U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

76–236PDF 2012

EXAMINING NASA’S DEVELOPMENT 

ON THE SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM 

AND ORION CREW CAPSULE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 

Serial No. 112–102 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

VACANCY 

VACANCY 

VACANCY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

HON. STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Wednesday, September 12, 2012 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Steven M. Palazzo, Chair, Subcommittee on 

Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 9 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

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

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11 

Statement by Representative Hansen H. Clarke, Acting Ranking Minority 

Member, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .................................... 11 

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

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 52 

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

Witnesses: 

Mr. Dan Dumbacher, Deputy Associate Administrator for Exploration Systems Development, NASA 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 13 

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

Mr. Cleon Lacefield, Vice President and Orion Program Manager, Lockheed 

Martin Corporation 

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

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

Mr. Jim Chilton, Exploration Vice President, The Boeing Company 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 29 

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

Dr. Matt Mountain, Director, Space Telescope Science Institute 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 39 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 41 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Mr. Dan Dumbacher, Deputy Associate Administrator for Exploration Systems Development, NASA ................................................................................... 62 

Mr. Cleon Lacefield, Vice President and Orion Program Manager, Lockheed 

Martin Corporation .............................................................................................. 68 

Mr. Jim Chilton, Exploration Vice President, The Boeing Company .................. 72 

Dr. Matt Mountain, Director, Space Telescope Science Institute ........................ 78 

(1) 

EXAMINING NASA’S DEVELOPMENT 

ON THE SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM 

AND ORION CREW CAPSULE 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 

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

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 

RALPH M. HALL, TEXAS 

CHAIRMAN 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, TE 

RANKING MEMBER 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

2321 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILD!NG 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6301 

(202) 225-6371 

www.sciance.house.gol1 

Subcommittee On Space and Aeronautics 

Examining NASA's Development of the Space Launch System and Orion 

Crew Capsule 

Wednesday, September 12, 2012 

10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

Witnesses 

Mr. Dan Dumbacher, 

Deputy Associate Administrator for Exploration Systems Development, NASA 

Mr. Cleon Lacefield, 

Vice President and Orion Program Manager, lockheed Martin Corporation 

Mr. Jim Chilton, 

Exploration Vice President, The Boeing Company 

Dr. Matt Mountain, 

Director, Space Telescope Science Institute 
3 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Examining NASA's Development of the Space Launch System 

and Orion Crew Capsule 

Wednesday, September 12, 2012 

10:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

The purpose of the hearing held by the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics is to examine 

on-going development of the Space Launch System (SLS), the Orion capsule and related 

systems, as well as discuss how these technologies can be used for future scientific missions. 

Witnesses 

Mr. Dan Dumbaeher, Deputy Associate Administrator for Exploration Systems Development, 

NASA 

Mr. Cleon Lacefield, Vice President and Orion Program Manager, Lockheed Martin 

Corporation 

Mr. Jim Chilton, Exploration Vice President, The Boeing Company 

Dr. Matt Mountain, Director, Space Telescope Science Institute 

Over-Arching Ouestions 

1. What achievements have been accomplished to date with SLS and Orion development, and 

what are next steps and near-term goals? 

2. What design assumptions is NASA using for propulsion systems for both first and upper 

stages? 

3. What are the biggest technical, programma~ic, and risk reduction challenges now confronting 

the SLS and Orion programs, and what steps are being taken to address them? 

4. How do we ensure the long-term success of the SLS and Orion programs? 

1 
4 

Background 

NASA's next generation heavy-lift launch vehicle - the Space Launch System (SLS) - together 

with the Orion crew capsule will provide our country a capability that has not existed since the 

Apollo lunar program (1972) - the ability to send humans beyond Earth orbit to lunar or other 

deep space destinations. It also makes possible our nation's ability to send larger, more 

sophisticated scientific payloads to distant planets and other deep-space destinations, and provide 

a backup capability for the US government to access the International Space Station in the event 

that commercial crew or Soyuz services are unavailable. NASA's current development schedule 

assumes an operational SLS and Orion to be ready by 2021. No specific destination has been 

announced for a first mission, although NASA and the White House have suggested visiting a 

near-Earth asteroid. The agency is currently undertaking a survey to identify likely targets. 

The Space Launch System is modeled on the Ares V that was to be the heavy-lift launch vehicle 

of the Constellation program canceled by the Obama Administration in February 2010. As part 

of its redirection of the human space flight program, NASA began to aggressively advocate 

development of a commercial crew program to ferry astronauts to the ISS 1

, and proposed 

delaying decisions on design and development of a heavy-lift launch system until 2015. With 

the impending retirement of the space shuttle and risks of losing national aerospace capabilities, 

perhaps indefinitely, Congress disagreed with accepting any delays in the development ofa 

national heavy lift capability. The 2010 NASA Authorization Act (PL 111-267) directed the 

agency to initiate development of SLS "as soon as practicable", to extend and modify 

Constellation contracts where applicable, to develop an initial lift capability of 70 metric tons (to 

eventually reach at least 130 metric tons), to carry the Orion crew capsule, and to serve as a 

back-up capability for crew access to ISS in the event that commercial or Russian services could 

not do so. 

The same law also directed NASA to continue development of the Orion crew capsule that also 

had its start as part of the Constellation program. 

No matter that PLIlI-267 was signed into law October 11, 2010, NASA waited seven months 

before officially designating Orion as part of its new deep-space architecture, and took an 

additional four months (Sept. 14,2011) before announcing the design of its Space Launch 

System. Frustration over the delays became so great that the Senate Commerce Committee 

subpoenaed NASA for records related to these two programs. 

1 The Full Committee has scheduled an oversight hearing Friday, Sept. 14, 2012, at 9:30 am, on the Commercial 

Crew Program. 

2 
5 

Orion Multipurpose Crew Capsule 

As previously noted, the Orion crew capsule was originally part of the Constellation program 

that was to be flown atop both the smaller Ares I rocket (for ISS and low Earth orbit missions), 

as well as the larger Ares V for deep spaee missions. While it looks similar to an Apollo 

capsule, Orion has a 16.5 foot diameter versus 12.8 for the Apollo, is heavier, and has greater 

interior volume. Key features include a launch abort system, life support system, thermal 

protection, avionics, and propulsion. It is currently being designed to carry as many as four 

crew. Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor, and the program is managed by the Johnson 

Space Center. 

Orion is much farther along in development than SLS, because 

the Administration's decision to cancel Constellation was more 

disruptive to the launch vehicle development than to Orion's. 

In 2009 (under the Constellation program) a full scale 

engineering model was used to conduct a successful test of the 

launch abort system at the White Sands Missile Range, New 

Mexico. Full scale models have also been used to carry out 

splashdown testing at NASA's Langley Research Center and 

parachute drop tests at the Army's Yuma Proving Ground in 

Arizona. NASA and its contractors are also carrying out a 

number of activities related to developing and testing 

subsystems and manufacturing processes. 

Another fiIlI-scale engineering model is scheduled to be 

launched in 2014 atop a Delta IV Heavy-Lift Launch Vehicle to 

test a number of vehicle systems. The uncrewed flight will take 

Orion on two highly elliptical orbits and re-enter the Earth's 

atmosphere at a speed equal to about 85% of lunar retum 

velocity (20,000 mph). This will generate significantly higher 

temperatures during reentry than experienced by the space 

shuttle or other craft returning from the space station orbit and 

allow NASA to assess the heat shield's performance. The 

flight, dubbed EFT-I (Exploration Flight Test-I), will also 

perform a number of other risk-reduction activities including a 

full scale test of the parachute system and a water landing in the 

Pacific. 

A follow-on uncrewed flight test is scheduled for the end of2017and will be launched atop an 

SLS first stage. EM-I (Exploration Mission-I) will put Orion on a circumlunar trajectory before 

returning to Earth for reentry. Thereafter, NASA plans call for Orion (and SLS) to fly the first 

operational mission in 2021. 

3 
6 

Orion's design also assumes a service module (SM) to provide power, propulsion, and 

consumable gases for life-support. For the EFT -1 flight, a truncated SM will be used to supply 

propulsion and battery power, but so far the agency has provided no concrete plans on how and 

when an operational SM will be developed and manufactured. Without a service module, flights 

of more than a few hours duration will not be possible. 

Space Launch System 

The initial version of the SLS will be comprised of a core stage using a liquid hydrogen, liquid 

oxygen propulsion system, with two five-segment solid rocket motor boosters. NASA has an 

inventory of 15 Space Shuttle main engines (SSME) to power the first several flights, but will 

eventually fund development of less expensive, 'expendable' SSME variants. The SLS will 

initially be able to launch 70 metric tons but will eventually be upgraded to at least 130 metric 

tons with development of more powerful boosters, and an upgraded upper stage using a J-2X 

engine. Like Orion, much of the SLS owes its heritage to the Constellation program, specifically 

the proposed Ares V heavy-lift launch vehicle. The SLS is similar in appearance to the previous 

Ares V, but less capable. Boeing is the prime contractor for the core stage. The SLS program is 

managed by the Marshall Space Flight Center. 

NASA has identified SLS preliminary parameters to be: 

• Providing an initial, crew-rated lift capability of approximately 70 metric tons; 

• Conducting first uncrewed demonstration flight in 2017; 

• Completing design, development, test and evaluation within a flat budget; 

• Ensuring the design is evolvable to a lift capability of at least 130 metric tons; and 

• Ensuring that production and operations costs are affordable and sustainable over the life 

of the program. 

In order to minimize development and production costs, the SLS core and upper stages will share 

the same diameter as the Space Shuttle External Tank (27.5 feet) enabling the manufacture and 

machining of these components using the same production hardware. SLS will also use many of 

the same subsystems, materials, and tooling. 

Earlier this year SLS successfully completed its Systems Requirements Review/System 

Definition Review. The next major formulation review will be the Preliminary Design Review 

(PDR) scheduled for the 4th quarter of FY2013, which will evaluate the completeness of the 

SLS's design in meeting all requirements with appropriate margins, with acceptable risk, and 

within cost and schedule constraints. PDR includes all major elements and determines the 

program's readiness to proceed to Critical Design Review scheduled for the 2nd quarter of 

FY2015. 

4 
7 

For initial SLS flights, NASA will rely on an existing cryogenic upper 

stage already in use on the Boeing-designed Delta 4 rocket. Eventually 

NASA intends to use the much more powerful J-2X engine, designed and 

built by Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, to power the upper stage, enabling 

heavier spacecraft to escape Earth orbit. Earlier this summer the J-2X 

engine successfully performed a 22.5 minute test firing at the Stennis 

Space Center. The final development and testing phase of the J-2X 

engine is awaiting NASA's decision to begin development of the 130 

metric ton variant "block 2" upper stage for the SLS. The Stennis Space 

Center manages the program for NASA. 

The first two flights of SLS will use two solid-rocket motor boosters 

similar to those utilized by the Space Shuttle, although they will be longer 

- a five segment design. The manufacturer, ATK, has successfully 

performed three test burns of five segment motors. NASA is in the early 

stages of competing the development of advanced boosters, which may be 

either solid or liquid. In July 2012, the agency announced the selection of 

six study proposals (offered by four companies) for initial study of 

advanced booster risk-reduction work. 

Image Credit: NASA 

Exploration Systems Development: Orion and SLS Budgets (FY2013 PBR; $=millions) 

FY 11 FY12 FY13 FY13 FY13 

Actual Estimate Auth Request vs. FY12 

Orion Crew Vehicle 

Development $1,086.0 $1,142.9 $1,400.0* $968.5 -$174.4 

Orion Program 

Integration & Support $110.0 $57.1 --- $56.4 -$0.7 

Space Launch System $1,313.8 $1,456.1 $2,640.0* $1,304.1 -$152.0 

SLS Program 

Integration & Support $222.3 $46.4 --- $35.9 -$10.5 

Exploration Ground 

Systems $250.0 $304.5 --- $404.5 $100.0 

TOTAL $2,982.1 $3,007.0 $4,040.0* $2,769.4 -$237.6 

* AuthOrizatIOn assumes but does not call out - ground systems and other program support. 

NASA's FYI3 budget request for Orion and Space Launch System is only 69% of amounts 

authorized in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act, and as shown in the table, is $237.6 million 

less than amounts appropriated during FY12. 

5 
8 

Future Scientific Missions Enabled by SLS 

NASA relies on a variety of small to medium-lift vehicles to launch robotic science missions into 

space. The size and weight of payloads is limited by lift capacity and the size of the payload 

faring of the launch vehicle. The Space Shuttle was NASA's most powerful launcher, capable of 

taking over 50,000 pounds to low Earth orbit (LEO), but with its retirement NASA now relies on 

a variety of expendable launchers such as the Delta 4 and Atlas 5 rockets that typically lift 

20,000- 25,000 pounds to LEO. Only the United Launch Alliance Delta 4 Heavy, currently the 

largest launch vehicle in America's fleet, is capable oflifting approximately 50,000 pounds to 

LEO. 

The Ares V heavy-lifter, as proposed in the Constellation program, was designed to carry about 

140 metric tons to LEO in an 8 meter faring, far surpassing any existing launch system. NASA 

asked the National Academy of Sciences in 2007 to evaluate the potential for new science 

opportunities enabled by the Ares V which resembles today's plarmed SLS both in appearance 

and lift. The final report, Launching Science: Science Opportunities Provided by NASA's 

Constellation System, (http://www.nap.edulcatalog.php?record id=12554), published in 2009, 

examined a number of possible mission concepts that might be possible in the 2020 - 203 5 time 

frame. 

Not surprisingly the report's findings and recommendations examined a number of 'flagship' 

mission concepts, including space-based telescopes and large planetary exploration spacecraft. 

Among their findings and recommendations -

• Most suitable missions were in the $5 billion estimated cost range (excluding launch 

costs); 

• Astronomy, astrophysics, and planetary science missions tended to generate the most 

proposals; 

Earth science and heliophysics disciplines did not propose missions requiring heavy-lift 

launchers; 

• International cooperation could provide access to international scientific expertise and 

technology useful for large, complex missions and could reduce costs through provision 

of instruments by international partners; 

• With advanced robotic servicing technology, heavy-lift launch vehicles make possible the 

servicing and in-space assembly oflarge spacecraft; and 

• NASA should preserve the capability for Orion crew capsules to carry small scientific 

payloads and should ensure that the Ares V development team (~ow SLS) considers the 

needs of scientific payloads in their system designs. 

6 
9 

Chairman PALAZZO. The Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 

will come to order. 

Good morning, everyone. Before we get started, there has been 

an incident in the Middle East last night where four Americans 

lost their lives in attacks on U.S. soil, U.S. embassies. If we could 

just take a moment of silence and pray for not only those that were 

murdered but also for their families. 

Welcome to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘Examining NASA’s Development of the Space Launch System and Orion Crew Capsule.’’ In 

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

panel. I recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

I would like to welcome everyone to our hearing, and I especially 

want to thank our witnesses for joining us today. I know many people put in a lot of effort preparing for these hearings, and we appreciate you taking time from your busy schedules to appear before 

the Subcommittee. I also want to assure you that we greatly value 

your expertise and wisdom, and that your testimony will benefit 

this Committee in the weeks and months ahead as we endeavor to 

ensure uninterrupted development of these important new programs. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to discuss NASA’s and industry’s progress, next steps, and challenges developing our Nation’s 

next-generation heavy-lift launcher and crew capsule. For the next 

several decades, the Space Launch System and Orion multipurpose 

crew vehicle will give our country the capability to launch exciting 

new human spaceflight exploration missions and robotic science 

missions. 

No other country has the technical expertise or industrial base 

to produce anything similar to SLS or Orion, making it all the 

more compelling to ensure that these programs continue without 

interruption. 

It is also important to realize other significant benefits that flow 

from the SLS and Orion programs. First, by building a heavy-lift 

vehicle, we will enable bold new science missions, and I look forward to Dr. Mountain’s testimony about the scale of potential flagship missions that might be conceived for launching 10 or 15 years 

from now. I am optimistic that once our government’s fiscal health 

has been restored, NASA will have the resources to once again consider robotic flagship missions that will maintain the momentum 

we currently enjoy with missions such as MSL. 

Second, looking at the health and vitality of our aerospace industrial base, SLS and Orion will continue to challenge our best and 

brightest engineers to design and develop advanced propulsion, avionics and manufacturing capabilities that will maintain America’s 

preeminence in space. While no other country currently has the capability to match what we can do with SLS and Orion, a number 

of emerging space powers may, in time, be tempted to challenge 

our leadership in space. That includes space-based technologies 

that are fundamental to our economy, our quality of life and our 

national security. By scaling back investments in aerospace R&D, 

we risk putting future generations of Americans at risk. 

Finally, I worry that without SLS and Orion, NASA’s and our 

country’s ability to do the hard stuff—cutting-edge space explo-
10 

ration—would be seriously impaired. NASA’s first 50 years plus of 

programs and missions have been awe-inspiring. I want to keep 

that spirit alive for decades to come. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Palazzo follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN STEVEN M. PALAZZO

Good morning. I’d like to welcome everyone to our hearing. I especially want to 

thank our witnesses for joining us today. I know many people put in a lot of effort 

preparing for these hearings, and we appreciate you taking time from your busy 

schedules to appear before the Subcommittee. I also want to assure you that we 

greatly value your expertise and wisdom, and that your testimony will benefit this 

committee in the weeks and months ahead as we endeavor to ensure development 

of these important new programs. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to discuss NASA’s and industry’s progress, next 

steps, and challenges developing our nation’s next generation heavy-lift launcher 

and crew capsule. For the next several decades, the Space Launch System and 

Orion multipurpose crew vehicle will give our country the capability to launch exciting new human spaceflight exploration missions and robotic science missions. No 

other country has the technical expertise or industrial base to produce anything 

similar to SLS and Orion, making it all the more compelling to ensure that these 

programs continue without interruption. 

It’s also important to realize other significant benefits that flow from the SLS and 

Orion programs. First, by building a heavy-lift vehicle, we’ll enable bold new science 

missions and I look forward to Dr. Mountain’s testimony about the scale of potential 

flagship missions that might be conceived for launching ten or fifteen years from 

now. I am optimistic that once our government’s fiscal health has been restored, 

NASA will have the resources to again consider robotic flagship missions that will 

maintain the momentum we currently enjoy with missions such as MSL. 

Second, looking at the health and vitality of our aerospace industrial base, SLS 

and Orion will continue to challenge our best and brightest engineers to design and 

develop advanced propulsion, avionics, and manufacturing capabilities that will 

maintain America’s preeminence in space. To be clear, there are a number of emerging space powers who may, in time, be tempted to challenge our leadership in space, 

and especially space-based technologies that are fundamental to our economy, our 

quality of life, and our national security. We simply can’t afford to scale back investments in aerospace R&D or we may, in time, put future generations of Americans 

at risk. 

Finally, I worry that without SLS and Orion, NASA’s and our country’s ability 

to do ‘the hard stuff’ —cutting edge space exploration—would be seriously impaired. 

NASA’s first 50 years plus of programs and missions have been awe-inspiring. I 

want to keep that spirit alive for decades to come. 

