainc@gao gov 

IM@1ifJ:*NE 

NASA 

Significant Challenges Remain for Access, Use, and 

Sustainment of the International Space Station 

What GAO Found 

NASA plans to use international partner and new domestic commercial launch 

vehicles to access, utilize, and sustain the International Space Station from 2012 

through 2020. However, the agency faces challenges in transporting cargo and 

crew to the ISS as well as ensuring the station is fully utilized. NASA's decision to 

rely on the new commercial vehicles to transport cargo starting in 2012 and to 

transport crew starting in 2017 is inherently risky because the vehicles are not 

yet proven and are experiencing delays in development. Further, NASA does not 

have agreements in place for international partners to provide cargo services to 

the ISS beyond 2016. The agency will also face a decision regarding the need to 

purchase additional seats on the Russian Soyuz vehicle beyond 2016, likely 

before commercial vehicles have made significant progress in development, 

given the three-year !ead time necessary for acquiring a seat. This decision IS 

further complicated because restrictions prohibit NASA from making certain 

payments to Russia in connection with the ISS unless the President makes a 

determination. Further, NASA currently expects to transport all cargo needed by 

the ISS in 51 flights through 2020, but if international partner agreements and 

commercial service contracts do not materialize as the agency plans for the 

years beyond 2016, the situation could lead to a potential cargo shortfall. 

If NASA can access the station, it will next be challenged with fully utilizing the 

ISS national laboratory for its intended purpose-scientific research. To take 

steps to meet this challenge and consistent with a 2009 GAO recommendation, 

in 2011 NASA selected an organization to centrally oversee ISS national 

laboratory research decision-making. It is too soon, however, to determine 

whether this organization is ensuring full scientific utiliZation of the ISS. 

Regardless of the efforts of the management body, as GAO noted in a 2009 

report, constraints on crew time for conducting science could also impact full 

utilization. 

If NASA can overcome its challenges related to accessing the station, it has 

reasonable approaches in place for estimating spare parts and assessing the 

structiJral health of the space station. These approaches provide NASA with 

increased assurance that the agency will have sufficient spares and will put 

mitigations in place to effectively and safely utilize the space station. 

_____________ United States Government Accountability Office 
31 

Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Johnson, and Members of the 

Committee: 

Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss utilization of the 

International Space Station (ISS). The construction of the ISS is a 

significant technical achievement. In essence, the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration (NASA) and its international partners have 

assembled and constructed a skyscraper-sized laboratory in low-earth 

orbit. This achievement involved dedication and effort on the part of all 

participating ~ations and individuals. With construction completed and a 

full crew of six astronauts on-board, the ISS stands poised to deliver 

scientific breakthroughs enabled by its unique capabilities. The potential 

of the ISS program to deliver on the promise of scientific discovery, 

however, is inextricably linked to NASA's ability to safely access, sustain, 

and fully utilize the laboratory in orbit. 

Now that ISS construction is finished, NASA and the ISS program face 

three major challenges, which will be the focus of my testimony. First and 

foremost, NASA must be able to transport cargo and crew to and from the 

ISS. Second, NASA must ensure that the management of the ISS 

national laboratory results in effective utilization of the station for its 

primary purpose-scientific research. Finally, NASA must ensure that 

replaceable spares are available and that the ISS is structurally sound 

and can safely continue operations. 

We have been reporting on the difficulties associated with sustaining the 

ISS in the post-space shuttle era since May 2005 when we first 

recommended that NASA take actions to determine the best available 

options for supporting the station after shuttle retirement. 1 In July 2006, 

we expressed our initial concerns regarding NASA's acqUisition strategy 

for the shuttle's replacement, the human spaceflight system known as 

Constellation, because of lack of a sound business case based on 

resources that are matched to requirements, a stable design, and welldefined cost estimates. 2 Since 2008, we have cautioned that the use of 

international launch vehicles is only a back-up and a less-capable means 

1 GAO, NASA: More Know/edge Needed to Determine Best Altematives to Provide Space 

Station Logistics Support, GAO-OS-48B (Washington, D,C.: May 18, 2005). 

2 GAO, NASA: Long-Term Commitment to and investment in Space Exploration Program 

Requires More Knowledge, GAO-06-817R (Washington D.C.: July 17, 2006) 

Page 1 GAO·12:·587T 
32 

of supporting the station, as well as raised concerns about the ambitious 

schedules for the vehicles being developed under NASA's Commercial 

Crew and Cargo Program,3 In a November 2009 report, we iterated our 

concerns that limited international partner vehicle capacity and potential 

delays in planned commercial vehicle development could impede efforts 

to maximize utilization of all ISS research facilities,4 In 2011 reports and 

testimony, we observed that commercial cargo launch development 

remained behind schedule and, even when coupled with international 

partner launch capacity, may not cover all of the ISS anticipated needs 

beginning in 2014,' Further, we reported that the funding provided for 

NASA's commercial crew efforts was significantly less than expected, as 

other priorities such as the Space Launch System received increased 

funding, 

In preparing this statement, we relied on our prior reports and 

testimonies, including those related to NASA's management of 

commercial launch vehicle development, the agency's acquisition 

approach for commercial crew transportation, and ISS sustainment and 

utilizationS We also conducted a limited amount of additional audit work 

in March 2012 to update information on planned commercial cargo and 

international partner flights, Our prior work in these areas. as well as the 

work conducted to support this statement, was performed in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 

require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient and 

appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 

:; GAO, NASA Chaflenges in Completing and Sustaining the International Space Station, 

GAO~08-581T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 24, 2008) and NASA: Commercial Partners Are 

Making Progress, but Face Aggressive Schedules to Demonstrate Critical Space Station 

Cargo Transport Capabilities. GAO-09-618 (Washington. D.C.: June 16. 2009) 

4 GAO, International Space Station" Significant Challenges May Limit Onboard Research, 

GAO-10-9, (Washington D.C.: Nov, 25. 2009) 

5 GAO, Commercial Launch Vehicles: NASA Taking Measures to Manage Delays and 

Risks, GAO-11-692T, (Washington, D.C.: May 26, 2011); International Space Station· 

Approaches for Ensuring Utilization through 2020 Are Reasonable but Should Be 

Revisited as NASA Gains More Knowledge ofOn~Orbit Petformance, GAO-12-162. 

(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 15,2011); and National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 

Acquisition Approach for Commercial Crew Transportation Includes Good Practices, but 

Faces Significant Challenges, GAO-12-282. (Washington. D.C.: Dec. 15.2011). 

• GAO-05-488: GAO-06-817R; GAO-08-S81T; GAO-09-618; GAO-l0-9; GAO-11-1392T. 

GAO-12-162; and GAO-12-282, 

Page 2 
33 

Background 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. 

The ISS program began in 1993 with several partner countries: Canada, 

the 11 member nations of the European Space Agency, Japan, and 

Russia. From 1994 through 2010, NASA estimates that it directly invested 

over $48 billion in development and construction of the on-orbit scientific 

laboratory, the ISS. NASA intended ISS assembly to be complete much 

sooner than it was. For example, in 1995, NASA expected to ISS 

assembly to be finished by June 2002, whereas the agency actually 

completed assembly in 2010. With ISS expected to be in use only through 

2015, this slower pace shortened the amount of time NASA had available 

to take advantage of the significant monetary investment and to fully 

utilize the station. As a result, the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 

required the NASA Administrator to take all actions necessary to ensure 

the safe and effective operation of the ISS through at least September 30, 

2020. 7 

The ISS is the largest orbiting man-made object. (See fig. 1) It is 

composed of about 1 million pounds of hardware, brought to orbit over 

the course of a decade. The ISS includes (1) primary structures, that is, 

the external trusses which serve as the backbone of the station and the 

pressurized modules that are occupied by the ISS crew, and (2) 

functional systems made up of replaceable units, that is, systems that 

provide basic functionality such as life support and electrical power that 

are made of modular components that are replaceable by astronauts on 

orbit. 

Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010, PUb. L. No 

Page 3 
34 

Figure 1: International Space Station 

$our(;{l:NASA 

The ISS was constructed to support three activities: scientific research, 

technology development, and development of industrial applications. The 

facilities aboard the ISS allow for ongoing research in microgravity, 

studies of other aspects of the space environment, tests of new 

technology, and long-term space operations. The facilities also enable a 

permanent crew of up to six astronauts to maintain their physical health 

standards while conducting many different types of research, including 

experiments in biotechnology, combustion science, fluid physics, and 

materials science, on behalf of ground-based researchers. Furthermore, 

the ISS has the capability to support research on materials and other 

technologies to see how they react in the space environment. 

NASA planned for the space shuttle to serve as the means of transporting 

crew, hardware, and supplies to the ISS through the end of the station's 

life. However, in 2004, President George W. Bush announced his Vision 

for Space Exploration (Vision) that included direction for NASA to develop 

new spaceflight systems under the Constellation program to replace the 

space shuttle as NASA's primary spaceflight system. The Vision also 

included provisions for NASA to pursue commercial alternatives or 

Page 4 GAO·12·587T 
35 

NASA Faces 

Challenges 

Transporting Cargo 

and Crew to and from 

the ISS 

NASA Plans to Use 

International Partner and 

Commercial Flights but 

International Agreements 

Are Not in Place and 

Commercial Vehicles 

Remain Unproven 

providing transportation and other services to support the ISS after 2010. 8 

NASA established the Commercial Crew and Cargo Program in 2005 to 

facilitate the private demonstration of safe, reliable, and cost-effective 

transportation services and purchase these services commercially. When 

the Constellation program was cancelled in 2010, the commercial 

vehicles became NASA's primary focus for providing cargo and crew 

transportation to the ISS. The success of commercial efforts became 

even more important in 2010 when Congress authorized the extension of 

space station operations until at least 2020 from 2015, and the President 

directed that NASA transition the role of human transportation to lowearth orbit to commercial space companies. 

The greatest challenge facing NASA is transporting cargo and crew to 

and from the ISS to make effective use of the ISS. NASA plans to rely on 

ISS international partner and new commercial launch vehicles to transport 

cargo and crew to and from the ISS until at least 2020. NASA hopes to 

begin using new commercial cargo vehicles in 2012 and crew vehicles to 

transport astronauts to and from the ISS beginning in 2017. NASA's 

decision to rely on the new commercial vehicles is inherently risky 

because the vehicles are still in development and not yet proven or fully 

operational. 

NASA is relying on 51 flights of international partner and commercial 

vehicles to transport cargo to the ISS from 2012 through 2020, but 

agreements for international flights after 2016 are not in place and the 

commercial vehicles are unproven. NASA has agreements in place with 

the European and Japanese space consortiums for their respective 

vehicles-the European Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV), and the 

Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV)-to conduct cargo resupply 

missions beginning in 2012 through 2016. The A TV and HTV are 

unmanned vehicles that have flown to the ISS, and carry such items as 

8 In 2004, President George W. Bush established a new space exploration policy-A 

Renewed Spirit of Discovery: The President's Vision for U.S. Space ExpJoraUon (Vision)-

which called for the retirement of the space shuttle and development of a new family of 

exploration systems to facilitate a return of humans to the moon and eventual human 

spaceflight to Mars. 

PageS GAO·I2-587T 
36 

hardware and water. 9 NASA's current plans anticipate employing a total 

of 12 international partner launches-S from 2012 to 2016 and 4 from 

2017 through 2020, NASA does not have agreements in place for 

international partners to provide cargo services to the ISS beyond 2016, 

NASA plans to use the ATV for a number of cargo flights through 2014, 

but no longer anticipates its use after that time, NASA plans to use HTV 

for a number of cargo flights through 2016, but its negotiations with the 

Japanese partners for flights beyond 2016 are in their infancy, 

NASA also plans to use two types of domestic commercial launch 

vehicles to maintain ISS from 2012 through 2020, Development of these 

vehicles-the Falcon 9 and Antares '°-was fostered under a NASAinitiated effort known as Commercial Orbital Transportation Services, 

These vehicles are being developed by private industry corporationsFalcon 9 by SpaceX and Antares by Orbital Sciences Corporation, In late 

2008, NASA awarded contracts to both companies to provide cargo 

transport services to the ISS, Only SpaceX will be able to safely return 

significant amounts of cargo to earth, such as the results of scientific 

experiments, NASA anticipates that SpaceX will begin providing that 

capability in 2012, 

Commercial vehicles are essential to sustaining and utilizing the ISS, As 

table 1 indicates, SpaceX and Orbital are scheduled to fly 20 (71 percent) 

of the 28 launches NASA plans through 2016 and follow-on commercial 

resupply vehicles are expected to fly 19 (83 percent) of the 23 launches 

from 2017 through 2020,11 

91n 2008 and 2009, the ATV and HTV vehicles respective!y flew to the ISS and docked at 

the station to demonstrate their capabilities. In 2011, both vehicles again launched. These 

flights were the second for both systems. 

10 The Antares was previously known as the Taurus I!. 

11 NASA has awarded contacts to SpaceX and Orbital for cargo resupply services to the 

ISS through 2016. Planned fonow-on commercial resupply vehicles are the vehicles NASA 

will use for flights beyond those currently under contract. 

PageS GAO·12·587T 
37 

Table 1: NASA's Planned Vehicle Launches for 2012 to 2020 to Resupply the ISS as of March 2012 

Vehicles 

ATV 

HTV 

Follow-on commercia! resupply 

Total 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 

Sour<;e GAO analysIs of NASA data 

Note: NASA does not have contracts with commercia! providers or negotiated agreements with 

international partners for flights from 2017 through 2020, 

19 

51 

This plan relies on commercial vehicles meeting anticipated-not 

proven-flight rates, As we have previously reported, both SpaceX and 

Orbital are working under aggressive schedules and have experienced 

delays in completing demonstrations, 12 SpaceX flew its first 

demonstration mission in December 2010, some 18 months late, because 

of such factors as deSign issues and software development. Currently, 

SpaceX's next demonstration launch to the ISS has been delayed from 

November 2011 to late April 2012 because of additional testing and 

resolution of some technical issues such as electromagnetic interference, 

Likewise, Orbital experienced programmatic changes and developmental 

difficulties that led to multiple delays of several months' duration, In May 

2011 testimony, 13 we noted that Orbital's inaugural demonstration mission 

had been delayed to December 2011, Currently, this flight has been 

delayed further to August or September 2012, primarily because of issues 

related to construction and testing of the launch pad at Wallops Island, 

Virginia, NASA has made efforts to accommodate delays in commercial 

vehicle development, including use of the final shuttle flight in July 2011 

to pre-position additional ISS spares, However, if the commercial vehicle 

launches do not occur as planned in 2012, the ISS could lose some ability 

to function and sustain research efforts due to a lack of alternative launch 

vehicles to support the ISS and return scientific experiments back to 

earth, 

12 GAO-09-618. 

13 GAO-11-692T, 

Page 7 
38 

NASA a Domestic 

Ability to Transport Crew 

to the ISS until at Least 

2017 

If the international partner agreements and commercial service provider 

contracts do not materialize as NASA plans for the years beyond 2016, 

this could lead to a potential cargo shortfall. As we reported in 2011,14 

NASA's strategic planning manifests showed that, when anticipated 

growth in national laboratory demands and margin for unforeseen 

maintenance needs are accounted for, the 56 flights NASA was planning 

for at the time of our review might not cover ali of NASA's anticipated 

needs. These shortfalls amounted to a total of 2.3 metric tonsapproximately the cargo that one SpaceX commercial vehicle will be able 

to transport to the ISS. As of March 2012, NASA has cut its planned 

number of ftights from 2012 through 2020 from the 56 flights we reported 

to 51 flights. However, its current ongoing analysis is no longer projecting 

a cargo shortfall even with the decreased number of flights. According to 

an ISS program Official, cargo estimates, particularly beyond 2013, are for 

planning purposes and could change as they are updated frequently 

based on launch vehicle availability and the ISS's need for spares. 

NASA faces two major challenges in transporting crew to the ISSadjusting its acquisition strategy for crew vehicles to match available 

funding and deciding if and when to purchase crew seats on the Russian 

Soyuz in case domestic commercial crew vehicles are not available as 

planned in 2017. In 2010, President Obama directed NASA to transition 

the role of transporting humans to low-Earth orbit to commercial space 

companies. Consequently, in 2010 and 2011 NASA entered into funded 

and unfunded Space Act agreements 15 with several companies to 

develop and test key technologies and subsystems to further commercial 

14 GAO-12-262. 

15 Space Act agreements are transactions other than contracts, leases, and cooperative 

agreements. Congress granted NASA the authority to enter into these types of 

transactions in the Nationa! Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 to give the agency greater 

flexibility in achieving its mission. Pub. L. No. 85-568, § 203(b)(5). Under a funded Space 

Act agreement, appropriated funds are transferred to a domestic pariner, such as a 

private company or a university, to accompHsh an agency mission. These agreements 

differ from Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) contracts in that they do not include 

requirements that generally apply to government contracts entered into under the authority 

of the FAR. Unfunded agreements accomplish the same goals but no appropriated funds 

are transferred. Under such agreements, the company can benefit from NASA's 

experience, guidance, and advice and NASA can gain insight into the company's system 

For more information see GAO, Key Controls NASA Employs to Guide Use and 

Management of Funded Space Act Agreements Are Generally Sufficient, but Some Could 

Be Strengthened and Clarified, GAO-12-230R (Washington, D.C.: Nov, 17, 2011). 

