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

80–562PDF 2013

AN OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS 

AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

April 24, 2013 

Serial No. 113–23 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

CHRIS STEWART, Utah 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

MARK TAKANO, California 

ROBIN KELLY, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE

HON. STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi, Chair 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

CHRIS STEWART, Utah 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

AMI BERA, California 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

April 24, 2013 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Steven M. Palazzo, Chairman, Subcommittee 

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

Representatives .................................................................................................... 17 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 19 

Statement by Representative Donna Edwards, Ranking Minority Member, 

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

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

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

Statement by Representative Lamar Smith, Chairman, Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .................................... 22 

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

Witnesses: 

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

and Space Administration (NASA) 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 24 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 26 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 36 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

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

and Space Administration (NASA) ..................................................................... 56 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Submitted statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking 

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

Representatives .................................................................................................... 126 

Submitted letter by the Planetary Society ............................................................ 127 

(1) 

AN OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL 

AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION BUDGET FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2014 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in Room 

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

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

Chairman PALAZZO. Well, good afternoon. Welcome to today’s 

hearing titled An Overview of the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration Budget for Fiscal Year 2014. 

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

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

Good afternoon. I would like to welcome everyone to our hearing 

today, and I especially want to thank our witness, NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden, for joining us. I know many people put in 

a lot of effort preparing for these hearings, and we appreciate you 

taking time from your busy schedule to appear before the Subcommittee. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to review the Administration’s 

Fiscal Year 2014 budget request for the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration and to examine its priorities and challenges. 

Before we review the details of the NASA request, I feel it is necessary to express my disappointment that the Administration has 

been unable to fulfill its responsibilities for a timely budget as required under the Budget and Accounting Act. In the future, I hope 

the Administration will be on time. 

This year NASA is requesting $17.7 billion, a decrease of $55 

million from Fiscal Year 2012 and $733 million less than Fiscal 

Year 2011. In a time of budgetary restraints such as the one our 

Nation is facing, we must ensure that every agency is doing its 

part, and I believe the top line request for NASA is fair in this regard. 

There are several areas of the request that I believe require serious deliberation and thoughtful debate. Within the Human Operations and Exploration Mission Directorate, I am most concerned 

with the requests for the Commercial Crew Program, the Space 

Launch System and the Orion crew capsule. Certainly the successful launches of both SpaceX and Orbital Sciences are significant 

milestones, and they should be applauded for those achievements. 

However, I continue to be concerned about the strategy NASA is 

employing to fund crew transportation systems. 

We must recognize the times in which we are operating. If funding multiple companies to develop these systems is no longer feasible, we must reevaluate our strategy. Our first priority must be 

getting American astronauts launching on American rockets from 

American soil as soon as safely possible. I am skeptical about continuing to develop a market as broad and as deep as NASA suggests because I think it could delay that goal. This is a conversation I anticipate revisiting as the Committee prepares for the 

NASA reauthorization later this year. 

Additionally, I am concerned about the requests for the Space 

Launch System and the Orion crew capsule. While Congress continues to insist that these two programs be priorities, NASA has 

once again offered a budget that does not demonstrate the sustained commitment to their development. I remain committed to 

ensuring our Nation has a robust exploration program, and I am 

curious what milestones or important testing NASA believes can be 

pushed out in the schedule to accommodate the lower request. 
18 

I am also troubled by NASA’s requested reductions in the 

Science, Aeronautics, and Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorates, while asking for $105 million for an Asteroid Retrieval Mission that was announced seemingly out of the blue. This 

request was not accompanied by a budget profile, technical plan or 

long-term strategy. Yet NASA has asked Congress to commit to 

funding the first steps. I look forward to hearing more about this 

mission and how NASA intends to cover the $2.6 billion that the 

Keck Institute for Space Studies estimated it would cost. 

In the Science Mission Directorate, the Administration has requested authority to transfer several climate sensors from the troubled Joint Polar Satellite System and the Deep Space Climate Observatory out of the NOAA budget and assign them to the Earth 

Science program budget. The budget request also transfers Landsat 

Data Continuity Mission follow-on activities from the U.S. Geological Survey to NASA and the development infrastructure for Radioisotope Power Systems from the Department of Energy to NASA. 

So I am worried that NASA is footing the bill for other agency requirements, all while being asked to take an overall budget cut. 

Finally, I am concerned by the growth of the Space Technology 

program. The request for the Space Technology program this year 

is a 62 percent increase over the appropriation it received in Fiscal 

Year 2012. This is a significant amount of growth in only two 

years. Although NASA has announced that it will organize Space 

Technology as a mission directorate, it has not requested authority 

to do so in the upcoming authorization bill and it is not entirely 

clear how the projects in Space Technology differ from those in the 

other mission directorates. 

Mr. Administrator, like you, I am committed to ensuring that our 

Nation has a robust space program that will continue to lead the 

world for generations. I am concerned, however, that NASA has neglected Congressional funding priorities and been distracted by 

new and questionable missions that detract from our ultimate deep 

space exploration goals. These distractions also take up precious 

lines in the budget at a time when NASA can least afford it. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Palazzo follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE CHAIRMAN STEVEN PALAZZO

Good afternoon. I would like to welcome everyone to our hearing today and I especially want to thank our witness, NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden, for joining 

us. I know many people put in a lot of effort preparing for these hearings, and we 

appreciate you taking time from your busy schedule to appear before the Subcommittee. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to review the Administration’s fiscal year 2014 

budget request for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and to examine its priorities and challenges. 

Before we review the details of the NASA request, I feel it is necessary to express 

my disappointment that the Administration has been unable to fulfill its responsibilities for a timely budget as required under the Budget and Accounting Act. In 

the future, I hope the Administration will be on time.This year NASA is requesting 

$17.7 billion, a decrease of $55 million from fiscal year 2012 and $733 million less 

than fiscal year 2011. In a time of budgetary restraints such as the one our nation 

is facing, we must ensure that every agency is doing its part, and I believe the 

topline request for NASA is fair in this regard. 

There are several areas of the request that I believe require serious deliberation 

and thoughtful debate. Within the Human Operations and Exploration Mission Directorate I am most concerned with the requests for the Commercial Crew Program, 
19 

the Space Launch System and the Orion crew capsule. Certainly the successful 

launches of both SpaceX and Orbital Sciences are significant milestones and they 

should be applauded for those achievements, however, I continue to be concerned 

about the strategy NASA is employing to fund crew transportation systems. 

We must recognize the times in which we are operating, if funding multiple companies to develop these systems is no longer feasible, we must reevaluate our strategy. Our first priority must be getting American astronauts launching on American 

rockets from American soil as soon as is safely possible. I am skeptical about continuing to develop a market as broad and as deep as NASA suggests because I think 

it could delay that goal. This is a conversation I anticipate revisiting as the Committee prepares for the NASA reauthorization later this year. 

Additionally, I am concerned about the requests for the Space Launch System and 

the Orion crew capsule. While Congress continues to insist that these two programs 

be priorities, NASA has once again offered a budget that does not demonstrate a 

sustained commitment to their development. I remain committed to ensuring our 

nation has a robust exploration program and I am curious what milestones or important testing NASA believes can be pushed out in the schedule to accommodate 

the lower request. 

I am also troubled by NASA’s requested reductions in the Science, Aeronautics, 

and Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorates, while asking for $105 

million for an asteroid retrieval mission that was announced seemingly out of the 

blue. This request was not accompanied by a budget profile, technical plan, or longterm strategy. Yet NASA has asked Congress to commit to funding the first steps. 

I look forward to hearing more about this mission and how NASA intends to cover 

the $2.6 billion that the Keck Institute for Space Studies estimated it would cost. 

In the Science Mission Directorate, the Administration has requested authority to 

transfer several climate sensors from the troubled Joint Polar Satellite System 

(JPSS) and the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) out of the NOAA budget and assign them to the Earth Science program budget. The budget request also 

transfers Landsat Data Continuity Mission follow-on activities from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to NASA, and the development infrastructure for Radioisotope Power Systems from the Department of Energy (DOE) to NASA. I am worried 

that NASA is footing the bill for other agency requirements; all while being asked 

to take an overall budget cut. 

Finally, I am concerned by the growth of the Space Technology program. The request for the Space Technology program this year is a 62% increase over the appropriation it received in fiscal year 2012. This is a significant amount of growth in 

only two years. Although NASA has announced that it will organize Space Technology as a mission directorate, it has not requested authority to do so in the upcoming authorization bill and it is not entirely clear how the projects in Space Technology differ from those in the other mission directorates. 

Mr. Administrator, like you, I am committed to ensuring that our nation has a 

robust space program that will continue to lead the world for generations. I am concerned however that NASA has neglected Congressional funding priorities and been 

distracted by new and questionable missions that detract from our ultimate deep 

space exploration goals. These distractions also take up precious lines in the budget 

at a time when NASA can least afford it. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize the Ranking Member, the 

gentlelady from Maryland, Ms. Edwards, for an opening statement. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon 

and welcome to Administrator Bolden. Before I begin, I want to 

offer my congratulations to NASA and to Orbital on the test flight 

of the Antares launcher on Sunday. The successful test flight 

speaks well of the teamwork among Orbital, NASA and the Wallops Flight Facility and the FAA including the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport in the Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority. So congratulations. 

