U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

28–938PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

AN OVERVIEW OF THE NASA BUDGET 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 7, 2018 

Serial No. 115–51 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JIM BANKS, Indiana 

ANDY BIGGS, Arizona 

ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas 

NEAL P. DUNN, Florida 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana 

RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

JACKY ROSEN, Nevada 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

MARK TAKANO, California 

COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii 

CHARLIE CRIST, Florida 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE

HON. BRIAN BABIN, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JIM BANKS, Indiana 

ANDY BIGGS, Arizona 

NEAL P. DUNN, Florida 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

AMI BERA, California, Ranking Member 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

CHARLIE CRIST, Florida 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

March 7, 2018 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Brian Babin, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Space, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 4 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 6 

Statement by Representative Ami Bera, Minority Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 8 

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

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

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

Witnesses: 

Mr. Robert M. Lightfoot, Jr., Acting Administrator, National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration (NASA) 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 14 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 31 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Mr. Robert M. Lightfoot, Jr., Acting Administrator, National Aeronautics 

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

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Articles submitted by Representative Ami Bera, Minority Ranking Member, 

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

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 86 

Letter submitted by Representative Ed Perlmutter, Subcommittee on Space, 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................................................................................... 98

Letter submitted by Representative Dana Rohrabacher, Subcommittee on 

Space, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 100 

(1) 

AN OVERVIEW OF THE NASA BUDGET 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2018 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:09 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian Babin 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 

Q:ongress of the linited ~tares 

!louse of Rcprcscntatmcs COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

2321 RAYBURN HOUSE Q<'F:CE 8vl~U"\l(, 

(202) 225~6371 

'~'" 

An Overview of the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration Budget for Fiscal Year 2019 

Wednesday, March 7, 2018 

!O:OOa.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

Witnesses 

Mr. Robert M. Lightfoot, Jr., Acting Administrator, National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration (NASA) 
3 

TO: 

FROM: 

DATE: 

SUBJECT: 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

Charter 

Members, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Majority Staff, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

March 7, 2018 

Space Subcommittee Hearing: "An Overview of the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration Budget for Fiscal Year 20 19" 

On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office 

Building, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Subcommittee on Space will hold 

a hearing titled, "An Overview of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Budget for 

Fiscal Year 2019." 

Hearing Purpose 

The purpose of the hearing is to review the Administration's fiscal year 2019 (FY19) 

budget request for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 

Mr. Robert M. Lightfoot, Jr., Acting Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) 

Staff Contact 

For questions related to the hearing, please contact Mr. Tom Hammond, Staff Director, 

Space Subcommittee, or Ms. Sara Ratliff, Policy Assistant, Space Subcommittee, at 202-225-

6371. 
4 

Chairman BABIN. The Subcommittee on Space will now come to 

order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses at 

any time. 

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

Aeronautics and Space Administration Budget for Fiscal Year 

2019.’’ 

I would like to now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

The passage of the 2017 NASA Transition Authorization Act last 

year was clear evidence of the Committee’s bipartisan support of 

NASA. The fiscal year 2019 budget request reflects the Administration’s adherence to the ‘‘continuity of purpose’’ described in the Authorization Act. 

This Committee’s commitment to NASA’s long-term goals are 

codified in law and the hearing record we’ve established over the 

years. Mars has been, and will remain, the first interplanetary destination for humanity. And along the way, NASA has been encouraged to carry out any mission necessary, including cislunar activities, to advance future interplanetary exploration. 

There are many benefits to this strategy. The moon offers a proving ground closer to home for advancing the technologies necessary 

for deep space exploration. The opportunities for commercial and 

international participation could greatly enhance a lunar mission. 

And the more frequent operational cadence will better prepare astronauts, mission crews, and commercial partners for future missions. 

We were very encouraged to see the President sign the Space 

Policy Directive-1 last year and the new Exploration Campaign at 

NASA in the budget proposal. But the details are still forthcoming, 

and as a friendly reminder, the Exploration Roadmap called for in 

the 2017 Authorization Act was due back to this Committee on December the 1st. I hope the Administration will see fit to send this 

important report soon so that the Committee has the best information to work with. 

The President’s budget proposal also includes some ideas about 

the future of the International Space Station. Currently, the ISS 

will operate until at least 2024, and the budget proposes to end direct government funding in 2025. The idea is that the commercial 

sector will step in to operate the ISS with NASA as the customer— 

as a customer I should say. 

The ISS, managed and operated out of the Johnson Space Center, it is a unique testbed for deep space exploration and serves as 

a significant services customer to our developing NASA commercial 

partners. I remain open to new ideas relative to future operations, 

but obviously, we need a detailed and realistic, sustainable plan for 

any ISS transition in the future. We will need buy-in from the industry and the workforce well in advance of simply turning off the 

lights at the ISS and walking away. Now, I know that isn’t what 

is on the table, but NASA will need to do a better job articulating 

this plan as we move forward. As another friendly reminder, the 

ISS transition plan called for the 2017 Authorization Act was also 

due back to this Committee on December the 1st. 
5 

Turning to NASA’s science portfolio, this budget request continues to restore balance and support critical work across the entire science directorate. The budget supports a robust science program. This includes a range of small, medium, and large missions, 

such as the TESS exoplanet mission next month, the Mars Insight 

lander in May, the Parker Solar Probe over the summer, and the 

James Webb Space Telescope in 2019, as well as the flagship Europa Clipper and Mars 2020 rover missions, all exciting stuff. 

NASA has many exciting projects and missions across the agency. It is amazing to see the progress that’s been accomplished over 

just the last year. Very soon, SLS, Orion, Dragon 2, and Starliner 

vehicles will take their very first flights. NASA will begin construction of the Deep Space Gateway, the first permanent human outpost beyond low-Earth orbit. And with continued bipartisan congressional support, NASA will continue to make great strides in 

deep space exploration. 

I want to thank Administrator Lightfoot for his testimony, and 

I look forward to this very important discussion. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Babin follows:] 
6 

For Immediate Release 

March 7, 2018 

Media Contacts: Thea McDonald, Brandon VerVelde 

(202) 225-6371 

Statement by Chairman Brian Babin (R-Texas) 

An Overview of the NASA Budget for Fiscal Year 2019 

Chairman Babin: The passage of the 2017 NASA Transition Authorization Act last year was 

clear evidence of the committee's bipartisan support of NASA, The FY19 budget request 

reflects the administration's adherence to the "continuity of purpose" described in the 

authorization act. 

This committee's commitment to NASA's long-term goals are codified in law and the hearing 

record we've established over the years. Mars has been, and will remain, the first 

interplanetary destination for humanity. And along the way, NASA has been encouraged to 

carry out any mission necessary, including cis-lunar activities, to advance future 

interplanetary exploration. 

There are many benefits to this strategy. The moon offers a proving ground closer to home 

for advancing the technologies necessary for deep space exploration. The opportunities for 

commercial and international participation could greatly enhance a lunar mission. And the 

more frequent operational cadence will better prepare astronauts, mission crews and the 

commercial partners for future missions. 

We were very encouraged to see the president sign the Space Policy Directive 1 last year 

and the new Exploration Campaign at NASA in the budget proposaL But the details are still 

forthcoming and, as a friendly reminder, the Exploration Roadmap called for in the 2017 

Authorization Act was due back to this committee on December 1. I hope the administration 

will see fit to send this important report soon so the committee has the best information to 

work with. 

The president's budget proposal also includes some ideas about the future of the 

International Space Station. Currently, the ISS will operate until at least 2024, and the budget 

proposes to end direct government funding in 2025. The idea is that the commercial sector 

will step in to operate the ISS with NASA as a customer. 

The ISS, managed and operated out of the Johnson Space Center, is a unique test-bed for 

deep space exploration and serves as a significant "services customer" to our developing 

NASA commercial partners. I remain open to new ideas relative to future operations but 

obviously we need a detailed, realistic and sustainable plan for any ISS transition in the 

future. 
7 

We will need buy-in from the industry and the workforce well in advance of simply turning off 

the lights on the ISS and walking away. Now I know that isn't what is on the table, but NASA 

will need to do a better job articulating the plan as we move forward. 

As another friendly reminder, the ISS Transition plan called for in the 2017 Authorization Act 

was also due back to this committee on December 1. 

Turning to NASA's science portfolio, this budget request continues to restore balance and 

support critical work across the entire science directorate. 

The budget supports a robust science program. This includes a range of small, medium and 

large missions, such as the TESS exoplanet mission next month, the Mars Insight lander in May, 

the Parker Solar Probe over the summer, the James Webb Space Telescope in 2019, as well 

as the flagship Europa Clipper and Mars 2020 rover missions. 

NASA has many exciting projects and missions across the agency. It is amazing to see the 

progress that's been accomplished just over the last year. Very soon, SLS, Orion, Dragon 2 

and Starliner vehicles will take their first flights. NASA will begin construction of the Deep 

Space Gateway, the first permanent human outpost beyond low-Earth orbit. And with 

continued bipartisan congressional support, NASA will continue to make great strides in deep 

space exploration. 

I thank Acting Administrator Lightfoot for his testimony and look forward to this discussion. 

### 
8 

Chairman BABIN. I would like to now recognize the Ranking 

Member, the gentleman from California, for an opening statement. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And good morning and welcome to Acting Administrator Lightfoot, and thank you for your strong leadership. 

As we look at the budget, we’re somewhat happy with the top 

line numbers. It does suggest the Administration understands the 

importance of space exploration and funding NASA. But in the 

2017 NASA Transition Authorization Act, we talked about NASA 

being a multi-mission agency and organization. And as we dive into 

the budget, there are some areas of concern of the overweight focus 

just on exploration. None of us is going to argue that exploration 

is not important but we also want to make sure we don’t lose sight 

of the space science side, the space technology, the aeronautics and 

education. 

One area of concern on the space science side is the moving away 

from the focus on WFIRST. If we think about the objective decadal 

process, WFIRST was a priority project there. And the decadal survey has served us well. And again, not looking at this scientificbased prioritization and moving away from that certainly can set 

a dangerous precedent. We don’t want to get into a situation where 

every four years priorities are changing. That makes it very difficult for the NASA Administrator and NASA to focus on some of 

these longer-term projects. 

On aeronautics, cutting back on the X–Plane demonstration. Aeronautics and aviation is an area where America is a world leader, 

and if we don’t continue to maintain that focus and that lead, well, 

that doesn’t just have repercussions on our ability to be the world 

leader there because others will step into that place, but it does 

have repercussions on an important segment of our economy. And 

again, aviation is a $90 billion positive trade balance for the United 

States. 

In the area of education, the Chairman and I were noticing the 

number of young people that are out there in the audience, and I 

think it’s great that the students and the young people that are out 

there have such an interest in space and science and exploration. 

And the diversity that you see across this audience—and, as the father of a daughter—it is great to see the number of young women 

in this room as well thinking about science and thinking about the 

future, so thank you for being here. 

But let’s not cut the education budget as well because education 

is incredibly important, particularly programs like the MUREP 

program, the Minority University Research and Education Program, because the diversity we see in this room, we want to make 

sure that next generation also reflects the diversity of the United 

States, so funding programs like that are incredibly important. 

And let’s touch on exploration. I mean exploration is incredibly 

important, but as we start to think about—we saw the Space Council wanting to focus on a return to the Moon and the lunar mission. 

We’ve talked about that return to the Moon as well. But in truth, 

a lot of us talk about the desire to go to Mars, and I think my colleague from Colorado certainly will emphasize that. 

If we think about our own history and think about when President Kennedy challenged us to put a person on the Moon, we set 
9 

a focus and we didn’t change every four years. We had some longevity. We understood what that mission and focus was. And if our 

desire is to go to Mars and go deeper into space, we have to maintain a focus on, you know, how we get there because Mars is going 

to be tough. It’s going to require space technology, it’s going to require an investment in space science, it’s going to require all the 

things that NASA does very well, including what the commercial 

sector can do coming up behind us. 

So I’m going to be very interested in hearing your impression, 

Administrator Lightfoot, but again, I want to make sure that, as 

we look at NASA as a multi-mission organization, we don’t rob 

from Peter to pay Paul but we actually adequately fund all those 

missions. And as we go through our budgeting process I think 

that’ll be incredibly important. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bera follows:] 
10 

OPENING STATEMENT 

Ranking Member Ami Bera (D-CA) 

of the Subcommittee on Space 

House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Space 

"An Overview of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Budget for Fiscal Year 2019" 

March 7, 2018 

Good morning. Welcome Acting Administrator Lightfoot and thank you for your strong 

leadership of NASA over the past thirteen months. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 budget proposal 

for NASA is about $19.9 billion. It is worth noting that NASA's FY 2019 request includes an 

additional $300 million to reflect an increase as a result of the 2018 Budget Act agreements. 

However, starting in FY 2020, NASA's projected funding lowers to $19.6 billion and it will be 

flat-funded in the out-years, losing buying power every year due to inflation. Mr. Chairman, in 

the context of the overall proposed federal budget, I recognize that $19.9 billion for FY 2019 is a 

positive recognition of the important role NASA plays. However, there are some significant 

proposals in NASA's budget request that could have profound impact on NASA's current 

operations. 

Foremost, the impact from establishing Exploration as NASA's core mission needs careful 

examination. This is a change from the direction given to NASA just one year ago by the NASA 

Transition Authorization Act of2017. That Act which was enacted into law stated that "NASA 

should be a multi-mission space agency, and should have a balanced and robust set of core 

missions in space science, space technology, aeronautics, human spaceflight and exploration, 

and education". What would a narrower mission for NASA mean? 

• In space science, we run the risk of losing U.S leadership in astrophysics by no longer 

conducting the Astrophysics Decadal Survey's highest priority mission, WFIRST. 

Losing leadership would mean that our partner nations may look to other countries, 

such as China, for collaboration. 

• In aeronautics, cutting back the X-plane demonstration program could have serious 

economic impacts. In 2016, the U.S. had a $90 billion positive trade balance from 

aviation, but other countries are catching up. NASA's X-plane program is needed to 

keep us ahead. 

• And in Education, we would miss out on lifting the skills and enabling the dreams of 

all Americans by no longer funding programs such as MUREP (Minority University 

Research and Education Program), EPSCoR (Experimental Program to Stimulate 

Competitive Research), and Space Grants. 

Mr. Chairman, there are other areas that would change under this budget proposal: 

The International Space Station is proposed to give way to potential commercialization of 

the ISS or commercial space stations in low Earth Orbit by 2025. However, Congress cannot 

fairly assess this proposal because NASA has yet to provide the ISS Transition Plan mandated in 
11 

the NASA Transition Authorization Act. In particular, as directed, the ISS Transition Plan is to 

include mctrics that would indicate the commercial space sector's readiness and ability to 

assume the ISS functions, roles, and responsibilities being transferred. 

Exploration priorities would focus immediately on exploring the Moon, first robotically 

and later by humans. I support lunar exploration, but the impact of this proposal on achieving 

the goal of humans to Mars cannot be assessed because NASA has yet to provide the Human 

Exploration Roadmap called for in the NASA Transition Authorization Act. That Roadmap is to 

include "iriformation on the phasing of planned intermediate destinations, Mars mission risk 

areas and potential risk mitigation approaches". 

Space technology development would be consolidated and become solely focused on 

Exploration. This comes in conflict with the NASA Transition Authorization Act's assessment 

of Space Technology, which views such work as enabling "a new class of Administration 

missions beyond low-Earth orbit" as well as research and development of advanced space 

technologies "that deliver innovative solutions across the Administration's space exploration 

and science missions". For example, this could mean that the Early Stage NASA Innovative 

Advanced Concepts initiative could show strong preference for proposals that advance 

Exploration objectives, rather than strategies and concepts that provide benefits across agency 

mission areas. 

Mr. Chairman, NASA is a critical national asset. For nearly 60 years, it has been a source of 

technological and scientific innovation, an inspiration to generations of Americans, and a driver 

of economic growth. I want to work together to do what is necessary to allow NASA to do even 

greater things. Thank you Mr. Chairman and I yield back. 
12 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

OPENING STATEMENT 

Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) 

House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Space 

"An Overview of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Budget for Fiscal Year 2019" 

March 7, 2018 

Good morning and welcome, Mr. Lightfoot. I would like to begin my remarks by expressing my 

appreciation for your distinguished service to this nation. As a NASA employee for almost 30 

years, and Acting Administrator for the past 13 months, you have personified what I consider to 

be NASA's greatest strength-its people. The men and women who work at NASA truly arc 

some of America's "best and brightest", and they make the almost impossible look easysolving challenging problems in aeronautics, science, human spaceflight, and technology while 

keeping a complex organization running smoothly and fostering an environment that annually 

makes it one of the Federal government's best places to work. 

We in Congress need to do our part to help you do your job, by supplying you with the resources 

you need in a timely manner. Unfortunately, too often we have failed to meet that basic 

responsibility, as evidenced by our continuing failure to provide you with your FY 2018 

appropriations more than five months into that fiscal year. That is an unacceptable failure of 

governance that, as you know all too well, Mr. Lightfoot, has a serious impact on NASA's ability 

to carry out the important tasks the nation has given it. 

Unfortunately, I see a similar failure of governance in the President's FY 2019 budget request for 

NASA. Although accompanied by optimistic rhetoric about assuring America's greatness in 

space, I'm afraid the reality behind that NASA budget request provides far less grounds for 

optimism. One only need look at the funding projections to realize that fundamentally this is a 

budget that has to resort to cannibalizing other NASA important programs to provide the 

semblance of an Exploration initiative. 

Let me be clear. I consider Exploration to be a core mission of NASA, but not the core mission 

of the agency. As codified in the original1958 Space Act, NASA has been and should continue 

to be a multi-mission agency with worthy initiatives in aeronautics, science, technology, and 

human spaceflight and exploration. NASA's Exploration program challenges us and inspires us 

and I support it, but I also support NASA's other core missions-missions that advance 

knowledge and benefit our citizens back here on Earth. 

I support Exploration, but I want it to be sustainable. Unfortunately, the President's budget 

request fails to build a sustainable Exploration program. Why do I say that? Well, when NASA 

has to completely eliminate its Office of Education, cancel WFIRST -the highest priority 

mission of the National Academies' Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey, eliminate 

important Earth Science missions and instruments, and cut funding for the Aeronautics programs 

critical to our future competitiveness in aviation, just to give Exploration a small increase in FY 

2019 over what it was getting in FY 2017, and then follows that with a lower and flat budget 
13 

runout for NASA [i.e., losing purchasing power every year] over the four years that follow, and 

proposes Exploration funding for the next four years that is lower than that proposed for FY 19, 

the warning lights are flashing. I could go on to cite other concerns with the President's NASA 

request, but I think you get the point. 

Mr. Chairman, the issues confronting Congress as we review the FY 2019 budget request for 

NASA are serious and complex. I regret that we are holding this hearing at the subcommittee 

level instead of letting the full membership of the Committee hear from the Acting Administrator 

and ask him questions. As you know, NASA's budget is by far the largest of any of the agencies 

under our jurisdiction and worthy of scrutiny by all our Committee Members. That said, I hope 

that before we move to reauthorize NASA, this Committee will take the time to hear from all 

those who will be affected by this budget request. This request raises many issues, including but 

not limited to: the future of the International Space Station, whether Congress will continue to 

respect the Decadal Survey process, how best to advance Aeronautics research, and whether the 

Administration's exploration goals arc achievable under its assumed budgets. Let us take the 

time to thoroughly examine these issues before we legislate, lest we look back in regret at illinformed decisions made in haste. 

With that, I yield back. 
14 

Mr. BERA. And Mr. Chairman, I request unanimous consent to 

submit four documents for the record, including opinion pieces and 

statements related to NASA’s fiscal year 2019 budget proposal. 

Chairman BABIN. Without objection. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Mr. BERA. And I yield back. 

Chairman BABIN. Okay. Thank you. I’d also like to—I think I’ve 

got the name of the school where you students are from, the Lake 

Braddock Secondary School from Fairfax, Virginia. Is that correct? 

Well, welcome this morning. Any other schools participating this 

morning? Well, anyway, we welcome you. Thank you for being 

here. And as my friend Dr. Bera said, it’s very gratifying to see 

young folks be interested in STEM studies and our space program. 

You couldn’t find a better place to come and participate and have 

aspirations to join in at NASA, so thank you for being here. 

Let’s see. Chairman Smith is not here. Ranking Member Johnson 

is not here. 

Okay. Well, let me introduce the witness today. Our witness 

today is Mr. Robert Lightfoot, Acting Administrator of the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration. Before serving as Acting 

Administrator, Mr. Lightfoot served as the Associate Administrator, the highest-ranking civil servant at NASA. Before that, he 

was Director of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. He managed propulsion, scientific, and space transportation activities. 

From 2003 to 2005, he served as Assistant Associate Administrator for the Space Shuttle Program at NASA’s headquarters right 

here in Washington where he oversaw technical and budgetary 

oversight of the annual budget and initial transition and retirement efforts for the shuttle infrastructure. 

From 2005 to 2007, Mr. Lightfoot was responsible for overseeing 

the manufacture, assembly, and operation of the primary shuttle 

propulsion elements such as the main engines, solid rocket boosters, and reusable solid rocket motors. We really appreciate all 

those long years of service. 

Mr. Lightfoot received a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Alabama—Roll Tide. He was also 

named Distinguished Departmental Fellow for the University’s Department of Mechanical Engineering in 2007 and was selected as 

the University of Alabama College of Engineering Fellow in 2009. 

So I’d like to now recognize Mr. Lightfoot for five minutes to 

present his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT M. LIGHTFOOT, JR., 

ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify before you on 

the NASA 2019 budget request. 

The request places NASA at the forefront of a global effort to advance humanity’s future in space and expands on our nation’s great 

capacity for exploration and innovation. NASA is focused on its 

core exploration mission and the many ways this mission returns 
15 

value to the United States. Through this mission, NASA produces 

knowledge and discoveries, strengthens our economy and security, 

deepens partnerships with other nations, inspires the next generation, and helps provide solutions to tough problems back here on 

Earth. 

This year’s proposal initiates an exploration campaign. NASA 

will pursue exploration and development of the Moon and deep 

space by leading innovative new commercial and international 

partnerships, leveraging and advancing the work we’ve already 

been doing in low-Earth orbit on the International Space Station. 

Our successful investment with a strong U.S. space industry in 

low-Earth orbit allows us to focus our energies on farther horizons. 

As private companies continue their successful cargo missions to 

low-Earth orbit, we will once again launch astronauts from American soil beginning with test flights this year. 

In low-Earth orbit, the International Space Station is our cornerstone of our integrated approach to deep space. We are dedicated 

to using the full potential of the station to demonstrate critical 

technologies, learn about human health in space, and focus commercial energies on the growing low-Earth orbit economy. Further, 

we’ll accelerate the process of transitioning to commercial approaches to ensure long-term human presence in LEO by the end 

of 2024. 

In the vicinity of the Moon and on its surface, the Space Launch 

System and Orion are critical backbone elements to provide us the 

transportation infrastructure to and from that location. The integrated launch of these systems in fiscal 2020 is on track, and a 

mission with crew in 2023 remains on track as well. In 2019, we’ll 

have an important test of the Orion Launch Abort System to advance the critical safety knowledge for the upcoming missions. 

We’ll also begin to build the in-space infrastructure for long-term 

exploration and development of the Moon. By delivering to the 

lunar orbit a Power and Propulsion Element as the foundation of 

our Lunar Orbital Platform Gateway, this gateway will expand 

what humans can do in the lunar environment and provide opportunities to support those commercial and international missions to 

the surface that will help pioneer new technologies and exploration. 

Our plan will draw on the interest and capabilities of our industry and international partners as we develop progressively complex 

robotic missions to the surface of the Moon with scientific and exploration objectives in advance of a human return. In collaboration 

with our robust scientific activity across NASA’s portfolio, these 

new lunar robotic missions will stretch the capabilities of industry 

and international partners, while returning science and knowledge 

we can use for future human missions. 

For the deep space domain, technology drives exploration, both 

human and robotic, and helps us solve problems in space and here 

on Earth. It lays the groundwork for our future missions and addresses many needs, including how we’ll live in space, how we’ll get 

there, and how those technologies will allow us to move further 

into space. We’ll focus our technology investments on applications 

of the technology to deep space exploration and innovative ways to 

further our goals from concept to test to flight. 
16 

In science, our incredible portfolio will continue to increase understanding of our planet and our place in the universe, pursue civilization-level discoveries such as whether or not there’s life elsewhere in the universe, and scout for knowledge to inform future 

human advancement into space. Our robust activity will include a 

Mars rover, a lander, sample return missions, diverse Earth and 

planetary missions, and spacecraft to study the Sun and how it influences the very nature of space. Powerful observations will study 

other solar systems and their planets and peer back to the dawn 

of time through other galaxies. 

