[Senate Hearing 112-506]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-506
REALIZING NASA'S POTENTIAL: PROGRAMMATIC CHALLENGES IN THE 21ST CENTURY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 15, 2011
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
75-607 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas,
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts Ranking
BARBARA BOXER, California OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
BILL NELSON, Florida JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota ROY BLUNT, Missouri
TOM UDALL, New Mexico JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MARK WARNER, Virginia PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania
MARK BEGICH, Alaska MARCO RUBIO, Florida
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
Ellen L. Doneski, Staff Director
James Reid, Deputy Staff Director
Bruce H. Andrews, General Counsel
Ann Begeman, Republican Staff Director
Brian M. Hendricks, Republican General Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 15, 2011................................... 1
Statement of Senator Nelson...................................... 1
Statement of Senator Hutchison................................... 1
Statement of Senator Boozman..................................... 3
Statement of Senator Rubio....................................... 29
Witnesses
Hon. Charles F. Bolden, Jr., Administrator, National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, prepared statement................... 5
Dr. Woodrow Whitlow, Jr., Associate Administrator, Mission
Support Directorate, NASA...................................... 22
Douglas R. Cooke, Associate Administrator, Exploration Systems
Mission Directorate, NASA...................................... 23
William Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator, Space Operations
Directorate, NASA.............................................. 24
Dr. Edward J. Weiler, Associate Administrator, Science Mission
Directorate, NASA.............................................. 45
Leland D. Melvin, Associate Administrator, Education, NASA....... 48
Dr. Jaiwon Shin, Associate Administrator, Aeronautics Research
Mission Directorate, NASA...................................... 48
Appendix
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV, U.S. Senator from West Virginia,
prepared statement............................................. 59
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. John D.
Rockefeller IV to NASA Associate Administrators................ 60
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Kay Bailey
Hutchison to:
Douglas R. Cooke............................................. 63
William Gerstenmaier......................................... 67
Leland D. Melvin............................................. 68
Edward J. Weiler............................................. 70
Woodrow Whitlow, Jr.......................................... 71
Response to written questions submitted to NASA Associate
Administrators by:
Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 71
Hon. Mark Warner............................................. 73
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. John Boozman to:
Douglas R. Cooke............................................. 76
William Gerstenmaier......................................... 77
Leland D. Melvin............................................. 78
Dr. Jaiwon Shin.............................................. 79
Article dated May 24, 2011 entitled, ``NASA Administrator Selects
Orion-based Design for MPCV Development Phase''................ 80
REALIZING NASA'S POTENTIAL:
PROGRAMMATIC CHALLENGES IN THE
21ST CENTURY
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m. in room
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Bill Nelson,
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. Good afternoon. The meeting will come to
order.
I'm going to dispense with an opening statement, and I want
to call on Senator Hutchison to make a statement.
I do want to say that Doug Cooke has led NASA's exploration
initiatives for over 2 years, and he is going to retire. And
this is going to be a significant loss. Your dedication
throughout your distinguished career of over 37 years has been
very evident in the roles that you have had, from defining the
Space Shuttle entry flight-test program, advising the Columbia
Accident Investigation Board, serving as deputy manager of the
International Space Station, and, most recently, the role that
you have now as Associate Administrator of the Exploration
Systems Mission Directorate. And I want you to know how much we
are appreciative of the extraordinary service that you've
given, upwards of four decades, to your country and to
America's space program.
So, Mr. Cooke, we'll miss you, but I'm sure we'll continue
to see you. And we will continue to seek your advice and
counsel.
Senator Hutchison.
STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
very much all of the work that you do, collectively.
I have been working with the Chairman, now, for the last
couple of years to have a plan for NASA, going forward, that we
believe protects NASA's mission and is a balanced program that
invests in the commercial sector, but has an emphasis on the
NASA mission being accomplished, and being sure that it will be
accomplished.
I am pretty critical--and the Chairman has been, as well--
of the last 2 years' budget requests from the administration.
Part of the concern is that there is a sudden change in
direction, and there is concern that the senior leadership of
the agency remains uncommitted to the full, faithful, and
timely implementation of the law that we worked very hard to
pass last year when we saw the budget submission from 2 years
ago--well, from, actually, the beginning of this year. It--no,
the beginning of last year, I guess. It is the law and it isn't
an advisory framework.
When we wrote the NASA Reauthorization Act of 2010, this
committee provided a balanced portfolio for NASA, with robust
investment in science, research and development activities, and
the continuation of human spaceflight and exploration
development. The law prioritizes the continuation of work on
the Orion crew exploration vehicle and redirects the agency's
efforts to develop a heavy launch vehicle to carry Orion beyond
low-Earth orbit.
To meet these requirements, we directed the Administrator
to use as much existing technology as possible from the Shuttle
and Constellation programs to shorten the development timeline,
reduce costs, and maximize the use of taxpayer funds that have
already been dedicated to our human spaceflight program. In
carrying out that effort, the Administrator is directed to
modify and extend existing contracts for the relevant
technology to get started quickly, and to prevent the loss of
critical skills and infrastructure.
Yet, 5 months have passed since the law's passage and we're
still waiting for signs that the agency will comply with these
directions. To my knowledge, not one major contract has been
modified in furtherance of the requirements of the law that was
passed by Congress and signed by the President. In fact, Mr.
Chairman, a final report was due from NASA, 2 months ago,
outlining its plans for the capsule and the heavy-lift vehicle,
including related contract modification determinations. What we
received was a preliminary report lacking much of the
information required by the law. And now, 2 months later, we're
still waiting for compliance with even this modest reporting
requirement.
With these requirements still unresolved, we now must
consider the President's FY 2012 budget request. Once again,
the request appears to ignore many of the priorities that the
law has established for human spaceflight. Specifically, the
request reduces the funding for the Orion capsule and the
heavy-lift vehicle by more than $1.3 billion below what we
authorized for FY 12. At the same time, the request proposes a
significant increase to the very same areas prioritized in the
administration's last budget request, which Congress rejected.
The NASA Reauthorization Act was designed to promote
investment in commercial crew capabilities while prioritizing
the rapid development of a national launch system to resume
exploration. This will allow us to develop an important backup
capability along the way to fully develop a launch system for
exploration, and it assures access to low-Earth orbit from a
domestic source, should a commercial crew provider fail to
provide reliable and safe capability.
The fact that this budget request that is before us today
dramatically reduces funding for the heavy-lift launch vehicle
and Orion capsule while proposing a 70-percent increase for
commercial crew is another illustration that the administration
is not taking the steps necessary to embrace the priorities we
established, and implement the law.
I have similar concerns with the budget request provisions
related to space technology. Last year, we rejected the notion
that we would invest in technology for the sake of doing so. We
determined that we would not support investment in
undisciplined research that was not closely tied to a specific
mission. Yet, the budget request would transfer significant
funding from exploration technology development, which is
mission-specific, critical, and defined, to the general space
technology line that has much less discipline. Taken together,
the commercial crew funding and space technology proposals in
this budget request bear an unmistakable resemblance to last
year's budget request. The outline the President put forward
was rejected, but now it seems to be coming back in another
form.
Mr. Chairman, I don't want to see another year pass, where
we don't have the focus that Congress passed and the President
signed. So, I do hope that you can help us see that perhaps
we're mistaken, that perhaps you are not going back to focusing
just on the commercial side and leaving our basic NASA missions
without the priority that Congress has put on the agency. We're
here to make sure that NASA is strong and that America's place
in the world, in space exploration, is preeminent. That is our
goal. I think it's our common goal, but I don't think that we
are in sync on how we get there.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Nelson. Senator, you're exactly right, that January
report was entirely inadequate.
The Senator from Arkansas is the new Ranking Member on
Science and Space Subcommittee.
I want to welcome you. Did you want to have any opening
comments?
Senator Boozman. Yes, sir, if it's appropriate.
Senator Nelson. OK. If you can truncate it, and then we'll
get right on in. But, please.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to be
serving as the Ranking Member of the Science and Space
Subcommittee. I look forward to working with you, Chairman
Nelson and Chairman Rockefeller and our full-committee Ranking
Member, Senator Hutchison.
I want to welcome the witnesses. Certainly, you all are so
accomplished. You represent thousands of NASA professionals
across the country who are working hard and innovating, every
day. And we certainly look forward to your testimony.
Last year, Congress received a budget request for NASA that
started a lengthy conversation among Members of Congress, the
administration, and many stakeholders. At the end of this
process, Congress overwhelmingly passed a bill, with more than
400 votes between the two chambers, and the President signed it
last fall.
The new law provides a balanced set of activities for NASA
to utilize the world-class skills and expertise of its work
force. This includes significant investment in science,
technology development, and the continuation of our human
spaceflight activities, including the use of the International
Space Station, which is now complete. The law also redirects
activities related to our exploration program, where we have
had challenges for a long time in developing a follow-on to the
Space Shuttle.
I believe we need to bear in mind a few points as we
consider the President's budget request for Fiscal Year 2012.
First, we should take a closer look at areas where the
administration proposes significant deviations from the law.
There's not been a significant passage of time between the
passage of the law and the current request. The administration
needs to, therefore, justify deviations from what Congress
directed. Simple differences of opinion on policy are not
enough. We must understand why the administration now proposes
that we reprioritize funding to items like commercial crew
transportation and space technology and away from the rocket
and capsule that will allow us to resume the Nation's legacy as
explorers.
Congress made many of these choices and decisions last
year. We need to know what has changed in the last 5 months to
prompt the budget request's alternative focus, counter to the
clear direction of the new law.
Second, if NASA's budget will be reduced, like many other
agencies, we need to fully analyze opportunities to limit
overlap or duplication with other agencies to reduce some of
these expenditures.
Third, we must carefully consider our investment priorities
for NASA and how those affect our national defense and economic
security needs.
America's preeminence in space is more than a source of
national pride. It is a source of strategic advantage. We need
to ensure that our investment preserves our intellectual and
physical infrastructure, at a time where other nations,
including China, are investing heavily to close the gap with
us.
Finally, the programs at NASA must be executable and
sustainable. NASA's history is rich with major breakthroughs
and breathtaking achievements. The recent history, however, is
also rich with examples of cost overruns, development delays,
and poor technical choices. We no longer have the luxury of
spending money on ships that never fly and satellites that
never reach orbit. NASA must change some of its practices with
respect to contracting and procurement. Its programs must focus
on accomplishments that directly advance current mission
objectives. Focused research and development is a key to
operating in a constrained budget environment.
And with that, I yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Senator.
OK. We've got all the Associate Administrators of NASA
here. We want to get right into the nuts and bolts of what the
budget should be for this agency, given the environment.
[The prepared statement of the Administrator follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Charles F. Bolden, Jr., Administrator,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to submit this statement for the record as part of the
Committee's hearing today entitled Realizing NASA's Potential:
Programmatic Challenges in the 21st Century. I want to thank you and
all the Members of the Committee for the longstanding support that you
have given to NASA. These are exciting and dynamic times for NASA. The
challenges ahead are significant, but so are the opportunities we have
to achieve big things that will create a measurable impact on our
economy, our world, and our way of life.
The President's FY 2012 budget request of $18.7 billion for NASA
continues the Agency's focus on a reinvigorated path of innovation and
technological discovery leading to an array of challenging destinations
and missions that increases our knowledge, develop technologies to
improve life, to expand our presence in space for knowledge and
commerce, and that will engage the public. With the President's signing
of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-267) on October 11,
2010, NASA has a clear direction and is moving forward. NASA
appreciates the significant effort that advanced this important
bipartisan legislation, particularly efforts by the leadership and
Members of this Committee. This is a time of opportunity for NASA to
shape a promising future for the Nation's space program.
Because these are tough fiscal times, tough choices had to be made.
But the proposed FY 2012 budget funds all major elements of the
Authorization Act, supporting a diverse portfolio of programs, while
making difficult choices to fund key priorities and reduce other areas
in order to invest in the future. A chart summarizing the President's
FY 2012 budget request for NASA is enclosed as Enclosure 1.
We have an incredible balance of human space flight, science,
aeronautics and technology development. Within the human space flight
arena, our foremost priority is our current human spaceflight
endeavor--the International Space Station--and the safety and viability
of the astronauts aboard it. The request also maintains a strong
commitment to human spaceflight beyond low Earth orbit. It establishes
critical priorities and invests in the technologies and excellent
science, aeronautics research, and education programs that will help us
win the future. The request supports an aggressive launch rate over the
next two years with about 40 U.S. and international missions to the
ISS, for science, and to support other agencies.
At its core, NASA's mission remains fundamentally the same as it
always has been and supports our new vision: ``To reach for new heights
and reveal the unknown so that what we do and learn will benefit all
humankind.'' This statement is from the new multi-year 2011 NASA
Strategic Plan accompanying the FY 2012 budget request, which all of
NASA's Mission Directorates, Mission Support Offices and Centers helped
to develop, and encapsulates in broad terms the very reason for NASA's
existence and everything that the American public expects from its
space program. Just last week, we completed the Space Shuttle
Discovery's STS-133 mission, one of the final three shuttle flights to
the International Space Station. Discovery delivered a robotic
crewmember, Robonaut-2 (R2), and supplies that will support the
station's scientific research and technology demonstrations. We
recently made some preliminary announcements about program offices to
carry out our future work. And we plan to release three additional
high-priority solicitations spanning Space Technology's strategic
investment areas. NASA brings good jobs and bolsters the economy in
communities across the Nation. Our space program continues to venture
in ways that will have long-term benefits, and there are many more
milestones in the very near term.
Our human spaceflight priorities in the FY 2012 budget request are
to:
safely fly the last Space Shuttle flights this year and
maintain safe access for humans to low-Earth orbit as we fully
utilize the International Space Station;
facilitate safe, reliable, and cost-effective U.S.-provided
commercial access to low-Earth orbit first for cargo and then
for crew as quickly as possible;
begin to lay the ground work for expanding human presence
into deep space--the Moon, asteroids, eventually Mars--through
development of a powerful heavy-lift rocket and multi-purpose
crew capsule; and
pursue technology development that is needed to carry humans
farther into the solar system. Taken together, these human
spaceflight initiatives will enable America to retain its
position as a leader in space exploration for generations to
come.
At the same time, we will extend our reach with robots and
scientific observatories to expand our knowledge of the universe beyond
our own planet. We will continue the vital work to expand our abilities
to observe our planet Earth and make that data available for decision
makers. We will also continue our groundbreaking research into the next
generation of aviation technologies. Finally, we will make the most of
all of NASA's technological breakthroughs to improve life here at home.
With the FY 2012 budget, NASA will carry out research, technology
and innovation programs that support long-term job growth and economic
competitiveness and build upon our Nation's position as a technology
leader. We will educate the next generation of technology leaders
through vital programs in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics education. And we will build the future through those
investments in American industry to create a new job-producing engine
for the U.S. economy.
This year we honor the legacy of President John F. Kennedy, who 50
years ago, set the United States on a path that resulted in a national
effort to produce an unprecedented achievement. Now, we step forward
along a similar path, engaged in a wide range of activities in human
spaceflight, technology development, science, and aeronautics--a path
characterized by engagement of an expanded commercial space sector and
technology development to mature the capabilities required by
increasingly challenging missions designed to make discoveries and
reach new destinations.
NASA's Science Mission Directorate (SMD) continues to rewrite
textbooks and make headlines around the world. Across disciplines and
geographic regions worldwide, NASA aims to achieve a deep scientific
understanding of Earth, other planets and solar system bodies, our star
system in its entirety, and the universe beyond. The Agency is laying
the foundation for the robotic and human expeditions of the future
while meeting today's needs for scientific information to address
national concerns about global change, space weather, and education.
The Mars Science Laboratory will launch later this year and
arrive at Mars in August 2012. It will be the largest rover
ever to reach the Red Planet and will search for evidence of
both past and present life.
The Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR) mission
will launch in early 2012 and become the first focusing hard X-
ray telescope to orbit Earth.
Research and Analysis programs will use data from an array
of sources, including spacecraft, sounding rockets, balloons,
and payloads on the ISS. We will continue to evaluate the vast
amounts of data we receive from dozens of ongoing missions
supported by this budget.
A continued focus on Earth Science sees us continuing
development of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) for
launch in 2013 and other initiatives to collect data about our
home planet across the spectrum.
The budget reflects the scientific priorities for
astrophysics as expressed in the recent Decadal Survey of the
National Academy of Sciences. The budget supports small-,
medium-, and large-scale activities recommended by the Decadal
Survey.
The Radiation Belt Storm Probe mission will launch next
year, and development of other smaller missions and instruments
to study the Sun will get underway here on the ground.
With the appointment of a new Chief Scientist NASA will pursue an
integrated, strategic approach to its scientific work across Mission
Directorates and programs.
As we continue our work to consolidate the Exploration Systems and
Space Operations Mission Directorates (ESMD and SOMD), both groups will
support our current human spaceflight programs and continue work on
technologies to expand our future capabilities.
We will fly out the Space Shuttle in 2011, including STS-135
if funds are available, and then proceed with the disposition
of most Space Shuttle assets after the retirement of the fleet.
The Shuttle program accomplished many outstanding things for
this Nation, and in 2012 we look forward to moving our retired
Orbiters to museums and science centers across the country to
inspire the next generation of explorers.
Completing assembly of the U.S. segment of the ISS will be
the crowning achievement of the Space Shuttle's nearly 30-year
history. The ISS will serve as a fully functional and
permanently crewed research laboratory and technology testbed,
providing a critical stepping stone for exploration and future
international cooperation, as well as an invaluable National
Laboratory for non-NASA and nongovernmental users. During FY
2011, NASA will award a cooperative agreement to an independent
non-profit organization (NPO) with responsibility to further
develop national uses of the ISS. The NPO will oversee all ISS
research involving organizations other than NASA, and transfer
current NASA biological and physical research to the NPO in
future years.
In 2012, we will make progress in developing a new Space
Launch System (SLS), a heavy-lift rocket that will be the first
step on our eventual journeys to destinations beyond LEO.
We will continue work on a Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV)
that will build on the human safety features, designs, and
systems of the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle. As with the SLS,
acquisition strategy decisions will be finalized by this
summer.
NASA will continue to expand commercial access to space and
work with our partners to achieve milestones in the Commercial
Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) Program, the Commercial
Resupply Services (CRS) effort, and an expanded Commercial Crew
Development (CCDev) program. As we direct resources toward
developing these capabilities, we not only create multiple
means for accessing LEO, we also facilitate commercial uses of
space, help lower costs, and spark an engine for long-term job
growth. While the request is above the authorized level for
2012, NASA believes the amount is critical, combined with
significant corporate investments, to ensure that we will have
one or more companies that can transport American astronauts to
the ISS. With retirement of the Space Shuttle in 2011, this is
a top Agency priority.
Most importantly, NASA recognizes that these programmatic
changes will continue to personally affect thousands of NASA
civil servants and contractors who have worked countless hours,
often under difficult circumstances, to make our human
spaceflight, science, and aeronautics programs and projects
successful. I commend the investment that these dedicated
Americans have made and will continue to make in our Nation's
space and aeronautics programs. These are tremendously exciting
and dynamic times for the U.S. space program. NASA will strive
to utilize our workforce in a manner that will ensure that the
Nation maintains NASA's greatest asset--the skilled civil
servants and contractors--while working to increase the
efficiency and cost-effectiveness in all of its operations.
The 21st Century Space Launch Complex program will focus on
upgrades to the Florida launch range, expanding capabilities to
support SLS, MPCV, commercial cargo/launch services providers,
and transforming KSC into a modern facility that benefits all
range users. The program will re-plan its activities based on
available FY 2011 funding to align with 2010 NASA
Authorization's focus areas, including cross organizational
coordination between 21stCSLC, Launch Services, and Commercial
Crew activities.
NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) continues to
improve the safety, efficiency and environmental friendliness of air
travel.
Our work continues to address the challenge of meeting the
growing technology and capacity needs of the Next Generation
air travel system, or ``NextGen,'' in coordination with the FAA
and other stakeholders in airspace efficiency.
NASA's work on green aviation technologies that improve fuel
efficiency and reduce noise continues apace.
We also continue to work with industry to develop the
concepts and technologies for the aircraft of tomorrow. The
Agency's fundamental and integrated systems research and
testing will continue to generate improvements and economic
impacts felt by the general flying public as well as the
aeronautics community.
The establishment last year of the Office of the Chief Technologist
(OCT) enabled NASA to begin moving toward the technological
breakthroughs needed to meet our Nation's space exploration goals,
while building our Nation's global economic competitiveness through the
creation of new products and services, new business and industries, and
high-quality, sustainable jobs. By investing in high payoff, disruptive
technology that industry cannot tackle today, NASA matures the
technology required for our future missions in science and exploration
while improving the capabilities and lowering the cost of other
government agencies and commercial activities.
In OCT's cross-cutting role, NASA recently developed draft
space technology roadmaps, which define pathways to advance the
Nation's capabilities in space and establish a foundation for
the Agency's future investments in technology and innovation.
NASA is working collaboratively with the National Research
Council (NRC) to refine these roadmaps. The final product will
establish a mechanism for prioritizing NASA's technology
investments, and will support the initial Space Technology
Policy Congress requested in the NASA Authorization Act.
As leader of the Space Technology Program, OCT will sponsor
a portfolio of both competitive and strategically-guided
technology investments, bringing the agency a wide range of
mission-focused and transformative technologies that will
enable revolutionary approaches to achieving NASA's current and
future missions.
In FY 2012, a significant portion of the Exploration
Technology Development Program is moved from ESMD to Space
Technology. These efforts focus on developing the long-range,
exploration-specific technologies to enable NASA's deep space
human exploration future. The integration of Exploration
Technology activities with Space Technology creates one robust
space technology budget line, and eliminates the potential for
overlap had NASA's space technology investments been split
among two accounts. ESMD will continue to set the prioritized
requirements for these efforts and will serve as the primary
customer of Space Technology's Exploration-specific activities.
OCT continues to manage SBIR and STTR, and integrates
technology transfer efforts ensure NASA technologies are
infused into commercial applications, develops technology
partnerships, and facilitates emerging commercial space
activities.
Recognizing that our work must continuously inspire not only the
public at large but also students at all levels, NASA's Education
programs this year focus on widening the pipeline of students pursuing
coursework in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM).
As President Obama has said, ``Our future depends on reaffirming
America's role as the world's engine of scientific discovery and
technological innovation. And that leadership tomorrow depends on how
we educate our students today, especially in math, science, technology,
and engineering.''
The FY 2012 request for NASA's Office of Education
capitalizes on the excitement of NASA's mission through
innovative approaches that inspire educator and student
interest and proficiency in STEM disciplines. NASA's education
program in FY 2012 and beyond will focus and strengthen the
Agency's tradition of investing in the Nation's education
programs and supporting the country's educators who play a key
role in inspiring, encouraging, and nurturing the young minds
of today, who will manage and lead the Nation's laboratories
and research centers of tomorrow.
Among NASA's Education activities will be a continued Summer
of Innovation, building on the successful model piloted with
four states this past year.
All of these activities place NASA in the forefront of a bright
future for America, where we challenge ourselves and create a global
space enterprise with positive ramifications across the world. The FY
2012 budget request provides the resources for NASA to innovate and
make discoveries on many fronts, and we look forward to implementing
it. See Enclosure 2 for a more detail summary of each activity.
Conclusion
As we enter the second half-century of human spaceflight, the
Nation can look back upon NASA's accomplishments with pride, but we can
also look forward with anticipation to many more achievements to come.
The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-267) has provided us with
clear direction that enables the Agency to conduct important research
on the ISS, develop new launch vehicle and crew transportation
capabilities to go beyond the bounds of LEO, utilize a dazzling array
of spacecraft to study the depths of the cosmos while taking the
measure of our home planet, improve aviation systems and safety,
develop new technologies that will have applications to both space
exploration and life on Earth, and inspire the teachers and students of
our country. In developing and executing the challenging missions that
only NASA can do, we contribute new knowledge and technologies that
enhance the Nation's ability to compete on the global stage and help to
secure a more prosperous future.
These are tough fiscal times, calling for tough choices. The
President's FY 2012 budget request makes those choices and helps NASA
realize its potential and meet the challenges of the 21st Century. We
look forward to working with the Committee on its implementation.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration President's FY 2012 Budget Request Detail--Full Cost View
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Auth
Budget Authority, $ in million Actual CR FY Act FY FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016
FY 2010 2011 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science 4,497.6 4,469.0 5,005.6 5,016.8 5,016.8 5,016.8 5,016.8 5,016.8
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Earth Science 1,439.3 1,801.8 1,797.4 1,821.7 1,818.5 1,858.2 1,915.4
Planetary Science 1,364.4 1,485.7 1,540.7 1,429.3 1,394.7 1,344.2 1,256.8
Astrophysics 647.3 1,076.3 682.7 758.1 775.5 779.8 810.9
James Webb Space Telescope 438.7 373.7 375.0 375.0 375.0 375.0
Hellophysics 608.0 641.9 622.3 632.7 653.0 659.7 658.7
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Aeronautics 497.0 501.0 579.6 569.4 569.4 569.4 569.4 569.4
Space Technology 275.2 327.2 512.0 1,024.2 1,024.2 1,024.2 1,024.2 1,024.2
Exploration 3,625.8 3,594.3 3,706.0 3,948.7 3,948.7 3,948.7 3,948.7 3,948.7
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Human Exploration Capabilities 3,287.5 2,751.0 2,810.2 2,810.2 2,810.2 2,810.2 2,810.2
Commercial Spaceflight 39.1 612.0 850.0 850.0 850.0 850.0 850.0
Exploration Research and 299.2 343.0 288.5 288.5 288.5 288.5 288.5
Development
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Space Operations 6,141.8 6,146.8 5,508.5 4,346.9 4,346.9 4,346.9 4,346.9 4,346.9
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Space Shuttle 3,101.4 1,609.7 664.9 79.7 0.8 0.8 0.9
International Space Station 2,312.7 2,779.8 2,841.5 2,960.4 3,005.4 3,098.0 3,174.8
Space and Flight Support (SFS) 727.7 1,119.0 840.6 1,306.8 1,340.7 1,248.1 1,171.2
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Education 180.1 182.5 145.8 138.4 138.4 138.4 138.4 138.4
Cross-Agency Support 3,017.6 3,018.8 3,111.4 3,192.0 3,192.0 3,192.0 3,192.0 3,192.0
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Center Management and Operations 2,161.2 2,402.9 2,402.9 2,402.9 2,402.9 2,402.9
Agency Management and Operations 766.2 789.1 789.1 789.1 789.1 789.1
Institutional Investments 27.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Congressionally Directed Items 63.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Construction and Environmental 452.8 448.3 394.3 450.4 450.4 450.4 450.4 450.4
Compliance and Restoration
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Construction of Facilities 389.4 397.9 384.0 359.5 362.9 360.0
Environmental Compliance and 63.4 52.5 66.4 90.9 87.5 90.4
Restoration
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Inspector General 36.4 36.4 37.0 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5
NASA FY 2011 18,724.3 18,724.3 19,000.0 18,724.3 18,724.3 18,724.3 18,724.3 18,724.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Program Summaries
Science
The President's FY 2012 request for NASA includes $5,016.8 million
for Science. NASA continues to expand humanity's understanding of our
Earth, our Sun, the solar system, and the universe with 56 science
missions in operation and 28 more in various stages of development. The
Science budget funds these missions as well as the research of over
3,000 scientists, engineers, technologists, and their students across
the Nation. NASA is guided in setting its priorities for strategic
science missions by the recommendations of the NRC decadal surveys. The
Agency selects competed missions and research proposals based on open
competition and peer review. NASA's science efforts continue to advance
a robust and scientifically productive program while making difficult
choices commensurate with the Government-wide priority to constrain the
Federal budget.
