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

49–551PDF 2009

NASA’S FISCAL YEAR 2010

BUDGET REQUEST

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 19, 2009

Serial No. 111–28

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

DAVID WU, Oregon

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico

PAUL D. TONKO, New York

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM MATHESON, Utah

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio

KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida

SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan

VACANCY

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,

Wisconsin

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia

PETE OLSON, Texas

(III)

C O N T E N T S

May 19, 2009

Page

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

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

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Chairman, Committee on Science

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 17

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

Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Minority Ranking Member,

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

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

Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member, Committee

on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................. 21

Prepared Statement by Representative Harry E. Mitchell, Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ................. 21

Witness:

Mr. Christopher J. Scolese, Acting Administrator, National Aeronautics and

Space Administration (NASA)

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 22

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

Biography .......................................................................................................... 34

Discussion

ISS Re-supplying .................................................................................................. 35

Negative Effects of Insufficient Funds ............................................................... 36

Budget Plan for 2020 Goal .................................................................................. 36

ITAR and Export Controls .................................................................................. 37

Transition From the Shuttle to Constellation ................................................... 39

NASA Perspective on Review Panel ................................................................... 40

International Competition ................................................................................... 40

Mars and Moon Programs ................................................................................... 41

Glenn Research Center ........................................................................................ 42

Moon Program and Cyber Security .................................................................... 43

NASA’s Education Efforts ................................................................................... 45

Climate Change and Asteroids ........................................................................... 46

Russian Cooperation ............................................................................................ 47

Shuttle Program Future ...................................................................................... 48

Benefits of NASA ................................................................................................. 49

Aeronautics ........................................................................................................... 50

NASA Workforce During Gap ............................................................................. 51

Current NASA Budget Increase ......................................................................... 53

Orbiting Carbon Observatory .............................................................................. 54

Workforce and Funding Gap ............................................................................... 55

U.S. Space Industrial Base .................................................................................. 56

Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Mr. Christopher J. Scolese, Acting Administrator, National Aeronautics and

Space Administration (NASA) ............................................................................. 60

(1)

NASA’S FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUDGET REQUEST

TUESDAY, MAY 19, 2009

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p.m., in Room 2318

of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Gordon [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

2

3

HEARING CHARTER

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NASA’s Fiscal Year 2010

Budget Request

TUESDAY, MAY 19, 2009

2:00 P.M.–4:00 P.M. 2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

Purpose

On Tuesday, May 19, 2009 at 2:00 p.m., the Committee on Science and Tech- nology will hold a hearing on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s

(NASA) Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request, NASA’s proposed Fiscal Year 2009 Operating Plan, and use of funds provided through the Recovery Act.

Witness:

Mr. Christopher Scolese

Acting Administrator

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Overview

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which was established in 1958, is the Nation’s primary civil space and aeronautics R&D agency. The

projected civil service workforce for FY 2009 is 17,900 employees. NASA has ten

field Centers, including the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), a Federally Funded

Research and Development Center (FFRDC). NASA conducts research and development activities in a wide range of disciplines including aeronautics, astrophysics,

heliophysics, planetary science, Earth science and applications, microgravity research, and long-term technology development. NASA also operates a fleet of three

Space Shuttles and is assembling and operating the International Space Station

(ISS). NASA is undertaking an exploration initiative with the goals of developing

a new human space transportation system for both low-Earth orbit and for missions

beyond low-Earth orbit, returning American astronauts to the Moon by 2020, and

carrying out a broad program of human and robotic exploration of the solar system.

NASA also maintains a space communications network that supports both NASA

missions and other federal agency requirements. As of 2007, the most recent date

for which complete data are available, about 82 percent of NASA’s budget was for

contracted work. In addition, a number of NASA’s scientific and human space flight

activities involve collaboration with international participants.

Budgetary Information

NASA’s proposed budget for FY 2010 is $18.7 billion, an increase of 5.1 percent over the enacted FY09 appropriation for NASA. The FY10 budget projection for

NASA beyond FY10 is essentially flat through FY13. Attachment 1 summarizes the

FY10 budget request and its five-year funding plan. In addition, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act [P.L. 111–5], included $1 billion for NASA’s Earth

science, aeronautics exploration programs, cross-agency support, and Inspector General. Recovery Act funds are to be expended by September 30, 2010. The President’s request for FY10 continues the budgetary structure that was in- troduced for the FY09 budget and is presented in seven accounts—Science; Aeronautics; Exploration; Space Operations; Education; Cross Agency Support; and Inspector General. As part of the budget restructuring that was introduced with the

FY09 President’s request, NASA shifted from a full-cost budget, in which each

project budget included overhead costs, to a direct cost budget. All overhead budget

estimates are now consolidated into the Cross Agency Support budget line. The direct cost budget shows program budget estimates that are based entirely on program content. Individual project managers continue to operate in a full-cost environment, including management of overhead costs.

4

Attachment 2 compares the NASA budget plan that accompanied the Vision for

Space Exploration introduced by President Bush in 2004 with the actual funds requested for NASA. As can be seen, previous budget requests for NASA have been

significantly less (i.e., typically on the order of a half-billion dollars or more in the

early years) than what was projected as being needed to carry out the Exploration

initiative and NASA’s other core missions. The cumulative shortfall over that period

is in excess of $4 billion. The additional funding provided in the FY09 appropriation

and the FY10 budget request help to redress that shortfall. However the FY10 budget request does not project growth for the NASA budget beyond FY10, and the disparity between the 2004 budget projections for FY11–FY14 that the Agency was

planning against and the budgets that are now being proposed through FY 2014 is

shown in the chart. In addition, the impact of the budgetary shortfalls since 2004

has been exacerbated by the requirement to absorb the cost of the Shuttle’s returnto-flight following the Columbia accident, the additional cost associated with the

under budgeting of Shuttle transition and retirement that occurred in the FY05

budget plan, and the under budgeting of ISS program support that also occurred

in the FY05 budget plan, which NASA indicates resulted in an unfunded lien

against the Agency’s budgets of about $6.5 billion through FY10

To put the FY10 budget request into context, NASA has been tasked with flying

the Shuttle safely until the end of the decade and then retiring the Shuttle fleet;

completing assembly of, operating, and utilizing the International Space Station;

completing the development of a new Crew Exploration Vehicle/Crew Launch Vehicle by 2015; returning American astronauts to the Moon by 2020; and conducting

science and aeronautics programs. The NASA Authorization Act of 2008 [P.L. 110–

422] authorized an FY09 funding level for NASA of $20.21 billion; the FY09 NASA

budget request was $17.61 billion and the appropriation for FY09 was $17.78 billion. The Committee is planning to move a multi-year reauthorization of NASA this

year.

Acquisition Management

Problems of cost growth and schedule delay in NASA’s programs were addressed

in the past two NASA Authorization Acts. Specifically:

• Provisions in the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 [P.L. 109–155] were enacted to help NASA and Congress spot potential cost growth and schedule

problems early in the development phase of a major program. Under the 2005

Act, a Baseline Report is required whenever a major program completes required reviews and is approved to proceed to implementation. After completing the Baseline Report, the Act requires NASA to report periodically on

a major program through an Annual Report, which is provided as part of the

annual agency budget submittal to the Congress, until the program enters operation. The provision defines a major program as an activity with a life cycle

cost estimate greater than $100 million. Having established the baseline, the

2005 legislation sets thresholds that, if exceeded, require agency action.

• Concerns regarding the increasing number of Earth and space science missions that were exceeding the 15 percent threshold established in the NASA

Authorization Act of 2005 prompted a requirement in the NASA Authorization

Act of 2008 [P.L. 110–422] for an independent review of the situation. The

Act directs the NASA Administrator to arrange for an independent external

assessment to identify the primary causes of cost growth in large, medium,

and small space and Earth science spacecraft mission classes.

NASA’s submission provided in conjunction with the FY 2010 budget indicates

that five of eleven projects included in this year’s report have had schedule growth

in excess of six months from their baseline. Three of these five projects have reported cost growth of 15 percent or more from their baseline. The Mars Science Laboratory reported a 68 percent increase from its baseline development cost estimate,

from $969 million to $1.63 billion, and a 26 month delay.

With respect to NASA’s contract management practices, NASA remains on the

General Accountability Office’s (GAO)’s ‘‘high risk’’ list for its contract management

practices. Regarding financial management, an independent audit was unable to

provide ‘‘an opinion on NASA’s financial statements for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2008 and 2007.’’ Although the audit found that NASA had improved its

internal controls, the auditor (Ernst & Young LLP) disclaimed an opinion due to

‘‘continued significant weaknesses in NASA’s financial management processes and

systems, including issues related to internal controls for property accounting.’’

NASA will need to address other ‘‘material weaknesses’’ identified in the audit.

5

NASA has taken actions to improve its cost estimating and budgeting process for

its space mission acquisitions, and has been recognized by the GAO for its progress

in those areas. Acquisition management is an area that the Committee will continue

to watch closely. The Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held a hearing in

March 2009 on NASA’s acquisition management and will continue to conduct oversight of this issue.

PROGRAM AREAS

Earth Science

The President’s budget for FY10 requests $1.4 billion in direct dollars for Earth

science research, applications, Earth observing missions, education and outreach,

and technology development, and increase of about $25 million over the FY09 enacted budget. In addition, Earth science received $325 million in Recovery Act

funds. When taken together, the Earth Science account represents an increase of

over $1.2 billion for the FY09–FY13 period over the previous NASA budget plan,

including the Recovery Act funds. The budget proposal for Earth science reflects the

Administration’s commitment to fund ‘‘space-based research that supports the Administration’s commitment to deploy a global climate change research and monitoring system.’’ The budget increases for Earth science are aimed at accelerating the

development of missions recommended in the National Academies’ Earth Science

Decadal Survey and on completing development of Earth science ‘‘foundational’’ missions.

Thus far, the Soil Moisture Active-Passive (SMAP) has entered its formulation

phase and the Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite (ICESat II), will soon enter

its formulation phase. The other two missions in the Decadal Survey’s first tier of

priority, the Climate Absolute Radiance and Refractivity Observatory (CLARREO)

and the Deformation, Ecosystem Structure, and Dynamics of Ice (DESDynI) projects

are in the pre-formulation stage (concept study). The FY10 budget also includes

$12.9 million in FY10 and about $233 million over FY10–FY13 for Venture-class

missions, which will support a program for competitive sub-orbital, airborne, and

small satellite projects that was recommended in the Decadal Survey. The augmentation for Earth science has been done, in part, with the goal of accelerating

work on the Decadal Survey missions. An issue for the hearing is how much ‘‘acceleration’’ is this funding buying?

NASA has allocated at least $100 million of Recovery funds to support

‘‘foundational missions’’ that are currently in the formulation and implementation

phases of development. These missions include the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) Mission, the Landsat Data Continuity Mission, and Glory. The FY10

budget proposal does not include funds to re-fly an Orbiting Carbon Observatory

(OCO) satellite (or a similar sensor), which was lost due to a launch failure in late

February 2009. NASA is analyzing options to re-fly the satellite or a similar sensor

and expects to have a decision by late June. NASA would need to reallocate funding

among its programs in order to replace the OCO satellite. If NASA were to fund

an OCO replacement using funds allocated to SMAP and ICESat II, those satellite

mission developments could be expected to slip by roughly two years or more, according to NASA officials.

Other Changes to Earth Science Program Areas

The proposed FY10 provides increases for research and computing over the FY10–

FY13 period, as compared to the FY09 enacted budget, but makes modest cuts to

technology, Applied Sciences, and multi-mission operations budgets. NASA’s Applied

Sciences program, involves the development of decision support tools that apply the

research results of NASA’s Earth science missions to support other federal agency

and institutional missions in the areas of climate, ecosystems, agriculture, water,

disaster management and other areas that benefit society. How NASA’s plans to

support decision support tools for stakeholders, especially in the area of climate

change, is a potential issue to explore in the hearing.

Research to Operations

The 2005 NASA Authorization Act and the 2008 NASA Authorization Act directed

NASA to coordinate with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) and report on plans for transitioning research sensors and satellites into

operational service. In addition, the 2008 Authorization Act directed the Office of

Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to develop a process and to coordinate agency

budget requests to enable the transitions. NASA and NOAA have continued to coordinate plans to address climate measurements that were eliminated in the reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:34 Dec 19, 2009 Jkt 049551 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\FULL09\051909\49551 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
6

structuring of the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) program, to acquire the Geostationary Operational Environmental

Satellite System (GOES)–R weather spacecraft and instruments, and to plan for

Earth science decadal survey missions. NASA has not provided details on the level

of resources required to enable effective planning and transition of its sensors and

satellites into operations. The hearing could explore this question, especially given

the importance for long-range planning on climate monitoring.

Space Science

The President’s FY10 budget requests $3.07 billion in direct program dollars (not

including Earth science) to fund NASA’s space science programs, including

Heliophysics, which seeks to understand the Sun and how it affects the Earth and

the solar system; Planetary Science, which seeks to answer questions about the origin and evolution of the solar system and the prospects for life beyond Earth; and

Astrophysics, which seeks answers to questions about the origin, structure, evolution and future of the universe and to search for Earth-like planets. The budget

request for space science is about $126.3 million less than the FY09 enacted budget

(including the transfer of funding for the lunar precursor robotic program to space

science from the Exploration Systems budget). Over the FY10–FY13 period, the Astrophysics budget remains essentially flat, the Planetary Science program is reduced

by approximately $100 million, and the Heliophysics budget decreases by about $35

million, as compared to the FY09 budget projection for FY10–FY13.

Space Science topics and issues related to the FY10 budget request include the

following:

Program Readjustments to Reflect Budgetary Outlook

While the previous FY09 budget request included new initiatives including a Mars

Sample Return mission, an Outer Planets Flagship mission, and a Joint Dark Energy mission, among others, that could not realistically be accommodated within the

FY09 budget proposal, the FY10 budget plan for space science no longer includes

these or other major new initiatives. For example, NASA selected the Europa Jupiter System target as the focus of an Outer Planets Flagship mission, but elected to

proceed with technology development, further definition, and discussions on a potential partnership with the European Space Agency (ESA) on a potential future mission. The FY10 budget plan for planetary sciences does not include a Mars Sample

Return mission. NASA officials have indicated their interest in working more closely

with ESA on potential Mars missions for the 2016 and 2018 launch opportunities.

In addition, NASA is sustaining technology development on potential exosolar planet detection and dark energy missions. NASA has reported that it will base its decisions on which missions to initiate on the results of the National Academies decadal

surveys for astronomy and astrophysics and for planetary science that are expected

to be finished in 2010 and 2011 respectively.

Research

The FY10 request for Planetary Sciences restructured the program to include a

new Lunar Quest budget line, which organizes planetary activities in lunar science,

a lunar atmosphere and dust mission, and an International Lunar Network activity

into a single program. The FY10 budget request for Lunar Quest is $103.6 million.

The status of the International Lunar Network activity is pending the outcome of

the Human Spaceflight Review that is described in a later section of the Charter.

The Mars Exploration Program

The FY10 budget requests $416 million for the Mars Exploration Program, an increase of about $116 million over the FY10 request in the previous budget submission. The NASA budget requests an increase of $431.3 million for Mars Exploration

over the FY10–FY13 period, as compared to the FY09 budget request, in large part

to complete work on the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) mission. NASA moved

MSL’s launch date from 2009 to 2011 due to technical problems with the mission.

The Management and Performance section of the FY10 budget request reports that

MSL experienced a 68 percent cost growth. NASA has stated its interest in cooperating with ESA on future Mars missions. According to NASA officials, the Agency

has initiated a review of the Mars architecture.

Aeronautics Research

For FY 2010, NASA is requesting $507 million for aeronautics research, $143 million less than that enacted in FY 2009 (The FY 2009 enacted level includes $150

7

million appropriated by the Recovery Act). The requested FY 2010 level is about $60

million greater than that projected for FY 2010 in last year’s budget submission. NASA’s aeronautics research directly supports the goals and objectives of the Na- tional Aeronautics Research and Development Policy signed by the President in December 2006. The budget request funds activities that include (1) foundational research across a number of core competencies that support aeronautics and space exploration activities; (2) research in key areas related to the development of advanced

aircraft technologies and systems, including those related to aircraft safety, environmental compatibility, and fuel efficiency; and (3) research that supports the Next

Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). NextGen is a joint effort between

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), NASA, and the Departments of Defense,

Homeland Security and Commerce that will transform the entire national air transportation system, gradually allowing aircraft to safely fly more closely, reduce

delays, and providing benefits for the environment and the economy through reductions in carbon emissions, fuel consumption, and noise. The aeronautics budget also

funds the Aeronautics Test Program which encompasses the critical suite of aeronautics test facilities needed to conduct aeronautics research.

In FY 2010, the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate plans to realign its NextGen work to distinguish research conducted on concepts and technologies from

that focused on systems analysis, integration, and evaluation. In addition, in FY

2010, NASA plans to establish a program of integrated, system-level focused activities, the first of which will be the Environmentally Responsible Aviation (ERA)

Project. ERA’s research goal will be the reduction of environmental impacts of aviation in terms of noise and emissions.

Human Space Flight

NASA’s Human Space Flight activities to be funded in FY 2010 encompass completing construction of the International Space Station (ISS), retiring the Space

Shuttle fleet upon completion of the ISS and delivery of the AMS to the ISS, stimulating development and demonstration of commercial space transportation vehicles

that may support NASA’s ISS cargo and potentially its crew requirements, and continuing the development of systems to deliver people and cargo to the ISS and the

Moon and to explore other destinations. Along with the budget release, the Administration also announced the establishment of an independent review of NASA’s

human space flight activities. Results from that review will support a planned August 2009 decision on how the Nation’s human space flight will proceed. OSTP Director John Holdren’s May 7, 2009 letter to NASA’s Acting Administrator and a recent communication to the Committee from NASA concerning the Human Space

Flight Review are attached as Attachments 3 and 4 respectively.

Space Shuttle

NASA is requesting approximately $3.16 billion for the Space Shuttle Program,

an increase of about $175 million over that enacted in FY 2009 and an increase of

about $173 million from that projected for FY 2010 in last year’s budget submission.

Requested funding will enable the Agency to conduct an additional Shuttle mission

to transport the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) per the direction of the NASA

Authorization Act of 2008 [P.L. 110–422]. Following return of the Hubble servicing

mission currently underway, eight Space Shuttle flights will remain to be flown.

NASA believes these flights can be accomplished by the end of 2010, after which

the Shuttle fleet will be retired.

According to NASA, it has accounted for Shuttle transition and retirement costs

in projected budgets for the Shuttle Program in FY 2011 ($383 million) and FY 2012

($88 million). This is a significant reduction from the multi-billion dollar cost estimate projected by NASA two years ago.

International Space Station

NASA is requesting approximately $2.27 billion for the ISS, an increase of about

$207 million over that enacted in FY 2009 and a decrease of about $10 million from

that projected in last year’s budget submission for FY 2010. Since the first component of the Station was put in orbit in November 1998, the ISS has grown into a

fully functioning laboratory that will shortly house an increased crew size of six.

The recent additions of the final set of solar arrays and a replacement Distillation

Assembly for the water recycling system make this increased crew size possible.

NASA plans to complete assembly of the ISS in 2010, including the additional research capability provided by the AMS.

NASA and its Russian, Japanese, European, and Canadian ISS partners are nearing completion of their goal of being able to conduct various types of research on

8

a Space Station in Earth orbit. Some of NASA’s work is focused on increasing

knowledge of the effects of long-duration human space flight, which is critical for

the design and operation of future human space vehicles to return U.S. astronauts

to the Moon and explore other destinations. Other non-exploration-related research

is also being conducted, as described in the next section. At present, the U.S. has

made no final decision on whether or not to operate and utilize the ISS after 2015;

however, the international partners have indicated a desire to conduct research beyond that time. The question of whether to operate and utilize the ISS beyond 2015

will be addressed by the aforementioned Human Space Flight Review.

The ISS Cargo Crew Services budget request for FY 2010 is $628 million, an increase of about $323 million over that enacted for FY 2009. It is worth noting that

the ISS Cargo Crew Services budget is projected to reach about $1.14 billion in FY

2012. This activity consists of International Partners and commercial purchases.

NASA has contracted with Russia’s Roskosmos to purchase cargo transportation

through 2011 and crew transportation through the spring of 2012. NASA recently

made awards to SpaceX and Orbital Sciences to provide cargo and return services

beginning in 2011 under the Commercial Resupply Services contract.

International Space Station Utilization

The ISS is intended to serve as an on-orbit facility where R&D in support of both

human exploration and non-exploration purposes and other exploration technologies

is to be conducted. To that end, NASA is conducting research on the effects of longduration space flight on humans, as well as examining potential countermeasures.

NASA is also using the ISS to demonstrate advanced communications networking.

For example, NASA is testing Disruption Tolerant Networking (DTN) software, a

‘‘deep space communications network modeled on the Internet,’’ according to a November 2008 press release issued by NASA and JPL. NASA is also using the ISS

to experiment with Communication, Navigation and Networking re-Configurable

Testbed (CoNNeCT), which will use software reprogrammable radios that can be

used to support long-duration space exploration missions. In addition, the ISS is

currently testing and demonstrating technologies critical for long-term exploration,

such as various life support system technologies.

The International Space Station National Laboratory activity allows other federal

agencies and commercial partners to utilize research capacity on the ISS. NASA has

signed memoranda of understanding with the National Institutes of Health and the

USDA Agricultural Research Service for their potential research utilization of the

ISS. A commercial company has been conducting research on Salmonella that is directed at developing a Salmonella target vaccine. According to NASA, non-NASA

partners will be required to pay for the transportation of their research experiments

to and from the ISS.

The FY10 budget request for ISS research, which is bookkept in the Exploration

Systems (ESMD) budget has been cut by about $20 million from the FY09 enacted

budget and is projected to be relatively flat in the out years. The status of the research community and investigations that are ready to fly on the ISS will be an

issue for any potential plans to increase the utilization of the ISS. Previous budget

cuts to space life sciences and physical sciences research have drastically reduced

the number of principal investigators working in these areas of research since FY

2004. In addition, the number of post-doctoral students, Ph.D., Master’s and Bachelor of Science students has dropped precipitously since FY 2004.

In the near future, NASA expects to increase the ISS crew from three to six,

which will increase the crew time available for research, according to NASA officials. In addition, following the planned retirement of the Space Shuttle, opportunities to ferry research supplies, hardware, and samples to and from the ISS will depend on the availability of commercial and international cargo resupply services.

Exploration Initiative

President Bush proposed an exploration initiative in 2004 that envisioned a broad

program of human and robotic exploration of the solar system, including completion

of the ISS, development of a new human space transportation system, a human

landing on the Moon by 2020, and exploration of other solar system destinations.

The Congress authorized the exploration initiative in the NASA Authorization Act

of 2005 (P.L. 109–155) and the NASA Authorization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110–422).

The President’s proposal for NASA’s FY 2010 budget provides $3.96 billion for Exploration Systems to fund Constellation Systems, which includes the development,

demonstration, and deployment of the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) and

the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) as well as associated ground and in-orbit

infrastructure; Advanced Capabilities, which includes human research to support

9

ISS and future exploration; a lunar precursor robotic program; microgravity research; and technology development to support Orion and other exploration programs. The funding requested for FY 2010 is an increase of about $58 million over

that enacted for FY 2009 and is about $225 million greater than that projected for

FY 2010 in last year’s President’s budget request. According to NASA, its requested FY 2010 funding level of $3.50 billion for Con- stellation Systems, coupled with an enacted FY 2009 funding level of $3.43 billion,

puts it in a position to achieve the projected Initial Operational Capability (IOC)

date of March 2015 for the Orion/Ares I. The Orion crew exploration vehicle ($1.38

billion) and Ares I crew launch vehicle ($1.42 billion) form the bulk of the Constellation FY 2010 budget request. The FY 2010 budget request for the Ares V cargo

launch vehicle ($25 million) and its run-out budget for FY 2011 through FY 2014

($100 million total) is insufficient to initiate full scale development of the heavy-lift

launch vehicle that is designed to support exploration missions beyond low-Earth

orbit. In addition, the five-year budget plan contains no significant funding for the

Altair lunar lander.

Cargo and Crew Transportation

Once the Shuttle fleet is retired, NASA will rely on a variety of sources to trans- port cargo and crew to the ISS. The Agency’s Commercial Crew and Cargo Program,

whose goal is to spur private industry to provide cost-effective cargo delivery to the

ISS, requests about $39 million in FY 2010; with the infusion of Recovery Act funds,

the FY 2009 enacted level was $303 million. Flight demonstrations to the ISS are

being planned by SpaceX and Orbital Sciences for May 2010 and March 2011 respectively. The Crew and Cargo Program is administered by the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate under Constellation Systems. The demonstration program

ends in 2011.

Human Space Flight Review

As part of the submission of its FY 2010 NASA budget request, OSTP Director John Holdren announced that the Obama Administration was asking Mr. Norman

Augustine to chair an independent review of NASA’s planned human space flight

activities. The stated goal of the review is ‘‘to ensure that the Nation is pursuing the best trajectory for the future of human space flight-one that is safe, innovative,

affordable, and sustainable.’’ The panel is to report its results by August of this year. According to Dr. Holdren’s May 7th letter to NASA’s Acting Administrator:

‘‘The review should aim, specifically, to identify and characterize a range of options that spans the reasonable possibilities for continuation of U.S. human

space flight activities beyond retirement of the Space Shuttle. Results and supporting analysis should be provided to involved Administration agencies and offices in sufficient time to support an August 2009 decision on the way forward.

The identification and characterization of options should be cognizant of-and

should address the implications for-the following objectives: (1) expediting a new

U.S. capability to support utilization of the International Space Station; (2) supporting missions to the Moon and other destinations beyond low-Earth orbit; (3)

stimulating commercial space flight capabilities; and (4) fitting within the current budget profile for NASA exploration activities.’’

Space Communications

The President’s FY10 budget requests $496.6 million for Space Communications and Navigation, about $86 million less than the FY09 enacted budget. The budget

reflects the fact that NASA has largely completed acquisitions to replenish aging

Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) spacecraft, which are used to

support ‘‘tracking, data, voice, and video services to the International Space Station

(ISS), Space and Earth science missions, as well as other government agency users.’’ The FY10 budget request includes plans for NASA’s Space Communications and Navigation program to demonstrate optical communications, which provide higher

data rates and involve lower weight, space, and power requirements on spacecraft.

Optical communications will help enable more science data to be transmitted to

Earth more efficiently. NASA is planning to use a lunar dust and atmosphere mission, anticipated to launch in 2012, to conduct the first optical communications demonstration.

The Deep Space Network (DSN) ‘‘consists of three facilities spaced approximately 120 degrees apart on the globe to enable continuous communications to spacecraft

as the Earth rotates.’’ The DSN is aging and the GAO has raised concerns about

its fragility and continuing ability to service a mounting workload. NASA’s FY10

budget does not include funds for an upgrade. NASA will construct a new 34-meter

10

beam waveguide antenna in Australia and maintain the existing DSN system while

completing an analysis to support a plan for a new phased-array DSN system.

Education

The President’s budget proposes $126.1 million in FY10 to support NASA’s Edu- cation program. Although the proposed FY10 budget represents no change in the request for FY10 made in the previous budget plan, it reflects a reduction of about

$43 million from the FY09 enacted budget. The FY10 budget reflects some reorganization of education projects into three program areas:

• The Higher Ed STEM Education program includes the Minority University

Research and Education Program (MUREP), Space Grant, and Experimental

Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR).

