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

76–351 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–576 

PRIORITIES, PLANS, AND PROGRESS OF THE 

NATION’S SPACE PROGRAM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 7, 2012 

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

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

MARK WARNER, Virginia 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas, Ranking 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

ELLEN L. DONESKI, Staff Director 

JAMES REID, Deputy Staff Director 

JOHN WILLIAMS, General Counsel 

TODD BERTOSON, Republican Staff Director 

JARROD THOMPSON, Republican Deputy Staff Director 

REBECCA SEIDEL, Republican General Counsel and Chief Investigator 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on March 7, 2012 .............................................................................. 1 

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

Statement of Senator Hutchison ............................................................................ 4 

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

Statement of Senator Udall .................................................................................... 8 

Statement of Senator Rubio .................................................................................... 33 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

Statement of Senator Boozman .............................................................................. 38 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 

WITNESSES

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

Administration ..................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

Neil deGrasse Tyson, Ph.D., Astrophysicist, American Museum of Natural 

History; Director Hayden Planetarium, New York City ................................... 40 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42 

APPENDIX

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

Hon. Bill Nelson ............................................................................................... 49 

Hon. Barbara Boxer ......................................................................................... 50 

Hon. Mark Warner ........................................................................................... 55 

Hon. Tom Udall ................................................................................................ 57 

Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison ............................................................................. 64 

Response to written questions submitted to Neil deGrasse Tyson, Ph.D. by: 

Hon. Bill Nelson ............................................................................................... 74 

Hon. Tom Udall ................................................................................................ 75 

Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison ............................................................................. 75 

(1) 

PRIORITIES, PLANS, AND PROGRESS OF THE 

NATION’S SPACE PROGRAM 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in Room 

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

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. Good morning. 

Mr. Administrator, Senator Hutchison and I just solved your 

problems. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HUTCHISON. We look forward to working with you on it. 

Senator NELSON. We are delighted that you are here. 

Thank you, General Bolden, for your service to this country. A 

long and distinguished career in the United States Marine Corps, 

the Astronaut Office, and now as the Administrator of NASA, we 

are most appreciative of your personal service and your commitment to this country and your continuing service. 

This past year has been a real busy one for NASA. What a monumental achievement it was to complete the construction of the 

Space Station, and now that crew members don’t have to focus on 

assembly of the ISS, they are getting on with the important research up there. Remember, this was one of the things that John 

Glenn kept pounding over and over, as a Senator—it is hard to believe it has been 14 years since his retirement. But he is still at 

it, as you know. 

And we just had the 50th anniversary of his Mercury flight celebration, and John was at it again, saying the same thing—research, research. Utilize that facility up there that we have. And 

we have six people up there right now. 

And better cancer treatment delivery systems are being developed. We have had breakthroughs in vaccine research, and I never 

want to miss the opportunity to point out that we have a National 

Laboratory on the Space Station thanks to Senator Hutchison and 

that in this lab they have now developed the processes and the 

drugs, basically, that are now in their final FDA trials as a vaccine 

for salmonella and another drug that is in its initial FDA trials 

that is a vaccination for MRSA, which is the explosive bacteria that 

ravages so many hospitals that they find it very difficult to find 

drugs that can control it. 

2 

And so, in this space program, we have discovered techniques for 

performing remote ultrasounds. And recently, we have taken another great step forward, and this was something again that I give 

great credit to Senator Hutchison. The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer was delivered and is measuring cosmic rays, seeking answers 

to some of the universe’s best-kept secrets, such as the nature of 

dark matter. 

And so, now that the station is complete, NASA then retired the 

Space Shuttle. And remember, why did it retire it? Because if you 

remember, when we lost Columbia in 2003, Admiral Gehman’s 

commission that did the investigation said you fly the Space Shuttle just as long as you have to to build the Space Station because 

of taking up the components that have been developed to fit in the 

cargo bay. And once it is completed, you replace the Space Shuttle 

with a safer rocket. 

And if you look at the designs of the commercial competition that 

is going on, you find that the crew is on the top of the rocket with 

the escape system so that if you have an explosion on the pad, you 

can save the crew. You can save the crew all the way to orbit by 

detaching the capsule and bringing the crew safely back. 

NASA’s very dedicated and talented workforce operated the 

Space Shuttles for 30 years, and it helped us open a whole new 

chapter in our space exploration and a window into the cosmos. We 

did that by launching and servicing and repairing and fixing over 

and over again the Space Telescope, Hubble, and protecting our 

way of life by deploying national security satellites and advancing 

our knowledge of the solar system by launching interplanetary 

probes. 

You have heard a lot about the very moving stories of the efforts 

to have the final Space Shuttle mission to perfection, absolute perfection while most of that workforce knew that they were going to 

be laid off. Well, that is the kind of dedicated and proud workforce 

that America needs to continue to have in our next generation of 

exploration systems. 

Now we know we have the SLS and the Orion programs going 

ahead. One of the things we are going to discuss, General, is that 

we don’t think you have enough in your budget for Orion. You have 

got to be able to have an Orion, a capsule that is completed, to put 

on top of a rocket, the SLS. 

Late this spring, major components for Orion’s upcoming test 

flight are going to arrive at the Cape, and workers will finish assembling and testing the capsule for a 2014 launch. In 2 years, we 

are going to launch Orion, and it is going to go through tests that 

will go out into an elliptical orbit so that it can come back in a ballistic reentry and test all of those reentry systems. 

The SLS program is continuing the engine testing now at the 

Stennis Space Center and is preparing detailed design specifications for the most powerful rocket in history. Work continues at the 

Kennedy Space Center as well, overhauling an historic launch pad 

for NASA’s next steps into the solar system that was used to 

launch Apollo and the Shuttle programs. 

And by the way, the Director of the Kennedy Space Center told 

me that he has something in between now and October the 1st in 

this fiscal year, close to $400 million of modernization of that space 

3 

center just in this period of time—that is about 8 months, 7 

months—in order to get the space center ready for the new systems. 

Meanwhile, NASA continues to crank out the science missions 

with almost 100 spacecraft either in operation or under development. And last year, we saw MESSENGER enter orbit around 

Mercury. It was first mission to the planet in nearly 40 years. And 

much, much farther away from the Sun, 11 billion miles, the Voyager, Voyager 1 spacecraft, is probing the outer reaches of our solar 

system. 

And looking out into the galaxy, the Kepler planet-hunting telescope has discovered over 2,000 potential planets, and over 60 of 

them have been confirmed. We have even found a planet in the socalled habitable zone, a habitable zone of its star. And we are looking forward now, as we reach out into the cosmos, of confirming 

many more planets in the coming months. 

And this past November, NASA launched the largest and most 

capable rover ever in route to an August landing of Mars. This 

thing is amazing. It is the size of a Volkswagen. It is going to have 

two eyes that pop up, and as it roves, we are going to see it real 

time with the delay of the transmission from as far away as Mars. 

It has got a scooper that is going to go down and scoop up the 

Martian soil and then analyze it. It has a beam that is going to 

zap rocks so that we can analyze the chemical components. 

NASA also continues its mission to keep watch over our home 

planet, seeking to understand the complicated interactions of the 

Earth’s dynamic systems. And of course, the first ‘‘A’’ in NASA— 

is aeronautics. Aeronautics research continues as NASA continues 

to look for new ways to improve aviation safety and revolutionize 

air transportation. 

Hallelujah, we finally passed the FAA bill. We can start getting 

moving to the next generation of air traffic control. All of that is 

going to come off of the satellites. Where did the satellites come 

from? They came from our space program. 

And NASA continues to reach out to students in all 50 States, 

inspiring and educating our next generation in ways that only this 

space agency can. So today we are here to see if we can continue 

the progress of the past year through this next year and beyond. 

The President has sent us a 2013 budget that is essentially flat 

with the previous year’s enacted level, which, for NASA, is relatively good, given that most of the Government agencies got 

whacked. And so, Senator Hutchison and I are pleased to have the 

NASA Administrator here to talk about the President’s proposal. 

And I am looking forward to this productive conversation. 

Now we will get into the fact of the recent stories about some of 

the agency’s sensitive data, including some of the algorithms for 

the International Space Station, that they were compromised and 

some NASA mobile devices were stolen. There has been no effect 

upon the Space Station, and I want the Administrator to address 

that. 

There are also reports that foreign intelligence organizations 

were thought to be involved in the hackings of additional NASA 

computer systems, which is not unusual, by the way, because foreign intelligence operations, as well as rogue operators all over the 

4 

globe, are trying to hack into every computer system of the United 

States Government. And it goes on in massive numbers every day. 

Space travel is an international endeavor. And having this type 

of information out of our control certainly could compromise 

NASA’s status as a place where we can secure our data. The President’s request is about $2 billion under the amount this 

committee authorized for the agency, leaving us with some tough 

choices on how to preserve the balanced approach for NASA. But 

safety and security of information can’t be on the chopping block, 

and we will address that. 

So, looking beyond the President’s address, we are very pleased 

to have astrophysicist Neil Tyson here for our second panel to talk 

about the broader context of NASA and what space exploration 

means to the country. Dr. Tyson has made a career out of discussing the very complex issues associated with space science and 

exploration in a way that educates and captivates and excites the 

public. 

And Dr. Tyson is no stranger to the subject of our space program, 

having been appointed twice to presidential panels examining the 

future of NASA and the aerospace industry. 

So I am really looking forward to the testimony of both of you 

all, and I turn to my partner, and I say my partner because we 

wouldn’t have a NASA authorization bill back in the fall of 2010 

had it not been for this lady right here. And we wouldn’t have had 

the funding over the past funding cycles that has kept NASA at a 

much better level than a lot of other agencies than if it were not 

for Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to say that you are certainly downplaying your role 

in NASA, and the commitment that you have has been absolutely 

fabulous and important for our ability to pass an authorization bill, 

which a lot of people didn’t think we could, and then further to 

help get the appropriations that would keep NASA in a place 

where it can really do the job that we are asking it to do and which 

we basically agreed to do. So we are here to try to keep that momentum going in the right direction. 

I was out at Johnson. The Johnson Space Center has a wonderful 

program for Cub Scouts. It is not in NASA, but it is in the Visitors 

Center. And Cub Scouts come from all over Texas, and they have 

an overnight in the Visitors Center. And I was with a group of 

those Cub Scouts recently, and the question they asked me was 

why has America given up on space flight? 

Now that was in the last week. And of course, I said we are not 

giving up on space flight. It is very important to move forward. But 

our Shuttles were wearing out. So we are now rebuilding to go beyond where we have been before. 

But that is not out there in the public, and we need to do the 

things that assure our young people, who are the ones we want to 

entice into science and loving exploration and knowing what it has 

done for our country, to stay with us and to understand this importance. 

5 

So that brings me to the agreement that we finally got last year 

with this administration. And I want to say what we have agreed 

to. We have agreed to develop the heavy launch vehicle to carry the 

Orion crew exploration vehicle to destinations beyond low-Earth 

orbit. 

We have agreed to bring to fruition the beginning of operational 

commercial cargo delivery flights to the International Space Station. 

We have agreed to support the development of commercial capabilities to launch crew to and from low-Earth orbit, focusing initially on transporting crews for the International Space Station. 

And we have agreed to support the ongoing development of the 

James Webb Space Telescope to not only replace the amazing 

Hubble Space Telescope, but also to see even more detail further 

into the universe. 

So we agreed to all those things. But Mr. Administrator, the actions don’t seem to be following the words of the agreements, and 

that is why I am glad that we are having this hearing and hoping 

that we can all have not only the words, but the actions that will 

take us in the direction that we have agreed we should go. 

It took awhile to finally get the program offices open for Orion 

and the Space Launch System. And finally—late last year—we 

were able to come to an agreement that we would move forward 

on that. 

The Fiscal Year 2013 budget request was our opportunity to review the actions of the administration toward providing the funding needed to meet our agreed-to activities. But reviewing that 

budget and the call that you made to me gives me great concern, 

and I have to question the degree of the commitment that we 

made, all of us together, to go forward for all of the things that we 

said were our priorities. 

So now we all understand that we have fiscal challenges. But I 

believe within the budget that we have, which, as the chairman 

has said, is basically pretty flat considering the rest of our budgets, 

knowing that exploration is not something that can be totally prescribed and adhered to because things happen when you are breaking barriers and you are doing new things that you have to address. 

But I think we have the available funds. It is a matter of how 

we put those funds into the actual implementation, and I have 

questions about the amount requested and the procurement approach that is taking place for the Commercial Crew development. 

I remain concerned about the loss of critical workforce and skills 

that we must have to continue NASA’s advances forward into the 

future. 

I want to hear what you have to say and hope we can get back 

on the same page where the budget meets the agreed-to goals. I am 

very pleased that Dr. Tyson is here because he is a scientist, and 

of course, that is a very crucial part of the big picture that we need 

to develop. 

Dr. Sam Ting, who really started the whole focus on the spectrometer and who, for a Nobel Laureate, is a fighter at heart, I 

have to say, because he was told by a previous Administrator that 

there wouldn’t be the ability to take the spectrometer up and that 

6 

the payload would not be able to be done. But he fought. We fought 

with him. We supported Dr. Ting’s request because we knew that 

that was a future that was vital for the Space Station. 

Dr. Ting made a speech to a scientific group in Texas in January, 

and the most graphic thing that he showed through a chart was 

some of the most visionary research that we have embarked on in 

America in the physics field. (His Nobel Laureate designation was 

for physics). 

And he showed the things that we thought would come, the goals 

that we had for these visionary research projects. And he put down 

about six or seven. And then he put the results that we got, which 

were totally different from the goal and more important and better. 

And that is what he foresees for the cosmic rays that we are now 

getting hits on in the spectrometer. Because we have already had 

more hits of cosmic rays on that spectrometer than ever in the history of space exploration, and he believes that the goal is to find 

out what the dark matter is and how can we harness it for energy 

that may be used for a Mars settlement or may be something that 

we could use on Earth, but you can only do it in space. 

So he said here is our goal, but who knows what it will give us? 

Who knew when we went into space in the first place that we 

would capture satellites and use space for national security purposes? Who knew that we would find many uses for Velcro? Who 

knew that we would get MRIs and the huge medical breakthroughs 

that we have had? 

So I am committed in my last year to assure that we go in the 

right direction, utilizing our resources wisely, and that is why I 

changed appropriations committees because I so believe in NASA 

and its potential for our country. And I wanted to make sure that 

while I am here that we don’t fudge on human space exploration 

and we don’t cut NASA to the quick because that is where our corporate knowledge is. 

And I say ‘‘corporate’’ in the Government sector, but that is 

where our expertise and our past experiences are that will take us 

to the future in the most efficient way. 

So I hope that we can work together to address the concerns that 

I have and get us on track. I am committed to commercial being 

a part of our future, but not at the expense of our vital NASA employee sector and the building of the next vehicle that is going to 

take us beyond where we are. We can’t fudge on the future in that 

way. 

So I think you know how I feel, and I hope that we will be able 

to work together. I don’t doubt your sincerity in shared goals, but 

what I am very concerned about is the implementation that is reflected in the numbers of the budget that the President and the administration released just a couple of weeks ago and its relationship to our shared goal. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Hutchison follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this important hearing on NASA’s proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2013. This year marks the first year that the ComVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:25 Oct 24, 2012 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\76351.TXT JACKIE
7 

mittee, NASA, and this Administration are in formal agreement on the objectives 

and approach to future development of U.S. human spaceflight capabilities. 

We have agreed to develop the heavy-lift launch vehicle to carry the Orion crew 

exploration vehicle to destinations beyond low-Earth orbit. 

We have agreed to bring to fruition this year the beginning of operational commercial cargo delivery flights to the International Space Station. 

We have agreed to support the development of commercial capabilities to launch 

crew to and from low-Earth orbit, focused initially on transporting crews for the 

International Space Station. 

Finally, we have agreed that it is important to support the ongoing development 

of the James Webb Space Telescope, to not only replace the amazing Hubble Space 

Telescope, but to help us see even more detail—and further—into the universe. 

We have all spoken the right words about those agreements in recent months, and 

that is important, because it reflects the fact that NASA does have a plan for its 

future. NASA is not ‘‘adrift’’ as some have been saying for the last 3 years—since 

the 2010 Budget Request put an asterisk next to the proposed funding for exploration programs, and set up the Augustine Committee to review options for the future. However, actions, as always, speaker louder than words. The Congress took 

action in late 2010 by passing the NASA Authorization Act, whose authorization 

levels are still in force for Fiscal Year 2013. 

NASA has taken action in establishing the program offices for Orion and the 

Space Launch System, and beginning the detailed work necessary to bring those vehicles into production and operations. The Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Request represents our opportunity to review the actions the Administration has taken with respect to providing NASA the funding needed to meet all of the agreed-upon activities. 

Unfortunately, as we have reviewed the proposed Budget these past several 

weeks, I have concerns about the degree of commitment of the Administration to 

meeting our shared objectives. We all recognize that this Nation has enormous fiscal 

challenges and that any allocation of taxpayers’ dollars must be given very careful 

consideration and very close scrutiny. That consideration requires each of us to establish clear priorities for funding, and to identify the most efficient ways to use 

the funds eventually appropriated. 

Despite the very real fiscal challenges we face, the United States is still capable 

of supporting a space program that is, as the Augustine Report suggested, ‘‘worthy 

of a great nation.’’ It is as much a matter of priorities as it is one of available 

funds—especially if we take into account the return on the investment we make in 

space as a nation. 

I am concerned about the funding levels for the vehicle development portion of 

the Space Launch System and the Orion crew vehicle. I have questions about both 

the amount requested and the procurement approach being taken for the next phase 

of commercial crew development. I remain concerned about the loss of critical workforce and skills that we will need to continue NASA’s—and the nation’s—advances 

forward into the future. I look forward to having the Administrator address these 

and other issues as we proceed with this hearing. 

I also look forward to hearing from Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, our second witness 

today. From what I have heard and read, I am hopeful we will hear his ‘‘Big Picture’’ view of the Nation’s space program, and especially of its direct and indirect 

benefit to our Nation’s scientific, economic, and technological well-being. Aside from 

focusing on his own discipline of astrophysics, Dr. Tyson’s messages have typically 

been directed toward students and lay people—the general American populace, 

whom we are all elected to represent, both in our states and as we conduct the business of the Nation. 

I believe it will be important and very helpful for us to hear those messages, and 

I appreciate his willingness to come and share them with the Committee. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to the testimony. 

Senator NELSON. And now you see why it is such a pleasure for 

me to work with Senator Hutchison. 

And I will tell you we both have a healthy degree of skepticism 

about OMB because OMB has thought that it has been running the 

space program for over the last decade. And fortunately, I think 

that is starting to change so that policy can be set at the congressional level in consultation with the executive branch, and then 

that the space program can be run by the Administrator of NASA. 

So, with that, General Bolden, welcome. Please, your comments? 

8 

Mr. BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Hutchison, Senator Udall, I would like to do something a little bit different. We 

submitted a statement. 

Senator NELSON. I am sorry. General Bolden, I forgot. I wanted 

to call on Senator Udall for a comment. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Okay. Thank you very much. 

And thank you, Chairman Nelson and Senator Hutchison, for 

those strong statements on the NASA budget. 

I am going to have to leave in just 5 minutes here, but I wanted 

to just say a couple of things about the budget and as it relates to 

New Mexico. And hopefully, we can submit questions for the 

record. 

But Administrator Bolden, during the Space Shuttle program, 

New Mexico’s White Sands Test Facility played a key role in 

NASA’s work on jet propulsion and advanced materials testing. Mr. 

deGrasse Tyson and his show Nova scienceNow visited my home 

State last year to feature WSTF’s work on simulating cosmic collisions. 

WSTF is testing the impact of space debris on our spacecraft 

shields by using a powerful gun to shoot particles at them at 

speeds of 20,000 miles per hour, and I know you are aware of 

White Sands unique assets and capabilities. There are many opportunities for White Sands to support NASA missions and to work 

more closely with commercial space firms. 

And one of the things that I was going to ask, if I was here, for 

you to talk a little bit about that, but we may well have specific 

questions on that. 

The other area I wanted to mention is NASA education and some 

of the New Mexico accomplishments. Your testimony speaks to 

NASA’s educational focus on inspiring today’s young people to envision futures in science, technology, engineering, and math. And as 

you know, these STEM fields are just absolutely crucial to us moving forward in this information age. 

And in my home state, the New Mexico Space Grant Launch Program brings space into the classroom. As part of the NASA-funded 

Launch and Learn Program, middle school students from all over 

the state design and build experiments to launch into suborbital 

space on the Space Loft sounding rocket. 

So I think other questions we will submit also will deal with the 

STEM fields and all the great work you are doing there, up 

through K–12 and beyond. 

And then, just finally, on the Earth sciences, scientists today 

know much more about the dangers of global warming and rising 

sea level, thanks to NASA support for Earth Science missions. 

Your written statement highlights NASA’s initiative to develop the 

Nation’s next generation climate and weather missions. 

In fact, many of NASA’s greatest contributions to science and society have come from unmanned Earth Science missions, even 

though these do not always capture the headlines in the same way 

as human space flight. So I hope you get a chance to talk a little 

bit about that, and we may well submit some questions there. 

9 

But I think the strong statement by the chairman and the ranking member are very appropriate here, and it is an honor to be 

here. And I am sorry I am not going to be able to hear your testimony, but I have another commitment I have to run to. 

Thank you, Chairman Nelson, and thank Ranking Member 

Hutchison. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Senator Udall. 

General Bolden? 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES F. BOLDEN JR., 

ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE 

ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. BOLDEN. Thank you very much. 

And Senator Nelson, Senator Hutchison, Senator Udall, because 

of the fact that you have presented very eloquently much of what 

I was going to say, as has Senator Hutchison, I would like to do 

something unusual, and I would like to submit my oral statement 

for the record and just share with you some highlights from it, if 

I can? 

And I will also say I want to thank you for putting me before 

Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson. He is a dear friend of mine. He is an incredibly eloquent presenter of everything that I would like to say, 

and he will actually present to you—because people always want 

to ask me about supposition: ‘‘What would it be like if?’’ 

I am going to talk about what it is like, based on the difficult 

economic times that we face. But I think Dr. Tyson will talk about 

what it would be like if. And he speaks very eloquently to that. 

I feel somewhat like a friend of mine who had to speak between 

Neil Armstrong and John Glenn recently at a tribute to Senator 

Glenn. So I understand I am inadequately prepared to be here, but 

I will try. 

I will say, first of all, the President has allowed us to put together what I think is a very ambitious exploration program. It 

does, in fact, fit within the confines of the budget that we anticipate being able to get and that we hope we will get. And it does, 

in fact, live up to the promises of the 2010 Authorization Act. 

And I am glad that Senator Hutchison mentioned the three priority areas for NASA and the Nation, and I will talk about that a 

little bit more. But I do want to remind everyone that these are 

very difficult times economically. And so, what we tried to present 

was a balanced approach to accomplishing those three priorities 

that the President and you all agreed upon through the 2010 authorization. 

I think, as everyone knows, the budget is $17.7 billion. Everything we propose we think is critical to ensuring America’s continued leadership in space exploration as well as our stewardship of 

the Earth. NASA, I personally am committed to making this national resource, that is the International Space Station, available 

to a broader scientific and commercial research communities as you 

have mentioned, Senator Glenn emphasizes, you talked about it, 

and Senator Hutchison talked about it. 

And I will mention I am glad that Senator Hutchison mentioned 

our friend Dr. Sam Ting, and I would remind everyone, AMS, as 

incredible as it is, would not be bringing us one piece of data were 

10 

it not for the fact that it has a home. It is on the International 

Space Station. 

And had it not been for the existence of the International Space 

Station, we might not have AMS doing what it is doing right now. 

So the International Space Station is critically important, and you 

will hear me emphasize that over and over and over again. 

I am also committed to ensuring that American companies 

launching from U.S. soil transport our astronauts and their cargo 

to the International Space Station. We are on track to develop a 

flexible deep space launch system that will ultimately be the most 

capable in history. 

We are pushing forward with contracting and design efforts to 

advance this critical next generation space exploration system, and 

our Fiscal Year 2013 budget request supports our plans for an 

uncrewed SLS test flight in 2017 and a crewed test mission by 

2021. And I don’t want anybody to miss that. Those are hard dates, 

and they are evidence that we are pushing forward with the development of the SLS and MPCV. 

We are also confident that this budget supports a 2018 launch 

for the James Webb Space Telescope as we came up with after the 

replan for that particular mission. 

The request also supports a portfolio of innovative science missions, and we could go on and on and on talking about them. Everyone is disappointed that we had to take a breather, if you will, 

but to step back from our negotiations with the European Space 

Agency on a program that they call ExoMars that we agreed we 

would participate in planning on. 

However, we are now developing a new integrated strategy for 

Mars missions to ensure that the next steps to Mars exploration 

will support the science objectives that were laid out in ExoMars, 

the priorities established by the National Research Council’s decade-old survey on planetary science, and also support our human 

exploration. 

The Fiscal Year 2013 budget request continues to support a robust Mars program in spite of what you may have heard. Absolutely essential to obtaining our ambitious goals is the further development of aviation science and space technologies, and we have 

that funded in this budget. 

We are going to conduct aeronautics research to enable the realization of the Nation’s Next Generation Air Transportation System, 

or NextGen, which will provide for safer, more fuel-efficient, quieter, and environmentally responsible aircraft that will operate with 

NextGen. 

I am really grateful, NASA as an agency is grateful to the American people and to all of you on this committee who have provided 

support to us in these very difficult and challenging times. But as 

Senator Hutchison alluded in her opening statement, priorities 

have to be established. 

She was incredibly helpful in helping us establish the three priorities for the agency and the SLS/MPCV for exploration; the International Space Station, shored up by Commercial Crew and Cargo, 

which is the test bed for that exploration; and then the James 

Webb Space Telescope is what promises to be the most incredible 

11 

instrument for science and exploration of our universe ever known 

to mankind. 

The SLS and MPCV are hard evidence that we are pushing forward with our exploration program. We have flown tests on MPCV. 

We have done drop tests. We just completed some the other day. 

We just finished another test firing of the J–2X at Stennis yesterday. 

This is hardware. This is not design drawings. This is hardware. 

I contend that we are probably much farther along on SLS/MPCV 

than we are on any of the other two priorities. So I would really 

challenge anyone who says that we are stepping back from our 

promise. We are not doing that. 

And Senator Hutchison, as I have said to you many times, I am 

dedicated to this, and we are doing what we promised we would do. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bolden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR., ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, today it is my privilege to discuss 

the President’s Fiscal Year 2013 budget request for NASA. Our requested budget 

of $17.7 billion will enable NASA to execute the balanced program of science, space 

exploration, technology, and aeronautics agreed to by the President and a bipartisan 

majority of Congress. 

Despite the constrained fiscal environment facing the Nation, this request supports a robust civil space program that puts us on a path to achieving a truly exciting set of goals. We are working to send humans to an asteroid and ultimately to 

Mars, to peer deep into space to observe the first galaxies form, and to broaden 

human activity in low-Earth orbit (LEO). We have completed assembling and outfitting of the U.S. segment of the International Space Station (ISS), allowing us to 

focus on full utilization of the Station’s research capabilities. NASA is making air 

travel safer and more efficient, learning to live and work in space, and operating 

a fleet of spacecraft to investigate the Earth, the Solar system and the Universe. 

The Fiscal Year 2013 request supports the implementation of key priorities for 

NASA. 

First, since the historic construction of the International Space Station (ISS) was 

completed in 2011, and now that all the international partners have agreed to its 

extension to at least 2020, we must enhance its utilization to insure the success of 

this national laboratory. For over eleven years, international crews of space explorers have been living on orbit, both building the International Space Station and conducting a diverse research program continuously. NASA is committed to making 

this National resource available to the broader scientific and commercial research 

community. Key to its sustainment is the availability of a U.S. commercial crew and 

cargo delivery capability as soon as possible. NASA is working with American companies to establish the next generation of safe and efficient vehicles for access to 

LEO and the ISS. In calendar year 2012, we will see the first commercial cargo 

flights to the ISS, demonstrating the innovation and capabilities of our industry 

partners and providing a path forward to ease our sole reliance on Russian transport of astronauts. We will continue to work with our industry partners to develop 

end-to-end systems for transporting crew and cargo to orbit. I am committed to ensuring that American companies, launching from U.S. soil, are providing the cargo 

and crew transportation services that we need to keep the ISS functioning. We are 

making steady progress on these launch services. Later this spring and summer, we 

expect that both of our private company partners, SpaceX and Orbital Sciences, will 

complete demonstration flights of their cargo vehicles to Station and actually berth 

with the ISS, marking a major milestone in our goal to establish commercial space 

capabilities for low-Earth orbit travel. Some modification of the Iran, North Korea, 

Syria Non-proliferation Act (INKSNA) provisions will likely be required for the continued operation of ISS and other space programs after 2016. The Administration 

plans to propose appropriate provisions and looks forward to working with the Congress on their enactment. 

Second, with the Fiscal Year 2013 budget request, NASA is moving out on plans 

to develop a flexible launch system that will ultimately be the most capable in history. The Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew VeVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:25 Oct 24, 2012 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\76351.TXT JACKIE
12 

hicle (Orion MPCV) will carry American astronauts beyond low-Earth orbit and into 

deep space within the next decade. Following a thorough analysis of alternatives, 

NASA has established architecture for SLS and the Orion MPCV. In recent months 

we have continued to push forward with contracting and design efforts to make this 

system a reality. At the same time, we are moving forward on a critical effort to 

develop the technologies and capabilities required to support our ambitious exploration goals. Our Fiscal Year 2013 budget request supports our plans for an 

uncrewed SLS test flight in 2017 and a crewed test mission by 2021. 

Third, we plan to continue progress toward the launch of the world’s most advanced telescope in 2018. The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) will operate 

deep in space to orbit the sun nearly one million miles from Earth. From that vantage point, JWST will look out into space and back in time almost as far as it is 

possible to look. Over the past year, NASA has engaged in a thorough review of 

JWST, made important adjustments to management, and put the project on a sound 

financial footing. Since we completed this new plan, the project has met 19 of 20 

Fiscal Year 2011 milestones (with one deferred without impact), and has met all 

Fiscal Year 2012 milestones to date on or ahead of schedule. NASA is confident that 

the Fiscal Year 2013 request supports a 2018 launch of JWST. 