Thanks again to our witnesses for appearing before us this morning. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I would now like to yield my remaining time 

to the chairman of the full Committee, Representative Ralph Hall, 

for any comments he would like to make. 

Chairman HALL. Mr. Chairman, I of course thank you for holding 

this morning’s hearing, and I thank the four gentlemen there for 

the time they gave in preparation, travel and for giving us this information that you give us. 

The Space Launch System, as the Chairman said, and Orion 

crew vehicle are going to enable NASA’s future human deep space 

exploration and it is vitally important that they be continued, I 

think, and I think most of us think that, and if Congress and the 

Administration work together to keep these programs on track and 

on schedule, but having said that, I continue to worry about 

NASA’s commitment to the Space Launch System and Orion. 

The agency delayed design selection of SLS for 11 months following enactment of the 2010 Authorization Act. Its budget request 

for these two programs falls significantly short of amounts authorized. I have yet to see evidence that design and development of 
11 

Orion service module, which would be required to support any 

multiday mission, has begun. No mission destination has been selected other than an asteroid to be named later, and while I acknowledge the Administration argues we have already been to the 

moon, I find it questionable that a trip beyond low-Earth orbit does 

not include the moon as an interim destination, maybe or maybe 

not, but to be considered to keep in view that we are considering 

it, the research and development systems that will be required for 

missions to other planets such as Mars. I have sense enough to 

know we are not going to Mars or on asteroid or anywhere else 

until people can go to the grocery store, and by that I know that 

the economy has got to get a lot better, but we have to be ready 

for it and that is continuing to be preparing and seeking it. 

Once the International Space Station is retired, we will have no 

manned presence in space except for missions launched on SLS and 

Orion. Without this new launch system, the technological capability, inspiration and innovation that springs from our human 

spaceflight programs is going to wither. None of us can afford to 

allow that to happen. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I yield back my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RALPH M. HALL

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this morning’s hearing. 

The Space Launch System and Orion crew vehicle will enable NASA’s future 

human deep space exploration program. It is vitally important they be continued, 

and that Congress and the Administration work together to keep these programs 

on track and on schedule. 

But having said that, I continue to worry about NASA’s commitment to SLS and 

Orion. The agency delayed design selection of SLS for 11 months following enactment of the 2010 authorization act. Its budget requests for these two programs fall 

significantly short of amounts authorized. I have yet to see evidence that design and 

development of an Orion service module—which would be required to support any 

multi-day mission—has begun. No mission destination has been selected, other than 

an asteroid to be named later. And while I acknowledge the Administration argues 

we’ve already been to the Moon, I find it questionable that a trip beyond lower earth 

orbit does not include the Moon as an interim destination to research and develop 

systems that will be required for missions to other planets such as Mars. 

Once the International Space Station is retired, we will have no manned presence 

in space except for missions launched on SLS and Orion. Without this new launch 

system, the technological capability, inspiration, and innovation that springs from 

our human spaceflight program will quickly wither. None of us can afford to allow 

that to happen. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks again 

to our witnesses for appearing before us today. 

I now recognize Mr. Clarke for an opening statement. 

Mr. CLARKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the opportunity to be Ranking Member of this Subcommittee on this very 

important issue. We want to make sure that the plans, status and 

development of these two important projects are on time, and as 

we are well aware, our Authorization Act in 2010 directed NASA 

to develop both support human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit, 

provide backup capability to deliver crew and cargo to our International Space Station, and to preserve the critical capabilities of 

our aerospace workforce and industrial base. And we are all aware 
12 

that the task of getting SLS’s and Orion’s architecture underway 

wasn’t an easy one. 

Back in March of last year, this Subcommittee pressed members 

of NASA for a final decision on the configuration of the next heavylift vehicle for returning Americans to human exploration beyond 

low-Earth orbit, which is our ultimate goal, at least on an interim 

basis, by 2021. 

A year ago this month, we got the decision that the integrated 

SLS and Orion crew capsule architecture that NASA is currently 

developing, we got a decision on that. This system builds on the 

successful and proven space shuttle technologies as well as new developments begun under the former Constellation program before 

it was ended. 

While NASA’s decision took some time, I am encouraged that in 

just a year since announcing the final architecture, NASA and its 

industry contractors have made considerable progress, and that is 

something I would like to talk to you about today as well. 

The Orion capsule has been delivered to the Kennedy Space Center in preparation for an uncrewed test flight in 2014. The SLS has 

completed its initial stage of review, which confirmed the vehicle 

concept, the overall architecture, and the design and integration 

approach. Now, in addition to the 2014 test flight of Orion, NASA’s 

plans include an integrated SLS and Orion uncrewed test flight in 

2017 and the first crewed test flight by 2021. 

So it is my hope today that you as witnesses can help us understand how these test flights will help identify risks early on to 

human flight, any challenges that they face in meeting those milestones, and what is needed to ensure the earliest possible date for 

returning Americans to deep space exploration. 

My next remarks have some great references to an outstanding 

American, Neil Armstrong, who came to this Committee a year ago 

next week. But as someone that is a Baby Boomer that was a kid 

during the 1960s, I remember as a kid President Johnson standing 

before, President Kennedy as well standing before the American 

people and being committed to the goal of sending Americans to 

the moon. President Kennedy said that in such an inspiring way. 

Those same principles of what he spoke about are embodied in the 

success of NASA Authorization Acts over the last several years, 

and what I believe is so important is that we work to achieve those 

goals set forth by Congress in those Acts by returning Americans 

to deep space exploration. 

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

[The prepared statement of Mr. Clarke follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ACTING RANKING MINORITY MEMBER HANSEN H. CLARKE

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. 

If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening statements, your 

statements will be added to the record at this point. 

Before introducing the witnesses, the Chair wishes to express his thanks to Mr. 

Lacefield and Mr. Chilton for agreeing to appear before this Committee on relatively 

very short notice. While we normally require witnesses to provide testimony 48 

hours in advance of a hearing, under the current circumstances, it would be inappropriate to hold them to the same standard, and we are pleased they are able to 

join us here this morning. 

At this time I would like to introduce our panel of witnesses, and then we will 

proceed to hear from each of them in order. Our first witness is Mr. Dan 
13 

Dumbacher, the Deputy Associate Administrator for Explorations Systems Development at NASA. Mr. Dumbacher joined NASA in 1979 at the Marshall Space Flight 

Center. He has held a number of management positions during his career including 

most recently heading the Engineering Directorate at Marshall. Mr. Dumbacher has 

also served as Deputy Director of the Exploration Launch Projects Office, Deputy 

Director of the Ares Project Office, and Deputy Director of the Safety and Mission 

Assurance Office. He has received a number of awards and honors during his career 

with NASA, and Mr. Dumbacher graduated from Purdue University with a degree 

in mechanical engineering. 

Our second witness is Mr. Cleon Lacefield, Vice President and Orion Program 

Manager at Lockheed Martin Corporation. He has more than 34 years of aerospace 

experience beginning in the Navy as an A–7 pilot, then moving over to NASA where 

he participated in a number of spaceflight programs including as Flight Director at 

Mission Control in Houston and as Director in the X–33 program. Mr. Lacefield 

earned a number of awards and honors during his tenure at NASA and as a graduate of California Polytechnic State University. 

Our third witness is Mr. Jim Chilton, Vice President and Program Manager for 

Exploration Launch Systems at Boeing. Previously, Mr. Chilton served as Program 

Manager for the checkout, assembly and payload processing services contract at 

Boeing’s Kennedy Space Center facility. Mr. Chilton joined Boeing at the 

Rocketdyne division as an engineer serving a number of roles in engine test and 

launch operations. Mr. Chilton holds a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering 

from Washington State University and a master’s degree in space technology from 

the Florida Institute of Technology. 

Our final witness is Dr. Matt Mountain, Director of the Space Telescope Science 

Institute. Dr. Mountain has been director of the institute since September 2005. He 

leads the 400-person organization responsible for the science operations of the 

Hubble Space Telescope. He is the James Webb Space Telescope’s telescope scientist, a member of the JWST Science Working Group, a professor at the Johns 

Hopkins University’s Department of Physics and Astronomy, and a visiting professor at the University of Oxford. Dr. Mountain is a fellow of the American Astronomical Society and the Royal Astronomical Society and the American Association 

for the Advancement of Science. 

Thanks again to our panel for being here this morning. As our witnesses should 

know, spoken testimony is limited to five minutes each. After all witnesses have 

spoken, Members of the Committee will have five minutes each to ask questions. 

I now recognize our first witness, Mr. Dumbacher, to present his 

testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MR. DAN DUMBACHER, 

DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR 

EXPLORATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT, NASA 

Mr. DUMBACHER. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to update you on NASA’s 

Explorations Systems Development Programs, which are depicted 

on the posters to my left: the Orion multipurpose crew vehicle, the 

Space Launch System and the related ground systems, and you can 

see there evidence of some of our progress. 

Today marks the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy’s speech 

at Rice University in which he discussed America’s space efforts 

and particularly the coming missions to the moon. As the Nation 

celebrates the achievements of Neil Armstrong and the realization 

of President Kennedy’s goal, I am pleased to inform you that we 

are making excellent progress towards developing the next-generation capabilities for human space exploration beyond low-Earth 

orbit. 

Orion is a four-person spacecraft designed to support exploration 

missions to multiple destinations. We have pressed forward with 

the design and manufacture of the first flight test article and the 

first flight test crew module structure is at Kennedy Space Center 

for assembly and integration. In addition, the program has com-
14 

pleted significant acoustic and vibration testing, water impact test 

and parachute tests. Fabrication of the heat shield has been initiated, and the testing of avionics and software systems continues. 

Orion will be used in the uncrewed exploration flight test in 

2014. This will be a two-orbit, high-energy reentry test mission 

that will obtain critical performance data needed to confirm the design of the spacecraft. Exploration flight test one will also serve as 

a pathfinder to validate innovative approaches, reduce cost, demonstrate recovery procedures and develop the launch vehicle adapter. This adapter will also be used on the uncrewed flight in 2017 

and the first crewed flights beginning in 2021. 

The Space Launch System is a heavy-lift launch vehicle that will 

transport Orion as well as cargo and other systems with a range 

of lift capabilities from 70 metric tons evolving up to 130 metric 

tons. The Space Launch System team completed the required acquisition strategy process and had all contractors working by December 31, 2011. The team has completed key reviews and over the 

next year is proceeding to preliminary design review for the booster 

and core stage elements as well as the integrated Block 1 vehicle. 

The Space Launch System core stage team has successfully completed its systems definition review. Fifteen RS–25D liquid hydrogen engines have been delivered to the Stennis Space Center in 

preparation for installation and tests on the core stage. NASA has 

initiated efforts to prepare the B–2 test stand at Stennis for the 

core stage testing. Solid booster segments are being prepared for 

the qualification motor test with the first such test slated for next 

May. 

In July, NASA selected six proposals under an open, competitive 

NASA research announcement to improve the booster’s affordability, reliability and performance. These initial risk reduction 

tests will be followed by full and open competition for the full-scale 

design and development work leading to an advanced booster for 

the evolved Space Launch System. 

The 130-metric-ton Block 2 Space Launch System configuration 

will require a new upper stage utilizing the J–2X engines currently 

in development testing. J–2X has completed a total of over 3,250 

seconds in 29 tests on the engine power pack. 

In the exploration ground systems effort, the Kennedy Space 

Center team has made significant progress on the necessary infrastructure design, development and refurbishment to support the 

Space Launch System and Orion. The Kennedy Space Center is 

proceeding also through its key reviews. The Center has completed 

the first phase of mobile launcher construction. Refurbishment and 

upgrades to the crawler-transporter are being performed at a pace 

to support the 2017 flight test. 

In addition, work is beginning on the vehicle assembly building 

to support the Space Launch System. Pad 39B has been prepared 

for the mobile launcher with lightning towers in place and the 

needed refurbishment to pad infrastructure. 

As we move forward, NASA is working to keep all of these efforts 

integrated and coordinated. We successfully completed an integrated systems requirements review in February of 2012 for all of 

the integrated systems, and are progressing toward our integrated 

systems definition review early next year. The agency is working 
15 

with an affordable model using a smaller number of level 1 requirements similar to what we did during the Apollo program. We have 

also streamlined the decision and integration processes to assure 

timely decision-making while addressing the needed technical aspects. 

The NASA industry team has made great progress over the past 

year. Orion and the Space Launch System fit well within a broader 

U.S. launch strategy of procuring commercial launches for crew 

and cargo to the International Space Station while concentrating 

NASA’s development efforts on exploration missions beyond lowEarth orbit including flights to asteroids. Both Orion and Space 

Launch System are being designed to support multiple missions 

and destinations rather than being optimized for one particular 

mission or architecture. Ultimately, these capabilities will pave the 

way for the human missions to the Mars. 

Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for the opportunity to appear 

before you today to provide you with our progress and status over 

the past year. I would be happy to respond to any questions you 

or the other Members of the Subcommittee may have. 

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

Statement of 

Daniel L. Dumbacher 

HOLD FOR RELEASE 

UNTIL PRESENTED 

BY WITNESS 

September 12,2012 

Deputy Associate Administrator for Exploration Systems Development 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

before the 

Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 

Committee on Science, Space and Technology 

U. S. House of Representatives 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to testify before you 

regarding the status of NASA's Exploration Systems Development (ESD) Programs: the Orion MultiPurpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV), the Space Launch System (SLS) heavy-lift launch vehicle, and the 

necessary launch and processing ground systems. I am pleased to inform you that the dedicated NASAindustry team, working across the Nation utilizing all of the NASA Centers, and our primary industry 

partners Lockheed Martin, Boeing, A TK, and Pratt Whitney Rocketdyne, is making excellent progress 

towards developing the next capabilities for human space exploration and scientific missions beyond lowEarth orbit (LEO). 

We stand on the shoulders of all those who so tirelessly worked before us to achieve the Apollo Moon 

landings, to develop and operate the Space Shuttle, to assemble and utilize the International Space Station 

(ISS), to look deep into the universe with the Hubble Space Telescope, to signal a new era of commercial 

spaceflight with the ISS docking of the Dragon spacecraft, and, most recently, to successfully accomplish 

Curiosity's Mars landing. It is particularly fitting that we demonstrate our progress to you as this Nation 

celebrates the great accomplishments of Neil Armstrong and the entire Apollo team. 

Introduction 

In line with the NASA Authorization Act of2010 (P.L. 111-267), the Agency has been moving forward 

with a space exploration program designed to carry human beings beyond LEO. 

The first two major hardware elements of this exploration program are the Orion MPCV spacecraft and 

SLS heavy-lift launch vehicle. Orion is a four-person spacecraft designed to support exploration missions 

to multiple destinations beyond Earth orbit, as well as, contingency capability for the ISS. The SLS is a 

heavy-lift launch vehicle that will transport Orion as well as cargo and other systems, with a range of lift 

capabilities from 70 metric tons evolving up to 130 metric tons based on future mission requirements. 

Orion and SLS fit well within a broader U.S. launch strategy of procuring commercial launches of crew 

and cargo to the ISS, while concentrating NASA's development efforts on exploration missions beyond 

Earth orbit. SLS and Orion are fundamental building blocks in a capability-based architecture designed 

for long-term human exploration of our solar system, particularly the goal of human landing on Mars. 

Both Orion and SLS are being designed to support multiple missions and destinations rather than being 

1 
17 

optimized for one particular mission or architecture. The capabilities we are developing will open a broad 

range of exciting destinations for human exploration in the solar system. NASA's approach to expanding 

the human presence into the solar system includes sending humans to an asteroid in the next decade and 

ultimately sending humans to Mars. 

Before speaking in detail about the individual Programs, I would like to give you a status of where we are 

with regard to the integrated deep space exploration capability. NASA successfully completed an 

integrated Systems Requirements Review (SRR) in February 2012 for the full-up Orion, SLS, and ground 

systems capabilities. This milestone demonstrated that the requirements for the integrated programs meet 

the Agency's goals, and provide a sound basis for the individual development of Orion, SLS, and the 

ground systems. The Exploration Systems Development Division of NASA's Human Exploration and 

Operations Mission Directorate directs Program and system integration to ensure that the integrated 

Orion, SLS, and the ground systems capabilities meet the needs of the Agency's long-term human 

exploration objectives, function as planned, and remain within the tight cost and schedule constraints. 

We have established the guidelines for the management and development approach; identified roles, 

responsibilities, and accountability; established processes for integration and configuration management, 

risk management, and program performance reporting; and implemented our procedures for decision 

making, and cost and schedule management. We have defined Program deliverables, and completed the 

first phases of the NASA program management process. 

We are progressing toward our integrated System DefinitionReview (SDR) early next year, the 

associated flow-down processes are properly performed, and the Programs are properly integrated to meet 

the needs of the human exploration framework. The status ofthe integrated system will be reviewed and 

assessed at periodic checkpoints as we proceed through development and into operations. The flight test 

milestones driving the schedule include the uncrewed Exploration Flight Test-l (EFT-l) in 2014, the first 

uncrewed launch of Orion and SLS in Exploration Mission-l (EM-I) in 2017, and the first crewed launch 

of Orion and SLS in Exploration Mission-2 (EM-2) in 2021. 

Orion was designated as NASA's Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle in May 2011, and the Ground Systems 

program office was stood up in June 20 II. The SLS vehicle plan was announced a year ago on 

September 14,2011. 

Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) 

Orion's shape resembles its Apollo-era predecessors, but its technology and capabilities are far more 

advanced. Orion features dozens of technology innovations that have been incorporated into the . 

spacecraft's subsystem and component design. To support our exploration missions the Orion teams at 

the Johnson Space Center (JSC) and at Lockheed Martin are developing state-of-the-art life support, 

propulsion, thermal protection, and avionics systems. Building upon the best of U.S. human spaceflight 

design and experience, the Orion spacecraft includes both crew and service modules, and a launch abort 

system that will significantly increase crew safety. 

Since May 2011, the Orion Program has pressed forward with the design and manufacture of the first 

flight test article and design of Orion's critical test program. On July 2, the Program delivered the first 

flight test crew module structure to the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) for assembly and integration. In 

addition, the Program has completed significant acoustic and vibration testing in the Lockheed Martin 

Denver facilities, 19 of25 water impact tests at Langley Research Center, and 6 of26 parachute tests in 

various configurations at the Yuma Proving Grounds. Fabrication of the state-of-the art heat shield has 

2 
18 

been initiated in Denver, and NASA continues to test avionics and software systems. Glenn Research 

Center is leading the Orion Service Module efforts with Lockheed Martin. 

The next step for Orion is to prepare for the EFT -1 in 2014. EFT-I will be an uncrewed, two-orbit, highenergy-entry test mission that will obtain critical vehicle performance data needed to confirm detailed 

design of the Orion spacecraft to fly in 2017. EFT -1 will serve as a pathfinder to validate innovative 

approaches to space systems development to reduce cost, demonstrate spacecraft post-landing recovery 

procedures, and develop the launch vehicle adapter, which will also be used on the uncrewed flight in 

2017 and the first crewed flights beginning in 2021. In the next year, we will continue EFT-I 

manufacturing and begin phasing in, at a low level, the design work for the 2017 Orion flight article. 