In aeronautics, NASA’s work has always strengthened our security and economy, and our ongoing research and testing of new aeronautics technology is critical in these areas. It will help us lead 

the world in global aviation economy with increasing benefits 

worldwide. Commercial supersonic flight, unmanned aviation systems, and the next generation of aircraft are some of the critical 

focuses of this important program to our nation. 

Our mission successes will continue to inspire the next generation like the folks with us here today to pursue science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics studies to ultimately join us on this 

journey of discovery and become part of that diverse workforce we 

will need for tomorrow’s critical aerospace careers. We’ll use every 

opportunity to engage learners in our work and our missions. 

This budget places NASA again at the forefront of a global effort 

to advance humanity’s future in space and draws on our nation’s 

great capacity for innovation and exploration, to raise the bar of 

human potential, and improve life across the globe. 

Finally, on a personal note, I would like to thank Chairman 

Smith for his years of service to NASA and this country by his 

service on this Committee. Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lightfoot follows:] 
17 

Overview 

Statement of 

Robert M. Lightfoot, Jr. 

Acting Administrator 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

before the 

House Subcommittee on Space 

Committee on Science, Space and Technology 

United States House of Representatives 

HOLD FOR RELEASE 

UNTIL PRESENTED 

BY WITNESS 

March 7, 2018 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss NASA's 

FY 2019 budget request of $19.9 billion. This budget places NASA at the forefront of a global effort to 

advance humanity's future in space, and expands on our Nation's great capacity for exploration and 

innovation and exploration. 

Pursuant to National Space Policy Directive-!, the request provides the FY 2019 resources NASA 

requires for its role in "an innovative and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and 

international partners to enable human expansion across the solar system and to bring back to Earth new 

knowledge and opportunities." The request provides the resources NASA needs to lead a sustainable 

campaign of exploration, returning humans to the Moon for long-term exploration and utilization 

followed by human missions to Mars and other destinations. 

With the FY 2019 request, NASA is proposing an Exploration Campaign funded at $10.5 billion in FY 

2019 and $52 billion over five years. The Campaign is an an Agency-wide integrated research and 

development program that focuses interconnected exploration objectives. Within the Exploration 

Campaign, NASA will pursue a bold new lunar exploration program by employing expertise and 

resources across the Agency in support of: a science and technology initiative; a small commercial lander 

initiative; a development activity for commercial mid-to-large landers to address both science and human 

exploration objectives, and a Lunar Orbiting Platform-Gateway. The effort is built to enable early 

successes with seamless collaboration across the Agency, and foster both commercial and international 

partnerships towards progressive capability development and leadership. 

The International Space Station (ISS) is a cornerstone of our integrated approach to exploration. NASA 

will use the full potential of the Station to demonstrate critical technologies, learn about human health in 

space, and focus commercial energies on the growing low Earth orbit (LEO) economy. Starting this year, 

we will accelerate the process of transitioning to commercial approaches to ensure a long-term human 

presence in LEO by the end of 2024 as NASA leads a coalition of international and commercial partners 

to the Moon and then Mars and beyond. We propose to end direct U.S. financial support for the ISS in 

2025, after which NASA would rely on commercial partners for our LEO research and technology 

demonstration needs. 
18 

2 

Deep space exploration will require a heavy-lift capability and a crew vehicle designed for the rigors of 

long-duration flights and high-speed reentry into the Earth's atmosphere. NASA will test these 

capabilities with the uncrewed launch of the new Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion crew vehicle on 

an initial mission around the Moon in FY 2020. In 2023, we will use these systems to launch humans 

into lunar orbit- the first human mission beyond LEO since 1972. 

To establish a presence beyond LEO in the strategic region around the Moon, NASA will develop a Lunar 

Orbital Platform-Gateway. The Gateway will be a place to live, learn and work around the Moon and will 

provide opportunities to support missions to the surface. The FY 2019 request supports NASA's plan to 

launch the first element of the Gateway- its power and propulsion module- in 2022 and will do so by 

launching the element through competitive commercial launch contract in an effort to both accelerate the 

establishment of the Gateway and enable and further advance commercial partnerships in deep space. 

NASA will draw on the interests and capabilities of our industry and international partners as we develop 

progressively complex robotic missions to the surface of the Moon with scientific and exploration 

objectives in advance of human return. In collaboration with our robust scientific activity across the 

NASA portfolio, these new lunar robotic missions will stretch the capabilities of industry and 

international partners, while returning science and knowledge we can use for human missions. 

The FY 2019 request proposes a new Exploration Research and Technology budget line incorporating 

current Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) and some Human Exploration and Operation 

Mission Directorate (HEOMD) programs into an integrated technology investment line focused on 

exploration. These technology investments will enable new robotic and human exploration capabilities 

and missions, and they will contribute to economic development and growth by enabling innovative 

systems and services supporting the emerging space economy. 

At the end of the five years proposed in the budget request for this Exploration Campaign, NASA plans to 

achieve uncrewed and crewed test launches ofthe SLS and Orion system; launched two of the initial 

elements of the Lunar Orbital Platform- Gateway (to be complete with two additional launches by 2025); 

supported numerous commercial lunar robotic landings and developed lunar landing capabilities to 

support future NASA mission needs; developed key teclmologies needed to make exploration more 

capable and cost-effective; and established a pathway to enable a seamless transition from direct NASA 

financial support of the ISS in 2025. 

The FY 2019 request supports and expands science missions across the solar system while integrating 

science into the exploration campaign and leveraging NASA's extensive lunar science experience and 

data. As the Mars Curiosity rover continues to make dazzling discoveries, work continues on a sister 

Mars lander for launch in 2020. The budget provides for continued work on a potential Mars sample 

return mission, a Europa Clipper mission, and a constellation of operating planetary science missions. 

The request effectively triples funding for detecting and learning to respond to hazardous near-Earth 

objects (NEOs), funding a first-of-kind mission to deliberately alter the orbit of a near-Earth object. In 

Earth Science, the budget supports the priorities of the science and applications communities with a 

focused, balanced program including funding for Landsat-9 and a Sustainable Land Imaging program. 

The request supports the study of our nearest star with the launch later this year of the Parker Solar Probe, 

a mission that will endure high temperatures while travelling through the Sun's atmosphere to make the 

closest-ever observations of the Sun and, indeed, of any star. In Astrophysics, the James Webb Space 

Telescope, which is planned to launch in 2019, will go to the opposite extremes. With detectors operating 

just a few tens of degrees above absolute zero, the telescope will look out over vast distances and back 

into the early universe. 
19 

3 

The PY 2019 request supports NASA's continuing research on new aeronautics technologies, including 

commercial supersonic flight, unmanned aviation systems, and the next generation of aircraft NASA's 

Low-Boom Flight Demonstrator, an experimental supersonic airplane will make its first flight in 2021, 

This "X -plane" could open a new market for U.S. companies to build faster commercial airliners, creating 

jobs and cutting cross-country flight times in half. 

The request proposes to terminate the Office of Education and its portfolio of domestic assistance awards 

(principally grants and cooperative agreements), redirecting those funds to NASA's core mission of 

(:xploration. NASA will continue to support other education activities, such as internships and 

fellowships funded by the mission directorates. 

NASA's FY 2019 request supports the Agency's efforts to renew and sustain factilities crucial to mission 

success while divesting of unneeded infrastructure. The request maintains vital support for independent 

technical and safety oversight of NASA missions and operations. 

Human Exploration and Operations 

The FY 2019 request proposes an integrated, Agency-wide Exploration Campaign. The Campaign will 

be executed with the goals of establishing an innovative and sustainable program of exploration in concert 

with our commercial and international partners, to spur a vibrant commercial activity in low-earth orbit, 

and to enable human expansion across the solar system, bringing new knowledge and opportunities back 

to Earth. The United States will lead the return of humans to the Moon for long-term exploration and 

utilization, followed by human missions to Mars and other destinations. The request provides the 

necessary resources in FY 2019 to support development as planned of the SLS rocket and Orion crew 

vehicle, as well as the other critical technologies and research needed to support a robust exploration 

program. The budget creates new opportunities for collaboration '><ith industry on ISS and supports 

public-private partnerships for exploration systems that will extend human presence into the solar system. 

The budget supports our plan to deliver to lunar orbit in 2022 a power and propulsion element as the 

foundation of a Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway. 

The FY 2019 request includes a new account structure for human exploration and operations and space 

technology programs to improve alignment of programs and funding with NASA's new strategic space 

exploration objectives. This new structure includes LEO and Spaceflight Operations; Deep Space 

Exploration Systems; and Exploration Research and Technology accounts, and realigns some program 

content. 

Consistent with the new budget structure and in order to focus Agency activity on exploration, NASA 

also plans to reorganize the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) and 

Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD). NASA will assess restructuring options (and hybrid 

options that may be developed), and prepare for implementation at the start of the FY 2019 budget year. 

The FY 2019 request includes $10.5 billion for the Exploration Campaign, with $4.6 billion for Deep 

Space Exploration Systems, and $1.0 billion for Exploration Research and Technology. The FY 2019 

request also includes $4.5 billion for Low-Earth Orbit and Spaceflight Operations, including the 

International Space Station (ISS) and Space Transportation- both commercial crew system development 

and ongoing crew and cargo transportation services that resupply the ISS, as well as $44.8 million for the 

Exploration Campaign Construction of Facilities and $268 million for Moon and Mars exploration 

activities funded in the Science Mission Directorate. 

The ISS will continue to serve as the Nation's core long-duration human spaceflight asset through 2024-

which will mark nearly 25 years of continuous human occupancy. However, NASA must also look 
20 

4 

beyond its current programs in order to secure the nation's future in LEO. Starting in FY 2019, NASA 

proposes a new program designed to foster the emerging commercial LEO space industry. This program, 

starting with a $150 million investment in FY 2019, will support commercial partners to encourage 

development of capabilities that the private sector and NASA can utilize in LEO. The budget proposes to 

end direct U.S. financial support for the ISS in 2025, after which NASA would rely on these commercial 

partners for our LEO research and technology demonstration requirements. The decision to end direct 

Federal support for the ISS in 2025 does not necessarily imply that the platform itself will be deorbited at 

that time- it is possible that industry could continue to operate certain elements or capabilities of the ISS 

as part of a future commercial platform. NASA will encourage the emergence of an environment in LEO 

where NASA is one of many customers of a non-Governmental human spaceflight enterprise. 

Maintaining the ISS requires a fleet oflaunch vehicles to sustain a constant supply line of both crew and 

cargo. Under the original Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contracts, our two commercial cargo 

partners, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) and Orbital A TK, are providing cargo deliveries to 

the ISS. Using the space launch vehicles developed in partnership with NASA, SpaceX and Orbital ATK 

have also helped to bring some of the commercial satellite launch market back to the United States and 

have reduced commercial launch costs. Under new CRS-2 contracts, SpaceX, Orbital ATK, and Sierra 

Nevada Corporation will deliver critical science, research, and technology demonstrations to the ISS over 

f!ve years from 2020 through 2024. Working with our commercial crew partners, SpaceX and the Boeing 

Company, NASA plans to return crew launch capability to American soil in 2018. The FY 2019 request 

provides critical resources in this exciting and challenging period as we work with our partners to launch 

the first new U.S. human spaceflight capability in a generation. 

Under the auspices of the ISS National Laboratory, managed by the Center for the Advancement of 

Science In Space (CASIS), NASA and CASIS continue to expand research on the ISS sponsored by 

phannaceutical, technology, consumer product, and other industries, as well as by other Government 

agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. Through 

CAS IS' efforts, the ISS National Lab has reached full capacity for allocated crew time and upmass and 

downmass. 

As we move out beyond LEO, we will employ new deep space systems, including the heavy-lift SLS, 

Orion crew vehicle, the Exploration Ground Systems (EGS) that support them, commercial launch 

vehicles, lunar landers, and new deep space habitation capabilities to be developed through public-private 

partnerships and international partnerships. 

NASA plans to launch an initial, uncrewed deep space mission, Exploration Mission-! (EM-I), in FY 

2019. The mission will combine the new heavy-lift SLS with an uncrcwed version of the Orion 

spacecraft on a mission to lunar orbit. A crewed mission, EM-2, will follow in 2023. The FY 2019 

budget fully funds the Agency baseline commitment schedule for EM-2 and the Orion spacecraft and 

enables NASA to begin work on post EM-2 missions. Missions launched on the SLS in the 2020s will 

establish the capability to operate safely and productively in deep space. 

SLS, Orion, and EGS arc the critical capabilities for maintaining and extending U.S. human spaceflight 

leadership beyond LEO to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. In FY 2018, SLS Core Stage integration and 

outfitting (including installation of the four RS-25 engines) will continue at Michaud Assembly Facility. 

There will be a series of EM-I flight hardware deliveries to EGS at Kennedy Space Center (KSC). SLS 

will prepare for the EM-I Design Certification Review planned for early 2019, conduct the Critical 

Design Review (CDR) for the next mission, EM-2, and begin fabrication of components for EM-3 and 

beyond. In FY 2018, Orion will continue qualification testing of systems for EM-2. NASA is 

accelerating the ascent abort-2 test (AA-2) into 2019, ahead ofEM-1. Structural work is already 

underway on Orion EM-2 flight hardware production. For EM-1, the European Service Module is 
21 

scheduled to be delivered to the Operations and Checkout Building at KSC for integration with the Crew 

Module. Later this year, EGS will complete the system verification and validation phase and begin the 

operations and integration phase in preparation for multi-element verification and validation for the 

Mobile Launcher, Pad, and Vehicle Assembly Building. These are the early steps on a journey that leads 

American astronauts into deep space, pennanently. 

5 

We also will begin to build the in-space infrastructure for Jong-tenn exploration and development of the 

Moon by delivering to lunar orbit a power and propulsion element as the foundation of a Lunar Orbital 

Platform-Gateway. The Gateway to the Moon and beyond will give us a strategic presence in cislunar 

space that will drive our activity with commercial and international partners and help us further explore 

the Moon and its resources and leverage that experience toward human missions to Mars. In-space power 

and propulsion and deep space habitation are central to future human exploration. Development and 

deployment of these capabilities will be a focus of the early-to-mid 2020s, leading to crewed missions 

beyond the Earth-Moon system, including to the Mars system. 

NASA is also working on the second phase of the Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships 

(NextSTEP), an effort to stimulate deep-space capability development across the aerospace industry. 

Through these initial public-private partnerships, NextSTEP partners will provide advanced concept 

studies, technology development projects, and significant measurements in key areas, including habitat 

concepts, environmental control and life support systems, advanced in-space propulsion, and small 

spacecraft to conduct missions related to strategic knowledge gaps. NASA intends to perform integrated 

ground testing using habitation capabilities developed by the NextSTEP partners in 2018. 

As part of the Agency's overall strategy to conduct deep space exploration, NASA is supporting the 

development of commercial lunar exploration. A new cross-Agency campaign will combine science and 

exploration objectives in Advanced Cislunar and Surface Capabilities . The campaign will focus on 

engaging non-traditional U.S. industry partners and sectors in the space pro1;ram and using innovative 

approaches to combine lunar robotics, a cislunar presence, and lunar landing capabilities, involving 

commercial and international participation. For example, the purpose of the Lunar Cargo Transportation 

and Landing by Soft Touchdovm (CATALYST) initiative is to encourage the development of U.S. 

private-sector robotic lunar landers capable of successfully delivering payloads to the lunar surface using 

U.S. commercial launch capabilities. Commercial robotic lunar lander capabilities could address 

emerging demand by private customers who wish to conduct activities on the Moon, even while 

providing cost-effective transportation services for NASA's science and exploration missions, thereby 

benefitting the larger scientific and academic communities. As part of the Exploration Campaign, we will 

initiate a series of robotic lunar missions in partnership with industry as early as 2019, eventually leading 

to a continual human presence on and around the Moon. 

The budget request provides for critical infrastructure indispensable to the Nation's access and use of 

space, including those provided under Space Communications and Navigation, the Launch Services 

Program, Rocket Propulsion Testing, and Human Space Flight Operations. 

New research, technologies, and capabilities Jay the groundwork that enhances and enables deep space 

exploration. Exploration Research and Technology will consolidate the technology development program 

content previously funded by Space Technology and Advanced Exploration Systems, integrating and 

refocusing these activities toward Deep Space Exploration. This will enable NASA's outstanding 

workforce to focus on innovative ways to further humankind's exploration from conception to testing to 

spaceflight The Human Research Program (HRP) will continue to conduct cutting-edge research on the 

effects of spaceflight on the human body, including experiments on the ISS in microgravity. HRP will 

support the development of Deep Space Exploration habitat concepts to ensure crew health and 

performance risks are adequately addressed. 
22 

6 

NASA's FY 2019 request includes $1.0 billion for Exploration Research and Technology to conduct 

research to address needs for human and robotic space exploration and to foster commercial expansion in 

LEO, cislunar space, and beyond. Technology drives exploration by spanning the Technology Readiness 

Level spectrum, including investments in early-stage concepts and prototypes. Exploration Research and 

Technology key areas of focus will include: 

• Advanced environmental control and life support systems; 

In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU); 

• Power and propulsion technologies for exploration; 

Advanced communications, navigation, and avionics; 

In-space manufacturing and on-orbit assembly; 

• Advanced materials; 

• Entry, Descent, and Landing; 

• Autonomous operations; and 

Research to enable humans to safely and effectively operate in various space environments. 

Exploration Research and Technology will work with the Science Mission Directorate where appropriate 

on exploration-related technology and research that also has relevance to achieving science goals. In FY 

2019 NASA will build on its initial investment in In-Space Robotic Manufacturing and Assembly, 

continuing a public-private partnership approach to flight-demonstrate new technologies used to build 

large structures in a space environment. In addition, technology development in satellite servicing will be 

aligned to support on-orbit assembly and manufacturing capabilities in collaboration with industry. 

In FY 2019, the HRP will continue to implement the ISS flight research plan crucial to mitigating crew 

health and performance risk for exploration. HRP will complete ground testing of an advanced 

exploration exercise system in preparation for ISS deployment as part of exploration system maturation 

plans. HRP will also continue to work with Deep Space Exploration's Habitation development to define 

and evaluate deep space exploration system habitats. 

Upon completion of hardware building, system integration, and test in FY 2018, the Laser 

Communications Relay Demonstration project will deliver the completed mission payload to support a 

FY 2019 launch. The outcome of this effort will prove optical communications technology in an 

operational setting, providing data rates up to 100 times faster than today's radio-frequency-based 

communication systems. 

Jn mid-2018, the Green Propellant Infusion Mission spacecraft and the Deep Space Atomic Clock 

instrument will both be delivered to orbit as part of the U.S. Air Force Space Test Program-2 mission 

aboard a SpaceX Falcon Heavy booster. In FY 2019, both missions will complete their technology 

demonstrations. The Green Propellant Infusion Mission demonstrates a propulsion system using a 

propellant that is less toxic and has approximately 40 percent higher performance by volume than 

hydrazine, and which will reduce spacecraft processing costs. The Deep Space Atomic Clock 

demonstrates navigational accuracy improvements (with 50 times more accuracy than today's best 

navigation clocks) for deep space and improved gravity science measurements. 

In late 2018, the Solar Electric Propulsion project will complete ground testing of the engineering 

development units for the magnetically-shielded Hall effect thrusters and begin fabrication of the flight 

units for demonstration. As part of ongoing work under the NextSTEP-1 awards, NASA plans to conduct 

vacuum chamber tests of high-power electric propulsion systems operating for 100 continuous hours. 
23 

7 

NASA will provide a number of technologies for the Mars 2020 mission including: Terrain Relative 

Navigation; Mars Oxygen ISRU Experiment; the Mars Environmental Dynamics Analyzer; and the Entry, 

Descent and Landing Instrumentation, with deliveries between Fall 2018 and Spring 2019 to support the 

mission need dates. 

NASA continues to partner with researchers across academia, industry, and NASA to explore 

transformative technologies and approaches. Upcoming early stage innovation activities will investigate 

areas such as breakthrough propulsion, challenges in deep space human habitation, space-optimized 

energy systems, radiation protection, and materials. These areas are part of a comprehensive approach to 

efficiently support innovative discovery, progress toward important goals, and the development of 

exciting new capabilities. 

NASA will continue to engage with the emerging small spacecraft indnstry, including through the 

CubeSat Launch Initiative. In 2019, Lockheed Martin will complete LuniR, which will test an infrared 

sensor through a Moon flyby, and Morehead State University will deliver Lunar lceCube to NASA to 

make infrared measurements oflunar volatiles. NASA will also launch its CubeSat Proximity Operations 

Demonstration, possibly as soon as April of this year. This mission will demonstrate rendezvous, 

proximity operations and docking using two 3-nnit CubeSats. 

Science 

NASA uses the unique vantage points of space, airborne, and ground-based assets, as well as teams of 

scientists, engineers, and technologists to expand our knowledge of the Earth, our Sun and solar system, 

and the universe. NASA measurements and research advance critical understanding, inform decisionmaking, and improve the quality oflife for citizens in the United States and humankind around the globe. 

NASA's FY 2019 budget requests $5.9 billion for NASA's Science program, including $2.2 billion for 

Planetary Science, $1.2 billion for Astrophysics, $691 million for Heliophysics, and $1.8 billion for Earth 

Science. The budget ensures that NASA continues to play an important role in safeguarding life on Earth: 

funding a robust Earth Science program, a dedicated Planetary Defense program for NEO detection and 

mitigation, and expanding research to improve predictions and forecasting of space weather. It enables 

NASA to develop and operate space missions that search for life and illuminate the secrets of the 

universe. 

The budget integrates science and human exploration goals, including the eventual return of humans to 

the Moon. Just this past year, scientists used data from NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter to 

identify areas in lunar craters that arc cold enough to have frost present on the surface- ice that could 

provide crucial resources for exploration while also containing valuable information about the chemical 

makeup of the early solar system. Establishing a new Agency-wide Lunar Discovery and Exploration 

program and leveraging NASA's extensive lunar science experience and data, this budget jump-starts 

commercial partnerships, innovative approaches for building and launching next-generation precision 

science instruments, and the development of small rovers that will reach the Moon's surface via 

commercial landers. 

The request supports a vigorous Planetary Defense Program. The Near-Earth Object Observations project 

will continue to fund ground-based NEO discovery, tracking, and characterization efforts, while laying 

the foundation for future space-based NEO detection missions. The Double Asteroid Redirection Test 

(DART) will demonstrate asteroid deflection technology. DART will use the kinetic impactor technique 

to change the orbit of a small moon circling the asteroid Didymos, which will be about seven million 

miles from Earth at its closest approach in 2022. 
24 

Maintaining a balanced science program and achieving high-priority science and applications objectives 

in a cost-effective manner requires that NASA be committed to- and execute- a full range of responsible 

and transparent program management practices, policies, and approaches. To this end, the Science 

Mission Directorate is engaging in innovative partnerships with commercial and international partners 

and promoting the use of small, less expensive satellites. Given its significant cost and competing 

priorities within NASA, the budget proposes termination of the Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope 

(WFIRST). Remaining WFIRST funding is redirected towards other priorities of the astrophysics 

community, including competed astrophysics missions and research. 

NASA's Planetary Science program develops and operates missions that explore our solar system and 

search for life elsewhere, helping to answer fundamental questions about our place in the universe. 

NASA's Interior Exploration using Seismic Investigations, Geodesy and Heat Transport (InSight) lander 

is being prepared for a May 2018launch, and will land on Mars in November-joining a series of NASA 

rovers, landers, and orbiters already at the Red Planet. InSight's advanced payload will provide unique 

information on the interior structure of Mars, providing glimpses into the processes that shaped the rocky 

planets of the inner solar system. The budget also enables essential progress to be made on the Mars 2020 

rover and planning for a potential Mars Sample Return mission incorporating commercial and 

international partnerships- a top priority identified by the scientific community in the most recent 

planetary decadal survey. 

In the coming year, NASA's Origins, Spectrallnterpretation, Resource Identification, Security-Regolith 

Explorer (OSIRIS-REx) mission will arrive at the asteroid Bennu later this year, providing unique data 

that will shed light on the early history of the solar system. OSIRIS-REx measurements of the 

composition of the potentially hazardous Bennu will also inform the design of future missions to mitigate 

asteroid impacts on Earth, an effort aligned with and supporting NASA's new Planetary Defense 

program. During 2018, NASA will continue development of the cutting-edge Europa Clipper mission to 

fly by Jupiter's ocean moon, and will announce the next scientifically and technologically innovative 

:\few Frontiers mission: either a comet sample return or a drone to explore Saturn's largest moon, Titan. 

