U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

95–220PDF 2016

AN OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROPOSAL 

FOR THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE 

ADMINISTRATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 16, 2015 

Serial No. 114–15 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR, 

Wisconsin 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

MARK TAKANO, California 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE

HON. STEVEN PALAZZO, Mississippi, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama, 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

AMI BERA, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

April 16, 2015 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Steven Palazzo, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Space, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 19 

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

Statement by Representative Donna F. Edwards, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 22 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 23 

Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 24 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 25 

Witnesses: 

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

and Space Administration 

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

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

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 37 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

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

and Space Administration ................................................................................... 66 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Prepared statement submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, 

Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 162 

(1) 

AN OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROPOSAL 

FOR THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 

2016 

THURSDAY, APRIL 16, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:03 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steven Palazzo 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 

Chairman PALAZZO. The Subcommittee on Space will come to 

order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses 

of the Committee at any time. 

Welcome to today’s hearing titled ‘‘An Overview of the Budget 

Proposal for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

for Fiscal Year 2016.’’ I recognize myself for five minutes for an 

opening statement. 

The first and perhaps most important point I want to make 

today is that I believe the taxpayers’ investment in NASA is generally well spent, and that I support increasing NASA’s budget if 

we’re assured American access to space. Discretionary spending 

such as research and development investments at NASA is the 

seed corn of future economic growth. In order to preserve these activities, we must address the larger economic problems we face as 

a nation. This involves either complying with the President’s Budget Control Act, which caps discretionary spending, or figuring out 

how to repeal, replace, or amend it. Unfortunately, this proposal 

does not do that. 

Because this request does not provide any constructive or workable guidance, Congress must now bear that burden. I had hoped 

that the Administration would demonstrate leadership by proposing a realistic budget, but instead we were presented with a list 

of unfunded priorities. At NASA alone, the President’s request exceeds the budget caps by $519 million. This isn’t to say that this 

is an unreasonable request. After all, the increase simply reflects 

the rate of inflation. The concern that I have is that the Administration did not propose offsets to account for the increase; did not 

propose a workable solution to repeal, replace, or amend the President’s Budget Control Act; and once again reorganizes priorities in 

previous bipartisan NASA funding bills that the President signed. 

For example, the budget proposes cutting the Space Launch System by $344 million, the Orion crew capsule by $98 million, the 

Planetary Science Division by $77 million, the Heliophysics Division by $11 million, the Aeronautics Mission Directorate by $80 

million, and NASA education by $30 million. 

SLS and Orion are national assets. They are the tip of the spear 

in our nation’s deep space exploration efforts. Cuts to the Planetary 

Science Division will empty the pipeline for outer-planet missions 

and force scientists and engineers into other fields and to foreign 

projects. Cuts to Heliophysics are weakening our ability to understand and predict solar storms that could threaten astronauts in 

space, and impact communication, financial, and energy systems 

here on Earth. Cuts to NASA education hurt NASA’s ability to engage and inspire the next generation of explorers. 

These harmful cuts accompany increased requests for other activities at NASA. The President’s proposal seeks to increase the 

Earth Science budget by $175 million this year. This amounts to 

a 63 percent increase since 2007. The budget also seeks to dilute 

NASA’s existing earth science research portfolio by conducting 

other agencies’ work. It seeks to develop climate sensors for NOAA 

and land-imaging capabilities for USGS. While NASA certainly has 

the expertise to do this work, they don’t have the budget or the requirements. 
20 

NOAA is tasked with maintaining operational climate measurements, and USGS is tasked to maintain Landsat measurements. If 

NASA is tasked to do other agencies’ work, it should do so on a reimbursable basis as it does successfully for other programs such as 

the Joint Polar Satellite System and the Geostationary Operational 

Environmental Satellite System. The budget request also seeks an increase of $129 million for the Space Technology Mission Directorate and $439 million for the 

Commercial Crew Program. I fully support developing the capabilities necessary to launch American astronauts on American rockets 

from American soil as soon as possible. 

I also believe that NASA should be investing in the technologies 

necessary to enable future exploration. Congress will have to evaluate these proposals to ensure that they are the most efficient uses 

of taxpayer resources in a challenging budget environment. For example, NASA has argued that it is necessary to fund two contractors in the Commercial Crew Program to provide a redundant capability and enable competition to drive down costs. That is why 

NASA selected two contractors last fall. Congress will have to decide whether a redundant capability is best provided by two contractors in the Commercial Crew Program, or by external capabilities such as the Orion crew vehicle on an existing launch vehicle. 

The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 requires NASA to ensure that 

Orion can serve as an emergency backup to the Commercial Crew 

Program. NASA has not devoted any effort to complying with this 

requirement. 

The benefits of cost competition also need to be weighed considering the government now has fixed-price contracts. Ultimately, 

Congress will have to decide whether the nation should develop a 

capability or should stand up a market. 

One thing that would assist Congress in evaluating this proposal 

is an independent cost estimate for the Commercial Crew Program. 

NASA previously contracted for an independent cost assessment, 

which only evaluated contractor-provided data. Now that we have 

fixed-price contracts from the contractors, NASA should initiate a 

more thorough independent cost estimate to determine whether the 

contractors can be reasonably expected to execute within cost and 

schedule. 

Another NASA activity that would benefit from an independent 

cost estimate is the Asteroid Redirect Mission. Unfortunately, 

NASA indicated that it was unnecessary to conduct an independent 

cost estimate prior to selecting optional mission concepts, despite 

a recommendation from the NASA Advisory Council. The ARM 

mission still hasn’t garnered any support in academic, scientific, 

exploration, or international communities. NASA’s own advisory 

bodies have heavily criticized the mission. Without consensus, 

without a realistic cost, and without a clear explanation of how it 

fits into a broader exploration architecture, it is tough to see how 

this proposal gains traction in the remaining 18 months of the 

President’s term. 

NASA is at a crossroads. Unfortunately, the last six years featured drastic change with the cancellation of Constellation and uncertain direction with the President’s ever-changing asteroid initiative. Congress has been consistent in its guidance to NASA that it 
21 

develop a long-term sustainable exploration strategy that is 

evolvable and flexible based on an uncertain budget environment. 

Recent announcements from NASA indicate that the agency is 

heeding that direction by working towards an architecture that can 

weather the storms of change that accompany new Administrations. Administrator Bolden and his leadership team have a tough 

job. General Bolden, I am glad you are at the reins. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Palazzo follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE

CHAIRMAN STEVEN PALAZZO

The first and perhaps most important point I want to make today is that I believe 

the taxpayer’s investment in NASA is generally well spent, and that I support increasing NASA’s budget. Discretionary spending such as research and development 

investments at NASA are the seed corn of future economic growth. In order to preserve these activities, we must address the larger economic problems we face as a 

Nation. This involves either complying with the President’s Budget Control Act 

which caps discretionary spending, or figuring out how to repeal, replace, or amend 

it. 

Unfortunately, the President’s budget proposal does not comply with his own 

Budget Control Act. Because the President failed to provide any constructive or 

workable guidance, Congress must now bear that burden. I had hoped that the Administration would have demonstrated leadership by proposing a realistic budget, 

but instead we were presented with a list of unfunded priorities. At NASA alone, the President’s request exceeds the budget caps by $519 million. 

This isn’t to say that this is an unreasonable request. After all, the increase just 

keeps up with inflation. The concern that I have is that the Administration did not 

propose off-sets to account for the increase; did not propose a workable solution to 

repeal, replace, or amend the President’s Budget Control Act; and once again reorganizes priorities in previous bipartisan NASA funding bills that the President 

signed. For instance, the budget proposes cutting the Space Launch System (SLS) by $344 

million; the Orion crew capsule by $98 million; the Planetary Science Division by 

$77 million; the Heliophysics Division by $11 million; the Aeronautics Mission Directorate by $80 million; and NASA education by $30 million. 

SLS and Orion are national assets. They are the tip of the spear in our nation’s 

deep space exploration efforts. Cuts to the Planetary Science Division are emptying 

the pipeline for outer-planet missions and forcing scientists and engineers into other 

fields and to foreign projects. Cuts to Heliophysics are weakening our ability to understand and predict solar storms that could threaten astronauts in space, and impact communication, financial, and energy systems here on Earth. Cuts to NASA 

education hurt NASA’s ability to engage and inspire the next generation of explorers. 

These harmful cuts accompany increased requests for other activities at NASA. 

The President’s proposal seeks to increase the Earth Science budget by $175 million 

this year. This amounts to a 63 percent increase since 2007. The budget also seeks 

to dilute NASA’s existing earth science research portfolio by conducting other agencies’ work. It seeks to develop climate sensors for NOAA, and land imaging capabilities for USGS. While NASA certainly has the expertise to do this work, they don’t 

have the budget or the requirements. NOAA is tasked with maintaining operational 

climate measurements, and USGS is tasked to maintain Landsat measurements. If 

NASA is tasked to do other agency’s work, it should do so on a reimbursable basis 

as it does successfully for other programs such as the Joint Polar Satellite System, 

and the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite System. 

The budget request also seeks an increase of $129 million for the Space Technology Mission Directorate and $439 million for the Commercial Crew Program. I 

fully support developing the capabilities necessary to once again launch American 

astronauts on American rockets from American soil as soon as possible. I also believe that NASA should be investing in the technologies necessary to enable future 

exploration. Congress will have to evaluate these proposals to ensure they are the 

most efficient uses of taxpayer resources in a challenging budget environment. For 

instance, NASA has argued that it is necessary to fund two contractors in the Commercial Crew program to provide a redundant capability and enable competition to 

drive down costs. That is why NASA selected two contractors last fall. 
22 

Congress will have to decide whether a redundant capability is best provided by 

two contractors in the Commercial Crew program, or by external capabilities such 

as the Orion crew capsule on an existing launch vehicle. Existing law requires 

NASA to ensure that Orion can serve as an emergency backup to the Commercial 

Crew program. NASA has not devoted any effort to complying with this requirement. NASA could also resort to relying on the Soyuz as well. This is certainly not 

an ideal option, but it does provide a capability in the event that domestic contractors are late or experience setbacks. 

The benefits of cost competition also need to be weighed considering the government now has fixed-price contracts. Ultimately, Congress will have to decide whether the nation should develop a capability or should stand-up a market. One thing 

that would assist Congress in evaluating this proposal is an Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) for the Commercial Crew program. NASA previously contracted for an 

independent cost assessment which only evaluated contractor-provided data. Now 

that we have fixed-price contracts from the contractors, NASA should initiate a 

more thorough (ICE) to determine whether the contractors can be reasonably expected to execute within cost and schedule. 

Another NASA activity that would benefit from an independent cost estimate is 

the Asteroid Retrieval and Redirect Mission. Unfortunately, NASA indicated that it 

was unnecessary to conduct an (ICE) prior to selecting optional mission concepts, 

despite a recommendation from the NASA Advisory Council. The ARM mission still 

hasn’t garnered any support in academic, scientific, exploration, or international 

communities. NASA’s own advisory bodies have heavily criticized the mission. Without consensus, without a realistic cost, and without a clear explanation of how it 

fits into a broader exploration architecture, it is tough to see how this proposal 

gains traction in the remaining 18 months of the President’s term. 

NASA is at a crossroads. Unfortunately, the last six years featured drastic change 

with the cancellation of Constellation and uncertain direction with the President’s 

ever-changing Asteroid initiative. Congress has been consistent in its guidance to 

NASA that it develop a long-term sustainable exploration strategy that is evolvable 

and flexible based on an uncertain budget environment. Recent announcements 

from NASA indicate that the agency is heeding that direction by working towards 

an architecture that can weather the storms of change that accompany new Administrations. Administrator Bolden and his leadership team have a tough job. General 

Bolden, I am glad you have the reins. 

Chairman PALAZZO. At this time I recognize our Ranking Member, Ms. Edwards. 

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

morning and welcome to Administrator Bolden at today’s hearing. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling this hearing on 

an overview of the budget proposal for the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration fiscal year 2016 budget. 