PageS GAO-12-587T 
39 

development of crew transportation services. NASA's intent was to 

encourage private sector innovation and to procure safe, reliable 

transportation services to the space station at a reasonable price. Under 

this acquisition approach, NASA plans to procure seats for crew 

transportation to the ISS from the private sector through at least 2020. 

In 2011, we reviewed NASA's plans for contracting for additional 

commercial crew development efforts and found that the agency's 

approach employed several good acquisition practices including 

competitive contracting that-if implemented effectively-limit the 

government's risk. As we also noted in that report, NASA's funding level 

for fiscal year 2012 is almost 50 percent less than it anticipated when it 

developed its approach for procuring commercial crew services. Given 

this funding level, NASA indicated it could not award contracts to multiple 

providers, which weakened prospects for competition in subsequent 

phases of the program. 16 The main premise of its procurement approach 

to control costs-full and open competition for future phases of the 

program-therefore was likely no longer viable. Without competition, 

NASA could become dependent on one contractor for developing and 

providing launch services to the space station. Reliance on a sole source 

for any product or service increases the risk that the government will pay 

more than expected, since no competitors exist to help control market 

prices. As a result of this funding decrease, NASA adjusted its acquisition 

strategy. The agency now plans to enter into another round of Space Act 

agreements to further the development of commercial crew vehicles and 

has delayed the projected purchase of commercial crew transportation 

until 2017. 

Additionally, the agency faces another looming challenge-a decision 

about if and when to purchase crew space on the Russian Soyuz vehicle. 

NASA will likely need to decide by the end of 2013 whether to purchase 

additional seats that might be needed beyond 2016 because the lead 

time for acquiring additional seats on the Soyuz is 3 years. However, in 

the 2013 time frame, NASA cannot be fully confident that domestic crew 

efforts will succeed because the vehicles will not yet have entered the test 

and integration phase of development Furthermore, the decision to 

16 We reported in GAO~12~282 that, although private investment was anticipated from the 

commercia! companies, without government investment, the commercial market for launch 

vehicles alone may not continue to grow and provide more than one contractor that would 

be able to compete for subsequent phases. 

Page 9 GAO~12"587T 
40 

NASA Faces Challenges 

Maximizing ISS Research 

Utilization 

purchase crew seats on the Russian Soyuz is complicated by restrictions 

found in the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act. 17 These 

restrictions prohibit NASA from making certain payments to Russia in 

connection with the ISS unless the President makes a determination. 

NASA currently has a statutory exemption from this restriction that allows 

certain types of payments, but that exemption expires in 2016. According 

to NASA officials, the agency has begun working toward resolution of this 

problem, but the issue is not yet resolved. 

NASA's greatest challenge to utilizing the ISS for its intended purposescientific research-is inextricably linked with the agency's ability to carry 

scientific experiments and payloads to and from the ISS. International 

partner vehicles have much less cargo capacity than the space shuttle did 

to carry supplies to the ISS and no ability to return research payloads 

back to earth. The Russian Soyuz vehicle has some ability to transport 

research payloads back to earth, but the capability is minimal at only 132 

pounds, As mentioned previously, SpaceX, however, will provide NASA 

with the capability to transport research payloads back to earth. 

Consequently, if the new commercial launch vehicles are not available as 

planned, the impact on ISS utilization could be dramatic. In the past, 

NASA officials have told us that the impact of failures or significant delays 

in developing the commercial cargo capability would be similar to the 

post-Columbia shuttle disaster scenario, 18 where NASA operated the ISS 

in a "survival mode" and moved to a two-person crew, paused assembly 

activities, and operated the ISS at a lower altitude to relieve propellant 

burden. NASA officials stated that if the commercial cargo vehicles are 

delayed, they would pursue a course of "graceful degradation" of the ISS 

until conditions improve. In such conditions, the ISS would only conduct 

minimal science experiments. 

Nonetheless, NASA expects scientific utilization to increase since 

construction of the ISS is complete, The ISS has been continuously 

staffed since 2000 and now has a six-member crew. The primary 

objective for the ISS through 2011 was construction, so research 

utilization was not the priority. Some research was conducted as time and 

"Pub. L. No. 106-178 (2000) (as amended), codified at 50 U.S.C. §1701 (note). 

18 This refers to the 2003 loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia, which resulted in NASA 

suspending shuttle flights until 2005 while investigations were under way. 

Page 10 
41 

resources permitted while the crew on board performed assembly tasks. 

NASA projects that it will utilize approximately 50 percent of the U.S. ISS 

research facilities for its own research. As we reported in 2009, however, 

NASA's scientific utilization of the ISS is constrained by limited crew time. 

limiting factors include the size of the crew on board the station; the 

necessary division of crew work among many activities that include 

maintenance, operations, and research; and the need to share research 

facilities with international partners. 

Per statutory direction, NASA has opened the remaining facilities to other 

federal government entities and private industry and is operating the ISS 

as a national laboratory. As we reported in 2009, NASA may face 

challenges in the management and operation of ISS National Laboratory 

research." There is currently no direct analogue to the ISS National 

Laboratory, and though NASA currently manages research programs at 

the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and its other centers that it believes 

possess similar characteristics to other national laboratories, NASA has 

limited experience managing the type of diverse scientific research and 

technology demonstration portfolio that the ISS could eventually 

represent. 

To manage ISS National Laboratory research, as we recommended in 

2009,20 NASA selected a body in 2011 to centrally oversee ISS research 

decision-making. This body, the Center for the Advancement of Science 

in Space (CAS IS), is charged with developing and managing a varied 

research and development portfolio based on U.S. national needs for 

basic and applied research; establishing a marketplace to facilitate 

matching research pathways with qualified funding sources; and 

stimulating interest in using the national lab for research and technology 

demonstrations and as a platform for science, technology, engineering, 

and mathematics education. CASIS has begun outreach efforts and has 

issued a Request for Information due back in March 2012 that seeks to 

identify and gather information from entities capable of serving as 

implementation partners. CASIS plans to develop an internal database 

from the information collected via this Request for Information, which will 

enable identification of entities that can support payload development 

needs according to their requisite areas of expertise. CASIS will refer to 

19 GAO-10.9. 

20 GAO.10.9. 

Page 11 GAO~12·587T 
42 

NASA Has a 

Reasonable Approach 

to Meeting the 

Challenge of 

Estimating ISS Spares 

and Assessing 

Structural Health and 

Safety 

this database when issuing solicitations for funded opportunities to 

support research payload activities. Since the establishment of CASIS as 

the management body of ISS research is relatively recent, we have not 

examined its effectiveness; therefore, it is too early for us to say whether 

it will be successful in ensuring full scientific utilization of the station as a 

national laboratory. 

We recently reported" that NASA has an appropriate and reasonable 

approach in place to determine the spares needed for the ISS as well as 

to assess ISS structural health and safety. Estimating ISS spares and 

gauging the structural health and safety of the ISS are not simple 

challenges. Among the many factors to be assessed are the reliability of 

key components, NASA's ability to deliver spares to the ISS, the 

projected life of structures that cannot be replaced, and in-depth analysis 

of those components and systems that affect safety. While some 

empirical data exist, because the ISS is a unique facility in space, 

assessing its extended life necessarily requires the use of sophisticated 

analytical techniques and judgments. 

NASA's approach to determining necessary spare parts for the ISS relies 

on a statistical process. The statistical process and methodology being 

used to determine the expected lifetimes of replacement units is a sound 

and commonly accepted approach within the risk assessment community 

that considers both manufacturers' predictions and the systems' actual 

performance. NASA also has a reasonable process for establishing 

performance goals for various functions necessary for utilization and 

determining through modeling whether available spares are sufficient to 

meet goals through 2020, but the rationale for establishing performance 

goals has not been systematically documented. 

NASA is also using reasonable analytical tools to assess structural health 

and determine whether ISS hardware can operate safely through 2020. 

NASA currently anticipates that-with some mitigation-the ISS will 

remain structurally sound for continued operations through 2020. NASA 

also is using reasonable methodologies to identify replacement units and 

other hardware that could cause serious damage to the ISS if they were 

to fail. Through 2015, NASA plans to develop methods to mitigate issues 

" GAO-12-162. 

Page 12 GAO·12·587T 
43 

Concluding 

Observations 

identified and expects to begin implementing corrective actions as plans 

are put in place, 

In summary, although NASA has done a credible job of ensuring that the 

ISS can last for years to come, the question that remains is whether 

NASA will be able to service the station and productively use it for 

science, Routine launch support is essential to both, but the road ahead 

depends on successfully overcoming several complex challenges, such 

as technical success, funding, international agreements, and 

management and oversight of the national laboratory, Finally, if any of 

these challenges cannot be overcome, it will be contingent upon NASA to 

ensure that all alternatives are explored-in a timely manner-to make 

full use of the nation's significant investment in ISS, 

Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Johnson, and Members of the 

Committee, this concludes my prepared statement I would be pleased to 

respond to any questions that you may have at this time, 

Page 13 GAO·12·587T 
44 

Chairman HALL. I thank you very much. Both were under five 

minutes. That is unusual, disciplined. 

General, I recognize you, sir. Turn your mic on, General, not that 

I could order a General around. A JG in the Navy wouldn’t have 

much to say in your presence, sir. 

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL 

THOMAS P. STAFFORD, 

CHAIRMAN, NASA ADVISORY COUNCIL ISS 

OPERATIONAL READINESS TASK FORCE 

Lieutenant General STAFFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Johnson and distinguished Members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here and testify before you and express my views and concerns of my committee. I will answer the 

questions provided in your letter of invitation, Mr. Chairman, from 

the standpoint of expertise as a former astronaut, former Deputy 

Chief of Staff for Research, Development and Acquisition, and serving in many committees and chairman of those committees, both 

for the DOD and NASA, over a period of years. I have submitted 

a written statement for the record, and so in the essence of time, 

I will go right away to the questions. 

Question number one: Are NASA’s current plans adequate to ensure that requirements for the ISS maintenance, growth and crew 

supplies and expendables, B, NASA’s scientific research utilization, 

National Laboratory growth and utilization and other contingency 

maintenance, can they be met through the year 2020? 

In response to your first question, for the near term, NASA’s current plans are adequate to ensure that requirements for the ISS 

maintenance, growth, crew supply and expendables and the scientific research and the national lab utilization, contingency maintenance can be met for the immediate future for one to two years. 

This is in large part thanks to the supply of STS–134 and 135, and 

I want to acknowledge Mr. Gerstenmaier’s leadership in pushing to 

have those last two shuttle missions launch and provide those supplies. Without those two shuttle missions, right now we would be 

in a serious situation and probably be considering how we would 

de-crew the space station to a certain number of people. So, Mr. 

Gerstenmaier, the country owes you a lot of thanks for that, sir. 

Beyond this time frame, say, beyond the mid-part of 2013, NASA 

becomes increasingly dependent on its projected flow of resupply 

needs and on the planned fleet of cargo vehicles which includes the 

ATV, the HTV, the Progress and the commercial resupply services. 

In joint assessment with the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel 

headed by Admiral Joe Dyer, my ISS Advisory Committee concluded that the commercial vehicle launch schedule was overly optimistic, and we have not received sufficient data to conclude with 

confidence that the schedule could be met. This was the unanimous 

conclusion of both groups. Both commercial contractors, Orbital 

Science Corporation and Space Exploration Corporation, continue 

to experience significant delays in their development, testing, and 

their launch dates. 

With the present schedule beyond 2016, ISS resupply is almost 

totally dependent upon the CRS vehicles. However, I did notice 
45 

that there were now proposed some HTV flights out there, which 

will help. And recently NASA has updated and revised the launch 

manifest, making the schedule more realistic, but this still may 

have some potential optimistic assumptions. The real-time updates 

of the use of consumables and spares requirements are fed into the 

schedule. I think it is significant that NASA has been conservative 

in their requirements and their forecasts for spares and the orbital 

replacement units. These have gone longer than forecast, and this 

gives us some pad that can take some of the delays of the commercial resupply services. 

And with that, I will stand by to answer questions from the Committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Lieutenant General Stafford follows:] 
46 

Written Testimony of 

Lieutenant General Thomas P. Stafford, USAF (ret.) 

Chairman, International Space Station Advisory Committee 

Before the 

Committee on Science, Space and Technology 

United States House of Representatives 

March 28, 2012 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that warm introduction. I appreciate the opportunity to come 

before the Members to once again express my views and concerns, and those of my Committee 

members at this hearing. I will attempt to answer the questions provided in your letter of 

invitation from the standpoint of my expertise as a former astronaut, Air Force Deputy Chief of 

Staff for Research and Development and Acquisition, having served on and chaired many 

committees overseeing NASA in human spaceflight programs, and my current position as the 

ISS Advisory Committee Chairman. In this most recent position, I lead the committee to review 

NASA's current plans, and the underlying assumptions, for supplying the necessary upmass and 

downmass capacity to ensure the continued health and maintenance of the International Space 

stalion, and enable scientific research utilization through at least 2020. All members of my 

Committee have extensive experience in the development, testing and flight operations of the 

NASA Human Spaceflight program. I also had the unique experience of working with the 

Soviet-era Russians as the Commander of Apollo during the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. Through 

that effort, I was afforded an opportunity to view their space program up close alongside their 

best engineers and technicians. As a result of that successful joint program, NASA and 

ROSCOSMOS were able to again cooperate in space with the Shuttle-MIR program, culminating 

in our successful partnership on ISS. I have had the privilege of serving as Chairman of the ISS 

Advisory Committee lor over 10 years, and in that capacity, I became familiar with the ShuttleMir operations and have since been fortunate to have assessed the assembly, maintenance and 

daY-lo-day operations of the ISS since its inception. Throughout our long collaboration, I have 

continued to observe and assess lhe Russian space program. 

Question 1 

Are NASA's current plans adequate to ensure that requirements for a) ISS maintenance, 

growth, crew supplies, and expendables, b) NASA's scientific research utilization, c) 

National Laboratory growth and utilization, and d) other contingency maintenance, can be 

met through at least 2020? 
47 

In response to your first question, NASA's eurrent plans are adequate to ensure that reqUlrements 

for ISS maintenance, growth, crew supplies, and expendables, NASA's scientific research 

utilization, National Laboratory growth and utilization, and other contingency maintenance, can 

be met for the immcdiate future (at least I - 2 years). This is in large part thanks to the 

fortuitous delivery of consumables and spares delivered to the ISS by STS-134 and STS-13S. 

Beyond that timeframe, NASA becomes increasingly dependent on its projected flow of sparing 

and re-supply needs, on the planned fleet of cargo vehicles which includes the ATV, HTV, 

Progress, and Commercial Resupply Service (CRS) Vehicles. In joint assessment with the 

Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP), my ISS Advisory Committee concluded that the 

commercial vehicle launch schedule was overly optimistic and we have not received sufficient 

data to conclude with confidence that the schedule could be met. This was the unanimous 

conclusion of both groups. Both commercial cargo contractors (Orbital Science Corporation and 

Space Exploration Corporation) continue to experience significant delays in their development, 

testing and launch dates. Beyond the year 2016, ISS resupply is almost totally depcndent on 

these CRS vehicles. 

NASA has updated and revised the launch manifest, making the schedule more realistic, but this 

may still have potentially optimistic assumptions. Real time updates of the use of consumables 

and spares, the changing mission requirements, and the development of alternative operational 

procedures and techniques will continually alter the schedule, the changing logistics needs and 

the required vehicle launches in the out years. The increased dependence on the Follow-On 

Commercial Cargo Vehicles still gives us concern until they have demonstrated reliability and 

repeatability. For the near term, NASA has done a credible job in adjusting the schedule to meet 

the changing consumables and propellent required. 

Question 2 

Highlight any areas of concern, or assumptions, that could materially affect NASA's ability 

to ensure complete, effective and safe functioning, and full scientific utilization of the 

International Space Station through at least 2020. 

It is important that the ISS investment provide high-value return with more time allocated to 

research. Clearly the major drivers to increasing utilization margins are crew size and 

availability of utilization hardware, that is, up mass and down mass. The ability to maintain a 6-

person crew together with ISS utilization is critically dependent on the success and continued 
48 

viability of both commercial resupply service providers and continued viability of current 

logistics vehicles. The ISS is in a safe and logistically- sustained configuration through the rest 

of this year, so there is margin for it to absorb delays in the launch schedule of the commercial 

providers. Given that, and the extra help that my Advisory Committee has seen the ISSPO 

provide to the commercial cargo suppliers, my Committee is confident that they could safely 

deliver cargo to the ISS within the next year to J 8 months. However, experience has shown that 

with many developmental program, delays are inevitable. The concern is that these providers 

become operational in order that major adjustments to the current launch schedules are avoided. 

Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) calculations for Orbital Replacement Units (ORUs) by 

NASA have historically been done conservatively, using the best practices and industry 

standards. Operational experience shows that many components are operating well past 

calculated life and the ISS Program Office has used that data to forecast sustainability plans that 

support the station through 2020 with the possible potential to go beyond that with continued 

support. Ensuring the technical rigor of testing and analysis of critical ISS components to 

function through 2020 is another area that needs to remain at the forefront of the ISS Program 

Office's priorities. The Advisory Committee has not seen any indications of that being 

overlooked. This is a complex vehicle and extending its use will present challenges to the 

program, however they are challenges that NASA can overcome with appropriate resources and 

support. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the committee for giving me this opportunity, and thank you for 

all you do to advance American human space flight. 
49 

Chairman HALL. I thank you, General, and I thank all of you for 

your testimony. I remind the Members that the rules limit questions to five minutes, and the Chair will at this point open the 

round of questions, and I recognize myself for five minutes. 

I am concerned about dates that have been assigned back 

through the years to launches. The initial date of the proposed 

flight of the second rocket or demo 2. I go with the first date I see, 

June 2009, when the initial proposal when the Commercial Orbital 

Transportation Service, or COTS, contract was signed I think in 

2006 and gave us three years. It started in 2009, and there has 

been just time after time after time after time where now we are 

promised the date of April of 2012, and that schedule was changed 

in February, I think. This is April. I don’t know what to think. I 

guess I will just go to asking questions for it. 

Mr. Gerstenmaier, we spent two decades and tens of billions of 

dollars to build the International Space Station with our international friends and people that trusted us. Now that it is finished, 

I hope NASA doesn’t squander the incredible potential for lifesaving research and other important science because President 

Obama cancelled the shuttle’s replacement. I am beyond frustration to know that our space station program is now dependent on 

a launch system of other countries to do the job that NASA ought 

to be doing. Congress has been pretty clear that NASA is not to 

rely totally on these commercial proposals, and I hear excuses and 

delay after delay for the supposedly simple act of delivering cargo 

to the space station. Mr. Gerstenmaier, NASA has spent $1.6 billion on this effort so 

far, and the Nation doesn’t have very much to show for it. What 

does NASA get back when companies continue to delay, and what 

is the penalty when they don’t perform? What do you need? And 

if they have a successful test flight, can we be assured it can meet 

the demands of the space station? I guess that is my question to 

you, sir. And are there any penalties if they don’t meet it? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Yes, sir. When they misschedule and have 

delays, they owe us an equitable adjustment under the contract. 

This is under the contract phase for cargo delivery. So if they miss 

a launch date, they owe us either some financial consideration or 

additional analysis. 

Chairman HALL. What kind of financial consideration? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. The things we have been able to do is, we 

wanted to add more refrigerator-freezer capability to their vehicles. 

We didn’t have those in the initial contracts. That allows us to 

carry refrigerated samples to space station and also return them. 

That wasn’t in the original contract, so for one of the delays we got 

as part of the compensation for that a redesign and new equipment 

to be added into their capsule to carry these precious biological 

cargo to station and return them. So for every slip that occurs beyond a 1-month period, we get some benefit back to us and we have 

to show how that provides equitable benefit to us equal to the 

amount of slip. 

And to your first point, they have spent quite a bit of time developing their launch pads. Their launch pads are now fully up and 

operational. Wallops still needs a little bit more work to get that 

done. That was done by the State of Virginia but Orbital will use 
50 

that facility. The SpaceX launch pad was built by them. That was 

part of their investment that you discussed. 

Chairman HALL. Is that launch pad finished? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. The one in Florida is finished and ready. 

They have already flown one demonstration flight off of that launch 

pad, or several, one for us and then one is another use. And then 

they have this next flight that is getting ready to launch off the 

pad but it is fully operational. They just did a wet dress several 

months ago and they are ready to go do the launch at the end of 

April. In the case of Orbital, the launch pad at Wallops is still behind schedule a little bit. That launch pad is being built by the 

Mid-Atlantic Regional Space Port. They are providing that to the 

Orbital Corporation to launch off of. They still have some more activation work to do at the launch pad, and that is what is holding 

up the cargo flights from Orbital. But they got started a little bit 

later in cargo delivery than the SpaceX team. 

Chairman HALL. All right. I think the people that you are dealing with have delivered before, have deep pockets, and ought to be 

able to produce. What do you need from Congress to stop the 

delays. Of course, we need more recognition of the needs of NASA 

rather than limiting us to less than one percent of the budget. We 

have asked the last three Presidents for those and not received 

them. So I guess that has to be part of your answer for our inability to keep the dates that have been set. 

I will ask General Stafford, from your experience, sir, what are 

some of the problems that are causing these delays and how can 

the government ensure that they get performed? Use your microphone, General. 

Lieutenant General STAFFORD. Here we go again. 

Chairman HALL. Don’t let that happen anymore. Go ahead. 

Lieutenant General STAFFORD. From my experience as the Air 

Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Research, Development and Acquisition, and at that time I had acquisition. My budget was far more 

than the total NASA budget. Under that, you have some categories 

of the good, the bad and the ugly, and to be sure that they end up 

in the good, you need good, experienced program managers, people 

that have experience. You need insight and you need direction on 

how they do it. You have to look out for unrealistic lowball bids 

and unrealistic schedule by contractors and also by the government 

to lay on unrealistic requirements. In other words, they request 

technology that is not going to come on time. 

As I brought out at the Wright Brothers Memorial Trophy dinner, probably the record was set when I started the 117A. It was 

completely secret. It was very black, as they say. But we flew that 

airplane in less than two years and eight months, and it was operational in a little over three years, which is a modern record. And 

we pushed, and we had insight to it. It met all the FARs. We did 

bypass Air Force regulations but it met all the FARs and so we 

knew exactly where we were. We had the insight to it. I don’t know 

that we have the insight. 

I have not been involved with the management in these delays. 

My committee looks at the safety and the operational part of it. 

When you go down to the good, the bad, the ugly, you review what 

has happened in the past just from reading open literature like the 
51 

turbo pump on the space station main engine. It was bid in low at 

$150 million, $160 million. It ended up ten years later about $1.2 

billion or $1.3 billion. And the same way with the Webb telescope 

this Committee knows about, when I read in open literature. It was 

way underbid and probably the technology was not there. 

So again, you have to have good program managers and you have 

to have good program structures. Now, the way these programs are 

structured, as I have observed from the outside—I have not been 

involved in management—under these Space Act agreements, 

which is other transactional authority, I don’t know that it can 

really have the insight in the management that you would have if 

you have a good program manager, and we had some of the best 

in Apollo with General Sam Phillips, Dr. von Braun, probably some 

of the best, but they were right there on top of things. 

Chairman HALL. I have gone over my time. I thank you. Others 

will have other questions, I think. 

Now I recognize Ms. Johnson for seven minutes. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Chairman HALL. Fair is fair. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Mr. Gerstenmaier, we are all aware that the first 

few years in International Space Station, time was spent assembling it and long before we could begin the research, but once the 

research was initiated and is ongoing, where is the focus now in 

research? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. ISS is a very diverse research facility. There 

is an alpha magnetic spectrometer that is on the outside of space 

station that actually looks for antimatter and dark matter from the 

universe looking at potentially how the universe was formed. There 

is also some Earth observation equipment on board, the HICO– 

RAIDS instrument. It is a hyperspectral instrument that is looking 

at the ocean, looking at waves. There are some experiments being 

done now on combustion onboard space station. We recently did 

some things looking at combustion stability in space. The advantage of looking at it in space is, without gravity, the researchers 

can actually model the phenomena so then when look at more efficient gas turbine engines or more efficient automobile engines, they 

can take the knowledge that they gained on how the combustion 

actually works in low gravity, apply that here to the Earth. There 

is a lot of medical investigations going on aboard space station that 

deal with activities that can help us here on the Earth, things that 

help the elderly with bone loss. Stability issues that astronauts 

face can also be investigated on space station. So it is a wide variety of research. There is probably five to six or so investigations 

every day being done uniquely onboard the space station each and 

every day as we are in this next phase. 

Ms. JOHNSON. What areas do you think will bring the major 

breakthroughs between now and 2020? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Again, I think the advantage of the space 

station is the fact that the crews have a long period of time to work 

on the investigations. In other words, they are not scripted that 

they have to complete an investigation immediately in a certain 

amount of time. They can do research much like we would do on 

a recent lab here on the Earth. So if the astronauts see a unique 

phenomenon that occurs in space that the researchers didn’t expect 
52 

to see, they have time to now investigate that research and they 

may discover new phenomena or new things that never really existed. We are learning a lot about how biological samples behave 

in space, how bacteria become stronger, how viruses become stronger. We can use that information to essentially build vaccines potentially for us here on the Earth. 

So I think the advantage of space station is the uniqueness of 

being able to take time to really do research and be creative in the 

way you do research and not be on a structured timeline that limits the amount of knowledge that you can gain. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. But there is kind of a timeline that 

we are working against, and I have some real concerns in the vaccines as well as viruses. Do you feel you are closer to any kind of 

breakthroughs? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. We have done research on salmonella and 

we have been able to develop essentially a strain of salmonella that 

is strong enough to cause the immune system to react but not 

strong enough to give you the disease, so that is essentially a vaccine. That is about ready to go into FDA trials. There has been a 

lot of work working with the FDA to get it into trials, but we were 

able to use a small organism to get through the first phases of the 

FDA process and then potentially it could go into FDA trials fairly 

soon. So the unique property that occurs with salmonella vaccine 

occurs with viruses and other things as well, so we could potentially explore developing new vaccines for viruses and other things 

as well onboard space station. So it gives a whole new research avenue for companies and pharmaceutical companies to pursue in 

space. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Ms. Chaplain, how can Congress determine whether NASA is on 

track to meet the objectives by 2020? 

Ms. CHAPLAIN. Major projects at NASA regularly report data to 

the committees on cost schedule performance and status. These 

projects I don’t believe are among those, and that is one key way 

you could be asking for data to follow progress in addition to these 

hearings. That data comes in semi-yearly cycles and yearly cycles, 

so it might not be as timely as needed. We have ourselves an ongoing assessment of all major projects within NASA, and we do plan 

to include these efforts next year to help the Congress have more 

insight and oversight as well. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Feeling the pressure of 2020 approaching, does 

that add anxiety or add any more effort to reaching some conclusions? How do you internalize that date for research time? 

Ms. CHAPLAIN. In terms of overseeing the commercial development efforts or in terms of research for the station? We have not 

revisited our previous work in terms of assessing how the station 

is being used for research. We made a recommendation when we 

did our review that they establish an organization to manage the 

research and prioritize it and ensure it is not duplicative. That is 

just getting underway, so the next year or so is really going to be 

critical to see how effective that mechanism is and is it going to 

be the best to optimize the space station’s research. 

Ms. JOHNSON. This could be unfair, but with the direction of this 

Administration where it appears to be headed with less and less 
53 

and less and less financial support, does that affect performance or 

direction or planning? 

Ms. CHAPLAIN. It could possibly. I have seen in several agency 

budgets that money for S&T types of activities, research activities 

are being cut and it could affect plans that some agencies have had 

to use the ISS for their own research activities. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. 

Palazzo, for five minutes. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Gerstenmaier, according to the GAO’s testimony in 2011, 

NASA anticipated 56 flights to the ISS between 2012 and 2020 and 

would likely be at risk of a shortfall to cover all the National Laboratory demands and margin for unseen maintenance. However, 

this month NASA told GAO that in spite of decrease in the anticipated flights to 51, NASA is no longer projecting a cargo shortfall. 

What changes have occurred to cause you to reduce the number of 

flights without having any impact on estimated needs for cargo? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Well, what has occurred is the failure rate 

of the onboard spares and equipment onboard space station has 

been less than what we originally predicted. We are seeing the 

hardware is performing better than we thought. It is lasting longer 

without maintenance and need for repair, so that gives us some of 

the margin that you described. We still have not taken fully into 

account what we actually observed for those failure rates. We still 

are biasing it more towards the conservative side, so we think 

there may be even some more margin if the hardware performs as 

good as it has been performing in the past several years. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Ms. Chaplain, are you satisfied with NASA’s justification and what information would you need to make sure they 

have conducted sound analysis? 

Ms. CHAPLAIN. Yes. What was being said about the spares lasting longer does agree with what we were finding in our latest research. We had also heard that the space station was using fewer 

supplies now than before. They must have found ways to use 

things more effectively. We would probably like to see more information along those lines, and we haven’t analyzed the latest data 

in great detail, so those are the kinds of things we would probably 

want to see behind it. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Gerstenmaier, Ms. Chaplain in her testimony 

cited crew availability as a major constraint on the productivity of 

the ISS National Lab. How does NASA plan to address this constraint and how significant will it be going forward? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Crew time is clearly a precious commodity 

onboard space station. What we have been trying to do is reduce 

the amount of activities that the crew needs to do to take care of 

themselves. In some cases, we have looked at ways that we can do 

less medical investigations directly on the crews, so there is a little 

more time available for them. Some of the maintenance activities, 

we have been able to cut back and defer. Some of the testing we 

do on components, we have cut back, and what that is allowing is 
54 

some more research time for the researchers to use the crews for 

those research activities. 

If we get commercial crew at some point, we would like to increase the number of crew members on the flights from three to 

four, and that would allow us to have additional crew member on 

orbit, which would also increase the crew time available for research. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Thank you. 

Ms. Chaplain, do you care to comment? 

Ms. CHAPLAIN. Crew time availability was a concern in our review. That was two years ago, so I do recognize that actions have 

probably been taken to kind of make that time smarter. 

Mr. PALAZZO. I will kind of change it a little bit. Let us talk 

about the Soyuz. 

Mr. Gerstenmaier, do the Russians have the industrial capacity 

to produce additional launch systems after 2016 to satisfy crew 

transportation demand if commercial crew systems or the Space 

Launch System are not ready? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. They have the industrial capability to manufacture the vehicles. Our typical lead time is roughly three years 

to maybe 2–1/2 years that we have to make known that we need 

a vehicle for our purposes, so we will have to order those vehicles 

in the 2013 time frame for flights in the later half of 2016 and 

early 2017. 

Mr. PALAZZO. When would NASA—this is for you, Mr. 

Gerstenmaier. When would NASA and the international partners 

need to decide on extending the life of the ISS? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. And by extending the life, you mean beyond 

2020? 

Mr. PALAZZO. Yes. 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Probably in the 2015 time frame. We are estimating around December 2015. Again, that is based on us having 

to procure items about three years in advance, so then you could 

take 2021, subtract three years, and that is 2018 or so ordering 

time and then it takes us a little bit of time to work through the 

contracting activities. So we think sometime in 2015 we should be 

making decisions about whether we are going to extend beyond 

2020. And we would have to do that also internationally, get approval from our international partners, etc. So that is a pretty 

lengthy process, but we would start that activity in 2015. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Well, thank you all. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. 

I recognize Ms. Bonamici of Oregon for five minutes. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to thank all of you for your testimony today on this 

important hearing that is focused, I believe, appropriately on the 

challenges and opportunities of the International Space Station, 

and I wanted to ask you to discuss some educational issues and the 

value of the work being done on the ISS for educational purposes, 

and I recall, for example, Oregonian astronaut Susan Helms, who 

actually spent 163 days on the ISS, coming into Oregon schools and 

inspiring hundreds, if not thousands, of students about space and 

about science and especially the young girls. So that is just one ex-
55 

ample, and I wondered if you could please discuss how the ISS is 

being used currently to inspire and educate young people in science 

and technology and engineering and mathematics, the STEM disciplines. Do you have specific examples? And also, is there potential 

that is not being met? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. One good example is, last week we concluded 

a science fair project with students onboard space station. We 

teamed with YouTube, Google and Space Adventures, and they 

sponsored a global international competition for students to present 

science fair projects to be performed in space. The age categories 

were 13-year-olds through 18-year-olds. We received 9,000 videos 

throughout the world, three-minute videos of science projects that 

students would like to perform on space station. We down-selected 

out of those to two finalists, whose experiments will actually fly to 

space station on HTV this summer and they will be performed by 

Suni Williams onboard space station in the fall. One winner was 

from Egypt, and two girls in the 13- and 14-year-old category were 

from the State of Michigan. It was pretty exciting to see the videos 

and the creativity the kids put together. The girls from Michigan, 

they focused on this bacteria and virus discussion I had. They were 

intrigued by that, so there is 13-year-old students trying to pick up 

the state-of-the-art research at the age of 13 and actually proposing 

an extremely wonderful experiment to be done on station. 

The Egyptian experiment dealt with a spider that jumps to catch 

its prey, so the question or hypothesis was, would this spider, how 

would it do in space when it jumps and, you know, it floats instead 

of uses gravity, would it be able to adapt and learn. So again, the 

students were pretty inquisitive of how they understood what the 

microgravity properties were and submitted pretty special investigations. 