Now today we are meeting to review the $17.7 billion request for 

NASA’s Fiscal Year 2014 budget, and I know, General Bolden, that 

it has not been easy getting to this point. With sequestration and 

the late resolution of the fiscal 2013 budget, we in Congress have 

not provided you with the optimal conditions under which to plan 
20 

and implement NASA’s inspiring portfolio of missions, but here we 

are. 

Now I have said before and I will say it again that our investments in research and development, including space, are investments in innovation, jobs and future economic growth. If we skimp 

on the input side of the equation, we can’t expect positive changes 

in our Nation’s capacity for innovation and growth. That is why we 

need to take a careful look at how the resources requested match 

the program content included in the Fiscal Year 2014 budget request. 

At the Full Committee hearing just last week on the Fiscal Year 

2014 budget request for science agencies, the President’s science 

advisor, Dr. Holdren, testified, and I quote, ‘‘NASA has long had 

the problem of 20 pounds of mission in a 10-pound budget and they 

continue to.’’ I share that concern. This proposal includes requests 

for NASA’s key priorities, the James Webb Space Telescope, the 

International Space Station and the Space Launch System and 

Orion Crew Vehicle, along with its science and aeronautics programs and its infrastructure support. 

I worry that for all the work that NASA is tasked with doing to 

move forward toward fulfilling the 2010 NASA Reauthorization Act 

that the agency is also cherry-picking aspects of that strategic plan 

that it finds favorable while undercutting other priorities in the 

law. For example, the 2014 budget request includes $105 million as 

a down payment to fund initial concept work on a mission that 

would demonstrate solar electric propulsion technology that is 

needed to capture a small asteroid, move it into trans-lunar region 

and then potentially use that asteroid as a target destination for 

the first crewed flight of the SLS and Orion system. In addition, 

the request includes $820 million a year over the next several 

years to fund the development of Commercial Crew capability for 

transporting astronauts to and from the ISS, a significant increase 

from the $400 million and $500 million range that Congress has 

been willing to authorize and appropriate for those activities in the 

last three fiscal years. My fear is that I have already gotten to the 

20 pounds of program content that Dr. Holdren was talking about 

in NASA’s $17.7 billion request. And that doesn’t include the unfunded new responsibilities for developing climate sensors that 

NASA’s Earth Science program has inherited from NOAA, the $50 

million increase required for full reimbursement now to the Department of Energy for resuming the domestic production of material that is needed to power deep space missions, or the 29 percent 

increase over Fiscal Year 2012 actual spending levels that is being 

sought for NASA’s Space Technology program. 

To NASA’s credit, the agency has been making progress in managing schedule and cost on its activities. The Government Accountability Office just recently issued a report that stated that NASA 

had success in the last two years in launching missions on cost or 

on schedule. I commend the agency and the contractor workforce 

on this progress, and yet the GAO also says that sustaining the 

changes that have led to these successes will be challenging within 

a period of flat or decreasing budgets and with the ongoing work 

on several large-scale and complex projects. Should any of the 

JWST, ISS or SLS/Orion programs experience a hiccup, the finan-
21 

cial impact could have, and this is quoting GAO, ‘‘cascading effects 

on the rest of the portfolio.’’ Indeed, GAO’s word of caution gives 

me pause since I don’t see a lot of flexibility within the 2014 request for dealing with that situation. I hope today’s discussion can 

clarify the rationale for the proposed asteroid and capture retrieval 

initiative proposed in the 2014 budget and particularly how it contributes to detecting and characterizing 90 percent of near-Earth 

asteroids 140 meters in diameter or less—we have heard testimony 

in this Committee about that—as set in policy and successive authorization acts. 

In these tight budgetary times, we need to be sure the proposed 

approach will be the most efficient means of achieving those objectives. So I look forward, Administrator Bolden, to what I hope will 

be a beginning of an active dialogue on both the policy and resources required to support NASA and in effectively implementing 

its challenging and inspiring portfolio. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield, well, not the balance of my time, but I do yield. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Edwards follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MINORITY MEMBER DONNA EDWARDS

Good afternoon and welcome, General Bolden. Before I start, I’d like to offer my 

congratulations to NASA and Orbital on the test flight of the Antares launcher on 

Sunday. The successful test flight speaks well of the teamwork among Orbital, 

NASA, the Wallops Flight Facility, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the 

Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport, and the Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority. Today, we’re meeting to review the $17.7 billion request for NASA’s Fiscal Year 

2014 budget. 

I know, General Bolden, that it has not been easy getting to this point. With sequestration and the late resolution of the Fiscal Year 2013 budget, we in Congress 

have not provided you with the optimal conditions under which to plan and implement NASA’s inspiring portfolio of missions. 

I have said before and will say again that our investments in research and development, including space, are investments in innovation, jobs, and future economic 

growth. If we skimp on the inputs side of the equation, we can’t expect positive 

changes to our nation’s capacity for innovation and growth. 

That is why we need to take a careful look at how the resources requested match 

the program content included in the FY 2014 budget request. 

At the Full Committee hearing last week on the Fiscal Year 2014 budget request 

for Science Agencies, the President’s Science Adviser, Dr. Holdren, testified that 

′′NASA has long had the problem of 20 lbs. of missions in a 10 lb. budget, and they 

continue to.′′ I share that concern.This proposal includes requests for NASA’s key 

priorities—the James Webb Space Telescope, the International Space Station (ISS), 

and the Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion crew vehicle—along with its Science 

and Aeronautics programs, and its infrastructure support. 

I worry that for all the work NASA is doing to move towards fulfilling the 2010 

NASA Authorization Act, that the Agency is also cherry picking aspects of that strategic plan that it finds favorable while undercutting other priority areas in the law. For instance, the FY 2014 budget request includes a $105 million down payment 

to fund initial concept work on a mission that would demonstrate solar-electric propulsion technology that is needed to capture a small asteroid, move it into a translunar region, and then potentially use that asteroid as a target destination for the 

first crewed flight of the SLS and Orion system. 

In addition, the request includes $820 million a year over the next several years 

to fund the development of Commercial Crew capability for transporting astronauts 

to and from the ISS, a significant increase from the $400 and $500 million range 

that Congress has been willing to authorize and appropriate for those activities in 

the last three fiscal years. 

I fear I’ve already gotten to the 20 lbs. of program content that Dr. Holdren was 

talking about in NASA’s $17.7 billion request. 

And that doesn’t include the unfunded new responsibilities for developing climate 

sensors that NASA’s Earth Science program has inherited from NOAA, the $50 mil-
22 

lion increase required for full reimbursement to the Department of Energy for resuming the domestic production of material that is needed to power deep space missions, or the 29 percent increase over FY 2012 actual spending levels being sought 

for NASA’s Space Technology Program. 

To NASA’s credit, the agency has been making progress in managing schedule 

and cost on its activities. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) just recently 

issued a report that stated: ′′NASA has had success in the last two years in launching missions on cost or on schedule.′′ I commend the NASA and contractor workforce 

on this progress. 

Yet, the GAO also says that sustaining the changes that have led to these successes will be challenging within a period of flat or decreasing budgets and with the 

ongoing work on several large-scale and complex projects. 

Should any of the JWST, ISS, or the SLS/Orion programs experience a hiccup, the 

financial impact could have ‘‘cascading effects on the rest of the portfolio,’’ as GAO 

puts it. 

GAO’s words of caution give me pause since I don’t see a lot of flexibility within 

the FY2014 request for dealing with that situation. 

I hope that today’s discussion can clarify the rationale for the proposed asteroid 

and capture retrieval initiative proposed in the FY 2014 budget, particularly how 

it contributes to detecting and characterizing 90 percent of near-Earth asteroids 140 

meters in diameter or less, and how it advances our capability of sending humans 

to destinations such as Mars, as set in policy in successive Authorization Acts. In 

these tight budgetary times, we need to be sure the proposed approach will be the 

most efficient means of achieving those objectives. 

So, I look forward, Administrator Bolden, to what I hope will be the beginning 

of an active dialogue on both the policy and the resources required to support NASA 

in effectively implementing its challenging and inspiring portfolio. 

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

the Chairman of the Full Committee for a statement, Mr. Smith. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. America is a Nation of explorers, and space is the next frontier. Just last week, 

NASA announced the discovery of new worlds beyond our solar system that resemble our own planet. 

We in Congress need to be diligent in our review of the Administration’s proposed budget for NASA to ensure that this agency remains focused on its primary mission, space exploration. 

In April 2010, almost three years ago, President Obama addressed the NASA workforce at the Kennedy Space Center. He 

stated that the next mission for American astronauts beyond the 

International Space Station was an asteroid and canceled NASA’s 

many years of work to return to the surface of the Moon. 