• The K–12 STEM Education program is aimed at engaging and retaining students in STEM disciplines through flight opportunities, hands-on science and

engineering activities, and the use of NASA content in teacher development

resources.

• Informal STEM Education supports NASA Center activities that respond to

requests from community and other informal education providers that use

NASA content to engage participants in STEM activities. This program also

supports museums, science centers, planetariums, and other venues that help

‘‘the American public understand NASA’s exploration mission.’’

In addition to the programs included in NASA’s Office of Education, the Science

Mission Directorate, the Aeronautics Mission Directorate, the Exploration Systems

Mission Directorate, and the Space Operations Mission Directorate as well as the

NASA Centers all fund educational projects. How NASA is coordinating education

among the Office of Education, the Centers, and the mission directorates on education activities and whether that coordination is effective are potential issues for

the hearing.

Facilities and Maintenance

NASA’s institutional investments are intended to ensure that facilities and field

installations can meet the Agency’s mission requirements in a safe, secure and environmentally sound manner. NASA is requesting $355.4 million in FY 2010 for institutional investments. Of that amount, about $284 million is for construction of facilities which provides for the construction, repair, rehabilitation, and modification

of basic infrastructure and institutional facilities. Replacement and renewal projects

replacing old, inefficient, and deteriorated buildings with energy efficient buildings

will reduce utility usage. The remaining $71 million requested for FY 2010 is for

environmental compliance and restoration which provides the personnel, services,

and activities necessary to complete the cleanup of hazardous materials and wastes

that have been released to the surface or groundwater at NASA installations. These

activities are mandated under a variety of federal and State environmental laws

and regulations, as well as legally enforceable orders and agreements.

NASA has recently undergone a comprehensive review of its facilities and is developing plans to reduce and renew these critical assets. It is worth noting that

NASA’s estimate of backlogged facilities and maintenance requirements totals $2

billion. So while projected budget requests for construction and facilities rise from

FY 2011 ($326 million) to FY 2014 ($397.4 million), it is unlikely that such projected

levels will appreciably reduce the backlog in the near future.

In the 2008 NASA Authorization Act (P.L. 110–422, Section 1022), the Committee

had expressed concern over the need for adequate maintenance and upgrading of

NASA’s facilities In that legislation, the NASA Administrator was directed to determine and prioritize the maintenance and upgrade backlog at each of NASA’s Centers and associated facilities and ‘‘develop a strategy and budget plan to reduce that

maintenance and upgrade backlog by 50 percent over the next five years.’’ The Administrator is to deliver those reports to Congress concurrent with the delivery of

the FY 2011 budget request.

Earth-Bound Applications of NASA-Developed Technologies

Technologies and devices developed by NASA to enable space missions and aeronautics research can provide societal benefits when transferred to terrestrial applications. For example:

• A resin developed by NASA for space applications was licensed to a medical

technology company who in turn incorporated the material into its design for

11

a left-heart lead. The left-heart lead, which was recently approved by the

Food and Drug Administration, delivers electrical impulses directly to the

heart from a pacing device implanted in a patient’s chest. The NASA-developed resin is highly flexible, resistant to chemicals, and can withstand extreme hot and cold temperatures. The ‘‘super plastic’’ is biologically inert,

thus making it suitable for medical use, including implantable devices. The

NASA-developed insulation material enabled the company to develop one of

the thinnest left-heart leads available.

• An electronic nose developed for monitoring air quality on the International

Space Station has shown promise as a new weapon against brain cancer. The

electronic nose, developed by NASA to automatically monitor the station’s air,

is able to detect contaminants within a range of one to approximately 10,000

parts per million. In a series of experiments, researchers used NASA’s device

to ‘‘sniff’’ brain cancer cells and cells in other organs. Their data demonstrated that the electronic nose can sense differences in odor from normal

versus cancerous cells. These experiments will help pave the way for more sophisticated biochemical analysis and experimentation.

Transfer of NASA technology to the private sector is performed by NASA’s Innovative Partnerships Program. The agency’s view is that advancing technology

through partnerships enables it to address its own needs and apply NASA-derived

technology to a range of applications that can provide broad benefit to the public.

The program consists of three elements: Technology Infusion, Innovation Incubator,

and Partnership Development. For FY 2010, NASA is requesting $184.8 million for

the Innovative Partnerships program, an increase of about $25 million over that enacted in FY 2009 and an increase of about $3 million from that projected for FY

2010 in last year’s budget submission.

12

13

14

15

16

17

Chairman GORDON. This hearing will come to order, and good

afternoon, and welcome. Mr. Scolese, we are glad you are here, and

Mr. Hall is here, too. We are—just to let everyone know, at 2:30

or hopefully more of a quarter until votes will start on the Floor

we are told, and there will be a series of them, so it goes for awhile,

and so what we are hoping to do is be able to have a good hearing

here before so we don’t hold everybody up. And Mr. Hall concurs,

and we are glad of that.

So before I go any further I would just like to take a moment and

express my appreciation for your service over these past few

months. You were handed a very challenging job when you were

asked to serve as our Acting Administrator for NASA, and by all

accounts you have handled your responsibility with distinction as

you have done your previous jobs there. It is a clear reflection of

your competence and skill, but it is also I think an indication of

the high caliber of civil service employees at NASA.

And so we have seen the competence on display over the past few

days as a crew of seven NASA astronauts has worked to service the

Hubble Space Telescope to the extent its ability to conduct productive science. At the same time three crew members are operating

overhead in the International Space Station with their own set of

complex tasks to carry out, and we have seen multiple examples of

the value of NASA science research that has helped us to better

understand both climate change here on Earth and events in the

far reaches of the universe.

And we have seen NASA-funded aeronautics R&D transform the

Nation’s commercial and military aviation capabilities over the

past five decades, yet it has become clear in recent years that resources given to NASA haven’t kept pace with the tasks that the

Nation has asked it to carry out.

That is why this committee and ultimately Congress as a whole

passed the NASA Authorization Act of 2008, which authorized a

significant increase in funding for NASA, and I am very pleased

that the Obama Administration has responded to that Congressional consensus by supporting augmented funding for NASA in

both the Recovery Act and the fiscal year 2010, budgetary request.

It is a welcome recognition that NASA is relevant to address the

Nation’s societal needs and is an important contributor to our scientific and technical competitiveness. That is good news.

However, more needs to be done if the positive steps taken by

this Administration are going to be sustained. For example, it is

clear that the flat-funded proposal for NASA after fiscal year 2010

would make it very difficult to make progress on a number of important programs, including the Exploration Initiative that was endorsed by Congress in the last two NASA Authorizations Acts.

And while I hope and expect that the human space flight review

that is going to be conducted under the very able leadership of

Norm Augustine will help clarify what is needed to keep that important initiative on track, I think the basic situation is already

clear. Either the Nation is going to have to give NASA enough

funding to meet the dual challenges of carrying out its current and

planned missions and of revitalizing the Agency’s human and physical capital, or the Nation is going to have to agree on what it

wants NASA to cut.

18

As the overwhelming bipartisan support of—for the NASA Authorization Act of 2008 demonstrates, Congress believes that NASA

is an important contributor to America’s future, well-being, and

worthy of our increased investment in it. At the same time I don’t

view investing in NASA as a blank check. This committee is going

to be vigilant in seeking to ensure that NASA is a good steward

of taxpayer dollars.

Indeed, the first hearing of Chairman Giffords’ Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee earlier this year was on NASA’s cost management practices, and I have no doubt the Committee will continue our oversight on these issues in the months ahead.

So we are going to go forward with the Reauthorization of NASA

this year, and we need to have a good understanding of the issues

and opportunities facing the Agency in the wake of the President’s

budget request. Today’s hearing is the first step in that progress—

in that process, and I, again, want to welcome Acting Administrator Scolese for your participation and look forward to your testimony.

And now I recognize Mr. Hall for an opening statement.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BART GORDON

Good afternoon, and welcome Mr. Scolese.

Before I go any further, I’d just like to take a moment to express my appreciation

for your service over these past several months.

You were handed a very challenging job when you were asked to serve as Acting

Administrator of NASA, and by all accounts you have handled your responsibilities

with distinction.

That’s clearly a reflection on your competence and skill.

But it’s also an indication of the high caliber of the civil service employees we

have at NASA, of which you are one.

We’ve seen that competence on display over the past few days as a crew of seven

NASA astronauts has worked to service the Hubble Space Telescope to extend its

ability to conduct productive science.

At the same time, three crew members are orbiting overhead in the International

Space Station, with their own set of complex tasks to carry out.

We’re seeing multiple examples of the value of NASA scientific research that has

helped us better understand both climate change here on Earth and events in the

far reaches of the universe.

And we’ve seen NASA-funded aeronautics R&D transform the Nation’s commercial and military aviation capabilities over the past five decades.

Yet it’s become clear in recent years that the resources given to NASA haven’t

kept pace with the tasks that the Nation has asked it to carry out.

That’s why this committee and ultimately Congress as a whole passed the NASA

Authorization Act of 2008, which authorized a significant increase in funding for

NASA.

I’m very pleased that the Obama Administration has responded to that congressional consensus by supporting augmented funding for NASA in both the Recovery

Act and in the FY 2010 NASA budget request.

It’s a welcome recognition that NASA is relevant to addressing the Nation’s societal needs and is an important contributor to our scientific and technical competitiveness.

That’s good news.

However, more needs to be done if the positive steps taken by this Administration

are going to be sustained.

For example, it is clear that the flat-funding proposed for NASA after FY 2010

would make it very difficult to make progress on a number of important programs,

including the exploration initiative that was endorsed by Congress in the last two

NASA Authorization Acts.

While I hope and expect that the Human Space Flight Review that is going to

be conducted under the very able leadership of Norm Augustine will help clarify

19

what is needed to keep that important initiative on track, I think the basic situation

is already clear.

Either the Nation is going to have to give NASA enough funding to meet the dual

challenges of carrying out its current and planned missions and of revitalizing the

Agency’s human and physical capital . . ..

Or, the Nation is going to have to agree on what it wants NASA to cut.

As the overwhelming bipartisan support for the NASA Authorization Act of 2008

demonstrated, Congress believes that NASA is an important contributor to America’s future well-being, and worthy of our increased investment in it.

At the same time, I don’t view investing in NASA as a blank check—this committee is going to be vigilant in seeking to ensure that NASA is a good steward of

taxpayer dollars.

Indeed, the first hearing of Chairwoman Giffords’ Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee earlier this year was on NASA’s cost management practices, and I have

no doubt the Committee will continue our oversight of those issues in the months

ahead.

We are going to be reauthorizing NASA this year, and we need to have a good

understanding of the issues and opportunities facing the Agency in the wake of the

President’s budget request.

Today’s hearing is the first step in that process, and I again want to welcome Acting Administrator Scolese’s participation.

We look forward to your testimony.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time I will not

present my entire statement. I ask unanimous consent that it be

put in the record.

I just want to thank you. You have pretty well—you have very

well covered the opening statements for both of us, but I want to

thank you for holding this hearing. And 2010, as you know and we

all realize, is a very pivotal year for our Space Program, and this

is a very important opportunity to hear from NASA and seek answers to a lot of questions.

I would like to also welcome our witness, Acting NASA Administrator. Chris, thank you. You have been doing a difficult job under

challenging circumstances, and thank you for your dedication.

I will skip on over and just say NASA is one area of the federal

budget where I think some increases are justified. Three percent

sounds like a lot to a lot of people, but that is a very small budget

for anything as important as NASA is to this country. We may just

defend the next war out of space. We have got to be ready for those

things, and NASA is so very important to us. The Administration

has called for an independent review of human space flight to be

chaired by Norm Augustine, and the President couldn’t have picked

a better person for that, a more knowledgeable person for it. I had

a visit with him this morning, and I am sure that he visited the

Chairman before he came to my office, but he is a great American

and outstanding person to make that study for you, and let me tell

you, he will call it like it is, and he will call it like he sees it. So

we are very lucky to have him doing that.

And NASA is still on the path to complete the remaining Shuttle

missions, including an additional flight to deliver the Alpha-Magnetic Spectrometer. Hell, I can’t say anything. And then retire the

Shuttle without having developed a new capability to get independently to and from the ISS. That is one of the major problems, and

we are hoping that Norm is going to give us some answers to that.

And I am very concerned that the budget has deleted nearly all

of the out-year funding for the lunar landing, and for the heavylift Constellation launch vehicle that is necessary to get us out of

the lower orbit. The Exploration Program needs stability in growth

20

and can’t be—has to be properly funded, which I don’t think they

are.

I just close by saying American companies have until recently led the world in the production of leading-edge technology and aviation

communications, surveillance and navigation services. I am aware

that under-investing in these disciplines are going to be—and I

don’t know how many years to say, but really come home to haunt

us. We are making a mistake. I hope you can lead us out of that

mistake.

Look forward to hearing you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RALPH M. HALL

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing on NASA’s Fiscal

Year 2010 Budget Request. 2010 is a pivotal year for our space program, and this

is an important opportunity to hear from NASA and seek answers to a wide-range

of questions.

I would also like to welcome our witness, Acting NASA Administrator Chris

Scolese who has been doing a difficult job under challenging circumstances. Thank

you for your dedication and commitment.

NASA gives our country so much to be proud of. Right now, 350 miles up, Shuttle

astronauts are wrapping up an extraordinary mission. They salvaged a multi-billion

dollar Space Science mission by repairing the Hubble Space Telescope during a series of complicated and dangerous spacewalks. This mission showcases the unique

capabilities of the Space Shuttle which will be lost after it is retired. This is a very

daring mission, and the men and women we send into space put their lives on the

line. They deserve our support, and they deserve the best equipment and training

we can provide.

NASA is one area of the federal budget where I think some increases are justified.

While we do not need to add more money to the ballooning deficit, we should

prioritize federal spending on programs that yield great returns—and NASA is one

of those programs. I am encouraged that NASA’s FY 2010 budget request of $18.7

billion is about five percent above last year’s appropriation, but as I said to Dr.

Holdren last week, I am very concerned that priorities may be shifting away from

human space exploration at a very critical time. The Administration has called for

an independent review of Human Space Flight to be chaired by Norm Augustine

that is expected to make recommendations later this summer. There are many questions that should be answered including about whether to extend the International

Space Station beyond 2016. The ISS is a valuable National Laboratory and we

should be seeking new and innovative research to perform there well into the future.

NASA is still on a path to complete the remaining Shuttle missions, including an

additional flight to deliver the Alpha-Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) to the ISS, and

then retire the Shuttle without having developed a new capability to get independently to and from the ISS. In the resulting gap we stand to lose a highly skilled

workforce and a number of accompanying parts suppliers and other contractors that

we cannot afford to lose—as we did between Apollo and Shuttle.

Mr. Chairman, I am also very concerned that this budget has deleted nearly all

the out-year funding for the Lunar Lander and for the heavy-lift Constellation

launch vehicle that is necessary to get us out of low-Earth orbit. The Exploration

program needs stability and growth and cannot be the bill-payer for the rest of the

Agency.

Moreover, NASA’s science and aeronautics programs, like the Agency’s top line,

show little growth, with the exception of Earth Science and Heliophysics. Just like

human space flight, these important research programs are financially stressed, experiencing cost growth that far exceed increases in their respective budget lines. We

are at risk of launching fewer and fewer research missions, and I am concerned we

will lose the research infrastructure that has been so important to NASA, but is also

a source of important new technologies for American commerce, especially for our

satellite and aerospace industries. American companies have, until recently, led the

world in the production of leading-edge technologies in aviation, communications,

surveillance, and navigation services. I worry that under-investing in these disciplines will—in 10 to 15 years time—really come back to haunt us.

21

Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of issues to discuss today. I look forward to a produc- tive hearing.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Hall. I certainly concur with

your comments. [The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JERRY F. COSTELLO

Good Morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing on the NASA Fiscal Year 2010 (FY10) Budget Request. NASA has requested $18.7 billion in funding for FY10, an increase of 5.1 percent over Fiscal Year 2009 (FY09). I am pleased to see that the FY10 budget request

continues to address the budget shortfalls NASA saw during the previous Administration and to make steps towards fulfilling the Vision for Space Exploration introduced by President Bush in 2004. However, the budget projects relatively flat funding through Fiscal Year 2013, which may negatively impact NASA’s ability to fulfill

its complex, important, and broad-ranging mission. I look forward to discussing how

NASA can continue to fulfill its mission under this projected budget. I have three specific concerns about the NASA budget request for FY10. First, as a strong supporter of STEM education, I was concerned to see a $43 million reduction in funding for STEM programs. I support NASA’s decisions to reorganize and

streamline STEM education projects into three program areas, and I am pleased to

see that NASA will continue to contribute to STEM projects at every level of education. However, I believe these programs need more financial support than requested in the FY10 budget. I would like to hear from Administrator Scolese how

this committee can work with NASA to ensure that this decrease in funding does

not impact access to STEM education for American students.

Second, as the Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, I am pleased to see that

NASA will continue to invest in aeronautics research, particularly the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). In particular, I support NASA’s decision

to redesign its research efforts and distinguish between technology development and

research on integration and evaluation. However, the FY10 budget proposes a $143

million decrease in funding for NASA’s work on NextGen. I do not support reducing

this funding, in particular because NASA contributes vital research on aviation safety and environmental impact to the program. I would like to hear from Administrator Scolese how the decrease in the Aeronautics budget will impact NASA’s role

in NextGen.

Third, I am concerned about the continued cost growth and schedule delays that plague NASA projects. NASA remains on the GAO watch list for agencies at a high

risk for contract management, and despite efforts to improve the budget process

within the Agency, an independent auditor could not come to any conclusion on the

Agency’s financial statements because of serious problems in its financial reporting.

These problems make NASA inefficient, and as we discussed in an Energy and Environment Subcommittee hearing last month these continued delays and cost increases limit the Agency’s ability to update technology and remain on the cutting

edge of space exploration and research. I would like to hear from Administrator

Scolese what long-term and short-term strategies NASA has in place to address

these problems.

I welcome Administrator Scolese, and I look forward to his testimony.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE HARRY E. MITCHELL

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Today we will discuss NASA’s Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request, NASA’s proposed

Fiscal Year 2009 Operating Plan, and use of funds through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

NASA conducts vital research and development projects that help us learn about our surroundings. Arizona State University, which is located in my District, is home to researchers who work on many of these important NASA research projects. To maintain America’s competitiveness in science and technology, we must do more than merely keep up. We must lead, and commit ourselves to providing the

resources necessary to keep us at the forefront of this kind of cutting edge research

and development.

I look forward to hearing more from our witnesses.

22

I yield back.

Chairman GORDON. Where we are is that the votes have started

earlier than we thought, so Mr. Scolese, I think the thing to do is

for you to go forward, make your statement, and then we will try

to make you comfortable here while we go vote and come back as

quickly as we can.

And so let me now call upon our witness today, Mr. Christopher

Scolese, who is the Acting Administrator, as well as the Associate

Administrator, of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

And you are recognized for five minutes or the time you may consume.

STATEMENT OF MR. CHRISTOPHER J. SCOLESE, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)

Mr. SCOLESE. Okay. Thank you, sir. Chairman Gordon, Ranking

Member Hall, and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the President’s fiscal year 2010 budget

request for NASA. The President’s request of $18.686 billion for

NASA represents an increase of $903.6 million above the fiscal

year 2009 Omnibus Appropriation.

First, let me note that NASA’s fiscal year 2009 budget is $18.784

billion or about $1.17 billion above the fiscal year 2009 request,

which reflects and increase of $168.2 million in the regular appropriation and about $1 billion in the Recovery Act. NASA is appreciative of the support of this committee and Congress for the NASA

Authorization Act of 2008 full funding of the fiscal year 2009 request, and for the additional Recovery Act funds which will enable

NASA to meet critical priorities.

The President’s fiscal year 2010 request includes $4.5 billion for

science. In Earth science, NASA is continuing to work aggressively

to implement the recommendations of the Decadal Survey. The

first four Decadal missions will be accelerated, and NASA will

issue its first venture class announcement of opportunity later this

year.

Over the next year we plan to launch the Glory and Aquarius

missions and the GOES–R mission for NOAA and complete the

NPOESS Preparatory Project. Further, we will continue development of the foundational missions, including the Global Precipitation Mission, the Landsat Data Continuity Mission, and initiate

work on the Thermal Infrared Sensor. NASA is further assessing

options to recover from the disappointing loss of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory and will keep you informed of our findings and

plans.

In planetary science, we are continuing the exploration of the

solar system with the Juno Mission to Jupiter and the Mars

Science Laboratory and the MAVEN Scout Mission.

In astrophysics, I am pleased to report that the final Hubble

Servicing Mission, EBA, was completed yesterday, and this morning the Space Shuttle successfully released a revitalized Hubble

Space Telescope. We look forward to the safe return of the crew

and to many more years of discovery from Hubble.

23

Development continues on the James Webb Space Telescope,

which passed its confirmation review in 2008, and has an agency

commitment to launch in 2014. NASA’s fleet of Heliophysics Missions strategically placed throughout the solar system is providing

researchers the first ever solar system-wide view of solar influences

on Earth and other planets. The fiscal year 2010 request of $507

million renews NASA’s commitment to a strong national program

in aeronautics that will continue to contribute to the economic

wellbeing and quality of American—of life of American citizens

through strong partnerships with industry, academia, and government.

In exploration, the President’s fiscal year 2010 budget request is

$3.963 billion, an increase of $457.6 million above the fiscal year

2009 Omnibus Appropriations level and $225.4 million above last

year’s plan. This increased budget will support continued progress

in NASA’s efforts to advance the development of the Next Generation Human Space Flight System to carry American crews and supplies to space and work to return Americans to the Moon.

Specifically, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and the Lunar

Crater Observation Sensing Satellite Spacecraft are ready for

launch next month. Later this year, two major test flights will be

conducted; the Ares I–X developmental test flight from Kennedy

Space Center and the Orion Pad Abort 1 test at White Sands.

At the request of the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, NASA is initiating an independent review of U.S.

human space flight plans to be conducted by a blue ribbon panel

of outside experts chaired by Norm Augustine. The review will examine ongoing and planned NASA human space flight development

activities, as well as potential alternatives and present options for

advancing safe, innovative, sustainable, and affordable human

space flight program in the years following the retirement of the

Space Shuttle. It will also evaluate options for extending the life

of the ISS beyond 2016 and present its results by August, 2009.

During the review, the NASA workforce will continue to work on

all current exploration projects including Ares I. The President’s

budget request includes $6.176 billion for space operations, which

funds safe flight of the Space Shuttle to complete the eight remaining scheduled flights to the ISS and then retire the Shuttle. We believe these flights can be accomplished by the end of 2010.

This month ISS will host its first six-person crew and next

month will deliver the third and final component of the Japanese

Kibo Laboratory. Last December, NASA awarded two commercial

re-supply services contracts to develop vehicles needed to deliver

supplies and experiments to the ISS.

Finally, the 2010 request supports NASA’s education program to

continue developing a future aerospace technical and scientific

workforce, improving the technological competitiveness of our nation’s universities and attracting and retaining students in science,

technology, engineering, and mathematics disciplines. This request

also funds NASA’s cross-agency support programs, which provide

critical mission support activities necessary to ensure the efficient

and effective operation and administration of the Agency and its

centers.

24

Chairman Gordon, thank you again for your support and that of this committee. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that

you may have. [The prepared statement of Mr. Scolese follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER J. SCOLESE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss the President’s FY 2010 budget request for NASA. The

President’s FY 2010 budget request for NASA is $18.686 billion. The FY 2010 request represents an increase of $903.6 million above the amount provided for NASA

in the FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 110–8). The FY 2010 budget does a number of things: it supports the Administration’s commitment to deploy a global

climate change research and monitoring system; it funds a strong program of space

exploration involving humans and robots with the goal of returning Americans to

the Moon and exploring other destinations; and it supports the safe flight of the

Space Shuttle to complete assembly of the International Space Station by the Space

Shuttle’s planned retirement.

Highlights of the FY 2010 Budget Overview

With the FY 2010 budget request, NASA advances global climate change research and monitoring. The NASA investment in Earth science research satellites, airborne

sensors, computer models and analysis has revolutionized scientific knowledge and

predictions of climate change and its effects. Using the National Research Council’s

recommended priorities for space-based Earth science research as its guide, NASA

will develop new space-based research sensors in support of the Administration’s

goal to deploy a global climate research and monitoring system. NASA will work to

deploy these new sensors expeditiously while coordinating with other federal agencies to ensure continuity of measurements that have long-term research and applications benefits.

The FY 2010 NASA request funds a robust program of space exploration involving humans and robots. NASA’s astronauts and robotic spacecraft have been exploring

our solar system and the universe for more than 50 years. The Agency will create

a new chapter of this legacy as it works to return Americans to the Moon by 2020.

NASA also will send a broad suite of robotic missions to destinations throughout

the solar system and develop a bold new set of astronomical observatories to probe

the mysteries of the universe, increasing investment in research, data analysis, and

technology development in support of these goals.

With the FY 2010 request, NASA will complete the International Space Station

(ISS) and advance the development of new space transportation systems and the

unique scientific research that can be conducted on-board the ISS. The FY 2010

budget request funds for the safe flight of the Space Shuttle to complete the ISS,

incorporates an additional flight to deliver the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS)

to the ISS, and then retires the Shuttle. NASA is committed to completing these

nine remaining scheduled Shuttle flights, including the current mission underway

to service the Hubble Space Telescope, which we believe can be accomplished by the

end of 2010. Funds freed from the Shuttle’s retirement will enable the Agency to

support development of systems to deliver people and cargo to the ISS and the Moon

and explore other destinations. As part of this effort, NASA will stimulate privatesector development and demonstration of vehicles that may support the Agency’s

human crew and cargo requirements for ISS. In addition, the Agency will continue

to utilize the ISS, the permanently crewed facility orbiting Earth that enables the

Agency to develop, test, and validate critical space exploration technologies and

processes, and to conduct microgravity research. NASA also will continue to coordinate with international partners to make this platform available for other government entities, commercial industry, and academic institutions to conduct research.

At the request of the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy,

NASA is initiating an independent review of planned U.S. human space flight activities, with the goal of ensuring that the Nation is on a vigorous and sustainable path

to achieving its boldest aspirations in space. This review will be conducted by a

blue-ribbon panel of outside experts chaired by Norman R. Augustine. The panel

will present its results in time to support an Administration decision on the way

forward by August 2009. This Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans will examine ongoing and planned NASA human space flight development activities, as well

as potential alternatives, and present options for advancing a safe, innovative, affordable, and sustainable human space flight program in the years following completion of the current Space Shuttle manifest and retirement. The independent review

25

panel will seek input from Congress, the White House, the public, industry, and

international partners. In addition, the review will examine the appropriate amount

of R&D and complementary robotic activities needed to make human space flight

activities most productive and affordable over the long-term, as well as appropriate

opportunities for international collaboration. It will also evaluate what capabilities

would be enabled by each of the potential architectures considered. And it will

evaluate options for extending International Space Station operations beyond 2016.

We will keep the Congress informed, as appropriate, with the progress of the review.

It is important to note that the President has submitted a FY 2010 budget request

for NASA Exploration Systems of $3.963 billion, an increase of $457.6 million above

the FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations level. During the review, the NASA workforce

will continue to focus on the safe flight and operation of the Space Shuttle and ISS,

and continue to work on all current exploration projects, including Ares I, Orion,

and Commercial Crew and Cargo efforts.