The President is requesting 18.5 billion dollars for NASA’s programs and plans for fiscal year 2016. That’s about a 2.8 percent increase over the FY 2015 enacted appropriation. It’s a significant 

topline increase given the current fiscal environment, but the question is whether it’s a proposal that’s sufficient to enable NASA to 

do all that we have asked and expect it to accomplish. I want 

NASA to succeed, and I want to provide it with the tools and resources needed to continue to achieve great things for this nation 

and our citizens, like the winglets we now see on commercial aircraft that improve fuel efficiency and which were invented through 

NASA’s aeronautics research program, the scientific exploration of 

uncharted corners of our solar system, such as Pluto, where the 

New Horizons probe will provide our first close-up examination of 

this remote body when it arrives there this summer, the successful 

Orion Exploration Flight Test-1 that helps us prepare to once again 

send humans beyond low-Earth orbit, and being the source of inspiration that lights up children’s faces as they hear from astronauts 

and researchers, watch a launch, and realize that they too can be 

our next space scientists, engineers, and explorers. 
23 

Mr. Chairman, accomplishments such as these would not have 

been possible without the ingenuity, knowhow, commitment, and 

dedication demonstrated by the NASA federal workforce and its 

partners in industry and academia. So they deserve our thanks for 

all they do. They and the public also deserve to know what lies 

ahead for NASA. 

Over the past few years, we have heard from many witnesses 

that stability is a critical enabler for NASA’s progress. That is why 

in my statement on the House Floor for passage of the now Housepassed, bipartisan NASA Authorization Act of 2015, I said that 

NASA needs our constancy of purpose and direction now so that we 

might provide some stability to the agency while we work on multiyear reauthorization, once the current bill is enacted into law. So 

I hope to hear today about whether or not the Fiscal Year 2016 

budget request provides NASA with the clear goals that maintain 

a constancy of purpose. And one area where the need for constancy 

of purpose has been widely discussed is human exploration, perhaps because of the commitment of resources and goals that must 

span multiple Congresses and Presidential Administrations if we 

are to be successful in that undertaking. 

To that end, I’m pleased that NASA and the community have 

embraced Mars as the long-term goal for human exploration. And 

indeed our bipartisan Authorization Act establishes such a goal 

and directs the development of a roadmap to get us there. I hope 

Congress has the foresight to commit the necessary resources to 

fund a humans-to-Mars plan, because it is a worthy goal that 

among other things will do much to advance our nation’s technological capabilities. But as the National Academies stressed just a 

year ago, if Mars is a worthy goal, and they think it is and if we 

think it is, we need to provide the resources to achieve it. If Congress is unwilling to commit the required resources, we must not 

let the enthusiasm for a goal of sending humans to Mars divert resources from NASA’s other important mission areas, because our 

House-passed bipartisan NASA Authorization Act reflects an enduring commitment to NASA’s multi-mission role. This is true. 

I look forward to hearing from Administrator Bolden and to 

working with him and my colleagues on maintaining a constancy 

of purpose for NASA going forward, and I thank you and I yield 

back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Edwards follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE

RANKING MEMBER DONNA F. EDWARDS

Good Morning, and welcome Administrator Bolden to today’s hearing. Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing on ‘‘An Overview of the Budget Proposal 

for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for Fiscal Year 2016.’’ 

The President is requesting $18.5 billion for NASA’s programs and plans for Fiscal Year 2016, about a 2.8 percent increase over the Fiscal Year 2015 enacted appropriation. That is a significant topline increase given the current fiscal environment. 

But is it a proposal that is sufficient to enable NASA to do all that we have asked 

and expect it to accomplish? 

I want NASA to succeed, and I want to provide it with the tools and resources 

needed to continue to achieve great things for this nation and our citizens. Like the 

winglets we now see on commercial aircraft that improve fuel efficiency and which 

were invented through NASA’s aeronautics research program; the scientific exploration of uncharted corners of our Solar System, such as Pluto, where the New Hori-
24 

zons probe will provide our first close-up examination of this remote body when it 

arrives there this summer; the successful Orion Exploration Flight Test -1,that 

helps us prepare to once again send humans beyond low-Earth orbit; and being the 

source of inspiration that lights up children’s faces as they hear from astronauts 

and researchers, watch a launch, and realize that they too can be our next space 

scientists, engineers, and explorers. 

Mr. Chairman, accomplishments such as these would not have been possible without the ingenuity, know-how, commitment, and dedication demonstrated by the 

NASA federal workforce and its partners in industry and academia. So, they deserve 

our thanks for all that they do. They and the public also deserve to know what lies 

ahead for NASA. 

Over the past few years, we have heard from many witnesses that ‘‘stability’’ is 

a critical enabler for NASA’s progress. That is why in my statement on the House 

Floor for passage of the now House-passed, bipartisan NASA Authorization Act of 

2015, I said that ‘‘NASA needs our constancy of purpose and direction now’’ so that 

we might provide some stability to the agency while we work on a multi-year reauthorization, once the current bill is enacted into law. 

So I hope to hear today about whether or not the Fiscal Year 2016 budget request 

provides NASA with the clear goals that maintain a constancy of purpose. 

And one area where the need for constancy of purpose has been widely discussed 

is human exploration, perhaps because of the commitment of resources and goals 

that must span multiple Congresses and Presidential Administrations, if we are to 

be successful in that undertaking. 

To that end, I’m pleased that NASA and the community have embraced Mars as 

the long-term goal for human exploration, and indeed our bipartisan Authorization 

Act establishes such a goal and directs the development of a roadmap to get us 

there. 

I hope Congress has the foresight to commit the necessary resources to fund a 

humans-to-Mars plan, because it is a worthy goal that among other things will do 

much to advance our nation’s technological capabilities. 

But, as the National Academies stressed a year ago, if Mars is a worthy goal— 

and they think it is—we need to provide the resources to achieve it. If Congress is 

unwilling to commit the required resources, we must not let the enthusiasm for a 

goal of sending humans to Mars divert resources from NASA’s other important mission areas; because our bipartisan, House-passed NASA Authorization Act reflects 

an enduring commitment to NASA’s multi-mission role. 

I look forward to hearing from Administrator Bolden and to working with him and 

my colleagues on maintaining a ′′constancy of purpose′′ for NASA going forward. 

Thank you and I yield back. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. I now recognize 

the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Smith. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I, like you, appreciate Administrator Bolden’s testifying today. 

While there are some areas of agreement between the Committee 

and the Administration in this budget, the President’s request regrettably changes agreed-upon national priorities. The President’s 

request puts NASA in a tough position because it ignores his own 

sequestration levels and fails to identify offsets for increases of 

$500 million. It is hard for Congress to consider this a serious proposal when it does not comply with the law and is not grounded 

in reality. 

I also disagree with the Administration’s continued attempt to 

redistribute funding within NASA. For example, Europa is one of 

the best destinations we have in our own solar system for finding 

life beyond our planet. Yet this year’s request of $30 million for the 

Europa mission is disappointing considering the mission’s potential. In contrast, Congress has funded a Europa mission at $75 million, $80 million, and $100 million over the last three years. 

Missions like this, as well as the search for exoplanets and signs 

of life in other areas of our universe, captivate the American people. I appreciate the progress, on the other hand, that has been 

made with other priorities such as the James Webb Space Tele-
25 

scope, the Transitioning Exoplanet Survey Satellite, and the Wide 

Field Infrared Space Telescope. Overall, though, there is a lack of 

balance in the overall science account request. 

Congressional guidance and the decadal surveys advocate for a 

balanced portfolio of science activities. Unfortunately, the President’s request does not adhere to that recommendation by the 

space experts. One of the most glaring examples is the disproportionate increase in the Earth Science Division that it receives at 

the expense of other science divisions and human and robotic space 

exploration. There are 13 other agencies involved in climate change 

research, but only one that is responsible for space exploration. In 

the last eight years, the Earth Science Division funding has increased by more than 63 percent. This year, the Administration requested another increase of $175 million over last year’s levels for 

a total increase of nearly $2 billion. The Administration doesn’t 

even come close to funding other science divisions at this level. 

The Planetary Science budget request is 43 percent lower than 

the Earth Science budget request. Also, the Earth Science request 

is almost as much as the Astrophysics division, the James Webb 

Space Telescope, and the Heliophysics Division combined. This is 

anything but a balanced portfolio. 

These increases come at the expense of NASA’s high-priority exploration programs, which the White House has once again attempted to raid to fund the Administration’s environmental agenda. The budget underfunds the Space Launch System and Orion 

programs and it cuts human spaceflight programs by almost $400 

million. The Obama Administration seems to have forgotten 

NASA’s priorities—and the main one is space exploration. 

This budget also continues to request funding for the uninspiring 

Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM), which was recently rebranded 

the Asteroid Redirect Mission. The Administration continues to 

push this mission on NASA without any connection to a larger exploration roadmap and absent support from the scientific community or even NASA’s own advisory committees. This is an 

uninspiring mission without a realistic budget or destination. It 

has no certain launch date or ties to existing exploration goals. It 

is a mission that is without the consensus necessary to make it a 

reality in the 18 months remaining in the Obama Administration. 

The Administration continues to starve NASA’s exploration programs to fund a partisan environmental agenda. NASA simply deserves better. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I’ll yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FULL COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN LAMAR S. SMITH

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate Administrator Bolden’s testifying 

today. While there are some areas of agreement between the Committee and the Administration in this budget, the president’s request regrettably changes agreed-upon 

national priorities. 

The President’s request puts NASA in a tough position because it ignores his own 

sequestration levels and fails to identify offsets for increases of $500 million. It is 

hard for Congress to consider this a serious proposal when it does not comply with 

the law and is not grounded in reality. 
26 

I also disagree with the Administration’s continued attempt to redistribute funding within NASA. For example, Europa is one of the best destinations we have in 

our own solar system for finding life beyond our planet. Yet this year’s request of 

$30 million for the Europa mission is disappointing considering the mission’s potential. 

In contrast, Congress has funded a Europa mission at $75 million, $80 million, 

and $100 million over the last three years. Missions like this, as well as the search 

for exoplanets and signs of life in other areas of our universe, captivate the American people. 

I appreciate the progress, on the other hand, that has been made with other priorities such as the James Webb Space Telescope, the Transitioning Exoplanet Survey 

Satellite, and the Wide Field Infrared Space Telescope. 

Overall, though, there is a lack of balance in the overall science account request. 

Congressional guidance and the decadal surveys advocate for a balanced portfolio 

of science activities. Unfortunately, the President’s request does not adhere to that 

recommendation by the space experts. 

One of the most glaring examples is the disproportionate increase in the Earth 

Science Division that it receives at the expense of other science divisions and human 

and robotic space exploration. There are 13 other agencies involved in climate 

change research, but only one that is responsible for space exploration. In the last 

eight years, the Earth Science Division funding has increased by more than 63 percent. 

This year, the Administration requested another increase of $175 million over last 

year’s levels for a total increase of nearly $2 billion. The administration doesn’t even 

come close to funding other science divisions at this level. 

The planetary science budget request is 43 percent lower than the earth science 

budget request. Also, the Earth Science request is almost as much as the Astrophysics division, the James Webb Space Telescope, and the Heliophysics Division 

combined. This is anything but a balanced portfolio. These increases come at the 

expense of NASA’s high-priority exploration systems, which the White House has 

once again attempted to raid to fund the Administration’s environmental agenda. 

The budget underfunds the Space Launch System and Orion programs. And it 

cuts human spaceflight programs by almost $400 million. The Obama Administration seems to have forgotten NASA’s priorities - and the main one is space exploration. 

This budget also continues to request funding for the uninspiring Asteroid Retrieval Mission (ARM), which was recently rebranded the ′′Asteroid Retrieval and 

Redirect Mission.′′ The Administration continues to push this mission on NASA 

without any connection to a larger exploration roadmap and absent support from 

the scientific community or even NASA’s own advisory committees. 

This is an uninspiring mission without a realistic budget or destination. It has 

no certain launch date or ties to existing exploration goals. It is a mission that is 

without the consensus necessary to make it a reality in the 18 months remaining 

in the Obama administration. 

The Administration continues to starve NASA’s exploration programs to fund a 

partisan environmental agenda. NASA simply deserves better. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Chairman Smith. 

Let me introduce our—today’s witness. Our first and only witness today is the Hon. Charles F. Bolden, Jr. General Bolden has 

been the Administrator of NASA since 2009. Prior to becoming Administrator, General Bolden served for 34 years in the Marine 

Corps including 14 years as a member of NASA’s Astronaut Office. 

General Bolden has traveled to orbit four times aboard the space 

shuttle including the flight that deployed the Hubble Space Telescope. General Bolden has several honorary doctorates from a variety of prestigious universities and received his bachelor’s in electrical science from the United States Naval Academy. 

In order to allow time for discussion, please limit your testimony 

to five minutes. Your entire written statement will be made part 

of the record. 