NASA's Astrophysics program investigates the creation and evolution of the universe and the formation 

of planetary systems. It examines how environments hospitable for life develop, and contributes to the 

search for the signature of life on other worlds. The program operates the Hubble, Chandra, Spitzer, 

Fenni, Kepler, and Swift space telescopes, flies the airborne Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared 

Astronomy (SOFIA), and conducts balloon and suborbital rocket campaigns. NASA's impressive 

observatories will soon be joined by the James Webb Space Telescope, which is progressing toward a 

2019launch. Webb will be larger and more powerful than any previous space telescope. It will be 

capable of examining the first stars and galaxies that formed, viewing the atmospheres of nearby planets 

outside our solar system, and infonning our understanding of the evolution of our own solar system. 

Two new astrophysics missions were launched to the ISS in 2017 the Neutron Star Interior Composition 

Explorer (NICER) in June and the Cosmic Ray Energetics and Mass (CREAM) experiment in August. 

NICER is the first NASA mission dedicated to pulsars- the densest observable objects in the universe, 

and CREAM monitors the cosmic rays that constantly shower the Earth. The Transiting Exoplanet 

Survey Satellite (TESS), scheduled for launch in March 2018, will be NASA's next planet-hunting 

mission, searching for planets orbiting nearby stars. In August 2017, NASA selected six astrophysics 

Explorer Program proposals for concept studies. The proposed missions will collect unprecedented 

measurements of gamma-ray and X-ray emissions from galaxy clusters and neutron star systems, infrared 

emissions from galaxies in the early universe, and atmospheres of exoplanets. In January 2019, NASA 

will select at least two of these proposals for flight. 
25 

9 

NASA's Heliophysics program studies how the Sun affects the Earth and objects around it, how it 

influences other planets in the solar system, and how our star affects the very nature of space itself. 

Improved understanding of the Sun and infonnation about the space weather phenomena it produces is 

used to provide warnings and better protect lives and essential but vulnerable- systems on Earth, as 

well to safeguard astronauts, satellites, and robotic missions traveling through the solar system. The 

budget supports efficient, continued operation and analysis of data from the Solar Dynamics Observatory 

(SDO), the joint European Space Agency (ESA)-NASA Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO), 

and the Solar and Terrestrial Relations Observatory (STEREO). Together, they constantly monitor the 

Sun, revealing coronal mass ejections and releases of solar energetic particles, while also advancing 

scientific understanding of our star's fundamental dynamics. Focusing closer to Earth, the 

Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) mission uses four small spacecraft flying in formation to gather 

information on Earth's magnetic environment, changing our understanding of how that environment 

protects our planet. 

Heliophysics is preparing the launch of several innovative missions. The Global-scale Observations of 

the Limb and Disk (GOLD) instrument was launched aboard a commercial communications satellite in 

January 2018, and the Ionospheric Connection Explorer (ICON) spacecraft launches later in 2018. 

Together, they will provide the most comprehensive observations of the ionosphere- a region of charged 

particles in Earth's upper atmosphere ever achieved. NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) are exploring a potential partnership to use a single launch vehicle for the 

Interstellar MApping Probe (IMAP) (the highest priority in the Heliophysics decadal survey) and a 

NOAA space weather monitoring payload. The partnership would provide NOAA access to the L 1 

Lagrange point for future space weather monitoring. The Space Environment Testbed l mission, a 

technology demonstration mission developed in partnership with the United States Air Force, is 

scheduled for launch in 2018, and three heliophysics CubeSats are being prepared for launch as part of 

NASA's Cube Sat Launch Initiative. Perhaps most exciting is the upcoming launch of the Parker Solar 

Probe, scheduled for August 2018. This historic mission will be the first to travel through the Sun's 

atmosphere, providing humanity with the closest-ever observations of a star. 

NASA's Joint Agency Satellite Program brings NASA's best practices to bear to support our interagency 

customer NOAA in the development of critical weather satellites for the Nation. Geostationary 

Operational Environment Satellite-R (GOES-R, now GOES-16) transitioncd to NOAA operations in June 

2017, and Joint Polar Satellite System-! (JPSS-1, now NOAA-20) successfully launched in November 

2017. 

NASA's Earth Science program makes revolutionary observations of our planet's land, oceans, and 

atmosphere from the vantage point of space; combines measurements of many different quantities to 

understand and accurately model the Earth's complex system of interacting processes; and provides 

practical benefits by transforming the measurements and understanding into focused information products 

that are used broadly to improve the quality oflife for all humans. 

From December 2016 through December 20 17, NASA launched two Earth-observing technology 

demonstration CubeSats- ICECube and Microwave Radiometer Technology Acceleration (MiRaTa); the 

Cyclone Global Navigation Satellite System (CYGNSS) constellation of eight small satellites to measure 

rapidly evolving tropical storms and hurricanes using reflected Global Positioning System (GPS) signals 

from the ocean; and three key Earth observation instruments now mounted externally on the ISS (a 

Lightning Imaging Sensor (LIS); Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment-III (SAGE-Ill) to measure 

atmospheric ozone and aerosol profiles; and Total and Spectral Solar lrradiance Sensor-! (TSIS-1) to 

precisely monitor solar radiation reaching the Earth). 
26 

10 

In August and September 2017, data products from NASA Earth-observing research satellites were used 

to support real-time decision-making and response efforts by the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, other operational agencies, and first responders on the ground in the affected areas during the 

catastrophic landfalls of hurricanes Harvey, Inna, aud Maria. Precise, broad-coverage observations from 

NASA's Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) Core Observatory enabled forecasters to understand 

and track the storms, and to generate accurate flood predictions. A suite of NASA satellite missions, 

including the Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) satellite, assisted with l1ood mapping and recovery 

planning. 

NASA's Earth Science program is pioneering innovative partnerships and mission strategies to achieve 

science goals rapidly and cost-effectively. The budget accelerates NASA's pilot data buys and 

evaluations of data products from commercial, on-orbit small-satellite constellations; NASA will have 

Blanket Purchase Agreements with at least four private-sector small-satellite data providers in place by 

Spring 2018. The low-cost, competitively-selected ECOsystem Spacebome Thermal Radiometer 

Experiment on Space Station (ECOSTRESS) instrument to measure agricultural water use in the United 

States and vegetation stress around the globe, and to identify drought warning conditions, will launch to 

the ISS in mid-2018. Two major competitively selected payloads- Tropospheric Emissions: Monitoring 

of Pollution (TEMPO) to measure North American air quality, and Geostationary Carbon Cycle 

Observatory (GeoCarb) to measure natural carbon flux processes in the western hemisphere are being 

developed for flight as hosted payloads on commercial communications satellites in this budget. 

In January 2018, the National Academies released the 2017-2027 Earth Science Decadal Survey, 

"Thriving on Our Changing Planet." The decadal survey recognized the value ofNASA's Earth Science 

Program and identified a suite of high-priority science and observation objectives for NASA's Earth 

Science Division. 

Launching in 2018, two important decadal-survey-recommended missions will expand the long-term 

collection of key Earth observations. Making precise measurements of gravity from two spacecraft, the 

GRACE Follow-On mission (a partnership with German research and space agencies, launching in Spring 

2018) will provide global information on ice sheet and oceanic mass balances, underground water storage 

changes in aquifers, and regional drought conditions. The Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite-2 

(lCESat-2), the follow-on to NASA's ICESat and IceBridge missions, will launch in Fall2018 to map 

and monitor land ice topography and glacier flow, sea icc thickness, and the heights of the vegetation 

canopy at low- and mid-latitudes across the globe. NASA remains on track to launch Landsat-9 in 

December, 2020 to continue the critical land imaging series begun with our United States Geological 

Survey (USGS) partners in 1972. Consistent with the FY 2018 budget, the FY 2019 budget proposes to 

tenninate OC0-3, DSCOVR Earth-viewing instruments, and CLARREO Pathfinder. 

NASA's decadal-survey-endorsed Earth-observing satellite missions, along with the research, 

applications development, and Earth-focused technology maturation programs enabled by this budget, 

advance our understanding of the fundamental nature of our planet and improve everyday life on Earth for 

our fellow citizens. 

Aeronautics 

NASA's Aeronautics Research program advances U.S. global leadership by developing and transferring 

key enabling technologies to make aviation safer, more efficient, and more environmentally friendly. 

With a request of $634 million for Aeronautics, the FY 2019 budget invests in the most critical concepts 

and technologies required to support continued global leadership in civil aviation. 
27 

11 

In in the coming weeks 2018, NASA will award a competitive contract for detailed aircraft design, build, 

and validation of the Low Boom Flight Demonstrator (LBFD) X-Plane that will demonstrate quiet 

overland supersonic flight and enable U.S. industry to open a new market to U.S. industry. In FY 2019, 

NASA will ensure the LBFD X-plane is on track for first flight by FY 2021. NASA also will continue to 

develop and validate community response test methodologies which will be employed during the 

subsequent LBFD flight campaign. Data generated from flights of this demonstrator will feed directly 

into national and international regulatory decision making processes and timelines, enabling a rule change 

that will allow civil supersonic flight over land. NASA will also continue to advance new subsonic 

aircraft technologies that will dramatically reduce fuel consumption, noise, and emissions through a 

combination of numerical analyses, ground tests, and flight experiments. 

NASA's request for Aeronautics will invest in developing revolutionary tools and technologies ranging 

from hybrid and all-electric aircraft, autonomy, advanced composite materials and structures, data mining, 

verification and validation of complex systems, and revolutionary vertical lift vehicles, to enabling further 

advances for transformative vehicle and propulsion concepts that will address a broad array of our 

aviation industry's needs. In partnership with industry, NASA will complete the Advanced Composites 

project, delivering a variety of computational tools and guidance that will significantly reduce the time 

needed to develop and certify new composite structures for aerospace applications. 

NASA will advance electric propulsion systems by flight testing an advanced configuration of the X-57 

Maxwell aircraft, a general-aviation-scale aircraft to test highly integrated distributed electric propulsion 

technology. This demonstration will address the integration of electrical and power distribution 

components, critical to development of standards and certification methodologies required to enable 

widespread use of this technology. NASA also will advance the state of the art of key technologies 

needed to realize practical larger -scale hybrid electric propulsion systems for the future. 

NASA will demonstrate new air traffic management (ATM) tools that integrate aircraft arrival, departure, 

and airport surface operations to reduce flight delays and increase air traffic capacity and safety, 

supporting realization of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) full vision for the Next 

Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). Even with limited operational trials at the Charlotte 

Douglas International Airport, technologies being developed by the ATM Technology Demonstration-2 

Project is already showing significant savings in fuel bums and delays during taxi operations. NASA will 

accelerate development and complete the transfer to FAA of key weather-related technologies for 

efficient enroute operations. NASA will explore new, innovative solutions for proactively mitigating the 

risks of using new vehicle technologies, leveraging the recently published National Research Council 

study on In-Time Aviation Safety Management as well as partnerships with the FAA and aviation 

industry. In FY 2019, NASA will demonstrate and validate tools which can be used for safety assessment 

of ATM and avionics systems, and transfer them to the FAA and the avionics industry. 

NASA will advance the realization of routine access of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into the 

National Airspace System (NAS) for civil use by completing flight testing of detect and avoid (DAA) and 

communications technologies, and providing the data to standards development committees and the FAA 

to support UAS rule making. Additionally, NASA will help support safe, low-altitude operations of small 

VAS through development and demonstration of the UAS Traffic Management concept (UTM), in highdensity urban areas. This comprehensive demonstration of the UTM concept in the most challenging 

operational environment will set the stage for transition to and implementation by the FAA and industry. 

NASA's FY 2019 request increases funding for hypersonic fundamental research which will enable 

development of tools and methods to more efficiently design future hypersonic vehicles. 
28 

12 

Across all of these research areas, NASA investments will nurture U.S. university leadership in 

innovation that will foster and train the future workforce, and leverage non-aerospace technology 

advancements. Specifically, NASA will continue to see benefits from the University Leadership 

Initiative in which university-led research teams independently analyze the technical barriers inherent in 

achieving the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate strategic outcomes, and who have proposed 

multi-disciplinary technical challenges, along with supporting activities to address those barriers. 

Education 

NASA's FY 2019 budget proposes the termination ofNASA's Office of Education and its portfolio of 

domestic assistance awards (grants and cooperative agreements), and instead prioritizes funding toward 

supporting an innovative and inspirational program of exploration. While the FY 2019 budget no longer 

supports these programs, a common vision, mission, and focus areas will drive NASA's future endeavors 

in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and public engagement. Through its 

mission directorates, NASA will focus on: creating unique opportunities for students to contribute to 

NASA's work in exploration and discovery; building a diverse future STEM workforce by engaging 

students in authentic learning experiences with NASA's people, content, and facilities; and strengthening 

understanding by enabling powerful connections to NASA's mission and work. A small team at NASA 

headquarters will be accountable for the strategic direction and coordination of the Agency's STEM 

engagement efforts. 

NASA's mission successes will continue to inspire the next generation to pursue science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics studies, join us on our journey of discovery, and become the diverse 

workforce we'll need for tomorrow's critical aerospace careers. We will use every opportunity to engage 

learners in our work and to encourage educators, students, and the public to continue making their own 

discoveries. 

Mission Support 

NASA's mission support programs directly enable the Agency's portfolio of missions in aeronautics, 

technology development and space exploration. The FY 2019 request prioritizes the capabilities, 

operations and equipment to safely operate and maintain NASA Centers and facilities, along with the 

independent technical authority required to reduce risk to life and program objectives for all NASA 

missions. With installations in 14 states, NASA collectively manages $39 billion in assets with an 

inventory of over 5,000 buildings and structures. Our focus is on renewing and sustaining what is crucial 

to mission success and divesting of unneeded, costly infrastmcture to lower the cost of operations. In the 

transformation of information technology (IT) services, we are enhancing agency IT portfolio 

management and strengthening NASA's cybersecurity capabilities to safeguard critical systems and data. 

Over the last several years, NASA Office of the Chieflnfonnation Officer (OCIO) has made significant 

progress in updating IT security policies, processes, and procedures to support the ongoing enhancement 

and automation of information system monitoring and reporting. 

In FY 2019, OCIO will continue working toward improving NASA's compliance with the Federal 

Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA) and the federal Information Security 

Modernization Act (FISMA). Additionally, NASA OCIO will continue to implement improved 

management practices and efficiencies recommended by an internal IT Business Services Assessment . 

For example, NASA is continuing to evolve from a from a highly decentralized IT environment 

controlled by the Centers and Agency programs and projects to an enterprise IT environment that is more 

centrally managed and overseen by the Agency Chief Infonnation Officer. This important transition, 
29 

along with other internal governance and infrastructure changes, is contributing to a stronger 

cybersecurity posture at NASA. While there is no perfect, one-size-fits-all tool to predict, counter and 

mitigate the wide range of attacks experienced across the Federal Government, new cybersecurity 

management tools will continue to allow NASA and other Federal agencies to have better insight into 

their networks, providing improved pro-active monitoring and mitigation of threats before they cause 

significant hann. 

Conclusion 

13 

The President's FY 2019 budget request enables NASA to develop and operate technologies and systems 

for the human exploration of deep space and encourages the creation of a thriving commercial space 

(:conomy in LEO and beyond; ensures robust programs of robotic missions to monitor the Sun and Earth, 

explore the planets of our solar system, and observe the universe beyond; and supports continuing 

advances to make aviation safer, more efficient, and more environmentally friendly. 

Mr. Chainnan, I would be pleased to respond to your questions and those of other Members of the 

Committee. 
30 

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 

NASA Headquarters 

Washington, DC 20546 

Robert M. Lightfoot, Jr. 

NASA Headquarters 

Jr. became NASA's Acting Administrator effective January 20, 2017. His permanent 

title is Administrator for NASA, the Agency's highest-ranking civil servant position, effective since 

September 25,2012. 

He previously was director of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala. Named to the 

position in August 2009, he headed one of NASA's largest field installations, which plays a critical role in 

NASA's space operations, exploration and science missions. Lightfoot managed a broad range of 

propulsion, scientific and space transportation activities contributing to the nation's space program. He 

served as acting director of the center from March 2009 until his appointment as director. 

From 2007 to 2009, Lightfoot was deputy director of the Marshall Center. lightfoot served as manager of 

the Space Shuttle Propulsion Office at Marshall from 2005 to 2007, where he was responsible for 

overseeing the manufacture, assembly and operation of the primary shuttle propulsion elements: the main 

engines, external tank, solid rocket boosters and reusable solid rocket motors. 

From 2003 to 2005, he served as assistant associate administrator for the Space Shuttle Program in the 

Office of Space Operations at NASA Headquarters in Washington. His responsibilities included space 

shuttle return to flight activities following the Columbia tragedy, technical and budgetary oversight of the $3 

billion annual budget and initial transition and retirement efforts for shuttle infrastructure. 

In 2002, Lightfoot was named director of the Propulsion Test Directorate at NASA's Stennis Space Center. 

He served as deputy director of the organization beginning in 2001, until his appointment as director. 

lightfoot began his NASA career at the Marshall Center in 1989 as a test engineer and program manager 

for the space shuttle main engine technology test bed program and the Russian RD-180 engine testing 

program for the Atlas launch vehicle program. 

Lightfoot received a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering in 1986 from the University of Alabama. 

In October 2007, he was named Distinguished Departmental Fellow for the University of Alabama, 

Department of Mechanical Engineering. He was selected as a University of Alabama College of 

Engineering fellow in 2009. Lightfoot serves on the University of Alabama Mechanical Engineering 

Advisory Board. In 2010, he was inducted into the State of Alabama Engineering Hall of Fame. 

Lightfoot has received numerous awards during his NASA career, including a NASA Outstanding 

Leadership medal in 2007 for exemplary leadership of the Shuttle Propulsion Office, assuring safety for the 

return to flight of the space shuttle. In 2006, he was awarded the Presidential Rank Award for Meritorious 

Executives, and in 2010 and 2016, he received the Presidential Rank Award for Distinguished Executives-

-the highest honors attainable for federal government work. In 2000, Mr. Lightfoot received a Spaceflight 

Leadership Recognition Award, which recognizes leaders who exemplify characteristics necessary for 

success. In 1999, NASA's astronaut corps presented him with a Silver Snoopy Award, which honors 

individuals who have made key contributions to the success of human spaceflight missions. He also 

received the NASA Exceptional Achievement Medal in 1996 for significant contributions to NASA's 

mission. 
31 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you very much. I’d like to recognize myself for five minutes for questioning. 

The National Academies Pathways report from 2014 included a 

sand chart that depicted the notional budget for exploration, so I 

would ask if you wouldn’t mind, please pull up that chart. 

[Slide.] 
32 

"" 8' 

l! 

0 ~ u 

j2~ ~· !5"" ... ,..,li_ a. 

u£1l ~~ 

~ 

~ 

a:: 

e 

ji 

~ w 

: 

e 

Q 

~ :;:) 

lll:l 

~ 

~ -! 

! C( 

c 

§ 

""lJ 

! "" ::0 

<11 

~ ~ 

i2 0-

!W 

:'ii 4;.) 

oe: 

f it 

""' <11 

1:1) ~iii 

~ 

~ 00 

::11 

0' 

<"I 

...,: 

i! 

< 

~ ;a: 

~ 

t'l::: 

::J 

0 

u: 
lill!l!IAN 5PAGEf UCiHT f'ROJEC TEO AVAilABLE, BU !J'GEl t,JliEI"l·'W'EAR lil 

with tn G v.!lto.ruuu:;•.s. 

U:ntl:Jttl!iU) Use<l ,pt::rmission. 

Testimony before the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee hearing titled "ISS After 2024," Mary lynne Ditmar, Executive Director, Coalition for Deep Space Exploration, Marc

2017. 
34 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you very much. The chart broke down 

funding for the ISS, for the SLS, Orion, as well as exploration technology and research, and the chart visualizes how, without significant increases to the exploration budget, the development of any 

new projects going forward would be delayed in order to accommodate the continued operation of the ISS on to 2028. 

Last March, this Subcommittee held a hearing on the plans for 

the ISS after 2024, and at the hearing, we heard testimony about 

how slight increases to the exploration budget have allowed for 

some bit of flexibility to these projections. So I’d ask you to pull up 

the second chart if you would. 

[Slide.] 

Chairman BABIN. NASA’s exploration budget request for fiscal 

year 2019 is $10.5 billion, and while this is considerably more than 

was envisioned in the Pathways report, that $10.5 billion now includes approximately $1 billion in activities previously funded 

under the Space Technology Mission Directorate. So let’s assume 

that budget caps are not lifted significantly in the future. If the ISS 

is extended past the current authorized date of 2024, what new 

projects will be delayed, and would the Lunar Orbital Platform– 

Gateway be delayed? Would it prevent the start of a human lunar 

excursion vehicle development until after the 2030s? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Well, I think if you look at the budget request 

we have, it—and we’re proposing to eliminate government funding 

for the ISS in 2025. 

Chairman BABIN. Right. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. That’s our intent is to get—so we don’t have to 

fund that in the future and so that the total program, though, 

when you look at it, what we want to do is work the Mars vicinity. 

We want to get the platform built. We want to build these robotic 

landers to and from the Moon. There—while it’s not a perfect transition from what we’re doing in low-Earth orbit, there’s not like a 

switch we’re going to flip and magically go there—— 

Chairman BABIN. Right. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. —right? What we want to use now this year, 

this budget year is to go determine what are the commercial capabilities that would allow us to fill the gap that you show in your 

chart after 2024. What would they—what capabilities are going to 

be there? So you’re going to see a series of announcements from us. 

We’re trying to stimulate that with $150 million in this 2019 budget and roughly if—you know, in the out years that would be $900 

million over time to see who can fill that slot so we can move on 

and build those Gateway pieces. 

Chairman BABIN. Okay. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. That’s the way we’re looking at it. 

Chairman BABIN. Okay. Thank you. And then second, if NASA 

transitions low-Earth orbit operations to the private sector, how 

will NASA preserve the unique expertise and capabilities related to 

mission operations, program management, systems integration, including habitat and astronaut training, among other core competencies that reside at Johnson Space Center? Is there a longterm strategic plan that clearly delineates core center roles? And 

for the past several years, every time we’ve asked headquarters, 
35 

the answer has been we need to wait and see. So what say you 

about that? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes, we’ve spent quite a bit of time in the last 

two or three years defining center roles and what the roles are and 

of course JSC, Johnson Space Center, has those roles that you described. We believe those roles continue as we move into the—— 

Chairman BABIN. Okay. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. —lunar platform, and we also—one of the other 

things we want to learn from the request for the commercial folks 

this upcoming year is what capabilities do they want to depend on? 

Because mission operations—— 

Chairman BABIN. Yes. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. —astronaut training, those are things we can 

offer and then get reimbursed for as we move forward. 

Chairman BABIN. Right. Okay. Thank you. 

A backup plan for commercial crew, when the commercial crew 

partners experienced delays two years ago, NASA was able to 

maintain U.S. access to the station through the purchase of additional Soyuz seats through Boeing as a result of their Sea Launch 

settlement. Additional delays announced at their hearing earlier 

this year once again threaten U.S. access to the ISS. There are no 

more Soyuz seats to buy. Is NASA considering accepting additional 

risk by flying U.S. astronauts on commercial crew test flights? And 

if additional delays occur this spring, which is not out of the question given the complexity of work over the next several weeks, is 

this risky option off the table? And are we in a position that we 

may need to scale back crew on the ISS? Will we have to frontload 

our agreement with the Russians to maintain a steady crew in the 

near term, which will end up costing us more in the out years to 

accommodate their cosmonauts on commercial providers? I know 

I’m trying to get these questions in before I run out, so if you could 

answer some of those, I’d appreciate it. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes, so in the spirit of time here, what I—we are 

looking at several options along that line. 

Chairman BABIN. Right. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I can tell you that we’re working with the Russians, we’re working with our commercial partners, but we maintain—we’re still confident our commercial providers are going to 

provide us the capability we need, and we’re just looking at contingencies in case it happens. What I would offer is our teams can 

come up and brief you on the different options we’re looking at—— 

Chairman BABIN. Right. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. —at some point, brief your staff on that. 

