MALLOY TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE 

 (202) 362-6622 

1

 NASA OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS 

 WASHINGTON, D.C. 

 NASA News Briefing 

 "Human Space Flight Review" 

 Speaker: 

 NORMAN AUGUSTINE, Chairman, 

 United States Human Space Flight Program Committee 

 MICHAEL HAWES, Associate Administrator 

 Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation 

 Moderated by DOC MIRELSON, 

 Office of Public Affairs, NASA 

 11:35 a.m., EDT 

 Friday, May 8, 2009 

 NASA Headquarters 
 MALLOY TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE 

 (202) 362-6622 

2

 P R O C E E D I N G S 

 MODERATOR: Thank you very much, and good morning 

and good afternoon to you. 

 As Jody said, to get in the queue for asking 

questions, please press Star/1. 

 I am going to kick it off here with just a very 

brief opening. I am joined on the telecon today with Norm 

Augustine who is joining us from Germany, and also from 

NASA, Michael Hawes is also on the line. 

 Mr. Augustine is the proposed chairman of the 

review of the United States Human Space Flight Plans 

Committee. He will lead a panel of experts organized under 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which we call a FACA. 

I think most of you know that, and I think that many of you 

are familiar with Mr. Augustine's background. 

 The committee will be tasked with examining 

ongoing and planned NASA human space flight development 

activities and the potential alternatives that are out 

there. 

 That said, also, I just want to make sure that 

you know that Michael Hawes is our Associate Administrator 

of NASA's Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation, and as 
 MALLOY TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE 

 (202) 362-6622 

3

most of you know, I am in Public Affairs. So, if you have 

any follow-on questions after this session, which will run 

approximately about 20 minutes, you can call me or e-mail 

me, and if any of you need those details, we can get that 

at the end. 

 That said, I would like to turn it over to Mr. 

Augustine for a few opening remarks, and we will start the 

Q&A. 

 Norm? 

 MR. AUGUSTINE: Thank you, Doc. 

 This is Norm Augustine, and I am very much 

looking forward to participating on this review of the 

Human Space Flight Program. We are in the process of 

assembling the team that I will work with in conducting the 

review, and when we do that, our principal focus is on 

having a balance of perspectives and also getting people 

with experience. 

 Our assignment, as you probably understand, is to 

provide a set of options that include considering the 

present course, of course, and options that are sensible, 

both from an economic and a technical standpoint, and while 

the review is ongoing, I am advised that NASA will be 
 MALLOY TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE 

 (202) 362-6622 

4

continuing to support the existing program in the meantime. 

 We have a rather short time period to conduct our 

review. It is to be completed in August, and because of 

that, we are drawing heavily on prior work, on our own 

experience, as well as analyses, that we will be provided 

support from NASA and possibly others. 

 We will seek public input as we conduct our work, 

since this space program is so important to the public, and 

there is a lot of knowledge out there that we would like to 

benefit from. 

 Our instruction is to take a fresh independent 

look at the Human Space Flight Program and to go where the 

facts lead, and that is what we will try to do. 

 Obviously, the U.S. has excelled in the 

exploration and the utilization of space for a long time. 

It is a source of great pride to our nation, as well as, I 

might say, to myself. I have also long believed it should 

be a balanced program that includes both robotics and human 

involvement, and our focus will be on the human space 

flight aspect and that part of the robotics program that 

links directly to human space flight. 

 The President in his speeches has made rather 
 MALLOY TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE 

 (202) 362-6622 

5

clear that he is very supportive of human space flight, 

that he believes it is important from an economic and a 

technical and a scientific leadership standpoint. I would 

certainly share that view, and I believe this is an 

important task. I look forward, as I say, to leading it. 

 With that said, I will turn it back to you and be 

happy to answer any questions that anyone might have. 

 MODERATOR: Okay. Thank you, Norm. 

 I think we have the first question from the 

Orlando Sentinel, Bobby Block. 

 MEDIA QUESTIONER: Can you hear me? 

 MR. AUGUSTINE: Yes. 

 MODERATOR: We can hear you fine. Go ahead. 

 MEDIA QUESTIONER: Mr. Augustine, I have got one 

question and a follow-up, if I am permitted, but the first 

question is I have heard from some engineers and some 

budget analysts who are working on the coalface of the 

existing program, and there was some concern about how they 

would be able to have input into the process and yet, at 

the same time, be guaranteed some kind of anonymity because 

they are concerned about possible reprisals. Have you 

thought through a mechanism of how people would be able to 
 MALLOY TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE 

 (202) 362-6622 

6

talk to you in confidence at all? 