I now recognize General Bolden for five minutes to present his 

testimony. 
27 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR., 

ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS 

AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA) 

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

Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, five years ago yesterday, President Obama came to the Kennedy Space Center and 

laid out what I consider to be a bold, transformative agenda for 

NASA. He challenged us to embark on a journey to Mars. He challenged us to extend the life of the International Space Station and 

increase Earth-based observations. He called for investments in 

new, advanced technologies that will not only take Americans farther into space than ever before but also will provide spinoff benefits and create high-paying jobs here at home. Five years later, 

we’ve made landmark progress toward these goals. SpaceX’s successful launch just this week is a shining example. 

The budget proposed by the President furthers the goals we 

share of extending our reach into space while strengthening American leadership here at home. It is an $18.5 billion investment that 

represents a leap into a future greater of discovery, job creation 

and economic growth as well as a healthier planet. 

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

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

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

budget will keep us marching forward. 

The support of this Subcommittee and the Congress are essential 

to this journey. The International Space Station is the crucial first 

step in this work. It is our springboard to the rest of the solar system, and we are committed to extending space station operations 

to at least 2024. Thanks to grit, determination, and American ingenuity, we’ve returned ISS cargo resupply missions to the United 

States in-sourcing these jobs and creating a new private market in 

low-Earth orbit. 

Under a plan outlined by the Administration earlier in its term, 

we have also awarded two American companies, SpaceX and Boeing, fixed-price contracts to safely and cost-effectively transport our 

astronauts to the space station from U.S. soil. This will end our 

sole reliance on Russia. It is critical that we receive the funding requested for 2016 so that we can meet our 2017 target date and stop 

writing checks to the Russian space agency. 

Our newest, most powerful rocket ever developed, the Space 

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

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

SLS and exploration ground systems are on track for launch capability readiness by November of 2018, and the teams are hard at 

work on completing technical and design reviews for Orion. 

Our budget also funds a robust science program with dozens of 

operating missions studying our solar system and the universe. 

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

Dawn has entered into orbit around the dwarf planet Ceres. 
28 

Before we send humans to Mars, robots are paving the way. We 

are at work on a Mars rover for 2020 and have begun planning a 

mission to explore Jupiter’s fascinating moon Europa. 

NASA is a leader in Earth science and our constantly expanding 

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

prepare for these changes. NASA has 21 research missions studying Earth, and in the last year alone, we launched an unprecedented five more. We also are at work on Humanity’s first voyage 

to our home star, a mission that will repeatedly pass through the 

sun’s outer atmosphere. 

NASA’s Hubble, Chandra and Kepler Space Telescopes explore 

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

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

Maryland, and a new mission is in development to extend Kepler’s 

pioneering work in finding planets. 

Technology drives science exploration and our journey to Mars. 

With the President’s request, NASA will continue to maintain a 

steady pipeline of technology to ensure that we continue to lead the 

world in space exploration and scientific discovery. 

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

transforming aviation by dramatically reducing its environmental 

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

way toward revolutionary aircraft shapes and propulsion systems. 

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

thriving. The strong support we receive from this Subcommittee is 

making that happen, and I particularly appreciate the generous FY 

2015 appropriation. As the President said at the Kennedy Space 

Center, and I quote, ‘‘For pennies on the dollar, the space program 

has improved our lives, advanced our society, strengthened our 

economy, and inspired generations of Americans.’’ NASA looks forward to working with the Congress to continue making this vision 

a reality. 

I would be pleased to respond to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of General Bolden follows:] 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Administrator Bolden, for your 

testimony. The Chair recognizes himself for five minutes for questions. 

The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 directed NASA to develop 

the Orion crew vehicle and the Space Launch System, or the SLS 

rocket. The development of these systems is managed by NASA’s 

Exploration Systems Development program. Congress has consistently provided more funding for exploration systems development 

than NASA has requested. This was true even in the FY 2013 

budget despite reductions due to sequestration. 

The first test flight of Orion and SLS without a crew, known as 

EM–1, was formerly expected in 2017. When NASA completed key 

decision point C on the SLS last year, why didn’t NASA use the 

review to develop a budget to maintain the 2017 launch date instead of using the Joint Confidence Level development process to 

delay the launch and cut the budget? 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, you mentioned the 2010 Authorization Act, and I was going to go back to that anyway because 

that is what established the bipartisan priorities for this agency, 

and I will just review them. They’re the James Webb Space Telescope, exploration through the Space Launch System and Orion, 

and ISS at that time extended to 2020. We have subsequently gotten it extended to 2024, and we recently got the agreement from 

our Russian partners that they too believe that we should extend 

ISS to 2024. 

We have done everything that we promised in the appropriations—in the Authorization Act, and we continue to be focused on 

those as our key priorities. We have actually accomplished, as you 

have already mentioned, many of the things that many people 

would not have believed we would have done by now. If you go to 

Michoud, we are actually welding barrel sections for SLS. If you go 

down to the Cape, we’re going through the study of Orion from its 

first flight trying to get it ready. We are working on the next milestone for Orion where we will go through a similar process that we 

did for SLS and the ground systems so that we can establish an 

availability date for the first integrated flight of Orion and SLS. 

We e have taken the funds that the American taxpayer has allowed us to have, and I think we have delivered on the promises 

that we’ve made to this Congress and to the American public. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I don’t think you actually answered the 

question. So after the decision point C was made, why didn’t NASA 

go back and use the Joint Confidence Level to try to maintain the 

2017 target? 

General BOLDEN. The team did what I asked them to do. I originally said I am willing to accept a 30 percent confidence level 

where NASA accepts as a general rule a 70 percent confidence 

level, and so that everybody understands what that is. That says 

that we are 70 percent confident that we can do this project within 

the budget that we proposed and by the date that we proposed. 

Once we went through KDP-C, I could have said okay, let’s go back 

to a 30 percent confidence level. That would have almost guaranteed that we wouldn’t make 2017 or any other date, and I have 

promised this Committee and others that we’re past telling you 

that we’re going to do something and then not performing. 
38 

I think if you look at our performance over the last few years, 

whether it’s in science, in human exploration or anything else, for 

the most part we have delivered on time, and that’s because we 

have chosen a very structured process like the Joint Confidence 

Level process to tell us when we think things are going to be available and how much they’re going to cost. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Okay. I understand that, and I just want to 

kind of remind people that several times you’ve testified in front 

of this Committee that we were absolutely on schedule for 2017 

launch and that even the lower level funding requests that came 

from NASA, Congress always exceeded what the President’s ask 

was because of the importance of SLS and Orion. 

The NASA Advisory Council (NAC) recently voted unanimously 

to find that NASA’s proposed Asteroid Redirect Mission, or ARM, 

ought to be repurposed toward a mission to Mars itself. They claim 

that ARM’s asteroid retrieval aspect didn’t efficiently contribute to 

the journey to Mars and that the scientific material provided by 

ARM would be a duplication of work performed by OSIRIS–REx. 

NAC was further skeptical of ARM because NASA already has a 

robotic asteroid sample return mission in OSIRIS–REx, which 

would cost significantly less than the ARM. Have you considered 

the NAC’s alternate proposal of simplifying ARM into a Mars mission that functions purely as a solar electric propulsion test bed? 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, ARM is a precursor for Mars. 

ARM is a critical component of getting humans to Mars. Among the 

things that the ARM mission does is it forces us so it is providing 

us the opportunity to upgrade our solar propulsion to high-energy 

solar electric propulsion that will enable us to move large masses 

from Earth to Mars or from lunar orbit to Mars. That is essential. 

The NAC has said that no matter what we do with ARM, we must 

not lose that demonstration. 

The second thing that ARM allows us to do, provided we’re successful in getting a portion of an asteroid or an asteroid into orbit 

around the moon is, it allows us to put humans in connection with 

that particular piece of an asteroid to learn how to operate in lowgravity or no-gravity environments, the way we’re going to have to 

do it when we go to Mars. So ARM accomplishes several, two at 

least, of the primary functions or technology developments that 

even the NAC says we have to do. 

The other thing, you know, I appreciate the fact that people appreciate that we’re going to bring back some samples with OSIRIS– 

REx. What people don’t appreciate is that we’re going to have astronauts interacting with an asteroid in orbit around the moon, 

and that is not being done by any other mission on the books. It 

has not been done before. 

And then finally, there is a small thing that is on my mind all 

the time, because Chairman Smith hosted Dr. Holdren and General 

Shelton and me to what I tell him all the time was the most substantive hearing I have participated in, and that was one on nearEarth objects, and at that time Mr. Posey, Mr. Brooks and others 

bombarded me with demands that I tell them what we were going 

to do if an asteroid was inbound, and I finally gave up and said 

I would pray. That was not a good answer. That was not a tech-
39 

nical answer. It made big time with my priest but it didn’t help 

anywhere else. 

Chairman PALAZZO. All right. Well—— 

General BOLDEN. Today if asked that question, I would tell them 

that we now have a mission underway which is called the Asteroid 

Redirect Mission that is going to inform our ability to actually deflect an asteroid or do something to protect this planet. So, two 

years ago in the hearing, my answer was repeatedly, we don’t have 

a thing we can do. That was the reason I resorted to my religion. 

Today I can tell you have a mission that is on the books that is 

being developed that will answer the question from Mr. Posey and 

Mr. Brooks and anyone else who is concerned about the threat 

from near-Earth asteroids. 

Chairman PALAZZO. We can definitely probably hold additional 

hearings. I think we’ve held two—— 

General BOLDEN. Yes. 

Chairman PALAZZO. —already on near-Earth objects and the 

threats that they may pose to Earth and the human race. But in 

essence, you disagree with your advisory committee? 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I don’t disagree with the advisory committee. That’s not my place. They are an advisory committee. That means in fact—you know, I find that—two of the people that I respect the most who are astronauts, are Buzz Aldrin 

and Gene Cernan, because I have to choose between their beliefs. 

Gene Cernan says I should be going to the moon. Buzz Aldrin says 

I should be going to Mars. I don’t disagree with either of them. I 

respect their opinion. But only one of them, you know, is right as 

a number one priority. I happen to choose Buzz Aldrin’s number 

one priority as Mars because moon is on the way. We will put people back on the moon but we can do that on the way to Mars. You 

can’t get to Mars if you stop at the moon. 

Chairman PALAZZO. All right. Well, I appreciate your responding 

to my questions, and of course, you know, without consensus in the 

scientific, the exploration and international communities, not to 

mention the people here on Capitol Hill, I think you will be challenged to make ARM last longer. 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, may I—— 

Chairman PALAZZO. I realy am three and a half minutes over, 

and I know she’s going to take at least three and a half minutes 

over too. Hopefully she won’t. This is a well-attended hearing. But 

at this time I recognize Ranking Member Edwards for her questions. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and you’ve come to 

know me so well. 

Administrator, I want to go back to the budget proposal because 

I indicated this in my opening statement about this idea of constancy of purpose for NASA and what’s required, and so I’m really 

confused. Part of me thinks it’s kind of a game where the proposed 

reductions to SLS and Orion from the FY 2015 enacted levels and 

then Congress come back and the Administration proposes one 

thing, Congress comes and puts it in. Here we go again. The proposal is one thing, and I don’t know, is there an expectation that 

Congress is going to say well, SLS and Orion of course, those are 

signature important programs and we’ll put the money in. If this 
40 

is an important priority for the agency and for the nation, why 

don’t you just put it in the budget and not have us sit there and 

ask questions about why it’s not in the budget? And knowing that 

the proposal that you have in front of us probably doesn’t support 

the integration that’s necessary. It may not support the pathway 

along to EM–2. What’s the real number for SLS, Orion? And maybe 

we should pencil that in. 

General BOLDEN. Congresswoman, I honestly believe that the 

number that we put in the President’s budget will get us to the target dates and the target achievements that we say. As I have responded to this and many other committees, when you give me 

more money, I appreciate it and I use it, and what we do is, we 

buy down risk. We were able to get to a 70 percent confidence level 

on SLS and Orion, or SLS and the ground systems, because we did 

have more money. I was willing to accept a lower probability but 

I don’t think we should operate that way. So if you gave me more 

money today and told me to spend it on SLS, that’s not going to 

change the date of availability for SLS for EM–1. I would much 

rather take the money as we have it planned out to make a sustainable program. 

We are not talking about one flight. In fact, when we go through 

the milestone review for Orion, we’re going to give you a budget 

plan and a date that we think we can make for the second flight 

of Orion and SLS because that’s the critical flight for us, not the 

first flight. The second flight is the first human flight, and so we 

made the decision that for Orion, then KDP-C and other milestones 

would look at the first human flight. If you tell me to put the 

money into SLS for EM–1, I can do that, and then we have a oneflight program that I’ve got to later figure out how to sustain. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Okay. So, I appreciate your saying that, but let’s 

just remember this day when that is said because if we come down 

the line, we’re going to take you at your word—— 

General BOLDEN. Yes. 