Last December, a National Academy of Sciences review of 

NASA’s strategic direction made the following observation. ‘‘The 

Committee has seen little evidence that a current stated goal for 

NASA’s human spaceflight program, namely to visit an asteroid by 

2025, has been widely accepted as a compelling destination by 

NASA’s own workforce, by the Nation as a whole or by the international community. On the international front there appears to be 

continued enthusiasm for a mission to the Moon but not for an asteroid mission.’’ 

Not having found a suitable asteroid for NASA astronauts, the 

President’s budget now proposes a robotic Asteroid Retrieval Mission to bring one closer to the Moon. NASA’s budget does not identify where the funding for such an Asteroid Retrieval Mission will 

come from, but it is likely to detract from NASA’s human 

spaceflight projects, the International Space Station, Orion Crew 

Vehicle, and Space Launch System. 

Further, the President’s budget requests over $1.8 billion for 

NASA’s Earth Science programs. 
23 

How does this high level of spending affect other NASA priorities, especially planetary exploration? 

Here are the priorities for NASA’s exploration missions that have 

been consistent in Congressional authorizations for the past eight 

years. We need to make the International Space Station both an 

international and scientific success that will enable further exploration beyond Earth orbit. We need to build new systems to once 

again launch American astronauts on American rockets as soon as 

possible. Today, the United States pays Russia $63 million to take 

each of our astronauts to the station. 

While we support certain investments by NASA to fund private 

sector cargo and crew initiatives to support the station, Congress 

has been clear over the years that the Orion Crew Vehicle serve 

as a backup option. 

And finally, after receiving testimony from many engineers and 

astronauts, Congress has been insistent that in order to venture 

beyond low-Earth orbit, a heavy-lift launch vehicle, NASA’s Space 

Launch System, needs to be developed. 

The goal of NASA’s human spaceflight program is to go to Mars 

and beyond on a path that includes returning to the Moon or asteroids as necessary. This stepping-stone approach for our exploration 

out of low-Earth orbit is clear and unambiguous. 

While Federal budgets will continue to be uncertain, congressional support for NASA’s exploration mission is clear and unwavering. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LAMAR SMITH

America is a nation of explorers, and space is the next frontier. Just last week, 

NASA announced the discovery of new worlds beyond our solar system that resemble our own planet. 

We in Congress need to be diligent in our review of the Administration’s proposed 

budget for NASA to ensure that this agency remains focused on its primary missionspace exploration. 

In April 2010-almost three years ago-President Obama addressed the NASA workforce at the Kennedy Space Center. He stated that the next mission for American 

astronauts beyond the International Space Station was an asteroid, and canceled 

NASA’s many years of work to return to the surface of the Moon. 

Last December, a National Academy of Sciences review of NASA’s strategic direction made the following observation: 

‘‘The Committee has seen little evidence that a current stated goal for NASA’s 

human spaceflight program-namely, to visit an asteroid by 2025-has been widely 

accepted as a compelling destination by NASA’s own workforce, by the nation as 

a whole, or by the international community. On the international front there appears to be continued enthusiasm for a mission to the Moon but not for an asteroid mission.’’ 

Not having found a suitable asteroid for NASA astronauts, the President’s budget 

now proposes a robotic asteroid retrieval mission to bring one closer to the Moon. 

NASA’s budget does not identify where the funding for such an asteroid retrieval 

mission will come from. But it is likely to detract from NASA’s human spaceflight 

projects, the International Space Station, Orion Crew Vehicle and Space Launch 

System. 

Further, the President’s budget requests over $1.8 billion for NASA’s Earth 

Science programs. 

How does this high level of spending affect other NASA priorities, especially planetary exploration? 
24 

Here are the priorities for NASA’s exploration missions that have been consistent 

in Congressional authorizations for the past eight years: 

• We need to make the International Space Station both an international and scientific success that will enable further exploration beyond Earth orbit. • We need to build new systems to once again launch American astronauts on 

American rockets as soon as possible. Today, the U.S. pays Russia $63 million 

to take each of our astronauts to the Station. • While we support certain investments by NASA to fund private sector cargo and 

crew initiatives to support the Station, Congress has been clear over the years 

that the Orion Crew Vehicle serve as a backup option. • And finally, after receiving testimony from many engineers and astronauts, 

Congress has been insistent that in order to venture beyond Low-Earth orbit, 

a heavy-lift launch vehicle-NASA’s Space Launch System-needs to be developed. 

By contrast, I am disheartened by the Administration’s ever-changing goals and 

their lack of justifications and details. 

The goal of NASA’s human spaceflight program is to go to Mars and beyond on 

a path that includes returning to the moon or asteroids as necessary. This steppingstone approach for our exploration out of low-earth orbit is clear and unambiguous. 

While federal budgets will continue to be uncertain, Congressional support for 

NASA’s exploration mission is clear and unwavering. 

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

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If there are 

Members who wish to submit additional opening statements, your 

statements will be added to the record at this point. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson appears in appendix II] 

Chairman PALAZZO. At this time I would like to introduce today’s 

witness, The Honorable Charles F. Bolden, Jr., the Administrator 

of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I now recognize Administrator Bolden to present his testimony. 

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

ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS 

AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

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

Members of the Committee. Let me thank you for the opportunity 

to appear today to discuss NASA’s Fiscal Year 2014 budget request. 

Let me start by thanking the Full Committee as well as this 

Subcommittee for your continued bipartisan support of NASA and 

the world’s second-to-none civil space program. That support is also 

reflected among the American people and the White House as evidence by the President’s $17.7 billion funding request for NASA. 

The budget reflects today’s fiscal realities, and it aligns NASA’s full 

spectrum of activities to meet the President’s challenge to send humans to an asteroid by 2025 and to Mars in the 2030s. 

As part of the agency’s overall asteroid strategy, NASA is planning a first-ever mission to identify, capture, and redirect an asteroid into orbit around the Moon. This mission represents an unprecedented technological challenge raising the bar for human exploration and discovery while helping protect our home planet and 

keep bringing us closer to a human mission to Mars in the 2030s. 

This budget also supports NASA’s partnerships with American 

industry partners who are developing new ways to reach space. 

These partnerships are creating jobs and enabling NASA to focus 

on new technologies that benefit all of our missions. An industry 

partner, Space-X, has begun resupplying the International Space 

Station with cargo launched from the United States, and Sunday’s 
25 

successful test launch of Orbital Science’s Antares marks another 

significant milestone in NASA’s plan to rely on American companies to launch supplies and astronauts to the International Space 

Station. 

Orbital is now poised for its first demonstration launch and mission to the ISS later this year. The Administration is committed to 

launching American astronauts from U.S. soil within the next four 

years, and this budget provides the necessary resources to achieve 

this goal. This budget fully funds the International Space Station 

that remains the springboard to our next great leap in exploration. 

It also continues investments that are developing the SLS rocket 

and Orion Crew Vehicle that will take astronauts to deep space 

and it supports driving the development of space technologies such 

as solar electric propulsion that will power tomorrow’s missions 

and help improve life here on Earth. 

This budget continues to build on our Nation’s record of breathtaking scientific discoveries and achievements in space with science 

missions that will reach further into our solar system and provide 

critical knowledge about our home planet. 

Among other science goals, the budget will sustain NASA’s vital 

role in helping us understand Earth system and climate and the 

dynamics between our planet and our sun. These efforts will provide critical knowledge about our home planet and potential 

threats. 

We will continue our steady progress toward our next great observatory as we develop the James Webb Space Telescope scheduled to launch in 2018. NASA’s program of innovative aeronautics 

research is pursuing an ambitious research agenda for substantially reducing aircraft fuel consumption, emissions and noise. With 

the 2014 request, NASA begins a new $25 million-a-year advanced 

composites project that will focus on innovative composite materials and structures. 

Mr. Chairman, we have had to make some pretty tough choices 

with this budget, but I am committed to making sure NASA is 

using its resources strategically for a cohesive exploration program 

that bolsters our economy, improves life on Earth and raises the 

bar of what humans can achieve. 

I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of General Bolden follows:] 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 

Chairman PALAZZO. I want to thank again the witness for being 

available for questioning today. I also want to remind Members 

that Committee rules limit questioning to five minutes. The Chair 

will at this point open the round of questions. 

Administrator Bolden, under current topline funding levels, what 

is the cost schedule confidence level for SLS being operational by 

2017? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, if you are asking about the joint confidence 

level number, I don’t think we have finished developing that yet, 

but I will get to it for certain. But I will say that I know it will 

be a number with which I will be very comfortable for a number 

of reasons. Unlike other brand new programs, SLS is an evolving 

system in which we are using previously proven hardware, if you 

will. The shuttle main engines are the main propulsion system for 

SLS in the beginning. We are using, granted, a five-segment solidrocket motor as the initial boosters for the system, but it is still 

very well-proven technology. Orion has been through now two programs, Constellation and presently the Orion program itself. So we 

are at a level of maturity with those programs that we would not 

ordinarily be with another program. So I am very confident in our 

cost estimates. 

We have had an independent cost assessment done that has been 

available to this Committee and Congress for about a year or so 

now in which they assess that our estimates were well-founded, 

that the process for determining what we thought the cost would 

be was grounded in good budgeting and cost planning. They cautioned us that we probably could use more, but as I think I have 

told this Committee and others before, I don’t remember a time 

that we couldn’t use more to buy down risk on any of our projects. 