Fourth, The Fiscal Year 2013 budget request supports continued advances in new 

technologies. The National Research Council (NRC) has determined that future U.S. 

leadership in space requires a foundation of sustained technology advances, but that 

the U.S. space program is now living on the innovation funded in the past. Our 

focus on new space technologies is absolutely essential to enable NASA to achieve 

its ambitious goals. At the same time, NASA technology research seeds innovation, 

supports economic vitality and helps to create new jobs and expanded opportunities 

for a skilled workforce. Space technology investments address long-term Agency 

technology priorities and technology gaps identified by NASA Mission Directorates 

and within the Agency’s draft space technology roadmaps. On February 1, 2012, the 

NRC released its final review of NASA’s Draft Space Technology Roadmaps. The report, which notes that NASA’s technology base is largely depleted and identifies sixteen top-priority technologies necessary for NASA’s future missions, which also 

could benefit American aerospace industries and the nation. This NRC assessment 

will help guide NASA’s technology priorities in the years to come. 

NASA’s budget request supports a portfolio of innovative science missions that 

will explore the diverse planetary bodies of our solar system, unravel the mysteries 

of our universe and provide critical data about our home planet. Currently operating 

missions continue to return a stream of data from orbits around the Sun, Mercury, 

the Moon, the asteroid Vesta, Mars, and Saturn. We now have missions on the way 

to Jupiter, Pluto and Mars. Sixteen Earth Science missions in orbit study the Earth 

as an integrated system. The Hubble, Spitzer, Chandra, and Fermi space telescopes 

continue to make groundbreaking discoveries on an almost daily basis. In calendar 

year 2011, the MESSENGER spacecraft entered orbit around Mercury, Ebb and 

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

to Jupiter. Also in 2011, Aquarius produced the first global view of ocean surface 

salinity and the Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership satellite began making 

observations of Earth’s weather and climate. In 2012, we will launch the Nuclear 

Spectroscopic Telescope Array to study massive black holes, supernovae and other 

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

Probes into Earth’s Van Allen belts. In 2013, we will launch the next land observing 

mission (the Landsat Data Continuity Mission) and complete environmental testing 

of the Global Precipitation Measurement mission, the Lunar Atmosphere and Dust 

Environment Explorer (LADEE) and the Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution 

(MAVEN) mission. 

In view of these key priorities for NASA and of our constrained fiscal environment, we will not be moving forward with the 2016 and 2018 ExoMars missions we 

had been studying with the European Space Agency. Instead, NASA is developing 

a new, integrated strategy for Mars missions to ensure that the next steps for Mars 

exploration will support science and human exploration goals and take advantage 

of advanced space technology developments. NASA will complete this integrated 

plan, including the framework for a mission to take advantage of the 2018 or 2020 

launch opportunities, no later than this summer and, hopefully, in time to support 

the Fiscal Year 2013 appropriations process. The Fiscal Year 2013 request supports 

this approach, and this process will be informed by coordination with the science 

community and our international partners. The Fiscal Year 2013 budget request 

continues to support robust Mars exploration including two spacecraft orbiting 

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

Curiosity Mars Science Laboratory, and the MAVEN mission to explore the Mars 

upper atmosphere. The August landing of Curiosity will be among the most difficult 

13 

technical challenges that NASA has ever attempted and Curiosity’s mission of exploration will far eclipse anything humanity has attempted on the surface of Mars in 

the past. We look forward to receiving a treasure trove of data from the surface of 

Mars to help answer questions about its past and present habitability. 

With the 2013 request, NASA will conduct aeronautics research to enable the realization of the nation’s Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen), and 

the safer, more fuel efficient, quieter, and environmentally responsible aircraft that 

will operate within NextGen. Through the aeronautics research we conduct and 

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

enables continuous innovation in aviation. As a result, U.S. companies are well positioned to build on discoveries and knowledge resulting from NASA research, turning 

them into commercial products that benefit the quality of life for our citizens, provide new high-quality engineering and manufacturing job opportunities, and enables 

the United States to remain competitive in the global economy. 

The request also continues NASA’s dedicated efforts to inspire the next generation 

of explorers. NASA can provide hands-on experience and inspiration as few other 

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

programs will focus on demonstrable results and capitalize on the Agency’s ability 

to inspire students and educators through unique missions and the big challenges 

that help today’s young people envision their future in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). NASA Education is one of many Federal government 

programs that support STEM education. NASA Education is working with other 

agencies through the National Science and Technology Council’s Committee on 

STEM Education to fund coordinated and effective student and teacher opportunities. NASA will focus its resources on demonstrated areas of strength in its unique 

role in STEM education, freeing resources for other Agency priorities. NASA brings 

many assets, beyond funding, to support the Administration’s emphasis on STEM 

education. Our people, platforms like the International Space Station, and our facilities across the Nation all contribute to strengthening STEM education. 

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

Committee for the continued support for NASA despite the difficult resource challenges facing our Nation. A more detailed description of NASA’s balanced program 

of science, space exploration, technology development, and aeronautics is provided 

below. 

Science 

NASA’s Science Mission Directorate develops and operates innovative spacecraft 

missions and instruments that help researchers deliver new discoveries of the 

Earth, the Sun, the planetary bodies in our solar system, and the universe beyond. 

The Fiscal Year 2013 budget request for Science is $4,911.2 million. 

NASA’s Earth Science Program advances knowledge of the integrated Earth system—the global atmosphere, oceans, land surfaces, ice sheets, ecosystems and interactions among them. The Fiscal Year 2013 budget request for Science includes 

$1,784.8 million for Earth Science. In 2011, NASA successfully launched Aquarius/ 

SAC–D, a cooperative ocean surface salinity mission conducted with the Argentine 

Space Agency, and with our partner the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (SNPP). SNPP 

is the first step in developing the Nation’s next-generation climate and weather 

monitoring missions. During calendar year 2012 NASA will select the first small 

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

Research Council’s decadal survey for Earth science. The Fiscal Year 2013 budget 

will fund all three components of the Earth Venture program: this new small mission, the on-going EV–1 airborne science campaigns, and the first EV–I instrument 

of opportunity. Fiscal Year 2013 will see the launch of the Landsat Data Continuity 

Mission and the completion of environmental testing for the Global Precipitation 

Measurement mission. The Fiscal Year 2013 budget will also fund continued development of the first two Tier 1 decadal survey missions, Soil Moisture Active Passive 

mission and ICESat-2. Finally, the Fiscal Year 2013 budget will fund continued development of three key missions to assure delivery of sustained Earth observations 

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

and fund the continued operation of 16 missions currently in orbit as well as research using the resultant data. The Fiscal Year 2013 budget request for Earth 

Science sustains support for focused research, applications, and technology development activities that redeem the investment in our ongoing missions, while positioning us to accomplish essential new missions in the future. NASA’s Earth Science 

program leads to improved prediction services by other agencies, providing direct 

tangible benefits to communities, businesses, and citizens. 

14 

NASA’s Planetary Science Program explores the content origin and evolution of 

the solar system and the potential for life beyond Earth. The Fiscal Year 2013 budget request for Science includes $1,192.3 million for Planetary Science. In the second 

half of 2011, NASA launched Juno on its way to Jupiter, GRAIL to the Moon, and 

the Mars Science Laboratory to the Red Planet. GRAIL’s ‘‘Ebb’’ and ‘‘Flow’’ spacecraft will conduct their mission to map the Moon’s gravity field and interior structure during the first half of 2012. The Mars Science Laboratory rover Curiosity will 

land in Gale Crater on Mars on August 6. The Fiscal Year 2013 budget request 

funds the operation of Curiosity on Mars. The Fiscal Year 2013 budget will also 

fund the beginning of development of the next Discovery mission that will be selected from among three candidates completing their studies in 2012. In Fiscal Year 

2013, NASA will be completing development of the LADEE mission to the Moon and 

the MAVEN mission to Mars for launch in late calendar year 2013/early Fiscal Year 

2014. Also in Fiscal Year 2013, NASA will continue the development of the OSIRIS– 

REx mission to return samples from an asteroid, and will continue operation of the 

Dawn (the asteroid Vesta), Juno (Jupiter), Cassini (Saturn), New Horizon (Pluto), 

and MESSENGER (Mercury) missions. However, the resources available over the 

budget horizon are insufficient to enable either a future Mars or Outer Planets flagship mission as identified by last year’s Planetary Science decadal survey. 

NASA remains committed to a vigorous program of Mars exploration and continuing America’s leadership role in Mars exploration within the available budget. 

As stated above, NASA is discontinuing its effort on instruments for the joint 

(NASA/European Space Agency) 2016 ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter mission and the 

2018 mission that NASA had been exploring with the European Space Agency 

(ESA). Instead, NASA will develop an integrated strategy to ensure that the next 

steps for Mars exploration will support science as well as long-term human exploration goals. This process will be informed by coordination with the science community and international community. NASA is developing a plan for a reformulated 

medium-class robotic science Mars mission, within available resources, to take advantage of the favorable location of Mars and Earth in 2018 or 2020. NASA’s plan 

is to work with potential international partners including ESA and the science community to lay out an initial framework for this mission over the next several months 

and produce a mission architecture by this summer. To keep this effort moving forward in Fiscal Year 2012, resources, totaling approximately $30 million, are proposed for work towards a revised mission. The budget request includes $62 million 

in Fiscal Year 2013 for this mission. 

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

how the universe began and evolved and search for Earth-like planets. The Fiscal 

Year 2013 budget request for Science includes $659.4 million for Astrophysics. 

NASA will continue to conduct science operations flights of the SOFIA aircraft in 

2012 and 2013 as we upgrade its science instruments, and will continue parallel development of efforts leading to achievement of a full operational capability in 2014. 

The Fiscal Year 2013 budget will fund the early stages of development of the next 

Astrophysics small Explorer mission to be selected early in calendar year 2013. Also 

in 2013 NASA will complete development of its instrument contributions to Japan’s 

Astro-H mission for launch in Fiscal Year 2014. The FY2013 budget enables NASA 

to continue development of the GEMS Explorer mission toward a launch in 2015. 

Finally, the Fiscal Year 2013 budget will fund the operation of eleven Astrophysics 

missions currently in operation, including the Hubble, Spitzer, Chandra, and Fermi 

space telescopes. 

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

study and answer fundamental astrophysical questions ranging from the formation 

and structure of the universe to the origin of planetary systems and the origins of 

life. The Fiscal Year 2013 budget request for Science includes $627.6 million for 

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

Space Telescope, JWST will be used by international teams of astronomers to conduct imaging and spectroscopic observations. The Observatory will be located in an 

orbit near the second Sun-Earth Lagrange point (L2), approximately 1.5 million km 

from Earth. The telescope and instruments will be operated at a temperature of 

forty degrees above absolute zero (40 Kelvin) shielded from the heat of the Sun by 

a large sunshield, to enable the Observatory to achieve unprecedented sensitivity 

over its entire wavelength range. NASA completed a new baseline cost and schedule 

for JWST at the end of calendar year 2011, and is now implementing that new baseline. All 18 JWST primary mirror segments have been completed. NASA expects to 

take delivery of all four JWST instruments in Fiscal Years 2012–2013. In Fiscal 

Year 2013, NASA will begin sunshield fabrication and continue development of the 

Integrated Science Instrument Module and the ground segment. 

15 

NASA’s Heliophysics Program seeks an understanding of the Sun, and the complex interaction of the coupled system comprising the Sun, Earth, other planetary 

systems, the vast space within the solar system, and the interface with interstellar 

space. The Fiscal Year 2013 budget request for Science includes $647.0 million for 

Heliophysics. Later this year, NASA will launch the Radiation Belt Storm Probes 

mission, and the Fiscal Year 2013 budget will fund completion of its checkout and 

its early operations. The Fiscal Year 2013 budget will fund completion and launch 

of the IRIS small Explorer mission as well as beginning of the development of the 

next small Explorer to be selected in early in calendar year 2013. Fiscal Year 2013 

will be a peak year in the development of the Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) 

mission to be launched in 2015. The Fiscal Year 2013 budget will also fund the continued formulation of the Solar Probe Plus mission and development of the Solar 

Orbiter Collaboration with ESA. NASA expects to receive the new NRC Heliophysics 

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

Also during Fiscal Year 2013, NASA will continue development of environmental 

operational satellites for NOAA on a reimbursable basis. These include the Joint 

Polar Satellite System, Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES– 

R series), Jason 3, and the Deep Space Climate Observatory. Funding for these programs is in the Department of Commerce budget request for NOAA. 

In addition to the space missions emphasized above, the Fiscal Year 2013 budget 

funds NASA’s Science Mission Directorate to continue to sponsor competitively-selected research by universities, industry, and government laboratories across the nation. Using data from these missions, the nation’s scientific community pursues answers to profound scientific questions of interest to all humanity as well as questions that enhance our national capability to predict environmental change including severe storms, droughts, and space weather events, and thereby enhance our 

economic and environmental security. 

Aeronautics Research 

NASA aeronautics research will enable the realization of the nation’s Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen), and the safer, more fuel efficient, 

quieter, and environmentally responsible aircraft that will operate within NextGen. 

Through the research we conduct and research we sponsor with universities and industry, we help to develop the technology that enables continuous innovation in 

aviation. American companies are well positioned to build on discoveries and knowledge resulting from NASA research, turning them into commercial products, benefiting the quality of life for our citizens, providing new high-quality engineering and 

manufacturing job opportunities, and enabling the United States to remain competitive in the global economy. NASA’s Fiscal Year 2013 budget request for aeronautics 

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

The Fiscal Year 2013 request for Aeronautics Research includes $168.7 million for 

the Fundamental Aeronautics Program which seeks to continually improve technology that can be infused into today’s state-of-the-art aircraft, while enabling 

game-changing new concepts such as Hybrid Wing Body airframes, tilt-rotor aircraft, low-boom supersonic aircraft, and sustained hypersonic flight. In Fiscal Years 

2010 and 2011 we conducted emissions measurements for alternative non-petroleum 

fuels derived from coal and biomass that showed dramatic reductions in particulate 

emissions in the vicinity of airports. In Fiscal Year 2013 the Program will perform 

emissions measurements behind aircraft operating at relevant altitudes and cruise 

speeds to provide the first-ever data on the impact of alternative fuels on contrail 

formation, an important factor in aviation climate impact. In Fiscal Year 2013 the 

Program will also increase its research on composite materials to enable airframe 

weight reductions beyond those achieved with current materials and structural design concepts. 

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

focus on fundamental research for high-speed flight. Research into hypersonic flight 

is also relevant to the Department of Defense and NASA will retain critical core 

competencies and national asset testing capabilities to continue productive collaborations with DOD. Responsibility for fundamental research on entry, decent, and 

landing technologies will be transferred to Space Technology to increase synergy 

with the Agency’s exploration and science missions. NASA will continue to work 

with DOD to maximize the efficiencies of current assets and investments and increase partnership to accomplish common goals. These realignments will enable 

NASA to focus on higher-priority research to improve the safety and minimize the 

environmental impacts of current and future aircraft and air traffic management 

systems. The Fiscal Year 2013 request for Aeronautics Research includes $104.0 

16 

million for the Integrated Systems Research Program. This program evaluates and 

selects the most promising environmentally friendly engine and airframe concepts 

emerging from the fundamental research programs for further development, integration, and evaluation in relevant environments. Last year, the Program completed a 

major study by three aircraft manufactures to identify the critical technologies needed to simultaneously reduce emissions, fuel burn, and noise in aircraft entering 

service in 2025. In Fiscal Year 2013, the Program will start a 3-year focused research effort on these technologies to advance their technology readiness. The Program is also addressing the emerging desire to integrate Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System. Current Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations are built upon the condition of a pilot being on-board the 

aircraft. The Program will therefore generate data for FAA use in rule-making 

through development, testing, and evaluation of UAS technologies in operationally 

relevant scenarios. 

Reductions in environmental impact will be achieved not only through new aircraft, engines, and fuels, but also through improved air traffic management procedures, which is the focus of the Airspace Systems Program with $93.3 million requested for Fiscal Year 2013. Last year the Program advised the FAA on new air 

traffic management concepts for more efficient routing of flights during their cruise 

phase. We also completed evaluations of concepts for new fuel-efficient arrival procedures and will deliver requirements for those concepts to the FAA this year. In Fiscal Year 2013 the Program will begin demonstrations to verify that several new procedures for air traffic management during arrival and taxiing to the gate that are 

enabled by NextGen Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS–B) technology can work together seamlessly. This effort will demonstrate near-term and 

mid-term ADS–B application benefits and provide airlines with data to support their 

strategic decisions related to the significant investments they need to make to equip 

their aircraft with ADS–B capability. 

The Aviation Safety Program, with $81.1 million requested for Fiscal Year 2013, 

conducts research to ensure that current and new aircraft and operational procedures maintain the high level of safety which the American public has come to expect. In Fiscal Year 2011, the Program advanced data mining methods that permit 

the discovery of flight operations and aircraft maintenance issues through automated analysis of the vast amounts of data generated during flight operations and 

by sensors onboard aircraft. These methods have enabled the development of new 

software for aircraft central maintenance computers on both business jet and large 

commercial aircraft that can identify the early stages of hardware faults 30 to 50 

flights earlier than previously possible. This allows airline maintenance personnel 

to address equipment issues before they cause a disruptive maintenance delay at 

the airport gate. The Program also focuses on mitigating environmental hazards to 

aviation and in Fiscal Year 2013 will conduct a flight campaign to characterize ice 

water content at high altitudes in tropical regions as a first step to understanding 

the causes of severe loss of power due to engine icing that has occurred on a number 

of occasions. 

U.S. leadership in aerospace depends on ready access to technologically advanced, 

efficient, and affordable aeronautics test capabilities. NASA’s Aeronautics Test Program, with $78.1M requested for Fiscal Year 2013, makes strategic investments to 

ensure the availability of these ground test facilities and flight test assets to researchers in Government, industry, and academia. In addition to this strategic management activity, the Program will continue developing new test instrumentation 

and test technologies. Last year the Program completed nearly $50 million worth 

of upgrades to major facilities funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. These upgrades provide improved research capabilities at Glenn and 

Ames Research Centers for aircraft and engine icing research, and tilt-rotor designs 

for a new generation of rotorcraft. New capabilities were also added to the Langley 

14x22 Subsonic Wind Tunnel that will enable researchers to measure noise signatures from novel aircraft designs at a fraction of the cost of noise measurement acquired by flying real aircraft over airport microphone arrays. NASA’s Aeronautics 

Test program enables and sustains U.S. leadership in aerospace yielding high quality jobs and ultimately a productive Aerospace sector. 

The Aeronautics Strategy and Management Program provides for research and 

programmatic support that benefits each of the other five Programs, and has a requested budget of $26.4 million for Fiscal Year 2013. The Program manages Directorate functions including Innovative Concepts for Aviation, Education and Outreach, and Cross Program Operations. 

NASA is making meaningful contributions to the aerospace community, but we 

cannot do all these good things alone. Therefore, our partnerships with industry, 

academia, and other Federal agencies are critical to our ability to expand the boundVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:25 Oct 24, 2012 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\76351.TXT JACKIE
17 

aries of aeronautical knowledge for the benefit of the Nation. These partnerships 

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

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

the aerospace industry. 

Human Exploration and Operations 

In 2011, NASA combined the Exploration Systems and Space Operations Mission 

Directorates to create the Human Exploration and Operations (HEO) Mission Directorate. HEO encompasses everything from the ISS and the commercial cargo and 

crew vehicles that will support it, to NASA’s new exploration vehicles, which will 

take astronauts beyond LEO. HEO also includes research and technology development efforts that will enable deep space exploration, as well as critical infrastructure and operational capabilities that ensure NASA’s ability to conduct testing, 

launch science missions, and communicate with its spacecraft across the solar system. As NASA reformulates its Mars exploration plans, we will ensure that the next 

steps for Mars exploration will take into account long-term human exploration as 

well as science goals. The Fiscal Year 2013 budget request includes $2,769.4 million for Human Exploration Capabilities, which the Agency proposes to rename Exploration Systems Development. This program includes development of the Orion MPCV, SLS heavy-lift 

launch vehicle, and the supporting ground infrastructure required for NASA’s future 

crewed missions of exploration beyond LEO and into deep space. The amounts requested align with the plan developed and supported by an independent cost analysis performed last summer. 

NASA’s Orion MPCV will carry astronauts to, and support operations at, a variety 

of destinations in our solar system for periods of up to 21 days. NASA has recently 

completed a number of tests on Orion MPCV, including a test of the main parachute, and a series of water drop tests on the 18,000-pound Orion MPCV Boiler 

Plate Test Article. The Orion ground test article will undergo and complete acoustic, 

modal, and vibration environment compatibility testing at Lockheed Martin Denver 

during fiscal year 2012. The results of these tests will help improve the design for 

the actual flight vehicle. In May, the Orion Crew Module primary structure will be 

moved to Kennedy Space Center in Florida for the start of Assembly, Integration, 

and Production. NASA plans to conduct an uncrewed high-energy-atmospheric entry 

test mission of the Orion MPCV in Fiscal Year 2014. Designated Exploration Flight 

Test-1 (EFT–1), this flight test will provide critical data to influence key design decisions. EFT–1 will also validate innovative new approaches to space systems development and operations to reduce the cost of exploration missions. For EFT–1, an early 

production variant of the Orion MPCV spacecraft will be integrated on a Lockheed 

Martin-procured, heavy class launch vehicle. The flight test will provide an opportunity to significantly inform critical design elements by operating the integrated 

spacecraft hardware and software in flight environments that cannot be duplicated 

by ground testing. 

On September 14, 2011, NASA announced the design of the SLS, which will initially be capable of lifting 70–100 metric tons before evolving to a lift capacity of 

130 metric tons for more demanding missions. NASA has worked diligently to accomplish the contracting and design work necessary to support a 2017 initial flight 

mission for the SLS. In Fiscal Year 2013, SLS will continue detailed preliminary 

design and development and undergo a preliminary design review to evaluate the 

completeness/consistency of the program’s preliminary design in meeting all requirements with appropriate margins, with acceptable risk, and within cost and schedule 

constraints. This comprehensive review will determine the program’s readiness to 

proceed with the detailed critical design phase of the project. 

The SLS will use a liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propulsion system, building 

upon the investment made by the Nation over the last forty years. The vehicle’s core 

stage will utilize existing Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME RS–25D) for the initial capability. NASA’s use of the SSME inventory will reduce initial design costs 

and take advantage of an existing human-rated system. NASA plans to modify and 

use the existing SSME contract with Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne to acquire RS– 

25D engine servicing and testing for the initial launch system. 

The upper stage of the SLS needed for the full-up SLS capability will also use 

a liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propulsion system that includes the J–2X, a 

new upper stage engine previously planned for use in the Ares-I vehicle. NASA is 

negotiating a modification to the Ares I Upper Stage contract with Boeing to develop 

the SLS core stage and upper stage, including avionics. SLS will also utilize the existing J–2X contract with Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne to continue developing the 

18 

upper stage engine. NASA has been running J–2X components through a series of 

tests. In November and December 2011, the Agency conducted three J–2X engine 

tests, firing the motor for a total of 680 seconds. These were the last of ten engine 

test firings completed in 2011. In January and February of 2012, NASA also conducted a series of J–2X Power Pack Assembly tests. These tests are part of a series 

of over 100 power-pack and integrated engine tests that NASA has planned to complete the engine design and certify the J–2X for use in the SLS Upper Stage. 

NASA plans to use five-segment solid rocket boosters for the initial capability test 

flights of the SLS. We will conduct a competition to develop the follow-on boosters 

based on performance requirements. In support of this effort, on February 9, 2012, 

the Agency released a NASA Research Announcement (NRA) for Advanced Booster 

Engineering Demonstration and Risk Reduction. Proposals are due in April and contract awards are expected in October 2012. 

On February 1, 2012, NASA also released a draft for an NRA, for advanced development of key technologies in propulsion, avionics, structures and materials, and 

other areas. The final release is planned for March, with proposals due in May and 

contract award in October 2012. 

Exploration Ground Systems (EGS) will develop the necessary ground systems infrastructure at the Kennedy Space Center and operational plans and procedures to 

prepare, assemble, test, launch and recover the Exploration architecture elements 

for long-term beyond-Earth orbit exploration. EGS will focus on the life cycle of a 

launch complex as an integrated system (from development, activation, operations, 

maintenance of capabilities to manufacture, assemble, test, checkout, launch, and 

recover flight hardware) to enable more efficient and cost-effective ground processing, launch and recovery operations. 

The Fiscal Year 2013 budget request includes $829.7 million for the Commercial 

Spaceflight theme. This effort will support commercial providers to develop and operate safe, reliable, and affordable commercial systems to transport crew and cargo 

to and from the ISS and LEO. 

As part of the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program— 

NASA’s commercial cargo effort—NASA has partnerships with Space Exploration 

Technologies, Inc. (SpaceX) and Orbital Sciences Corporation (Orbital) using funded 

Space Act Agreements. These agreements include a schedule of fixed payment performance milestones culminating in a demonstration mission to the ISS that includes vehicle launch, spacecraft rendezvous, ISS berthing, and re-entry for disposal 

or return to Earth. Both COTS partners continue to make progress in developing 

and demonstrating their systems. Based on the success of their first COTS demo 

flight in December 2010, SpaceX plans to fully develop and assemble their next vehicle with the capabilities and equipment necessary to complete rendezvous and 

berthing demonstration to the ISS, thus potentially combining milestones that had 

been planned for separate flights. If successful, this will accelerate the completion 

of the COTS Space Act Agreement and enable delivery of cargo under the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contract. This mission is tentatively planned for April 

2012. Orbital Sciences is currently mating the main engines for its Antares vehicle 

to the core stage in preparation for an integrated static fire later this year. The 

maiden flight of the Antares is planned for the second quarter of 2012 and the 

COTS demonstration mission is planned for the third quarter. The pad complex at 

Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia is being readied and space flight hardware, including the first Pressurized Cargo Module, two Antares core sections, and a Castor30 upper stage, has already been delivered to Wallops Flight Facility. 

The Commercial Crew Program (CCP) aims to facilitate the development of a U.S. 

commercial crew space transportation capability with the goal of achieving safe, reliable, and cost effective access to and from low-Earth orbit and ISS. Since 2009, 

NASA has conducted two CCDev competitions, soliciting proposals from U.S. industry to further advance commercial crew space transportation system concepts and 

mature the design and development of elements of the system. During the second 

CCDev competition, known as CCDev2, NASA awarded four funded Space Act 

Agreements that are currently being executed with Blue Origin, The Boeing Company, Sierra Nevada Corporation, and SpaceX, all of which are making good 

progress in achieving their milestones. NASA has also signed Space Act Agreements 

without funding with three additional companies: Alliant Techsystems, Inc., United 

Launch Alliance, and Excalibur Almaz, Incorporated. 

Under the CCP, NASA plans to partner with U.S. industry, providing technical 

and financial assistance to facilitate industry’s development of an integrated crew 

transportation system. In the longer term, once those entities are certified, NASA 

plans to buy transportation services from commercial entities for U.S. and U.S.-designated astronauts to the ISS. 

19 

Congress appropriated $406 million for CCP in Fiscal Year 2012 which reflected 

a substantial reduction from NASA’s request for this program. The Fiscal Year 2012 

appropriation enables the Agency to move forward with its plans to support the development of commercial services that may eventually support crew transportation 

and rescue capabilities in support of ISS. However, the constrained budget environment necessitated a reassessment of NASA’s overall strategy for this Program. On 

December 15, 2011, NASA announced a modified competitive acquisition strategy 

designed to make the best use of available resources and to pursue the most effective path to the achievement of a commercial crew capability. Instead of using firmfixed price contracts for the next phase of the Program, the Agency plans to continue using multiple, competitively awarded and funded Space Act Agreements for 

another round of CCP. NASA will use procurement contracts to certify these capabilities before they are used to support ISS. Using competitive Space Act Agreements instead of contracts at this juncture will allow NASA to maintain multiple 

partners during this phase of the Program, and provide NASA with the flexibility 

to more easily adjust to various funding levels. This new acquisition strategy will 

allow NASA to preserve greater competition and maintain momentum to provide a 

U.S.-based commercial crew launch capability at the earliest possible time. 

NASA is pleased with the steady progress of U.S. commercial providers in developing domestic cargo and crew transportation services. NASA currently has contracts for cargo services and intends to purchase crew services from U.S. providers 

once they are certified to our crew requirements. Obtaining needed cargo and crew 

transportation services from U.S. providers is NASA’s preferred method for sustaining and fully utilizing the ISS. Nevertheless, given current funding levels for the 

development of U.S. crew transportation systems, we anticipate the need to purchase Soyuz crew transportation and rescue capabilities into 2017. As NASA has 

previously testified, modification of the Iran, North Korea, Syria Non-proliferation 

Act (INKSNA) provisions will likely be required for the continued operation of ISS 

and other space programs after 2016. The Administration plans to propose appropriate provisions and looks forward to working with the Congress on their enactment. NASA is evaluating how this issue impacts the development of U.S. crew 

transportation systems and NASA’s acquisition of services for the ISS and goods 

and services for other NASA human spaceflight activities, given the possibility that 

some U.S. domestic providers will need to use Russian goods and services. In addition to the need driven by the ISS transportation requirements, NASA will require 

Russia-unique critical capabilities for the life of the ISS, such as sustaining engineering for the Russian built U.S. owned Functional Cargo Block, that are not available elsewhere. 

The Fiscal Year 2013 budget request includes $333.7 million for Exploration Research and Development (ERD). The Exploration Research and Development (ERD) 

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

and will develop advanced exploration systems and capabilities that will enable humans to explore space in a more sustainable and affordable way. ERD is comprised 

of the Human Research Program (HRP) and the Advanced Exploration Systems 

(AES) Program, which will provide knowledge and advanced human spaceflight capabilities. NASA’s Office of the Chief Technologist (see below) coordinates closely 

with ERD to ensure that NASA’s long range, crosscutting Space Technology research is complementary to ERD’s human exploration focused work. 