Chairman BABIN. Okay. Great. That’s good. And I’m out of time, 

so I would like to recognize Mr. Bera now. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Lightfoot, what’s the basis for NASA focusing in 

on a core mission of exploration, specifically lunar exploration, 

when succesive of NASA Authorization Acts have emphasized the 

multi-mission role of NASA? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes, I think what we’re looking at—I think we 

still have a very balanced budget when you look across the multimission opportunities in science and aeronautics and technology, 

along with the exploration activity. What we’re really trying to do 
36 

here is focus on a long-term plan with our eye on Mars ultimately, 

right, but we had to really start to define—and this Committee has 

even asked us to do that multiple times. We had to define what 

we’re going to do in the decade of the 2020s to get ready to go to 

Mars. And I think what you see in this budget is a series of missions to the Moon and the lunar vicinity that are going to enable 

us to get to Mars ultimately. So I think we still have a good balanced budget from that standpoint. 

Mr. BERA. And as we look at that return to a lunar mission, I 

think we’ve talked about this on this Committee multiple times, 

that that return has to be in the context of learning something new 

that allows us to go on to the next capabilities. I know we’ve asked 

for that human exploration roadmap that talks about these interim 

destinations that allow us to go further. Without that roadmap it 

becomes difficult for us to evaluate kind of the exploration campaign. When do you think we’re going to get that roadmap? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. You could should get it by the end of the month. 

Mr. BERA. By the end of this month, okay. In my opening statement I expressed some concerns about robbing Peter to pay Paul 

and, again, the concerns of not having as well-rounded a multi-mission portfolio. What are the short-term and long-term impacts of 

giving human exploration precedence over other priorities that 

were outlined in multiple decadal surveys? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes, I think when you look at the priorities that 

we have today, we’re still meeting the majority of our science priorities going forward. We’re going to launch TESS, for instance, this 

upcoming year. We’ve got James Webb going out, so the astrophysics area is in pretty good shape from that standpoint. We’d like 

to look at more integration between our human exploration and 

science missions, and so when you look at the lunar activity we’re 

doing, it’s not just lunar science that we’re looking at. We’re looking at other science we can do from the area of the Moon to meet 

the objectives—meet the objectives in maybe different ways than 

we have in the past that are in the decadals. So our science team 

is looking at that as we go forward. 

Mr. BERA. Okay. I made reference in my opening statement that 

in the ’60s when we challenged ourselves to put a person on the 

Moon, the focus of the mission didn’t change from one Administration to the next. You had both Democratic and Republican Presidents focused on that Apollo mission. And I do think there is some 

concern as we go from one Administration to another I’d be curious 

from the NASA perspective, it’s got to be difficult as you’re trying 

to plan these longer-term missions that focus changes from one Administration to another. 

And how can we in Congress—we don’t tend to turn over every 

four years. Hopefully, some of us are here for a while to help guide 

that process along. And again, we recognize it is Congress’ job, it’s 

the House’s job to set the budget priorities and give you that budget, and your job as Administrator is to implement that budget. 

What are some things that we can do to avoid a shift every four 

years but allow you to do your job of focusing in on that mission 

to Mars in 2033? Does that make sense? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes, I think from our end we think that this particular budget proposal just provides some clarity and context in 
37 

terms of trying to still get to Mars as an out—you know, kind of 

that horizon goal that we talked about before. And what we’re seeing is that we can use the lunar vicinity and lunar surface, a more 

detailed and a more—a better understanding of what we can do 

there to actually help us go there. The Gateway is a critical piece 

of this. We are not just going to the Moon. We’re going to the lunar 

vicinity. We believe the Gateway can also be a launching point to 

go to Mars, but we’ve got to build it first, right? 

So we haven’t really—it’s not as big a change in my mind as 

maybe it looks like overall in terms of the exploration planning, but 

what you guys can do is what you always do, is hold us accountable 

to make sure we’re doing the same things that you want us to do 

from an overall perspective. 

I will tell you multi-decadal missions like we’re talking about 

doing here are difficult in one-year increments—— 

Mr. BERA. Right. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. —right, and that continuity and that—is very 

important to us to—for us to keep going as well, not just from the 

policy standpoint but from the budgeting perspective. 

Mr. BERA. And so since it’s our job to hold you accountable, do 

you feel the budget, as proposed, will give you enough of that 

multi-mission focus and enough of that multi-decadal focus to continue focusing in on that long-term mission? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Absolutely. 

Mr. BERA. Okay. Thank you. And I’ll yield back. 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Bera. 

I’d like to recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Brooks. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I’d like to congratulate you, Mr. Lightfoot, on once again 

today setting a new record as the longest-serving Acting Director 

of NASA. I hope you’ll have an extension of that record tomorrow. 

We’ll see if the Senate ever acts on who’s supposed to be nominated 

by the President. 

Now, how much steel and aluminum does NASA use? Do you 

have any judgment about that? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I have no idea, sir. 

Mr. BROOKS. Well, I mean you use steel in the launch platforms 

and of course aluminum. That’s one of the metals used in alloys or 

directly in providing lightweight launch vehicles, commercial crew 

vehicles, all those things, correct? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. It’s usually different material for that. I mean, 

we use a lot of aluminum I’m sure. I can’t tell you how much, 

though. 

Mr. BROOKS. Has this Administration’s proposed NASA budget 

taken into account the higher cost for steel and aluminum that 

would be anticipated because of the proposed ten percent aluminum and 25 percent steel tariffs? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. No. 

Mr. BROOKS. All right. I hope—— 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. It was developed before that so—— 

Mr. BROOKS. Okay. I hope you’ll take that into account, and 

hopefully it will be minimal, but if it’s not and it’s something we 

need to adjust for, then we do need that information. 
38 

In March of last year, the Committee held a hearing on the future of the International Space Station. More recently, the President’s budget proposes additional funding to stimulate low-Earth 

orbit commercialization. Would you please discuss NASA’s current 

thinking on commercialization and transition strategies for the 

International Space Station? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes, sir. We think that the commercial industry 

is really on the precipice of really being able to take over that area. 

We need another destination perhaps other than ISS or use the 

International Space Station as a destination maybe operated by 

others. Our planning and our thoughts here are that if we’re going 

to do this, we need to talk about it now and not later on if we’re 

going to—because of the way the budget works. We—so what we 

want to do this year is we want to do a series of calls for—to see 

what people are doing, ask for their business plan, their business 

proposal, what are they going to do, whether it’s use the ISS, have 

a standalone activity in low-Earth orbit, but ultimately develop a 

destination in low-Earth orbit that our commercial partners can go 

to that we and our international partners can use going forward. 

Mr. BROOKS. If NASA is unable to reduce its cost for operating 

the International Space Station by 2025, and if the low-Earth orbit 

commercialization activity does not bear fruit, what should the 

United States do regarding its presence on the International Space 

Station at that point? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes, I think the real question is what is the research we can get, the research and science value in low-Earth 

orbit that we will get from an International Space Station or another entity. And I think that’s a discussion we’ll have once we get 

the data back that tells us what we need to go do, and we’ll bring 

back a budget that addresses it. We’ll have to make that decision 

based on the technologies and the research that we need to do 

whether we can accomplish it in low-Earth orbit or in our future 

move out to the toward the Moon. 

Mr. BROOKS. Each commercial crew provider is required to fly an 

un-crewed flight followed by a crewed test flight before beginning 

International Space Station crew missions. Originally, commercial 

crew providers were required to fly functioning environmental control and life-support systems on their un-crewed flights. These systems provide oxygen to astronauts, absorb carbon dioxide, provide 

heating and cooling for the crew, and maintain atmospheric pressure. 

Recently, SpaceX was granted a waiver by NASA to fly their first 

test flight without these systems. What is NASA’s reasoning for 

skipping this stage? And that’s assuming the information I have is 

correct. First, is the information I have correct? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I’m not 100 percent sure, but what I will tell you 

is no matter what we do when we fly crew, we’ll have the safety 

policy in place that we need, and we’ll have the risk management 

appropriately around those activities. So I’ll take that for the 

record to get back with you in terms of exactly what we’ve agreed 

to there on that—from that standpoint. But no matter what the 

first crewed flight is for us, it will have the right safety checks that 

we would normally do and require before we fly crews on those 

missions. 
39 

Mr. BROOKS. Well, thank you. I look forward to getting that information back and also if the proposed tariffs on aluminum still 

do affect the NASA’s budget, if you could get that back to us, too, 

so that we can assure that NASA’s properly funded. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Okay. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you. 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you. 

I’d like to recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thank you, Dr. Babin. 

Mr. Lightfoot, thank you for your service. Thanks for sitting and 

staying in this position as Acting Administrator. You’ve been doing 

it for a long time. You were Associate Administrator before that. 

Just in a few words, is it time to have somebody who’s permanent 

in that position? Is it hard as an Acting Administrator to move the 

agency forward? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I think, you know, from my perspective on that, 

as someone sitting in that chair, it is always of value to have the 

person the President wants in this position, and I think that would 

be important for us all from that standpoint. But I can tell you for 

the past year I’ve had no trouble having access to the people I need 

to have access to. I’ve been involved—I mean, I’ve been to both 

Space Councils. I’ve had a chair—I haven’t had to sit in the back 

row. I’ve sat right at the table, as the Administrator would be, but 

there is value in having the approved presidential nominee in the 

chair. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Okay. Well, thank you. I don’t know if the students over here, are you from Lake Braddock? Okay. So I know a 

lot of your classmates just left, but I’m just curious. Of you all, any 

of you plan to be astronauts or work in the space program? By a 

show of hands, I’d be curious. You’re all going to be doctors in the 

healthcare business, right? All right. 

Well, I’m sorry the rest of them left because I’m a lawyer; I’m 

not a scientist. I’m not any of that, but I watch—I love science fiction—Star Wars and Star Trek and Men in Black and Back to the 

Future. So some of what we’re doing here reminds me of Back to 

the Future, a real effort on exploration, a real desire to do that, but 

when we were in the ’60s, there was a real investment in getting 

to the Moon or, you know, as the Administrator knows, I want to 

get our astronauts to Mars by 2033, which the orbits of Mars and 

Earth are close, and it saves a lot of space travel and potential 

danger to our astronauts. 

But I guess, Mr. Administrator, my question is this: There is an 

emphasis on exploration, but it seems to be at the expense of a lot 

of the other missions of NASA, one of which is the Science or the 

Space Technology Mission Directorate. And I have a letter from one 

of your former colleagues Bobby Braun, who is now a dean at the 

University of Colorado, in effect criticizing that—the loss of that directorate. And for the record, I’d like to introduce this letter, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman BABIN. Without objection. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. So my question to you, sir, is—and some of the 

other questions that Mr. Brooks asked, the Chairman asked, Dr. 
40 

Bera, it seems to me that in this process of focusing on the Moon 

with a hope to get to Mars that we’re losing a lot of the other 

science elements and a lot of the other Earth science programs at 

the expense of this exploration effort. Is that true? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I don’t believe it is. In fact, I would argue that 

our technology budget—and when you look at it today, the exploration research and technology budget that we’ve proposed is $1 

billion. Today, the space technology budget is roughly $700 million. 

So what we’ve done is we’ve aligned that technology budget with 

the exploration initiatives, and that particular part of the budget 

will now focus on what we call our long poles to getting to Mars, 

things like in-space propulsion, radiation safety, advanced life support that we need to actually take crews to Mars, and our entry, 

descent and landing activities that we’re doing at Mars that we 

don’t have to worry about at the Moon. 

So I think we are—we still have a very balanced portfolio going 

forward, and I just think the alignment and the focus from an exploration standpoint is what you’re seeing out of this budget. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Do you think you’re putting the building blocks 

in place to get our astronauts to Mars by 2033? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. We’re putting the building blocks in place. I 

don’t know if we’re going to get to it in 2033 or not, but we’re putting the building blocks in place that we need with the systems 

we’re putting around the Moon and on the Moon. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. I heard you say—and I think this was your— 

a quote—‘‘We’re going to try to get to Mars in the ’30s,’’ try. Another one of my movies, in Star Wars— Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Star Wars. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. —Yoda said, ‘‘Do or do not—— 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. ‘‘There is no try.’’ 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. —there is no try.’’ 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Absolutely. I know it well. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Okay. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I use it with my team all the time. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. All right. So, you know, I think that this Committee has been—you know, in Congress it’s pretty fractious sometimes, but this Committee has been pretty solid in wanting to support the mission—the overall mission of NASA exploration, science, 

Earth science, deep space, and I think this Committee will be behind NASA in getting this done. 

Part of me feels like a lot of this budget was written by the Office 

of Management and Budget, which I’m not happy about. So I want 

you to know that support that I think you have among all of us 

Democrats and Republicans. And I want to thank you again for 

your service, sir. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Perlmutter. 

I’d like to recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

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

And this is one of those rare occasions—well, actually, it’s not. 

We agree—my friend from Colorado just expressed a concern about 

the Space Technology Mission Directorate, and I, too, am concerned 

about that, and I join him in expressing that. I have a letter as 
41 

well for the record that I would submit for the record today, and 

I hope you would pay attention to that. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And for the sake of our high school students 

there, yes, my friend from Colorado and I agree on this. We’re 

working on it. That’s the type of bipartisanship that this Committee is known for and the American space program is known for. 

However, let me note that we have today—and this is for the 

kids—we don’t have a full-time Administrator of NASA. This is a 

temporary Administrator here. This is not, however, a product of 

partisanship. This is not political. He’s been in for a year. We have 

a good candidate, a great candidate, but yet we have to face this 

job with someone who’s in the job temporarily. 

This is a product of a couple of Senators who are bullheaded and 

a couple of Senators who are basically watching out for their own 

little domain rather than what’s good overall for the country. And 

let me just put that on record so the kids recognize that is not politics. It could happen in any—this is not a political party-based outcome. It’s based on the fact that there’s several people over in the 

Senate that have demonstrated an arrogance that is unacceptable 

and makes things not work as well in Washington, D.C. 

Let me now note now that we’ve talked a little bit about some 

of the other things, I, as you know, over the years—and when we’re 

talking about kids—there’s a big threat to these kids. There’s a big 

threat to the people of the world, and it’s the one thing that we 

seem to be ignoring, and I don’t think that we’re paying enough attention to it in this budget and others, and that is at any time 

there could be an asteroid or a near-Earth object that could come 

and wipe out half the world if not the entire planet. Their generation needs to know that we are preparing now for some way to defend this Earth, global defense, if indeed something is determined, 

is actually sighted ten years out—and we can do that—so that we 

could change the actual trajectory of an object like this. 

Now, that is not something that’s likely to happen, but it could 

happen. And if it does happen, it’ll mean your entire generation is 

wiped out. So for these kids and for the planet in general, shouldn’t 

we be doing more of that? And, for example, NEOCam is something 

that is absolutely necessary to see if an object would be coming 

from the Sun. Is there any money in this budget for NEOCam? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes, for the—so for the total picture of planetary 

protection is what we call it. We have an office—Planetary Protection Office in the agency—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. —and what we do there is we’ve increased the 

budget to do more observations that we’re required to do, but we’ve 

also funded a mission called DART, which is going to be a mission 

that goes out and potentially determines whether we can deflect an 

asteroid or not. And we continue the technology work on NEOCam. 

We do not have the NEOCam mission yet, but the technology associated with what would become a mission is—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, this is vitally—this is something that’s 

important even though the chances of a horrible occasion like this 

are small, but the consequences would be incredible, catastrophic. 
42 

In terms of your science, and budget, and the fact that there 

seems to be a limitation on Earth science that has been mentioned, 

let me just note that, today, we do have commercial companies that 

are capable of doing things they couldn’t do 30 years ago, especially 

in the terms of remote-sensing and Earth observation. There’s no 

reason in the world why, if a private company can do something 

to make a profit at it, that we should take our limited budget for 

NASA and spend it on something that could be done and made a 

profit on in the private sector. So I would think that that’s one 

thing that we should facilitate companies to get in, make a profit 

at doing those things in observation and sensing that they can do 

and make a profit at. 

Lastly, I’d like to bring up another major impediment, and I’ve 

got one second to do it. And it’s debris. And again, one thing that 

we can do as a government is work together with other governments, I might add, and other countries that want to do things in 

space to help clear the debris that’s limiting what we can accomplish in space. Is there—what do we have on space debris? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes, we continue to work on the technologies, 

and I think this is a topic we’ve brought up with Scott Pace, the 

Executive Secretary for the Space Council—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. —is to look at an integrated policy because we 

all have an interest in this across the government. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, I hope so, and I would—let me just say 

that, again, if we can just give these young people a world in which 

their opportunities are present, but by not doing things about debris or a possible threat from an asteroid, we’re doing a great disservice to the next generation. So thank you for doing your part. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BABIN. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. We’ll work together on that. 

Chairman BABIN. I’d like to recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Foster. 

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman—— 

Chairman BABIN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FOSTER. —and thank you for your service. I know it’s—you 

know, it’s tough. 

I’d like to just start with one sort of big-picture item. Is it a correct reading of that plot that we looked at earlier that with a flat, 

flat budget, you don’t get to the Moon and you certainly don’t get 

to Mars? Is that correct? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I think it would be quite a challenge with a flat 

budget to do that. 

Mr. FOSTER. Right. And that’s true both for a flat, flat budget 

and one that even inflation-adjusted, flat including inflation? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes, we think that—we actually think the—including inflation we can do this. We’ve done the models. We’ve run 

the numbers to say if— 

Mr. FOSTER. And that assumes shutting down the ISS at some 

appropriate time. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Absolutely. 

Mr. FOSTER. But without shutting down the ISS, it’s a nonstarter? 
43 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Again, it depends on when we shut it down because it—that study showed ’24 and ’28. I mean, there’s options in 

there in the middle if that makes sense. I mean, there’s other times 

we can do it. 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, you can shut it down when you decide to. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Right. 

Mr. FOSTER. But you need that money to even return to the 

Moon? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I believe so, to build the entire system to do 

that, absolutely. 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes. Okay. And then I want to talk about—— 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. That’s why we have the plan we have, right? It’s 

what we’re showing to get off of it in 2024. 

Mr. FOSTER. Now, if you talk about missions to Mars, an obvious 

suggestion is to have international partners taking a significant 

fraction of that. There’s a lot and growing enthusiasm among other 

countries. And what is your attitude towards collaboration for a 

Mars mission with other countries? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes, we—all of this we’re trying to do we think 

is going to be a great opportunity not only for industry partners in 

the country but also international partners. Last week, I was in 

Japan at the International Space Exploration Forum, and I was 

able to brief all our international partners that work with us on 

space station on what we’re trying to do. They’re all very interested 

in coming forward to help us not only at the Moon but also as we 

go to Mars. That’s our plan all along is to include that. That’s one 

of the differences between the ’60s and now is we have other players that want to come and be part of this. They just need us to 

lead. 

Mr. FOSTER. And the other thing that is potentially really changing are the increased capabilities of artificial intelligence and robotics, that you have robots today doing things that could only be done 

by people even a few years ago. And so this is an opportunity to 

really knock some cost out of future missions by either having robots precede people to—which is—it seems like there is a shift in 

focus in that direction now, where you’re talking about relatively 

sophisticated robotic-first missions and then deferring the human— 

the much more expensive manned component as necessary to meet 

your budgetary constraints. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes, we’re using robotics—to your point, we’re 

using robotics on the International Space Station actually doing 

things robotically that ten years ago we needed crew time for. We 

will take things—when SpaceX flies to the station today, for instance, they carry instruments in the trunk, in the unpressurized 

cargo area for the SpaceX. While the crew’s asleep, we take the 

arm, we would pull it out, we do it all robotically from the ground. 

You can do the same thing from the platform at the Moon. You can 

do robotic operations of landers on the Moon, so it goes both ways. 

Mr. FOSTER. Sure. You can have—you know, the old dream—— 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. The advances are incredible. 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, the old dream of having self-replicating factories on the Moon using completely robotic equipment, these sort 

of things people are making, you know, prototypes of components 

of that on Earth, and it’s something actually the next generation 
44 

should get very excited about because these sort of prototype facilities on Earth could really lead the way for, you know, orders-ofmagnitude reduction in the cost of future missions. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes, we believe our International Space Station 

lets us demonstrate that in space as well. 

Mr. FOSTER. Okay. Now, in my last time, I’d like to go to something very microscopically focused, which is the choice of using 

high-enriched uranium or low-enriched uranium for power sources. 

There is a huge difference in the danger, the proliferation danger 

and the terrorist danger, between high-enriched uranium and lowenriched uranium. If you have weapons-grade high-enriched uranium and a terrorist steals it, they can, without much sophistication, make a nuclear weapon. On the other hand, if they steal lowenriched uranium, they have to go and build a centrifuge hall and 

so on, and so it’s almost useless to them. 

And so, I’m a little puzzled why you seem to have both high-enriched uranium and low-enriched uranium for propulsion and for 

surface power in different parts of your program. And I was wondering specifically, have you looked at the real cost of security 

when you choose high-enriched uranium for—that means you need 

armed guards, you need barbed wire, you need everything, and it’s 

very expensive because of the terrorist threat if you choose highenriched uranium. You know, it does make a slightly more compact 

design for typical reactor applications, but I’d encourage you to look 

hard at seeing if you can lead the world in standardizing low-enriched uranium. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes, we’ve been working on technologies for that 

for the exact reason you’re talking about. It is high-enriched uranium creates a lot of extra challenges there. We’ve been looking at 

it for power and propulsion. What I’d like to do is let our team 

bring you—get—provide you a report on what we’ve been doing in 

LEU and how we’re trying to use it and the applications we see 

going forward. Would that be okay? 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, it’d be very—yes, I mean, there was a letter 

from a long list of Nobel Prize winners just focusing on how the 

United States should lead—there’s a danger also that countries 

which are not necessarily nuclear countries will say we need a 

large inventory of high-enriched uranium not to build bombs but 

for their space program. And so if there’s a technological way to 

avoid this, I just really encourage you to try to lead the world towards exclusively using non-weapons-grade uranium for your programs. 

Chairman BABIN. Okay. Thank you. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

And I’d like to recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. 

Lucas. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is always a challenge on the Republican side to follow Mr. Rohrabacher from California, but here we go. 

A number of my colleagues have touched on this question, Acting 

Director, about the nature of the agency and the ability of the 

things to be done that are necessary in this environment we work 

in with an Acting Director. And you’re a long-term career guy, and 

you’ve done an outstanding job and a very good role as Acting Di-
45 

rector. But ultimately, as my friends are noting here, in the environment we work in, the resources that the agency needs in the 

long-term, having a Director nominated and confirmed by the 

United States Senate from the Administration is critically important, and I think we would all agree on that. And while this body 

can’t really give advice to that other institution—notice I was very 

careful in my phraseology there—nonetheless, having a full-time 

Director is a critically important thing. 

And I spent five or six years sitting next to the OMB Director 

on the subcommittee of another committee, and I understand how 

challenging the circumstances can be there, so we need someone, 

and I agree with my colleagues. 

Another observation in a general sense I would note my friend 

from Colorado’s focus on having people on Mars by 2033, that 

would make me 73 years old. I would like to be alive for this great 

accomplishment. And while I come from reasonably decent genetics, once we get past the mid-80s, it starts to be a little questionable, so I want to help you get there and the agency get there. 

So for a comment or two in the weeds now that we’ve discussed 

indirectly Mr. Mulvaney and the environment we’re working in, 

NASA’s expressed an interest in building a second mobile launch 

platform for the SLS as a way to address some of the scheduling 

pressure on the first crewed mission of SLS and Orion. And I was 

looking through your request, and I noticed the second platform is 

not included. What effect would building a second mobile launch 

platform rather than modifying existing platform have on the 

launch schedule for SLS and Orion, and what would the cost be 

thinking about our justifications to our other friends in government 

about why we need the resources to do things? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes, I think we took a hard look at that during 

this cycle, and what the advantage of the second mobile launch 

platform gives you is I could fly on the mobile launch platform I’m 

building today, and I could potentially fly Orion if I bought another 

interim cryogenic propulsion stage, an upper stage. So I could fly 

quicker, fly humans quicker, probably 2022 time frame. 

The opposite of that is the cost is a pretty expensive proposition 

to build a new mobile launcher and to buy another interim cryogenic propulsion stage. And so just as we had the discussion, we 

had the debate, and our answer came back we just should stick 

with our plan that we’ve got. So, I mean, that was the difference. 

We can provide you the numbers. I’d be glad to provide the cost 

associated with that to the Committee. 

Mr. LUCAS. I would be fascinated by the numbers, Director—— 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Okay. 