Chairman PALAZZO. So you don’t have a joint confidence level 

percentage right now? 

General BOLDEN. We don’t have a joint confidence level percentage right now because we have not reached what we call the key 

decision point C which is the point at which we determine whether 

we are going to go forward with a program. 

If that number came out to be really bad, which I don’t anticipate, it might dictate that a program be cancelled. But I don’t anticipate that at all. 

Chairman PALAZZO. When can this Committee expect one? 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I will get back to you. I think 

the KDPC is sometime this summer, but I will get back. I will get 

that for the Committee. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Well, if there is not an official joint confidence level, what would General Bolden say would be as a percentage? 

General BOLDEN. Oh, yeah, that is what I said. My guess is 

that—— 

Chairman PALAZZO. A percentage. 

General BOLDEN. —that my guess, and I shouldn’t do this—no, 

let me not. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Okay. 

General BOLDEN. I shouldn’t and I won’t. 
37 

Chairman PALAZZO. Well, I just want to remind you, I mean, the 

SLS is one of NASA’s top priorities, and we in this Committee look 

forward to seeing a joint level, confidence level as soon as possible. 

General BOLDEN. Sure. 

Chairman PALAZZO. The Administration’s budget request for the Space Launch System includes a reduction of $60 million. How was 

this reduction calculated? 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, let me make sure I understood. 

Were you saying that the budget shows a $60 million decrease—— 

Chairman PALAZZO. Decrease, correct. 

General BOLDEN. —in SLS, in the vehicle itself? 

Chairman PALAZZO. Yes, sir. 

General BOLDEN. From the beginning, we used to give you one 

line for SLS, and every time we came back with a budget, there 

was always a lot of confusion and okay, that is less money than we 

told you to spend on SLS. So we now have started breaking out the 

system into the vehicle itself which is SLS, Exploration Ground 

Systems, which is included in 21st Century Launch Complex at the 

Kennedy Space Center, its construction of facility upgrades at 

Stennis, and we try to break those out individually now. So while 

there may be what seems to be a reduction in funding deliberately 

applied to the vehicle, I think our budget numbers have been relatively consistent from what the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate has said we needed for the program 

from the very beginning. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Can you identify the parts of the program 

that we are either eliminating or reducing? 

General BOLDEN. We are not eliminating anything. To my knowledge, we are not reducing anything in the program, but what we 

are trying to do is more definitively document the amount of money 

that is going toward the B–2 test stand upgrades at the Stennis 

Space Center. That was not spelled out in the budget before, and 

now when you look under what we call CECR, the construction of 

facilities account, you will see a specific reference to the B–2 test 

stand, you will see a specific reference in the write-ups to advanced 

boosters which we think is very critical, not to the 70-metric ton 

version of SLS, but we will need it when we move up to 150-metric 

ton version, and we can’t wait until we need it in 2025 to start constructing it. 

So those are numbers that I count toward SLS but the Committee may not attribute to SLS. 

Chairman PALAZZO. So just to clarify, with the reduced funding, 

you don’t see any anticipated missed deadlines for SLS. 

General BOLDEN. I don’t see, anticipate any missed deadlines, 

and I would remind the Committee, and I think, Mr. Chairman, 

you know probably better than anybody sitting in this room because you have seen more than I have at Stennis, we have been 

testing the J2–X consistently at Stennis very successfully. We have 

got 500 second tests several times now. We are running tests at 

ATK with the boosters. We have gotten Orion where it is ready. It 

is almost ready to fly in the fall of 2014. We could tick off the 

achievements in both SLS and Orion that meet our milestones, and 

we have not—with one exception that I know of which is delaying 

or putting off the abort, the Airborne abort test, for Orion, which 
38 

we don’t need for many years. We delayed that so that we could 

get some other things done. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Okay. I now recognize Ms. Edwards for five 

minutes. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a statement 

that is submitted by the Planetary Society expressing concerns 

about the Fiscal Year 2014 budget that I would like to request be 

entered into the record. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Bolden, I 

want to start by asking you about your budget because it seems 

that it assumes that the sequestration will end. And so I want to 

know what you believe would happen if sequestration continues to 

affect the NASA budget in 2014 and beyond, and what would be 

the likely impacts and have you thought about the planning for 

that in terms of new initiatives in Fiscal Year 2014 such as the asteroid mission? Would that be eliminated? How would you translate your priorities for 2014 into funding decisions in the event that 

sequestration continues? 

General BOLDEN. Congresswoman, first of all, let me confirm 

your assumption about the budget itself. The 17.7 is based on the 

President’s confidence that he will be able to work out an agreement with this Congress in the budget for Fiscal Year 2014 that 

will negate the sequester. So that is a correct assumption. 

If this Congress and the Administration are unable to do what 

the American public expects and we have to deal with sequestration for a ten-year period of time, to be quite candid, all bets are 

off. And things that we talk about, what I do now, when I come 

to this Committee and say we are fully funding all of our priorities, 

I can’t do that. It puts more than 20 pounds in a 5-pound sack, and 

we will not be able to do that. Examples would be some of the testing that is necessary for our Commercial Crew Program will have 

to slip. Several of you have referenced the amount of money that 

we consistently ask for for Commercial Crew Program and say why 

do we keep doing that. The reason we keep asking for at first $1 

billion annually for the Commercial Crew Program, and then we 

decided, okay, maybe we can make it for $822 million. What I explained to the Committee four years ago was if we don’t get back 

then it was a billion dollars, we won’t be able to deliver Commercial Crew Program in 2014. 

Ms. EDWARDS. What about the asteroid mission? What happens 

to that? 

General BOLDEN. The asteroid mission will probably go away. 

Congresswoman we are in the stage of developing the asteroid mission. The President requested, $105 million for a strategy. Everyone needs to understand, that is not the mission. It is an asteroid 

strategy that includes $78 million for the development of the mission itself in the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate. 

Ms. EDWARDS. So General Bolden, let me ask you about that because in the National Academy’s 2012 report on NASA’s strategic 

direction found that there is actually little support for an asteroid 

mission in the science community. What is your overall objective 
39 

and your testimony as you have just described refers to an overall 

asteroid strategy. Can you describe that strategy and if you don’t 

have it here, can you give it to us for the record? 

General BOLDEN. I can describe it because it is relatively simple, 

and I would have to refer back to the April 18 hearing. I think it 

was April 18 when we met on asteroids. Dr. John Holdren, General 

Shelton, and me and I think it was—I can’t remember whether it 

was Congressman Brooks or Congressman Posey to whom I responded after much of their frustration that the only thing we 

could do today was pray. The asteroid strategy gives us the capability of being able to increase the number of asteroids that we 

identify that threaten Earth, to characterize them such that we can 

determine how we reach them. We are developing a process or a 

technology that will come forward in the Asteroid Retrieval Mission 

that will demonstrate that humans can, in fact, alter the path of 

an asteroid that is headed toward Earth. 

So these are very important parts of the asteroid strategy. It is— 

Ms. EDWARDS. Let me just interrupt you for a minute. 

General BOLDEN. Yes. 

Ms. EDWARDS. I apologize. But are you saying to us then that the 

goal is an asteroid and a capture and retrieval of an asteroid? Or 

is the goal an interim step to Mars? 

General BOLDEN. The goal of our program is to remain the 

world’s leader in space exploration to meet the President’s goal for 

us, or challenge for us, of putting humans in Martian orbit in the 

2030s. That is the ultimate destination for humans, and we must 

not lose track of that. 

An asteroid is an intermediate destination on the way to our ultimate destination of Mars. An asteroid mission must stand by itself, 

however. So as a part of the strategy, the asteroid mission answers 

several other questions that have been asked of us or challenges 

that have been given us. Putting a human with an asteroid. That 

is one that the President expressed to us. This Committee and others in this Congress and the National Space Policy demands that 

we be able to identify, as you said, 100 percent of the asteroids that 

are 40 meters or less, and this is one of the ways that we intend 

to move toward answering those questions for the Nation. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope we will be able 

to get to follow-up with this. Thanks. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. We are going to 

try to get through as many Members as possible, but then we are 

going to recess for votes. But we are also going to return, so I now 

recognize Mr. Smith for five minutes. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It sounds like a 

number of us have the same type of questions, and Mr. Bolden, you 

should not take these personally if we ask tough questions because 

I think we all admire you as an administrator and appreciate the 

job you are doing. 

Let me go to the Asteroid Retrieval Mission and follow up on 

that. NASA’s Small Bodies Advisory Group reported, ‘‘While the 

participants found it to be very interesting and entertaining, it was 

not considered to be a serious proposal.’’ Why would the Administration dismiss the advice of those whose advice they sought? 
40 

General BOLDEN. I am not aware of that advice, to be quite honest. That is the first—I just haven’t seen that, sir. 

Chairman SMITH. Really? That Small Bodies Advisory Group—— 

General BOLDEN. I know what the Small Bodies Advisory Group 

is. I am saying I am not aware that they offered that. I have in 

my possession the letter from the Planetary—everybody generally 

cc’s me on everything that comes to Congress so I won’t be surprised. 