The discussion you had with Susan Helms was the ham radio activities. We still do lots of ham radio activities in schools, and the 

response from kids is phenomenal. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. Can you identify constraints that 

might—other than budget, of course, that might affect the ISS utilization for STEM education and outreach? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Again, I think crew time becomes a consideration, how much time the crew has available. As you stated, budget 

is always a constraint for us. We have made available some additional upmass like we have this summer to carry the students’ experiments to space, so there is upmass available in the cargo manifest. So we have tried to accommodate it within our resources to 

make sure that kids get a chance to virtually participate in the 

space station and get a chance to see what the astronauts are 

doing. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Terrific. Thank you. 

And Ms. Chaplain, in the past NASA has told the GAO that failures or significant delays in developing the commercial cargo transportation would be NASA to operate the ISS in a survival mode including going to a two-person crew, and under that scenario, the 

ISS would only conduct minimal science experiments. Is this still 

the anticipated scenario if the commercial cargo providers are significantly delayed or experiencing a failure? 
56 

Ms. CHAPLAIN. I believe what has already been said here is very 

on point, that if you have delays that extend beyond 2013, or into 

2013 and beyond, you will see a lot of impacts on space station and 

a lot of scaling back of research. Whether it would actually take 

them to the survival mode is more for Mr. Gerstenmaier to answer. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Gerstenmaier. 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. I think ultimately if we don’t get the cargo 

in the time frame we need, we will have to cut back on research 

first and then eventually go to the survival mode. But we have diversity in cargo vehicles. We have the HTV, the ATV. We can use 

some limited upmass on Progress, and then we have the two commercial providers, so out of those five different entities, we think 

we have a broad enough variety of cargo providers that we can 

meet this challenge of utilizing the space station in the future. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. I thank the lady. 

I recognized Mr. Hultgren for five minutes. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you all for 

being here today. I appreciate your time and the information. 

A couple questions, specifically more timeline and plans with 

NASA. Mr. Gerstenmaier, I wonder if I could address these to you? 

The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 requires that NASA design 

the Multipurpose Crew Vehicle, Orion, to provide backup capabilities for cargo and crew transport to the space station in the event 

commercial or partner supply vehicles are unable to do so. I wonder if you could tell me specifically how NASA is doing, what they 

are doing now to ensure that Orion Multipurpose Crew Vehicle will 

be operational and ready in time to comply with the law? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. We are proceeding as fast as we can with 

both the Multipurpose Crew Vehicle and the Space Launch System. 

We have planned a schedule uncrewed flight in 2017 and then our 

first crewed flight is in 2021. And 2017 is driven more by the hardware manufacturing ability and additional funding really doesn’t 

move the 2017 date very much. That is where it sits. We have a 

pretty exciting test flight coming up here in 2014 that will give us 

key information on how well the Orion capsule performs. The 2021 

date is driven a little bit more by budget. We would have the option of potentially moving that date forward as we refine our budgets to help if we need to, to try to get it in front of the end of space 

station. But it looks like with the MPCV and SLS, the earliest we 

could be potentially there to help out with station would be probably in the 2018 time frame. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Okay. Following up a little bit, or just refining, 

I guess. NASA’s fiscal year 2013 budget request I know just reduced Orion’s funding by $200 million. Even though you have stated that these Orion and SLS are top priorities, again, wondering 

with that 2014 test flight of Orion, I know that is an uncrewed 

flight that is coming up but wondered what specific human 

spaceflight or life support work is being funded by NASA now to 

ensure that Orion will in fact be ready to jump in and act as 

backup to service space station if needed? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. We are doing some limited life support development. It has ramped down a little bit. We also have quite a 

bit of life support equipment that we are actually using onboard 
57 

the space station. It provides CO2 removal and oxygen generation 

for the crew onboard station. That has direct application to the systems that would fly in Orion in the future. So we are doing some 

work along those lines to keep things moving forward as much as 

we can. 

You know, we have to make hard decisions and trade things 

across our budget. When we look at it, commercial crew had the 

potential of being there a little bit earlier than we can with the 

government systems, so we are pushing or aiming our direction towards the commercial crew activity to provide that service. 

Mr. HULTGREN. The chairman had talked a little bit earlier of 

our reliance on the Russians right now, and I wonder, what is 

NASA’s plan if a catastrophe, and again, we all hope and pray that 

never happens, but if a catastrophe occurs during the returning 

Soyuz capsule, what is NASA’s plan to respond to that and how 

would the United States retrieve remaining astronauts on the station if something were to happen? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. At this point, as I stated in my opening remarks, we are dependent totally upon the Russians for crew transportation. We have always been dependent upon the Russians for 

rescue capability from the space station, so that risk is still there. 

If we had some event that occurred where the Soyuz was not available for us, we would be in the situation where we would have to 

look at decrewing the space station. We would try to accelerate 

both commercial crew and the Orion SLS MPCV systems as much 

as we could to reestablish a crew presence as soon as we could on 

orbit from those events. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Okay. And if you can comment on this but then 

I will open it up to the other witnesses as well, just wondering if 

you could talk about what you see as applications of value to the 

U.S. economy that we might be able to expect to see from the ISS 

over the next several years. 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. I think one of the biggest advantages is, 

there is unique properties in microgravity that exemplify themselves in microgravity such as the bacteria discussion I had with 

you, materials properties, crystal growth, etc. Our hope is that 

commercial companies, we can expose to them what these unique 

properties are, what NASA’s research has shown in the past. These 

commercial companies can see these processes and then decide to 

try and experiment, take it to space station and see if they can develop one of these commercial processes that will help them gain 

an economic advantage globally. So things like vapor deposition, 

combustion research, fluid motion, all those things we think if we 

can expose to the commercial companies what the unique research 

can be done in space in those areas, we think the commercial companies can then exploit that to their economic advantage and gain 

a competitive advantage over other companies that don’t take advantage of space-based research. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Okay. I don’t know if any of the other witnesses 

have any thoughts on economic benefits or benefits for our Nation 

over the next several years from the International Space Station. 

Ms. CHAPLAIN. I would just comment that the nonprofit organizations set up for the station, it is one of their goals to bring in commercial companies into the research and increase that, and that 
58 

could be beneficial, and I do recall earlier hearings here a few 

years ago where you had some commercial representatives talking 

about how they would count on the station more and more if they 

could get research up there, and they thought it would be beneficial 

to the economy. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you all very much. I yield back, Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman yields back. 

Ms. Edwards of Maryland, five minutes. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our 

witnesses. 

Mr. Gerstenmaier, I want to actually focus on an issue related 

to the 2013 budget request for ISS. It appears that NASA plans— 

the plans for utilization and research or the ISS funding in the outyears will depend in part on assumed reductions to the operations 

and maintenance costs for the ISS. It looks as though NASA 

projects those O&M costs will drop more than $400 million over the 

five-year 2013 budget horizon. Is that correct? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. I would have to look specifically at the budget numbers that you are looking at, but I think that general trend 

is there, and it is caused by when we retired the shuttle program, 

we had to redesign a lot of our spares and components. That shows 

up in the maintenance and operations budget. Once that redesign 

is complete, than that budget is no longer needed. Those spares are 

designed and they are ready to go fly. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Is that at all dependent also on the projected 

meeting of milestones by the—in the commercial cargo area? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. That reduction is separate. This is development of the hardware that those vehicles would carry, the commercial cargo providers carry that cargo to orbit. So the actual ability 

to get the cargo and spares to orbit will be dependent upon the providers, but the budget reduction comes from the fact that we are 

no longer doing non-recurring engineering or redesigning components again here on the ground. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Okay. So let me just ask you, and we have focused 

a lot in other things about the commercial cargo crew and all of 

that, but I look over the next several months actually and there are 

a number of milestones that have to be met by the commercial providers. What will be the impact on the ISS if those milestones 

aren’t met? One coming up, I think April 30th, right? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. That is correct. The SpaceX demonstration 

flight would be on April 30th. We have margin on orbit in terms 

of spares and consumables and research along with our ATV and 

HTV flights that are flying, and to last essentially about a year, so 

we can stay in the current configuration doing the number of research investigations I described earlier for roughly about a year. 

Then beyond that, we are going to have to take some action if these 

providers have not delivered any cargo during that period. So we 

have been assuming that we will get maybe one or two commercial 

cargo flights this year. The demonstration flights carry a reduced 

amount of cargo but they will also help, even the demonstration 

flights will. So if those are successful, we will be able to push that 

date out further and continue with normal operations. So we need 

something to occur within about the next year. 
59 

Ms. EDWARDS. So let me just ask this then, because I think that 

it is important to assure the committee. What is your confidence 

level in the commercial providers being able to meet those milestones including the important one in September of this year? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Again, I think within a year time frame, we 

will see the cargo providers start to make their first flights and 

then there will be some ramp-up time required for them to get 

operational and get into a pace, you know, a cadence of regular 

flights, and we have allocated some margin to go do that. You 

know, it is not a large margin but I think it is a reasonable plan 

to get that done. 

Ms. EDWARDS. So do you have a high level of confidence that 

they are going to meet those milestones this year? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. They will meet the minimum milestones 

that I just described to you. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Let me just ask you about the reliability of the 

Soyuz because we have already seen, you know, at least some problems that caused delay. There is another launch that is planned for 

May 15th. Is that on target? And if it is not, what would that mean 

then to continued on-schedule operations and crew operations on 

the ISS? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. That launch is on target. It is on schedule 

for the May 15th time frame. The Russians have talked to us about 

building another vehicle, both a cargo vehicle on their side, a 

Progress vehicle, and also Soyuz vehicle and having it in reserve 

so if a problem comes up, they would have another vehicle essentially ready to go fly in its stead if something occurred. The problem you described was in manufacturing of a Soyuz vehicle that 

was getting ready to go fly. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And so presuming that we meet that May 15th 

target for crew operations, we are fine, but if we don’t meet the 

May 15th, what would be the impact on ISS operations and research? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Again, we probably have several weeks margin to that date, and we would end up having to return the crew 

and the Soyuz vehicle at roughly the 180-day, 200-day on-orbit 

limit. When we do that, we would drop the crew size from six down 

to three and then that would result in a reduction in research 

when we make that crew size reduction. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I think that my clock started late, 

so I am not going to take that whole five minutes that is still on 

there, but I do have one last question. I am curious as to with respect to the resignation of the center’s Executive Director and particularly some of the very strong language that she used in criticizing both the political and other aspects of standing up the center 

as a nonprofit reaching out to agencies and to the private sector to 

fully utilize the ISS, whether it is really appropriate that this is 

a role for a nonprofit and how it is that that is going to be stood 

up so that we get more than 50 percent capacity in ISS usage for 

the United States. 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. It is a cooperative agreement we have with 

the nonprofit. They gave to us an annual performance plan of objectives and milestones that they were to accomplish during this 

year. I have sent them a letter and asked them to respond to us 
60 

by today or tomorrow, we will see, on what their plan is to achieve 

those milestones that we have established with them, things such 

as they are supposed to reach out and bring some investigations in, 

they are supposed to do an evaluation model, etc., that sits in 

there. So we have objective milestones that we have asked them to 

give us an extra assurance that they can actually meet those in 

light of the uncertainties and the problems that they have had during startup. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And has the GAO, Ms. Chaplain, taken a look at 

the center and whether it has the capacity, really looked deeply at 

the criticisms that were leveled on the center’s operations and its 

ability to meet those milestones? 

Ms. CHAPLAIN. No, we have not been asked to look at the center 

and how effective it is yet. I would note that the organizations that 

operate research for the other labs that we visited, they are a bit 

different than this one. They tend to be consortiums of universities 

or contractors, so it is a little different situation, probably worth 

looking at. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Maybe, Mr. Chairman, as I yield, it would be a 

great idea for us to request a look at the center’s operations because for me, the resignation of the Executive Director and the 

problems that she highlighted are really troubling with respect to 

trying to figure out a way that we make the maximum use of the 

space station and its research capacity. Thank you, and I yield. 

Chairman HALL. I agree with you, but what do you mean, take 

a look? 

Ms. EDWARDS. I mean perhaps we could ask for GAO to review 

the center, the nonprofit, the relationship that it has and the 

agreement with NASA and whether it is appropriate and prepared 

to meet the goals that have been set out so that we get more than 

50 percent utilization capacity in the ISS. 

Chairman HALL. Yeah, I want somebody to go, don’t you, to the 

station? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Yeah, I do. I want someone to go and I want experiments there, and I want more than 50 percent of—— 

Chairman HALL. I went out to the West Coast with Mr. Rohrabacher, walked through SpaceX’s place. I was impressed. I found 

a young man there with an impressive operation and high hopes. 

I came here in 1980 and I think it seemed like 1982 or 1983, something like that, Orbital was here, a company with deep pockets and 

a history of success, and now we have one going to get ready by 

September 2012 or late April of 2012. To be continued, I guess. And 

we are very hopeful that somebody is going to get there to the 

space station, and I know you are, aren’t you? Do you have any 

penalties or anything for failure of going past those times or do you 

have some expectation of that? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. As I described earlier, I talked—— 

Chairman HALL. One doesn’t have a launch in place and the 

other does. I don’t know what that adds into it. 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. The contract we have with them for an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract so we could potentially add additional flights to one that is successful if one is 

achieving and making more milestones and has the ability to deliver earlier than the other. 
61 

Chairman HALL. I recognize Mr. Rohrabacher for five minutes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that last 

suggestion that the Committee received, we ask for a GAO report 

on this. I think it is a request that we could all support and would 

be supportive of your leadership in that, Mr. Chairman. 

First and perhaps the most important question on my mind right 

now, Mr. Gerstenmaier, is, what happened to the spider? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. We will find out this fall. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. About the same time we find out 

about whether or not the commercial space crew is working or not. 

There has to be a relationship there somewhere. 

Let us see. So let me ask you this. In terms of, if we were not 

trying to go down the commercial path at all, if this commercial alternative had not been before us, would it—as compared to if it is 

successful, would it cost more for NASA to do this on its own, just 

within NASA and the Orion, etc., or would it cost less if we would 

have not gone the commercial route because of duplication that the 

chairman has mentioned? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. For commercial cargo, we were able to bring 

on the two commercial providers and so far I think it has been discussed, we spent about $1.6, $1.8 billion on that. That is significantly less than we would have spent on a typical NASA full-up development of that activity. So we have the potential to really get 

this cargo capability at dramatically less cost than we would have 

paid under our traditional contracting. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Even with the factor of, when you have competition, that means there are two different groups going and you 

are having to finance both, but even that, when you have competition in play and you have private sector cost savings in mind, that 

still gives us—if it works, and that is a big if, if it does work, that 

still means it was the right decision financially to go in that direction if it works. Okay. Because there is a lot of—Mr. Chairman, 

there is a great concern that we have more than one company involved, and I understand that, and just at first glance, it would 

look like that that is duplicative and thus it is a waste of money. 

In the private sector, we have this all the time where you have 

competition with different companies and it ends up in the long 

run if successful cost-effective for the taxpayer, and that would be 

the same way perhaps with airplane development, et cetera, et 

cetera. 

Let me ask this. So later on this year we are going to find out 

whether or not the commercial end of this strategy in terms of the 

commercial strategy of cargo is actually meeting its goal. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. That is correct. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. And then the crew would be five years 

from now, we will find that out. Is that correct? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Yes. Our current projections are 2017 for 

crew. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. So if we will know within about— 

would we know within two years whether or not the crew, the 

progress towards actually fulfilling the contract and meeting the 

deadline for crew, will we know that within two years whether they 

are on track? 
62 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Yes. We are about ready to issue a Space Act 

or award a Space Act. We received proposals for a commercial crew 

integration capability activity. That will kick off with awards potentially in July and run for a 21-month period. So by the end of 

that, we expect to have the designs at the critical design level and 

we should know whether they are making good progress or not. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Because we need a three-year notice to give 

the Russians in order for them to build a vehicle that will make 

up if the commercials fail. So we will be watching with you and we 

would appreciate you keeping us informed as to the minute as 

these things progress. 

One last thought while I have 11 seconds, or maybe I am already 

over, I am not sure, but just to note, I noticed that the European 

Space Agency, the director of the European Space Agency was talking to the Chinese about the possibility of using the Chinese spacecraft and permitting it to dock at the ISS. Mr. Chairman, for the 

record, I would like to state my strong opposition to any cooperation with the Chinese dealing with the International Space Station. 

We should not be permitting their rockets to dock. We should not 

be depending on them. We should not be in cooperation with them. 

Their rockets, after all, are the product of the greatest theft of technology in the history of mankind and they are a belligerent power 

to the safety and security and prosperity of the people of the 

United States. 

So I just want to make sure that is on the record, and I would 

hope that our folks at NASA would deeply consider that at a time 

when I know they are being pressured to try to cooperate with the 

world’s worst human rights abuser, and that is China. Thank you 

very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. I will mark that down, Rohrabacher one, China, 

nothing. 

