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

93–883PDF 2015

BRIDGING THE GAP: 

AMERICA’S WEATHER SATELLITES 

AND WEATHER FORECASTING 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT & 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 12, 2015 

Serial No. 114–5 

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. 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL 

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 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

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 ENVIRONMENT

HON. JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

JOHN MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

HON. BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DON BEYER, Virginia 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

February 12, 2015 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Jim Bridenstine, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House 

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13 

Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Enviorment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 14 

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

Statement by Representative Barry Loudermilk, Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Oversight, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House 

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 17 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 18 

Statement by Representative Donald S. Beyer, Jr, Ranking Minority Member, 

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

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 19 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 20 

Witnesses: 

Mr. David Powner, Director, Information Technology Management Issues, 

Government Accountability Office 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 21 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 24 

Dr. Stephen Volz, Assistant Administrator, National Environmental Satellite, 

Data, and Information Services, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 49 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 52 

Mr. Steven Clarke, Director, Joint Agency Satellite Division, National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 66 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 68 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 72 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Mr. David Powner, Director, Information Technology Management Issues, 

Government Accountability Office ...................................................................... 98 

Dr. Stephen Volz, Assistant Administrator, National Environmental Satellite, 

Data, and Information Services, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ................................................................................................................. 102 

Mr. Steven Clarke, Director, Joint Agency Satellite Division, National Aeronautics and Space Administration ...................................................................... 120 
Page

IV 

Dr. Alexander MacDonald, President, American Meteorological Society; Director, Earth System Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration; and Chief Science Advisor, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ............. 128 

Mr. John Murphy, Director, Office of Science and Technology, National 

Weather Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ............ 137 
(1) 

BRIDGING THE GAP: 

AMERICA’S WEATHER SATELLITES 

AND WEATHER FORECASTING 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT & 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim Bridenstine 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. The Subcommittees on the Environment 

and Oversight will come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of 

the Subcommittee at any time. Is there any objection? No objection. 

Good morning. Welcome to the today’s hearing: ‘‘Bridging the 

Gap: America’s Weather Satellites and Weather Forecasting.’’ In 

front of you are packets containing the written testimony, biographies, and Truth in Testimony disclosures for today’s witnesses. 

For opening statements, I will recognize myself for five minutes 

and then I will turn to the Ranking Member and the Chairman on 

Oversight and the Ranking Member on Oversight. 

Good morning, and welcome to the first Environment Subcommittee hearing for the 114th Congress. I want to thank the Full 

Committee Chairman, Lamar Smith, for his continued leadership. 

I would like to congratulate Mr. Loudermilk of Georgia for his 

assignment as the Chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee. Welcome, and congratulations. 

I would like to welcome back the Ranking Member, Ms. Bonamici 

of Oregon, who I look forward to working with in this Congress, 

and we have worked very well together in the past and looking forward to another great Congress. 

And I would like to congratulate Mr. Beyer of Virginia for his assignment as the Ranking Member of Oversight on this Subcommittee, so congratulations and welcome. 

This Committee has held numerous hearings over the years on 

NOAA’s weather satellite programs. Today we continue this oversight by examining the status of NOAA’s two primary satellite systems, the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) and the Geostationary Environmental Operational Satellite System (GOES). 

These satellites collect vital data that is fed into the numerical 

weather models that are used by meteorologists to make our forecasts, and where I come from in the great State of Oklahoma, critically important data for predicting thunderstorms and tornados. 

These two programs comprise the lion’s share of funding for 

NESDIS, the satellite office at NOAA. In the newly released Fiscal 

Year 2016 budget request, NESDIS accounts for over $2 billion, 

roughly 40 percent of the NOAA’s total budget. Just seven years 

ago, in 2008, NOAA’s budget for satellites was less than $1 billion 

and was roughly one-quarter of NOAA’s overall spending. The 

NESDIS budget has grown dramatically over the last decade. 

In addition, recent reports from the GAO highlight continuing 

challenges with NOAA’s satellite programs. The JPSS program has 

been plagued with increasing costs and delays, meaning we are 

probably facing a gap in satellite coverage and data. Estimates of 

the data gap range from an optimistic three months in some cases 

to possibly as much as five years, depending on circumstances, in 

the worst-case scenario outlined by the GAO. With a gap, our ability to predict weather would be dramatically degraded, putting 

lives and property in danger. This is especially important to me, as 

my home state is Oklahoma, and we are regularly ravaged by tornados. 

Likewise, the GOES program has also experienced increasing 

lifecycle costs and project delays. With the first satellite launch 

now pushed back to March 2016, it is important that the program 
13 

adhere to its already-delayed schedule and prevent another gap in 

satellite coverage and data. 

Given the criticality of JPSS and GOES to our forecasts, it is imperative we ensure these programs receive the adequate support 

and oversight to avoid further delays and costs overruns. 

I hope we can use this hearing to determine how to keep these 

programs from slipping further and mitigate any possible gaps. 

However, the failures of these programs to stay on track so far 

highlight a recent track record for our satellite programs that is 

less than good, and that the paradigm of owning and operating 

large monolithic satellites might not be the way forward. 

To address this problem, we should look to augment our satellite 

systems through commercial means, just as the Department of Defense and NASA have done. There is a burgeoning commercial industry that has incredible potential to assist us in providing accurate information to protect American lives and property, 

disaggregate risk, and save the taxpayers’ dollars. We need to have 

the most resilient space-based weather data architecture ever. Instead of continuing down the path of large government-owned satellites that are prone to cost overruns and delays, as we look forward into the future, we must look outside the box for new methods of providing essential weather data. For example, there are private companies such as PlanetIQ, Spire, GeoOptics, Tempus Global 

Data and HySpecIQ that have plans to launch constellations of 

GPS Radio Occultation and Hyperspectral Sounding satellites, two 

sources of data that can greatly enhance our forecasting ability. 

Considering options that reduce the burden on massive government 

satellite systems will allow us to more accurately predict weather 

in future architecture paradigms. 

It has become increasingly difficult to remain optimistic about 

the future of U.S. weather forecasting, which currently lags behind 

the UK, Europe, and Canada in terms of accuracy, when we have 

satellite programs that are plagued with increasing costs and perpetual delays. The prospect of gaps in satellite data are even higher. We need to look for ways to reduce government burdens and 

eliminate these types of problems while increasing our ability to 

protect American lives and property. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and I would 

like to recognize our Ranking Member, the gentlelady from Oregon, 

for an opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bridenstine follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

CHAIRMAN JIM BRIDENSTINE

Good morning and welcome to the first Environment Subcommittee hearing of the 

114th Congress. I want to thank the Full Committee Chairman, Lamar Smith, for 

his continued leadership. I’d like to congratulate Mr. Loudermilk of Georgia for his 

assignment as the Chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee. Finally, I also want 

to welcome back the ranking member, Ms. Bonamici of Oregon, with whom I have 

worked closely during my time in Congress. I look forward to working with you this 

Congress. 

This Committee has held numerous hearings over the years on NOAA’s weather 

satellite programs. Today we continue this oversight by examining the status of 

NOAA’s two primary satellite systems, the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) and 

the Geostationary Environmental Operational Satellite System (GOES). These sat-
14 

ellites collect vital data that is fed into numerical weather models used by meteorologists to make our forecasts. 

These two programs comprise the lion’s share of funding for NESDIS, the satellite 

office at NOAA. In the newly released Fiscal Year 2016 budget request, NESDIS 

accounts for over $2 billion dollars, roughly 40% of the NOAA’s total budget. Just 

seven years ago, in 2008, NOAA’s budget for satellites was less than $1 billion and 

was roughly one-quarter of NOAA’s overall spending. The NESDIS budget has 

grown dramatically over the last decade. 

In addition, recent reports from the Government Accountability Office highlight 

continuing challenges with NOAA’s satellite programs. The JPSS program has been 

plagued with increasing costs and delays, meaning we are probably facing a gap in 

satellite coverage and data. Estimates of the data gap range from an optimistic 

three months, to possibly five years in the worst case scenario outlined by GAO. 

With a gap, our ability to predict weather would be dramatically degraded, putting 

lives and property in danger. 

This is especially important to me, as my home state of Oklahoma is regularly 

ravaged by tornadoes. Likewise, the GOES program has also experienced increasing 

life-cycle costs and project delays. With the first satellite launch now pushed back 

to March 2016, it is important that the program adhere to its already-delayed schedule to prevent another gap in satellite coverage and data. 

Given the criticality of JPSS and GOES to our forecasts, it is imperative we ensure these programs receive the adequate support and oversight to avoid further 

delays and costs overruns. I hope we can use this hearing to determine how to keep 

these programs from slipping further and mitigate any possible gaps. 

However, the failures of these programs to stay on track so far highlight a recent 

track record for our satellite programs that is poor, and that the paradigm of owning and operating large monolithic satellites is broken. To address this problem, we 

should look to augment our satellite systems through commercial means, just as the 

Department of Defense and NASA have done. There is a burgeoning commercial industry that has incredible potential to assist us in providing accurate information 

to protect American lives and property, disaggregate risk, and save the taxpayers’ 

dollars. We need to have the most resilient space-based architecture possible. 

Instead of continuing down the path of large government-owned satellites that are 

prone to cost overruns and delays, we must look outside the box for new methods 

of providing essential weather data. For example, there are private companies such 

as PlanetIQ, Spire, GeoOptics, Tempus Global Data and HySpecIQ that have plans 

to launch constellations of GPS Radio Occultation and Hyperspectral Sounding satellites, two sources of data that can greatly enhance our forecasting ability. Considering options that reduce the burden on massive government satellite systems will 

allow us to more accurately predict the weather. 

It has become increasingly difficult to remain optimistic about the future of U.S. 

weather forecasting, which currently lags behind the UK, Europe, and Canada in 

terms of accuracy, when we have satellite programs that are plagued with increasing costs and perpetual delays. The prospect of gaps in satellite data is higher than 

ever. We need to look for ways to reduce government burdens and eliminate these 

types of problems while increasing our ability to protect American lives and property. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want 

to begin this morning by offering my congratulations to you, Mr. 

Bridenstine, and to our new Oversight Subcommittee Chairman, 

Mr. Loudermilk, and to our Oversight Ranking Member, Mr. Beyer. 

I would also like to extend a warm welcome to all of the new Subcommittee members. We are very fortunate to have the opportunity 

to serve on the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and 

to help shape policies that are critical to the long-term health and 

prosperity of the Nation. 

This morning’s hearing is a fitting way to undertake our work. 

Oversight of NOAA’s weather satellites has been a longstanding bipartisan effort of this Committee, spanning many Administrations 

and sessions of Congress, and it is my hope that this hearing is 

just the beginning of a productive and bipartisan working relationship. 
15 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I doubt that the average American spends 

much time thinking about the weather satellites managed by 

NOAA. We might, but I do know that one of the first things many 

of us do each morning is turn on the television or get on the internet or our favorite app to read the day’s weather forecast, and that 

is because weather is important, affecting everything from our commute to the food on our table. In fact, a 2009 study from the American Meteorological Society stated that U.S. weather forecasts generated $31.5 billion in profits compared to costs of $5.1 billion. 

On this Committee, we have worked on finding ways to improve 

forecasting to protect the American people and the economy from 

the impacts of severe weather, and I am proud to be working the 

Chairman on bipartisan legislation, the Weather Forecasting Improvement Act, to advance NOAA’s weather research enterprise 

and improve the products and services offered by the National 

Weather Service. That effort is important and ongoing. 

But meanwhile, any loss of coverage from the polar satellites or 

the geostationary satellites would have very serious consequences 

regarding the accuracy and timeliness of our weather forecasts and 

the capabilities of the Weather Service. Unfortunately, years of 

trouble and mismanagement in the polar satellite program mean 

that we will have a gap in coverage within the next decade, with 

the worst-case scenario being a gap lasting more than five years. 

In addition, there remains a chance that we face a gap in geostationary satellite coverage as well. 

I am certain that we will hear from today’s witnesses about 

progress that has been made in this area, and I am pleased that 

NOAA and NASA are working to get these programs back on track. 

I applaud you for your efforts, but we are here today to emphasize 

the importance of maintaining focus on getting these programs 

where they need to be to protect American people and our economy. 

It may be possible to reduce the gap in coverage if there is optimal 

performance by our current satellites that enables them to greatly 

exceed their design lives. Additionally, if JPSS–1 and GOES–R 

launch on time, that may reduce the gap in coverage. It is still important that prudent managers have plans in place in the event of 

failure, and it is also critical that any gap mitigation strategy is 

well developed and ready to implement. 

Unfortunately, the testimony today from GAO highlights a number of concerns with these contingency plans, specifically with 

NOAA’s plans to respond to the near-term data gap for our polar 

satellites. 

So the questions and issues for our witnesses today are quite 

simple: How can we best minimize the duration and impact of a 

gap in the polar program? How can we avoid a gap in the geostationary program? And are plans to fill gaps in coverage appropriately mature, prioritized, and ready to implement? 