The President’s FY 2010 budget request includes $507 million for Aeronautics Research, renewing NASA’s commitment to cutting-edge, fundamental research in traditional and emerging disciplines to help transform the Nation’s air transportation

system and to support future aircraft. NASA research will increase airspace capacity and mobility, enhance aviation safety, and improve aircraft performance while

reducing noise, emissions, and fuel consumption. The Integrated Systems Research

Program, a new program beginning in FY 2010, will conduct research at an integrated system-level on promising concepts and technologies and explore, assess, and

demonstrate the benefits in a relevant environment.

Finally, consistent with Administration priorities, NASA is developing plans to

stimulate innovation and increase investments in technologies for the future while

ensuring that nearer-term Agency commitments are met.

NASA Initial FY 2009 Operating Plan and Recovery Act Funding

Before I highlight key accomplishments and plans for activities across the Agency,

I would like to summarize NASA’s initial FY 2009 Operating Plan, including Recovery Act funding, as recently submitted to the Committee. The initial FY 2009 Operating Plan is $18,784.4 million, or $1,170.2 million above the President’s FY 2009

request, which reflects an increase of $168.2 million in the regular appropriation

and $1,002.0 million in the Recovery Act. NASA is appreciative of the action by the

Committees on Appropriations and Congress in providing regular appropriations for

the Agency with full funding for Science, Aeronautics, Exploration, Space Shuttle,

ISS, and Education. This total FY 2009 appropriations level, with minor adjustments within the total, will enable NASA to meet critical priorities, in accordance

with the direction from the Congress and the President. NASA also appreciates the

efforts by the Committees to include funding for NASA in the Recovery Act. This

funding will help NASA achieve programmatic goals in Science, Exploration and

Aeronautics, and repair damage done to the NASA Johnson Space Center during

Hurricane Ike, and support national recovery goals.

NASA has allocated the $1,002.0 million in Recovery Act funds as follows:

• Science, $400.0M

Æ Earth Science, $325.0M

Æ Astrophysics, $75.0M

• Aeronautics, $150.0M

• Exploration, $400.0M

Æ Constellation Systems, $250.0M

Æ Commercial Crew & Cargo, $150.0M

• Cross Agency Support, $50.0M

• Inspector General, $2.0M

I would be happy to address the objectives to which NASA is applying the Recovery Act funds in detail.

Science

NASA’s Science Mission Directorate continues to expand humanity’s understanding of our Earth, our Sun, the solar system and the universe with 57 science

missions in operation and 31 more in development. The Science budget funds these

missions as well as the research of over 3,000 scientists and their students across

26

the Nation. The President’s FY 2010 request for NASA includes $4,477.2 million for

Science.

The Science budget request includes $1,405.0 million for Earth Science in FY

2010, and steadily increases Earth science funding in the outyears. NASA’s 15

Earth Science missions in operation provide a large share of the global observations

used for climate change research in the United States and elsewhere. This year,

NASA’s Earth Science satellites enabled research to understand how changes both

in the tropics and in Arctic sea ice are changing ocean biology globally. NASA also

recently conducted the first Ice Bridge aircraft campaign to demonstrate a new airborne laser capability to bridge the gap in time between ICESats 1 and 2. In FY

2010, NASA plans to launch the Glory mission to map atmospheric aerosols and

continue the long record of solar influences on climate, and the Aquarius mission

to provide the first global measurements of sea surface salinity. NASA will complete

development of the NPOESS Preparatory Project and continue development of the

Global Precipitation Mission and the Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM). The

request fully funds development of a Thermal Infra-red Sensor (TIRS) at a total cost

of approximately $150–175 million. A decision whether to fly TIRS on LDCM or another spacecraft will be made this summer; meanwhile, funding for TIRS is carried

within the LDCM budget. The launch vehicle failure of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) was a significant loss to the climate science communities, and NASA

is assessing options to recover from that loss; we will inform the Congress of the

results of these studies when they become available. NASA is continuing to work

aggressively to implement the recommendations of the National Research Council

Decadal Survey for Earth Science. The first two Decadal Survey missions, SMAP

and ICESat-II, will continue formulation in FY 2010, and the next two, DESDynI

and CLARREO, will be accelerated and transition to formulation. NASA also expects to issue its first Venture-class Announcement of Opportunity later this year,

implementing another important decadal survey recommendation. The FY 2010 Science budget request includes $1,346.2 million for Planetary

Science. NASA’s Planetary Science missions continue to return images and data from the far reaches of the Solar System. This year, the Mars Phoenix Lander completed its mission, conducting the first chemical test providing evidence of water ice

on another planet. MESSENGER returned stunning imagery of portions of the planet Mercury never before seen. The Cassini spacecraft continues to provide un-paralleled science of the Saturnian system; the spacecraft flew within 25km of

Enceladus viewing the ejecting plumes and surface, and data from 19 fly-bys of

Titan enabled creation of a radar map showing 3–D topography revealing 1,200-

meter (4,000-foot) mountain tops, polar lakes, vast dunes, and thick flows from possible ice volcanoes. Development is continuing on the Juno mission to Jupiter for

launch in 2011. NASA and ESA jointly announced they will work together on a Europa Jupiter System mission as the next outer planets flagship mission. The rovers

Spirit and Opportunity continue to study the Martian surface and have exceeded

their fifth year of successful operations. NASA is continuing development of the

Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) for launch in 2011 and selected MAVEN, a Mars

aeronomy mission, as the next Mars Scout mission for launch in 2013. NASA has

integrated its lunar science research program with the Lunar Precursor Robotic Program into a single Lunar Quest Program under the Science Mission Directorate,

which includes the LADEE mission, the U.S. nodes of the ILN, and a new virtual

university research collaboration called the NASA Lunar Science Institute. The

Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3) was launched aboard Chandrayaan-1 and has begun

making scientific observations of the Moon’s composition. Development is continuing

on the GRAIL mission to map the Moon’s gravity field for launch in 2011. NASA

has issued an Announcements of Opportunity for the next New Frontiers mission,

and will do so for the next Discovery mission later this year.

The FY 2010 Science budget request includes $1,120.9 million for Astrophysics.

2009 is the International Year of Astronomy, and NASA’s Astrophysics program will

deploy exciting new capabilities for studying the cosmic frontier. The Kepler mission, launched in March, is NASA’s first mission dedicated to the search for Earthlike planets in our galaxy. ESA will launch the Herschel and Planck missions in

April, carrying several NASA instruments, to study the far-infrared sky and the cosmic microwave background. The final Hubble Space Telescope serving mission

aboard STS–125, currently in progress, is upgrading the observatory to its peak scientific performance. Late this calendar year, NASA plans to launch the Wide-field

Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) as part of its highly successful Explorer Program,

following on the recent successes of the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope

(launched as GLAST in July 2008), which has provided the best-ever view of the

gamma-ray sky revealing energetic sources in our solar system, our galaxy, and galaxies billions of light-years away. Development is continuing on the James Webb

27

Space Telescope, which passed its Confirmation Review in 2008 and has an Agency

commitment to launch in 2014. Development continues on the NuSTAR mission to

study black holes for launch in 2011, along with a Soft X-ray Spectrometer to fly

on Japan’s Astro-H mission in 2013. Development continues on the airborne Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy or SOFIA, which will conduct open door

flight tests in 2009 and early science flights in 2010, with planned full operational

capability in 2014. Conceptual design is continuing for ambitious future mission concepts to investigate the origins of planets, stars, and galaxies; to search for Earthlike planets around nearby stars; and to examine the nature of dark energy, dark

matter, gravity waves, and black holes. These and other mission concepts are currently under consideration by the NRC’s decadal survey for Astrophysics, or

Astro2010, which will be completed during 2010, and will provide recommendations

to NASA on the science community’s highest priority science questions and strategic

missions for the next decade.

The FY 2010 Science budget request includes $605.0 million for Heliophysics.

The fleet of NASA Heliophysics missions strategically placed throughout the solar

system is providing researchers the first ever solar system-wide view of solar influences on the Earth and other planets, and the dynamic structures of space itself.

This virtual ‘‘Great Observatory’’ is in place and functioning for the next solar magnetic activity cycle, and has already detected the first signs of a new solar maximum

anticipated for 2011–2012. Late this year or early next, the launch of Solar Dynamics Observatory will add to this fleet the capability to observe the solar atmosphere

to a depth one-third of the Sun’s radius to study the flow of plasmas that generate

magnetic fields and the sudden changes that produce coronal mass ejections that

we experience as space weather. Also this year, NASA plans to select two Small Explorer (SMEX) missions in response to an Announcement of Opportunity issued in

2008, which could be either Heliophysics or Astrophysics missions depending on the

proposals selected. Development of the Radiation Belt Storm Probes mission to

study the interactions of space weather events with Earth’s magnetic field is continuing for launch in 2012. The Magnetosphere Multi-Scale mission to observe the

processes of magnetic reconnection, energetic particle acceleration, and turbulence

in Earth’s magnetosphere will undergo a Confirmation Review this year for a

planned launch in 2014. Finally, NASA is continuing early formulation work on the

Solar Probe-Plus mission that will travel into, and sample, the near-Sun environment to probe the origins of the solar wind.

Aeronautics Research

NASA’s FY 2010 budget provides $507 million for Aeronautics Research. Over the

past year, the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate has continued to pursue

long-term, innovative, and cutting-edge research that develops revolutionary tools,

concepts, and technologies to enable a safer, more flexible, environmentally friendly,

and more efficient national air transportation system. NASA Aeronautics Research

also plays a vital role in supporting NASA’s space exploration activities.

A primary goal across Aeronautics Research programs is to establish strong partnerships with industry, academia, and other government agencies in order to enable

significant advancement in our nation’s aeronautical expertise. NASA has put many

mechanisms in place to engage academia and industry, including industry working

groups and technical interchange meetings at the program and project level, Space

Act Agreements (SAAs) for cooperative partnerships, and the NASA Research Announcement (NRA) process that provides for full and open competition for the best

and most promising research ideas. To date, 68 SAAs have been established with

industry partners across all programs and 375 NRAs have been awarded to academia, industry and non-profit organizations. NASA Aeronautics has continued to

collaborate with the Joint Planning Development Office (JPDO), Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), U.S. Air Force, Army, and other government organizations.

New for FY 2010, $62.4 million has been provided for the Integrated Systems

Research Program (ISRP) to conduct research at an integrated system-level on

promising concepts and technologies and explore, assess, or demonstrate the benefits in a relevant environment. The research in this program will be coordinated

with on-going, long-term, foundational research within the three other research programs, and will be closely coordinated with other Federal Government agency efforts. The project within ISRP will be the Environmentally Responsible Aviation

(ERA) Project, a ‘‘green aircraft initiative,’’ that will explore and assess new vehicle

concepts and enabling technologies through system-level experimentation to simultaneously reduce fuel burn, noise, and emissions. The ERA project will transfer

knowledge outward to the aeronautics community so that aircraft and propulsion

system manufacturers can confidently transition these technologies into new prodVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:34 Dec 19, 2009 Jkt 049551 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\FULL09\051909\49551 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
28

ucts, as well as transfer knowledge inward to the Fundamental Aeronautics Program when the need for further development at a foundational level is identified.

NASA’s Airspace Systems Program (ASP) has partnered with the JPDO to help develop concepts, capabilities and technologies that will lead to significant enhancements in the capacity, efficiency and flexibility of the National Airspace System. For

FY 2010, ASP has been reorganized from the NextGen Airspace and NextGen

Airportal projects into the NextGen Concepts and Technology Development project

and the NextGen Systems Analysis, Integration and Evaluation project. The distinctions between airport operations, terminal-area operations and en-route operations

were sometimes confusing, leading to time expended determining the line of demarcation between the responsibilities of the two projects. A more significant distinction

is the development of air traffic management concepts and the technologies that enable air traffic management improvements and the evaluation of these concepts and

technologies at a system level. The previously planned work on airspace concepts,

technologies and systems will continue. This new project structure is better aligned

to the nature of the work being performed. A notable accomplishment for ASP is

the successful completion, by NASA researchers in collaboration with academia and

the FAA, of a series of human-in-the-loop experiments that explored advanced concepts and technology for separation assurance, which ensures that aircraft maintain

a safe distance from other aircraft, terrain, obstacles, and certain airspace not designated for routine air travel. The technology being developed by NASA and its partners is critical to relieving air-traffic controller workload, a primary constraint on

airspace capacity that is expected to increase in coming years. In the future, this

Program will continue to develop new technologies to solve important problems such

as surface traffic planning and control, and initial algorithms for airport arrival and

departure balancing as well as developing traffic flow management concepts for increased efficiencies at the regional and national levels for different planning intervals.

NASA’s Fundamental Aeronautics Program (FAP) conducts research in all aer- onautics disciplines that enable the design of vehicles that fly through any atmosphere at any speed. For FY 2010, all ARMD research into planetary entry, descent

and landing (EDL) has been consolidated into the Hypersonics project in FAP. EDL

is an integral part of many space missions and is not easily divided into distinct

hypersonic and supersonic phases. This change will provide more focus to technical

developments and will also yield technical management efficiencies. The FAP program has supported the testing of various new concepts that will help enable much

improved capabilities for future vehicles. For example, wind-tunnel testing was conducted for several promising powered lift concepts. Powered lift concepts increase

lifting force on an aircraft at slow speeds (e.g., at take-off and landing) without increasing drag under cruise conditions. Successful use of the concepts will enable

short take-off and landings on runways less than 3,000 feet, which will increase

next-generation air transportation system capacity through the use of shorter fields

and improved low-speed maneuverability in airport terminal areas. Testing was also

completed for a Smart Material Actuated Rotor Technology (SMART) helicopter

rotor, which offers the potential for significant noise and vibration reduction in

rotorcraft. Future work includes technologies and advanced tools to evaluate the

trades between noise, emissions, and performance of future aircraft entering service

in the 2012–2015 timeframe. Additionally, with the transfer of technologies to be

matured to system-level within ISRP, the Subsonic Fixed Wing (SFW) project is

streamlining its research content. This is enabling new efficiencies across the

foundational disciplines remaining in the project. The integrated system-level research in this program will be coordinated with on-going, long-term, foundational

research within the three other research programs, and will focus specifically on

maturing and integrating technologies in major vehicle systems and subsystems for

accelerated transition to practical application.

NASA’s Aviation Safety Program (AvSP) continues to develop tools and technologies to improve on today’s incredibly safe air transportation system, while ensuring that future technologies can be safely incorporated to the system. Examples

of advances that support this development include NASA’s ongoing and new research into aircraft icing. For example, with current knowledge we cannot extrapolate how ice forms on a straight wing such as found on a turbo-prop to how it will

form on a swept wing, or a radically new aircraft configuration. The Aviation Safety

Program is tackling this with a combination of computational models and experiments in NASA’s Icing Research Tunnel. We are establishing that, in high and cold

flight conditions, ice can form deeper in jet engines than previously understood.

NASA is working collaboratively with the FAA, industry and international partners,

such as the National Research Council of Canada, to conduct tunnel tests of the underlying physics, to fly our instrumented S–3 Viking into such engine icing condiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:34 Dec 19, 2009 Jkt 049551 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\FULL09\051909\49551 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
29

tions, and design upgrades to our Propulsion System Lab in which jet engines may

be tested in detail. Additional future work in Aviation Safety includes addressing

gaps in validation and verification of critical flight software, developing new dataanalysis capabilities to mine aviation operational data for safety issues, examining

the safety of new vehicle systems and structures, and tackling the biggest human

factors issues in the NextGen flight deck.

NASA’s Aeronautics Test Program (ATP) is focused on ensuring a healthy suite of facilities and platforms to meet the Nation’s testing needs including the development of new test instrumentation and test technologies. As part of its continuous efforts to improve facility operational efficiencies, ATP initiated the National

Force Measurement Technology Capability, to address the severe erosion of NASA’s

capability to utilize strain gage balances in wind tunnel testing. The National Partnership for Aeronautics Testing, a strategic partnership between NASA and the Department of Defense (DOD), recently commissioned a study of government-owned,

mid-to-large supersonic facilities necessary to fulfill future air vehicle test requirements. The Program will continue to develop a long-term strategic approach that

aligns the NASA and DOD facilities to meet future requirements with the right mix

of facilities and appropriate investments in facility capabilities.

Exploration Systems

Human space flight is important to America’s political, economic, technological and scientific leadership. In the span of a few short years, NASA has already taken

long strides in the formulation of strategies and programs to develop a robust program of space exploration. These critical steps will allow our nation to build the

next-generation space flight vehicles that will carry humans and deliver cargo to the

ISS and the Moon, and on to other destinations in our solar system. The President’s

FY 2010 budget request for Exploration Systems is $3,963.1 million, an increase of

$457.6 million above the FY 2009 appropriation and $225.4 million above the

planned FY 2010 level in last year’s request. Based on the Recovery Act funds and

the President’s increased budget request for FY 2010, the Exploration Systems

budget plan includes about $630 million more in FY 2009 and FY 2010 than the

previous plan. At this critical juncture, full funding at the President’s requested

level is essential for expediting development of new U.S. human space flight systems to support the International Space Station and explore the Moon and other

destinations beyond low-Earth orbit. The Constellation Program will apply additional Recovery Act funds to critical activities related to the successful completion of the Orion, Ares I and Ground Operations projects. The Commercial Crew and Cargo Program plans to use Recovery Act

funds to stimulate efforts within the private sector in order to develop and demonstrate technologies that enable commercial human space flight capabilities—efforts that are intended to foster entrepreneurial activity leading to job growth in engineering, analysis, design, and research, and to economic growth as capabilities for

new markets are created.

Following the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight activities, the Administration will provide an updated request for Exploration activities, as necessary. In the

meantime, NASA is proceeding as planned with current Exploration activities, including Ares I, Orion, Commercial Crew and Cargo efforts, and lunar systems. During the past year, NASA Exploration Systems continued to make significant progress in developing the next-generation U.S. human space flight vehicles and

their associated ground and mission support systems. In the next several weeks, the

first lunar robotic mission, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and the Lunar Crater

Observation Sensing Satellite spacecraft, will be launched from the Cape Canaveral

Air Force Station aboard an Atlas V, which will help NASA scout for potential lunar

landing and outpost sites. Later this year, two major test flights for the Constellation Program will be conducted: Ares I–X is the first developmental test flight to

support the design of the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle; and the Pad Abort 1 (PA–

1) is the first test of the Launch Abort System to be used on the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle. NASA will continue to work with other nations and the commercial

sector to coordinate planning, leverage investment, and identify opportunities for

specific collaboration on Exploration activities.

The Constellation Program continues to complete the formulation phase of its projects—in particular Ares I, Orion, and major ground facilities. Major development work is underway, contracts are in place; and we have a dedicated group of

civil servants and contractors who are all working hard to accomplish the Constellation Program’s objectives. So far, NASA engineers have conducted about 6,500 hours

of wind tunnel testing on sub-scale models of the Ares I to simulate how the current

vehicle design performs in flight. These wind tunnel tests, as well as the Ares I–

X test flight, will lay the groundwork for maturing the Ares I final design prior to

30

its Critical Design Review (CDR). When launched later this year from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, the Ares I–X will climb about 25 miles in a twominute powered test of the First Stage performance and the First Stage separation

and parachute recovery system. Work on the Orion Project also continues to advance. Recently, NASA conducted testing of the water recovery process for the Orion

capsule, and NASA also selected the material for Orion’s heat shield. Later this

year, Orion’s PA–1 test will take place at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico.

PA–1 will demonstrate the Launch Abort System’s ability to pull crew to safety

should there be an emergency while the Orion and Ares I stack is still on the launch

pad.

In September 2008, Ares I completed a key milestone with its Preliminary Design Review (PDR). PDR is the final step of the initial design process, and thereby a crucial milestone during which the overall project verifies that the preliminary design

can meet all requirements within acceptable risk limits and within cost and schedule constraints, and identifies technical and management challenges and addresses

approaches for eliminating or mitigating them. This fall, the Orion is expected to

have progressed to the point of completing PDR, and obtaining Agency approval to

proceed to Critical Design Review (CDR). Current plans call for Ares I to progress

to the point of obtaining Agency approval by early 2010 to proceed to CDR. As part of the Commercial Crew and Cargo Program and its associated Commer- cial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) cargo projects, NASA is completing its

promised $500 million investment to the two funded COTS partners, Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) of El Segundo, California, and Orbital

Sciences Corporation (Orbital) of Dulles, Virginia. Recently, SpaceX successfully operated the full complement of the first stage engines of the Falcon 9, the SpaceX

launch vehicle. Orbital continues to progress in achieving engineering milestones,

and completed its PDR earlier this month. In addition, NASA has two non-funded

COTS partners.

The transition of NASA facilities, infrastructure, property, and personnel from the Space Shuttle Program to the Constellation Program continues to be a major activity. This joint effort between the Space Operations and Exploration Systems Mission

Directorates includes the utilization and disposition of resources, including real and

personal property; personnel; and processes in order to leverage existing Shuttle and

Space Station assets for NASA’s future Exploration activities.

NASA’s Advanced Capabilities programs include the Human Research Program (HRP) and the Exploration Technology Development Program (ETDP). These programs continue to reduce risks for human explorers of the Moon and beyond by conducting research and developing new technologies to aid future explorers. HRP focuses on the highest risks to crew health and performance during exploration missions while also developing and validating a suite of human health countermeasures

to facilitate long-duration space travel. For example, NASA is conducting research

to better understand the effect of space radiation on humans and to develop effective

mitigation strategies. This year, HRP delivered a space radiation risk assessment

tool, provided cockpit display design requirements for the Orion spacecraft, and provided design requirements for the new Constellation Space Suit System. HRP is also

conducting research on-board the ISS with regard to: the cardiac structure and function of astronauts; radiation shielding technologies; and, the effect that certain pharmaceuticals may have on the prevention of bone loss during long-duration missions.

ETDP will conduct a range of activities, including testing cryogenic hydrogen and

methane propulsion systems for future missions; developing a small pressurized

rover for transporting astronauts on the lunar surface; and demonstrating the capability to produce oxygen from lunar soil. ETDP also is conducting experiments on

the Space Station to investigate the behavior of fluids and combustion in microgravity, and operating instruments to monitor atmospheric contaminants on the

Space Station.

Space Operations

The FY 2010 budget request includes $6,175.6 million for Space Operations.

It is an exciting time for NASA’s Space Shuttle Program. At this moment, the

astronauts of Shuttle Atlantis are in orbit on STS–125, the final mission to service

the Hubble Space Telescope. We anticipate that the work they are doing, which includes upgrading the Hubble’s instruments, should extend the observatory’s operational life several years. The President’s FY 2010 budget funds the safe flight of

the Space Shuttle to conduct its remaining missions, including the AMS flight and

completing assembly of the ISS. NASA is committed to completing the eight remaining scheduled Shuttle flights, which we believe can be accomplished by the end of

2010. These Shuttle flights will leave the ISS in a configuration to support a broad

portfolio of research and to receive and be maintained by commercial cargo services.

31

The FY 2010 budget request includes $3,157.1 million for the Space Shuttle Program. NASA and its Russian, European, Canadian, and Japanese International Space

Station partners are working together to realize one of the most inspiring dreams of the last 50 years: the establishment of a station in Earth orbit for the conduct

of various types of research. We are now approaching two significant milestones. In

May, the ISS will host its first six-person crew. The recent delivery of the Station’s

final set of solar arrays and other equipment by the crew of STS–119 represents

the final step toward this goal. In June, the STS–127 mission will deliver the third

and final component of the Japanese Kibo laboratory—the Kibo Exposed Facility. The addition of the Exposed facility enables the Kibo laboratory, with the European Columbus module and the U.S. Destiny module, to complete the three major inter- national science labs on ISS, setting the stage for utilization of ISS as a highly capable microgravity research facility. The President’s FY 2010 budget request includes

$2,267.0 million for the ISS.

The ISS will represent both an unparalleled international cooperative effort and

a U.S. National Laboratory in orbit. Scientists will be able to conduct biomedical

and engineering research from a unique vantage point. Some of the work will increase our knowledge of the effects of long-duration human space flight, which is

critical for the design and operation of future human space vehicles, including those

being developed under the Constellation Program to return U.S. astronauts to the

Moon and explore other destinations. Other research will not be focused on space

exploration at all, but may have significant applications right here on Earth. Medical research, for example, may be applicable to the development of vaccines;

NASA’s research into Salmonella aboard the Space Shuttle and ISS has already in- creased our knowledge in this area. In the key areas of energy and the environment,

the ISS serves as a daily demonstration of ‘‘green’’ technologies and environmental

management techniques. The ISS receives 120kW of power from its solar arrays to

operate the Station and run experiments. The ISS environmental system is designed

to minimize the amount of mass that has to be launched from Earth to support the

Station, so recycling is a must. STS–119 supplied ISS with a replacement Distillation Assembly for Station’s water recycling system, which is key for supporting a

full six-person crew for extended periods of time. Given the central role science and

technology play in our society, it is important that the United States maintain a

leadership role in these fields. The availability of a research laboratory in the microgravity environment of space will support this aim. Another benefit from Space Shuttle missions and ISS research is reflected in the

programs’ ability to inspire the next generation of Americans. This was reflected recently in the delighted faces of students who participated in the up-linked phone

call between President Obama and the crews of the ISS and STS–119 on March 24.

The ISS will support the President’s goal of making math and science education a

national priority by demonstrating what can be accomplished through science and

engineering, and by inspiring both teachers and students. NASA is relying on U.S. industry to develop vehicles to deliver supplies and ex- periments to the ISS. In December 2008, the Agency awarded two Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contracts for the provision of this critical capability. Cargo

resupply is important for the continued viability of ISS. In addition, the vendors involved will gain valuable experience in the development and operation of vehicles

that can 1) fly to the ISS orbit; 2) operate in close proximity to the ISS and other

docked vehicles; 3) dock to ISS; and, 4) remain docked for extended periods of time.

The FY 2010 budget request includes $751.5 million for Space and Flight Support, which supports Space Communications and Navigation, Launch Services, Rocket Propulsion Testing, Crew Health and Safety, and the new Human Space

Flight Operations programs.