Mr. LUCAS. —because that’s one of the issues that we as a committee need to take up in our work with the appropriators if we 

really want to get there in 2033 or a day or two earlier, providing 

those necessary resources. 

Now, let’s touch for a moment, are the flat, notional, nominal, 

topline, out-year numbers on the budget request a result of the decision to keep funding flat, or are they simply placeholders for subsequent requests that the Administration will be making as the 

long-term formula gets put together as all the pieces come into 

place in the Administration? 
46 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes, we believe that our job is to present the 

budget we need every year to OMB, and so without years being notional, I don’t really think about them either way as placeholders 

or direction. I just think we have to present our budget going forward, so—— 

Mr. LUCAS. Another observation that I would make to my colleagues on the committee that it’s our responsibility to address 

some of these long-term issues, our responsibility to focus the resources to do what is in the common good and the best interest. 

Just one casual question to conclude with, Director. Tell us about 

the funding situations and circumstances of the James Webb. Are 

we still on track? Do we still have the resources necessary to help 

it live up to its potential? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes, we believe we have the resources necessary 

now. We’re in a pretty significant review from a schedule standpoint about when we’ll launch it. We’re having some challenges 

with a couple of the technical parts of the spacecraft, not the telescope part but the actual spacecraft bus that’s being built. The telescope is already delivered and it’s ready to go. We’ve done 

through—gone through the testing. They’re around the sunshield 

and around some of the propulsion elements associated with that. 

So we—we’re—I’m supposed to get briefed by the end of the month 

on where we are, and we’ll let—obviously let everybody know 

where we are from that standpoint. 

Mr. LUCAS. And I bring that up, as important as the manned 

program is, nonetheless, your satellites in orbit around the Earth 

have provided us with, as my mother would have said, a lot of 

‘‘Buck Rogers’’ moments in the last 20 years, and we need to continue that focus and generating the imagination of our fellow citizens. 

With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BABIN. Yes, sir. Thank you very much, Mr. Lucas. 

And I’d like to recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Crist. 

Mr. CRIST. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BABIN. Certainly. 

Mr. CRIST. I appreciate that. 

And thank you, Mr. Lightfoot, for being with us today. We appreciate the situation you’re in, and thank you for your tenacity in the 

mission. 

And you may have addressed these things. I had to step out for 

a meeting or two. During your state of NASA address last month, 

you mentioned that the Administration is putting NASA, quote, ‘‘on 

a path to return to the Moon with an eye towards Mars.’’ That’s 

an interestingly worded statement, and I appreciate that. It seems 

to avoid a firm commitment as to either of the two objectives may 

be accomplished. And while it’s clear that this fiscal year 2019 

budget focuses heavily on lunar exploration, I am a bit concerned 

that the Administration may be shying away from Mars. Can you 

elaborate on that? And you may have already, so forgive me—— 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes. 

Mr. CRIST. —if that’s the case. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. No, it’s fine. I’d be glad to articulate where I 

think we are. I think we are still keeping an eye on Mars for sure, 

and the technologies I mentioned earlier around—that we’re going 
47 

to still continue to fund. There are some pretty long—what we call 

long poles, challenges, to get to Mars: entry, descent, and landing; 

and space propulsion; advanced life support; radiation protection 

for the crews as we go there. These are big challenges for us. So 

we’re going to keep working on those while we build the systems 

that we’re building at the Moon that we think are going to be extensible to get us to Mars. 

The Gateway is a critical piece of that. If—we could’ve decided 

just go to the Moon from Earth, right, and then that would’ve not 

been extensible to do anything to get to Mars, but the fact that 

we’re going to build a platform that allows us to operate to and 

from the platform to the Moon can also be the platform we use to 

operate to and from to Mars. So that’s—I think that’s a pretty 

nuanced difference from a technical perspective in terms of this architecture. 

Mr. CRIST. Where do we think we are in terms of the timing of 

a Mars mission? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Well, you know, as Congressman Perlmutter 

said, he wants 2033. I think what we’ll do is see what—how much 

progress we make in the lunar vicinity in building those systems 

we need and knocking down the technical requirements, but it will 

be no earlier than 2033, how about that? I’ll just leave it at that. 

Mr. CRIST. Okay. I appreciate that. Is there an opportunity, do 

you think, for the private sector to assist NASA in getting humans 

to Mars? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Absolutely. We—there—not only an opportunity, 

we are expecting them to help. I mean, they’re helping today by 

helping us with low-Earth orbit the activity we’re doing from a 

cargo perspective and ultimately the crew perspective and even 

some of the systems that we have on the International Space Station. We want to leverage that in a big way as we move forward 

because the more they can do, the more I can move out going forward. So it’s the entire system of what we’re doing in low-Earth 

orbit, around the Moon, and getting to Mars. That’s going to need 

international cooperation, it’s going to need American industry and 

commercial folks to come forward, and then the NASA team themselves. And I think that’s what’s important is to look at that total 

spectrum. 

Mr. CRIST. Yes, sir. Thank you. The budget proposes to end direct funding for the International Space Station in 2025 when 

under this proposal the station would be transferred to commercial 

management and control. Will the research being done on the space 

station to mitigate the risk of extended space travel on humans be 

completed by 2025? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Well, we have a roadmap for doing that research 

obviously. The important thing is we’re not going to quit doing research. We’ll be doing research around the Moon on the reaction— 

what happens to humans as well. That’s part of our discussion this 

upcoming year is what do we need to do and what commercial platforms can actually provide us the same research that we get on the 

International Space Station. So we will get the research done that 

we need to do to move humans forward, but we don’t ever stop researching for humans no matter where we are, at the Moon or even 

at Mars. 
48 

Mr. CRIST. Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Lightfoot. I’ll yield. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BABIN. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

I’d like to recognize the gentleman from Florida, Dr. Dunn. 

Mr. DUNN. Thank you very much, Dr. Babin—— 

Chairman BABIN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DUNN. —Mr. Chairman. I’m going to stay on the same line 

of questioning if I may and ask you to elaborate a little more about 

the transfer of the space station to the commercial sector, private 

sector. You know, how exactly does that work? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Well, part of it is—so we have to coordinate with 

our international partners, too, I want to be really clear, as they 

are part of the International Space Station today. What we’re really looking for is—— 

Mr. DUNN. Are all the governments stepping out or just ours? It’s 

just ours? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes, we’ve just proposed it, and we’ve been talking to them going forward—— 

Mr. DUNN. Okay. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. —but today, all the governments were agreed to 

to 2024. If we go past 2024, all the governments are going to have 

to agree to as well. 

Mr. DUNN. So a new negotiation? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes. And I think that’s not a difficult thing. It 

may be difficult for them and their ministries and all the different 

things they do. 

But what’s really important here is we think when you look at 

the rise of the commercial entities and the—really the—their abilities and the things they’re bringing where there’s the habitats—we 

got a tremendous amount of interest in our NEXTSTEP, BAA, the 

Broad Area Announcement around habitats. We think by 2025 

there’s great potential for them to have orbiting platforms in lowEarth orbit. It doesn’t have—some of them might want to use the 

International Space Station; some may want to stand alone. So the 

plan would be those come along, and if they do, we can get our research done and use them—just basically buy that as a service for 

our needs going forward. So this next year we’ll get—we’ll ask folks 

for that kind of feedback. We’ll get that kind of feedback from all 

these companies, and we’ll see where they really are, which allows 

us to influence our 2020 submit based on that—what that date 

might be. 

Mr. DUNN. So during—on the same theme of reorganization 

here—you stated that NASA plans to reorganize the Human Exploration Operations Missions Directorate and Space Technology Mission Directorate. Can you also elaborate on that transition? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes, so the goal here is to move what the Space 

Technology—Space Technology Mission Directorate today into an 

exploration, research, and technology arm, and we’re still working 

the details around the organization. We’ll have that back in the 

spring. And what we’re really trying to do is make sure our technologies that we’re working on are truly aligned with the things 

we’re trying to do at the Moon and ultimately at Mars, as I talked 

about some of the technologies we got to work on before. 
49 

And we think having them housed under one organization, while 

today I am very comfortable—I really am pretty comfortable with 

the alignment, there’s things we’re doing in technology that may 

not be aligned. You know, there’s other things, and so we’re trying 

to make sure they’re all focused. And having them under one spectrum so I know what I’m doing in low-Earth orbit, I know what I’m 

doing with the Moon, and I know what I’m doing with my technologies, I can make sure those are integrated and not on their 

own, so that’s what we’re trying to do. 

Mr. DUNN. I’m going to lower our altitude just a little bit here. 

I’d like you to elaborate on the X–Plane program, which is fascinating to me. And by the X–Plane, I think you mean the low 

boom. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes. 

Mr. DUNN. Are there other X–Planes you’re working on? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes, we have a plan ultimately I think for four 

X–Planes in our—in what we call our New Aviation Horizons. The 

first is the low boom supersonic demonstrator—flight demonstrator. 

Mr. DUNN. Do you feel pretty confident about that? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Absolutely. 

Mr. DUNN. Great. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I feel very confident. I think you’ll see some announcements probably in the next month about some selections 

we’ve made moving forward. 

Mr. DUNN. I’m going to hold you to that. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. You can on that one. We’re pretty excited about 

that. And the goal there of course obviously is to create supersonic 

transport across the continent of the United States, which we can’t 

do today, right? Can we provide a demonstrator that allows the 

commercial market to learn from that configuration and move forward? 

The next demonstrator, the next X–Plane is what we call X–57 

Maxwell. It’s an all-electric aircraft—— 

Mr. DUNN. Yes, yes. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. —and so that’s the next one. And they we’re 

going—we’re continuing working on subsonic technologies, which is 

flight technologies from a subsonic perspective. That would be the 

next demonstrator. It’s not in this budget, but that would be the 

next one. There’d be a third one even. And we just think—I mean, 

I just think it’s critical that we stay engaged from an aviation and 

aeronautics technology perspective. 

Mr. DUNN. It is. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. It’s a huge global market that we don’t want to 

get out of. 

Mr. DUNN. Yes, no really, I’m glad that NASA hasn’t lost sight 

of the atmospheric efforts. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Not at all. 

Mr. DUNN. That’s very good. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

I appreciate your answers, Mr. Lightfoot. 

Chairman BABIN. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

I’d like to recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Beyer. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 
50 

Mr. Lightfoot, thank you very much for being here. In your testimony you mentioned that the budget request provides for, quote, 

‘‘critical infrastructure indispensable to the Nation’s access and use 

of space,’’ and you discuss the importance of maintaining the ISS 

and supplying both crew and cargo through NASA’s commercial 

cargo partners. I certainly agree that those are very important priorities, which is why I want to discuss the Wallops Flight Facility 

in Virginia. The space launch range at Wallops is technically 

NASA’s only launch range, considering that launches from Kennedy Space Center in Florida use the Air Force’s eastern range. In 

fiscal year 2018, the National Defense Authorization Act that Congress established a launch support and infrastructure modernization program for DOD’s eastern range in Florida and the western 

range in California. I’m concerned because there appears to be no 

similar program within NASA to sustain and invest in long-range 

assets for Wallops, which are also used for your mobile range missions in the United States and around the world. 

Even more troubling, the fiscal year 2019 President’s budget request did not include any funding for the 21st-Century Launch 

Complex Program, which has been used to fund some of these 

needs at Wallops in the absence of a dedicated launch range program. This Committee included its support for the continuation of 

the 21st-Century Launch Complex Program in the 2017 NASA 

Transition Act, but I’m disappointed the budget request didn’t follow along with this Committee’s recommendations. 

So I was encouraged that Chairman Culbersonas, Ranking Member Serrano, and Members of the House Appropriations’ Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies 

continued funding for this program in their fiscal year 2018 bill, 

and I know that my colleagues and I will be pushing for this again 

in our eventual fiscal year Appropriations Act. 

So my question is how is NASA investing in upgrades at Wallops 

to improve the launch range infrastructure, and why are there no 

dedicated range improvement programs for NASA’s range as there 

are for the DOD ranges? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes, so the way we—what we typically do from 

an infrastructure standpoint is we’ll build the infrastructure, and 

then once the program comes into operate it, they inherit the infrastructure costs. So we’ll do—kind of do the upfront investment, and 

then we let the programs like commercial cargo that flies out of 

Wallops, as you know, Sounding Rockets Programs, the Balloons 

Programs, they support the infrastructure that’s there. So that’s 

where we are. 

What I will do is I will—I don’t know the exact details of what 

we’re funding there from an infrastructure perspective, but we 

have an infrastructure process through our Office of Strategic Infrastructure that allows us to look for modernization and investment. And what I’ll do, sir, is I’ll just provide you what we’re doing 

at Wallops inside that budget. 

Mr. BEYER. Okay. That’d be great because the companion question is, though, wouldn’t the continuation of the 21st-Century 

Launch Complex funding help address some of the backlog, continue to make NASA’s range more competitive, basically just 

strengthen NASA’s only range at Wallops? 
51 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes, I think—well, obviously, it would, but we 

fund that out of our Safety, Security, and Mission Support area, 

which is our—kind of our institutional area, and that’s an area 

that gets challenged quite often, so that’s—let us get you the data 

on where we are. I’d rather not try to just do it off the top of my 

head from that standpoint. 

Mr. BEYER. Okay. Great. Mr. Chair, that’s all I have, so I yield 

back. 

Chairman BABIN. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

And now I’d like to recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. 

Banks. 

Mr. BANKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. 

Lightfoot, for being here. You have been an adequate Acting Administrator. You’ve done a great job. We appreciate your leadership, so no offense to you, but I hope next time we’re sitting here 

that Administrator Bridenstine will be in the chair. It’s an embarrassment to the process that that hasn’t happened yet, but we appreciate the leadership that you have provided in the meantime. 

I want to ask you a little bit about the WFIRST mission. This 

project was a top priority for astronomers in the last decadal survey. What would be the consequence of canceling the mission in 

your opinion? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes, I think the big consequence is the gap in 

astrophysics data that we would get from the WFIRST. I mean 

as—to the astrophysics community, that’s a challenge from a scientific perspective. 

The other—the positive side of that, though, is that we can—that 

those funds can perhaps get the data in a different way, and I 

think that’s what our Science Mission Directorate is going to look 

at. 

Mr. BANKS. So you would agree that it would undermine the 

decadal survey? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. It’s definitely what the decadal survey has asked 

for, but we think there’s other ways to get that same data. 

Mr. BANKS. You do? Okay. Well, many of the important parts of 

the spacecraft for the WFIRST mission have already been completed. Would you agree? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I’m not sure I would agree. 

Mr. BANKS. For example, at the Harris Corporation, which is a 

major employer in my district, several hundred constituents of 

mine have completed construction of the optical assembly. So how 

much of this spacecraft for the mission has already been completed? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Can I get you those numbers? Can I just provide 

them for the record? Because I don’t—again, I don’t want to do it 

off the top of my head, but there’s— 

Mr. BANKS. Yes. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. —there’s quite a bit more to go. 

Mr. BANKS. Okay. Please do. Thank you very much. 

Can we really expect, though, substantial savings given the 

amount of work, do you believe, that has already gone into the 

WFIRST mission? 
52 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I think when you see the numbers—when you’re 

looking at a $3.2–3.9 billion mission, we have not spent nearly that 

much at this point. 

Mr. BANKS. Okay. Thank you. I look forward to seeing those figures. 

I know the Webb Space Telescope has already been mentioned. 

It continues to experience several complications on the path to 

being ready to fly. Given the intricacy of the design with no room 

for error in the deployment, how would NASA’s ability to conduct 

deep space science if WFIRST was canceled and if there were further problems with the Webb Telescope after it was launched? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I think that’s the balance and the challenge that 

we’re counting on. We’re counting on tests in James Webb to fill 

the astrophysics needs for quite a bit of time, so clearly, if we had 

challenge with James Webb, that would be something we’d have to 

look at. 

Mr. BANKS. Okay. And finally, in this day of ever-changing innovation and technological advancements, could you explain the reasoning for merging the Space Technology Mission Directorate with 

an operations organization? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes, I think when you look at the way—there’s 

really three lines of business in here. There’s the low-Earth orbit 

activity where the International Space Station is; there’s the lunar 

vicinity area, what we’re going to do at the surface of the Moon and 

around the Moon; and then there’s deeper space exploration, which 

includes Mars. If you’re going to have a steppingstone approach, 

those three steppingstones need to kind of be aligned together, and 

so that’s what we’re trying to do. And if you look at the total budget, it’s actually a better budget for technology than we had, a 

standalone Mission Directorate, and it’ll be more aligned and more 

focused, we believe, with what we’re trying to do. 

Mr. BANKS. Okay. Thank you very much. That’s all I got. I yield 

back. 

Chairman BABIN. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

I’d like to recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Knight. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Mr. Lightfoot, thank you. Thank you for your leadership, and thank you for hiring my Legislative Director and taking him away for me. I’m sure he’s doing as good a job for you as 

he did for me. 

You know what we’re going to talk about. We’re going to talk 

about the big A. So the LBFD, the UEST, these are kind of projects 

that I think would advance mankind. It would definitely advance 

this country, and I’m going to jump on an airplane tomorrow and 

I’m going to .7 Mach, hopefully, if the winds aren’t so bad. But if 

I jumped on an airplane in 1968, I’d be going .7 Mach across this 

country. And so for about 62 years, it’s been that. Coming East, we 

get to go a little faster; going West, we get to go a little slower, 

but that’s about where we are. 

And so I think the LBFD and then even transitioning a little bit 

into ultra-efficient subsonic transport and saving fuel costs and 

putting these same amount of people into the airplane but saving 

those fuel costs, maybe making a little wider seats for me, too, 

would be a big, big deal to advancing mankind and taking that step 
53 

that maybe we haven’t taken in the last 60-some years. So that’s 

just my pitch to continue to push on that. 

New horizons—and this is a big part of that—but all of the X– 

Planes—and I think that Dr. Dunn started on what you’re doing 

with the X–57, and I know that that’s progressing very well and 

what we’re doing with the Low-Boom Flight Demonstrator. What 

else are we seeing in the future outside of what I’ve kind of just 

stated? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes, there’s a couple of things that we’re working on in aeronautics that are just as important in my opinion and 

that’s getting—integrating unmanned systems into the airspace. 

Our teams at Ames are working really hard on that—well, all over 

the country frankly are working on that with our partners at FAA 

and how we would go about doing that. You can see the proliferation that’s happening everywhere. There’s personal air mobility 

coming along, and we’re involved in the technology and research 

around that. 

Hypersonics, we’re involved in that from a—— 

Mr. KNIGHT. That’s next. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. —very much a research perspective, so those are 

all in that budget that go with the X–Planes that you talked about, 

and very important to us and—I think. 

Mr. KNIGHT. So hypersonics over the last five or ten years there’s 

been a lot of advancements to get us to probably a position where 

hypersonics are very achievable, very reachable. NASA’s been a big 

part of that, and industry has been a big part of that. I think that 

we’re going to see that not just from what NASA can do with 

hypersonics but from a national defense situation, hypersonics are 

very, very important in moving forward with new technologies, new 

ceramics, and new materials that make those things achievable. 

I’m going to push over into another realm. We’ve got some companies out there that are doing some innovative things, and one of 

them is in Mojave. It’s a Paul Allen company called Stratolaunch. 

Stratolaunch is going to fly an airplane this year, a very large airplane, and when they do that, they’re going to kind of bring a new 

realm into what we can do for space launch because that airplane 

will be able to fly at a couple different airports depending on the 

taxiways, and they’ll be able to launch differently than just on the 

West Coast and just on the East Coast, is what we hope. Do you 

see a good partnership with companies like that with Stratolaunch 

and things like that? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes, I think we have that we have—our launch 

services process that we have inside the agency and flight opportunities process we have inside the agency really allows new entrants 

to come in. We have a really good on-ramping way for them to 

demonstrate their capability and become part of our—really our 

toolbox to get our missions done, so yes, absolutely we see an opportunity for those folks. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Yes, I think that’s a perfect answer, that this could 

be part of the toolbox. This is part of the future. 

And then closer to home to me that not many people know about 

but everybody’s talked about the James Webb Space Telescope, and 

so you know I’m going to talk about SOFIA, all of the things that 

SOFIA does. How is that doing? 
54 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Still continues to fly its missions. We constantly—not only do—are we flying missions, we’re engaging a lot 

of educators in that process as we go forward. The data is coming 

back. It’ll go through senior review in a couple years just like all 

our missions do, and we’ll see—it’ll get a good assessment of the 

science value versus the cost and that’s what we’ll do so—— 

Mr. KNIGHT. Yes. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. It’s in—it’s still over in Germany right now, and 

there’s annual maintenance period—— 

Mr. KNIGHT. Correct. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. —so we look forward to getting it back here in 

a couple—I think we get it back in a couple of weeks. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Yes. Thank you very much, and I yield back. 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you very much. And, yes, we’ll take a 

second round here. And I’ll tell you what, I’ll call on you first there, 

Mr. Bera, the gentleman from California. 

Mr. BERA. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ve just got a quick 

question, and again, I appreciate the service, Acting Administrator. 

You know, when you talked about the space technology budget 

increasing from $700 million to $1 billion, we’re happy about that 

obviously. I think, you know, echoing a theme that I think a number of members have said and I certainly touched on—one of the 

concerns, though, is with that increased budget but with that increased focus on exploration we do have a worry that more of the 

budget for space technology is going to focus on the exploration 

mission as opposed to kind of the cross-sectional multi-mission 

piece. And again, it’s that borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. Could 

you touch on that? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes, I think that’s a concern of mine as well. I 

mean, we worry about that in the agency all the time in terms— 

there’s several things, right? There’s the concern of will the technology get eaten by the operational side of the house, right? 

Mr. BERA. Right. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. And I think that’s the biggest concern we had 

for a while. What we’ve done, though, is we’ve put some things in 

place that allow us to monitor that and make sure we’re not doing 

that. I have a strategic integration activity between the mission directorates today that allows—they have to come to me to say when 

they’re doing that, so we don’t internally rob from Peter to pay 

Paul, and I’m pretty comfortable with that process and feel like 

that alignment will stay in place. 

Not only that, when you see the details behind the engineering— 

or the exploration research and technology line, there’s still some 

crosscutting budget in there. There’s—just the majority of it is 

going to be focused to exploration. There’s early-stage activity still 

there, a small amount but it’s still in there to make sure we’re 

keeping that seed corn, not just all exploration-focused but most of 

it is. 

Mr. BERA. And, you know, as my colleague from Colorado, Mr. 

Perlmutter, pointed out I think most of the Members on this Committee in a bipartisan way are very supportive of the multi-mission 

aspect of NASA and—as it’s our constitutional duty to set budget 

numbers and so forth. We do want to work with NASA and work 
55 

with your administrators to make sure we’re robustly supporting 

that multi-mission focus. 

I do have one last question. Would you agree that the decadal 

survey has served us fairly well in terms of prioritization and so 

forth? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Oh, yes. I think it’s a stalwart for what we do 

from an agency standpoint—— 

Mr. BERA. Right. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. —but we don’t always do exactly what the 

decadal says. It’s just a good advising for us. 

Mr. BERA. And that’s a somewhat objective, nonpolitical way of 

advising and prioritizing projects. Well, I’ll just go on the record. 

Not doing the WFIRST mission from an astrophysics perspective is 

probably going to be perceived as leaving a hole in that continued 

science. I think we ought to work together to try to figure out how 

we continue to fill that hole or continue to move forward with the 

WFIRST project. 

Thanks. And I’ll yield back. 

Chairman BABIN. Okay. All right. Thank you. 

And I have a few more questions, too, if you don’t mind. Con- cerning Orion, last year, NASA requested $1.186 billion for Orion, 

and Congress appropriated $1.35 billion in fiscal year 2017, which 

continues under the current continuing resolution. The additional 

funding was necessary to carry out important work on EM–1 rather than deferring it to EM–2. NASA is once again requesting to decrease Orion funding. What content would be removed if NASA received $1.16 billion rather than the $1.35 billion in fiscal year 

2019? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Let me—can I submit that for the record? 

Chairman BABIN. You sure can. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Let me get that back to you so I get the exact 

content that’s in there. 

Chairman BABIN. Yes, we’d like to know. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes. 

Chairman BABIN. Okay. And then concerning risk, in your January talk to CSIS, you spoke about risk and that trading between 

specific engineering choices and national strategic imperatives is a 

difficult but occasionally necessary discussion. Is this the right time 

now for the Nation to reassess how we handle risk? Is this something that NASA should engage with industry, trade associations, 

and academia on? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I think this is a good time as any to do that. I 

think we should do that all the time. You know, nothing we’re 

going to take on in this exploration agenda is going to be without 

risk. 