HRP and its associated projects will continue to develop technologies, countermeasures, diagnostics, and design tools to keep crews safe and productive on longduration space missions. ISS crews are conducting relevant human medical research 

to develop knowledge in the areas of clinical medicine, human physiology, cardiovascular research, bone and muscle health, neurovestibular medicine, diagnostic instruments and sensors, advanced ultrasound, exercise and pharmacological countermeasures, food and nutrition, immunology and infection, exercise systems, and 

human behavior and performance. While this research is aimed at enabling astronauts to push the boundaries of exploration beyond low-Earth Orbit (LEO), NASA 

anticipates that investigations conducted aboard ISS may have broad application to 

terrestrial medicine, as well. 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 AES Program is pioneering new approaches for rapidly developing prototype 

systems, demonstrating key capabilities, and validating operational concepts for future human missions beyond Earth orbit. AES activities are uniquely related to 

crew safety and mission operations in deep space, and are strongly coupled to future 

vehicle and exploration capability development. Early integration and testing of prototype systems will reduce risk and improve affordability of exploration mission elements. The prototype systems developed in the AES Program will be demonstrated 

20 

in ground-based test beds, field tests, underwater tests, and flight experiments on 

the ground and then on the ISS. Many AES projects will evolve into larger integrated systems and mission elements that will be tested on ISS before we venture 

beyond Earth orbit, thus leveraging the value of the Station as a vital exploration 

test-bed. 

The Fiscal Year 2013 budget request includes $70.6 million for the Space Shuttle 

Transition and Retirement (T&R). In 2011, the Shuttle flew out its remaining missions safely. On February 24, Discovery launched on mission STS–133, carrying 

supplies to ISS, as well as the permanent a Multi-purpose Module (PMM)—a MultiPurpose Logistics Module (MPLM) transformed to remain on orbit, expanding the 

Station’s storage volume. On May 16, Endeavour, STS–134, carried the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) and attached it to the Station’s truss structure. The final 

Shuttle mission, STS–135, launched on July 8, delivered critical supplies to the ISS. 

With the landing of Atlantis on July 21, 2011, the 30-year Shuttle Program was 

brought to a close. The Space Shuttle Program is now focused on the transition of 

key assets and infrastructure to future programs, and the retirement, and disposition of Program assets. 

In Fiscal Year 2012, NASA is funding United Space Alliance’s (USA’s) Space Program Operations Contract (SPOC) Pension Liability. During the Shuttle Program, 

USA consistently incorporated and billed the maximum allowable costs into their indirect rates, but the deterioration of the equities and credit markets caused their 

plan to be underfunded by a currently estimated $522 million. The estimate will 

fluctuate until payout in the summer of 2012. The variance is protected in the transition and retirement budget line item. The Space Program Operations Contract, 

which accounts for almost all of USA’s business base, is a cost-type contract covered 

by the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS). These standards stipulate that any costs 

of terminating plans are a contractual obligation of the Government (if deemed allowable, allocable, and reasonable). NASA and USA entered into an agreement 

under which USA froze their pension plans as of December 31, 2010, and deferred 

any decision about terminating their plan until after NASA received its Fiscal Year 

2012 appropriation, allowing NASA to address this issue with Fiscal Year 2012 

funds. If funding remains after the pension plan termination, it will be used to defray Space Shuttle closeout costs that would otherwise require Fiscal Year 2013 

funding. If there is a shortfall, it will reduce available Space Shuttle funds for closeout and some activity could move later than planned. NASA will keep Congress informed as this issue evolves. 

The Fiscal Year 2013 budget request includes $3,007.6 million for the International Space Station (ISS) Program. This funding will support ISS Operations 

and Maintenance, ISS Research, and ISS Crew and Cargo Transportation. The ISS 

has transitioned from the construction era to that of operations and research, with 

a 6-person permanent crew, 3 major science labs, an operational lifetime through 

at least 2020, and a growing complement of cargo vehicles, including the European 

Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) and the Japanese H–II Transfer Vehicle (HTV). 

The Fiscal Year 2013 budget request reflects the importance of this unparalleled research asset to America’s human spaceflight program. 

In the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (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 great strides in its effort to engage other organizations in the 

ISS program, and the Agency now has Memoranda of Understanding with five Federal agencies and Space Act Agreements with nine companies and universities. In 

the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (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, on August 31, 2011, 

NASA finalized a cooperative agreement with the Center for the Advancement of 

Science in Space (CASIS) to manage the portion of the ISS that operates as a U.S. 

National Laboratory. CASIS will be located in the 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. CASIS will develop and manage a varied Research and Development 

portfolio based on U.S. national needs for basic and applied research; seek to 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 (STEM) education. The goal is to support, promote and accelerate innovations and new discoveries in science, engineering and technology that will improve 

life on Earth. 

21 

The Fiscal Year 2013 budget request includes $935.0 million for Space and Flight 

Support (SFS). The budget request provides for critical infrastructure indispensable 

to the Nation’s access to and use of space, including Space Communications and 

Navigation (SCaN), Launch Services Program (LSP), Rocket Propulsion Test (RPT), 

and Human Space Flight Operations (HSFO). The SFS budget also includes investment in the 21st Century Space Launch Complex, whose primary objective is to 

modernize and transform the Florida launch and range complex at the Kennedy 

Space Center to benefit current and future NASA programs, along with other 

emerging users. Fiscal Year 2013 is an important period for NASA’s Space Communications and Navigation (SCaN) Program. The Program is responsible for NASA’s 

Tracking and Data Rely Satellites (TDRS) that provide a critical backbone for space 

communications. Fiscal Year 2013 will include the scheduled launch TDRS–K, an 

additional satellite in the system; completion of TDRS L integration; and the development of TDRS–M, which will be ready for launch in 2015. These spacecraft will 

refurbish this important network as aging TDRS are retired after 20 years of service 

to the Nation. Also under construction is a 34-meter antenna at the Deep Space 

Network’s Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex, with plans to build a second, to replace the aging 70-meter antenna. These antennae in the Southern Hemisphere will be particularly important as the Earth’s rotation brings this site into 

the best range for tracking NASA’s deep space missions in the coming decade. In 

preparation for supporting NASA’s space science program, SCaN is developing space 

communications technology, including the Lunar Laser Communications Demonstration and the Laser Communication Relay Demonstration, which will lead to the capability of handling the huge increase in scientific data expected from NASA’s 

planned spacecraft. Additionally, this capability could enable greater bandwidth and 

capabilities to support expanded education, participatory engagement, and interactive exploration opportunities. SCaN also anticipates the launch of its SCaN Testbed in June on the Japanese Space Agency’s HTV cargo vehicle. The test-bed, composed of three Software-Defined Radios, will provide the bridge to advance technological innovation by actual testing in the real space environment. As a pathfinder 

it will be made available to industry, academia and other Government agencies. 

The Launch Services Program (LSP) has several planned NASA launches in Fiscal Year 2013, including the, Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM), Tracking 

and Data Relay Satellite (TDRS)-K, and Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph 

(IRIS), and will continue to provide support for the development and certification 

of emerging launch services. In Fiscal Year 2013, the Rocket Propulsion and Test 

(RPT) program will continue to conduct test facility management, maintenance, sustaining engineering, operations, and facility modernization projects required to keep 

the test-related facilities in the appropriate state of operational readiness. The RPT 

program will continue to assist in rocket propulsion testing requirements definition 

for low-Earth orbit and in-space propulsion systems and related technologies 

Technology 

The Office of the Chief Technologist (OCT) coordinates the Agency’s overall technology portfolio. OCT ensures that NASA’s investments are cost-effective and that 

they are aligned with the Agency’s near- and far-term goals. Over the last year, 

OCT has engaged thousands of technologists and innovators to develop and test cutting-edge technologies distributed across the country. While the NRC conducted its 

review of NASA’s technology roadmaps, OCT worked with mission architecture 

teams to identify key technology areas requiring immediate investment. Using these 

internal, cross-Agency working groups, NASA selected nine technologies to receive 

priority funding based on their criticality in extending human presence beyond lowEarth orbit and their ability to dramatically further scientific exploration of the 

solar system. These ‘‘Big 9’’ projects are: Laser Communications Relay Demonstration, Cryogenic Propellant Storage and Transfer, Low Density Supersonic Decelerators, Composite Cryogenic Propellant Tanks, Robotic Satellite Servicing, Hypersonic 

Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerators, Deep Space Atomic Clock, Large-Scale Solar 

Sail, and Human-Robotic Systems. 

On February 1, 2012, the NRC released its final review of NASA’s Draft Space 

Technology Roadmaps. The NRC identified sixteen top-priority technologies necessary for future missions, and which could also benefit American aerospace industries and the nation. The sixteen were chosen by the NRC from its own ranking of 

83 high-priority technologies out of approximately 300 identified in the draft roadmaps. In the coming months, OCT will lead an agency-wide analysis and coordination effort to inform future technology investments on the basis of the NRC report. 

The Fiscal Year 2013 request for Space Technology is $699 million and funds ongoing high-priority space technology projects that will increase the nation’s capability to operate in space and enable long-term human exploration and develop effiVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:25 Oct 24, 2012 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\76351.TXT JACKIE
22 

ciencies for deep space science missions. In Fiscal Year 2013, NASA will begin to 

see major milestones achieved within Space Technology’s ‘‘Big 9’’ efforts. Designed 

to deliver data rates that will enable new class of deep-space exploration missions, 

the Laser Communications Relay Demonstration project will begin ground validation activities of advanced laser communication systems. Enabling precise landing 

of higher-mass payloads to the surface of planets, the Low Density Supersonic Decelerators effort will complete three critical full-scale tests to demonstrate parachute 

and inflatable decelerator performance required prior to supersonic-speed flight 

demonstration. The Composite Cryogenic (low-temperature) Propellant Tank project 

will design and build a five-meter-diameter composite cryogenic propellant tank that 

will yield lower mass and lower cost rocket propellant tanks. The Cryogenic Propellant Storage and Transfer demonstration mission will conduct ground tests of the 

critical technologies required to enable long-term storage and handling of cryogenic 

fluids in space in preparation for a flight demonstration. While these projects will 

make visible individual steps in Fiscal Year 2013, they are part of a broader portfolio of activities that Space Technology will pursue in order to generate new technologies for use by NASA, other government agencies, and U.S. industry. 

Within Space Technology, NASA funds Crosscutting Space Technology Develop- ment at $293.8 million to enable NASA to develop transformational, broadly applicable technologies and capabilities that are necessary for NASA’s future science and 

exploration missions, and also collaborates on the aerospace needs of other government agencies and the U.S. space enterprise. NASA’s CSTD activities are funded 

through a mix of competitive and strategically-guided projects to attract a broad 

array of participants. Investments support research fellowships, NASA Innovative 

Advanced Concepts (NIAC), Centennial Challenges, suborbital flight opportunities, 

and advancements in small satellite technologies and systems. 

NASA also funds Exploration Technology Development at $202 million to invest 

in the long-range technologies required for humans to explore beyond low-Earth 

orbit. ETD technologies are higher risk investments that complement architecture 

and systems development efforts within Exploration by maturing breakthrough 

technology prior to integration with operational capabilities. As projects are matured, new projects are selected competitively to provide the opportunity to develop 

the best ideas, innovations, approaches and processes for the future human space 

exploration efforts. 

Funded based on a percentage of the Agency’s total extramural R&D, the Small 

Business Innovative Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer 

(STTR) programs continue to support research and development performed by small 

businesses through competitively-awarded contracts. Estimated at approximately 

$173.7 million in Fiscal Year 2013, these programs produce innovations for both 

Government and commercial applications. SBIR and STTR provide the high-technology small business sector with the opportunity to develop technology for NASA, 

and commercialize that technology to provide goods and services that address other 

national needs based on the products of NASA innovation. 

Partnership Development and Strategic Integration, funded at $29.5 million, comprises key Agency responsibilities managed by OCT: technology partnerships, technology transfer and commercialization, and the coordination of NASA’s technology 

investments across the Agency through technology portfolio tracking and technology 

road-mapping. By providing coordination between Mission Directorates and Centers, 

and identifying collaboration opportunities with other government agencies and performing technology transfer, NASA can deliver forward-reaching technology solutions for future science and exploration missions, and help address significant national needs. 

Within this portfolio, OCT engages in national technology development initiatives 

such as the National Robotics Initiative, the National Nanotechnology Initiative and 

the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership, and seeks partnerships with external entities for collaborative technology development. OCT engages the larger aerospace 

community including other Government agencies, and where there are mutual interests, develops partnerships to efficiently develop breakthrough capabilities. 

Education 

The Fiscal Year 2013 request includes $100 million for NASA’s Office of Education to develop Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education activities that only NASA can provide. The funding request would allow undergraduate and graduate students to work alongside NASA scientists and engineers through internships and fellowships at NASA centers. It includes educator 

professional development, helping our country’s educators become proficient in 

STEM topics, and providing them opportunities to practice hands-on investigations. 

NASA will also continue to support the institutions where learning takes place. 

23 

Through the Space Grant and Minority University Research and Education projects, 

NASA will work with hundreds of universities and community colleges, strengthening their capacity to train the next generation of scientists and engineers, encouraging student design challenges, and connecting faculty with NASA research. And, 

because we know inspiration doesn’t just happen in a classroom, we will engage 

learners in NASA content at our visitor centers and in partnership with museums, 

science centers, planetariums and other informal education venues. 

NASA is one of many Federal government programs that support STEM education. NASA is working with other agencies through the National Science and 

Technology Council’s Committee on STEM Education to effect optimal revisions to 

fund coordinated and effective student and teacher opportunities. NASA will focus 

its resources on demonstrated areas of strength in its unique role in STEM education. NASA brings many assets to support the Administration’s emphasis on 

(STEM education beyond funding. Our people, platforms like the ISS and our facilities across the Nation all contribute to strengthening STEM education. 

Recognizing that the nature of our work is inspirational to learners and educators, 

NASA will leverage the talents of our workforce to support the critical STEM education needs of our Nation. In collaboration with other Federal agencies, NASA will 

leverage unique assets like the International Space Station (ISS), to provide meaningful experiences. In March, Educator Astronaut Joe Acaba, a former middle and 

high school teacher, will begin a six-month mission onboard the ISS. During his 

time in space, he will work closely with our education team on the ground to share 

his experience with classrooms across America. 

Cross-Agency Support 

The Fiscal Year 2013 budget request includes $2,847.5 million for Cross-Agency 

Support, which provides critical mission support activities that are necessary to ensure the efficient and effective operation and administration of the Agency. These 

important functions align and sustain institutional and program capabilities to support NASA missions by leveraging resources to meet mission needs, establishing 

Agency-wide capabilities, and providing institutional checks and balances. Within 

this budget request, NASA has taken steps to reduce its administrative expenses, 

including a hiring slowdown and reduced travel. 

NASA’s Fiscal Year 2013 budget request includes $2,093.3 million for Center Management and Operations, which funds the critical ongoing management, operations, 

and maintenance of nine NASA Centers, as well as associated major component facilities. NASA Centers continue to provide high-quality support and the technical 

engineering and scientific talent for the execution of programs and projects. This 

technical expertise represents a true national resource. Center Management and 

Operations provides the basic support required to meet internal and external legal 

and administrative requirements; effectively manage human capital, information 

technology, and facility assets; responsibly execute financial management and all 

NASA acquisitions; ensure independent engineering and scientific technical oversight of NASA’s programs and projects in support of mission success and safety considerations; and, provide a safe, secure, and sustainable workplace that meets local, 

state, and Federal requirements. 

NASA’s Fiscal Year 2013 budget request includes $754.2 million for Agency Management and Operations, which funds the critical management and oversight of 

Agency missions, programs and functions, and performance of a broad spectrum of 

NASA-wide activities. These programs include Safety and Mission Success activities, 

essential to reducing the likelihood of loss of life and likelihood of mission success 

in our human and robotic programs. Safety and Mission Success funding supports 

the maintenance of independent safety, health, medical and engineering assessments of systems and processes, as well as the performance of the broad risk assessments, mitigations, and acceptance related to critical Agency decisions. Agency Information Technology Services (AITS) encompasses Agency-level cross-cutting services and initiatives in Information Technology (IT) innovation, business and management applications, and infrastructure necessary to enable the NASA Mission. 

The Strategic Capabilities Assets Program (SCAP) ensure that vital Agency test capabilities and assets, such as flight simulators and thermal vacuum chambers are 

sustained in order to serve Agency and national needs. The Agency Management 

and Operations account funds salary and benefits for civil service employees at 

NASA Headquarters, as well as other Headquarters personnel costs, such as mandated training. It also contains labor funding for Agency-wide personnel costs, such 

as Agency training, and workforce located at multiple NASA Centers that provide 

the critical skills and capabilities required to execute mission support programs 

Agency-wide. 

24 

Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration 

The Fiscal Year 2013 budget request includes $619.2 million for Construction and 

Environmental Compliance and Restoration. NASA Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration provides for the design and execution of all facilities construction projects, including discrete and minor revitalization projects, 

demolition of closed facilities, and environmental compliance and restoration. 

The Fiscal Year 2013 budget request includes $552.8 million for the Construction 

of Facilities (CoF) Program, which funds capital repairs and improvements to ensure 

that facilities critical to achieving NASA’s space and aeronautics programs are safe, 

secure, sustainable, and operate efficiently. The Agency continues to place emphasis 

on achieving a sustainable and energy-efficient infrastructure by replacing old, inefficient, deteriorated buildings and infrastructure with new, efficient, and high performance buildings and infrastructure that will meet NASA’s mission needs while 

reducing the Agency’s overall footprint and future operating costs. In August 2011, 

NASA opened the Agency’s first building designed for ‘‘Net-Zero’’ energy operations, 

the Propellants North Administration and Maintenance Facility at the Kennedy 

Space Center in Florida. Two active programs that result in NASA achieving greater efficiencies and reduced operating costs are NASA’s demolition program and recapitalization program, in which old inefficient facilities are replaced with new, efficient, consolidated facilities. Twelve horizontal infrastructure projects that sustain 

our major utility systems are included in this request; completion of these projects 

will reduce our usage of potable and process water, electricity and steam. 

The Fiscal Year 2013 budget request includes $66.4 million for the Environmental 

Compliance and Restoration (ECR) Program, which supports the ongoing clean-up 

of sites where NASA operations have contributed to environmental problems. The 

ECR Program prioritizes these efforts to ensure that human health and the environment are protected. This Program also supports strategic investments in sustainable 

environmental methods and practices aimed at reducing NASA’s environmental footprint and lowering the risk of future cleanups. 

Conclusion 

NASA’s Fiscal Year 2013 budget request of $17.7 billion represents a substantial 

investment in a balanced program of science, exploration, technology and aeronautics research. Despite the constrained budget environment facing the Nation, 

this request supports a robust space program that keeps us on a path to achieving 

a truly audacious set of goals. NASA is working to send humans to an asteroid and 

ultimately to Mars, to observe the first galaxies form, and to expand the productivity of humanity’s only permanently-crewed space station. We are making air travel safer and more efficient, learning to live and work in space, and developing the 

critical technologies to achieve these goals. The coming year will include the first 

commercial cargo flights to the ISS, a nuclear powered robot the size of a small car 

landing on the surface of Mars, and the launch of the Nation’s next land observing 

satellite. We have spacecraft studying the Sun, circling Mercury, cruising to Pluto 

and investigating almost everything in-between. In the face of very difficult times, 

the American people continue to support the most active, diverse and productive 

space program in the world. We at NASA are honored by our fellow citizens’ continued support and we are committed to accomplishing the goals that Congress and 

the President have laid out for us. The program described and supported by our Fiscal Year 2013 budget request represents our plan to accomplish those goals. 

Senator NELSON. By the way, one of the differences between you 

and Dr. Tyson is you refer to it as MPCV, and he will refer to it 

as Orion. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BOLDEN. That is very true, and he is correct. 

Senator NELSON. Senator Hutchison? 

Senator HUTCHISON. Mr. Administrator, I heard what you just 

said, but here is how I come at my concern. I told you at our last 

hearing and also I have said to you in many meetings that we have 

had, I do support additional funding and the goal of a Commercial 

Crew vehicle because I think that is an important first step. 

But I have always said that as long as it doesn’t come from the 

future beyond low-Earth orbit that we are going to be on the same 

team. So you called me with your budget proposal that was going 

25 

to come out of the administration, and I see a $326 million combined reduction in Orion and SLS and a corresponding increase of 

$330 million for Commercial Crew. 

And I was, frankly, floored, as you know from our conversation, 

that it would be so blatant to take it right out of Orion and SLS 

and put it into Commercial Crew, rather than trying to accomplish 

the joint goals that we have of putting forward both and making 

sure that we didn’t take away from the timetables for the future 

to shore up the Commercial Crew. How can you explain that? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, the numbers that we submitted are numbers that are consistent with the plan that we had all gone over 

when we started talking about the development of MPCV and SLS. 

As I mentioned before, we had to make very difficult choices because we were $2 billion below what we thought we would be for 

a Fiscal Year 2013 budget. 

Cuts came from everywhere. Reductions came from everywhere. 

What we tried to do was maintain a balanced program. In fact, 

what we did was submit a budget request for a balanced program. 

And as I have mentioned, we have not slowed the development 

of SLS and MPCV. In fact, we have actually done some things that 

we did not know we were going to do. Our contractor, prime contractor for the Orion spacecraft has put in a 2014 test that Senator 

Nelson mentioned. That was not originally in our plan. 

The exploration vehicle flight test, which will be flown 2 years 

from now in 2014, was not originally in our plan, and it is something that we have been able to find the funds to do. That will buy 

down significant risk on Orion, and it will keep us from having to 

worry about some things that we would have to either pay for or 

even take time to do in subsequent development. 

So that is going to allow us, actually, to get to the 2017 date, 

which is the first uncrewed test of the integrated system, and that 

is very important for us. You know, more money would not change 

that date. That is development work that we have to do. 

Getting there, I feel much more comfortable now that we have 

the 2014 flight test planned that Lockheed Martin is going to do 

on Orion. 

Senator HUTCHISON. What concerns me is not those two dates, 

the 2014 and the 2017. But you have now put dates on a crewed 

launch of the Orion onboard the SLS for 4 years later at 2021. Now 

I have heard you say that, well, it takes longer to complete the 

human safety ratings for the vehicles, and we need to have catchup time. 

But 4 years gap doesn’t seem to square with staying on a course 

for that future when the Space Station is going to be presumably 

shut down in 2020. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, actually, what we need to do is we will go 

through another—in this year, we will have a much better feel for 

where we are in terms of the progress of our development, and that 

date may change. But that is a date that we look at right now 

based on a level budget run-out. 

The 2021 date is a date that is affected by budget. And given the 

budget run-out that we see right now, that is the date that is there. 

But we still have some more evaluations in our planning to do before we are able to actually make a definitive decision on the first 

26 

date for a crewed launch. But 2021 is—I am a conservative person, 

and 2021 is a conservative estimate for the first crewed mission on 

the integrated SLS/MPCV combination. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, you said that everybody had to be cut 

some to make the priorities. But in fact, the Commercial Crew vehicle approach that you are taking was not cut. It was plussed up 

from last year’s spending levels. 

And yet you cut the Orion and SLS to presumably make that 

happen. I mean, it was almost exactly the same amount of cut in 

the SLS and Orion that was plussed up in your budget for the 

crew, which continues to come back as some sort of quid pro quo 

that you are overprioritizing the commercial and not being as concerned about keeping the people at NASA who would be able to 

stay involved to get us to that next level when the Space Station 

is going to be decommissioned. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, you commented about a number of things. 

Just very briefly I would say our workforce is stable. I am not 

doing anything that will take away from the NASA workforce. 

But I do want to say that in terms of the Commercial Crew program, I do need to take us back—— 

Senator HUTCHISON. Are you saying that with the $330 million 

cut that it is not going to affect the NASA workforce? 

Mr. BOLDEN. I am saying that the NASA workforce, the SES 

workforce, the 17,000-plus people that we have right now, as far 

as we see is stable to a certain point. You know, everybody, we are 

looking at how we move the skills around. 

So our center directors right now are working to determine how 

they take the projects that we have assigned them and how we 

may need to move skills around or bring in. We want to bring in 

fresh blood, if you will. We are looking for how we take some of 

the interns and co-ops that we train and employ them. 

So those are issues of workforce that we are looking at. But the 

civil service workforce I don’t expect to be affected by this budget. 

This budget enables us to keep our civil service workforce relatively 

stable for now. 

What I do want to emphasize is when we talk about Commercial 

Crew, it is very easy to use $406 million as a baseline. That is not 

the baseline. If you all will recall, my original request, my original 

request was over $1 billion. 

We brought that down for Fiscal Year 2012 to $850 million. We 

were cut by half. When I was asked last year what effect does it 

have if you don’t get $850 million, I said that directly affects the 

date of delivery of Commercial Crew capability. That is how we got 

to 2017, instead of 2015, 2016. 

And any subsequent reductions from what the President has requested for Commercial Crew only serves to delay the amount of 

time that we have a commercial and American capability to get our 

crews to the International Space Station. The reason I wanted to 

emphasize the importance of ISS is I have to be able to support 

that. 

You know, I am not worried about it right now for cargo because 

of STS–134 and STS–135 that this Congress funded after the President’s request. So we all worked together to get that, and it is really important that we got STS–134 and 135 flown. Because now, 

27 

with the delays that we may see in getting to a viable crew and 

cargo program, we are not worried about having to de-man station. 

I need to get American crews to station on American vehicles, and decreasing the amount of money below $829 million, what we 

request, will not help close that gap. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Mr. Administrator, we agree that we need 

to get the Commercial Crew up so that we are not dependent on 

the Russians. In our authorization bill, we provided the allocations 

that would allow that to happen without taking from the longer 

term, the beyond low-Earth orbit vehicles. The authorization level was $500 million. That was signed by the 

President. That is part of the agreement. So when you come in and 

ask for $850 million, and you take it right out of Orion and SLS, 

we have got a disconnect here if you are saying that is the baseline 

budget. No, no, $500 million is the authorized level. 

So I want to ask you a question because I have been looking at 

this and trying to get a way forward that the crew—the Commercial Crew vehicle can go forward with a reasonable level. We can 

also not stop the beyond low-Earth orbit. Both the NASA employee 

base and the commercial vehicles can go forward. And here is the 

line that I would like to take and have your response. 

And it is in the insistence on spreading the money out to some 

multiples—three, maybe more companies, commercial companies— 

to subsidize these companies, which some of them are not going to 

be able to function if they don’t have these subsidies once you make 

a decision about who is going to do the vehicle. So we are essentially throwing a lot of money at some companies that may never 

be able to use it to the taxpayer advantage. 

You reversed a previous decision to use a Federal acquisition regulations-based procurement for Commercial Crew in the next phase 

leading to the critical design review of the various systems, and 

you have gone back to the use of the Space Act Agreements. The 

Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel recently issued its report expressing some concerns about this approach and the degree to which it 

can enable NASA to ensure that safety standards are being met. 

So I am just wondering if you are going to put off the safety-related human rating requirements to that next level, isn’t there 

maybe an overspending at this point in the proliferating of companies that are getting the Federal subsidies? 

And couldn’t you, number one, make the Commercial Crew developers more accountable in the early stages if you cut back on the 

number of companies that you are dealing with and go back to 

maybe the more traditional approach of setting the designs and the 

standards and then going out for bids, and lowering the number of 

subsidies you have to do of private companies to maybe two, instead of three or more? And spend the taxpayer dollars more efficiently and be able to do the job that we want you to be able to 

do for Commercial Crew, and also keep the ongoing coordination 

with your NASA-based SLS and Orion development and have a win 

on both sides? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, let me offer this. If I had made an earlier 

decision to go with one of the two companies that were believed to 

be competitors for Commercial Crew, Boeing would not be in the 

competition now. 

28 

Senator HUTCHISON. And I am glad Boeing is. 

Mr. BOLDEN. I am just saying—— 

Senator HUTCHISON. But we are where we are. We are not back 

there. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, I am just saying—— 

Senator HUTCHISON. And I am glad Boeing is in—— 

Mr. BOLDEN.—for those who would like to—— 

Senator HUTCHISON. That gives me comfort. 

Mr. BOLDEN. For those who would like to see me make a decision 

on a company now or would like to have seen me go with a contract 

in February, as my original acquisition strategy stated, the experts, 

people who are considered to be experts in acquisition and funding—GAO, the NASA ASAP, my OIG—many of them said, given 

the budget, given you have now $406 million, we think it is prudent—this is their direction to me. 

We feel it is prudent for you to review your acquisition strategy 

and maybe not go with the strategy that you presently have. No 

one was as reluctant as was I to change my mind on the acquisition strategy. 

We had come to the strategy that we had after long deliberation. 

So to go back and say we are going to extend the use of Space Act 

Agreements was not something that was, you know, tops on my list 

of things I want to do. 

However, I felt very comfortable in doing that because we had 

adhered to the insistence from the ASAP, from the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, that we put requirements and specifications in 

place so that any person planning to bid on a Commercial Crew 

system—not a vehicle, on a system—and that is what we are talking about now, would know what NASA’s requirements are, would 

know what NASA’s human rating specifications were, and would 

have no ground on which to stand to say, well, in this design that 

we developed, we didn’t know you were going to. 

No one can say that because there are hard requirements out 

there right now that anyone who gets a contract will have to follow. 

There are hard specifications for human rating standards that everybody knows that is what, they have them in hand. They cannot 

say, ‘‘I don’t know.’’ 

The problem, there is no problem of safety with going to Space 

Act Agreements. The Space Act Agreements input program risk, 

not safety risk. I am responsible for safety. And as I have said from 

the day that I became the Administrator, I will not jeopardize safety for crews. 

Safety is not being jeopardized by going to the Space Act Agreement, expanding that. We still will guarantee safety. 

Senator HUTCHISON. But the budget and the future, Mr. Administrator, the budget and the future are being jeopardized. So if you 

say the safety is there, why not go to fewer companies now? Now 

that you do have the ones that are going to be the most serious 

contenders, why not go like they did the F–35, for instance, where 

you did go through two pretty comprehensive competitions and do 

it within the budget that we have agreed to that was in the authorization? 

Mr. BOLDEN. The F–35 is not a great example. It is not a good 

comparison because there was a long road before getting to that 

29 

point where they came down to two competitors. They went 

through much of what we did. 

But I need to give these companies time to learn lessons that 

NASA has learned through blood, and that is the advantage of extending the Space Act Agreement period of time. It is now giving 

Ed Mango and his Commercial Crew team an opportunity to put 

people in the facilities. 

We have NASA employees who are onsite with the contractors, 

acting as consultants, seeing how they perform, seeing how they do 

their work, overseeing what they do in terms—or not overseeing in 

terms of control, but looking at the way that they carry out their 

design and productivity. 

We are much better off having a little bit more time to look at 

them and determine who the real players are, such that when we 

finally go out with a request for proposal 14 to 20 months after this 

that we know we will get a good product. 

We still think we are going to have a crew system available in 

2017. You know, that date is set. Now that is something that more 

money might be able to change. But for right now, 2017 is a date 

that is not in jeopardy with the President’s budget. 