Education

The FY 2010 budget request for Education totals $126.1 million and furthers NASA’s commitment to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)

education. NASA will continue its successes in developing a future aerospace workforce, improving the technological competitiveness of our nation’s universities, attracting and retaining students in STEM disciplines, and engaging the public in

NASA’s missions. NASA will accomplish these goals by offering competitive research

grants to universities, providing targeted educational support to Minority Serving

Institutions, and strengthening curricula at two-year community colleges. NASA’s

plans to streamline and centralize internship and fellowship application processes

will realize cost savings and facilitate student access to information while attracting

a wider, more diverse participant base. The Agency is also seeking new opportunities for student involvement in current space and aeronautics research missions and

32

flight projects, including those using high altitude balloons, sounding rocket payloads, airborne sensors, and space satellites. NASA will further these efforts

through a new project, Innovation in STEM Education, which will allow the Agency

to investigate and offer opportunities for student and faculty to participate in

NASA-related research. In coming months, the Agency will complete award announcements for competitive grant programs in K–12, global climate change, and

informal education, and revise and issue new solicitations using FY 2009 funds. NASA will further pursue a goal to attract and retain students in STEM dis- ciplines in the upcoming fiscal year. Last year, the Interdisciplinary National

Science Program Incorporating Research & Education (INSPIRE) program engaged

over 200 high schools in STEM areas, and NASA Explorer Schools conducted instructional and enrichment activities that reached over 105,000 students. The

March 2009 STS–119 mission also provided a unique educational opportunity as two

Mission Specialists who are science teachers, Joe Acaba and Richard Arnold, were

part of the crew. NASA Education continues to provide internships, fellowships, and

research opportunities to help students and educators gain hands-on experiences in

a range of STEM-related areas. These opportunities provide students with the motivation, inspiration, and experience needed to serve the Nation’s current and future

workforce needs. In FY 2008, the Agency provided more than 3,000 summer internships, reached 5,331 students through significant research experience or grants, and

provided 139 grants to under-represented and under-served institutions. NASA will also engage elementary and secondary school and informal education audiences by using Earth and deep space observations, the flight experience of Educator Astronaut Dorothy Metcalf-Lindenburger aboard STS–131, as well as future

missions to the Moon and other destinations. New technologies such as social networks, Internet collaborations, a new virtual magnet school, and remote control of

science instruments will expand and enhance these efforts. In FY 2010, NASA also

plans to provide an online professional development system for students training to

become educators, in-service teachers, and informal educators. Additionally, NASA

will promote continuous public awareness of its mission and improvement to STEM

literacy by partnering with informal education providers, which allows Agency partners to share the excitement of NASA missions with their visitors in meaningful

ways.

Cross-Agency Support

NASA Cross-Agency Support provides critical mission support activities that are necessary to ensure the efficient and effective operation and administration of the

Agency, but cannot be directly aligned to a specific program or project requirement.

These important functions align and sustain institutional and program capabilities

to support NASA missions by leveraging resources to meet mission needs, establishing Agency-wide capabilities, and providing institutional checks and balances.

Cross-Agency Support includes Center Management and Operations, Institutional

Investments, and Agency Management and Operations. The FY 2010 budget request

includes $3,400.6 million for Cross Agency Support. Center Management and Operations funds the critical ongoing management, operations, and maintenance of nine NASA Centers and major component facilities.

NASA Centers continue to provide high-quality support and the technical talent for

the execution of programs and projects. The FY 2010 budget request includes $2.084

million for Center Management and Operations. Institutional Investments funds design and execution of non-programmatic re- vitalization construction of facilities projects, demolition projects for closed facilities,

and environmental compliance and restoration activities. The Construction of Facilities Program makes capital repairs and improvements to NASA’s critical infrastructure to improve safety and security and improve NASA’s operating efficiency by reducing utility usage. NASA continues to right size the infrastructure by demolishing

facilities that are no longer needed. Emphasis has been placed on energy and water

conservation. Currently, NASA has five buildings that are certified under the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) criteria, three additional buildings that are built and awaiting certification as LEED Silver facilities, and 13 buildings in various stages of design and construction as High Performance Buildings

and are expected to be LEED-certified when completed. The FY 2010 budget request

includes $355.4 million for Institutional Investments.

NASA’s FY 2010 request includes $961.2 million for Agency Management and

Operations, which funds the critical management and oversight of Agency missions, programs and functions, and performance of NASA-wide activities, including

five programs: Agency Management, Safety and Mission Success, Agency Information Technology Services, Innovative Partnerships Program, and Strategic Capabilities Assets Program.

33

The FY 2010 budget request provides $412.7 million for Agency Management, which supports executive-based, Agency-level functional and administrative management requirements. Agency Management provides for the operational costs of

Headquarters as an installation; institutional and management requirements for

multiple Agency functions; assessment and evaluation of NASA program and mission performance; strategic planning; and independent technical assessments of

Agency programs. The FY 2010 budget request provides $183.9 million for Safety and Mission

Success activities required to continue strengthening the workforce, training, and strengthening the fundamental and robust cross-checks applied on the execution of

NASA’s mission, and to improve the likelihood for safety and mission success for

NASA’s programs, projects, and operations. The engineering, safety and mission assurance, health and medical independent oversight, and technical authority components are essential to NASA’s success and were established or modified in direct response to many of the key Challenger and Columbia accident board recommendations for reducing the likelihood for future accidents. Included under Safety and

Mission Success is the Software Independent Verification and Validation program. The FY 2010 budget request for Agency Information Technology Services is

$150.4 million, which encompasses cross-cutting services and initiatives in IT management, applications, and infrastructure necessary to enable the NASA Mission

and improve security, integration and efficiency of Agency operations. NASA plans

significant emphasis on continued implementation of five major Agency-wide procurements to achieve the following: (1) consolidation of IT networks leading to improved network management, (2) consolidation of desktop/laptop computer services

and mobile devices to improve end-user services, (3) data center consolidation to provide more cost-effective services, (4) Agency public web site management to improve

access to NASA data and information by the public, and (5) Agency business systems development and maintenance to provide more efficient and effective business

systems. NASA will also continue to improve security incident detection, response,

and management through the Security Operations Center. The request for the Innovative Partnerships Program (IPP) is $184.8 million.

IPP works with all four Mission Directorates to provide innovations meeting NASA’s

technology needs, and transfers NASA technology for broad Spinoff applications that

improve quality of life and contribute to economic growth. Included in the IPP portfolio are: NASA’s SBIR/STTR Programs seeking out innovative high-technology

small businesses; a new Innovative Technology Project seeking high-impact revolutionary research and technology projects; a Seed Fund to address technology needs

through cost-shared, joint-development partnerships; use of commercial flight services by the FAST program to demonstrate new technologies; Innovation Ambassadors to exchange ideas; and the Centennial Challenges prize program for the citizen inventor. IPP seeks partnerships through offices at all 10 NASA Centers. Finally, NASA is requesting $29.4 million in FY 2010 for the Strategic Capabilities Assets Program (SCAP). This program funds the costs required to sustain key Agency test capabilities and assets, such as an array of flight simulators, thermal

vacuum chambers, and arc jets, to ensure mission success. SCAP ensures that assets and capabilities deemed vital to NASA’s current and future success are sustained in order to serve Agency and national needs. All assets and capabilities identified for sustainment either have validated mission requirements or have been

identified as potentially required for future missions.

Conclusion

The President’s FY 2010 budget request for NASA supports the Administration’s commitment to deploy a global climate change research and monitoring system,

funds a robust program of space exploration involving humans and robots with a

goal to return Americans to the Moon by 2020 and explore other destinations, and

funds the safe flight of the Shuttle to complete assembly of the ISS through its retirement, planned for the end of 2010. The FY 2010 budget request funds continued

use of the ISS to enable the Agency to develop, test, and validate critical exploration

technologies and processes and, in coordination with our international partners, to

make the ISS available support other government entities, commercial industry and

academic institutions to conduct unique research in the microgravity environment

of space. It will also stimulate private sector development and demonstration of vehicles that may support NASA’s cargo and crew requirements. And it renews

NASA’s commitment to aeronautics research to address fundamental aeronautics,

aviation safety, air traffic management, and mitigating the impact of aviation on the

environment. NASA’s diverse portfolio of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) educational activities is also aligned with the Administration’s goal

of improving American innovation and global competitiveness. NASA looks forward

34

to working with the Committee on implementation of the detailed FY 2010 budget

request.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your support and that of this committee. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you or the other Members of the Committee

may have.

BIOGRAPHY FOR CHRISTOPHER J. SCOLESE

Since January 20, 2009, Mr. Christopher J. Scolese has been serving as the Acting Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). As

the Acting Administrator, Mr. Scolese is responsible for leading the development,

design, and implementation of the Nation’s civil space program. As such, Mr.

Scolese provides overall leadership for NASA’s multiple field installations, works

closely with the Executive and Legislative branches to ensure that NASA is supporting appropriate national policy, and leads an international collaboration in carrying out high-profile space missions including the Space Shuttle, the International

Space Station, the Hubble Space Telescope, and a multitude of other scientific and

technological efforts. In addition, Mr. Scolese is still serving in the position of Associate Administrator, NASA’s highest-ranking civil servant. As Associate Administrator, Mr. Scolese is responsible for the oversight and integration of NASA’s programmatic and technical

efforts to ensure the successful accomplishment of the Agency’s overall mission. Previously, Mr. Scolese served as NASA’s Chief Engineer. As Chief Engineer, Mr. Scolese was responsible for ensuring that development efforts and mission operations within the Agency were planned and conducted on a sound engineering basis,

as well as for the long-term health of the NASA engineering workforce. Formerly, Mr. Scolese was the Deputy Director of the Goddard Space Flight Cen- ter where he assisted the Director in overseeing all activities. He also served as the

Deputy Associate Administrator in the Office of Space Science at NASA Headquarters. In this position, he was responsible for the management, direction and

oversight of NASA’s Space Science Flight Program, mission studies, technology development and overall contract management of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Mr.

Scolese also served as the Earth Orbiting Satellite (EOS) Program Manager and the

Deputy Director of Flight Programs and Projects for Earth Science at Goddard. In

these positions, he was responsible for the operation and development of all Earth

Science missions assigned to Goddard. While there, he also served as the EOS Terra

Project Manager. In addition, Mr. Scolese was the EOS Systems Manager responsible for the EOS system architecture and the integration of all facets of the project.

During his tenure at Goddard, he chaired the EOS Blue Team that re-scoped the

EOS Program; he supported the EOS investigators in the development of the EOS

payloads in the restructured EOS; and he has been responsible for the adoption of

common data system architecture on EOS and some other Earth orbiting spacecraft.

Prior to his 1987 appointment at Goddard, Mr. Scolese’s experience included work

in industry and government. While a senior analyst at the General Research Corporation of McLean, Va., he participated in several SDIO programs. He was selected

by Admiral Hyman Rickover to serve at Naval Reactors where he was associated

with the development of instrumentation, instrument systems and multi-processor

systems for the U.S. Navy and the DOE while working for NAVSEA. Mr. Scolese

is the recipient of several honors including the Presidential Rank Award of Meritorious Executive, Goddard Outstanding Leadership, two NASA Outstanding Leadership Medals and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)

National Capital Section Young Engineer/Scientist of the Year award. He was recognized as one of the outstanding young men in America in 1986, was a member of

college honor societies including Eta Kappa Nu and Tau Beta Pi, and was recipient

of the 1973 Calspan Aeronautics award. He is a Fellow of the AIAA and a member

of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. He also served as a member

of the AIAA Astrodynamics Technical Committee and chaired the National Capitol

Section Guidance Navigation and Control Technical Committee.

DISCUSSION

Chairman GORDON. Well, we are down to a little over seven minutes, so I think probably—on this coming vote, so I think the best

thing for us to do is to recess, and I would ask all of our Members

to try to come back as promptly as they can after this series of

votes, and we will then move forward with the questions.

35

[Recess.]

Chairman GORDON. All right. We will reconvene, and we thank you, Mr. Scolese, for your patience, and at this point we will start

a round of questionings, and the Chairman recognizes himself for

five minutes.

ISS RE-SUPPLYING

Mr. Scolese, as you know, Congress has made significant con- tribution to the International Space Station in our—and at the

same time we really don’t have a clear path to re-supplying the

Space Station other than hoping that the private sector is going to

move forward.

Is there a plan B, and is there any type of discussion going on with international partners in case this does not work out?

Mr. SCOLESE. Well, as you know, the plan for re-supplying the station goes through part of the eight flights that we have—— Chairman GORDON. Right.

Mr. SCOLESE.—of the Shuttle, and then we do have our international partners that do have—on the European side the ATV and

the Japanese side the HTV that provided, but to fill the gap between what they can provide and progress we are relying on the

commercial sector to go off and do that, and at this stage there is

no plan B.

Chairman GORDON. And so how long do you see us having there?

Mr. SCOLESE. Well, we are not anticipating a gap. Right now with the eight Shuttle flights, if we complete them, you know,

roughly in the 2010 timeframe, we will have pre-positioned enough

of the large spares and other resources that we need that will carry

us through as we anticipate the commercial capability coming on

board, assuming that the ATV, the HTV, and the Progress vehicles

are performed per planned.

Chairman GORDON. And when are they—what is the timeframe on those?

Mr. SCOLESE. The ATV has already demonstrated its capability to rendezvous with the Station last year. I believe the next flight

is next year. The HTV is scheduled for this fall. That will be the

first flight of the Japanese module, the Japanese capability, and of

course, Progress has been going for some time and the commercial

capability is expected in the 2012 timeframe, I believe. Chairman GORDON. Okay. Mr. Hall, you are recognized for five minutes.

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will try to be as brief

as I can.

As I said in my opening remarks, I am not in favor of more deficit spending, but I believe we have to prioritize, and I think in my

opinion closing the gap in our human space flight capability is a

goal that should have been given a higher priority in the fiscal year

2009 Recovery Act, and as it is I am encouraged that the fiscal

year 2009 stimulus funding combined with the fiscal year 2010 request ought to give the exploration system an increase of about

$630 million.

By that is not, that is over two years, and it is critical to keeping

the Constellation on schedule but it doesn’t do a lot about those

four years that we are losing.

36

NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF INSUFFICIENT FUNDS

Mr. Scolese, if—I will give you one you can knock out of the park

here. If the 302B budget allocations are not sufficient or if NASA

is not appropriated the money that you are asking for, why don’t

you just explain to the Committee and to those that will read it,

and actually, this is made available to all Members of Congress

and anybody anywhere can read it, what are the negative effects

to exploration goals if sufficient funds are not allocated as we have

asked for?

Mr. SCOLESE. Well, frankly, sir, we won’t make IOC.

Mr. HALL. What will that do to our partners, worldwide people

that believe in us and join with us in pursuits?

Mr. SCOLESE. I think we will let them down. I mean, frankly, you

know, the plan is that we will be able to start carrying crew up

to the Space Station in 2015, so we would have to rely even further

on the Russians to carry crew up and down from the Station. That

clearly isn’t good for our international partners, it is not good for

this country, and it would further delay the, you know, the human

lunar return, and it, depending on how severe the reduction was,

it may even impair what we were just talking about now with the

commercial cargo re-supply. So it could potentially impact the

Space Station’s liability for the future as well.

Mr. HALL. And probably would.

Mr. SCOLESE. And probably would.

Mr. HALL. And in your wildest estimation or maybe outright

guess, can you envision some time in the future, sometime, somewhere a situation where we might need all the sophistication in

space we can to defend a war?

Mr. SCOLESE. Sir, I think we need it today.

Mr. HALL. Yes, sir, and I do, too.

Mr. SCOLESE. And, I mean, we—if you look at what space provides us in terms of communications, our understanding of the

weather and climate and preventing natural disasters and just

tracking hurricanes as an example, plus the capabilities that we

get by having, you know, the ability of humans to go off and do

things in space as we have just seen over the last couple of weeks

with Hubble.

So I think we are already a space-dependent civilization, and we

cut back, we are going to lose significantly.

Mr. HALL. You are giving us the negative effects, and I think, I

hope those that think three percent is a gross amount of the budget

to allocate to something as important as space are daydreaming.

Thank you. I yield back.

Chairman GORDON. Ms. Giffords is recognized for five minutes.

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.

Scolese, for being here and for your service to NASA and to our

country.

BUDGET PLAN FOR 2020 GOAL

Norm Augustine, of course, who is heading up the human space

flight review, testified before our committee in 2004, and he said

it would be a grave mistake to try to pursue a space program on

the cheap. To do so in my opinion is an invitation to disaster. And

37

I don’t mean to beat a dead horse, but obviously we are really concerned that the 2010 budget looks positive, but I am more concerned, as the Members are, about the out-year budget that would

cut more than $3 billion for the Exploration program, adding to

cuts made in previous years and essentially halting the work on

the Ares V Heavy-Lift Launch Vehicle and the Altair Lunar Lander.

Your testimony confirms, and we have heard the President talk about the mission of going back to the Moon by 2020, but I don’t

know how we are going to be able to achieve this, given the budget

plan.

So Mr. Scolese, how does NASA plan to achieve the 2020 goal under the budget that is being proposed, and also, based on the fiscal year 2010 budget request, do you have sufficient funding to

maintain the current schedule for completion of Ares I and Orion?

Mr. SCOLESE. On the last part first, we believe with the current

budget we can complete Ares I and Orion and the associated elements by 2015. You may recall in previous testimony by Administrator Griffin that we needed additional resources to try and accelerate and hold the 2015 date, and we needed those resources in

2008, ’09, and ’10. We received them in ’09 and ’10, so that helps

us, you know, considerably with Ares I and Orion and all the associated elements. And in fact, you can see a lot of those coming together. Anybody that visits Kennedy Space Center will see that

going on today, as well as our other facilities. As far as the other elements, we are in the process of evaluating what that means. We have not stopped work on Ares V. We are

still doing some work on that, and some of that work comes from

the development of Ares I, the solid rocket motor and the J–2 engine, are both integral to the Ares V, plus some additional work

that is going on. But the overall impact, we are in the process of assessing what that will mean in terms of our ability to do 2020, and what we do

by 2020. So I don’t have a good answer for the impact but clearly the situ- ation as it stands right now means that we couldn’t do the program

of record, putting humans on the Moon by 2020. We may be able

to do something lesser in that timeframe, but we haven’t completed

the work to answer that question fully.

ITAR AND EXPORT CONTROLS

Ms. GIFFORDS. I know other Members are probably going to drill

down a little bit harder on the budget, but I would like to shift

gears. The Science and Tech Committee held a hearing earlier this

year that looked at the current export controls regime that is current in our commercial space industry and the competitiveness factor for science and technology. I also serve on the Foreign Affairs

Committee, and we are currently considering legislation that relates to export controls.

So I would be interested in your thoughts on how big an impact

ITAR and export controls are having on NASA’s ability to carry out

our international space collaborations and joint research projects,

and are there some problems that you can specifically talk about

and ways that we could improve the situation?

38

Mr. SCOLESE. Yes. There are issues with ITAR. It does make our

ability to work with our international partners more difficult from

a NASA perspective. We have issues in how we can frankly go off

and communicate issues, you know, technical information because

we have to protect information and technologies that frankly are

widely available. So it adds some additional complexities to what

we do.

The bigger impact is probably to our industry where they have

less opportunity to compete for work due to the delays that it takes

to get licenses and the ability to sell on the market whatever they

have. That, of course, hurts our industry, but it also hurts us because it provides us with less—the industry is doing less, therefore,

our products are costing more as we become the main customer for

industry rather than them sharing it. There is statistics on communication satellites where we held 60, 70 percent of the market, and

we are down to 25 percent today. That has an impact on the industry obviously, but it has an impact on us because they were building satellites that we could take advantage of to buy down our

costs for scientific satellites and other activities.

So it has impacts all the way across the board, and finally, there

is an impact in our ability to work with people because it takes

longer for us to get the authority to work with internationals that

may have dual citizenship. So right across the spectrum it is an

issue for us.

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Scolese. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HALL. The gentlelady yield?

Ms. GIFFORDS. Yes.

Mr. HALL. The President, I think, stated about three weeks ago

that all of research and development ought to be three percent. I

think that is vastly underrated. I think NASA alone needs one percent, and if that, if you escalate that up and put the other two

points there out of the three percent, I think he is under-guessing

maybe by a full percent or maybe two percent.

But NASA is terribly under-funded, and if we don’t do something, we are going to be at Russia’s mercy. I don’t want to be

there, and they are not going to finish the Constellation on time.

We need to fly one bird and borrow off the other three and get that

to go a couple of years and then have Constellation funded properly

to where they could escalate the finishing, the completion of that.

You know, I hate to talk about World War II, but in World War

II we had one aircraft carrier when we knew the Japanese was

going to bomb Midway, and they were going to attack Midway.

There was another aircraft carrier that came into Pearl Harbor

several days after the Battle of the Coral Sea, it took seven months

to repair it, but when they found out they was going to bomb Midway, they said do this in seven days, not seven months, and they

did, and we had two carriers at Midway or we might not have won

the battle in the Pacific. We need to tell the folks that are down,

that are not sufficiently taking care of NASA that this is an emergency, too. This is very much an emergency because the next war

might be fought out of space.

I yield back. Thank you.

39

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Hall. I believe I can speak for the Members of the Committee that we love your passion and having

you on this committee, and it is an honor to serve with you. Thank

you. Chairman GORDON. Mr. Olson is recognized for five minutes.

Mr. OLSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Scolese, I just want to first of all say I applaud you for doing an

outstanding job under some very trying circumstances. The task of

leading NASA is difficult under normal situations, but the position

you found yourself in is something that is not to be envied, and

aside from the budgetary and the programmatic challenges you

have overseen have been extremely successful and above all else

we have got a safe Shuttle Mission which is going on as we speak.

Front page here of the Washington Post.

Mr. SCOLESE. Thank you, sir. Yeah.

Mr. OLSON. There you go. Great, great stuff. And, again, I want to thank you and say congratulations on a job well done.

Mr. SCOLESE. Thank you, sir.

TRANSITION FROM THE SHUTTLE TO CONSTELLATION

Mr. OLSON. In terms of my questions I want to talk about could you please give us an update on the transition from the Shuttle to

the Constellation? For example, I knew that we had to keep both

of the launch pads at Kennedy in configuration for the Shuttle

until this mission was complete, so one of them should be getting

transitioned to the Ares I–X, and I just want an update on those

type issues if you don’t mind, sir.

Mr. SCOLESE. Certainly. The transition is going per plan. We are in the process of flying out the Shuttle Manifest. We have eight

more flights now that Hubble is almost done. The workforce is

starting to transition as some of the Shuttle people working Shuttle are also working on the Constellation or—sorry, on Ares or

Orion.

As far as the progress that you can visibly see, at all of our cen- ters it is probably most visible at the Kennedy Space Center when

you look at—we have two pads, 39A and 39B. We launched the

Shuttle off of 39A to go up to Hubble. Sitting on the adjacent pad,

39B, is the rescue vehicle, and we won’t release that until we are

ready to return to Earth with this mission. But when you look at that pad, you can already see that is dif- ferent. We have the lightning towers up, and once we roll that

Shuttle back, we will turn it completely over to the Constellation

Program. We have turned one of the mobile launch platforms over

already to support to Ares I–X test that will happen later this year.

We have had to delay it because we kept 39B. When you walk into

the vehicle—the vertical assembly building at Cape, you will see

the Ares I–X vehicle being built. It is being stacked. Every time I

go down there I look at it, and I am absolutely impressed by the

progress that the people are making on that. It is scheduled for

launch later this year.

Go out the back of the VAB, and you will see the mobile launch

platform, the new mobile launch platform, being built for the Ares

I, and as you visit our various facilities at Johnson or Marshall or

the contractor facilities in Denver, you can see some great progress

40

going on on the Orion vehicle, the ground support equipment, the

launch site—excuse me, the launch site equipment. So we are making some very good progress on Orion and Ares as we speak.

NASA PERSPECTIVE ON REVIEW PANEL

Mr. OLSON. Thank you very much for that answer.

Shifting gears a little bit to the new Human Spaceflight Review

Panel, just wanted to get a sense for what so the employees at

NASA from your perspective sort of think about that review panel?

I mean, are there concerns, are they pleased that it is proceeding?

Just want to sort of get your kind of lay of the land on how that

is with the personnel.

Mr. SCOLESE. Well, I think it is fair to say it is mixed. No one

likes to take a test, and this is a test. Some people clearly recognize

the value of the review given some of the questions that have been

opened, and they clearly are relieved and recognize the objectivity

and openness of Norm Augustine leading the panel, you know,

identifies the seriousness that the Administration takes in coming

up with a good answer.

What I can say is that while people are concerned, I am sure

they are, they are going to go off and demonstrate that they are

making the right progress and they are doing the right things, and

they will be fully open with the team and provide them with whatever information that they need. And I think in the end we will

have a good outcome, and I think the team recognizes that, too.

Mr. OLSON. Thank you very much for that question. I agree with

that. I mean, I think our problem has been not a vision but just

a lack of commitment on our part to put the resources we need to

it, but thank you, and I yield back my time.

Chairman GORDON. We will move from Houston down to Marshall Spaceflight Center and Dr. Griffith.

INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you very much. Appreciate you being here.

I think America had this conversation about a half a century ago

when we were challenged by the Russians. We are having it again,

and the question is are we committed. Can we do it again? Are we

ready to accept the challenge?

China is walking in space, six weeks ago Russia is up, India is

going up, Iran has launched its satellite, and in my opinion, although the Saturn is the 8th wonder of the world, we have another

one on the drawing board, and that is our Ares V. I don’t think it

is an option for America. I think it is an essential for America to

maintain its position. I think it has to happen. I think Norm

Augustine’s commission should not be reviewing whether or not

human space exploration is a possibility, feasibility. We are the

wealthiest country in the world. We know that it is. What we want

him to say is how can we get there and explain to the public and

to the Administration that we are under-funded.

And so with that you have done a great job, and we appreciate

you very much and all of the team that is working on the Constellation Project.

Thank you.

41

Mr. SCOLESE. Thank you, sir.

Chairman GORDON. Where do you stand on that?

Mr. GRIFFITH. I have watched too many space flights.

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Ehlers.

MARS AND MOON PROGRAMS

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be—you recognize someone who doesn’t, whose district doesn’t benefit materially from the activities of NASA.

Just a couple of questions. On the Mars Exploration Program,

you mentioned the MSL and what you are doing there, but what

else do you have going in the Mars Program? Do you have more

robotic satellites planned, and is there still any discussion at all of

manned venture or human ventures to Mars?

Mr. SCOLESE. Yes, sir. We have besides MSL we recently selected

the MAVEN Mission, which is a competitively-selected mission in

our Scout Program to go off and look at the atmosphere of Mars

and understand its composition. In addition, we have started a

partnership with the Europeans to do an aggressive mission on

Mars and in orbit around Mars for the 2016 opportunity. That will

start building up more and more towards greater and greater capability at Mars.

As you know, we already have a number of satellites around

Mars, and we have vehicles on the surface of Mars. We are trying

to get Spirit unstuck, and we are working on that, but we have two

rovers that are still on Mars. And they are doing the reconnaissance that—as well as the exploration to understand more about

Mars. They are also doing the reconnaissance for potential human

missions.

And the program of Constellation that we were just talking about

with the heavy-lift launch vehicles and the capabilities that we are

developing has as its ultimate goal to get humans to Mars at some

time in the future.

So we are still looking towards Mars and looking how to do that

with humans. As you know, Mars presents more biological challenges almost than the physical ones to keep a crew alive for three

or four years in space is quite a challenge, but that is a goal of the

program, to take humans to Mars.

Mr. EHLERS. I assume you also hope to return them to Earth.

Mr. SCOLESE. Yes, we do. Alive.

Mr. EHLERS. You haven’t mentioned that part. That is where all

the expense really comes in.

Mr. SCOLESE. That is right.

Mr. EHLERS. Maintaining and the coming back. You could probably find lots of volunteers who don’t mind whether they come

back.

Mr. SCOLESE. Go one way. No. I don’t think you want to do that.

Mr. EHLERS. No. I agree. I do also incidentally want to thank you

for the work on the Hubble. I was one of the chief agitators against

the initial decision not to repair it, and I was sort of pleased when

Mike Griffin make the decision to go for it, and I assume it will

pay off, you know. We don’t know how long it is going to be able

to continue, but it has been such a wonderful addition to the

42

science and astronomy of the universe that it would be a shame to

let it die before we get the next one up.

Mr. SCOLESE. That is correct, sir.

Mr. EHLERS. So I appreciate your good work on that. I was half serious about the manned or human mission to Mars.