Chairman BABIN. Right. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. But we’re not going to do it in a way—you know, 

we’re not going to take excessive risk either. We’re going to make 

sure we manage that risk appropriately. And I think the American 

public, this body, all need to understand that that’s what that risk 

is. And risk comes in many fashions. As you know, Mr. Chairman, 

there’s technical risk for a given mission, there’s political risk for 

not doing it or doing it, there’s programmatic risk in terms of the 

budget and the challenges we’re trying to meet. And at the end of 
56 

the day, I could make an argument that the least risky thing is to 

sit on the ground and not fly. 

Chairman BABIN. Right. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. But I could tell you that’s probably the most 

risky thing for us to do as a nation from an overall perspective. 

Chairman BABIN. I would agree. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. And so that’s—to me is—so I think the time to 

have that discussion is probably now as we enter this next phase 

of exploration and pushing and then would love to engage not only 

the groups you talked about but frankly this body as well because 

you guys are the ones that help us authorize what we’re going to 

go do and understand that. 

Chairman BABIN. Okay. And then on hurricane relief, you know, 

we just got hit really hard by Hurricane Harvey at Johnson Space 

Center. My entire—all nine counties that I represent were federal 

declarations of disaster. What is the status of hurricane funding for 

NASA centers? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes, we’re working the apportionments with 

OMB now—— 

Chairman BABIN. Yes. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. —at a level of detail that we haven’t done before, 

so we’re trying to make sure we get that done correctly and so that 

we’re all tracking where the dollars go and make sure we know 

where it is, so we’re working that, and we should get that out hopefully soon. 

Chairman BABIN. Okay. And then to kind of go back to a subject 

that’s already been broached this morning on the mobile launch 

platform, you had spoken to it already, but I was wondering about 

the—I was down in Florida a couple weeks ago for the National 

Space Council meeting, and you were there and I appreciated your 

testimony. The Center Director was telling us about some of the 

things that he thought about the mobile launch platform, and it 

sure sounded like it would be a great thing if we could get a second 

one. 

And as far as the time element and the construction of it, if I 

understood you correctly earlier today—you said that’s really kind 

of off the table right now, correct? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes. 

Chairman BABIN. If we decided to put it on the table, would we 

be behind the eight-ball as far as the time elements in EM–1 and 

EM–2 launches? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I think the challenge would be if we—if a mobile 

launcher showed up on the—as something we’re going to go build, 

we would not start modifying the one that we’re building for EM– 

1. We would not start that modification process, and therefore, once 

we flew once on that launch platform, it’s now ready to fly again, 

and so we would go through the process of hopefully purchasing 

another ICPS—— 

Chairman BABIN. Right. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. —again with the expense that comes with it. I 

want to be really clear. 

Chairman BABIN. Yes. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. And also human-rating that and so we could fly 

Orion with crew quicker. And so maybe the first launch off of the 
57 

new MLP that we would build in that mode would—might be EM– 

3 or EM–4, right, but it would leave us the capability to keep flying 

on the mobile launcher that we’re building today instead of going 

in and modifying it. 

Chairman BABIN. Well, modifications on the existing mobile 

launch platform, are they—does that lead to any kind of an increased risk to be changing and remodifying and remodeling, et 

cetera? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Yes, I think it’s—we believe there is risk with 

that. I mean, we’ve got a 33-month time period right now between—— 

Chairman BABIN. Right. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. —the EM–1 and EM–2, mainly to do those modifications because basically you have to add just a length to it—— 

Chairman BABIN. Right. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. —to be able to handle the new—the Block 1B 

SLS configuration, so that—any time you do that, you’re going to 

have some risk when you go in there, and that’s a pretty complex 

piece of hardware. When you walk up and down the mobile launcher, you see how complex it is, so to add that—— 

Chairman BABIN. Right. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. —is some risk, so I think there’s risk there. 

There’s also risk in the amount of dollars we need to go do an MLP 

and an ICPS, and that’s got to be—you know, that’s a—I would say 

that’s above my pay grade to make that decision. But from an Administration perspective, we just decided that we’d rather not— 

that those dollars weren’t really available for us to go do that. 

Chairman BABIN. But ideally, it would be best to have a second 

one—— 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. You could—— 

Chairman BABIN. —that you built from scratch? 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. You could see that from a—it depends on what 

your definition of ideal is, but yes. 

Chairman BABIN. Got you. Okay. All right. Mr. Lightfoot, this 

concludes my line of questioning, unless anybody—I don’t think 

there’s anyone else here. But I want to just commend you, compliment you on an excellent job that you’ve done stepping into the 

gap as our interim Administrator. 

And I would also like to echo some of the comments of my colleagues today that we’re certainly hoping that the one that the 

President—Mr. Bridenstine that the President has chosen to be the 

next Administrator, we hope that that happens soon. But listen, 

that doesn’t take anything away from the great job that you’ve 

done, and I just want to thank you and thank you for being here 

this morning as well. 

Mr. LIGHTFOOT. All right. Thank you all. Thanks to the Committee. 

Chairman BABIN. Okay. All right. I want to thank the witness 

and his valuable testimony, the Members for their questions. The 

record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments and 

written questions from Members. 

So with that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(59) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
60 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Mr. Robert M. Lightfoot, Jr. 
61 

resources toward missions beyond LEO, while still having the ability to utilize 

LEO for its ongoing needs. In the President's FY 2019 Budget Request, the 

runout is as below: 

• FY 2019 --$150M 

• FY 2020-- $150M 

• FY2021--$175M 

• FY 2022 -- $200M 

• FY 2023 -- $225M 

b. What performance measures will be used to determine whether or not those 

objectives were met? 

Answer: Performance measures are under active development. These measures 

will focus on the degree to which the program's purpose (as described in 

ANSWER 2a above) is achieved. Commercial LEO Development will advance 

the Nation's goals in LEO and exploration by furthering development and 

maturity of the commercial space market to enable private industry to assume 

roles that have been traditionally Government-only, and to potentially realize cost 

savings to the Government by leveraging private industry innovation and 

commercial market incentives. 

c. What specifically will the $150 million be used for in Fiscal Year 2019? 

Answer: To achieve the Commercial LEO Development program's goals, a first activity 

will be to solicit inputs from industry on the development and operations of private onorbit modules and/or platforms and other capabilities that NASA could utilize to meet its 

long-term LEO needs as one of many customers. NASA is laying the groundwork for 

2019 by working with industry in 2018 (including an industry day May 1, 2018) and 

releasing small study contracts focused on understanding how the commercial sector can 

be incentivized to support NASA's Low Earth Orbit needs. Based on these initial inputs, 

NASA expects to then conduct an open competition for public and privately funded 

module(s) and/or platform(s) attached to the ISS or free-flying in LEO, or other 

capabilities in FY 2019. NASA also intends to use a portion of these funds to continue to 

stimulate non-NASA demand for LEO activities that will be needed to support private 

LEO platforms. The Agency will leverage best practices from other commercial 

programs as applicable. 
62 

3. At present, NASA is the largest user ofmicrogravity research capabilities in low-Earth. 

Proposed funding for ISS research, which includes microgravity research as well as 

efforts to develop an advanced space suit, is about $357 million in FY 2019. If$350 

million per year is a gross estimate of a baseline market in low-Earth orbit, is it enough to 

supp01i private or commercial research platforms in low Earth orbit? What level of 

annual net revenue would be needed to sustain a "commercial" space station? 

Answer: Note that NASA actually spends considerably more than $350M in LEO. The 

true cost of research is much higher, but that most of these costs are "overhead" costs 

bookkept in other programs, including ISS operations and crew and cargo transportation. 

Part ofthe intent of the LEO Commercial Development Program is to reduce this 

"overhead" cost, but even with reduction, the total amount NASA spends will be 

considerably larger than $350M. NASA expects to have ongoing needs in LEO for its 

own research, technology demonstration, and crew operations that are intended to be part 

of a broader commercial market in LEO where NASA is one of many customers. As 

non-NASA utilization of the ISS National Lab and interest in LEO continues to expand, 

some initial assessments of potential revenue-producing activities have been conducted 

by CASIS, NASA, and the Science and Technology Policy Institute (STPI). Estimates for 

revenues from these activities vary widely depending on many assumptions operating 

costs of the platform, revenue models, magnitude of forecasted demand, future 

transportation costs - making it difficult to make projections as to the viability of these or 

other potential markets that might emerge. Though NASA is seeing an increase in new 

users that suggests a promising trend, today' s projections conclude that it is unlikely that 

these activities will have matured to the point where they can sustain a private platform 

and their own transportation costs to LEO by 2024 without significant ongoing 

Government support, which could potentially be satisfied by NASA's own ongoing LEO 

needs. 

In their 2017 assessment of the viability of a private LEO platform, under the direction of 

OSTP, STPI examined four boundary scenarios based on high/low platform cost and 

high/low projected revenues. The diagram below provides the results of those 4 boundary 

scenarios which informed the conclusions described above. 
63 

.<::. Low Revenue $455 M High Revenue $1,187 M til) 

:t High Cost $2,250 M High Cost $2,250 M 

Annual Loss= -$1,795 M Annual Loss= -$1,063 M 

.... 

"' 0 

u 

Low Revenue$455 M High Revenue $1,187 M 

Low Cost $463 M Low Cost $463 M 

~ Annual Loss= -$8 M Annual Profit= +$724 M 0 

..... 

Revenue 

Low High 

Annualized Cost and Revenue Estimates for a Private Space Station as analyzed by the 

Science and Technology Policy Institute 

4. What should NASA's role be in bolstering the commercialization of space activities in 

low-Earth orbit beyond those that address its own requirements? How extensive should 

that role be in light of continued budget conditions that constrain or result in the 

elimination of existing high priority agency initiatives? 

Answer: The Commercial LEO Development effort is a high priority agency initiative. It begins 

a new program to encourage development of new commercial LEO platforms and capabilities for 

use by the private sector and NASA. In encouraging a commercial LEO space economy, NASA 

plans to obtain services from private industry at less cost than would be possible with 

Government-owned and -operated capabilities. This will enable the Agency to focus its 

development efforts on other high priority Agency initiatives. 

5. During the hearing, after acknowledging the gap in astrophysics data caused by the 

elimination of WFIRST, you indicated that you thought that there were "other ways to 

get that same data". What are those "other ways"? Please provide an identification (list) 

of astrophysical observatories that will meet the same high-priority scientific objectives 

that WFIRST is planned to meet, consistent with the decadal survey recommendation. 

Answer: NASA is partnering with ESA on the Euclid mission, scheduled to launch in 

2021, which will address some of the scientific objectives (e.g., the nature of dark matter 

and dark energy) ofWFIRST. The new Webb Telescope, TESS, and competed missions 

supported by the proposed budget will add data critical to meeting other high-priority 
64 

scientific goals. However, this combination of missions cannot replace the science that 

would be achieved with WFIRST. 

6. With the proposed reduced level of funding requested for Aeronautics in FY 2019, 

NASA will be able to support just one new X-plane initiative, the supersonic Low Boom 

Flight Demonstrator. The proposal represents a significant shift from the cadence of one 

new X-plane every three to five years in the FY 2018 Budget Request This is not 

consistent with our urgent need to counter the growing threat posed by other countries 

who are making higher investments in aeronautics R&D. During the hearing, in your 

response to a Member's question, you gave a glimpse of future X-planes NASA has 

planned, such as a subsonic demonstrator which you acknowledged was not in the FY 

2019 budget. Under the FY 2019 budget request, what is the cadence in X-planes that 

you expect to reach? What funding levels would enable NASA to achieve a cadence of a 

new X-plane every 3 years? 

Answer: The FY 2019 budget request fully supports the Low Boom Flight Demonstrator 

X-planc which will demonstrate quiet overland supersonic flight and open a new market 

to U.S. industry. On April 2, 2018, NASA awarded a competitive contract for the detailed 

aircraft design, build, and validation of this X-Plane. The LBFD X-Plane is expected to 

achieve first flight by FY 2021. Initial flight activities will be focused on the safe 

expansion of the flight envelope, but NASA will then proceed to conduct a sonic boom 

noise testing flight campaign. This campaign will generate data that will validate models 

used to design future airplanes with quiet supersonic features while also giving regulatory 

authorities a basis on which to set new supersonic noise regulations. 

NASA has made significant advances in subsonic teclmologies that radically reduce fuel 

consumption, noise, and emissions. Among the key technologies are high aspect ratio 

wing, boundary layer ingestion engines, new aircraft configurations, and electric 

propulsion. NASA will build upon the significant advances in recent years and further 

explore some of the most promising technologies to ensure that they can be used by 

industry for future products. NASA will develop these enabling technologies through 

physics-based simulations, ground test, and flight tests in relevant environments where 

appropriate. For example, NASA will demonstrate the efficiency and feasibility of highly 

integrated distributed electric propulsion technology through a series of phases using the 

X-57 general aviation scale aircraft, with flights in 2018 and 2019. Other future flight 

demonstration opportunities will be evaluated as our research progresses. 
65 

7. What is the funding in the FY 2019 budget request specifically focused on Nuclear 

Thermal Propulsion? What is the projected funding for the period of FY 2020 through FY 

2023? What are the greatest obstacles to using Nuclear Thermal Propulsion and to what 

extent can the planned five-year investment that is currently envisioned address these 

obstacles? 

Answer: NASA has been pursuing a three-year risk reduction activity (FY 2016 to FY 

2018) to address several key technology challenges in developing nuclear thermal 

propulsion, including: 

• Fabricating high-temperature fuel elements that minimize erosion and accompanying 

fission product release and which use lower quantities of enriched uranium than 

those developed for past programs; 

• Testing and qualification of the fuel elements; 

• Maturing both reactor and engine system designs; 

• Devising a safe and affordable engine ground test and qualification approach; 

• Facility challenges with getting enough thermal power into the non-nuclear 

simulated reactor will increase uncertainty that test results will be representative of 

the physics present in a full engine; and 

• Critical technology required to achieve near zero boil off for long term on-orbit 

cryogenic hydrogen storage. 

Given the remaining technical challenges as well as earlier delays resulting from needing 

to address an indemnification issue with the fuel element contractor, NASA has decided 

to extend the nuclear thermal propulsion risk mitigation phase an additional year through 

FY 2019. This 1isk mitigation phase will culminate in a System Feasibility Review to 

determine whether the technology challenges have been sufficiently addressed and the 

benefits of developing a nuclear the1mal propulsion stage are sufficient to merit 

proceeding with the next phase of concept development. 

Exploration Research and Technology intends to invest approximately $53M in FY 2019 

for Nuclear Thermal Propulsion, Cryogenic Fluid Management technologies required to 

support long-term space storage and management of liquid hydrogen necessary for NTP 

implementation and other contributing activities. Funding beyond FY 2019 will be 

determined based on the results of the System Concept Review. 

8. Last year, when NASA unveiled the Deep Space Gateway concept, it projected 

transporting the Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) portion of the Gateway as part of the 

EM-2 mission. In the FY 2019 budget request, NASA proposes to send the SEP in 2022 

using a commercial launch vehicle. 

a. Assuming NASA will acquire the SEP competitively, can a SEP be ready for 

launch by calendar year 2022? 

Answer: NASA anticipates that under the current schedule, the solar-electric 

Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) can be ready for launch by 2022. 
66 

b. What impact would a delay in putting an SEP in cislunar space be on the Lunar 

Orbital Platform plans? What has changed in transportation requirements that now 

allows the use of a commercial launch vehicle? 

Answer: NASA's current plan is that the PPE provide propulsion, orbit controls, 

power, and communications functions as the first element of the Gateway. A 

delay in the deployment of the PPE could potentially delay integration of 

subsequent elements and completion of the Gateway, but the option of using 

eommerciallaunch vehicles provides NASA the ability to accelerate the launch, 

provides a dissimilar redundancy oflaunch systems, and lowers the near-term 

launch cost. The Agency plans to consider competitively procured commercial 

launch vehicles to support future robotic missions to cislunar space, including 

logistics supply flights to the Gateway. 

c. Assuming NASA determines the SEP to be a critical component for the Platform, 

how confident are you that there will be adequate time to certify the commercial 

launch vehicle to carry high risk government payloads? 

Answer: The Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) is planned for launch on an 

industry-partner-provided commerciallannch vehicle. The industry partner will 

conduct a spaceflight demonstration of the PPE. At the conclusion of the 

spaceflight demonstration, it is planned that NASA would have the option to 

acquire the PPE for use in the Gateway. Thus, no launch vehicle certification is 

required. 

9. The FY 2019 budget request proposal indicates that commercial and international 

involvement would have a role in NASA's programs, especially the Exploration 

Campaign. For example, the budget proposal notes that commercial and international 

partners would be part of the Lunar Orbiting Platform, that commercial entities would be 

sending payloads to the lunar surface, and that commercial companies might possibly use 

portions of the ISS for commercial services or develop commercial space stations. What 

are NASA's plans for handling liability and indemnification matters with respect to 

commercial partnerships on such activities? 

~: NASA recognizes that emerging commercial spaceflight systems as well as new 

and established international partner capabilities can play a valuable role in the 

achievement ofNASA cislunar and surface goals while addressing the goals of the 20 l 0 

National Space Policy, as amended by Space Policy Directive-!, and commercial 

endeavors. NASA is actively engaged with domestic companies involved in the Next 

Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) contract, and studies with 

international space agencies building on the ISS partnership. In addition, NASA has 

released an RFI on mid to large landers designed to obtain additional information from 

domestic industry on their lander concepts and evolution paths toward human landers. 
67 

The concept studies and results of the RFI are designed to inform Exploration Campaign 

planning to identify potential future roles for partnerships. Capabilities, contributions, 

and objectives vary widely across potential domestic and international partners. As 

understanding of a diverse set of partnership roles mature, NASA will be able to 

formulate specific plans for handling liability and potential indemnification within 

applicable law and policy. 

a. If a module or rover is conducting both NASA and commercial activities, does the 

service provider need "authorization'' or a license to carry out such activities to be 

consistent with our treaty obligations? 

Answer: While NASA missions do not require a license, licensing requirements 

exist at the Federal level for commercial activities. Article VI of the Outer Space 

Treaty requires that the activities of non-govemmental entities be subject to 

''authorization and continuing supervision .... " Therefore, if purely commercial 

activities were planned to be a part of a given mission, then NASA understands 

that a license or authorization would be required for that portion of the mission, in 

order to be consistent with the international obligations of the United States. If 

NASA had no involvement in the commercial activity, then NASA would not 

control or monitor that activity. 

b. With the potential for shared government and private missions, whose safety 

requirements must the provider meet-NASA's or the Federal Aviation 

Administration's? Please provide details that will enable the Committee to have a 

full understanding of not only the funding being requested for the Exploration 

Campaign but the potential liability exposure to the Federal Government for any 

activities the Campaign would entail. 

Answer: For launch or reentry, the question of safety requirements and liability 

exposure for Government and/or private missions turns on whether the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) has licensed the particular launch or reentry. 

FAA Licensed Launch or Reentry: As part of the FAA licensing process, launch 

service providers must demonstrate compliance with FAA ground and flight 

safety requirements. Liability is handled in accordance with the Commercial 

Space Launch Act (CSLA) at 51 USC 5090 I et seq and its implementing 

regnlations at 14 CFR 415 et seq. The CSLA contemplates two types of liabilityGovernment property and third party- and has implemented a three-tiered 

liability regime to deal with each. A launch service provider must purchase 

insurance to cover both types of liability, commensurate with a Most Probable 

Loss (MPL) calculation, which quantifies the financial loss associated with a 

launch mishap. Any amount above this MPL calculation is subject to FAA's 

"indemnification" via a Congressional request for further appropriation, up to 
68 

$1.5B (adjusted annually for inflation). Any remaining liability above this 

statutory cap is borne by the provider. 

Non-FAA Licensed Launch or Reentry: For launches or reentries by or for the 

government, NASA levies applicable range safety requirements and manages 

liability contractually, rather than through statute or regulation. The launch 

service contractor interfaces directly with the applicable Range and, as part of the 

contract, is required to meet those range safety standards. As to liability, NASA 

maintains comparable protections as provided in the CSLA. For example, 

currently, the NASA Launch Services contract requires commercial providers to 

attain $500M in insurance coverage for third party liability. Damages beyond that 

would be subject to the NASA Administrator requesting, and the Congress 

appropriating, additional funds. For damage to Government property, the 

Government self-insures. 

For all in-space activities performed by a commercial partner, NASA's contracts 

and agreements levy safety requirements as appropriate, and allocate liability and 

risk between the Government and its partners and address any insurance 

requirements. For damage to Government property, the Government self-insures. 

Activities for the Exploration Campaign are in the planning stage. Safety 

requirements and liability allocation will be assessed as part of this planning 

process. Finally, liability between NASA and its contractor is apportioned by 

regulation (48 CFR 1828.371) and provides for reciprocal waiver of claims when 

NASA and its contractor or partners are engaged in protected space operations. 

This clause applies both during launch as well as during on-orbit activities. 
69 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

"An Overview of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Budget for Fiscal Year 2019" 

Mr. Robert M. Lightfoot, Jr., Acting Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) 

Question submitted by Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson, House Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology 

I. In its FY 2019 budget highlights, NASA states that the budget "Refocuses existing 

NASA activities towards exploration, by redirecting funding to innovative new programs 

and providing additional funding to support new public private partnerships." One of the 

activities proposed for elimination is NASA's Office of Education, including its MUREP, 

EPSCoR, and Space Grants programs. 

a. Were any analyses conducted that recommended the elimination of the Office of 

Education and its MUREP, EPSCoR, and Space Grants programs? If so, please 

provide them. 

Answer: The President's FY 2019 budget proposes the elimination of NASA's 

Office of Education and its portfolio of domestic assistance awards (grants and 

cooperative agreements), and prioritizes funding toward supporting an innovative 

and inspirational program of exploration. For nearly 60 years, NASA's mission 

successes have inspired the world. The Agency will continue to inspire the next 

generation by leveraging opportunities to engage students in NASA's work and 

providing support to educators and educational institutions. 

As part of the Agency's Business Services Assessment, a disciplined approach to 

strategically perform an assessment of business and mission support services, 

NASA performed a rigorous assessment of the agency's work in education and 

outreach, which included gathering and analyzing a broad and extensive set of 

data. As a result of this effort, the Agency made a decision on October 2017 to 

adopt a set of recommendations which included a new direction for science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) engagement, a new agencywide STEM engagement function. 

Through this strategic approach, working with the mission directorates, NASA 

will focus on: creating unique opportunities for students to contribute to NASA's 

work in exploration and discovery; building a diverse future STEM workforce by 

engaging students in authentic learning experiences with NASA's people, content, 

and facilities; and strengthening understanding by enabling powerful connections 
70 

to NASA's mission and work. A new governance council will be accountable for 

the strategic direction and coordination of the Agency's STEM engagement 

efforts as the Agency continues to look for efficiencies to improve current 

operations. 

Additionally, in March 2018, GAO found that federal STEM education efforts are 

fragmented across 163 programs and 13 different agencies that spent $2.9B in FY 

2016. Nearly all of these programs overlapped with at least one other program. 

The Administration is reviewing how to improve the effectiveness of the 

government-wide portfolio of STEM programs. 

b. How many students will be affected on an annual basis by the elimination of the 

Office of Education, MUREP, EPSCoR, and Space Grants? Please provide a 

breakdown by each program area as well as a total number. 

~:In FY 2017, the NASA Office of Education, through the EPSCoR, 

MUREP, SEAP and Space Grant programs, supported approximately 2,672 

Institutions, which serve 842,097 students. Additionally, there were 5,921 higher 

education students receiving significant direct awards through these projects (i.e., 

$3,000- $5,000 in support or 160 hours of participation in an activity). This data 

is based on NASA's preliminary education performance reports for FY 2017, 

which are currently undergoing final review and validation. Note that some 

institutions participated in multiple projects and activities. However, we do not 

have sufficiently detailed data in all categories to remove the duplication in the 

numbers below: 

#ofFY17 

# ofFY17 # ofFY17 Significant 

Institutions Students Direct 

NASA Education Project: Served Served Awardees 

533 *N/A *N/A 

516 32,360 1,019 

998 719,437 4,672 
71 

* EPSCoR is a research project designed to enhance the research competitiveness 

of targeted jurisdictions (i.e., states, territories, and commonwealths) by 

strengthening STEM capacity and capability. While EPSCoR does not provide 

direct awards to students, EPSCoR researchers do utilize Ph.D. level students as 

research assistants. 