Ms. EDWARDS. —that you don’t need that, and so then I want to 

ask you about the impact of the cuts that are proposed to aeronautics on our ability to maintain leadership in aviation and aeronautics with an increasingly competitive global environment. We’ve 

had that conversation before on this Committee where it feels like 

aeronautics kind of gets short shrift. So can you explain those cuts? 

General BOLDEN. The cuts came at my direction because that’s— 

when I looked at the top line that I was willing to submit, which 

was over what we had been asked to submit, I had to decide where 

we could make the most, where we could pick up the most with 

money that we had, and aeronautics was once again an area that 

I had to take some funds from. 

So it was simply prioritizing funds that we had and trying to see 

what we could do the most with. Dr. Jaiwon Shin and his team did 

a new strategic plan, they have six strategic thrusts, and we think 

with the funds that we put in the budget, we’ll be able to continue 

to make progress in those areas. 

Ms. EDWARDS. So let me just ask you then about Europa and the 

Europa mission really quickly because there are also proposed reductions in Planetary Science in the middle of the development of 

a very ambitious Mars 2020 mission. So can you explain that? 
41 

General BOLDEN. Yes, ma’am. You know, I get this from the 

planetary scientists all the time. In July, we will achieve something 

that has never before been done by anyone, any country, any anything. We will have satellites that will be studying, orbiting several 

planets in the solar system and the dwarf planet Pluto, and we will 

have a spacecraft that is in interstellar space. We managed to do 

that with limited funds because we appreciate everything that the 

Congress has given us but it is limited, and so we can either take 

stuff off the plate or we can figure out ways to do the best we can 

to achieve the missions that you have given us, and sometimes we 

have to come back and tell you it can’t be done in the time frame 

that you want. People want Europa in 2022. It can’t be done in 

that time frame. We will continue to say that. We know about how 

long it will take us to put a mission on Europa. So it’s simply a 

matter of prioritization again. 

All of you have mentioned in your opening statements that we’re 

over the Budget Control Act number. Yes, we are, maybe. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Oh, you didn’t hear that complaint from me. 

Because the time is limited, even though I’m going over, out of 

respect for the Chairman, I didn’t want to go here but now that 

you’ve taken me to Asteroid Redirect, in our authorization, and we 

know that it is not law, but you’ve promised a roadmap on sort of 

laying out what the choices are and how we’re going to get to Mars, 

and what happens is that you come in front of the, you know, Committee, and with all due respect, you haven’t provided the roadmap 

but you’ve said this is the direction that we’re going using the Asteroid Redirect, and it feels like we’re missing a little bit of communication here. 

It would be important for this Committee to have a roadmap, to 

have something that says here are the choices and this is why 

we’ve decided to go in this direction, and instead what we get is 

a budget line for Asteroid Redirect that doesn’t say here are the 

choices but says this is the choice we’ve made. So which is it? Have 

you all just ditched any other possibilities and everything is focused on the Asteroid Redirect as the way to go to Mars? Because 

if that is true, then what’s the point of providing a roadmap? 

General BOLDEN. Congresswoman, the place we’re going is Mars. 

Our ultimate focus is the journey to Mars, and everything comes 

back to that. When you talk about getting to Mars, we need highenergy solar electric propulsion. We need to be able to operate in 

and around low-gravity, no-gravity bodies. The Asteroid Redirect 

Mission is going to provide that. We need a sustained low-Earth 

orbit infrastructure from which we can operate. The International 

Space Station is vital to that. We’ve gotten the International Space 

Station to agree that we will extend it to 2024. That is essential. 

We have to supply the International Space Station. 

That takes us to Commercial Crew and Cargo. I want to get 

away from dependence on the Russians. We now have American 

commercial cargo capability demonstrated. The importance of two 

providers was ultimately eminently demonstrated when we lost Antares and Cygnus last October because when we launched SpaceX 

6, it was loaded. It was loaded with everything that would’ve been 

on Cygnus. So without having two providers, redundancy and 

American providers, we would not have been able to do that. 
42 

We are on the road to having commercial crew availability in 

2017. So that’s going to take us to Mars. If I don’t have commercial 

crew and cargo, the International Space Station, I can’t get to 

Mars. 

Ms. EDWARDS. My time is like totally gone, but I’m just going to 

say to you that I think that this Committee, many of us want to 

figure out a way that we can best support the ultimate goal of 

Mars, but we have to have some level of communication with the 

Committee laying out what the alternatives are, what the choices 

are, and not just have you come to the Committee and say this is 

what we’re doing. Our job is to take in the information and say this 

is how we as a Congress, as an American people, feel that we need 

to go in this direction, and that hasn’t happened yet. It would be 

a really good idea offline, online, whatever it is, bring it in to us, 

put it on paper, lay it out for us so that we have the ability in subsequent authorizations to help figure that out with you and not 

just be told a direction that we’re going without any level of communication. 

Thank you very much. 

General BOLDEN. Yes, ma’am. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. I now recognize 

Mr. Brooks for five minutes. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Bolden, the acronym NASA stands for the ‘‘National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration.’’ I underscore the words 

‘‘aeronautics and space,’’ yet each year almost $2 billion of NASA 

funding is diverted from aeronautics and space to Earth sciences, 

i.e. global warming and climate change and similar initiatives. To 

the extent America wishes to spend taxpayer money on global 

warming and climate change, I’d submit these programs should be 

paid for out of the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget, not 

America’s aeronautics and space budgets. 

General Bolden, given a choice between adequately funding 

NASA’s aeronautics and space efforts such as the Space Launch 

System, the various telescopes, planetary sciences and things of 

that nature so that America’s space program is no longer reduced 

to hitching a ride from Russia to get to the Space Station and diverting NASA funding to the study of the Earth’s environment, a 

subject I submit is better suited to the Environmental Protection 

Agency, what is your preference and why? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman Brooks, NASA since its inception 

has had responsibility for exploring the universe and helping us 

understand it better, and also taking care of this planet, which I 

think it happens to be my favorite planet. If I followed the logic 

that you just presented, since science is missing from the acronym—and people have suggested that NASA drop science from its 

programs because it’s not in the acronym. However, that would be 

absurd to do. NASA is eminently responsible for science and we 

provide four areas of science—Earth science, astrophysics, planetary science and heliophysics—and that is our portfolio and we 

cover that adequately with the funds that we are given. We are 

able to do things. We provide instruments and satellites that are 

used by other operational agencies. We don’t do weather forecasting. We don’t do operational science. 
43 

Mr. BROOKS. I understand that. If I could please interject for a 

moment, my question is one of choice. Do you want aeronautics and 

space money, NASA money, going to aeronautics and space or are 

you comfortable with the diversion of about $2 billion a year to 

global warming, climate change initiatives, which in my judgment 

should be funded by the Environmental Protection Agency, thereby 

freeing up that $2 billion for aeronautics and space. 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, my choice is to distribute the 

money in the best way that we feel possible to cover our portfolio 

because we do feel that science, aeronautics, human exploration 

and technology development are critical missions or critical functions that NASA has to do. We don’t divert money from science for 

human exploration. We don’t divert money from human exploration 

for science. We present what we think is a logical budget that will 

enable us to achieve all of our missions any time that we lay out 

in those budgets, and I think we’re doing that very well. I 

think—— 

Mr. BROOKS. Well, General Bolden, if I might continue, in my 

opinion, based upon what I have seen since the cancellation of the 

shuttle program, since America has been reduced to hitching a ride 

from the Russians for our astronauts, America is losing ground and 

could arguably no longer be the preeminent space program, which 

was a position we’ve held since the 1960s. 

Given this choice, if Congress were to shift NASA Earth sciences funding, roughly $2 billion a year, to restoring America’s preeminence in space and requiring that global warming and climate 

change study be paid out of the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

existing budget so that you still have that kind of Earth science 

being funded but out of the Environmental Protection Agency, 

which seems to be a more logical agency since we’re talking about 

the environment, would you support that shift of $2 billion a year 

to NASA’s aeronautics and space programs with the understanding 

that the EPA would be doing the environmental work on global 

warming and climate change? 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, there is only one agency that 

sends people to space, as you all have said. That’s NASA. Right 

now there is a preeminent agency that provides the instrumentation that gathers the data to do the work of EPA and NOAA and 

others that you say. If we stop doing that, there is no other agency 

that does it. The reason that our earth science—— 

Mr. BROOKS. Now wait a second—— 

General BOLDEN. —had an increase this year was because we 

build satellites for NOAA. 

Mr. BROOKS. There’s nothing that would stop the EPA out of 

their budget from hiring NASA to put those satellites up there, is 

there? 

General BOLDEN. That’s what we do right now, so why do it and 

pretend we are not—— 

Mr. BROOKS. But right now it’s cutting into the space program, 

I would submit, and as a consequence, I think you’ve got a very 

good argument out there that America is losing ground and the 

highest ground, and that’s space, and we’re doing it because aeronautics and space has not been adequately funded over the years. 

General BOLDEN. Congressman—— 
44 

Mr. BROOKS. Now, I’m trying to figure out a way to improve 

funding for aeronautics and space, and if I understand correctly, 

here you are, the NASA Administrator, and you’re saying no, we 

don’t want that $2 billion for aeronautics and space and we don’t 

want the Environmental Protection Agency to take over an environmental issue, which would be global warming and climate 

change initiatives. Am I erring in my interpretation of your remarks? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman Brooks, if you’re saying that I 

disagree that we should take the money that NASA has in Earth 

science and shift it to aeronautics and space, you are absolutely 

right. I disagree. I think that the balance of funds that NASA has 

today in our science, human exploration, aeronautics and space 

technology portfolios is about right, I am really sorry that you don’t 

believe that we are the preeminent agency in the world for exploration in space. 

I just came back from the Space Symposium, and there is no one 

out there who agrees with anyone who has that low opinion of 

NASA and the United States. We are the preeminent leader in the 

world, always have been, always will be. 

Mr. BROOKS. Well, let me break it down. When it comes to 

human spaceflight, we are no longer the preeminent country in 

space. When it comes to non-human space endeavors, I think you 

can make an argument that America still has preeminence. But 

when you put the two together and when Russia has reduced the 

United States of America to saying if we want to go to their space 

station, we can do it by a trampoline, that’s not the kind of preeminence at least I’m accustomed to having seen the Saturn V 

rocket built, researched and developed in the Fifth Congressional 

District of Alabama. 

Chairman PALAZZO. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman PALAZZO. At this time I recognize Mr. Beyer for five 

minutes. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General and Administrator, NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility and 

Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport play a critical role in our nation’s 

launch infrastructure providing half of the cargo resupply launches 

to the ISS as well as other important NASA and DOD missions. 

It’s one of only four operational sites in the United States capable 

of orbital launch, and only one of two on the East Coast capable 

of supporting NASA’s human spaceflight programs, and it’s my understanding that last year Wallops nearly tied Vandenberg AFB for 

the number of launches. And last fall, the Congress with bipartisan 

and bicameral the support, appropriated $20 million for NASA’s 

Wallops for the long overdue range upgrades as well as support recovery from the Orb–3 accident last October. I was pleased to learn 

that the first $5 million was actually—of the appropriate funding 

was released last week but I think I and all the Virginia delegation 

are concerned about five months after the bill is signed into law, 

the other $15 million still hasn’t flowed into Wallops. Can you tell 

me when that funding is going to come to Wallops and what the 

delay might be? 
45 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, we have continued to build Wallops up to what we consider to be a 21st century launch complex. 

It is our intent that Wallops will be returned to the capability of 

launching medium- and small-class orbital vehicles, and we will see 

that when Orbital Sciences is ready to launch again, the facility 

will be fully up and running. But if you look at the funds that we 

have expended through the years at Wallops, we don’t count a particular pot, you know, for work on the pad or whatever. We’re trying to restore it to a 21st century launch complex. The $5 million that we contributed to the repairs on the pad 

were because we took the leadership in trying to get the three 

teams together, meaning Orbital, Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport 

(MARS) and the State of Virginia to move, to get some movement 

on restoring the pad. So we felt it was essential to do that. 

I would have to remind people that what is not counted because 

it wasn’t in our budget but we were able to find ways to do it was, 

how did we get Wallops to the point where it could launch in the 

first place. We brought people up from Stennis, we brought people 

up from Kennedy, we brought people up from Langley to enable 

MARS and the State of Virginia to have an operating launch pad. 

So we have always supported Wallops with funds over and above 

what shows up in the budget for a particular budget line, so—— 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, General. 

General BOLDEN. —I pledge we’ll continue that. 