Mission planning for the EFT-I with the JSC Mission Operations Directorate is ongoing. 

In the next year, we will continue to press toward the 2014 flight test, ramp up the service module design 

efforts for 2017, and begin phasing in, at a low level, the design work for the 2017 Orion flight article. 

Orion provides our Nation with an approach for multiple-mission capability that builds upon the 

technology innovations and spacecraft development the NASA-industry team has previously 

accomplished. In designing for challenging deep space missions, the Orion team will perform rigorous 

human rating tests and critical certification milestones required for safe, successful human spaceflight. 

With a proven launch abort system and its inherent design to provide the highest level of safety for the 

crew during long-duration missions, the Orion MPCV is poised to take on increasingly challenging 

missions that will take human space exploration beyond Earth orbit and out into the solar system. 

Space Launch System (SLS) 

The SLS Program, managed at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) with the Boeing, ATK, 

and Pratt Whitney Rocketdyne industry partners, is developing the heavy-lift vehicle that will launch the 

Orion spacecraft, and cargo, for NASA's exploration missions. The SLS vehicle family will start with a 

lift capability of70 metric tons (mt) to LEO, with the ability of evolving up to 130 mt based on future 

mission requirements. The SLS is designed with one overarching purpose: to explore beyond Earth orbit 

with ambitious mass and propulsion requirements. 

The initial 70-mt configuration will consist of an 8A-meter-diameter core stage building from Space 

Shuttle and Ares experience, powered by four RS-25D liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen engines which 

formerly powered the Space Shuttle Orbiter, and build on the U.S. state-of-the-art capabilities in liquid 

propulsion. The core stage is being designed for use on future configurations of the SLS with the 

diameter, materials, and manufacturing processes remaining the same as the vehicle performance evolves. 

In this configuration, two five-segment solid rocket boosters (SRBs) - a more powerful version ofthe 

four-segment boosters used on the Space Shuttle - will be attached to the core stage for the initial boost 

phase of flight. For the first two missions ofSLS, an Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (rCPS) will be 

used to propel the Orion spacecraft from LEO. NASA has chosen Boeing's Delta IV upper stage as the 

ICPS for the first two flights, and the contract is expected to be signed in the third quarter of FY 2013. 

We anticipate having a letter contract by the end of the year, followed by the final contract in the spring. 

Since the Administration announcement in September 20 I 1 of the SLS configuration, the SLS team led 

by MSFC has made tremendous progress. The SLS team successfully completed the required acquisition 

strategy process and had all contractors working on contract by December 31, 2011. This was a major 

accomplishment, and it led to significant progress in the design process. The SLS NASA-industry team 

has successfully completed the Systems Requirements Review, the System Definition Review, and has 

gained Agency-level approval to proceed to the Preliminary Design Review. 

3 
19 

The NASA/Boeing Core Stage element has successfully completed its SRR and SDR. Manufacturing 

process development has proceeded to support the core stage and vehicle design efforts. NASA has 

initiated activities to prepare the B-2 test stand at Stennis Space Center (SSC) for Core Stage green run 

testing that will he performed prior to shipment to KSC for launch in 2017. The Core Stage element is on 

the critical path for the SLS, and all hands are on deck to achieve the aggressive schedule. 

The initial segments for the first of two solid booster Qualification Motor tests have been poured at A TK 

and the 5-segment solid rocket motor is on track for a test firing next May. ATK has delivered booster 

avionics systems and Boeing has delivered vehicle avionics and software to MSFC for testing. The 15 

RS-2SD liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen engines have been delivered to SSC from the KSC in preparation 

for installation and test on the Core Stage. 

SLS is also an integral part of the 2014 EFT-I. SLS is responsible for designing and developing the 

structure adapter to attach the Orion spacecraft to the launch vehicle. This same structure will be used on 

the uncrewed flight in 2017 and first crewed mission in 2021. Machining on the first set of metal rings 

has been completed. 

Future exploration missions will require increased launch vehicle performance. We have initiated the 

first phase for the development of the advanced boosters needed to perform these future missions. In July 

2012, NASA selected six proposals as the basis for negotiations to perform engineering demonstrations 

and risk reduction under an open, competitive NASA Research Announcement (NRA) to improve the 

boosters' affordability, reliability, and performance. The advanced boosters can be either liquid or solid, 

and must meet the SLS performance and interface requirements. These initial risk-reduction tasks will be 

followed by another full-and-open competition for the full scale design and development work leading to 

an eventual advanced booster for the evolved SLS. 

The 70-mt, 105-mt, and l30-mt lift capability SLS vehicle blocks all fulfill specific, important roles 

within the exploration architecture. The Block 1, 70-mt vehicle will prove out the new Core Stage and 

integrated stack for the initial exploration missions and can support scientific payloads with requirements 

beyond commercial lift capabilities. Mission analysis has shown that the Block lA, 10S-mt vehicle 

provides significant "mission capture" for the next set of human missions beyond LEO. A 130-mt Block 

2 vehicle is also being designed consistent with Congressional direction and would be used for full 

capability asteroid missions and ultimately missions to Mars. This SLS configuration will require a new 

upper stage with one or two J-2X upper-stage engines-currently in development testing at SSC. J-2X 

has completed a total of over 3,250 seconds over 29 tests on the engine and powerpack. 

In the coming calendar year, SLS will undergo a series of important reviews to ensure its progress toward 

final design. The Preliminary Design Review (PDR) will be conducted for the integrated SLS Block 1 

vehicle, as will the PDRs for the booster and core stage elements. 

Exploration Ground Systems 

The Exploration Ground Systems effort has also been making significant progress since the September 

2011 SLS alll1ouncement. The KSC and SLS teams are working very closely to define and develop the 

necessary interfaces for the launch vehicle. In a similar malll1er, albeit at a lower level, KSC has been 

working with the Orion program on the needed prelaunch processing to be performed. 

The KSC team has made significant progress on the necessary infrastructure design, development, and 

refurbishment to support SLS and Orion. Based upon the SLS and Orion needs, KSC is proceeding 

4 
20 

through the Systems Requirements and Systems Definition Reviews. The reviews are proceeding well 

with minimal issues, and we are continuing the Agency review process. KSC is also providing valuable 

operations expertise to the SLS and Orion teams to address operational issues in the design in order to 

help reduce eventual production and operations costs. 

In terms of the infrastructure and hardware, KSC has completed the first phase ofthe mobile launcher 

construction, utilizing significant work accomplished under Constellation. Refurbishment and upgrades 

to a crawler-transporter are being performed at a pace to support the 2017 flight ofSLS and Orion. These 

upgrades are needed due to the increased mass of the SLS/Orion integrated stack compared to the Space 

Shuttle configuration. 

Work is beginning on the Vehicle Assembly Building and the platforms in High Bay 3 to support SLS. 

Launch Complex 39-B has been prepared for the SLS/Orion mobile launcher with the Space Shuttle 

hardware removed, lightning towers in place, and the needed refurbishment to the pad infrastructure with 

replacement of copper wire with fiber optics and refurbishment of the water deluge supply tower. 

Conclusion 

The NASA-industry team has made great progress over the past year on Orion, SLS, and Exploration 

Ground Systems. In an endeavor of this magnitude there will always be challenges. Currently, the major 

challenges to the programs are not primarily technical. Rather, the challenges are in maintaining program 

stability while acquiring the Orion and SLS systems so that the next elements of the Exploration 

enterprise can be developed. Additionally, there will be the typical hardware development, 

manufacturing, and supply chain challenges. NASA and its industry team are working diligently to 

identify issues early and address them expeditiously. 

In developing the Orion, SLS, and Exploration Ground Systems, NASA is building a National capability 

for the long-term human exploration of space. By providing more volume and mass for payloads, SLS 

could enable the simplification of the design and trajectories offuture payloads, such as orbiting fuel 

depots, to support the construction, fueling, and repair of space systems. These capabilities will pave the 

way for a mission to an asteroid, and ultimately human missions to Mars. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to provide you with our progress 

and status over the past year as we look forward to the 2014 Orion flight test and the first SLS/Orion test 

flight in 2017. I would be happy to respond to any questions you or the other Members of the 

Subcommittee may have. 

5 
21 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you. 

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

STATEMENT OF MR. CLEON LACEFIELD, 

VICE PRESIDENT AND ORION PROGRAM MANAGER, 

LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION 

Mr. LACEFIELD. Chairman Palazzo, Chairman Hall, Mr. Clarke, 

Congressman Clarke, and Members of the Space and Aeronautics 

Subcommittee, it is a pleasure for me to testify before you today 

concerning the Orion spacecraft and its contribution to the future 

of America’s human space exploration program. 

As you are well aware, Orion is the world’s first interplanetary 

spacecraft supporting safe, long-duration human exploration and 

scientific discovery missions to deep space including the moon, asteroids, the moons of Mars, and ultimately Mars itself. Orion is 

complementary to and indeed has contributed to the development 

of technologies for many of NASA’s programs. 

The NASA–Lockheed Martin, Orion team is comprised of Lockheed Martin, Aerojet, ATK, Hamilton Sundstrand, Honeywell and 

many business suppliers in 41 states. It is an exceptional team that 

includes some of the most highly motivated engineers employed by 

in industry. On the government side, it is led by NASA’s Johnson 

Space Center in Houston, and involves a number of other NASA 

centers across the country. The Orion team continues to make tremendous progress developing, manufacturing, assembling and testing this state-of-the-art space exploration vehicle. 

We are currently advancing toward our next major milestone, 

Exploration Flight Test-1, or EFT–1, in 2014, leading to follow-on 

orbital flight testing of Exploration Mission-1, EM–1, and subsequent crewed flight far beyond low-Earth orbit in deep space, Exploration Mission 2, or EM–2. EM–1 and EM–2 will fly on the 

Space Launch System managed by NASA’s Marshall Space Flight 

program in Huntsville, Alabama. 

The following are examples of major program technical progress 

and our commitment to crew safety and system reliability. We have 

successfully tested a new launch abort system during Pad Abort 

Test-1 at White Sands Missile Test Range in New Mexico to demonstrate our capability to protect the crew under emergency conditions. In collaboration with NASA and our Colorado-based Ball 

Aerospace teammate, we developed an innovative navigation and 

docking system called STORRM, which was successfully tested during space shuttle mission STS–134. 

We have completed parachute tests at the Yuma Proving Ground 

in Arizona, and we are continuing water landing tests at the Hydro 

Basin facility at NASA’s Langley Research Center in Virginia, and 

we are building propulsion system components at Lockheed Martin’s facility located at NASA’s Stennis Space Center in Mississippi. 

We have successfully completed spaceflight acoustic and vibration 

testing on the Orion Ground Test Article spacecraft at Lockheed 

Martin’s facility in Colorado, and we delivered the EFT–1 Orion 

crew module to the Operations and Checkout facility—America’s 

spacecraft factory for the future—at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center 
22 

in Florida, with work moving forward on critical subsystem installation, assembly and test. 

The NASA–Lockheed Martin team has also initiated major affordability measures and streamlined Orion program management 

oversight by incorporating proven commercial practices. That said, 

it remains critically important that Congress maintain fiscal 2013 

funding at the current level to ensure timely and successful implementation of EFT–1 in 2014, as well as outyear budgets to support 

EM–1 and EM–2. In fact, Orion’s considerable progress and the importance of our continued commitment to crew safety, reliability 

and risk mitigation testing was emphasized by the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, ASAP, in its most recent review of the Orion 

and SLS programs. 

Mr. Chairman, with your leadership and continued bipartisan 

support of this Committee, Congress and the President, Orion, together with SLS, is prepared for unprecedented missions of exploration and discovery, taking humans further into the solar system 

than ever before experienced, while encouraging STEM education 

among our youth and providing high-tech careers and jobs. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify, and I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lacefield follows:] 
23 

House Science, Space and Technology Committee 

Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 

"Examining NASA's Development of the Space Launch System and 

Orion Crew Capsule" 

Statement by 

CLEON LACEFIELD 

Vice President and Orion Program Manager 

Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company 

"Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle" 

September 12,2012 
24 

CLEaN LACEFIELD 

Vice President and Orion Program Manager 

Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company 

"Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle" 

Chairman Palazzo, Ranking Member Costello and Members of the Space 

and Aeronautics Subcommittee, it is a pleasure for me to testify before you 

today concerning the Orion spacecraft and its contribution to the future of 

America's human space exploration program. 

From the days of Apollo, our nation's space program has been built on the 

foundation of strong, bi-partisan political support. Indeed, continued 

support from both parties sustained through multiple Congresses and 

Presidents will be essential to the future of America' space exploration 

program, and to ensuring value from our national investment in human 

spaceflight. I am, therefore, pleased to see Congress, NASA and the 

President establish the development of Orion and the Space Launch 

System or "SLS" as a top national investment priority for space. 

As you are well aware, Orion is the world's first interplanetary spacecraft 

supporting safe, long-duration, human exploration and scientific discovery 

missions to deep-space, including the moon, asteroids, the moons of Mars, 

and ultimately Mars, itself. Orion is complementary to - and, indeed, has 

contributed to the development of - NASA's commercial space 

transportation initiative for operational support to the International Space 

Station in low-Earth orbit. 
25 

The NASA-Lockheed Martin Orion industry team is comprised of Lockheed 

Martin, Aerojet, ATK, Hamilton Sundstrand, Honeywell, and many small 

business suppliers in 41 states. It is an exceptional team that includes 

some of the youngest and most highly motivated engineers employed by 

Lockheed Martin. On the Government side it is led by NASA's Johnson 

Space Center in Houston, and involves a number of other NASA Centers 

across the country. The Orion team continues to make tremendous 

progress developing, manufacturing, assembling, and testing this state of 

the art space exploration vehicle. 

We are currently advancing toward our next major milestone, Exploration 

Flight Test-1 or "EFT-i" in 2014, leading to follow-on orbital flight testing 

(Exploration Mission-1 or "EM-1") and subsequent crewed missions far 

beyond low-Earth orbit into deep space (Exploration Mission 2 or "EM-2"). 

The following are examples of major program technical progress and our 

commitment to crew safety and system reliability: 

• We successfully tested a new Launch Abort System or "LAS" during 

the Pad Abort-1 test at White Sands Missile Test Range in New 

Mexico to demonstrate our ability to protect the crew under 

emergency conditions. The LAS required development of three new 

rocket motors with key work accomplished by ATK in Maryland and 

Utah and Aerojet in California. 

• In collaboration with NASA and our Colorado-based Ball Aerospace 

teammate, we developed an innovative navigation and docking 

system called "STORRM" which was successfully tested during 

Space Shuttle mission STS-134. 
26 

• We have completed parachute tests at the Yuma Proving Ground in 

Arizona; we are continuing water landing tests at the Hydro Basin 

facility at NASA's Langley Research Center in Virginia; and we are 

conducting propulsion testing at a Lockheed Martin facility located at 

NASA's Stennis Space Center in Mississippi. 

• We successfully completed space flight acoustic and vibration testing 

on the Orion Ground Test Article spacecraft at Lockheed Martin 

facilities in Colorado after demonstrating advanced, state-of-the-art 

friction-stir welding manufacturing techniques at NASA's Michoud 

Assembly Facility in Louisiana. 

• We delivered the EFT-1 Orion crew module to the Operations & 

Checkout facility - America's "Spacecraft Factory of the Future" - at 

NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida, with work moving forward 

on critical subsystem installation and assembly. 

The NASA-Lockheed Martin team also initiated major affordability 

measures and streamlined Orion program management oversight by 

incorporating proven commercial practices to ensure our ability to work 

within constrained NASA budgets while keeping the program moving 

forward. 

That said, it remains critically important that Congress maintain FY2013 

funding at the current level to ensure timely and successful implementation 

of EFT-1 in 2014, as well as out year budgets to support a robust crew 

safety - risk mitigation demonstration test (Exploration Mission-1) leading to 

first crewed mission with Exploration Mission-2. In fact, Orion's 

"considerable progress" and the importance of our continued commitment 
27 

to crew safety, reliability and risk mitigation testing was emphasized by the 

Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) in its most recent review of the 

Orion and SLS programs. 

As I have already indicated, Exploration Flight Test -1 or "EFT-1" is the next 

major program milestone on the way to opening a new era of human space 

exploration and scientific discovery. 

The EFT-1 Orion spacecraft will fly without crew aboard an existing DeltaIV Heavy launch vehicle from NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida in 

2014. It will send Orion 3,600 miles into space - more than 15 times father 

away from Earth than the International Space Station. It will test the 

systems needed for a high-energy return for missions beyond low-Earth 

orbit. Orion will re-enter the atmosphere at nearly 20,000 miles per hour -

speeds not seen since Apollo; and it will experience temperatures of almost 

2,000 degrees Fahrenheit - higher than any human spacecraft since 

astronauts returned from the moon. 

Bottom-line: EFT-1 is needed to reduce program technical risk and 

demonstrate important integrated performance capabilities necessary to 

ensure mission success and crew safety. 

As NASA's Orion Program Manager Mark Geyer stated recently: "We can 

test parachutes by dropping them from a plane. We can test thrusters in 

stands on the ground. We can check the splashdown in a water tank. We 

can test all the pieces and parts, but a space flight is the only place we can 

see all these things work together and work under the real conditions they 

will face with a crew onboard." 
28 

EFT-1 will be followed by another uncrewed orbital flight test called 

Exploration Mission-1 or "EM-1" in 2017 which will fly on the new Space 

Launch System or "SLS" rocket managed by NASA's Marshall Space Flight 

Center in Alabama. EM-1 will put the entire, integrated exploration system 

through its paces, demonstrate human mission capability, and set the stage 

for first Orion-SLS crewed mission operations to deep space. 

Mr. Chairman, with your leadership and continued bi-partisan support of 

this Committee, Congress and the President, Orion - together with SLS -

is prepared for unprecedented missions of exploration and discovery, 

taking humans further into the solar system than ever before experienced, 

while encouraging STEM education among our youth and providing hightech careers and jobs. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify and I look forward to your 

questions. 
29 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you. 

I now recognize our third witness, Mr. Chilton, for five minutes 

to present his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JIM CHILTON, 

EXPLORATION VICE PRESIDENT, THE BOEING COMPANY 

Mr. CHILTON. Good morning. Chairman Palazzo, Chairman Hall, 

Ranking Member Clarke, Congressman Brooks, on behalf of Boeing, thanks for the opportunity to be here. We want to thank you 

for your continued support of human spaceflight. You enabled a 

safe fly-out of the shuttle, completion of ISS and outlining this path 

for beyond-Earth-orbit exploration. Without your Committee, this 

wouldn’t have happened, so thank you very much. It is a great 

honor to be here. 

As previously stated, the Space Launch System is an enabler for 

human deep space exploration needed to propel elements free of 

Earth’s gravity. It can serve as the backbone of our Nation’s space 

program in any post-ISS era. 

I would like to start by talking about challenges per your request. It is worth noting up front that many potential challenges 

on SLS have already been avoided. NASA quite wisely selected an 

architecture that allows reuse of designs and elements that have 

been very successful in other programs. This separation of product 

development and technology development increases our overall confidence in schedule, cost and mission success. 