**Some institutions participated in multiple projects and activities, so the totals 

may include some double counting. 

2. The FY 2018 budget request proposed cancelling work on several Earth science 

instrument and mission activities including the PACE mission, the CLARREO 

Pathfinder, the OC0-3 mission, and the Earth science instruments on the operating 

DSCVR space weather spacecraft. Because we have not settled on an Omnibus 

appropriations bill for FY 2018 and have been proceeding for almost six months on 

Continuing Resolutions, no Earth science activities have been terminated and the work 

has been proceeding. I understand that OC0-3 has been completed and is in storage. 

What is the justification for proposing their cancellation at this point, especially in light 

of the fact that work has been proceeding and developments have progressed? 

Answer: The FY 2018 Omnibus Appropriations Bill (H.R. 1625) was passed by 

Congress on March 23, 2018, after submission of this question. The bill fully funds 

continued operations of the DSCOVR Earth observing instruments EPIC and NIST AR 

through FY18, as well as continued development of PACE and CLARREO Pathfinder for 

all previously planned activities, and completion and launch ofOC0-3. In particular, the 

fully tested and flight-ready OC0-3 will be delivered briefly to storage by May 2018 as 

originally planned, and then fmiher delivered to the launch site for processing and launch 

as manifested on SpaceX CRS-17. 

a. Was the science community consulted? 

Answer: Not directly; however, the previous Earth science decadal survey served 

as an input in the budget process for the FY18 Request. The 2007 Earth science 

decadal survey did not recommend OC0-3 or the Earth instruments on DSCOVR. 

Formulation of the Administration's budget includes a detailed Agency analysis 

and resolution of competing programmatic priorities at a particular time. The final 

Administration budget balances priorities and constraints. 
72 

b. What would be the impact to the measurement priorities identified in the recently 

released Earth science decadal survey of cancelling these missions, especially 

PACE? 

Answer: The 2017 Decadal Survey recommended that the NASA elements of the 

defined Program of Record (Appendix A of the Decadal Survey) be developed, 

launched, and operated on schedule and within budget. Operation of the 

DSCOVR Earth observing instruments EPIC and NISTAR until FY 2020, along 

with completion and launch of PACE, OC0-3, and CLARREO-PF (all by FY 

2022) were explicitly part of the Decadal Survey's Program of Record. However, 

the Decadal Survey was based on budget assumptions provided during the 

previous Administration. The current Administration is assuming different budget 

assumptions and other priorities for NASA. 

In the case of each FY 2019 proposed termination, other existing and planned 

missions from NASA, NOAA, and international partners are providing or will 

provide similar- though not overlapping- measurements: 

1) OC0-3 is designed to make frequent, accurate, and moderate-resolution 

measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from the International Space 

Station (ISS), mapping as many as I 00 different areas each day, collecting data at 

different local times. The existing NASA OC0-2 mission monitors carbon 

dioxide concentrations and distributions from a sun-synchronous orbit that allows 

measurements nearly to the poles. International space agency partners from Japan 

(GOSAT and GOSAT-2), Europe (MERLIN, likely Sentinel-7), among others, 

have carbon monitoring missions on-orbit and in development. 

2) PACE is designed to be the first satellite mission to collect global, 

hyperspectral measurements of the Earth's integrated ocean and atmosphere 

system. Existing multi-spectral, long-term, on-orbit U.S. instruments include 

MODIS on Aqua and VIIRS on Suomi-NPP and the OLCI on the European 

Sentinei-3A launched in February 2017, with a similar instrument on Sentinel-38 

launched in April 2018. These currently provide ocean color measurements with 

accuracy, stability, and coverage sufficient to enable some NASA research and 

applications development. 

3) CLARREO-PF is a one-year demonstration for the larger, more expensive 

CLARREO mission, which would provide higher accuracy observations across 

the full reflected solar and infrared spectra than existing instruments including 

CERES (on Terra, Aqua, Suomi-NPP, and JPSS-1) and TSIS, which provide 

basic measurements indicating radiation balance trends. In addition, the 

CLARREO mission would have performed inter-calibration on orbit in the 
73 

reflected solar wavelength domain (to establish an on-orbit reference for existing 

sensors). 

4) NASA-supplied Earth observing instruments EPIC and NIST AR on the 

orbiting DSCOVR mission provide data on cloudiness and cloud evolution, 

albedo, ozone and other parameters; and terminated NASA funding would impact 

NASA research activities related to the scientific analysis of data from the 

instruments. DSCOVR is operated by NOAA and data could continue to be 

acquired by both instruments and telemetered back to the ground at NOAA's 

discretion. EPIC complements (at lower spatial resolution) the measurements of 

MODIS and VIIRS; and NISTAR complements CERES for albedo and radiation 

balance. 

3. A few months ago, NASA announced that the James Webb Space Telescope had 

experienced issues in the observatory's final integration and that this would cause a delay 

to the planned October 2018 launch date. The U.S. Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) just issued a report concluding that it was likely that the launch date would be 

delayed beyond NASA's estimate of March to June 2019. GAO also concluded that the 

congressionally-mandated cap to JWST' s development cost of $8 billion would be at risk 

of being breached. 

a. Based on your knowledge of this program, is GAO right? Is a delay beyond June 

2019 likely and, as a result, will the cost cap be exceeded? 

Answer: The Webb launch date will be delayed past the March to June 2019 

window, and its development cost estimate is likely to exceed the $8B 

development limit. In March 2018, the Webb Standing Review Board (SRB) 

assessed the project's plans for the time and cost necessary to complete 

development. The SRB estimated at a 70 percent confidence level that launchreadiness will be approximately May 2020. NASA is convening an external 

independent review board (IRB) to evaluate all factors, including those identified 

by the SRB as influencing JWST's success, to ensure that NASA's approach to 

completing I&T, the launch campaign, and the commissioning of the Webb 

Telescope is appropriate for NASA's next flagship observatory. NASA will 

review the SRB & IRB analyses, along with other inputs, to determine updated 

schedule and cost estimates. NASA plans to submit a detailed report to the 

Committee by the end of June 2018. 

b. GAO reported that the JWST Program is convening its own review board and that 

a report is planned for mid-April2018. In the meantime, have you personally 

discussed this issue with the prime contractor's top management? What 

information was conveyed? Are there any penalties that can be levied, at this 

point, on the plime contractor to ensure that another slip does not occur, should 
74 

yet another new launch have to date be established following the review board 

findings? 

Answer: Yes, I have personally discussed this issue with the prime contractor's 

top management. For several years now, NASA has conducted regular phone calls 

at the Administrator/CEO level with Northrop Grumman. These calls include the 

Goddard Center Director. In addition to these regular discussions, I have been in 

contact with the Northrop CEO to express my deep concerns about their 

company's performance over the past 12 months. I have asked that senior 

company officials become directly involved in Webb. As a result, we now have 

Northrop Grumman COO/President and Senior VPs participating in biweekly 

schedule progress teleconferences with senior leadership of the Science Mission 

Directorate. In these teleconferences the Northrop Grumman program manager 

reviews the current schedule, any issues that threaten that schedule, opportunities 

to mitigate schedule liens, and upcoming activities. 

The NASA JWST Standing Review Board (SRB) conducted their review March 

13 and 14, and the contractor was very cooperative in provided the requested 

information to the SRB. The contractor provided detailed information on 

activities on the repair of the spacecraft propulsion system (which is now 

complete) and of the minor tears in the sunshield that resulted from the initial 

deployment tests (also complete), lessons learned from the initial sunshield 

deployment tests, upcoming I&T activities, and the updated schedule to allow for 

upcoming I&T activities, which includes lessons learned and margin. 

Contractor performance is graded through their periodic award fee 

determinations. They are graded in the areas of technical performance, cost, 

schedule, and business management; to date, a total of$26M in fee has been 

withheld from the contractor based on performance. NASA will continue to use 

the contract award fee mechanism to grade contractor performance, and NASA 

will continue to ensure that any financial mechanisms used to motivate contractor 

performance do not introduce unacceptable mission risk. 
75 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

"An Overview of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Budget for Fiscal Year 2019" 

Mr. Robert M. Lightfoot, Jr., Acting Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) 

Question submitted by Representative Mo Brooks. House Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology 

1. The NASA Independent Review Team SpaceX CRS-7 Accident Investigation Report 

Public Summary, released on March 12, 2018, indicated that a "design error" led to the 

CRS-7 failure. Specifically, the report indicates that SpaceX chose an "industrial grade 

(as opposed to aerospace grade)" part and integrated that part "without adequate 

screening or testing of the industrial grade part, without regard to the manufacturer's 

recommendations ... and without proper modeling or adequate load testing of the part." 

a. Why was this report not released until almost three years after the accident? 

Answer: Since this was an FAA licensed flight, NASA was not required to 

complete a formal final report or public summary of the accident. NASA believes 

it is important to have a public record available for industry and users, thus NASA 

completed the public report on a noninterference basis with our other work. The 

infotmation needed from the investigation was available as needed to the internal 

NASA team and the public summary was completed as time allowed. The delay 

in providing a public summmy was a matter of mission priority and workload. 

b. Why was the same ORB-3 lRT report released so much faster? 

Answer: The NASA IRT Orb-3 Executive Summary was produced about a year 

after the Orb-3 mishap. This is not an unusual timeline to complete an 

investigation and produce a public report when the investigation team can focus 

on the report writing activity. The NASA team that conducted the independent 

investigation of the Orb-3 accident and wrote the public executive summmy did 

not have an impending mission to fly using the Antares 130 launch vehicle, 

therefore they were able to dedicate the necessary effort and time to compose 

their public summary in a more timely fashion. 

For the SpaccX CRS-7 mishap, the NASA IRT, in addition to conducting and 

concluding the investigation, also had an immediate launch cmnpaign for the 

Jason-3 mission using a Falcon 9 version 1.1 launch vehicle- the same variant of 

launch vehicle that had experienced the mishap on CRS-7. After conducting a 

very thorough investigation, as is evidenced by the public summary, the NASA 

IRT produced a detailed briefing of their investigation findings, and this briefing 
76 

was what NASA used for its own purposes to share lessons within NASA and 

with SpaceX, and to be able to fly the Jason-3 mission in a timely and successful 

manner. NASA briefed Congressional House and Senate staff on 7 Jan 2016, and 

the Jason-3 mission successfully flew on the last Falcon 9 version 1.1 launch 

vehicle on 17 Jan 2016. 

For a public report similar in content to that produced for the OATK Orb-3 

failure, NASA began work on the SpaceX CRS-7 "Public Summary" in the 

summer of2017. In order to generate this report, the voluminous material needed 

to be summarized, then reviewed and approved to remove the IT AR/Export 

Controlled and SpaeeX Proprietary information. The "NASA Independent Review 

Team SpaceX CRS-7 Accident Investigation Report Public Summary" recently 

completed the review process and was published on 12 March 2018. 

c. Is NASA concerned that an increased reliance on potentially lower grade 

commercial products will result in added risk to the success of crewed missions? 

Answer: NASA's Commercial Crew Program has prioritized crew safety 

throughout its development and certification phases, including the Certification 

Products Contracts (CPC) and Commercial Crew Transportation Capability 

(CCtCap) contracts with industry. NASA is working the insight and oversight 

requirements in the CCtCap contracts and will ensure commercial crew 

transportation systems meet the Agency's safety and certification requirements or 

that waivers to those requirements are accepted based on informed risk. 

d. What steps is NASA taking so that future incident reports do not have such a 

delay? 

Answer: NASA has usually been able to meet the one year timcline to produce a 

public summary after a mishap, especially when NASA is responsible for 

conducting the mishap board. The CRS-7 case was unusual. NASA was not 

responsible for conducting the mishap board, but chose to do an independent 

investigation. NASA produced its report at the appropriate time to meet internal 

and external needs for the data. 

2. The Zuma payload was allegedly lost because a Falcon upper stage failed to separate 

from the payload. What would happen to crew in the future if another upper stage failed 

to separate from the Dragon crew capsule? Would crew survive? Is NASA addressing 

this contingency? 

Answer: NASA docs not comment on non-NASA missions such as the Zuma mission. 

NASA has worked carefully and diligently to assure our safety requirements span all 

mission phases and adequately address all credible hazards, including pad emergencies, 

in-flight abmis and emergency landings. 
77 

3. Is NASA considering allowing SpaceX to fuel the Falcon 9launch vehicle with crew 

already on board Dragon in order to save money? Or, has NASA already made the 

decision not to fuel a launch vehicle while crew is on board? 

~: NASA is evaluating the appropriate time, to be determined by a thorough 

analysis of risks, to put crew on board for SpaceX's specific system design. Risks need to 

be considered not only for the flight crew, which has the option for rapid egress utilizing 

the launch abort system, but also for the safety of crews on the ground during fill 

operations. There is no scenario without risk. NASA will conduct a thorough trade study 

analyzing the overall risks and make an informed decision on the timing of crew and 

propellant loading. This analysis is in work and data from cargo flights is actively being 

utilized in this analysis. 
78 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

"An Overview of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Budget for Fiscal Year 20 19" 

Mr. Robert M. Lightfoot, Jr., Acting Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) 

Question submitted by Representative Ed Perlmutter, House Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology 

1. The FY 2019 budget cuts funding for the Restore-L mission which will demonstrate the 

ability of robotic systems to refuel Landsat-7. Space-based robotics and refueling could 

not only extend the lifetime and utility of satellites, but could also help execute future 

human space exploration missions to Mars. Can you explain why the Administration 

opposes the flight demonstration of this technology? 

Answer: NASA has proposed restructuring its Satellite Servicing efforts due to its 

duplication with industry and DARPA's Robotic Servicing of Geosynchronous Satellites 

(RSGS) efforts as well as budget challenges driven both by technical challenges as well 

as Restore-L' s implementation approach, and instead directs the Agency's focus toward 

an industry-driven public-private partnership approach. With on-going, significant 

investments from industry to develop commercial satellite servicing capabilities, the 

Agency seeks to contribute its expertise to drive a broad range of technologies for 

application on both commercial and government satellites. Through a recent Request for 

Information, NASA received feedback from industry that supports the case for a public 

private partnership approach, and confirmed significant intent from industry to 

incorporate on-orbit servicing into business plans. Thus, NASA believes the most costeffective approach for the Agency is to leverage this commercial industry interest to 

enable a flight demonstration of satellite servicing technologies that can then be 

transferred to industry for multiple applications. This enables the Agency to maintain 

critical technical expertise, primarily through the satellite servicing team at the Goddard 

Space Flight Center, while driving technology development efforts toward broader 

benefit within the nascent commercial satellite servicing industry. This effort can also be 

done within a more sustainable and cost-effective budget profile, allowing NASA to 

continue a robust and diversified technology portfolio. 
79 

Material requested for the record by Representative Brooks during the March 7, 2018 

hearing at which Mr. Lightfoot testified. 

Answer: 

SpaceX' s first flight test, or Demonstration Mission-!, is an uncrewed flight test. There is no 

ECLSS requirement for the flight test and no waiver necessary. Even so, SpaceX is currently 

planning to test certain ECLSS system capabilities during its uncrewed flight test, such as the 

pressure control system, temperature control system, and humidity removal system. In addition, 

Space X will be performing extensive ground testing of all major systems (e.g., ECLSS, space 

suits, waste management system), as well as testing the integrated system. 

As background, when NASA competed the Commercial Crew Transportation Capabilities 

(CCtCap) contract, it imposed a requirement for a crewed flight test; but, there was no 

requirement for an uncrewed flight test. However. both CCtCap contract awardees, SpaceX and 

Boeing, proposed to conduct uncrewed flight tests so that many details of the design of their 

crew transportation system could be tested before a crewed flight test. 

NASA assessed the uncrewed test flight vehicle configurations against the test objectives and 

jointly agreed with the companies that certain hardware was not required to meet the uncrewed 

test flight objectives. However, all critical hardware to support the uncrewed demonstration of 

the crew transportation systems to safely launch, rendezvous, dock, and re-enter will be tested 

during both providers' uncrewed test flights. A similar approach is being taken for uncrewed test 

flights with Boeing on the Starliner. 
80 

Material requested for the record by Representative Lucas during the March 7, 2018 

hearing at which Mr. Lightfoot testified. 

Answer: 

Prior to the FY 2018 enacted budget, NASA planned to modifY the existing Mobile Launcher 

following EM-I to accommodate the SLS Block 1B for EM-2. NASA anticipated that 33-

months of schedule would be needed after EM-1 for the modification, resulting in a Block 1 B 

launch date of September 2022. Building a second Mobile Launcher will take an estimated 5 

years, extending the time to a BlocklB launch to late 2023. NASA is currently reviewing 

opportunities for a crewed EM-2 launch on a Block! SLS before 2023 and implications on 

exploration objectives. NASA anticipates that 27-months of schedule would be needed after EMI for crew systems to support an EM-2launch on a Block!, resulting in a launch date of no 

earlier than mid-2022. 

As a result, building a second mobile launcher platform will potentially enable an acceleration in 

the launch schedule for Exploration Mission 2, the first crewed mission of the Orion spacecraft, 

by 6-months. It will also allow optimization of the overall design of a Mobile Launcher that is 

purposefully designed from the outset to accommodate the size, mass, configuration, and utilities 

associated with an SLS Block lB. The additional time gained by starting construction earlier will 

also reduce the overall construction and schedule risk to the first flight of Block lB. Building a 

new mobile launcher and changing EM-2 from a Block 1 B to a Block 1, will reduce schedule 

dependency between EM-1 and EM-2 --which was originally driven by the minimum time (with 

technical risk) to reconfigure ML-1 from SLS Block 1 to the Block 1 B configuration -- from 33 

months to 27 months. Mission objectives of EM-2 can be achieved using SLS Block 1 with the 

ML-1 in the current SLS Block I configuration. 

The total cost of building a second mobile launcher and purchasing a second human rated Block 

1 Integrated Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (!CPS) is roughly $600M. This amount does not 

include others costs associated with the launch vehicle or funds already expended on modifying 

the existing mobile launcher. More detailed cost data is considered Sensitive But Unclassified 

(SBU). 
81 

Material requested for the record by Representative Beyer during the March 7, 2018 

hearing at which Mr. Lightfoot testified. 

Answer: 

NASA intends to continue to sustain and modernize its launch and range assets to support 

mission objectives. Repairs to supporting range infrastructure will be evaluated and prioritized 

within the CoF institutional program through risk assessments that evaluate and prioritize 

mitigations ofNASA's highest infrastructure risks across the agency. Missions and programs 

will continue to make range infrastructure modifications and improvements to meet specific 

mission objectives. 

Sustainment and improvements to NASA's Wallops Range are funded primarily from 2 areas. 

Major repairs and modernization of underlying supporting infrastructure is funded from NASA's 

institutional Construction of Facilities (CoF) account. Modifications and improvements to the 

range infrastructure that support specific program requirements are funded from program 

accounts. Since 2010, NASA has funded approximately $1 OSM from the institutional CoF 

program for repairs and upgrades to the infrastructure supporting the Wallops Range. In the same 

timeframe, NASA programs have funded approximately $93M to support range operations and 

make program specific modifications and improvements to the Wallops Range. Range 

sustainment and improvements included projects such as: a new surveillance radar, upgrades to 

the range control center, electrical system upgrades, fire detection system upgrades, construction 

of a new range fire station, construction of the new Mission Operations Command Center, 

improvements to the primary range communications hub, runway refurbishment, shoreline 

replenishment and hardening, relocation of Launch Pad I, and modifications to the Horizontal 

Integration Facility. 

In addition to these construction and upgrade projects, the Goddard Space Flight Center has 

invested $29M in a variety of maintenance and improvement projects across Wallops Flight 

Facility, which include: WFF causeway bridge repairs, replacement of the fire detection system, 

seawall repairs, paving and repair/replacement of roadways, sanitary sewer repair/replacement 

and roof replacements. 

NASA plans to continue sustaining and making improvements to the Wallops Range as needed 

to support NASA missions, including future shoreline replenishment projects and evaluation and 

repairs to underlying infrastructure. NASA plans for future program specific requirements to be 

funded by the benefitting programs, such as, payload processing, facilities and launch pad 

maintenance required by the Launch Services Program at Keunedy Space Center (KSC) or 

Exploration Ground Systems, also at KSC, as part of their normal processes for maintenance and 

upgrades as required in future years. The International Space Station (ISS) program is purchasing 

Cargo Resupply Services (CRS) from providers and therefore would not specifically own any 

requirements at Wallops. Any of those requirements should be the responsibility of the CRS 

providers, like Orbital ATK, and Wallops directly. No additional funding is required at Wallops 

to support the Crew and Cargo Program. 
82 

Material requested for the record by Representative Banks during the March 7, 2018 

hearing at which Mr. Lightfoot testified. 

Answer: 

The spacecraft components that have been completed so far include those that were provided to 

NASA by another agency, and they primarily consist of telescope hardware. The total mass of 

completed flight hardware is about 660 kilograms out of the 6400 kilograms (about lO percent) 

of the current estimate for the total dry mass of the completed WFIRST observatory. 
83 

Material requested for the record by Chairman Babin during the March 7, 2018 hearing at 

which Mr. Lightfoot testified. 

Answer: 

At the President's Budget level of$l.16B, Orion's FY 2019 priorities will be to accomplish the 

EM-1 mission per the new schedule, and the EM-2 first crewed flight in accordance with its 

Agency Baseline Commitment schedule of flight readiness by no later than April2023. The third 

Orion mission is expected to occur beyond FY 2023. Some content for the third Orion mission, 

such as potentially long-lead component procurements and new mission support content such as 

docking capability, is not necessary to begin at this time, and was therefore not proposed for FY 

2019 execution. 

(85) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
86 

ARTICLES SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE AMI BERA

Opinion • OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR 

Falling Short on Science 

By MARIA T. ZUBERJAN. 26, 2018 

A 3-D printing machine at a China-Ukraine scientific exhibition. China and other countries arc 

scientific investment a priority. 

Cambridge, Mass. -Amid the budget turbulence in Washington, it's easy to 

miss the fact that part of what's at stake is America's dominance in science, 

engineering and innovation. The United States has been the world leader in 

these categories for so long that we have stopped believing it could be any 

other way. But other nations, seeing us lose focus, are seizing the chance to 

rise. 

Scientific and technological leadership doesn't happen by accident. It results 

from an open political and competitive economic system, from a commitment 

to recruit and train top talent from all social and economic levels, and from 

sustained investment. Since World War II, federal investment in research has 

been a key to keeping the United States at the forefront. Federal dollars have 

enabled scientists and engineers to investigate advanced ideas and the most 

unlikely technical solutions, to develop new knowledge before it's clear 

whether it will be profitable. That new knowledge has revolutionized health 

care, spawned new businesses and created the digital world. As ~~i<1~.1!1 

Ronald Reagan put it, "although basic research does not begin a 

particular practical goal," it's "one of the most practical things government 

does." 
87 

Other nations understand this and are aggressively challenging our lead by 

trying to copy the United States model. They are making scientific investment 

a priority and are pushing for partnerships between government, universities 

and industry. 

China is the clearest example. Since 2000, China's spending on research and 

development has grown by an average of 18 percent each year, while ours 

grew by only 4 percent. This has placed China a decisive second in R & D 

expenditures behind the United States, where the government and private 

sector together invest far more than any other country. Even so, the share of 

R & D funded by the federal government declined to about 25 percent from 

just over 30 percent from 2010 to 2015. 

Over the next five years, the Chinese government plans to invest 100 times 

more in artificial intelligence than the United States government did in 2016. 

And within the past year, China erased the American advantage in 

supercomputing. It now claims mpre than 200 of the fastest soo 

supercomputers, while the United States has fewer than 150. 

How is the United States responding? Despite bipartisan agreement that 

science and technology investments are critical for our nation, federal science 

agencies struggle to make long-term plans, stymied by continuing resolutions 

in Congress that provide only short-term funding for government programs 

and by stringent caps on both civilian and military spending. Basic research 

has given us the GPS, the internet, 3-D printing and many if not most other 

amenities of our modern world. Now, because of budget indecision and 

inadequate funding levels, federal agencies regularly turn down research 

proposals that they rate as excellent, and promising young researchers, 

brimming with ideas, face ever more barriers to establishing their careers. 

We cannot continue to advance the frontiers of knowledge and lead the world 

in innovation without funding for students and equipment, and when the 

only long-term federal commitment is to fiscal uncertainty. 