Mr. BEYER. We look forward to the other $15 million. That would 

be great. 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BEYER. I was very impressed with this notion of constancy 

of purpose and our Ranking Member Edwards’ concerns. Much is 

made of it, and reading through all this, you see there’s so much 

on your plate. Just look at the budget—exploration, space operations, science, aeronautics, education, et cetera, in specific programs, SLS, Orion, commercial crew, JWST, heliophysics, Earth 

science, et cetera, Mars, exoplanets, ISS, Landsat. Is there any way 

you can tell me what NASA’s constancy of purpose actually is? 

General BOLDEN. Oh, Mars is the planet that is most like Earth. 

It is the one that we believe may sustain life, probably did sustain 

some type of life and will sustain life when humans get there in 

the 2030s. It is critical for us to understand Mars like every other 

planet in our solar system so that we better understand planet 

Earth. We’ve been exploring Mars for about 40 years. Every precursor has been with one purpose in mind, and that’s being able 

to put humans on that planet one of these days. That is the reason 

we have Curiosity there. That’s the reason we’re going to put Mars 

2020 there, the reason we’re going to launch InSight next year. 

Mr. BEYER. So is it safe to say if I’m explaining NASA’s constancy of purpose to a high school physics student, I’d say you can 

look at all this through the lens of Mars? 

General BOLDEN. That is one example, and it depends on—if 

you’re talking to kids in high school, some of them are going to 

have no interest in planetary science, so some of them may be interested. They may be techies, and then I need to be able to show 

them the constancy of purpose in NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate that’s enabling like them the young people back 
46 

here from Carnegie Mellon in a university that’s noted for its computer science. 

Mr. BEYER. So—— 

General BOLDEN. They’ve got to believe they can come to NASA 

and contribute also. 

Mr. BEYER. I was clear and now I’m confused again. So it sounds 

like we have just a huge buffet at NASA rather than a single focus 

or a singled constituted purpose. Is there a way to define it clearly? 

We opened with all the concerns about we cut money from this and 

we added money to that, and where was our constancy of purpose? 

General BOLDEN. When I talk about constancy of purpose, I’m 

really talking about exploration, and that is the primary focus of 

this agency in trying to keep up with the charter that established 

NASA in 1958 to understand our universe. We believe that if we 

can put humans on Mars, our journey—if we can shore up our journey to Mars and say we’re going there, we may wander along the 

way as people always do when they’re on a journey but that’s the 

ultimate destination, here’s the plan that we have in place that 

Congresswoman Edwards mentioned. We have three things we’ve 

got to do. We’re Earth-reliant right now. We’ve got to get away 

from being Earth-reliant and that means we’ve got to spend some 

time in the proving zone. We’ve got to go back to the lunar environment so we’ll be in cislunar space, and ultimately we want to be 

Mars-ready. We want to be Earth-independent. 

So it takes all of these little pieces that I mentioned. Congressman Perlmutter just came in. He is one of my biggest cheerleaders 

for MAVEN. You know, we’ve got to understand Mars’s environment and what happened to it in order to understand Earth’s environment right now and what might happen to it if the magneto 

gets turned off, and—— 

Chairman PALAZZO. The gentleman’s time has expired. At this 

time I’d like to recognize Chairman Smith for five minutes. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, let 

me say at the outset that I think we’ve heard excellent questions 

today from both sides of the podium. I still think we’re searching 

for more direct answers to a lot of those questions, and to that end, 

Director Bolden, let me go to the Asteroid Redirect Mission for a 

second. 

It is amazing to me that the Administration actually thinks that 

changing this mission and securing an asteroid and taking it into 

orbit and around the moon and now change it to getting a boulder 

from an asteroid and putting it into orbit is going to somehow attract the American people’s attention and inspire them. 

But the main point I want to make here is that the NASA Advisory Council actually made a recommendation to you all, and it 

found ‘‘Instead of relocating a boulder from an asteroid, we suggest 

that a more important and exciting first use of this new solar electric propulsion stage would be a round-trip mission to Mars, flying 

it to Mars orbit and then back to the Earth-Moon system and into 

a distant retrograde lunar orbit.’’ Why isn’t the Administration following its own experts’ advice? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman Smith, we believe, I believe that 

we are going to stand a better chance—— 
47 

Chairman SMITH. So you disagree with your experts? And you’re 

entitled to do that. 

General BOLDEN. I agree with some of my experts, who happen 

to think the Asteroid Redirect Mission is awesome. 

Chairman SMITH. In the last two years, all the experts have recommended the NCR mission, and you all keep—— 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman—— 

Chairman SMITH. —forging ahead. 

General BOLDEN. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, if I lined 

up the experts and had them sit—— 

Chairman SMITH. All of these experts have been unanimous. 

These experts have been unanimous in not recommending the ARM 

Mission, and you all just keep forging ahead, and I’m asking you 

why you’re ignoring all these experts’ advice. 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, because I believe in constancy 

of purpose. I believe that my job is to determine the direction in 

which this agency is going to go, recommend it to you and to the 

President, and then pick that path and follow it. We are on a 

path—— 

Chairman SMITH. Director, I’d rather you listen to the experts 

more than maybe yourself in this particular instance. 

General BOLDEN. I don’t—I listen to the experts, and I—— 

Chairman SMITH. Well, I wish you would heed them and do what 

they recommend, but on that same subject of ARM, and another example of what I’m talking about, NASA’s Advisory Council also 

said that you should conduct an independent cost estimate of ARM, 

and so far you have not committed to doing so. Will you commit 

today to conducting that cost estimate of ARM and the two mission 

options? 

General BOLDEN. We committed to the—— 

Chairman SMITH. That’s a pretty easy answer, yes or no. 

General BOLDEN. We committed—because what you say we committed or what they recommended, we committed to them that 

when we get to beyond the mission concept review, which we have 

now done, that we will have an independent cost assessment—— 

Chairman SMITH. When can we expect to see that independent 

cost estimate since you’re now at that point? 

General BOLDEN. I will get that to you, sir. We are not—I don’t 

have a date for an independent cost assessment on the option that 

we’ve selected for ARM. 

Chairman SMITH. Well, do you have a month? 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I will take that for the record 

and I will get it to you. 

Chairman SMITH. Is it this year, the next six months, the next 

three months? 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, you know, I will take it for the 

record and I will get back to you. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. You’re kind of proving what I said about 

these answers. 

All right. Let me go to the next one. You proposed an overall cut 

in Planetary Science by $76 million, Orion by $98 million, SLS by 

$344 million, and you’ve cut other space programs as well. That is 

why I happen to think the Administration is starving NASA. 
48 

But in regard to SLS and Orion, those are over $450 million 

worth of cuts. You’ve got a situation where the GAO has said those 

$400 million cuts are a risk to the program, and now the launch 

date has gone from 2017 to 2018. It seems to me that the Administration’s actions contradict their words, because if you look at the 

money, Earth Science may be a priority but Space is less of a priority. 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman—— 

Chairman SMITH. When you look at the money, can you come to 

any other conclusion? 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. I would say—I would request that people look at performance, that you look at achievement. I would ask 

people to look at the fact that we flew Orion in December. We finished—— 

Chairman SMITH. But if you look at the budget, if you look at the 

budget and you’re cutting space and you’re increasing Earth 

Science, doesn’t that suggest that the Administration has a greater 

priority for Earth Science than Space? 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, if we look at the money, we 

spent—since this Administration has come into office, we have 

spent $49 billion on—— 

Chairman SMITH. I understand all that, but if you look at the 

cuts, don’t cuts mean something? 

General BOLDEN. Cuts mean that we are trying to effect—we are 

trying to select priorities and get the missions and the goals—— 

Chairman SMITH. That’s my point. Your priority is not space; it’s 

something else. 

General BOLDEN. Our priority is—our priority is very clear. We 

are on a journey to Mars. We are trying to continue to get support 

from this Congress and the Administration on that journey to 

Mars. We have demonstrated that we know what we’re doing. 

Chairman SMITH. Then why did you cut the Space programs? 

You have SLS slipping a year. You’re not going the right direction 

if Space is a priority. I’m not saying it’s not a priority but it’s less 

of a priority because of what those cuts represent. 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, we have provided an availability for launch date for SLS and the Exploration Ground Systems as we have gone through our formal process of evaluating 

schedules and—— 

Chairman SMITH. And it’s gone from 2017 to 2018. 

General BOLDEN. We never presented a formal finding. We did 

not go through the formal process when we came up with a date 

of 2017. It’s like Europa. I think I can do Europa in 2029. We will 

know—— 

Chairman SMITH. You don’t consider 2017 to 2018 to be a delay 

then? 

General BOLDEN. I do not consider it to be a delay, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. This may be the only Administration in history 

that doesn’t consider going from 2017 to 2018 being a delay. I happen to think it is. 

I’ll yield back. My time is expired. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this time the 

Chair recognizes Mr. Perlmutter for five minutes. 
49 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Bolden, good to see you. I do think that Chairman 

Smith and I are in total agreement on our desire to get our astronauts to Mars and to be very focused in that respect, and there are 

obviously other things that need to be done, whether it’s looking 

back at Earth or looking farther into space. I would take issue with 

a couple of my colleagues. You know, to me, NASA is by far the 

preeminent space exploration agency in the world. 

Now, I think what’s important, and I think the real problem 

here—and the Chairman and I have had this conversation—is that 

I think we can get to Mars, and I would like to see us accelerate 

the time frame of us getting to Mars and do the other things that 

are important in terms of weather satellites and a number of the 

other responsibilities that you all take on, and I’d like to pull up 

a chart, because I think this is the real problem, and we’ve had 

this conversation. 

So this is NASA’s budget as a percentage of the federal budget 

over the last 40 years, and so as a result, we see when in the early 

years in 1962 through 1968 where your budget peaked, which was 

our effort to get to the moon, and it succeeded. But we had as a 

nation, we had to dedicate ourselves to doing that, and it cost us 

money, and since then, we have not been prepared as a nation to 

make it the priority that it was back then, and so you then are in 

a position where you have finite resources, which I think are too 

low for your agency, if our goal is to get to Mars and get there 

sometime within my lifetime. You know, I want to see us get there 

by 2020. I have no idea exactly how you can do it but I want to 

make sure you have the resources to do it and to do the other 

things that are important to the mission, whether it’s MAVEN and 

understanding the atmosphere and what the heck happened as a 

precursor to us going to Mars. 

And so I’d like you just to kind of respond to my rant if you 

would, and your budget as a percentage of federal spending. 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, I appreciate your rant to be 

quite honest, and in many ways you’re correct. But I don’t want 

people to lose sight of what we’ve been doing over the last 40 years. 

We have been flying robotic precursors throughout this solar system for 40 some-odd years now. We have been on Mars, the only 

nation in the world to successfully land an operating vehicle on 

Mars. So those precursors are very important to our human journey to Mars. 

We can’t get there without the precursor missions because there 

are things we still don’t understand. We can’t get there without developing the technologies such as solar electric propulsion. We can’t 

get there without developing the techniques such as operating in 

and around low-gravity and no-gravity bodies, all things that the 

ARM mission we hope will do. We can’t get there without Commercial Crew and cargo. We have to get away from reliance on the 

Russians. 

When we lost Columbia, nobody planned for that. The only way 

we were able to sustain our occupancy of the International Space 

Station was to call on our partners the Russians and to rely on 

them for a period of time. That has been far too long. With the 

funding that this budget requested, we can return the launch of 
50 

our astronauts to American soil and that is absolutely critical. I 

don’t think—when it gets down to the basic fundamental question 

here, I don’t think there’s any disagreement between me and anybody on this panel. We all want to get humans to Mars. There is 

a correct way to do that and we cannot do it by saying we’re going 

to fly a one-way mission or we’re going to fly a solar electric propulsion vehicle out and bring it back. There is a progression through 

which we have to go. We’ve got to go from being Earth-reliant, go 

to the proving ground, and then get on out to Mars and be Marsready. And those are programs that are slow-developing that take 

time to make sure that we’re doing the right thing, and that’s what 

we’re doing. We—— 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. All right. Well—— 

General BOLDEN. We are trying to institute constancy of course. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Well, I do want to thank you and I felt it was 

a very successful mission, the first test flight of Orion, and I do 

want to see us accelerate. So to some degree I do agree with the 

Chairman. If we can continue to have our major focus getting to 

Mars, that’s what I would like to see it be. I think we’ve got to, 

if that’s the kind of mission and dedication we have, you have to 

see some increase in your budget so that we can do all the steps 

necessary to get us there and get us there promptly. Because if 

we’re going to really have a mission that the nation can embrace 

and embrace enthusiastically, like they did that first test flight, 

we’ve got to keep it moving. You can’t have too much time lag—— 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. —through this process. And with that, I have 

a whole bunch of other questions but I’ll save those for my next 

round. 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. And I yield back to the Chairman. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I want to thank the gentleman. 