 MR. AUGUSTINE: Well, we have thought through how 

we could gain inputs, not because of any issue over 

reprisals, but just because we would like to gain input, 

and the sort of things we have in mind, we will be visiting 

various centers. We will be briefed by many people. We 

intend to set up a site on the Internet, a website where 

people can comment, and I assume there is a way they can do 

that anonymously, if they wish, but we will welcome public 

input and through the regular mail as well. 

 MEDIA QUESTIONER: The second question I had was 

about the terms of reference for this study. I wanted to 

know if it included Station, as well as commercial space, 

and if cost was going to be the overriding factor, i.e., in 

terms of the need to maintain, stay within the current 

projected budget. 

 MR. AUGUSTINE: Well, commercial space flight 

activities, of course, are a reality, and it is an 

important part of what we will be doing insofar as it 

affects what the government does. Our recommendations 

clearly go to the government. 

 With regard to cost, that is one of a number of 
 MALLOY TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE 

 (202) 362-6622 

7

important issues. Certainly, safety, the ability to 

complete the missions, the importance of the missions, and 

what they cost all has to be balanced, as you well know, 

Bobby. 

 I think that I wouldn't emphasize any one fact. 

I think we have to bring all those issues into perspective. 

 MEDIA QUESTIONER: Thank you. 

 MR. AUGUSTINE: Thank you. 

 MODERATOR: Let me just reiterate. If you could, 

limit this to one question and one follow-up, please. 

 Next question is from Seth Borenstein from the 

Associated Press. 

 MEDIA QUESTIONER: Yes. Thank you so much for 

doing this, Mr. Augustine. 

 What I am wondering about is what is ruled out of 

what you are looking at. In other words, are you assuming 

that on two specific issues, is Shuttle -- are you going to 

look at whether the Shuttle should be retired after 2010, 

or is that one of the -- or is that a given, and the same 

with is the Moon a goal -- and on to Mars, and is that a 

given, or will you actually also reexamine those two sort 

of core issues of should these be goals or not? 
 MALLOY TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE 

 (202) 362-6622 

8

 MR. AUGUSTINE: That is a good question. The 

fundamental guidance that we have been and that we are very 

comfortable with is that we are to take a fresh look and go 

where the facts are and basically call it the way we see 

it. 

 Having said that, there is one boundary condition 

none of us can do anything about, and that is we are where 

we are. We have programs underway. There are systems 

existing and being built, and so that is sort of a starting 

condition, which doesn't mean that you have to abide by it 

in the future, but you can't ignore it as a starting 

position, obviously. 

 So we are in the process in this country of 

shutting down the Shuttle Program. One can't ignore that 

fact. On the other hand, we are an independent group, and 

I think if we found some significant new consideration that 

bore on any issue, we wouldn't likely be very reluctant to 

point that out. In fact, we would think that was our duty. 

 With regard to the program, the Moon program and 

so on, our rather clear guidance is that the long term is 

open-ended, and that we are free to look at -- I think the 

terms of reference we have heard are the things beyond 
 MALLOY TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE 

 (202) 362-6622 

9

near-Earth orbit. To me, that would include interesting 

things everywhere, and I don't mean to start a prediction 

here because that is not my purpose, but everything from 

synchronous orbit to the Moon, to Mars, and beyond. 

 MEDIA QUESTIONER: And to follow up, you talked 

about being -- the one boundary being where we are and that 

there is work already being done. NASA has already spent 

$6.9 billion -- with a "B" -- dollars on the Constellation 

program and is spending $300 million a month. How big a 

factor do you see that being? In other words, is this at 

the point where it is just too late to change or cancel 

because too much money has been thrown down one way? 

 MR. AUGUSTINE: You know, the amount of money 

that has been spent would not be a consideration to us. 

 What would be a consideration is where we stand 

today, what hardware is available, what plans are available 

and so on, and how that might play into what we do in the 

future. 

 What has been said in the past, as I think any 

good economist would say, is probably not an issue to us. 

What the implications are for the future are of significant 

implication. 
 MALLOY TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE 

 (202) 362-6622 

10

 MEDIA QUESTIONER: Thank you. 

 MR. AUGUSTINE: Thank you. 

 MODERATOR: Thanks, Seth. 

 Bill Harwood from CBS News, please. 

 MEDIA QUESTIONER: Yes. Thank you very much. 