The American public may not spend much time thinking about 

where their weather forecasts come from, but they will notice if 

those forecasts aren’t reliable. I am looking forward to hearing 

from the witnesses from GAO, NOAA and NASA to discuss how 

their agencies’ plans to address the looming gap in satellite coverage. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 
16 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

MINORITY RANKING MEMBER SUZANNE BONAMICI

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to begin this morning by offering my congratulations to you, Mr. Bridenstine, the new Chairman of the Environment Subcommittee, to our new Oversight Subcommittee Chairman, Mr. Loudermilk (Loudermilk), and to new Oversight Ranking Member Mr. Beyer. I’d also like to extend a 

warm welcome to all of the new Subcommittee members. We are fortunate to have 

the opportunity to serve on the Science Committee and to help shape policies that 

are critical to the long-term health and prosperity of the nation. 

This morning’s hearing is a fitting way to undertake our work. Oversight of 

NOAA’s weather satellites has been a long-standing bipartisan effort of this Committee—spanning many Administrations and sessions of Congress. It’s my hope that 

this hearing is just the beginning of a productive and bipartisan working relationship. 

Mr. Chairman, I doubt the average American spends much time thinking about 

the weather satellites managed by NOAA, but I do know one of the first things 

many of us do each morning is turn on the television or get on the internet or our 

favorite phone app to read the day’s weather forecast. 

That’s because weather is important, affecting everything from our commute to 

the food on our table. In fact, a 2009 study from the American Meteorological Society stated that U.S. weather forecasts generated $31.5 billion in benefits compared 

to costs of $5.1 billion. 

On this Committee, we have worked on finding ways to improve forecasting to 

protect the American people and the economy from the impacts of severe weather. 

I am proud to be working the Chairman on bipartisan legislation, the Weather Forecasting Improvement Act, to advance NOAA’s weather research enterprise and improve the products and services offered by the National Weather Service. That effort 

is important and ongoing. 

But meanwhile any loss of coverage from the polar satellites or the geostationary 

satellites would have very serious consequences regarding the accuracy and timeliness of our weather forecasts and the capabilities of the Weather Service. 

Unfortunately, years of trouble and mismanagement in the polar satellite program mean that we will have a gap in coverage within the next decade, with the 

worst case scenario being a gap lasting more than five years. In addition, there remains a chance that we face a gap in geostationary satellite coverage as well. 

I am certain that we will hear from today’s witnesses about the significant 

progress that’s been made in this area, and I am pleased that NOAA and NASA 

are working to get these programs back on track. I applaud you for your efforts, 

but we are here today to emphasize the importance of maintaining focus on getting 

these programs where they need to be to protect American people and our economy. 

It may be possible to reduce the gap in coverage if there is ptimal performance 

by our current satellites that enables them to greatly exceed their design lives. Additionally, if JPSS-1 and GOES-R launch on time, that may reduce the gap in coverage. It’s still important, that prudent managers have plans in the event of failure, 

and it’s also critical that any gap mitigation strategy is well developed andready to 

implement. 

Unfortunately, the testimony today from GAO highlights a number of concerns 

with these contingency plans, specifically with NOAA’s plans to respond to the nearterm data gap for our polar satellites. 

The questions for our witnesses today are simple: How can we best minimize the 

duration and impact of a gap in the polar program? How can we avoid a gap in the 

geostationary program? And, are plans to fill gaps in coverage appropriately mature, 

prioritized, and ready to implement? 

The American public may not spend much time thinking about where their weather forecasts come from, but they will notice if those forecasts aren’t reliable. I’m 

looking forward to hearing the witnesses from GAO, NOAA, and NASA discuss the 

agencies’ plan of action to address the looming gap in satellite coverage. 

I’m also interested in learning how NOAA and NASA are working to ensure that 

we don’t face a similar situation in the future. The President’s fiscal year 2016 

budget request includes $380 million for a Polar Follow-On program. How will this 

program make our satellite program more robust? Do we need to rethink or modify 

the model we use for acquiring weather data? 
17 

Mr. Chairman, let me end by again offering my congratulations. I look forward 

to working with you and the Subcommittee on important issues like those we are 

discussing today. Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. I now recognize the Chair of the Oversight Committee, the gentleman from 

Georgia, for an opening statement. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

and congratulations to you, the Ranking Members of both Subcommittees, and especially thank the members of the Oversight 

Subcommittee for being here today. 

And Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. 

This is our first joint Environmental and Oversight Committee 

hearing of the 114th Congress, and I look forward to working with 

you on the oversight of environmental issues important to all of us. 

We are here today to hear from GAO, NOAA, and NASA regarding the progress of NOAA’s polar orbiting and geostationary satellite programs, respectively JPSS and GOES–R, as well as how 

the data collected by weather satellites turns into weather forecasts 

depended on by so many in the United States, and quite frankly, 

around the entire world. 

GAO recently published a report detailing its concern that the 

NOAA polar satellite program, JPSS, is facing an unprecedented 

gap in satellite data. GAO believes that, while JPSS remains within its new lifecycle cost estimate and schedule baselines, recent 

rises in component costs and technical issues during development 

increase the likelihood of a near-term data gap. Additionally, although NOAA has recently reduced its estimated potential gap 

from fifteen to only three months, GAO notes that this assessment 

was based on incomplete data, such as the risks posed by space debris to satellite hardware. GAO estimates in its report that a data 

gap may occur earlier and last longer than NOAA anticipates. 

Perhaps even more troubling is the potential data gap facing 

NOAA’s GOES–R program, the geostationary satellite system. 

Since its inception, the GOES–R program has undergone significant increases in cost and reductions in scope, and as GAO’s report 

indicates, NOAA has yet to reverse or even halt this trend. The 

program was originally planned to launch mid-2012, a date that 

has now been pushed back to March of 2016. NOAA will retire one 

of its two operational satellites this year and move its backup satellite into orbit. This means we will face a period of up to 17 

months without a backup satellite in orbit. 

History has shown us that backups are sometimes necessary to 

reduce risk to public safety and the economy. In 2008 and 2012, 

the agency was forced to use backup satellites to cover problems 

with operational satellites, a solution we may once again find ourselves needing. 

When talking about the consequences of a gap in weather data, 

the first thought in the minds of many is of the devastating effects 

of extreme weather on the ground. My professional and personal 

history, however, demands that I discuss another type of weather 

with which I have quite a bit of experience, and that is aviation 

weather. 

As a private pilot, I know the importance of having accurate and 

timely weather forecasts to assess flying conditions. Pilots must 
18 

evaluate conditions on the ground and in the sky throughout the 

entire flight process, from preflight planning to takeoff and landing. If a pilot does not know which aviation-specific weather conditions to expect, such as embedded thunderstorms, turbulence, and 

freeze levels, that pilot runs the risk of what we call getting behind 

the plane. That is a general aviation phrase which means that the 

plane is responding to the weather and the pilot is responding to 

the plane, and that is a situation that spells trouble for even the 

most seasoned pilots. 

From this perspective, you can see how a gap in weather data, 

and consequently less accurate forecasts, could negatively affect not 

only commercial flight safety, but also the $1.5 trillion in total economic activity that the aviation industry contributes to the national economy. 

I hope that today’s hearing will shed some light on the complex 

issue and cost demands facing NOAA’s weather satellite programs 

and that the Subcommittees will walk away better equipped to consider these issues moving forward. 

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

[The prepared statement of Mr. Loudermilk follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN BARRY LOUDERMILK

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing today. This 

is our first joint Environment and Oversight Subcommittee hearing of the 114th 

Congress, and I look forward to working with you on the oversight of environmental 

issues important to us both. 

We are here today to hear from GAO, NOAA, and NASA regarding the progress 

of NOAA’s polar orbiting and geostationary satellite programs, respectively JPSS 

and GOES-R, as well as how the data collected by weather satellites turns into 

weather forecasts depended on by so many in the United States, and quite frankly, 

around the world. 

GAO recently published a report detailing its concern that the NOAA polar satellite program, JPSS, is facing an unprecedented gap in satellite data. GAO believes 

that, while JPSS remains within its new lifecycle cost estimate and schedule baselines, recent rises in component costs and technical issues during development increase the likelihood of a near-term data gap. Additionally, although NOAA has recently reduced its estimated potential gap from 15 to only 3 months, GAO notes that 

this assessment was based on incomplete data, such as the risks posed by space debris to satellite hardware. GAO estimates in its report that a data gap may occur 

earlier and last longer than NOAA anticipates. 

Perhaps even more troubling is the potential data gap facing NOAA’s GOES-R 

program, the geostationary satellite system. Since its inception, the GOES-R program has undergone significant increases in cost and reductions in scope, and as 

GAO’s report indicates, NOAA has yet to reverse or even halt this trend. The program was originally planned to launch mid-2012, a date that has now been pushed 

back to March of 2016. NOAA will retire one of its two operational satellites this 

year and move its backup satellite into orbit. This means we will face a period of 

up to 17 months without a backup satellite in orbit. History has shown us that 

backups are sometimes necessary to reduce risk to public safety and the economy. 

In 2008 and 2012, the agency was forced to use backup satellites to cover problems 

with operational satellites, a solution we may once again find ourselves needing. 

When talking about the consequences of a gap in weather data, the first thought 

in the minds of many is of the devastating effects of extreme weather on the ground. 

My professional and personal history, however, demands that I discuss another type 

of weather with which I have quite a bit of experience: aviation weather. As a private pilot, I know the importance of having accurate and timely weather forecasts 

to assess flying conditions. Pilots must evaluate conditions on the ground and in the 

sky throughout the entire flight process, from takeoff to landing. If a pilot does not 

know which aviationspecific weather conditions to expect, such as embedded thunderstorms, turbulence, and freeze levels, that pilot runs the risk of ‘‘getting behind 

the plane,’’ a general aviation phrase which means that the plane is responding to 
19 

the weather and the pilot is responding to the plane, a situation that spells trouble 

for even the most seasoned pilots. 

From this perspective, you can see how a gap in weather data, and consequently 

less-accurate forecasts, could negatively affect not only commercial flight safety, but 

also the $1.5 trillion in total economic activity that the aviation industry contributes 

to the national economy. 

I hope that today’s hearing will shed some light on the complex schedule and cost 

demands facing NOAA’s weather satellite programs and that the Subcommittees 

will walk away better equipped to consider these issues moving forward. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Mr. Loudermilk. I now recognize the Ranking Member from the Subcommittee on Oversight, 

the gentleman from Virginia, for an opening statement. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to add my 

congratulations to Chairman Bridenstine and Chairman 

Loudermilk, and we are really looking forward to working with 

you. I am thrilled to work with Ranking Member Bonamici, and 

just join myself with all the comments welcoming the various folks. 

I am told that historically, this Committee has been a haven of 

bipartisanship, and in the area of oversight, I really hope that we 

can work together to improve the quality of government services 

and protect taxpayer interests, and from my side, I am really looking forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the 

aisle. 

You know, six years ago I had the remarkable responsibility to 

lead the transition team for President-Elect Obama at the Department of Commerce. Seventy-seven days, 6:00 in the morning until 

midnight. I learned to drink coffee for the first time. And I very 

quickly discovered that the number one problem in the Department 

of Commerce were the weather satellites, that the things we saw 

were the cost overruns were many multiples of the original idea. 

There were no reliable launch dates at all. We couldn’t get the 

equipment to work. The satellites were loaded up with lots and lots 

of different ideas but none of which could work out. They had this 

tripartite management system with DoD, NASA and NOAA, and no 

one was in charge, so it was actually very encouraging to see how 

far we have come in these six years to have narrowed it to where 

we are. 

But we still had a rocky acquisition with the new series of 

weather satellites, and the polar orbiting satellites especially have 

been troubled. Costs have doubled. The money is now buying just 

two satellites instead of the original intention to acquire six, and 

the satellites that fly will be less capable because the instruments 

are going to be reduced from 13 down to just 5, and they are still 

years behind schedule. 

By comparison, the geostationary satellites seem to be models of 

efficiency, but they too have had trouble too with cost growth and 

areas of delays. As satellites that have a critical role in weather 

forecasting, losing coverage of either system could have serious, 

perhaps catastrophic effects on public safety. Both the Joint Polar 

Satellite System and the Geostationary Operational Environmental 

Satellites face this possibility of a gap in coverage, and I hope that 

if we learn only one thing today, learning how to really address 

this gap, will help us go forward. 

At this point, the only way to avoid the gap is to be very, very 

lucky, and that is not a really good plan. You know, the problem 
20 

is that the cost of these satellites distorts all the rest of NOAA’s 

budget and limits the agency’s resources for the many, many other 

important functions that they have—research into weather, oceans, 

climate science. Surely NOAA understands that the JPSS program 

represents a failure and an unsustainable model, so going forward, 

we have to find a more efficient, reliable means to put these instruments into orbit, and Mr. Chairman, I was interested in your alternatives. 

GAO has been working with this Committee on these satellite 

programs for ten years. Without their expert and committed assistance, the Congress and the public would know far less about the 

risks in these programs. Every GAO product and team has to be 

measured on its own terms, but this group that has been working 

on the satellites system is among our very best, and I think the 

Committee has to be very grateful for their service. 

For all the lessons that can be learned from the JPSS and GOES 

acquisitions, the most important immediate challenge has to be to 

complete both projects as expeditiously as possible. It is great that 

we have a pretty reliable launch date, but we have got to get them 

in orbit, checked out, and bring their data online as quickly as possible, and after years of truly worrisome reports, it appears that 

NOAA and NASA have good management teams in place and the 

contractors are now delivering as promised, and the Committee 

wants to be as helpful and supportive as we can as we reach this 

last stretch going into launch. 