The challenges we face have been amplified by the failed launch of
the Glory satellite on March 4. This loss is tragic and underscores the
challenging nature of the space business. Reliable and affordable
access to space is vital to NASA's science program
The FY 2012 budget request includes $1,797.4 million for Earth
Science. NASA's constellation of Earth observing satellites provides
much of the global environmental observations used for climate research
in the United States and abroad.
In early FY 2012, NASA plans to launch the National Polar-orbiting
Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) Preparatory Project
(NPP), continuing selected climate data records and becoming an
integral part of the Nation's operational meteorological satellite
system for weather prediction. We also plan to select new Venture Class
science instruments and small missions in FY 2012.
The Aquarius instrument on the Argentine Satelite de Aplicaciones
Cientificas (SAC)-D mission (launching later this year) will deliver
the first global ocean salinity measurements to the science community
in FY 2012. The Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2), Landsat Data
Continuity Mission (LDCM), and the Global Precipitation Measurement
(GPM) missions will be in integration and testing in FY 2012. The first
two NRC Decadal Survey missions, Soil Moisture Active/Passive (SMAP)
and the Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite-2 (ICESat-2), will
both enter into development during FY 2012. This budget request also
funds robust Research and Analysis, Applied Science, and Technology
programs. In this climate of fiscal austerity there are some important
capabilities that will not be developed in order to keep others on
track in more constrained future years. Development of the second two
Tier 1 Decadal Survey missions, the Deformation, Ecosystem Structure,
and Dynamics of Ice (DESDynI), and the Climate Absolute Radiance and
Refractivity Observatory (CLARREO), has been deferred resulting in
launch dates no earlier than 2020. NASA will continue pre-formulation
work on the DESDynI and review international partner options. However,
the FY 2012 request enables the Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment
Follow-on (GRACE-FO), the Pre-Aerosols-Clouds-Ecosystems (PACE), and
the Tier 2 missions Surface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT), and
Active Sensing of CO2 Emissions Over Nights, Days, and
Seasons (ASCENDS) to go forward as planned.
The Science budget request includes $1,540.7 million for Planetary
Science in FY 2012. NASA and its partners consider the period from
October 2010 to August 2012 (the length of a Martian year) to be the
``Year of the Solar System.''
The Juno mission will launch in August 2011 and arrive at Jupiter
in 2016. The Gravity Recovery And Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) mission,
following launch in September 2011, will enter lunar orbit and help
determine the structure of the lunar interior from crust to core; the
mission will advance our understanding of the thermal evolution of the
Moon by the end of its prime mission in FY 2012. A newly installed
webcam is giving the public an opportunity to watch technicians
assemble and test NASA's MSL ``Curiosity,'' one of the most
technologically advanced interplanetary missions ever designed. More
than one million people have watched assembly and testing of Curiosity
via a live webcam since it went on-line in October. Curiosity will
launch in early FY 2012 and arrive at Mars in August 2012; it will be
two times as large and three times as heavy as the Spirit and
Opportunity rovers, and will focus on investigating whether conditions
on Mars have been favorable for microbial life and for preserving clues
in the rocks about possible past life. The MErcury Surface, Space
ENvironment, GEochemistry and Ranging (MESSENGER) spacecraft will
arrive at Mercury later this month and will complete its first year in
Mercury orbit in March 2012. MESSENGER's instruments will map nearly
the entire planet in color, image the surface in high resolution, and
measure the composition of the surface, atmosphere and nature of the
magnetic field and magnetosphere. During its nearly decade-long
mission, the Dawn mission will study the asteroid Vesta and dwarf
planet Ceres--celestial bodies believed to have accreted early in the
history of the solar system. Dawn will enter into orbit around Vesta
this summer and will depart in 2012 for its encounter with Ceres in
2015. NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) have selected the five
science instruments for the 2016 ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter mission. The
budget also supports robust Research and Analysis and Technology
programs.
NASA recently received the new National Academy of Sciences Decadal
Survey for Planetary Science, entitled Vision and Voyages for Planetary
Science in the Decade 2013--2022. We are grateful to the Academy and to
all the Survey participants for their hard work and thoughtful
recommendations . NASA will use this survey to prioritize ongoing
programs and future mission opportunities.
The FY 2012 budget request includes $682.7 million for Astrophysics
(not including an additional $375 million for the James Webb Space
Telescope [JWST] which is detailed below). This is a golden age of
space-based Astrophysics, with 14 observatories in operation.
Astrophysics research, technology investments, and missions aim to
understand how the universe works, how galaxies, stars and planets
originated and developed over cosmic time, and whether Earth-like
planets and life exist elsewhere in the cosmos.
The FY 2012 budget request reflects the scientific priorities of
the new National Academy of Science Decadal Survey entitled, ``New
Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics.'' The budget
includes additional funding for the Explorer mission selection planned
for 2012, sustains a vigorous flight rate of future astrophysics
Explorer missions and missions of opportunity, and increases
investments in recommended research and technology initiatives. Funding
is also provided for pre-formulation investments in recommended large
missions beyond JWST, while work on the Space Interferometry Mission
(SIM) and Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM) has been brought to a close,
consistent with the recommended Decadal Survey program. SOFIA will
complete its open door flight testing and conduct the first competed
science observations in FY 2012. The Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope
Array (NuSTAR) mission will launch in early 2012. The NASA Astrophysics
budget also supports continuing operations of Hubble, Chandra, and
several other astrophysics observatories in space. The budget increases
funding for the core Astrophysics research program, including sounding
rocket and balloon suborbital payloads, theory, and laboratory
astrophysics.
The FY 2012 budget request includes $375 million for the James Webb
Space Telescope (JWST). JWST is now budgeted as a separate theme,
reflecting changes implemented in FY 2011 to improve management
oversight and control over this critical project, as recommended by the
Independent Comprehensive Review Panel's (ICRP) report in November
2010. The project, previously managed within the Astrophysics Division,
is now managed by a separate program office at NASA Headquarters.
Management of this JWST organization at Headquarters now reports
directly to the NASA Associate Administrator and the Associate
Administrator for Science. The Goddard Space Flight Center has
implemented analogous changes, with JWST project management now
reporting directly to the Center Director. JWST was the top priority
large mission recommended in the previous NRC Decadal Survey and is
considered a foundational element of the science strategy in the new
Decadal Survey for Astronomy and Astrophysics. During 2010, JWST
completed its most significant mission milestone to date, the Mission
Critical Design Review. Cost growth and schedule issues identified
following this milestone led to the formation of the ICRP. The ICRP
report concluded that the problems causing cost growth and schedule
delays on the JWST project are associated with cost estimation and
program management, not technical performance. The $375 million funding
in 2012 gives the program a stable footing to continue progress while
the agency develops a revised program plan that includes a realistic
assessment of schedule and lifecycle cost. The revised schedule and
lifecycle cost will be reflected in the 2013 Budget request.
The FY 2012 budget request includes $622.3 million for
Heliophysics. NASA's heliophysics satellites provide not only a steady
stream of scientific data for NASA's research program, but also supply
a significant fraction of critical space weather data used by other
Government agencies for support of commercial and national security
activities in space. Those agencies use the data to protect operating
satellites, communications, aviation and navigation systems, as well as
electrical power transmission grids. The spacecraft also provides
images of the Sun with ten times greater resolution than high-
definition television in a broad range of ultraviolet wavelengths. On
February 6, 2011, the two STEREO spacecraft reached 180 degrees
separation; when combined with SDO, these spacecraft will enable
constant imaging of the full solar sphere for the next eight years, as
the solar cycle peaks and begins to decline again. These three
spacecraft working together and in combination with NASA's other solar
observatories will give us unprecedented insight into the Sun and its
dangerous solar storms that could threaten both satellites and humans
in space as well as electric power systems on Earth. NASA has begun
development of a mission, called Solar Probe Plus, that will visit and
study the Sun from within its corona--a distance only 8.5 solar radii
above its surface.
The FY 2012 budget will enable completion of the Radiation Belt
Storm Probes mission for launch in FY 2012 as well as the completion of
development of the Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph (IRIS)
Explorer mission. In FY 2012, the Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS)
mission will enter its assembly and integration phase, the Solar
Orbiter Collaboration with ESA will undergo Mission Confirmation
Review, and the Solar Probe Plus mission will enter into the
preliminary design phase. NASA has increased funding for the next
Explorer mission selection planned for 2012 to enable selection of up
to two full missions, as well as instruments that may fly on non-
Explorer spacecraft. The budget also supports robust Research and
Analysis and Sounding Rocket operations programs. The National Academy
of Sciences has begun work on the next Decadal Survey for Heliophysics
and we anticipate its release in the spring of 2012.
Aeronautics Research
The FY 2012 budget request for Aeronautics is $569.4 million. As an
industry, aviation contributes $1.3 trillion to the Nation's economy
and employs over one million people. Airlines in the U.S. transport
over one million people daily, but during peak travel times the air
traffic and airport systems in the U.S. are stretched to capacity.
Environmental concerns, such as aircraft noise and emissions, limit
increased operations and the expansion of airports and runways. In
response to these challenges, the Nation is pursuing the realization of
the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). NextGen will
accommodate more aircraft operating within the same airspace, including
aircraft with widely varying performance characteristics. The President
recently challenged the Nation to increase its competitiveness in
advanced technologies. NASA meets this challenge with aeronautics
research to create the safer, more fuel-efficient, quieter, and
environmentally responsible aircraft and air traffic management
procedures needed to make NextGen a reality.
The Aviation Safety Program conducts research to ensure that
current and new aircraft and operational procedures maintain
the high level of safety which the American public has come to
count on, even as aviation systems become more complex. Last
year, the Program published guidelines on automation, displays,
and alerting technologies for future aircraft cockpit designs
based on data collected from real flight crews during
simulations of high-air-traffic-density operations. Further
increases in air traffic will require even higher levels of
automation without sacrificing safety. NASA is addressing this
need by developing new methods to verify and validate complex
aircraft and air traffic control systems and further developing
human performance models to be applied in the design of
automated systems. The Program is also developing data mining
methods that will enable the discovery of safety issues through
automated analysis of the vast amounts of data generated during
flight operations. These methods will enable a new, proactive
approach to aircraft maintenance and design to avoid the
occurrence of safety issues, rather than a reactive approach
after a safety-related incident occurs.
Reductions in environmental impact will be achieved not only
through new aircraft, engines, and fuels, but also through
improved air traffic management procedures. The Airspace
Systems Program is developing these procedures in order to
provide the flexibility needed to add capacity to the system as
air travel demands increase. Last year, we partnered with the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Boeing, Sensis, United
Airlines, and Continental Airlines to complete joint
simulations of new Efficient Descent Advisor (EDA) procedures,
and in FY 2012, the Program will deliver documentation of the
results to the FAA. EDA procedures are a key component of the
FAA's 3D-Path Arrival Management program and NextGen and can
save hundreds of pounds of fuel and carbon dioxide emissions
per participating flight, while reducing noise over surrounding
communities. In FY 2012, we will also accelerate field trials
of new procedures enabled by Automatic Dependent Surveillance-
Broadcast (ADS-B) technology. This effort will demonstrate
near-term and mid-term ADS-B application benefits and provide
airlines with data to support their strategic decisions related
to the significant investments they need to make to equip their
aircraft with ADS-B capability.
The Fundamental Aeronautics Program seeks to continually
improve technology that can be infused into today's state-of-
the-art aircraft, while enabling game-changing new concepts,
such as Hybrid Wing Body (HWB) airframes, tilt-rotor aircraft,
low-boom supersonic aircraft, and sustained hypersonic flight.
In FY 2012, the Program will accelerate research on a number of
key enabling technologies identified through four conceptual
design studies completed last year in collaboration with
industry and academia. The Program will also expand the
measurement of emissions generated when using non-petroleum
alternative aircraft fuels. In FY 2012, we will develop
instrumentation and operating procedures in preparation for a
flight test campaign using the NASA DC-8 aircraft operating at
relevant altitudes and cruise speeds. This will provide the
first-ever data to improve our understanding of alternative
fuel impact on contrail formation, an important factor in
aviation climate impact.
The Integrated Systems Research Program evaluates and
selects the most promising ``environmentally friendly'' engine
and airframe concepts emerging from the fundamental research
programs for further development, integration, and evaluation
in relevant environments. Last year, we completed the last of
80 flights to explore the stability and control characteristics
of the sub-scale X-48B HWB aircraft. In FY 2012, we will
conduct the first-ever testing of an Hybrid Wing Body non-
circular fuselage section fabricated using a new low-weight,
damage-tolerant concept for composite aircraft structures.
Beginning this year, the Program is also addressing the growing
requirement to integrate unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) into
the national airspace system. Current FAA regulations are built
upon the condition of a pilot being on-board the aircraft. The
Program will therefore generate data for FAA use in rule-making
through development, testing, and evaluation of UAS
technologies in operationally relevant scenarios. U.S.
leadership in aerospace depends on ready access to
technologically-advanced, efficient, and affordable aeronautics
test capabilities. NASA's Aeronautics Test Program makes
strategic investments to ensure the availability of these
ground test facilities and flight test assets to researchers in
Government, industry, and academia. In addition to this
strategic management activity, the Program will continue with
the development of new test instrumentation and test
technologies. The Program is modifying a Gulfstream III
business jet in order to flight test a new approach to reducing
drag on an aircraft by adding carefully engineered surface
roughness to the wings. This new flight-test capability will
enable us to test this drag reduction concept for the first
time at the altitudes and speeds at which commercial aircraft
typically cruise.
NASA cannot do all of these good things alone. Our partnerships
with industry, academia, and other Federal agencies are critical to our
ability to expand the boundaries of aeronautical knowledge for the
benefit of the Nation. These partnerships foster a collaborative
research environment in which ideas and knowledge are exchanged across
all communities and help ensure the future competitiveness of the
Nation's aviation industry. They also directly connect students with
NASA researchers and our industrial partners and help to inspire
students to choose a career in the aerospace industry.
Space Technology
The FY 2012 budget request includes $1,024.2 million for Space
Technology, a modest increase above the FY 2012 levels projected in the
NASA Authorization Act of 2010, consistent with the priority the
Administration is placing on research, technology and innovation
efforts across the Federal government. In FY 2012, Space Technology
includes funding for longstanding Small Business Innovation Research
and Small Business Technology Transfer programs (SBIR and STTR),
technology transfer, crosscutting space technology programs formulated
in FY 2011, and exploration technology programs that are being
transferred into this account. NASA technology development activities
under Space Technology will transform the Nation's capabilities for
exploring space. Through this effort, NASA advances crosscutting and
exploration-specific technology, performs technology transfer and
technology commercialization activities, develops technology
partnerships with other Government agencies, and coordinates the
Agency's overall technology investment portfolio. The Office of the
Chief Technologist (OCT) manages Space Technology.
Space Technology is the central NASA contribution to the
President's revitalized research, technology and innovation agenda for
the Nation. NASA's Space Technology portfolio responds with investments
that reach all corners of the Nation--wherever there are innovative
ideas and technical challenges to be solved. Advanced technologies are
required to enable NASA's future science, aeronautics, and exploration
missions. As demonstrated over many years, these same advanced
technologies find their way into products and services available every
day to the public. NASA's space technology is an innovation engine that
invests in the high payoff, high-risk ideas and technologies of
tomorrow that industry cannot tackle today. This unique work attracts
bright minds into educational and career paths in STEM disciplines,
enhancing the Nation's technological leadership position in the world
and leaving a lasting imprint on the economic, national security, and
geopolitical landscape. Through these technological investments, NASA
and our Nation will remain at the cutting-edge.
In FY 2010 and the first quarter of FY 2011, NASA focused on
planning, formulating and implementing the Space Technology project
elements. The Agency received 1,400 responses to six Space Technology
Requests For Information (RFIs) released during FY 2010. These inputs
were invaluable in finalizing future Space Technology solicitations and
demonstrate a strong interest in, and need for, significant NASA
investment in space research and technology. NASA released
solicitations for the ongoing Flight Opportunities and SBIR/STTR
programs. In December 2010 NASA released the inaugural Space Technology
Graduate Fellowships call. Consistent with provisions of the NASA
Authorization Act, the Agency plans to release three additional high-
priority solicitations spanning Space Technology's strategic investment
areas. NASA also recently developed a draft set of 14 space technology
roadmaps, which define pathways to advance the Nation's capabilities in
space and establish a mechanism for prioritization of NASA's technology
investments. Consistent with the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, NASA's
space technology roadmaps are being evaluated and improved through a
community-engaged process managed by the NRC that will produce a range
of pathways and recommended priorities that advance the Nation's space
capabilities.
NASA's Partnership Development and Strategic Integration activities
develop key space technology partnerships and guide NASA's space
technology investment decisions. OCT provides a primary entry point to
industry and Government agencies for technology transfer and
commercialization, interagency coordination and joint activities,
intellectual property management, and partnership opportunities. The
Office is also responsible for development of an Agency technology
portfolio and strategically coordinates Agency technology investments
through Center and Mission Directorate advisory committees and through
the space technology roadmaps to ensure that Space Technology
investments serve NASA's missions as well as the interests of other
Government agencies and the Nation's aerospace industry.
The Agency's space technology investments include the Small
Business Innovation Research and the Small Business Technology Transfer
programs (SBIR and STTR). Small businesses have generated 64 percent of
net new jobs over the past 15 years. NASA invests at least 2.5 percent
of its extramural research and development in the SBIR program. The
STTR program makes awards to small businesses for contracts for
cooperative research and development with non-profit research
institutions, such as universities. For STTR, NASA's investment exceeds
0.3 percent of its extramural research and development. For FY 2012,
higher maximum awards for SBIRs are allowed, with Phase I awards that
can reach $150,000 and, for Phase 2, up to $1 million. Also in FY 2012,
NASA is aligning the SBIR and STTR topics with space technology
roadmaps and the National Aeronautics Research and Development Plan,
while coordinating with Centers and maintaining a Mission Directorate
steering council to continue to improve our rate of mission infusion.
Crosscutting Space Technology Development (CSTD) activities invest
in broadly applicable technologies though early-stage conceptual
studies, ground-based and laboratory testing, relevant-environment
flight demonstrations, and technology testbeds, including the ISS. The
NASA Mission Directorates, other Government agencies, and industry are
the ultimate customers for Crosscutting Space Technology Development
products. Within this element, there are three investment areas: Early
Stage Innovation, Game Changing Technology and Crosscutting Capability
Demonstrations. Early Stage Innovation funds space technology research
grants and fellowships to accelerate space technology development
through innovative projects with high risk/high payoff. It also funds
the NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC) effort, which studies the
viability and feasibility of space architecture, system, or mission
concepts. It includes the Center Innovation Fund to stimulate and
encourage creativity and innovation within the NASA Centers, and
provides the prizes for the Centennial Challenges competitions that
seek innovative solutions to technical problems in aerospace
technology. Through ground-based and laboratory testing, Game Changing
Technology proves the fundamental physical principles of those
technologies that can provide transformative capabilities for
scientific discovery, and human and robotic exploration. Specifically
for small satellites, the Franklin subsystem technology development
activity matures subsystem technology in laboratory environments.
Crosscutting Capability Demonstrations proves the most promising
technological solutions in the relevant environment of space.
Technology Demonstration Missions prove larger-scale system
technologies in the space environment, whereas the Edison small
satellite missions demonstrate the utility of these innovative space
platforms for NASA's future missions. Flight Opportunities utilizes the
capabilities of the commercial reusable suborbital space transportation
and parabolic flight services industries to test technologies. Seventy
percent of the CSTD funds will be awarded competitively, with
solicitations open to the broad aerospace community to ensure
engagement with the best sources of new and innovative technology.
Industry, academia and the NASA Centers will participate in the
development of CSTD products. In FY 2012, CSTD will engage hundreds of
graduate students and researchers though grants and fellowships,
initiate dozens of ground and flight technology demonstrations,
initiate tens of technology studies, and formulate its first
demonstration missions.
In FY 2012, a significant portion of the FY 2010 Exploration
Technology Development Program, as well as new exploration technology
activities in planning for FY 2011, will move from ESMD to Space
Technology. For traceability, the transferred activities have been
consolidated in a specific budgetary element within Space Technology:
Exploration Technology Development (ETD). NASA plans to capitalize on
technical synergies in the project elements from Crosscutting Space
Technology Development and Exploration Technology Development by
managing these programs in an integrated manner. Technologies within
ETD enable NASA to conduct future human missions beyond LEO with new
capabilities that have greater affordability. Technologies for future
human exploration missions are matured through ground-based and
laboratory testing, relevant environment flight demonstrations, and
technology testbeds, including the ISS. Technologies matured through
demonstration flights may then be designed into future NASA human
exploration missions with acceptable levels of risk. Exploration is the
ultimate customer for Exploration Technology Development products. In
addition to ongoing-guided Exploration-specific technology development
activities, in FY 2012, NASA will use 30 percent of the funds within
this account to fund competitive awards, drawing proposals from
industry, academia, and the NASA Centers for innovative Exploration-
specific technologies and demonstration missions.
Exploration
The FY 2012 budget request for Exploration is $3,948.7 million. In
FY 2012 and beyond, NASA's Exploration programs will continue to
support the U.S. economy by enabling safe, reliable and cost effective
U.S.-provided commercial access to LEO for crew and cargo as soon as
possible. Included in this budget request is funding for three new,
robust categories or ``themes'' that will expand the capabilities of
future space explorers far beyond those we have today: Human
Exploration Capabilities, Commercial Spaceflight, and Exploration
Research and Development. These systems and capabilities include launch
and crew vehicles for missions beyond LEO--the Moon, asteroids, and
eventually Mars, affordable commercial crew access to the ISS, and
technologies and countermeasures to keep astronauts healthy and
productive during deep space missions, and to reduce the launch mass
and cost of deep space missions.
The FY 2012 budget request includes $2,810.2 million for Human
Exploration Capability (HEC). HEC is the successor to the Constellation
Systems theme; programs and projects under HEC will develop the launch
vehicles and spacecraft that will provide the initial capability for
crewed exploration missions beyond LEO. In particular, HEC's Space
Launch System (SLS) Program will develop the heavy-lift vehicle that
will launch the crew vehicle, other modules, and cargo for these
missions. The Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) Program will develop
the vehicle that will carry the crew to orbit, provide emergency abort
capability, sustain the crew while in space, and provide safe re-entry
from deep-space return velocities. NASA is currently developing plans
for implementing the SLS and MPCV programs, including efforts to
transition the design and developmental activities of the Constellation
Program. A major element of the transition involves shifting design and
developmental efforts away from a closely coupled system (Ares I and
Orion) to a more general launch vehicle (the SLS) and crew vehicle (the
MPCV).
Consistent with direction in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010,
the Agency has developed a Reference Vehicle Design for the SLS that is
derived from Ares and Space Shuttle hardware. The current concept
vehicles would utilize a liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen core with five
RS-25 Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME)-derived engines, five-segment
solid rocket boosters, and a J-2X-based Upper Stage for the SLS. This
would allow for use of existing Shuttle and Ares hardware assets in the
near term, with the opportunity for upgrades and/or competition
downstream for eventual upgrades in designs needed for affordable
production. For the MPCV, NASA has chosen the beyond-LEO design of the
Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle as the Reference Vehicle Design for the
MPCV. The Orion development effort has already benefited from
significant investments and progress to date, and the Orion
requirements closely match MPCV requirements as defined in the
Authorization Act, which include utilizing the MPCV for beyond-LEO crew
transportation and as backup for ISS crew transportation.
NASA will evaluate the Reference Vehicle Designs this spring and
incorporate results of industry studies that the Agency solicited
earlier this Fiscal Year. In particular, one of the greatest challenges
for NASA is to reduce the development and operating costs for human
spaceflight missions to sustain a long-term U.S. human spaceflight
program. We must plan and implement an exploration enterprise with
costs that are credible, sustainable, and affordable for the long term
under constrained budget environments. As such, our development efforts
will be dependent on sufficiently stable funding over the long term,
coupled with a successful effort on the part of NASA and the eventual
industry team to reduce costs and to establish stable, tightly-managed
requirements.
NASA plans to approach affordability comprehensively in pursuit of
exploration beyond LEO to increase the probability that key elements
are developed and missions can occur within a realistic budget profile.
For all development activities, we will emphasize innovative
acquisition and program management approaches, including risk
management, to reduce recurring and operations costs. In doing so,
plans for bringing the MPCV and SLS vehicles online with lower costs
will be as credible and realistic as possible, and significant efforts
will be made to ensure cost risks will be well understood. Overall,
NASA's designs and acquisition strategies for the MPCV and SLS Programs
will not be solidified until all of the pertinent knowledge on cost and
safety is obtained to ensure an affordable and executable solution.
NASA expects to finalize acquisition strategies this summer, and will
obtain independent, external assessments of cost and schedule for SLS
and MPCV design options during the spring or summer timeframe. We will
share this information with the Congress--including Members of this
Committee--as soon as we are able to do so.
The FY 2012 budget request includes $850.0 million for the
Commercial Spaceflight theme in Exploration. This effort will provide
incentives for commercial providers to develop and operate safe,
reliable, and affordable commercial systems to transport crew and cargo
to and from the ISS and LEO. This approach will provide assured access
to the ISS, strengthen America's space industry, and provide a catalyst
for future business ventures to capitalize on affordable access to
space. A vibrant commercial space industry will add well-paying, high-
tech jobs to the U.S. economy, and will reduce America's reliance on
foreign systems.
In 2010, NASA further expanded its successful Commercial Crew
Development (CCDev) Program by initiating CCDev2 in October 2010. In
doing so, we solicited proposals to further advance commercial crew
transportation system concepts and mature the design and development of
system elements, such as launch vehicles and spacecraft. Depending on
available funding in FY 2011, we expect to select a series of CCDev2
proposals for award early this year. Once finalized, the resulting
CCDev2 agreements should result in significant maturation of commercial
crew transportation system capabilities, with consideration given to
NASA's draft human certification requirements and standards or the
industry equivalent to those requirements and standards.