At this time the Chair recognizes Mr. Rohrabacher for five minutes. 

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

The one thing that I’ve learned in my life is that people who try 

to do everything for everybody end up not being able to do anything for anybody. And that’s why it’s so important to make sure 

that we have goals in mind that are achievable as a package rather 

than just independently each goal is an important goal. And I 

would just have to say that I believe that we are not doing that. 

And I say ‘‘we.’’ I don’t mean just you. I mean all of us. We’re part 

of the team that’s—we are America’s space team and it’s not just 

NASA. It’s all of us in this committee as well. 

I think we have overreached and it will prevent us from accomplishing some very important goals that—we hear the arguments 

and I think they’re legitimate arguments about having NASA being 

involved in global warming research and other things that are 

not—shouldn’t be priorities. I understand the position you’re in and 

you’re doing a job in defending what the Administration’s goals are 

and the Administration hired you on to this job to do this. 

But let me just say I don’t think that we are going to achieve 

the goals, even the important goals, unless we start being more realistic. 
51 

Let me ask you. I of course have been one over the years promoting—rather than the trip to Mars I’ve been promoting, utilizing 

the commercial involvement in space in order to let us accomplish 

things that are accomplishable in space. And the Commercial Crew 

launch system, and by your own budgets have suggested that the 

idea of going the more commercial direction actually is a valid 

methodology of achieving our space goals, our certain space goals 

at a cost-effective way. 

And I understand that of course we’ve got—we’re now dependent 

on the Russians to buy six seats per year from the Russians in 

order to do—in order to maintain Space Station at a cost of $76 

million per seat, is that correct? 

General BOLDEN. That’s approximate, sir. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

General BOLDEN. Presently. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And basically we are looking forward to the 

fact that Commercial Crew, the Commercial Crew Program will 

free us from that obligation. And, however, just a two year delay 

in what we have expected from Commercial Crew, we have a two 

year delay. That by my calculation is $900 million extra that we’re 

spending for the Russians because the Commercial Crew formula 

has had to be pushed off for two years. Is that right? 

General BOLDEN. That is correct, sir, and that is a delay. When 

I came into this position and we presented the Commercial Crew 

Program to this Congress and the Administration, we proposed a 

level of funding that would have had us launching this year. We 

did not get that level of funding. We did not get the—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That’s correct. 

General BOLDEN. —continuous support, and so we now hope to 

launch in 2017. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well—— 

General BOLDEN. If we don’t get what we ask for this year, 

then—because we now are working on contracts—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, General, let me note that—I agree with 

what you’re saying, and the reason why we’ve had—we did—you 

didn’t get the money is because we’re draining money off for other 

projects like flying off to Mars in the long run and costing us almost a billion dollars because we haven’t—you know, we’re not 

doing things responsibly. That’s a billion-dollar waste as far as 

that—I’m concerned. 

And let me just put it this way. If you calculate that—if you are 

calculating that a Commercial Crew approach and doing this 

through a commercial rather than through the old system that we 

had is actually going to save money in the long run, why are we— 

and we’re pouring—at the same pouring money into global warming, but also in the SLS and the Mars concept of putting a man 

on Mars rather than just rely on robots. Don’t we have—there’s 

been some indication by one of the companies that’s providing us 

Commercial Crew, SpaceX, that the owner of that company has 

said, well, he himself is interested in financing a trip to Mars. So 

if we do—if we have recognized that there is validity to letting the 

private sector get involved in this, why are we spending so much 

in the long run on Mars, which is costing us money in the short 

run because we’re not budgeting correctly? Why don’t we just hold 
52 

off on spending money and going to Mars to see if the private sector can contribute to that effort? 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman—or Mr. Congressman, the reason we’re spending the money on it or we’re investing is because 

experience has told us that only nations do the things that we’re 

trying to do. Commercial companies will follow I hope. Commercial 

companies followed us to low-Earth orbit. We now have two companies that provide cargo support and hopefully two years from now 

will provide crew support. But that’s only because we blazed the 

trail. 

There is—I don’t care what anyone says. Getting to Mars is hard 

and there is no commercial company that without the support of 

the government and without the support of NASA is going to independently take a trip to Mars, so I would hope that no one on this 

Committee—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. The same—let me—— 

General BOLDEN. —buys into that. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So let me note that the same thing could 

have been said in terms of providing transportation to government 

programs for astronauts, the same thing could have been said 

about the commercial sector 10, 20 years ago. The private sector 

has a lot to contribute and I would hope that we don’t have our 

long-term projection into Mars as a government program doesn’t 

cost us these extra billions of dollars that could be put to use by 

NASA or by the private sector in accomplishing some goals right 

now. Thank you very much—— 

General BOLDEN. Yes. Thank you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I want to thank the gentleman. 

At this time the Chair recognizes the Ranking Member of the full 

committee, Mrs. Johnson. 

Mrs. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 

and I apologize for being late. I had an essential meeting that I had 

to attend. 

And let me welcome the Administrator and thank you for your 

long-time and continued service to this nation. 

As the Chairman and others have indicated, we’re here to review 

NASA’s fiscal year 2016 budget request. And before I discuss specifics, I’d like to say that I appreciate the President’s commitment 

to NASA as expressed in his budget request, as well as his support 

for R&D overall. It is clear that he understands the importance of 

investing in our nation’s R&D enterprise, of which NASA is a key 

component. 

So while I may differ on some of the specific funding decisions 

reflected in this budget request, I think that NASA’s overall request is a good starting point for our deliberations, and I hope that 

Congress will at least equal that budgetary top line, if not exceed 

it. 

Because the reality is that successive Congresses and Administrations have tasked NASA with a number of critical important endeavors and yet we have lagged in our providing the resources 

needed to carry them out. The truth is that NASA’s buying power 

has actually decreased, as it has been pointed out here, by 15 percent from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2013 and is expected to 
53 

continue to decline if the budgetary outlook doesn’t improve. So, 

Mr. Chairman, the hardworking men and women of NASA really 

does deserve better. 

Let me cite an example. Just about a year ago, a distinguished 

panel of the National Academies completed its review of the Nation’s Human Space Exploration Program. The panel was headed 

by former Governor and OMB Director Mitch Daniels, an individual well known for his fiscal conservatism, which makes the 

panel’s conclusions even more impressive, namely America’s 

Human Spaceflight Program is worth continuing. Mars is the appropriate goal. The government needs to come to a consensus on 

a pathway to Mars—and I don’t believe that commercial is going 

to happen until first the government reaches it, a set of interim 

destinations and milestones of course, and it’s going to require 

funding above the constant dollars if NASA is to succeed. 

So that’s pretty unambiguous advice that we have failed to follow. So it came as a bit of a shock to me that the very next budget 

request for NASA to be submitted after the report’s release would 

actually propose cutting the funding for the Space Launch System 

of Orion—two fundamental enabling elements of the Human Exploration Program—is directly counter to the National Academies’ 

findings, and I think that Congress needs to correct that. 

Neither has NASA yet told us how it plans to get to Mars. 

What’s the pathway or the roadmap? NASA needs to look beyond 

just the next four or five years and lay out the milestones it needs 

to pursue to get humans on Mars, as the National Academies panel 

made clear. Defining such a roadmap is not just for NASA’s benefit. None of what NASA has done has been for NASA’s benefit as 

such. It has benefitted our nation and our world. 

Congress and the American people will need to be confident that 

NASA has a well-thought-out plan if we are going to be able to sustain support for such an ambitious understanding over the coming 

years. I am sure we will discuss further during this hearing so I 

won’t pursue this any further now. 

NASA is a crown jewel of America’s research and development 

enterprise. It advances knowledge, promotes technological innovation, projects a positive image of America throughout the world, 

and inspires especially our young minds. Its workforce is dedicated 

and accomplished and I really do think that NASA deserves our 

support. 

I want to ask this question as my time is running out. How do 

NASA employees beyond your leadership feel in terms of their confidence of gaining greater steps towards reaching Mars and the 

goals for getting there when when we are not providing the adequate money? 

General BOLDEN. Congresswoman, I’m a person who believes in 

metrics. The best metric we have for how NASA employees feel is 

something that’s done by the Partnership for Public Service, and it 

results in a listing of best places to work in the Federal Government. For the last three years, the number one place to work in 

the Federal Government in our class has been NASA, and I think 

that speaks to the attitude, the enthusiasm, the excitement of the 

people in the agency. 
54 

I just came back from Georgia Tech last week. Young people 

want to come work for us because they’re excited about what we’re 

doing. And they want to do things that have not been done before. 

They are excited about Mars, and the workforce. There are all 

kinds of intangible things that you do that tell you what the attitude of a workforce is. If you go over there right now, we’re engaged in a fitness challenge that goes over the next two weeks or 

so, I mean people stepping in line as they order their sandwiches. 

That may not seem like a significant thing to most people, but to 

us, that says that we have a workforce of 18,000 people who are 

enthusiastic about what they’re doing, who are excited, and who 

believe we can deliver on the things that we say we can deliver. 

We’re on a journey to Mars. We have a plan to get there and we 

have delivered on that plan. As we go through the budget horizons, 

within the budget horizon we’ve flown Orion into space. We’ve tested the RS–25 rockets that are going to go on the first two missions. 

We’ve fired the solid rocket booster out in Utah. We have done the 

things that are inside the budget horizon because that was a concrete plan with money put toward it. 

We talk to your staffs about 20, 30 years out and so I would hope 

that they all were very much aware of the deliberations that were 

going on on the Asteroid Redirect Mission, the fact that we had two 

options—that we were looking at two options, that we came to the 

decision that we did because we were looking for the best option 

that supported the journey to Mars and kept us on that journey. 

So I hope that if you talk to any of my employees, they would 

tell that they’re excited about what we’re doing. 

Mrs. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you. My time is expired. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Johnson of Texas follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FULL COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Good morning, and welcome Administrator Bolden. I look forward to your testimony, and I thank you for your continued service to this nation. 

As the Chairman has indicated, we are here to review NASA’s Fiscal Year 2016 

budget request. Before I discuss specifics, I would like to say that I appreciate the 

President’s commitment to NASA as expressed in this budget request, as well as 

his support for R&D overall. It is clear that he understands the importance of investing in our nation’s R&D enterprise, of which NASA is a key component. So 

while I may differ on some of the specific funding decisions reflected in this budget 

request, I think that NASA’s overall request is a good starting point for our deliberations—and I hope that Congress will at least equal that budgetary top line, if 

not exceed it. Because the reality is that successive Congresses and Administrations 

have tasked NASA with a number of critically important endeavors, yet we have 

lagged in providing the resources needed to carry them out. The truth is that 

NASA’s ‘‘buying power’’ has actually decreased by15 percent from Fiscal Year 2005 

to Fiscal Year 2013 and is expected to continue to decline if the budgetary outlook 

doesn’t improve. Mr. Chairman, the hardworking women and men of NASA deserve 

better. 

Let me cite an example. Just about a year ago, a distinguished panel of the National Academies completed its review of the nation’s human space exploration program. The panel was headed by former governor and OMB Director Mitch Daniels, 

an individual well known for his fiscal conservatism. Which makes the panel’s conclusions even more impressive, namely: America’s human spaceflight program is 

worth continuing, Mars is the appropriate goal, the government needs to come to 

a consensus on a pathway to Mars—that is, a set of interim destinations and milestones—and it’s going to require funding above constant dollars if NASA is to succeed. 

That’s pretty unambiguous advice. 
55 

So it came as a bit of a shock to me that the very next budget request for NASA 

to be submitted after the report’s release would actually propose cutting the funding 

for the Space Launch System and Orion, two fundamental enabling elements of the 

human exploration program. It’s directly counter to the National Academies’ findings, and I think Congress needs to correct that. 

Neither has NASA yet told us how it plans to get to Mars-what’s the pathway 

or roadmap? NASA needs to look beyond just the next four or five years and lay 

out the milestones it needs to pursue to get humans on Mars. As the National Academies panel made clear, defining such a roadmap is not just for NASA’s benefit. 

Congress and the American people will need to be confident that NASA has a well 

thought-out plan if we are going to be able to sustain support for such an ambitious 

undertaking over the coming years. 