At the same time, the news from GAO that NOAA is not well positioned on the data-gap mitigation plans in place is disappointing, 

and I hope we learn more today about we are going to do that. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Beyer follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

MINORITY RANKING MEMBER DONALD S. BEYER, JR. 

I want to associate myself with the comments from my colleague, Ranking Member Bonamici, in welcoming everyone. I am told that historically, this Committee 

has been a haven of bipartisanship. In the area of oversight, I hope that we can 

work together to improve the quality of government services and protect taxpayer 

interests. I am looking forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the 

aisle. 

NOAA has had a rocky acquisition with the new series of weather satellites. The 

Polar Orbiting satellites have been particularly troubled. The costs have doubled. 

More money is buying just two satellites instead of the original intention to acquire 

six satellites. The satellites that fly will be less capable, with instruments reduced 

from 13 to just 5. Finally, the satellites are years behind schedule. By comparison, 

the Geostationary satellites are models of efficiency, but they have had trouble too 

with cost growth in some areas and delays. 

As satellites that have a critical role in weather forecasting, losing coverage of either system could have serious, perhaps catastrophic effects on public safety. Both 

the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) and the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES) face a possibility of a gap in coverage—with the risks on 

JPSS being so high that a gap appears to be almost unavoidable. At this point, the 

only way to avoid such a gap is to be very, very lucky. Luck is not a plan, and bad 

luck is as probable as good luck. 

The cost of these satellites distorts NOAA’s budget, and limits the agency’s resources for weather forecasting and important research into weather, oceans and climate science. Surely NOAA understands that the JPSS program represents a failure and an unsustainable model. Going forward the agency has to find a more efficient, more reliable means to put its instruments on orbit. 
21 

GAO has been working with this Committee on these satellite programs for ten 

years. Without their expert and committed assistance, the Congress and the public 

would know far less about the risks in these programs. Every GAO product, and 

team, has to be measured on its own terms. The group that has worked on the satellites system is among the best this Committee has ever worked with and we are 

very grateful for your help. 

For all the lessons that can be learned from the JPSS and GOES acquisitions, 

the most important immediate challenge has to be to complete both projects as expeditiously as possible. We must get working satellites on orbit, checked out, and 

bring their data on-line as quickly as possible. 

After years of truly worrisome reports, it appears that NOAA and NASA have 

good management teams in place and the contractors are now delivering as promised. The Committee wants to be helpful and supportive as we reach the last stretch 

going into launch. 

At the same time, the news from GAO that NOAA is not well positioned with 

data-gap mitigation plans in place is disappointing. This is an issue I want to hear 

more about and I hope we can leave this hearing with a clear commitment to preparing for what to do should the worst happen. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Mr. Beyer. 

If there are other Members who wish to submit additional opening statements, your statements will be added to the record at this 

point. 

At this time I would like to introduce our witnesses. Our first 

witness today is Mr. David Powner, Director of Information Technology Management Issues at the GAO. Our second witness is Dr. 

Stephen Volz, Assistant Administrator of the National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service—NESDIS—at the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—NOAA. Our 

third witness today is Mr. Steven Clarke, Director of the Joint 

Agency Satellite Division at the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration. We will also be joined for questioning by Dr. Alexander MacDonald, Director of the Earth System Research Laboratory at NOAA, Chief Science Advisor for NOAA’s Office of Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Research, and this year’s President of the American Meteorological Society. Finally, we are joined for questioning 

by Mr. John Murphy, Director of the Office of Science and Technology at the National Weather Service for NOAA. Thank you, gentlemen, for all being here. 

Pursuant to the Committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in 

before they testify, so if you would please stand up and raise your 

right hand? Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony 

that you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and 

nothing but the truth, so help you God? You may be seated. Let 

the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

Thank you. 

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

five minutes for your opening statements. Your entire written 

statement will be made part of the record. 

I now recognize Mr. Powner for five minutes to present his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. DAVID POWNER, DIRECTOR, 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT ISSUES, 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. POWNER. Chairmen Bridenstine, Loudermilk, Ranking Members Bonamici, Beyer, and Members of the Subcommittees, two 

years ago, GAO added potential gaps in weather satellite coverage 
22 

in consultation with this Committee as a high-risk area demanding 

immediate attention from NOAA management. 

Gaps in weather satellite coverage are likely and could affect 

lives and our economy. This morning I will provide a brief update 

on these gaps, contingency plans to address the gaps, and an update on the JPSS and GOES satellite acquisitions. Starting with JPSS, an $11.3 billion acquisition that is to result 

in two polar orbiting satellites expected to be launched in March 

2017 and December 2021. There has been significant progress on 

both the flight and ground components, and the program is expecting to meet its cost and schedule targets. However, since July 2013, 

cost estimates have gone up two percent, or over $220 million. The 

ATMS and CriS instruments have had the most significant increases. Although this doesn’t sound like much, if this cost growth 

continued annually, the program would surpass its cost baseline by 

2018 and end up costing $2 billion more through 2025. 

The launch date of March 2017 looks good, but a key instrument 

to watch is ATMS. Its delivery slipped 12 months to March 2015 

as we reported last month but we have now learned that there is 

another three month slip to June. Schedule reserves continue to 

dwindle, and oversight of this June delivery is very important to 

make sure that the March 2017 launch date holds. 

A key risk to the current operational satellites to note is space 

debris. NASA recently updated its assessment of orbital debris, 

which concluded an increased likelihood at the altitude where the 

JPSS satellites operate. The current operational satellite that was 

originally intended as a demonstration satellite was not built with 

the appropriate shielding to protect against small debris the way 

the first JPSS satellite is currently being constructed. 

The likely gap in satellite coverage is 11 months. The current 

operational satellite is expected to last through October 2016, and 

with the March 2017 planned launch date and the six month 

checkout, NOAA could very well be facing a gap in coverage from 

October 2016 through September 2017, as shown on the one-page 

summary in my written statement. Any issues with space debris or 

delays in the JPSS launch or the checkout period would result in 

a larger gap. 

Multiple alternatives exist to prevent or reduce the impact of the 

gap. The best alternatives according to experts include extending 

the use of legacy satellites like POES and obtaining data from European mid-morning satellites, obtaining additional observations 

from commercial aircraft and radio occultation, enhancing forecast 

models, and increasingly high-performance computing capacity. 

NOAA has improved its satellite gap contingency plans by, 

among other things, adding more alternatives, which now total 21 

mitigation projects. However, there are three things we would like 

to see more done. 

NOAA needs to, one, update its polar satellite gap assessment to 

include changes in the current satellite’s expected lifespan; two, revise its contingency plan to include an assessment of alternatives 

based on cost, and three, prioritize the mitigation projects in its 

plan. 

Moving now to GOES, a $10.8 billion acquisition that will result 

in four geostationary satellites with the first expected to be 
23 

launched in March 2016. The GOES program continues to make 

excellent progress as all six satellite—as all six instruments have 

completed testing and the program is well into the integration and 

testing phases. The program is currently operating within its $10.8 

billion lifecycle cost estimate but we saw a slight increases in both 

the ground system and two instruments but we think overall the 

program is on solid cost footing. 

We have more doubts whether GOES will meet its scheduled 

launch date because we are seeing delays in key testing dates and 

also because the spacecraft integration testing has moved to 24 

hours a day, seven days a week testing schedule. Maintaining this 

March 2016 launch date is crucial because an operational GOES 

satellite is expected to reach the end of its useful life by April of 

this year, and GOES–R is expected to have a 6-month checkout period. Therefore, there may be no backup from April 2015 through 

September 2016. GOES’s latest contingency plan released in February of 2014 overall looks very good but we would like to see more 

focus on preventing additional launch delays. 

In summary, on the JPSS, we have more concerns about cost and 

schedule, while on GOES we are more concerned about the launch 

date. Both programs are likely to face gaps, and improvements to 

contingency plans need to continue. 

This concludes my statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Powner follows:] 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Mr. Powner. 

I now recognize Dr. Volz for five minutes to present his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. STEPHEN VOLZ, 

ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, 

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE, 

DATA, AND INFORMATION SERVICES, 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 

Dr. VOLZ. Good morning, Chairmen Bridenstine and Loudermilk, 

Ranking Members Bonamici and Beyer, and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here today along with my colleagues 

from NOAA, John Murphy and Sandy MacDonald. All of us share 

a desire to ensure that the JPSS and GOES–R series programs are 

successful and support the Nation’s weather enterprise. 

We appreciate that Congress is supportive of NOAA’s programs 

in the Fiscal Year 2015 appropriations bill. With these resources, 

NOAA will continue to provide environmental intelligence that is 

timely, accurate, actionable, reliable space-based information that 

citizens, communities and businesses need to stay safe and to operate efficiently. 

Funding stability is essential for NOAA to maintain our operational readiness and to continue our progress in our critical research programs. For the NOAA satellite portfolio, we will provide 

continuous satellite data for current operations while maintaining 

essential satellite development to ensure the continuity of service 

to our customers and users into the future. 

Every day, decisions are made by citizens and individuals and 

businesses based on the weather forecast, and we understand and 

appreciate it is our responsibility to operate the satellites that provide those data that go into the weather forecast. Our current operational geostationary and polar orbiting satellites provide on a 24– 

7 basis the space-based weather data required to support the 

weather enterprise of both the National Weather Service and the 

private weather industry. Research like in Sandy MacDonald’s organization and in academia use these satellite data to develop 

products that can help the weather forecasters in John Murphy’s 

organization produce those improved forecasts. And just yesterday, 

working together, NOAA, NASA and the Air Force launched the 

Deep Space Climate Observatory, or DSCOVR satellite on a 

SpaceX rocket from Cape Canaveral and it is now on its way to its 

observation point a million miles away from the Earth. 

DSCOVR is a NOAA-operated follow-on to NASA’s Advanced 

Composition Explorer, or ACE satellite, and as our buoy in space 

for geomagnetic storm warnings, the DSCOVR satellite will provide 

critical in situ data of these approaching solar storms in NOAA’s 

Space Weather Prediction Center, or SWPC, and SWPC and the 

NWS provides the alerts, forecasts and warnings to commercial 

users, customers such as the aviation industry, telecommunications, operators of the electrical grid system, all of whom could 

be significantly affected by such events. 

Turning to the GOES–R series and JPSS satellites that are the 

focus of this meeting, I am pleased to report that these programs 
50 

are making excellent progress towards their launch dates. About 

this time next year, we will be preparing GOES–R at Cape Canaveral for its launch in March of 2016. GOES–R, the first in a series 

of four satellites with significant enhanced capabilities over the 

current GOES satellites, will continue NOAA’s satellite provisions 

of 24/7 constant monitoring of the Atlantic Ocean, the continental 

United States, Hawaii, California and the Pacific Ocean for weather. Through ongoing work at the GOES–R proving ground, we are 

providing simulated GOES–R data to users now so that they will 

be ready for the real data flow immediately after launch and instrument commission in 2016. 

NOAA announced recently that GOES–R satellite will be placed 

into operational service immediately following its initial onboard 

checkout period, again to ensure these measurements are made 

available to the Federal and public users immediately. 

Moving to JPSS, by March 2017 the second satellite in the JPSS 

program, JPSS–1, will be launched. The launch of JPSS–1 will continue the numerical—the gains in numerical weather prediction 

modeling that we have benefited from since the Suomi NPP satellite was launched four years ago. The high-resolution sounders on 

Suomi NPP, ATMS and CriS, have provided immediate benefits to 

the quality of the NWS weather prediction models and ultimately 

the weather forecasts we all depend on. 

In addition, the VIIRS imager on Suomi NPP has brought much 

improved observations of sea ice in the Alaskan and Arctic waters. 

The NWS and the U.S. Coast Guard are using blended products 

from VIIRS and commercially purchased synthetic aperture radar 

data to better map the ice and warn boats to avoid water where 

sea ice hazards exist. 

The joint NASA–NOAA JPSS team has completed the procurement activities for the JPSS–2 instruments to accelerate the 

launch date for that mission. NESDIS is also advancing the development of the ground system for the COSMIC–2 radio occultation 

mission. This mission, which will be launched in 2016 in partnership with the U.S. Air Force and the National Space Organization 

of Taiwan, will provide thousands of critical radio occultation 

sightings per day and making a significant contribution to the 

NWS weather models. 

In their reports, Mr. Powner and his staff have provided a number of observations along with specific recommendations from their 

most recent reviews of the GOES–R and JPSS programs. We value 

the dialog with the GAO as well as with other independent reviewers. As I have noted from my years with NASA, preparing for review is more benefit sometimes than actually the review itself. We 

concur with their assessments about the importance of these missions and need to stay vigilant and focused on mission success as 

indicated in the recommendations, and we folded those recommendations into our implementation plans moving forward. 

In conclusion, these important programs, GOES–R and JPSS, 

have benefited from the best experience of NOAA, NASA and our 

aerospace partners and are making strong and consistent progress 

towards launch. Data from the satellites will support the complex 

process of developing the weather forecast in a three to seven seven 

day period. We believe these satellite programs have potential for 
51 

success and to be able to provide the information needed for decision-making. 

Thank you, and I look forward to answering questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Volz follows:] 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you for your testimony, Dr. Volz. 