I got the impression when the President in the previous Administration announced that there was an attempt to give NASA personnel a shot in the arm, but I just didn’t see much in the way of

specifics about what we hoped to do and what we hoped to gain

from that mission. And I am also not clear how that relates to the

Moon exploration and why we believe it is important to go to the

Moon at this point.

So I would appreciate some clarification on that.

Mr. SCOLESE. Well, there hasn’t been much on the Mars, the

human Mars mission because of the distances involved, and as I

said, the, you know, keeping the crew alive for that amount of

time. We have been focusing on getting the new capability developed, but as we develop that capability, we are recognizing that the

things that may be needed to carry a crew to Mars, as well as other

destinations that are out there in the solar system, as well as other

capabilities that are provided for by a vehicle like an Ares V. Why go back to the Moon? There is lots of reasons for going back to the Moon. One is to practice. We have not landed with humans

on another planetary body since Apollo 17 in the early 1970s, and

we need to go off and develop those skills again as a very minimum

if we are going to go there. And, of course, you know, the Moon provides an opportunity to practice those capabilities in a relatively safer environment where

you are only three days away from Earth as opposed to months or

years away from Earth, as well as the scientific benefits and the

potential commercial benefits of the Moon that we will be looking

at.

Mr. EHLERS. Well, let me just comment that I think—you haven’t mentioned anything about new propulsion systems. I think that is

basically your biggest problem. Trying to use chemical propellants

to get to Mars and back, particularly to get the crew back off the

surface. It is a huge problem and a huge expense.

Mr. SCOLESE. Absolutely.

Mr. EHLERS. Are you investigating other systems that might be far better than using chemical propellants?

Mr. SCOLESE. For in-space propulsion? That is one of the areas

that, unfortunately, we don’t have as much investment in as we

would like. The activities looking at alternative types of propellants, nuclear propulsion, and nuclear electric have mostly been for

smaller missions, but that is an area that clearly we could—we

would like to do it, but we don’t have the resources right now.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers, and Ms. Fudge is recommended—is recognized.

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon.

GLENN RESEARCH CENTER

Just a couple of questions. One is I happen to come from an area

where NASA Glenn is located, so my questions will be about NASA

Glenn.

43

I was very interested to read in your prepared statement that

you are looking at and addressing some computational models and

experiments in the Icing Research Tunnel at NASA, at Glenn Research Center, and I am just curious, do you think that if the

Glenn Icing Research Tunnel, which is a very, very old structure,

it was built right after World War II, would be more productive if

it were modernized?

Mr. SCOLESE. We are looking at modernization of various facilities. I am not 100 percent sure if that is one of them, so I couldn’t

say sitting here, but we can get back to you on that.

Ms. FUDGE. Okay.

Mr. SCOLESE. But we are looking at revitalizing and upgrading

facilities where possible and when needed.

Ms. FUDGE. Well, additionally, are you making use of other aviation safety issues that—you know, Glenn has, does have an expertise in propulsion. Are you using that expertise in any other way?

Mr. SCOLESE. We—if the question is are we using Glenn’s capabilities to develop improved propulsion systems for aviation——

Ms. FUDGE. Yes.

Mr. SCOLESE.—the answer is yes and in a broad spectrum of

areas so we are. We have the test capabilities there. Also in—actually in rocket propulsion, electric propulsion Glenn is the leader

there, so they are working on capabilities there for electric propulsion.

Also in a small way for robotic systems. Although it is not directly propulsioned, it is providing power. Glenn is leading the effort to develop new and improved ways of developing RTGs, where

we work with the Department of Energy, and they provide radioactive source, and we more efficiently convert that heat into electricity that can be used for propulsion or used for keeping the systems alive, particularly when they are far away from the sun.

And let us see. I have a note here that says that we are, in fact,

using some Recovery—of the Recovery Act funds to repair the refrigeration systems on the Icing Research Tunnel at Glenn.

Ms. FUDGE. Very good.

Mr. SCOLESE. So——

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Oh, Ms. Chairman. Thank you.

Ms. GIFFORDS. [Presiding] Thank you, Ms. Fudge.

The Chairman recognizes Mr. McCaul.

MOON PROGRAM AND CYBER SECURITY

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome and good to

see you again, and I have several NASA employees and contractors.

I have Houston in my District. I just recently took Dr. Anna Fisher

through my schools and a delightful astronaut. I thought that was

a great thing to do with the kids, get their excitement, and they

are all, they always wonder, well, we were on the Moon in 1969,

and why are we looking at 2020 and of course, you have to explain

you have to build a station on the Moon.

A lot of the concerns that we have looking at this budget have

already been talked about, but I wanted to reiterate them and that

is the cut in the Constellation systems of $3 billion, eliminating the

44

development of the Ares V Heavy-Lift Launch, and the Altair

Lunar Lander.

Is all that possible to cut those programs as severely as this

budget does and still get to the Moon by 2020?

Mr. SCOLESE. Well, that is what we are evaluating right now,

and as I mentioned earlier, the architecture allows for Ares V development, if you will, to continue because the Ares I has a solid

that is similar to what we are going to have on Ares V, it has the

J2–X engine on its upper stage, which is what we want to use on

Ares V, and we do have some funding in there to continue the studies and development of Ares V.

Altair is something that we have to look at further. That is the

lander, as you know, to land on the Moon. We developed a conceptual study, and we need to go off and refine that. It is impacted

by this budget, and that will be part of the product that comes out

of this study that we were talking about earlier that Norm Augustine is going to lead. I think once we get clarity on that, that will

provide greater clarity as to the human lunar return portion and

the viability of 2020 in terms of what we do and whether we can

make 2020.

Mr. MCCAUL. I look forward to hearing about that. I am also concerned about our aerospace industry and their strength in the private sector, providing procurement for you that is cheaper and

more competitive.

Lastly, this is a little bit outside the budget questioning, but I

just read recently, I think in Newsweek Magazine, about cyber security with respect to NASA and about some of the intrusions that

have taken place at NASA. As we know, to be competitive we have

to have the upper hand and edge intellectual property wise with

State secrets. How confident are you about the cyber security situation at NASA?

Mr. SCOLESE. Well, we have had intrusions as has been reported,

and of course, we don’t really talk too much about our security and

how we caught those and whether they actually took any information of significance.

But we are constantly vigilant about it, and we work with our

other government agencies on this because the threat is constantly

evolving, and we have to be very careful about that. We have, in

fact, strengthened our cyber security. We have created a security

center out of the Ames Research Center to go off and monitor all

of our computer activities, and at the same time, of course, with

NASA we also have to provide resources to the public. That is part

of what NASA does.

So while having an open system, we also have to have a system

that is protected so that we don’t lose vital secrets and more importantly we don’t lose our assets on—in space because we control

them all from the ground, and we use computers with it.

So I think it is—we do have an investment, we do recognize that

it is an ever-evolving threat, and we are working with our other

government agencies to identify that threat and to adapt and adjust, and it is taking resources to go off and do that.

Mr. MCCAUL. I know the President is planning to launch a new

cyber security initiative which hopefully will strengthen these asVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:34 Dec 19, 2009 Jkt 049551 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DWORK\FULL09\051909\49551 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
45

sets, because I think the ones at NASA are perhaps the most valuable assets that we have.

So thank you so much.

Mr. SCOLESE. Thank you.

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. McCaul.

Mr. Luja ́n.

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.

NASA’S EDUCATION EFFORTS

Mr. Scolese, I want to drill down a little bit into the educational

component, commitment that NASA has. New Mexico’s universities

benefit most from the education programs through the science

budget specifically, which shows an increase of approximately $500

million between now and 2014.

Can you just discuss briefly the plans that NASA has with how they plan to expend those educational opportunities, with their university system in that specific regard?

Mr. SCOLESE. The—from the science side, our science mission directorate and our science missions, of course, play directly into it

through providing opportunities for graduate students and for, you

know, improving the tax as we, as professors are involved in it and

what have you. And also in providing opportunities for them to

build experiments. We have a number of opportunities. We have

sounding rockets and balloon experiments where oftentimes students with their professors will go off and propose an experiment,

develop it, fly it, all within three years so they get the experience

of designing and developing an experiment, building the experiment, flying the experiment, analyzing the data, all within the

timeframe that it takes to get a degree. The—as we get to the bigger missions, of course, we try and do competitive missions where universities are engaged in those missions, and they are longer term, so they may be, you know, five or

ten years and longer if you are going to someplace like Jupiter or

Saturn where the transit time is considerably longer. So we have

those types of activities. In addition we have the direct educations activities where we

work in partnerships with universities to get grants for students

and for professors to conduct work, and we can get you more information on all of those, but that is sort of a summary of it at the

very top level.

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Madam Chairwoman, thank you very much. Mr. Scolese, the area where I had a concern, and although I saw an increase in the budget in the science portion of this with the projected decrease in the educational component, of which I believe

there is a program called MUST, Motivating Undergraduates in

Science and Technology, which is funded by NASA in a joint partnership currently between the Hispanic College Fund, the United

Negro College Fund, special programs in the Society for Hispanic

Professional Engineers, which is a competitive program to be able

to offer opportunities open to all children but targeted in each of

these specific areas. Is there a commitment from NASA that this

program specifically will not be reduced? Is there something that

we can do to help ensure that this program will remain at the

same levels, if not strengthen them, acknowledging that we do

46

need to make sure that we are providing opportunities especially

educational opportunities for students to get into these fields so we

can continue to provide NASA the support that they need?

Mr. SCOLESE. Those are all—that is very important. I am—I

would have to go off and look to see if it is being reduced. MUST

is one of the activities that we do definitely support, and it is one

of our critical activities in the education enterprise. I will have to

go off and look and see if there is any reduction to it in the future

years, but that is not the intent.

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you, and lastly, Mr. Scolese, New Mexico is

home to White Sands Missile Range. Just if you could briefly discuss what the future plans and support that we should expect in

New Mexico for White Sands through NASA.

Mr. SCOLESE. Well, we see a continued need for White Sands. In

fact, later this year we are going to have the first test of our abort

system for the Orion Ares stack. It is called Cad Abort I, and it

is scheduled for this fall. So—fall or winter timeframe depending

on when all the hardware arrives. So we are going to continue to

do testing out of White Sands, and it will be a little bit different

because we—as the Shuttle moves off, we will have some different

components there, but we still need White Sands to do some of our

testing. So it will continue to be an active system, and of course,

we have the communications for TDRS are located there as well,

and that will continue to be there for the foreseeable future.

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you, Mr. Scolese.

Madam Chairwoman, I yield back my time. Thank you.

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Luja ́n.

Mr. Rohrabacher.

CLIMATE CHANGE AND ASTEROIDS

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, and appreciate the

fact that you folks at NASA do not now have the leadership to be

making major policy directions decisions and even to be advocating

new policy directions, but I am disappointed in one aspect of what

your budget seems to reflect, and that is that with all the, you

know, we have here certainly ample spending by NASA to yet

again prove global warming. Okay. That is fine. Those of us who

believe it is solar activity and chart all these changes in the world’s

temperature with the Sun. Okay. Forget us but let us keep spending money to prove that people are changing the climate.

But spending all of that money but yet we can’t spend money on

something that absolutely—we know is a potential threat to this

world. I mean, we are totally ignoring, while we are looking over

here at global warming, which more and more scientists every day

are saying, no, it is solar activity, it is not human activity, but everybody knows there are objects out in space that could well hit

this planet and causes tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands,

millions of lives to be lost.

In March Asteroid DD–45 came within 38,000 miles of our planet, was not detected until it went by, and had that object hit this

Earth, we would—it could well have caused hundreds of thousands

of people to lose their lives, maybe millions. What is it, Apophis?

Mr. SCOLESE. Uh-huh.

47

Mr. ROHRABACHER. There is an asteroid that we know could do

incredible damage to this planet, maybe not destroy all life on the

planet but kills millions of people. It is going to come around in

2029, but the people that we have talked to have told us that we

won’t know until it comes through that time whether or not it

might come back to the second time in 2036, and then be on a

course to hit the Earth.

I do not understand that—why we cannot put at least a little money into trying to mitigate this real threat that is out there, but

we don’t have, we haven’t identified exactly what it is yet. I mean,

there is no money, correct me if I am wrong, there isn’t even a couple million dollars to keep the Arecibo Telescope going in this budget. We got all this money to study global warming, which as I say,

which most, a lot of us believe solar activity is responsible for, but

nothing, not even a couple million dollars for the Arecibo Telescope,

which is essential to tracking some object far enough away so that

we might be able to do something about it.

Mr. SCOLESE. Well, let me try and address parts of those. I have——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay.

Mr. SCOLESE.—some good news on the near-Earth asteroids. We were asked awhile back to go off and catalog 90 percent of the one

kilometer or larger asteroids.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yeah. You are looking at the guy who asked you to do that.

Mr. SCOLESE. I know that.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I am the Chairman of that committee.

Mr. SCOLESE. I know. That is why I thought I would mention——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You did a good job at 90 percent of them.

Mr. SCOLESE. And we are going to finish earlier as a matter of fact. We believe that we will have accomplished that goal by next

year in working with partnerships with other organizations, and as

far as Arecibo, you know, we worked in partnership with the Air

Force and with NSF. Arecibo is I believe in the NSF budget, so I

wouldn’t—we didn’t have anything in the NASA budget on that. So we haven’t ignored the near-Earth asteroids or near-Earth ob- jects, and we are working it, and as I said, I think we have made

some good progress over the last couple of years, and we will address the one kilometer or larger earlier than we thought, and we

are starting to look at the smaller ones now.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, there is ample evidence that these—

about every year now something comes through and we miss it,

and if it would have been just like one degree different trajectory,

it could end up creating a tidal wave off of my district in southern

California. And being a surfer that might be good for one wave. It

might not be after that.

RUSSIAN COOPERATION

One—and then over to space transportation. The—we are going

to be spending more and more money with the Russians, and I

think we ought to thank our lucky stars that the Russians are even

willing the way we have been treating them diplomatically for the

last 10 years, treating them as if they are the enemy, we are lucky

they are even willing to do it. But aren’t there some people in the

48

private sector that we might be able to give contracts to for some

of the space station missions that the Russians are going to help

us with?

Mr. SCOLESE. Well, we are on the cargo portion. We definitely are. We have signed two contracts this past year for cargo supply

to the Space Station, and we are relying on that. In this budget request or operating plan request with the stimulus funds, we are

looking to stimulate interest in commercial crew to the Space Station.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yeah, because we are going to spend a billion point two with the Russians for transporting our people up there.

It seems to me that that would be a mighty strong incentive for

some of our private sector people to develop an alternative that

might go up on things like the Atlas V or other rockets that we already have.

Mr. SCOLESE. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Well, thank you very much. I yield back my time.

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. Grayson.

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you.

SHUTTLE PROGRAM FUTURE

Mr. Scolese, what options have you given to the White House concerning extending the Shuttle Program?

Mr. SCOLESE. I am sorry. Can you——

Mr. GRAYSON. What options have you given to the White House concerning extending the Shuttle Program?

Mr. SCOLESE. We have not been asked for options to extend the

Shuttle Program.

Mr. GRAYSON. Have you offered any?

Mr. SCOLESE. No.

Mr. GRAYSON. Well, I understand that there are pros and cons

in favor of and against extending the Shuttle Program. Can you lay

out for us some of the pros?

Mr. SCOLESE. Well, we would keep on flying the Shuttle. It would provide us some opportunities clearly to keep the Station re-supplied and obviously the jobs in the various districts that are impacted by the Shuttle. However, the concern, of course, is that a

lot of those people who are working on Shuttle are also working on

Constellation, and that would take them away from working those

programs, plus without additional resources we would be taking

funds away from developing the Next Generation System so we

would just be moving the gap out as opposed to resolving the gap.

The other aspect of the Shuttle, of course, is it doesn’t relieve us

of our dependence on Soyuz or any other system because we can’t

do crew rescue with the Shuttle. It cannot stay on orbit for longer

than a few weeks based on its design. So we would still have to

have a Soyuz attached to the Station or some other vehicle attached to the Station for the duration that the crew is there if they

had to escape.

So those are the reasons that we haven’t in the course provided

that. Even if we were to start up today to do it, though, we still

have, would have to restart some lines, the external tank and the

49

solid rocket motors in particular. It would be about three years before you could get another external tank if we start it today.

So there is—there would still be a gap in the program along

those lines.

Mr. GRAYSON. If the White House asked you to figure out a way

to extend the program for a certain period of time, what would you

recommend to them about how to do that?

Mr. SCOLESE. We would have to, you know, ask for more budget,

I guess, would be the answer. Or we would have to delay the Constellation Program. Those would be the only real things we could

do.

Mr. GRAYSON. Now, you said you were moving employees from

one program to the other, but you—in your testimony you have a

projection that there is 6,400 contractor employees in one fiscal

year and 1,600 in the next. So that is a 4,800 contractor employee

drop. Those people aren’t going to be working on Constellation.

Right?

Mr. SCOLESE. We don’t know. I mean, when it comes to the contractors, it is a little bit more difficult for us to say because the

contractors do the work assignments on those, and it depends, of

course, on what work those people get. We make our projections

based on when we stop doing this work, this is how many people

will leave on the contractor side and then if they win work, those

same people may be brought back to do other jobs.

So we have a hard time telling you what the actual net impact

will be given our understanding of where contracts are going to be

awarded and where they are not.

Mr. GRAYSON. Have you had any discussions with the White

House concerning spacing out the remaining launches?

Mr. SCOLESE. We have recently changed, if you noticed, the

wording based on discussions that have occurred to say that we intend to fly out the remaining manifest, and we have not put a date

on it. Now, we believe we can fly out that manifest by September

of next year, but the requirement now is that we will fly out the

remaining eight missions without a date specific.

Mr. GRAYSON. What would be some of the benefits of expanding

that timetable, spacing out the missions more broadly?

Mr. SCOLESE. Well, again, it comes down to budget. We do not

have the resources to go beyond 2010, beyond September, 2010, so

it is going to require additional resources that will have to either

be added to the NASA budget or have to be removed from other

portions of the budget with, you know, impact to those portions of

the budget.

BENEFITS OF NASA

Mr. GRAYSON. Let me ask you a different kind of question. People often ask what is the benefit of this program, what is the benefit of NASA in general to our society, and I think that we Members of this panel have an answer to that, but I wanted to ask you

looking forward, looking into the future, and I understand as Yogi

Berra said, ‘‘Predictions are hard to make, particularly about the

future,’’ looking into the future, what kind of scientific discoveries

do you see being possible through NASA’s work? I guess one place

50

to start would be the discovery of life on other planets, on Mars,

on Europa perhaps. That is one.

Tell us what other possible scientific discoveries you see from

NASA’s work.

Mr. SCOLESE. Well, that is a difficult one to answer, as you said.

Clearly, you know, one of the things that we look for is the search

for life that would have some significant changes to what we do,

and we look out in the universe already we have seen some, you

know, incredible changes that we didn’t expect. We found water almost everywhere we looked. You mentioned Mars, you mentioned

Europa. We also found it in Enceladus at Titan, I mean, at Saturn.

We have discovered planets outside of our solar system, something

that was, you know, science fiction just 20 years ago. Finding a

planet that is similar to Earth will be, you know, a possibly as we

develop the missions to go off and do that. Kepler has recently been

launched and is going to go off and start cataloging, not observing,

the sizes of planets near our solar system, if you will.

Looking more down to Earth, our missions are going off and

helping us to better understand the Earth, better predictions of

weather, better predictions of climate will help markedly on the

Earth as we come up with better agricultural predictions, as we develop, you know, a better understanding of where hurricanes will

go, we can do more with natural disasters, already looking at ways

to mitigate the impacts of volcanic activity by understanding the

flows of volcanoes and identifying escape routes using satellites,

fire mitigation to go off and support that. Using orbital assets plus

UAVs that NASA has gone off and developed.

Chairman GORDON. Excuse me. With respect to Mr. Grayson, as

well as you, Mr. Scolese, we only have two days. There are many,

many benefits of NASA, and I think we could catalog those for

quite some time.

Mr. GRAYSON. Great. Thank you.

Chairman GORDON. And the gentleman’s time is well over. So

with—if there is no objection, we will then yield to Mr. Ehlers for

five minutes.

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. As I commented earlier, we are still

waiting for more of those benefits to come to Michigan, which is in

worse shape than any other state. That is not my question.

AERONAUTICS

My question is NASA is National Aeronautics and Space Agency.

All the discussion here has been about space. I really worry about

aeronautics at NASA. You have some outstanding people there,

and I have been very impressed with them in a number of ways.

We desperately need their help, which means you need more

money as we go into NextGen. I respect the FAA and their research efforts, but I also recognize the unique capabilities you have

at NASA, and I am not asking you to solve this overnight, but I

am very concerned about NASA being able to fulfill what should

be required of it, the NextGen, and frankly, in a lot of other aeronautical areas. As you know, we have a huge battle for market

share between our aeronautics manufacturers, our various plane

51

manufacturers, and Europe, and the Chinese are now beginning to

manufacture airplanes.

So I don’t want you to go at great length on this, but I would very much appreciate some comments from you about the future direction you see for the aeronautics and where the Congress should

put more money in view of the problems I outlined. These are not

immediate problems, but they are pressing problems, and we are

going to be very sorry if we don’t provide adequate support for the

aeronautics part of NASA, because it is going to come back and bite

us in the next five or ten years. So I would appreciate your comments on that.

Mr. SCOLESE. Yes, sir. I think it is probably worth just men- tioning the new program that we have in the Agency, the Environmentally Responsible Aviation Program, which is going off and

working to develop more efficient utilization of the air space, more

efficient aircraft operation, and working on the technologies both to

make those systems more efficient but also working to understand

with our colleagues in the FAA and others to make the airspace

system more efficient. So it is more than just making an aircraft better or making the air traffic control system better but to make the whole system improved. That is a new initiative in this budget that is proposed in

fiscal year 2010. We have—it builds upon all of our other activities

in fundamental aviation and other areas, so I think that is a new

area that goes off and recognizes the needs for the future, to have

more fuel efficient air system, to have a safer air system, and those

are the types of things that we will be working on in that activity.

Mr. EHLERS. And how much new money are you getting for this new endeavor?

Mr. SCOLESE. I would have to look exactly, but I believe it is in the order or—maybe David you can give me the exact number. We

have $60 million in fiscal year 2010 to start that program off.

Mr. EHLERS. Okay. I hope you get considerably more than that because I think the need is really there, and it is not just for

NASA, and it is not just for science. It is—I think it is a major item

for our country as well. With that I thank the gentleman.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, and Ms. Kosmas from Florida is recognized.

NASA WORKFORCE DURING GAP

Ms. KOSMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Scolese

for being here. I, too, appreciate your service, and I would echo the

comments of my colleague, Dr. Griffith about the importance of this

and during my short time here I have tried to be very vocal and

my expressions for my respect and passion for the Manned Space

Program.

And I wanted to ask some questions that have already been

asked. I won’t re-ask but specifically because, as you know, Kennedy Space Center is in my district, and I represent the workforce

there. I am most concerned about the gap in terms of the workforce. During the time period that we have suggested that we intend to procure up to 24 seats per astronauts on the Russian

Soyuz, is there an alternative for us during that time period where

52

we would not be—and I think according to Aviation Week, the price

has risen to $51 million per seat for 2012. This means, as was earlier suggested, $1.2 billion creating jobs for Russians as opposed to

in the United States.

Has there been an alternative discussed between you and the Administration with regard to how we might keep that revenue

source inside our borders?

Mr. SCOLESE. Well, with the current plan there is no alternative

to doing it. As I mentioned earlier, we need the Soyuz not just for

getting the crews to the Space Station or back from the Space Station, we need the Soyuz for crew rescue as well. So we need it to

stay on orbit, and we don’t have any other vehicle that—at this

stage that can do that.

I am certain this is going to be addressed as part of the review

that is going on this summer, but at this stage of the game the

Soyuz is really the only opportunity that we have that can address

all three of those things; taking the crew to the Space Station, returning the crew from the Space Station, and serving as a rescue

vehicle in the event that we need to remove crew from the Station

for any reason.

Ms. KOSMAS. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate also the commitment

to finishing the Shuttle manifest and removing the hard deadline

for having that occur, because I think that is very important for

the safety of the program.

But given the fact that we are going to have a gap between the

Shuttle Program and the Constellation or whatever comes next, I

assume according to our discussion you are continuing not slowing

down anything on that front, how do we intend to keep our astronauts engaged, or I understand we are getting ready to select a

new class of astronauts. And how do we intend to make that work

during the time, keep our core engaged or attract new ones during

that time period?

Mr. SCOLESE. Well, of course, we will still be flying the Space

Station, we will still be going to the Space Station, so there will

still be crew there, and we will need our astronauts to train for

that and fly to that. So we will continue to need that core. In addition, as we are building and testing the new vehicle, we will need

the astronauts to be intimately involved with the design and test

of that vehicle.

So there will be still be ample opportunities and ample jobs for

the astronauts both on the Space Station and in developing the

new hardware as we get ready to—and as we get ready to fly it.

Ms. KOSMAS. Thank you. The only other question I had at the

moment is with regard to the workforce at the Kennedy Space Center. We have heard the numbers projected of what I think will be

the loss of a very big number of professional folks during that gap,

and what I am wondering is that Kennedy Space Center has been

viewed as an operations center only, and there is much discussion

in my District and among others about the opportunities to increase the amount of research and development that would go on

at Kennedy Space Center, particularly perhaps with regard to the

Constellation and the—all that goes along with that.

In fact, former Administrator Griffin stated last year that the

work on the Altair Lunar Lander would be conducted at KSC, and

53

I am wondering whether you have had any further discussion

about that in particular.

Mr. SCOLESE. I think we are continuing to do things at Kennedy

Space Center, and of course, it has been operations in the past several years, but as you know, we are doing a lot of development

there right now as we are developing the launch pads and the control centers for the new vehicle. So there is development going on

there. I am sure you are also aware that they are going to do manufacturing of Orion there, manufacture and test of it. So we do

have development work that does go on there, plus, you know,

some research work as well.

So I think there is no change in that in seeing that development

go on.

Ms. KOSMAS. I think we are looking to expand the operations

there so that we are not so vulnerable to the gap and other time

periods that have taken place historically where we have a shutdown in our community.

So I would appreciate that consideration during the review——

Mr. SCOLESE. Will do.

Ms. KOSMAS.—that is coming up. Thank you very much.

Chairman GORDON. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Kosmas.

And Ms. Brooks is recognized for five—I mean, Ms. Edwards is

recognized for five minutes.

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very

much, Mr. Scolese, for your testimony.

CURRENT NASA BUDGET INCREASE

I just have a couple of questions about—and I put this to Mr.

Holdren when we heard from him, I guess last week, and it has

to do with the budget. We have, you know, we have a goal out

there of going back to the Moon, we have a goal of this Next Generation of exploration, technology, and vehicles, but it just seems

to me that the budget is not quite reflecting that goal.

And so I wonder if you could, apart from the funding that we just

put into the Recovery Act, which was, you know, a substantial $630

million for the—for fiscal year 2009 and 2010, how critical are the

activities that are going to be conducted with this increase, and

then discuss for me the budget as you see it for the future as it

impacts areas in Orion. And I am wondering if there might be an

unanticipated risk by essentially putting on hold the budget decisions in the out years on our ability to retain capacity, technical,

scientific, and research capacity for those and other programs.