If we have to extend any other periods, then the 2017 date becomes jeopardized, and our ability to support the International 

Space Station with American companies on American vehicles becomes jeopardized. And that is not where I want to go. I am going to pay the Russians $450 million a year for every 

year that I don’t have an American capability to put humans into 

low-Earth orbit. And I know you don’t want to do that. You and 

I have both agreed. But that is the price I pay, $450 million. If you add that to $406, I am up to $850 million. So I just—you 

know, I am trying. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Mr. Chairman? I mean, Mr. Administrator? 

Mr. BOLDEN. We are not taking money away from SLS/MPCV. 

The SLS/MPCV—— 

Senator HUTCHISON. But you are. It is clear. It is in the numbers, and it is irrefutable. 

If you had the passion and the concern for the SLS and the Orion 

that you have for protecting whatever number of commercial companies that you want to put out there—— 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, not to get personal—— 

Senator HUTCHISON. I just think—— 

Mr. BOLDEN. My passion for SLS/MPCV exceeds anybody’s in 

this room. So I just—— 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, it is not shown in the numbers, Mr. 

Administrator. That is the problem. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, I fight for SLS/MPCV just as much as I 

do for every other of the three priorities we have agreed upon. 

Senator HUTCHISON. It took us a year to even get a contract that 

would even begin to be put out there. The NASA administration 

has drug its feet on the other of the human space flights that we 

have on our agenda and continues to push above the authorization 

levels and act like that is the baseline budget. 

And I think if you just would open your mind to the possibility 

that you could cut down the number, but not the amount of emphasis that you have in the commercial sector that we could do both. 

30 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, when we cut down the number of—— 

Senator HUTCHISON. And I am just trying to get a way forward. 

Mr. BOLDEN. When we cut down the number of competitors, we 

will probably drive up the cost. I am paying right now a set 

amount in a Space Act Agreement. We have a set amount. So I will 

either have $406 million for the next 5 years or I will have $406 

million this year and then $829 the next that I can contribute as 

a partner. 

Whatever it cost over that for development is coming out of the 

pockets of those developers. It is not—it is not accurate to think 

that we are subsidizing a company. We are a partner. 

And whereas NASA would be paying the development cost, as we 

did for all of the weapon systems and everything else, we are not 

paying the development cost right now. The company is paying the 

development cost minus whatever I can give them through the 

COTS program, through the Commercial Crew program, through 

other programs. 

It is really important to do that. Once we sign a contract, then 

I am on the hook to pay for whatever they say it is going to cost. 

There is no sharing anymore. It is now my cost. They don’t put in 

a penny. So if the bill is $1 billion, I get it. The American taxpayer gets 

it, and that is where it is going to be. If there are mistakes made 

in the design because I cut them short of this 14-month period that 

we are giving them right now and there are engineering changes 

required, I am going to get that bill. The American taxpayer is 

going to get that bill. 

I know it doesn’t seem like it, but this is going to be cheaper for 

the American taxpayer in the long run. We are going to get a much 

better product in the long run. We are doing what we can. 

We took the best we had from previous programs and put them 

into SLS and MPCV. That is why I am so confident about that program. There are a lot of knowns in SLS/MPCV. You look at the 

first stage propulsion system. Those are Shuttle main engines. 

You look at the upper stage rocket that we one day will have, 

the J–2X, we are testing that engine. We are getting confidence in 

that engine. 

You look at the basic design of the vehicle. It is stuff that we are 

very familiar with. The only unknown is what the boosters are 

going to be because we know we have got to have advanced boosters. And industry is coming in, even as we speak, with recommendations on what those advanced boosters will be, and we are 

going to get the best that American industry can provide. 

So I am much more confident, you know, about SLS/MPCV, and 

that may be the reason that it appears that I am not passionate 

about it. I am incredibly passionate. But I am also a lot more confident because this is something that we are lot more familiar with, 

to be quite honest. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Senator. 

General Bolden, we are going to—I want to recall for everybody 

here the history of how we got it to where we are on the amount 

of money for the commercial rockets. Remember, it was the House 

of Representatives that had whacked the President’s request of 

31 

$800 million down to $300 million. We in the Senate had passed 

an appropriation of $500 million. 

And so, naturally, in the Conference Committee, we were able to 

get it up—primarily, Senator Mikulski, the Chairman, and her 

Ranking Member on the Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator 

Hutchison—to get it up to $406 million. 

Now I am very sympathetic to what you are saying, that in order 

to stay on a schedule of 2017 to launch Commercial Crew, you are 

going to need more than $406 million. So, in these constrained 

budget times, the question is where are we going to get that? 

We certainly don’t want to take it out of the big rocket or Orion. 

But I also am concerned about the fact that on the big rocket, it 

is great we are going to test it in 2014. That’s in 2 years. We are 

going to start launching big systems in 2 years, and you are going 

to do a more outfitted test in 2017. 

But then it takes 4 years, from 2017 to 2021, before you put the 

first crew onboard. Now something just doesn’t seem right there. 

Why the delay of 4 years? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, as Bill Gerstenmaier has testified before 

this and other committees, the development program for the SLS/ 

MPCV, for the system, is a very complex program. We are still 

looking at what we have to do once we fly the test on Orion in 

2014. We still need to understand what challenges we have in this 

development program. 

So it is actually—I would hate to say it is too early, but it is too 

early to say definitively how long it is going to take to get to first 

human flight. We have said before there are ways to fly earlier. 

It is a matter of budget, if you talk about can you fly a year earlier or 2 years earlier? But there are other things that we just don’t 

know yet. We don’t know how well our processes are going to respond to changes that we have made. We don’t know how rigorous 

our management techniques are going to have effect. 

Efficiencies that we have tried to put into this system and its development based on lessons we learned from Constellation, it is 

just too early for us to know whether those have taken effect or not 

yet. I could assume that we are going to get the efficiency gains 

that we are counting on, but that would not be very good because 

I would find myself back in a situation as we were with Constellation where we now don’t have enough money, and we don’t have 

enough time to meet the date that I promised you. 

2021 is a conservative estimate, and we feel confident we can get 

there with the budget that we have and the budget we are submitting for 2013 with the run-out that is there right now. 

Senator NELSON. Well, remember also in the context of where we 

come today, the House of Representatives had also basically eliminated the James Webb Space Telescope. And in the attempt in the 

Conference Committee to get that money back in so that James 

Webb could proceed, which is going to take us back almost to the 

beginning of time in the universe and, therefore, is an extremely 

important scientific mission, but with a limited amount of money, 

we know we are asking you to do an awful lot. But they came a long way to get it up to $406 million for Commercial Crew and put back the money for James Webb. So what 

we need to do is work with you at coming up with a number for 

32 

Commercial and not at the same time sacrifice anything on the big 

rocket and Orion. 

For example, you have got a request of $200 million less for 

Orion than was enacted in 2012. So there is less money in your request for Orion than was put in for Orion in 2012, and we have 

just got to work this out. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator NELSON. All right. Before I turn to Senator Rubio, let me 

ask you about one of the good news things, at least from the Kennedy Space Center standpoint, is the significant amount of money 

that is going in to redo the space center in order to accommodate 

all of the new rockets and the new changes. 

But in the way that it is put about in the budgeting, it gets confused. It looks like 21st century is diminished when, in fact, a lot 

of getting ready for the 21st century space program is you can’t fly 

a rocket unless you have a launch pad. 

And so, there is a lot of construction money in this Fiscal Year 

between now and September the 30th of this year that is going to 

be going into the redoing of facilities at Kennedy Space Center. You 

want to comment about that? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, I thank you very much. 

There are a number—what we tried to do in working with the 

staff and the Committee here is to break out funds in a method 

that would be much more understandable to people, and this is an 

area of concern when we look at—when we use the term SLS, 

heavy lift launch vehicle, if you look at where we were last year, 

that was the broad category for everything that had to do with 

heavy lift. 

What we have tried to do in this budget and what we are doing 

in practicality is we break out funds that are spent on ground systems, not the vehicle itself, into what we call exploration systems, 

exploration ground systems and 21st century. Very simply stated, 

maybe oversimplifying it, 21st century deals with making the 

launch complex at the Kennedy Space Center a multiuse facility. 

So it serves both SLS and commercial—future commercial users. 

Things very simple, like putting in the flame trench a movable 

deflector, so that the rocket used, we can move the deflector to one 

position for an Atlas, if you were to put it there, and another position for a Falcon 9. 

The exploration ground systems deal strictly with SLS/MPCV. So 

they are divided into three other systems. One of them has to do 

with command and control. I need those systems in place before we 

fly the 2017 mission. I need those systems in place for the folk at 

Kennedy to be able to go through simulation so that when we bring 

the vehicle down and we decide we are going to launch, they have 

been through simulation training and the like. 

Some of it has to do with the infrastructure itself. So there are 

three different categories of the exploration ground system. So you 

will see now, and I don’t have it memorized, but I think we actually have budget lines now for exploration ground systems, for SLS, 

for 21st century, and then for SLS, which is vehicle development 

itself. 

So we hope it will make things clearer to people when we look 

at it that way. 

33 

Senator NELSON. Well, I just want to make clear for the record, 

for those elsewhere in the country that are questioning the construction projects at the Kennedy Space Center, those other areas 

of the country that are building rockets, that you can’t launch rockets unless you have the launch pad. And so, you have to do one in 

order to do the other. 

Senator Rubio? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator RUBIO. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Rubio follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO, U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to start by thanking Administrator Bolden and Dr. Tyson for appearing 

today before our committee. Thank you both for the work you are doing for our Nation’s space program. 

I think it is safe to say that all of us here today are strong supporters of our space 

program. We know what NASA is capable of, and we recognize the unique and irreplaceable asset that is our space workforce. 

We want the United States to maintain the lead in human spaceflight, and we 

all believe in the space program and what it provides for our country. 

So the question is how we find a budget that accomplishes all of these things. We 

know that cuts have to be made to NASA’s budget. They have to be made to every 

agency’s budget. 

Because the bottom line is that our Nation faces a debt crisis in the near future 

because, quite frankly, politicians in both parties have spent recklessly for many 

decades and been unwilling to reform and save crucial safety net programs that are 

simply going bankrupt. 

This will require Washington to finally live within its means and for leaders to 

make tough choices about what our Nation’s priorities are. 

NASA is no exception. It will not be about spending more. It will be about spending wisely. It will be about balancing priorities. 

Everything we discuss at today’s hearing, whether it’s commercial space activities 

or going to Mars, is all tied to, and affected by, our national debt. 

We often hear about how our debt is a burden that hangs around the government’s neck. Or even worse, that it saddles future generations of Americans—my 

children and future grandchildren—and what they will be able to accomplish in the 

future. 

This is a fact, and our debt will certainly have the same impact on NASA. All 

of our future exploration plans and technology investments will be impacted by our 

national debt and by our government’s ability to solve this crisis. 

I hope that we discuss these issues today, and I look forward to hearing from Administrator Bolden on how our fiscal crisis is affecting the agency’s ability to plan 

for the future and accomplish the big things that we know NASA can do. 

Mr. Administrator, I hope that you, NASA and Congress can work together to answer these questions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

SENATOR RUBIO. And my first question was along those lines, too. 

We have heard some of the same observations made by some that 

why are we spending so much money on the 21st century launch 

complex if we don’t have a system in place yet? 

And I think you touched upon it. You may want to add to that 

because the notion of how we need to do those simultaneously is 

so critical—could you touch upon why it is so important we do both 

at the same time? 

Mr. BOLDEN. What we are trying to do, and even when you look 

at the vehicle development itself, SLS and Orion, we want to be 

able to reach a date in the future when everything comes together. 

34 

It doesn’t do us any good to have an Orion vehicle that is ready 

to fly a year before I have a launch vehicle. 

It doesn’t do me any good to have a launch vehicle ready a year 

before I have a crew module to put on it. And it definitely doesn’t 

do me any good if I have Orion and SLS teamed together ready to 

launch, sitting in the VAB because the launch facility is not complete. 

So we are running programs in parallel. The ground systems development, the 21st century, SLS, MPCV—they are four separate 

entities, but we are running them and funding them in parallel so 

that they all come together at a critical time for us. That critical 

time right now is 2017. 

And the way that we have submitted the budget, the way that— 

if you look at our PERT charts that some people used to use a long 

time ago. But if you look at our planning charts, which is the 

schedule, you will see that we are moving along such that everything comes together in time to support a 2017 launch. 

And that is oversimplification, but hopefully, that helps. 

Senator RUBIO. On the overall topic as we talk about funding 

today, I mean, clearly, the issue that hangs over the space program 

is the fact that at a time of growing national debt and fiscal constraints, we are trying to figure out a way to keep our leadership 

in space, but do so with limited resources that—and I don’t think 

there has ever been a good time to waste money—more than ever 

before requires us to look at every penny that we spend. 

And so, in that debate, we have heard a lot of conversations, 

rightfully so, about what role NASA is going to play and our own 

launch operations. But we are on the verge of what I think is an 

historic milestone, and that is both SpaceX and Orbital Sciences 

and others that are about to do some of these test launches for 

cargo missions. 

I think there is no doubt that that is going to be an inevitable 

part of our space program. The commercial component is going to 

be a part as we move forward and, in fact, may free up NASA to 

do some other things in deep space and otherwise by allowing us 

to rely more on those sorts of things. 

Can you talk a little bit about that? Because I think, obviously, 

those of us who are familiar with the space program hear about it 

every day. But there is a real lack, I think, of public information, 

and it is no one’s fault, but I am shocked at how many people don’t 

realize that we are on the verge of that launch, which I think is 

now scheduled for SpaceX? 

Mr. BOLDEN. SpaceX is now the end of April-ish and Orbital 

sometime in the summer. 

Senator RUBIO. What do those launches mean from a historical 

perspective? 

Mr. BOLDEN. They are historical milestones, very simply put. We 

have never had a private company launch a rocket with a capsule 

on it for any purpose, put it in orbit, rendezvous with another vehicle that has humans in it, station keep, be attached to that vehicle, 

which is the International Space Station, such that it becomes an 

integral part of the International Space Station. Take the all-important step of opening the hatch, okay? Opening the hatch. 

35 

Which means that now the existence of the International Space 

Station is dependent upon the structural integrity of Dragon or of 

Cygnus. That is an historical milestone. When we can open the 

hatch on a private vehicle and have everything stay intact and still 

useful and people breathe, that is pretty important. 

And that is what is going to happen when SpaceX flies at the 

end of April, and that is what will happen again when Cygnus flies 

in the summer. That is critical. And if I were talking to the Cub 

Scouts that Senator Hutchison had, Senator, I thank you so much 

for spending your time. I know you got a lot of things you could 

do. 

You could do nothing more valuable than spending your time 

with the Cub Scouts because that is the future. One of them is 

going to be sitting here in this chair, trying to demonstrate that 

they are passionate about this stuff to somebody who is going to 

succeed Senator Hutchison. But they are not going to do it if I don’t 

have a program for them to be inspired by. 

And so, what you talk about, this that is going to happen this 

spring and summer is a critical first step. It says American companies can, in fact, do what foreign companies do. We know we can 

do that. We have done it throughout history. But we don’t have the 

capability to do it right now, you know? 

We don’t have an American company that has demonstrated its 

ability to launch, rendezvous with, and be berthed to the International Space Station. 

Senator RUBIO. But that leads to the follow-up question because 

I am out of time, and it is not really a question. It is more of asking for your observation of what that means from the mission 

statement of NASA at this point. 

For example, it is my guess now and a lot of these issues are 

issues we have now been confronting for a couple of years at the 

Federal level, although I am familiar from my state experience of 

the importance that these launch capabilities are to Florida. So 

now you are assuming that a couple of years out, we begin to have 

a very reliable private sector, commercial capability to do certain 

things, that frees up NASA to do what? 

Mr. BOLDEN. That frees us up to spend our time and effort on 

completing the development of the exploration vehicles that Senator Hutchison is so—about which she is so passionate. It frees us 

up to focus our efforts on getting humans beyond low-Earth orbit 

to places like an asteroid, where the President has told us to go in 

2025, to the Martian environment in the mid-2030s. It frees us up. 

Most importantly, though, a thing that we don’t talk about very 

often. In fact, we probably never talk about it. In the National 

Space Act that established NASA in 1958, even back then, people 

were smart enough to know that NASA’s job is to create technologies that can be transferred into the private sector for the benefit of the American economy. 

The big thing that Commercial Crew and Cargo are going to 

bring to this country is the ability to provide a market for people 

all over the world who want to take things to low-Earth orbit. They 

won’t have to go to Ariane. They won’t have to go to Russia. They 

won’t have to go to China. 

36 

They won’t have to go anywhere. They can come back to American shores and put their spacecraft on an American rocket and get 

it to low-Earth orbit. That is the economic benefit of what we are 

about, and that is one of our priorities in the National Space Policy 

of 2010 that was signed into law by the President. 

And it is a very important part of the 1958 Space Act and its attendant modifications through the years. But we don’t talk about 

that very often. 

Senator NELSON. We will wrap this up with one additional thing 

that I want to ask you, Mr. Administrator. 

The NASA Inspector General, Paul Martin, recently testified before the House that NASA has been the subject of numerous cyber 

attacks, some potentially stemming from foreign intelligence agencies and organized criminal enterprises. And he stated, and I quote, 

‘‘Skilled and committed cyber attackers could choose to cause significant disruption to NASA operations, as IT networks are central 

to all aspects of NASA’s operations.’’ 

Now let me just say that we have spent a great deal of time on 

this in the Intelligence Committee, and of course, the attacks are 

attempted every day, as I mentioned earlier. And they are attempted at all Government agencies, and thus far, with the national security agencies, we have been able to protect against those 

cyber attacks. There are state actors out there. There are nonstate 

actors that every day are trying to penetrate the computers. 

But with regard to NASA, in light of your IG’s report, I want to 

ask you three questions. Have there been any instances where a 

cyber attack has resulted in disruption of a NASA mission? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, there have never been any that we have 

been able to find. 

Senator NELSON. Second question. Have there been any cases 

where you suspected a cyber attack impacting a mission? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, to my knowledge and in my query of my 

folk, there have never been any that we suspected that there was 

anything that would have had an effect on a mission. 

Senator NELSON. So the loss of the algorithms with regard to 

some of the functions on the Space Station, there is no evidence 

that that had any effect upon the operation of the station? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, there was no effect on the loss of anything 

on station. But I do need to elaborate a little bit, if I may? 

No one is as concerned about cybersecurity and IT security as I. 

And you have heard this from the head of the NSA, from the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, from the Secretary of Defense, this is a serious threat. 

There are three areas when we talk about IT that concern us all. 

One is thefts and losses, and we talked about this a little bit before. One of the things that I am doing is emphasizing to our employees that they have to be vigilant. They can’t leave a computer, 

a laptop—you know, a laptop that has NASA information on the 

front seat of a car. 

Locking the car with a NASA laptop is not sufficient security. 

They can’t put it down when they go to an airport. That is personal 

discipline and the like, and we can affect that. You know, we can’t 

affect someone breaking into an office at NASA headquarters and 

stealing a laptop or a computer. 

37 

The other one is hacking and intrusion. That happens to all of 

us, and I don’t know that we are ever going to stop that. But what 

we do is we put safeguards in place. If you are talking about the 

International Space Station, it is not impossible to do anything. 

But right now, we are confident that we have a system of 

encryption. Any command that goes to the International Space Station, any critical command goes through an elaborate system of 

encryption. 

So, first of all, there would be no commands on a laptop that 

would be—that someone would be carrying around. So that I am 

not concerned about. But any commands that are going to go from 

a console, whether it is at Huntsville or Moscow or anywhere, has 

to go through a system of encryption at the Johnson Space Center. 

In the case of disasters where we would transfer responsibility 

to Huntsville, Alabama, it would go through the same encryption 

at the Marshall Payload Operations Center, which would assume 

control. 

So the third area is encryption. And that, again, is personal behavior and discipline. And if you are—what we will tell our employees, if you are going to put what we consider to be critical information on a laptop, encrypt it. It is very simple. Just encrypt it such 

that if your laptop falls in the hands of someone else, they have 

at least got to go through some effort to get it. 

They don’t just open up the laptop, turn it on, and there is everything, as the IG, I think, may think happened in this case. But I 

don’t know that that really happened. We haven’t had an opportunity to look at the report and the evidence that he has to even 

determine whether someone really did have vital data that was 

readily available on a laptop. 

Senator NELSON. So you think the algorithms were lost because 

they were on a laptop? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, I don’t—again, what I have to say is the 

issue that Paul Martin raised is in a pending report that I have 

not seen. So I would rather not comment on the contents of what 

was in his report. 

I have checked in my organization, and to my knowledge—but I 

will take it for the record—we have not seen the report to which 

he referred. So we definitely have not seen the information that he 

has or the evidence that he has. So I would not even—I can’t even 

say that there were algorithms on the laptop. But I will take that 

question for the record and get back to you. 

Senator NELSON. But you can assure this committee that were 

the algorithms to get into some third party’s hands that wanted to 

do something bad, that they couldn’t because you encrypt any of 

the commands that go to the station? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, I can assure you that if, in the unlikely 

event, someone ended up with a laptop that had critical commands 

for the International Space Station or any of the payloads onboard, 

if that unlikely occurrence happened, they would still have to get 

through another set of firewalls at the Johnson Space Center because everything that goes to the International Space Station, as 

it did with Shuttle, is encrypted prior to transmission. 

And we have verified that. So they would not be able to get commands to the International Space Station. 

38 

Senator NELSON. OK. As you are doing your investigation, you 

might also find out why only 1 percent of NASA laptops and portable devices are encrypted versus a Government average of 54 percent? 

Mr. BOLDEN. And Senator, that is the encryption issue that I 

mentioned that I can take action there, and I intend to do so. I can 

make it a policy or reemphasize the policy that when critical information goes onto a laptop or a personal device that it is encrypted 

or it not go on that device. That is a matter of behavior and personal discipline. That is not a foreign entity. 

Senator NELSON. But it is also a matter of policy. 

Mr. BOLDEN. That is a matter of policy, sir. 

Senator NELSON. And that is why is NASA so far behind the rest 

of the Government in securing the data on its portable devices? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, I will try one more time. Prior to this 

week, it was my impression that I had established a policy that 

said no one would do what they did. So, once again, it is the leader 

who thought something was done and now has to go back and find 

out whether it was really done. 

Senator NELSON. And so, the way we can wrap this up is if you 

will just give us a full briefing—— 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator NELSON.—classified if necessary, once you have reviewed 

the IG’s report. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator NELSON. And then in that briefing tell us the procedures 

and what you do to investigate those occurrences that are mentioned in the IG’s report. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, I will be certain to do that. 

Senator NELSON. OK. 

Senator Boozman? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. 

I apologize for not being here earlier. I had a couple of people 

from Arkansas that I had to introduce at another committee. But 

I think in the interest of time that I will go ahead and just listen. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boozman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad that Administrator Bolden and Dr. Tyson 

can be here today to discuss with us NASA’s proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2013 

and the direction of this nation’s civil space program. 

It is important for us to have this hearing, not only to focus on the primary challenges and issues NASA is facing in maintaining active and balanced science and 

aeronautics programs, but also because we are in the midst of a dramatic shift in 

NASA programs and priorities, especially regarding the future of U.S. human 

spaceflight. 

Since its establishment in 1958, NASA’s flagship programs have targeted exploration, beginning with Mercury and Apollo programs and extending through the 

Space Shuttle, the International Space Station, space telescopes like the Hubble, 

Mars rovers and other planetary observations. 

With the final flight of the Space Shuttle last year and the initiation of the Orion 

and Space Launch System programs, NASA’s human space flight programs have 

been undergoing a major transition, with a rebalancing of priorities and workforce. 

39 

I share Senator Hutchison’s concern that the Fiscal Year 2013 budget request for 

NASA, while reflecting what may appear to be a reasonable top-line amount in the 

context of anticipated cuts in many parts of the federal budget, does not closely adhere to and in fact could undermine in some cases, the very careful balance established in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act. 

The budget request provides funding for the SLS (rocket) and Orion/ 

MPCV(capsule) at levels that represent a combined total of $1.77 billion below the 

amounts authorized for Fiscal Year 2013—a 44 percent differential—and about 12 

percent less than was appropriated in Fiscal Year 2012. I am concerned that this 

may not only serve to delay the actual vehicle development, but also increase 

NASA’s risk for a successful and timely return to Human Exploration capability. 

I continue to believe that the nation needs both a robust heavy-lift and crew exploration vehicle development to enable us to go beyond low earth orbit, and new 

commercial capabilities to launch crews to the ISS—but consistent with a balanced 

approach, as required by the 2010 Act. 

The space program, of course, is more than human exploration, as critical as that 

is. The budget request raises concerns regarding the funding levels and future plans 

in the areas of Space Science, and in the realm of instrumented Mars Exploration, 

including potential U.S. withdrawal from planned cooperative missions with the European Space Agency. 

Some of these adjustments, according to budget briefings, have been necessitated 

to accommodate increased funding for the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) 

project. Other adjustments stem from the completion of prior Mars Exploration missions (Rovers Spirit and Opportunity, for example) and the ramp-down of their operational tempo and associated costs. 

NASA officials have indicated to the Committee, and explained in the Budget Request justification documents, that they are taking advantage of this draw-down in 

activity to re-plan future missions, including new cooperative projects with other nations. That review is anticipated to be completed in the middle of this year, and reflected in the Fiscal Year 2014 and subsequent Budget Requests. 

Notwithstanding those assurances, there are still concerns that the proposed adjustments in the funding and program priorities will have an adverse effect on this 

important area of NASA’s overall mission and responsibilities. 

I look forward to hearing from Administrator Bolden on these topics. 

I also look forward to the testimony of Dr. Tyson and a discussion of the broader 

issue of the role and value of space exploration. I believe that a nation such as ours, 

that once led pioneered space exploration, and reaped the economic and cultural rewards of technological advancement, cannot and should not voluntarily cede that 

role to other nations. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to the testimony. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Hutchison, any further comments from you? 

Senator HUTCHISON. I think I have made my point, and I think 

he has made his point. And we just have to work together to, hopefully, get more flexibility. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator NELSON. I think the long and short of it, of what we are 

saying up here, is that we want to see that Orion is getting sufficiently funded so that it is ready by the time the big rocket is 

ready, and not vice versa. And the other thing that I will say is 

that I think that we are going to have to have more money than 

this year’s level into the commercial rockets so that we can at least 

keep on that 2017 schedule for launching humans to the Space Station. 

And of course, my preference and I think most people’s preference is if there is any way we could get those into 2016, which 

was the original target. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator NELSON. So, with that, Mr. Administrator, thank 

you—— 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, thank you very much. 

40 

Senator NELSON.—very, very much. 

And I would like to call up the second panel, Dr. Tyson. 

[Pause.] 

Senator NELSON. Dr. Tyson, we have already given you a glowing 

introduction and if you would please proceed? 

We are looking forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON, PH.D., 

ASTROPHYSICIST, AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY; 

DIRECTOR, HAYDEN PLANETARIUM, NEW YORK CITY 

Dr. TYSON. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Hutchison, Senator Boozman, thank you for your attention here. 

I want to just preface this by saying I was born the same week 

that NASA was founded. And while that specific point is of little 

relevance to the words of my testimony, I would say it is of great 

relevance to the feeling with which I deliver these words, having 

the same life span. 

I want to start off with a quote from a famous aviator, French 

aviator Antoine Saint-Exupery. This quote may be known to some 

of you, but I think it bears repeating often. 

‘‘If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up people to collect wood 

and don’t assign them tasks and work. But rather, teach them to 

long for the endless immensity of the sea.’’ 

So that is a point of view that will matter for what follows here. 

Right now, NASA’s Mars science exploration budget is being 

decimated. We are not going back to the Moon. Plans for astronauts to visit Mars or anywhere beyond low-Earth orbit are delayed until the 2030s on funding not yet allocated, overseen by a 

Congress and a President to be named later. 

When I think of our golden era of space exploration, the late 

1950s right on up through the early 1970s, over that time, very few 

weeks would go by before there would be an article in a newspaper, 

in a magazine where a cover story would extol the ‘‘city of tomorrow,’’ ‘‘transportation of tomorrow,’’ ‘‘the home of tomorrow,’’ even 

‘‘food of tomorrow.’’ 

And in spite of this optimism, that was a decade that was perhaps our most turbulent in a century since the Civil War itself. We 

all felt threatened from the Cold War, total annihilation, in fact. 

There was a hot war going on, losing 100 servicemen a week. The 

civil rights movement, assassinations, and the like. 

The landscape was poisoned that decade. Yet one of the jewels 

in the American crown was our exploration of space. From what I 

can tell, the people who did the dreaming back then were the scientists, engineers, and technologists. And it is a community of people who were formally trained to discover. 

They are discoverers. And what inspired them? Ask them. Every 

one, to a person, will tell you it was America’s bold and visible investment in a space frontier. 

Now, I happen to know, and we all have had this experience, exploration of the unknown doesn’t always make a priority for people. 

I can tell you, however, that audacious visions have the power to 

alter mind states, to change assumptions about what is possible. 

41 

And when a nation allows itself to dream big, these dreams prevail 

in the citizens’ ambitions. They energize the electorate. 

During the Apollo era, you didn’t need Government programs 

trying to convince people that doing science and engineering was 

good for the country. It was self-evident. And even those not formally trained in technical fields embraced what those fields meant 

for the collective national future. 

Remember, that was the climate that birthed the New York 

World’s Fair, which was all about tomorrow, and the iconic 

Unisphere, which donned three rings, evoking the three orbits of 

John Glenn in the Friendship 7 capsule. 

During that age of space exploration, any jobs that went overseas 

were the kind nobody really wanted anyway. Those that stayed in 

this country were the consequence of persistent streams of innovation that could not be outsourced because other nations couldn’t yet 

figure out how to do what it was we were doing. In fact, most of 

the world’s nations stood awestruck by our accomplishments. 

Let us be honest. Of course, over that period, we went to the 

Moon because we were at war. It is not a secret. To think otherwise would be delusional, and has lead some people to suppose we 

got to the Moon by 1969, of course, we are going to be on Mars by 

1980. 

No. Not if you went to the Moon because you were at war. And 

after you establish that the Soviet Union is not also going to the 

Moon, everything ends. 

But ending the program came with a cost. Yes, war can get you 

to go to the Moon, even get you to go to Mars. But there is another 

driver that exists, another driver of great ambitions, and it is almost as potent as the need to protect your security. And that is the 

promise of wealth. 