Mr. Clarke, you are recognized for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. STEVEN CLARKE, DIRECTOR, 

JOINT AGENCY SATELLITE DIVISION, 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. CLARKE. Chairmen, Ranking Members and other Members of 

the Subcommittees, good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to appear today to provide you information regarding 

NASA’s role in and commitment to NOAA’s Joint Polar Satellite 

System (JPSS) and Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R (GOES–R) series programs. 

JPSS and GOES–R programs are critical to the nation’s weather 

forecasting system, environmental monitoring and research activities. NASA and NOAA have been partners for more than 40 years 

in developing the nation’s polar and geosynchronous weather satellites. 

Following the restructure of the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) program in 

2010, NASA and NOAA returned to the successful partnership for 

JPSS. A NASA program office for JPSS was created and is staffed 

with a complement of NASA’s civil servants and contractors. NOAA 

and NASA established joint agency-level program management 

councils to oversee JPSS and GOES–R and have integrated their 

decision-making processes to efficiently and effectively manage this 

cooperative activity. 

The NASA and NOAA teams have continually demonstrated a 

strong working relationship over the last four years, and as Dr. 

Volz mentioned, I am very pleased and proud the NASA and NOAA 

team in partnership with the U.S. Air Force and SpaceX in launching the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR), which will 

maintain the Nation’s real-time solar wind monitoring capabilities. 

These measurements are critical to the accuracy and lead time of 

space weather alerts and forecasts. Once it reaches its destination 

at the first Sun-Earth Lagrangian point L–1, DSCOVR will help 

provide timely and accurate warnings of space weather events like 

the geomagnetic storms caused by changes in solar wind, which 

have the potential to disrupt nearly every major public infrastructure system, including power grids, telecommunications, aviation 

and the Global Positioning System (GPS). 

Additionally, in the past four years of our partnership, NASA 

and NOAA have successfully launched the Suomi National Polarorbiting Partnership (NPP) mission and the Total Solar Irridiance 

Calibration Transfer Experiment (TCTE) payload. Suomi NPP celebrated its three-year on-orbit anniversary this past October, providing operational data to NOAA for use in weather forecasting. 

The satellite was developed to extend the record of key observations from the NASA Earth Observing System series of satellites 

and to demonstrate spaceflight and ground data-processing technologies for the next generation of operational polar-orbiting meteorological satellites. 

The JPSS–1 mission is on track towards the planned secondquarter Fiscal Year 2017 launch. The spacecraft Integration Readiness Review was completed in December and both the Clouds and 
67 

Earth Radiant Energy System (CERES) and the Ozone Mapping 

and Profiler Suite-Nadir (OMPS–N) instruments have been fully 

integrated with the spacecraft. The Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) and Cross-track Infrared Sounder (CrIS) instruments have completed environmental testing and are ready for 

installation onto the JPSS spacecraft. 

The GOES–R series program of four geosynchronous satellites 

continues to make progress toward launching GOES–R, the first 

satellite of the series, in the second quarter of Fiscal Year 2016, 

and manufacturing GOES–S, the second satellite of the series, with 

a planned launch date in the third quarter of Fiscal Year 2017. 

Last year, the GOES–R Series Program successfully completed the 

GOES–R spacecraft Mission Operations Review and System Integration Review, allowing the spacecraft to enter the assembly, integration and test phase. 

NASA and NOAA are committed to the JPSS and GOES–R programs, and ensuring the success of these programs is essential to 

both agencies and the Nation. The NASA and NOAA teams have 

established strong working relationships and are striving to ensure 

that weather and environmental monitoring requirements are met 

on the most efficient schedule without reducing system capabilities. 

I am confident the NASA/NOAA partnership will successfully develop and deliver the next-generation polar and geosynchronous 

weather satellites to our Nation. 

Mr. Chairmen and Ranking Members, I appreciate the continued 

support of these Subcommittees and the Congress, and would be 

pleased to respond to any questions you or the other Members of 

the Subcommittees may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Clarke follows:] 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. 

Members are reminded that the Committee rules limit questioning to five minutes. I will now recognize myself for five minutes 

of questioning. 

Dr. Volz, I have heard some of my colleagues suggest that NASA 

should be in charge of procuring satellites and NOAA should be in 

charge of operating weather satellites. Clearly, you have a background that include both NASA and NOAA. What are your 

thoughts on this? 

Dr. VOLZ. Mr. Bridenstine, I think specifically NASA and NOAA 

are working together and in a very productive relationship now. 

NASA is the development agency for us. They do the satellite systems engineering, the mission systems engineering, the project 

management of all of our large satellite systems, but in a close 

partnership relationship with NOAA. So with NOAA being responsible for the program—overall program from the initiation to the 

requirements to the decisions based on what performance the satellites are expected and need to provide to the implementation of 

the data products, the analysis, the user community supporting the 

mission weather projects and all that. So it is—to separate those, 

the beginning-to-end responsibility of NOAA as the eventual provider of the weather predictions, the weather forecasts from the actual implementation would be generally a very—would be a poor 

choice to make. 

The partnership now does recognize the skills of both agencies, 

NASA as a very strong research and development organization 

with systems engineering and mission development experience and 

NOAA as the weather service, the weather provider, the agency 

that knows the requirements and has the community outreach and 

engagement to provide the weather products into the future. 

So such a partnership—a change in the partnership would be 

to—would adversely affect the performance, I think, of our agency, 

of NOAA’s ability to meets its requirements and deliver the services to the Nation. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Is it safe to say that if NOAA is responsible for generating the requirements, they should also be in charge 

of the budget and maybe not NASA? NASA can do the actual technical innovation but NOAA would be responsible for the budget? 

Dr. VOLZ. That is fair to say, sir, but when you actually are implementing a satellite program, it is not a question of just setting 

a set of requirements, handing it over and coming back when the 

satellite is delivered. The development, as we have seen in these 

programs, of satellites takes many years and innumerable trades 

that are made during the design, development and testing phase 

which may affect the ultimate performance of the satellite. So it is 

not a simple question of just setting something and waiting for the 

delivery. There is an iterative process which involves active engagement between the user community that will use the eventual 

product coming out of it and the implementers, so that is why the 

partnership as it is written where NASA is at the table with NOAA 

through all of those major decision points in the development of the 

satellite is really critical, and yes, the budget should be on the side 

of the organization that is responsible for the requirements but the 
73 

management and the execution requires a very close coordination 

throughout the development process of the system as well. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Got it. Thank you. 

Mr. Powner, you mentioned in your testimony that yesterday the 

GAO released its 2015 High Risk Report. JPSS was included on 

that report as was GOES. In 2013, when you were before this Committee, you suggested that the likelihood of a satellite data gap was 

ten out of ten. Do you stand by that assessment today? 

Mr. POWNER. I still say there is a very high probability of the gap 

if you go with the best data, and the best data is NPP lasts until 

October 2016 and you don’t launch until March 17 and you have 

a six month checkout. Now, there have been a lot of discussions 

about NPP lasting longer, but if you look at NOAA’s budget submission for Fiscal Year 2016, they are still showing a one-year gap 

based on that data. 

So we go with the best data that the experts out there have to 

say, so I still think it is prudent to go with expected life and not 

bet that it is going to last longer than what the experts are telling 

us. Now, if there is new news, that would be good to know, but I 

think you need to plan accordingly or you are kind of playing with 

fire. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I am down to one minute to go. 

Dr. Volz, do you have a comment on that? 

Dr. VOLZ. Yes. I think the point that Mr. Powner made, that the 

plans show the mission life design life as the endpoint of a satellite 

is an appropriate way to manage a program. You manage a program assuming a design life, and you should be prepared for a gap 

whether it occurs at any point. We could lose a satellite at any 

point because of orbital debris or other points. You should have 

contingencies in place to make sure that you can handle such a loss 

of any asset in space, a functionally redundant or a reliable system 

overall. 

Now, the actual performance of Suomi NPP, which we update 

every year based on performance, shows that our expectation is it 

will last much longer than 2016. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t 

prepare for mitigations for potential gap but we don’t expect that 

to happen but that doesn’t mean we don’t plan for it. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Got it. Okay. So I have got 15 seconds. 

Suomi NPP, you just mentioned, obviously was not built for an 

operational capacity but a test capacity yet it is operating right 

now as an operational satellite. If we knew it had operational capabilities, why was it not originally designed to be an operational satellite? 

Dr. VOLZ. Suomi NPP was initially intended to be a test bed development demonstration project, was actually called an NPOESS 

preparatory project before—that was the NPP—and was intended 

to give an on-orbit performance demonstration of the key NPOESS, 

which would have been the NPOESS instruments, those five instruments that are on there now. During the redefinition of the 

NPOESS program, as Mr. Beyer referenced, in 2007 and 2008, 

Suomi NPP was already in development, the instruments were 

being built, and it was determined it would be necessary as an 

operational—to be used operationally even though it was a research satellite. That doesn’t mean that all the efforts didn’t go into 
74 

making the instruments as accurate and careful as we could, the 

spacecraft built to NASA standards as a very high-quality instrument and spacecraft, but it was not intended from its initial inception to be in operation. It was supposed to be a demonstration. It 

is—we have many examples where research satellites are being 

used for operational purposes such as the AIRS instrument on 

MODIS. It is used operationally but it wasn’t designed to be an 

operational asset to begin with. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Dr. Volz. I now recognize 

the Ranking Member, Ms. Bonamici, for five minutes. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for your testimony and for defining your acronyms, 

which in the interest of time, I am not going to do. 

So I wanted to really zero in on who is responsible for what. As 

I understand it, NOAA’s mitigation activities really fall into two 

categories: preventing or limiting a gap, and reducing a gap if or 

when one does occur. So Dr. Volz, Dr. MacDonald, Mr. Murphy, 

could you really talk about who at NOAA is responsible for coordinating and managing mitigation activities? 

Dr. VOLZ. I will take that first and then I will turn it over to my 

colleagues. 

The preparation for and the activities around preventing a gap 

and mitigating the impact of a gap is a NOAA responsibility. On 

a regular basis, we report directly up to the Deputy Under Secretary for Operations on a monthly basis. John can talk about the 

more frequent meetings on the NWS side of the house. So we 

have—it is a NOAA responsibility but there are elements that are 

accomplished within the NESDIS organization, my organization, 

some within Sandy MacDonald’s organization, some within John’s 

as well, but we all integratedly in an integrated fashion report up 

the chain on a regular basis on how all of these different activities 

are progressing. 

So I am responsible on the NESDIS side for extending satellite 

life, preparing the ground systems for the next generation, making 

sure JPSS–1 stays on schedule and is delivered on schedule, and 

I can let John Murphy talk about the NWS side. 

Ms. BONAMICI. That would be terrific, and I want to save time 

for another couple questions. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, ma’am. I just want to thank the Congress actually for Sandy supplemental funds that really enabled us 

to accelerate a lot of development activity that answered the call 

for mitigation efforts so things like aircraft data, we are now receiving additional aircraft data as a result of those funds. They are 

flowing into our system. They are being processed. So that is one 

example. 

Getting back to, you know, the responsibility, since the very beginning of discussions of the mitigation activities, the individual 

line offices—I am the representative for the Weather Service but 

I have been meeting with my colleagues in the other line offices in 

NOAA on a weekly basis to discuss the various projects within the 

line offices and how they complement and work together with each 

other and execute, and as Dr. Volz said, we report to our AAs on 

a monthly basis and up to the Director of Operations on a quarterly basis and report to the Hill as well on a quarterly basis. 
75 

Ms. BONAMICI. Terrific. I am going to let Dr. MacDonald take a 

stab at this. 

Dr. MACDONALD. Just quickly. The Sandy supplemental allowed 

us to work on both the assimilation and the models really effectively, so there are some improvements that we are going to see in 

the relatively near future that I think will really help with the gap. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Terrific. And one of the things that Mr. Powner 

said in his testimony was, one of the approaches is increasing highperformance computing capacity, and it is my understanding that 

a lot of the work in that area was from the Sandy supplemental. 

Are there still needs in increasing high-performance computing capacity that can help mitigate any gap? Dr. Volz? 

Dr. VOLZ. I would turn that one over to John from the computing 

side or from Sandy. 

Mr. MURPHY. I will take the first stab and let Sandy back me 

since he has really got the expertise here, but there is always a 

need for more computing power. Right now we got a real shot in 

the arm and a big leap in our operational supercomputing and now 

there is a need to keep balance between the research computing 

and the operational computing, and so with all the supercomputing 

we have right now, we are going from 700 teraflops to 500 

petaflops, and I know that doesn’t mean anything to anybody other 

than it is a huge jump in capability, and when you look at that 

five, that five has to be split between the primary system and the 

backup system if you have true operational computing so that you 

never have a down time, so that all went on—— 

Ms. BONAMICI. I don’t mean to cut you off but I wanted to get 

another question in. I just wanted to get some input on that. 

So a constituent of mine in Oregon recently contacted my office 

and brought to my attention that there is a gap in radar coverage 

along the Oregon coast. So as Dr. Volz noted in his testimony, 

radar coverage and satellite data combine to make nowcasting of 

severe weather events possible. So I am concerned about the hole 

in radar coverage but it is particularly worrisome when considered 

alongside a gap in satellite coverage. So any gap in GOES coverage, especially an extended one, could have serious consequences 

for the safety of my constituents and the health of the economy. 