Beginning in FY 2012, NASA proposes to take the accomplishments and
lessons learned from the successes of the first two rounds of CCDev and
incorporate them into a new initiative called CCDev3. This initiative
will facilitate the development of a U.S. commercial crew space
transportation capability with the goal of achieving safe, reliable and
cost effective access to and from LEO and the ISS. Once the commercial
crew transportation capability is matured and available to customers,
NASA plans to purchase transportation services to meet its ISS crew
rotation and emergency return obligations.
For CCDev3, NASA plans to award competitive, pre-negotiated,
milestone-based agreements that support the development, testing, and
demonstration of multiple commercial crew systems. The acquisition
strategy for CCDev3 is still in development, but it will feature pay-
for-performance milestones, a fixed Government investment, the use of
negotiated service goals instead of detailed design requirements, and a
requirement for private capital investment.
In calendar year 2011 work on NASA's Commercial Orbital
Transportation Services (COTS) Program will continue under the
Commercial Spaceflight theme, using previous-year funding. Both of
NASA's funded COTS partners continue to make progress in developing
their cargo transportation systems, based in part on NASA's financial
and technical assistance. In particular, on December 8, 2010, Space
Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) successfully launched its Falcon 9
vehicle, and demonstrated separation of the Dragon spacecraft and
completion of two full orbits, orbital maneuvering and control,
reentry, parachute decent and spacecraft recovery after splashdown in
the Pacific Ocean. For its part in COTS, NASA's second funded partner,
Orbital Sciences Corporation (OSC), recently began integration and
testing of its Cygnus Service Module and Taurus II launch vehicle. Both
companies are expected to complete their remaining COTS demonstration
flights in late 2011 or early 2012.
The FY 2012 budget request for ESMD includes $288.5 million for
Exploration Research and Development (ERD). The Exploration Research
and Development (ERD) theme will expand fundamental knowledge that is
key to human space exploration, and will develop advanced exploration
systems that will enable humans to explore space in a more sustainable
and affordable way. ERD will be comprised of the Human Research Program
(HRP) and the Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) Program, which will
provide the knowledge and advanced human spaceflight capabilities
required to implement the U.S. Space Exploration Policy
In FY 2012, HRP and its associated projects will continue to
develop technologies, countermeasures, diagnostics, and design tools to
keep crews safe and productive on long-duration space missions. As
astronauts journey beyond LEO, they will be exposed to microgravity,
radiation, and isolation for long periods of time. Keeping crews
healthy and productive during long missions will require new
technologies and capabilities. Therefore, continued research is
required to study how the space environment, close quarters, heavy
workloads, and prolonged time away from home contribute to stress, and
then develop technologies that can prevent or mitigate these effects.
More specifically, in FY 2012, HRP will support approximately 15-20
biomedical flight experiments on the ISS and deliver the next-
generation space biomedical ultrasound device to enhance the Station's
human research facility capability. Other activities will include
development of a training program for ultrasound diagnosis of fractures
and the evaluation of blood analysis technology for astronaut health
monitoring. Additionally, HRP projects will deliver an enhanced design
tool for vehicle radiation shielding assessments and release the second
version of an acute radiation risk model. In the area of behavioral
health and performance, researchers will complete a sleep-wake
actigraphy report on the ISS crew. In order to support its research
requirements, HRP will release two NASA Research Announcements
addressing space radiation health risks and human physiological changes
associated with spaceflight.
AES will continue projects from the Exploration Technology
Development program that are close to application and closely tied to
human safety in space. In FY 2012, AES will assume responsibility for
developing and demonstrating innovative prototype systems to provide
basic needs such as oxygen, water, food, and shelter that can operate
dependably for at least a year. AES will demonstrate these systems in
ground testbeds, Earth-based field and underwater tests, and ISS flight
experiments. In FY 2012, AES will use a ground testbed to demonstrate
the reliability of life support system components, and a portable life
support system for an advanced space suit will be tested in a vacuum
chamber. Ground-based analog field tests and underwater tests will
validate a prototype Deep Space Habitat, where the crew will live
during transit on long missions, and a Space Exploration Vehicle that
will allow the crew to closely approach an asteroid, explore its
surface, and conduct surface exploration outside the vehicle. AES plans
to use innovative approaches for the rapid development of system
concepts, such as small, focused teams of NASA engineers and
technologists working with industry partners to gain hands-on
experience. AES will pilot these processes to improve the affordability
of future exploration programs.
Space Operations
The FY 2012 budget request includes $4,346.9 million for Space
Operations, funding the Space Shuttle Program retirement, the
International Space Station Program, the Space and Flight Support
Program.
The FY 2012 budget request for the Space Shuttle Program is $664.9
million. In 2011, the Shuttle is slated to fly out its remaining
missions. On March 9 Discovery completed mission STS-133, carrying
supplies to ISS, as well as the permanent a Multi-purpose Module (PMM),
a Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM) transformed to remain on orbit,
expanding the Station's storage volume. In April 2011, Endeavour, STS-
134, will carry the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) and attach it to
the Station's truss structure. The final Shuttle mission, STS-135, is
targeted for late June of this year, if funding is available. During
the mission, Atlantis will deliver critical supplies to the ISS and
recover and return to Earth an ammonia coolant pump module that failed
on the Station last year.
Following the completion of the remaining missions in 2011, the
Space Shuttle Program will focus on transition, retirement, and
disposition of program assets and workforce. Approximately 1.2 million
line items of personal property (e.g., equipment) are associated with
the Space Shuttle Program, with about 500,000 of these line items
associated with the Space Shuttle propulsion system elements (the
Reusable Solid Rocket Motor, the Solid Rocket Booster, the External
Tank, and Space Shuttle Main Engines). As part of this effort, NASA
will assess Space Shuttle property (including main propulsion system
elements) applicability to the Space Launch System.
On April 12, 2011, we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of human
spaceflight, and the 30th anniversary of the first flight of Space
Shuttle Columbia on STS-1. NASA recognizes the role the Space Shuttle
vehicles and personnel have played in the history of space activity,
and looks forward to transitioning key workforce, technology,
facilities, and operational experience to a new generation of human
spaceflight exploration activities.
The FY 2012 budget request includes funding for Space Program
Operations Contract (SPOC) Pension Liability. The United Space Alliance
(USA) notified NASA of its desire to terminate all defined pension
benefit plans as of December 31, 2010. USA has consistently
incorporated and billed the maximum allowable costs into their indirect
rates, but the recent deterioration of the equities and credit markets
has caused their plan to be underfunded by an estimated $500-$600
million. The Space Program Operations Contract, which accounts for
almost all of USA's business base, is a cost-type contract covered by
the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS). These standards stipulate that any
costs of terminating plans are a contractual obligation of the
Government (if deemed allowable, allocable, and reasonable). NASA and
USA entered into an agreement under which USA froze their pension plans
as of December 31, 2010 and deferred any decision about terminating
their plan until after December 31, 2011, allowing NASA to address this
issue, if it arises, with FY 2012 funds, if appropriated. USA and NASA
have instituted a working group to discuss pension termination options
and have met with the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to discuss
potential options. If funding remains after the pension plan
termination, it will be used to defray Space Shuttle closeout costs
that would otherwise require FY 2013 funding. If there is a shortfall,
it will reduce available Space Shuttle funds for closeout and some
activity could move later than planned. We will keep Congress informed
as this issue evolves.
The FY 2012 budget request for the International Space Station
(ISS) Program is $2,841.5 million, of which $1,656 million is for
operations, research, and utilization, and $1,186 million for crew and
cargo transportation. The ISS has transitioned from the construction
era to that of operations and research, with a 6-person permanent crew,
3 major science labs, an operational lifetime through at least 2020,
and a growing complement of cargo vehicles, including the European
Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) and the Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle
(HTV), the second flights of which are taking place even as we speak.
The FY 2012 budget request reflects the importance of this unparalleled
research asset to America's human spaceflight program.
In addition to conducting research in support of future human
missions into deep space, astronauts aboard the ISS will carry out
experiments anticipated to have terrestrial applications in areas such
as biotechnology, bioengineering, medicine, and therapeutic treatment
as part of the National Laboratory function of the Station. In support
of this effort, NASA has recently released a Cooperative Agreement
Notice (CAN) for a independent Non-Profit Organization to manage the
multidisciplinary research carried out by NASA's National Laboratory
partners. This organization will 1) act as a single entry point for
non-NASA users to interface efficiently with the ISS; 2) assist
researchers in developing experiments, meeting safety and integration
rules, and acting as an ombudsman on behalf of researchers; 3) perform
outreach to researchers and disseminate the results of ISS research
activities; and 4) provide easily accessed communication materials with
details about laboratory facilities, available research hardware,
resource constraints, and more. The FY 2012 budget request for ISS
reflects increased funding for the transportation required to support
this research.
The ISS transportation budget also supports NASA's continued use of
the Russian Soyuz spacecraft for crew transportation and rescue
services, pending the availability of a domestic crew transportation
system, as well as U.S. commercial cargo transportation. The ISS
transportation budget supports NASA's Cargo Resupply Services suppliers
as they continue to make progress towards fielding their cargo resupply
vehicles, which will be critical to the maintenance of ISS after the
retirement of the Space Shuttle. We anticipate that the first
commercial resupply flight will take place by the end of this year, and
that both providers will have their systems operational in 2012.
The FY 2012 budget request for Space and Flight Support (SFS) is
$840.6 million. The budget request provides for critical infrastructure
indispensable to the Nation's access and use of space, including Space
Communications and Navigation (SCaN), Launch Services Program (LSP),
Rocket Propulsion Testing (RPT), and Human Space Flight Operations
(HSFO). The SFS budget also includes investment in the 21st Century
Space Launch Complex, intended to meet the infrastructure requirements
of the SLS, MPCV, and commercial cargo/launch services providers. It
will increase operational efficiency and reduce launch costs by
modernizing the Florida launch capabilities for a variety of NASA
missions, which will also benefit non-NASA users
In FY 2012, the SCaN Program will continue to improve the
robustness of the Deep Space Network (DSN) through its efforts to
replace the aging 70m antenna capability with 34m antennae, launch
Tracking and Data Relay Satellite (TDRS) K and continue the development
of TDRS L. In the area of technology, we will conduct on-orbit tests
using the Communication Navigation and Networking Reconfigurable
Testbed (CoNNeCT), integrate the optical communications system on the
Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) spacecraft, and
begin operational space mission use of Disruption Tolerant Networking
communications. The SCaN operational networks will continue to provide
communications and tracking services to over 75 spacecraft and launch
vehicles during FY 2012. The LSP has several planned NASA launches in
FY 2012 including the NPOESS Preparatory Project (NPP), MSL, Nuclear
Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR), TDRS-K, and RBSP, and will
continue to provide support for the development and certification of
emerging launch services. The RPT Program will continue to provide test
facility management, and provide maintenance, sustaining engineering,
operations, and facility modernization projects necessary to keep the
test-related facilities in the appropriate state of operational
readiness. HSFO includes Crew Health and Safety (CHS) and Space Flight
Crew Operations (SFCO). SFCO will continue to provide trained crew for
ISS long-duration crew rotation missions. CHS will identify and deliver
necessary core medical capabilities for astronauts. In addition, CHS
will gather astronaut medical data critical for determining medical
risk as a result of spaceflight and how best to mitigate that risk.
NASA has enlisted the National Research Council to conduct an
independent study of the activities funded within NASA's HSFO program,
focusing on the role, size, and training requirements of the human
spaceflight office after Space Shuttle retirement and Space Station
assembly completion.
The FY 2012 budget request also establishes a new line item called
Mission Operations Sustainment, which will address future Space
Operations functions essential to NASA's human spaceflight mission,
including funding to purchase U.S. commercial crew transportation
services to and from ISS once they are developed, and key ground and
space infrastructure improvements required by the Space Network (SN) in
order to accommodate anticipated demand in the outyears; the Mission
Operations Sustainment budget would be utilized to fund this
performance gap. Although the exact amount of funding required for
these needs is unknown, it is clear that NASA's human spaceflight
mission cannot be sustained without resources provided by Missions
Operations Sustainment beyond FY12. The Agency will perform the
requisite technical and program analysis and planning, and the results
will be reflected in the FY 2013 budget request.
Education
The FY 2012 budget request for Education is $138.4 million. This
budget request furthers NASA's commitment to inspiring the next
generation of explorers in the science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics, or STEM, disciplines. In FY 2012, NASA will continue to
strongly support the Administration's STEM priorities and to capitalize
on the excitement of NASA's mission to stimulate innovative solutions,
approaches, and tools that inspire student and educator interest and
proficiency in STEM disciplines. The Agency's education strategy will
increase its impact on STEM education by further focusing K-12 efforts
on middle-school pre-and in-service educator professional development.
It includes an increased emphasis on providing experiential
opportunities for students, internships, and scholarships for high
school and undergraduate students. NASA higher education efforts will
increasingly target community colleges, which generally serve a high
proportion of minority students, preparing them for study at a four-
year institution. NASA will use its unique missions, discoveries, and
assets (e.g., people, facilities, education infrastructures) to inspire
student achievement and educator teaching ability in STEM fields.
In FY 2012, NASA will support the Administration's STEM education
teaching and learning improvement efforts, including the America
Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in
Technology, Education, and Science (America COMPETES) Reauthorization
Act of 2010, Race to the Top and Educate to Innovate, while continuing
efforts to incorporate NASA missions and content into the STEM
education initiatives of other Federal agencies. This may include
providing competitions and challenges, supporting clearinghouses of
Federal STEM education resources, providing high quality professional
development, and other engagements.
NASA will continue the Summer of Innovation (SoI) Pilot through
partnerships with organizations that currently work with girls,
minorities, and low-income students in grades 4-9 in summer and
extended learning settings. The SoI project will deepen and broaden the
efforts of communities and schools to successfully engage these
students by providing high-quality, inquiry-based content, customized
support, and access to NASA people, facilities and technology.
NASA will continue to partner with universities, professional
education associations, industry, and other Federal agencies to provide
K-12 teachers and university faculty with experiences that capitalize
on the excitement of NASA discoveries to spark student interest and
involvement in STEM disciplines. Examples of experiences include
research and hands-on engineering in our unique facilities and on a
variety of real-world platforms that include high-altitude balloons,
sounding rockets, aircraft, and satellites. NASA will also partner with
science centers, museums, planetariums, and community-based education
providers to allow informal educators to engage students in NASA's
real-time, cutting-edge science and engineering discoveries and
challenges. The FY 2012 budget request places increased emphasis on
cyber-learning opportunities and the use of the ISS National Laboratory
to engage students (at all levels) in launch activities, research and
engineering grants, and courses based upon NASA science and
engineering.
In FY 2012, the Agency aims to increase the availability of
opportunities to a diverse audience of educators and students,
including women, minorities, and persons with disabilities. An example
is the Innovations in Global Climate Change Education project that will
be implemented within the Minority University Research and Education
Program (MUREP). The project provides opportunities for students and
teachers to conduct research using NASA data sets to inspire
achievement and improve teaching and learning in the area of global
climate change.
Cross-Agency Support
The FY 2012 budget request includes $3,192.0 million for Cross
Agency Support, which provides critical mission support activities that
are necessary to ensure the efficient and effective operation and
administration of the Agency. These important functions align and
sustain institutional and program capabilities to support NASA missions
by leveraging resources to meet mission needs, establishing Agency-wide
capabilities, and providing institutional checks and balances. Within
this budget request, NASA has taken steps to reduce its administrative
expenses, including a partial hiring freeze and reduced travel.
NASA's FY 2012 budget request includes $2,402.9 million for Center
Management and Operations, which funds the critical ongoing management,
operations, and maintenance of nine NASA Centers and major component
facilities. NASA Centers provide high-quality support and the technical
engineering and scientific talent for the execution of programs and
projects. Center Management and Operations provides the basic support
required to meet internal and external legal and administration
requirements; effectively manage human capital, information technology,
and facility assets; responsibly execute financial management and all
NASA acquisitions; ensure independent engineering and scientific
technical oversight of NASA's programs and projects in support of
mission success and safety considerations; and, provide a safe, secure,
and sustainable workplace that meets local, state, and Federal
requirements. Cross Agency Support also funds salary and benefits for
civil service employees at NASA Centers who are assigned to work on
Center Management and Operations projects. In addition, the account
contains Center-wide civil service personnel costs, such as
institutionally-funded training.
NASA's FY 2012 budget request includes $789.1 million for Agency
Management and Operations, which funds the critical management and
oversight of Agency missions, programs and functions, and performance
of NASA-wide activities, including five programs: Agency Management,
Safety and Mission Success, Agency Information Technology Services,
Strategic Capabilities Assets Program, and Agency Management and
Operations Civil Service Labor and Expenses. Agency Management supports
executive-based, Agency-level functional and administrative management
requirements, including, but not limited to: Health and Medical,
Environmental, Logistics, General Counsel, Equal Opportunity and
Diversity, Internal Controls, Procurement, Human Resources, and
Security and Program Protection. Agency Management provides for the
operational costs of Headquarters as an installation; institutional and
management requirements for multiple Agency functions; assessment and
evaluation of NASA program and mission performance; strategic planning;
and, independent technical assessments of Agency programs.
Safety and Mission Success activities are required to continue
improving the workforce, and strengthening our acquisition processes,
including maintaining robust checks and balances, in order to improve
the safety and likelihood of mission success for NASA's Programs
throughout their lifecycles. The engineering, safety and mission
assurance, health and medical independent oversight, and technical
authority components are essential to NASA's success. They were
established or modified in direct response to several major Government
accident and mission failure investigation findings in order to reduce
the likelihood of loss of life and/or mission in our human and robotic
Programs. The budget request also supports operation of three
activities that each provides a unique focus in support of the
independent oversight and technical authority implementation: the
Software Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) program; the
NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC); and the NASA Safety Center
located at the Glenn Research Center.
Agency Information Technology Services (AITS) encompasses Agency-
level cross-cutting services and initiatives in Information Technology
(IT) innovation, business and management applications, and
infrastructure necessary to enable the NASA Mission. AITS includes
management of NASA's scientific and technical information; identity,
credential and access management services; overarching information
security services; enterprise-level business systems; and, other Agency
operational services, such as e-mail, directory services, and
enterprise licenses. NASA's Security Operations Center (SOC) will
continue to mature capabilities to improve security incident
prevention, detection, response, and management. NASA will continue
implementation of major Agency-wide procurements to achieve: (1)
consolidation of IT networks leading to improved network monitoring,
management and reliability; (2) consolidation of desktop/laptop
computer services and mobile devices to achieve improved security and
enable NASA Centers and programs to realize improved efficiencies; (3)
consolidation of Agency public website/application management to
improve the Agency security posture and to facilitate access to NASA
data and information by the public; (4) minor enhancement and
maintenance of integrated Agency business systems to provide more
efficient and effective Agency operations; and, (5) reduction in
overall Agency data centers and related infrastructure currently funded
outside the AITS budget.
The Strategic Capabilities Assets Program (SCAP) funds key Agency
test capabilities and assets, such as an array of flight simulators,
thermal vacuum chambers, and arc jets, to ensure mission success. SCAP
ensures that assets and capabilities deemed vital to NASA's current and
future success are sustained in order to serve Agency and national
needs. All assets and capabilities identified for sustainment either
have validated mission requirements or have been identified as
potentially required for future missions, either internally to NASA or
by other Federal entities.
The Agency Management and Operations Civil Service Labor and
Expenses funds salary and benefits for civil service employees at NASA
Headquarters, as well as other Headquarters personnel costs, such as
mandated training. It also contains labor funding for Agency-wide
personnel costs, such as Agency training, and workforce located at
multiple NASA Centers that provide the critical skills and capabilities
required to execute mission support programs Agency-wide.
Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration
The FY 2012 budget request includes $450.4 million for Construction
and Environmental Compliance and Restoration. NASA Construction and
Environmental Compliance and Restoration provides for the design and
execution of all facilities construction projects, including discrete
and minor revitalization projects, demolition of closed facilities, and
environmental compliance and restoration. The FY 2012 budget request
includes $397.9 million for the Construction of Facilities (CoF)
Program, which funds capital repairs and improvements to ensure that
facilities critical to achieving NASA's space and aeronautics programs
are safe, secure, sustainable, and operate efficiently. The Agency
continues to place emphasis on achieving a sustainable and energy-
efficient infrastructure by replacing old, inefficient, deteriorated
buildings and horizontal infrastructure with new, efficient, and high
performance buildings and infrastructure that will meet NASA's mission
needs while reducing the Agency's overall footprint and future
operating costs. The CoF program prioritizes this budget based on risk
of impact to NASA and Center missions, safety issues and accessibility.
The FY 2012 budget request includes $52.5 million for the Environmental
Compliance and Restoration (ECR) Program, which supports the ongoing
clean up of sites where NASA operations have contributed to
environmental problems. The ECR Program prioritizes these efforts to
ensure that human health and the environment are protected. This
program also supports strategic investments in sustainable
environmental methods and practices aimed at reducing NASA's
environmental footprint and lowering the risk of future cleanups.
Senator Nelson. I want to start with you, Dr. Whitlow. I
want you to tell us if a budget or continuing resolution were
to be passed with the $298 million cut that would come off of a
cross-agency support account, which is what passed the House of
Representatives, how many jobs would that be that would be
lost?
STATEMENT OF DR. WOODROW WHITLOW, JR., ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR,
MISSION SUPPORT DIRECTORATE, NASA
Dr. Whitlow. With a cut of that magnitude, coming this time
of year, which is halfway through the Fiscal Year, we estimate
that it would require us to reduce about 4,500 contractor jobs
across the agency. And that's about half of our onsite
contractor work-year capability.
Senator Nelson. And do you recall, out of those 4,500, how
many there would be cut from the Johnson Space Center?
Dr. Whitlow. It's over 800; it's approximately 850.
Senator Nelson. And how many from the Kennedy Space Center?
Dr. Whitlow. Somewhere--a little smaller than that, but I
could take that for the record and get you an exact number.
[The information requested follows:]
The FY 2011 Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-10),
which was enacted on April 15, 2011, funds NASA Cross Agency Support
(CAS) at the FY 2011 President's Request level. If the provision
included in H.R. 1--directing a $298M reduction to NASA's Cross-Agency
budget--had been enacted, the reductions would have occurred so late in
the operating year that they would have resulted in thousands of
layoffs to on-site contractors, with 50 percent of NASA's contractor
workforce at risk. That level would equate to over 4,500 layoffs across
all of NASA's Centers. The number of impacted jobs at KSC would have
been approximately 730. As the reduction was not included in enacted
legislation, the Agency did not proceed to make specific determinations
for implementing such direction and no NASA Centers were identified for
such an action.
Senator Nelson. Somewhere close, you said----
Dr. Whitlow. Yes.
Senator Nelson.--to the 800 that would be lost----
Dr. Whitlow. Correct.
Senator Nelson.--in the Johnson Space Center.
Dr. Whitlow. Correct.
Senator Nelson. And explain that--since there are only 6
months left in the fiscal year, what would be the impact of
implementing that cross-agency support cuts so late in the
fiscal year?
Dr. Whitlow. Well, the cross-agency support budget provides
for the maintenance operation and management of our field
centers and the associated installations across the agency. We
have been spending at a rate that assumed no reductions to the
cross-agency support budget this fiscal year. So, we now would
have to take that full cut in half of the year, a cut of that
magnitude would be equivalent to shutting, say, two of our
smallest centers, and we would not be able to provide the
capabilities to operate our facilities across the agency.
Senator Nelson. And what are the two centers that would
shut down?
Dr. Whitlow. Well, it's the equivalent to, say, two small
centers. I have not considered any two specific centers, but
just two smaller centers. Yes.
Senator Nelson. But, it could be something like Dryden?
Could be something like Ames?
Dr. Whitlow. It would be----
Senator Nelson. Could be something like Stennis?
Dr. Whitlow. Yes, two of the smaller centers. But, we have
not identified any two centers.
Senator Nelson. OK.
Mr. Cooke and Mr. Gerstenmaier, you heard what Senator
Hutchison said. And there have been too many headlines recently
that said that NASA can't, and won't, build a heavy-lift
launcher. Now, that, of course, is not what the authorization
law says. What is it that you understand the NASA authorization
law to require? Either one of you.
STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS R. COOKE,
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, EXPLORATION SYSTEMS MISSION
DIRECTORATE, NASA
Mr. Cooke. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
Also, before I get started, I would like to thank you for
your very kind remarks. I certainly appreciate your leadership
and incredible efforts to work with your colleagues and staff
and the administration to pass the Fiscal Year 2010
Authorization Act.
The Authorization Act laid out an approach to a heavy-lift
vehicle and a crew vehicle, which we, honestly, have taken very
seriously with an expiration, and have been working on it since
the Act was signed. We have decided on a reference design
vehicle that was called out for in the Act, which are Ares and
Shuttle-derived, for the launch vehicle. The crew vehicle, the
MPCV, or multipurpose crew vehicle, reference design vehicle
was chosen to be the Orion spacecraft that we have under
development at this point. So, those are our reference design
vehicles. We are working with those in, I believe, accordance
with the Authorization Act. We have teams in place that are
putting more detail on those designs.
We're looking at alternative designs to challenge and/or
validate those concepts. We think that's appropriate, in order
to be able to answer the hard questions that we'll undoubtedly
have to answer, in terms of our final selections.
So, we are moving ahead. We actually have sent up
notifications now for program offices for the crew vehicle,
MPCV, at Johnson Space Center; and the heavy-lift vehicle, at
Marshall Space Flight Center; and a commercial crew office, at
Kennedy Space Center. So, we are moving it out. We also have
procurement teams that are looking, in detail, at the contracts
that we currently have for Ares-1 and for the Orion Spacecraft,
and mapping those requirements to understand the scope of those
contracts and how our existing work fits, or doesn't. We have
been through, on the crew vehicle, working with procurement and
legal, and have a procurement determination that the MPCV is
within scope of the Orion contract.
So, I would say that we are moving with all haste, in my
view, to try and get to final decisions and designs, making
sure we have efficient contracting approaches, making sure that
we are looking at efficiencies down the road. It is a
constrained budget environment, so it's important that we look
at all the possibilities for gaining efficiencies in our
programs and projects. We're looking at the oversight models
for these contracts, so that we don't have more people
overseeing the contractors than necessary. It's going to be
more of a risk-based approach.
Senator Nelson. OK, let me just stop you here. I want to
get to more specifics.
Mr. Cooke. OK.
Senator Nelson. Do you understand the authorization law to
say that you should start designing in the range of 70 to 100
tons that is evolvable to 130 tons?
Mr. Cooke. Yes, sir.
Senator Nelson. OK.
Mr. Cooke. And----
Senator Nelson. Then why do we hear commentary--and is it a
misstatement--that NASA cannot afford to build a rocket with
the capability of 130 tons, when, in fact, that's not what the
law says? The law says that you start and that becomes
evolvable, which is what you've just testified.