That said, accomplishing rapid development of the core stage of 

Block 1 of the SLS is foremost among the remaining challenges. 

The SLS engines and boosters are heritage space shuttle elements. 

The SLS Block 1 upper stage is directly adapted from our Delta IV 

heavy launch vehicle but the core stage, on the other hand, is a 

clean-sheet design, meaning the existing elements are waiting for 

the core stage to catch up with them. 

To see the schedule challenge, we can compare the lead time required to produce a shuttle external tank to the time allotted for 

this core stage development. As the shuttle neared her end schedule estimates for calling up another ET ranged from 36 to 44 

months. The time allotted from system requirements review completion that Mr. Dumbacher mentioned is about 51 to 54 months, 

and the core stage has got to design and certify that design in close 

to the same time, so it gives you a feel for the kind of challenge. 

A flat budget profile for SLS, which is atypical for development 

programs, creates yet another unique challenge, and it necessitates 

that SLS development occur through an evolutionary process. Simultaneous development of all the elements needed to get to the 

final configuration of the SLS won’t be possible under that flat 

budget profile so NASA will have to choose so that each succeeding 

element developed offers the most incremental beyond-Earth-orbit 

performance for the smallest cost. As we work the cryogenic stages, 

we are retaining the option for that element to be a large upper 

stage should NASA choose it so that the maximum economic efficiency can be gained from our core stage efforts. 

As far as risk reduction goes, we are reducing risk through adaptation of existing subsystems and components even though the core 

stage will be new. We have to ensure SLS is a standalone explo-
30 

ration-class rocket that can be adapted to many missions that 

emerge over many years. This is going to require a guidance system independent of payloads or crew systems so it can serve multiple users in crew and cargo configuration. To ensure we can get 

there on time, we have chosen to produce many of the key elements 

in-house at Boeing. The best example of this is the overall vehicle 

flight computer. We have based it on a proven Boeing commercial 

satellite design and already have gotten to a critical design review 

and put test versions in the lab for NASA software. 

To keep SLS and the overall programs stable over the long haul, 

it is important to ensure SLS is protected and nurtured long 

enough to succeed. Preventing temporary budget variations from 

impacting schedules is a key part of that. Stable funding, which 

should include planning for funding that escalates with inflation, 

will allow a steady and predictable progress. Construction of facility tasks should be fully funded even under continuing-resolution 

conditions early in the program so we can get the factory and test 

facilities up and active. We also will work hard with NASA to get 

defined contracts in place that allow thorough interrogation of costs 

and schedule for the long haul and the integrated baseline reviews. 

Our progress has been really strong. We started in December, as 

Mr. Dumbacher mentioned. We have already passed through a system requirements review and system definitions review 2 months 

ahead of our contract milestones. Our first hardware deliveries are 

already behind us in the avionics area, and design tempo is increasing daily. 

On the manufacturing side, we are past 50 percent on all the 

major tools. We will begin installation of the big tooling mission at 

Michoud late this year and finish late next so we will have an active factory by early 2014. 

Our manufacturing developments are influenced and designed 

very positively. Early test welds indicate we are going to get to four 

weld thicknesses and about 14 unique schedules compared to 14 

thicknesses and about 75 schedules on an external tank. That and 

less costly materials are going to make it much more affordable for 

the government. 

Our plan for progress upcoming, we get to a preliminary design 

late this year or early next, critical design mid-2014, and we plan 

for first flight in 2017. 

To close, NASA’s unrelenting focus on mission success has always driven us and it still is in the way we are designing the SLS 

today on our pace. 

Thank you for the chance to testify today. 

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

Written Statement for Testimony 

Jim Chilton 

Boeing Space Exploration Vice President 

Program Manager, Space Launch System Stages 

House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Hearing: Examining NASA's Development of the Space 

Launch System and Orion Crew Capsule 

September 12,2012 

1 
32 

Good moming, Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Johnson and members of the 

committee. On behalf of the Boeing Company, I wish to extend our thanks for your 

continued support of human spaceflight. Your efforts enabled a safe fly-out of the 

Space Shuttle, supported the completion of the International Space Station, and 

outlined a path forward for the future of human space exploration. Without the support 

of your committee these achievements would not have been possible. It is my great 

honor to participate with the other witnesses on this panel to share Boeing's activities in 

support of NASA for the Space launch System. 

In the current environment there are 3 elements to NASA's path forward for human 

space flight for space exploration: development of capability for human exploration 

beyond low Earth orbit, utilization of the International Space Station, and commercial 

services for cargo and crew to the International Space Station. As stated in NASA 

documentation, the Space launch System (SlS) is the enabler for human deep space 

exploration and is needed to propel Exploration elements free of Earth's gravitational 

forces. SlS will be capable of lifting the Orion MPCV, cargo and other exploration 

elements to lagrange points, the moon, asteroids, and ultimately missions to Mars. It 

will expand scientific missions by enabling the launch of large robotic payloads and also 

serve as a backup launch system for supplying and supporting the International Space 

Station cargo and crew requirements not met by other available launch vehicles. 

1. Challenges - Technical, Programmatic, and Risk Reduction 

As we all know development programs often face challenges, and managing them is 

key to assuring program success. It is worth noting up front that many potential 

challenges on SlS have already been avoided by adapting proven approaches to the 

SLS mission. Foremost among these is avoiding the need for significant technology 

development. NASA wisely selected an architecture that allows reuse of elements and 

approaches from other successful programs. This separation of product development 

from technology development increases our confidence in schedule and cost 

predictions relative to starting from scratch. 

2 
33 

With that said, we do see challenges. Accomplishing rapid development of the core 

stage is foremost among these. This is the only all new element of the Space Launch 

System, and is the backbone on which the other elements depend. The Core stage 

engines are heritage Space Shuttle Main Engines; the strap on boosters, in final phase 

of testing, are upgraded solid rocket boosters from the space shuttle program; and the 

SLS Block 1 interim upper stage is directly adapted from the Delta IV heavy launch 

vehicle. The core stage on the other hand, is a clean sheet deSign, albeit one that leans 

heavily on existing design practice and manufacturing technologies. To some extent, 

the existing elements are awaiting the core stage to catch up with them. To provide a 

sense of this schedule challenge, we can compare the time allotted for design and 

delivery of a core stage to the lead time required to produce a shuttle external tank to an 

existing design. As the shuttle program neared its end, schedule estimates for call up of 

an external tank ranged from 36 to 44 months. This was for production of an existing, 

certified design. The core stage timeline, which includes creation and certification of a 

new deSign, is 51 to 54 months from the system requirements review. It is clear from 

this comparison that achieving early design progress against stable requirements and 

funding will be necessary to enable core stage development success. 

Integrating existing elements in new ways with the emerging design of the core stage is 

another challenge. The core stage will fly with a 4 engine cluster, vs. the 3 engine 

cluster used for the Space Shuttle. Each of the RS-25 engines must support different 

operating regimes. The Delta IV upper stage flying on top of core stage must 

accommodate different loads and guidance requirements. Integration of the fivesegment SRBs will also be different that the four-segment SRBs used for the Space 

Shuttle. Although the risk of developing new elements is reduced by reuse of these 

heritage systems, the connections and interactions between the existing elements and 

the emerging core stage design must be carefully predicted and managed. New ground 

interfaces must be established as well. All this integration is ably led by the government 

engineers at the Marshal Space Flight Center, who provide analysis and integration to 

the industry team members responsible to deliver elements. These integration products 

are the foundation on which the core stage schedule and overall vehicle success 

3 
34 

depend. Without timely and accurate delivery of these integration products, none of the 

elements can be delivered to predictable schedules or predictable performance. 

The flat budget profile, which is atypical for development programs, creates a unique 

challenge necessitating that SLS development occurs through an evolutionary process. 

Constrained budgets prohibit simultaneous development of the core stage, upper stage, 

payload fairings, new engines, and advanced boosters for final 130mT SLS 

configuration. The common Core Stage is the first priority for the SLS vehicle and the 

only new SLS element, but there is enough funding for limited development of a second 

new element. We are retaining the option for that element to be a larger upper stage, 

which offers a big improvement in BEO performance from the Block 1. 

Another challenge is to maximize production and operations efficiency during the design 

and development phase. Many in industry assert that economic efficiency is only 

possible at high production rates. In a government system with fixed annual budgets, it 

is important not to design a system that requires other buyers who enable the high 

volume desirable for better economics. Our experience indicates that planning for high 

rates and then not achieving them can create an insurmountable economic challenge. 

This is especially true for launch vehicles, where new demand does not appear to be 

stimulated as capacity at lower prices becomes available. Therefore, enabling an 

efficient system for low production rate is our goal for SLS. We are adapting our design 

to maximize production efficiency in areas of tooling, headcount, procurement 

processes, and even the number of lifts and moves on the factory floor. This will enable 

the country to finally have access to an exploration class rocket within predicted annual 

budgets, which we see as a definition of affordability more appropriate than costs that 

are scaled around potential production rates. 

We are working hard to reduce risk through adaptation of existing subsystem and 

component designs, careful work placement, and early demonstrations in areas where 

history indicates surprises can occur. An example of this approach is in our avionics 

approach and hardware- software integration. We are striving to ensure SLS is a 

standalone exploration class rocket that can be adapted to a wide variety of missions 

that emerge over many years. This requires the vehicle to have a guidance system 

4 
35 

independent of any specific payload or crew system so it can serve multiple users in 

crew and cargo configurations. To maximize our integration flexibility and ensure this 

happens on time, we have chosen to produce key elements of the avionics system in 

house. Noteworthy among these is the vehicle flight computer, which is based on a 

proven Boeing design used in commercial satellites. Not only does this allow lower 

costs, it has enabled rapid progress. We already have a test version in the government 

labs at the MSFC, on which NASA developed software is up and running. Critical design 

review of this flight computer commenced two weeks ago, and the first flight 

configuration circuit boards are being installed this week, We are incrementally adding 

the avionics systems and components in the lab environment to minimize the chances 

that surprises in the interactions between the systems disrupts progress in certifying the 

design. The approach described for avionics and software is representative of our risk 

reduction approach, and is in use across our subsystems. We rely heavily on reuse of 

designs from the space shuttle and other proven space systems across the board. 

There are important goals to ensure SLS is protected and nurtured long enough to 

succeed. 

First, prevent temporary budget variations from impacting schedules. Stable funding 

that keeps pace with inflation allows the program to maintain a steady and predictable 

rhythm. Construction of facilities tasks must be fully funded even under continuing 

resolution conditions until the factory is in place. It is also essential to have final and 

well defined contracts in place, with terms and conditions locked down to keep suppliers 

engaged and on track to original plans. 

Second, recognize that current funding profiles mean NASA will have to evolve the 

launch vehicle to the final capability of 130mT to low-Earth orbit, which more importantly 

delivers approximately 50mT beyond low-Earth orbit. Given the current funding 

constraints only one new SLS element can be developed at a time. The decision for 

which element is next, is driven by LEO vs. BEO capability considerations and will 

directly impact the breadth of exploration missions which can be performed. If the true 

intent of the Exploration program is to explore beyond low-Earth orbit, the 50mT to BEO 

5 
36 

figure of merit should be used to guide the future evolution path. Supporting NASA as 

their evolution decisions emerge is important for stability. 

Finally, assure constancy of purpose by keeping decisions made. This is applicable at 

all levels including keeping the architecture stable. For example, there is no need to 

revisit trades such as the one already completed that compared small vs. big rockets for 

deep space missions. The Augustine review panel concluded a big rocket is required 

for deep space exploration. Also in response to a question published in the April 30th 

2012 Space News interview Norm Augustine was quoted "It was the view of both the 

reports that I worked on that we indeed need a heavy-lift launch system". It is also 

essential to get final and well defined contracts in place, to allow integrated baseline 

reviews early enough to control long term costs and schedules. 

2. Current Progress 

We have made significant progress on core stage development during the first nine 

months of the SLS Stages contract. In June we conducted the Stages Systems 

Requirement Review (SRR) and Systems Definition Review (SDR) two months ahead 

of the SRR contract requirement. We have also completed the first hardware deliveries, 

and have demonstrated a rapid increase in design release tempo. 

On the manufacturing side, major tooling installations will begin at the Michoud 

Assembly Facility late this year, with a goal to have the factory complete and active in 

early 2014. The 2014 target date is dependent on government-led facility preparations. 

Manufacturing process development is engaged with the Core Stage design team and 

is influencing the design to ensure affordable production. Manufacturing development 

test welds are underway using our new tooling and we will use four weld thicknesses 

and fifteen unique weld schedules for Core Stage rather than the fourteen weld 

thicknesses and seventy-four unique weld schedules for the Space Shuttle External 

Tank. To further reduce production costs, Core stage will use conventional rather than 

exotic materials for primary structure (AL2219 instead of AL2195). All major tool 

designs are on schedule to be completed by the end of the calendar year. 

6 
37 

Avionics test units and prototypes are in the labs and are functional to retire 

hardwarefsoftware Integration risk early. Our single board software test bed flight 

computer was delivered to the avionics lab in April 2012. The redundant inertial 

navigation unit development test unit has also been delivered to the lab. These early 

prototype deliveries have enabled closed loop simulated vehicle fly out which were 

accomplished with the actual flight software. The flight computer critical design review 

was completed in August 2012. 

Our next steps are exciting. Our design release tempo is increasing, and development 

testing will continue into 2013. We are currently targeting for a preliminary design 

review in late 2012 or early 2013. The design review will include key interface 

definitions which will drive the overall vehicle and ground systems design. Critical 

design review is scheduled for mid-2014 to support a first flight in 2017. We are also 

working to get final and well defined contracts in place, to allow integrated baseline 

reviews early enough to control long term costs and schedules. 

3. Future Human Exploration and Scientific Missions Enabled by SLS 

The SLS will provide an exploration capability beyond Apollo. SLS can be configured to 

transport crew, cargo, exploration elements, and science payloads to the far reaches of 

deep space. 

As stated earlier, to accomplish any BEO mission requires a SLS type launch vehicle to 

escape Earth's gravity. The initial SLS capability rocket, using the smaller interim 

cryogenic propulsion upper stage, would enable capability demonstrations of the Orion 

MPCV. Early missions might include crew assessments of the deep space environment 

or telepresence lunar robotics. An evolved capability configuration, using a large upper 

stage with existing engines, would enable NASA to accomplish more ambitious HSF 

Exploration missions such as Earth-Moon Ubration points, a return to the Moon, an 

Asteroid, or Mars precursor missions. All of these destination missions would benefit 

from the fully evolved SLS because they could be done at lower cost with fewer 

launches. 

7 
38 

Robotic science missions will also be greatly enhanced by SLS. Robotic missions to 

the outer planets or a sample return mission from Mars would benefit from the greater 

lift capacity of SLS especially in its fully evolved capability. The additional payload 

volume of a full size fairing allows room for larger spacecraft. Next generation space 

telescopes will benefit from the SLS fairing because of the improved optics from larger 

mirrors. Outer planet missions with long journeys will benefit from the shorter trip times 

that SLS can offer. 

In closing, our country's success in space has always been driven by NASA's 

unrelenting focus on mission objectives. The call for a robust capability and multiple 

destinations strikes an exciting challenge to create the space transportation architecture 

of the future. Today's plan for NASA - 1) space exploration beyond LEO, led by NASA 

with institutional funding; 2) supported by private enterprise providing space 

transportation to ISS in a public sector partnership with NASA - provides a balanced 

and cost effective approach to continue the great work being accomplished onboard 

ISS, and continue the great challenge of human space exploration to destinations 

beyond earth's orbit. 

8 
39 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you. 

I now recognize our final witness, Dr. Mountain, for five minutes 

to present his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DR. MATT MOUNTAIN, DIRECTOR, 

SPACE TELESCOPE SCIENCE INSTITUTE 

Dr. MOUNTAIN. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, Chairman Hall, let me first thank you for your continuing support of space science, an endeavor where the United 

States leads the world. 

In response to your questions about the role large space launch 

vehicles like NASA’s Space Launch System could play in space 

science, let me provide some context. The partnership between 

NASA’s science and human spaceflight programs has led to globally 

recognized icons of science such as the Hubble Space Telescope. A 

large launch system such as SLS provides another opportunity that 

could allow us to observe amazing phenomena that are well beyond 

the capabilities of the Hubble, the James Webb Space Telescope or 

our existing fleet of interplanetary spacecraft. 

Imagine being able to answer the question that spurs endless 

wonder across the millennia: are we alone? That answer is now 

within reach. Imagine returning samples of Martian soil back to 

Earth in a single mission for analysis. Imagine landing a new generation of probes on far more distant bodies such as the icy moons 

of Jupiter, to drill through the ice of Europa and see if life may 

have existed or even continues to exist there. 

Our imagination can become reality if NASA and the science 

community can find cost-effective ways to use the Space Launch 

System. Let me give some examples. The SLS has the potential to 

completely change the paradigm for building future space telescopes that simply would not be possible today. To search for the 

evidence of biological activity, life on hundreds of potentially habitable worlds that exist beyond our solar system would require a telescope that has a primary mirror that is 15 to 25 meters across. 

That is three to four times larger than the James Webb Space Telescope. The SLS would allow us to efficiently bring greatly simplified building blocks of such a telescope to low-Earth orbit where 

they could be assembled and moved to a more distant orbit. By 

both having the transport capacity and by providing the human or 

robotic infrastructure to assemble such a system in space, the SLS 

is the key tool needed to answer the question: are we alone? 

Another example is the recent Planetary Decadal Survey’s top 

priority: Mars sample return. To make this complex mission feasible with existing launch technologies, it had to be carried out over 

three separate launches, significantly stretching out this mission’s 

duration and potential cost. The current SLS has the capability to 

combine all three into a single launch. 

So what are the characteristics of an SLS that enable such an 

exciting scientific future for the U.S. space program? First, the 70- 

to 130-metric-ton lift capacity to low-Earth orbit means that more 

conventional materials and components can be used in spacecraft 

and observatory design. Ultra-lightweight components could be replaced with heavier, more rigid structures and perhaps more highcost, specialized components could be replaced with more commer-
40 

cialized systems. This simplifies the design, consequently reduces 

mission risk, and hopefully cost. 

Secondly, the SLS must be able to launch not just more mass but 

the payload fairing must be able to accommodate large volumes so 

we can simplify telescopes and large missions by reducing all or 

many of the on-orbit deployments that could otherwise be needed 

if one only had access to smaller launch vehicles. 

Third, for some science missions, the ability of an SLS system to 

also bring up sophisticated robots or astronauts to assemble or 

service future complex science missions is a really exciting opportunity. 

Fourth, the solar system missions, the increased energy of SLS 

launch vehicle also means planetary science payloads can be 

launched over a wider range of launch windows and in some cases 

being able to travel directly to solar system bodies, saving transit 

time. 