So can you please describe what risk factors are most likely to 

cause a delay in GOES, and is this gap in radar coverage something that we can address? 

Dr. VOLZ. From the GOES satellite point of view, I agree with 

Mr. Powner that the largest single risk for the successful launch 

of GOES in March of 2016 is the compressed schedule we have 

right now. All systems, all instruments have been integrated to the 

spacecraft. The spacecraft subsystems are all together and we are 

now entering what we call the acceptance test and launch operations phase, which is very compressed. It is a very aggressive 

schedule, but the team is working hard and is focused on that. So 

I think that is the largest risk on the flight side of the house. 

We have the amount of reserves that are expected and recommended by NASA guidelines, and we follow the NASA standards 

because they were the ones who built the spacecraft for us, but we 

think that is definitely the largest watch item. 
76 

Do I think it is a significant risk? I would say no, not in the absolute value. I don’t think it is going to—it is so large that I am worried about the March 16 launch date but it is our largest risk and 

is something the team is focusing their efforts and activities on. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, and I yield back. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you. I would like to recognize Mr. 

Loudermilk, Chairman of the Oversight Committee, for five minutes. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 

all the witnesses who have come today. This is enlightening, and 

I know we have got to find ways to go forward that are much better. 

Most of what we have talked about today is the possibility of 

gaps in extreme weather forecasting and the effects it has had on 

public safety which is our greatest concern, but there is another 

side of this as well, and that is the effect it could have on the U.S. 

economy. 

In 1997, I personally experienced that when the Hughes satellite, 

I believe a communications satellite, spun out of control. Being in 

the IT services business, we ended up spending almost a month 

helping industries and businesses reposition their satellite dishes 

to a backup satellite. I saw that that gap in service cost these industries millions of dollars in down time, in lost productivity. Retailers were not able to connect back to their systems. 

This is for anyone on the panel, have we done any estimates on 

what a gap in this data would do to U.S. economy? 

Mr. POWNER. I think one of the best examples if you look back 

at Superstorm Sandy when there was a post-evaluation of that and 

you took the polar data out of that forecast, it showed—and that 

forecast was right on. The location, the intensity and the timing 

forecast was spot on, and it helped move a lot of people to safe 

areas and save lives. If you take the polar data out of that forecast, 

it shows that storm dying 100 miles out at sea, so that is the importance of the polar data in terms of predicting severe storms. 

Dr. VOLZ. And I think I would add to that, as Mr. Powner just 

said, it is the community’s reaction to the weather forecast that we 

provide that allows them to mitigate what might be great big cost 

increases. For example, the recent snowstorm in New York, the responses in the community—the immediate responders can make 

choices and decisions which can lessen the impact of the storm’s effect on all of us. 

So the loss of a complete asset, a complete satellite system, 

would be very significant, devastating, but the responsibility of our 

organization is to make sure that loss of any particular element 

doesn’t cause that kind of impact, and that is the benefit of generating a resilient system which is single-fault tolerant, as we say. 

You can lose any asset and still provide the bulk of the return and 

the needs that we have, and that is the objective of building a more 

robust global—I mean geo and low-earth orbit system is that we 

are fault-tolerant. It is not preventing all of them but we are tolerant to failures in any single system so that we don’t have those impacts hitting. 
77 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Besides the extreme weather, you know, basically what we were talking about here was Sandy and other issues, 

there is weather that we don’t consider extreme that can have serious consequences on different industries, such as the construction 

industry. In modern construction, there is a lot of forecasting done 

because we have just-in-time delivery of materials. You have of 

course aviation, maritime transportation as well as state and local 

governments who are preparing like in Atlanta we experienced 

snowstorms a couple of years ago. What type of impact would we 

see in the gap on non-extreme weather forecasting? 

Mr. MURPHY. I am unaware of actually a study that has done exactly what you are asking, but as Representative Bonamici said 

earlier, I think it was, you know, the benefit is $31.5 billion, and 

there is impacts to not only aviation but to many different societal 

benefit areas of society, and as you lose confidence in those forecasts, you are less likely to make decisions that reap the benefits. 

So it is sort of a how bad does it get before you can really quantify 

the impact. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you. I have one minute left. 

From what we are hearing that Europe and other nations are 

leading us in their models of weather forecasting, and as I think 

back, the United States of America has always been the leader in 

space exploration, in satellites, in technology. Is it possible in the 

next several years that our U.S. forecasting system could be restored to compete with the European model? 

Mr. MURPHY. We are closing the gap. It is very close. You know, 

we are talking about—the way the world measures the performances on a 500-millibar root mean error doesn’t mean anything to 

us on the surface of the Earth, but that is the standard, and we 

are—you know, what separates us is a few percent, and so we are 

very close. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Where would you rank us as compared to other 

countries? 

Mr. MURPHY. I just looked at the statistics the day before yesterday, and we were number three, not to argue with anybody who 

said we were number four earlier, but it is that close that it 

changes pretty routinely given a weather scenario. 

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

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you. I would like to recognize the 

Ranking Member on the Oversight Committee, Mr. Beyer. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to start with Dr. Volz with a—and others with a 

small, then a larger question. 

On NPP, the prediction now is the end of 2016. NASA said, 

‘‘There is an increased likelihood of a collision with space debris at 

the altitudes at which the JPSS satellites fly.’’ They also talked 

about NOAA having a rosy view of how long the NPP will last. It 

is just debris that we are concerned about with the end of NPP? 

And then the larger question, especially that Chairman 

Bridenstine talked earlier about the many different commercial 

companies getting into launching satellites, what are we going to 

do about space debris in the larger picture? 

Dr. VOLZ. Well, related specifically to NPP, I think we are dealing with a communications here and the way that we analyze the 
78 

expected life, and as Mr. Powner and the GAO have done is they 

used the design life in their analyses, which is appropriate because 

that is the way we set up the initial system. Now, as the expected 

on-orbit life is much longer typically than the design life, once you 

get into orbit and you see you don’t have infant mortalities, the 

term we call for satellites that die earlier because of something 

that was built in. Once you get past that, the design life is routinely much longer. So I would not say they expected the lifetime 

of Suomi NPP will end in 2016. Our analyses show that it is likely 

to go well past 2020. That doesn’t mean it is going to be relied— 

that we should count on that and then sit back and wait and we 

don’t have to launch anything because we have got ten years or 

five years. But we do use very careful analysis on on-orbit performance of our satellites and our measurements and the instruments 

to do accurate and continuous updates on the performance of those 

satellites. 

Regarding the orbital debris, it is a common problem. All satellites in orbit are dealing with the increase in orbital debris. Every 

time you have a collision, you create more debris. It is something 

we watch. It is something we monitor. Our spacecraft are monitored daily and operate. We have maneuverable satellites so we 

move them out of the way when we see orbital debris projections, 

conjunction analysis, we say, and we have done that in increasing 

frequency over the last few years as the debris clouds have increased but it is still a very—it is a very diffuse cloud, and we 

move maybe a dozen times a year to get out of projected debris. We 

have not been impacted by it—pardon the pun—but we are aware 

of it, we are monitoring it, and we take active steps to prevent it. 

Now, as far as orbital debris, removing the debris from space, I 

don’t—I would yield to my NASA colleague here, who probably will 

not like that but—— 

Mr. CLARKE. Can I defer back? 

Mr. BEYER. Well, let me move on to Dr. MacDonald then. 

Mr. CLARKE. Okay. 

Mr. BEYER. The data validation, in the literature here that you 

gave us, you said it took two years to validate the data from NPP, 

and when you look at the charts on the overlap and the potential 

gaps, some of that, as I read, is six months to validate the data 

from some of these new satellites. Why does it take that long when 

we have so much data validation in the past? 

Dr. MACDONALD. Actually, I think that we can go faster, partly 

because we do have a lot of experience with these sensors like 

ATMS and CRiS and so on, so we have—with our Joint Center and 

with our OAR research colleagues, we think we can do better. 

Mr. BEYER. Dr. Volz, the Chairman in his opening statement 

talked about turning to commercial space operations. Does NOAA 

have any concerns about the use of commercial data to fulfill the 

requirements of its polar satellite program? 

Dr. VOLZ. Regarding the question of commercial space, commercial sources of space data and satellite data, we think that is probably a very capable and open field into the future. We have our 

backbone system that has been built, I mean, using for many, 

many years, but the capabilities of the commercial side over the 
79 

past few years and looking forward in the future are likely to be 

very significant and are definitely worth evaluating and using. 

What we do from the NOAA—what we need to assure from the 

NOAA side is the data that we get meets certain quality standards, 

they are accurate, reliable, traceable, and can be validated so that 

when we use these data in our numerical weather models, we get 

outputs which we trust. We can’t just take the data because you 

can get bad outputs which could be even worse than no input, than 

no output. So it is the essential nature of us as NOAA and the 

NWS, NESDIS needs to make sure that the data that we get are 

accurate and can be used in the modeling, and we think—and I 

think looking to the future, we will be using—we will be evaluating 

and there is a good probability we will be using some commercial 

data as long as it meets our quality criteria and is consistent with 

our collaboration approaches of open data to be used with our partners. 

Mr. BEYER. And Mr. Clarke, I was initially disappointed that the 

climate sensors were eliminated from the satellites, you know, the 

perfect being the enemy of the good enough, but now I read that 

the Radiation Budget Instrument (RBI) and the Ozone Mapping 

and Profiler Suites are going to be on the JPSS–2. Can you talk 

about the current status of these instruments and do you anticipate they will be ready in time to fly with JPSS–2? 

Mr. CLARKE. Yes, Mr. Beyer. Those instruments are being developed now. They are in the assembly and initial part of testing, and 

so those instruments are on schedule to support the JPSS–2 spacecraft. Keep in mind, I think I mentioned in my opening remarks 

too, CERES is kind of the precursor to RBI, and so those instruments are all set and ready to go and they are installed on JPSS– 

1. So this is really a continuation from JPSS–1 to build continuity 

between 1 and 2. 

Dr. VOLZ. And if I could comment too, it is another example 

where the research bases of NASA and the operational bases of 

NOAA work well together. We provide the platform, JPSS–1 and 

J–2, and we are—all the operational instruments that we need for 

the weather forecasting are built into it, but the platform was also 

designed in Suomi NPP to accommodate the Radiation Budget Instrument, and NASA as the research and development agency took 

the responsibility of that one. They build that, they meet our specifications, and together we fly on the same platform for a much 

more efficient approach to making the measurements. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. 

I recognize the gentleman from Colorado for five minutes—— 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. She was here first and has a higher rank. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. The gentlelady from Maryland is recognized for five minutes. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. I have waited six years on this Committee to hear that, and I want to thank our witnesses and obviously our Chairpersons and Ranking Members. 

You know, I remember when I first came on to the Committee 

that it was in the throes, I guess the summer of—I don’t know— 

2008, and it was at a time when there was great consternation 

about the satellite programs, the management of those, the relationship between NASA and NOAA and DoD, and I think that we 
80 

have come—we heard from GAO at that time and I think we have 

come a long way since then, and so I really wanted to be able to 

salute NASA and NOAA for, you know, after some period of time 

in fits and starts figuring out the working relationship using the 

best capabilities of NASA and NOAA to make sure that we could 

try to get this program back on track. 

As the GAO has indicated, you know, we still have some challenges obviously and possibilities for gaps in coverage, and so that 

remains a concern for the Committee in addition to the predicted 

cost. I think we started out with the idea that we were going to 

have six satellites. Now we are at two. And so this has been a really difficult thing. 

I want to also acknowledge that today in our audience are a 

group of students from the University of Maryland in College Park, 

which is the home to NOAA’s Center for Weather and Climate Prediction. The home for NOAA is actually in Suitland, Maryland, 

right down the street from my office. I spent a lot of time there. 

I think I did go to observe the NPP launch, and thankfully, rather 

than just being an experimental platform, it is usable and operational, because I think that helps in the consideration of this discussion. 

I guess the question I have actually has to do with the gaps in 

coverage, and I understand, you know, the imprecision with which 

one can predict whether there is going to be a gap or not, but I 

wonder, Dr. Volz, if you could respond to the idea that—of what 

NOAA’s current gap assessment is, and it is also my understanding 

that NOAA is estimating a longer life expectancy for NPP than before because of its strong performance to date and, you know, so 

what is your anticipation of the operational period for NPP and 

what activities are being undertaken to ensure NPP’s longevity? 

Dr. VOLZ. So thank you, ma’am, for the question. The NPP satellite, as I mentioned earlier, is monitored on a regular basis and 

we update its performance projections every year. The most recent 

one shows that we are still operating all primary systems on NPP. 

All the instruments are functioning well and within specification, 

some changes, as we note, as you normally do with instruments but 

the projection is the satellite, barring something we haven’t seen, 

is likely to survive and work past 2020. 