Mr. SCOLESE. The $630 million additional that fiscal year 2009

and 2010 budget is absolutely critical to maintaining the Ares and

Orion programs. The early years, ’09, ’10, ’11, ’12, essentially, are

really focused on getting the first systems, the Orion and the Ares

I and the associated ground systems and control systems ready. So

that funding is critical to keeping us on what we call initial operational capability, the ability to get into low-Earth orbit, to get to

the Space Station, and that capability is also needed in the future

for when we do want to leave Earth orbit to rendezvous and dock

with the vehicle that will take us beyond low-Earth orbit, to the

Moon or wherever.

54

So the first few years are absolutely critical to keep that in for initial operational capacity. We were doing less on Ares V and the

landing systems in those years, so the out-year budgets in ’13 and

’14, principally, would have an impact on those. So as this review

gets done, we will have time to understand, you know, what we

want to accomplish by 2020 that will help determine what we need

out there in those years. In addition, the heavy-lift launch vehicle is absolutely critical to getting out of low-Earth orbit. That was mentioned earlier, the

Ares V. It has common elements with Ares I, which allows for the

development that is going on today to be directly applicable to the

Ares V. So the development on the solid rocket motor and development of the J–2X engine are directly applicable to the Ares V. So

work we are doing today also plays into what is going to happen

in 2013, and ’14.

Ms. EDWARDS. Do you worry at all about the loss, potential loss of technical capacity at all?

Mr. SCOLESE. I don’t think we have that issue for the immediate

future. As I was saying, we are concentrating right now in the next

couple of years on the initial operational capability. So of course we

always worry about it. You want to make sure that people understand that there is a future out there so they stay, but I think we

have sufficient interesting work and sufficient work altogether that

that won’t be an issue for a few years.

Ms. EDWARDS. And related to that are you concerned at all that we have this couple of months that we are waiting for the review

to take place but we are on a, you know, track to look at the budget, and you know, we maybe, in fact, putting the heart—the cart

before the horse in terms of, you know, scaling back in some ways

on those out-year budgets without actually understanding what the

review holds for us.

Mr. SCOLESE. Well, if—as I said, any change in ’09 and ’10, or ’10 budget will have a significant impact on the program. So—and

specifically we were directed not to change anything until the review—we, NASA, not to change anything, to continue working

with—on Ares I and Orion and all their elements until told to do

otherwise, and we haven’t been told to do otherwise, so we do need

that ’10 funding if we are going to stay on that track. Otherwise

there will be impacts along the lines of what you are talking about

to the workforce as well as to our ability to meet the mission goals.

ORBITING CARBON OBSERVATORY

Ms. EDWARDS. I just have one additional question, and it is related to the Orbiting Carbon Observatory that was lost in February, 2009. Any plans to replace that? I noticed it is not in the

budget.

Mr. SCOLESE. It is not in the budget. We are off reviewing how

to go off and do that, so we didn’t have a plan. Three parts to it.

One, we don’t plan for losses, so we have a review with science

community and the operational community the value of that mission, and it was determined to be a valuable mission. So we are

off evaluating two options for re-flying it. We hope to have that

done by the end of the summer, and we will be able to get back

to you at that point.

55

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. They are good

questions, and Mr. Hall has some clean up he wants to do.

WORKFORCE AND FUNDING GAP

Mr. HALL. First, I was a little astounded at your answer that you

didn’t think it was any big problem when we lose that workforce.

Did I misunderstand you?

Mr. SCOLESE. I don’t think I said that, sir.

Mr. HALL. Okay. Well, I hope you didn’t.

Mr. SCOLESE. No, I didn’t.

Mr. HALL. Because they are an exclusive group and the highest

type of workforce and sophisticated, and they would be quickly

picked up by someone else, and if we wait two years or four years,

we are going to have a hard time finding the people to take those

places, I think. Don’t you—you agree to that?

Mr. SCOLESE. Oh, absolutely. We have one of the most highly-motivated workforce and the most capable workforce there is, but I

thought I said, what I intended to say was I felt that we had sufficient work and sufficiently-interesting work to retain that workforce.

Mr. HALL. Well, good. That is great. I want to just talk a

minute—I mentioned and talked about funds and about the gap,

four-year gap, and it is going to take money and time, and we were

worrying a little bit about the deficit, but I think there are some

answers to that. We seem to spend billions of dollars every year on

foreign assistance, you know, all over the world, and I sometimes

wonder what we are getting out of that, and who knows where,

when, or how this money is spent. I know that we sent money—

we use part of NASA’s budget to purchase services from our international partners on International Space Station, and I have wondered why some tiny fraction of the billions of dollars that the government spends on foreign assistance couldn’t be transferred to

NASA like a lot of countries that vote 80 to 90 percent of the time

in the U.N. against this country that were receiving foreign aid. I

think we ought to take a look at that, and that would be one

place—I think it is our duty to point out where that money can

come from if we are willing to up the budget of NASA, and I think

that ought to be not too tough to do.

Do you think the blue ribbon panel that is going to be chaired

by Mr. Augustine would have the freedom to suggest or propose alterative funding options and from elsewhere within the federal

budget to help reduce the gap? I know they are not going to want

him to bust the budget or go outside that, but I don’t believe he

is the type guy you can give some parameters to and tell him he

has got to stay within those. I think he is going to tell you what

he really and truly thinks, and that is the reason that most everybody I know is very proud that we have him leading us to help reduce the gap and better meet our international obligations.

It looks like we could use some of those sources. You don’t have

any problem with that, do you?

Mr. SCOLESE. No, sir.

Mr. HALL. I like you. I like the Chairman here, too. I like him

so much I am going to yield back my time.

56

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Hall. We have, in effect,

opened the second round, so Ms. Kosmas or Ms. Edwards, do you

have a second question?

Okay. Mr. Olson, you can close us out then.

U.S. SPACE INDUSTRIAL BASE

Mr. OLSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I have

just a very brief question for you, Mr. Scolese, involving our—concerning the industrial base, and as the Acting Administrator, you

have got a pretty broad view of all of NASA’s programs and some

insights into other governmental programs.

What is your assessment of the U.S. Space Industrial Base and

how might NASA and Congress improve the situation to make our

aerospace industry stronger and our procurements cheaper?

Mr. SCOLESE. That is—you are right. That is a very broad question. It is—I think we mentioned earlier that with some of the restrictions that happen with the ITAR that it limits our industry

from being able to compete overseas, there is other portions of the

activity as well. We aren’t launching as many missions, we aren’t

doing as many things in this country that we have done in the

past. So we have had a lot of consolidations within industry.

The instrument industry is probably an area that is the easiest

to go off and look at recently where we are seeing some significant

impacts into our missions because the instruments are coming, you

know, very, very late, and part of the reason is what we were talking about before. We consolidated so much that we lost a lot of the

really high-value talent. They have gone off to do other things, and

excuse me, and that has caused us to have to reinvent the wheel

every time we go off and start a new activity, and we don’t have

enough new activities to keep any one organization sufficiently

busy that they can carry the workforce through all of, you know,

effectively from one development to the next.

And that seems to be general throughout the industry. So it is

something we need to address. In addition, we have stepped back

from specs and standards that we used to have in the early ’90s,

and while at times they were constraining and prevented us from

doing things, they also allowed us to go off and have a capability

that we could draw on when we needed it.

So today we often talk about why our spacecraft cost so much,

we have to go off and understand our part suppliers, what kind of

a part are we getting. Do we either invest in developing a new

part, which isn’t going to have very much statistics associated with

it, so we have to do a lot of testing, or do we go off and get a commercial part and up-screen it, which requires a lot of testing until

we find a part that we can use.

So we have done a number of things in terms of stepping back

from specs and standards, reducing the number of activities that

we have going on so that we are losing some of our workforce, and

of course, the pipelines. I think you have heard, and I don’t need

to report, to repeat the statistics here, how the United States isn’t

putting out as many scientists and engineers as many other countries are, so, you know, putting in the pipeline to go off and fill

those jobs is equally difficult.

57

So those are the things that we have going on, and they do have

an impact into where we are going, but what can we do about it

is probably a question that you want to ask, and I think what we

need and what we are working, we are working with our partners

in the Department of Defense and in industry and academia to

form a partnership so that we can take various elements of it and

effectively utilize it to put the resources where we can maintain

them over the long term, which is one reason why the NASA infrastructure is important, to do the R&D that needs to be done and

NASA, being an R&D agency, is an ideal place to do that. There

is others as well, NSF and NIST as examples that do R&D, and

working with our industrial partners where they can do what they

do best, which is manufacturing and manufacturing technologies.

So we are trying to work together with, as I said, with our colleagues in industry and academia and other government agencies

to try and bring that together and bring to you solutions that are

in our budgets to maintain our infrastructure, to maintain the research and development and to encourage the educational system

to produce more science and technology people.

Mr. OLSON. Well, thank you for that answer, and I have one comment to make, and it is probably not going to be a surprise to you,

but I just want to assure you and everybody within the sound of

my voice that NASA still has our Manned Space Flight Program,

still has the ability to inspire America’s youth.

Mr. SCOLESE. Absolutely.

Mr. OLSON. I had the privilege to watch the launch Monday before last with the entire 3rd grade at Settlers Way Elementary

School in Sugar Land, Texas, about 50 or 60 of them, and we started watching about 20 minutes before the launch, and those kids

were on me for all 20 minutes, I mean, hands up, hands up, hands

up, asking about the solid rocket boosters, what happens when

they land and how come they don’t hit ships, you know, all the

questions, I mean, great questions for third graders. We got down

to 25 seconds and the countdown. As kids would do, they all just

started counting down at the top of their lungs, but as soon as

those main engines started firing and that solid rocket boosters

came on, and she pulled away from the pad, they went silent and

just stared. It was a great, great moment, and that is why what

we are doing here is so important.

Mr. Chairman, I apologize for running over. I yield back.

Chairman GORDON. That is all right, Mr. Olson. Thank you for

your presence here today and good questions.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GORDON. Yes, sir, Mr. Hall.

Mr. HALL. I just thought of two other places. You know, the $40

billion George Bush hollered back over his shoulder when he was

leaving, that he wanted for AIDS for, I think Africa. Give them $30

billion and there is $10 billion that we have, and the Obama asked

for buckets full more than $40 billion and just—I think the money

ought to—we ought to rob those that don’t deserve it, and we absolutely have to do something about that four-year gap.

You will be a magician if you can do it, but there are some places

it can come from, and I won’t ask to be recognized anymore today.

Chairman GORDON. Don’t you own a bank?

58

Well, there has been a lot of discussion today about the quality

and expertise of the NASA workforce, and Mr. Scolese, as I said at

the beginning, you have exemplified that during this hearing that

you are a representative of that, and we thank you for your service,

we thank you for being here.

And the record now will remain open for two weeks for additional statements from the Members and for answers to any of the

follow-up questions the Committee may ask of the witnesses.

The Chairman—the witness is excused, and the hearing is adjourned. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

(59)

Appendix:

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

60

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Christopher J. Scolese, Acting Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon

Q1. NASA’s FY 2010 request provides $458 million more funding for NASA’s Explo- ration program than was provided in the FY 2009 Omnibus. At the same time,

the Administration is carrying out an independent review of NASA’s human

space flight programs this summer that could result in changes to NASA’s Exploration program. Congress is going to be working on NASA’s FY 2010 appropriations in the relatively near future.

a. For the record, why do you need increased funding for Constellation at the same time that the program is under review?

b. Specifically, how important is it for Congress to fully fund Constellation, in- cluding reserves, for FY 2010?

c. What would be the impact of a cut to your FY 2010 Exploration budget request?

d. If Congress is being asked to fully fund the Administration’s budget request for NASA’s exploration program in FY 2010, what assurances can you give

this committee that the Administration is committed to continuing work on

the Exploration program’s Constellation projects as planned during the review and will not divert funding from them or slow them down?

A1. As NASA and the Administration review findings of the Augustine Commission in the coming weeks and formulate an Administration recommendation for submission to Congress on the way forward for human space exploration, it is important

that the President’s FY 2010 request for Exploration be fully funded and flexibility

be fully preserved. Any reductions would likely cause major negative impacts to any

options that may emerge from the ongoing blue ribbon review of U.S. human space

flight plans. Following the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight activities, the Administration will provide an updated request for Exploration activities, as necessary. In the

meantime, NASA is proceeding with current Exploration activities, including Ares

I, Orion, Commercial Crew and Cargo efforts, and lunar systems. For example,

NASA is continuing to work toward completing two major test flights this year. The

Ares I–X was the first developmental test flight to support the design of the Ares

I Crew Launch Vehicle; and the Pad Abort 1 (PA–1) will be the first test of the

Launch Abort System to be used on the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle. NASA will

continue to work with other nations and the commercial sector to coordinate planning, leverage investment, and identify opportunities for specific collaboration on

Exploration activities.

Q2. NASA’s Earth science program received an increase of over $1.2 billion when taking into account Recovery Act funds and FY 2010 budget projections through

FY 2013.

Q2a. To what extent is this increase going to enable progress on the Earth science missions recommended in the National Academies decadal survey report?

A2a. The funds will enable NASA Earth Science to make marked progress toward conducting the balanced program recommended by the National Research Council’s

decadal survey in Earth science, Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond. Following the Decadal Survey framework, the funds will enable NASA Earth Science to:

• Complete as rapidly as possible the foundational missions that are currently

in development (Aquarius, Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM), Glory,

Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LRCM), and the NPOESS Preparatory

Project (NPP) ). The Decadal Survey recommendations for new missions were

predicated on the assumption that these foundational missions would be completed and flown in advance of the new missions.

• Establish Earth Venture (EV) as a new element within the Earth System

Science Pathfinder (ESSP) Program. The additional Earth Science funding enabled NASA to issue in July 2009 a solicitation of proposals for the first group

of Earth Venture (EV–1) missions.

Æ Earth Venture consists of a series of regularly solicited, competitively selected Earth Science investigations. Earth Venture will provide competiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:34 Dec 19, 2009 Jkt 049551 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\FULL09\051909\49551 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
61

tive opportunities on two-year intervals with ∼$150M per solicitation. Opportunities will alternate between integrated sub-orbital investigations,

instruments of opportunity and small satellites.

Æ The EV–1 solicitation is for complete sub-orbital science investigations

involving sustained data acquisition from airborne (aircraft and/or unattended airborne system (UAS) ) and/or balloon platforms. Each sub-orbital Venture-class investigation will have a life cycle of up to five years

and a total investigation cost of up to $30M; several investigations will

be selected depending upon the cost of each.

• Accelerate progress on the new missions recommended by the Decadal Survey, including the Tier 1 missions: the Soil Moisture and Active Passive

(SMAP) mission, the Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite–2 (ICESat–2)

mission, the Climate Absolute Radiance and Refractivity Observatory

(CLARREO) mission, and the Deformation, Ecosystem Structure and Dynamics of Ice (DESDynI) mission.

• Initiate in FY 2009 the IceBridge airborne field campaign series in both the

Arctic and the Antarctic to mitigate the gap in observations of the polar ice

caps that will occur between the end of ICESat–1 and start of ICESat–2.

IceBridge uses various NASA aircraft and instruments to characterize key

areas of polar ice, including the diminishing Arctic sea ice cap and rapidly

changing outlet glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica. The mission is planned

to run until the launch of ICESat–2.

• Maintain a balanced program of satellite and sub-orbital observations, research and analysis studies, and societal application activities lauded by the

Decadal Survey, including:

Æ 15 operating missions that provide the world with a primary source of

observations and science information on Earth’s changing environment

Æ A suite of aircraft and Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) with scientific

instruments to fly at 100 feet (30m) to 70,000 feet (21,000m) that will

ensure high accuracy, well calibrated observations from satellites and enhance interpretation of satellite data

Æ Internationally recognized state-of-the-art climate models

Æ The world’s largest scientific data and information system for collecting,

processing, archiving, and distributing Earth system data to worldwide

users

Æ Practicable applications of observations and results for informed decisionmaking

Æ Technology development investments for Tier–2 and –3 missions.

The funds will enable the flight of a Thermal Infrared Sensor (TIRS) instrument

on the Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM), one of the foundational missions

referenced by the Decadal Survey.

Q2b. How much acceleration on those missions is this funding buying?

A2b. The funds will enable NASA Earth Science to progress from a period of declining budgets and the resultant reduction in satellite measurement capability, which

the Decadal Survey raised as a serious concern, to carrying out its mission with improved overall capabilities. The funds allow NASA Earth Science to achieve many

recommendations of the Decadal Survey, as noted in Answer 2, including the flight

of the foundational missions.

The Decadal Survey, in recommending launch readiness intervals of 2010–2013,

2013–2016, and 2016–2020 for Tiers 1, 2 and 3, respectively, presumed a budget for

NASA Earth Science of $2.013 per year (about 25 percent higher than its current

budget) and lower mission costs than NASA estimates are projecting. All future missions identified by the Decadal Survey are extremely early in their definition process, thus there is no substantiated basis against which acceleration can be compared

or quantified. With that caveat, Table 1 indicates the estimated schedule and content changes for missions presently in development enabled by the additional funds

that have been identified for the program. It also references the ICEBridge airborne

campaigns and Earth Venture solicitation made possible by available funds.

62

Q2c. Based on what you have studied and know about what is required to develop the Decadal Survey missions recommended for implementation by NASA, what

is the total level of investment that will be required? Over what period of time

do you expect it will take to implement those missions?

A2c. For the Tier 1 missions (SMAP, ICESat–2, DESDynI, and CLARREO), NASA’s current preliminary total estimate of life cycle cost (LCC) is $4.213. Based on the

FY 2010 Budget the launch of SMAP, the only mission which has progressed to date

into Formulation, is planned for 2015 and the estimated mission life cycle cost

(LCC) is $700M. The launch of ICESat–2, which will enter formulation in FY 2010,

is planned for 2015 based on the FY 2010 Budget and the estimated LCC is $750M.

Timing decisions for the remaining Tier 1 missions, CLARREO and DESDynI, will

be made in FY 2010, with the expectation of launching these missions before the

end of the decade.

NASA Earth Science did generate a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) life cycle

cost (LCC) estimate for each mission shortly after release of the Decadal Survey in

order to provide an initial comparison with the Decadal Survey ROM estimates. The

collective ROM LCC’s for the Tier 2 (SWOT, HyspIRI, ACE, ASCENDS, and GEO–

CAPE) and Tier 3 (LIST, PATH, GRACE–II, SCLP, GACM and 3D–Winds) missions

were $4.5B and $4.0B in FY 2007 dollars, respectively, compared with Decadal Survey estimates of $2.5 billion for Tier 2 and $3.1 billion for Tier 3. The currently projected funding profile translates to launches of the Tier 2 and 3 missions during the

2020’s and into the 2030’s.

These estimates are ROMs because the concepts are preliminary. Developing a

credible life cycle cost (LCC) is a challenge because it includes all design, development, verification, production, launch, operation and maintenance, and disposal

costs. Because of the level of design maturity required to generate this information,

NASA formally commits to LCC at KDP–C, following a Preliminary Design Review

at the end of the Formulation phase. At that time, the work associated with Phase

A and Phase B concept development studies is complete and NASA is able to establish a baseline mission concept and generate the associated LCC with a 70 percent

confidence level.

To help plan for these missions and reduce future schedule and cost risk, NASA

Earth Science is providing funding within the current budget for preliminary workshops to discuss requirements and concepts for individual Decadal Survey missions

and investing in efforts designed to ensure the technological readiness of these missions.

Q3. The Mars Exploration Program has experienced great successes scientifically

and technically with its lander, rover, and orbiter missions. The next Mars mission, the Mars Science Laboratory, has overrun its baseline estimate for development by 68 percent. What is the implication of this cost growth for the future

Mars Exploration Program?

A3. The impact on future Mars Exploration Program missions is as follows:

63

• The Mars 2013 aeronomy mission Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution

(MAVEN) is unchanged.

• The Mars 2016 mission budget has been reduced; NASA is in negotiation for

a joint mission with the European Space Agency (ESA), which had also been

planning a mission in 2016 but is also cost-constrained.

• Mars technology funding from FY 2010 through 2015, targeted at long-lead

investments for a Mars sample return mission, has been drastically reduced.

NASA is currently revising its Mars architecture for future missions, in an at- tempt to create a collaborative program with ESA, culminating in a joint Mars sample return mission late in the next decade—the National Academy’s highest priority

science mission for Mars.

Q4. The National Academies is in the process of carrying out three decadal surveys in the areas of astronomy and astrophysics, planetary science, and biological

and physical sciences in space. The decadal surveys will recommend the priorities for mission activities to be conducted over the next decade.

Q4a. To what extent have the mission priorities from the previous decadal surveys been accomplished?

A4a. Taking each decadal survey area individually:

Astrophysics:

The 2001 National Academy of Sciences ‘‘Astronomy and Astrophysics for the New Millennium (AANM)’’ report provided its recommended new initiatives for astrophysics in three categories according to the amount of anticipated funding required:

Major, Moderate and Small Initiatives (AANM, page 33). The report included initiatives for both ground- and space-based projects, and discussed the importance of

program balance and basic research. The top priority Major Initiative for space was

the Next Generation Space Telescope, which has since been named the James Webb

Space Telescope (JWST). NASA is making substantial progress and JWST is under

development having passed its confirmation review in July 2008 with a launch readiness date of June 2014. The top priority Moderate Initiative for space was the

Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope, now renamed the Fermi Gamma-ray Space

Telescope. Fermi was launched in June 2008 and is producing excellent data. The

top priority Small Initiative was funding for the National Virtual Observatory, now

called the Virtual Astronomical Observatory (VAO). NASA is coordinating the VAO

funding with the National Science Foundation, which has recently announced the

selection of the VAO provider.

For each of these categories there were numerous other activities recommended,

but at lower priority. In the Major Initiatives category the second priority was the

Constellation-X Observatory. Mission-level studies and early technology development activities have been accomplished throughout this decade. NASA was unable

to start the mission because there were insufficient funds to begin development of

the mission once its costs were better understood. The third priority was mission

studies and technology development funding for a Terrestrial Planet Finder mission.

NASA devoted the recommended level of funding to this activity and gained a better

understanding of what such a mission would cost. These activities have positioned

the community and NASA to provide the current decadal survey panels more accurate information on the technical challenges and likely costs for such. a mission. The

final Major Initiative priority was for early study of and technology development for

a large aperture sub-millimeter optimized space mission (SAFIR). Only a small

amount of funding for a SAFIR mission-level study has been expended during this

decade.

For Moderate Initiatives at lower priority than Fermi the NAS report listed the

Laser Interferometry Space Antenna (LISA), Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO),

Energetic X-ray Imaging Survey Telescope (EXIST) and Advanced Radio

Interferometry between Space and Earth (ARISE). For LISA, a collaborative mission

with the European Space Agency, mission studies and technology development were

funded throughout the decade. NASA was unable to start the mission because there

were insufficient funds to begin development of the mission once its costs were better understood. The SDO satellite has completed development under the management of NASA’s Heliophysics Division, and is awaiting launch in Fall 2009. NASA

funded a mission-level study for EXIST. There were no mission-level activities for

the ARISE activity this decade.

In the Small Initiative category lower priority activities included recommendations for augmented funding in various areas of basic research at NASA and for the

Advanced Cosmic-ray Composition Experiment for the Space Station (ACCESS).

64

Agency policy decisions regarding usage and access to the International Space Station shifted the focus of cosmic-ray experiments to balloon borne payloads. NASA

flew several such payloads during the decade. NASA has kept the level of funding

for Theory and Laboratory astrophysics essentially constant throughout the decade

despite several directed reductions in the broad area of research and analysis [out

of which Theory and Laboratory astrophysics are funded]. The Astrophysics Division

has recently augmented its funded postdoctoral programs to levels at or above those

recommended in the decadal survey. Finally, this past year saw a successful test

of the first Ultra-long Duration Balloon. NASA is now considering what payloads

would be good candidates for this type of balloon platform. The report also endorsed continuation of a vigorous Explorer program (page 9). Since the 2001 decadal survey, NASA has launched the GALEX and Swift missions,

as well as the Kepler mission in March 2009 (the Kepler mission to search for

Earth-sized planets was selected in the Planetary Science Division’s Discovery Program, which like the Explorer Program is a line of competitively-selected Principal

Investigator-led missions). The Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) is

planned for launch this December, and the Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array

(NuSTAR) is being developed for launch in 2011. In addition to these new initiatives the AANM report reaffirmed the community’s interest in NASA completing projects initiated in the previous decades: the Stratospheric Observatory For Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA), the Space Interferometry

Mission (SIM), and the fifth Hubble Servicing Mission (HST–SM4). SOFIA will be

conducting early science flight in 2010 and is expected to reach full operational

readiness in 2014. Extensive study and technology development efforts for SIM were

conducted throughout the decade. As a result of these efforts NASA better understood the SIM mission and its costs and determined that there were not sufficient

funds to fully develop the mission within the decade. In May 2009 HST–SM4 was

successfully completed with all mission objectives being achieved. In addition, all

early instrument tests are going well and HST is expected to be returning science

again later this summer.

Planetary Science:

In contrast to the Astrophysics decadal survey, the 2003–2013 decadal survey for planetary science, entitled ‘‘New Frontiers in Solar System Exploration’’ (NFSSE,

published in 2003) started its list of mission priorities with smaller missions and

moved to medium and large. In today’s terms, it proceeds from Discovery missions

to New Frontiers missions to Outer Planets Flagship missions. In addition, it

prioritized Mars missions separately from other Planetary Science missions. As recommended in NFSSE, NASA has continued the existing series of Discovery missions. Dawn is on its way to the asteroids Vesta (arriving in 2011) and Ceres

(arriving in 2015). The MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry, and

Ranging mission (MESSENGER) mission completed its very successful second flyby

of Mercury in October 2008, with its third flyby scheduled for September 2009, and

its insertion into Mercury’s orbit on schedule for March 2011. The Gravity Recovery

and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) mission is on track for launch in 2011. In addition,

NASA is preparing a Discovery Announcement of Opportunity for release later this

year to begin planning the next Discovery missions. Also in the ‘‘small’’ investment

category, the NFSSE recommended an extended mission for Cassini. The Cassini

Extended Mission is underway and is providing excellent data about Saturn and its

moons, rings, and magnetosphere. The Mars Science Laboratory, recently renamed

Curiosity after a national naming contest, is now scheduled for launch in late 2011. NASA also fulfilled the recommendation in NFSSE to establish the New Frontiers

Program within NASA’s Planetary Science budget. The New Horizons and Juno missions were selected via the first two New Horizons Announcements of Opportunity.

The New Horizons mission, which is addressing the science objectives of the

NFSSE’s Kuiper Belt-Pluto Explorer, will rendezvous with Pluto in 2015: NASA’s

Juno mission, a Jupiter polar orbiter (without probes), is progressing toward its

planned launch, also in 2011.

Proposals for other missions in this class included in NFSSE for launch between 2003–2013 (including South Pole-Aitken Basin Sample Return, Venus In Situ Explorer, Comet Surface Sample Return) as well as several ‘candidate missions for

flight after 2013’ (Geophysical Network Science, Asteroid Rover/Sample Return, to

Observer, Trojan/Centaur Reconnaissance Flyby) are currently being solicited under

the New Frontiers 3 Announcement of Opportunity (AO), with proposals due on July

31, 2009. These and other candidates mentioned in NFSSE were re-affirmed by the

NRC prior to the release of the NF–3 AO.