All right. I believe everyone has had an opportunity, but I would 

open it for two minutes to anybody else that wanted to make a 

statement or had some follow-up statement here. There are just 

one, two, three of you left. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope it won’t take 

two minutes, but I would like to request that both NASA’s letters 

to CASIS and their response be given to the Committee for the 

record. Thank you. 

Chairman HALL. The gentlelady yields back. Ms. Edwards, do either of you all have questions? Okay. 

I may take a couple of minutes here to ask Mr. Gerstenmaier, 

what is the current state of negotiations with the European Space 

Agency for future Automated Transfer Vehicle, or ATV, missions 

beyond the three remaining and does NASA assume any of ATVs, 

that they are going to be available beyond 2014? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. In our latest assessment, we don’t plan on 

using ATV vehicles beyond 2014. What we have been able to do is, 

we found a more efficient way to use propellant onboard the space 

station. We were able to feather the solar ray string drag periods. 

It reduces the propellant usage. We are also able to do maneuvers 

now with space station that require no propellant usage when we 

do the maneuvers. We use control gyros to make those maneuvers. 

So that has allowed us to essentially fill up the propellant tanks 
63 

onboard space station so at this point the unique capability of the 

Automated Transfer vehicle to carry propellant is not needed. It 

also—the vehicle doesn’t have any capability to carry external 

cargo, which is important to us. So when we project forward and 

we look at it, the ATV provides us really no unique capability beyond what we can get from commercial providers so we would like 

to provide that capability through commercial providers beyond 

2015 time frame. 

We have not had any formal discussions with the Europeans. We 

have talked to them conceptually about what we just described to 

you. We need to also work that with the Russians because we are 

required to provide propellant to them. We will work that out internationally over the next year or so. We plan to have probably an 

agreement with the Europeans maybe at the end of this year. 

Chairman HALL. What is the current state of negotiations with 

the Japanese Space Agency for the future HTV missions beyond 

the five remaining? Does NASA assume any HTV capability will be 

available beyond 2016? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Again, when we look at HTV, it provides you 

a unique capability. It can carry external cargo, which is important 

to us. It also can carry batteries for us, which need to be replaced 

onboard space station. It is a much more effective vehicle to carry 

those than any of our other providers. It also has a large hatch 

where you can actually carry full research racks across the space 

station. So HTV has a lot of unique capabilities. We would like to 

have potentially approximately four HTVs from the Japanese in 

that period beyond 2015. Again, we have not had those discussions 

with the Japanese. We have told them that we would like to have 

their vehicle and continue to use it. We will have those discussions 

probably in the next year but we would be looking for somewhere 

on the order of three to four HTVs to fill out that time frame between 2015 and 2020. 

Chairman HALL. Well, thank you. 

Ms. Chaplain or General Stafford, do either of you have any concerns or statements about these statements or assumption? I will 

recognize either of you. General. 

Lieutenant General STAFFORD. Mr. Chairman, I think it is a 

positive move that Mr. Gerstenmaier described as far as starting 

talks with the Japanese for the HTV because of the large volume 

it can carry and the payload it can carry up there because if we 

are only dependent upon the commercial and we have issues there 

that the HTV could certainly fill that in and help us there. That 

could then result in adequate research. 

Chairman HALL. Ms. Chaplain, do you have any suggestions or 

to close? Ladies always get the last—— 

Ms. CHAPLAIN. The last word? I like that. 

Chairman HALL. Yes, summation. 

Ms. CHAPLAIN. I like having the last word. I think it is great if 

we could get more of them. The questions for me would be, with 

the production lines, can they be sustained that long? Are we going 

to face issues like obsolescence, things like that that you typically 

face, but the longer you can keep something you know that works 

going, the better in this case. 
64 

Chairman HALL. All right. I thank you, and I thank the witnesses for their very valuable testimony and the Members for their 

questions. Members of the Committee will have some additional 

questions for you. If we do, we will respond to you in writing and 

ask you to respond back to us in writing. The record will remain 

open for two weeks for additional comments from Members. 

The witnesses are first thanked very much for your time it took 

to get you here and the time to prepare and the time you have 

given us and the time it will take you to get back to your work station. The witnesses are excused and this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:58 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
65 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
66 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Mr. William Gerstenmaier 
67 

applied research objectives? 

ANSWER: while NASA's Space Life and Physical Sciences Research and 

Applications (SLPSRA) division acts as the liaison between the Agency and the 

Center for the Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS), SLPSRA does not 

manage CASIS or determine the research priorities for use of the International Space 

Station (ISS) as a National Laboratory; CASIS will have the responsibility for 

determining those priorities. NASA believes this will help ensure that research from 

a wide range of disciplines is carried out aboard ISS. . 

5. Given NASA inability to enforce requirements on COTS participants 

through Space Act Agreements, and given that NASA has spent over $835M 

on CRS milestone payments without successful COTS demonstrations, what 

recourse does NASA have if the initial COTS test flights are not fully 

successful? 

ANSWER: The COTS and Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) efforts are 

separate activities. The Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) 

effort is a demonstration program based on milestone payments. If a vendor does 

not meet a milestone, NASA will not pay for that milestone. It should be noted 

that 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 payments NASA has made on the CRS contracts are for long-lead items and 

milestone payments, which are typical for launch vehicle contracts. Launch 

vehicle contracts typically provide for payments incrementally prior to launch. 

a. If any of the COTS demonstrations are unsuccessful, with NASA recompete the commercial cargo program? 

ANSWER: Regarding COTS, if a partner misses a milestone, then NASA 

assesses whether the partner has in place a reasonable plan for successfully 

completing the milestone in the future. No payments are made until successful 

completion. Given the progress made by both partners to date, including the 

completion of COTS flight demonstration milestones by SpaceX, NASA does 

not plan to recompete the COTS agreements if the remaining demonstration is 

unsuccessful. 

6. Much of our discussion has focused on the capacity to get supplies and 

equipment to the ISS, but the ability to bring scientific payloads back to 

Earth is currently limited to 132 pounds on the Soyuz. Is this sufficient to 

meet the needs of the research community? 

ANSWER: On the return trip to Earth from the recent COTS demonstration 

mission, the SpaceX Dragon capsule carried science experiments that will be 
68 

returned to researchers hoping to gain new insights provided by the unique 

micro gravity environment in the station's laboratories. In addition to the 

experiments, Dragon returned a total of 1,367 pounds of hardware and cargo no 

longer nee.ded aboard the Station. NASA anticipates that SpaceXDragon 

spacecraft will continue to provide the dOWnmass required to meet the needs of 

the research community through the terms of the current contract. Follow-on 

CRS contracts will also include downmass services to meet the needs of the U.S. 

Operating Segment (USOS). The USOS is currently staging return research on 

ISS until Dragon is available to return the cargo. 

a. How much mass is the Dragon capsule expected to bring back and wiD 

this provide enough down-mass to serve the intended community? 

ANSWER: The Dragon capsule is expected to return approximately 1,400 

kilograms (3086 Ibs) of downmass. At a projected 3 flights per year, the 

expected return capability is sufficient to meet all ISS projected return 

requirements. 

b. Please provide the anticipated downmass requirements for the 2012-2020 

timeframe. 

ANSWER: The anticipated recoverable downmass requirement forISS is an 

average of 2,200 kilograms (4850 lbs) per year for the years 2012-2020. 

7. The GAO report from last year suggests a shortfall of launch capacity to 

meet the requirements ofthe ISS. IClaunch capacity is diminished for any 

reason, or contingency maintenance increases, where do the offsets come 

from? 

ANSWER: ISS utilization is a high priority for NASA and its partners. 

However, if launch capacity is diminished or contingency maintenance increases, 

NASA and its partners would have to reduce upmass dedicated to research in 

order to ensure continued Station operations. 

a. How does NASA prioritize the supply and maintenance needs with the 

research needs? . 

ANSWER: NASA and its International Partners would coordinate to ensure that 

critical maintenance and operations ntieds are met. Each Partner would 

determine its own research priorities based on its share of the remaining upmass, 

and CASIS would determine the priorities of National Laboratory research based 

on its own allocation. 

8. What steps is NASA taking to reduce the sparing and utilization demand of 

the ISS between now and 2020? 

ANSWER: Thanks to Space Shuttle missions STS-134 and -135, the ISS has 
69 

been well provisioned in terms of spares and supplies, and as the CRS providers' 

vehicles become available, ISS sparing and utilization demands will be met. At 

the same time, NASA and its partners are working to reduce these demands by 

conserving resources on orbit. One example is the increased use of the Station's 

Control Moment Gyros to change the attitude of the vehicle, reducing the 

consumption of propellant by the ISS. 

9. How is NASA's expertise being shared and used by the National Lab 

researchers? 

ANSWER: Several technical interchange meetings have been held between 

CASIS management and NASA field center personnel to provide CASIS with 

information on NASA capabilities that may be of use to National Lab 

researchers. CASIS is also identifYing "implementation partners," organizations 

offering services in research payload design and development to National Lab 

researchers. These organizations have typically acquired their expertise through 

experience as NASA contractors and participation in the NASA SBIR program. 

a. Please provide some examples of the ways NASA is working to make 

experiments more autonomous to require less up mass and downmass. 

ANSWER: A number of experiments on ISS are already autonomous or 

ground-controlled (the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer is an example of the 

former). NASA is working on ways to downlink highly detailed information 

about research results to ground-based scientists to minimize the need to return 

actual experimental samples to Earth, thus reducing downmass requirements. 

Laboratory analysis techniques are being developed that can be used to perform 

tests on biological specimens on the ISS and thus reduce the number of samples 

that have to be returned to Earth for analysis. The Agency is also taking 

advantage of smaller, lighter experiments in order to decrease upmass 

requirements and increase the amount of research that can be done on ISS. 

10. What is the current state of negotiations with the European Space Agency 

. for future ATV missions beyond the three remaining, and does NASA 

assume any ATV s will be available beyond 2014? 

ANSWER: NASA does not require Automated Transfer Vehicles (ATVs) 

beyond #5, which will be flown in 2014, and is in early discussions with ESA to 

provide an alternative barter acceptable to NASA and ESA. 

a. What is the current state of negotiations with the Japanese Space Agency 

for future HTV (H-II Transfer Vehicle) missions beyond the five 

remaining, and does NASA assume any HTVs capabilities will be 

available beyond 2016? 

ANSWER: NASA is planning to discuss its needs for future HTVmissions with 

the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) as part of its barter 

arrangement negotiations. 
70 

b. What amount of domestic commercial capacity does NASA assume with 

be available in each year from 2012 thru 2016? 

ANSWER: NASA anticipates 1-2 commercial cargo flights in FY 2012, and 4-5 

per year from FY 2013 through FY 2016, with delivery of a minimum of 20 

metric tons of cargo to the ISS, as well as the return or disposal of 3 metric tons 

of cargo, during that time period. The Agency will have to negotiate for 

commercial cargo resupply after FY 2016. 

11. According to GAO's testimony, in 2011 NASA anticipated 56 flights to the 

ISS between 2012 and 2020 and would likely be at risk of a shortfall to cover 

all of the national laboratory demands and margin for unforeseen 

maintenance. However, in March NASA told GAO that in spite of 

decreasing the anticipated flights to 51, NASA is no longer projecting a 

cargo shortfall. What changes have occurred to cause NASA to reduce the 

number of flights without having any impact on estimated cargo needs? 

ANSWER: The main factors influencing NASA's cargo requirements 

projection are: 1) equipment on board ISS is lasting longer than originally 

anticipated; and 2) the Agency's conservation efforts have enabled a reduction in 

the projected fuel requirements for ISS. 

12. How is NASA coordinating with the new National Lab management entity, 

and are there management issues or NASA funding constraints that could 

limit or restrict the ability to fully utilize the ISS National Lab? 

ANSWER: NASA coordinates with CASIS, the ISS National Laboratory 

management organization, through the ISS Program Office and the Human 

Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate. CASIS coordinates its flight 

planning, payload development, and research operations with the ISS Program 

Office, and its strategic guidance, management policies, and program planning 

with HEOMD. NASA is not aware of any management issues or funding 

constraints that could limit or restrict the ability to fully utilize the ISS National 

Lab. 

13. Who pays for the launch costs for experiments that are flown by the 

academic institutions and other non-NASA researchers? 

ANSWER: NASA will pay for the launch costs of experiments flown by 

academic institutions and other non-NASA researchers involved in the ISS 

National Laboratory. 

a. If CASIS is successful in increasing the research demand on the ISS, 

what impact if any would that have on NASA's budget? 

ANSWER: NASA's budget 8lready assumes that the Agency will pay for 

launch and on-orbit utilities costs for the users of the ISS research capacity 
71 

allocated to the National Laboratory, as managed by CASIS. NASA will take 

into account the demand for access to ISS in determining future budgets for 

research. 

14. GAO's written testimony noted that NASA has developed a method and 

statistical process to determine the expected lifetimes of replacement parts. 

Are ISS critical spare parts already in inventory so they could be available 

on short notice (assuming there is rocket to carry them), or are there critical 

spares that do not exist yet that will be funded in future budgets? If so, what 

are those? 

ANSWER: NASA has spare Orbital Replacement Units (ORU's) either onorbit, in inventory on the ground, or in the procurement process for all systems to 

meet safe operations to 2020 based on the current models for life expectancy, 

except for one. NASA is in the process of evaluating the cause of the ammonia 

pump failure that occurred in August 2010. If the cause of the failure is 

determined to be systematio, the 3 replacement ORU's currently on-orbit are 

likely to be insufficient to meet safe operations to 2020. If the cause is 

determined to be a unique event, the current ORU's on-orbit would be sufficient. 

If the cause is systematic, NASA would evaluate ifit would be cost-effective to 

build and manifest the same design, or if it would be more cost-effective to 

design and build a new configuration. In either case NASA is evaluating 

whether or not the current pump package or a new configuration could be 

accommodated on currently available cargo vehicles. 

15. To what extent do NASA's research requirements impact or constrain the 

operations and management ofthe ISS National Laboratory? 

ANSWER: At present, there are no resource conflicts between NASA research 

resource requirements and ISS National Laboratory utilization. 

a. How will NASA allocate the capacity on cargo flights to prioritize 

between NASA's own research needs and those of the ISS National Lab? 

ANSWER: NASA develops and integrates the cargo manifest across the 

partnership and across the multiple partner cargo vehicles including Progress, 

ATV and HTV. NASA is also beginning to develop and integrate the manifest 

for the upcoming SpaceX and Orbital CRS missions. NASA takes into 

consideration actual on-orbit needs and performance as well as increment science 

priorities as established by the COUP (Consolidated Operations and Utilization 

Plan). These needs and requirements are then balanced against the flight 

readiness and capabilities of the individual flight vehicles. NASA works across 

the partnership and science stakeholders, including National Lab users, to ensure 

that their needs and priorities are being met. 

16. NASA's testimony reveals that the agency no longer assumes the availability 

of the European Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) after 2014. Since the A 

TV has been used to carry propellants how does NASA plan to do without 
72 

this capability? 

ANSWER: NASA does not require the capabilities of the ATV after 2014, and 

the remaining ATVs to be flown to ISS will supply the Station's propellant 

needs. After that, the ISS partnership will use Russian Progress cargo vehicles to 

deliver propellant to the ISS and to conduct ISS reboosts. 

a. The European contribution to ISS amounts to 8.3 percent, so ifESA 

doesn't provide ATV after 2014 what type of contribution will ESA 

make? 

ANSWER: NASA is in early discussion with ESA to provide an alternative 

barter acceptable to NASA and ESA. 

17. Since crew availability as a significant constraint to the productivity of the 

ISS National Laboratory, how does NASA plan to address this constraint, 

and how significant will it be going forward? 

ANSWER: Even with six crewmembers aboard ISS, crew availability is a 

constraint on research. NASA and its partners are working to decrease the 

amount of crew time required to conduct experiments by using crewtime more 

efficiently, by increasing the autonomy of the experiments, and by enabling 

ground-based scientists to conduct their research through improved downlinks 

and uplinks with ISS. The ISS Program Manger has made using crew time for 

research the highest priority, and now requires justifications for operations and 

maintenance activities that would impact crew time for research. To the 

maximum extent practical, "housekeeping" systems involving redundant tasks 

are being automated to reduce crew time requirements and free up additional 

crew time for research. Finally, the ISS Program is examining options for 

evolving to a seven-person crew in the future so the additional crew time can be 

made available to support research. 

18. Are there critical spares or other components that are too big and heavy for 

the capabilities being contemplated by the CRS(Commercial Resupply 

Service) providers? 

a. If so, please list them, and describe the contingency plans NASA has to 

ensure the overall health of the ISS thru 2020? 