Nobody wants to die, of course, but nobody wants to die poor. 

Fully funded missions to Mars and anywhere beyond low-Earth 

orbit, commanded by astronauts who today would be in middle 

school, would reboot America’s capacity to innovate as no other 

force in society can. 

What matters here, in fact, are not spinoffs, although there are 

plenty of spinoffs that are fun to read about. NASA, every couple 

of years, puts out a document—NASA Spinoffs. I recommend everyone here review those publications if you haven’t seen them. 

But beyond the spinoffs, what matters are the cultural shifts in 

how the electorate views the role of science and technology in our 

daily lives. Because as the 1970s drew to a close, we stopped advancing a space frontier. The ‘‘tomorrow’’ articles faded. And we 

spent the next several decades coasting on the innovations conceived by earlier dreamers. 

They knew that seemingly impossible things were possible, and 

others among them, those who saw what the previous generation 

had enabled, witnessed the Apollo voyages to the Moon, even 

though they were not a participant. And this is the greatest adventure there ever was. Yet if all you do is coast, eventually you slow 

down while others catch up and pass you by. 

We have got symptoms in society today. We are going broke. We 

are mired in debt. We don’t have as many scientists as we want 

or need, and jobs are going overseas. I assert that these are not isoVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:25 Oct 24, 2012 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\76351.TXT JACKIE
42 

lated problems, that they are the collective consequence of the absence of ambition that consumes you when you stop having dreams. 

And the NASA portfolio, it is multidimensional. It taps the frontiers of biology, which we look for life on Mars; chemistry, physics, 

astrophysics, geology, atmospherics, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering. These are the classic subjects that are the foundation of the STEM fields—of course, science, technology, engineering, and math. And they are all represented in the NASA portfolio. 

Epic space adventures plant seeds of economic growth because 

doing what has never been done before is intellectually seductive, 

whether or not we deem it practical. And when you conduct those 

exercises, the innovation follows, just as day follows night. And 

when you innovate, you lead the world, you keep your jobs, and 

concerns over tariffs and trade regulations evaporate. 

The call for this adventure would echo loudly across society and 

down the educational pipeline. At what cost? The spending portfolio 

of the United States currently allocates 50 times as much money 

to social programs and education than it does NASA. 

So the old argument, ‘‘why are we spending money up there and 

not down here?’’ is simply false. We are indeed spending money 

down here, to the credit of lawmakers who understand the breadth 

of priorities that face us. 

Consider, however, that the half a penny budget that NASA receives, if you double it, twice that, as unthinkable such a step 

would be to so many, I assert that we can transform the country 

from a sullen, dispirited nation, weary of economic struggle, to one 

where it has reclaimed its 20th century birthright to dream of tomorrow. 

And I ask you, how much would you pay to launch our economy? 

And from my scientific heart, I ask how much would you pay for 

the universe? 

A slightly longer version of these notes have been submitted for 

the record. And thank you for your attention, Senator. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Tyson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON, PH.D., ASTROPHYSICIST, AMERICAN

MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY; DIRECTOR, HAYDEN PLANETARIUM, NEW YORK CITY

If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up people to collect wood and don’t assign 

them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the 

sea.—Antoine St. Exupery 

Currently, NASA’s Mars science exploration budget is being decimated, we are not 

going back to the Moon, and plans for astronauts to visit Mars are delayed until 

the 2030s—on funding not yet allocated, overseen by a congress and president to 

be named later. 

During the late 1950s through the early 1970s, every few weeks an article, cover 

story, or headline would extol the ‘‘city of tomorrow,’’ the ‘‘home of tomorrow,’’ the 

‘‘transportation of tomorrow.’’ Despite such optimism, that period was one of the 

gloomiest in U.S. history, with a level of unrest not seen since the Civil War. The 

Cold War threatened total annihilation, a hot war killed a hundred servicemen each 

week, the civil rights movement played out in daily confrontations, and multiple assassinations and urban riots poisoned the landscape. 

The only people doing much dreaming back then were scientists, engineers, and 

technologists. Their visions of tomorrow derive from their formal training as discoverers. And what inspired them was America’s bold and visible investment on the 

space frontier. 

Exploration of the unknown might not strike everyone as a priority. Yet audacious 

visions have the power to alter mind-states—to change assumptions of what is possible. When a nation permits itself to dream big, those dreams pervade its citizens’ 

43 

ambitions. They energize the electorate. During the Apollo era, you didn’t need government programs to convince people that doing science and engineering was good 

for the country. It was self-evident. And even those not formally trained in technical 

fields embraced what those fields meant for the collective national future. 

For a while there, the United States led the world in nearly every metric of economic strength that mattered. Scientific and technological innovation is the engine 

of economic growth—a pattern that has been especially true since the dawn of the 

Industrial Revolution. That’s the climate out of which the New York World’s Fair 

emerged, with its iconic Unisphere—displaying three rings—evoking the three orbits 

of John Glenn in his Mercury 7 capsule. 

During this age of space exploration, any jobs that went overseas were the kind 

nobody wanted anyway. Those that stayed in this country were the consequence of 

persistent streams of innovation that could not be outsourced, because other nations 

could not compete at our level. In fact, most of the world’s nations stood awestruck 

by our accomplishments. 

Let’s be honest with one anther. We went to the Moon because we were at war 

with the Soviet Union. To think otherwise is delusion, leading some to suppose the 

only reason we’re not on Mars already is the absence of visionary leaders, or of political will, or of money. No. When you perceive your security to be at risk, money 

flows like rivers to protect is. 

But there exists another driver of great ambitions, almost as potent as war. That’s 

the promise of wealth. Fully funded missions to Mars and beyond, commanded by 

astronauts who, today, are in middle school, would reboot America’s capacity to innovate as no other force in society can. What matters here are not spin-offs (although I could list a few: Accurate affordable Lasik surgery, Scratch resistant 

lenses, Chordless power tools, Tempurfoam, Cochlear implants, the drive to miniaturize of electronics . . .) but cultural shifts in how the electorate views the role of 

science and technology in our daily lives. 

As the 1970s drew to a close, we stopped advancing a space frontier. The ‘‘tomorrow’’ articles faded. And we spent the next several decades coasting on the innovations conceived by earlier dreamers. They knew that seemingly impossible things 

were possible—the older among them had enabled, and the younger among them 

had witnessed the Apollo voyages to the Moon—the greatest adventure there ever 

was. If all you do is coast, eventually you slow down, while others catch up and pass 

you by. 

All these piecemeal symptoms that we see and feel—the nation is going broke, it’s 

mired in debt, we don’t have as many scientists, jobs are going overseas—are not 

isolated problems. They’re part of the absence of ambition that consumes you when 

you stop having dreams. Space is a multidimensional enterprise that taps the frontiers of many disciplines: biology, chemistry, physics, astrophysics, geology, atmospherics, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering. These classic subjects are 

the foundation of the STEM fields—science, technology, engineering, and math—and 

they are all represented in the NASA portfolio. 

Epic space adventures plant seeds of economic growth, because doing what’s never 

been done before is intellectually seductive (whether deemed practical or not), and 

innovation follows, just as day follows night. When you innovate, you lead the world, 

you keep your jobs, and concerns over tariffs and trade imbalances evaporate. The 

call for this adventure would echo loudly across society and down the educational 

pipeline. 

At what cost? The spending portfolio of the United States currently allocates fifty 

times as much money to social programs and education than it does to NASA. The 

2008 bank bailout of $750 billion was greater than all the money NASA had received in its half-century history; two years’ U.S. military spending exceeds it as 

well. Right now, NASA’s annual budget is half a penny on your tax dollar. For twice 

that—a penny on a dollar—we can transform the country from a sullen, dispirited 

nation, weary of economic struggle, to one where it has reclaimed its 20th century 

birthright to dream of tomorrow. 

How much would you pay to ‘‘launch’’ our economy. How much would you pay for 

the universe? 

Note: The views above are derived from Space Chronicles: Facing the Ultimate 

Frontier, W W Norton 2012. 

Senator NELSON. Well, of course, you are not only preaching to 

the choir, you are preaching to the preachers. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator NELSON. And you have just done it so eloquently, so incisively, and I couldn’t help but think as you were speaking to be reVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:25 Oct 24, 2012 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\76351.TXT JACKIE
44 

minded of the event that we just had down at the Cape on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of John Glenn’s historic space flight. 

And as Scott Carpenter, who is the only other living of the original 

seven astronauts, made his speech—and you remember that Scott 

Carpenter was the fellow in the antiquated blockhouse that as 

John was just about to lift off said, ‘‘Godspeed, John Glenn.’’ 

And then Scott ended up being the second one to ride the Atlas 

rocket, this time for a lot more than just three orbits, which John 

Glenn had done. But in Scott’s speech at this ceremony commemorating the 50th anniversary, he recalled a column that had been 

written in the New York Times calling John Glenn the last great 

American hero. 

And that column had rekindled a lot of what you have just articulated, Dr. Tyson. That this was a heady time. It was. We were 

in the great space race with the other superpower. So much was 

hanging on the success of this program. 

And then during that time that you talked about, the 1960s, not 

only did we launch Glenn after the Soviets had beat us into space, 

but then we took over and we took care of business and did it 

against an extraordinary backdrop. And we were, we were the envy 

of the world. 

And in this column, as Scott is talking about this—was John 

Glenn the last great American hero?—he quickly then said no. We 

are going to come to this point again because it is going to be the 

commander of that mission when it goes to Mars and lands and returns. 

And so, our objective is how do we get from there to there? 

Dr. TYSON. If I may react to that? I think any nation at any time 

has the capacity to create a hero. It just has to have ambitions 

with goals set so that one among us then steps forward, accepts 

those risks. Some of those who go forward don’t come back, and 

this is an understood risk, in fact, of the history of our species. But 

those who do, who succeed, they get remembered forever. 

And I would assert that I would claim that the conversation 

needs to be taken to a new place because, apparently, the argument that science is important or the argument that exploration 

feeds the energy of our DNA, I have not seen that be as successful 

as it should have been over these years when NASA comes back 

to the White House and to the Congress, hat in hand looking for 

money. 

But what I have noticed is that NASA, as an engine of innovation, not simply by the innovation that occurs within the agency, 

but by the culture of innovation that it spreads into the land, it is 

that culture that is responsible for economic growth. And so, if people see NASA as a charity agency for the satisfaction of some engineers and scientists, they are not understanding the actual role 

that NASA has played in the growth of this Nation, in the economic growth of this Nation. 

So this half a penny on a dollar, I say take it to a penny. Find 

that other half a penny somewhere. Recognize that penny on a dollar, penny on a dollar as an investment with a return that will so 

outweigh that one penny that you put in that you would be kicking 

yourself wondering why that investment wasn’t made earlier. 

45 

And I am not talking only about spinoffs. And there are great 

spinoffs from power tools without cords and perfecting Lasik surgery, making it cheap and affordable and precise, and the grooved 

pavement. The list is long. There are low-tech solutions and hightech solutions. 

My concern is without that as a driving force within our culture, 

everything else we do are just band-aids. Oh, we need more scientists? Let us train some more teachers. That is a band-aid. 

Oh, we need more jobs on shores? Let us try to bring factories 

in and incentivize them. That is a band-aid. 

The moment the culture wants to innovate and we recognize 

that, that penny on a dollar becomes an investment, and it is not 

simply an investment in our identity, which it is, in our character, 

in our pride, it is all of the above. But what I have found in my 

read of the history of cultures, that if you can find an investment 

that returns economically, you take it. You do it. 

And the pathway from the investment to the returned dollar 

takes a little longer than an elevator ride to explain how you get 

that. Innovations take place. Patents are granted. Products are developed. 

The culture of innovation spills over. Everyone feels like tomorrow is something they want to invent and bring into the present. 

That is the Nation that many of us in this room grew up with, and 

that is the culture that so many who read about it want to resurrect going forward. 

And so, without this, we just move back to the caves because 

that is where we are going to end up anyway as the rest of the 

world passes us by. 

Senator NELSON. You have very accurately articulated our character as a people. We, as Americans, have always had a frontier. 

We have always been pressing that frontier, and as a result, we 

have always been explorers and adventurers. We don’t want to ever 

give that up or else we deny our character as a people. 

Senator Boozman? 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, I want to echo that you are very articulate and, I think 

even more important, very enthusiastic about the subject. It is easy 

to tell that this certainly is a passion, and we really do appreciate 

that. We need a lot more of that. 

With regard to America’s scientific and technological workforce, 

a substantial portion is foreign-born and American-educated. In 

previous interviews, you mentioned that America is beginning to 

lose our technological workforce conduit as the rest of the world is 

catching up and providing technology opportunities for this workforce to leave America. 

How can we in Congress encourage or create more or better opportunities to retain our edge? And I guess what are your recommendations for the Committee? How can we specifically help 

you in that regard? 

Dr. TYSON. Other than doubling NASA’s budget. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. TYSON. I think a bit about the foreign-born nationals getting 

graduate degrees in the sciences and engineering here, that has 

been going on basically since the 1980s. There might have been a 

46 

trickle of it in the 1970s. But it happened in large measure in the 

1980s and 1990s. It is still going on. 

In the early days, we were simply the best opportunities. We had 

the best science, the best engineering, and their home countries did 

not. And so, it was expected that when they came here, they would 

stay, and nearly all of them did. I don’t have a problem with that. 

So much of our national character and identity was enriched because of how open our shores were to the creativity of immigrants 

that come through for the past century and a half. So that became 

a boon to our Nation intellectually because we were getting the 

smartest people in the world. 

But what happens back in their home countries? They begin to 

develop. The countries recognize what we had recognized for so 

long that investments in their infrastructure and in their own 

science and technology creates opportunity. 

My great fear was that we would now educate them, and then 

they would go back to their home countries, and we would lose the 

contributions they would have made had they stayed. That is, in 

fact, already happening. 

The third stage in this is they become the professors, the educating class in their home countries, and then they never have to 

come here at all. By the way, that was the state back before the 

Manhattan Project. Most of the principal scientists of the Manhattan Project that were here in this country were foreign nationals, 

all educated in European countries. We did not quite have the 

physics infrastructure to sustain that kind of intellectual capital to 

actually engage the Manhattan Project. 

So we not only tapped foreign nationals, they were all foreign 

educated. Once we developed that infrastructure here and that intellectual foundation, we became the target for people to become 

educated from all around the world. 

I would say that when a nation—not to sound like a broken 

record here, but when a nation dreams big and has fully funded 

projects visible to everyone, where a frontier is getting advanced 

daily, innovations attract smart, clever people. The prospect of innovation attracts them. 

And dare I say if you stand up in front of an eighth grade class 

and say, ‘‘Who wants to be an aerospace engineer so that you can 

design a plane that is a few percent more fuel efficient?’’ that 

doesn’t really work as well as saying, ‘‘Who wants to be an aerospace engineer because we need a plane that will navigate the rarefied atmosphere of Mars?’’ 

You are going to attract the very best of those students. And the 

solutions to that problem in every case I have ever seen have improved life back here on Earth. 

And so, if you don’t have the projects on the other side of the 

educational pipeline, why should anyone even do it? Why should 

anyone even stay? You can’t just say, ‘‘Become a scientist because 

we need more scientists.’’ You compel people to long for the open 

seas. 

And when you do that and the open sea is in reach because the 

Government has declared that that is the next frontier, everything 

falls into place, everything. We have seen it happen already. It can 

happen again, this time without the tandem military budget that 

47 

was required in the 1960s to conduct a Cold War and a hot war. 

Imagine what that return will be going forward. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And again, thank you very much for your testimony. 

Senator NELSON. We are singing from the same hymn book. In 

your talk about a lot of the value that NASA provides by inspiring 

and motivating children, which you have made that case very, very 

strongly, in these tight fiscal times, how do you make that value 

better understood by the average American person? 

Dr. TYSON. That is the multibillion dollar question. That is an 

important question. I mean, I am trying. 

First of all, I can tell you, based on my life experience—and I am 

sure, if you reflect on it, on your life experience as well—you never 

actually have to train kids to think scientifically. They are always 

experimenting, always. They are turning over rocks. They are poking at objects that the adults don’t want them to poke at. 

And we spend a lot of our effort as adults squashing that creativity and that exploratory drive that every child has within them. 

So when I am asked what do we do to excite children, my first answer is, first, get out of their way because that will be a natural 

part of their curiosity as a child. 

And the real problem with the science literacy and the embracing 

of what science and technology will bring is not, I don’t believe, in 

that next generation. It is in the current generation of adults who 

far outnumber children, who vote, who run the country. 

I am not going to turn around and say the country has problems 

because we are not training our children. I am going to say the 

country has problems because not enough adults understand what 

these arguments are. 

And I would like to believe that no one wants to go to the poorhouse. So the economic argument needs to be lifted above all others. It needs to be lifted above the DNA argument, the urge to explore argument. That it is in even, with due respect, Senator, the 

legacy of Americans as explorers. I just have not seen that work 

on the soup line when someone can’t feed their home, and they are 

working with a foreclosed—can’t feed their family, and they have 

got a foreclosed home. 

But the prospect that tomorrow they will be wealthier than 

today, that works. It works every time, and it transcends partisan 

politics. Because at the end of the day, we are a capitalist democracy. We have all kind of bought into the idea that tomorrow we 

should be wealthier than we are today. 

And so, if we make the economic argument above all else, there 

may be a chance that people will understand the actual role that 

NASA has played and not the one that the dreamers say about it 

because I think NASA should be fully funded because I am a scientist. But I don’t require others to feel the same way. When it 

comes to money, that is something we can all agree on. 

Senator NELSON. Well, you have said it pretty well. Science literacy is going to be our future, and somehow we need to translate 

that into overcoming these obstacles. And you have laid out the 

case as good as anyone. Now we have just got to keep on keeping 

on to get the message through. 

48 

Dr. TYSON. And I will say if you want to do the homework, check 

out the GDP per capita in the 1960s into the 1970s, 1980s, and 

1990s. It is in the 30 percent across that decade, the 10-year rise 

in the GDP per capita. Just watch it drop as the decades unfold, 

and that is us coasting on it. 

And if you average the 1990s with the 2000s, it is basically flat. 

And so, the future—as goes the future of NASA, so, too, does the 

future of this Nation. 

Senator NELSON. And with that poignant thought, thank you. 

And the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(49) 

A P P E N D I X 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BILL NELSON TO

HON. CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR. 

Question 1. Given sustained SLS funding—what additional systems could be tested on either the 2014 or 2017 test flights, instead of waiting until the first human 

flight? 

Answer. The primary objective of the 2014 test flight is to obtain high-velocity reentry data for the Orion MPCV spacecraft, though NASA will also use this mission 

to test mission operations concepts. The SLS Program is designing the spacecraft 

adapter for this flight. Sustained SLS funding will continue to support this effort. 

No additional SLS systems are applicable to this early test flight. For the 2017 test 

flight—which is an Agency Priority Goal—sustained SLS funding will provide greater confidence in meeting the necessary milestones leading up to the 2017 flight. The 

SLS launch vehicle for the 2017 flight is the same launch vehicle configuration that 

will be used for the first human flight in 2021. No additional SLS systems will be 

developed for the 2021 flight. 

Question 2. Would accelerating the first human flight—earlier than 2021—lower 

the overall cost of a human capable SLS-Orion system? 

Answer. Accelerating the first human flight would not necessarily lower the overall cost of a human-capable SLS-Orion system. NASA has implemented an executable plan to develop these systems to support the first human flight in 2021. The 

estimated budget to execute this plan has been phased to meet the fiscal budget requirements. If the first human flight was to be accelerated, the funds associated 

with accelerating the development of the necessary systems would have to be taken 

from the later years and re-phased into the earlier years. 

Question 3. We’ve recently heard that flights for NASA ISS commercial cargo providers have slipped—SpaceX to April and Orbital Sciences to this summer. How 

much have these COTS flights slipped since they were originally planned? 

Answer. When NASA signed the original Space Act Agreement (SAA) with Space 

Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) in August 2006, their first, second and third 

COTS demonstration flights were planned for September 2008, June 2009 and September 2009 respectively. SpaceX successfully flew the first demonstration mission 

in December 2010, launching a Dragon capsule into orbit on a Falcon 9 rocket and 

recovering it off the coast of California. On May 22, 2012, SpaceX launched its second COTS demonstration flight, and 3 days later, the Dragon spacecraft was 

berthed to the ISS. The mission, which accomplished the remaining COTS demonstration goals for SpaceX, was brought to a successful conclusion on May 31, with 

the deorbiting and splashdown of the Dragon capsule. 

When NASA signed the original SAA with Orbital Sciences Corporation (OSC) in 

February 2008, the single demonstration flight was originally planned for December 

2010. Currently, Orbital is planning the maiden launch of their newly named Antares launch vehicle (previously referred to as ‘‘Taurus II’’) no earlier than June 

2012, and the COTS demonstration flight to the ISS no earlier than September 

2012. 

Question 4. What do we need to get done and when to keep research progressing 

on the International Space Station? At what point do further slips of SpaceX or Orbital affect operations aboard the ISS? 

Answer. There is sufficient margin in logistics, consumables and systems spares 

through 2012 so that ISS operations will not be impacted by a delay in the start 

of commercial cargo delivery. Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) flights will augment existing resupply capability needed to support NASA, ESA, Canadian Space 

Agency, and JAXA astronauts. Those needs continue to be met through the ESAprovided ATV, the Roscosmos-provided Progress and Soyuz, and JAXA-provided 

HTV vehicles now that the Space Shuttle has been retired. SpaceX just successfully 

demonstrated its ISS resupply capability and Orbital Sciences is in the process of 

bringing their vehicles on-line to provide the needed resupply capability. RecogVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:25 Oct 24, 2012 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\76351.TXT JACKIE
50 

nizing the challenges of initial flights and bringing a new vehicle into operations, 

NASA and its partners previously delivered additional supplies to create a schedule 

margin. 

The commercial strategy does not rely on a single flight or provider. To date, 

SpaceX has successfully flown three missions using the Falcon 9 launch vehicle, including two Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) demonstration 

flights. The first of these demonstrated launch, orbit and successful recovery of a 

simplified Dragon spacecraft. On May 22, 2012, SpaceX launched its second COTS 

demonstration flight, and 3 days later, the Dragon spacecraft was berthed to the 

ISS. The mission, which accomplished the remaining COTS demonstration goals for 

SpaceX, was brought to a successful conclusion on May 31, with the deorbiting and 

splashdown of the Dragon capsule. 

Orbital Sciences Corporation is scheduled to fly its COTS demonstration mission 

in calendar year 2012, and its first CRS mission in Fiscal Year 3. 

Question 5. Phil McAllister, a NASA commercial crew manager, said in a recent 

interview that if NASA’s commercial crew program gets significantly less than requested this year, the program may need complete re-thinking. As is probably clear 

from the 2012 appropriation, there is quite a bit of work to be done to get the appropriation for commercial crew up anywhere near the request. Can you please clarify 

Mr. McAllister’s comments—what does it mean to completely re-think the program, 

and at what funding level for Fiscal Year would such an action be necessary? 

Answer. Mr. McAlister referred to the ‘‘strategy’’ for the Commercial Crew Program, not the program itself. Whenever a NASA program is appropriated significantly less funding than requested, the Agency must perform an assessment to determine the impacts from the lower than anticipated budget and determine if any 

adjustments to the program are appropriate. NASA would have to take a similar 

action for Commercial Crew if the Agency receives significantly less than requested 

amount. Those actions are typically taken when final budgets are established. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BARBARA BOXER TO

HON. CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR. 

Planetary Science 

Question 1. I understand the difficult budgetary environment we are in but I am 

very concerned that Planetary Science programs received a 21 percent cut in the 

FY 2013 budget while the proposed cut to NASA’s overall budget is 0.3 percent. 

Why was this disproportionately large cut made to Planetary Science? 

Answer. NASA’s FY 2013 budget request identifies four key priorities to be funded in this constrained fiscal environment: ISS sustainment and utilization; Space 

Launch System and Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle; James Webb Space Telescope; and new technologies. In view of these four key priorities for NASA and of 

our constrained fiscal environment, we will not be moving forward with the 2016 

and 2018 ExoMars missions that we had been studying with the European Space 

Agency. Instead, NASA is developing a new, integrated strategy for Mars missions 

to ensure that the next steps for Mars exploration will support science, as well as 

longer-term human exploration goals, and take advantage of advanced space technology developments. NASA will complete this integrated plan; including the framework for a mission to take advantage of the 2018 or 2020 launch opportunities, no 

later than this summer. The FY 2013 budget request funds several exciting missions 

that will greatly advance our understanding of the solar system. These include: 

• The Mars Science Laboratory Curiosity rover will land on Mars on August 6 of 

this year and will begin a five-year investigation in the area of Gale Crater in 

an attempt to determine if Mars could have been a habitable environment for 

life in the past; 

• The Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN (MAVEN) mission will launch in 

2013 to determine the role that loss of volatile compounds (like water, carbon 

dioxide, and nitrogen), from the Mars atmosphere to space has played over 

time, giving insight into the history of Mars atmosphere and climate, liquid 

water, and planetary habitability; 

• The Origins-Spectral Interpretation-Resource Identification-Security-Regolith 

Explorer (OSIRIS–REx) will launch in the 2016 time-frame on a mission to return a sample from an asteroid; 

• The Discovery 12 mission will be selected later this year from among three competing candidates, with the winner entering into formulation for launch in the 

2016 timeframe; 

51 

• Several missions currently in operation or on their way to their distant destinations, including GRAIL at the Moon, MESSENGER at Mercury, Cassini at Saturn, New Horizons on its way to Pluto (2015), and Juno on its way to Jupiter 

(2016). 

Question 2. The Mars missions of the past have proven very successful, the next 

rover is on its way, and NASA had an agreement to work with the European Space 

Agency (ESA) on the 2016 and 2018 Mars missions. Unfortunately, due to the large 

cut to Planetary Science, NASA has indicated that it will no longer participate in 

the next Mars missions. Are you planning to join ESA on future Mars missions? If 

so, in what time frame? What are the future plans for the workforce of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) which has been working on the Mars missions? How will 

you maintain the core capabilities of this group so that the skills developed at this 

lab are not lost? 

Answer. As you noted, due to current and future budgetary constraints and other 

higher Agency priorities, NASA will not be able to participate as originally planned 

in the Joint Mars Exploration missions conceived with ESA for 2016 and 2018. 

NASA had an agreement with ESA to begin study and design work for the2016 and 

2018 missions, but had not yet executed a follow-on agreement for full mission implementation. If the European missions go forward, NASA will likely support ESA 

in some manner. We continue to have mutual interests in the exploration of Mars, 

and we anticipate and hope that NASA and ESA will find new opportunities to collaborate. NASA has established a Mars Program Planning Group that will initially 

focus on a NASA Mars robotic mission in the 2018–2020 timeframe. We plan to actively engage our bilateral partners from ExoMars, namely ESA and the Canadian 

Space Agency, in the next few weeks, seeking their input and engagement with the 

Mars Program’s reformulation as early as practicable. We also intend to engage the 

broader international community in the near future through the established International Mars Exploration Working Group (IMEWG), an ad hoc organization of 

Space Agencies that was formed in 1993 to facilitate coordination among the world’s 

Mars-faring nations. 

Landing large masses on the Martian surface remains a necessary part of any 

strategy for Mars exploration. Therefore, while a loss of some skilled personnel after 

the landing of the Mars Science Laboratory is anticipated, NASA will work to retain 

critical skills and capabilities sufficient to sustain our skills in entry, descent, and 

landing prior to the next landed mission to Mars. The total JPL workforce is currently slightly over 5,000, down by several hundred over the last several years. 

JPL’s current best estimate is that the workforce can be maintained in FY 2012 at 

about 5,000 but may need to be reduced by approximately 300–400 in FY 2013. A 

reduction of that scale (6 percent) could be largely handled through attrition. Some 

mitigation of the losses may occur through a new Mars mission for the 2018/2020 

opportunity in the restructured program, and the fact that JPL is working on one 

of the three currently competing Discovery mission proposals. JPL is also forecasting an increase in non-NASA work. The current uncertainties should diminish 

over the rest of this year. 

Commercial Space 

Question 3. In its FY 2013 request, NASA is seeking a total of $830M for the 

Commercial Crew program. Last year, as you know, Congress appropriated $406M 

for the program, about $100M less than the authorized level. How will the requested amount enable NASA and the Commercial Crew providers to close the U.S. 

human spaceflight gap more quickly? 

Answer. NASA’s original request for the Commercial Crew Program was: 

($ in millions) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

FY 2011 BUDGET 500 1,400 1,400 1,300 1,200 

With this budget, NASA estimated that a commercial crew capability could be in 

place by 2015. However, the amount appropriated in 2011 was $312 million ($188 

million less than requested) and NASA was precluded from initiating a ‘‘new start.’’ 

Thus, NASA adjusted its strategy and initiated CCDev Round 2 which focused on 

maturing elements of the systems instead of overall integrated crew transportation 

systems. The combined impact of the lower than expected budget and shifting to 

focus on elements of the system instead of an integrated system was that it delayed 

NASA’s estimated expected operational date of commercial crew to 2016. 

The amount appropriated in 2012 was $406M ($444M less than the newly requested amount of $850M). This resulted in a further slippage of NASA’s expected 

operational date to 2017. The requested funding levels in the President’s FY 2013 

52 

request of $830M will support the expected operational date of 2017 for regaining 

U.S. human spaceflight launch and return capability to and from LEO. 

NASA is planning for commercial crew capability to be in place in 2017; but the 

Agency’s plans will not preclude earlier availability of services. Many of the potential commercial providers have stated they can have services available earlier. 

Question 4. The Commercial Crew program is designed to achieve, at a lower cost, 

an accelerated human spaceflight capability to the International Space Station. How 

is maintain a competition important to the long-term sustainability, cost and success of the program? Does NASA intend to maintain at least two or more competitors in order to drive innovation and provide best value to the taxpayer throughout 

both the development and procurement stages, as it did with the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) and Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) program? 

Answer. NASA believes that having multiple companies competing against each 

other at this stage of the Commercial Crew Program will result in lower overall 

costs for the Government. In a traditional program with a single prime contractor 

from the start using a cost-plus contract, the NASA–Air Force Cost Model 

(NAFCOM) cost estimates are approximately $8–11B for the development of an ISS 

crew transportation capability. Using the current, innovative approach of competing 

Space Act Agreements will result in multiple awards to industry with fixed Government costs. NASA estimates being able to cut the development costs substantially 

and deliver an ISS capability for around $5B. Maintaining competition is a key factor in achieving these savings. 