Finally, but crucially, science can only realistically use Space 

Launch System if its availability for research missions is both reasonably frequent, probably at least once a year, and not excessively 

costly to the science mission providing that payload. There is a 

multi-decade precedent for this: the partnership between human 

spaceflight and science that has enabled 22 years of unparalleled 

discoveries with the Hubble Space Telescope. The costs of a space 

shuttle for the Hubble was not fully borne by NASA’s Space Mission Directorate, rather provided as part of NASA’s spaceflight infrastructure for use by the entire agency. Science should be considered an essential and exciting partner in the exploration endeavor 

but science cannot drive the development of a human spaceflight 

system. 

In closing, the SLS can definitely enable several very ambitious 

and imaginative science missions that only NASA and this Nation 

can do. The results will be truly inspirational. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for your support and that of the 

Subcommittee. I will be pleased to respond to any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Mountain follows:] 
41 

Matt Mountain 

Director, Space Telescope Science Institute 

Testimony before the House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee 

Committee on Science, Space and Technology 

September 12, 2012 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify about the scientific uses of NASA's Space Launch 

System or SLS. Since the dawn of the space age, visionaries such as James 

Webb, the second NASA Administrator (who put the Agency on the path to 

land men on the Moon), realized space technologies could engage the 

scientific community and create new scientific capabilities. That partnership 

between science and NASA led to globally recognized icons of science such 

as the Hubble Space Telescope, and most recently the Curiosity Mars lander. 

The SLS has the potential to enable us to cost-effectively build the next 

generation of ambitious space telescopes and planetary probes. This will 

allow us to observe amazing phenomena that are well beyond the 

capabilities of the Hubble or James Webb Space Telescopes or our existing 

fleet of interplanetary spacecraft. 

Imagine being able to answer the question that stirs endless wonder across 

the millennia: "Are we alone?" The answer is now within reach. Imagine 

being able to observe weather on a habitable Earth-like planet orbiting a 

nearby star other than our Sun. Imagine being able to take a detailed 

picture of a black hole and see the cataclysmic fate of matter as it 

disappears into oblivion at the event horizon. Imagine returning samples of 

Martian soil back to Earth in a single mission for detailed analyses, or 

landing new generation of probes on far more distant bodies such as the icy 

moons of Jupiter or Saturn. One such ambitious mission could drill through 

the ice of Europa and see if life may have existed or continues to exist 

there. 

Our imagination can become reality if NASA and the science community can 

find cost-effective ways to use the Space Launch System. For example, the 

Matt Mountain 

Testimony for the House Subcommittee on Space And Aeronautics 

page 1 of6 

September 12, 2012 
42 

cost and complexity of some of these missions will be greatly reduced as 

compared to what it would take to develop missions to fly on smaller less 

capable launch vehicles. On the other hand, some missions would simply be 

infeasible without SLS. 

Today's ambitious space science missions have adapted to the limitations 

of current launch vehicles. For example, the James Webb Space Telescope 

is designed with many lightweight components so it could be launched with 

existing rockets - technologies had to be developed that reduced the mass 

of the JWST by over a factor of 100 compared to a comparable groundbased telescope. To fit within the confines of its launch vehicle's fairing 

JWST's mirrors and components had to be deployable. While these 

lightweight deployable components enable the JWST mission and have all 

been thoroughly tested, they also added complexity and cost to JWST's 

design. 

A 16-m telescope in space enables the 

Era of Remote Sensing 

of Oceans, Weather, Land and Vegetation coverage on 

Hundreds of Habitable Worlds Beyond OUf Solar System 

lIST 2.4-m JWST 6.S-m ATLAST 16-m 

The SLS has the potential to change the paradigm for ambitious space 

science missions. For example, the SLS provides the means for building a 

space telescope three to four times bigger than JWST allowing us to not 

only directly observe daily changes in weather on planets in other star 

systems but to search for evidence of biological activity - LIFE - on 

Matt Mountain 

Testimony for the House Subcommittee on Space And Aeronautics 

page 2 of6 

September 12, 2012 
43 

hundreds of potentially habitable worlds that exist beyond our solar system 

Such observations require a telescope that has a primary mirror that is 15 

to 25-meters across. The SlS will be able to loft as much as 130 metric ton 

of payload to low Earth orbit. This means that more conventional materials 

could be used in the spacecraft and observatory design. Ultra:lightweight 

components could be replaced with heavier and more rigid structures. This 

simplifies the design and cost. The SlS would allow us to efficiently bring 

greatly simplified building blocks of such a telescope to low Earth orbit 

where it could be assembled and then moved to a more distant orbit where 

it would conduct these amazing observations. SLS is a key tool needed to 

answer the question "Are We Alone?" by both being the transport 

capability for bringing telescope complements into space and by providing 

the human and/or robotic infrastructure to assemble such a system in 

space. 

In the recent Planetary Decadal Survey, the top priority was a Mars sample 

return mission. But to make this complex mission feasible with existing 

launch technologies it had to be carried out over three separate launches, 

significantly stretching out this mission's duration and potential cost. The 

current SlS has the capability to combine all three into a single launch. It 

isn't just that all three missions can be combined into a single launch, but 

the individual components can again be simplified. Because of the greater 

launch mass capability of SLS, more traditional structural materials and 

approaches can be used, more conventional electronics can be taken into 

deep space since we can afford the significant additional mass of shielding 

these delicate electronic components from cosmic rays - all leading to 

reduced mission risk and potentially reduced cost. 

We now know there are many fascinating environments in our own solar 

system that beg for more detailed exploration. For example Europa, a 

moon of Jupiter, appears to have a large ocean below its thick outer layer 

of ice. The SlS once again enables these types of missions in two ways: the 

large mass launch capacity would allow the design of the sophisticated 

robotic laboratories required at these exotic locations, but equally 

important, the increased energy of an SlS may enable direct flights to the 

outer reaches of the solar system. If a Europa bound mission does not have 

Matt Mountain 

Testimony for the House Subcommittee on Space And Aeronautics 

page 3 of6 

September 12. 2012 
44 

The increasing mass (and complexity) of NASA's Mars landers over time. To further 

increase the capabilities of future landers will either require multiple launches, or launch 

capability like the SLS. 

to rely on gravity assist {(sling shots" around other solar system bodies, the 

travel time to Europa could be reduced from seven years to only four years 

using SLS, significantly reducing mission risk and overall mission cost. 

Two missions could that could be enabled by an affordable Space Launch System, [left] 

a long duration Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter spacecraft (courtesy JPL), and [right] a probe 

to explore the oceans beneath Europa's ice mantle (courtesy APL). 

Matt Mountain 

Testimony for the House Subcommittee on Space And Aeronautics 

page 4 of6 

September 12. 2012 
45 

On even grander scales, we can re-kindle the vision of the early space 

science pioneer Lyman Spitzer who first proposed the Hubble Space 

Telescope, and envision building a space observatory that has the 

resolution of a mirror that is a kilometer or just under a mile in diameter! 

Of course, we wouldn't build it as a single structure but by flying as many as 

SOl-meter telescopes that fly in a precise formation that spans a 1-

kilometer diameter. Such an array of telescopes would allow us to 

undertake remote sensing, at a resolution and cadence of today's Earth 

sensing systems, not of Earth but of other worlds around other stars. This 

kind of telescope array would normally require tens of launches with 

conventional launch vehicles and would never be undertaken unlesswe 

had the capabilities of the Space Launch System. 

So what are the characteristics of an SLS that enable such an exciting 

scientific future for the US space program? 

First, the 70 to 130 metric ton lift capacity to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) means 

that more conventional materials and components could be used in the 

spacecraft and observatory design - ultra-lightweight components could be 

replaced with heavier and more rigid structures, high-cost specialized 

electronics could be replaced with more commercial like systems. This 

simplifies the design and, as a consequence, reduces mission risk. 

Second, the SLS must be able to launch not just more mass, but the payload 

fairing must be able to accommodate large volumes so we can simplify 

telescopes and large missions by reducing all or many of the on-orbit 

deployments that would be otherwise needed if one only had access to 

smaller launch vehicles. The next generation of UV-optical space telescopes 

will benefit from fairing diameters of at least 8-meters, and for some 

designs, up to 10-meters in diameter. Fairing height is important as wellsome space science missions may need up to 25 meters of fairing height. 

Third, the increased energy of the SLS launch vehicle also means planetary 

science payloads can be launched over a wider range of launch windows, in 

some cases being able to travel directly to solar system bodies, saving 

transit time, giving more flexibility in launch schedules or providing more 

regular access to otherwise hard to reach solar system objects. 

Matt Mountain 

Testimony for the House Subcommittee on Space And Aeronautics 

page 50f6 

September 12,2012 
46 

Finally, to realize its enormous scientific potential, the cost of using the SlS 

has to be affordable to science. 

Throughout history, whether it is Captain Cook's voyage to observe the 

transit of Venus, or Darwin's passage on the Beagle's voyage of discovery, 

exploration and science have been partners. Throughout NASA's history, 

science has thrived and been enabled by the US investments in space 

exploration, the most spectacular example being the partnership between 

the Human Space Program and Science that enabled 22 years of 

unparalleled discoveries with the Hubble Space Telescope. If we want NASA 

to be greater than the sum of its parts, science can only realistically use a 

Space launch System if its availability for research missions is both 

reasonably frequent (probably at least one per year) and not exceSSively 

costly to the science mission providing the payload. There is precedent for 

the latter in that the cost of the Space Shuttle for missions like the Hubble 

was not fully borne by NASA's Science Mission Directorate but rather 

provided as part of NASA's space flight infrastructure for use by the entire 

Agency. Science, once again, should be viewed as an essential and exciting 

partner in the exploration endeavor, but science cannot drive the 

development of a human space flight system. 

In closing, the SlS can definitely enable several very ambitious and 

imaginative scientific missions that only NASA and this nation can do. The 

results will be truly inspirational, and will irreversibly change our view of 

ourselves as a species and our place within this vast Universe. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your support, and that of this Subcommittee. I 

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

the Subcommittee may have. 

Matt Mountain 

Testimony lor the House Subcommittee on Space And Aeronautics 

page 6 016 

September 12.2012 
47 

Chairman PALAZZO. I thank the panel for their testimony, reminding Members that the Committee rules limit questioning to 

five minutes. 

The chair will at this point open the round of questions. The 

chair recognizes himself for five minutes. 

Both the SLS and the Orion programs are operating under a flat 

funding profile through the first uncrewed flight in December 2017. 

How will NASA address any developmental challenges that cannot 

be managed within the constraints of the current budget, Mr. 

Dumbacher? 

Mr. DUMBACHER. We are working hard within that flatline budget to phase the content. Our plan is set up to deliver on 2017 and 

2021 as it has been submitted. The process that we have to go 

through, number one, is to make sure that the integrated system 

stays together in terms of SLS, Orion and ground systems all arriving at the needed delivery dates with the needed technical capabilities on time, and we work hard to do that. 

How we do this is, one, we purposely chose a system that had 

minimal development risk. In the past with launch vehicle development propulsion systems are typically the high-risk items. By utilizing the RS–25’s shuttle main engines from the shuttle program 

as well as boosters with shuttle heritage and Constellation development behind them, we have minimized a lot of that risk, and then 

we have to phase in the content, the program content, to support 

2017 to be able to handle the natural development curve for things 

for elements such as the core stage, and we have been very deliberate, very detailed in our planning to put that plan together, to 

phase the content so that we arrive with the integrated system at 

2017 to 2021. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Mr. Lacefield or Mr. Chilton, if you would 

like to comment? 

Mr. LACEFIELD. Yes. I would like to add that we are very well 

synchronized with the Space Launch System and Gemini have a lot 

of contact and we are staying closely integrated between Orion and 

SLS. What that allows us to do is, we have put together a plan 

working with NASA and industry that we feel is a high-confidence 

plan working towards 2017. We have worked multiple options with 

NASA looking at things that we could defer or things that we could 

pull forward, depending on the activities on the program or the 

needs of the program, and I think that allows us a great flexibility 

to accomplish what Dan is talking about. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Although potential missions have been discussed, NASA is currently designing SLS and Orion to be flexible 

with regard to multiple missions and/or destinations. When does 

NASA expect to determine these missions and destinations? What 

is the impact of designing a vehicle with multiple capabilities, some 

of which would not be used depending on the destination, Mr. 

Dumbacher? 

Mr. DUMBACHER. First of all, as you have seen in the agency’s 

delivered exploration goals and destinations report from a week or 

so ago, we are looking at multiple destinations. We are in the process of doing the mission analysis at this time. We know that the 

ultimate destination is Mars. The intermediate destinations between where we are today and Mars and the exact timing of those 
48 

are being sorted out through our mission analysis, and we are looking at options such as the asteroids, lunar space, lunar orbit, 

Lagrangian points, et cetera, on the way. That mission analysis is 

in work and also starting to understand what the implications can 

be to Orion and SLS. The process we are working very hard to do 

is get the fundamental capabilities, that is, the heavy-lift launch 

vehicle and the spacecraft, in place. We need those for any destination we go to, and then as we sort the mission planning, add the 

additional elements in that we need to execute the given missions 

at a given time, and of course, the timing of all that is based on 

the mission analysis and the available funding. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Mr. Lacefield, do you anticipate each production Orion to be essentially the same basic design with components 

and systems to be inserted based on mission requirements? 

Mr. LACEFIELD. We are certainly set up that way. We have a 

very capable vehicle that we can actually add mission kits to for 

whatever the destination is. We have done a lot of mission work 

with NASA, and Boeing has been with us as we have been supporting NASA in their mission development to make sure that the 

capability that we have or the mission kits that we have are easily 

obtainable and easy for us to reconfigure flight to flight if so needed. 

Right now, the way that we are looking at the architecture is 

most everything that we need will be built into the first vehicle 

that we fly, EM–1, so that there is little update, if any update, for 

EM–2 such that we have the capability as soon as possible to get 

as much flight test time as we can on the vehicles before we put 

humans in the vehicles. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Same basic question for Mr. Chilton on the 

Boeing’s SLS design. 

Mr. CHILTON. Yes. For all our cryogenic stages and especially 

core stage, we contemplate the same production configuration for 

economic advantage, and mods, we would anticipate, would only be 

driven by missions that are much further out than the early 

configs, and anything for obsolescence. All of that we see as next 

decade or beyond, so your question about schedule, to hold schedule 

and make sure we can get into a single configuration for economic 

advantage, we plan to fly the same stages every time. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Mr. Lacefield, your hearing statement makes 

reference to work being done on Orion at Stennis. Could you please 

elaborate on the nature of the Orion work being done there? 

Mr. LACEFIELD. Certainly. We are utilizing our Lockheed Martin 

space satellite factory there to manufacture all of the propulsion 

components needed for Orion so we are doing all of the tube styles, 

regulators and actually a lot of the insulation blankets are all done 

at Stennis and then shipped to Florida for assembly into the vehicle. It is a facility that in Lockheed Martin is known for its ability 

to put high-pressure systems together and weld them and have 

high reliability and we are using that factory for Orion. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Clarke. 

Mr. CLARKE. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I also have concerns 

about adequate funding for both of these important projects. I am 

also from the city of Detroit, metropolitan Detroit. We are also con-
49 

cerned about creating more jobs, but we will deal with the economic benefits of these projects later on. 

Mr. Dumbacher, under a Continuing Resolution for fiscal year 

2013, what level of funding and what spend rate will SLS and 

Orion get? 

Mr. DUMBACHER. Under the current understanding of what the 

six month Continuing Resolution will contain, we are planning to 

50 percent of the fiscal year 2012 appropriations levels, and that 

will be the spend rate that we are working to on SLS and Orion 

for the first six months. We do have to recognize, however, that the 

uncertainty in the potential budget appropriations for the remainder of the fiscal year also need to be included in our planning, and 

we are working to address that. But in the near term, we are planning for the next six months to plan at 50 percent of the fiscal year 

2012 appropriations level. 

Mr. CLARKE. Now, have you been given any guidance regarding 

the CR? 

Mr. DUMBACHER. What I just talked about, the fiscal year 2012 

50 percent level is the guidance I have been given. 

Mr. CLARKE. All right. Even though we have made considerable 

progress in the development of both of these projects, we still have 

critical milestones ahead. As Congress and the Administration are 

weighing our funding priorities, how important is the need for 

funding and spending stability over this next year, and what is the 

impact of not getting it? I know many of you have actually alluded 

to this but, Mr. Dumbacher, I would like to know your opinion. 

Mr. DUMBACHER. Funding stability of any endeavor of this magnitude—launch vehicles, spacecraft—is critical to the program 

planning and program success. The ability to plan into the future 

and to understand what the future holds within some reasonable 

level of understanding allows us to set up our program plans, to 

address that and then allows us to go execute. Changes to or instability in the funding forces replan work, rework, and all of that effort takes away from our ability to actually execute and get the 

hardware developed and build the program. 

Mr. CLARKE. Thanks, Mr. Dumbacher. 

Mr. Lacefield or Mr. Chilton, do you care to comment on the impact of not getting the funding that we need? 

Mr. LACEFIELD. NASA has been very good at telling us what the 

levels are to assume and we have planned the program to those 

levels. But I would like to emphasize that with our workforce, and 

our workforce is our most important asset, and maintaining those 

critical skills across the program we believe is really important, the 

funding stability is extremely important to us because that is the 

way that we have to look at the program as we go through the different phases and we go from engineering phase to development 

phase to a test phase. It allows us to bring those people across 

those interfaces so they are available for the EM–1 and EM–2 missions. So having that stability allows us to keep that professional 

workforce, which is vital to these high-performance programs. 

Mr. CLARKE. Thank you. 

Mr. CHILTON. I would like to add that there is a bit of an unseen 

element in addition to cost, schedule and skills. We have had great 

luck attracting talent fresh out of college. A lot of young people 
50 

have joined these programs. They see it as a very attractive place 

to go. I have experience on other programs where we started and 

didn’t finish and had to stop. We don’t get those young people back. 

They begin to see this industry as unattractive or unstable. They 

have a strong desire to start something and finish it, take something to flight. So I would argue our STEM attraction, it is important to keep stable and make progress. 

Mr. CLARKE. Mr. Chilton, that is an interesting dimension to this 

funding issue. How important is it to actually get our young college 

graduates into the space programs? 

Mr. CHILTON. In my—— 

Mr. CLARKE. Or do you have enough people right now in place 

at NASA with to be able to—and with your company and other contractors. 

Mr. CHILTON. I will speak for Boeing. The Space Launch System 

currently is a great attractor of students out of college and a high 

proportion of our program is composed of them. If you just look at 

a talent pipeline over a couple of decades, you have to fill the entry 

level and you have to put them on our programs or you don’t have 

the ability to touch stuff with senior people later. So I would argue 

keeping this stable and continuing to attract those young people is 

important for all of us. 

Mr. CLARKE. And probably these programs too, I mean, it is a 

great incentive to encourage our college students to actually go into 

science and to get their advanced degrees to be able to do the work 

that is needed here to advance SLS and Orion. Thank you. 

Yes, Mr. Lacefield? 

Mr. LACEFIELD. Just as Mr. Chilton talked about Boeing, a third 

of our team, I would classify as under 30 and right out of school, 

and these kids are highly motivated and they have a technology 

level, especially when we talk about advanced computing, advanced 

avionics, that is really vital, I think, to not only NASA but also to 

the Department of Defense. So we see a lot of these technologies 

that these kids are involved with as playing forward to other vital 

programs in the United States. 