There are other examples in the budget request that I could cite as areas of concern: the cuts made to NASA’s Education program, to Aeronautics, and to Planetary 

Science, among others. However, I am sure we will discuss them further during the 

hearing, so I won’t pursue them here. Instead, I will close by 

saying again what I have said many times already: NASA is a crown jewel of 

America’s research and development enterprise. It advances knowledge, promotes 

technological innovation, projects a positive image of America throughout the world, 

and inspires. Its workforce is dedicated and accomplished. NASA deserves our support. 

Thank you, and I yield back the remainder of my time. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

At this time the Chair recognizes Mr. Lucas for five minutes. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, General, for being here today. 

Clearly, many of our colleagues are very concerned about how we 

not only maintain the flow of scientific accomplishments and the 

support of the American public, and a great deal of focus here has 

been on Mars and what it requires to get there. Let me take you 

back for a moment, though, a little closer to home and let’s talk 

about the James Webb Space Telescope. There are a few things I 

think that have caught the imagination of the public to the degree 

that the Hubble has over the course of the last 25 years, tremendous science. It’s also brought the American public along with us. 

James Webb, with its literally quantum leap forward, I personally 

believe has the ability to continue that attention span of the American public. 

But let’s talk for a moment about the process of getting that 

done, the delays we’ve gone through, the setbacks, some of the 

challenges with the cryocooler. Do you believe that the telescope 

will still be able to launch on schedule and still be within budget? 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Congressman, I firmly believe because I 

have personally been involved in the oversight of the James Webb 

Space Telescope from the time we brought our restructured plan to 

this Congress and to the White House. So I can speak with confidence that we’re on schedule and below cost right now for delivering James Webb in 2018. I think we will make that. 

You mentioned the cryocooler. That presented a technological 

challenge that, you know, we always know that they’re going to be 

difficult things but I work with Wes Bush, the Chairman of Northrop Grumman Corporation. We have telecoms every month because we both realize the significance of the James Webb Space 

Telescope. So it is something that I take very seriously and I think 

we’re going to launch in 2018. 

Mr. LUCAS. And the differences, of course, between Hubble and 

James Webb where we’re putting out in orbit, the fact that we can’t 

repair it, it has to be perfect the first time. 
56 

General BOLDEN. That’s the challenge. 

Mr. LUCAS. One of the miracles of NASA was the fix—— 

General BOLDEN. Yes. 

Mr. LUCAS. —on Hubble early on, one of the great accomplishments. 

Tell me, James Webb is a rather substantial portion of your 

budget and has been in recent years. Hopefully, we’re on the verge 

of completion of that. Where do you envision that slice of the pie 

winding up when it’s not committed to the development and the 

testing and the launching of James Webb? 

General BOLDEN. That slice of the pie that some people refer to 

as a wedge is what is now going into the planning for the nonbudget years, the out years, 20, 30 years out. And there are a number of projects that are being considered, WFIRST and AFTA, an 

advanced telescope for space, telescopes on the moon. There are 

any number of things that the science community has no shortage 

of ways that they would like to spend the wedge, but I assure you 

that we have what we call a strategic implementation planning 

process where we try to look at the things that come in—we help 

inform the decadal surveys which Chairman Smith referred to, but 

we will get input in the planetary decadal survey, for example, in 

2021. So we’re trying to do our research and inform them now such 

that when they recommend something to us, it is something that 

is achievable. 

Mr. LUCAS. Once again, Director, your personal involvement 

demonstrates the importance of the James Webb and—— 

General BOLDEN. Critically important. 

Mr. LUCAS. —enhances your level of confidence that we will get 

there on time, on budget, and in the way that we need to be. 

Let’s come even a little closer to home so to speak for just a moment to that and discuss the unmanned aerial systems. NASA is 

expected to build one, the UAS Traffic Management System, UTM, 

in FY 2016 to help integrate all of this into the National Airspace 

System. I guess my question is when we’ve talked about private 

challenges and opportunities in all of these areas, explain to me 

again why NASA is taking the lead on this traffic management instead of somebody in the private industry. 

General BOLDEN. Because we have the expertise. You know, if 

you look at the Langley Research Center and Ames Research Center and to some extent Glenn, we have the national capability, the 

national expertise is resident in NASA. We could pass it off to industry except people like working for us, and so people come to 

NASA when they want an answer about things that deal with aeronautics, and we’re very proud of the packages that we have delivered to the FAA and to the airlines, for example. 

There is an en route traffic management package that we delivered to the FAA that’s being tested by American Airlines primarily 

out of Dallas. I went down and worked with them or talked to them 

several months ago and they are thrilled with the package. We 

have a departure package that is in the hands of U.S. Airways 

down at Charlotte right now. We’re working on unmanned aerial 

systems trying to help the FAA go about revising their regulations 

so that people can get unmanned aerial systems into the National 

Air Transportation System. 
57 

Mr. LUCAS. Are you confident, General, that we’re going to wind 

up with a system that can support what potentially will be a very 

complex environment out there with the interest shown by industry 

and everyone? It’s hard to tell just where this—— 

General BOLDEN. Yes. 

Mr. LUCAS. —will ultimately lead to. 

General BOLDEN. I am very confident that we will make advances. I am not confident that we will stay ahead of industry and 

entrepreneurs. So, you know, as you said, NASA can only do so 

much. We work with the FAA, we work with the Department of 

Defense, we’re working with industry, we’re working with everyone, but the pace of spending on technology is not keeping up with 

the pace of innovation on the part of the private sector, and that’s 

why when we talk about needing money for NASA’s Space Technology Program, that is not just about space. The Space Technology 

Program looks across our—much of their work is done to support 

the Science Mission Directorate. We’ve got to put more money into 

technology development if we’re going to keep pace with the private 

sector. Otherwise, they’ll dwarf us. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, General. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman PALAZZO. At this time the Chair recognizes Mr. Knight 

for five minutes. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, General, I have a couple questions. I know a lot of people 

have been talking about the A in Aeronautics in NASA and so I 

have a few questions but I would like to make a couple comments 

that I do believe that it is a top goal to go to Mars. I think that 

that is a laudable goal for humankind. I think that over the last 

60 years we’ve seen quite a lot of jumps and leaps, and in your 

business you can’t jump a step because when you do, you lose data 

and you lose lives. So I understand that very well. 

There are a couple systems in aeronautics that have made our 

lives better and have made our war fighter better. And I know that 

Ranking Member Edwards hit on one with the winglets on our airliners. But you have a couple systems that have gone into place in 

the last couple years like our GCAT and our collision avoidance for 

our war fighter being now employed in our F–16s in their day-today efforts. And also with the F–15 sonic boom jousting that you 

did much testing on in the last five or ten years, which I appreciate 

because if you could ever do that, then I wouldn’t have a five hour 

flight back to California; I’d have an hour-and-a-half flight. 

So I appreciate all of those missions in aeronautics. I don’t appreciate the three percent budgeting for aeronautics, and I think that 

that’s a bone of contention probably with many people on this dais 

and I’m sure we can talk about that. 

But one of the programs that was talked about was the James 

Webb and it is true; once the Webb telescope goes, it’s gone. But 

there is a telescope that we bring back to Earth every day and we 

fly it about three or four times a week, and that’s SOFIA. SOFIA 

takes up fourth and fifth graders, teachers, and does great science 

projects about three or four times a week. It’s a joint mission with 

Germany. I know you know this very well. And Germany has just 
58 

placed a whole bunch of money in reconfiguring and redoing the 

SOFIA telescope. 

So I’d like to hear a little bit of the status of SOFIA, the future 

of SOFIA because there’s been such changes that we’re going to 

have a senior review by about ’18 or ’19, which would have been 

five years into the project, which is—that’s about right. And now 

we’ve heard that we’re going to be in spring of 2016, which is only 

two years into its fully operational period. So I’d like to hear just 

a little bit of status on SOFIA. 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, SOFIA is doing awesome, as you 

said. It represents a unique capability in that it is an airborne platform, and we can change out the instruments on it. That’s the advantage we have there. 

The reason that we moved the senior review up was very similar 

to the reason that we had an early senior review with Hubble. In 

the early days of Hubble the senior review was scheduled to be 

years away. We knew that we were going to want to upgrade the 

observatory, and in order to do that, the best way to do it was to 

hold a senior review to look at both the present performance but 

also what are the things that we need to be thinking about in the 

future to enhance its ability to perform. 

So the senior review is not just to determine whether or not it’s 

performing and whether it’s worth the money we spend on it but 

will also give us some guidance as we go forward about what we 

should think about for future instruments. So I would say, you 

know, an important part of the future of SOFIA is how much are 

our German partners going to be willing to put in because it is a 

partnership? It’s a critical partnership, but if they say that we’re 

not going to put in any more money so you pay for it, then that 

puts us at a—you know—— 

Mr. KNIGHT. No, sir, and I agree—— 

General BOLDEN. —a fiscal dilemma. 

Mr. KNIGHT. —it is a partnership and I think that their commitment, because of the refurb and all of the work that they’ve done 

in the last year is—but I will go back to aeronautics and talk about 

this just a little bit more in my last 45 seconds. 

You know, we’re going to move forward with other programs out 

in aeronautics and they’re going to enhance our lives and they’re 

going to help us survive in a crash, help us maybe maintain a better lifestyle. Intelligent flight control systems I know is something 

that NASA is working on and I appreciate NASA for doing digital 

fly-by-wire and all of the kind of experiments to get us up to this. 

So that’s what I will say. With the three percent—it doesn’t look 

like the commitment to aeronautics is as much as it has been in 

the last 40 years. And part of that might be because we don’t have 

a solid X–Plane mission. And if we would revisit the X–Plane mission, and I know that that’s something that you’ve talked about 

and I know that that’s something that NASA has talked about, but 

in today’s age an X–Plane mission might be a joint effort, not with 

the Air Force but with a private industry. And you’ve seen that 

with other things like the Dream Chaser or other programs. 

So that is my request that we revisit that. 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 
59 

Chairman PALAZZO. The Chair wants to recognize Mr. Johnson 

for five minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Bolden, you and I have had chances to talk. I think you 

know that I’m a big NASA fan, you know, from Buck Rogers to 

James Kirk to the real-life accomplishments of John Glenn and 

Neil Armstrong and so many other pioneers of space travel. I’m one 

who believes that regardless of the mission that the sciences, technologies, and great marvels of discovery that have been realized 

through our space program have bettered our country and have 

bettered the world in so many, many ways. 

So that is a backdrop for my questions. Just one right up front, 

General Bolden, does NASA believe, do you believe that the Asteroid Mission will help with planetary defense, which is contrary to 

the findings of the Small Bodies Assessment Group and the asteroid experts? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman Johnson, as I have said before, I 

don’t want to overpromise or over-commit but we believe that the 

Asteroid Redirect Mission, when flown and if the science is the way 

that we think it is will inform those who follow us in developing 

concrete technologies and systems to deflect asteroids or to protect 

the planet if you will. So it will contribute to our ability to deflect 

asteroids, and that’s why I told both Congressman Posey and Congressman Brooks, I can answer the question today. I couldn’t two 

years ago. We have a plan to do that. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Okay. General Bolden, you know, the 

United States is presently sanctioning the Russian Federation in 

the field of high-tech exports as a result of Russia’s actions in the 

Ukraine. Last summer, the Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry 

Rogozin even threatened to cut off American access to the Station 

saying that we could get there by jumping on a trampoline if we 

wanted to, what absurdity. 

If the Russian Federation followed through on these threats and 

withdrew cooperation, how would the Space Station be affected? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman Johnson, we have a plan today. 

When people ask me about my contingency plan, we’re two years 

away from having our own capability of sending our crews to the 

International Space Station. That will take us away from reliance 

on the Russians. We currently are—contrary to what’s in the paper 

and the political and diplomatic relations between the two countries, Station continues to be the perfect example, the role model 

if you will for international relations and collaboration and cooperation. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Let me point out, General Bolden, you 

know, in kind of an explanatory to what some of my colleagues 

have said. This is what we mean, what you just commented on 

there, that we’re two years away from being able to deliver to the 

Space Station ourselves. We can’t disregard what’s in the media. 

We can’t disregard the public perception. And when we tell you— 

and I’m one that agrees that we are and we will remain forever the 

premier space explorer in the world. I understand that. The general public does not. And when they see and they read in the media 

that we have to hitchhike with the Russians to the Space Station, 

that’s the perception that is out there. And you know as well as 
60 

I do that reality is oftentimes dictated by perception. It’s not reality. 

If absolutely necessary, then could Boeing or SpaceX send a 

human mission to the Space Station in the near future? 

General BOLDEN. No. If you’re calling the near future sooner 

than 2017, no. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Okay. All right. 