While the Agency has not established a specific number of awardees for the next 

phase of the Commercial Crew Program, referred to as Commercial Crew Integrated 

Capability (CCiCAP), NASA plans to have fewer companies in CCiCAP than are 

currently in CCDev2. There are seven partners in CCDev2 (four funded and three 

unfunded partners). NASA would like to maintain as much competition as it can 

for as long as possible. 

Removing competition by developing a single system from various companies’ system elements would eliminate most of the commercial aspects of the program. With 

only one provider from which NASA could purchase services, there would be little 

incentive for the companies to expand their commercial market base by selling services to any other customers or to maintain reasonable prices. There would also be 

no incentive for the companies to share in the development costs. Having industry 

share in the cost of development and selling seats to other customers in addition 

to NASA will likely decrease NASA’s costs for crew transportation services in both 

the short and long-term. 

Question 5. Are you confident that the use of Space Act Agreements and ultimately a Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)-based acquisition at the end of the 

process will ensure that NASA’s safety requirements are met in these new commercial systems? 

Answer. NASA plans to use Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)-based contracts 

for certification of commercial systems prior to flying crew on these systems. NASA 

intends to structure the certification phase following the CCiCAP effort to permit 

the Agency to fully evaluate the proposed systems and accommodate any necessary 

redesign to ensure compliance with NASA safety, performance, and mission success 

requirements. The provider(s) awarded a certification contract will not only be required to meet the NASA requirements in order to fly NASA personnel, but they 

will also have to show verified compliance of how the design and hardware will meet 

these requirements. Thus, there will be no reduction in the safety expectations or 

requirements as a result of this change in acquisition strategy. 

NASA is addressing the issue of compliance with certification requirements in 

several ways. First, NASA has released the baseline set of safety, performance, and 

mission success requirements to all of industry. NASA also has made these requirements available to all providers as reference under the CCiCAP effort. Although 

compliance with these requirements is optional for industry under a funded SAA, 

NASA anticipates that providers will use the NASA requirements to inform their 

development activities, thereby reducing the technical risk associated with the lack 

of NASA oversight under an SAA. Because NASA plans to have more than one company in the next phase of SAAs, we believe the competitive environment provides 

strong incentive for the companies to align with NASA’s certification requirements 

in order to remain competitive in the future certification and services phases. 

Third, NASA included an ‘‘Overall Safety Goal’’ in the CCiCAP Announcement for 

Proposals (see page 3 of the Announcement) which states: 

‘‘Successful commercial human space flight demands the highest commitment to 

safety; therefore NASA has the goal of fostering a safety culture in the commercial 

53 

space flight industry that ultimately will minimize the risks associated with human 

space flight to LEO. NASA’s goal is for Participants to demonstrate safety processes 

that include strong inline checks and balances, healthy tension between responsible 

organizations, value-added independent assessments and appropriate data archival, 

which will increase Government confidence in the Participant’s approach to safety.’’ 

As a result, NASA will have a great deal of insight into the providers’ approach 

to safety during CCiCAP as the providers meet their milestones associated with the 

CCiCAP agreements. 

Question 6. We heard from NASA that the Commercial Crew program is a ‘‘must 

have’’ not a ‘‘nice to have’’ and that the U.S. has a choice: it can invest more in U.S. 

commercial crew capabilities now, or spend more on Russian crew services later. 

How much are we paying Russia for crew transport today and over the next several 

years? Given recent launch failures of the Russia Soyuz and other systems, can you 

comment on the level of insight and oversight NASA currently maintains over Russian vehicles that carry our astronauts? How does this compare to your oversight 

of the U.S. companies developing new systems? Answer. NASA has purchased six seats from Russia at the cost of $51M per seat in 2012 for a total cost of $306M. Please note that this cost is phased over multiple 

years. 

In March 2011, NASA signed the most recent modification to the current International Space Station (ISS) contract with the Russian Federal Space Agency for 

crew transportation, rescue and related services from 2014 through June 2016. The 

firm-fixed price modification, valued at $753 million, covers comprehensive Soyuz 

support, including all necessary training and preparation for launch, flight operations, landing and crew rescue of long-duration missions for 12 individual space 

station crew members. 

NASA has been purchasing transportation and rescue services from Russia for 

many years as a customer, and the Russians have proven to be consistently reliable 

partners. For example, in the aftermath of the Columbia accident, the Russians provided the Soyuz and Progress spacecraft necessary to keep the ISS operational. In 

terms of NASA’s insight into technical systems and issues, the Russians have kept 

NASA officials very well informed regarding anomalies experienced (e.g., Soyuz ballistic re-entries, the Progress 44P anomaly). The Russian Federal Space Agency 

(Roscosmos) is responsible for resolving technical issues related to anomalies and coordinating with all of the International Partners, including NASA. This coordination 

is formally manifested in meetings of the Space Station Control Board, Multilateral 

Coordination Board, and ISS Mission Management Team, as well as the partners’ 

participation in the standard Stage Operations Readiness Reviews and Flight Readiness Reviews. NASA is satisfied with this level of insight. 

As noted in the response to question #5, NASA will have significant insight into 

U.S. commercial providers’ designs during CCiCAP. When the Commercial Crew 

Program begins a Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)-based contract, the Agency 

will have the level of insight and interaction typical of such a contract. 

Question 7. Assuming the Commercial Crew program delivers crew capability on 

time and on schedule, how will more frequent and affordable access to ISS for scientists and researchers lead to better utilization of ISS? 

Answer. The ISS will benefit from frequent and affordable access. Cargo vehicles 

will ensure that the laboratory facilities will be provided with research samples (and 

that they can be changed out); that ISS research and operational equipment can be 

maintained and repaired; and that NASA and its Partners will be able to deliver 

the supplies and consumables needed to maintain the nominal six-crew complement. 

NASA Workforce 

Question 8. During this time of transition, strategic management of the agency’s 

workforce poses a challenge. How is the agency planning to maintain core technical 

competencies as the current generation of employees retires? 

Answer. While NASA’s mission has been in a time of transition, its workforce has 

been relatively stable. At less than 5 percent attrition each year, NASA has a very 

low rate of attrition compared to other Federal agencies and to the private sector. 

Based on its workforce profile, NASA does not project an increase in the rate of retirement losses in the near- and mid-term future large enough to disrupt the 

planned transition of core technical competencies to workforce that will be sustained 

and the in-coming generation of NASA employees. 

NASA plans to enhance its already robust intern programs and active recruitment 

of recent graduates with the coming implementation of the Pathways Program. 

After they join NASA, these employees have access to a wide array of training opportunities, including formal in-person and on-line training, informal on-the-job 

training, mentoring, and rotational or detail assignments in order to develop indiVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:25 Oct 24, 2012 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\76351.TXT JACKIE
54 

vidual capability in the Agency’s core technical competencies. On an on-going basis, 

employees and NASA organizations have access to an extensive knowledge management capability was well as lessons learned databases—both designed to support 

the continuity of core technical competencies. 

Question 9. What funds have been identified to support the strategic hiring needed to make sure that NASA’s technical excellence remains second to none through 

the 21st century? 

Answer. NASA’s workforce FTE levels are projected to remain relatively stable in 

the coming years, with only modest reductions currently anticipated. This means 

that the current level of civil service labor funding largely will be sustained. As current employees attrit from the Agency rolls, replacement hiring will be on-going to 

fill key positions, and the workforce will be replenished with new talent. Given 

NASA’s very low attrition rate and the Agency’s modest FTE reductions, NASA actively makes prioritization decisions within its hiring program. ‘‘Replacement’’ hires 

are not necessarily made into the vacated position of each person who leaves—replacement FTE are more typically redirected to new or different positions; because 

of this process, the Agency is able to continually adapt its current high level of technical excellence to meet new mission challenges. In implementing the Pathways Program, NASA plans to significantly enhance recruitment for interns and recent graduates with the addition of new Agency-level leadership focus and activities. 

International Space Station 

Question 10. With the assembly of the International Space Station completed, 

NASA can now focus on utilizing the laboratory to continue scientific research. How 

much funding will go towards life and physical research in the coming fiscal years? 

How does NASA intend to implement the recommendations of the National Academies’ Decadal Survey? 

Answer. Please see below table showing life and physical sciences research funding in the FY 2013 budget request. The Decadal Survey provided NASA with over 

60 ‘‘highest priority’’ research recommendations, and eight potential prioritization 

criteria. All of NASA’s current ISS research portfolio is within the highest priority 

recommendations of the Decadal Survey. The NASA Office of the Chief Scientist is 

coordinating a NASA response to the Decadal Survey that will describe a strategy 

for implementing the priorities within the context of schedule and budget constraints. Within the limits of NASA’s budget constraints, we will closely consider the 

recommendations of the Decadal Survey in decisions on investments in new research facilities and capabilities for the ISS, in a research program that balances 

the pursuit of significant new scientific discoveries and the construction of a foundation of knowledge that supports future human exploration missions. 

Human Exploration and Operations—FY 2013 Budget 

Space Life and Physical Sciences Research and Applications Division (SLPSRA) 

Notional 

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 

Total SLPSRA Budget (in $M) 231.0 240.0 236.5 237.8 240.4 240.1 

Exploration Appropriation 157.7 164.7 164.7 164.7 164.7 164.7 

Human Research Program 157.7 164.7 164.7 164.7 164.7 164.7 

Space Operations Appropriation 73.3 75.3 71.8 73.1 75.7 75.4 

Biological & Physical Research 58.3 60.3 56.8 58.1 60.7 60.4 

Non-Profit Organization 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 

* Note the Multi-User System Support (MUSS) budget, including National Laboratory Enabling, is managed by the ISS Program and therefore is not included in the above data. 

Arc Jet 

Question 11. We understand that NASA is planning to consolidate all Arc Jet testing capabilities at Ames Research Center (ARC) because it will require only minimal 

cost in upgrades to the facility and the Agency expects this consolidation effort to 

result in operational cost savings. What are some of the long-term efficiencies that 

can be gained from consolidating Arc Jet at Ames? 

Answer. Annual operating efficiencies: consolidating NASA arc jet capabilities at 

Ames allows the Agency to save the ongoing annual costs of operating and maintaining the lower-power arc jet facility at Johnson Space Center with minimal impact to near-and long-term mission needs. Recent, extensive reports sponsored by 

both the NASA Office of the Chief Engineer and the JSC Orion MPCV program 

have concluded that: (1) the capabilities provided by the ARC arc jets are the minimum set necessary to meet present and anticipated Agency test requirements; (2) 

55 

modifying the JSC arc jet infrastructure so that it is physically capable of matching 

the technical capability already operating at ARC would require hundreds of millions of dollars in new infrastructure investment—essentially, would require razing 

and rebuilding a new upgraded capability from scratch; and (3) actual operations 

costs at ARC on a per-test productivity basis are lower than JSC’s and are comparable to those of other commercial and DOD arc jet facilities. In FY 2010, the 

NASA OCE determined the annual operations and maintenance costs of operating 

the JSC arc jet at $6.2M/per year. Approximately 60 percent of the annual cost of 

an arc jet facility is fixed costs. Over the 30-year life expectancy of a modern industrial test facility, consolidating test capability at Ames would save up to $111.6M 

in the fixed costs of operating the JSC arc jet facility. 

Test execution efficiencies: the cost-per-test of operating at ARC is lower than at 

JSC. The recent study chartered by the Office of the Chief Engineer found that the 

FY 2010 average cost per test at JSC is $32.3K; at Ames, $16.3K. On average the 

JSC facility executes approximately 200 tests per year. Executing those tests at 

ARC would save the Agency approximately $3.2M per year. 

Future capability upgrade efficiencies: Mission scenarios for planetary science 

missions to Mars, Venus, the gas giants, comet and asteroid sample return, and 

crewed missions to the Moon, Mars, and near-earth asteroids will require increased 

performance from arc jet infrastructure. Higher temperatures are needed to simulate the condition associated with atmospheric entry (at the destination) and reentry 

(to Earth) for missions of this scope. Efficiencies can be realized through concentration of infrastructure maintenance and upgrade resources on a single facility. The 

underlying infrastructure at Ames is designed to support very high power (up to 150 

MW) arc jet operations. The corresponding infrastructure at JSC is limited to supporting low power (up to 10 MW) operations. Recent studies (ARES Corporation, 

Arc-Heated Test Facility Investment & Risk Reduction Study for Orion Heat Shield, 

May 2007) have shown that the most cost- and time-efficient approach to meeting 

upgraded arc jet performance requirements is to install upgraded equipment within 

the Ames infrastructure. This approach obviates investments in JSC infrastructure 

that already exist at Ames, and leverages the Agency’s considerable recent infrastructure investments in the Ames facility. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK WARNER BY

HON. CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR. 

Question 1. It is my understanding that from 2006 to 2012 funding for NASA’s 

Aeronautics Hypersonics Project was decreased by 75 percent from $95M to $25M. 

The proposed FY 2013 Budget further reduces funding from $25M down to $7M— 

another 72 percent reduction. However, I also understand that the results of 

hypersonic research achieve our national security goals by increasing our global 

reach, responsiveness, and survivability. What was the basis for decreasing 

hypersonic programs to only 7 percent of the FY 2006 funding level? 

Answer. Most of the decrease in funding for the Hypersonics Project prior to FY 

2012 was due to accounting changes and the elimination of one-year Congressional 

augmentations. The reduction from $50M in FY 2011 to $25M in FY 2012 and proposed reduction in FY 2013 reflect content changes due to required priority setting 

within a very tight budget environment. The Hypersonics Project had two main emphases in its portfolio: 1) fundamental research and technology development for air 

breathing hypersonic propulsion systems and 2) fundamental research in Entry, Descent, and Landing (EDL). With the reduction in FY 2012, the EDL-related flight 

experiment of inflatable re-entry system was transferred to the Office of Chief Technologist (OCT). In FY 2012, NASA prioritized funding for other, higher priority 

areas within the aeronautics portfolio, including research in airspace management, 

composites structures, and aviation safety. With the proposed reduction in FY 2013, 

the Agency will transfer all remaining EDL work to the Office of Chief Technologist 

(OCT). In FY 2013, technology development effort in air-breathing hypersonic propulsion systems such as combined cycle engines and structurally integrated thermal 

protection systems is planned to be phased out while retaining the Langley 8–Ft 

High Temperature Tunnel and research capability to support DOD’s hypersonic programs. Further, NASA will effectively combine the hypersonics and supersonics research into a single project that will be focused on high-speed flight. The DOO will 

continue to support a larger hypersonics R&D program aimed at achieving national 

security goals. 

Question 1a. What results have been achieved to date through the Aeronautics 

Hypersonics Project? 

56 

Answer. Recent NASA hypersonics results have largely been accomplished in 

partnership with the DOD. These accomplishments include validation of hypersonic 

vehicle design methods and ground-to-flight scaling laws resulting from X–51 wind 

tunnel testing in the Langley 8–Ft High Temperature Tunnel and DOD flight-testing combined with NASA–Air Force Research Lab (AFRL) Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analyses. Another accomplishment is the NASA development of the 

scramjet engine payload to be flown as Flight 2 of the HIFiRE (Hypersonic International Flight Research and Experimentation) Program with the Air Force Research Laboratory. The Hypersonic Project also conducted the first flight test of an 

inflatable heat shield as well as the associated materials and computational tools 

to allow these new systems to be further developed. Additional technical detail can 

be provided upon request. 

Question 1b. What is NASA’s plan for achieving the same national security goals 

on this drastically reduced budget? 

Answer. NASA Aeronautics responsibility to the national security goals related to 

hypersonics is to support the DOD. NASA will work with the DOD to coordinate 

and minimize the impact by the changes in the NASA hypersonics research on their 

missions. Discussions to date with DOD officials indicate that the remaining NASA 

hypersonics investment is aligned with their highest priorities. 

Question 2. Without the long-term research that will be eliminated under the propose FY 2013 budget, what will be the impact to NASA’s Space Technology and 

DOD’s DARPA projects and to future launch vehicles? How will this critical NASA 

capability for NASA and DOD be maintained beyond FY 2012? 

Answer. NASA will maintain specifically the hypersonic scramjet propulsion research and support capability associated with the NASA Langley 8-ft High Temperature Tunnel. The reason that NASA is focusing its remaining hypersonic investment around this wind tunnel is that it is key to supporting both NASA and DOD 

missions. Discussions to date with DOD officials indicate that the remaining NASA 

hypersonics investment is aligned with their highest priorities. Military applications 

will be the first steps toward eventually maturing the technology sufficiently to enable civilian uses such as transportation or space access. The primary impact would 

be to limit future opportunities to move beyond traditional rockets for such applications. At this time, NASA does not have plans or funds to build such a launch system, so there is not an immediate impact. Additionally, alternatives to conventional 

rockets are not just limited to hypersonic air-breathing propulsion options, and include horizontal launch options that cover the spectrum from sub-sonic to supersonic 

air-breathing first stage vehicles, to other more innovative and advanced concepts. 

However, it is anticipated that there could be an impact in supporting external research in this area and developing future engineers and scientists with skills in this 

area. NASA’s Space Technology Program FY 2013 budget request of $699M incorporates the responsibility for the fundamental research in the area of Entry, Descent, and Landing (EDL). The actual FY 2013 appropriated funding level for Space 

Technology may impact all areas in Space Technology including EDL research. 

Question 3. Hypersonic air-breathing propulsion is a key component of advanced 

propulsion systems for launch vehicles that the National Research Council recently 

selected as the highest priority during their review of Space Technology Roadmaps. 

It takes years to develop the subject matter and expertise and the required facilities. As other countries including China, France and England more forward with robust hypersonic air-breathing projects and move into a position to capitalize on this 

technology as it matures for both economic and military benefits, what impact will 

reduced funding levels have on our national security? 

Answer. The National Research Council (NRC) report called out many high priority technologies, including the 16 highest priorities. The report ranked turbineand rocket-based combined cycle propulsion technologies the highest in the Launch 

Propulsion Systems technical area. 

For decades, both NASA and the Air Force have invested substantial resources 

in these two areas. For example, the National Aerospace Plane program of the late 

80s and early 90s was an effort to refine and implement these technologies. As recognized in the NRC report, both technical areas pose technical challenges that are 

difficult and expensive to overcome. The NRC prioritized these but added: ‘‘However, 

a significant number of challenges were also identified for each, and the Committee 

believes that it will take decades of research and development and a large and sustained financial investment to makes these technologies feasible.’’ 

NASA is conducting a thorough assessment of how the Agency’s current technology development efforts align with the priorities identified in the NRC report. 

The Office of the Chief Technologist is leading an Agency-wide gap analysis and 

strategic planning effort to address the recommendations made by the NRC and 

57 

work with NASA Mission Directorates to determine what is possible within the 

Agency’s current budget profile. 

NASA is working with DOD to minimize the impact to their mission. For example, we are maintaining some critical national capabilities related to scramjet propulsion and the LaRC 8-ft High Temperature Tunnel to provide continued support 

to DOD missions. 

While NASA is reducing research related to air-breathing hypersonics systems including propulsion technologies and structurally integrated thermal protection systems, the Agency decided that, in order to maintain core capabilities needed for 

spacecraft development, the Space Technology program will assume responsibility 

for the fundamental research associated with Entry Descent and Landing that had 

previously been conducted in the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate. This 

change also creates synergies with development projects Space Technology is conducting in this technology area. 

Question 4. What has been the extent of coordination with DOD on the Aeronautics Hypersonics Project? With the proposed cuts to the NASA program, what 

kind of changes in the relationship and coordination with DOD do you anticipate? 

Answer. NASA is actively working with the DOD to coordinate and minimize the 

impact of these decisions on their missions. There are some elements of research 

that NASA will no longer be able to support, and NASA has already met with senior 

DOD officials who agree that the remaining NASA investment does align with the 

highest hypersonic priorities in the DOD. Specifically, NASA Aeronautics is focusing 

its remaining hypersonic research on efforts that directly support the DOD. We are 

also maintaining some critical national capabilities related to scramjet propulsion 

to provide support for both Agency and DOD missions. NASA is aware of the DOD 

plans to expand research in hypersonic flight systems and is continuing to discuss 

options to optimize this collaboration. In the same way that NASA supported the 

development of the USAF X–51 system, we expect DOD collaboration and coordination to continue. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TOM UDALL TO

HON. CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR. 

Question 1. I know you are aware of White Sands’ unique assets and capabilities. 

I appreciate hearing from you about NASA’s goals and priorities for FY 2013. Could 

you speak about some of the opportunities for White Sands to support NASA’s missions? How can we take full advantage of White Sand Test Facility’s capabilities in 

FY 2013 and beyond? 

Answer. As a preeminent resource for testing and evaluating potentially hazardous materials, space flight components, and rocket propulsion systems, White 

Sands Test Facility (WSTF) is well positioned to support NASA mission requirements. The facility conducts simulated mission duty cycle testing to develop numerous full-scale propulsion systems. WSTF is also formally certified to perform precision cleaning and depot-level refurbishment of flight-critical propulsion systems 

components. Further, the scientific investigation of explosion phenomena at WSTF 

is aimed at improving safety at launch facilities and other areas where hazardous 

materials are used. WSTF is a center of technical excellence in the fields of highpressure oxygen systems/materials and rocket propellant safety. Further, the laboratory services at WSTF are available to NASA, the Department of Defense, other 

Federal agencies, universities, and commercial industry. 

In the area of hazardous testing, WSTF offers a set of state-of-the-art/world class 

lab and propulsion test facilities specializing in hazardous/non-hazardous operations 

and performing tests on propulsion systems, components, and materials, including: 

hypergolic fueled propulsion systems and components; green fuel propulsion systems 

and components; oxygen compatibility; hypervelocity impact in hazardous 

atmospheres; and standard materials testing for human space flight environment 

compatibility. 

In addition, WSTF can perform propulsion testing of components, engines and 

systems at ambient (up to 60,000 lbs. thrust) and simulated altitudes of 120,000 ft 

(25,000 lbs. thrust) for hypergolic, liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen, and liquid oxygen/ 

liquid methane fuels. 

Current and Future Activities: 

• Continued improvements in safety, reliability, and efficiency through the execution of prioritized projects in the propulsion test facilities (Propulsion Test Area 

Intercom System, Altitude Simulation Vacuum System Controls, Bulk Propellant Storage) 

58 

• Specific test programs: 

» Oxygen compatibility testing for International Space Station components and 

materials; 

» Hypervelocity testing in support orbital debris and micro-meteoroid mitigation; 

» Space Shuttle Transition and Retirement activities to restore test stands to 

a neutral test state; 

» Space Shuttle post program decontamination activities; 

» Continued support to the Agency vision for space by testing hypergolic fueled 

propulsion components for Space Launch System and Orion Multi Purpose 

Crew Vehicle; 

» Support to Department of Defense and other Government organizations by 

safing the U.S. Air Force Peacekeeper stages, testing the U.S. Air Force Minuteman missiles, and critical Missile Defense Agency projects; 

» Support to commercial space developers and providers by testing hypergolic 

propulsion systems. 

• Specific to NASA’s commercial crew and cargo development efforts, partners 

may request use of NASA facilities, equipment, or services that are unique or 

not commercially available. Partners planning to use such NASA resources 

must enter into separate reimbursable agreements directly with the appropriate 

NASA Center(s). Any decision to use NASA facilities, equipment, or services 

shall be at the Participant’s discretion and risk. 

The WSTF propulsion test assets are managed through the Human Exploration 

and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) Rocket Propulsion Test (RPT) Program. The RPT Program represents the single-point interface for NASA’s rocket propulsion test facilities located at Stennis Space Center (SSC), Marshall Space Flight 

Center (MSFC), Johnson Space Center-White Sands Test Facility (JSC–WSTF), and 

Glenn Research Center-Plum Brook Station (GRC–PBS). The RPT sustains and improves Agency-wide rocket propulsion test core competencies (both infrastructure 

and critical skills), ensures appropriate levels of capability and competency are 

maintained, and eliminates unwarranted duplication. The program strategy is to 

fund and maintain core competencies of skilled test and engineering crews and test 

stand facilities; consolidate and streamline NASA’s rocket test infrastructure; establish and maintain world-class test facilities; modernize test facility equipment; provide non-project-specific equipment and supplies; and develop effective facility/infrastructure maintenance strategies and performance. 

Question 2. I am pleased that NASA’s budget request includes funding for the 

Flight Opportunities Program. This initiative provides relatively low-cost access to 

reduced-gravity environments that is useful for scientific research and developing 

new space technology. By competitively securing commercial flight services, NASA’s 

Flight Opportunities Program leverages private investment in suborbital spacecraft 

and parabolic aircraft. This helps expand access to suborbital space for researchers 

and others seeking to conduct microgravity experiments. Could you share some of 

your thoughts on the importance of this relatively small program on achieving 

NASA’s goals in the areas of science, technology, and exploration? 

Answer. The Flight Opportunities Program (authorized as the Commercial Reusable Suborbital Research Program) was proposed by NASA in FY 2010 in response 

to the National Academy of Sciences report: Revitalizing NASA’s Suborbital Program: Advancing Science, Driving Innovation and Developing Workforce. The intent 

of this program is to facilitate access to near-space for a variety of users with greater frequency and affordability, and with more reliability. To accomplish these goals, 

this relatively small program effectively leverages private investments made by 

multiple companies in the emerging space sector. The program does not fund their 

flight vehicle development, but purchases commercial flights offered by these entrepreneurial companies. 

NASA recognizes the importance of commercial reusable parabolic and suborbital 

flights for development of future Science and Exploration workforce capabilities. 

One of the greatest challenges NASA faces in advancing cutting-edge technologies 

is bridging the gap between testing a component or prototype in a laboratory or 

ground facility environment, and demonstrating the technology or capability in a 

mission-relevant operational environment. The cost of access to space remains prohibitively expensive with launch costs to low-Earth orbit ranging from $10,000 to 

$15,000 per pound for small payloads. Adding these launch costs to the cost of demonstration hardware and operations capability presents a major hurdle in the matuVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:25 Oct 24, 2012 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\76351.TXT JACKIE
59 

1 ‘‘Revitalizing NASA’s Suborbital Program: Advancing Science, Driving Innovation, and Developing a Workforce’’ http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12862.html. 

ration of compelling space technologies. Without an ability to perform these critical 

relevant environment tests, not only do these new technologies remain on the shelf, 

but the workforce that might otherwise gain the experience to employ these new approaches remains underutilized and untrained. A key parameter for space capabilities is proving performance in a microgravity environment. It is this gap between 

non-microgravity ground-based testing and very expensive orbital demonstrations, 

where commercial reusable suborbital launch vehicles offer an enormous potential. 

Microgravity flights provide the potential for relevant environment testing at a 

small fraction of the costs required for orbital flights. 

As noted in the legislative mandate for this program, and by the NRC review of 

NASA’s Suborbital Program 1, utilizing suborbital platforms provides critical training opportunities needed to sustain a skilled aerospace workforce capable of meeting 

our Nation’s exploration and technology development objectives. In the process of 

cultivating the next generation of researchers and technologists, and moving technology through the critical, flight testing phase, Flight Opportunities begins to establish a stable customer base for an emerging commercial suborbital market in the 

purchase of space transportation services. 

Question 3. I am aware that NASA is realigning some of its educational activities 

in accordance with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) five-year 

STEM strategic plan. Could you preview plans for any of NASA’s STEM programs 

aimed at K–12 and university students, and speak about NASA’s increased collaboration with other agencies on these efforts? 

Answer. NASA is working to align its programs with the priorities identified in 

the five-year STEM strategic plan issued by the National Science and Technology 

Council (NSTC) Committee on STEM Education. NASA Education is actively engaged with Federal partners through the Committee on STEM (Co-STEM), the 

EPSCoR Interagency Coordinating Committee, and through collaborations with the 

Department of Education, Department of Defense Education Activity (DODEA), National Science Foundation, and NOAA among others. 

Consistent with the status report on the NSTC Five-Year Federal STEM Education Strategic Plan released by the National Science and Technology Council, 

NASA will align its portfolio of activities over the next three years. In Year one, 

NASA will work with the Co-STEM to finalize criteria for success, develop common 

evidence standards, evaluation and research toolkits, and identify efficiency and productivity opportunities. In Years two and three, the Agency will establish baselines 

and increase alignment with the adopted criteria. NASA will align its future evaluation strategy with the Status Report on the NSTC Five-Year Federal STEM Education Strategic Plan. Successful STEM education practices and strategies identified 

through STEM education research studies and evaluations will also be used to guide 

NASA investments in STEM education. NASA will continually adjust the design of 

STEM education investments to align with best practices in STEM education derived from existing and new evidence from education research and evaluation. 

The Aerospace Research and Career Development program strengthens the research capabilities of the Nation’s colleges and universities and provides opportunities that attract and prepare increasing numbers of students for NASA-related careers. The student programs serve as a major link in the pipeline for addressing 

NASA’s human capital strategies. The programs build, sustain, and effectively deploy the skilled, knowledgeable, diverse, and high-performing workforce needed to 

meet the current and emerging needs of NASA and the Nation. The research conducted contributes to the research needs of NASA’s Mission Directorates and advances the Nation’s scientific and technology innovation agendas. 

The STEM Education and Accountability program provides competitive opportunities for NASA Centers, visitor centers, institutions of informal education, schools, 

universities, and non-profit organizations. These groups develop lessons, materials, 

research opportunities, and hands-on activities that draw on NASA’s unique missions. The program includes learners from kindergarten through graduate school, 

educators in the classroom and in informal learning environments, college faculty, 

and the general public. The program emphasizes undergraduate participation in 

STEM research and education, preparing future scientists and engineers to enter 

the STEM workforce. Consistent with input received from the National Science and 

Technology Council Committee on STEM, NASA will provide middle school pre-service and in-service educators with NASA-themed experiences that build critical instructional STEM skills, and better enable them to motivate students in STEM. 

NASA activities and experiences spark interest in STEM and expose students to 

60 

new career paths. Educators, both in schools, and in museums, science centers, and 

in community-based education organizations, will enhance their teaching practices 

with NASA-themed materials, experiences, and teaching strategies. NASA will engage learners of all ages through its missions, engineering challenges, and scientific 

discoveries. 

Question 4. With the retirement of the Space Shuttle, NASA currently relies on 

Russia to provide access to the International Space Station. The NASA budget request for the Commercial Crew program designed to replace this capability is below 

the FY 2012 request and the authorization level. Will this funding level delay our 

Nation’s ability to service the ISS with American launch vehicles? 