Mr. CLARKE. Thank you, and I yield my time. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Brooks. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

According to our Committee notes for this hearing, Orion is much 

further along in development than SLS because the Administration’s decision to cancel Constellation was more disruptive to the 

launch vehicle development than to Orion’s, and so I imagine that 

there is some plus then from the billions of taxpayer dollars that 

were sent on Constellation and that we at least have something to 

show for it, the progress that was made on the Orion capsule. On 

the other hand, though, we have much less to show for the billions 

of dollars that we spent on the Constellation launch platform. That 

having been said, Mr. Dumbacher, what assurances can you give 

America that this White House, this Administration won’t unilaterally undermine or cancel the Space Launch System as it pretty 

much did with Constellation at a cost to taxpayers of again some 

billions of dollars? 
51 

Mr. DUMBACHER. Well, Congressman, I think the fiscal year 

budget request from the President demonstrates the stable funding 

and the intention to continue on and the desire to make SLS and 

Orion productive. I think that President’s budget request is the 

plan that we have developed. It is what we are working to, and 

that—the support is there to go make that happen. 

I will also add that we are taking more advantage than just 

Orion from the Constellation program, particularly in our solid 

rocket boosters that we are using on the first two flights. The five 

segment boosters do have shuttle heritage but they are coming out 

of the Ares development, and that development made great strides 

and we are taking advantage of that as part of the Space Launch 

System to move that forward, and that is an element of our success 

with the development motor that we completed firing on that a 

year ago and next May we will be doing our first qualification 

motor firing. 

Mr. BROOKS. Well, the assurances that you have given me sound 

a lot like the assurances that were given to the Constellation program prior to its cancellation. Is there anything else that you can 

add that would make us in Congress or the American people feel 

more comfortable that we will not continue along this path spending billions of taxpayers’ dollars on the development of the Space 

Launch System only to have once again the White House pull the 

rug out from underneath us? 

Mr. DUMBACHER. I think, Mr. Congressman, as I have mentioned, the President’s budget request demonstrates that commitment to continue on. The team that we have across the country at 

the various NASA centers, our industry partners, as well as the 

leadership of the agency has demonstrated its commitment and we 

are continuing to move forward with all due haste in order to meet 

our 2017 flight date, and that is our target. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you. 

Mr. Lacefield and Mr. Chilton, how have continuing resolutions 

as a funding mechanism for NASA impacted the private sector’s 

ability to do what needs to be done to advance Orion and the Space 

Launch System? Has there been any adverse effect at all? Is it 

something that the private sector is comfortable with? As you 

know, we are about to face another continuing resolution for some 

number of months into this fiscal year. Can you help educate me 

on whether there is any impact on the private sector by continuing 

resolutions, and if so, please describe it? 

Mr. LACEFIELD. Mr. Congressman, I will try to give our viewpoint on that. Continuing resolutions are an impact but this is one 

where over the last several years NASA has been very good at telling us what to plan to or what to anticipate to plan to. So we have 

really done a lot of planning to make sure that we can meet those 

numbers, and we have worked options so that if we have contingencies that arrive that we can work around those. They are hard 

constraints when you are working a development program because 

at this point in the development program of course there is a lot 

of hardware in the loop that you are trying to make sure that you 

can purchase and develop and test, but that is part of the planning, 

you know, that we have gone through. 
52 

I think what we have seen with the stress in the system has 

really allowed the team to go at this from a different point of view, 

from an affordability point of view. I know there has been a lot of 

discussion about the government programs versus the commercial 

programs. We have brought in a great deal—— 

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Lacefield, if you don’t mind, I am going to interject. My question was limited just to the impact of continuing resolutions. 

Mr. LACEFIELD. Okay. 

Mr. BROOKS. Are you saying there is no harm or there is harm? 

Mr. LACEFIELD. It is very difficult but it is something that we 

plan around. 

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chilton, please. 

Mr. CHILTON. In general, we would always rather be executing 

our programs than replanning them. Any continuing resolution can 

push you into a replan situation. Mr. Dumbacher testified that 

NASA has protected us from that for the first six months of government fiscal 2013 by planning for 50 percent of 2012. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, gentlemen. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognized the Ranking Member of the 

full Committee, Ms. Johnson from Texas. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I would 

like to ask unanimous consent to place my opening statement into 

the record and simply apologize for having two conflicting very important committee hearings. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Good morning, and welcome to our witnesses. I look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. Chairman, I will be brief in my remarks. Today’s hearing is important for a 

number of reasons. In a season that seems to be consumed by partisan rhetoric and 

campaign slogans, I am glad that Members will instead have a chance this morning 

to focus on the serious work being done by a dedicated NASA and industry team 

to bring the future of our nation’s human space exploration program into being. 

As you know, successive Congresses and Administrations have said that it is time 

to again move humanity beyond low Earth orbit and continue the voyages of exploration begun by Neil Armstrong and his fellow astronauts. And we will pay tribute 

tomorrow at the National Cathedral to Mr. Armstrong, a man who spoke eloquently 

about the importance of a national program of human exploration when he testified 

before our Committee. 

Yet, as I have said before, I think the most fitting tribute we can give to Mr. Armstrong’s memory is not a eulogy, but instead a real commitment to the spirit of exploration that he embodied. And that’s one oflhe reasons today’s hearing is so important. 

It is easy for us to talk of returning to the Moon or going to an asteroid, or visiting Mars long after most of us will be gone from our positions in Congress and 

the White House. It is another thing for us to actually sustain the needed investments and provide the programmatic stability that will help turn those words into 

reality. Yet if we fail to do so, the consequences of our failure will be long lasting. 

Based on the testimony we will hear today, it is clear that NASA and its contractor team have made significant progress under very challenging conditions. 

They are turning designs and concepts into hardware and software and are moving 

forward towards flight tests in spite of funding that has been significantly less than 

authorized. 

However, they can’t do it alone. We—Congress and the White House—can set 

them up for failure if we disrupt their funding and programmatic plans in the name 

of short-term cost savings or if we allow the funding that Congress provides for 

these programs to be reallocated or otherwise restricted within NASA during the 

upcoming Continuing Resolution. We will need to guard against both dangers in the 

coming months. 
53 

Finally, while I am pleased that the Space Launch System and the Orion crew 

capsule appear to be progressing well given the level of funding that has been available to them, we also need NASA to layout the plans for the use of these vehicles. 

SLS and Orion are simply the means to achieving the ends we are seeking in our 

human exploration program, and not ends in themselves. As NASA continues work 

on the development of these vehicles, it is not too soon for NASA to start clearly 

defining the steps it plans to take to achieve the broad exploration goals laid out 

by Congress in successive NASA Authorization Acts. 

That, however, is the topic for a future hearing. Today we will hear about the status of the SLS and Orion vehicles that will make those exploration missions possible. My thanks again to our witnesses for their participation in this morning’s 

hearing, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Ms. JOHNSON. My question is to Mr. Lacefield and Mr. Chilton. 

NASA has set a schedule of 2014 and 2017 for unmanned test 

flights with 2021 as the first manned test flights of the integrated 

Orion and SLS system. What of your funding levels will be required to achieve this schedule, and given the current funding constraints, what parts of the test plan are most at risk and what are 

the implications? What would be the implications of any funding 

reductions? 

Mr. LACEFIELD. I think from the Orion point of view, we have 

planned the program through the scope to accomplish the 2014 

mission and the 2017 mission at the marks that NASA has received so that we see those as high confidence level tests that we 

can get to. I think the thing that we worry about the most is trying 

to do the human spaceflight earlier than the 2021 and that is 

where we have probably spent the most time looking at options to 

bring that forward, but at the current time we are not able to bring 

that forward with the funding marks that we have today. 

Mr. CHILTON. From a test perspective, it is very important that 

we get our government facilities ready to run tests. That includes 

test stands at the Stennis Space Center. The core stage of the SLS, 

the first flight stage will actually go to Stennis and undergo what 

we call a proto flight test. We will put her on the stand, learn 

about the tanking, run instrumentation and firing sequences that 

get us ready to fly. If we have budget disruptions that make it so 

those government facilities aren’t ready, going back to Congressman Brooks’ question, if under a CR, if our colleagues at the agency can’t have those ready, that will certainly be a schedule challenge, so that funding is important. 

And I would also agree with Mr. Lacefield. We think our production systems and our supply chains and our people will be ready 

to produce the Space Launch System and Orion more than one in 

2017 and more in 2021 and we will just let funding dictate whether 

we get to do that or not. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. Dumbacher, do you care to comment? 

Mr. DUMBACHER. I think our available funding is—the 2014, 

2017 and 2021 dates are all within our available funding and the 

plan that we have, we are working to mitigate the risks associated 

with that but we believe we can execute the plan to those dates. 

The testing is very important. Twenty fourteen, the exploration 

flight test is critical for our Orion flight test, particularly because 

it addresses 12 of our 16 top risks for that spacecraft, as well as 

an opportunity to test out our recovery systems for recovering the 

crew module from the ocean once we land, and it is also critical 
54 

from an SLS perspective in that we get the payload to launch vehicle adapter designed, developed and built and we will use that 

same adapter for the 2017 and 2021 flights. So our integrated test 

plan is very important. We have laid it out very carefully to make 

sure we address our high-risk items and to work that within the 

budget and we believe we have the answer and the plan that we 

need to execute. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. My time is about to expire. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize Mr. Rohrabacher from California. 

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

I am trying to figure out exactly how much money we are talking 

about here, and we keep getting answers dealing with the percentage of this and the percentage of that. What exactly is the budget 

amount that you are seeking to have appropriated for fiscal year 

2013 for Orion/SLS? 

Mr. DUMBACHER. The President’s budget request as I recall, and 

we can take it for the record to go back and get the exact numbers, 

but we are in the ballpark of about $1 billion annually for Orion 

and $1.3 billion for SLS per the President’s budget request. Now, 

we can go back and get the exact numbers but that is working off 

the top of my head, Congressman. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. To be fair about it, I would think 

that someone would know exactly how much money they are requesting when they come to a hearing to talk about those projects. 

So roughly $2–1/2 billion is what we are talking about for Orion/ 

SLS. And did we just hear that there is going to be no test with 

people on Orion until 2021? 

Mr. DUMBACHER. Our first crewed flight is 2021, and that plan 

is based on the available funding level that we have today. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And that $2.3 billion that we are doing today, 

do you expect that level of spending to continue or to go up according to your plan? 

Mr. DUMBACHER. Our plan is laid out with—the President’s 

budget request is laid out with constant year funding across the 

budget horizon, and that is what our plan has been built upon, and 

one item I would like to identify is that in addition to the SLS and 

Orion funding is also the funding that is necessary for the ground 

systems program at KSC in order to have the launch infrastructure 

ready to support both Orion and SLS. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Is that included in the $2.3 billion figure you 

just—— 

Mr. DUMBACHER. Now, that is an additional $400 million plus. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So now we are talking more like—— 

Mr. DUMBACHER. We are talking—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —$2.7 billion, about? 

Mr. DUMBACHER. In that—yes, and we will take it for the record 

to go back and get the precise numbers. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is a lot of money. We would hope that— 

you know, when we are dealing with these big projects, we are 

dealing with big money, and if something goes wrong, we end up 

losing big money, and we have seen a lot of examples of that in 

the past. 
55 

I am wondering if there is other ways to go about this. Let me 

ask, is it Mr. Lacefield? Did I pronounce the name? Now, the SLS 

is not scheduled to be ready but Orion will be ready before. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. LACEFIELD. What we have done is, we have a test flight or 

a flight test of Orion early to—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Mr. LACEFIELD. —prove that we can—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And that is going to go up on a Delta IV? 

Mr. LACEFIELD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yeah. What is the cost of a Delta IV flight? 

Mr. LACEFIELD. It is in the ballpark of $300 million. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. And a test flight—and when we get 

the SLS done, what will be the cost of that flight, a flight on the 

SLS, beside all of the expenses of developing this $35 billion development cost? Who can answer that? 

Mr. DUMBACHER. Well, I will take that one, Mr. Congressman. 

We are still working that number up. It will be a higher number 

than the Delta IV heavy cost that Mr. Lacefield mentioned. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. It is going to be higher and we have all the 

development costs. What can we do? Are there other missions that 

we can do with the Orion on top of a Delta IV? Mr. Lacefield? 

Mr. LACEFIELD. When we look at the exploration missions and 

we start looking at the nearest mission that we are talking about 

doing is in the Cis-Lunar or the lunar environment. It takes the 

SLS for us to do that mission. So EM–1 and EM–2, which will fly 

to 300,000 miles out there, it takes an SLS to boost us there. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So Delta IV’s would not permit the Orion 

capsule from doing these lunar missions. Are there other missions 

that Orion might be able to do on Delta IV’s? 

Mr. CHILTON. May I address that? We seem to be talking about 

a big rocket versus a small rocket. Meaningful beyond-Earth-orbit 

exploration requires a heavy-lift rocket. It has been studied by the 

agency, many others, most recently and famously by the Augustine 

Commission. Both Augustine panels said a heavy-lift rocket is required to do beyond-Earth-orbit exploration. He confirmed that 

again, in fact, in an interview with Space News in April. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right, for manned flight. You can do a lot of 

things with the Delta IV but unmanned. 

Mr. CHILTON. So the driver is the size for human-rated elements 

and the velocity to escape Earth’s gravity. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, we are going to be watching, and we 

wish you luck. We want you to succeed, and we have just been 

through a number of these in the past where we end up having 

budget problems on this end and then we end up losing billions of 

dollars. So, I hope that you are successful, and we are on your side. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman PALAZZO. We are going to be going into a second round 

of questioning, and I will lead it off for five minutes. 

Dr. Mountain, what is more important to the people designing 

trajectories for science missions, an emphasis on the amount of 

mass that can be carried to low-Earth orbit or an emphasis on the 

amount of mass that can be delivered to escape velocity for beyond- 
56 

Earth orbit? Is the SLS being designed to optimize beyond-Earthorbit missions? 

Dr. MOUNTAIN. It depends entirely on the science you want to do. 

There are several methods. If you are trying to get to interplanetary science, you care about going out of the Earth’s gravity well 

and getting into interplanetary space, and that is where you need 

the acceleration and the energy to take these missions out. When 

you are looking at building very large telescopes, the kind of telescopes that can perhaps detect life, what you care about there is 

volume and mass to get something out of the Earth’s atmosphere 

and into orbit where you could either assemble it or have a big 

enough telescope that you could then send out to a Lagrange point 

too. And so it really depends on the science. Where we are right 

now are limited in both those areas by our current launch technologies. We don’t really have the energy or the acceleration to go 

directly to places like Europa and we don’t have the volume or the 

lift capacity to launch bigger telescopes than the James Webb 

Space Telescope. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Your statement noted that even if the SLS 

was primarily a vehicle for human exploration, as long as it was 

available for the science missions and wasn’t excessively costly for 

the science mission providing the payload that it could serve to 

unify and integrate NASA to be greater than the sum of its parts. 

The synergy between the shuttle and the Hubble Space Telescope 

are a good example. With the retirement of the shuttle, in your 

view, has NASA lost some of the synergy between human 

spaceflight and the science community? 

Dr. MOUNTAIN. Certainly, when you come to look at missions like 

the Hubble Space Telescope, there is no way back to the Hubble, 

for example, or no way back to contemplate missions like a future 

Hubble or a future large telescope. We have gone down another 

path where we are going to send out specialized missions that can’t 

be serviced or upgraded or repaired, and one has to examine the 

model, whether that is a smart model for future, even more ambitious missions. I think the power of being able to actually reconnect 

the human spaceflight program and science is demonstrated by the 

tremendous success of the Hubble or our ability to test things initially on Space Station that would then allow us to try new technologies into deeper space. I think there is a huge opportunity to 

actually connect some of the technologies in the human spaceflight 

with the ambitions of the science program, and development of new 

technologies always goes hand and hand with exploration and 

science. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you. 

Mr. Lacefield, what is the significance of the friction stir welding 

technique that you referenced in your statement with respect to the 

manufacturing of the Orion crew module, and what role was played 

by the team at Michoud Assembly Facility in the application of 

that technique? 

Mr. LACEFIELD. Well, the welding teams that both Boeing and 

Lockheed Martin have are located at the Michoud facility. It is 

state-of-the-art. It allows us to not have joints on the vehicle. It is 

a huge mass savings for Orion and I think it is a huge mass savings for Boeing also on SLS. It is something that does play forward 
57 

into other programs, into other industries, and it is a significant accomplishment, I think, for the program. 

We were able to build the first article without any problems that 

we had to go back and grind out in the welds—they just came out 

pristine. So it is one of the best welding processes that we have 

seen for spacecraft. 

Mr. CHILTON. I would add, it is significant from a safety perspective. You have very few defects with a friction stir weld because 

there is no heat, and that makes it economically more efficient, you 

get more schedule certain, but also the type of flaw you could get 

is going to be an order of magnitude bigger than the standard industrial detection capability so we are not going to have much 

chance of ever having a problem we don’t find, so I believe it is a 

safer method as well. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Mr. Dumbacher, in response to a previous 

question, you said that NASA was planning to the President’s request. Could you elaborate? Was your response in the context of 

SLS and Orion or is NASA using the budget request as guidance 

for all programs, projects and activities? 

Mr. DUMBACHER. Well, I can only speak to the exploration systems development area, which is SLS, Orion and the ground systems, and we are planning to the President’s budget request as it 

has been submitted. I would like to emphasize that one of the advantages we have going for us is that the development risk associated with the configurations we have chosen, we purposely chose 

the configuration as well as set the dates for the flights were set 

up consistent with that President’s budget request, and that is 

what you have before you. 

Chairman PALAZZO. And does that include commercial crew planning? 

Mr. DUMBACHER. No, the commercial crew is outside of my jurisdiction. That is a separate office within the Human Exploration 

and Operations Mission Directorate, and that is outside of the SLS 

and Orion budgets. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize Mr. Clarke. 

Mr. CLARKE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I have several questions of different aspects of these projects, but 

just to go back to the progress that all of you have indicated that 

we have made on the architecture of both Orion and SLS in the 

last year, in spite of that progress, what are the key challenges in 

maintaining that progress and what is needed to address those 

challenges? Any of you, in your opinion? 

Mr. DUMBACHER. I think the major challenges, we have talked 

about one earlier, which is the budget stability and being able to 

plan the program out from an integrated fashion in order to arrive 

at the 2017 and 2021 flight dates. As is usual with this kind of 

work, we have technical challenges ahead of us but they have been 

minimized by the choices we have made in terms of the configuration for the launch vehicle and we are also starting to see—and Mr. 

Lacefield and Mr. Chilton can elaborate—we are also starting to 

see the typical first unit kind of problems that you have as you 

work through hardware with the suppliers and making sure that 

they are able to supply the right hardware on the right dates in 

order to support the flight dates. Now, we have planned margin 
58 

into the schedules and other things in order to be able to adjust 

for much of that but that is the typical program planning, program 

execution challenges that we see from an integrated level. I will 

leave the rest, the further details to Mr. Lacefield and Mr. Chilton. 