Chairman SMITH. That was—— 

General BOLDEN. I am surprised by this. 

Chairman SMITH. That was a direct quote. I will get it to you—— 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Chairman SMITH. —soon then. The other question, this follows 

up a little bit as well. Everything I have seen makes me believe 

that scientists and others who are experts think that a Moon landing rather than a rendezvous with an asteroid is a better precursor 

to a Mars mission. Would you agree with that or do you think the 

asteroid is better preparation? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, I would agree with anyone who 

says that a Moon landing is good. We have done it. We have done 

it six times, and it was incredibly good. 

Chairman SMITH. There is a lot more to do than what we have 

done so far. 

General BOLDEN. There is so much more to do than what we 

have done so far. But if I go back to the premise that the Chairman 

opened up with that we can only do so much. 

Chairman SMITH. Which would be better for the Mars mission? 

Would it be back to the Moon or would it be the asteroid? 

General BOLDEN. I don’t think that either would be better. They 

both are good. In our particular case since we are operating under 

a flat budget. The one that is executable in today’s budget environment is an asteroid mission. 

Chairman SMITH. If various experts said the Moon, would you 

heed their advice? 

General BOLDEN. We get expert advice all the time, and we try 

to heed. However, I think you know, Mr. Chairman, it is impossible 

to heed the advice of all experts. Some expert is going to feel that 

he or she is being disregarded. I have utmost respect for the National Research Council Committee that looked at us and said—— 

Chairman SMITH. Pretty soon—— 

General BOLDEN. —that there was—asteroids. 

Chairman SMITH. —on some subject you are going to have to 

take the expert’s advice, whether it be from Small—— 

General BOLDEN. We are taking the advice of experts with this. 

Chairman SMITH. Whether it be from the Small Bodies Advisory 

Group or for others saying that the lunar mission would be better 

for the Mars mission. 

My next question is this. On the James Webb Space Telescope, 

which is one of our great scientific adventures, there is some concern about technical problems there. I think it is maybe overweight. I think there are two instruments that are running close 

to a year behind. Do you see us able to meet our deadlines and get 

the James Webb up in fall, I think, 2017 as expected? 

General BOLDEN. Chairman Smith, I would—— 
41 

Chairman SMITH. 2018. 

General BOLDEN. Again, I would have to ask for the source of the 

information. That is in direct contrast to what I get every week in 

terms of status of James Webb. We are 14 months ahead on the 

critical path toward flight. 

Chairman SMITH. So you are not—— 

General BOLDEN. So for someone to say that we are a year behind with two instruments. We have two instruments that we have 

been working quite a bit. The vendors have delivered NIRCam and 

NIRSpect, and if they think they are a year behind, I need to know 

it. 

Chairman SMITH. Well 11 months behind is what I am told. 

General BOLDEN. If they think we are 11 months behind on those 

two instruments—— 

Chairman SMITH. I keep coming up with all these news breaks. 

General BOLDEN. Sir, that is a serious newsbreak because that 

would be contradictory to what the leadership of Northrup Grumman and NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope program are telling 

the administrator. 

Chairman SMITH. We will—— 

General BOLDEN. That is not a—— 

Chairman SMITH. We will get you our—— 

General BOLDEN. That is a serious absence of information to me 

if that is true. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. We will get you our source on that as 

well. 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. I would appreciate that because I 

promised this Congress that I was responsible for the James Webb 

Space Telescope. I think you may remember when I stood here and 

I said no one feels as bad about this as I do. 

Chairman SMITH. The information that I just mentioned, the two 

instruments being 11 months delayed, was in a GAO report that 

came out last week. 

General BOLDEN. I would have to go back and check with my— 

we have carried GAO by the hand through Goddard, through the 

Johnson Space Center and everywhere. So if GAO is reporting that 

we have instruments that are 11 months behind—— 

Chairman SMITH. This is GAO, April 2013, two of the instruments, 11 months behind. 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I will get back to you. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

General BOLDEN. That is news to me. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you. Last quick question. I want 

to go back to what the Chairman mentioned about SLS beginning 

operations by 2017 as hoped. Do you think that is very guaranteed, 

very likely or probable? 

General BOLDEN. I think if this Congress and the Administration 

are able to solve the sequester problem, 2017 inaugural flight on 

the integrated SLS on Orion is very good. Nothing is ever a certainty in this business. Barring no accidents, barring a successful 

flight of Orion next year, we are well on the way to a 2017 inaugural flight of SLS on Orion. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Bolden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
42 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Mr. Smith. I now recognize Mr. 

Kennedy for five minutes. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, thank you 

very much for being here. I thank the Committee for calling the 

important hearing. 

General, just a couple of questions for you. I understand—shifting gears a little bit from the asteroid mission to something that 

is near and dear to my district is the STEM education programs 

that you have at NASA, and I understand from the budget materials that there has been a reorganization and a consolidation of 

some of those priorities for the Administration, focusing on four 

priority areas and consolidating programs into three different agencies. 

So my question to you, sir, is, is there any thought on how this 

transition is going to—well, you can minimize the disruption to 

some of these programs that are extraordinarily popular and important to school children as young as kindergarteners. In my district, there is a number of education programs that have been extraordinarily successful. I was at one recently in Sharon. There was 

about 1,200 students learning about space and STEM training to 

be an astronaut. One of the high schools, the Tri-County High 

School in Franklin, was one of only eight highs schools in the country that were selected to participate in United with NASA to create 

a hardware program last year, a far more interesting science class 

than I ever took, building robots, trying to come up with ways for 

astronauts to scramble eggs in space which I am sure is probably 

something useful to you. 

So how can we ensure, General, that programs like these that 

are already highly successful and are inspiring an entirely new 

generation of engineers don’t disappear? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, in answering your question, I 

need to go back and tell you what I think is successful. When I became the NASA Administrator, I asked for metrics. I am not an engineer, but I play with a lot of them. And so I have learned to have 

an appreciation for metrics, to demonstrate that something is successful or valuable. 

When I asked what the metrics were on the effectiveness on our 

K–12 STEM education program, I got blank stares. I was told that 

we touch a million kids a year, and I said, okay, I got it. But what 

effect have we had on those 12 million kids? Did I take one who 

was not interested in science and have them, when they get to high 

school, take very difficult science and math courses and go to college and major in engineering? And the answer I got was we don’t 

know. And I said, well, how do we know we are effective? I feel 

good because I go out and talk to school kids all the time. I feel 

great. But have I made a difference in their life? And the only way 

I have to know that is metrics. 

The President and I happen to share this belief. And so what we 

are trying to do with the consolidation of the STEM education programs across the 13 or so STEM-related agencies in the government—and I see Congresswoman Edwards is smiling because she 

and I have talked about this at length. I think she shares my passion for metrics and demonstrating we are effective in what we do. 

We are not able to demonstrate our effectiveness today. The Presi-
43 

dent is tired of it, and so he has said we are going to try something 

new. When you try the same thing over and over and the same answer, it is not working. You ought to try something new. 

NASA is assuming a leadership role, if you will, in helping to 

craft this new consolidated STEM education program. And I would 

caution everyone. Nothing is changing right now. We have a long 

time remaining in this fiscal year, so the programs in existence 

continue to go. In NASA, programs like MUREP, EPSCoR, Space 

Grant, all of the critical programs that we uniquely do that reach 

underrepresented minorities, tribal, colleges and schools, those programs will remain, even in the consolidated program. 

I don’t do very well in being able to measure the effectiveness of 

my fellowships and scholarships. I am told the National Science 

Foundation has a pretty good system. So we are going to work with 

them to help us identify the effectiveness of our fellowships and 

scholarships. I don’t do well at all. I have no metrics for—well, I 

shouldn’t say that. I don’t do well with metrics for K–12. I am told 

the Department of Education has a pretty good idea of how to establish those metrics. That is what we are working on to roll out 

effective the 2014 budget. 

So I think the kids that we are taking care of today will be taken 

care of, and my hope is we will be able to show you that we have 

an effect, not just tell you that I feel good because I touched a million kids. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Okay. As we know, a vote has been called. 

The Committee will recess subject to the call of the chair which I 

would like to be about five minutes after the last vote in this series. Without objection, so ordered. The Committee stands in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman PALAZZO. The Committee will now come to order. I 

recognize Mr. Brooks for five minutes. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I want to make a 

quick comment about your focus on asteroids. Personally I concur. 

I think that is a good direction to go. At the same time I would 

add some benefit from the approach that the White House and you 

are recommending. First, I think it recognizes the risk to our country and our world. While at any point in time it is a small risk, 

over the accumulation of time it is a significant risk. Second, I 

think it is another reason why we need the Space Launch System 

to have the capability of doing whatever needs to be done. So I see 

it as a hand-in-glove effort. And finally, along those same lines, the 

technology that is developed as the history of NASA has shown, it 

is not limited to just one thing. The technology that NASA develops 

is expansive and is useful in many different ways. Whatever technology we can develop by initiating efforts with respect to asteroids 

I believe are beneficial. 