ANSWER: With the exception of a replacement radiator and batteries, all other 

critical spares that might be required by ISS can be launched with the eRS 

vehicles, and the heavy batteries that might be required for Station can be 

launched externally on Japanese HTV s. Even in the case of the radiator,NASA 

is reviewing the prospects for breaking the radiator into component pieces that 

can be launched on separate vehicles. 

b. If necessary, could the ATV (Automated Transfer Vehicle) or HTV (H-
73 

11 Transfer Vehicle) or Progress vehicles carry the largest and heaviest 

components? 

ANSWER: Please see response above. 

19. Do the Russians have the industrial capacity to produce additional launch 

systems after 2016 to satisfy crew transportation demand if commercial 

crew systems or the Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion are not ready? 

ANSWER: The Russians have the industrial capacity to produce additional 

launch systems after 2016 to satisfY crew transportation demand ifU.S. systems 

are not ready, though NASA would have to provide notice well in advance of the 

intended launch time frame in order to ensure the availability of the Soyuz 

spacecraft. . 

20. When would NASA and the international partners need to decide on 

extending the life of the ISS? 

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. 

a. Please describe the actions that would be necessary in the next few years 

to enable NASA to extend the ISS beyond 2020. 

ANSWER: NASA is currently looking at the technical feasibility of extending 

the life of the ISS beyond 2020; this effort is aided as the commercIal partners 

continue to gain on-orbit experience with the Station's structure and systems. In 

addition to certifYing ISS' systems to operate beyond 2020, the decision to 

extend the life of the vehicle would require multilateral agreement among the 

Station partners. If the ISS is extended, NASA would prefer to have 

procurements in place by the end of FY 2017. 
74 

Questions for William Gerstenmaier 

FroiD. Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson 

March 28, 2012 Hearing on 

Securing the Promise of the ISS~Challenges and Opportunities. 

1. Given the limited resources we have available, we need to better 

understand our national objectives in using the ISS. 

a. What are NASA's three highest priority objectives for utilizing 

the ISS before 2020 and what is the status of your progress on 

meeting those objectives? 

ANSWER: NASA's highest priorities for utilizing the ISS are (1) meeting 

international commitments so that all International Partners succeed in 

advancing research that benefits humanity, (2) NASA's exploration mission 

driven research in biophysical sciences and spacecraft technology, and (3) 

applied research in the U.S. national interest that demonstrates the practical 

benefits of orbital space stations. 

The recent "International Space Station Benefits for Humanity" publication 

(http://www.nasa.gov /mission pages/station/research/benefits/index.html) 

highlights the partnership's progress in using the ISS to improve life on Earth 

in the areas of human health, Earth observation and global education. 

NASA's exploration driven research encompasses both the human research 

program, which is steadily addressing the risks associated with future human 

exploration (see question 3), and the technology development program, . 

which is utilizing the ISS to demonstrate enhanced communications, 

environmental control and life support, power and propUlsion, advanced 

materials and visiting vehicle technologies. Finally, theISS as a National 

Laboratory provides space-based opportunities for advancing the nation's 

basic and applied science and technology interests to other U.S. government 

agencies, university-based researchers and private firms. 

b. How is NASA managing ISS constraints and resources to meet 

those objectives? 

ANSWER: NASA integrates the utilization requirements across the ISS 

partnership and works with science stakeholders, including National Lab 

users, to ensure that their needs and priorities are being met. within the 

available resources. Even with six crewmembers aboard ISS, crew 

availability is a constraint on research. NASA and its partners are working to 

decrease the amount of crew time required to conduct experiments by using 

crewtime more efficiently, by increasing. the autonomy of the experiments, 

and by enabling ground-based scientists to conduct their research through· 

. improved downlinks and uplinks with ISS. Biomedical research on human 

. health and performance in space uses the majority of the available crew time, 

not only because it is the highest priority research on the ISS, but also 

because in biomedical research, the crew is both the investigator and the 

subject. Recent agreements with our ISS partners to share access to 
75 

crewmembers, as subjects for biomedical research, and data from biomedical 

investigations will enable increased efficiency in the use of on orbit 

crewtime. 

In addition, the ISS Program Manger has made using crew time for research 

the highest priority, and now requires justifications for operations and 

maintenance activities that would impact crew time for research. To the 

maximum extent practical, "housekeeping" systems involving redundant 

tasks are being automated to reduce crew time requirements and free up 

additional crew time for research. Finally, the ISS Program is examining 

options for evolving to a seven-person crew in the future so the additional 

crew time can be made available to support research. 

c. Is there an overarching strategy that maps the experiments to 

human exploration mission requirements or priority scientific 

objectives? 

ANSWER: The Human Research Program has developed an overarching 

space human health risk architecture that focuses its research on the highest 

risks associated with future human exploration missions. Crew health and 

performance is critical to successful human exploration beyond low Earth 

orbit. The Human Research Program (HRP) investigates and mitigates the 

highest risks to human health and performance, providing essential 

countermeasures and technologies for human space exploration. Risks 

include physiological effects from radiation, hypogravity, arid terrestrial 

environments, as well as unique challenges-in medical support, human 

factors, and behavioral health support. The HRP utilizes an Integrated 

Research Plan (IRP) to identify the approach and research activities planned 

to address these risks, which are assigned to specific Elements within the 

program. The Human Research Roadmap is the web-based. tool for 

communicating the IRP content (http://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.govl). 

2. What the government pays for commercial crew and any additional 

cargo services in the latter part of the decade will also have a bearing on 

funds available for research, assuming total ISS costs continne at about 

the same funding level. What funding level is NASA assuming in the FY 

2013 budget plan for commercial crew and cargo costs in FY 2016 and 

beyond? 

ANSWER: In the President's FY 2013 Budget Request, the ISS Crew and 

Cargo Transportation is notionally budgeted in the ISS Program, under the 

Space Operations account, at$1.8B in FY 2016 and $1.9B in FY 2017 (the 

final year of the 5-year budget runout). In addition, the Commercial Crew 

Program, under the Exploration account, is notionally budgeted at $829.7M 

per year from FY 2013 through FY 2017. 

What analysis are the commercial crew and cargo costs beyond FY 2016 

based upon, given none of the commercial systems have yet flown? ' 
76 

ANSWER: In order to reduce program risk, NASA has budgeted for commercial 

crew seats using the current Soyuz contract as a basis of estimate. There 

continues to be a lot of uncertainty regarding the ultimate. commercial crew seat 

cost since this program is in the early stages of development and there are a wide 

variety of potential providers with different approaches. This approach to 

budgeting for commercial crew seats protects NASA should commercial crew be 

delayed and provides flexibility to address the uncertainty in costs. The current 

Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contract was used as a basis of estimate for 

cargo transportation in FY 2016 and beyond. 

3. In 2007, NASA prepared a Human Research Plan for the ISS that identified 

key risks and the anticipated timeframe required from the ISS to address the 

risk and validate countermeasures. . 

a. What is the status of retiring the risks identified in that 2007 plan? 

Have you updated it? . 

ANSWER: NASA has implemented the ISS flight studies identified in the 2007 

plan and made significant progress understanding and mitigating the health risks 

associated human space flight. Significantly, NASA has made progress in the 

following areas: 1). understanding how to manage space-induced bone and muscle 

loss by using new exercise protocols and pharmaceutical and nutritional 

countermeasures; 2) behavioral and performance risks associated with sleep 

disruptions and monitoring of crewmember alertness; 3) demonstrating 

exploration medical capability including in-flight IV fluids production; 4) 

management of crewmember orthostatic intolerance; 5) added new ISS 

biomedical capabilities including the second-generation ultrasound for medical 

imaging, the urine monitoring system, the jointly developed ESAINASA muscle 

atrophy research and exercise system, and Portable Pulmonary Function System; 

and 6) identified a significant health risk visual impairment/intracranial press 

(VIIP) that has been already incorporated into future ISS flight plans. 

Since the 2007 Human Research Plan, HRP has completed and started the 

following ISS flight experiments: 

Completed 

• ISS Urine Monitoring System (UMS) 

• ISS Ultrasound 2 to provide high-resolution biomedical images 

• Evaluation of Commercial Compression Garments to Prevent Post-Spaceflight 

• Orthostatic Intolerance 

• Sleep-Wake Actigraphy and Light Exposure During Spaceflight 

• Behavioral Issues Associated with Long Duration Space Expeditions: Review 

and Analysis of Astronaut Journals 

• Spinal Elongation and Its Effects on Seated Height in a Microgravity 
77 

Environment 

Surface, Water, and Air Biocharacterization- A Comprehensive 

Characterization of Microorganisms and Allergens in Spacecraft 

Enviroriment 

• Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Control on Return from ISS (NASA 

managed and implementation in agreement with CSA) 

• Intravenous Fluid Generation for Exploration Missions 

Started and On-going 

• Cardiac Atrophy and Diastolic Dysfunction During and After Long 

Duration 

• Spaceflight: Functional Consequences for Orthostatic Intolerance, 

Exercise 

Capacity, and Risk.of Cardiac Arrhythmias 

Maximal Oxygen Uptake During Long Duration International Space 

Station Missions 

• Bisphosphonates as a Countermeasure to Space Flight Induced Bone Loss 

• Validation of Procedures for Monitoring Crewmember Immune Function 

• Nutritional Status Assessment 

• Physiological Factors Contributing to Changes in Post-Flight Functional 

Performance 

An Integrated Resistance and Aerobic Training Study for the Validation 

of an 

Exercise Countermeasures Regimens Aboard the International Space 

Station 

• Biomechanical Analysis of Treadmill Exercise on the International Space 

Station 

Dietary Intake Can Predict and Protect Against Changes in Bone 

Metabolism During Spaceflight and Recovery 

Currently, HRP is conducting 14-16 studies per increment with an additional 

5-6 experiments in defmition phase being prepared for flight. Results are 

made available as soon as practical, given the investigator's right to publish. 

Results are published in technical journals, NASA technlcal publications, and 

the HRP Evidence Books. In FY 2011, NASA flew 11 major medical 

experiments to optimize exercise, nutrition and sleep to evaluate the immune 

system and other human health areas to make exploration missions healthier, 

safer, and more productive. NASA completed two of these ISS research 

studies and initiated three new studies. 

NASA is continually updating both its strategic and tactical ISS flight plans 

to optimize ISS experiment throughput and maximize crew participation in 

biomedical flight experiments. The HRP strategic flight plans associated 

with each risk area are contained in the Integrated Research Plan (IRP). The 

IRP is available via the Human Research Roadmap 

(http://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.govD and is updated on a yearly basis. 
78 

The tactical ISS flight plans list the current and planned hlUllan research 

experiments that will be undertaken in each IS S increment and is updated 

continually throughout the year. The tactical ISS flight plans, or ISS Fly-Off 

plan, is available at the ISS Medical Project website 

(http://www.nasa. gov/explorationlhlUllanresearchi elements/research info ele 

ment-issmp.html). 

b. Do you have similar plans and timelines for technology 

development and scientific research? If not, why not? 

ANSWER: NASA's FlRP maintains a comprehensive research plan, called 

the Integrated Research Plan (IRP), which includes both flight and ground 

experiments and facilities. The IRP is available via the HlUllan Research 

Roadmap (http://hlUllanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/). The Integrated 

Research Plan lays out for the scientific community the expected progression 

of research and technology tasks intended to address critical questions that 

must be answered to quantify the risks or develop mitigation strategies for the 

risks as they relates to the overall exploration mission campaign plans. The 

HRP research and technology activities are performed on ISS either because 

there are no effective ground-based analog environments to conduct the work 

on Earth, or the research activity needs the complete operational environment 

of space flight to validate the countermeasure or technology. The ISS is 

necessary to mitigate 22 of the 31 hlUllan health risks in the HRP portfolio. 

4. I understand that NASA is encouraging prospective researchers using 

the Station to develop experiments that can be performed autonomously 

and do not require crew intervention and participation. Since these 

researchers are likely to be more knowledgeable in their own field than 

on automated support technology, what is NASA doing to assist in 

transferring its knowledge of automated support mechanisms to the 

research community? 

ANSWER: Extensive automation of flight experiments does require more 

complex designs and more expensive experiment systems. To date, NASA 

has accommodated ISS investigators primarily in NASA-built experiment 

systems. As the ISS National Laboratory concept matures, the capabilities of 

the payload development contractors who plan to support on-orbit research 

will need to evolve to build more complex experiments. NASA and the ISS 

National Laboratory management organization, the Center for the 

Advancement of Science in Space, are holding information exchange 

meetings to identify resources and establish interfaces that will enable 

National Laboratory participants to access the expertise available at NASA 

field centers .. 

5. GAO reported last December that NASA had not attempted to develop 

techniques or equipment to conduct x-ray or sonographic inspcction of 

the ISS because doing so would be expensive, impractical, or both. Can 

you elaborate on the size of those costs and what makes them 
79 

impractical? 

ANSWER: During NASA's investigation into methods for evaluating the 

ISS structural components, it became clear that methods such as x-ray or 

sonographic inspection would entail removal ofISS ORO's and other 

equipment from the base structure in order to accommodate inspection 

devices. This was deemed impractical and cost prohibitive, as the ISS was 

not designed to be stripped of its equipment on-orbit and inspected by such 

means. As a result, NASA has employed thorough analytical methods to 

assess structural life. 
80 

Questions for William Gerstenmaier 

From Congressman Dana Rohrabacher 

March 28,2012 Hearing on 

Securing the Promise of the ISS-Challenges and Opportunities 

1. Given that grants to U.S. universities are the primary mechanism for 

funding peer-reviewed biological and physical science research, why out 

of$3B operations budget for FY 2012 is only $9.6M being used for 

grants and principal investigator support? 

ANSWER: The total FY 2013 budget request for ISS is $3.0B, full cost. 

Less than half of the FY 2013 ISS budget, $1,493.5M, is for ISS Systems 

Operations and Maintenance. The ISS Crew and Cargo Transportation 

budget is $1,284.8M. The remaining budget of$229.3M is for ISS Research 

and includes three major categories: Multi-User System Support{MUSS), 

the Non-Profit Organization (NPO), and biological and physical research. 

The MUSS budget, $154.0M, provides strategic, tactical, and operational 

support to all the NASA sponsored payloads and non-NASA sponsored 

payloads, including international partner research payloads. This budget 

incorporates maintenance and operation of the ISS research infrastructure, 

including research integration, payload engineering, payload integration, 

payload operations payload systems support etc. The $15M NPO budget 

supports the Center for the Advancement. of Science in Space C CASIS) and 

will likely also fund some grant activity. The biological and physical 

research budget, $60.3M, is comprised of grants, principal investigator 

funding and grant support such as hardware development, civil servant and 

contractor labor, and other activities required of the grantees in order to 

conduct their research on ISS. Of the $60.3M for biological and physical 

research, approximately $15M is being applied to grants and principal 

investigator support in FY 2013. 

There are several other budgets outside ofISS which also contribute to 

research and technology demonstrations on ISS. For example, NASA's 

Human Research Program is providing approximately $30M in ISS research 

support. The Office of Chief Technologist (OCT), Advanced Exploration 

Systems CAES), and Space Communications, and Navigation (SCaN) are also 

funding technology activities which will ultimately be demonstrated on ISS. 

It should also be noted that the experience of maintaining and operating.a 

system such as ISS is, in and of itself,providing valuable research for future 

exploration missions. 

2. In NASA's FY 2013 ISS budget, how much is allocated for biological and 

physical research university grants, and how does that compare with FY 

2012? 

ANSWER: The biological and physical research budget in FY 2012 is 

$58.3M (excluding MUSS and NPO), and approximately $12M will be 
81 

awarded directly for grants. The planned biological and physical research 

budget for FY 2013 is $60.3M, of which ~$15M will be awarded in grants. 

3. What is the rationale for managing Biological and PhysiCal Research as 

part of the ISS operations budget? 

ANSWER: The near tenn strategic goal ofISS Research is to conduct a 

program of scientific research endorsed by the research community and 

focused on the accomplishment of outstanding scientific objectives. ISS 

biological and physical research is dependent on ISS operatioris for success. 

The Space Life and Physical Sciences, Research and Applications (SLPSRA) 

Division has management of biological and physical research and the ISS 

program has the responsibility for operating the vehicle and managing ISS 

utilization for NASA and its partners. Retaining the ISS biological and 

physical research budget within the overall ISS budget is reflective of this 

symbiotic relationship and supports collaboration between the two offices. 
82 

Questions for William Gerstenmaier 

From Congressman Randy Neugebauer 

March 28, 2012 Hearing on 

Securing the Promise of the ISS-Challenges and Opportunities 

1. Ifcurrent projections and timelines for commercial crew and Orion do 

not pan out, will we still be relying on Russian Soyuz after 2016? Do we 

have a guarantee that the Soyuz will be operational at that time? 

ANSWER: If U.S. commercial vehicles and Orion :MPCV are unavailable 

beyond 2016, then NASA would continue to purchase Soyuz seats for crew 

transportation and rescue purposes, as the agency has been doing for several 

years, assuming appropriate INKSNA modification and pending sufficient 

contracting lead time. NASA anticipates that Soyuz vehicles will still be 

operational at that time; they continue to be the Russians' only crew-carrying 

spacecraft. . 

a. What consideration has NASA taken in the potential for a change 

in agreements with the Russians based on geopolitical tension or 

frayed international relations? 