 One question, a follow-up. Mr. Augustine, I am 

curious as to how you sense the motivation for this study, 

and what I mean is -- I mean, there are three years into 

Constellation. There's a five-year gap staring at them. 

All of this stuff is in work. They have done lots of 

reviews in the past, and you have been tasked to come in 

and do something in 60 or 90 days that in theory, anyway, 

could rewrite manned space flight. I am curious as to is 

there something wrong with Constellation that the 

administration believes just needs this look. I mean, how 

do you see the overall motivation for the study? 

 And I have a follow-up in that context. 

 MR. AUGUSTINE: Bill, the administration, of 

course, would have to speak for itself, but you just said 

what was my view, and I will try to answer that, and that 

is that we are planning to spend billions of dollars on the 

space flight program, and it is wise to be sure 
 MALLOY TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE 

 (202) 362-6622 

11

occasionally whether or not we are spending that the way we 

should. 

 New information becomes available all the time, 

and certainly, we have a new administration. It would 

probably be imprudent on their part not to examine this 

major of a program, to be sure that such a long-term 

undertaking is still on a course that makes sense to them. 

 That would be their call, obviously, but it does have an 

important impact on technology and competitiveness and 

nation's input -- image -- excuse me -- and so it is 

important we get it right. 

 And I think I guess I would observe that there is 

never a perfect time to conduct such a study as this. The 

train is in motion, and it seems like this is as good a 

time as any. 

 MEDIA QUESTIONER: Thanks. 

 And my one follow-up is kind of like a parallel 

to Seth's question. How do you guys view the gap? 

Meaning, what I mean by that is, I have covered space a 

long time, and obviously, you have been in the business 

longer than most of us, and it is hard to believe that 

another system could come in place that would not extend 
 MALLOY TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE 

 (202) 362-6622 

12

the gap. 

 I am curious as to whether any of that is a 

factor in you deliberations. In other words, the period 

between Shuttle and whatever the other system is, is that a 

factor to you guys? 

 Thanks. 

 MR. AUGUSTINE: Bill, in spite of your reference 

to the fact that I am getting older and have been in the 

business a lot longer than you and the rest, I will forgive 

you. Let me try to answer that, though. 

 I must confess as an individual, that I speak as 

a private citizen, I am not thrilled with the fact that we 

have a gap, but we have what we have, and that is a 

question of how we wish to deal with that. There are 

things that could be done probably that would shorten the 

gap. There are some things that one might do that would 

probably lengthen the gap, but, certainly, an objective, I 

think, of anybody would be to balance the various pros and 

cons of whatever is proposed, I guess the impact on the 

gap, among other things, and recognizing that extending the 

gap is probably not a desirable thing. On the other hand 

-- and I am not making predictions here because I don't 
 MALLOY TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE 

 (202) 362-6622 

13

know the outcome, but it is not something that is written 

in stone either. 

 MODERATOR: Thank you, Bill. 

 Todd Halvorson, how are things down there in 

Florida at Florida Today? 

 MEDIA QUESTIONER: Todd Halvorson, Florida Today. 

 Things are going well. The countdown is going to pick up 

at 4:00 p.m. for STS-125. 

 The question I have, Mr. Augustine, is how do you 

think this review will be either similar or different from 

the work done by the census [ph] group back in 1990? 

 MR. AUGUSTINE: Well, Todd, that, too, is a good 

question. That group's work, of course, was done nine 

years ago, and we will go through it very carefully and 

review it. 

 There has been changes in technology and budget 

outlooks and so on in the meantime, and I think there have 

been a number of studies conducted, some since then. This, 

I think, will be the principal independent one since that 

time, which makes it a bit different, but we will rely on 

it, as well as other studies that have been done, and try 

to come up with our best view as of 2009 as to what makes 
 MALLOY TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE 

 (202) 362-6622 

14

sense going forward. 

 MEDIA QUESTIONER: And if I could just have a 

quick follow-up, please. I was just curious about how you 

ended up getting this job. 

 MR. AUGUSTINE: I was wondering that myself, 

Todd. You probably can answer that as well or better than 

I, but I was asked if I would do this, and aside from 

full-time employment, if I can help our government, I 

generally have tried to do that, and this is one of those 

cases, and I do think it's important to the country, and I 

am honored to have a part. 

 MODERATOR: Thank you, Todd, for the update down 

there too. 

 Stuart Powell from the Houston Chronicle. 

 MEDIA QUESTIONER: Yes. Good morning. 