Mr. LACEFIELD. I totally agree with what Mr. Dumbacher said. 

I think that the one thing I would like to bring up is that I think 

our supply chain in the United States is very fragile. When we look 

at the triple-E parts needed, you know, for avionics, all the electronic components for electronics, in the environments that we see, 

which is a radiation environment in deep space, those components 

are very hard to find in the United States right now, and just our 

program with Honeywell, Lockheed Martin and Hamilton 

Sundstrand buying those components, we are seeing lead times 

that we have never seen before. So I would say that the supply 

chain is the area that we really have to focus on. We really have 

to focus on the long lead times of these components, and the 

robustness of that supply chain isn’t what it was, you know, ten 

years ago. 

Mr. CLARKE. Just to follow up on that, Mr. Lacefield, because 

that is very disturbing, so number one, you have got long lead 

times because the components are hard to find, and then secondly, 

you see a fragility overall in our supply chain. Can you address 

that? 

Mr. LACEFIELD. So we have outsourced our composites because 

we have a great deal of lightweight composites on the vehicle. Approximately, I think, 40 percent of the vehicle is composites. We 

have outsourced those composites across the country so that we 

would be able to meet the schedules of the 2014 flight. We have 

outsourced across all of the electrical components to get the parts 

that we need by the time we need to do the vehicle checkout on 

the pad next March, the electrical checkout, and we are waiting on 

those parts to enable us to do the vehicle checkout on the pad in 

Florida. That is what we are waiting on. We have outsourced all 

of the mechanical components across the country also. With our 

program, we are using up a great deal of the capacity that is required in spacecraft so that the lead times that we are seeing, you 

know, we are in line with other DOD programs and it is just something we haven’t seen here recently, and I think it is something 

that we should all be aware of, what is happening with the supply 

chain in the United States on American suppliers. 

Mr. CLARKE. I know this is likely off topic from the focus of our 

hearing, but if you have any thoughts on what we could do to actually shorten those lead times and strengthen our supply chain, because it is very disturbing. It has enormous impact on other industries as well. If anyone has any other comment on that, on the supply chain, what we can do to strengthen it and shorten the lead 

times on those components? 

Mr. LACEFIELD. Well, I think when we talked about the funding 

stability and the stability in high-tech programs as they exist today 

supporting DOD and NASA, I think we need to see some stability 

there for those suppliers to make it, and because they aren’t seeing 

that stability, they are all retrenching, you know, with their capability and capacities. 

Mr. CLARKE. I got you. That is important. 
59 

I yield back my time. Thank you. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Just sitting here listening with a thousand thoughts going 

through my mind, I am fully aware that we are facing lots of constraints and I fully acknowledge that we have some real concerns 

about how we are going to able to fund. I hope we can stay online. 

But I am also aware that until we out-innovate, and we only can 

innovate through research, our economy is really not going to get 

much better, and so I am hoping that you will keep the pressure 

on us—sometimes we get a little lightheaded here—to stay on track 

because when you just reflect, we are aware that where we are 

today basically came from this type of research and where we are 

going to be tomorrow, it will come from this research. It will either 

be done here in partnership or it will be done somewhere else. If 

it is not done by the United States or not a major part, we will be 

watching it as spectators. 

And so I would just simply say to keep the pressure up, keep 

young people intrigued so that we can continue to educate the 

manpower we need. We simply cannot afford to do without this research. Thank you. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you. 

I thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the Members for their questions. The Members of the Subcommittee may 

have additional questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to 

respond to those in writing. The record will remain open for two 

weeks for additional comments and statements from the Members. 

The witnesses are excused and this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:24 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(61) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
62 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Mr. Dan Dumbacher 
63 

6. The operational costs associated with maintaining the Space Shuttle were 

unsustainable and NASA's intent under the Constellation program was to 

develop vehicles that required significantly less in terms of operational costs. 

Has this approach transferred to SLS and Orion programs and if so, what is 

the current estimate for operational costs of these vehicles? 

7. Your written statement says that NASA will "ramp up service module design 

efforts for 2017." Is the plan to use a service module in 2017 for the EM-l 

test flight? How would you characterize the technical risk of designing and 

developing a fully functional service module? 
64 

Questions for the Record 

Submitted by Rep. Jerry Costello, Ranking Member 

Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee 

"Examining NASA's Development of the Space Launch System and Orion Crew 

Capsule" 

September 12, 2012 

1. Given the need to complete development and flight testing of the core stage 

SLS and the Orion under limited funding, what is the rationale for NASA's 

decision to seek an advanced booster competition and development, which 

will require significant resources over time-rather than focusing limited 

funding on first completing development of the initial SLS and Orion, as 

well as the upper stage engine, which is already far along and required for 

the full SLS capability? What does a commitment to advanced booster 

development mean for the timeline and availability of a completed upper 

stage engine? 

2. What is the detailed plan for evolving the initial SLS variant to the full 130 

metric ton capability? When will NASA make decisions regarding the upper 

stage propulsion and advanced boosters required for the full capability? 

What criteria will be used in making those decisions? 

a. How will NASA ensure that work needed to get to the evolved 

capability will get done without slowing down work on the initial 

capability? 

3. What steps is NASA taking in the design of SLS and Orion to promote 

safety? What do you consider the most significant safety challenges? 
65 

Questions for the Record 

Submitted by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher' 

Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee 

"Examining NASA's Development of the Space Launch System and Orion Crew 

Capsule" 

September 12, 2012 

1. What portion of the recurring cost is the DoD willing to pick up to launch 

military payloads aboard the Heavy-lift Launch Vehicle? 

2. Can NASA improve the SLS affordability by having commonality with 

EEL V ... having common systems supporting both NASA and national 

security missions? . 

3. The SLS and Orion will be capable oftransporting astronauts to multiple 

destinations beyond LEO. While the plan calls ~or the initial destination for 

human flight beyond LEO to target an asteroid by 2025, there are other 

viable destinations including cis-lunar space such as the Earth-Moon 

Lagrange points, the lunar surface, and eventually Mars and its moons. 

a. Where does NASA think the near-term destination should be? 

b. What destinations can you reach with the 70 mT? 105 mT? 

c. How would that change with Block 2 or the 130mT? 

4. What is the expected recurring or launch'cost for SLS/Orion? 

a. Can you break the cost estimates down in tenus of fixed vs. variable 

costs? 

5. Given that the President's FY 2013 budget request had notional figures for 

the out years, what funding levels are required in the out years for SLS to 

meet its target date of2017 for the EM-1 mission? 
66 

Questions for the Record 

Submitted by Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson 

Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee 

"Examining NASA's Development of the Space Launch System and Orion Crew 

Capsule" 

September 12, 2012 

1. Under NASA's current plan, the first crewed flight of Orion and SLS won't 

occur until '2021. What critical measures would need to be taken to achieve 

a crewed SLS/Orion flight capability in this decade? Are the constraints 

technical or budgetary? Under the current budget plan, you are losing 

purchasing power due to inflation. If you received inflation-adjusted flat 

funding, could you pull the first crewed flight forward in time? If so, by 

how much? 
67 

Questions for the Record 

Submitted by Rep. Hansen Clarke 

Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee 

"Examining NASA's Development of the Space Launch System and Orion Crew 

Capsule" 

September 12, 2012 

1. Given the current funding situation facing the SLS and Orion programs, 

what is the rationale for funding development of a multipurpose launch pad 

for the exploration program at this point instead of just focusing on a pad to 

support SLS operations? What vehicle, other than SLS, would use it, and if 

you don't yet know, how will you determine the launch pad requirements? 

2. Inspiration is an intangible but critical element in maintaining the momentum 

and support for space projects. What decisions and actions will be most 

effective in stimulating and sustaining excitement in the SLS/Orion program? 
68 

Responses by Mr. Cleon Lacefield 

Mr. Cleon Lacefield 

Vice President and Orion Program Manager 

Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company 

Response to Questions for the Record: "Examining NASA's Development of the Space Launch System 

and Orion Crew Capsule" (September 12, 2012 Hearing - House Science, Space, and Technology 

Committee - Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics) 

Chairman Palazzo 

Question #1: The Orion crew vehicle is facing a flat funding profile through 2017 and as a result 

has prioritized EFT-1 related activities while deferring development and testing of critical 

components needed for the first crewed flight, such as crew life support systems. What is the 

impact of deferring this work until later in the project's development? 

Mr. Lacefield Response #1: EFT-1, together with follow-on flights EM-l and EM-2, are top 

program priorities for Orion. Key system elements (including: thermal protection system; 

propulsion; avionics; power; software; and some aspects of the crew life support system, such 

as the Active Thermal Control System and the Crew Module Uprighting System are included in 

EFT-1 and will support successful follow-on flights with EM-l (Exploration Mission-i) and EM-2 

(Exploration Mission-2). The program has adopted a flexible approach of incremental 

development relative to some lower risk elements (such as: communications & tracking; crew 

stowage and lockers; and some life support system components in order to ensure the ability to 

execute the program within NASA's constrained budget resources. 

Ranking Member Costello 

question #1: What steps are you taking in the design of Orion to promote safety? What do 

you consider the most significant safety challenges? 

Mr. Lacefield Response #1: The Orion spacecraft system is designed to have significantly 

improved safety performance that will protect the crew throughout the flight/mission from 

launch to landing. In fact, the NASA requirement was to develop a system that was ten times 

safer than the Space Shuttle system on launch. A major safety element of Orion that allows this 

improvement is the Launch Abort System which was successfully tested in May 2010 at the 

Army's White Sands Test and Missile Range in NM, as well as development ofthe world's largest 

composite heatshield structure ever built for high-speed re-entry from deep-space. The 

realities of long-duration, deep-space missions - especially, for example, the impact of radiation 

exposure on humans and spacecraft functionality - are the most significant safety challenges 

facing Orion and America's future human space exploration program. 

question #2: The FY13 budget proposal reduces funding for Orion development by 

approximately $200 million. How would the reduction affect the planned test program for 
69 

Orion, including the amount of outfitting of the capsule that will be possible for the planned 

2017 flight? What other impacts would the reduction have on Orion and related activities? 

• Mr. Lacefield Response #2: It is important that the current Continuing Resolution maintains 

FY2013 funding at $1.2 billion to ensure timely and successful implementation of EFT-l in 2014 

and protect critical development activities for the EM-l and EM-2 flights. It is also important 

that out-year budgets are funded to support a robust crew safety - risk mitigation 

demonstration test (EM-l), the first integrated flight with Orion and the SLS, and a crew capable 

system leading to first crewed mission with EM-2. In fact, Orion's "considerable progress" and 

the importance of our continued commitment to crew safety, reliability and risk mitigation 

testing was emphasized by the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) in its most recent review 

of the Orion and SLS programs. Reduced funding could impact the program's ability to 

demonstrate a fully crew capable system as part of EM-l in 2017. The EM-l flight must include 

the equipment that needs to be demonstrated in-flight prior to the first crewed mission, EM-2. 

Rep. Johnson 

• Question #1: Under NASA's current plan, the first crewed flight of Orion and SlS won't occur 

until 2021. What critical measures would need to be taken to achieve a crewed SlS/Orion flight 

capability in this decade? Are the constraints technical or budgetary? Under the current budget 

plan, you are losing purchasing power due to inflation. If NASA received inflation-adjusted flat 

funding, could the first crewed flight be pulled forward in time? By how much? 

• Mr. Lacefield Response #1: Current program plans include demonstrating a crew capable 

system as part of EM-l in 2017. This is critical to enabling the first crewed flight whether it is in 

2012 or sooner. While programs always face certain technical challenges, accelerating the time 

schedule for first SlS/Orion crewed missions (currently set for 2021) is primarily a question of 

funding constraints. In that regard, while action to offset inflation as part of NASA's out-year 

budgets would be a positive development overall for NASA, it would likely not provide sufficient 

funding needed to enable an accelerated schedule to achieve first human missions to deepspace in this decade. 

Rep. Clarke 

• Question #1: During your response to hearing questions, you noted the fragility of the supply 

chain in the US, the unprecedented lead times you are seeing as a result, and the overall effect 

of this situation on the aerospace industry. What can Congress do and what actions will need to 

be taken to help address this situation? 

• Mr. Lacefield Response #1: Orion and NASA are only a reflection of a much larger dynamic that 

is impacting our nation's aerospace industrial base. That base has been adversely affected by 

reductions in funding for the Department of Defense, which will be seriously compounded by 

projected defense budget reductions and the devastating impact that will result if Sequestration 

is put into effect in January. Orion and human space exploration require a long-term, consistent 
70 

and sustained level of budget support and policy stability through multiple Congresses and 

Presidents. In addition, Congress and the President must take action to avoid the catastrophic 

impact of Sequestration on our nation's security and aerospace industrial base. The lack of 

stability in high-tech government programs does not incentivize small US businesses to maintain 

certain critical manufacturing capabilities. When suppliers leave the aerospace sector, it is often 

a long and expensive process to qualify new suppliers to the demanding standards of this 

industry. 

• Question #2: Inspiration is an intangible but critical element in maintaining the momentum and 

support for space projects. In your opinion, what decisions and actions will be most effective in 

stimulating and sustaining excitement in the SLS/Orion program? 

• Mr. Lacefield Response #2: There are many STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) 

education outreach activities that the Orion industry team, as well as NASA, carries out to 

promote enthusiasm for space exploration among our nation's youth. In addition, the Orion 

program participates in multiple public outreach events (such as the Shuttle celebrations that 

have or are taking place around the country in NY, CA, FL and Washington D.c.) that help raise 

the profile of what's next for America's human space exploration program. Most importantly, 

NASA, Congress and the Administration must provide leadership in the definition of missions 

that inspire students to pursue difficult STEM fields. Congress and the Administration must also 

provide funding and policy continuity and sustainability over the long term for Orion and 

exploration, while NASA and the Orion industry team must successfully execute the program 

taking humans further into space for longer periods of time than ever before possible. In this 

way, support for space projects will be assured for the future. 

• Question #3: Given the need to complete development and flight test of the core stage of the 

SLS and Orion under limited funding, what is your view on NASA's decision to seek an advanced 

booster competition and development, which will require significant resources over timerather than focusing limited funding on first completing development of the initial SLS and 

Orion, as well as the upper stage engine, which is already far along and required for the full SLS 

capability? What, in your view, are the key trade-offs that must be considered in making these 

decisions? 

• Mr. Lacefield Response #3: . First, I do feel strongly that a sustainable SLS is critical not only to 

Orion, but to the types of missions that I envision we would want to do as we stretch beyond 

low-Earth orbit. That said, given my lead responsibility for Orion and not SLS, I recommend that 

NASA respond to this specific question regarding the management of the SLS program 

• Question #4: Are NASA's plans and funding projections for SLS/Orion sufficient to ensure 

workforce stability over the long-term? If not, what is needed to maintain the critical workforce 

capabilities required to help ensure success in meeting SLS/Orion milestones and carrying out 

test flights? 
71 

• Mr.lacefield Response #4: Workforce stability for Orion is impacted by sustained, predictable 

funding that allows NASA and the Orion industry team to plan for the effective execution of the 

program. In that regard, we are moving forward making progress toward our goal of successful 

flight tests in 2014 (EFT-i) and 2017 (EM-2) with first crewed missions to deep-space in 2021. 

Even with that kind of support and progress, however, the Orion workforce is only a small part 

of a much larger national aerospace industrial base which has been and may continue to be 

adversely impacted by cuts in funding for the Department of Defense and the potential 

reductions that would accompany Sequestration absent a budget agreement between Congress 

and the President. NASA and industry must always work through short-term changes in 

workforce and skill base as programs move through design and development to manufacturing, 

assembly, integration and flight. Maintaining stable budgets and plans allows us to manage 

those normal changes most effectively. 
72 

Responses by Mr. Jim Chilton 

SLS Hearing Questions - September 12, 2012 

Rep. Costello 

1) What steps are you taking in the design of SLS to promote safety? What do you consider the 

most significant safety challenges? 

The SLS program leverages demonstrated hardware with known reliability for the 

significant propulsion elements. Extensive re-use of existing human rated elements from 

the Space Shuttle Program is a design practice to ensure SLS safety. In fact the only new 

element of the initial SLS configuration is the core stage; the remaining elements either 

exist or are in production today. 

Sixteen Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME's) are currently in storage at the Stennis Space 

Center and will undergo a final check out test prior to installation in the first four flight 

vehicles. The initial SLS configuration also will use the new 5-segment Solid Rocket 

Boosters (SRB's) which have been upgraded from the 4-segment SRB's flown in the Shuttle 

program. The 5-segment SRB development was initiated during the Ares Program and is 

currently in the testing phase. The upper stage for the initial 70mT SLS configuration will 

be a Delta IV heavy upper stage, which is currently in production. 

The SLS program also elected to perform core stage hot fire testing in the B-2 test stand at 

NASA Stennis Space Center. This testing will validate core stage deSigns, operating 

conditions and flight operations procedures before the core stage is transferred to the 

Kennedy Space Center for final flight processing. This testing is commensurate with prior 

testing conducted on all U.S launch vehicles prior to the first flight. 

Finally safety is directly related to design simplicity; the more simple the design the greater 

the inherent vehicle safety. While the SLS uses propulsion systems from the Space Shuttle 

Program, the SLS design for core stage relies on proven technology that is well 

characterized. The resulting less complicated design is very straightforward to analyze and 

assess prior to the initial stage hot fire test. 

2) Is NASA's plan for evolving the initial SlS variant to the full 130 metric ton capability directed in 

the 2010 NASA Authorization Act clear? What, in your view, are the key tradeoffs that must be 

considered in making decisions on the upperstage propulsion and advanced boosters? Is the 

130 metric tons the appropriate metric for ensuring a heavy-lift vehicle to support deep space 

crewed missions? 

The intent of NASA to evolve the SlS from the initial70mT configuration to a final 130mT 

capability is clear, but questions remain regarding the evolution development path. This 

path is highly dependent upon SLS rocket development funding. NASA continues to 

manage funding allocations between Orion, SLS ground and test systems and the SlS 
73 

Rep. Palazzo 

vehicle development to align budget with skills and critical path. The agency has recently 

realigned funding between SlS, Orion and ground systems consistent with the integrated 

Exploration plan. 

While ground infrastructure is an important element needed to support the SLS program, 

the level of current investment is higher earlier than has been experienced in other fe€eflt 

launch facility construction efforts. This is especially significant at this stage of the rocket 

development where constrained funding must be applied with lead time considerations in 

mind. 

Current funding projections constrain SLS development to the core stage, and partial 

development of a second rocket element. NASA is currently evaluating between a large 

upper stage and advanced boosters as the next new development in the SLS evolution 

path. From our view, NASA should trade development cost and schedules against the 

resulting increase in SLS performance to assess the value of the next SLS development. 