Mr. Cooke. Yes. Our approach is that we are looking at an
evolvable design, starting in the 70- to 100-metric-ton range,
that's called out in the Authorization Act, which is
appropriate for first steps. That is evolvable, ultimately, to
130 metric tons. We are working through understanding how that
fits, in terms of cost-phasing over the years, in order to
develop that initial capability and then evolve it. Based on
our own studies, a fairly natural progression, in terms of
developing that capability. So, I can tell you that our teams
are approaching it that way.
Senator Nelson. Well, it's been reported to have been said
by the agency Chief Technologist, Bobby Braun, that the
development of a heavy-lift capability will not be available
for a decade. Now, that's not consistent with what you've said
right here, nor is it consistent with discussions with the
Administrator.
Mr. Cooke. I can tell you what the teams are doing, that
are actually doing the work on this, they are working within
the budget guidelines that we have, in an integrated way,
between the crew vehicle and the heavy-lift vehicle, to map out
a program plan of budget and schedule to develop these
capabilities, both of them, in an evolvable way, to get to the
earliest possible dates on flying. They're not finished with
that work, so I don't have a date to give you. But, I can tell
you that they are working in an integrated fashion to come up
with that earliest possible availability.
Senator Nelson. Mr. Gerstenmaier, do you have anything to
add?
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM GERSTENMAIER, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR,
SPACE OPERATIONS DIRECTORATE, NASA
Mr. Gerstenmaier. I think Doug described it pretty well.
We're working very hard to make sure we have a credible
plan to go forward. It's taking us a little time for the teams
to get together and integrate, to make sure that we've got a
program that can deliver and meet the budget constraints that
we understand that are out in front of us. So, we're not doing
this lightly. We understand the Authorization Act. We think it
gives us a good guidance. The teams are fully moving in that
direction, and will be ready to update the report in the
spring/summer timeframe, and give you the latest outcome from
the report or from what the teams have done over the past
several months.
Senator Nelson. Well, let me ask you this. Now, we've
talked in more generalities here. I want to know how soon can
you be testing the initial heavy-lift capability with the
proposed funding levels?
Mr. Cooke. That is the subject of our current studies. They
are working toward getting a date. They are trying to get test
flights as early as 2016, but that remains to be finalized and
worked in a integrated fashion. But, they are trying to get to
a date of that timeframe.
Senator Nelson. When do you think you'll have that answer?
Mr. Cooke. We plan to update our report as Bill said, in
the spring/summer timeframe. We have to get through a series of
decisions and our procurement approaches in the next couple of
months to be able to do that.
Senator Nelson. Senator Hutchison?
Senator Hutchison. Let me just put a fine point on the
first series of questions that the Chairman asked. And that
is--one of the things I said in my opening statement, is that
it doesn't seem like the contracts are being modified to
address the law that uses the technologies that we have, taking
the next step forward. But, it is our understanding that you
received a general counsel opinion from NASA that said that you
could, without violating any prohibitions on new starts, move
forward, setting up the program offices and starting the
implementation of the law. And it is further my opinion that
you now are setting those offices up.
This is my question: Are there any legal impediments, in
the minds of those of you who are running the operations at
NASA, to your moving immediately to the modification of useful
contracts, initiation of aggressive vehicle design efforts for
the heavy-launch vehicle, and other requirement of the Act?
Mr. Cooke or Mr.----
Mr. Cooke. As you said, we are setting up program offices,
and we have the notifications up here. I think the time is
almost up for that timeframe. In terms of the specific
contracts that we have, for instance, on the crew vehicle,
MPCV, we have changed and scaled back some work on that,
partially due to budget, but also, as we do that, we are
focusing it toward where the future lies, in terms of the
Authorization Act.
In terms of the existing contracts for Ares-1, which
includes the first stage, upper stage, and avionics unit, and
J2X engine, we are progressing on those and focusing that work
on work that would apply to heavy-lift vehicles. It is a little
different, in that it was going from a lower-performance
vehicle to a heavy-lift vehicle. But, we have focused efforts
on those contracts to be as specific as possible to this future
of a heavy-lift vehicle.
Senator Hutchison. Am I to take, then, from your answer
that you are--where the contract is one that will be ongoing,
but with modifications, that you are beginning to make those
modifications, so that you will keep your experienced workforce
going to the next transition vehicle or launch system?
Mr. Cooke. We are, at this point, focusing those in that
direction. We still have to come up to agency decisions, in
terms of final procurement regulations on how we would make the
set of acquisition decisions for a heavy-lift vehicle, and
would then have to apply those specific contracts for Ares-1,
if they can apply to that vehicle, provided that that is where
we get to in those decisions.
There are a number of things feeding that decision. And
that is that we are assessing those contracts for whether or
not the current contracts have this new capability within
scope. So, there is a significant effort on understanding that.
There are also studies that we have at Marshall Space
Flight Center looking at alternate concepts that will either
validate or challenge this approach, one of which is looking at
LOX-Rp engines, one is looking at what we call a modular
approach.
We also have industry participation and study contracts
that we have had out on the street and that they have been
working to over the last few months. They're 6-months contracts
that will help advise us to make sure that we get to a decision
of cost-effective vehicle, making sure that we have the input
and assess those inputs from, not only our internal teams, but
industry teams, as well.
So, we have not gotten to final decisions on the
acquisition on the heavy-lift vehicle or the crew vehicle,
because we need to understand how these current contracts
apply, whether that is the best value for the American people
and the government; and we need to understand the phasing of
those contracts, in an integrated sense, within the budget
constraints that we see.
So, I hope that is----
Senator Hutchison. Well----
[Laughter.]
Senator Hutchison. I'm trying to get a--just a clear answer
to whether you are going in the direction that the law asked
you to go, or actually told you to go.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hutchison. And are you doing that? And are you
doing it in a timely way?
Mr. Cooke. I believe that the work that we have ongoing is
headed in that direction, for those specific contracts we have
underway. We have not gotten to the final decisions on the
final design of the heavy-lift vehicle.
Senator Hutchison. But, you're moving along the----
Mr. Cooke. Yes.
Senator Hutchison.--lines that the law requires. I'm not--
--
Mr. Cooke. Yes.
Senator Hutchison.--saying you have to----
Mr. Cooke. I believe so.
Senator Hutchison.--have designated----
Mr. Cooke. Right.
Senator Hutchison.--who your final contract is going to be
with. Obviously, you have all the procurement issues there.
Mr. Cooke. Right.
Senator Hutchison. But, are you moving toward the type of
use of present technology, but with the further mission, beyond
the present one, of using our technology but also being able to
adapt it later for beyond-Earth orbit, and all of the relevant
pieces of that?
Mr. Cooke. As I understand your question, I believe we are.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
My time is up, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask one other question.
And that would just be: Are you satisfied that--after the
April Shuttle, that we will then move on to the last one, that
is now scheduled for June, to finish the delivery of everything
that we believe will be needed for the International Space
Station? And the equipment that we will need for it, and any of
the other pieces, in that June mission, that we're going to
need for repair and whatever it will take, over the period that
we are not going to have Americans being able to go in
shuttles?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Yes. We're moving out fully to support
STS-135, as you've described, from a manifest standpoint. We've
identified all the cargo that we need to carry on that flight.
We're starting to identify what cargo we might return from
Space Station, because that's a critical capability we'll lose
temporarily, when the Shuttle goes down, until the new
commercial providers come online. So, we're moving out for that
mission. The only concern is that, if we got a significant
budget cut somewhere here in the CR activity, that could
potentially cause some concerns for us to execute that flight,
just from a budget standpoint. Unless we get a pretty dramatic
budget cut, we plan to go execute that mission.
We see that mission as extremely critical to us. What that
mission provides for us is, it gives us some margin that, if
the commercial providers are a little bit late, and they don't
fly in late 2011 and in 2012, as they've been planning, then
we've got some time, through 2012, that we'll have enough
supplies pre-positioned on Space Station that we can continue
to do quality research, we continue to keep our crew size at
six onboard, stationed through that period of 2012 all the way
until 2013. If we don't have that Shuttle flight, then it's
absolutely mandatory that the commercial cargo providers come
online at the end of this year and early into 2012. I don't
think that's a prudent strategy. We need some margin.
Even in a shuttle world, we thought we understood where we
were going to go fly, then we had the tank problem that slowed
us down a couple months. I would expect small problems to show
up in a commercial provider's side, as well. We need some
margin to do that, and that's the criticality of STS-135 for
us. It provides us, essentially, that 1 year of margin that can
really make or break the critical research onboard Space
Station.
We really want to get to where we're utilizing the Station
as a full-up research facility, getting the most out of the
crew, the most out of the research we've got on orbit. And to
do that, we need to get the Station resupplied with the Shuttle
while we can use that asset, and then we can let the commercial
providers come online throughout the period of 2012 and into
2013.
Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you very much, because that
allays my concerns, to a great extent. Because this--if we
aren't going to use the Space Station, we have thrown a whole
lot of money away and we have let down our allies, who have
made significant contributions to the Space Station. And it was
a concern of the Chairman's and myself, both--that we weren't
going to fully stock it. And, in fact, the payload that we're
taking up in April, the spectrometer, was something that we
insisted on, in the previous administration, with the previous
Administrator. And so, I'm very pleased that we're going to
take that, because I think it has great potential for research.
And then, beyond that, we just have to stock so that we do
address the eventuality that you have addressed. It's just not
good policy not to.
Let me just end by saying that, I believe that the
sentiment on the Hill now is that this would be the last
temporary continuing resolution that we will pass, and that we
must go to the long-term continuing resolution that takes us
through the end of the Fiscal Year, so that you know what
you're going to have to spend, so that the Department of
Defense knows what it has to spend. And I think there are
certain areas of our budget that we cannot allow to continue to
go in 2-week increments. It's just not feasible. And certainly,
NASA is one of those that, I have been bringing up repeatedly,
must be in a long-term CR. And that must be the next one, after
this 3-week one that is before us.
So, I do thank you very much.
And I thank you for indulging me a little beyond my time.
Senator Nelson. And again, Senator Hutchison, thank you for
your continued vigilance throughout this process.
And thank you, Mr. Gerstenmaier, for a very clear answer
about the cargo of STS-135 and the importance of that last
Shuttle flight.
Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And again, thank you, Mr. Cooke, for your service to your
country in so many different ways.
I'm a little confused that in talking about this, we're
talking about long-range plans in reference to the budget. Are
you referring to the administration's budget, or are you
referring to the guidelines that were submitted by the
authorization bill that became law that everyone worked so hard
to get done?
Mr. Cooke. Actually, we are looking at the budget request
that came out this year, as we study these approaches. We're
also looking at a more unconstrained way, in terms of budget,
to show more or less how early these kind of capabilities could
be brought online.
Senator Boozman. But, in the questions that you answered,
again, were you talking about the President's budget or the
proposed authorized budget that's in law?
Mr. Cooke. We are looking, in these studies, at the
President's requested budget. We are looking more broadly than
that, at what it takes beyond that in an unconstrained sense,
in terms of dates and that sort of thing.
Senator Boozman. So, again--so, you're looking at it in
terms of the President's budget, versus what the authorization
is, in regard to my hearing the answers to your questions.
Mr. Cooke. That is a primary objective of these studies,
yes.
Senator Boozman. So, who changed the budget? Who made that
decision?
Mr. Cooke. Obviously, the budget that is in the request is
in request and we have the Authorization Act. And I think the
answers that we'll have will answer to each.
Senator Boozman. When was it changed?
Mr. Cooke. The point at which we started to study the
President's request was when we received that, when it was
rolled out.
Senator Boozman. Well, I assume that you guys had input
prior to that.
Mr. Cooke. We did work back and forth in terms of impacts
of various approaches. So, yes, we were aware of that process.
Senator Boozman. In recent testimony before the House,
Administrator Bolden stated that--meeting the 2016 deadline for
less--for the space-launch system and the multipurpose crew
vehicle, was difficult to get done. But, then he went on to say
that he wasn't saying he couldn't do that. For the Fiscal Year
2012--2012 request, it has $1.3 billion less than the amount
authorized for the two systems. It seems to represent a self-
fulfilling prophecy. Is there any way that you believe that you
could actually meet the 2016 contingency availability of the
systems at the funding levels projected in the Fiscal Year 2012
request?
Mr. Cooke. We are still working that, sir. That is what
will be a part of our results later this spring and summer. As
a part of that effort, in terms of stating whether we can or
can't meet the 2016 date, the wording that we had in our
initial report talked to whether or not we thought we could
meet that date. When we talked about it there, we also
qualified that by saying that we realize that it was important
that we--let me just step back. When we talked about that, that
was our initial study, based on conventional development
approaches and costing methods, and we said that in the report.
We realize that, in moving forward, we need to come up with
more efficient approaches to how we develop these space
vehicles than we have in the past.
We have significant efforts in understanding oversight
models, supporting infrastructure needs, the right level of
requirements to put on contracts, a number of other areas
specific to trying to get costs down. So, that would lead you
to, probably, a different estimate, in terms of availability
date. If we can get efficiencies, that tends to bring the date
back to the left.
So, those are the kind of things that we put a lot of
effort into understanding. And we don't have the results of
that yet, but we're trying in earnest to get dates as early as
we can with those approaches.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Nelson. Senator, those were excellent questions.
You all are constrained, you're conflicted because you've
got to defend the President's request and yet there's a law,
and it's called the NASA Authorization Act of 2010. And the two
are in conflict. And the President's budget is not going to be
enacted. And we're trying to get from here to there, and stop
this $600 billion cut that the House came forward with, which,
as you said Dr. Whitlow, was over 800 jobs, it's a little
less--that was at Johnson--cut; Kennedy, almost the same
amount. We even missed the 816 jobs cut at Goddard Space Flight
Center. We're trying to get from here to there, and the two are
in conflict. And the President's budget is not going to be
passed in this Congress. So, you all have got to help us get
there.
Senator Rubio.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Rubio. I just want to build on what the--what
Senator Boozman's asked already, and maybe phrase it a
different way; but, it's the same question. I think what the
Senator was getting at, we have this interim report that
basically says, ``Look, with the amount of money you guys have
given us or the amount of money that we have, we're not ever
going to be able--we don't think we can build this by 2016,
although everyone's saying that we want to build this by
2016.''
And then we get a recommended budget, from the President,
that actually cuts it even more. So, I think what, one a bigger
level, what we're really--I think the question really is, you
know, what is the level of commitment to getting this done at
anytime in the near future? Because, certainly these budget
requests are statements of vision, or lack thereof. And so,
my--I mean, the--and obviously, you're in a difficult position,
or you're in a unique position, I suppose, of having to both
speak on behalf of what the agency's vision is and, at the same
time, having to explain the President's budget. But, we look at
it, at least I do--I mean, this is--I've only been here a few
weeks, but it didn't make a lot of sense to me that you're
saying you're trying to get something done by a certain period
of time, and the money you already have dedicated to it is now
not enough, but we're going to cut it even further.
And I think that's really what the question goes to the
heart of. And so, I mean--I guess my question is, How serious
is NASA, and is this administration, about building these
programs?
Mr. Cooke. I believe NASA is serious about building these
programs. The questions that you ask end up being questions of
priority and policy that are decided at different levels. I can
tell you that the people that work at NASA are amazing in their
drive to implement under the constraints and direction they're
given. We have a tremendous workforce that will work tirelessly
and commit to doing these programs within budgets, and they'll
find the best ways to do it. So----
Senator Rubio. But, you would agree that----
Mr. Cooke.--that's where we are.
Senator Rubio.--I mean, you would concede that we get a
report saying, ``The money we have is not enough to finish it
by 2016,'' and then a budget comes out that says, ``We're going
to cut that inadequate budget even further''--you would concede
that there is a conflict there, at least certainly in terms of
what it would appear like.
Mr. Cooke. Well, there's certainty in what you say, the
budget request, it is less. There's no doubt about it. It's
numbers that are written down. This is a matter of balance and
priorities, and it's a NASA priority to develop commercial crew
transportation to and from Earth orbit. So, it's a question in
policy, I believe, of where you draw that balance. All I can
tell you is that the folks that work for ESMD in human
spaceflight will endeavor to develop the systems, and want to
develop these systems, within constraints that we have. We
always do that.
Senator Rubio. Well, again, I don't--never question the
professionalism of the folks at NASA, who do a phenomenal job.
I would just say that, from our vantage point, priorities on
paper is one thing, what an administration is willing to put
its name behind is something else. And when they issue a budget
that cuts the funding of a so-called priority, obviously people
are going to ask questions.
I wanted to--quite frankly, people are going to doubt--I
mean, that's the bottom line--that that truly is a priority,
when you're cutting funding to it, like this President's budget
does.
Kind of an unrelated topic, something I was asked about
earlier today, minutes before coming here. There was a
Government Accountability Office report from 2007 and 2009 that
cited NASA losing track of its equipment, more than $8.7
million of equipment, in the past 5 years. Could--can you
comment, or anyone comment, on what's been done to--are you
familiar with that news account? And, if so, can you comment at
all what steps that have been taken to prevent that from
happening in the future? If you haven't read that news report,
or what have you, (a) that's problematic, and (b) I probably
need to share it with you. I was just asked about it. Moments
ago, I was handed a copy of it. Is anyone familiar with that?
Dr. Whitlow. Yes, we are familiar with the study that's
been done to track our equipment. $8.7 million is a significant
amount; a very relatively small percentage of our total assets,
though. So, what we're doing is, we have been implementing
programs and efforts to do better tracking of our equipment,
and know who signs them out, who owns them, who they're
assigned to. We're making every effort that we can to reduce
that.
Senator Rubio. What kind of equipment more or--because it
didn't specify--what kind of equipment are we talking about?
Dr. Whitlow. Some of it includes----
Senator Rubio. Obviously, not a rocket. But, I mean, you
know.
Dr. Whitlow. No. Some of it includes computer equipment and
other relatively small things. But, over an agency our size,
they add up to a number of the size that you mention.
Senator Rubio. So, there's--have steps been taken,
specifically in--as a result of this report, to prevent that
from happening in the future?
Dr. Whitlow. I'd have to take that for the record and get
you specific steps that are being taken across the agency.
[The information requested follows:]
NASA is strongly committed to its responsibility to the American
taxpayers for the stewardship of government property. While the Agency
consistently stays below its own internal property Joss benchmark of
0.5 percent property loss and well below the accepted ASTM
International commercial industry standard of 2 percent, NASA
continuously assesses people, process and technology improvements to
minimize property losses. Some of these recent efforts to help improve
our property management accountability include revisions to NASA's
Equipment Management Policy; establishment of monthly meetings with
Center equipment managers to monitor recoverability and corrective
actions plans; upgrades to the property management system to enhance
the computation and rationale behind an identified loss; educational
outreach initiatives for the workforce regarding property
accountability awareness; and logistics reviews at NASA Centers to
monitor equipment accountability processes and procedures.
NASA is also implementing a new policy that will strengthen and
enforce user accountability for equipment loss to include: (1)
providing guidance on the minimum level of care NASA expects employees
to exercise over equipment and the circumstances under which employees
will be held accountable for equipment loss; (2) strengthening NASA's
accounting for electronic storage devices that contain NASA information
or other electronic devices costing less than $500; (3) requiring that
all packages sent through central receiving are opened and tagged
accordingly-regardless of whether they are procured through a purchase
card or purchase order; and (4) establishing and enforcing property
management training requirements for all personnel involved in the use,
stewardship, and management of equipment, including end users, central
receiving warehouse personnel, purchase card holders, and property
custodians.
NASA has taken specific actions to mitigate the risk of property
loss across the Agency. The following specific actions focus on the
areas of people, process and technology:
People
Pursue the availability and application or mission funds to endorse
the training and education of equipment management personnel across the
agency. This successful approach enabled stakeholders to enroll in
webinars hosted by the National Property Management Association, NPMA.
Over 150 personnel attended courses such as: Actions to Reduce Lost
Property, Managing Electronics Disposal, Applying Industry Leading Best
Practices, and lately, the enrollment of 7 personnel to attend a
National Education Seminar hosted by NPMA.
Development of a quarterly Equipment Management Newsletter to
provide the latest business practices on equipment management, from
acquisition to disposal, and to keep stakeholders across the agency
informed of the latest innovations and initiatives affecting the
equipment management program, i.e., physical inventory procedures, the
calculation of equipment loss rate, updates to GAO recommendations,
trading-in equipment, pre-inventory activities, etc.
Development of an Equipment Management Training Video. NASA has
reinforced efforts to achieve equipment control through enhanced
viewing of our newly developed property management video which stressed
the importance of property accountability and the day-to-day management
of NASA property. The 14 minute web-based video is available in SATERN
and was broadcasted via internal NASA television. The video introduces
the ability to provide visibility of total property assets and
encourages the use of the property management system. In addition to
the video, continued communication with property personnel occurs via
video conferencing and teleconferences. All forums stress the benefits
to NASA of personal property reutilization and the value of the
Personal Property & Equipment system.
Development of the Equipment Management Program Website. This
website, within LMD, provides a description and/or definitions of the
purpose, program objectives, program and individual responsibilities,
as well as links to governing NASA policies and other functional links
that offer useful guidance and information on training opportunities to
the equipment management community across the agency.
Process
Compensating Controls Review Program (CCR) which evaluates the
performance of NASA Logistics Operations and provides an assessment of
center compliance with Agency policy and procedures. The current review
approach was established as a direct result of General Accounting
Office (GAO) and NASA's Inspector General (IG) audits. These external
audits identified some of NASA's property and equipment management
areas lacking sufficient controls and requiring corrective actions.
Therefore, the CCR process was instituted to evaluate the adequacy and
consistency of Agency policy execution and procedural compliance with
NASA guidance on equipment, disposition, and contractor property, among
other areas.
Baseline Performance Review (BPR) is the Agency's forum for
performance management of its programs/projects and mission support
functions and is results-oriented. The BPR serves as NASA's senior
management monthly review of performance integrating vertical and
horizontal Agency-wide communication of performance metrics, analysis
and independent assessment. The BPR encompasses all mission activities
including the equipment management program and other logistics
functions. The forum is designed to be actionable, supporting the
Agency decision-making councils.
Continuously review applicable governing NPDs and NPRs to
strengthen or update current business practices. The continuous review
of equipment management regulations aims to reinforce existing policy
and to ensure adherence to Federal regulations. For instance, the
Logistics Division will strengthen and enforce NASA's policy on
equipment wall-to-wall physical inventory by transitioning from
triennial to annual inventory campaigns starting in FY 2013, as well as
the revision of the annual walk-through inspection, and the policy
regarding retention of inactive equipment, among other areas.
Technology
Completed a Case Analysis on the potential application of Radio
Frequency Identification technology (RFID). The Agency investigated the
potential application of RFID technology to manage its personal
property. LMD staff contacted various Federal Agencies to gain from
their lessons learned and engaged in a research concluding that an RFID
implementation has the potential to reduce inventory cost, reduce
equipment loss, and enhance equipment accountability. The study was
completed on March 31, 2011, and, based upon this research; the
assessment also identified areas of concern regarding the
implementation of RFID technology.
Enhancements to the Personal Property and Equipment (PP&E) System.
The continuous review of system capabilities and features enables
stakeholders to identify system shortfalls and develop remedies to
better support policy changes, enhance data accuracy, and to accurately
generate reports, i.e., equipment loss rate formulas, equipment
recoverability reports, etc.
Development of the Personal Plant and Equipment (PP&E) Executive
Dashboard. The Dashboard will provide the oversight of data elements
extracted from the PP&E system and Business Warehouse databases. The
Dashboard will allow senior officials and the Equipment Program Manager
access to total asset visibility and the generation of Ad Hoc real-time
reports with the purpose to identify trends, strengths and weaknesses
in the performance of equipment management functions across the agency.
Dr. Whitlow. But, we take it very seriously, and we are
starting to implement different efforts as I mentioned, to
reduce that number toward zero.
Senator Rubio. OK, thank you.
Thank you.
Senator Nelson. Mr. Gerstenmaier, let me ask you a softball
question.
[Laughter.]
Senator Nelson. I've heard it characterized a lot that
commercial capabilities and the heavy-lift development have
been portrayed as an either/or capability for NASA. The
authorization law says that we need both. Do you think we need
both?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Yes, I think it's clear that we need
both. We need the expiration larger-class rocket to do the
things beyond low-Earth orbit, to build and launch the
spacecraft to go to the further destinations well beyond low-
Earth orbit. Then, we're looking to use both commercial cargo--
as I described, we have existing service contracts in place to
resupply the Space Station as the Shuttle is retired, so those
commercial cargo contracts are in place with two companies,
SpaceX and Orbital Sciences Corporation--and then we're looking
at a new commercial crew transportation capability which would
also augment the capability we lost from the Shuttle. We need
that, again, to reduce our reliance upon the Russians for crew
transport.
So, the answer to your question is, really, we need both.
That's the struggle we have in the budget is how we balance
those two back and forth, and how we get that right mix between
what we need in the commercial activity and what we need to do
the exploration, to meet the priorities that we're being asked
for both of those. Both of those have near-term desires to fly
as early as we can. That would imply moving money back and
forth. What we're trying to do, and what Doug tried to describe
to you, is how we try to balance those with the programmatic
guidance we get through the Authorization Act and here, through
the administration.
Senator Nelson. Well, that is a very well-stated answer.
And I think that that's genuinely the policy that was set out
in the authorization law. And I think that's genuinely the
policy that NASA is trying to implement. And yet, the report
that came in January is interpreted by some as saying that NASA
cannot build a new heavy-lift launcher and the capsule, as
prescribed in the law. And much of the time has been discussed
about what NASA can't do. And I'd like to hear your thoughts on
what NASA can do and what you're already doing toward the
implementation of the authorization law.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Earlier, I think Doug described that
pretty well. We've got some teams set out with a base
configuration and at least two other configurations to go look
at alternate concepts of achieving the goals we just described,
the heavy-lift launch vehicle and to maximize, as you discussed
earlier, what we've already done in the Orion capsule, to make
sure that that carries forward. So, we've got those teams off,
working.
We also, Doug's team, put out some requests from industry
to get their ideas that were not constrained by any of our
previous thoughts so we can get the best ideas from industry.
Doug's teams are sitting there, as Doug described, trying to
integrate all those activities.
We're trying to take a look at the existing contracts we
have in place to see if those contracts are applicable in the
new work that we want to go start. We have certain legal
requirements. We can't take a contract that was issued for one
purpose, and apply it to a different purpose without going
through all the right legal checks to make sure that's an
appropriate use to extend that contract. As Doug described
pretty clearly, we need to get the best value out of that to
show that that is the most effective manner to do this
procurement activity.
The teams are working through all those things. Our intent
is that, by the time we get to late spring, early summer, we
will have enough of this completed that we can give you a
definitive answer in our follow-on report about where we head
with this and what we understand is available and what's
possible as we move forward.
So, I will tell you that, as Doug's described and you've
all described to us, is the NASA team definitely has a can-do
attitude, if we lay out the right constraints. The
authorization law gave us those constraints. We understand the
President's budget, as well. We can factor both of those in as
considerations. And the teams are fully running and
implementing, as fast as they can, to put together a sound plan
that's affordable and sustainable and realistic that we can
present to you in the late spring, early summer.