Answer. NASA’s original request for the Commercial Crew Program was: 

($ in millions) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

FY 2011 BUDGET 500 1,400 1,400 1,300 1,200 

With this budget, NASA estimated that a commercial crew capability could be in 

place by 2015. However, the amount appropriated in 2011 was $312M ($188M less 

than requested). Thus, NASA reduced its expected progress and initiated CCDev 

Round 2 which only matured elements of the systems instead of overall integrated 

crew transportation systems. The combined impact of the lower than expected budget and having to focus on elements of the system instead of an integrated system 

was that it delayed NASA’s expected operational date of commercial crew to 2016. 

The amount appropriated in 2012 was $406M ($444M less than the newly requested amount of $850M). This resulted in a further slippage of NASA’s expected 

operational date to 2017, given the requested funding levels in the President’s FY 

2013 request and reasonable technical progress on the part of the commercial providers. 

NASA is planning for commercial crew capability to be in place in 2017; but, the 

Agency’s plans will not preclude earlier availability of services. Many of the potential commercial providers have stated they could provide services earlier than 2017. 

How much does NASA expect to ultimately pay Russia to fly astronauts to low 

Earth orbit before we achieve a new commercial crew capability? 

Answer. In March 2011, NASA signed the most recent modification to the current 

International Space Station (ISS) contract with the Russian Federal Space Agency 

for crew transportation, rescue and related services from 2014 through June 2016. 

The firm-fixed price modification, valued at $753M, covers comprehensive Soyuz 

support, including all necessary training and preparation for launch, flight operations, landing and crew rescue of long-duration missions for 12 individual space 

station crew members. 

Question 5. New Mexico is at a high elevation and relies on snowpack water 

sources for irrigation and drinking water. My state is highly susceptible to variations due to weather and climate patterns and I am particularly concerned about 

effects of climate change. I am pleased to learn about NASA’s plans for the Earth 

Venture program and progress developing next-generation climate and weather 

monitoring missions. Could you elaborate on the goals of these missions, and the 

implications their findings could have for our understanding of climate change? 

Answer. NASA is operating or has made significant hardware contributions to16 

Earth observing satellites that are providing data on a wide variety of interactions 

among the oceans, atmosphere, land surface, ice sheets and biota that compose the 

Earth system. These data enable research that improves our scientific understanding of and enables improved prediction of climate, weather, and natural hazards. Additionally, the satellites return valuable scientific data that drive climate 

and weather research and provide decision support information and tools through 

NASA’s Applied Sciences Program. 

The list of currently operating satellites and their status is given in the table 

below. ‘‘Extended’’ means the mission has met all its top-level science requirements 

and continues to provide vital science data. ‘‘Prime’’ means the mission is still in 

its primary operating phase, collecting data on the way to meeting its top-level requirements. 

61 

Mission* Launched Phase Scientific Issues (Goals) 

Tropical Rainfall 

Measuring Mission 

(TRMM) 

11/27/97 Extended The first-time use of both active and passive 

microwave instruments have made TRMM 

the world’s foremost satellite for the study 

of precipitation and associated storms and 

climate processes in the tropics. 

Landsat 7 04/15/99 Extended Landsat 7 is a joint mission of NASA and 

USGS to gather Earth resource data, and 

is the most recent in a long series of 

Landsat satellites going back over 35 

years to 1974. 

Quick Scatterometer 

(QuikSCAT) 

6/19/99 Extended The SeaWinds instrument on the QuikSCAT 

satellite is a specialized microwave radar 

that measures near-surface wind speed 

and direction under all weather and cloud 

conditions over Earth’s oceans. 

Terra 12/18/99 Extended Terra simultaneously studies clouds, water 

vapor, aerosol particles, trace gases, terrestrial and oceanic surface properties, biological productivity of the land and 

oceans, the interaction among them and 

their effects on atmospheric radiation and 

climate. 

Active Cavity 

Radiometer 

Irradiance Monitor 

(ACRIMsat) 

12/20/99 Extended The ACRIMSAT spacecraft carries an instrument which measures the Sun’s total 

energy output, continuing a database 

started in 1980. ACRIMSAT data can be 

correlated with possible global warming 

data, ice cap shrinkage data, and ozone 

layer depletion data. 

Earth Observer-1 

(EO-1) 

11/21/00 Extended Earth Observing-1 (EO-1) is an advanced 

land-imaging mission that demonstrates 

new instruments and spacecraft systems. 

The hyperspectral instrument called 

Hyperion is the first of its kind to provide 

images of land-surface in more than 220 

spectral colors. 

Jason 12/7/01 Extended Jason is an oceanography mission to monitor global ocean circulation, improve global climate predictions, and monitor events 

such as El Nin ̃ o conditions and ocean eddies. The mission helps increase understanding of ocean circulation and seasonal 

changes and improve forecasting of climate events like El Nin ̃ o. 

Gravity Recovery 

and Climate 

Experiment 

(GRACE) 

3/17/02 Extended The primary goal of the GRACE mission is 

to accurately map variations in the 

Earth’s gravity field over its lifetime. The 

science data from the mission is used to 

estimate global models for variable Earth 

gravity field approximately every 30 days. 

Aqua 5/3/02 Extended Aqua was launched with six state-of-the-art 

instruments to observe the Earth’s oceans, 

atmosphere, land, ice and snow covers, 

and vegetation, providing high measurement accuracy, spatial detail, and temporal frequency. 

62 

Mission* Launched Phase Scientific Issues (Goals) 

Solar Radiation and 

Climate Experiment 

(SORCE) 

1/25/03 Extended SORCE provides state-of-the-art measurements of incoming x-ray, ultraviolet, visible, near-infrared, and total solar radiation. The measurements specifically address long-term climate change, natural 

variability and enhanced climate prediction, and atmospheric ozone and UV–B 

radiation. 

Aura 7/15/04 Extended Aura’s objective is to study the chemistry 

and dynamics of the Earth’s atmosphere 

with emphasis on the upper troposphere 

and lower stratosphere (0-30km) by employing multiple instruments on a single 

satellite. Each instrument makes daily 

global observations of Earth’s atmospheric 

ozone layer, air quality, and key climate 

parameters. 

Cloudsat 4/28/06 Extended CloudSat is designed to fly in formation 

with CALIPSO to provide a comprehensive characterization of the structure and 

composition of clouds and their effects on 

climate under all weather conditions. 

Cloud-Aerosol Lidar 

and Infrared 

Pathfinder Satellite 

Observations 

(CALIPSO) 

4/28/06 Extended CALIPSO flies three instruments in formation with Aqua to obtain coincident observations of radiative fluxes and atmospheric conditions. This enables new 

observationally based assessments of the 

radiative effects of aerosol and clouds that 

is greatly improving our ability to predict 

future climate change. 

Ocean Surface 

Topography Mission 

(OSTM)/Jason 2 

6/20/08 Extended OSTM/Jason 2 measures sea surface height 

by using a radar altimeter mounted on a 

low-Earth orbiting satellite. Measurements of sea-surface height, or ocean surface topography, reveal the speed and direction of ocean currents and tell scientists how much of the sun’s energy is 

stored by the ocean. 

Aquarius 6/10/11 Prime By measuring sea surface salinity over the 

globe with such unprecedented precision, 

Aquarius will answer long-standing questions about how our oceans respond to climate change and the water cycle. Monthly 

sea surface salinity maps will give clues 

about changes in freshwater input and 

output to the ocean associated with precipitation, evaporation, ice melting, and 

river runoff. 

Suomi-NPP 10/28/11 Prime NPP is the bridge between the EOS satellites and the forthcoming series of Joint 

Polar Satellite System (JPSS) satellites. 

NPP data will be used for both climate research and operational weather prediction. 

* Information on the measurements these missions make and the research and applications that they enable 

is available at:http://nasascience.nasa.gov/earth-science/missions/. 

63 

The following missions are in development or formulation: 

Mission Planned Launch Readiness Date 

Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM) 2013 

Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) 2014 

Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO–2) 2014 

Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment (SAGE III on ISS) 2014 

Soil Moisture Active/Passive (SMAP) 2014 

ICESat-2 2016 

Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment-Follow-on (GRACE–FO) 2017 

Several other missions are in a pre-formulation study phase. 

Venture-Class 

Venture-Class is a Tier-I Decadal Survey recommendation and is a program of 

regular competitive solicitations designed to enable science-driven, PI-led, cost-and 

schedule-constrained, innovative orbital and suborbital missions from academia and 

private industry as well as from NASA Centers. The Venture-class investigations 

complement the systematic missions identified in the Decadal Survey, and provide 

flexibility to accommodate scientific advances and new implementation approaches. 

Venture-Class is fully funded, with 3 ‘‘strands’’ 

• EV–1: suborbital/airborne investigations (5 years duration) 

» Solicited in FY 2009 (selections in FY 2010) and every 4 years 

» 5 investigations selected; flights began in FY 2011 

• EV–2: small complete missions (5 years duration) 

» Solicited in FY11 (selections in FY 2012) and every 4 years 

» Small-sat or stand-alone payload for MoO; $150M total development cost 

» AO released 17 June, proposals received 29 Sept 2011, under review 

• EV–Instrument: Spaceborne instruments for flight on MoO (5 years dev.) 

» Solicited in FY 2011 (selections in CY12) and every 15–18 months thereafter 

» Final AO release Feb 7; proposals due May 8, ∼$90M development costs, accommodation costs budgeted separately 

NASA’s Research and Analysis programs and the Applied Sciences Programs, generate the research understanding and the efficient data products that users need 

to redeem the Nation’s investment in the flight missions. 

The Earth Science R&A activity is built around the creation of new scientific 

knowledge about the Earth system. The analysis and interpretation of data from 

NASA’s satellites form the heart of the R&A program in the Earth Science Research 

Program, although a full range of underlying scientific activity needed to establish 

a rigorous base for the satellite data and their use in computational models, including those for assimilation and forecasting, is also included. The complexity of the 

Earth system, in which spatial and temporal variability exists on a range of scales, 

requires that an organized scientific approach be developed for addressing the complex, interdisciplinary problems that exist, taking good care that in doing so there 

is a recognition of the objective to integrate science across the programmatic elements towards a comprehensive understanding of the Earth system. 

Through the Applied Sciences Program, NASA develops and demonstrates practicable applications of its research satellite observations and model results for use 

by decision makers. NASA works directly with decision makers throughout the development of applications. 

Two recent examples of NASA Earth Science Research and Applications follow. 

NASA’s GRACE Data enhances North American Drought Monitors 

Many regions in the United States experienced record-breaking drought in 2011. 

To better understand drought so that decision makers can accurately manage the 

best uses of a limited water supply, an Applied Sciences-funded project in the Water 

Resources Program is using GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) 

data to enhance the U.S. and North American Drought Monitors, the premier decision support tools for drought monitoring purposes. 

To address the need for better drought information and enhanced decision support 

tools, an Applied Sciences-funded project led by Matt Rodell, hydrologist at NASA’s 

Goddard Space Flight Center, is working with NOAA, the National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska Lincoln, and a team from the University 

of California Irvine to develop new drought indicator maps using Earth observations 

from GRACE and other missions. 

64 

GRACE—paired satellites that travel approximately 137 miles apart and detect 

small variations in the Earth’s gravitational field—data is useful because it provides 

valuable information on water stored both on top of and below the land surface. 

This includes snow, soil moisture and groundwater. Having a complete picture of 

all these water types gives a much more accurate picture of drought. 

Prior to the addition of GRACE data and other satellite observation into the 

drought monitors, the maps lacked information on soil moisture and groundwater 

storage—two areas that GRACE has been able to enhance greatly. 

But GRACE’s spatial and temporal resolutions are low. Because of this, GRACE 

data alone would not provide the complete picture necessary for sound water management decision-making. Rodell’s team uses the GRACE data and combines it with 

a long-term meteorological data-set—including precipitation and temperature, satellite based solar radiation data, and high resolution land surface modeling to 

produce a continuous record of soil moisture and groundwater that goes back to 

1948. The soil moisture and groundwater record is used to produce weekly maps of 

wetness conditions in the soil and aquifers. 

To view the weekly maps, visit http://www.drought.unl.edu/MonitoringTools/ 

NASAGRACEDataAssimilation.aspx. 

NASA’s efforts to assess snowpack for improved snow-water run-off 

forecasts 

NASA is addressing the challenge of assessing seasonal water supply estimates 

from snow melt on three fronts. Improved land surface models from better observations, improved scientific knowledge, and advanced computing capabilities, sensor 

and model improvement from airborne observatories and campaigns, and better 

space observations leading to persistent measurements of snow cover and snow 

depth. 

NASA Water Resources Program is supporting numerous projects building on a 

NASA modeling and modeling framework capabilities. These capabilities have expanded the use of scientific models to wide audiences of researchers and decisionmakers. One example is with NOAA/National Weather Service (NWS) National 

Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center (NOHRSC) to develop North American information for Alaska. This project is now expanding the effort to assess the 

impact on the NWS Alaska-Pacific River Forecast Center’s region. 

Airborne and spaceborne observations of snow-based reservoirs have greatly increased in quality and quantity of the past few years. NASA has been improving 

upon initial MODIS (on Terra and Aqua) algorithms to detect snow cover and have 

an improved product that allows better monitoring during the critical snowmelt 

phase of some snowpacks. NASA has also been exploring the use of hyperspectral 

remote sensing information, current available using NASA aircraft instruments, as 

well as in discussion for a future satellite recommended by the decadal survey 

(HyspIRI), to better understand the effects of (blown) dust on snow melt rates. As 

an example, various observations were combined in 2010 that allowed NASA scientists to warn particular water districts in Colorado that blown dust would significant enhance melt rates allowing them to better manage the (eventual) water capture system of this precious resource. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON TO

HON. CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR. 

Exploration 

Question 1. Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion/Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle 

(MPCV) Funding Levels: NASA’s long-term future is beyond low-earth orbit. Yet, 

once again, we see that the proposed commitment of funds to develop the vehicles 

that will take NASA there is less than inspiring. In fact, the proposed funding levels 

for actual vehicle development for the Orion/MPCV) and the SLS are less now that 

the Administration has formally endorsed both programs than the amounts reflected 

in the Independent Cost Assessment last year and, presumably, submitted as part 

of NASA’s request to OMB for FY 2013. How do you explain that the Administration’s formal endorsement of SLS in September resulted in less money for these programs? 

Answer. For FY 2012, the Congress appropriated $1.943B for SLS and associated 

ground systems, $15 M above the ICA profile when adjusted to include civil service 

labor. Also for FY 2012, the Congress appropriated $1.200B for Orion MPCV, $181 

M above the ICA profile when adjusted to include civil service labor. The FY 2013 

funding request for Orion MPCV represents a further increase over the FY 2013 

budget estimates that were included in the ICA report. For SLS and associated 

65 

ground systems, the FY 2013 request is $1,885 million, 99 percent of the ICA profile 

NASA is committed to the development of the Space Launch System (SLS) and 

Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV). Our budget formulation for FY 2013 

took into account the FY 2012 Appropriation s. The requested funding will enable 

the Agency to develop, test and launch the SLS and Orion MPCV first uncrewed 

flight in 2017 and the first crewed flight in 2021. Concurrently, the Agency continues to aggressively pursue cost-savings initiatives to increase schedule confidence 

and robustness and reduce development costs. 

Question 2. SLS Governmental Applications: The SLS is intended to provide the 

capability to launch and conduct missions to Asteroids, or the Moon, or Mars and 

other destinations for which NASA missions will be developed, but it certainly will 

have a capability that can be used for other purposes. What discussions are you having with other government agencies, for example, regarding potential use of the SLS 

in either its core configuration or in its fully-developed configuration, to meet needs 

they might have? 

Answer. NASA is primarily focused on developing the SLS launch vehicle and the 

Orion MPCV spacecraft to provide the United States with a human capability to explore space beyond Earth orbit by 2021. NASA acknowledges this capability will be 

a national asset, one that can be used to the benefit of other national interests. With 

this capability in work, NASA has reached out to the science and military communities, providing estimated lift capability of the SLS launch vehicle. Potential requirements from these communities are being discussed and will continue to be assessed as the launch vehicle development progresses and more detailed capability 

information can be shared. 

Question 3. SLS and MPCV Flight Milestones: During the hearing you stated that 

you may not talk about SLS and Orion/MPCV development as much as you may 

discuss Commercial Crew development, at least in part because SLS and Orion/ 

MPCV programs are based mostly on known technology and relatively familiar, 

proven systems, and you have high confidence in their successful development. 

Later, in response to a question regarding the gap between the first expected 

uncrewed flight in 2017 and the first expected crew flight in 2021 by saying there 

were difficult challenges and uncertainties that would have to be addressed. Please 

explain that seeming contradiction. Is it not true that the 2021 date could be accelerated to an earlier date by the provision of sufficient funding levels, as opposed to 

any real concern about technological challenges? 

Answer. NASA has developed an executable plan to develop the SLS and Orion 

MPCV systems to support the first human flight in 2021. The estimated budget to 

execute this plan has been phased to meet the fiscal budget requirements. This plan 

is based upon leveraging heritage hardware and developing new, efficient and costeffective systems to enable an affordable and sustainable U.S.-developed human exploration capability. Exploration Flight Test-1 (EFT–1) (slated for 2014) and the 

first uncrewed flight of SLS and Orion MPCV (slated for 2017) are constrained by 

manufacturing capacity; additional funding would not accelerate these planned milestones. NASA will continually re-evaluate the projected 2021 launch date over the 

next few years to assess the potential for the integrated Orion MPCV, SLS, and 

Ground Systems capabilities to support an earlier launch opportunity. 

Question 4. SLS Acquisition and Development Approach: The initial configuration 

of the SLS includes components that are heritage from the Space Shuttle and Ares 

programs, such as the shuttle main engines and the 5-segment booster. Please provide a description of NASA’s acquisition strategy going forward for the SLS program 

with regard to competition for major components to ensure maximum efficiency for 

the program? What efficiencies is NASA expecting to gain from its experience on 

Ares and Shuttle? To what extent is NASA factoring these efficiencies in to its cost 

estimating for SLS? 

Answer. NASA has been aggressive in the development of the SLS, having announced the basic architecture of the system on September 14, 2011, followed by the 

release of several synopses in September, October, and December, designed to support the development of different components of the system, including: 

• SLS Stages Acquisition (posted 9–28–11) 

• SLS Core Stage Engines (posted 9–28–11) 

• SLS Advanced Development NASA Research Announcement (NRA) (posted 3– 

20–12) 

• SLS Advanced Booster Engineering Demonstration and/or Risk Reduction 

NASA Research Announcement (NRA)(posted 2–9–12) 

66 

As directed in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, the Agency acquisition strategy is to utilize Ares I and Shuttle contracts to the extent practicable, leveraging 

the existing Design, Development, Test and Evaluation (DDT&E) activities and 

hardware. In many cases, the DDT&E efforts directly support the SLS system development thus reducing the development time. Contract changes have been approved 

to support the 5-segment boosters, SLS engines and development of the core and 

upper stages by modifying the scope of existing contracts. NASA has taken an aggressive stance on reducing costs at NASA Centers and at prime contractor locations. The number of requirements to develop the SLS launch vehicle has been reduced, providing a reduction in development and future operating costs as compared 

to the Ares and Shuttle programs. In an effort to reduce fixed costs, the SLS Program has worked diligently with industry partners to reduce overhead and rightsize design, manufacturing and testing efforts. Finally, the SLS Program has released two competitive solicitations to reduce risk and increase future competition 

on the SLS Program; the Advanced Engineering Demonstration and/or Risk Reduction NASA Research Announcement (NRA) and the SLS Advanced Development 

NRA. 

Question 5. SLS and Orion/MPCV Funding Profile: In the Fiscal Year 2013 budget proposal, the requested funding for Orion/MPCV and SLS are flat from 2014 

through 2017. This draws into question how the budget is phased over these years 

with respect to the work that needs to be accomplished and what a typical development funding profile looks like. The FY 2013 budget request also indicates at least 

a $250 million decrease in vehicle development funding from the prior combined levels for these two programs. How can we be sure this planned reduced budget will 

not negatively affect the first combined launch of the Orion/MPCV and core elements of the SLS in December 2017? 

Answer. NASA has implemented an executable plan to develop the SLS and Orion 

MPCV systems to support the flight in 2017 and the first human flight in 2021. This 

plan was developed to meet those critical milestones within the assumed flat-line 

budget. This plan is based upon leveraging heritage hardware and developing new, 

efficient and cost-effective systems to enable an affordable and sustainable U.S.-developed human exploration capability. An independent cost assessment of the plan 

was conducted last year, and the results validated the credibility of the plan in the 

near term. As the development of the SLS, Orion MPCV and ground systems continue to progress, the Agency will continue to aggressively assess the technical, 

schedule, cost and risk of those systems to ensure a successful first test launch of 

the SLS/Orion MPCV system in 2017. 

Question 6. Baseline Cost Estimates: GAO recently reported that NASA will not 

be able to provide a baseline life-cycle cost estimate for SLS and Orion/MPCV until 

February 2013 when it expects to have greater clarity of the issues surrounding integration of these two programs. What steps are NASA taking to ensure that the 

cost estimate for the project is realistic and phased appropriately to ensure success 

in meeting the direction for human spaceflight outlined in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act? Please explain the basis for confidence NASA has in moving forward 

with these development activities in the absence of a credible baseline cost and 

schedule estimate for this program? 

Answer. As stated in the previous response, NASA has developed an executable 

plan for meeting the direction for human spaceflight outlined in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010. This plan has been validated by an independent assessment and 

has been deemed credible and serviceable in the near term. During the current Fiscal Year, a number of significant Agency and Program reviews have either been 

completed or will be completed that will provide more clarity and confidence in the 

plan. The Exploration Systems Development (ESD) portfolio successfully completed 

the cross-program systems requirements review in December, enabling the SLS, 

Orion MPCV and ground systems programs to continue moving forward with their 

individual requirements development, design definition and systems development. 

Each of the programs has major reviews either underway or planned for this summer. Once these program reviews are complete, ESD will conduct a cross-program 

systems definition review to ensure all of the programs are properly aligned from 

a technical, cost, schedule and risk perspective. Additionally, ESD is currently performing a detailed budget assessment based upon the President’s FY 2013 budget 

request. This detailed assessment, in conjunction with the aforementioned reviews, 

will enhance the basis for confidence to continue the successful development of the 

Exploration architecture. 

Question 7. International Partners: What is the current status of discussions with 

potential international partners for joint activity in pursuing long-term future exploVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:25 Oct 24, 2012 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\76351.TXT JACKIE
67 

ration goals, including, for example, such questions as using European elements in 

the service module portion of the Orion/MPCV crew exploration vehicle? 

Answer. NASA has continued to build and strengthen international partnerships 

to meet the greater challenges of human exploration including future long duration 

missions. In addition to the on-going research being conducted on the International 

Space Station (ISS) among the ISS partnership, discussions are underway to explore 

how the ISS can be most effectively used as a testbed for long duration missions. 

In parallel, the International Space Exploration Coordination Group (ISECG) space 

agencies are coordinating an international effort to define technically feasible, programmatically implementable, and sustainable exploration pathways beyond lowEarth orbit (LEO). As a result, significant progress has been made and there is now 

a consensus among NASA and the participating ISECG agencies that the next steps 

for human exploration include sending humans beyond LEO to destinations such as 

near-Earth asteroids, the Moon, and eventually Mars. In preparation, it is important to maximize the use of the ISS as a unique space-based research and technology testbed. Specific international cooperation with NASA in its beyond-LEO exploration architecture will be defined as NASA’s human space exploration strategic 

planning and analysis advance, and specific near-term opportunities for the SLS 

and Orion MPCV, as well as technology demonstrations, will be explored as these 

programs develop. 

Commercial Crew Development 

Question 8. Commercial Market Potential: Please provide details regarding who, 

other than the U.S. or other government, can be expected to buy crew launch capacity from the commercial carriers you are currently paying to design commercial 

human crew launch capacity? Is this market big enough for multiple commercial 

crew companies? Please provide specific projections justifying your conclusions and 

a detailed basis for those estimates. 

Answer. On April 27, 2011, NASA submitted to Congress, ‘‘Commercial Market 

Assessment for Crew and Cargo Systems Pursuant to Section 403 of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111–267)’’. This report assessed the market for commercial crew and cargo services, ranging from space tourism to research and development to national interests. Over time, the commercial markets identified in this 

report hold the strong promise of significantly more customers, more flights, and potentially lower prices to the U.S. Government. 

Question 9. Prioritization of funding: As noted previously, NASA’s proposed FY 

2013 budget includes a significant reduction in vehicle development funding for the 

combined Orion/MPCV and Space Launch System, while also proposing a $423 million increase in funding for commercial crew development, well above the amount 

authorized for FY 2013. Both programs have been given equal priority in the agreements between the Congress and the Administration reached last year. Please explain this decision to decrease Orion/MPCV and SLS vehicle development to levels 

even below what had been presented for the Independent Cost Assessment conducted mid-year in 2011, coupled with the dramatic requested increase in funding 

for the commercial crew program. 

Answer. Please see responses to questions 1 and 3 vis. SLS and Orion MPCV. 

During the FY 2013 budget development process, NASA strove to strike the right 

balance among all our human spaceflight capabilities. The $830 million requested 

for the Commercial Crew Program was believed to be the amount necessary in FY 

2013 to achieve safe, reliable, cost effective ISS crew transportation capability by 

2017. As the primary means to U.S. access to the ISS, NASA wanted to take all 

steps necessary to provide assured crew access to the ISS and to eliminate our sole 

reliance on foreign systems. 

Question 10. Commercial Crew Acquisition Strategy: NASA’s budget documents 

indicate that in the transition from the Space Act Agreement phase to a certification 

phase for Commercial Crew development, NASA will have to ‘‘accommodate redesign 

as necessary to ensure compliance with agency requirements’’. What is NASA doing 

to minimize the potential for having to significantly redesign commercial partners’ 

crew systems to ensure they meet agency requirements? Does NASA have an estimate as to how much it might cost to ensure compliance? Do the savings presented 

by using a space act agreement outweigh the lack of insight and oversight provided 

by a space act agreement? 

Answer. NASA plans to use a Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)-based contract for certification of commercial systems prior to flying crew on these systems. 

NASA intends to structure the certification phase following the Commercial Crew 

Integrated Capability (CCiCAP) effort to permit the Agency to fully evaluate the 

proposed systems and accommodate any necessary redesign to ensure compliance 

with NASA safety, performance, and mission success requirements. The provider(s) 

68 

awarded a certification contract will not only be required to meet the NASA requirements in order to fly NASA personnel, but they will also have to show verified compliance of how the design and hardware will meet these requirements. Thus, there 

will be no reduction in the safety expectations or requirements as a result of this 

change in acquisition strategy. 

Delaying the use of FAR-based contracts will prevent NASA from mandating compliance with certification requirements during the next phase of SAAs. However, 

NASA will address this issue in several ways. First, NASA has released the baseline 

set of safety, performance, and mission success requirements to all of industry. 

NASA also has made these requirements available to all providers as reference 

under the CCiCAP effort. Although compliance with these requirements is optional 

for industry under a funded SAA, NASA anticipates that providers will use the 

NASA requirements to inform their development activities, thereby reducing the 

technical risk associated with the lack of NASA oversight under an SAA. Because 

NASA plans to have more than one company in the next phase of SAAs, we believe 

the competitive environment provides strong incentive for the companies to align 

with NASA’s certification requirements in order to remain competitive in the future 

certification and services phases. 

Third, NASA included an ‘‘Overall Safety Goal’’ in the CCiCAP Announcement for 

Proposals (see page 3 of the Announcement) which states: 

‘‘Successful commercial human space flight demands the highest commitment to 

safety; therefore NASA has the goal of fostering a safety culture in the commercial space flight industry that ultimately will minimize the risks associated with 

human space flight to LEO. NASA’s goal is for Participants to demonstrate safety processes that include strong inline checks and balances, healthy tension between responsible organizations, value-added independent assessments and appropriate data archival, which will increase Government confidence in the Participant’s approach to safety.’’ 

As a result, NASA will have increased insight into the providers’ approach to safety during CCiCAP as the providers meet their milestones associated with the 

CCiCAP agreements. 

Question 11. Is NASA comfortable that the level of insight and oversight during 

this critical phase of development is sufficient to provide the government with information it needs to eventually certify a vehicle and ensure obtaining the best price 

possible when buying commercial crew services? 

Answer. NASA is comfortable with the level of insight and oversight currently 

planned for the CCiCAP development phase. In addition, our partners have a complete list of the NASA safety and performance requirements to which their crew 

transportation systems will be certified. The next phase of the plan calls for crew 

transportation system certification activities to be conducted using a FAR based acquisition. 

Question 12. Impact of Funding Levels Less than Requested: Please describe the 

impact on the commercial crew program should Congress decide to continue funding 

the program at or near the level appropriated for FY 2012. Provide anticipated impacts for each of several potential funding levels in $100M increments less than the 

requested amount, to an amount equal to the FY 2012 appropriations level. Include 

in those projections the impacts on anticipated time-frame for achieving the first 

commercial crew flight to the International Space Station, and what specific steps 

the program would need to take to adjust to these respective funding levels. 

Answer. NASA has not performed an assessment of impacts of lower than requested funding levels in FY 2013. During the FY 2013 budget development process, 

NASA strove to strike the right balance among our human exploration capabilities. 

Based on the many needs in FY 2013, the Agency submitted a request for $830M 

for FY 2013 for the Commercial Crew Program. This amount was believed to be the 

amount necessary in FY 2013 to achieve safe, reliable, cost effective crew transportation capability likely by 2017 (although earlier availability of services is not precluded). 

Question 13. Commercial Space Regulations: Eventually, commercial space flight 

activity may be regulated, at least in part, by the FAA. As you know, there is currently a moratorium on FAA issuing such regulations. To what extent is NASA 

planning to facilitate or participate with FAA in the preparations leading to formulation of commercial space regulations? 

Answer. Both NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) envision a 

state where the FAA licenses commercial human spaceflights provided by a robust 

industry, from which NASA and the private sector can purchase transportation 

services. The FAA has already developed processes and procedures for licensing and 

69 

regulating commercial space activities to protect the safety of the public. NASA and 

FAA have complementary and interdependent interests in ensuring that commercially-developed human-rated systems and vehicles for low-Earth orbit are effective 

and safe. Both agencies seek to avoid conflicts between their requirements or duplicating each other’s roles. NASA and FAA will be working together to ensure that 

commercial providers are subject to a coordinated and complementary set of requirements and regulations when providing services to NASA. 