 MODERATOR: Good morning. 

 MEDIA QUESTIONER: I wanted to ask you whether 

the extent of this study could possibly reopen the 

architecture issue and throw open the contract bidding by 

other firms who have been waiting for a chance for the 

review as a possible opening to getting back in. 

 MR. AUGUSTINE: That is probably a question that 
 MALLOY TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE 

 (202) 362-6622 

15

ESO, but from the perspective of our committee, we will be 

looking at different architectures, as well as the existing 

architecture, and I am not in a position to make any 

predictions. So, unless NASA wants to add something to 

that, I'm afraid that is about all I have to offer. 

 DR. HAWES: Well, I would just add, Norm, you are 

exactly right. Any contract action or change is all 

dependent on the outcome of the review and the ultimate 

acceptance of the recommendations and comments from the 

review by NASA and the administration. 

 MEDIA QUESTIONER: And a second question is, to 

what extent do you think as an outcome of this study, the 

space program will now be the Obama space program rather 

than the Bush space program? 

 MR. AUGUSTINE: Again, as you know very well, 

these space programs are the kinds of thing that take a 

long time, and they passed through several Presidential 

administrations and a large number of Congresses, as you 

know, and through a bunch of budgets. So I guess I would 

view this as being one of these things that it's America's 

space program, for which President Obama is currently 

responsible and will be for a number of years, I presume, 
 MALLOY TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE 

 (202) 362-6622 

16

and that it really I don't think will have any one person's 

name on it particularly. It's America's space program. 

 MEDIA QUESTIONER: Thank you. 

 MODERATOR: Thank you. 

 Just as a reminder, that other answer came from 

Michael Hawes, the NASA Associate Administrator for Program 

Analysis and Evaluation. 

 Moving on to Frank Morring from Aviation Week. 

 MEDIA QUESTIONER: Thank you, Mr. Augustine, for 

doing this. 

 To follow up on Stuart Powell's question, do you 

at this point know what options specifically you are going 

to be considering; for example, EELD or any of the others? 

 Also, could you please tell me about the size of the 

committee and what sort of secretariat you will have and 

just how it will be organized and conduct its affairs? 

 Thank you. 

 MR. AUGUSTINE: Frank, I would be glad to do 

that. 

 With regard to the size of the committee, it will 

be 10 members, as I say, with different perspectives and 

backgrounds, people who are willing to take new knowledge 
 MALLOY TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE 

 (202) 362-6622 

17

and change their mind or learn from that new knowledge, if 

it is appropriate. 

 It will include, presumably, people that would be 

astronauts. It would be engineers that would have 

operational experience, people with industry backgrounds, 

government backgrounds, academic backgrounds and so on, 

which is hard to do with 10 people, but I think we will be 

able to put together a fine committee. 

 We will be supported at NASA by Dr. Mike Hawes, 

who you just heard speak, who will handle technical matters 

for us, and Phil McAlister will be our executive director 

and will handle the overall management, administrative, 

coordination aspects of what we do. 

 Frank, I forgot what the first part of your 

question was. 

 MEDIA QUESTIONER: That was the specific systems 

that you would be examining, alternatives to the existing 

system. 

 MR. AUGUSTINE: Right. The only system 

architecture that I could say that we will be examining 

with any confidence at this point is the existing one, and 

we will look at derivatives, and we have been asked to 
 MALLOY TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE 

 (202) 362-6622 

18

provide options. I have no idea of how many. That to me 

means at least two but not a large number because I think 

it would be of no value to the administration for us to 

offer ten options. So there will probably be a couple 

options, a few. 

 MODERATOR: Okay. Thank you. 

 Let's move to Irene Klotz from Reuters, please. 

 MEDIA QUESTIONER: Thanks very much. 

 Mr. Augustine, it is Irene Klotz with Reuters. 

 About 20 years ago, you headed a panel that took 

a similar look at the future of the U.S. space program and 

at that time had recommended that the United States move on 

to the Moon as a stepping stone to Mars. 

 The first question I have is I am wondering if 

there is anything, I guess, personally that had changed 

your mind about that course of action. 

 MR. AUGUSTINE: Irene, I am going to try to take 

a very open mind and view of this and treat this study as a 

package in its own right, but the prior study did make a 

number of comments and recommendations. We spoke, as you 

will recall to the importance of return to the Moon and 

some of the hazards associated with Shuttle and the need 
 MALLOY TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE 

 (202) 362-6622 

19

for a heavylift capability and the emphasis on science and 

things of that type, which I think, in general, are good 

principles, but every principle deserves to be reexamined. 