ANSWER: The Russianshave proven to be very reliable partners in the ISS 

Program; their efforts to provide additional Soyuz transportation in the 

aftermath of the 2003 Columbia Shuttle accident enabled the partnership to 

continue operating the Station. However, the continuing reliance of the U.S. 

on an international partner for crew transportation and rescue services 

underscores the importance of developing domestic commercial crew 

services as soon as possible. . 

2. What are your projections, assessments, and predictions for the future of 

the ISS past its current timeframe of2020? 

ANSWER: NASA is currently looking at the technical feasibility of 

extending the life of the ISS beyond 2020 - possibly to 2028. This effort is 

aided as the partners continue to gain on-orbit experience with the Station's 

structure and systems. In addition to certifying ISS' systems to operate 

beyond 2020, the decision to extend i:he life of the vehicle would require 

multilateral agreement among the Station partners. 
83 

Questions for William Gerstenmaier 

From Congressman Brad Miller 

March 28, 2012 Hearing on 

Securing the Promise of the ISS-Challenges and Opportunities 

1. In February, the executive director of CAS IS (Dr. Jeanne L. Becker) resigned 

from her position citing serious concerns regarding the relationship of 

ProOrbis, a for profit consulting firm, with CASIS. She cited pressure from 

some NASA officials, an unnamed congressional staffer and Space Florida 

board members for CASIS to pursue engagements with ProOrbis. This was 

despite a legal opinion from CASIS's attorneys stating that CASIS's continued 

involvement with ProOrbis could jeopardize CASIS'snon-profit status. These 

are very serious allegations. 

a. What NASA has done to look into these allegations? 

ANSWER: NASA's Office of the Inspector General is reviewing this matter. 

b. Has NASA contacted the NASA IG about this? 

ANSWER: NASA is aware that the NASA IG is reviewing aspects of the CASIS 

cooperative agreement and is providing all requested information to the IG. 

c. CASIS was hired by NASA to manage the U.S. National Laboratory on 

the ISS. Can you provide us with any insight into why NASA or other 

interested parties would interfere with CASIS's ability to carry out its 

duties to manage the ISS Laboratory or attempt to interfere with the 

organization's ability to carry out its mission? 

ANSWER: NASA fully supports CASIS' management of the National 

Laboratory aspects of the ISS and looks forward to transitioning the existing 

National Lab Memoranda of Understanding and Space Act Agreements over to 

CASTS. 

d. What is NASA's legal opinion as to whether having Pro Orbis involved 

with CASIS is a conflict-of-interest? 

ANSWER: Based on the known facts, NASA is not aware of any organizational 

conflicts of interest. Civil servants prepared the Cooperative Agreement 

Notice. Although ProOrbis prepared the reference model, this information was 

publicly available and proposers could elect to adopt portions of the .reference 

model and/or include ProOrbis as a team member in their proposal. 

e. Is there anything else you can add about how NASA is handling this 

situation, ensuring that these allegations are investigated thoroughly and 

helping CASIS gets back on track quickly? 

ANSWER: NASA is working to ensure that CASIS continues to move forward 
84 

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 

Headquarters 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

March 21, 2012 

Reply to Attn of, Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate 

Mr. Frank DiBello 

President and CEO 

Space Florida 

P.O. Box 656 

Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 

Re: Response to Mr. Frank DiBello regarding Notification of Actions Following 

Dr. Becker's Resignation 

Mr. DiBello: 

Thank you for the explanation of the actions the interim board anticipates taking as a result of 

Dr. Becker's resignation as the Executive Director of Center for the Advancement of Science 

in Space (CASIS). According to your plan, the Board had established an Executive Office of 

the Chairman within CASIS, and has asked Mr. Jim Royston to serve as the Interim Executive 

Director. Nevertheless, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has 

seve~ concerns that must be mutually addressed. Continuation of the cooperative agreement 

is dependent upon demonstrated perfonnance Wlder the agreement. 

Section 4.1 of the Cooperative Agreement defines the Executive Director of CASIS as the 

Principal Investigator (PI) for this agreement. Section 4.7 of the Cooperative Agreement 

provides that "significantly reduced availability of the services of the PI named in the grant 

could be groWld for tennination, unless alternative arrangements are made and approved in 

writing by the Grant Officer." In addition to approving a change in the PI, the NASA Grants 

Officer must approve the alternative arrangements made by the CASIS interim board during 

this transition period. The specific clauses of the cooperative agreement are copied below. 

Moreover,.the functions identified in the Cooperative Agreement and the milestones in the 

Annual Program Plan (APP) are critical given the limited amount of time remaining to do 

research on the International Space Station (ISS). NASA would like assurances from the 

Board that CASIS will be able to meet the milestones in the APP. The agency also requests 

the interim board explain in writing how these milestones will be met. 

Additionally, per the NASA Authorization Act of2010, "the cooperative agreement shall 

requlre the organization entering into the agreement to engage exclusively in activities 

relating to the management of the ISS National Laboratory ... , without any other 

organizational objectives or responsibilities on behalf of the organization or any parent 

organization or other Entity." Your interim plan appears to involve the efforts of a member of 
85 

the interim CASIS Board of Directors in the daily operations of CASIS. Depending on the 

authority of this position, this may create a conflict of interest with the fiduciary 

responsibilities of the Board to oversee CASIS. You have explained verbally how this 

apparent conflict of interest can be resolved. This needs to be documented in writing and sent 

to the grants officer for evaluation. 

NASA's primary focus for CASIS is to increase value to the nation by utilization of the ISS 

for other than NASA sponsored research. I appreciate the recent discussions and interactions, 

and request that you follow up those discussions with Bradley Carpenter and the Grant 

Officer by written formal response to the topics raised in this letter by March 28, 2012. 

Sincerely, 

William H. Gersterunaler 

Associate Administrator 

for Human Exploration and Operatious 

Enclosure 
86 

From NASA Cooperative Agreement NNHll CD70A dated August 31, 2011. 

4.1 General Definitions 

4.1.1 "Principallnvestigator" shall be deemed to mean "Executive Director" for purposes of this 

Cooperative Agreement. 

4.7 CHANGE IN PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR OR SCOPE (OCTOBER 2000) 11260.25} 

(a) The Recipient shall-llbtain the approval ofthe NASA Grant Officer for a change of the Principal 

Investigator, or for a significant al?sence of the Principal Investigator from the project, defined as a 

three month absence from the program or a 25 percent reduction in time devoted to the project. 

Significantly reduced availability of the services of the Principal Investigator(s) named in the grant 

instrument could be grounds for termination, unless alternative arrangaments are made and approved 

in writing by the Grant Officer. 

(b) Prior written approval is required from NASA if there is to be a significant change in the objective 

or scope. 
87 

Omt,.. for thiJ AOO'W>ll1u",t of 

SCIENCE IN SPACE 

March 28, 2012 

Mr. Bradley Carpenter 

Grant Officer - CASIS Cooperative Agreement 

Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Headquarters 

Washington, DC 20546·0001 

Re: Formal Response to the topics raised in your Response to Me Frank DiBello regarding Notification of Actions 

Followjng Dr. Becker's Resignation dated March 21, 2012. 

Mr. Carpenter: 

Thank you for your quick and concise response to our explanation of the actions taken and proposed by the 

Interim Board following Dr. Becker's resignation as the Executive Director of the Center for the Advancement of 

Science in Space (CASIS). With this formal response, the interim board addresses the several concerns raised by 

NASA in the referenced Jetter, and to which we concur, must be mutually addressed. 

The Interim Board understands that continuation of the Cooperative Agreement is dependent upon demonstrated 

performance under the agreement We, also, understand that the Cooperative Agreement defines the Executive 

Director of CASIS as the Principal Investigator (PI) for this agreement and that in addition to approving a change in 

the PI, the NASA Grants Officer must approve the alternative arrangements made by the CASIS Interim Board 

during this transition period. This approval must be in writing by the Grant Officer. 

Respective to the preceding paragraph we request formal approval from you of our action to have Mr. Jim Royston 

assume duties as the Interim Executive Director for a limited period, during which a nationwide search is being 

conducted to select a permanent Executive Director. Mr. Royston will fulfill these duties as a full time employee of 

CASIS reporting to the Board. Once a permanent Executive Director is selected, Mr. Royston will return to his 

former duties as the Director of Strategy & Planning. 

We do wish to modify our proposed action of creating an Executive Office of the Chairman within CAS IS. Given the 

benefit of further discussions and evaluation of the need to provide additional capacity within CAStS management, 

we no longer see the benefit to create such an office given that in-place management has organized to make up for 

their recent loss of personnel and has added sufficient additional resources with appropriate management and 

scientific credentials. We therefore withdraw the proposal of assigning a member of the Interim Board with daily 

advisory operational duties within CASIS. 

In addition, we believe it is a benefit to the management of CAStS both in appearance and in fact, that we seek to 

transition the CASIS Interim Board to a more independent membership profile in the spirit of the Reference Model 

as soon as is practical, while the formal selection process for the initial Permanent Board is in process. Specifically, 

we propose that, in consultation with you, we would replace current members Ms. Denise Swanson and Mr. 

Howard Haug with new qualified individuals with strong experience and backgrounds that would match the 

profiles of a managing member and a scientific member. If you concur, we will communicate with you and keep you 

informed of our progress with this action. 

Lastly, we agree that the functions identified in the Cooperative Agreement and the milestones in the Annual 

Program Plan (APP) are critical and, based on our review of performance to date, we believe that CASIS will be able 

to meet the milestones defined in the APP for this reporting period. 

B.641.7l97 ................ 

_, """,,1J"_LobonooDoy' ~""""c...a-.fL32II'l9 

1000 Fradas......SWIo 1950A • _lXTIOOIJ 
88 

cQASIS· Om,,,. for tf<r. Adoo"''''m",,' <if 

SCIENCE IN SPACE 

The following are key elements of performance that we will report on at the end of the initial first two quarters of 

operation. In general, they represent progress on the key goals of facing the market, finding new customers for the 

ISS, and standing up the organization to service existing and new markets: 

Technical jOperational , .. ,., ", Engaging and Servicing New Customers: 

• A Selection process for the ful! Initial Board has been approved and is undctway. 

• A plan for selection of the permanent Science Collegium has been developed and is ready for 

implementation by the Initial Board once selected. 

• An Interim Chief Scientist has been appointed. 

An Interim Scientific Collegium (lSC) has been created and is in operation, 

ISC analyzed 132 ISS experiments, identified pathways that are most promising and facilitate a shorter 

cycle to practical use, 

Three major pathways identified, with sub· pathways defined, based on market place analysis, 

Outreach has been initiated to marketplace customers with near-term potential for flight programs in the 

pathways of interest. 

Performance Metrics , ..... CASIS Implementation: 

Organizational policies, procedures and protocols are defined and implemented, 

Organizational staffing currently at 20, representing approximately 60 percent of plan. 

A Valuation and Prioritization methodology is developed and is being tested with both theoretical and 

actual experiments. 

An initial capital marketplace has been established to provide an access point for potential research 

funding and investment. 

Member structure is defined and member software is being implemented. 

Marketplace validation is underway. 

A Program for marketplace messaging has been developed, 

Branding. communications, marketing and public relations campaigns are developed and being 

implemented, 

Existing ISS National Lab user's agreements are being transitioned and are being finalized. 

Customer Service offerings and procedures have been developed and servicing of existing User 

Agreements has begun. 

A "new user" agreement has been developed and is being negotiated with a "new" first flight payload 

customer. 

Website is in beta testing. Should be fully functional by mid-April. 

J thank you again for your consideration and response to our request. If you have any questions or wish us to 

address additional matters please don't hesitate to contact me directly. 

Sincerely, 

Vd-~~Ok 

Frank A DiBello 

Chairman, CASIS Interim Board 

Cc: William Gerstenmaier, NASA HQ 

CASIS 032812-jk·hh-fd -.641.1791· ................. 

_, s.-lifO_l.abox-.· .-......Irs.-c.-.fL321199 

1000 Faa. Stled;.Sae 195M· HauIIIoa. 1X77030 
89 

March 28, 2012 hearing. Securing the Promise of the International Space Station: challenges and 

Opportunities. 

Here is the answer on Rep. Miller's question. Best regards, 

Tom 

Question: 

(The) Procurement Integrity Act prohibits former federal officials who oversaw certain 

procurements from going to work for the contractor that they awarded contracts to. NASA is 

using Space Act agreements extensively in the acquisition of commercial crew capabilities. Is it 

correct that the post-employment restrictions of the (Procurement) Integrity Act do not apply to 

Space Act Agreements? If the post-employment restrictions of the (Procurement) Integrity Act 

do not apply to Space Act Agreements, do you think Congress should make them apply? 

NASA Response: 

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 under 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 equal 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 non-procurement matters, such as 

Space Act agreements. 
90 

to fulfill its responsibilities to stimulate, develop, and manage the national use of 

the ISS, and is fully cooperating with the review by the NASA IG. NASA is 

assessing the progress made by CASIS in standing up their organization and 

establishing an initial research portfolio, and will be working with CASIS 

management to correct any shortcomings that may be identified. 

f. How do you believe these recent events may impact the management of 

the scientific projects anticipated for the International Space Station? 

ANSWER: At present, no long-term impact to the management of the ISS National 

Laboratory is anticipated. Planned work like the review of biological and biomedical 

research opportunities has been completed on schedule, and other planned activities, 

such as .the 2012 research solicitation, are on schedule. Working with a nationally 

known executive search firm, the interim CASIS Board of Directors has identified 

candidates for the new Board, and the new Executive Director. The new Board is 

expected to be in place this summer, and will be responsible for selecting the new 

Executive Director. 
91 

Responses by Mrs. Cristina Chaplain 

Questions for Cristina Chaplain 

From Chairman Ralph M. Hall 

March 28, 2012 Hearing on 

Securing the Promise of the ISS-Challenges and Opportunities 

1. What do you think are the most important aspects for NASA to consider 

as it tries to balance its own research priorities against those of the ISS 

National Lab? 

In our 2009 report, we expressed concern that the ISS lacked one central 

body that oversees the selection and prioritization of all U.S. research and 

that could strategically decide what research should be conducted and at 

what time. NASA has since awarded a cooperative agreement with the 

Center for the Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS) to serve as the notfor-profit entity for management of the ISS National Laboratory. According to 

this agreement, CASIS will prioritize National Laboratory research using a 

fair, transparent, and impartial selection process that maximizes the value of 

the ISS investment. 

While the responsibilities assigned to CASIS are important, this body will not 

be responsible for managing research on the entire U.S. portion of the ISS. 

As such, while CASIS may identify valid, meritorious research projects and 

match those projects with funding opportunities, the Center will only be 

responsible for National Lab payloads. NASA, however, may opt to prioritize 

different research or to prioritize different payloads. In order to support the 

user community managed by CASIS, NASA should ensure that the method 

for prioritizing research on the U.S. portion of the ISS is transparent. 

Additionally, NASA should minimize deferment of vetted and funded National 

Laboratory research in order to carry out the agency's own priorities. 

2. According to GAO's testimony, in 2011 NASA anticipated 56 flights to 

the ISS between 2012 and 2020 and would likely be at risk of a shortfall 

to cover all of the national laboratory demands and margin for 

unforeseen maintenance. However, NASA recently told GAO that in 

spite of decreasing the anticipated flights to 51, NASA is no longer 

projecting a cargo shortfall. How did NASA justify a reduction in the 

number of flights without having any impact on estimated needs of the 

ISS for cargo? 

a. What, if any, additional information is needed to ensure they have 

conducted sound analysis? 

According to NASA, several factors played a part in its justification that fewer 

flights would be needed through 2020: 

• The ISS program does not require as much overall cargo capacity in 

2012 as originally anticipated because the ISS and its crew are not 

using as many supplies and consumables as NASA anticipated. 
92 

Page 2 

• NASA built overlap into the 2012 commercial launch. For example, the 

agency is planning for both Orbital and SpaceX flights in December 

2012. However, NASA anticipates only one of the two vehicles will 

launch. NASA purposefully built in this schedule margin so the agency 

could use one or the other if the competitor was not yet ready to fly or 

choose just one if both were ready to fly. NASA is highly unlikely to 

need both flights so close together, as the flights are actually 

scheduled only 1 day apart. Consequently, the vehicle that does not fly 

will be launched in the following year, 2013. In turn, the other 2013 

launches will be pushed to later dates because the agency will have 

more cargo capacity than initially planned. NASA anticipates this 

domino effect will impact launches and associated cargo capacity 

through 2016. 

• NASA needs less cargo space for National Lab cargo than anticipated. 

When we discussed cargo demand with NASA in 2011, the agency 

had not yet planned for the National Lab's dedicated cargo space on 

individual flights. Once NASA planned for the National Lab cargo 

space by individual flight and spread that capacity over several 

launches, the agency found it needed less cargo space than originally 

expected. 