From a performance perspective, a large upper stage provides significant increases in 

payload delivered beyond low-Earth orbit over advanced boosters. Our analysis indicates a 

large upper stage is less costly and ~ faster to develop than advanced boosters. This 

significant increase in deliverable payload to a destination of exploration interest could 

allow NASA to undertake a greater set of missions sooner rather than later. We believe 

modest upgrades to SRB's can be accomplished within current annual funding limits for 

SRB's, providing an increase in low earth orbit performance should that be deemed 

desirable. 

The130mT SLS performance metric currently used for SLS references the payload delivered 

to low-Earth orbit (LEO). This metric is useful to describe the relative size of the rocket 

needed for deep space exploration, but the use of SOmT to Beyond Earth Orbit (BEO) 

provides greater specificity for the same size rocket to ensure it is more useful for BEO 

exploration. The 130mTto lEO references the mass ofthe exploration payload plus the 

upper stage mass delivered to LEO, and can therefore be interpreted to design a rocket 

optimized for low earth orbit performance rather than exploring beyond earth orbit. The 

SOmT to BEO metric ensures the rocket is designed large enough to propel larger payloads 

or similar payloads to further destinations, thus allowing NASA to accomplish more 

exploration missions with a single configuration. As missions emerge, NASA will develop 

functional maps that assign tasks to new elements using their systems engineering process. 

1) The SLS will use heritage hardware from the Shuttle program that will need to be modified to 

operate as part of SLS, examples being the solid rocket boosters and the space shuttle main 

engines. When will the exact modifications to these components be known and how much 
74 

depends on the design ofthe core stage? How confident is Boeing that these modifications can 

be made in order to support the first un-crewed flight In 20171 

Boeing is not aware that the core stage Is driving any modifications to heritage elements 

such as the solid rocket boosters or space shuttle main engines. We are confident these 

propulsion elements are either well understood or have been characterized well enough as 

to not require downstream design changes of the core SlS stage. 

Regarding avionics, we are aware that the SSME computer controller has recently been 

upgraded to a derivative of the J-2X controller. The J-2X controller was previously 

integrated with the Ares upper stage avionics, which have been carried over to the SlS 

program. The new SSME controller will be validated in hot-fire testing, and we are 

currently running simulated SlS flights in NASA MSFC's avionics lab to verify full 

compatibility with the overall avionics suite. Boeing's selection of an existing flight 

computer has greatly accelerated the avionics validation testing, and provides sufficient 

time to ensure full compatibility before the initial stage hot-fire test in 2016. 

2) I understand the Delta 4 cryogenic upper stage will be used on the initial set of flights. What is 

the schedule for developing a new upper stage powered by the J-2X engine? And as a follow-up, 

to what degree will a new upper stage require modifications and testing of the core stage? 

Boeing is not currently funded for upper stage work other than the interim Cryogenic 

Propulsion Stage (iCPS), which is the SlS designation for the Delta IV Heavy upper stage 

when used on SLS. At NASA's request, we have provided cost, schedule and technical 

information on the development of a large 8.4m upper stage. This stage could be produced 

on the same tooling and with the same team as the core stage, offering concurrent 

development savings and common production efficiencies. 

NASA's approach is to develop a single common core stage to accommodate future SlS 

evolution configurations. We are currently developing the core stage using preliminary 

design data from a larger upper stage configuration to ensure the core stage is designed to 

be ready for that configuration. This approach allows NASA the option of embarking on 

concurrent development of the core stage and the preliminary design of the upper stage to 

capture this one-time cost savings opportunity. Concurrent development of the core and 

upper stage also ensures these elements are manufactured using common tooling, process 

and procedures. Given the flat funding profile, NASA is trading this amongst other options 

as missions emerge that will drive the next SlS evolution step. 

Rep. Johnson 

1) Under NASA's current plan, the first crewed flight of Orion and SlS won't occur until 2021. 

What critical measures would need to be taken to achieve a crewed SlS/Orion flight capability in 

this decade? Are the constraints technical or budgetary? Under current budget plan, you are 
75 

losing purchasing power due to inflation. If NASA received inflation-adjusted flat funding, could 

the first crewed flight be pulled forward in time? By how much? 

Rep. Clarke 

The initial flight scheduled for 2017 is constrained by the schedule needed to develop, 

integrate, test and test the SlS core stage. Increased funding would not accelerate the 

2017 flight, but would provide additional schedule confidence. 

The 2021 flight on the other hand is constrained by the currently proposed budgets. If 

additional funds were applied to the SlS core stage, the 2021 flight could be accelerated. 

Some budget process approaches are also making earlier missions more difficult. Planning 

to a funding level without inflation aggravates this issue; withholding contract specific 

termination liability from obligation also creates a challenge. In addition to inflation 

another challenge to SlS program improving schedule is maintaining the flat budget level 

from which the SLS program plan was created. Through the annual appropriations cycle 

the Administration and Congress have agreed on funding direction for SLS. The President's 

Budget Requests have been lower than the agreed upon level. Budget planning 

constrained by current and future PBRs, rather than the most recent agreements 

represented by the latest appropriations, makes achieving an earlier schedule more 

difficult. 

1) Inspiration is an intangible but critical element in maintaining the momentum and support for 

space projects. In your opinion, what decisions and actions will be most effective in stimulating 

and sustaining excitement in the SlS/Orion program? 

Inspiration will continue to be a key element to maintain the momentum and support for 

the human Exploration program. A critical element of inspiration is developing and 

nurturing science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) students, and our space 

exploration efforts have always been at the forefront of this inspiration. Of course, 

students who work through challenging STEM curriculums become ambassadors for future 

students. Repeated program starts and stops which cause them employment uncertainty 

do much to erase this inspirational factor as well as their credibility as ambassadors. After 

the Space Shuttle retirement, many Americans believe NASA's human spaceflight program 

is going "out of business" and are unaware of the SlS/Orion programs. In our outreach 

efforts we consistently find people are excited to learn of NASA's current SLS/Orion 

development efforts and relieved to know the human space program will continue. NASA's 

plans for the 2014 Orion flight test and interactions with industry to promote significant 

development progress is aimed to increase greater awareness of the Exploration program. 

Another aspect affecting the inspiration and enthusiasm issue is an overall disappointment 

with the lack of mission specifics regarding the future path for human exploration. From 
76 

our perspective, outreach to excite public interest and enthusiasm would benefit greatly 

from more specifics regarding missions than is currently available. Future mission sets with 

specifics would provide greater depth and understanding of what we are trying to 

accomplish and why these missions are important,..Mission specifics will promote greater 

interest of the American population, but also serve to rejuvenate the inspiration to 

throughout the educational system lost with the retirement of Space Shuttle. Greater 

clarification and communication of the intermediate missions NASA will undertake to 

enable larger mission objectives will restore near-term opportunities needed to inspire 

students of all ages to pursue STEM related curriculums and once again strive to become 

an astronaut or to help build and launch the vehicles that will unlock the mysteries of the 

universe. 

2) Are NASA's plans and funding projections for SlSjOrion sufficient to ensure workforce stability 

over the long-term? If not, what is needed to maintain the critical workforce capabilities 

required to help ensure success in meeting SLSjOrion milestones and carrying out test flights? 

For the near term, current budget appropriation levels appear to be sufficient to maintain 

stability in the workforce, and provide stability for program execution. Flat budget 

appropriations for SLS development program have driven NASA away from directly 

developing the desired 130mT SLS vehicle to an incremental evolutionary approach. This 

incremental approach extends vehicle development and makes it vulnerable to factors 

such as inflation. The biggest threat to meeting out-year milestones is the continual 

inflationary erosion of a flat line budget which reduces NASA's effective purchasing power. 

By the 2020 the SLS budget effectively is estimated to be reduced by twenty-five percent 

through inflationary erosion alone. The resulting reduction in purchasing power is likely to 

extend SlS development and also delay the initiation of other deep space exploration 

element developments critical to enabling meaningful missions. 

Although the appropriations level is sufficient if escalated, the approach selected to 

manage the liability of a potential termination makes this portion of the appropriated 

budget unavailable to the program. To protect against contract-by-contract termination, 

hundreds of millions of dollars that could be obligated to make forward progress are being 

held in reserve to satisfy the selected termination liability threshold levels. An alternate 

approach where termination liability is aggregated and reserved at the agency level could 

alleviate this issue. 

Another stability challenge is inherent in the current budget planning process. Through the 

annual appropriations cycle, the Administration and Congress have agreed on funding 

direction for SlS. The President's Budget Requests have been lower than the agreed upon 

level. Budget planning constrained by current and future PBRs, rather than the most 
77 

recent agreements represented by the latest appropriations, makes workforce stability 

more difficult to achieve. 
78 

Responses by Dr. Matt Mountain 

Submitted by Rep. Steven M. Palazzo, 

Chairman, Space and Aeronautics 

Subcommittee 

"Examining NASA's Development of the Space Launch System and 

Orion Crew Capsule" 

September 12,2012 

1. In your testimony you suggest that an SLS may make it possible to do 

a Mars sample return mission in one launch instead of three. Can you 

outline how a single launch mission might be designed and carried 

out? 

The National Academy of Sciences recent Decadal Survey for Planetary Science called 

for a sample return campaign to Mars which was envisioned as three separate missions. 

In discussion with colleagues at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the Space Launch 

System (SLS) would have the potential to launch all three elements of a Mars Sample 

Return on one launch vehicle with generous mass margins. Mars Sample Return requires 

four functional steps: landing on Mars' surface, acquiring a scientifically selected sample, 

launching the collected sample from Mars' surface, and then returning that sample safely 

to Earth. With a heavy lift capability, one can consider using an architecture that will 

have an integrated system composed of several major parts: the first will deliver the 

system to Mars, a lander to acquire samples, another to launch it from Mars' surface to 

orbit, and the first element will capture the sample launched and return it to Earth. SLS 

enables combining these parts fully developed, tested, launched and operated as an 

integrated system. This approach has the potential advantage of lower total cost due to 

integration reducing otherwise common functions, a reduction in systems engineering 

complexity due to the high payload capability of the SLS, and launch vehicle cost 

savings. 

However, as discussed in my testimony, science can only realistically use a SLS if its 

availability for research missions is both reasonably frequent (probably at least every 

other year) and not excessively costly to the science mission providing the payload. There 

is precedence for the latter in that the cost of the Space Shuttle for missions like the 

Hubble was not fully borne by NASA's Science Mission Directorate but rather provided 

as part of NASA's space flight infrastructure for use by the entire Agency. 
79 

Submitted by Rep. Jerry Costello, 

Ranking Member, Space and Aeronautics 

Subcommittee 

"Examining NASA's Development of the Space Launch System and 

Orion Crew Capsule" 

September 12,2012 

1. Congress has, through successive Authorization Acts, directed 

NASA to maintain a robust space science program including a mix 

of mission sizes. That said, some might argue that given the current 

fiscal crisis, we can't afford to build the size and scope of science 

missions that would require an SLS/Orion launch. What is your 

response? 

Maintaining a robust science program requires robust science objectives with facilities 

that can ultimately lead to scientific breakthroughs capable of moving discovery and 

science forward. After forty years of the most successful science program in history, 

space science is at the point where certain questions can only be answered with missions 

of a certain scale. For example, to answer the question, "Is there life on Earth-like planets 

around other stars?" requires a space telescope capable of taking spectra of objects fainter 

than the objects in the Hubble Deep Field: that is, we need a telescope larger than the 

Hubble Space Telescope, and in fact it turns out larger than the James Webb Space 

Telescope. This is one example, and in other areas of space science substantive progress 

cannot be made relying solely on small to moderate missions using today's conventional 

launch systems. 

To make such facilities possible (and affordable) takes new technologies, and the SLS is 

one such enabling technology. As the National Research Council report "Launching 

Science: Science Opportunities Provided by NASA's Constellation System," pointed out 

on p. 13, "NASA should conduct a comprehensive systems-engineering-based analysis to 

assess the possibility that the relaxation of weight and volume constraints enabled by 

Ares V for some space science missions might make feasible a significantly different 

approach to science mission design, development, assembly, integration, and testing, 

resulting in a relative decrease in the cost of space science missions" (my emphasis 

added.) 

Similarly, the new SLS will be able to 10ft as much as 130 metric tons of payload to lowEarth orbit. This means, for example, that more conventional materials could be used in 

the spacecraft and observatory design. Ultra-lightweight components could be replaced 

with less costly conventional materials and structures. Complex deployment schemes as 

required by most of our missions could be replaced by less risky fixed components. The 

SLS can potentially simplify the design and cost of certain science missions. The high 
80 

thrust of the SLS can also significantly reduce the transit time by years for missions to the 

outer planets, reducing cost and risk. The SLS enables a new paradigm in space science. 
81 

Submitted by Rep. Hansen Clarke 

Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee 

"ExaminingNASA 'sDevelopment oftheSpaceLaunch System and 

Orion Crew Capsule" 

September 12,2012 

1. Inspiration is an intangible but critical element in maintaining the 

momentum and support for space projects. In your opinion, what 

decisions and actions will be most effective in stimulating and 

sustaining excitement in the SLS/Orion program? 

The SLS program follows in a great line of NASA vehicles that are etched in the minds 

of the public. When people hear "NASA," among the first things to come to mind, 

depending on their generation, is a Saturn V rocket, the Moon landing, the space shuttle, 

pictures from Hubble or rovers on Mars. Yet, the public is not very familiar with the 

technical characteristics of the vehicles, it is the achievements that they enabled that 

make them everlasting (e.g., the moon landing, launch and service of Hubble, and the 

International Space Station). SLS does hold the potential to continue this proud tradition. 

For SLS to inspire the next generation, several elements must be clearly articulated: 

1.) Its nature as the backbone of many NASA scientific missions, including 

current (in development) and future large telescopes. Establishing this 

connection allows the public to be engaged through the importance of the 

scientific missions to address mankind's most fundamental questions about 

the Universe. 

It is my view that science, once again, should be viewed as an essential and 

exciting partner in the exploration endeavor. Science carmot drive the 

development of a human space flight system, but it both gives it genuine 

purpose in the minds of the US public, and in the long run provides the most 

impact. 

2.) Its role in the overall national strategic vision for space exploration, 

especially including future human missions to other planets or moons. The 

lack of a clearly defined vision causes public confusion on the priority, which 

translates to a loss of purpose for SLS/Orion. 

The use of sequels to describe "SLS + [future mission]" as the next "Space 

Shuttle + Hubble" will resonate with the public. These connections will also 

help bring forth new opportunities to highlight the strength of NASA's 

interdisciplinary work force. Engineers working on SLS and scientists 
82 

developing future telescopes should work in joint education and public 

outreach campaigns to highlight how STEM fields come together. Such 

engagement can directly inspire a new generation of students, the ones who 

will want to be a part of this vision. 

3.) Its return on investments from launch vehicles, as exhibited by the role of 

the Space Shuttle in the Hubble Space Telescope project. The Space Shuttle 

served many purposes, only one of which was to launch and service Hubble. 

This synergy enabled the groundbreaking science mission of the Hubble 

Space Telescope, which is now in its 23rd year. Just as groundbreaking is the 

education and public outreach programs developed at the Space Telescope 

Science Institute (STScI) using Hubble results. For over 20 years Hubble 

education programs have connected students, educators, and the public to 

Hubble's amazing discoveries. 

STScI has developed these national educational programs, whose success is 

evidenced by their use in all 50 states and 42 of the largest school districts in 

the nation, and by the audience for its public websites, which regularly attract 

over 2.5 million people each month. Additionally, the program annually 

creates 30-40 standards-based curriculum support materials that support the 

teaching of science and math. 

4.) The impact of spinoff technologies that result from the investments, and 

clear descriptions of how the projects are critical to maintaining the nation's 

technological edge. 

In developing the Space Shuttle, NASA made sure there was a partnership between 

Science and Human Space Flight to ensure that the Space Shuttle had sufficient 

capabilities. These capabilities made possible the ongoing support of missions like the 

Hubble Space Telescope, enabling its Nobel Prize-winning science. The Space Shuttle 

ensured Hubble's place as a global icon of American science for the last 22 years. To 

maximize America's investment in the SLS, NASA should make sure that these systems' 

capabilities are sufficient to enable a new generation of science missions that will once 

again have the potential to make unimaginable discoveries and inspire America for the 

next 22 years. 
83 

2. What aspect of the SLS/Orion system is the most important for 

carrying out science missions? Is it the ability to carry humans? The 

heavy-lift capability? Or is it the potential future destinations (near 

Earth asteroid, cis- lunar space, Mars) that SLS/Orion might visit? 

a. What, if any, requirements would need to be met to 

enable the deployment of high-priority science missions 

from the SLS/Orion? 

b. To what extent is NASA working with the Science 

Mission Directorate to consider the science 

opportunities that would be enabled by SLS/Orion? 

Which aspect of the SLS system is important for carrying out science missions depends 

critically on the science one wants to conduct. If your goal is an interplanetary science 

mission, one is concerned about the Earth's gravity and getting into interplanetary space, 

so acceleration and the energy to send the mission to its destination in space are 

important. If one is looking to build a very large telescope - one that could be used to 

detect life for instance one is concerned about volume and mass. Once you got the 

telescope out of the Earth's atmosphere and into orbit, one could assemble it or have a 

big enough telescope that could then be sent out to Lagrange point 2. 

However, the most critical aspect of an SLS system, if it is to be realistically used for 

science, is that its availability for research missions is both reasonably frequent (probably 

at least one every other year) and not excessively costly to the science mission providing 

the payload. There is precedence for the latter in that the cost of the Space Shuttle for 

missions like Hubble was not fully borne by NASA's Science Mission Directorate but 

rather provided as part of NASA's space flight infrastructure for use by the entire Agency. 

Science can only benefit from a national investment in SLS if, once again, science is 

viewed as an essential and exciting partner in the exploration endeavor -science cannot 

drive the development of a human space flight system. Currently, we are limited by our 

launch technology, so to summarize and respond to (a) on possible requirements for 

science: 

a. First, the 70 to 130 metric ton lift capacity to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) means 

that more conventional approaches (e.g., less light-weighted material) and 

components could be used in the spacecraft and observatory design. This 

simplifies the design and, as a consequence, reduces mission risk. 

Second, the SLS must be able to launch not just more mass, but the payload 

fairing must be able to accommodate large volumes so we can simplify 

telescopes and large missions by reducing all or many of the on-orbit 
84 

Æ 

deployments that would be otherwise needed if one only had access to smaller 

launch vehicles. The next generation ofUV-optical space telescopes will 

benefit from fairing diameters of at least 8 meters, and for some designs, up to 

10 meters in diameter. Fairing height is important as well- some space 

science missions may need up to 25 meters of fairing height. We don't have 

the volume or the lift capacity to launch bigger telescopes, including the 

James Webb Space Telescope. 

Third, existing launch vehicles don't have the energy or acceleration to go 

directly to places like Europa. The increased energy of the SLS launch vehicle 

also means planetary science payloads can be launched over a wider range of 

launch windows, in some cases being able to travel directly to solar system 

bodies. This will save transit time, give more flexibility in launch schedules, 

or provide more regular access to otherwise hard-to-reach solar system objects. 

b. I am aware that the SLS Team is working with the Science Mission Directorate 

to consider the science opportunities that would be enabled by SLS, but do not 

know of any details.