Now to a question about the Space Launch System, as you can 

imagine. Thank you for coming before our Tennessee Valley Chambers of Commerce that were here on Monday. We had roughly 180 

people that came to The Hill, and I was very pleased to see that 

you were one of the speakers, and thank you for your remarks. 
44 

Space Launch System continues to receive less than the authorized levels, yet NASA is supporting not one but three different 

Commercial Crew Programs, and if I am reading the President’s 

proposed budget correctly, he is proposing a 64 percent increase in 

funding for Commercial Crew above the authorization bill level of 

$500 million, roughly from $500 million to $800 million, if the information I have is accurate. 

That being the case, why the big increase for Commercial Crew 

but not a similar increase for Space Launch System being requested? 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, not Mr. Chairman. I am sorry. 

Mr. BROOKS. That is all right. If Mr. Palazzo doesn’t mind, I 

don’t mind. 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, let me talk precise, exact numbers. If we took what we are requesting in the increase for Commercial Crew, which is from $525 million to $822 million, so $300 

million. If I added $300 million to the SLS program, you wouldn’t 

know it. 

Mr. BROOKS. Well, I was thinking more of the 64 percent figure. 

General BOLDEN. But that is my point, sir, is that it depends on 

the numbers you use, and if you choose to use percentages, then 

percentage of a number like $500 million may seem very big. It is 

not big at all. We are trying to get close to the level that the President asked for when he decided to fund the Commercial Crew Program, which had not been done by any previous administration to 

be quite candid. 

We have asked for, and I think Bill Gerstenmaier, the head of 

the Human Exploration Operations Mission Directorate, has stated 

over and over that this is the amount of money that we need to 

deliver SLS on the date and time that we said, 2017 for the inaugural mission, integrated with Orion, 2021 now for the asteroid 

mission perhaps. And I don’t need more money than that. 

If you give me money to put against SLS, against the vehicle, it 

means I can’t put some money that I would ordinarily put against 

Advanced Booster Program. 

Mr. BROOKS. Given our funding limitations, do you have a concern that there may be some duplication of effort, particularly inasmuch as we are funding three different private sector contractors 

in the Commercial Crew environment? Do you suggest keeping it 

at three or reducing it to two or reducing it to one? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, our acquisition strategy, which 

we spelled out pretty well several years ago and we had to modify 

because we didn’t get the money requested, was that we would try 

to promote competition for as long as we could and that at some 

point, which will be this summer, this spring, we are going to issue 

a draft request for proposal. The vendors will have an opportunity 

to look at that, tell us what they think. We will issue a final request for proposal in the fall, and by next spring we hope to be able 

to announce who the Commercial Crew provider is going to be. 

My hope is that Congress will fully fund us to the $822 million 

level, and that may allow me to carry one and a half. It will not 

allow us to carry three vendors. If we go down to one, if I am forced 

to go down to one provider at any time, there is no competition, 
45 

and it is exactly as I am. It will be exactly as I am today with the 

Russians and—there is no competition. It went from—— 

Mr. BROOKS. I am running out of time, and if the Chairman 

would permit, I will follow up with one final question. Hopefully it 

will be a brief answer because it will be a brief question. 

The word commercial has always been puzzling to me because I 

am not very familiar with a commercial or private-sector market 

for Commercial Crew. Do you envision that Commercial Crew is in 

fact going to have as its primary if not sole customer the United 

States Government? 

General BOLDEN. I do not anticipate that. I believe industry 

when they say—when Boeing and Boeing’s Board of Directors commit to a program as they have done with the Commercial Crew 

Program, they are betting on the—— 

Mr. BROOKS. Well, if you have any studies that suggest that 

there truly is a private market out there for ‘‘Commercial Crew,’’ 

if you could share it with me, I would very much appreciate it. 

General BOLDEN. I will make an effort to get some of the commercial companies to release what they provided to their Boards of 

Directors. I will try. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize Ms. Wilson for five minutes. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon. 

General BOLDEN. Good afternoon. How are you doing? 

Ms. WILSON. It is my understanding that Congressman Kennedy 

mentioned STEM, and I would just like to follow up because I am 

concerned about potential funding shortfalls with regard to STEM. 

As you know, training a STEM workforce is essential to our economic competitiveness, and NASA’s education programs, both within its mission directorate such as science and aeronautics, are as 

well as within its Office of Education, have taken a significant hit 

in the Fiscal Year 2014 budget proposal. It is a decrease of about 

46 percent from Fiscal Year 2012. Who made the decision on what 

education activities are proposed to be cut? Was the interagency 

Committee on STEM involved? And what was OMB’s role? 

General BOLDEN. Congresswoman, I can’t tell you what OMB’s 

role was, but I can tell you what I did. I have been intimately involved in the decisions within NASA on STEM education because 

I think most people will tell you no one is as passionate about 

STEM education as am I. 

Our decision was, after we listened to the proposal that came 

from the President, that he wanted—as I said a little bit earlier, 

he wanted to find a way to make the programs effective, that we 

would be able to measure the effect of the STEM education programs. We decided that we would go along with that effort. We had 

already been part of the way down with CoSTEM that you mentioned. Their report I think is supposed to come out this summer, 

and we will integrate the work of CoSTEM, two years. worth, into 

the consolidation effort that is ongoing right now. 

So I can tell you what we did. We participated in the decisions. 

I think what they did was across the board. It was decided to take 

all educational outreach funds from the agencies, the STEM agencies, to consolidate them, rather than try to cherry pick, I think we 

took everything, except some special ones that I mentioned earlier 
46 

that go to underserved minorities, like MURAP, EPSCoR and then 

Space Grant, which covers everybody. 

Ms. WILSON. Just a follow-up. What resources would the Smithsonian, Department of Education and the NSF have as a part of 

the 2014 budget request to support infrastructure, to work across 

government and to implement the proposed consolidation? How 

would that infrastructure compare to the proven structure that 

NASA has developed over time which is supported through competitive selection and peer review to implement—— 

General BOLDEN. Yes. 

Ms. WILSON. —STEM education and outreach, especially within 

the Science Mission Directorate? How will you do that with a 46 

percent cut? 

General BOLDEN. My agency is really good. We are the best place 

to work in government, and I don’t mean that pejoratively or anything. What will happen with the consolidation is that what I can 

do every day, bringing downlink TV from aboard the International 

Space Station, taking it into a classroom, every one of the STEMrelated agencies will now have access to NASA content. So that is 

one of the things we are giving. We will be allowing everybody else 

to have access to the content that we have. 

What it will give us, what we will gain, will be access to the Department of Education, to the National Science Foundation and 

even to the Smithsonian in some of their metrics and some of their 

methods for promoting and reaching people with STEM education. 

I think there is value on both sides. Everybody gives but everybody 

gets something if we do it right. 

Ms. WILSON. One follow-up. Who is going to oversee this? Who 

will oversee it? What segment of government? 

General BOLDEN. The program is actually going to—— 

Ms. WILSON. Department of Education—— 

General BOLDEN. The program is actually presently being overseen by the Executive Office of the President. The President is the 

one that all of us are responding to in this. I am overseeing with 

Leland Melvin as my emissary, if you will, what we are doing in 

NASA. And every other principal is quite well aware of what is 

going on and is taking part, and we have all had an opportunity 

to express our opinion about how things should be done. Examples 

would be one of the things we proposed was take the people from 

each agency, each STEM agency, who are good at what they do and 

put them in a pool so that when the Department of Education or 

the National Science Foundation or Smithsonian starts looking to 

build a cadre of people that are going to be the overseers if you 

will, that we take people who have experience with this. And I expressed the desire and a willingness to offer NASA people anytime 

anybody wants to take them so that we make sure the program is 

done correctly. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize Mr. Stewart for five minutes. 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, good to see 

you again. 

General BOLDEN. Always good to see you. 
47 

Mr. STEWART. It has been a pleasure being on this Committee 

and having a chance to get to know you a little bit. 

I would like to be big picture if we could for a while, and I certainly don’t mean to beat a dead horse, and I don’t think that we 

will. But help me if you could bring some clarity to I think some 

fundamental visions or goals of your organization, and that is with 

the Asteroid Retrieval Mission. What is the main objective or goal 

that you have there? And if I can maybe rephrase the question, 

help me understand why that was placed as a priority over other 

possibilities, say for example a manned Moon mission? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman Stewart, I would not say the asteroid mission replaces anything. We did not have a lunar mission 

in our portfolio. We had a $17.7 billion budget with a notional, you 

know, five-year out that would not accommodate a lunar mission. 

I think it is in the record that if we went back and tried to replicate the lunar program that was in place under constellation, I 

have asked and I am told that Altair, the lander, is in the $8- to 

$10- billion range. I don’t have $8 to $10 billion to put into a lander 

for a lunar program. 

We already had solar electric propulsion underway in our Space 

Technology Mission Directorate. We have had that for years. We 

think we can accelerate it with the funds that are coming, $40 million of the funds that are coming out the 105. Human exploration 

has been working for no less than three years on an asteroid-type 

mission. So we are levering what we have been doing for years. 