Updated information, consisting of NASA's regularly updated cargo analyses, 

is necessary to verify information about the number of flights NASA 

anticipates and the amounts and types of cargo they will carry. NASA plans 

vehicle flights and associated cargo in a tactical time frame (about 18 months 

in advance) and a strategic time frame (currently beyond 2013). The agency 

updates those cargo analyses, at minimum, every 3 months, based on launch 

vehicle availability and ISS needs for consumables, supplies, and hardware 

spares. Therefore, the most recent analyses are the best sources of accurate 

information. 
93 

Questions for Cristina Chaplain 

From Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson 

March 28, 2012 Hearing on 

Securing the Promise of the ISS-Challenges and Opportunities 

1. GAO reported last December that it was satisfied that NASA had 

reasonable approaches for ensuring ISS utilization through 2020. Does 

GAO know of any comparable situations in other federal agencies that 

would provide confidence in NASA's approach? Are you concerned 

about the current level of utilization? 

Ensuring that the ISS can be effectively maintained through 2020 within the 

normal range of human spaceflight risk presents NASA with unique 

challenges that are not directly comparable to situations in other federal 

agencies. However, as discussed in our December 2011 report, the statistical 

process and methodology used by NASA to estimate the expected lifetimes of 

replacement units is a sound and commonly accepted approach within the 

risk assessment community that considers both manufacturers' predictions 

and the systems' actual performance. We found that this process has been 

widely used by NASA to update failure rates for components on numerous 

programs, including the Space Shuttle, the Hubble Space Telescope, and the 

TDRSS family of satellites. 

Similar methodologies are also used by other government agencies and 

industry. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission employs the Bayesian estimation 

process to update the failure rates of components in nuclear power plants. 

The oil and gas industry employs the Bayesian estimation process to 

update the failure rates of pressure vessels and other types of equipment at 

industrial oil and gas facilities. 

The Food and Drug Administration has developed guidance for the 

assessment of medical device effectiveness based on the Bayesian 

estimation process. 

At the time of our 2009 review of ISS utilization, NASA prOjected that it would 

use about half of the ISS research facilities for its own experiments. Limiting 

factors to research on the ISS include the availability of transport vehicles and 

the cost of transporting research cargo to the ISS in orbit. Until affordable 

transport vehicles are available, the scientific research capabilities of the ISS 

are unlikely to be fully utilized. 

2. GAO's 2009 report on ISS utilization concluded that "A viable user base 

will not develop without sufficient launch opportunities to permit 

recurring access, consistent funding opportunities, sufficient crew time 

to conduct research, and longevity of the ISS." From your perspective, 

does NASA have today sufficient launch opportunities, consistent 

funding opportunities, and sufficient crew time to develop a viable user 

base? 

Page 3 
94 

Overall, our perspective is that without the successful development of new 

affordable crew and cargo transport vehicles, the ISS is unlikely to ever be 

fully utilized. 

Launch: 

Due to the retirement of the Space Shuttle and the current absence of an 

alternate commercial launch capability, NASA's ability to support launches to 

and from the ISS are further reduced from what we reported in 2009. In an 

active NASA Research Announcement (NRA) funding announcement to 

potential ISS researchers that is up for selection on May 21, 2012, NASA 

states "with the end of the Space Shuttle Program, the timing of definite flight 

opportunities cannot be assured at this time. This NRA is therefore 

constructed to be dependent upon those flight opportunities to ISS that 

present themselves (ATV, HTV, Progress, Soyuz, Dragon, and Cygnus)." 

Another active NRA states that "alternative access to space may include 

spacecraft or payload accommodations on a U.S. - or foreign-manufactured 

spacecraft launching on a U.S. - or foreign-manufactured launch vehicle." 

Until the commercial launch vehicles come on-line, launch will continue to be 

an issue for ISS researchers. Further, as we reported in 2009, none of the 

commercial launch vehicles nor Soyuz have the upmass and down mass 

capabilities of the Space Shuttle, so researchers will continue to be 

constrained to the available space on these other vehicles, which will have 

competing NASA demands. 

Funding: 

We have not conducted any new audit work specifically in this area since our 

2009 report. However, according to NASA, funding for the agency's research 

goals is provided via NRAs, while funding for researchers who wish to utilize 

the National Laboratory portion of ISS is sought from other government 

agencies, academia, and the private and non-profit sectors. NASA lists NRA 

opportunities for researchers on its website, and there are currently four 

announcements (one for human research, one for life and physical sciences, 

and two for earth and space science). There are currently no open funding 

opportunities for Technology Development and Demonstration. We do not 

know what the availability is of non-NASA funding for ISS research. 

Crew Time: 

We have not conducted any additional audit work specifically on the issue of 

crew demands since our 2009 report. However, the size of the crew on board 

the ISS is constrained at six based on safety constraints, and demands on the 

crew's time are split amongst many activities beyond research that will likely 

remain unchanged (e.g., eating, sleeping, training, etc.). Additionally, crew will 

continue to have demands placed on their time by international partners and 

NASA-sponsored research. As such, crew time will likely continue to be a 

constraining factor for all ISS research. Additionally, if more maintenance is 

required as the ISS continues to age, crew time available for research could 

reduce further. 

Page 4 
95 

3. What concerns, if any, do you have with respect to NASA's ability to 

obtain insight and to exercise sufficient oversight of commercial cargo 

and crew providers? What are the implications of projected 

insight/oversight processes on the ultimate goal of supporting ISS 

utilization? 

Our primary concern relative to NASA's ability to obtain insight and to 

exercise sufficient oversight of commercial cargo and crew providers is the 

agency's ability to manage contracts and maintain a balanced approach to 

insight and oversight. Our previous work indicates that NASA has often 

struggled with contract management. For example, the agency's past efforts 

to develop new spacecraft through traditional and non-traditional contracting 

arrangements have often experienced cost and schedule increases and 

resulted in program cancellations. These past failures have been attributable 

to many issues, from immature requirements on NASA's part to contractors' 

inability to deliver on cost and schedule. The bottom line, however, is that 

NASA has been unsuccessful in several attempts to contract for a 

replacement for the Space Shuttle. NASA is currently attempting to procure 

crew and cargo transportation systems commercially. It remains to be seen if 

NASA's current approach can offer sufficient insight into contractor activities 

and progress to, at a minimum, ensure compliance with NASA requirements 

without being overly prescriptive. Without sufficient insight, NASA could lack 

assurance that the contractors are making the progress necessary to meet 

performance and safety goals, as well as the ambitious schedules they are 

pursuing. On the other hand, if the agency employs overly prescriptive design 

and reporting requirements, NASA could lose the cost and schedule benefits 

they are seeking via commercial procurement. 

The implications of insight and oversight are far-ranging. In the long run, 

having insight into cost and technology will help to minimize future costs, 

especially if competition is reduced. Further, appropriate levels of insight and 

oversight will help ensure the ambitious schedules for commercial crew and 

cargo transportation systems are met as the window of opportunity diminishes 

for utilizing these systems to support the ISS. With appropriate balance, 

NASA has the opportunity to foster competition and guide the development of 

a new generation of safe, affordable human spaceflight transportation 

systems. If NASA errs in its new approach, we are likely to end up with 

systems that are either unsafe or unaffordable, or perhaps both. 

4. NASA seems to have implemented a number of your recommendations 

related to utilization of ISS, namely the establishment of an entity to 

manage the research of the national lab. Does the establishment of this 

body allay your concerns about full utilization of the station? If not, why 

not? 

NASA's decision to grant CASIS the authority to manage research on the 

National Laboratory seems to be a step in the right direction, though we have 

not conducted any analysis on how CASIS is set-up or how it will manage and 

Page 5 
96 

prioritize research. Further, as we stated in response to Question 1, NASA 

will still be responsible for prioritizing its own research and for prioritizing the 

payloads that will fly on flights to and from ISS. If limited flight opportunities 

result in National Laboratory research being grounded as a result of NASA 

prioritization, greater station utilization may be difficult to achieve. 

5. Your December 2011 report indicates that NASA has in place good 

practices to understand what it needs to maintain and safely operate the 

ISS. While I understand that NASA's processes are good, does that 

mean that there are no concerns/questions about the operational life of 

the ISS from a safety perspective? 

Page 6 

Human spaceflight, including operations at the ISS, will always involve risk. 

To assess and mitigate those risks, NASA is conducting ISS structural health 

assessments and in 2011 was updating ISS-related safety reviews. At the 

time of our report in 2011, NASA had assessed the structural health of about 

40 percent, by weight, of the ISS. NASA does not expect to complete ISS 

structural assessments until early 2016 because most of the ISS structures 

have not been on orbit long enough to accumulate the data needed for 

analysis. Additionally, the agency was updating information on potential 

safety hazards and hardware component issues that could impact safe 

operations onboard the ISS. NASA originally documented safety hazards to 

both crew and station in 92 safety hazard reports applicable to ISS operations 

through 2015. In 2011, NASA was reassessing these reports to determine if 

the hazards required additional mitigation as a result of extending ISS life 

through 2020 and potentially beyond. According to an official working on this 

effort, preliminary results indicated that 58 hazard reports were affected by 

extending ISS life beyond 2015 and required further study. Similarly, NASA 

was identifying ISS hardware components, such as hoses and tubing, which 

must be replaced before failure because the hardware's failure could lead to 

loss of crew or station. According to NASA officials, preliminary results of this 

study indicated that some hardware components will likely require 

replacement or mitigation before failure, while other hardware can be used 

until failure because that failure would result only in degradation of functions 

rather than catastrophic loss of crew or the station itself. 
(97) 

Appendix 2 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
98 

GAO CONTACT AND STAFF ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Appendix I: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgements 

GAO Contacts 

Staff 

Acknowledgements 

(121061) 

For questions about this statement, please contact me at (202) 512-4841 

or chaplainc@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this 

testimony. 

Individuals making key contributions to this statement include Shelby S. 

Oakley, Assistant Director; John Warren, Tana Davis, and Alyssa Weir. 

Page 14 
99 

This is a work of the U.S, government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this materia! separately. 
100 

GAO.s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone 

Connect with GAO 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO's website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select .. E-mail Updates." 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO's website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TOD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact: 

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudneUfraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

() Please Print on Recycled Paper. 
101 

Figure 1: International Space Station 

The ISS was constructed to support three activities: scientific research, 

technology development, and development of industrial applications. The 

facilities aboard the ISS allow for ongoing research in microgravity, 

studies of other aspects of the space environment, tests of new 

technology, and long-term space operations. The facilities also enable a 

permanent crew of up to six astronauts to maintain their physical health 

standards while conducting many different types of research, including 

experiments in biotechnology, combustion ·science, fluid physics, and 

materials SCience, on behalf of ground-based researchers. Furthermore, 

the ISS has the capability to support research on materials and other 

technologies to see how they react in the space environment. 

NASA planned for the space shuttle to serve as the means of transporting 

crew, hardware, and supplies to the ISS through the end of the station's 

life. However, in 2004, President George W. Bush announced his Vision 

for Space Exploration (Vision) that included direction for NASA to develop 

new spaceflight systems under the Constellation program to replace the 

space shuttle as NASA's primary spaceflight system. The Vision also 

included provisions for NASA to pursue commercial alternatives or 

Page 4 
102 

NASA Faces 

Challenges 

Transporting Cargo 

and Crew to and from 

the ISS 

NASA Plans to Use 

International Partner and 

Commercial Flights but 

International Agreements 

Are Not in Place and 

Commercial Vehicles 

Remain Unproven 

providing transportation and other services to support the ISS after 2010. 8 

NASA established the Commercial Crew and Cargo Program in 2005 to 

facilitate the private demonstration of safe, reliable, and cost-effective 

transportation services and purchase these services commercially. When 

the Constellation program was cancelled in 2010, the commercial 

vehicles became NASA's primary focus for providing cargo and crew 

transportation to the ISS. The success of commercial efforts became 

even more important in 2010 when Congress authorized the extension of 

space station operations until at least 2020 from 2015, and the President 

directed that NASA transition the role of human transportation to lowearth orbit to commercial space companies. 

The greatest challenge facing NASA is transporting cargo and crew to 

and from the ISS to make effective use of the ISS. NASA plans to rely on 

ISS international partner and new commercial launch vehicles to transport 

cargo and crew to and from the ISS until at least 2020. NASA hopes to 

begin using new commercial cargo vehiCles in 2012 and crew vehicles to 

transport astronauts to and from the ISS beginning in 2017. NASA's 

decision to rely on the new commercial vehicles is inherently risky 

because the vehicles are still in development and not yet proven or fully 

operational. 

NASA is relying on 51 flights of international partner and commercial 

vehicles to transport cargo to the ISS from 2012 through 2020, but 

agreements for international flights after 2016 are not in place and the 

commercial vehicles are unproven. NASA has agreements in place with 

the European and Japanese space consortiums for their respective 

vehicles-the European Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV), and the 

Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV)-to conduct cargo resupply 

missions beginning in 2012 through 2016. The ATV and HTVare 

unmanned vehicles that have flown to the ISS, and carry such items as 

8 In 2004, President George W. Bush established a new space exploration policy-A 

Renewed Spirit of Discovery: The President's Vision for U. S. Space Exploration (Vision)-

which called for the retirement of the space shuttle and development of a new family of 

exploration systems to facilitate a return of humans to the moon and eventual human 

spaceflight to Mars. 

Page 5 GAO-12-S87T 
103 

hardware and water. 9 NASA's current plans anticipate employing a total 

of 12 international partner launches-8 from 2012 to 2016 and 4 from 

2017 through 2020. NASA does not have agreements in place for 

international partners to provide cargo services to the ISS beyond 2016. 

NASA plans to use the ATV for a number of cargo flights through 2014, 

but no longer anticipates its use after that time. NASA plans to use HTV 

for a number of cargo flights through 2016, but its negotiations with the 

Japanese partners for flights beyond 2016 are in their infancy. 

NASA also plans to use two types of domestic commercial launch 

vehicles to maintain ISS from 2012 through 2020. Development of these 

vehicles-the Falcon 9 and Antares '°_was fostered under a NASAinitiated effort known as Commercial Orbital Transportation Services. 

These vehicles are being developed by private industry corporationsFalcon 9 by SpaceX and Antares by Orbital Sciences Corporation. In late 

2008, NASA awarded contracts to both companies to provide cargo 

transport services to the ISS. Only SpaceX will be able to safely return 

significant amounts of cargo to earth, such as the results of scientific 

experiments. NASA anticipates that SpaceX will begin providing that 

capability in 2012. 

Commercial vehicles are essential to sustaining and utilizing the ISS. As 

table 1 indicates, SpaceX and Orbital are scheduled to fly 20 (71 percent) 

of the 28 launches NASA plans through 2016 and follow-on commercial 

resupply vehicles are expected to fly 19 (83 percent) of the 23 launches 

from 2017 through 2020-" 

gin 2008 and 2009, the ATV and HTV vehicles respectively ftew to the ISS and docked at 

the station to demonstrate their capabilities, In 2011, both vehicles again launched. These 

flights were the second for both systems. 

10 The Antares was previously known as the Taurus I!, 

11 NASA has awarded contacts to SpaceX and Orbital for cargo resupply selVices to the 

ISS through 2016. Planned fotlow-on commercial resupply vehicles are the vehicles NASA 

will use for flights beyond those currently under contract 

Page 6 GAO-12-587T 
104 

Table 1: NASA's Planned Vehicle Launches for 2012 to 2020 to Resupply the ISS as of March 2012 

Vehicles 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 

Note: NASA does not have contracts with commercial providers or negotiated agreements with 

international partners for flights from 2017 through 2020 

This plan relies on commercial vehicles meeting anticipated-not 

proven-flight rates. As we have previously reported, both SpaceX and 

Orbital are working under aggressive schedules and have experienced 

delays in completing demonstrations. 12 SpaceX flew its first 

demonstration mission in December 2010, some 18 months late, because 

of such factors as design issues and software development. Currently, 

SpaceX's next demonstration launch to the ISS has been delayed from 

November 2011 to late April 2012 because of additional testing and 

resolution of some technical issues such as electromagnetic interference. 

Likewise, Orbital experienced programmatic changes and developmental 

difficulties that led to multiple delays of several months' duration. In May 

2011 testimony," we noted that Orbital's inaugural demonstration mission 

had been delayed to December 2011. Currently, this flight has been 

delayed further to August or September 2012, primarily because of issues 

related to construction and testing of the launch pad at Wallops Island, 

Virginia. NASA has made efforts to accommodate delays in commercial 

vehicle development, including use of the final shuttle flight in July 2011 

to pre-position additional ISS spares. However, if the commercial vehicle 

launches do not occur as planned in 2012, the ISS could lose some ability 

to function and sustain research efforts due to a lack of alternative launch 

vehicles to support the ISS and return sCientific experiments back to 

earth. 

12 GAO-09-618. 

" GAO-1'-692T 

Page 1 GAO~12·581T 
105 

Æ