Do you think NASA could down-select to one provider immediately and devote all of its resources to be ready sooner, any plan 

mitigation that you could do to get us ready sooner? 

General BOLDEN. I think the path on which we are currently embarked with two providers, it maintains competition, it guarantees 

that I will have the safest vehicle possible, and I think if we downselected to one, it would not speed up the process at all. It may 

even slow it down because then that one provider becomes the monopoly that dictates to me what it can or can’t do and what it will 

and won’t do. 

We have fixed-price contracts with them today and I can tell you, 

it’s interesting to engage with the two providers in discussions 

about what we think the vehicle should be able to do because they 

know that if they don’t perform—you know, they have a contract 

right now that’s for up to six missions. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Um-hum. 

General BOLDEN. It is not a good business model to say I’m going 

to fly six missions and then I’m going to get out of this. So they 

all want to be the contractor for life for Commercial Crew. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. I get—— 

General BOLDEN. So they want to perform 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. I get that. And of course from your background you understand the relevance of the question. The Russians 

are getting increasingly testy with their rhetoric, with their boldness, with their trouncing upon their European friends and neighbors, everything from cutting off gas supplies to forcing us to jump 

on a trampoline to get to the Space Station. So what happens over 

the next two years if tomorrow the Russians were to say you’re 

out? What would we do? What’s NASA’s plan? 

General BOLDEN. Well, Congressman Johnson, first of all, the 

Russians can’t say you’re out because it’s not a Russian or an 

American space station. The Russians can decide to withdraw from 

the International Space Station, which we’d have to adjust, but as 

I have said before, we would not—— 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. But what if they were to say we’re not 

taking your people up there? What would happen? Because they 

could certainly say that. We might get mad about it and we might 

try to bring world pressure—— 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, I’m—— 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. —but in the time—— 

General BOLDEN. If—and I hate dealing in whatever we call 

them—— 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Now don’t go there because you—in your 

background you know you’ve got to have contingency plans for 

every—— 

General BOLDEN. And I do. And I do. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. —outcome. 
61 

General BOLDEN. And that’s why I said we have probably the 

best contingency plan possible, considering where this nation is, 

and that contingency plan is to fully support Boeing and SpaceX 

to flying in 2017. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. No, I’m asking you what you’re going to 

do over the next two years if the Russians say you’re not going 

with us. 

General BOLDEN. I am going to continue to work with my Russian partners to continue to encourage them to be as enthusiastic 

about maintaining the International Space Station as they are 

now. I would call it to everyone’s attention the same Deputy Prime 

Minister Rogozin who was going to put me on a trampoline 

Tweeted out after my meeting with my counterpart that the Russians had decided that it’s a good idea to stay with the Space Station until 2024. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Well, General, I’ll—— 

General BOLDEN. That’s what I do. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. I respect you greatly and I respect what 

NASA does, but what you’ve basically told me is that there is no 

option, there is no plan within the next two years if the Russians 

pull out, other than hoping like hell that they don’t. And I would 

say I understand the pressures that you’re under and I understand 

that that may be an avenue, but things have changed a lot over 

the last two years in our relationship with the Russians, and I 

hope somewhere in the dark rooms of NASA you guys are considering what we’re going to do if they pull the plug because they 

could. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman PALAZZO. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Babin for five 

minutes. 

Mr. BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Bolden, thank you for being here. 

Over the past several years, part of the NASA Authorization Act 

of 2010 NASA has been systematically reducing its footprint and 

operational costs by closing various facilities, laboratories, and test 

structures. And it leaves many in the ranks and surrounding communities to question if a center closure perhaps is next. 

Relative to the Johnson Space Center, which is in my district, 

Texas 36, are you aware of any organization, government, university, or private sector, proposed to any NASA officials or official at 

headquarters or at the center that management and operation centers be turned over to an academic institution or other entity similar to that of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory to operate as an 

FFRDC? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman Babin, I am aware that that is 

a recommendation that is out there forever. As long as I am the 

NASA Administrator, it is not a thing that I’m considering. So 

when you go back home to Houston, you can let people know there 

is no plan, not even the remotest plan to accept a recommendation 

from the experts that we turn JSC into an FFRDC. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. 

General BOLDEN. That is not going to happen, not on my watch. 

Mr. BABIN. Well, I’m glad to hear that because that’s—that is 

what’s floating around out there around JSC, I can tell you that. 
62 

All right. What is—what will—obviously your perspective on 

that, you obviously would not support that. That’s my—— 

General BOLDEN. I am saying the way that we’re organized 

today, we have something called TCAT. I hate to use another acronym. 

Mr. BABIN. Um-hum. 

General BOLDEN. We’re looking at our technical capabilities. 

We’re trying to find out how in this budget environment we maximize the utilization of the talent that we have, and that determines 

what we do to facilities. I see us reducing facility footprint everywhere because we don’t need the historic infrastructure that we’ve 

had. I do not see us reducing to the point where we close a center, 

not in the foreseeable future. 

I cannot say that, you know, down the road I don’t know what 

will come when someone else is sitting in this chair as the NASA 

Administrator, but there is nothing that we’ve done, no studies 

that we’ve conducted that say that would be the wise thing for us 

to do right now. We have one FFRDC. It is the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and that serves our purpose. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. Thank you. It’s good to hear that. 

All right. To follow up on my previous question, relative to the 

agency’s strategic planning and operational structure, are you confident that collectively the centers and their industry partners have 

the critical capabilities, resources, and infrastructure, as well as 

operational experience required to successfully implement the 

agency’s core missions and objectives? And that would include engineering, mission operations, training, research, and systems development. 

General BOLDEN. I’m confident that the pathway that we’re on, 

the budget that we have, and the pathway on which we’re embarked is actually shaped by the budget that we have, so that everybody remembers that. I’m confident that we have the right people, the right facilities, and the like. 

You’re probably aware, Dr. Ellen Ochoa, the Center Directorate 

at Johnson, made a major change in her organizational structure 

because she was trying to get to where she thinks we need to be 

to support an exploration program. So, you know, that’s the prerogative of the team in the local areas as to how they organize to best 

do—to help us accomplish the agency’s strategic mission. And she 

has to have the flexibility to do that. 

That causes, you know, a little kerfuffle because that means 

we’re not going to operate the same way we did yesterday, and I 

like the way we operated yesterday if I happen to be a person 

who’s affected by it. But all of our centers are making minor 

tweaks to be able to fit into the Mars pathway if you will. 

Mr. BABIN. Right. Okay. So would you agree that JSC has a 

unique role in NASA’s deep space exploration objective? 

General BOLDEN. Now, if Ellen Ochoa decided she was going to 

pull out of the International Space Station, I’d be affected. I’d be 

worried. That—they are vital—— 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. 

General BOLDEN. —you know. It’s not like a threat from Russia 

pulling out of the International Space Station. 

Mr. BABIN. Absolutely. 
63 

General BOLDEN. That’s where it’s run so that’s the reason 

that—you know, my contingency plan, again, going back to that, is 

to make sure that Ellen Ochoa and her team at the Johnson Space 

Center and Patrick Scheuermann and his team at Marshall, who 

happen to be the two primary centers for day-to-day operations of 

the International Space Station, make sure that they stay happy 

and appropriately occupied and manned is—I don’t know what the 

right term is—peopled—staffed. Staffed. 

Mr. BABIN. Staffed. 

General BOLDEN. And as long as Marshall is doing the science 

work for Station, and Johnson doing the human exploration, the 

human spaceflight preparation with our astronauts, as long as 

they’re doing what they’re doing and Kennedy Space Center is 

doing what it’s doing, all the centers continue to do what they’re 

doing today, then we’re strong and we will continue to be the dominant operator of the International Space Station on whom everyone 

depends, to include the Russians. 

So I appreciate everyone’s concern. You know, it would—I just 

appreciate everyone’s concern. 

Mr. BABIN. Absolutely, because there’s a lot of concerned people 

there. 

General BOLDEN. Yeah. 

Mr. BABIN. Thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I want to thank the gentleman. 

I also want to remind the Administrator that Goddard Space 

Flight Center and Stennis Space Center—I know, you just—you 

mentioned the other—— 

General BOLDEN. I said all the other centers. I didn’t want to— 

because I can’t always remember all nine—— 

Chairman PALAZZO. It’s like a grandfather trying to remember 

all of his grandkids’ names. 

General BOLDEN. That’s true. All I need to do is look in front of 

me. 

Chairman PALAZZO. It’s—— 

General BOLDEN. Stennis—— 

Chairman PALAZZO. I’ve witnessed that personally—— 

General BOLDEN. As you know, Mr. Chairman—— 

Chairman PALAZZO. —by my parents—— 

General BOLDEN. —everything that goes through space goes 

through Mississippi, as we say at Stennis. 

Mr. BABIN. And, Mr. Chairman, I’m fixing to have a grandkid 

today. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Congratulations. 

Mr. BABIN. Thank you. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Congratulations. 

In closing, I want to follow up on your exchange with Chairman 

Smith. You said that you never formally committed to the 2017 

launch date for EM–1. However, you have testified before this committee that the President’s budget request for fiscal year ’14 and 

fiscal year ’15 would keep the EM–1 launch date for 2017. You 

even told this committee that if Congress gave you $300 million 

more, you wouldn’t notice it. 
64 

NASA could have presented Congress with a budget that kept 

the 2017 date, but instead they chose to delay the program, and 

I hope we can work together to keep SLS on track. 

With that, I want to thank General Bolden for his testimony and 

the Members for their questions. The record will remain open for 

two weeks for additional written comments and written questions 

from Members. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

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

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 10:52 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(65) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
66 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by General Charles F. Bolden, Jr. 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
(161) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
162 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY FULL COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Good morning, and welcome Administrator Bolden. I look forward to your testimony, and I thank you for your continued service 

to this nation. 

As the Chairman has indicated, we are here to review NASA’s 

Fiscal Year 2016 budget request. Before I discuss specifics, I would 

like to say that I appreciate the President’s commitment to NASA 

as expressed in this budget request, as well as his support for R&D 

overall. It is clear that he understands the importance of investing 

in our nation’s R&D enterprise, of which NASA is a key component. 

So while I may differ on some of the specific funding decisions 

reflected in this budget request, I think that NASA’s overall request is a good starting point for our deliberations-and I hope that 

Congress will at least equal that budgetary top line, if not exceed 

it. Because the reality is that successive Congresses and Administrations have tasked NASA with a number of critically important 

endeavors, yet we have lagged in providing the resources needed to 

carry them out. The truth is that NASA’s ‘‘buying power’’ has actually decreased by15 percent from Fiscal Year 2005 to Fiscal Year 

2013 and is expected to continue to decline if the budgetary outlook 

doesn’t improve. Mr. Chairman, the hardworking women and men 

of NASA deserve better. 

Let me cite an example. Just about a year ago, a distinguished 

panel of the National Academies completed its review of the nation’s human space exploration program. The panel was headed by 

former governor and OMB Director Mitch Daniels, an individual 

well known for his fiscal conservatism. Which makes the panel’s 

conclusions even more impressive, namely: America’s human 

spaceflight program is worth continuing, Mars is the appropriate 

goal, the government needs to come to a consensus on a pathway 

to Mars-that is, a set of interim destinations and milestones—and 

it’s going to require funding above constant dollars if NASA is to 

succeed. 

That’s pretty unambiguous advice. 

So it came as a bit of a shock to me that the very next budget 

request for NASA to be submitted after the report’s release would 

actually propose cutting the funding for the Space Launch System 

and Orion, two fundamental enabling elements of the human exploration program. It’s directly counter to the National Academies’ 

findings, and I think Congress needs to correct that. 

Neither has NASA yet told us how it plans to get to Mars— 

what’s the pathway or roadmap? NASA needs to look beyond just 

the next four or five years and lay out the milestones it needs to 

pursue to get humans on Mars. As the National Academies panel 

made clear, defining such a roadmap is not just for NASA’s benefit. 

Congress and the American people will need to be confident that 

NASA has a well thought-out plan if we are going to be able to sustain support for such an ambitious undertaking over the coming 

years. 

There are other examples in the budget request that I could cite 

as areas of concern: the cuts made to NASA’s Education program, 

to Aeronautics, and to Planetary Science, among others. However, 
163 

I am sure we will discuss them further during the hearing, so I 

won’t pursue them here. Instead, I will close by saying again what 

I have said many times already: NASA is a crown jewel of America’s research and development enterprise. It advances knowledge, 

promotes technological innovation, projects a positive image of 

America throughout the world, and inspires. Its workforce is dedicated and accomplished.NASA deserves our support. 

Thank you, and I yield back the remainder of my time. 

Æ