Senator Nelson. Well, with the new heavy-lift capability,
you're the expert, tell us: What about the new destinations
that are enabled by the evolvable new heavy-lift capability?
What does the Nation stand to gain from that exploration?
Mr. Cooke. I can address that.
With the kind of capability that's laid out in the
Authorization Act, 70- to 100-metric-ton evolvable to 130
metric tons, we can incrementally be able to go to numerous
destinations that are of high interest.
It could be cislunar space. It can be at LaGrange points
between the Earth and Moon, where we could repair telescopes;
we can stage missions to the Mars vicinity, potentially. It
would get us missions to the Moon, with additional
capabilities. We can go to near-Earth asteroids. We can go to
the moons of Mars, which may be an interesting step in this
progression.
All of these places hold incredible information that we
probably don't even have a clue as to what we'll find. Every
time we go explore, as great nations do, we learn, and we learn
things we didn't expect. And those are certainly all incredibly
interesting destinations.
The Moon, itself, is a place that we know much better, now
that we've flown the lunar reconnaissance orbiter, that our
organization put up and now is being run by the Science Mission
Directorate. But, we've learned more about the Moon than we
knew during Apollo. Mars has always been a premier destination
for our future human spaceflight. And there's incredible
science and understanding that we can bring back, in terms of
evolution of that planet, whether or not there's life on that
planet. The opportunities are incredible.
And the heavy-lift vehicle that we've talked about, and the
crew vehicle, are the critical first two steps to any of those
destinations. Those are incredibly important for where we go
from here. There are additional capabilities that will need to
be developed to do these missions, but those are two essential
steps that are laid out for us and that we're interested in
developing and pursuing.
Senator Nelson. Thank you for that answer. I think that
gives everybody a vision. You've got to get up there, with
humans and components. Who knows what the technology--by the
time we're ready to go to Mars with humans, we might have new
technology that takes us there in 39 days, instead of the 9 or
10 months, which could redo the whole mission.
So, thank you for that comment.
Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In the past year, there have been two failures of the
payload faring mechanism for the vehicles launching the
orbiting carbon observatory, and recently, the Glory mission.
This has resulted in the loss of these important payloads, both
expensive and highly capable satellites.
Two things, Mr. Cooke: Do those losses impact your view of
the maturity of the commercial companies currently involved in
the commercial orbital transportation system program to deliver
cargo to the International Space Station? And are these
failures viewed as normal growing pains, or do they potentially
affect the design, manufacturing, or vehicle processing
failure?
Anybody. Whoever's most qualified.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Yes, I think I'll answer those. I'm
responsible for the launch services program.
First of all, the failure was something we didn't expect,
on the Glory spacecraft. When we lost the OCO spacecraft, we go
into a very rigorous mishap investigation board to understand
exactly what happened on that loss, why the fairing didn't
separate. We chartered an independent team that went through
all the potential failures that could have led up to that.
They gave us a series of recommendations. One of the areas
that was the most likely cause of that failure, on the OCO
spacecraft, was a system that pushes the fairings apart. It was
a hot-gas system. Essentially, you ignite a solid propellant;
it generates gas and pushes the two halves of the fairing
apart; you know, much like an airbag expands in your car.
We replaced that system with a cold-gas system on the Glory
spacecraft. That was a much more reliable system that we
thought would operate much better. We went back and the mishap
board had a series of recommendations, probably 50 or so
recommendations of things that needed to be changed in the
fairing system. We went through methodically and made all those
changes. So, when we had this Glory failure, it was a total
surprise to us. We worked as hard as we could to make sure that
this failure would not repeat, and, for some reason, it
repeated.
We now have a new mishap board looking at it. It's too
early to speculate on what the failure was the second time.
But, we need to go through it methodically, understand what
failure occurred, and then, more importantly, understand what
we missed in our process. What did we miss from the first
failure to this second failure that caused us to have a repeat
failure? This is unacceptable to us, to have a repeat failure.
You know, we spent a lot of time and effort making sure it
wouldn't occur. And we obviously missed something. It shows how
difficult our business is. I think it shows you how much we
push the envelope, in terms of spaceflight, that things appear
simple, and they're not simple. You know, we're using the
state-of-the-art engineering, state-of-the-art systems that are
really at the limits of what we can do, and we need to be
extremely careful.
So, that implication doesn't cast any doubt on the
commercial providers for ISS, but it tells us that we need to
be mindful that it's not an easy industry. As I described to
you earlier, when I wanted the STS-135 mission for extra cargo,
that is specifically to provide some margin so we're not
putting too much pressure on that commercial industry, forcing
them to deliver on a schedule that's not realistic, forcing
them to cut corners to try to deliver on a certain data, and
then have a failure which loses cargo to us. That would be
totally unacceptable.
So, this Glory failure, to us, is an example of how hard
our industry is, how tough it is, no matter who's doing the
work, whether it's NASA or whether it's a commercial company,
whether we're following oversight of a company, like Orbital,
that manufactures the two vehicles for OCO and Glory. We just
need to watch that process and do due diligence to make sure we
deliver quality spacecraft when we do that.
Senator Boozman. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate
your leadership in this area. And again, as Senator Rubio said,
being new to the process this has been a good hearing.
But, I think the thing that concerns me is that, last year,
as a Member of Congress and not directly one that was at the
negotiating table, to get an authorization bill that, at the
end, I think most people felt like was a fair compromise, to go
forward, that would put us in a good position. And you all were
very much involved in that process, through your expertise. And
now we have a budget that's come back that simply does not
reflect that negotiation, that authorization bill. And so, you
have, in a very bipartisan spirit, much concern about that.
And my concern is, is that we're going to mess around, and
the President's Budget bill will not get done. Senator Nelson
made that statement. I agree with that. And then we have a
situation where we muddy the waters and then nothing gets done
and we're in limbo, now, for another period of time. So, I hope
that we can reach agreement and then get back on track with the
authorization that we agreed to, as we go forward.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Nelson. Senator Rubio.
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
Before my final question, I--and I don't know if you've
talked about Mr. Vanover. You know, we've had a--Mr. James
Vanover was a 53-year-old swing-arm engineer for NASA, for
contractor United Space Alliance. And he fell from launch pad
39-A at the Kennedy Space Center, in Cape Canaveral, while
working on the Space Shuttle Endeavor, and died. And so, our
condolences to him and to his family. I know Senator Nelson
shares in that, as well as Senator Boozman. He worked at the
Kennedy Space Center for 28 years. And his service to our
country doesn't go unnoticed. I did want to say that today, for
the record.
But, let me ask again--all of this, this is an enormously
important agency and program for our State. And it's our
first--my first hearing as a member of the U.S. Senate, with
regards to these issues, so I wanted kind of summarize, in my
mind, the status of where we are and ask what I think is an
important question, and maybe it's already been answered. And,
if it has, I apologize. But, clearly we're closing down the
Shuttle Program. We walked away from Constellation. And no one
can tell us when we're going to have a replacement for any of
these things, but we know it's not going to be 2016, so it'll
be sometime after that, whenever that is. And so, we'll be
totally dependent on the Russians, basically, at the tune of--
what is it--$16 million per seat, to be able to access our
investment in the International Space Station. I think it's
probably the first time in four decades--am I wrong--in--first
time in four decades that the United States--and maybe longer--
will have the capability of launching, in a short amount of
time, human space travel.
Has there ever been discussion about what contingencies
there are available to us to access the Space Station if
somehow the Russians are no longer available to us or no longer
want to cooperate with us on--is there thoughts about that? Is
that something that's been discussed within the agency? What we
would do if we have this massive investment and need to service
the Space Station, but somehow we weren't to access Russian
travel any longer?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. I would say that, from a technical
standpoint, the concern is real. If you remember back when we
had the Columbia tragedy on the Shuttle, and we lost the
ability to transport crew for a period of time while we got the
Shuttle back to flight, we were dependent upon the Russians, at
that point, to deliver our crew to the Space Station. And that
allowed us to keep a crew--and we had to reduce the crew size
from three, at that time, down to two during that period, but
that allowed us to continue. So, it's extremely important, in
our business, to have dissimilar redundancy or have different
transportation systems to get to Space Station. I think that's
our biggest risk as we go into this period.
I don't worry about the Russians withholding services from
us, because, in a sense, they're dependent for us also on Space
Station. We have a mutual dependency. We provide attitude
control for the Space Station for the Russian elements that are
up there. So, they need us to do that. Our systems also provide
power now to the Russian segment, to give them power to their
modules. So, they need our expertise and they need our
astronauts to provide the maintenance of that--those systems,
to keep those Russian systems functional. So, we have a mutual
dependence. So, it's to their advantage to have U.S. crew
members on board Space Station to help keep their facilities
operating and keep the overall complex operating.
So, it's truly an International Space Station, with
interdependencies between us. So, I don't worry about the--
``political'' may not be the right word, but the withdrawal of
transporting astronauts, for whatever political reasons. We
need each other.
What I worry about more is, Could we have a technical
problem in their systems that take the Soyuz down for a period
of time, that we would not be able to have access to the
Station. So, it's clearly to our advantage to get a redundant
transportation capability available, as soon as we can, to help
with that robustness.
Senator Rubio. So, your testimony sounds like you're less
concerned about--and I think ``political'' is the right--that
somehow some political conflict could somehow evolve into
something that would affect our ability to work with them.
You're more concerned about them encountering problems in their
own system, them having some sort of technical inability to
launch, the way we did, and therefore neither one of us could
get there, basically.
What--how would you characterize the--and this, I guess, is
to everyone--how would we characterize the capabilities--the
Russian capabilities, from a technological standpoint? I mean,
are they--is your concern one that is--obviously, anytime
you're dealing with something of this magnitude and of this
complexity, there's always the opportunity for a breakdown.
But, do they have sufficient investment, and do we have
sufficient confidence, in their systems to think that something
like that is unlikely? Or----
Mr. Gerstenmaier. You know, they are very committed to what
they do in space. And they have a different approach to
spaceflight than we do, I would say. But, they have a very
robust approach to spaceflight.
When we increased the crew size on Space Station from three
crew to six, which we did about a year ago or so, that required
more Soyuz vehicles to be launched. So, they had to step up
their production rate of Soyuz vehicles. And they were able to
meet that challenge and continue. Also, when we increased the
crew size--for them, they needed additional Progress vehicles,
which are their cargo resupply vehicles; and they were able to
step that up. They're also in the process of upgrading the
Soyuz vehicles to a digital Soyuz. They were predominantly
analog, an analog system to control the vehicle. Now, they're
stepping up to a digital. So, they're making incremental mods
and upgrades.
They work with us quite a bit; we share data back and
forth, from a technology-understanding standpoint. They give us
good insight into what they're doing. And I think they're very
capable and very resourceful. And they're a good partner to
have in space with us.
So, I don't doubt their technical capability; they're
robust. But, I think, as you described and I tried to describe
earlier, the business we're in is very technologically
demanding. We operate on the edge in many areas. We're not like
an aircraft that has extra performance and has engine-out
capability, in some situations. We really need the most out of
our rockets and our spacecraft. So, we've just got to stay
vigilant. And they're doing a good job at that, but we could
potentially have some breakdown that might interrupt service
for a period of time.
Senator Nelson. Don't worry, we're going to get to the rest
of you in a minute.
[Laughter.]
Senator Nelson. Mr. Gerstenmaier, the Inspector General has
indicated that NASA is not making the best use of appropriated
funds, given the continued restriction from canceling
Constellation contracts, which besieges us in language that
we're trying to get out of the continuing resolution. Is this
prohibition compromising your implementation of the
authorization law?
Mr. Cooke. I'll answer that.
Certainly, we would be happy, and less constrained, without
the restrictions; however, as I had mentioned earlier, we are
tailoring the work on our contracts right now, whether it be
the Orion spacecraft or the Ares-1 rocket and its various
contracts. We're tailoring that work to be as closely in line
with the Authorization Act as we possibly can.
So, I think that we're doing a very good job of spending
money wisely. We're making careful choices. That's being done
down at the project levels and program level. When we get to
the point of making final design decisions, I think it will be
important to have flexibility to make the next moves. But, up
to this point, I believe that we've been managing this pretty
effectively. For instance, an example would be, if there's work
that is a long-lead item for a heavy-lift vehicle, as well as
what it would have been for Ares-1, we would continue that
work. And if there's a new task that would be Ares-1-specific
on an Ares-1 contract, we wouldn't do it or start it. So, we're
making those choices.
Senator Nelson. How much money would you say that NASA has
had to spend, since the authorize bill became law, by virtue of
that provision in the appropriations bill requiring the
continuation of Constellation? How much money has NASA spent
since that authorization law that, otherwise, it would not have
spent? In other words, how much has NASA wasted?
Mr. Cooke. I would have to take that for the record.
[The information requested follows:]
Providing a monetary estimate about how much work will feed
forward, or providing an estimate about how much funding NASA spent
since the passage of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 that otherwise
would not have been due to the prohibition on cancelling Constellation
contracts in the FY 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act is not
possible, largely because the Administration has not made final
decisions with regard to the design and acquisition plans for the new
Space Launch System (SLS), as well as support elements for both the SLS
and the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV). Therefore, NASA cannot
specifically say, at this time, which Constellation elements will or
will not feed forward into the new SLS and MPCV programs, and as such,
we cannot accurately estimate how much money could have been saved if
not for the funding restriction.
We would like to note, however, that during this time period, NASA
was making efforts to focus existing Constellation contracts on work
that would likely feed forward to the SLS and MPCV programs--a fact
that was recognized by the NASA Inspector General in a letter to
Congress on February 2, 2011.
Mr. Cooke. But, I will tell you that I believe that's a
small amount, for instance, we probably would have canceled the
Constellation Program office work, for instance, but, honestly,
they have reduced their support contractors, they have scaled
way back. And actually, most of their work right now is aimed
at helping to transition Constellation to what comes next. So,
I don't have a number, but everything that we're doing is to
spend our money efficiently.
Senator Nelson. Mr. Gerstenmaier, back on Senator Rubio's
question. Could you quantify what you think is the likelihood,
in numbers, that--once the Shuttle has flown and we're entirely
reliant on Soyuz, the chance that Soyuz would not fly?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. I can't give you a quantified number. I
could work with our experts and try to get some kind of
calculated number, but I don't have one that I could give you.
Senator Nelson. But, whatever it is, it clearly is in the
interest of the U.S. Space Program--for that matter, for the
Russians, as well; for anybody participating on the Space
Station--it's clearly in the interest of getting an American
launch system, not only for cargo, but crew, as well. And
that's another reason that we're pushing so hard, in this NASA
authorization policy that's been set into law, to go on and get
it done. Get first done, under that law, the commercial
capability of taking cargo and crew. And we'll see, at the end
of the year, if we've got capability of cargo. And then, of
course, to have the other--the heavy-lift, which is for a
different purpose--but to have that as a backup, which was part
of the stated policy in the authorization law.
Let me ask you, more specifically, with regard to the
Kennedy Space Center, that the 21st Century Launch Complex
improvements in the President's request were reduced when
compared to the levels that were authorized in the NASA
authorization law. And you all have been explaining that you've
been moving some of your money around in order to take care of
that. The GAO reported that NASA facilities, clearly, are in a
degraded condition and in need of improvements, not just at
Kennedy, but every place. So, if you would, please, explain the
need to upgrade those facilities, specifically Kennedy's launch
infrastructure, to enable the long-term exploration program to
be optimized in order to reduce future operations cost. Can you
share that with us, Mr. Gerstenmaier?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Yes. The plan with the funds to do the
facility work down at the Kennedy Space Center are--we're
looking, kind of, now at doing those as part of the--or heavy-
lift launch system or the space launch system. So, we're
looking to put some facility upgrades that will have to occur
for the new vehicles we're going to fly out of the Cape, that
Doug's teams are reviewing and analyzing. And that's a piece of
it.
But then, we don't want to just make the facilities unique
to that particular rocket. In the past, in the Vertical
Assembly Building, the platforms that sit in there are at
certain heights for one specific rocket that goes into the
Vertical Assembly Building. They're not generic, and you can't
bring another vehicle in to go be processed there, without a
dramatic change to the Vertical Assembly Building. So, the idea
of these funds was to, not only upgrade the facilities, from a
maintenance standpoint, but also make them more flexible for
the future, that allows them to be used for multiple purposes.
Same kind of thing in the launch complex. Many of our
control consoles and systems are geared to an individual rocket
that is launching. They're not generic in nature. So, then,
when you want to bring in another launch vehicle, you have to
standdown range interfaces, reconfigure slowdown, it takes more
time to bring the next rocket in. We can only launch about
every 48 to 78 hours, because of range activities. We want more
generic capabilities in place so that turnaround, from one
rocket launch to the next rocket launch, is much faster. That
helps the throughput, through the Kennedy Space Center.
So, we're looking forward-looking and doing what Doug needs
for those near-term rockets, but we're not doing it solely
focused on those near-term rockets. We're taking a broader
look, to make sure that these facilities we put in place at
Kennedy support a broader range of rockets, which ultimately
allow a higher throughput, which allows a lower cost-per-rocket
launch at the Kennedy Space Center, which is where we want to
be in the future.
So, that's how we're using those funds to try to upgrade
the facilities and modernize, posture ourselves for the future,
and, by posturing ourselves for the future, support what Doug
has on the books today, but as well as the future programs we
see coming forward.
Senator Nelson. And, of course, some of the expenditures
that have already been made, you can take advantage of. For
example, how you've already reconfigured Pad 39-B. And that can
be utilized for the future heavy-lift vehicle.
Dr. Whitlow, a flat-line budget is what we looking like,
over the next several years, realistically, given this
financial environment. And it's going to be critical, in that
kind of budget, for NASA to change the ways of doing business
that it has done in the past. And it's going to have to
actively reduce cost.
Now, the authorization law requires a study that, and I
quote from the law, ``carefully examines NASA's structure,
organization, and institutional assets, and identifies a
strategy to evolve toward the most efficient infrastructure
consistent with NASA's missions and mandates.''
So, share with us what NASA is doing to reduce the fixed
and operating base cost of the agency.
Dr. Whitlow. Well, one of the things, as outlined in the
authorization law, is we're supposed to come forward, within a
year, with an integrated facilities master plan for the agency.
We have already received the master plans for the centers, and
we are integrating those so that we can provide the
capabilities that the agency needs as we move forward. And our
investments that we will make are consistent with NASA's
strategies and plans. We're using these facility master plans
to guide our investments.
Currently, there's a lot of Apollo-era infrastructure in
the agency. Eighty-three percent of our facilities are over 40
years old, and a typical design life is about 30 years. And so,
our facilities are older, they're inefficient, and they're
expensive to operate.
So, we have a strategy where we're going to become more
flexible with our facilities, as Mr. Gerstenmaier said, become
easier and more efficient to operate. We're going to modernize,
over a 40-year period, so that, at the end of 40 years, we will
have an in infrastructure set where 63 percent is less than 40
years old and, therefore, more reliable and less likely to have
emergencies that could impact our mission.
Senator Nelson. So, your answer is, we're going to have a
study?
Dr. Whitlow. No.
Senator Nelson. And the study----
Dr. Whitlow. Our answer----
Senator Nelson.--is going to be ready at the end of the
year?
Dr. Whitlow. The study will be ready at the end of the
year. But, we are already using the elements of that study to
guide our investments. And so----
Senator Nelson. OK. Give me some specific examples.
Dr. Whitlow. Say, I'll tell you, between 2005 and 2010, we
have disposed, either through demolition of old, unneeded
facilities, or through excess of our facilities, approximately
750 facilities, valued at over a billion dollars. We're
starting to replace our facilities with newer facilities, more
efficient, more flexible, more energy efficient, and cheaper to
operate. So, we are starting to have the strategy to build out,
across the agency, an infrastructure that is more suitable to
our mission needs, it's more efficient to operate, cheaper to
operate, given----
Senator Nelson. OK. And the question is----
Dr. Whitlow.--what everybody is saying.
Senator Nelson.--give me an example.
Dr. Whitlow. I can tell you, for example, at the Glenn
Research Center, we're excessing two older buildings on a plot
of land across from the main campus, and we're moving those
civil servants, who actually are outside of the main perimeter,
inside the perimeter at the Glenn Research Center, and building
a more efficient office building. We've recently opened a
building at the Kennedy Space Center that actually produces
more energy than it uses. We have a LEED Platinum Building, we
recently opened at the Ames Research Center, that's energy
efficient and cheaper to operate than our older infrastructure.
Senator Nelson. What are you all going to do with the
facilities that have extremely low utilization rates?
Dr. Whitlow. We currently have a process in place--our NASA
Capabilities Forum--we're working with the mission
directorates--Dr. Weiler, Dr. Shin, Mr. Gerstenmaier, and Mr.
Cooke--where we're looking at NASA's plans and we're
identifying those capabilities. And that--and capabilities of
people as well as laboratories and facilities--that either we
need for the future or we don't need for the future. If we
don't need a capability for a long period of time, then the
people will be retrained and/or reassisgned, and the bricks and
mortar will be eliminated.
Senator Nelson. Well, NASA has some extraordinary, unique
facilities, but a number of these facilities are not being
utilized very heavily. And from the standpoint of NASA, say,
for your local politics of closing some facilities at a
particular center, since NASA's going to have to do as much as
it has in the past, if not more, with flat line funding, you
all are going to have to make these choices.
Dr. Whitlow. Correct.
Senator Nelson. And that's going to be, in some cases,
uncomfortable. And where it is a unique facility, you've got to
prepare to carve out that unique facility, but it's got to be
utilized more.
Things like wind tunnels. You know, the Air Force
aeronautics--we're going to get to you all in just a second--
aeronautics, so much is dependent on that. But, is it being
utilized?
Dr. Whitlow. For example, in aeronautics, we have, over a
period of time, eliminated some of our wind tunnels. There's a
wind tunnel at the Langley Research Center--and I think it's
their 16-foot wind tunnel--we're in the process of taking down.
We've got the full-scale wind tunnel at the Langley Research
Center off of NASA's books. The Propulsion Systems Laboratory,
at the Glenn Research Center, we took down within the last
year. The altitude wind tunnel, we no longer needed; we got rid
of that facility. So, we are aggressively looking at our
infrastructure, because we have to become more efficient and
cheaper to operate. Those things that we don't need we are and
will get rid of.
Senator Nelson. Mr. Gerstenmaier, you're going to be
assuming leadership for all of the human spaceflight efforts.
What management or cultural changes do you feel are necessary
to accelerate the goal of moving forward the goals of the NASA
authorization law?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Again, I think we have two very talented
directorates. You know, Doug's directorate, the Exploration
Systems Mission Directorate, has done an amazing job of doing
the new development activities and in leading those activities,
doing the studies we described earlier. My directorate's been
more focused on operations kind of activities--flying the
Shuttle, flying Space Station, doing rocket propulsion tests,
doing launch services, providing space communications, those
kind of things.
I think my directorate has more of a kind of immediate
focus, more of an operations focus of doing things. Doug has
much more of the developmental focus. So, I think we can take
the strengths of both of those directorates and put them
together into a very effective organization. Because we want to
make sure the things that we're developing are really going to
be able to be operated in the most efficient manner in the
future. Our folks understand how to operate those; Doug's folks
know how to develop. We can take the best of both of those,
from the two directorates, combine them into a strong
directorate, with a sense of urgency, as called out in the
authorization law, and we've discussed, to try to move forward
to meet the time lines that we talk about.
We also know we are in a very budget-constrained
environment. That will be tough for us to go manage. We need
clear direction in the budget. We need to make sure we've got
flexibility in our programs and flexibility in our development,
so when the inevitable budget swings come, that will come, it
doesn't totally upset the program. So, we'll build some, I call
it, ``agility,'' some ability to react to what we see from the
outside, so we don't have a perfect plan that is optimized to
just one set of constraints, that if we get a slightly
different set of constraints, there's enough resilience, enough
agility in the system, we can continue move forward and
ultimately deliver what you've asked for us to in the
authorization law.
So, I think, in simple terms, what I'm going to try to do
is take the strengths of both the directorates that are there,
both of the strong cultures that are there, forward, blend
those together into a new directorate that will meet the intent
of what we've been asked to go deliver to this country.
Senator Nelson. What about the program offices for heavy-
lift launch system, MPCV, and commercial crew development?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Doug's already taken steps, and you'll
see that we've put the MPCV and the SLS and the 21st Century
groups together. And the idea there is, we think there is
enough commonality between all of those that they need to be
worked together. And Dan Dumbacher, Doug has picked and I agree
with, to lead that activity, from a headquarters perspective.
And that's to make sure that we get an integrated look at those
activities, that they're not done in isolation, that they're
all moving forward, because they have to all occur in that same
direction.
Doug also has a commercial organization, which we're going
to get set up. We're trying to select someone for that
position, to do the new commercial crew activity.
The commercial cargo activity, we've left that pretty much
more at the center-director level. We haven't done much--we
haven't really elevated that to the level at headquarters. I
think that's appropriate for cargo. We can stay fairly lean in
the cargo side, but the crew side, we clearly need some
direction and some guidance from up here. They will do that.
And, as you're well aware, the Kennedy Space Center will be
the Center that manages and oversees that commercial crew
capability down in Florida. And we're looking to the folks down
there to lead that activity with a deputy from JSC. And Doug
has set all that up, and we'll leave that pretty much set the
way it is right now.
Senator Nelson. Why don't you flesh that out? What's that
going to mean to Kennedy for the Commercial Crew Program
Office?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. It'll be a Civil Service Project Office
or Program Office set up at Kennedy Space Center to manage that
activity. They will oversee the procurements associated with
that activity. They're in the process right now--and Doug can
elaborate--they're ready to do a Commercial Development II
procurement activity. They will kind of oversee that activity.
Or, excuse me, they're getting ready to award that now. That'll
be there. They're, kind of, wrapping up the CCDev I activity--
Commercial Crew Development I activity. And that office will do
the day-to-day management of kind of overseeing that, with some
guidance from headquarters, from kind of a top-level oversight
and level-one requirements standpoint.
And Doug may want to add something.
Senator Nelson. Please.
Mr. Cooke. Right. The office has been a planning office,
but has been doing all the work in setting up these
procurements. They are working on the CCDev II procurement
right now. That went out in October, with proposals back in
December. And they're going through the evaluation process
right now. That's being led at KSC by Ed Mango's team.
That team will become the Program Office, when we're freed
up to do that, which should be shortly. But, they're laying it
out. That and finishing up that procurement exercise. They are
laying out the steps for the follow-on procurements that would
lead to commercial crew ultimate capability. They would be the
oversight center for that development capability. They are
getting support from JSC, in the areas of crew systems--and
Brent Jett, from the Astronaut Office, is a deputy to Ed
Mango--and they're providing the expertise that they need from
JSC, but it is being led at Kennedy Space Center, and they are
being very methodical and doing a great job of moving that
forward.