 So the issue is totally open as far as I am concerned. 

 MEDIA QUESTIONER: Thank you. 

 And then the follow-up to that is, in your 

looking at architecture of various systems to get to orbit, 

it would seem that it is very important to determine where 

you want to go and what you want to do before you can 

assess whether a particular architecture is suitable or 

not. So I am a little bit confused about which is the cart 

and which is the horse. 

 MR. AUGUSTINE: Well, that is exactly the 

challenge we face because this is an iterative process. 

 You know, it is one thing to set a goal and to 

put together an architecture and then discover you don't 

have the technology or the money to support it, and it is 

another thing to design an architecture but not know what 

it is you want to do in the end. So it will be an 

iterative process where we try to come up with a realistic 

solution that is important and useful, that is affordable 

and sustainable. 
 MALLOY TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE 

 (202) 362-6622 

20

 MODERATOR: Okay. Thank you. 

 We are coming up on our wrap-up here. I will 

take the last question, please, from Becky Iannotta from 

Space News. 

 MEDIA QUESTIONER: Thank you. 

 I was just wondering if you could talk a little 

bit about how transparent this review team will be. Are 

you going to have public meetings and post documents on 

websites, or how are you going to go about keeping it? 

 MR. AUGUSTINE: It is my hope and it is the 

administration's guidance that this will be very open and 

transparent. Our meetings will be conducted under the FACA 

rules, which basically says they will be public, except 

when you are dealing with a few issues like classified 

matters or personnel issues and things that bear on 

competitive sensitive matters. So I would think that our 

meetings would largely be public. 

 I would think that we will invite the public to 

comment at our meetings occasionally. We will seek input 

from the public on our website or through the regular mail, 

and as we travel around the country to various important 

sites, we will try to set a little bit of time aside at 
 MALLOY TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE 

 (202) 362-6622 

21

each one to have public input there. 

 The challenge we face, obviously, is that the 

public is a very big body, but we do want to get input, and 

similarly, we would like to be very open about what we are 

doing. 

 MEDIA QUESTIONER: Okay. And just one follow-up, 

if you have time for it. 

 MR. AUGUSTINE: Sure. 

 MEDIA QUESTIONER: I am a little confused, too, 

because there have been such a number of studies lately 

questioning the schedule and the cost of Constellation, and 

one of the guidelines in the letter requesting this review 

states that we want to look at this, the architecture and 

the options, but within the current budget profile. 

 So I am wondering, you know, how can 

Constellation get a fair review when we already have some 

cost concerns and that is one of the requirements for the 

report? 

 MR. AUGUSTINE: Yeah. I can see why that is 

confusing. Basically, we have been provided, as most of 

you probably know, with a budget that is the current budget 

for five years, out years, and we may, hopefully, even get 
 MALLOY TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE 

 (202) 362-6622 

22

some insights in the years beyond that because it is such a 

long term. 

 I think what it boils down to is we are being 

told that there is no sense being unrealistic and putting 

together a program that can't possibly be afforded and we 

are being given some guidance. 

 I think one of the current problems that NASA has 

encountered over the years has been that it usually had 

more programs than it had money, and that could be 

dangerous when you are doing something as difficult as NASA 

does. 

 As we go through this evaluation, if we were to 

find that there were reason that the budget didn't make 

sense in any way, I can assure you, we would not be bashful 

about pointing that out, and I suspect the administration 

would want to know that anyway. 

 MODERATOR: Thank you. 

 MEDIA QUESTIONER: Thank you. 

 MODERATOR: Thank you all. Mr. Augustine, thank 

you. 

 MR. AUGUSTINE: Thank you. 

 MODERATOR: Mr. Hawes, thank you. 
 MALLOY TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE 

 (202) 362-6622 

23

 Just as information for everybody, a replay of 

this teleconference will be available in approximately one 

hour. If you will dial, toll free, 866-395-1647 -- that is 

866-395-1647 -- that is the toll-free number. The toll 

number for overseas participants is 202-369-0467 -- excuse 

me -- that is 203-369-0467. 

 Thank you all. As this progresses on the 

establishment of the FACA, of course, NASA will be putting 

out the administrative information on that. So stay in 

touch with us, and watch us online, and thank you all again 

for your time today. Have a great day. Thank you. 

 DR. HAWES: Thank you, Doc. 

 - - -