As Congressman Brooks mentioned, SLS and MPCV were made 

for the human exploration part of an asteroid mission. It gives us 

an opportunity to demonstrate that vehicle and its capability, Orion’s capability to go beyond the Moon to deep space long before we 

have to make an 8-month mission to Mars and hoping that our people will survive in that. 

Mr. STEWART. Well, and I think actually, General, you bring up 

my point, and this is actually my primary question. If your ultimate objective is to go to Mars and knowing that there are building 

blocks that are required to do that, technological building blocks 

along the way that you have to accomplish in order to do that, does 

a lunar mission or the asteroid retrieval, does either of those give 

you a more significant foundation to build on, if that is your objective? 

General BOLDEN. You asked the question a little bit differently 

than was asked earlier, and I thought about it. The Chairman told 

me to think about it again and come out and say forget about the 

asteroid mission. I am not ready to do that yet. 

There is a decided advantage in an asteroid retrieval mission on 

the road to Mars. Solar electric propulsion is something we have 

got to have for deep space exploration. People have heard us say 

we are looking for game-changing propulsion. Solar electric propulsion has been around for a while but not the way we want to use 

it. There are varieties—you know, solar electric propulsion is a big 

name for a lot of different things you can do, hall thrusters, ion 

thrusters, VASIMR. That is one thing. Life support systems in the 

Orion module, I don’t need to change the—I can take the existing 

system in the first Orion and go to the Moon. So there is no technological advantage here. 
48 

If I want to push technology, I want to go to deep space. I want 

to go somewhere where it is really, really, really challenging, and 

if we don’t get it right, we are going to lose people. 

Mr. STEWART. I appreciate that. 

General BOLDEN. And let me tell you—— 

Mr. STEWART. Then if I could in the minute or so that I have left, 

you have given some great examples of technologies which are developed with this mission. Are there any technologies that we sacrifice or that we would develop with another lunar mission that 

would not be developed in—— 

General BOLDEN. It is not a matter of sacrificing technologies. It 

is a matter of requiring no new technology. We must remember, 

this is the greatest Nation in the world in terms of exploration of 

the universe. We have been to the Moon six times. We know how 

to do that. 

Now, Dr. Gilruth, who most of you don’t know, once said at the 

end of the Apollo program people will realize how difficult it was 

to go to the Moon when we try to return. So just because we went 

once doesn’t mean it is going to be easy the next time. 

I don’t need any new technology to go to the Moon. I need money 

to go to the Moon. It is expensive to go into a gravity well of the 

lunar surface. I need new technologies to go to an asteroid in deep 

space or in a stable orbit rendezvous point around the Moon. And 

we have already started investing in that technology, and the minimal amounts of money—somebody asked why are we putting more 

money into technology development? Because we need it to fill the 

gaps. We have a technological roadmap that was certified by the 

National Research Council. 

This is not an overnight thing. We didn’t just think of this. You 

know, I have to correct Members of the Committee who have said 

several times it seems like we just thought this up. NASA has been 

working on this for decades. The President focused us like a laser 

when he stood up at the Kennedy Space Center. And people don’t 

relate it, and I am not trying to relate it to John Kennedy, but 

there were people who thought the President lost his mind when 

he stood in Rice University campus and said within this decade we 

are sending humans to the Moon and bringing them safely back. 

Gene Kranz who is a role model of mine and a flight director 

from— he is Mr. Failure-is-not-an-Option. He said he went home. 

He said he thought the President had lost his mind. He woke up 

the next morning and he said no, that is not the case. The President trusts us, and he thinks we can do this. 

To have the President of the United States go to Florida and say 

NASA is going to send somebody to an asteroid in 2025 and to 

Mars in 2030, I couldn’t be more proud. 

Mr. STEWART. And my time is up. Thank you, General. I appreciate it. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize Ms. Bonamici for five minutes. 

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

General Bolden, for returning and for your service to our Nation. 

In a previous hearing in this Committee I pointed out some of 

the work that NASA does that affects Oregon’s first district in several important ways from education opportunities, through the 
49 

Space Grant program, to whale monitoring activities through 

NASA’s National Ocean Partnership. And I wanted to ask you 

about the weather and climate monitoring. The marine economy in 

Oregon is very important to the coastal areas, and they rely on the 

data provided by NOAA and NASA. And in this NASA budget, I 

see that the Joint Polar Satellite System two climate sensors are 

being transferred from NOAA to NASA. But there doesn’t appear 

to be an accompanying increase in NASA’s Earth Science budget. 

So I wanted to ask you if you could please elaborate on how NASA 

is going to carry out this new responsibility. What are the criteria 

for having NASA assume responsibility because we want to ensure 

that there are long-term measurements and observations that are 

sustained. 

General BOLDEN. Congresswoman, I will take it for the record to 

get the exact amount, but I think we did get a modicum of funding 

that came with the climate sensors. But I will take that for the 

record. But I will say just as we did with the DSCOVR mission and 

others, we asked. We actually came to the House Appropriations 

Committee and said look, we would like to take this on because we 

think this is very important. In the case of DSCOVR, we have instruments that have already been built. They are already installed 

on the satellite. It makes no sense to us to take them off and put 

NASA’s simulators on. And Chairman Wu said, look. I don’t want 

to do that, but give it your best shot. You know, send me a proposal, and tell me what you are going to do. 

And we demonstrated to him how doing it a different way we 

could bring it in at a much less cost than it had originally been 

proposed. And that is what we have become accustomed to doing. 

Somebody mentioned earlier the fact that many of our missions 

have come in on budget or under budget and on schedule recently, 

and it was attributed to an increase in budget. That is not the case. 

I attribute it to the incredible people I have who are working for 

NASA who now have had a change of culture, if you will. They understand that we are not going to get any more money. And so they 

are looking for innovative ways to do things. We knew we couldn’t 

get enough money for a classic asteroid mission, you know. That 

would be great if we could put humans on a big rocket and send 

them to an asteroid between Mars and Jupiter. Our budget is not 

going to allow that. Never, ever. I doubt it, unless we really do 

something big and you all decide to be generous. 

So we had to innovate, and we came up with the concept that 

is now the hallmark of an asteroid retrieval mission. So that is the 

way we do things. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. I had a great conversation with members of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. 

They were in town to talk about research funding which is of 

course very important. We talked about the biological and physical 

science research that is done at the Space Station. As you know, 

there has been a lot of research in space that affects medical care 

here, and I wondered, because of the potential for key medical advancements, is it surprising that what seems like a relatively small 

amount of the funding for ISS goes to research functions. So will 

you elaborate on that a bit? 
50 

General BOLDEN. I think we have priced it about right, the 

amount of money that we put in our human research program, and 

I think what you are looking at is HRP that is dedicated to astronaut health and safety. What is not seen in that number is the 

amount of money that goes into human research. For example, the 

National Institutes of Health has a grant program in the millions 

of dollars, and the grantees do work on the International Space 

Station. One stipulation, can’t have anything to do with astronauts. 

It has got to impact life here on Earth. Now, if it happens to help 

astronauts, great. But we don’t count that kind of money that is 

being spent. CASIS, which is now the non-governmental organization that is responsible for going out and recruiting, selecting and 

then overseeing science experiments flown in the American segment of the International Space Station. Our utilization of the 

Space Station is up. The number of experiments that astronauts 

are able to do now that construction is over is up. It is a dynamic 

laboratory, better than anything everybody has ever seen before. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Terrific. I will see if I can get one more question 

in. I understand that there is some work being done to develop a 

prototype exploration suit for use on board the ISS, and I wondered, is that a repurposing of the current, I guess it is the EMU 

that is used—— 

General BOLDEN. EMU? 

Ms. BONAMICI. —or is it going to be replaced and will there be 

a competitive process for that? 

General BOLDEN. My understanding is it will replace the EMU. 

It is a suit that is made to operate in a less than 1G environment 

of Mars. Looks like Buzz Lightyear, the one I have seen. You know, 

it is much less cumbersome, much less hard on the shoulder joints, 

for example, where we actually have had injuries with astronauts 

in the current EMU. So it is a new development. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Did you have a competitive process for that? 

General BOLDEN. It was chosen, it will be chosen, through a competitive process, yes. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. Thank you very much. My time is expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General BOLDEN. I am sorry. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize Mr. Posey for five minutes. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the general 

for joining us again. I have said it before and I will say it again, 

of all the agency heads that I have had the privilege to sit in, you 

have been the one that has been the most forthcoming and straight 

talking, and I appreciate that. Thank you. 

I don’t want to get redundant. I just want to get these things in 

a proper perspective, just kind of for my memory bank here. The 

Keck study suggested that an asteroid mission would cost $2.6 billion, and I understand NASA disagrees with that number. And I 

was just wondering how much NASA thinks it will cost to retrieve 

and return an asteroid or move it, whatever the goal ends up 

being? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman Posey, I will correct you and say 

we don’t disagree with the Keck number. However, our mission, as 

we envision it, is different from what the Keck number on which 
51 

it was based. Keck, very respected group of scientists who studied 

this, they did not have an SLS or an MPCV. They did not have a 

head start on solar electric propulsion. They assume that we were 

going to use a big rocket and go between, I think, between Mars 

and Jupiter into the asteroid belt to put humans with an asteroid. 