Senator Nelson. Do you want to venture any numbers of the
jobs in that office?
Mr. Cooke. I will have to take that for the record.
[The information requested follows:]
The current total number of Full Time Equivalents (FTE) for the
Commercial Crew Program across all NASA Centers (not including NASA
Headquarters) is 74. Of that number, 46 FTE are located at the NASA
Kennedy Space Center. When fully staffed (anticipated for some time in
FY 2012), the total number of FTE for the Commercial Crew Program is
expected to be approximately 200, with the highest concentration of
civil servants located at NASA Kennedy Space Center.
Mr. Cooke. I'm not sure what the current plan is. It's not
a large office. But, they have a setup that they have laid out;
it's been based on what they see they need, in terms of
developing the requirements for these providers, as well as
doing the oversight.
Senator Nelson. Dr. Weiler, with the loss of Glory, do you
anticipate any changes in the Earth Science projects that are
currently underway?
STATEMENT OF DR. EDWARD J. WEILER, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR,
SCIENCE MISSION DIRECTORATE, NASA
Dr. Weiler. It was a great loss, Senator. We're trying to
look forward to the next step.
Basically, there were two instruments on Glory. One was a
total solar irradiance instrument. The purpose of that is to
continue our decades-long study of the sun and how much
radiation's actually coming to the Earth. That was going to be
a new instrument on Glory. We've now lost that. There are two
currently flying solar irradiance instruments. Regretfully,
they're very old. One's 7 years old and I think one's 11 years
old, on different satellites.
We do, however, have a backup instrument being built, for
NOAA, called the TSIS, that's a Total Solar Irradiance Sensor.
We've been in contact with NOAA. We are accelerating that
development. We should have that ready to fly sometime in the
2012 timeframe. And we'll be working with NOAA to see what kind
of satellite we might be able to put that on in the near term.
We're hoping that the two instruments up there will continue
the measurement of that in the near term.
The other instrument on Glory was a polarimeter. That was,
for the first time, going to give us some very indepth
information on the nature of pollution particles, so-called
aerosols. We can get information like that by piecing together
many other satellites, but not so cohesively and excellently as
we could have with the Glory instrument. We do not have a
backup instrument for that ready, so what we have done, the
Earth Science Division--is commissioned two 100-day studies to
look at the feasibility of developing a new backup instrument,
and also the scientific necessity for building a backup
instrument, or whether we can wait for a new satellite that's
even more sophisticated, I believe, which is planned, in the
current budget environment, for about 2019 or so.
So, that's where we are right now. We'll have a lot more
information--we'll be happy to share it--perhaps in about 2 or
3 months.
Senator Nelson. So, with regard to the first part of the
instrument, as long as the two up there are going, you can keep
that data coming. With regard to the second part of Glory,
there's going to be a gap for how long?
Dr. Weiler. Well, again, this instrument was filling a gap,
in the sense that there's a certain air bar we have on our
climate models, because we don't really know the absolute size
and nature of these aerosol particles. We can model them, and
we can get a pretty good estimate of it, but it leaves a
certain size air bar. Glory was going to reduce the size of
that air bar.
So, it's not as if it was filling a gap that didn't exist--
I mean, filling a data gap that didn't exist; it was making our
air bar smaller. We'll continue to do the work we've been
doing. And we'll either decide that it's so scientifically
important that we'll delay other missions to try to replace
this instrument quicker, or we'll wait for this newer
instrument that's going to be launched in the time-frame of
about 2019.
Senator Nelson. Is there any thought that you're going to
rebuild Glory?
Dr. Weiler. Again, we can't really do what we did on OCO,
because Glory was flying on a very old spacecraft that was
originally developed for something, I think, called Vegetation
Lidar Mission, about 10 years ago. So, we reused that
spacecraft. It wouldn't make any sense to rebuild a spacecraft
that's, basically, obsolete now. So, it's not as simple as OCO,
where you could just--really, just take the diagrams and build
a new one very rapidly. So, we'd have to evaluate what it would
cost to go out to get a new spacecraft and build a new
instrument, and cost that versus the value of doing that. And
again, we'll know that in about 100 days.
Senator Nelson. The review of the James Webb highlighted
deficiencies in management and budgeting practices at NASA,
leading to the schedule delay and also the cost overruns. And
that's not going to sit well around here, in this budgetary
environment. So, why don't you, for the record, justify the
importance of James Webb's telescope.
Dr. Weiler. That's actually easy, because I've spent most
of my career on the Hubble Space Telescope--more than 30 years;
I was a chief scientist for about 20 of those years.
Where we are on James Webb now reminds me of where we were
on Hubble in the mid-1980s. A lot of people don't remember,
because Hubble is such a great success now that it actually
overran, 300 percent, and was delayed 7 years. When I joined
the Hubble team in 1978, the launch was scheduled for 1983, at
a cost of $400 million. It wound up getting launched in 1990,
for a cost of $1.6 billion. But, we stuck with it, despite a
lot of people who wanted to see it canceled. There were a lot
of management problems, a lot of cost problems, there was a lot
of blame all over the place. But, we stuck with it and we
launched it. And, today, of course, Hubble, I would call the
biggest scientific success in NASA history.
Senator Nelson. And no sooner had you launched it than you
realized that it had deficient lens. And you had to go up and
correct those.
Dr. Weiler. I was telling somebody, I remember sitting in
this room, Senator, in 1990, defending--collaboration problem.
I believe the chairman of this committee then was Senator Gore.
So, I've had some experience in this room.
But, we did fix it. A lot of people didn't believe we could
fix it. But, again, the NASA teams stuck together, at Johnson,
Kennedy, Goddard, the contractors, et cetera, and we fixed it,
utilizing the Space Shuttle mission in December 1993.
How is that relevant to James Webb? James Webb, for about
the same cost in real--in constant dollars that Hubble cost in
constant dollars, is going to be about 50 to 100 times more
sensitive. James Webb will enable us to see the universe when
the lights first came on, the first stars, the first galaxies,
going all the way back to maybe 100/200 million years after the
Big Bang. That's what we know James Webb will do.
As we learned from Hubble, I can sit here and expound on
all the things we expect James Webb to do: It's going to look
for extraterrestrial planets; it's going to study star
formation, galaxy evolution. That's all very interesting and
exciting. But, what was most exciting about Hubble were the
things we didn't know, the questions we didn't know how even to
ask. When we launched Hubble, there was no such thing as ``dark
energy.'' When we launched Hubble, there were no extrasolar
planets.
The universe is a big place. And, even though we write
textbooks about it, the universe out there doesn't always read
our textbooks and sometimes surprises us. And I think James
Webb is going to be that kind of mission for this country, if
not for the world.
James Webb, as some people forget, is not just a U.S.
mission. The Canadians are deeply involved, and a major partner
is the Europeans, just as the Europeans worked on Hubble. It's
an international mission.
The potential for James Webb to give us excitement to
explore the universe, perhaps excite some of our school kids in
middle school to perhaps do something unheard of--consider a
career in science, engineering, or math--it's something I
deeply feel. I was excited. I'm sitting here today, Senator,
watching, as a young boy, John Glenn and Alan Shepard take off
from the Kennedy Space Center. That inspired me to decide I
wanted to be an astronomer, I wanted to go to Northwestern
University, and I wanted to work for NASA--when I was 13 years
old. I hope that things like James Webb, our Mars missions, can
do that kind of thing to our 12- and 13-year-olds today,
because this country needs scientists and engineers and
mathematicians in the future.
I'm sorry for going on and on, but you asked me to expound.
Senator Nelson. Amen. How about the Alpha Magnetic
Spectrometer?
Dr. Weiler. That's not a mission that's funded by my
organization, so I'm really not too familiar with it. I believe
the physics involved is a search for antimatter particles. It's
a really exciting experiment. I hope it works, and I hope it
finds some antimatter particles. But, we don't fund it, so it's
not under my jurisdiction. It's really under Bill
Gerstenmaier's jurisdiction.
Senator Nelson. Any comment?
And then I'm going to turn to you, Senator.
Any comment?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. DOE is supporting most of the actual
science on AMS. We're doing some of the integration activity,
and launching it.
Senator Nelson. Senator.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just real quickly, Mr. Melvin. The funding levels requested
for education programs are less than those authorized for
Fiscal Year 2012. And I think Congress would like to see
increased educational activity at NASA. In Fiscal Year 2010,
it's being stated that nearly 21,000 spacecraft-supported
undergraduate and graduate students participated in authentics
hands-on research. Do you believe/anticipate that we will be
able to sustain that level of participation under the budget
request?
STATEMENT OF LELAND D. MELVIN,
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, EDUCATION, NASA
Mr. Melvin. Senator Boozman, I think we're going to have to
use our strategic partners to help us continue with the numbers
of students that we reach at higher-ed and even in the middle
schools.
We just came through a design team, where we had Norm
Augustine and a number of other people looking at, What is
NASA's contribution--or what should NASA's contribution be to
helping motivate, inspire, and train students? And one of the
things that they recommended we do was to help with middle
school teachers, to basically help grow our seed-corn, so that
we'll have more people in the colleges and being able to do
higher-ed. That was one recommendation. Another recommendation
was to ensure that we get new partners on board that can maybe
take over some of the things that we're doing, supply the NASA
content that we have, the rich resources of content, to better
leverage the resources that we have, so we can then maybe
increase the pool even bigger.
Senator Boozman. Very good. And that's good.
I think that goes along with you, Dr. Weiler, in the sense,
those things are so important: exposing young people.
Dr. Shin, can you briefly describe the NASA aeronautics
research contributions to the aviation industry, such as the
Boeing 787?
STATEMENT OF DR. JAIWON SHIN,
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, AERONAUTICS RESEARCH MISSION
DIRECTORATE, NASA
Dr. Shin. Yes. Thank you, Senator.
Boeing 787, as you know, is going to be a very exciting
airplane. According to Boeing's claim, it will have the lowest
fuel consumption of any commercial airliners in the business.
We have no reason to doubt that, because I--I have visited
Boeing production line, assembly line, and they have used,
extensively, the composite materials on the fuselage and also
wings. If you take a look at the wings, the shape of the wings,
they look dramatically different from the conventional wings.
And one of the reasons why they were able to do that is that
the composite material has much stronger strength-to-weight
ratio, so they can come up with a different design to support
the structure and integrity.
NASA has been working on composite material research for
decades--structures and materials. We believe a lot of that
capability was successfully transferred to industry; certainly
to Boeing, but not just Boeing, but to general industry.
Also, another notable technology there is what's called
chevron nozzle, and it will reduce the engine noise
substantially. So, current days, the environmental impact
mitigation is becoming a really growing concern. A lot of
airports even have curfews at nights, so that puts a 787 also
at a higher advantage over, or a more competitive advantage to
have quieter airplane. The chevron-nozzle concept was grown out
of NASA technical community, and we collaborated with engine
companies and airplane companies to deliver that technology.
Senator Boozman. OK.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Nelson. Well, let's just follow up right there.
With the aerospace industry being so important--2 percent of
our GDP, half a million people employed, major U.S. export--
you've got a pretty robust budget in this NASA authorization
law as well as the President's proposal, for aeronautics. What
are you doing to target R&D spending to make sure it's
consistent with both the industry needs, as well as our
national needs, for new technologies?
Dr. Shin. Yes. Senator, before offering my response, if I
may, I really appreciate, on behalf of NASA Aeronautics, for
your strong support during the FAA reauthorization bill, by
submitting an amendment to keep aeronautics within NASA. So, we
very much appreciate that.
Senator Nelson. You didn't want aeronautics going over to
all these other agencies, I take it.
Dr. Shin. No.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Shin. And so, we appreciate your support.
We are working heavily on NextGen and safety and
environmental impact mitigation, as you know, Senator. I think
the importance of NextGen is so critical, it is not just the
air traffic management system capability, because you have to
advance aircraft capabilities and also safety that will be in
that national aerospace system. Also, Congress, almost 7 years
ago, had the foresight to create a Joint Planning and
Development Office to come together, departments and agencies,
to work together on this very important initiative. For NASA,
Aeronautics is investing almost 80 percent that will directly
or indirectly contribute to NextGen. So, that's just one
example of how we are helping, certainly FAA, to implement this
very important revolutionary technologies and processes, and
also industry.
And we just talk about 787. I think we are collaborating
with industry, a wide spectrum of industry, to advance, again,
safety technologies and new aircraft system, engine system
capabilities, and certainly air traffic management capabilities
to put our country, continue to be in the leadership position.
As you mentioned, Senator, I think the aviation industry is
one of the few industry sectors that brings, still, a trade
surplus. In 2008, the aviation industry brought almost $57
billion of trade surplus to the country. So, we've got to stay
in the leadership position. And I think NASA Aeronautics is
positioned to do that. And we thank you Congress for
congressional continued support on that.
Senator Nelson. You developed winglet technologies, and
that has helped save fuel cost. What other research are you
doing to reduce fuel consumption?
Dr. Shin. Yes. We are doing a development of a low
NOX combustor, working with engine companies, and
trying to have a substantially lower pollutant coming out of
combustors. Also, it is important to make these combustors fuel
flexible. So, with the emergence of alternative fuel and
biofuels, we have to develop technologies for the combustor
that will be working with whatever kind of fuel is coming
online, next 20 or 30 years.
And also, we are developing completely new concept of
airplanes that will be very different from conventional tube
and wing configuration. Some of the system studies that we have
conducted suggest that combining the smart operations and this
new configuration with other state-of-the-art technologies,
like a combustor, that I mentioned, potentially we could save
as much as 40 percent of our fuel consumption, compared to the
current state-of-the-art. So, that's the kind of target that we
are working on.
Senator Nelson. Would you send us a list of those?
Dr. Shin. Certainly will do that.
[The information requested follows:]
NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate is committed to
research that promotes fuel efficiency and environmental compatibility
while increasing or maintaining aircraft safety. Fuel currently
represents the largest operating cost for U.S. airlines. Many of the
aeronautics research activities currently being conducted by NASA have
the potential, upon adoption, of reducing fuel consumption.
NASA systems analysis indicates that new operational procedures
currently in development within the Airspace Systems Program (ASP) have
the potential, if fully adopted into the National Airspace System, to
reduce fuel burn by 400 million gallons per year during landing and
takeoff phases of flight and an additional 200 million gallons per year
during the en route cruise phase of flight. These savings correspond to
about 3 percent of the annual fuel burned by U.S. commercial airlines.
ASP is also developing improvements in ground operations that have the
potential to reduce fuel burn during airport taxi operations by 15
million gallons per year, which would result in a reduction of 2
million pounds of CO2 per year of harmful emissions in and
around our largest airports. Some key areas of research within the ASP
focus on developing new capabilities to:
Demonstrate near term application of Automatic Dependent
Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) enabled technologies to enable
fuel and time efficient arrivals (new FY11 initiative);
Demonstrate near term application of ADS-B enabled
technologies to enable efficient surface operations to reduce
fuel, noise, and emissions (FY 2012 Presidents budget request);
Demonstrate Efficient Descent Advisor (EDA) technologies
with the FAA 3D-Path Arrival Management (3D-PAM) to enable
continuous descent approaches in congested airports for reduced
fuel consumption and reduced noise level during landing;
Demonstrate non-stop taxi surface operations to reduce fuel-
consumption due to current stop-and-go throttling operations;
Optimize efficient arrivals, departures and surface
operations through fuel-saving integrated arrival/departure/
surface time management, route modification and adaptive speed
control;
Maximize national airspace efficiency with new processes to
address demand/capacity imbalances from weather effects and
system wide uncertainties to reduce travel time, distance, and
delays which inherently reduce fuel consumption and emissions;
Enable safe, time and fuel efficient, en route flight with
varying weather while allowing for reduced distance between
aircraft to increase air-traffic volumes; and,
Reduce airborne and ground hold delays through enabling
increases to system capacity by bringing to bear available
resources and capacity to wherever demand is surging.
The Fundamental Aeronautics Program (FAP) and Integrated Systems
Research Program (ISRP) conduct complementary research aimed at
reducing the fuel burn of aircraft. New concepts and technologies
undergo early-stage development within FAP. Individual technologies
which have matured are then evaluated at an aircraft system level in
relevant environments (including flight test) within ISRP. Within these
Programs, research is being conducted on technologies that will improve
fuel efficiency for a variety of aircraft and have a direct effect on
overall fuel consumption for the aircraft industry. Specific areas of
research include:
New aircraft designs and configurations, including
rotorcraft and subsonic vehicles, that are more efficient;
Lightweight structural components, such as airframes, to
reduce subsonic aircraft operating empty weight;
Advanced fuel-efficient engine designs;
Ways to reduce subsonic aircraft drag, with minimal impact
on operating empty weight, for total aircraft energy reduction;
and,
Some advanced structural and propulsion-related material
research intended primarily for supersonic aircraft
applications will also benefit subsonic aircraft by helping to
reduce vehicle and propulsion system weight thereby reducing
fuel consumption.
Senator Nelson. OK.
Mr. Melvin, how are you going about evaluating NASA's
education programs? And then, once you get those evaluated, how
do you go about figuring out how you use that data to improve
the quality of the education initiatives?
Mr. Melvin. Thank you, Senator. That's one of the biggest
areas that we're going to work on with this new redesign of
education. The evaluation and accountability part of our budget
will be trying to get more people involved in that area. That's
one of the biggest concerns that we're having: How do you know
that dollars we're spending on the programs are actually giving
you the results that you desire?
And so, one of the things that we're looking at doing is
also, like I said before, partnering with other agencies. The
America's COMPETES Act has us working with NSF and other
agencies to see what the Federal Government's national
portfolio is in education. And that way we can maybe contribute
a piece, NSF can contribute a piece, and Department of
Education can contribute a piece. So, we're going to be
utilizing people from NSF to help us with evaluation practices
to get better evaluation systems for our programs.
Senator Nelson. How about the Summer of Innovation that was
a pilot in 2010? Can you describe some of the accomplishments
of that pilot project?
Mr. Melvin. Senator, we reached about 155,000 students and
teachers. Many of the projects that we did, some of them were
with kids helping build wind tunnels. Some Native American
students were actually making food pods. We had middle school
students actually helping program spheres, through the
Massachusetts Space Grant, where these spheres are actually up
on the Space Station, so they could have a hands-on
experiential activity that's actually being inspired by space.
So, those are some of the things that we did in 2010.
We reached about 22,000 students that actually had 30 hours
of hands-on instruction, with at least 7 hours of NASA content.
Now, that amount of content is not enough to give us an
indication on if a kid's going to go from a ``D'' to a ``B,''
but we need to continue on with the follow-on activities to
ensure that we can start to look at working with school
districts trying to track the students, to see how their
performance gets better. So, that pilot did give us some
indications that 30 hours is a good number of hours for
instruction. But, we're going to have to continue with some
follow-on project progress to definitely see how these students
change their grades.
Senator Nelson. Do you intend to continue the program?
Mr. Melvin. Yes, sir. This year, I think 36 proposals have
come in. We're in the review process right now. We are going to
use the resources that we have in the continuing resolution,
use those resources to fund the programs that we're going to
have this summer, where we actually work with middle school
teachers and then they, in turn, use the NASA content to
instruct middle school students.
Senator Nelson. What does NASA do with a whole bunch of
different partners, private and public, in order to increase
STEM education?
Mr. Melvin. Well, we've been working with a number of
partners. One example is, we just signed up a new partnership
with LEGO. Every child in the world knows about LEGO. LEGO is
all around the world. The LEGO Foundation actually gives out
free LEGOs to schools, as well as the curriculum associated
with it. So, on STS-134, we're sending up LEGOs to space. That
way, we can have some design challenges with astronauts and
with students on the ground, to get them as inspired as we can,
using the resources that we have as a national laboratory on
the ISS, also using our assets, as astronauts, to help them
call into schools, doing downlinks, those kinds of things.
We partnered with Donovan McNabb, from the Redskins, to get
kids to think about the physics of football. So, we were in his
training camp, this past summer, where we had about 400 kids
thinking about how physics can help them with their football
playing.
Also partnering with musicians, Mary J. Blige and MosDef
and Donna Karen, we've done work with them to let kids start to
think of alternative careers besides just sports and
entertainment. So, use the icons that the kids gravitate toward
to let them help tell the NASA message, use the NASA content.
We had a case this past summer, during Summer of
Innovation, where we had the Foundation for Advancing Women
Now, Mary J. Blige's foundation--her girls were actually
teaching NASA content to the Harlem Children Zone students of
Geoffrey, Canada, and Harlem, New York. So, this is a way that
the actual students can then reach back and help excite and
motivate and inspire, using our NASA content.
Senator Nelson. And how are you using the International
Space Station to interact with your educational programs?
Mr. Melvin. Well, as I said, on the Massachusetts Space
Grant, they have this little sphere. They're like little
remotely operated spheres that float around the Space Station.
The students can actually uplink and program them to have
competitions from the ground. So, that's one way. Also, using
our astronauts to actually call in to classrooms, to actually
motivate and inspire kids.
Actually, when I was in space in 2009, we called into
Tennessee, to Senator Gordon's district, talked to about 300 or
400 kids to get them inspired and motivated. So, however we can
use the resources on the SEEDs Program, and there are many
different types of programs that we've used to help motivate
and inspire.
Senator Nelson. Dr. Weiler, you are facing a shortfall in
supply of plutonium 238. At the funding levels that you're
looking at, how long is it going to take before the U.S. has a
production capability for PU-238?
Dr. Weiler. Thank you for asking that question, Senator.
We started working with the Department of Energy in fiscal
2010. In fiscal 2010, we worked out a agreement, at my level
and at the DOE equivalent of my level, with OSTP and OMB, that
we could restart plutonium production at about the 1- to 2-
kilograms-per-year level, which would meet our needs at NASA.
We submitted that to the Congress but, the DOE-side of the
appropriations process did not support it. So, we've
resubmitted it again in 2012 in the President's budget, and we
await the appropriations process once again.
In the meantime, because of the CR situation, if we are
held at the Fiscal Year 2010 level in the Science Mission
Directorate, that's about a 20-percent reduction from the
President's Fiscal Year 2011 request. At that kind of
reduction, we will not be able to put our 15 million in. So, we
hope that we can resolve this by the beginning of Fiscal Year
2012. We are ready to start funding it, but, we do need the
DOE's contribution of the equal $15-million amount. That would
get us enough plutonium if we were to do a outer-planets large
mission in the 2020 timeframe, that would be sufficient to meet
the needs of that mission.
Senator Nelson. Where does your plutonium come from now?
Dr. Weiler. It would be coming from Oak Ridge. What we did
discover, in the process of working together, was that we would
not--at the beginning of this process, Senator, back in Fiscal
Year 10, it was looking like DOE wanted to build a brand new
facility, and this would have cost an enormous amount of money.
But, once we really honed in on what the real requirements were
for NASA, how much plutonium we really needed, it turned out to
be only 1 or 2 kilograms per year. DOE and Oak Ridge, combined,
figured out that they could meet that with existing facilities.
And that's why the cost has been reduced to only $30 million a
year, roughly; 15 million from each agency.
Senator Nelson. For the record--why don't you describe, for
the record, if you don't have a supply of plutonium 238, what's
going to suffer?
Dr. Weiler. Ultimately, our existing stocks will run out. I
can't give you the exact number. We'll take that one for the
record, as to when the stocks would run out.
[The information requested follows:]
The number of missions that can be supported with current Pu-238
inventories depends on the power required by proposed missions and the
planned power sources. Based on NASA's last formally updated projected
mission power needs and the Department of Energy's estimates in meeting
NASA's fueled power systems, current inventories can support missions
through the 2020 timeframe, including a Discovery-class mission using
up to two Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator (ASRG) power
sources.
NASA is in the process of reevaluating its mission planning set in
light of the recent update to the decadal survey ``Visions and Voyages
for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022.'' Regardless of the
specific mission planning set, which does evolve over time, Pu-238 has
been used on a consistent basis and radioisotope power systems remain
vital for meaningful exploration of the majority of the solar system,
including significant portions of the Moon and Mars. We continue to
exhaust a limited supply, so the speedy restart of domestic production
ofplutonium-238 is important to maintaining U.S. leadership in
planetary science.
Dr. Weiler. But, it would preclude our ability ever to do a
large-scale outer-planets mission, for instance, like a mission
to the Moon Europa that circles Jupiter, ice-covered moon,
where we're very certain that it has an ocean underneath it. Of
course, wherever there's water energy, you have to ask the
question, Is there possibilities for life? It would certainly
preclude a major mission to another moon, Titan, which the
Cassini Mission has shown us is extremely interesting, around
Saturn. We've discovered liquid methane lakes, methane rain on
this moon. It has a thick atmosphere. The science community
considers it a very high priority for the next decade, perhaps,
the decade after this one.
These kinds of missions would not be possible, because,
once you get out to Jupiter, you're dealing with about 4
percent the solar radiation that we get here. At Saturn, it's
probably down to 1 percent or less. You just cannot use solar
panels that far out. So, it would stop our many-decades-long
exploration of the outer solar system.
Senator Nelson. Tell me, any one of you six, given the
turmoil that NASA's been going through, have you seen any
diminution of the best and the brightest, when they come out of
college, that have always wanted to go to work for NASA?
Dr. Whitlow. One of the programs we have to replenish our
pipeline and make sure we have the workforce of the future is
our Student Career Exploration Program that's at various
centers. In any one year, there are about 500 to 600 students
in that program, in addition we have other programs that we use
to help replenish our pipeline. In the SCEP Program--that's
Student Career Exploration Program--most of those students end
up with NASA employment. We find that, when we advertise for
jobs at all levels, we get many, many applicants for our jobs.
So, there is very high interest in career opportunities at
NASA.
Once we hire people on, we have very aggressive programs to
retain our workforce with onboard process. We provide mentors,
we provide coaches, we provide rewards programs, training,
development. And so, not only is there great interest among the
community, in coming to work for NASA, but, once we hire people
on board, they tend to stay for quite a while.
Senator Nelson. Anybody else?
Mr. Melvin. Senator, I think that a lot of the students
that come to NASA, they just have this fascination with space.
And it's something that I think one of the only agencies in the
Nation and the world, really, that has the ability to attract
people to come work at an agency like ours. And so, we do get
the best and the brightest. We get a cross-section of different
types of students, but everyone comes and works hard and is
really dedicated to the mission of human exploration and all of
our missions at NASA. So, I think it's a combination of
students.
But, I think, if we can help get more students to know
exactly what we do at NASA, maybe get a better way to get that
message out using more of these strategic partners, using other
assets using your offices also to help spread the word, as to
the things that we do in our mission, I think we'd get even
more students inspired and motivated.
Thank you.
Senator Nelson. Mr. Gerstenmaier, as you know, in the 2010
authorization law, it provides a series of steps that must be
taken as you go through the human part of the commercial
delivery of humans to the ISS. Can you provide us with a status
report on the compliance with these requirements?