NASA announced in January 2009 that the Europa mission will be the next Outer

Planet Flagship (OPF) mission (the survey’s highest priority large mission), to be

65

followed by a Titan mission which was highlighted in the NFSSE report as a candidate mission for beyond 2013. NASA is working closely with the European Space

Agency (ESA) on plans for a joint OPF mission that may also include an ESA-provided Ganymede observer similar to what was also included in the ‘candidates for

flight after 2013’ list in NFSSE. For Mars missions, the NFSSE recommended missions in small, medium, and

large categories. In the small category, the report recommended continuation of the

Mars Scout line of competed, Principal Investigator-led missions, and a Mars Upper

Atmosphere Orbiter. The Mars Scout mission Phoenix successfully landed in the

northern polar region of Mars and completed its mission in 2008. The next Mars

Scout mission is the Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution (MAVEN) mission,

which also fulfills the upper atmosphere orbiter recommendation.

NFSSE recommended the Mars Science Laboratory mission, and this mission is in development for a 2011 launch. The NFSSE identified MSL as a medium-class

mission, as it did not include the cost of radioactive power supplies, a launch vehicle, or complete operations costs; nor had the instrument complement been selected.

The other NFSSE medium class Mars mission concept was a long-lived lander network; this concept has been studied, but has not been initiated as a mission in this

decade.

Finally, NFSSE recommended beginning planning on a Mars Sample Return (MSR) mission for implementation in the decade 2013–2023. MSR concepts have

been studied, but mission formulation and implementation have not yet begun. The

cost of an MSR mission is such that major international collaborations and contributions will be required. But MSR remains the goal of NASA’s Mars Exploration Program.

Life and Physical Sciences Space Research:

Pursuant to direction in the Explanatory Statement accompanying the FY 2008

Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 110–161), NASA has asked the NRC to conduct

a decadal survey to establish priorities and provide recommendations for life and

physical sciences research in microgravity and partial gravity for the 2010–2020

decade. The decadal survey report will provide updated strategic planning advice

from representatives of the U.S. research and Technology community to help NASA

to define appropriate investments in life and physical sciences research. This study

will be the first of its kind regarding this research arena.

Recommendations on the timeline and sequence of research from the NRC decadal

study will allow NASA to develop an implementation plan that will impact future

exploration missions. The specific objectives of this NRC decadal survey are the following:

• Define research categories that are required to enable exploration missions or

those that are enabled or facilitated because of exploration missions;

• Define and prioritize an integrated life and physical sciences research portfolio;

• Develop a timeline from 2010–2020 and define inter-dependencies for objectives;

• Identify terrestrial, airborne, and space-based platforms and facilities that

could most cost-effectively achieve the objectives;

• Explain how achieving the objectives will enable exploration, produce knowledge, or provide benefits to space and other applications;

• Identify potential research synergies between NASA and other U.S. Government agencies, as well as with commercial entities and international partners; and,

• Summarize future research objectives beyond 2020.

Although this is the first NRC decadal study in this research area, past NASA

studies have been instrumental in helping to set NASA’s research priorities. A recent example is related to establishing research priorities for NASA’s space biomedical research program that includes ISS research activities as a central component to reducing the risks to crews for future exploration missions. The National

Academies through the Institute of Medicine completed its review (July 2008) of the

potential hazards and health issues related to long-duration space flight. These

risks frame the research to be undertaken by NASA to mitigate the health dangers

to crew members. ISS biomedical research is critical to mitigating 17 of the 28

human health risks relevant to exploration. This review builds on the previous National Academies work done for the Bioastronautics Roadmap—a framework developed and used by NASA to assist in identifying research priorities and technology

66

development, establishing exposure standards, and guiding resource allocation. The

resulting IOM report, A Risk Reduction Strategy for Human Exploration of Space: A Review of NASA’s Bioastronautics Roadmap (IDM, 2006), focused its findings and recommendations on accelerating countermeasure and technology development; establishing a safe radiation exposure level for all relevant risks; and improving the

process by which the content of the Roadmap was represented, communicated, and

kept current.

Q4b. To what extent does the FY 2010 budget request include funding to begin work on priorities to be recommended in the next three decadal surveys?

A4b. In the FY 2010 President’s budget request the NASA sustains support for mis- sion candidates being considered by the decadal survey, such as SIM Lite, IXO,

LISA and JDEM, until the decadal survey report is issued in summer 2010. Outyear projections in the FY 2010 request position the division to begin supporting results of the decadal survey through funding available in Future Missions lines. The

distribution of funds among the Cosmic Origins program, Physics of the Cosmos program, ExopIanet Exploration program, and basic research and technology will be

adjusted to reflect decadal survey priorities and the estimated costs of high priority

missions in the FY 2012 and subsequent budget requests. The Agency has requested

that the decadal survey recommend how future investments might be balanced

among new small, medium, and large mission initiatives, extending on-orbit operations of existing missions, mission enabling technology investments, and research

grants. NASA has funding in the competed mission lines (i.e., Discovery, Mars Scout, and New Frontiers) to support Planetary Science missions identified in the next decadal

survey. The final amount of funds available, however, will depend on the timing and

content of the next Planetary Science decadal survey. The next Planetary Science

decadal survey will not be released until 2011 and will cover the period from 2013

to 2023. However, only 2013 and 2014 are within the five-year budget horizon in

the President’s FY 2010 budget request. The President’s FY 2010 budget request provides out-year funding to support new missions recommended in the next decadal survey, however, the ability of the FY

2010 budget request to meet the mission recommendations of a future decadal survey will depend on several factors. First and foremost, a lot depends on what the

National Academy of Sciences recommends in the form, size (small, medium or

large) and complexity of the missions. In addition, NASA and ESA are discussing

how to more closely collaborate on both Mars missions and the Jupiter Outer Planet

Flagship. The outcome of those NASA–ESA discussions could affect the amount of

NASA funds available to support missions recommended in the future decadal survey. The more the Europeans are willing to contribute to the joint Mars and OPF

missions, the more NASA funding is freed up to support missions recommended in

the next decadal survey.

NASA has worked with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to improve the

cost realism of missions recommended in the various decadal surveys. Cost estimates from NASA center-proposed missions will be concurred in by NASA Headquarters before they are submitted to the NAS. Further, we are requiring the NAS

to contract for independent cost analysis to ensure that each decadal survey-considered mission has some fidelity to its budget estimate.

Finally, since the first-ever decadal survey for life and physical sciences space research is currently under development by the NRC, it is not possible to identify recommended priorities that are contained in the FY 2010 budget. The results of this

decadal survey will assist in defining and aligning NASA’s space life and physical

sciences research based on external experts from the U.S. research and technology

community. Further, the recommendations regarding the timeline and sequence of

research will allow NASA to develop a research plan and define appropriate investments in life and physical sciences research consistent with national space policy

and goals.

Q5. Shuttle transition and retirement costs are quantified in this budget request on

the order of about $400 million with possible unfunded threats of $200 million

to $300 million. This is a far cry from the $2–$3 billion level mentioned a few

years ago. What enabled NASA to make such a big reduction in its estimate?

Are there any assumptions, if not realized, that could increase your $400 million

estimate?

A5. The NASA estimates of the cost of Shuttle transition and retirement (T&R)

have decreased consistently over the past few years. This is due in part because the

Agency’s Constellation Program requirements are becoming more and more refined,

and NASA has gained an improved understanding of which assets may be transferVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:34 Dec 19, 2009 Jkt 049551 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\FULL09\051909\49551 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
67

able to that program. NASA treated the first estimates as approximations and chose

not to implement these estimates in formal budgets. This allowed the team to understand the cost drivers and systematically remove, refine, and reduce the cost

drivers. The Government Services Administration has been helpful in supporting

NASA with disposition requirements interpretation and changing processes to allow

for more the effective disposition of retired assets. These practical approaches have

reduced the estimates for transition. In addition, NASA has explored options for disposing of unassigned assets more cost effectively (e.g., using the DOD approach of

dismantling, rather than destroying, certain pieces of equipment).

The Agency’s estimates for T&R costs could change depending on the results of

the ongoing Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans and the Administration’s

subsequent decisions.

Q6. If the Augustine committee does not recommend continuing to operate the ISS

beyond 2015, what, if any, alternative facilities does NASA have for conducting

the type of microgravity research needed to enable human space flight beyond

low-Earth orbit?

A6. NASA recognizes the value of undertaking research in gravitational and space

biology, and as such, NASA utilizes both ground-based and space-based experiments

to try to document the health risks to future explorers. Recently, NASA was directed by Congress to have the National Research Council conduct a Decadal Survey

to help the Agency establish priorities and provide recommendations for life and

physical sciences research in microgravity and partial gravity for the 2010–2020

decade. NASA expects the report to be completed by fall 2010. This report, along

with the findings of the Augustine Commission, will influence future Agency plans

for microgravity research.

If the ISS is retired, the Agency would plan to continue depending on a variety

of platforms that offer varying amounts of time to simulate microgravity: 1) Sounding Rockets; 2) Drop Towers; 3) Parabolic flights; and, 4) Domestic and International

free-flyers. In addition, some of the human research and countermeasures validation

would be conducted in analog environments such as long-duration bed rest studies.

As noted earlier, NASA currently uses these research platforms to develop and validate countermeasures for a large number of human health risks and to conduct high

priority research in other life and physical science disciplines to gain an insight of

the underlying phenomenon associated with gravity dependent processes.

Q7. In FY 2010, the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate plans to realign its

NextGen work to distinguish research conducted on concepts and technologies

from that focused on systems analysis, integration, and evaluation. Will these

changes result in accelerating transition of NASA’s research to FAA operational

use?

A7. The intent of the changes to the projects within the Airspace Systems Program

is to provide a structure that will allow more efficient and effective management of

efforts to conceive and develop advanced NextGen technologies while reducing risk

and accelerating timely transition those technologies to implementing organizations.

The new structure will support and enhance existing efforts to initiate integrated

system research in key areas of R&D gaps identified by JPDO and will include the

collaborative engagement with the FAA as planned within the recently created Research Transition Teams to accelerate progress for NextGen advancements.

The work will transition, from the laboratory to the field, key concepts within the

baseline Airspace Systems Program integrating surface, terminal, transitional airspace and en route capabilities to enable operational enhancements envisioned by

NextGen. Since the technical maturity of research concepts will largely take place

within the Concept and Technology Development project, resources must be well invested there to generate the research products to transition at later points as part

of integrated systems. In fact, some capabilities are expected to be transferred at

low maturity levels directly from the Concept and Technology Development project,

because the FAA has expressed a need for some advanced algorithms for early incorporation in current air traffic control tools.

The development of infrastructure for systems analysis, integration, and evaluation will be managed within the Systems Analysis, Integration, and Evaluation

project. It will assess and validate collective impact of technologies using fast-time

modeling, simulation, and field evaluations and will feed back results into the baseline program to enhance and validate research concepts. This validation and integration of research products in relevant environments will be a multi-year process,

and will accelerate and reduce the risk of transition of research products to the implementing agency.

68

Q8. The Committee expressed concern that adequate maintenance and upgrading of

facilities be performed on a regular basis in the 2008 NASA Authorization Act.

In that legislation, the NASA Administrator was directed to determine and

prioritize the maintenance and upgrade backlog at each of NASA’s Centers and

associated facilities and ‘‘develop a strategy and budget plan to reduce that

maintenance and upgrade backlog by 50 percent over the next five years.’’ In

view of the projected funding for facilities and maintenance projected through

FY 2014, how long will it likely take to eliminate this backlog?

A8. NASA will present the requested data as part of the FY 2011 budget request.

Questions submitted by Representative Gabrielle Giffords

Q1. Another impact of the tight budgets you have been given in recent years is that

a number of your programs appear to have very thin reserves. For example, the

FY 2010 budget request for the Space Shuttle program has minimal reserves at

the same time that NASA is acknowledging that the Shuttle program has cost

and schedule threats that it must guard against. Thus the budget request assumes that the flight schedule can be maintained but with almost no leeway to

deal with uncertainties. What options does NASA have if unforeseen events do

materialize?

A1. Operational programs typically have much lower levels of funding reserves than

do development programs simply because of the steady-state nature of the work

being done. In addition, the potential technical challenges to operational programs

tend to be better understood than those of programs still in development. The Space

Shuttle Program has sufficient resources to fly out the remaining manifest, including the flight of the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS), before the end of FY 2010.

NASA intends to fly out the Shuttle manifest safely as possible until its retirement.

However, as there is no budget for flying into FY 2011, the Agency would have to

determine the optimal approach for providing resources to support missions delayed

beyond this point.

Q2. An important part of NASA’s portfolio is its science program. What are the most

significant challenges in space science and Earth science over the period covered

by the President’s FY 2010 five year budget runout? To what extent can those

challenges be addressed with the resources requested in the FY 2010 budget?

Where are the shortfalls that will need attention in future budget requests?

A2. NASA faces the challenge of implementing the 27 innovative science missions,

including NOAA reimbursable GOES missions the Agency has in formulation or development, but these are fully funded in the FY 2010 budget request and run out.

NASA’s science priorities are guided by NRC decadal surveys, one of which (Earth

Science) was received for the first time in 2007 and three of which will be updated

and delivered over the next three years (Astrophysics, Planetary Science, and

Heliophysics). These surveys convey science community priorities, and their results

influence budget submissions. The FY 2010 budget request, along with resources

provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act allows for steady progress

in achieving the priorities recommended in the current decadal surveys in Earth

science, planetary science, astrophysics, and heliophysics. While NASA expects the

forthcoming surveys to continue to guide these programs, managing scientists’ expectations that NASA will be able to fund all of their priorities consistent with the

budget horizon will be a challenge.

Q3. The FY 2010 budget request for Earth Science does not include resources to fly

a replacement of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, which was lost due to a

launch failure in February 2009, or a similar sensor. What impact would a decision to develop a replacement for OCO have on the overall Earth Science program if additional funds for an OCO replacement were not provided?

A3. Following the loss of OCO in February 2009, the mission’s science team concluded that an OCO reflight or a functionally equivalent mission was necessary to

advance carbon cycle science and to provide the basis for thoughtful policy decisions

and societal benefits. In response, NASA evaluated a range of options to develop and

launch a replacement instrument or acquire data from international missions. Of

the options under consideration, the most mature and best-understood option is to

rebuild an OCO mission with as few changes as possible and launching the so-called

‘‘Carbon Copy’’ into its planned orbit as an element of the ‘‘A-Train.’’ Such a mission

could have a minimum development time of 28 months and cost approximately

$331M.

69

NASA is working to implement the balanced program recommended by the National Research Council’s Decadal Survey in Earth Science, Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond. In preparing its recommendations, the NRC assumed the successful launch of OCO and

therefore did not recommend any near-term carbon monitoring missions which

would be included in NASA’s budget. If a decision was made to re-fly OCO and if

the required funding for an OCO replacement would come from within the Earth

Science portfolio, it would delay the development and launch readiness dates of existing or new missions.

Q4. The FY 2010 budget request for NASA’s Education programs represents a reduction of $43M from the FY 2009 enacted budget. What is the reason for the reduction and what was cut?

A4. The President’s budget request of $126.1M for NASA Education reflects the

funding required to execute the Agency’s education plan in FY 2010. The FY 2010

budget request for NASA Education is an increase of $10.5M from the FY 2009

budget request.

The FY 2010 budget request does not contain the Congressional plus-ups of FY

2009 for the National Space Grant College and Fellowship Program (Space Grant)

and the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), nor

does the FY 2010 budget request include funding for other Congressionally-directed

activities added in FY 2009.

The FY 2009 budget request was $115.6M, with $169.2M enacted.

The enacted FY 2009 budget included the following Congressional modifications

from the original budget request:

+53.6M, Funds four Congressionally-directed projects (Competitive Educational

Grants Program; Global Climate Change Education; Science Museums and Planetariums Grants; and NASA visitor centers) and increases two existing projects (Space

Grant and EPSCoR).

• +$16M, Fund a Competitive Educational Grant project as directed

• +$10M, Fund a Global Climate Change Education project as directed

• +$7M, Fund a Science Museums and Planetarium Grants project as directed

• +$7M, Fund Education projects at the 10 NASA visitor centers as directed

• +$11.7M, Increase EPSCoR to $20.0M as directed

• +$11.3M, Increase Space Grant to $40M as directed

• -$8.9M, Elementary, Secondary and e-Education core programming

• -$1.0M, Informal Education core programming

• +$0.1M, Minority University Research and Education Program

• +$0.5M, Higher Education programming

Q5. What specific insight do you have in the progress of the two COTS vendors? Is

simply meeting the scheduled contract milestones to justify vendor payment

enough to give you confidence that each vendor can perform agreed to flight

demonstrations?

A5. NASA is pleased with the progress that our funded COTS partners have made

to date in meeting the terms of their Space Act Agreements (SAAB). Both commercial partners continue to make steady progress in achieving their cargo demonstration milestones. While each has experienced some milestone delays, this is not unexpected, since both partners have aggressive, success-oriented schedules, and are facing challenges typical of a space flight development program. As such, NASA sees

no reason to doubt either company’s ability to achieve its desired objectives—that

of demonstrating commercial cargo delivery to and from the International Space

Station (ISS).

As of July 2, 2009, SpaceX had completed the first 14 of 22 milestones and has

received a total of $234M in payments with $44M available for the retraining milestones. SpaceX has completed the majority of Dragon capsule qualification testing.

Technical progress is being made and qualification testing is progressing on the Falcon 9 launch vehicle as well. SpaceX has begun manufacturing the flight Dragon

capsule and Falcon 9 to be used for the COTS demonstration flight 1.

Recently, SpaceX notified NASA that the company expects delays in completing

its three demonstration flights. According to the terms of the current SAA, SpaceX

was supposed to complete its first demonstration flight in June 2009 so as to allow

70

additional time for Falcon 9 manufacturing and testing programs. SpaceX now expects to complete its first demonstration flight in January 2010, with the second and

third flights now planned for June 2010 and August 2010, respectively. The Orbital demonstration flight is currently planned for March 2011 due to the company’s decision to change its cargo transportation architecture from an unpressurized (external) cargo system to a pressurized (internal) cargo system. However,

delays such as these are not unexpected since both partners have aggressive, success-oriented schedules, and are facing challenges typical of a space flight development programs. It is important to note that NASA will not pay for any milestone

missed until the milestone is successfully completed per the SAA and approved by

NASA. Should a milestone be missed, NASA will evaluate partner progress made

and recommend future actions that are in the best interest of the government. Although meeting existing SAA milestones is a primary indicator of progress, and completion does increase our confidence levels, it is not the only indicator. The Commercial Crew & Cargo Program Office (C3P0) maintains technical, programmatic,

and schedule insight into the COTS partners’ progress. The program office includes

representation from the Safety Technical and the Engineering Technical Authorities

who provide independent progress insight for each partner. The ISS program office

maintains independent insight into partner progress as well, in order to verify ISS

visiting vehicle interface and safety requirement compliance. The C3PO has established the COTS Advisory Team (CAT) comprised of approxi- mately 100 NASA technical experts from across the Agency. These experts review

partner technical and programmatic progress for each milestone and provide

progress assessments to the C3PO. Additionally, they participate in all major design

reviews providing technical review comments back to our partners. The CAT provides another method by which NASA gains confidence that our partners will be

able performs their flight demonstrations. As mentioned above, each COTS partner must successfully verify they comply with a detailed set of ISS interface and safety requirements prior to their planned

ISS berthing missions. These requirements are imposed on all Visiting Vehicles

wishing to dock to the ISS. Both COTS partners are currently working with the ISS

program on a daily basis to ensure they meet the ISS Visiting Vehicle requirements,

providing independent insight into their progress and building confidence. Please see milestone charts on attached pages.

Q6. After the successful Hubble servicing mission, it seems that the ability to perform human repair is something worth keeping. What plans are there, if any, for including provisions in the design for putting some sort of robotic arm on Orion

or its service module?

A6. The Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle was designed from the beginning to be a versatile spacecraft, with the possibility that additional capabilities not included in

the current baseline design could be added at a later date, depending on mission

need and funding availability. Currently, NASA does not have a requirement for a

robotic arm for Orion’s missions to the International Space Station and the Moon.

However, should a requirement arise, and additional funding becomes available, the

Orion could be adapted via future upgrades or ‘‘kits’’ to include a robotic arm, for

example. The baseline Orion architecture has already allocated mass and volume for

‘‘unpressurized cargo,’’ which will accommodate such kits and thereby precluding

the need for a redesign of the Orion vehicle architecture should such upgrades be

required at a later date.

Q7. Now that the Exploration strategy is essentially put on hold for three months,

how is NASA proceeding with attempting to secure international participation

in future exploration activities? How is NASA’s experience with the ISS informing discussions with potential exploration partners?

A7. During the Review of the Human Spaceflight Plans, NASA did not initiate any

new human lunar exploration activities. That said, NASA has continued to pursue

its four pronged international engagement strategy related to establishing interest

in lunar exploration cooperation. Specifically, NASA continued to: (1) meet NASA’s

commitments to its International Space Station (ISS) Partners; (2) conduct multilateral dialogue with space organizations which have expressed interest in the Moon;

(3) conduct bilateral technical discussions and identify areas of potential cooperation; and, (4) seek other complementary initiatives that support NASA’s plans to explore beyond Low Earth Orbit with humans and robots.

NASA’s early decision to meet its ISS commitments after the Space Shuttle’s return to flight and NASA’s leading role in the development of common principles for

exploration among 14 space agencies under the banner of the ‘‘Global Exploration

Strategy (GES)’’ have convinced potential international partners that NASA is seriVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:34 Dec 19, 2009 Jkt 049551 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\FULL09\051909\49551 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
71

ous about international cooperation in exploration. Multilaterally, NASA led the development and release in May 2007 of the Global Exploration Strategy Framework

Document as well as its follow-on, 13-agency coordination mechanism called the

International Space Exploration Coordination Group (ISECG). Under NASA’s leadership, the ISECG is continuing work to define candidate human and robotic lunar

architectures.

Bilaterally, NASA has had initial significant successes in completing lunar robotic

cooperative agreements with India (Chandryaan), Japan (Selene/Kaguya), and Russia (LRO). Other discussions and precursor activities are underway with space agencies in such countries as Canada, ESA, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Korea, Russia,

and the United Kingdom. Finally, NASA is seeking other complementary initiatives

such leading the development of a multilateral set of lessons learned from ISS to

help exploration, advocating more research using the ISS as a testbed that feeds forward to human lunar exploration, and stimulating international scientific interest

in the Moon through the NASA-led International Lunar Network (ILN) concept.

NASA’s success in its international discussions continues to help lay the foundation for future sustained and affordable space exploration activities by the United

States.

72

73

74

Question submitted by Representative Ben R. Luja ́n

NASA’s participation in NM spaceport:

Q1. Last year NASA examined whether the NM space flight program could carry NASA instruments and investigators into space cost effectively. The Ames Research Center briefed NM on the potential of NASA’s use of the NM spaceport

for sub-orbital research. Does NASA intend to pursue this potential, or continue

studying the use of sub-orbital passenger carrying capabilities in the NM spaceport?

A1. NASA is studying the use of commercially available, passenger carrying sub- orbital rockets as a science platform, and has created a Human Sub-orbital Flight

Program led by the Space Operations Mission Directorate (SOMD). The SOMD will

work with service providers as capabilities become available to acquire services to

support NASA users selected through a competitive process. The NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD) is always interested in any plat- form that enables science. The SMD has issued multiple calls for Earth and space science investigation ideas. SMD issued two Requests for Information (RFIs) (Feb/

Mar 2008; Sep/Dec 2008) seeking expressions of interest in potential NASA science

investigations and payloads/experiments taking advantage of the new platforms.

The response was low for both RFIs, totaling only six responses suggesting a concept for an Earth or space science investigation (14 responses suggested Exploration

Systems Mission Directorate-relevant investigations). A NASA Research Announcement was issued (Aug/Dec 2008) seeking proposals for funded concept studies in Earth and space science using any capability of the new platforms. Again, the number of responses was low—17 compliant proposals.

These were subjected to standard community peer review. Most proposals fared

poorly in peer review, rated as poor science or poor use of the platform. The only

highly rated proposal was selected for a one-year funded concept study—‘‘Firefly on

Demand,’’ PI: Joanne Hill, USRA/GSFC, for study of terrestrial gamma-ray flashes

emitted during thunderstorms and their impact on upper atmosphere energetics. While these efforts have not identified uses for such platforms for the space and

Earth sciences, NASA is continuing to explore this concept and the potential benefits it might bring to other areas of research and technology development. Since the

vehicles to provide these services are still in various stages of development and testing, it will take time for this activity to mature.

Questions submitted by Representative Charles A. Wilson

Q1. How is NASA working with DOD, DOE, FAA, and other agencies to enable air- craft to operate with non-petroleum based fuels?

A1. NASA is working with a number of agencies to investigate non-petroleum fuels for aircraft use. The Agency is performing research to develop combustors with reduced emissions capable of operating on a wide range of fuels. While recent flight

demonstrations have shown that current aircraft engines can operate with alternative fuels, NASA intends to develop methods to maximize the efficiency of combustors regardless of the type of fuel. In addition, NASA will ensure that the differences between the fuels are well understood and that there are no long-term detrimental issues with utilizing alternative fuels. In this activity, NASA is actively engaged in a number of research activities. Some of the main ones include developing

and evaluating advanced combustion concepts using conventional and alternative

fuels, improving computational combustion codes to improve emissions predictive capability to enable better combustion systems to be designed, and emissions testing

of aircraft engines. Other aspects of this research includes characterizing new fuels

to insure they meet the minimum requirements (e.g., freeze point, flash point, etc.)

and that lab burner and engine tests prove feasibility of safely operating on alternative fuels.

The Air Force has a very large program to certify and investigate the use of nonpetroleum fuels for their fleet. NASA has benefited from collaborating with the Air

Force on this alternative fuel research. The Agency has purchased two FischerTropsch (F–T) fuels in conjunction with the Air Force and is currently involved in

a new purchase to obtain a substantial quantity of biojet fuel for our research activities. NASA has also collaborated with the Air Force in exchanging fuel property

data for a number of alternative fuels. The Air Force has provided data to NASA

on their engine emissions measurements using alternative fuels. NASA and the Air

Force recently collaborated on emissions testing using a Pratt and Whitney 308 engine with F–T fuel and the Aviation Alternative Fuel Emissions Experiment

75

(AAFEX) using a NASA DC–8 aircraft with two F–T fuels. The Air Force was an

active participant in both of these tests and sent a research team and instrumentation to participate in the tests. NASA has also teamed with the Air Force Research

Laboratory for combustion flame tube testing using a CFM–56 sector with a Fischer-Tropsch fuel. Some of NASA sponsored work on alternative fuel chemical kinetics

was recently provided to the Air Force for their use. NASA also works with the FAA for non-petroleum fuels. NASA participates as a member of the FAA Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuel Initiative (CAAFI) and

attends CAAFI meetings, serves on a number of CAAFI teams, and participates in

road mapping exercises. Through the CAAFI coalition NASA also learns what research others are performing, learns what fuel and emissions characteristics data

are needed for alternative fuel certification and then develops roadmaps for NASA

alternative fuels research aimed at obtaining and disseminating the required information.

NASA has also worked with The EPA on sampling emissions from aircraft in the Aircraft Particle Emissions Experiment and AAFEX measurement campaigns to

evaluate emissions from numerous aircraft engines. EPA sent a research team and

participated in these experiments at various locations across the country. NASA is

also working with DOE in the biofuels area. The Agency currently has a space act

agreement in process for DOE to characterize oil samples obtained from various biofeedstock sources.