As far as the steps we are taking to make sure that that satellite 

continues to work, we are very carefully looking at all operations 

that might have life-limiting features on it, which is whether is an 

instrument operation mode that may burn out degrade the performance over time faster, but with the focus then on making sure 

that ensuring that the satellite is operating effectively for a long 

time. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And so in hearing that, I mean, if I look at the 

various scenarios, and I understand the chart that we have has 

been updated since then, but that would mean that we are falling 

more in the range of, you know, a scenario one than we are in a 

scenario three where there would potentially be a much wider gap 

in coverage if we are making some predictions that NPP has greater lifespan and capacity than we might have thought originally. Is 

that right? 
81 

Dr. VOLZ. I believe that is true. Mr. Powner can comment. I 

think the point of those scenarios is not ‘‘we think, this is going to 

fail here,’’ but if it were to fail, what would the gap be, and I think 

that is the point of preparing for a gap is not that we are trying 

to project a failure of any individual asset, but if an asset fails at 

a particular time, what is the impact on the overall constellation, 

and that is the planning challenge that we have in front of us to 

make sure that under these different scenarios, which are single 

fault—one thing can take out a satellite or a launch that JPSS–1, 

a launch failure could take out a satellite—what is our response to 

that and how do we mitigate the impact if that were to occur. It 

doesn’t mean we expect it but it means we have to prepare for it. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thanks, and just in closing, I just want to share 

with the Chairman and Ranking Members, it is my understanding 

that in the President’s budget proposal, there is an absolute recognition that we are actually now, with respect to these satellites, 

really not focused on the development of climate sensors but really 

focused on weather, and I think that that also represents a change 

in strategy and direction over the last several years, and with that, 

I yield. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. The gentlelady yields back. Without objection, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Colorado. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Bonamici. Thank you for letting me participate today. This is 

my first of the Science hearings. I sit on the Energy and the Space 

Committees. I am not on this Committee, but this is of great interest to me. 

Like Representative Edwards, I sat on the Rules Committee at 

the time we were going through the NPOESS saga, and you know, 

from 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, there was a real question how 

NASA and NOAA were going to work with the Defense Department 

and how we were going to go forward, and that slowed things 

down. There is no ifs, ands or buts about it. That is history. We 

have got to focus on the future. And I appreciate the GAO for identifying and focusing on this subject because one of my quirks is my 

favorite channel is the Weather Channel, and that is pretty sick actually. 

But Mr. Loudermilk hit on a point that is so important in discussing this subject. There is a public safety aspect to this and 

there is an economic aspect to the services you all provide, and the 

potential for a gap here, I think may have come from the Bush Administration, the Obama Administration and Congress but we have 

got to deal with that. We cannot allow for gaps to grow or we need 

to shrink these things. 

And so I would start with you, Mr. Powner. What is the best way 

as you have analyzed this to deal with this gap and to shrink it 

if possible? 

Mr. POWNER. Well, hopefully NPP does last longer, and we are 

all hopeful that is the case. What is in your control is the March 

17th launch date of J–1. That cannot slip. So we have ATMS as 

the long pole in the tent and it keeps slipping, and the more that 

slips, the March 17 launch date will be in jeopardy, and I am not 

here saying the sky is falling, but the other thing on the October 

2016 date—and I keep hearing other dates that it is going to last 
82 

longer. I would like to see it in writing. There was a NASA assessment that it was going to last three to five years. There is supposed 

to be a gap assessment from 2014. It hasn’t been released yet. The 

budget still says one year. So if it is 2020, let us put it in writing 

and say that is where we think it is at. 

We have been at this for a long time, Congressman Perlmutter, 

and the way some sensors were constructed on NPP concerns us, 

and I think that is why the NASA engineers had the three- to fiveyear time frame, VIIRS in particular. VIIRS was the—that was a 

very difficult sensor during the NPOESS days, and there were a lot 

of shortcuts taken when they constructed VIIRS and put it on NPP. 

We know that. I visited Raytheon multiple times out in California, 

and I hear from their engineers about that. 

So there are still concerns about that, and I am not here to, you 

know, say that it is not going to be 2020, but we need to be aware 

of the facts, and then when we mitigate the gap, we went out and 

talked to experts including Dr. MacDonald sitting on this panel, 

and there we identified 40 mitigation alternatives. NOAA’s plans 

have 21 mitigation alternatives. There are four areas that you actually improve the forecast much greater than others. We would 

like to see a prioritization on those mitigation activities so that we 

are addressing the most important things as part of the contingency plans. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. All right. So I guess—I appreciate that, and I 

would ask that we take those mitigation factors and really, you 

know, exercise them, use them to the best of our advantage. 

I think part of where I am coming from is, you know, there was 

a leadership issue back in the NPOESS days, and I would say to 

my friends on the Republican side of the aisle—and we take responsibility too—we are coming into a better economy and I would 

want us to assist you all in budgetary ways so that you can accelerate this so we are—so that we do meet that first launch date, 

that we can accelerate JPSS–2, that we are moving forward. We— 

things got stalled, then we had a bad economy, and we have got 

to get back on track because the potential loss of life and the potential to the economy by missing some of these things is too big. 

And so Dr. MacDonald, since we are both Coloradans, I want to 

give you an opportunity to say whatever it is you want to say, and 

I will turn the floor over to you. 

Dr. MACDONALD. My comment would be as Mr. Powner just said, 

we are really working hard on many, many ways of improving 

things, a lot of it because of the Sandy supplemental funding, so 

I think there has been a positive that has come out of this, and we 

are excited to see some improvements from those efforts. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you for the opportunity to sit today. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. You bet. The gentleman yields back. We 

will go into a second round of questions, and you identified ATMS 

as the critical path for JPSS, and my question is, ATMS is on NPP, 

correct? Did the requirements change between NPP and JPSS for 

ATMS? 

Dr. VOLZ. No, sir. The requirements did not change. As Mr. 

Powner—as we said, Suomi NPP was built as a preparatory program under one set of—there was a—one set of contractual ar-
83 

rangements with the vendors. The requirements that NOAA has 

have not changed. The implementation has—some of the—you 

often find problems in the development of an instrument, the repeat of processes, et cetera, which may led to a slight change in the 

implementation and that has led to significant challenges in the 

ATMS development. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Okay. I want to talk about some of the 

mitigation efforts. The GAO report indicated that one of the best 

ways that we can mitigate the gap, especially as it relates to the 

polar satellites, would be GPS–RO, radio occultation from GPS satellites. 

My question is, how significant is GPS–RO to the numerical 

weather models that help us forecast weather? Dr. Volz, I will let 

you answer that question. 

Dr. VOLZ. I will turn that over to John. 

Mr. MURPHY. Without a doubt, it is in the top 10. All the studies 

around the world show that depending on which one you look at, 

it is number four, five or six. So it is very significant. Radio occultation falls right behind the microwave and IR sounders. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. And correct me if I am wrong, but the 

COSMIC–2 program, which is a joint program between the United 

States and Taiwan, is fully funded for the first six satellites of the 

COSMIC–2 program. Is that correct? 

Dr. VOLZ. That is correct. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. And how many radio occultations per 

day would we get from a COSMIC–2 program? 

Dr. VOLZ. The COSMIC–2 in whole is 12 satellites, two sets of 

six, and from a combined set of those 12 you end up on the order 

of 10,000 occultations a day. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. And the first six, though, are set to 

launch by when? 

Dr. VOLZ. Next spring, 2016. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. And how many would we get from those 

first six? 

Dr. VOLZ. About half of that. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. So 5,000 radio occultations per day? 

Dr. VOLZ. Correct. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. And then as far as what the private sector could provide or augment, is there a limitation on how many 

radio occultations per day would—at what point do you get diminishing marginal returns from every additional radio occultation? 

Dr. VOLZ. It is a unique measurement type which that saturation 

point is really high. We have looked at studies which go 50,000, 

100,000 a day, and there is a rollover but it is not significant. So 

certainly we are potentially scratching the surface of the value you 

can get from radio occultations with the 10,000 per day. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. The Europeans are at 128,000 and they 

haven’t reached saturation. So let us say the private sector commercial satellites, if they were being launched right now, and of 

course we have got the challenges with testing and validation and 

calibration and all those things that go into feeding the numerical 

weather models, if they were able to provide that capability, that 

would in essence help us augment the data going into the numer-
84 

ical weather models, for example, to predict thunderstorms in my 

State of Oklahoma. Is that correct? 

Dr. VOLZ. That is correct, sir. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Right now we don’t have an identified 

limitation on the number of radio occultations. When you said it 

was in the top 10, if you had, say, maybe 100,000 or a couple hundred thousand radio occultations, would that move it up to maybe 

number two or number three, or is that a stretch? 

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, I think it would come up. That is an interesting aspect that the more you get in—I think we know that 5,000 

or 10,000, you get a big improvement and it just goes right on, 

20,000 or 30,000, so it would help. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. So is it safe to say that if there is a gap, 

that the GAO report is indicating might be more likely than some 

others might suggest? If the gap does occur and the private sector 

has the capacity to launch satellites into space that could produce 

40,000 or 50,000, is NOAA open to the idea—if those data could be 

validated and calibrated and fed into the numerical weather model, 

would NOAA be open to the idea of maybe purchasing that data 

from the private sector? 

Dr. VOLZ. We have been in active communication with a number 

of the vendors who are proposing to launch and fly these satellites 

for us, and yes, we have been in agreement that these data could 

be useful and we would be open to using them as soon as—as long 

as they meet, as we talked about, the criteria for reliability, dependability and accuracy. So I have had meetings with all of those 

companies you mentioned up front, and actually we have a planned 

workshop at the end of April this year to sit down and show how 

we do our requirements and how they can match their developmental processes to work well with us. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. And real quick, I am almost out of time, 

Dr. MacDonald, this might be a question for you. When you talk 

about hyperspectral and now that is not going to be available on 

the GOES satellites, how does that impact the weather data models for our Nation? 

Dr. MACDONALD. I think hyperspectral is another sensor that 

has a lot of potential and we are trying to study that with various 

techniques. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. We currently have hyperspectral on 

NPSS, right? Or no, we don’t. Do we have hyperspectral in space 

right now? 

Dr. MACDONALD. Yeah, we have interferometers that give us indication of what you can get from a polar orbiter but there is also 

a geostationary issue that we are trying to learn about. 

Dr. VOLZ. That sensor was originally on GOES. It was called 

HESS, and it was dropped. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Okay. And is there—I am out of time, 

so I am going to turn it over to the Ranking Member for five minutes, but thank you for your testimony. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We had some good conversations about how potential gap would 

affect safety, the economy. I want to talk about how it would affect 

research. 
85 

Dr. MacDonald, can you talk about the importance of satellite 

data to NOAA’s research, comment on the impact that a gap in 

polar data would have on weather and climate research efforts, and 

then Mr. Clarke, can you talk about the use of polar satellite data 

by NASA scientists and what would a lack of continuity—what effect would that have on NASA research? 

Dr. MACDONALD. Thank you, Representative Bonamici. It does— 

we really do depend on the polar orbiters and the satellite sensors. 

It is our whole Earth look, and with time, we used to—when I 

started my career, we had little models over little areas and now 

we can do the whole Earth. So these sensors you have already 

heard so much about, the interferometers, the microwave. They 

really are the future, and I think forecasts are going to improve because of it. 

So we use one. That is a difficult thing. One area that is important is that we use these for also records of how the—what is happening in climate, so we have lots of in situ sensors and lots of satellites. We try and make up by using continuity from those. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. Mr. Clarke. 

Mr. CLARKE. Yes. Thank you. The NASA Earth research community, certainly we collaborate with NOAA and other agencies to be 

able to obtain data from all types of sources. NASA has plenty of 

Earth-observing assets on orbit gathering, that kind of information, 

but it is always good to have additional data to help correlate. So 

there would be some impact of not getting that data, but we do 

have other assets to rely on, and if we wanted to get into more detail, I could take the question for the record and then talk with my 

Earth science colleagues in NASA and provide you more detail. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. I would appreciate that. 

Dr. Volz, Mr. Powner talked—expressed some concern, frankly, 

about the testing schedule for GOES–R. There is some concern that 

compressing the test schedule increases risks of further delays, 

there would be little time to resolve any issues that arise. So how 

long can the GOES program operate on a 24/7 testing schedule, 

and is there some risk of delaying the launch by operating at sort 

of an intensive schedule and what are the alternatives, I guess. 

Dr. VOLZ. I believe the current plan for the GOES–R is to continue the three-shift operation through maybe the end of March, 

early April this year at which point we will be getting into the system-level testing, thermal vacuum testing where you are working 

around the clock anyway. There is no definitive point that at this 

point it becomes dangerous to go on with three shifts. We have a 

very capable contractor with Lockheed Martin, who has a lot of resources, so there is no—and like I said, no point where that would 

be an issue. But I think the launch schedule, however, is still of 

critical concern, and having—it is a single-point flow for these, and 

if problems arise, we will have to deal with it with the reserves 

that we have. We do still have a number of several weeks of unscheduled reserve, which for the purposes of that, which is typical 

that you see for a project at this point in development schedule. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. And finally, I was curious about the 

difference between the number of mitigation alternatives. Mr. 

Powner talked about approximately 40 and NOAA talked about a 

little more than 20. So what explains the difference, and how are 
86 

you coordinating to determine which mitigation alternatives rise to 

the top in terms of priority? 

Dr. VOLZ. That is a good question, and I don’t have a list of 40 

or 20 or the average of those in front of me, and I would be happy 

to sit down with Mr. Powner and with my team afterwards to reconcile so we don’t have that—I don’t think we are disagreeing on 

the things that we need to do but in terms of how we numerate 

I think is maybe confusing, and I don’t have an answer for you. I 

would be happy to work with him to clear that up. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Terrific. I appreciate that. And I yield back the 

balance of my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you so much. I yield five minutes 

to the Chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee, Mr. Loudermilk. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We have talked a lot about lessons learned and going forward, 

and our focus has been on getting this launch on schedule. But my 

question, Dr. Volz, is, have we started planning, has NOAA started 

planning on the next generation of weather satellites? 