Mr. Cooke. I'll take a question for the record, to get you
the exact details.
[The information requested follows:]
P.L. 111-267 outlines specific steps that NASA must take related to
commercial crew development. These steps include: (1) human rating
requirements; (2) commercial market assessment; (3) procurement system
review; (4) use of government-supplied capabilities and infrastructure;
(5) flight demonstration and readiness requirements; and, (6)
commercial crew rescue capabilities.
NASA plans to satisfy all the requirements in the P.L. 111-267. The
current status of these efforts is as follows:
Item 1, human rating requirements were provided to Congress
in December 20 10 via the ``Commercial Crew Transportation
System Requirements for NASA LEO Missions'' document;
Item 2, commercial market assessment was delivered to
congress on in April 2011 via the ``Commercial Market
Assessment for Crew and Cargo Systems'' report.
Item 3, procurement systems review; NASA is currently
developing the commercial crew transportation acquisition and
procurement strategies. Once these strategies are finalized,
NASA will provide Congress a description of the proposed
process and justification of the proposed process.
Item 4, use of government-supplied capabilities and
infrastructure; NASA is currently assessing future
infrastructure and capabilities required to support future
programs.
Item 5, flight demonstration and readiness; NASA is
developing a human rating process and minimum set performance
objectives to be achieved be commercial crew transportation
partners. NASA will certify commercial crew transportation
providers prior to allowing NASA or NASA sponsored astronauts
to fly on any commercial crew transportation system.
Item 6, commercial crew rescue capabilities; NASA is
including crew rescue into the set of commercial crew
transportation human rating requirements. NASA will certify
commercial crew transportation providers prior to allowing NASA
or NASA sponsored astronauts to fly on any commercial crew
transportation system.
Mr. Cooke. But, I know that our office at KSC is--has those
requirements in front of them, and that they intend to comply
with those. But, I can help with a status.
Senator Nelson. I thought you were retiring.
[Laughter.]
Senator Nelson. I thought all of your stuff was going to
Gerstenmaier.
Mr. Cooke. We're working closely together.
Senator Nelson. All right. Well, can you also give us the
full market analysis for the commercial crew capabilities?
Mr. Cooke. That is currently in review at NASA.
Senator Nelson. And----
Mr. Cooke. So, that is work that is being reviewed by our
offices now.
Senator Nelson. When are we going to get that?
Mr. Cooke. I don't remember the exact date it's due, but I
think it's just a couple weeks in the downstream, that--the
plan is. I'll have to go back and look at the exact timing. I
believe that was a 180-day report. But, we're--we do have that
in review currently.
Senator Nelson. I happen to be someone that thinks that we
can develop the commercial crew capability, and that we can do
it rather expeditiously. And--in parallel, that we can develop
the heavy-lift rocket--and this is why I keep saying, let's
talk about what we can do, not what we can't do--that if you
take the law, which is an evolvable system, that we can do
that, and we can do it in parallel, while we're developing the
commercial and cargo crew capability to go to the Space
Station. But, we need these reports.
Now, speaking of the report, getting back to the 90-day
plan, an incomplete 90-day plan--we're losing time--I want to
know if you, Mr. Cooke, will commit to bringing us the
information as it is available, and not waiting around so that
we're not getting it. We don't need a final report.
What we're trying to do is keep action going, here. Will
you commit to that?
Mr. Cooke. We are certainly with you on keeping the action
going. And we have significant steps that we're taking in the
next weeks. And we will be happy to report back as we develop
that information, in the interim.
Senator Nelson. Do you have the authority in order to
commit that you will bring that information to this committee
as it becomes available?
Mr. Cooke. I will certainly do my part. I have to work
through our system. But, certainly, I'll do my part to get
information available to you.
Senator Nelson. Does that kind of information--before it
comes to the Committee, does that have to go to OMB?
Mr. Cooke. Generally, there is a review that includes the
OMB and OSTP.
Senator Nelson. Well, that's where a lot of the hangup in
the past have been. It gets stuck over in OMB. How about OSTP?
Do you get a fairly quick review there?
Mr. Cooke. We work closely with them, all of them, and we
will get this data to you as quickly as we possibly can.
Senator Nelson. Sure, you work closely with them, but
that's not the question.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cooke. Well, my intent is to get you data as early as
possible. I can tell you that.
Senator Nelson. Well, you know, if we're going to save the
NASA budget, in a time when--you saw what happened in the House
and what happened in H.R. 1, which this Senator voted against
last week, and it didn't get a lot of votes in the Senate. But,
you can imagine what would happen if other people had their
way. You can imagine what would happen to our space program.
So, as we're trying to protect our space program and the future
of NASA, we've got to have data. And we can't keep having these
delays like we've had on these reports.
Now, you have the luxury of retiring, so why don't you just
go full bore and bust down some doors, since, when you step on
toes, it's not going to make any difference.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cooke. Well, I promise you I'll go full bore. And I am
committed to staying with this through these steps to get these
on track. And I certainly will do everything I can to get you
information, you and your staff.
Senator Nelson. You didn't say whether or not you would
step on some toes.
Mr. Cooke. I don't think I've hesitated in the past.
[Laughter.]
Senator Nelson. Well, keep after it.
All right. Well, thank you all for a very comprehensive
hearing. I think we accomplished what we wanted to. We wanted
to get you all to lay out what's going on. And this is a tough
time.
I want to note that the record is going to stay open for a
week for members of this committee to submit further questions
for the record.
And the meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:50 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV,
U.S. Senator from West Virginia
I would like to welcome all of our witnesses here this afternoon to
discuss NASA's progress and challenges in implementing the NASA
Authorization Act of 2010. No conversation on implementation, however,
would be complete without also discussing the destructive impact that
sporadic funding is having on NASA's mission and priorities.
NASA continues to be an agency in transition. After 30 years and
135 flights, the Space Shuttle program is retiring. Just last week, we
watched Discovery's last mission. There is a great anticipation about
what's next for NASA after the shuttle program comes to a close.
NASA's shuttle program has led to major scientific successes and
discoveries. It's launched and repaired the Hubble Space Telescope,
sent up the world's most powerful X-ray telescope, opening a window to
the universe, and completed construction of the International Space
Station. The Space Station is of particular interest to me--not
necessarily because of what it teaches us about space--but because of
the discoveries it's made that could improve the lives of every
American. The shuttle also helped capture the imagination of a new
generation of people too young to remember previous missions.
The space station itself recently passed a milestone of its own.
Last November marked 10 years of a continuous human presence on the
space station. Much of that time has been devoted to construction, but
the astronauts on board still found time to conduct more than 1,200
experiments that supported the research of more than 1,600 scientists
worldwide.
One very significant discovery is that some bacteria--such as
Salmonella and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)--
become more aggressive in causing disease in the station's microgravity
environment. I think everyone here is familiar with the enormous public
health risk posed by antibiotic resistant bacteria. Any progress we can
make on this front will pay dividends for years to come. This discovery
is helping scientists develop potential vaccines for both of these
infections and, if successful, would save thousands of lives each year.
For these reasons and for the scientific promise of future exploration,
we need to get NASA's transition right.
Exploration, however, can take many forms and there is one area of
the President's FY 2012 budget request for NASA that particularly
concerns me. That's the funding requested for NASA's education
programs. The FY 2012 request is $138 million, which is nearly $42
million less than what was enacted for FY 2010. Teaching our students
science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) has never been more
important to innovating and competing in this global economy. In recent
visits to schools in my own state of West Virginia, I have seen first-
hand the success these programs have in inspiring our next generation
of scientists and engineers. NASA's Space Grant Program, for example,
can be found in each and every state across the country. In my own
state, the program funds fellowships and scholarships for students
pursuing STEM careers at West Virginia University, Marshall University,
and other colleges and universities around the state.
NASA's EPSCoR--or Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research--is another education program working to improve STEM research
and development in the aerospace field. In West Virginia alone over the
past 5 years, this competitive program has supported hundreds of
students and faculty in their research, resulted in millions of dollars
in new funding, supported more than 100 scientific papers, and led to
new patents. This type of program allows every state to fully
participate in the research activities that lead to new discoveries,
create new jobs and educate our workforce.
I would again like to thank our witnesses for being here today. I
look forward to their testimony.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV
to NASA Associate Administrators
Commercial Spacecraft/Independent Verification and Validation
The President's FY 2012 budget request again prioritizes the
development of commercial spacecraft for American access to space. In
addition to providing U.S. human access to space, commercial spacecraft
will be interacting with important and irreplaceable national assets
such as the International Space Station and NASA astronauts.
Question 1. What actions are being taken to maintain high levels of
safety, reliability and availability standards for commercial
spacecraft to prevent against catastrophic errors that can and do occur
in software development?
Answer. Providers of commercial cargo services for the
International Space Station (ISS) must face the challenges of mastering
automated rendezvous, proximity operations, and docking with a crewed
spacecraft. While these tasks have been demonstrated many times by the
Russian Progress vehicle, and twice each by the European ATV and
Japanese HTV, the technologies and techniques required for their
achievement are difficult, but clearly not impossible, to develop. All
commercial cargo vehicles intended to dock or berth to the ISS must
meet the same visiting vehicle standards for each of their ISS
missions. These requirements are laid out in the ISS Commercial Orbital
Transportation Services (COTS) Interface Requirements Document. These
standards include requirements for automated rendezvous and joint
proximity operations, physical and software interfaces, and overall
safety. These requirements are consistent with those provided for the
ATV and HTV. NASA has been working closely with the commercial partners
through the demonstration phase and will continue to work with them
through the CRS missions to ensure that these requirements have been
verified for each mission.
NASA is responsible for providing both rescue services and
transportation to and from the ISS for U.S., Canadian, European and
Japanese astronauts. Prior to carrying ISS astronauts, industry
providers must meet the ISS interface requirements outlined above as
well as stringent launch vehicle and spacecraft design, operations and
safety requirements. The Commercial Crew Program's 1100 suite of
documents is based upon NASA Human Rating and Safety Requirements, and
incorporates launch vehicle, spacecraft and crew systems requirements
as well as specifications and standards against which commercial crew
transportation providers will be verified and certified. NASA is
continuing to work to mature these requirements in an effort to ensure
the U.S. is fielding safe systems for future ISS crew transportation
needs. In addition, all commercial crew systems will have to meet the
same safety requirements as other NASA human spaceflight systems.
For COTS and Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) missions, NASA,
SpaceX, and Orbital Sciences are taking steps to protect against
catastrophic errors that can and do occur in software development. Both
partners have implemented stringent software development and testing
processes and have engaged external independent verification and
validation expertise to ensure software systems function as expected.
Extensive joint software testing is scheduled with each partner and the
ISS program. In addition, each partner is performing hardware in the
loop testing to check the functionality of the software with redundant
strings of computer and avionics equipment that they use in the flight
vehicles.
Question 2. Is NASA prepared to stipulate the use of the NASA IV&V
Center when issuing Space Act Agreements with commercial entities in
support of commercial crew and cargo program contracts?
Answer. By their nature, Space Act Agreements do not allow the
imposition of requirements; therefore NASA cannot stipulate the use of
the NASA IV&V Program.
For cargo-only missions, Space Act Agreements were utilized for
capability development as well as the upcoming on-orbit demonstration
phase. For the on-orbit demonstration phase, the commercial companies
proposed demonstrating delivery of cargo to the ISS. NASA accepted
their proposals, but as part of that acceptance to ``berth'' with the
ISS and deliver cargo, NASA imposed the condition to meet International
Space Station (ISS) Visiting Vehicle Requirements.
The ISS Visiting Vehicle Requirements require software product
assurance from an independent party with a clearly defined separate
reporting path from the development organization but do not
specifically require companies to use NASA's IV&V Program. Space Act
Agreement participants may procure NASA IV&V services from NASA's IV&V
Program.
For the Commercial Cargo Resupply Services contract phase, NASA
elected to impose the same software assurance requirements as used for
the Cargo Demonstration phase, i.e., imposing the ISS Visiting Vehicle
Requirements which require software product assurance from an
independent party with a clearly defined separate reporting path from
the development organization. Again, the participants may choose to
procure IV&V services from NASA's IV&V Program.
For commercial crew missions, NASA is deliberating the application
and scope of software assurance and IV&V requirements. Currently,
commercial crew is just starting the second round of short duration
Space Act Agreements aimed at early capability development. The same
rules of engagement for Space Act Agreements apply to this early phase
of commercial crew capability development as were applied to the cargo-
only capability development via Space Act Agreements (see above). When
NASA gets to the point of contracting for development work, and
imposing technical requirements on the contractor, the appropriate
level of IV&V services will be considered.
NASA Independent Verification and Validation Center
The President's FY 2012 budget request proposes a level of $32
million for the IV&V Center, a severe and disproportionate cut of $13
million below the FY 2011 President's budget request of $45 million and
$8 million less than the FY 2010 enacted level of $40 million.
Question 3. What human safety-critical and mission critical
software projects will receive Cross Agency Support-funded IV&V in FY
2012 based on the FY 2012 request?
Answer. Based upon the FY 2012 request NASA conducted a risk-based
assessment and identified that IV&V for the following projects will be
funded from Cross Agency Support:
Human Safety Critical Software
ISS (International Space Station)
Commercial Crew Program--partial support*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Based upon recent NASA decisions, the IV&V Program and the HQ
Office of Safety and Mission Assurance are seeking funds from the Human
Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate to fund IV&V for the
Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) program, the Space Launch System
(SLS) program, the Command, Control and Communications Element (CCCE)
project, and supplemental funding for the Commercial Crew (CCP)
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety and Mission Critical Software
MSL (Mars Science Laboratory)
JUNO
MMS (Magnetosphere MultiScale)
SMAP (Soil Moisture Active and Passive)
GPM (Global Precipitation Measurement)
JWST (James Webb Space Telescope)
GRAIL (Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory)
MAVEN (Mars Atmosphere and Volatiles Environment)
AFSS (Autonomous Flight Safety System)--Independent
Assessment only
Question 4. What risks will NASA now be accepting by either not
performing or outsourcing IV&V activities on lower priority missions?
Answer. NASA does not intend to waive or outsource IV&V services
for human safety critical software. By not performing IV&V on lower
priority mission critical software, NASA will be accepting the
potential risk that; (1) the software developer's verification and
validation activities are not adequate to ensure the correctness,
quality and reliability of the mission's software; and (2) that NASA
software assurance activities are not sufficiently effective at
identifying those inadequacies. Not performing IV&V on mission critical
software reduces the potential to find software errors that could
contribute to loss of mission, loss or damage of NASA assets, or cost
and schedule overruns.
By outsourcing IV&V, NASA will be accepting the risk that the IV&V
activities performed by other IV&V agents may not be equivalent to the
rigorous systems engineering processes employed by the NASA IV&V
Program.
Question 5. Does this budget allow NASA to ensure mission success
for basic research, development, and newly proposed programs, such as
robotics?
Answer. The proposed IV&V budget will not allow for the additional
assurance IV&V brings to mission success for these types of projects;
however, NASA will continue to ensure mission success since the
fundamental software requirements, controls, and assurance activities
that are applied to NASA programs to ensure safety and mission success
will remain in place. Typically, IV&V is not applied to basic research
and lower technology readiness level projects. However, if a robotics
mission is selected for NASA IV&V based upon a risk-based assessment,
the IV&V may be funded from Cross Agency Support.
Question 6. What is the impact of the FY 2012 budget request on
employment levels at the IV&V without additional internal NASA or
outside reimbursements for services?
Answer. The FY 2012 request will reduce funding available to
contractors equivalent to approximately 40 full-time technical
contractor personnel.
Question 7. Is it realistic to assume that project managers will
pay for internal IV&V out of project budgets if their projects are
subject to budget cuts?
Answer. NASA applies IV&V services based upon an assessment of
risk. Given that the Mission Directors are accountable for the safety
and mission success of their programs, it is realistic for the Chief,
Safety and Mission Assurance and the Associate Administrators of the
NASA Mission Directorates to examine individual projects and the risks
the projects face, and to determine if additional funding from
programmatic sources should be applied for IV&V services.
Question 8. Are there incentives NASA could offer for project
managers to use internal IV&V rather than external sources?
Answer. Other than the obvious incentive of Agency level funding,
there are many advantages of using the NASA IV&V Program over external
IV&V vendors. The following are some examples of those advantages:
NASA domain knowledge (17 years of experience)
Heritage information (access to technical information on
past projects, including over 15,000 historical issues)
Procurement of services is easy and efficient (NASA to NASA)
Shared IV&V tools and methodologies
Question 9. Please describe the steps that NASA is taking to assist
the IV&V Center's diversification of its customer base within NASA, and
with other federal, state, and local government entities.
Answer. NASA management has encouraged collaboration with other
government entities and has encouraged the NASA IV&V Program to pursue
diverse customers. Additional IV&V work with other Federal, state and
local government entities will enhance the IV&V Program's knowledge and
experience base and will help ensure core competencies within the
workforce are maintained. NASA provides limited funds for travel to
potential customers' sites for information exchange and for staff to
support site visits by potential customers. NASA sends IV&V Program
staff to government and industry exchanges, which allow the IV&V
Program personnel to meet with potential customers, understand their
challenges, and communicate the benefits of the NASA IV&V program.
NASA Classroom of the Future
Question 10. Please describe NASA's plans for continued work with
the Classroom of the Future (COTF) beyond March 2012.
Answer. The NASA-sponsored COTF is an activity associated with the
NASA LEARN Project (Learning Environments and Research Network).
Managed by the Center of Educational Technologies at Wheeling Jesuit
University in Wheeling, West Virginia, COTF recently began a one-year
extension to a 3-year Cooperative Agreement that ended on March 2,
2011. The current extension ends on March 2, 2012. During this period,
COTF will continue its operation of the DLiNfo Webcast Channel on the
NASA Portal (dln.nasa.gov). It will also continue development and
management of the NASAtalk.com online suite of collaborative tools for
internal and external educators. COTF will finalize data acquisition,
analysis, and findings leading to a formal presentation to NASA in the
area of Learning In Virtual Worlds. The report will summarize
development, implementation, and related research of MoonWorld, a Lunar
geology-oriented online, learning experience. Additionally, COTF will
explore various aspects of creating courses for and delivered through
mobile devices.
Various factors will determine the continuance of COTF's activities
after the conclusion of the current Cooperative Agreement. The Agency
is currently developing strategies for responding to the
recommendations from the NASA Education Design Team Review. An effort
is also underway to revise the NASA eEducation Roadmap that was
developed several years ago. The roadmap focused heavily on gaming and
virtual worlds and will most likely be updated to include significant
attention to the use of mobile devices in education. COTF's existing
research in learning in virtual worlds and its new initiative in
creating educational applications for mobile devices will strengthen
the potential for another and final extension period beyond March,
2012. In the event that a new solicitation is offered during the coming
year, COTF will most certainly be a worthy candidate for consideration.
Coupled with COTF's successes with management of the DLiNfo Channel and
the recognized maturity of its NASAtalk.com website, continuance of its
partnership with NASA in some form is a strong possibility.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison to
Douglas R. Cooke
Question 1. Since the enactment of the NASA Reauthorization Act of
2010, signed into law as P.L. 111-267 by President Obama on October 11,
2010, please summarize your current plans for (a) design, (b)
development, (c) procurement strategy, (d) schedule, and (e) contract
modifications with regard to the Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion/
Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV). Include in your response actions
taken which were not reported in the ``Preliminary'' report to the
Congress submitted on January 11, 2011, in partial--that is to say,
incomplete--response to the reporting requirement of Section 309 of
P.L. 111-267.
Answer. NASA is providing semi-monthly briefings to Committee staff
regarding the status of SLS and MPCV, and we will continue to do so. In
addition, we are providing details about our preliminary planning
process to the Committee as quickly as possible, per the terms of the
May 18, 2011, letter from the Senate Commerce Science and
Transportation Committee.
With regard to progress made on the MPCV, please see the attached
white paper which denotes that we have determined that the Lockheed
Martin Orion contract will be used for at least the development phase
of the MPCV. Further details about the MPCV and the SLS planning
process will be provided in a follow-on report to Congress in the
summer timeframe.
Question 2. What actions have you taken and what and forward
progress have you made in firming up the design, initiating development
and actual contracted work for building SLS and MPCV/Orion since
enactment of the NASA Reauthorization Act of 2010?
Answer. Since the interim report, the SLS formulation phase
continued with multiple parallel activities to help drive down the
development and operations costs for the SLS. NASA has continued to
identify relevant work from the Space Shuttle Program and Ares Project
that will be transferred to the new SLS Program, while also continuing
to define the requirements for the new SLS system.
NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center has completed its internal
Requirements Analysis Cycle (RAC) studies in parallel with 13
complementary studies being conducted by private industry under BAA
study contracts. The BAA was a competitive solicitation, utilizing
approximately $7.5 million in FY 2010 dollars to conduct six-month
studies examining the trade space of potential heavy-lift launch and
space transfer vehicle concepts. The BAA study contracts focused on
achieving affordability, operability, reliability and commonality at
the system and subsystem levels with multiple users, including other
Government, commercial, science and international partners. These trade
studies also provided a ``fresh look'' at innovative launch vehicle
concepts, propulsion technologies and processes that can be infused
into the development of the new human exploration missions--information
that was used to help inform the overall selection and development of
the final SLS vehicle detailed design. The BAA study contractor
delivered their final briefing to NASA on April 28, 2011. Data obtained
through the interim and final out-briefs helped NASA determine the
feasibility of meeting top-level mission requirements with notional
launch vehicle architectures, while defining affordability strategies,
streamlining systems engineering approaches, and identifying best
practices that will be applied to the final concept selected to go
forward into formal design and development. In addition, some BAA
respondents proposed approaches with prices below historical averages
and NAFCOM calculations. The RAC teams delivered their final results
the week of February 14, 2011. The RAC activity consisted of a NASA
multi-Center formulation activity that studied various launch vehicle
configurations, including the NASA Reference Vehicle Design (RVD) to
develop and refine the vehicle design concepts and to determine whether
the NASA Reference Vehicle Design meets the SLS mission requirements as
well as the Administrator's goals that the design be affordable,
sustainable, and realistic. On March 10 and 11, the SLS Program
conducted its Mission Concept Review (MCR) which is an initial
engineering milestone in the program's formulation lifecycle that
evaluated proposed SLS concepts in relation to NASA's needs and
objectives, and determined the program's readiness to begin Phase A
(Formulation). During MCR, the SLS team presented the various RAC
launch vehicle concepts against cost, schedule, and performance
requirements. This process included describing concepts of operations
and risk reduction plans. A day of detailed technical briefings was
followed by a day of deliberation by an independent review team, which
culminated in agreement that the SLS Program was ready to brief NASA
Headquarters on its readiness to proceed into Formulation, with
multiple concepts being brought forward for further study.
On June 15, 2011, NASA made a key technical decision about the
design of this new Space Launch System and will be releasing details
about that decision soon. The approach considered the ability to
accommodate a variety of missions, design flexibility, minimizing
development risk, workforce considerations, and industrial base
concerns. This vehicle design is consistent with the basic requirements
outlined in the law, and will be evolvable to lift at least 130 metric
tons in its final configuration. It will maximize the use of heritage
hardware and experience, using a LOX-hydrogen core and upper stage. In
early stages of the program, the design will use solid rocket boosters,
but will consider a competitive procurement of booster capabilities for
the final vehicle design. NASA developed this design after thorough
analyses of risk, schedule, and performance. ,.. As a key element of
the development plan for the integrated system, NASA has included, in
partnership with industry, innovative approaches to developing and
operating this system in a sustainable, efficient way. Though this was
a thoroughly analyzed and critical step, it was not a final decision
for the Administration.
Currently, NASA has procurement teams who are mapping SLS
requirements (those outlined in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 and
those we are currently developing) against the Ares contracts to
determine if the new requirements fit the scope of the existing
contracts. For the SLS, NASA is reviewing each element of Ares (First
Stage, Upper Stage, Upper Stage J-2X engine and avionics) to determine
whether the new SLS requirements are within scope of the current
contract. However, final acquisition plans for the SLS is not expected
until the summer/early fall timeframe, and will be provided to Congress
as soon as it is available.
Regarding the MPCV, in accordance with the NASA Authorization Act
of 2010, the FY 2011 Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, and
Administration policy, and after careful analysis and very thoughtful
deliberations by a senior management team, in late May 2011, NASA
Administrator Bolden decided to accept the Orion-based reference
vehicle design, first outlined in NASA's January 2011 report to
Congress, as the Agency's MPCV. As part of his decision process, the
Administrator determined that the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle was
already being built to meet the requirements of a deep-space vehicle--
the current design is sound, and testing has proven the vehicle to be
the best option for this phase of exploration efforts beyond low-Earth
orbit (LEO). Additionally, the Administrator determined that the
Agency's current Orion contractual partnership with Lockheed Martin
Corporation maps well to the scope of the MPCV requirements outlined in
the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 and, therefore, the current contract
will be used at least for the development phase of the MPCV.
At NASA's Johnson Space Center, the Orion Project has continued to
progress its development beyond the PDR-level of maturity that was
achieved in late 2009. During FY 2010 and FY 2011's period of
continuing resolution, Orion adopted an incremental approach to design
and development. Work became focused on early test articles, such as
the Ground Test Article crew module which was recently completed and is
undergoing testing. Further design work has focused on an early flight
test configuration to prove out the most critical systems such as
parachute and heat shield performance. The vast majority of work
performed during the transitional period following the transmission of
the President's FY 2011 Budget until present is applicable to the MPCV
and has furthered progress toward a beyond LEO capability. In addition,
detailed assessments of requirements and candidate architectures for
beyond LEO missions have been assessed, with the purpose of ensuring
the detailed requirements for the MPCV were understood such that
continuing work would be made as applicable as possible.
Question 3. In early November 2010, you initiated a parallel series
of Requirements Analysis Cycle (RAC) team activities to examine
possible alternative vehicle design concepts. Were those teams informed
of (a) the performance capability and schedule requirements established
in P.L. 111-267, and (b) did they use those requirements as key
assumptions on which they based their work?
Answer. As part of an earlier study, the SLS Program researched all
of the stakeholder requirements which included the NASA strategic
goals, the HEFT study analysis as well as all the Congressional Bills
enacted which included the P.L. 111-267 2010 NASA Authorization Act to
determine the relevant requirements for SLS program formulation. Key
assumptions and goals that were used in evaluating the various RAC SLS
options were directly taken from the NASA Authorization Act: (1) the
vehicle must be able to initially lift 70-100 tons to LEO, and must be
evolvable to 130 tons or more; (2) the vehicle must be able to lift a
MPCV; and (3) begin development of the SLS vehicle ``as soon as
practicable after the date of the enactment of'' the NASA Authorization
Act of 2010 and with the goal of achieving operational capability for
the core elements not later than December 31, 2016. Other evaluation
criteria used in assessing the SLS RAC options included total Design
Development Test and Evaluation (DDT&E) funding required, annual
production and operations costs.