And so I think that is where the $2.6 billion came from. I have 

been cautioned by many, and so I will take their advice and not 

try to give you a number right now. We are going into mission formulation this summer. After we talk with our international partners, with academia, with amateurs to be quite honest, to find out 

what this mission should have in it, and then we will come back 

with a more definitive number on what we think it is going to cost. 

But my guess would be for a similar mission that Keck had, it will 

be something less than their estimate. 

Mr. POSEY. Well, that is something because certainly when you 

talk to people about appropriations, they want to know what is at 

the end of the line. You know, if it costs this much to go to an asteroid or twice as much as going to the Moon, I mean, that makes 

sense and you can understand that. 

How would you compare the cost of the Administration’s lasso 

mission with a return to the Moon? 

General BOLDEN. If I can use the example of the Keck study, and 

I am not adopting that but it is an example. An example is Keck 

said $2.6 billion to carry out their type of asteroid mission which 

we think is more expensive than ours. The numbers quoted to me 

for Altair, for the lander, for a human lunar exhibition or landing, 

$8 to $10 billion. 

So going back to the Moon, if we use the numbers quoted for 

Altair which came from NASA in the Constellation program, and 

we use, we accept the numbers from Keck, then going to the Moon 

is almost a factor of three more expensive. And our budget won’t 

sustain that, won’t accommodate that. 

Mr. POSEY. Yeah, and I heard that number when Congressman 

Stewart and you were having dialogue. Now, what is that number 

based on? 

General BOLDEN. The Keck number or the Altair number? 

Mr. POSEY. The return to the Moon number. 

General BOLDEN. Return to the Moon? It is the number that I 

have been—I wasn’t around, so I can’t tell you. But I was quoted 

$8 to $10 billion for the lunar lander that was planned for the Constellation program. And one of the reasons that it never materialized was because NASA at the time did not have the funding. 

Mr. POSEY. Yeah. Can you get us a copy of that, just that document just so we will have it? 

General BOLDEN. We can do that. 

Mr. POSEY. Because I hadn’t seen it before. 

General BOLDEN. We will do it. 

Mr. POSEY. You know, could the hardware obviously that is being 

developed such as the SLS be used for both missions? I mean, 

wouldn’t we use the same rocket to go to the asteroid that we 

would to the Moon? 

General BOLDEN. If we are going anywhere in deep space, and 

I will stipulate that we can call the Moon deep space, but we don’t 

consider the Moon deep space anymore. But you could use SLS to 
52 

go to the Moon. You will use SLS to go to an asteroid, to Mars and 

the like. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. The next thing of course I was going to ask 

if there is anything salvageable from the $9 billion Constellation 

mission to nowhere. 

General BOLDEN. We are using Orion quite effectively. We have 

gotten its cost down, its weight down and it is on schedule to fly 

in 2014. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. Because I think that might offset some costs 

if we got some stuff in the ground or—— 

General BOLDEN. And to be fair, we flew Ares 1–X which was a 

part of the Constellation program. That was the last thing we did 

in the Constellation program. Ares 1–X was the most heavily instrumented rocket to ever go in space, and the data that we collected from Ares 1–X is now available to every rocket manufacturer 

in the country plus any rocket manufacturer that is cleared to receive ITAR related data I think. 

Mr. POSEY. When Kennedy set the goal of going to the Moon 

within a decade, he literally inspired a Nation. You might have 

known a skeptic, but you know, as a teenager, it inspired me and 

my entire generation. When we heard the idea of going to an asteroid and maybe doing two space walks on asteroids, all I heard was 

crickets. So you know, what do you think the difference—— 

General BOLDEN. What is the difference? 

Mr. POSEY. Yeah. 

General BOLDEN. We are not at war. I was not marching in the 

streets of Columbia, South Carolina, as we were when President 

Kennedy announced we were going to the Moon. We were in the 

midst of the Civil Rights Era. You know, there was hatred being 

spewed all over the streets of the United States. We were at war 

in another country, and we were racing the Russians, the Soviets 

back then. We are not racing the Soviets. We have no—hopefully 

we will not have an enemy like we had then. Hopefully we will not 

go back into the streets in racial discord again, although I can’t 

guarantee that sometimes. And definitely, you know, this Nation 

will be very cautious before it enters into another war like Vietnam 

or some others that people could cite. Significant difference in time 

and conditions. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you. I see my time has expired. Thank you. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize Ms. Brownley for five minutes. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, General 

Bolden, for your courageous service to our country. I really do appreciate it very much. 

I have some questions about the budget request for construction 

and environmental compliance and restoration, specifically I am 

very interested in the budget request for cleanup of the Santa 

Susana Field Lab. This has been affecting my district for decades. 

NASA’s original Fiscal Year 2013 request included $5.5 million for 

the Santa Susana Field Laboratory cleanup, and I understand that 

the Administration has not yet released its Fiscal Year 2013 spending plan and that the appropriations law enacted March 26 gives 

NASA 45 days to do so. 
53 

So a couple of questions here. Will NASA allocate the $15.5 million request in 2013 to the Santa Susana Field Lab cleanup and 

what activities does NASA intend to complete with those funds? 

And then further, will NASA’s 2014 request of $20.6 million for the 

cleanup keep the project on schedule for completion by 2017? And 

what activities does NASA expect to complete with the 2014 year 

funds? And if Congress does not provide NASA with the full 

amount requested for 2014, how would the impact of NASA’s ability to stay on track for cleanup completion in 2013? 

General BOLDEN. Congresswoman, you know, I am as dedicated 

as anyone to making sure that this planet is as good as it can be 

and that life here is good. As far as I know, and I will get back 

to you for the record, we have not made any proposal for a change 

in the funding dedicated to Santa Susana. The last time I talked 

to the folk in the office responsible for that we were on target for 

completion of the cleanup by 2017, and that is what we intend to 

do. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Thank you very much. 

General BOLDEN. Yes. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. I would love it if at any time you were available 

to come visit the site and see it for yourself. 

General BOLDEN. I would be glad to come. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Thank you. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I want to thank the Administrator for his 

valuable testimony and the Members for their questions. The Members of the Committee may have additional questions. It has already been expressed to me that they will, so we will ask you to 

respond to those in writing. The record will remain open for two 

weeks for additional comments and written questions from Members. The witness is excused, and this hearing is adjourned. Thank 

you. 

[Whereupon, at 3:52 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(55) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
56 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Hon. Charles F. Bolden 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 

(125) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
126 

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Good afternoon. I want to welcome NASA Administrator Bolden back to the Committee, and I look forward to his testimony regarding NASA’s Fiscal Year 2014 

budget request. 

As you know, last week, the full Science, Space, and Technology Committee heard 

from Dr. John Holdren, the President’s Science Advisor and Director of the White 

House Office of Science and Technology Policy. He described the President’s budget 

request for R&D as one that recognizes the ‘‘profound importance of continued 

progress in science and technology even as we work to reduce budget deficits and 

hold the line on government spending.’’ I could not agree more. A commitment to 

deficit reduction should not negate the need to invest in our future. 

And I consider NASA and its programs to be one of the most strategic of the investments we can make as a nation. Not only is NASA an engine of innovation for 

America, but it has an additional feature that sets it apart from much of the rest 

of the federal R&D enterprise—namely, its ability to inspire. That quality of inspiration not only sets NASA apart, but it has also helped to make NASA one of the most 

positive symbols of our nation, recognizable throughout the world. 

We need that inspiration, now more than ever, as we seek to encourage our young 

people to pursue careers in science and engineering. Because it is that inspiration 

that breathes life into STEM education initiatives and helps the STEM curricula 

motivate a diverse cross-section of our youth, including those who have traditionally 

been under-represented in the STEM fields. That is one of the reasons I told Dr. 

Holdren that I need to know more about the Administration’s proposed reorganization of federal STEM programs before I can make an informed assessment of the 

proposed changes. NASA’s STEM initiatives and educational outreach, particularly 

through its science missions, have long been able to excite our young people, and 

I don’t want to lose that excitement. 

Ultimately, though, it is the challenging work that NASA undertakes that makes 

it such a crown jewel of our nation’s R&D enterprise. Yet, as a recent report by the 

National Academies makes clear, ‘‘NASA cannot execute a robust, balanced aeronautics and space program given the current budget constraints.’’ That finding 

should not be a surprise to anyone who has been on this Committee for more than 

a few years. We—successive Administrations and Congresses alike—have asked 

NASA to carry out many important tasks, but too often we have allowed short-term 

fiscal pressures to overrule the strategic imperative to invest in NASA at levels that 

are commensurate with those tasks. 

I hope as we prepare to reauthorize NASA this year, that we see investing in 

NASA not as a discretionary luxury, but rather as what it is—a critical investment 

in the future well-being of this nation and a beacon of inspiration for the generation 

that will be coming along to create the jobs of the future, explore the unknown, and 

improve the quality of life back here on Earth. 
127 

SUBMITTED LETTER BY THE PLANETARY SOCIETY
128 
129 
130 

Æ