ISS National Laboratory 

Question 14. Non-NASA Research: As you know, the Congress has designated the 

U.S. Segment (including bartered assets in partner-provided facilities) of the International Space Station as a National Laboratory. It has essentially divided that segment into two halves, operationally, and required the establishment of a Cooperative Agreement with an independent entity, organized specifically for the purposes 

of managing non-NASA research in the fifty percent of the U.S. segment allocated 

to it by law. As you know, this activity has been slow in getting put in place. Can 

you bring the Committee up to date on the progress in getting research up and running in the non-NASA portion of the National Laboratory? 

Answer. CASIS has made significant progress in establishing its research program. It has appointed an Interim Chief Scientist, Dr. Timothy Yeatman, who has 

extensive experience in biomedical research and in industry, and an Interim Scientific Collegium. The interim Scientific Collegium members include: 

• Leroy Hood, M.D., Ph.D. • President/Co-founder Institute for Systems Biology 

• Member, National Academy of Science, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine and National Inventors Hall of Fame (Also invented the 

DNA sequencer/synthesizer) • Founder of 14 companies including Amgen, Applied Bio systems and Integrated Diagnostic 

• Walter Chazin, Ph.D. • Professor, Biochemistry and Physics Vanderbilt University • Director, Center for Structural Biology and Ingram Professor of Cancer 

Research • Instrumental in the development of structural biology and molecular biophysics (involves complementary application of different structural approaches including spectroscopy, scattering, crystallography and microscopy) 

• Research focused on multi-protein complexes, 3–D structures and characterization of binding interfaces/interactions 

• Arnold Levine, Ph.D. • Professor, Institute of Advanced Study, Princeton University • Professor, Department of Biochemistry, Robert Wood Johnson Medical 

School • Former President and CEO of Rockefeller University • Recipient of 

American Cancer Society Medal of Honor • Co-Discoverer of p53 tumor suppressor gene 

• Torben Orntoft, Ph.D. • Head, Department of Molecular Medicine, Aarhus University, Denmark. • CEO of AROS Applied Biochemistry • Member, European 

Academy of Cancer Sciences • Member, Scientific Advisory Board, Novo 

Nordisk • Research focused on identification of molecular biomarkers for use in 

disease classification and prediction 

• Jeffrey Trent, Ph.D. • President, Translational Genomics Research Institute 

• Founding Scientific Director, Intramural Research for the Human Genome 

Research Institute, NIH • Member, multiple commercial company scientific advisory boards. 

The Interim Scientific Collegium has reviewed past NASA-sponsored research in 

biology and biotechnology and has identified several areas of initial interest. The 

group has consulted with major pharmaceutical companies to determine market potential. CASIS has structured its first research solicitation, planned for release this 

June, around the findings of the Collegium. 

Question 15. National Lab Designation: One of the driving factors in the National 

Laboratory designation—and especially in the requirement for an independent entity to manage half of the research conducted in the U.S. Segment was to ensure that 

research planned for the station would not be subject to changes in NASA research 

requirements and priorities. What are you doing to ensure that the independent entity with which you have a Cooperative Agreement actually remains independent 

and free from those kinds of changes in NASA priorities? 

Answer. Under the cooperative agreement, CASIS is free to work with NASA 

whenever CASIS’s objectives will benefit from access to NASA facilities or capabilities. However, NASA has no control or influence on the research directions chosen 

by CASIS. All of the NASA personnel responsible for communication with CASIS 

understand this principle. CASIS has not been asked to coordinate its research with 

70 

NASA, or to align its objectives with NASA priorities, other than to fully utilize the 

ISS by conducting significant, highly meritorious research. 

Question 16. National Lab Research Processing: One purpose of the independent 

National Laboratory management role is to ensure equal opportunity for Principal 

Investigators to prepare and submit research proposals to, in effect, compete for access to the resources of the ISS National Laboratory. To enable the preparation of 

those research proposals, the underlying ‘‘rules’’ of the proposal and selection processes must be published and available for information and understanding of the criteria that will serve as the bases for selection. Have these ‘‘rules,’’ or guidelines and 

procedures been established, disseminated and explained by the Independent management entity? If not, what is the expectation of the availability of that information? What role has NASA played or will it expect to play in the development of 

those guidelines and procedures? 

Answer. The cooperative agreement with CASIS requires that resource 

prioritization decisions be made ‘‘. . .using a fair, transparent, and impartial selection process that maximizes value of the ISS investment made by the Nation.’’ The 

valuation framework that will be employed to determine the merit of competing 

projects is one of the third quarter deliverables identified in the 2012 Annual Program Plan. 

Question 17. ISS Logistics and Supportability: What is the impact of the latest 

delay of the first mission of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 to the ISS on the utilization of ISS 

given that initial planned milestones have been delayed and GAO reported as late 

as November 2011 that SpaceX was scheduled to fly 3 fully operational resupply 

missions to the ISS in 2012? At what point, without augmentation from planned 

commercial cargo delivery capability, will the ISS begin to experience shortfalls in 

the necessary supplies to support ISS crew and science? Please provide a timeline 

for such potential shortfalls and details regarding NASA and its partners’ contingency response should they be experienced. 

Answer. 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 SpaceX, was 

brought to a successful conclusion on May 31, with the deorbiting and splashdown 

of the Dragon capsule. NASA expects Orbital to complete the on-orbit COTS demonstration to ISS this year. 

NASA anticipated a delay in CRS resupply services and has adequately 

provisioned the ISS with maintenance, operational and utilization support cargo to 

sustain a delay into 2013. NASA is currently working with SpaceX and Orbital to 

complete the first CRS flight in FY 2012 and four additional flights in FY 2013. 

NASA is also working with its International Partners to prioritize utilization cargo 

over other cargo if necessary to meet our utilization goals. Given that the ISS is 

continually being resupplied by the Partner vehicles, Progress, ATV and HTV, and 

that the CRS missions are expected to begin in the summer/fall time-frame of this 

year, NASA does not expect shortfalls in utilization. 

James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) 

Question 18. JWST Funding Impact on Other Programs: We have agreed on the 

importance of moving forward with the JWST program. However, with a constrained to-line funding level for NASA, the replan for the JWST project has meant 

that tough decisions had to be made at the expense of other projects and activities 

in the 2015 through 2018 time frame. Can you outline what projects and activities 

in NASA’s portfolio were terminated or scaled back to accommodate the JWST 

project’s lifecycle cost increase? Additionally, what other constraints is the agency 

dealing with due to the JWST delay, such as test facility access, and how is the 

agency addressing these issues to minimize the impact on other ongoing projects? 

Answer. NASA’s FY 2013 budget request identifies four key priorities to be funded in this constrained fiscal environment: ISS sustainment and utilization using 

commercial crew and cargo services; Space Launch System and Orion Multi-Purpose 

Crew Vehicle; JWST; and new technologies. In view of these four key priorities for 

NASA (not just JWST) and of our constrained fiscal environment, we will not be 

moving forward with the 2016 and 2018 ExoMars missions that we had been studying with the European Space Agency. Instead, NASA is developing a new, integrated strategy for Mars missions to ensure that the next steps for Mars exploration 

will support science, as well as longer-term human exploration goals, and take advantage of advanced space technology developments. NASA will complete this integrated plan, including the framework for a mission to take advantage of the 2018 

or 2020 launch opportunities, no later than this summer. In addition, NASA is slowing the ramp-up of some current science projects and delaying the start of some future ones, such as slowing the rate of solicitation for new competed missions, in the 

71 

notional outyear budget projection in the FY 2013 Budget. Finally, NASA will be 

unable to initiate development of the highest priority new large mission recommended by the NRC’s 2010 Astrophysics decadal survey—the Wide-Field InfraRed Survey Telescope (WFIRST) until JWST development is largely complete. With 

regard to test facility access, NASA is actively managing the movement of JWST, 

the Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) mission, and the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) mission through the available facilities given their overlapping 

schedules, and we have resolved the schedule conflicts in a manner that removes 

the pressure of requiring multiple missions to have perfectly timed entrance and 

exit from difficult testing periods. In so doing, we have minimized the risks to all 

three missions. It is important to note that this situation was not driven solely by 

the delay in JWST development, as MMS and GPM have also had internal schedule 

challenges. 

Miscellaneous Issues 

Question 19. Astronaut Selection: NASA recently reported a record number of astronaut applications even though the size of the astronaut office is less than half 

the previous number of positions before the end of the Space Shuttle program. What 

do you believe is driving that? Can you provide for the record a summary of the 

stated reasons given by the applicants for this high level of interest? 

Answer. Being an astronaut is an aspiration many people have their entire lives, 

and this response indicates that many thousands would love to be a part of our continuing human spaceflight program as part of the Astronaut Corps. 

Since we do not have a survey mechanism as part of the application process, there 

is no way for us to know for certain why so many people applied this year. We feel 

the dramatic increase in applicants for this application window is likely due to any 

combination of factors—including the high-visibility of NASA in the news as we 

transitioned from the space shuttle to International Space Station and a redesigned 

USA JOBS application process. 

The agency executed a comprehensive communications campaign to ensure the 

public knew about this opportunity. The public affairs team not only utilized traditional communications techniques and mainstream media, but also capitalized on 

social media channels (such as Twitter, YouTube, Facebook and blogs) to raise 

awareness of this job opportunity. The agency also encouraged employees and astronauts to share information via their own personal and professional networks and 

at speaking events and appearances, created Public Service Announcements (PSA’s) 

that were made available online for radio and television use, and reached out to all 

branches of the U.S. military to ensure they had information they could share with 

their members. 

Question 20. Mars Exploration Program: This Budget has raised concerns in the 

planetary science and international space community about the reductions in 

planned Mars Exploration programs. Can you address those concerns, and explain 

how you intend to reaffirm the country’s interest in these programs—and our reliability as an international partner in future joint cooperative missions? 

Answer. The NASA Administrator has directed the Associate Administrator for 

the Science Mission Directorate to lead Mars program reformulation activities working with the Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations Directorate, the NASA Chief Technologist, and the NASA Chief Scientist. In support of 

this reformulation, NASA has established a Mars Program Planning Group (MPPG), 

to develop options for a program-level architecture for robotic exploration of Mars 

that is consistent with the President’s challenge of sending humans to orbit Mars 

in the decade of the 2030s, responsive to the primary scientific goals of the 2011 

NRC Decadal Survey for Planetary Science, and consistent with the President’s FY 

2013 budget request. The MPPG is expected to identify potential investigations and 

options in sufficient detail for NASA to be able to select and initiate high pay-off 

mission(s) beginning with the 2018 launch opportunity, and to facilitate NASA’s decision-making process for a reformulated Mars Exploration Program. In concert with 

the Mars Exploration Program the MPPG will communicate with customers, stakeholders and partners to ensure a collaborative and responsive set of investigations 

and options, This process will inform NASA’s development of its FY 2014 budget 

submission. 

We plan to actively engage ESA and the Canadian Space Agency in the next few 

weeks, seeking their input and engagement with the Mars Program’s reformulation 

as early as practicable. We also intend to engage the broader international community in May through the established International Mars Exploration Working Group 

(IMEWG), an ad hoc organization of Space Agencies that was formed in 1993 to facilitate coordination among the world’s Mars-faring nations. 

72 

NASA has a long history of very successful cooperation with nations around the 

world, and a part of that history has from time to time included some decisions by 

NASA and some by our international partners to re-phase or re-design or even terminate planned cooperative activities. Our partners are very aware that in all instances our cooperation is based on the availability of appropriated funds, just as 

we are aware that their participation has similar funding constraints. Consistent 

with the National Space Policy and the Space Act, NASA will continue to pursue 

international cooperation in support of its activities and mutual objectives. Currently, NASA has over 500 active agreements with over 100 countries and anticipates that international cooperation will remain a cornerstone of all of its future activities. 

Question 21. Alternative Mars Exploration Planning Activities: During the hearing 

you said, regarding Mars Exploration program future planning, ‘‘However, we are 

now developing a new integrated strategy for Mars missions to ensure that the next 

steps to Mars exploration will support the science objectives that were laid out in 

ExoMars, the priorities established by the National Research Council’s decadal survey on planetary science, and also support our human exploration.’’ Please provide 

your timetable and details on how you are developing this new integrated strategy. 

Lessons Learned: Historically, many NASA projects have experienced cost increases 

and schedule delays, whereas the GRAIL and Juno projects both launched on schedule and are currently within budget. What practices or procedures allowed these 

projects to meet their baseline? To what extent are lessons from those programs applicable—and being applied—to a broader array of NASA program activities? 

Answer. As noted above, NASA has established a senior leadership team focused 

on reformulating the Mars program and has set up a Mars Program Planning Group 

(MPPG). The MPPG will develop options for a program-level architecture for robotic 

exploration of Mars that is consistent with the President’s challenge of sending humans to orbit Mars in the decade of the 2030s, responsive to the primary scientific 

goals of the 2011 NRC Decadal Survey for Planetary Science, and consistent with 

the President’s FY 2013 budget request. The MPPG will provide NASA with 

progress reports in April, June, and August. These reports will provide senior NASA 

leadership with decision-making opportunities to steer the MPPG in investigation 

and architecture options, and the Mars Exploration Program in associated budget 

development, culminating in a presentation of options in August. We anticipate that 

NASA will be able to brief the relevant Congressional Committees on progress periodically through the summer, and will be able to provide more detailed briefings on 

a proposed mission architecture after the release of the President’s FY 2014 budget 

request in early 2013. 

Lessons Learned: NASA’s experience with managing the development of challenging, one-of-a-kind science missions has led to several lessons identified and applied to all new programs. These lessons have resulted in updates to NASA’s formal 

procedural requirements documents for management of all NASA-developed 

spaceflight programs and projects. Specific steps NASA has taken include: 

» Establishment of joint cost and schedule confidence level (JCL)-based life cycle 

cost budgeting that improves the understanding of the complexities and risks 

associated with a development result in more accurate estimates of cost and 

schedule as evidenced by the recent performance of Juno and GRAIL; 

» Requirement that projects implement Earned Value Management (EVM) systems to weigh technical progress against expenditure of funds on a monthly 

basis provide early indicators of issues; 

» Extended duration Phase B definition and preliminary design to allow for technology maturation and through system engineering to better characterize the 

risks to be retired during development and identify unique integration and test 

needs; 

» Use of a formal acquisition strategy process before and during Phase A to define 

program management structure and Center and contractor roles in a way that 

best fit the project under consideration; 

» Strong independent reviews at key points in the development to verify that the 

project is making progress per its plan and to offer additional insights based 

on the independent review teams experience; and, 

» Regular reviews with senior NASA management to assure that project concerns 

are addressed quickly to avoid cost and schedule implications. 

Question 22. (Launch Vehicle Access): GAO recently reported that 9 major projects 

experienced issues with launch vehicles, including increasing costs and availability 

of launch vehicles. Additionally, GAO also made a recommendation in its duplicaVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:25 Oct 24, 2012 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\76351.TXT JACKIE
73 

tion mandate report on the need for increased coordination between NASA, DOD 

and NRO on the acquisition of launch vehicles. Is NASA actively addressing this 

issue, given the impact that this issue could have on the cost of current projects? 

How does NASA plan to pursue coordination with DOD and NRO to increase efficiency in the acquisition of launch vehicles? 

Answer. Yes—NASA is actively addressing both issues identified by the GAO. The 

first part of your inquiry is from the GAO’s March 2012 report, ‘‘NASA: Assessments 

of Selected Large-Scale Projects.’’ The GAO identified 20 programs and projects with 

space launch related aspects in this report. As you note, the GAO identified nine 

of those projects as having ‘‘launch issues.’’ In NASA’s view, six of the nine missions 

do not have launch issues of note since they have either already successfully 

launched (GRAIL & NPP); or have launch service contracts in place and are on 

track for launch (LADEE, MAVEN & TDRS); or are in the early stages of development (SPP). NASA agrees there are three medium-class missions with launch issues 

to resolve (ICESat-2, SMAP & OCO–2). ICESat-2 identified in the GAO report that 

launch service cost was its challenge, thus the NASA Launch Services Program 

(LSP) is working with the project to identify and develop launch alternatives to 

meet their needs in time for a CY2016 launch. SMAP and OCO–2 identified in the 

GAO report that launch vehicle availability was their issue. NASA’s LSP recently 

terminated the Taurus XL launch service task order (LSTO) for OCO–2 due to the 

Orbital Science Corporation’s inability to determine the root cause for the previous 

two Taurus XL launch failures. On February 3, 2012, NASA LSP released a Request 

for Launch Service Proposal to industry to begin the competitive process to provide 

a commercial launch service for SMAP and a new commercial launch service for 

OCO–2. Awards are expected in the July 2012 timeframe. 

The second part of your inquiry is from the GAO’s February 2012 report, ‘‘2012 

Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, 

Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue.’’ Section 23 of this report deals with ‘‘Space 

Launch Contract Costs’’ and has as its premise that ‘‘Increased collaboration between 

the Department of Defense and National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

could reduce launch contracting duplication.’’ This section of the GAO report is written specifically on the procurement of Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELVs) 

which are ‘‘intermediate’’ and ‘‘heavy’’ class launch vehicles provided by United 

Launch Alliance (ULA). NASA, together with the Air Force and NRO are already 

actively addressing the issue of increased coordination and we provide the following 

as evidence. First, the NASA Administrator meets with the Secretary of the Air 

Force and the Director of the NRO quarterly to discuss and coordinate activities on 

multiple topics of mutual interest. The formal commitment to continue our coordination efforts was put in place via a Letter of Intent that was signed by the three 

Agency heads in October 2010. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELVs) was signed by the three Agency 

heads in March 2011 and formalized what had been a long-standing informal process of coordination between the NASA Launch Services Program Manager and her 

counterparts within the Air Force and NRO. This MOU established a ‘‘Government 

Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV) Executive Board as a forum for interagency communication of acquisition, certification, and programmatic ELV launch issues.’’ This 

forum meets on a quarterly basis and is ‘‘the mechanism to implement the block buy 

strategy, baseline and modify EELV launch requirements, and enable resolution of 

EELV programmatic issues to provide clear direction to launch providers.’’ The additional signing of the Coordinated Strategy for New Entrant Launch Vehicle Certification in October 2011 is further evidence of our close work together for launch 

service acquisition. As NASA identifies its launch vehicle needs through our competitive process, and if those identified needs includes EELVs, those acquisition 

plans will be coordinated with the Air Force and the NRO in order to maximize the 

U.S. Government’s buying power. 

Question 23. Education Program Reductions: The proposed Education budget is 

down approximately 30 percent. How will NASA further our scientific advancement 

and contribute to our economic and technological viability and competitiveness if it 

is unable or unwilling to invest in educating our Nation on the advantages and benefits of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics? What steps are you taking to ensure NASA can continue to make an important contribution in this area? 

Answer. NASA brings many assets to support the Administration’s emphasis on 

science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education beyond funding. Our people, platforms like the International Space Station, and our facilities 

across the Nation all contribute to strengthening STEM education. Though funding 

is being reduced in alignment with the Administration’s priority on focusing limited 

funds, NASA remains committed to advancing high quality STEM education using 

NASA’s unique capabilities, and to leveraging our contributions with Federal and 

74 

other partners as they tackle the STEM challenges we face. NASA will align its 

funding on the priority STEM issues identified by the National Science Technology 

Council (NSTC) Committee on STEM Education through grants, cooperative agreements, internships, fellowships and other hands-on experiences for learners, educators and institutions. 

The FY 2013 request is $100.0M, a $38.4M or 28 percent decrease from the FY 2012 request ($138.4M) and the FY 2012 Effective Planning Level ($138.4M). The 

FY 2013 request includes: 

• $24.0M for Space Grant, a nationwide network of colleges, universities, and 

other organizations that provide NASA space-related opportunities to students, 

educators, and the public. 

• $9.0M for EPSCoR, which provides competitive research opportunities to institutions in targeted states. 

• $30.0M for MUREP, which provides competitive NASA research and study opportunities to students of underserved and underrepresented groups and competitive opportunities to enhance the research and technology capabilities of Minority Institutions. 

• $37.0M for STEM Education and Accountability projects, which provide competitive opportunities, foster innovative education efforts at NASA Centers and 

through grantees, and formal evaluation activities. 

To offset some of the impacts, NASA is increasing its emphasis on strategic partnerships. The Agency currently has an open partnership announcement available at 

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/education/about/NASAlSeekslCollaborators.html. 

NASA seeks unfunded collaborations with organizations to enhance its ability to 

achieve its strategic goals, outcomes, and objectives as they relate to education and 

as articulated in the 2011 NASA Strategic Plan. This Announcement requests information from creative organizations with wide-ranging areas of expertise interested 

in collaborating with NASA in reaching new or broader audiences across a national 

scale. 

Question 24. Construction, Environmental Compliance and Restoration: During 

these times of belt tightening, please elaborate on the justification for what new and 

necessary construction or restoration NASA is funding with the proposed increase 

of 27 percent in this line of funding from FY 2012? 

Answer. The 27 percent increase in Construction and Environmental Compliance 

and Restoration (CECR) is primarily a result of continuing program requirements 

which were initially identified in December 2011 in NASA’s FY 2012 Initial Operating Plan, as well as requirements for the environmental clean-up effort at NASA’s 

Santa Susana Field Laboratory site in California. 

The majority of these program requirements are for Space Launch Systems (SLS) 

and 21st Century Space Launch Complex. Exploration did not have FY 2012 Construction of Facilities in the President’s Budget as these emerging programs did not 

exist early in the FY 2012 budgetary process. For example, SLS was not a program 

until May 2011. These funding increases from FY 2012 to FY 2013 are normal and 

expected as the program ramps up and the requirements become more defined. 

These construction projects are for manufacturing of the actual SLS flight hardware at Michoud Assembly Facility, modification of test stands for structural testing 

of the new SLS flight hardware at Marshall Space Flight Center, as well as, modifying launch and integration facilities at Kennedy Space Center for the new programs. While SLS is using as much of the existing infrastructure as is feasible, 

modifications for the new flight hardware are still required. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BILL NELSON TO

NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON, PH.D. 

Question 1. The long-term goal for our human space program is Mars. There have 

also been arguments for near term destinations such as the Moon, an asteroid, or 

perhaps an area in deep space on the far side of the Moon called ‘‘L2.’’ What are 

your thoughts on the need for NASA to balance achievable, near term destinations 

with longer term goals? 

Answer. An important question whose answer often gets mired in the pet destinations of those making the arguments. When the interstate highway system was proposed, the goals was never to just connect New York with LA. The goal was to connect as many places as there are to as many places as we could think of. Commerce, 

tourism, security, would all be enhanced by this. So too would our future in space. 

If we create a suite of launch vehicles, with variable launch capability, then needs 

75 

at any one moment will determine the destination. Science on Mars? That’s one configuration. Tourist jaunts to the near side of the Moon? That’s another. Military 

needs to secure cislunar space? That’s another. Mining on the far side of the moon 

or on an asteroid? That’s yet another launch configuration. With this setup, the entire solar system transforms to become our backyard. And as long as frontiers are 

being crossed in these efforts, innovation follows like day follows night. You don’t 

sequence our steps in space, you do it all. 

Question 2. What do you think are some of the most compelling destinations for 

NASA to target? 

Answer. Mars (life). Mars Moons (monitor mars). Lunar Poles (frozen water repository). Metallic asteroids (Mineral rich). Asteroids with orbits that cross that of 

Earth (we don’t want to go extinct, do we?). Earth-Sun L2 (telescope haven). Far 

Side of the moon (great for radio telescopes and other work that requires radio-silence from Earth). Cislunar space (the new high ground). All destinations—(tourists 

will pay to go anywhere). 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. TOM UDALL TO

NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON, PH.D. 

Question. You spoke eloquently about the importance of inspiring our nation to 

dream and seek adventure through advancement in STEM fields. 

Programs such as Nova scienceNOW engage students’ interest and show them the 

role that science plays in their own communities. New Mexico is home to strong 

educational initiatives such as NASA’s ‘‘Launch and Learn’’ program, and my state 

is proud to have many students that excel in STEM at a national level. But our 

country can do much more to support STEM education. 

Through your experience working with today’s youth, could you share any lessons 

learned that could help us better prepare tomorrow’s scientists? 

Answer. The problem is not the undereducated youth of today. It’s the rampant 

science illiteracy of adults who control resources and opportunity and governments. 

An enlightened adult population (which outnumbers kids by a factor of five) would 

feel compelled to bring forth major science and technology initiatives in the country 

that could not help but get noticed by the next generation. In this way, the very 

act of engaging in frontier discovery becomes the force required to excite the next 

generation. On that level, you don’t need government funded STEM education programs. The motivation would be drawn from the innovation flywheel set into motion 

by NASA and other agencies of discovery. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON TO

NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON, PH.D. 

Question 1. NASA Long-term Outlook. Dr. Tyson, in your latest book, Space 

Chronicles, you include a very insightful description of the political challenges facing 

NASA and the U.S. space program. One of the challenges you mention is the difficulty for the President. . .any President. . .to gain support for implementation of 

a goal that may not be reached until many years after he or she leaves office. Unfortunately the pursuit of space exploration beyond earth orbit is unavoidably a longterm undertaking. Can you provide us your thoughts on how such a long-term goal 

can be achieved? And what role do you see the Congress playing in that? 

Answer. You have challenges creating sustained funding any time the urge to 

fund one project or another issues forth from the portfolio of interest from one member of congress or another. This leaves the survival of the initiative up to the political winds of the moment, and especially whether the district of one Member stands 

to benefit directly compared with other districts. So people need to recognize the 

fundamental value to the Nation’s economy that the fostering of an innovation nation can bring. When this happens, the decision to fund NASA is simply one of return on investment for the Nation and not one of whose district benefits directly 

from a flow of monies to it. I foresee the day when the electorate learns of this need 

and compels their representatives to fulfill this mission statement. Only then would 

the goals transcend partisan politics and possibly even politics itself. If this does not 

happen, America will continue to fade, while it applies feeble band-aids to problems 

thought to be solvable by funded programs that target them. It’s hard to teach people how a culture can shift in attitude and goals and mission statements. Most people never have the occasion to think about the culture in which they are embedded. 

An innovation nation is just the force necessary to shift that culture to one that emVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:25 Oct 24, 2012 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\76351.TXT JACKIE
76 

braces the fruits of STEM fields. And you get an innovation nation practically for 

free with a fully funded NASA. 

Question 2. International Space Station. You have made the comment that you 

don’t want to ‘‘boldly go where hundreds have gone before,’’ referring to low-Earth 

orbit, instead, you suggest expanding the space frontier into ‘‘real’’ exploration. I can 

agree with that sentiment. However, I also believe we have a responsibility to ensure the maximum utilization, especially in the near term, of the International 

Space Station. To date over 40 million students from all over the world have had 

direct educational interaction with the crew members and research aboard the ISS. 

Do you agree that the ISS has great value in helping to stimulate what you refer 

to as a ‘‘science-focused’’ society? 

Answer. I think the ISS as a designated National Laboratory was an excellent 

idea from the beginning. Any active presence in advancing a space frontier would 

be unthinkable without a permanent orbiting space station. Just don’t expect the 

ISS to trigger a cultural shift in American innovation. And that’s what we’re after 

here. The cultural shift itself, brought about by advancing space frontiers, is what 

triggers interest in STEM fields like nothing else. The day we return to the Moon, 

or go on to Mars and asteroids and Lagrangian points with astronauts, the ISS will 

be long forgotten in the educational pipeline—as it should be—leaving it to serve 

the pure zero-G science interests that so much political capital of recent years has 

been invested to preserve. 

Question 3. Technological Innovation. You have spoken and written about the 

need to continue development of new technologies that will take us further into 

space exploration, and the risks we take if we cease exploration with current technologies and wait for those new technologies to ‘‘arrive’’, so to speak. Can you describe for us some of these risks and challenges, and perhaps talk about how to 

strike a balance, if that is what it requires, in times of shrinking budgets? 

Answer. In a free market capitalist democracy there is always money to invest 

when the return on investment is manifest. In this context, I do not fear shrinking 

budgets. Nor should anyone. The future economic health of the country is at stake. 

As for balancing risk and reward, the rewards are not solely the business that gets 

conducted in space (tourism, resource mining, military high ground, etc.), it’s the effect of those granted patents have on Earth-borne problems and it’s the effect that 

the advancing frontier has on ‘‘everyone’s’’ vision of America’s future. It’s the broader outlook that will transform society, in which you no longer need programs to convince people—adults or kids—that it’s good to embrace STEM fields. The metrics 

of success will not need to be the actual space achievements. The metrics of success 

will be how we as a nation learned to seek out and advance the frontier, and came 

to recognize that our future economic security and wealth depended on it. 

Question 4. Historical Moment of Significance. In your book, you described John 

F. Kennedy’s call for putting a man on the moon as really ‘‘a battle cry against communism.’’ Lacking a ‘‘race’’ to the Moon or Mars, similar new ‘‘sputnik moments’’ 

sparking calls for new and innovative science, technology and research, have not 

been seen, or at least not broadly acknowledged. What do you believe will be the 

next real ‘‘Sputnik moment,’’ or has it happened, and just not been recognized? 

Answer. The nation is in the middle of a Sputnik moment and does not realize 

it because our culture has not successfully connected the dots between our investments in space and the overall health of our economy. Until that connection is 

made, we will continue to fade on the world stage. 

Question 5. NASA Economic Contribution. What aspects of the NASA’s activities 

do you think have the greatest promise to help in the economic recovery of America? 

Answer. The cultural influence that a healthy NASA has on the country is its biggest force—powerful enough to create an innovation nation. As headlined flow like 

rivers from the frontier of space the urge to want to enter STEM field in the educational pipeline will be high without the need of a targeted program to enable it. 

This movement will not be about spinoffs. It will simply feed the urge to invent and 

innovate in the first place. 

Question 6. Government Role. You have made the point that, historically, it has 

been a role of governments to fund the great explorations of the past. Can you discuss your view of where the threshold is or should be between government support 

and a purely private sector-supported level of exploration? Or is that a matter of 

distinguishing between true, leading edge exploration versus utilization and routine 

operations? 

77 

Answer. There can be no capital market valuation of the space frontier. Too expensive. Too dangerous. Unknown risks. If billionaires choose to do it, it will be a 

vanity project and not a business model. Private enterprise comes later, after the 

government advances the frontier, routines are established, patents are granted, 

and risks are assessed. 

Æ