Q2. How can NASA’s capabilities in aerospace power technologies and systems be applied to help solve our nation’s energy challenges?

A2. As a research and development agency, NASA has a unique role in government to support civil aeronautics research. Therefore, the Agency can have the most significant impact by focusing on improving the efficiency (and coincidently minimizing

the environmental impact) of the air transportation system. The NASA Aeronautics

program conducts cutting-edge, long-term research in areas that are well aligned

with the National Aeronautics R&D Policy guidance and with the high-priority national aeronautics R&D goals and time-phased objectives established by the National Plan for Aeronautics R&D and Related Infrastructure.

Much of NASA’s civil research can also directly benefit military aircraft. Through close partnership with the DOD, NASA also helps to improve the efficiency of military aircraft. The impact of this research is most profound for the U.S. Air Force

because fuel costs have a major impact on the service. While it is important for NASA to focus on air transportation challenges, other sectors can benefit from NASA’s technologies. Since the restructuring, there has

been a renewed emphasis on the publication of research results, preferably in peer

reviewed venues. A primary reason for this emphasis is to help ensure technical excellence of NASA’s work, but another significant benefit is the dissemination of

knowledge to the broader community. Such dissemination facilitates the transfer of

knowledge in areas such as computational fluid dynamics, materials and structures,

and aerothermodynamics that may help meet the broader energy challenges that

face the Nation.

From a space perspective, as part of the NASA Exploration Technology Development Program (ETDP), NASA is developing advanced lithium-ion batteries and hydrogen-oxygen fuel cells to store energy at the lunar outpost, and to power lunar

rovers and space suits. These energy storage technologies could help to increase the

driving range of terrestrial electric vehicles, and to increase the battery life of portable consumer electronic devices such as cell phones and laptop computers. Work

on these technologies is taking place at the NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC)

in Ohio and the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. As part of the

ETDP, GRC also is developing Stirling power convertors for small nuclear reactors

and radioisotope power systems to generate power for the lunar outpost. Stirling

convertors could be used for Earth-based power generation systems that use concentrated solar energy or waste heat from power plants.

The NASA Johnson Space Center in Texas, in coordination with other NASA centers, has the lead for developing lunar electric rovers that will be used by the Constellation Program during human lunar missions. The largest of the rovers, named

the Lunar Electric Rover, is designed to carry two astronauts hundreds of miles

across the lunar surface. These rovers share many common technology development

requirements with electric vehicles on Earth (energy storage like batteries, electric

motors, recharging systems, new tires, etc.). Because of this need, NASA is pursuing

partnerships both with other government agencies and U.S. industry partners to ensure NASA is at the forefront of electric vehicle technology development. The technologies developed for the Lunar Electric Rover may be helpful in enabling technologies for electric cars and electric heavy equipment used on Earth.

76

NASA’s Innovative Partnerships Program has also supported renewable energy

research and partnerships, with 76 projects recently, including 45 from Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR), 18 partnership projects, seven jointly-funded Seed

Fund technology development projects, five Small Business Technology Transfer

(STTR) projects and one Centennial Challenges competition. The projects involved

many technologies including solar power, fuel cell technology, laser power, and

nano-material and cryogenic applications.

The attached summary was developed in March 2009, in response to a request

from the House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics for information to support

the Subcommittee’s planned round table regarding renewable energy.

Q3. Given the history of NASA in spinning out commercializations, does the committee feel NASA is receiving adequate funding for support of patent protection,

licensing, and commercialization activities with companies to develop new technologies?

A3. The NASA Innovative Partnerships Program (IPP) conducts technology development to meet the Agency’s needs and technology transfer for a broad spectrum of

technologies having applicability across key U.S. industrial sectors. In addition, IPP

provides and facilitates a grassroots opportunity for U.S. businesses, academia and

citizens to apply their innovations to NASA missions. Funding for IPP activities

pays dividends toward U.S. industrial competitiveness in global markets, and in

sparking young people’s interest in STEM disciplines.

The current budget plans for FY 2010 and out years in the IPP budget will lead

to a reduction in current service levels, especially in Partnership Development. Partnership Development includes licensing out of NASA technology and facilitating the

protection of the government’s rights in its inventions, as mandated by a long history of legislation, as well as partnering with external entities for joint development

of critical, near-term, cutting edge technologies having both NASA mission use and

commercial applicability.

Q4. What are NASA’s plans to invest in technologies to improve the efficiency of turbine engines to reduce carbon emissions?

A4. The most direct way to reduce carbon emissions in the near-term is to improve

the efficiency of jet aircraft engines since approximately 20 pounds of carbon dioxide

are emitted for each gallon of aviation fuel burned. The key to quiet, efficient aircraft propulsion is to move large amounts of air at velocities that are not much

higher than the aircraft’s forward flight speed. To date NASA has been moving in

this direction with ever-larger turbofan engines. However, we are approaching the

point where nacelle size, weight, and drag are offsetting the noise and efficiency

gains. We are currently performing research aimed at lowering the weight and drag

of nacelles for ultra-high bypass turbofans and increasing the fuel-burn efficiency

of the core engine which powers the large fan. One of the next steps in improving

engine efficiency is open-rotor technology which removes the nacelle and uses largediameter prop-fan rotors, but that too has its limitations. Currently, open-rotors are

noisier than large turbofans and we are performing research aimed at significantly

reducing the noise in order to capitalize on the fuel-burn benefits which open-rotors

offer compared to large turbofans. Technology improvements to ultra-high bypass

turbofans and open-rotor engines are expected to enable new engines in the 2020

time frame which burn 25 percent less fuel than today’s engines. Aircraft engine

manufacturers as well as Airbus and Boeing are considering open-rotor propulsion

systems for the next generation of single-aisle commercial transport aircraft, expected to enter service around 2020. Part of their decision on whether to adopt openrotor technology rests on the success of our current efforts at reducing the noise of

open-rotors. More advanced propulsion technologies are expected to involve hybrid

propulsion systems in which gas turbine engines drive electric generators which in

turn power electrically-driven fans, with many fans distributed along the airframe.

Other changes might involve embedding engines in the airframe to eliminate the

large nacelles which cause drag, or coupling gas turbine engines with fuel cells to

generate electric power for fans. In general we envision propulsion architectures

which no longer feature just two or four large engines suspended below the aircraft

wing. Embedded-engine and distributed propulsion technologies are not currently

expected to be ready for entry into service until 2030 or beyond.

In addition, NASA will continue to invest in advanced combustor technologies that

are more efficient than today’s systems. An important aspect of this work is to enable the development of combustors that can operate at peak efficiencies with a variety of fuel types, including alternative fuels such as biofuel. NASA has unique expertise with the understanding and predicting the impact of these fuels on comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:34 Dec 19, 2009 Jkt 049551 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\FULL09\051909\49551 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
77

bustor systems, and these contributions will help ensure that aircraft engines can

operate effectively if these new fuels become viable.

Q5. Current program plans for human space flight assign significant roles and responsibilities and provide for commensurate funding and workforce participation for a number of NASA Centers including the Glenn Research Center. What

will NASA do to insure that any changes in plans resulting from the independent review of human space flight activities will be implemented in a manner

which continues to effectively utilize the capabilities of the various Centers supporting NASA’s Exploration Mission?

A5. When Center exploration-related work assignments were determined in 2007,

NASA followed a formal process in which current and future potential center skills

were assessed. The proposed lunar work assignments were then coordinated with

NASA senior management and formally presented at the Senior Management Council for final Agency approval. If changes are made following the Administration’s response to the independent Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans, NASA will

ensure that each Center contributes appropriately to the revised plan.

Q6. NASA is to be commended for its acknowledgement that industry, academia,

and non-profit organizations will be the implementers of technology into products. The maturing and integrating of Aeronautics technologies for accelerated

transition to practical application is important for both environmental and economic competitiveness reasons. The Budget Request describes an acquisition

strategy for the Integrated Systems Research Program which allocates only $10

million of the $62.4 million of FY 2010 funding for grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements with industry, academia, and non-profit organizations.

Please describe why such a small percentage of the budget is designated for this

effort, as well as the smaller sum, contained within that figure, for grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements. What are the plans to increase this amount

in the future?

A6. The FY 2010 budget request for NASA Aeronautics Research of $507M is adequate to support a healthy program that addresses aviation’s effect on the environment. This funding level allows the Agency to continue the fundamental research

approach that conducts cutting-edge, long-term research in areas that are well

aligned with the National Aeronautics R&D Policy guidance and with the high-priority national aeronautics R&D goals anal time-phased objectives established by the

National Plan for Aeronautics R&D and Related Infrastructure. In addition, with

the approximately $60M increase in funding request above the FY 2009 President’s

budget request run-out, we will add a significant systems-level research component

centered on environmentally friendly technologies. The Integrated Systems Research

Program (ISRP) will conduct research at an integrated system-level on promising

concepts and technologies and explore, assess and demonstrate the benefits in a relevant environment. The goal of the first project in ISRP, the Environmentally Responsible Aviation (ERA) project, is to explore and document the feasibility, benefits,

and technical risks of vehicle concepts and enabling technologies identified to have

the potential to mitigate the impact of aviation on the environment.

NASA’s overall Aeronautics program achieves its expected role and contributions

within the current budget by focusing on NASA’s unique capabilities and by maximizing coordination and collaborations with industry, academia, and other government agencies. We are able to fund a workforce at four NASA research centers

(Ames, Dryden, Glenn, and Langley) that allows for robust implementation of our

research programs in such a manner that our workforce is sustained as a premier

technical organization and a true national asset. NASA has put many mechanisms

in place to engage academia and industry, including industry working groups and

technical interchange meetings at the program and project level, Space Act Agreements (SAAB) for cooperative partnerships, and the NASA Research Announcement

(NRA) process that provides for full and open competition for the best and most

promising research ideas. It is anticipated that these mechanisms, as well as competitive procurements, will be utilized to involve the private sector in ISRP and

ERA. NASA plans to allocate ∼$15M towards NRA in FY 2010, which equates to

roughly 24 percent of the program budget, which is greater than the amount allocated by the other research programs. In addition to the NRA, it is anticipated that

a significant amount of the remaining funds within the program will be used for

out-of-house procurements on advanced concepts and testing. An acquisition strategy plan will be developed in FY 2009 to identify and outline the strategy for the

larger procurements and collaborative efforts of the project.

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall

Q1. On many occasions the previous NASA Administrator discussed potential advantages of flying small NASA-research experiments aboard human sub-orbital

launch vehicles which are anticipated to be operational within the next few

years. It was his belief that this could help reduce the cost of sub-orbital flight

research by leveraging the private sector and also bolstering the industry with

an additional market, as well as provide a cost-effective way to test micro-gravity research payloads before being launched to the Space Station. This committee

has been a longtime supporter of micro-gravity research, and is concerned about

reductions in ISS research utilization in the coming years. Last year there was

some discussion within NASA as part of the Planning, Programming, Budgeting

and Execution (PPBE) process about budgeting approximately $5 million in FY

2010 to establish a Human Sub-orbital Flight Program to enable and conduct

scientific research aboard human-tended launch vehicle services. What is the

status of this effort, and how much is in the FY 2010 budget for this purpose?

Will NASA provide funds this year so scientists can begin developing experiments that could fly once these new vehicles become available?

A1. NASA is studying the use of commercially available, passenger carrying suborbital rockets as a science platform, and has created a Human Sub-orbital Flight

Program led by the Space Operations Mission Directorate (SOMD). The SOMD will

work with service providers as capabilities become available to acquire services to

support NASA users selected through a competitive process.

The NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD) is always interested in any platform that enables science. The SMD has issued multiple calls for Earth and space

science investigation ideas. NASA issued two Requests for Information (RFIs) (Feb/

Mar 2008; Sep/Dec 2008) seeking expressions of interest in potential NASA science

investigations and payloads/experiments taking advantage of the new platforms.

The response was low for both RFIs, totaling only six responses suggesting a concept for an Earth or space science investigation (14 responses suggested Exploration

Systems Mission Directorate-relevant investigations).

A NASA Research Announcement was issued (Aug/Dec 2008) seeking proposals

for funded concept studies in Earth and space science using any capability of the

new platforms. Again, the number of responses was low—17 compliant proposals.

These were subjected to standard community peer review. Most proposals fared

poorly in peer review, rated as poor science or poor use of the platform. The only

highly-rated proposal was selected for a one year funded concept study—‘‘Firefly on

Demand,’’ PI: Joanne Hill, USRA/GSFC, for study of terrestrial gamma-ray flashes

emitted during thunderstorms and their impact on upper atmosphere energetics.

While these efforts have not identified uses for such platforms for the space and

Earth sciences, NASA is continuing to explore this concept and the potential benefits it might bring to other areas of research and technology development. Since the

vehicles to provide these services are still in various stages of development and testing, it will take time for this activity to mature. NASA is currently assessing the

level of resources to be committed to this effort in FY 2010.

Q2. Aeronautics research at NASA has suffered funding reductions over the last ten

years. As a consequence, the agency ‘‘reshaped’’ its aeronautics R&D program to

do more collaborative, foundational research with industry, other federal agencies, and research institutions. To what degree are industry, research institutions, and other federal agencies collaborating with NASA? It is too soon yet to

assess the development and adoption of new technologies under this structure?

If so, when will NASA be better able to evaluate its progress?

A2. NASA is very pleased with the degree of collaboration that exists with other

government agencies, industry and the academic community. NASA has established

strong partnerships with other government agencies and organizations, including

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Defense (DOD), and the

Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO). As a member of the National

Science and Technology Council (NSTC) Aeronautics Science and Technology Subcommittee, NASA is pursuing a coordinated approach with its government partners

to managing and utilizing the Nation’s research, development, test, and evaluation

(RDT&E) infrastructure, which includes test facilities as well as computational infrastructure. An example of how this partnership is performing is exemplified by the

Research Transition Teams that have been established between NASA and the FAA.

These teams help ensure that the fundamental research that NASA leads can be

effectively transitioned to the FAA and ultimately implemented into the air transportation system.

87

The Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) NASA Research Announcement (NRA) process has also been very successful. Since 2006, NASA has

issued awards for more than 380 research proposals from organizations across the

country. These efforts span from focused research topics that involve a few researchers to complex investigations that involve very large teams from industry and academia. A key attribute of the ARMD NRA process is the focus on collaboration. Almost every solicitation promotes collaboration and encourages external researchers

to propose work that is collaborative with NASA researchers. Because of this focus,

very few grants have been issued. Instead, there is a large proportion of cooperative

agreements that are utilized because of the close interactions between NASA and

external personnel.

In addition to funded activities, NASA is engaged in a number of non-reimburs- able space act agreements with industry partners. ARMD has established more than

68 of these Space Act Agreements since 2006. While these collaborative efforts are

important for advancing the aeronautics technologies, they are also important mechanisms to facilitate the transfer of knowledge between NASA and U.S. industry. NASA utilizes the ‘‘N+1, N+2, and N+3’’ notation to indicate the generation of air- craft that are expected to primarily benefit the long-term cutting edge research that

is conducted today. There is a significant focus on technologies for the N+2 generation of aircraft which are expected to enter service around 2025–2030. Therefore,

there is not an expectation that much of this research will be adopted today. In fact,

the development timelines for aircraft are so long that it is unlikely that many of

the technologies be developed by NASA today will be implemented on the next generation of civil transports. However, NASA has established challenging goals for future systems and is making the high risk investments today that are needed to realize such profound improvements in capabilities in the future. ARMD has refrained

from establishing definitive transition metrics because these tend to promote the development of more incremental technologies. Instead the focus is on enabling significant improvements to capabilities. If successful these will be adopted and will make

a difference. The ARMD portfolio is quite broad, and while most technologies will

not be implemented in the near future, there are examples where some technologies

may make a difference in the near-term. For example, as a result of collaboration

under the NRA process, a new scheduling tool has been developed that is estimated

to save approximately $2.8M per year for airlines operating into San Francisco.

Q3. The budget establishes a new Integrated Systems Research Program within the Aeronautics Directorate. What is the role of this program, and to what degree

will it be able to validate or demonstrate promising technologies?

A3. The Integrated Systems Research Program (ISRP), a new $62.4M program ef- fort beginning in FY 2010, will conduct research at an integrated system-level on

promising concepts and technologies and explore/assess/demonstrate the benefits in

a relevant environment. The integrated system-level research in this program will

be coordinated with on-going long-term, foundational research within the three

other research programs, and will focus specifically on maturing and integrating

technologies in major vehicle and operational systems and subsystems for accelerated transition to practical application.

The goal of the first project in ISRP, the Environmentally Responsible Aviation

project, is to explore and document the feasibility, benefits, and technical risks of

vehicle concepts and enabling technologies identified to have the potential to mitigate the impact of aviation on the environment. Through system-level analysis,

promising vehicle and propulsion concepts and technologies will be down-selected

based on their potential benefit towards simultaneously reducing fuel burn, noise

and emissions. NASA will provide much more informed trade space with validation

in relevant environments for the selected concepts and technologies by 2015, so that

industry can accelerate the introduction of these promising ideas in future product

development.

Q4. What provisions does NASA have in place if the two COTS contractors are not

able to develop their launch systems in time to meet ISS cargo requirements by

2012? How will the void of cargo services be filled?

A4. In the post-Shuttle era, the ISS will be supplied by domestically developed commercial cargo services under the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contract, the

Russian Progress, the European Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV), and the Japanese H–II Transfer Vehicle (HTV). NASA is relying on U.S. industry to develop

cargo transportation capabilities that will be able to support the ISS and intends

to purchase cargo transportation from the U.S. commercial market. The major uncertainty will be the schedule. The contracts are fixed price with milestone driven

payments. The total cost will be fixed but the payment schedule will vary. NASA

88

realizes that the commercial industry is evolving, and choosing two CRS providers

increases the probability of success of commercial ISS resupply services. While

international partners’ vehicles do provide some capabilities, it remains vital to the

full utilization of the ISS that the CRS contractors attain the capability of supporting the Space Station’s full, six-person crews in the future.

Q5. What do you consider the three highest technical risks to maintaining the Ares I and Orion IOC, and what steps are being taken to address them? Include details of how the $630M provided by the Recovery Act will be allocated within

the program to reduce schedule and programmatic risk.

A5. NASA has identified clear mitigation strategies for the key technical challenges that have been identified, such as those listed below. All launch vehicle development

efforts encounter technical challenges as the design evolves. This is part of the design process and normal engineering practices. As such, NASA is actively working

these risks, and has made great progress in mitigating many of them.

• Ares I Thrust Oscillation: Thrust oscillation is a characteristic within solid

rocket motors based on internal geometry. Early Ares I structural analyses

indicated that thrust oscillation, unless corrected, could result in high dynamic G force levels in the upper stage and the Orion. This is not an uncommon problem in solid rocket motors. In November 2007, NASA chartered the

Thrust Oscillation Focus Team to precisely define the frequency spectrum and

oscillation amplitudes that the five-segment motor is expected to produce. The

team’s analysis has led to several mitigation strategies, including propellant

dampening, spring isolator concepts, and an aft skirt tuned vibration absorber. The team’s final analysis and recommendations for incorporation of

thrust oscillation mitigation designs will be presented during the Constellation Preliminary Design Review, which is scheduled to begin late this year

and continue through early next year.

• Orion Mass: Orion, like all spacecraft, has a mass limit, and will not be able

to accomplish its mission if it goes over it. The Orion team continues to refine

its design and has made several changes that reduce the overall spacecraft

mass. For example, the power distribution system was redesigned to a distributed system configuration achieving considerable mass reduction. Also, a passive loads attenuation system for contingency land landing was selected,

thereby eliminating the weight of an airbag system.

• Common bulkhead manufacturing risk: The common bulkhead was employed to reduced mass of the upper stage, but has a complex manufacturing process.

The Ares Project continues to perform subscale and full scale testing of manufacturing and inspection techniques for the common bulkhead to mitigate any

development risks.

With regard to the second question about funding, the President’s FY 2010 budget request for Exploration Systems is $3.963B, an increase of $457.6M above the FY

2009 appropriation and $225.4M above the planned FY 2010 level in last year’s request. Based on the $400M in Recovery Act funds and the increase in the FY 2010

President’s budget request over last year’s levels, the Exploration Systems budget

plan includes about $630M more in FY 2009 and FY 2010 than the previous plan.

The $400M in Recovery Act funds for Exploration Systems includes $310M which

will be applied to Constellation Systems and $90M which will be applied toward the

Commercial Crew and Cargo Program. Pending potential changes due to the results of the Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight plans, the Recovery Act funding for Constellation Systems will be allocated to critical activities related to the successful completion of the Orion, Ares I

and Ground Operations projects. The Constellation Program plans to use the funds

to accelerate its test schedule and the procurement of long-lead items, thereby mitigating risk. More specifically, the funding will:

• Increase fidelity in the Orion Ground Test Article providing better understanding of the loads environment and reducing risk as the Project moves forward with design. Additional risk reduction is provided by tasks that will

demonstrate and test materials and spacecraft systems to better understand

the potential failure limits. Overall schedule risk reduction is being accomplished through use of the Recovery Act funds for Orion Engineering Development Units and efforts to begin Long Lead Procurement activities earlier.

• Design the specialized systems and equipment for the Mobile Launcher,

which are a critical part of the overall structure. The Mobile Launcher is a

large platform with a tower used to transport, service, and launch the next

generation launch vehicle and spacecraft (Ayes I and Orion).

89

• Accelerate development of J–2X engine components.

• Develop Ares Upper Stage tooling for common bulkhead and the Upper Stage

Vertical Assembly Tool.

• Development and outfitting A–3 test stand.

The remaining $90M will support plans to stimulate efforts to develop and demonstrate technologies that enable commercial human space flight capabilities. These

efforts are intended to foster entrepreneurial activity leading to job growth in engineering, analysis, design, and research, and to economic growth as capabilities for

new markets are created. It is important to note that some of these funds will support the commercial space industry as well as the Constellation Program. A portion

of the funds will be used for competitive awards for commercial development of crew

concepts and technology demonstrations and investigations. A portion of the funds

will be used to accelerate an International Space Station docking interface that

could be utilized by both the commercial space community as well as the Orion

project. A portion of the funds will support investments in launch site and test infrastructure at various Centers that will benefit both government and commercial

interests. A portion of the funds will be used for human rating requirements development that will be applicable to the Constellation Program as well as commercial

partners, and will reduce the complexity associated with human rating a space

flight system.

Q6. Last year, GAO issued a report suggesting that NASA had not adequately budgeted for Shuttle transition and retirement costs. The FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Conference Report included language directing the agency to better define these costs and incorporate them into future budget requests. The FY 2010

budget request includes $47.1M in FY 2011 and FY 2012 for Shuttle transition

and retirement costs. Although that figure is higher than the $96M proposed in

last year’s budget, it is still low compared to NASA’s previous estimate of $1.2B.

Given the costs associated with contract closeouts, employee retention or termination, disposition or transition of real property and flight qualified hardware,

as well as other costs associated with such a large, geographically diverse program, what has changed that permits NASA to achieve these savings? Please

provide a breakdown of how the $471 million will be spent.

A6. NASA has been transitioning from the Space Shuttle Program to the next generation of human space flight vehicles since 2005. Each time the Agency has refined

its Transition and Retirement (T&R) cost projections, they have decreased. In large

part, this is due to an increasing understanding of all of the elements of this undertaking; NASA has not retired a major human space flight system since the mid1970s, and the Space Shuttle is far more complex than its predecessors. In addition,

the Agency continues to find ways to put Shuttle assets to effective use in the Constellation Program, further reducing T&R costs.

The President’s Budget Request for FY 2010 includes $470.6M in the Space Shuttle Program for T&R activities for FY 2011 and 2012. This funding is to be allocated

as below (numbers do not add to $470.6M due to rounding).

• $114.3M—Personal Property

• $49.7M—Major Flight Assets

• $55.6M—Real Property

• $11.2M—Records Management

• $2.0M—Software Disposition

• $55.7M—Contract Closeout

• $44.2M—Oversight and Integration

• $42.3M—Civil Service Labor and Travel

• $95.7M—Severance and Retention

Q7. What does this budget assume with regard to Shuttle retirement, especially with

regard to personnel actions, schedule, and facilities? What are NASA’s plans for

the actual disposition of the Orbiters and other flight and ground artifacts of

the Shuttle program?

A7. The President’s Budget Request for FY 2010 supports Shuttle operations

through the end of FY 2010; there is currently no funding to support flights beyond

FY 2010, though the Agency plans to fly out the remaining missions even if the

manifest slips. The decision has been made by the Administration to fly the remaining International Space Station assembly flights, including the Alpha Magnetic

90

Spectrometer flight, while supporting the goal to fly the Space Shuttle safely as possible until its retirement, which we believe can be accomplished by the end of 2010.

The Space Shuttle Program is now moving forward with the retirement plans previously established and notified to Congress. This includes plans to transition workforce from the Shuttle program to follow-on efforts where possible, as well as plans

to utilize Shuttle facilities, where appropriate, to support such efforts. NASA provides updates to its Workforce Transition Strategy twice a year to ensure that Congress is kept informed of the Agency’s personnel transition activities. In November

2008, the Agency reported to Congress on efforts to disposition the Shuttle Orbiters

and related artifacts in the Space Shuttle Program Transition and Retirement Personal Property Disposition Plan. On December 17, 2008, NASA issued a ‘‘Request

for Information’’ (RFI) to obtain market research from educational institutions,

science museums, and other appropriate organizations regarding the community’s

ability to acquire and display a Space Shuttle Orbiter. NASA received about 20 responses to the RFI, which closed on March 17, 2009. The responses will inform the

development of strategies for placement of the Orbiters anti Space Shuttle Main Engines after conclusion of the Space Shuttle Program.

Q8. Many of NASA’s science missions have been launched on the Boeing Delta 11,

which has proven to be one of the most reliable rockets ever built. Unfortunately,

production of Delta 11’s is coming to an end. How will this impact the cost of

launching future science missions? What steps is NASA taking to ensure continued access to an affordable, reliable medium-lift launcher? What would be the

cost impact if NASA were to purchase launchers provided by the United Launch

Alliance (Delta 4 and Atlas 5)?

A8. NASA’s strategy for providing domestic commercial launch services in support

of NASA’s medium-class missions is linked to the International Space Station (ISS)

Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contracts that were awarded on December 23,

2008. The CRS vendors are developing vehicles that could be available for mediumclass NASA science missions on a NASA Launch Services (NLS)-type contract, for

potential launches in the 2013–2014 timeframe. At this time, the CRS launch vehicles are in an early stage of development, and have not yet been demonstrated. This

will establish a larger business base for medium-class launch vehicles, which should

help reduce launch prices for NASA’s space and Earth science missions in this class.

However, it is important to note that the CRS providers are not currently developing the full range of capabilities (e.g., high inclination launch site, upper stage

for Earth escape missions, Dual Payload Attach Fitting) typically utilized by NASA

science missions. Therefore, some additional costs will be incurred to fully meet

NASA’s science needs. NASA has not yet finalized the funding estimate for these

capabilities, but the contract(s) which follows NLS will be used to definitize service

options to meet NASA’s science needs.

NASA provided more information on the state of small- and medium-class launch

vehicles in its report to the Committee on the topic, delivered in August 2009.

Æ