The generation that propelled us into space is retiring. Both industry and the 

federal government report that they are unable to find enough workers at all 

levels with sufficient technical skills. These reports are especially problematic 

in the national security arena, where employees must be United States 

citizens. The National Security Agency has experienced significant levels of 

attrition in jobs requiring substantial technical knowledge. 

Other nations are not simply biding their time as we threaten ourselves with 

stagnation. This is not the moment to stop investing in our future. As 

President Trump warns in the U.S. National Securitv Strategv, "Losing our 

innovation and technological edge would have far-reaching negative 

implications for American prosperity and power." When investments in R & 

D produce new scientific and technological advances, those advances can in 
88 

turn spawn new companies and even whole new industries, creating good 

jobs in a variety of fields. We want those jobs in the United States. 

Fifty-five years ago, President John F. Kennedy challenged Americans to 

literally shoot for the moon. His words were met not just with applause on 

Capitol Hill, but also 1Yith years of steady investment in research and 

education. 

Today we face stronger economic and technical competition than we did in 

1961. To confront that challenge successfully, the federal government needs 

to respond with farsighted strategic investment in key aspects of technology, 

science and education. That will be impossible if government spending caps 

remain too tight or if agencies are hamstrung for months by fiscal stalemate. 

To write the next great chapter in the story of our nation, we must continue to 

fuel discovery. 

Maria T. Zuber is vice president for research at M.I.T. 
89 

https: //www.nytimes.com/2018/ 02/ 07/opinion/international-spacestation.html 

Opinion OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR 

Don't Give Up on the International Space 

Station 

By MARK KELLY 

FEB. 7, 2018 

It has been over six years since I last floated in zero gravity through the 

tunnel that connects the space shuttle to the International Space Station. I 

\isited this orbiting laboratory on four occasions between 2001 and 2011. 

Every time I approached the station, I was in awe of its complexity and its 

beauty. But more than anything, I was in awe of the fact that we had the nerve 

to even attempt to build something of this magnitude. 

It was the United States that led the international coalition of 16 nations to 

build the space station. Constructing this outpost in outer space took dozens 

of missions spanning well over a decade to complete, and considerable 

money. It is clearly one of the more complicated engineering projects humans 

have undertaken. 

It's not perfect and it's not designed to last forever, but what the International 

Space Station offers humans and nations is remarkable: an important 

opportunity to collaborate on shared scientific goals, mostly free from politics 

and almost entirely free from the influences of our planet. 

In the years since I left NASA, the space station has started to experience a 

surge in commercial activity. Two companies, SpaceX and Orbital ATK, now 

regularly deliver cargo to the station. Just this week, SpaceX launched the 

Falcon 9 HeaH, a rocket powerful enough to lift 141,000-pound payloads. 

And after a few years' hiatus, crew members ;viii once again leave American 

soil for space and make their way to the space station as soon as next year, 

courtesy of Boeing and SpaceX. 

There's more: The aerospace company Sierra Nevada is planning to deliver 

cargo in the near future. And Bigelow Aerospace has visions of private 

customers paying to visit the space station, staying overnight in an attached 

inflatable module built by the company- a hotel in space. The Center for the 
90 

Advancement of Science in Space, a nongovernmental organization, now 

manages commercial science for the space station. 

And as the cost of access to low earth orbit continues to decline, more 

opportunities for commerce in space will emerge, with the International 

Space Station at the nexus and the United States at the helm. 

But all of this will come to a screeching halt (though you won't hear the 

"screech" in the vacuum of space) if the Trump administration ends funding 

for the International Space Station program beyond 2024, a step it 

is considering. The reasons are unclear, though President Trump has said 

that he wants to prioritize human travel to the moon. 

Whatever the priorities, this sort of trade-off is shortsighted. Cutting funding 

for the station, now between $3 billion and $4 billion a year, would be a step 

backward for the space agency and certainly not in the best interest of the 

country. 

Over the past year, the United States abandoned its leadership position on 

the global stage in many ways. We stopped leading the effort to combat 

climate change. We stopped leading on trade and commerce, and raised 

questions about our continued commitment to multilateral organizations and 

military alliances. We stopped leading on human rights and the rule oflaw. If 

we fail to continue funding the International Space Station, America will 

sacrifice its rank as the global leader in space exploration and commercial 

space innovation. 

NASA programs have benefited the people of our planet since the founding of 

the agency in 1958. Solar technology, miniaturized computer chips, CT scans 

and M. R.Ls are just a few examples of the technologies that were developed 

and delivered to the American consumer as a result of NASA's innovation. 

Because of our country's leadership, we benefited first and we benefited the 

most. Much more than any other country, in fact. Funding scientific research 

is one of the most productive ways to put taxpayers' dollars to work. It not 

only creates jobs but also creates industries that otherwise would never exist. 

It's easy to see how a dollar spent on our space program is returned to the 

taxpayer many times over. 

Budgeting is about making tough choices, but to abandon one of our most 

successful and innovative endeavors - one in which we are the global leader 

-just as it is clearly transitioning to a hub of commercial activity would be 

extremely shortsighted. 

Other countries will undoubtedly fill the void left by American withdrawalmost notably China and Russia, countries we consider significant rivals. Not 

only would they reap the economic and political benefits of leading in space 
91 

but they also could change the direction of the world's collective space 

endeavors in a way inimical to American interests and values. 

If we want our nation to continue leading in space, fully funding NASA's 

existing programs is absolutely essential. And if we want to some day send 

astronauts back to the moon or to Mars, we need to fund those efforts as well. 

It might seem costly in the short term, but the return is well worth the 

investment. 
92 

!4 Feb 2018 

be! ow. 

the 

to the 28-year-old Hubble 

top-ranked 

A '''"'''nhvcie< the National 1-\c:aaemJes 

component space astrophysics portfolio. NASA ·s astrophysics 

canceling WFJRST would leave nation without a large space telescope to succeed 

Yet just last year another National Academies 

found that "large missions critical f(n· 

disciplines" of NASA's Science lvlission Directorate (SMD), The same 
93 

report further recommended that "NASA should continue to plan for large strategic missions as a primary 

component for all science disciplines as pm1 of a balanced program that also includes smaller missions." 

"The AAS has long supported community-based priority setting as a fundamental component in the 

effective funding, management, and oversight of the federal research enterprise," says AAS Executive 

Officer Kevin B. Marvel. "This process has been tremendously successful and has led to US preeminence 

in space science through missions that are now household names, like Hubble." Marvel continues, "Not 

only is WFJRST a top decadal-survey priority in astronomy and astrophysics, but the mission has also 

undergone rigorous community, agency, and Congressional assessment and oversight and meets the high 

expectations of an astrophysics flagship." 

Indeed, after Astro20 I 0, scientific and technological advancements enabled an enhanced WFIRST that 

would be 100 times more powerful than Hubble. Follow-on National Academies' reports in 2013 and 

2016 reaffinned the significant scientific merit of the enhanced WF!RST mission, and their 

recommendations for careful monitoring of potential cost and schedule drivers led to NASA's 

commissioning of the WFIRST Independent Extemal Technical I Management I Budget Review 

(WIETR) last falL 

Neither the commissioning of the WIETR nor the content of its findings are an indication that WFIRST is 

experiencing or will experience the cost ovenuns that the Webb telescope experienced. In fact, the 

opposite is tmc. As Thomas Young, fom1er director of' NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center and fom1er 

president and chief operating officer of Martin Marietta Corp., testified to the House Science 

Subcommittee on Space in December 2017, that WFIRST has undergone extensive scmtiny is "no cause 

for panic. What is transpiring is a perfectly healthy process to assure that the scope, cost, and risk are 

appropriately defined." 

NASA·s SMD Associate Administrator, Thomas Zurbuchcn, fully 3!,'Teed with the WIETR 

recommendations to match mission cost with appropriate resources as part of a balanced astrophysics 

portfolio. After undergoing a redesign over the last several months, WFIRST would once again fit both 

within the Febmary 2016 budget approved by NASA at the onset of its mission formulation phase and 

within the notional five-year budget profile the administration requested for NASA astrophysics in its FY 

2018 budget less than one year ago. Put another way, the lifecycle cost for WFIRST is the same now as it 

was two years ago and has been described as both reasonable and credible by numerous review panels, 

Marvel wonies that the administration's proposal to scale back federal investment in the nation·s 

exploration of the universe and tenninate WFIRST risks undennining future decadal surveys and other 

community-based priority-setting processes. "These efforts to achieve community consensus on research 

priorities are vital to ensuring the maximum return on public and private investments in the astronomical 

sciences," Marvel says. "The cancellation ofWFIRST would set a dangerous precedent and severely 

weaken a decadal-survey process that has established collective scientific priorities for a world-leading 

program for a half century. Such a move would also sacrifice US leadership in space-based dark energy, 

exoplanet, and survey astrophysics. We cannot allow such drastic damage to the field of astronomy, the 

impacts of which would be felt for more than a generation:· 

The AAS will defend the important role of the decadal surveys in helping set federal spending priorities, 

to explain the scientific promise of the top-ranked WFIRST mission, and to share our excitement for the 

field of astrophysics, which has never been more ripe for discovery from the search for life elsewhere in 

the universe to understanding where we came from and where we're going. "We look forward to working 

with Congress to restore funding for WFIRST and for NASA astrophysics overall;' Donahue concludes. 

Contacts: 

Rick Fienberg 
94 

AAS Press Officer 

+ 1 202-328-2010 xll6 

Joel Parriott 

AAS Deputy Executive Officer & Director of Public Policy 

+ 1 202-328-2010 xl20 

The American Astronomical Society (AAS), established in 1899, is the major organization of professional 

astronomers in North America. The membership (approx. 8,000) also includes physicists, mathematicians. 

geologists, engineers, and others whose research interests lie within the broad spectrum of subjects now 

comprising contemporary astronomy. The mission of the American Astronomical Society is to enhance 

and share humanity's scientific understanding of the universe, which it achieves through publishing, 

meeting organization, education and outreach, and training and professional development. 
95 

Canceling NASA's High-Priority Missions: Bad Policy, Bad 

Precedent, Bad for Science 

Ellen Stofan, Waleed Abdalati 

~ .. Credit: NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center WFIRST Project Wikimedia 

The president's recently released Fiscal Year 2019 budget gives NASA an overall 

increase in funding-certainly something to celebrate in the current fiscally constrained 

environment. Clearly, however, with so much NASA could do that is inspirational, 

important and innovative, there will always be choices and tradeoffs to be made. With 

that in mind, the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) 

developed a process to help the federal government prioritize science at NASA. Every 10 

years, the organization brings science communities together to produce documents that 

explicitly lay out the scientific priorities and missions that NASA should execute in the 

coming decade in various areas: astronomy and astrophysics; planetary science; 

heliophysics; Earth science; and science conducted on the International Space Station. 

As former NASA chief scientists, we have been intimately involved in making these 

kinds of hard choices, and these so called decadal surveys, with their carefully 
96 

developed, community-based recommendations, have been tremendously valuable tools 

for ensuring those choices are made responsibly and most effectively. But the current 

budget proposal cancels several high priority missions recommended in decadal 

surveys, undermining a so-year-old process that has long had bipartisan support from 

the executive and legislative branches of gowrnment along with the scientific 

community. These cancellations could potentially damage our ability to understand our 

own planet and the universe that surrounds us. 

In 2010, NASEM released its latest decadal report, titled "New Worlds, New Horizons in 

Astronomy and Astrophysics'', which ranked the Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope 

(WFIRST) as its highest space-based priority. WFIRST would follow on from the Hubble 

Space Telescope and the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST, to be launched next 

year). With a hundredfold bigger field ohiew than Hubble, it would help scientists 

tackle problems from the nature of dark energy to the evolution of galaxies, and could 

directly image worlds around other stars to investigate their properties. 

Big telescope missions like WFIRST take years of instrument development and testing. 

To have the capability to explore the farthest reaches of the unh·erse in place in the mid 

2020s and capitalize on the findings of ,JWST, therefore, requires investments today. 

Despite the fact that significant investment has already been spent on its development, 

WFIRST has been defunded in the president's FY19 budget proposal, threatening to 

create a gap of unknown length, and potentially ending the U.S.'s leadership in the 

exploration of deep space. 

The pre\ious Earth Science decadal survey, published in 2007, listed as its highest 

priorities missions to study ocean color (which is indicative of the uptake of carbon 

dioxide from the atmosphere); clouds and aerosols (small particles that affect Earth's 

climate); and heating processes in Earth's atmosphere. All three of these high priority 

missions have also been canceled in the FY19 budget proposal. Underscoring the 

disregard for carefully chosen priorities is that fact that the most recent Earth science 

decadal survey (released in 2018) reaffirmed the importance and prioritization of those 

items. which are currently under development as a result of NASA's efforts to adhere to 

the 2007 decadal SUJTey. 

Moreover, as with WFIRST, a significant amount of the development costs of these 

missions has been invested already. The net result is that not only will missions aimed at 

addressing some of the highest priority observations be cancelled, but investments to 

date will be wasted, and the benefits of such investments unrealized. Such actions are 

neither scientifically nor economically prudent. 

Each decadal sun·ey takes about two years to complete and ultimately involves 

hundreds of scientists and a thorough peer-review process. Hundreds of white papers 

are submitted by the scientific community to allow for an open and comprehensive 

survey of the key scientific challenges in a given field. Decadal survey panel members 

spend long hours debating which measurements and missions would allow for 
97 

substantive progress in addressing questions of primary importance-and which of 

these are technically ready to be flown in the coming decade. In the process, they make 

hard choices about what priorities should and should not be recommended for support 

in the face of the fiscal realities that all agencies face. Survey recommendations carefully 

take into account not just realistic budget projections, but recommendations as to 

possible paths of action if budgets increase or decrease. 

Canceling missions that are top priority decadal recommendations is not good policy, 

and will damage our ability to understand the planet we live on, and our search for 

habitable worlds beyond Earth. We urge the scientific community and the public to 

stand behind the NASEM decadal process as the best, most nonpartisan, method to 

determine NASA's science spending priorities. Otherwise we undermine a process that 

has been carefully thought out to serve the nation's interests by ensuring that U.S. 

taxpayer dollars go towards addressing the most significant scientific and societally 

beneficial challenges. 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S) 

Ellen Stofan 

Ellen Stofan is a former NASA chief scientist and Principal at Insight Earth LLC. 

Waleed Abdalati 

Waleed Abdalati is a former NASA chief scientist, and director of the Cooperative 

Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado, Boulder. 
98 

LETTER SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE ED PERLMUTTER

March 2, 2018 

The Honorable Lamar Smith 

The Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson 

House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

2321 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson: 

I am writing you today with a grave concern for the technological future of NASA, Unfortunately, the 

President's FY19 NASA Budget request guts the very research and technology development that is 

needed to accomplish the bold missions the Budget includes. 

Specifically, the proposed re-organization of the "Space Technology Mission Directorate" into 

"Human Exploration" within NASA is among the most devastating long-term aspects proposed. Past 

history has shown that large development programs and technology development activities cannot and 

should not exist together, as a small hiccup in the development programs eats the budget of the basic 

research and technology advancement needed to accomplish more in space. In fact, when integrated in 

this manner approximately a decade ago, NASA's space technology activities were eviscerated. 

Most striking, the Administration is proposing this re-organization without any discussion with 

Congress, industry or the university community, and without a NASA Administrator in place. This can 

only be described as an egregious over-reach by political appointees without an appreciation for the 

long-standing scope of the Agency. This proposal contradicts Title 7 of the space policy put 

forward by Congress and signed by President Trump in March 2017. Burying this 

proposed organizational change in the FYI9 budget request, while simultaneously proposing other 

major cancelations and changes to the NASA portfolio, is an attempt to curtail community discussion 

of the importance of the Space Technology Mission Directorate to the nation's future in space. 

In order to halt this re-organization until further deliberations can take place, I suggest writing a letter 

from Members to the Administration- much like the letter from Senators Cruz and Nelson about 

the International Space Station cancelation. 

There are 4 over-arching reasons that this proposed re-organization should be stopped: 

I) Space Technology Works: Over the past decade, Space Technology has demonstrated that a 

portfolio approach is critical to technology development. In this manner, technology is matured from 

concept to flight demonstration to mission infusion. There are multiple examples of space 

technology products being matured and infused into the Agency's missions, including mission-critical 

advancements in thcnnal protection systems, space communications, aerodynamic decelerators, and 

advanced chemical, solar electric and nuclear propulsion technology that are advancing Orion, the 

Agency's science missions, and it's future human exploration goals. 

2) NASA's Breadth in Missions: At its core, NASA is a technology Agency, and a symbol of U.S. 

technological superiority in the world. As such, NASA must have the capability to invest in the 

nation's future. The goal of Space Technology is to mature and infuse disruptive technology solutions 

into the nation's future space missions. Such investments are outside the mission-focused horizons of 

the HEO and Science mission directorates. There are significant cultural, workforce development, 

and practical reasons to manage technology development activities distinct from major spaceflight 

hardware development programs. These programs, which have different goals and timelines, are well 
99 

served by distinct management approaches. The Agency's Science and Exploration missions arc linked 

in their common need for advanced technology. Focusing NASA's technology efforts solely on human 

lunar exploration is etiectively a -$200M cut to the Science Mission Directorate's future. 

3) Hurting the NASA Workforce: There are too many good people at the NASA Centers doing 

technology development to not have a champion at the highest levels. This proposed re-organization 

will curtail innovation at the NASA Centers. Space Technology is an investment in the 

core capabilities of the NASA Centers. It is the major source of funding to keep the Centers on the 

cutting edge and grow new capabilities. Without these investments, the NASA Centers will cease to 

innovate and the Agency will ultimately be left behind. Without being on the cutting edge itself, 

NASA will become unable to objectively evaluate disruptive solutions put forward by industry and 

academia that could dramatically impact our future in space. 

4) We Need a Forward Leaning Space Program: This move is the same as that made in the 2005 

timeframe. That 2005 decision is the primary reason NASA's leadership in technology development is 

just now starting to come back. NASA and the nation need a space technology program that is the envy 

of the world, not one buried within the bowels of the bureaucracy. At a time in which China, Europe, 

Russia, India and multiple countries in the Middle East arc increasingly investing in space 

technology, the U.S. should make its investments in this arena more, not less, visible. 

Space Technology has been previously authorized by multiple Congresses in a bipartisan manner 

(201 0, 2012, 2017), appropriations have been relatively stable, and technology products arc flowing 

into future Agency and industry missions. This proposed change will ultimately cut off this critical 

technology pipeline and lead to an Agency that is left-behind in the space arena, a domain which is 

increasingly sophisticated and being impacted by global technology disruption. 

Space technology leadership is more important today than it was a decade ago, and such investments 

will be even more important for our nation's future in space. The proposed movement of the Space 

Technology Mission Directorate into Human Exploration will curtail our nation's leadership in space 

technology, adversely impacting the economic competitiveness, national security and quality of 

life impacts so important to our society and our leadership position in the world. 

Please use your oversight authority of NASA to halt any plans for a re-organization of its four mission 

din:ctorates (HEOMD, SMD, ARMD and STMD) until Congress has time to consider this matter, 

industry and the university community have been consulted, and a NASA Administrator is appointed, 

confirmed by Congress, and in place as the leader of the Agency. 

I would be happy to discuss this matter with you further at any time. 

Bobby Braun 

Dean of the College of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Colorado Boulder 

Former NASA Chief Technologist, 2010-2011 

cc: 

The Honorable Brian Babin, Chairman, Subcommittee on Space 

The Honorable Ami Bera, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Space 
100 

LETTER SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE DANA ROHRABACHER

March 3, 2018 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Space 

Dear Committee Members: 

Nason P,eck 

Let me thank this committee for its insightful support ofNASA's Space Technology Mission 

Directorate and for its leadership in ensuring NASA's technology future through funding for its 

carefully conceived technology-development programs. As a small-business owner, faculty 

member at Cornell University and former Chief Technologist for NASA, I am deeply troubled by 

the elimination of the Space Technology Mission Directorate in the President's 2019 budget 

proposaL A robust, carefully administered and independently managed technology-development 

enterprise is essential for NASA. Space Technology is that essential enterprise. It will enable the 

agency to realize the bold future that the President envisions. Funding it in its current form will 

keep NASA's entire exploration and science p01tfolio on track, keeping the US at the forefront of 

space technology, and ensuring that the economic benefits of space will continue to accrue to all 

of us. 

The goal of Space Technology is to mature and infuse disruptive technology solutions into the 

nation's future space missions. Such investments are outside the mission-focused horizons of the 

human space and science mission directorates. Operational directorates are generaUy 

incenti vized to make use of the best available and focus on their applications. So, they rarely 

accept greater risk for potentially dramatic improvement. A NASA study in 2005-2006 showed 

clearly that large development programs and technology development activities cannot coexist in 

the same organization, as a small overrun in near-term programs cats the seed corn--the budget of 

the technology advancement needed for fhe future. In fact, when integrated in this manner 

approximately a decade ago, NASA's lost its edge in space technology, as development activities 

were eviscerated, setting back our Nation's capabilities in space exploration and science. 

It's not only NASA that has successfully implemented this modeL The aerospace industry docs 

the same: Lockheed Martin's Advanced Technology Center and Northrop Grumman's NG Next 

are both technology programs that separate their forward-looking research portfolios from nearterm operational programs for these very reasons: they recognize the competitive value of longtenn investment in intellectual property. That's the role of Space Technology at NASA 

Particularly troubling is that NASA has already begun dismantling Space Technology. It has 

begun to study how to embed its responsibilities within some other mission directorate, such as 

Human Exploration and Operations. This direction is a gravely misguided. That's because the 

scopcofHEO's successful technology programs, Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) and the 

Human Research Program (HRP}----despitc being extremely well-run ---differ fundamentally from 

Space Technology's. AES advances technologies that directly impact the ncar-term needs of the 

directorate. In contrast, Space Technology engages in the cross-cutting technology development 

that no single mission directorate prioritizes. And yet the technologies it develops, such as solarelectric propulsion and cryogenic propellant storage and transfer, arc critically important for 

future science and exploration missions. 
101 

Æ 

Let me offer a contrasting example: the Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator, which had 

been a project funded within the Science Mission Directorate (SMD), was cancelled a few years 

ago largely because it had too many advocates outside SMD--HEO saw it as an option for 

surface power (on Mars or the Moon)-and as a result, the precious mission-driven technology 

funding in SMD was redirected toward other SMD specific efforts. So, cross-cutting technology 

development within the mission directorates is generally unlikely to be sustained. 

Space power, asteroid mining, solar sails, and many other forward-looking concepts receive 

support from Space Technology. So do next-generation lunar-exploration capabilities. The 

NASA Technology Roadmaps contain all of these technologies, and many more. They are 

reviewed externally (through the National Academies) every few years to identify what NASA 

could invest in. Then, through the NASA Technology Executive Council, all the mission 

directorates work to establish Space Technology's priorities. This process works. And it works 

well because Space Technology brings in the best ideas to NASA, wherever they may be found: 

from small businesses, traditional aerospace contractors and universities, and from NASA's own 

experts. These diverse voices keep NASA innovative. 

Through this sort of innovation, Space Technology blends what we call "mission pull" and 

"technology push." The former refers to technology needs driven by specific programs; the latter 

introduces unexpected solutions that ultimately lead to better missions. The mission directorates, 

appropriately, focus on "pull" technologies. If Space Technology is dismantled or moved, the 

cross-cutting innovations will wither on the vine and will be the first to be sacrificed when 

budget overruns or future mandates from OMB force funding to be redirected. 

It may be that OMB is proposing this change because it believes Space Technology to be 

unfocused. If so, OMB misunderstands. Only about 8% of Space Technology goes to the bluesky, early stage work (the long-tenn investments, only a few of which ever become everyday 

technologies). Even for the early-stage work, in all cases, Space Technology leadership consults 

with downstream customers about their needs and gaps and brings them to the table when they 

consider awarding contracts. The rest of Space Teclmology is even more customer-centric. From 

my point of view, Space Technology is already set up to support HEO's lunar objectives (as well 

as SMD and in some cases ARMD). The more mature technology projects in the Space 

Technology portfolio arc trying to do exactly that. If anything, the other mission directorates can 

improve by working more closely with Space Technology. 

Except for a few years in the mid-2000s, NASA has always had an organization that brings the 

technology future to the present. Please restore Space Technology to its place in NASA, an 

independent voice for innovation that serves as NASA's SpaceX. I hope this letter is useful in 

informing your discussions as you exercise your oversight responsibilities, ensuring the integrity 

of NASA and future of the nation's space program. 

Respectfully, 

Mason Peek 

President & CEO 

Tannhauser Gate LLC