Dr. VOLZ. Yes, sir, we have, and it takes a long time to bring a 

new system online, which is part of the reason we are having difficulties over the past with both the GOES and the JPSS programs. 

Both programs were significant steps up in technology from the 

legacy missions that preceded those, so we recognize that you don’t 

start five years before; you start ten and twelve years before. And 

part of our planning right now is doing the architecture studies 

and the analyses of what measurements we need in the 2030 time 

frame, what the capabilities are now and projected to be in the 

next few years, and we have been doing those for the last year and 

we expect to do those in the coming year, for the next two or three 

years so that in about two to three years we can lay out a plan 

which specifically identifies the next generation including, as we 

mentioned earlier, the changes in the—the landscape of commercial 

sources, launch vehicles and data-processing capabilities, which are 

all part of the next generation. We are starting the analysis now. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. What changes, if any, have you made to avoid 

the issues that we have faced with the cost overruns, gaps, future 

delays? What kind of changes have you made? 

Dr. VOLZ. I think one of the major elements from my perspective 

is a rationalization of the requirements and the capabilities, and a 

critical part of doing the architecture up front is not to start with 

a shopping list of too many requirements and then figure out how 

much it costs but to do that in an iterative real-time process, look 

at the requirements, look at the implementation costs. 

The other part, which was mentioned in Mr. Bridenstine’s first 

question about the relationship between the partners doing the implementation is absolutely critical, so the NPOESS history was, it 

was—there was a difficult relationship between the three agencies, 

which almost guaranteed you would have a problem between requirements and application and implementation, and making sure 

that you have the right sharing of responsibilities and very clear 

delineation of responsibilities is essential as you go forward with 

the planning and going forward. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you. I want to shift back to our current 

subject that we are on, and it is the launch of this satellite. We 
87 

have mentioned mitigation alternatives. Has NOAA done a costbenefit analysis to determine which ones are likely to be most effective and worthy of investment? 

Dr. VOLZ. We are investing in the ones that we think are the 

highest probability. I can’t point to a specific cost-benefit analysis 

by individual elements but the ones we are extending the lifetime 

of Suomi NPP, enhancing the data process and capabilities with 

the supercomputing capabilities and advocating and moving forward with the radio occultation measurements are examples of 

places where we think there is the most return on investment and 

the capability, availability of the technical capability to go forward. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Powner, do you have any thoughts on this? 

Mr. POWNER. Yeah, this is at the heart of some of our recommendations. Not only do you want to focus on the priority mitigation activities but you want to focus on the cost, so there was a 

huge discussion here about use of commercial data. Commercial 

data could really help augment our forecast today but what is the 

cost? So you have to factor in costs on all these mitigation activities. It is, what is the benefit and what is the cost and then you 

weigh those two, and that is what you end up pursuing. We would 

like to see more of that going forward. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you. One last question. Does NOAA 

have any statutory limitations which would allow you to procure 

weather data from private space-based observing systems? 

Dr. VOLZ. I don’t know of any, sir, but I have been with NOAA 

for three months, so I can imagine there are people behind me who 

are saying don’t answer that question until you are clear, so I will 

be happy to take that. I don’t believe there are but I will take that 

for the record and get back to you. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. I would appreciate it. I yield back. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I would like to thank the gentleman, 

and I would like to recognize the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Oversight, Mr. Beyer. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Volz, when this hearing started at 10 o’clock, my biggest concern was about the gap in the weather prediction from three 

months to eighteen months, but listening to the testimony, it seems 

that NOAA’s expectation of the NPP satellite could well go to 2020 

and beyond. Is there any reason not to follow up on Mr. Powner’s 

suggestion that NOAA actually put these expectations in writing? 

And does that then change the mitigation plans that we would otherwise make? 

Dr. VOLZ. To the first question, no, I think if we haven’t—I have 

seen a draft report on the updated prediction and reliability of 

Suomi NPP, and I don’t see any reason why that shouldn’t be public. I think we will—and I wrote a note down when Mr. Powner 

was saying that that says let us get this written down and get it 

released. I think it to everybody’s interest to see that. 

As far as the second, I don’t think it is going to change our approach. Knowing or believing that the satellite will last longer than 

the worst-case scenario doesn’t mean the worst-case scenario might 

still occur, and we need to do the mitigation activities in any case 

so that we have a resilient system that is accommodatable to major 

failures which can occur outside of our best estimates. 
88 

Mr. BEYER. And Dr. Volz, the President’s budget request includes 

$380 million for a polar follow-on program in order to achieve 

robustness in the polar weather constellation. Can you please describe the kinds of activities that you would take on as part of this 

polar follow-on request and how they would actually improve 

robustness? 

Dr. VOLZ. Yes, sir. Thank you. The polar follow-on is—the current program of record, which is JPSS, is two satellites, as we have 

identified, one launching in 2017 and the next scheduled to launch 

in 2021 which, by the way, was accelerated per additional funding 

to bring that in a few months so it is a quicker return. But a robust 

program requires that you have redundant or a capable system up 

there in case of a single-point failure. The polar follow-on establishes the baseline to deliver the next two, JPPS–3 and JPPS–4, 

along the same lines using the same vendors, the same demonstrated and proven instruments and approaches so that we can 

have that ready as soon as—in the event of a JPSS–2 failure on 

launch, just like we talked about J–1. So the same logic applies in 

the extension. 

What it also does by starting it in 2017 or 2016, as requested in 

the President’s budget, it allows us to buy those instruments now 

from the instrument vendors and most of our funds go to the industry because the U.S. industry builds these instruments for us, allows those instruments to get under contract while we have the 

production line, the expertise and the intelligence of the community 

there to build those instruments effectively and efficiently. Having 

those JPSS–3 instruments built and ready during the late part of 

this decade is a natural mitigation for if I have a problem with a 

JPPS–2 instrument so I can switch and plug in and I can switch 

out, and that also accelerates or provides more reliable delivery of 

the J–2 satellite. So having this suite allows you then to ensure 

that you have the regular cadence of missions available when you 

do. 

Mr. BEYER. And Mr. Clarke, you had kindly deferred when Dr. 

Volz had tossed you the space debris question. Please tell me that 

someone at NASA is thinking big picture about vacuuming up the 

space debris and what is going to look like in the years to come. 

Mr. CLARKE. Well, I would have to take that for the record for 

the future plans. That may be discussed in other areas within 

NASA that I am not privy to, but I can take that for the record. 

I will tell you, though, that for all of our spacecraft that are in 

development now, we do look at those on a case-by-case basis based 

on the updated probability in these orbital debris models. We also 

look at the probability and where these spacecraft are going, and 

implement changes if we need to protect in certain areas on these 

spacecraft during development. So NASA is just as concerned with 

on-orbit debris and so we continue to look at it. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you so much. I would like to recognize, without objection, the gentlelady from Maryland, Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. You are so kind, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very 

much. 
89 

I wanted to get back to the ATMS issues, and I wanted to hear 

from Mr. Clarke, because there were some comments about ATMS 

being on a critical path, and I am wondering what your, you know, 

take is on the status of ATMS, and I am a little bit curious that 

if ATMS is integrated in NPP and we are not—maybe we have 

seen some of the problems that we are, you know, experiencing 

with JPSS development, but if that is true, is it an integration 

problem with JPSS rather than an instrument problem? And give 

us an idea of the kinds of things that you are concerned about 

there. 

Mr. CLARKE. Well, ATMS is a complex instrument just like the 

rest of the instruments that are part of that suite, and the one that 

is operating on NPP is doing well, but again, these are complex instruments. They don’t—I don’t want to—how do I put—they don’t 

come off a production line like many end items. They are not 

stamped copies, so to speak. They are very detailed, intricate instruments, and the ATMS that we are working on now was manufactured in the early part of that NPOESS phase and then turned 

over as part of the hardware afterwards, and so we have found 

issues with that particular when we started going through testing, 

and due to the complexity, we are working through those challenges. It is not unlike other development programs where we have 

had very complex instruments and we have had to go in and resolve issues. 

The benefit of this, particularly the JPSS program, with these instruments, we have been able to work through how to integrate 

those instruments and when, and to preserve the schedule for 

JPSS, and that is what we have done. We have worked with our 

contractors and with NOAA and looked at mitigation options of 

how to keep that on track, the overall spacecraft project, which we 

have done, while we are working through the ATMS issues, and we 

feel like we are beginning to get a handle on the issues with 

ATMS, and I feel confident we are going to resolve those problems. 

But it is not unlike other programs where we may have one particular area experience a challenge or an issue, and we will work 

through it and find ways to continue to stay on track with the 

schedule like we are doing now. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, because I didn’t want us 

to leave here just thinking while you have got, you know, ATMS, 

NPP, just plop it up and, you know, set it into JPSS and so what 

is the problem, and so I appreciate your comments, and with that, 

I yield the balance of my time. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. The gentlelady yields back. We will go 

into a final—or actually the gentleman from Colorado is back. You 

are recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thanks, Mr. Chair. 

Just as a beginning to this, a prelude, you mentioned, Dr. Volz, 

about a suite, you know, sort of assembly, production. I think, Mr. 

Clarke, you talked about production lines. Some of these things are 

very intricate but some things can be built sort of not in an assembly-line mode but certainly you can prepare and you can have 

teams of contractors in place. 

So first question I have for you, Dr. Volz, is, if by some circumstances the Congress were to appropriate more money to try to 
90 

accelerate and to have an assembly line of one, two, three and four, 

can NOAA absorb that. Can NOAA deal with that? Can we acceleration the production schedule and the launch schedule? 

Dr. VOLZ. Okay. That is a very good question, and I think the 

nature of block buys, is often the term used. If you buy a bunch 

of them at once, do you get some efficiencies and economies and a 

better-performing system? And in fact, that is the reason for the 

polar follow-on proposal in the Fiscal Year 2016 budget, which allows us to buy the third and fourth variations of these instruments 

as contract options with the same vendors so they can do exactly 

that. They can optimize the development schedule so the subsystems are integrated and brought forward on a regular and reliable place. 

Now, the question of accelerating is a different challenge because 

some of these things are process-intensive and it takes, you know, 

a few weeks for this, a few weeks for that, so adding more 

money—— 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. And I appreciate that. I am just a lawyer. You 

guys are the scientists, you are the engineers, you are the technicians. But I guess I come from a spot where, you know, President 

Kennedy said we are going to be on the moon, you know, nine, ten 

years from now, and everybody going wow, how in the heck are we 

going to do it. You guys all figured it out. So I don’t doubt that if 

we want to send somebody to Mars we can get going on it. If we 

want to get these satellites built, you can do it. We need to provide 

you with the resources obviously, and you know, I am going to be 

pushing for that kind of thing. 

Mr. Powner, are the teams in place? I mean, because of the upheaval and kind of the delays here and there between NPOESS 

and JPSS and to a degree GOES. Are the teams in place if we 

wanted to move this thing forward? Do we have the vendors? Do 

we have—you know, somebody mentioned Lockheed or Ball or 

whomever. Do we have those vendors in place? 

Mr. POWNER. Yeah, we currently have vendors in place. We have 

a very solid team on the government side. I think the collaboration 

between NASA and NOAA far better than we have ever seen, nothing like we had on NPOESS. 

I do think you have raised a really key question, though, about 

building clones down the road when you start looking at J–3 and 

J–4. There is a fundamental question about how much do we advance the sensors and improve versus just building a clone and 

continuing the status quo, and I think that is a tough call, especially when you start looking at continuity of operations, but that 

is why this follow-on program is so important. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Dr. MacDonald, do you have anything to add, 

since you are from Colorado? 

Dr. MACDONALD. No, but thank you for asking. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. I yield back, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you. Anybody from Oklahoma, by 

the way? 

Mr. CLARKE. Does my spouse’s family count? 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. You are my preferred testifier. 

Mr. CLARKE. Thank you, and she thanks you. 
91 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. So we will go into a final round here 

without objection, and I will recognize myself for five minutes. 

I was just reading your testimony, Dr. Volz, and you indicate 

that currently NOAA purchases data from the commercial sector 

such as ground-based lightning data and space-based synthetic aperture radar data. Is this true, and in what quantities and how 

much do we spend on that as an organization, if you know offhand? 

Dr. VOLZ. I don’t know the dollar value. We can get that to you, 

and I am happy to do that. 

As far as how it is used, the synthetic aperture radar data is a 

key element of our ice mapping and Arctic forecast measurements 

that are done with our National Ice Center combined with VIIRS 

Day/Night Band imagery. The local lightning data is used by the 

National Weather Service. I don’t know again the cost for that but 

it is a regular input, and John Murphy may want to address that 

in more specific detail. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. And just as an example, if we were to 

have a model where we were to purchase data from the private sector whether it is GPS–RO or hyperspectral, would these models be 

good ways to go that we are already doing it? Could we not do it 

in other space-related activities? 

Dr. VOLZ. I think as far as the actual getting under contract, 

they would work fine. The distinction that I would make between 

these particular examples and some of the GPS–RO and our global 

modeling examples is, when we take data and use it as part of our 

global numerical weather prediction models, we are also—we are 

ingesting along with data from European satellites, the Japanese 

satellites and our other partners. We have a longstanding relationship with all of our partners who share these models that we all 

share each other’s data, and that makes all of our models better 

and makes all of our predictions more accurate, and it is the best 

environment for this collaborative engagement. 

If we were to purchase data, we would bring that into that environment so we want to make sure that the data are readily 

transferrable and usable by all of our partners, and that is one of 

the key elements, that it is free and open data as far as our numerical weather predictions, and I don’t think for local data around an 

airport or something like that, that is not an issue for that because 

we don’t share that. It is not of interest to our international partners. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Okay. So the SAR—but the SAR data 

would not be local, right? 

Dr. VOLZ. SAR data is an agreement with Canada, the Canadian 

government and their satellite data system there, and it is for—it 

is a mutual benefit. Both Canada and the United States are using 

those data, and we share the outputs both in Alaska and the Arctic, and I believe in the Great Lakes region as well, again, on a collaborative basis with—it still is local but it is local across a particular boundary with a specific agreement. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. And the lightning data is what you 

would suggest is probably more localized data—— 

Dr. VOLZ. Yes. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. —that our international partners are 

not interested in? 
92 

Dr. VOLZ. Correct, sir, and John, if you want to add? 

Mr. MURPHY. Just add that we procure mesonet data, lightning 

data, aircraft data. We are in the process of exploring other data 

sources, data buys, and as Dr. Volz said, typically the providers 

don’t want to share their data openly but it is a local—more of a 

local effect. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Got it. I saw in the President’s budget request there is $380 million for the JPSS follow-on, and I want 

to be really clear, I support JPSS, I support GOES. I come from 

Oklahoma. We have thunderstorms and tornados where, you know, 

in May of 2013 we had 24 of the folks from my state get killed, 

$2 billion worth of damage. It was a big, big deal, and of course, 

that is why I took such an interest in this to begin with. So I don’t 

want to see anything happen to JPSS or the GOES programs that 

feed our numerical weather models. I want to be really clear about 

that. 

But I think we need to move to a day where we have a different 

kind of space-based architecture that is resilient, that is 

disaggregated. I know we have been talking about NPP. It was 

launched as a test satellite, and I know it came from the NPOESS 

program, but it is not shielded, and because of that, it is susceptible to the space debris that we have had conversations about 

here. But if we were to disaggregate and move to a different kind 

of space-based model where we took advantage of commercial technologies that could be launched, I think we could move to a day— 

and we have done it in the Department of Defense as it relates to 

communications. We have done it in the Department of Defense as 

it relates to imagery and other kinds of remote sensing. If we could 

go that direction on the weather side of things, I think we would 

have more resilience, we would mitigate data gaps, and we could 

move to a day where we move from JPSS–2 to JPSS–3. 

Maybe we are not having a hearing about a gap that is coming 

and instead we are saying okay, we have got everything we need, 

how do we focus NOAA on doing the things that the private sector 

cannot do, and I think that is the direction ultimately where we 

can go, and the private sector, of course, my opinion is, you will get 

greater innovation, lower cost, more competition, all these kind of 

benefits that we have seen NASA take advantage of as well. 

So I guess my ultimate question is, when you think about that 

$380 million from the President’s budget request, is there any 

openness to maybe using a portion of that money to create a pilot 

approach where we could purchase from the private sector data for 

NOAA rather than focusing on, you know, buying another—and 

again, JPSS–3, if it is necessary, I am all for it, but I want to be 

clear, if there is an opportunity to take a portion of that money and 

use it to purchase data from the private sector, is that something 

that you are open to? 

Dr. VOLZ. Well, sir, I think you identified the—the targeted 

funds in the polar follow-on are really essential to getting the instruments under contract, and I think of the 380, approximately 

80-plus percent of that is going directly to our commercial space industry, which is building these instruments. 

I do agree with you entirely in the principle that we need to be— 

we need to have a constellation which has both backbones, govern-
93 

ment-supplied solutions, and complemented by other alternative 

approaches, and in the future as the capabilities get stronger is 

likely to be more—is going to be more prevalent. 

I think we have to be very careful of the risks to the user, the 

end user, which is if we get commercial approach which doesn’t 

work out, we cannot let that compromise our ability to provide the 

weather forecast, and I know you are very sensitive to that as well. So as far as the $380 million in the polar follow-on, that is very 

carefully targeted to making sure we have that backbone system 

capable through the end of the next decade so that we have the opportunity to try these alternative flexible approaches without jeopardizing our critical basic performance that the Nation expects. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I am out of time. I would like to recognize the gentleman from Virginia for five minutes. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Volz, in the notes that we had, it said that three offices within NOAA have primary responsibility for implementing the mitigation plan—NESDIS, OAR and the National Weather Service—but 

the NOAA office appears to be in charge of the mitigation activities. Is this accurate? Is there someone who should be the central 

decider and implementer—— 

Dr. VOLZ. As I said—— 

Mr. BEYER. —coordinator? 

Dr. VOLZ. As I mentioned earlier on in the presentation here, 

there are many tasks, whether it is 21 or 40, in terms of the mitigation. There are a number of different tasks which have different 

disciplinary requirements, whether it is the Weather Service, 

Oceans Research or NES for satellite management and development, and those tasks are developed down to those different line 

offices. We each—we coordinate across the organization, and yes, 

there is a single person in charge, and that is the Under Secretary 

for Operations that we report to on a regular basis, and we report 

to the Secretary as well on a —the Under Secretary as well. 

So it is coordinated and reported up through the chain of command but the individual activities are delegated down to their Centers of Excellence where the expertise is. 

Mr. BEYER. That sounds great. 

Mr. Murphy, if the NPP satellite was lost tomorrow, hit with debris, what would be the status of your gap mitigation plans now? 

Mr. MURPHY. As I said earlier, the aircraft data is flowing. We 

have several other projects that are not matured yet. We have improved data assimilation, which will be completed first quarter of 

2016, and we have some improved modeling capabilities that are 

also coming in early in 2016. So really, all we have completed thus 

far as far as gap mitigation has been the studies to demonstrate 

the impact and the aircraft data which was—it is not—none of the 

mitigation steps that I have seen anywhere completely mitigate the 

loss of the satellite. 

I would remind you that we do have legacy satellites up there, 

the earlier NOAA satellites and the earlier science missions at this 

time, so it wouldn’t be like we would lose all the satellites if it went 

out right now. 

Dr. VOLZ. Yeah, and if I could comment on that too, I am glad 

John mentioned it. The POES satellites that were launched and 
94 

are still flying, two of them in that same orbit, have been and still 

are operating. Now, they are older and they could fail as well, but 

if you had a—if the Suomi NPP went down, those would still be 

there. 

What you will lose is that leap forward that I mentioned before, 

that Suomi NPP is much more capable than previous ones, but the 

backbone, we have infrared sounding and we have microwave 

radiometry out of those satellites, which would still be part and are 

used by the models and predictions. 

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Powner, do you a reaction to this? 

Mr. POWNER. Yeah, I think clearly what we heard on the mitigation activities, there were four areas, and one was—four primary 

areas that are the priorities, and one is extending the life of the 

existing POES satellites along with using the midmorning European satellites, and that actually came from folks sitting at this 

table, so we had them prioritize what the improvements in the 

forecast would be, that radio occultation, commercial aircraft, the 

high computing capacity as well as the improvements in the models. Those are the priority areas. 

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Yes. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Rumor has it, Mr. Powner, you are from Colorado? 

Mr. POWNER. Yes, I am. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. All right. I am so glad I asked you questions. 

I yield back. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. All right. I would like to recognize the 

gentleman from Texas, Dr. Babin, for five minutes. 

Mr. BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Volz, in April of 2013, NOAA removed funding for three 

years of operations at the end of JPSS missions to keep the 

lifecycle cost of the program around $11 billion, two-part question. 

Even though JPSS–2 will be operational through 2028, operations, 

I see, are only funded through 2025. Is this a gimmick to hide the 

true cost of the program? 

Dr. VOLZ. I can’t speak to that specifically, sir. I will definitely 

go back and check and see what the funding—how the fundings are 

distributed. We certainly will operate the satellite as long as it is 

functioning and operating effectively. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. Are you anticipating no funding for a fully 

operational satellite program or are you anticipating that we will 

find more money after the satellite is airborne? 

Dr. VOLZ. You are talking about post-2025, sir? 

Mr. BABIN. Yes. 

Dr. VOLZ. Well, the polar follow-on proposal that we have, which 

is to build the J–3 and J–4 instruments, includes in it the operational—in the long run. It is outside of this budget cycle particularly. It includes the operation and maintenance costs for these 

polar satellite constellation to the 2038 is the expected lifetime of 

those satellites as well. Whatever satellites are in orbit, we will be 

operating within those budgets as defined in our program. 
95 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. Thank you. And then one other question for 

Mr. Clarke. Where did the space debris come from that has led to 

the degradation of our polar orbiting satellites? 

Dr. VOLZ. Well, sir, I can’t comment in detail since I am not 

very—I don’t have a lot of insight into it, but I do know the latest 

model using data from the last ten years, shuttle data particularly, 

that helped update those models. As far as—that is probably the 

level of detail I know. I can take that for the record and go back 

and get some more information for you if you would like. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. And then Mr. Powner, how important is improving NOAA’s supercomputing capabilities to mitigating a data 

gap? 

Mr. POWNER. It is clearly one of the top priorities. 

I would also like to address the space debris that you just mentioned. Clearly, there has been an increase in space debris but 

there has also been some unfortunate incidents that contributed to 

the space debris. In 2009, there was an iridium satellite that hit 

a Kosmos satellite that increased the space debris and then also 

unfortunately in 2007, there was a Chinese military operation 

where they shot a satellite as part of their military ops, and that 

contributed to space debris. So those events in 2007 and 2009 

clearly contributed to the space debris issue. 

Mr. BABIN. Absolutely. Thank you. 

Dr. Alexander MacDonald and Mr. Murphy, where does our 

supercomputing capacity rank relative to the rest of the world? 

Dr. MACDONALD. I think that in—if we talk about our operational computing, it has been behind for quite some time. However, it was recently announced that we are going to get a major 

upgrade to our operational computing. I think it is actually five 

petaflops this fall, and I think that puts us on a par with the others, and I want to say that that is a big part of the mitigation, that 

is, we think with that additional computing, it is going to help us 

a lot in our predictions and help for the gap. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. One other thing. Should NOAA be placing a 

higher priority on this? 

Dr. VOLZ. It has been a top priority. So, I have problems with 

all this discussion of priorities about these mitigation efforts because every mitigation step that I know has been a top priority for 

us. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. Thank you. 

One thing else. I am sorry. Do you feel budgetary pressures elsewhere in NOAA’s budget prevent you from having access to the 

best resources? 

Dr. VOLZ. I am not sure if that is directed to all of us, sir. I don’t 

believe we have pressures that limit us from doing the right thing 

and making the right choices. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. Thank you. That is all. I yield back the rest 

of my time. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Okay. We are coming to the end here, 

and Dr. Babin, your question about the operations piece of this 

where we are funding a technology that is, JPSS–2 specifically, 

which will last through 2028, and the operations side of it is only 

funded through 2025 in order to hold the cost of the program down 

to $11.3 billion. That is something that we will need to have ad-
96 

dressed as we are at the end of this hearing. Maybe we can get 

that for the record. 

And then also lastly, before we close out, I would just like to— 

Dr. Volz, I asked the question. I just want to get it on the record. 

If you are open, whether it comes from the $380 million for JPSS– 

3 or some other place, are you open to a pilot approach where 

NOAA would fund a certain amount of money to buy private satellite data, whether it is JPSS or GPS–RO or hyperspectral, to purchase it from the private sector for the purposes of resiliency and 

disaggregation? 

Dr. VOLZ. I think we are open to buying appropriate data with 

the quality and the validation capabilities that meet our needs, and 

using that as an input into our numerical weather models, and we 

are happy to work with vendors to define a process by which we 

can validate the quality of their data sets and the reliability of 

them. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Could NOAA be an anchor tenant for 

that project? 

Dr. VOLZ. I am not sure that I would call it an anchor tenant because the question is, do we invest in their development costs on 

the premise that the outcome will be something we can use, and 

that is a higher-risk approach than I would prefer to take from the 

NOAA side. 

I am not in the—I don’t think it should be appropriate for us to 

develop a commercial capability that we might use in the future. 

I am happy to look at their data. I am happy to work with them 

on the way that they are developing their approaches in an open 

forum, and if it meets criteria, I am happy to buy it and use it. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Would you have had that same position 

on the NPOESS program had you been at NOAA back when that 

started? 

Dr. VOLZ. Oh, boy. I am not going to answer that one, sir. I am 

sorry. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Well, I appreciate your testimony. I 

thank the witnesses for their testimony and the Members for their 

great questions. 

The record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments and written questions from Members. The witnesses are excused and this hearing is adjourned. Thank you so much. 

[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the Subcommittees were adjourned.] 
(97) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
98 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Mr. David Powner 
99 
100 
101 
102 

Responses by Dr. Stephen Volz 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 

Responses by Mr. Steven Clarke 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 

Responses by Dr. Alexander MacDonald 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 

Responses by Mr. John Murphy 
138 
139 
140 

Æ