Question 4. Have you been waiting or been instructed to wait for
the results of the RAC activity results before moving out aggressively
to modify contracts as they pertain to the MPCV/Orion and the SLS? What
is the current status of those RAC activities?
Answer. The Marshall Space Flight Center has completed its internal
RAC studies in parallel with 13 complementary studies being conducted
by private industry under Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) contracts.
The RAC teams delivered their final results the week of February 14,
2011 and the BAA study contractor delivered their final briefing to
NASA on April 28, 2011 with the final written report delivery to NASA
scheduled on May 23, 2011. A Mission Concept Review (MCR) was also
conducted by an independent review team and determined that the SLS
program was ready to enter into the Formulation Phase based on
providing feasible requirements and budget data.
In parallel with the RAC and BAA studies, NASA has been actively
evaluating the existing contracts for Orion and Ares for use in the new
MPCV and SLS Programs. NASA has procurement teams who are mapping SLS
and MPCV requirements (those outlined in the NASA Authorization Act of
2010 and those we are currently developing) against the Ares and Orion
contracts to determine if the new requirements fit the scope of the
existing contracts. For the SLS, NASA is reviewing each element of Ares
(First Stage, Upper Stage, Upper Stage J-2X engine and avionics) to
determine whether the new SLS requirements are within scope of the
current contract. For the MPCV, NASA's review of Orion contracts
indicated that the MPCV is within scope of the Orion contract, and the
NASA Administrator recently made the decision that the Orion contract
would be continued for MPCV development. However, final acquisition
plans for the SLS are not expected until the summer/early fall
timeframe, and will be provided to Congress as soon as it is available.
Question 5. How will the RAC study results and conclusions be used
in finalizing design concepts for the SLS and Orion/MPCV?
Answer. The final design concept recommendation for SLS extracted
the `best' elements from each of the RAC alternatives and combined them
into an integrated strategy for SLS development. It is expected that
the final selection of SLS design will have minimal effect on the
current MPCV reference vehicle design, since the Orion was originally
designed to withstand the Ares I launch profile which was likely more
severe that any of the SLS design concepts.
Question 6. The 2012 budget request makes a severe reduction below
the authorized amounts for the SLS and Orion/MPCV amounting to a
combined $1.3 billion less than the amount authorized for FY 2012. What
would be the impact on your ability to continue developing these
vehicles on any kind of aggressive schedule if that funding level were
adopted by Congress?
Answer. It is clear that successful development of SLS and MPCV
will be dependent on sufficiently stable funding over the long term,
coupled with a successful effort on the part of NASA and the eventual
industry team to reduce costs and to establish stable, tightly-managed
requirements. While a 2016 operational capability does not appear to be
feasible within either projected FY 2012 President's budget request and
its out-year funding levels, or within the Authorization Act funding
levels, NASA is continuing to explore more innovative procurement and
development approaches to achieve operational capability as close to
this goal as feasible. In this context, we are still reviewing overall
affordability for the longer-term, and alternative design analysis
continues to be part of our strategy. Other technical options such as
an incremental development approach will be considered based on
industry input, innovative methodologies for affordability will be
explored, and partnership opportunities will be pursued with other
government agencies with the goal of identifying a significant
affordability benefit.
Question 7. Please explain how the fact that $1.3 billion less was
requested for SLS and Orion/MPCV in the FY 2012 Request, while the
requested level for Commercial Crew development was increased by $350
million ABOVE the authorized level for FY 2012, does not represent an
effort to reverse the respective follow-on launch and crew
transportation development priorities established by law in the 2010
NASA Authorization Act systems development and mission support
requirements if those funds are no longer under the supervision of the
organization responsible for Exploration activities.
Answer. NASA believes that the FY 2012 budget request strikes the
right balance between Human Exploration Capabilities and the
development of U.S. commercial crew transportation systems to support
the ISS and reduce reliance on the Russian Soyuz vehicle. Additionally,
all major elements of the Authorization Act are included in the
President's budget request.
As the primary means of transportation to the ISS, it is essential
that the Commercial Crew Program be successful. We believe the $850
million funding level for commercial crew is necessary to achieve safe,
reliable, cost effective crew transportation capability in time to
service the ISS. Without the level of funding provided in this budget
request, NASA would have to extend its sole reliance on non-U.S.
systems for ISS crew transportation. Given that the ISS is being
extended to 2020, without the Shuttle, it is essential that we help to
develop routine, reliable crew access to the ISS. By helping to develop
commercial crew systems, NASA is free to focus on developing beyond-LEO
transportation systems. Therefore, NASA has the best of both worlds--
routine access to the ISS provided by a commercial provider, while also
having the ability to focus its own human spaceflight efforts on beyond
LEO exploration--places we haven't been to before.
Question 8. As you know, in order to address the concerns of many
Members of Congress regarding the seeming desire of the Administration
to place complete reliance on new, unproven commercial cargo and crew
launch and transportation systems, P.L. 111-267 provided a series of
``gates'' or enabling steps that must be taken before any such
development program is executed. In your view, is it clear to NASA and
the Administration that those requirements must be met to the
satisfaction of the Congress before any such development program will
either be authorized to proceed or receive support for funding through
appropriations?
Answer. It is clear to NASA that P.L. 111-267 outlines specific
gates related to commercial crew development. These gates include: (1)
human rating requirements; (2) commercial market assessment; (3)
procurement system review; (4) use of Government-supplied capabilities
and infrastructure; (5) flight demonstration and readiness
requirements; and, (6) commercial crew rescue capabilities. NASA plans
to satisfy all the requirements in the P.L. 111-267.
Question 9. Please provide for the record the current status of
NASA efforts to ensure compliance with those commercial development
requirements.
Answer.
Item 1, human rating requirements were provided to Congress
in December 2010 via the ``Commercial Crew Transportation
System Requirements for NASA LEO Missions'' document;
Item 2, commercial market assessment was delivered to
congress on in April 2011 via the ``Commercial Market
Assessment for Crew and Cargo Systems'' report.
Item 3, procurement systems review; NASA is currently
developing the commercial crew transportation acquisition and
procurement strategies. Once these strategies are finalized,
NASA will provide Congress a description of the proposed
process and justification of the proposed process.
Item 4, Use of government-supplied capabilities and
infrastructure; NASA is currently assessing future
infrastructure and capabilities required to support future
programs.
Item 5, flight demonstration and readiness; NASA is
developing a human rating process and minimum set performance
objectives to be achieved be commercial crew transportation
partners. NASA will certify commercial crew transportation
providers prior to allowing NASA or NASA sponsored astronauts
to fly on any commercial crew transportation system.
Item 6, commercial crew rescue capabilities; NASA is
including crew rescue into the set of commercial crew
transportation human rating requirements. NASA will certify
commercial crew transportation providers prior to allowing NASA
or NASA sponsored astronauts to fly on any commercial crew
transportation system.
Question 10. Under the 2012 budget request $310 million is taken
from Exploration Technology Development program activity and moved to
Space Technology, carried under the Aeronautics and Space Technology
budget line, and under the control of the Chief Technologist. Please
provide an explanation of the justification for this proposed
reallocation of funds and how the Committee can be assured that the
activities undertaken with those funds will remain guided by
exploration systems development and mission support requirements if
those funds are no longer under the supervision of the organization
responsible for Exploration activities.
Answer. As noted, NASA's FY 2012 budget request moves the majority
of content and funding that had been included in the FY 2010
Exploration Technology Development Program (ETDP) from the Exploration
Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) to the Space Technology (ST) theme
managed by the Office of the Chief Technologist (OCT). This integration
had been proposed in draft FY 2011 appropriations proposals offered in
December 2010. NASA agreed with this concept as it would allow for
synergy between the activities in Space Technology's Crosscutting Space
Technology Development program and the existing efforts funded by ETDP,
creating a pipeline for maturing both mission-specific and multipurpose
technology.
For traceability, Space Technology has identified these transferred
exploration specific technologies under a new program called
Exploration Technology Development (ETD). ETD funded activities will
continue to focus on the long-range, critical technologies required to
carry out future human exploration missions beyond low-Earth orbit and
will reduce risk and life cycle cost of these missions. All future
activities within this account will also have a human exploration-
specific technology demonstration focus. Activities funded through the
ETD budget will continue to leverage the existing technical strength of
the NASA workforce with at least 70 percent of funds allocated toward
directed projects led by the NASA Centers. The ETD and Crosscutting
Space Technology Development activities are distinguished by their
customer focus, the balance between competed versus guided projects,
and cost-share requirements.
By integrating ETDP within Space Technology, the Agency's
technology portfolio will be streamlined and strengthened within an
organization focused on development and infusion of cutting edge
technology. Integrating ETDP into OCT will eliminate the potential for
overlap in future technology investments. With management of these
investments in an organization focused on technology development,
greater attention can be applied to meeting the Agency's beyond LEO
technology development priorities.
The ETD activities are critically focused on NASA's beyond LEO
mission-specific Exploration priorities. These priorities have been set
by ESMD through the HEFT and related planning activities. In FY 2012
and beyond, ESMD will continue to provide prioritized requirements and
remain the primary customer for all transferred ETD activities
(primarily through the ongoing Human Architecture Team). OCT will
manage its ETD activities based on these priorities. In addition, OCT
will conduct regular reviews of the ETD projects in implementation.
Human spaceflight personnel will be utilized in this review panel. This
transfer allows ESMD to focus on Exploration vehicle development, but
maintain control of the overall strategy, architecture and technology
requirements for future beyond LEO human exploration plans, while
allowing OCT to focus on performing the critical technology development
and mission infusion activities.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison to
William Gerstenmaier
Question 1. What is the current status of efforts to establish the
partnership between NASA and a non-governmental organization to manage
ISS National Laboratory-allocated research capability?
Answer. NASA released a Cooperative Agreement Notice (CAN) for an
independent non-profit organization to manage the multidisciplinary
research carried out by NASA's National Laboratory partners. This
organization will: (1) act as a single entry point for non-NASA users
to interface efficiently with the ISS; (2) assist researchers in
developing experiments, meeting safety and integration rules, and
acting as an ombudsman on behalf of researchers; (3) perform outreach
to researchers and disseminate the results of ISS research activities;
and (4) provide easily accessed communication materials with details
about laboratory facilities, available research hardware, resource
constraints, and more. On July 13, NASA selected the Center for the
Advancement of Science in Space Inc. (CASIS) to develop and manage the
U.S. portion of the International Space Station that will be operated
as a national laboratory.
Question 2. As you know, the underlying rationale for the
Congressional designation of the U.S. Segment of the International
Space Station as a National Laboratory was to ensure that investigators
and researchers in a broad range of scientific disciplines would have
assured access to the unique environment of microgravity to conduct
experiments. That is also why P.L. 111-267 allocated no less than fifty
percent of the U.S. research capacity to the control and use of the
non-profit, non-government organization with which NASA is required to
undertake a cooperative agreement for management of ISS research.
Please describe how these requirements are being implemented--and that
level of utilization protected--under the planned consolidation and
reorganization of the Space Operations and Exploration Systems Mission
Directorates?
Answer. The planned consolidation and reorganization of the Space
Operations and Explorations Mission Directorates will have no effect on
the implementation of statutory requirements embodied in P.L. 111-267.
NASA is in the process of establishing a dedicated division for ``Space
Life and Physical Sciences and Applications'' within the new Human
Exploration and Operations Directorate. This division will include the
Human Research Program, Crew Health Systems, Fundamental Space Biology,
Physical, and serve as the liaison within NASA for interactions with
the non-profit ISS National Laboratory management organization once it
is established under a cooperative agreement. NASA anticipates that
positioning these diverse areas of research under a single organization
will improve communications across disciplines and engender greater
synergies across the life and physical sciences community.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison to
Leland D. Melvin
Question 1. Mr. Melvin please describe new initiatives or new
approaches to NASA Education programs that you have begun to execute or
plan to implement.
Answer. In January 2011, President Barack Obama stated that, ``over
the next 10 years, nearly half of all new jobs will require education
that goes beyond a high school education. And yet, as many as a quarter
of our students aren't even finishing high school. The quality of our
math and science education lags behind many other nations. America has
fallen to ninth in the proportion of young people with a college
degree. And so the question is whether all of us 'as citizens and as
parents' are willing to do what's necessary to give every child a
chance to succeed.'' This speech echoes findings and calls-to-action by
numerous committees, reports, professionals in education, and leaders
in American industry. In response, the Department of Education has
identified several strategies to improve science, technology,
engineering and mathematics (STEM) education and ways in which Federal
agencies can contribute to the Nation's STEM improvement efforts. NASA
is a strong contributor to the national plan.
Consistent with Section 202 of the America COMPETES Reauthorization
Act of 2010, NASA works with professional organizations, academia, and
state/local education providers to identify and address needs in STEM
education. Quality professional development for STEM educators is a
prevalent need. Through the education staff at NASA's Centers, NASA
works cooperatively with states and school districts to identify
content needs and opportunities, and with university partners to ensure
that NASA investments will be effective in improving teaching practice.
NASA also works through communities of practice to identify content
areas and special events that supplement informal education programming
offered by museums and science centers. NASA higher education efforts
increasingly target community colleges, which generally serve a high
proportion of minority students. NASA programs build student STEM
ability, preparing students for study at a four-year institution.
Competitive opportunities support initiatives like the President's
``Race to the Top'' and the Department of Education's ``Star Project,''
which promote state-based education reform and identify replicable
strategies for improving K-12 education.
NASA's education programs aim to increase the number of students
who are proficient in, choose to major in, and pursue careers in STEM
fields. Improving STEM ability, increasing public scientific literacy,
increasing the talent pool of future STEM workers, and developing the
STEM skills of the future workforce are imperatives if the Nation is to
remain globally competitive and sustain a strong economy. NASA actively
works through mutually beneficial relationships with over 500 colleges
and universities, hundreds of K-12 schools and districts, and over 400
museums and science centers to provide education experiences, so that
all students can learn deeply and think critically in STEM disciplines.
NASA supports cutting-edge undergraduate student research that
contributes to NASA missions while training the next generation of
scientists, engineers, and innovators. NASA targets recruitment and
retention of underserved and underrepresented students, including women
and girls, Hispanics, and students with disabilities.
NASA is committed to providing equal access to its education
activities by providing any student with the opportunity to contribute
to the future STEM workforce. NASA is responding by focusing its
education investments on areas of greatest national need and ensuring
that the Agency's education programs support national STEM priorities.
With its wealth of science and technology content and its expansive
network of education professionals, NASA is well equipped to address
national needs such as meeting state requirements for educator
professional development. NASA provides practical experience and skills
development for those who will become the future workforce through
internships, fellowships, and student research opportunities. NASA is
especially qualified to attract students to pursue STEM study and
careers. It also is able to engage these future workers through
inspiring NASA missions, fostering collaborative relationships between
students and the current workforce and offering students opportunities
to work in ``out of this world'' facilities. Hands-on challenges with
expert mentors generate increased interest in STEM study.
NASA has engaged students and teachers in its engineering
challenges and scientific discoveries since its inception. From school
presentations to seeds flown in space, from filmstrips and posters to
podcasts and virtual tours through the galaxies, NASA's education
programs have fostered inquiry, built curiosity, and encouraged
innovation. Generations of Americans have participated in NASA's STEM
education programs, and thereby learned basic skills, discovered new
career paths, and developed interests in emerging academic disciplines.
In 2010, NASA chartered an Education Design Team (EDT) to develop a
strategy to improve NASA's education offerings, assist in establishing
goals, structures, processes, and evaluative techniques to implement
new sustainable and innovative STEM education programs. EDT has
completed its task, and its recommendations are reflected in the FY
2012 education budget for NASA's Office of Education.
The FY 2012 budget provides NASA with the resources necessary to
continue this rich tradition in STEM education through support for the
Nation's students and educators, the leveraging of cutting-edge
education technologies, and partnerships with industry. The budget
proposal will:
Increase NASA's impact on STEM education by further focusing
K-12 efforts on middle school pre-and in-service educator
professional development;
Increase emphasis on providing experiential opportunities
for students, internships, and scholarships for high school and
undergraduate students;
Emphasize evaluation and assessment, including external
independent evaluation, to ensure that investments are
providing desirable STEM impacts;
Engage strategic partners with common objectives and
complementary resources; and
Use NASA's unique missions, discoveries, and assets (e.g.,
people, facilities, education infrastructures) to inspire
student achievement and educator teaching ability in STEM
fields.
Question 2. What specific efforts is your organization--or NASA,
generally--making to ensure increased and enhanced participation by
NASA in interagency efforts to enhance the Nation's competitiveness and
capabilities for expansion of academic efforts in Science, Engineering,
Technology and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines, as authorized--and
required--by the America COMPETES Act?
Answer. NASA is actively engaged in collaborations with other
Federal agencies to ensure the Agency's programs are supportive of
national STEM priorities. The NASA Associate Administrator for
Education represents the Agency on the National Science and Technology
Council (NSTC) Committee on STEM Education (CoSTEM). It was established
pursuant to the requirements of Sec. 101 of the America COMPETES
Reauthorization Act of 2010. The NASA Office of Chief Scientist is also
participating in the CoSTEM by providing the CoSTEM Executive
Secretary, who works in close coordination with the Office of
Education.
The CoSTEM serves as part of the internal deliberative process of
the NSTC and provides overall guidance and direction. The NSTC, a
Cabinet-level council, is the principal means for the Administration to
coordinate science and technology policies across the Federal
Government. The purpose of the CoSTEM is to coordinate Federal programs
and activities in support of STEM education. In accordance with the
Act, the CoSTEM is reviewing STEM education activities and programs,
and the respective assessments of each, throughout Federal agencies to
ensure effectiveness; coordinating, with the Office of Management and
Budget, STEM education activities and programs throughout Federal
agencies; and will develop and implement through the participating
agencies a 5-year STEM education strategic plan, to be updated every 5
years.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison to
Edward J. Weiler
Question 1. Please elaborate on the impact to the Agency's Earth
Science mission capabilities as a result of the loss of the Glory
satellite. What is the status of the investigation into the proximate
cause(s) of that launch or deployment failure? Are there plans to
develop replacement vehicle or sensor capabilities on an alternative
vehicle, and if so, in what time frame and at what cost?
Answer. The Glory satellite was lost on March 4, 2011, due to a
Taurus XL launch vehicle failure. The Glory satellite carried two
instruments--the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) and the Aerosol
Polarimetry Sensor (APS). TIM was designed to measure the amount of
solar energy that enters the Earth's atmosphere while APS was designed
to identify aerosol composition, scattering properties, and global
distribution. Both aerosols and solar energy influence the planet's
energy budget--the amount of energy entering and exiting Earth's
atmosphere. An accurate measurement of these impacts is important to
anticipate future changes to our climate. Given the loss of Glory, NASA
must assess if and how to best collect these measurements going
forward.
The on-orbit ACRIMSat and SORCE missions continue to provide
measurements of total solar irradiance. A next-generation solar
irradiance instrument, the Total Solar Irradiance Sensor (TSIS), is in
the implementation phase as collaboration between NOAA and NASA. Some
limited aerosol measurements are being made by the on-orbit MODIS
instruments on Terra and Aqua, the OMI instrument on Aura, the MISR
instrument on Terra, and CALIPSO. The VIIRS instruments on NPP and
planned for JPSS will have limited capacity for measuring global
aerosol distributions, but will not measure the scattering properties
that are key to determining the aerosol contributions to the Earth's
energy balance. The PACE mission in the FY 2012 President's Budget for
flight in 2020 will carry an aerosol instrument, hopefully as an
international collaboration with CNES.
NASA currently has no plans to refly a near-identical Glory
mission. Owing to its use of the spacecraft bus from the cancelled
Vegetation Canopy Lidar mission, which was designed and built more than
a decade ago, it would neither be possible nor efficient to build a
``carbon-copy'' Glory-2 mission today. NASA is, however, continuing to
pursue the development and flight of the 14 Earth-observing missions
identified in the FY 2012 President's budget request for flight between
now and 2020 as well as the competitively selected Venture-class small
satellite missions.
NASA is assessing whether it would be scientifically valuable to
fly a copy of the APS instrument in 3-4 years and what mission options
are possible to fly such an instrument. NASA is currently conducting
two studies to address possible options for, and the cost/schedule of,
rapid development and flight of a copy of the aerosol polarimetry
instrument. The first study focuses on the scientific justification for
flying such an APS given the present state of scientific knowledge and
the expected availability of supporting on-orbit missions. The second
study focuses on the technical/cost/schedule feasibility and
implementation of the smallest, lowest-cost mission approach that would
meet the science objectives. The results of these studies will inform
the Agency's go-forward plan for obtaining data on aerosol composition
and scattering properties.
Immediately following the Taurus XL launch failure, NASA
established a Mishap Investigation Board (MIB) to investigate the
unsuccessful launch. On March 9, 2011, NASA announced the selection of
the members of the board. The MIB is scheduled to conclude its
investigation no later than September 6, 2011.
Question 2. Please provide an update on efforts to ensure timely
and cost-effective completion and deployment of the James Webb Space
Telescope within the context of the FY 2012 Budget Request and out-year
projections? If funding offsets are required from within Directorate
programs, what other programs or missions will be impacted, and with
what results?
Answer. Currently, we are developing a realistic cost and schedule
baseline for the earliest possible launch date for the James Webb Space
Telescope (JWST) given the FY 2011 and 2012 budget constraints. The
funding constraints for this baseline scenario are the FY 2011
President's budget request ($471 million in FY 2011) and the FY 2012
President's budget request ($375 million in FY 2012), plus
unconstrained budgets in out years. This effort required a detailed
analysis of all the work that remains to be done including all hardware
components as well as a revised integration and test program. This plan
will undergo independent review within the Agency and by an outside
team of experts to insure adequate budget and schedule. The JWST
baseline will be completed this summer and its result will be part of
the FY 2013 budget submission.
Using these FY 2011 and FY 2012 funding levels, the project has
developed a near-term schedule and milestones for FY 2011 and FY 2012
that will be used to track performance and progress until the new
baseline is approved. The JWST project continues to meet its FY 2011
technical and programmatic milestones within cost and on schedule.
NASA's detailed plans for JWST for the balance of FY 2011 are
contained in the Operating Plan that was submitted to Congress in June.
No decisions have been made on offsets at this time; these will be
addressed in the FY 2013 budget submission.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison to
Woodrow Whitlow, Jr.
Question 1. How are you maintaining or planning to maintain
critical infrastructure and workforce capabilities that will support
the SLS and MPCV development efforts? What steps are needed to ensure
those supporting elements are not lost in the transition from current
systems to those follow-on systems?
Answer. The transition from the Space Shuttle Program (SSP) had
been an ongoing process for several years, and required extensive
detailed planning for critical infrastructure and workforce
capabilities requirements. NASA has worked to protect critical
capabilities which, if allowed to degrade or lost entirely, could have
significant impact on the Agency's ability to support future programs.
Through the budget formulation process, the NASA Capabilities Forum has
provided a mechanism to assess Agency capabilities and identify those
that are required to support a variety of potential future
architectures.
NASA also recognizes the need to become leaner and more flexible in
its deployment of civil service capabilities. Advanced Exploration
Systems (AES) is an important element of this strategy. By utilizing
civil service talent to begin development of future exploration
capabilities, AES will strengthen the skills and knowledge of our
workforce for future human space exploration.
Question 2. What steps are being taken to ensure supporting
infrastructure and capabilities are maintained or developed to support
commercial crew systems development and facility and program
integration, especially with respect to ISS operations and sustaining
requirements?
Answer. Assessments have been made of what will be required for
long-term International Space Station (ISS) integration, operations,
and future crew support capabilities for the period during which crew
services will be provided by commercial crew contractors. Contractor-
specific infrastructure needed to provide the service is assumed to be
established and maintained by the contractor under their services
costs. This will enable contractors to develop the range of
capabilities they need to support future non-NASA customers while also
serving NASA customers.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
NASA Associate Administrators
Question 1. Please provide estimated impacts, at each NASA center,
for the $298 million cross agency support reductions in the proposed
long term House CR (H.R. 1). If these reductions were implemented at
the beginning of a Fiscal Year rather than 6 months into it, as these
are proposed to be, how would these estimates change?
Answer. The FY 2011 Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L.
112-10), which was enacted on April 15, 2011, funds NASA Cross Agency
Support (CAS) at the FY 2011 President's Request level. Prior to
passage of P.L. 112-10, NASA leadership stated before Congress that the
$298 million reduction to NASA's Cross-Agency budget (coming half-way
through the Fiscal Year), proposed by H.R. 1, would have an operational
impact to the Agency equivalent to the shuttering of two small NASA
Centers. No NASA Centers were identified for such an action.
A reduction of $298 million to CAS would have represented more than
a 10 percent reduction to the account that funds the management,
operations and maintenance of NASA's nine Centers, component facilities
and Headquarters. Additionally, CAS funds Agency-wide management
functions and conducts safety and reliability activities to assure NASA
mission success. Further, had this provision been successfully enacted,
the reductions would have occurred so late in the operating year that
they would have resulted in thousands of lay-offs to on-site
contractors, with 50 percent of NASA's mission support contractor
workforce at risk. As the reduction was not included in enacted
legislation, the Agency did not proceed to make specific determinations
for implementing such direction; however, the contractor impact of a
reduction at that level would equate to over 4,500 layoffs across all
of NASA's Centers.
If the reductions were implemented at the beginning of the Fiscal
Year, the impacts still would be severe. The cuts would result in
approximately 2,250 contractor layoffs. We still would have difficulty
providing the capabilities necessary to support our Centers.
Question 2. How much money has NASA spent since the passage of the
NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-267) that otherwise would not
have been due to the prohibition on cancelling Constellation contracts
in the FY 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-117)?
Answer. Providing a monetary estimate about how much funding NASA
spent since the passage of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 that
otherwise would not have been due to the prohibition on cancelling
Constellation contracts in the FY 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act
is not possible, largely because the Administration has not made final
decisions with regard to the design and acquisition plans for the new
Space Launch System (SLS), as well as support elements for both the SLS
and the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV). Therefore, NASA cannot
specifically say, at this time, which Constellation elements will or
will not feed forward into the new SLS and MPCV programs, and as such,
we cannot accurately estimate how much money could have been saved if
not for the funding restriction.
We would like to note, however, that during this time period, NASA
was making efforts to focus existing Constellation contracts on work
that would likely feed forward to the SLS and MPCV programs--a fact
that was recognized by the NASA Inspector General in a letter to
Congress on February 2, 2011.
Question 3. What steps is the Space Operations Mission Directorate
taking to reduce the time required to develop and fly experiments to
the International Space Station?
Answer. The International Space Station (ISS) program has
implemented the following steps to reduce the time required for science
investigators to develop and fly experiments:
Utilizing a broad agency announcement, the ISS program has
selected qualified implementation partners that have experience
in the design, development and operation of space hardware,
thus reducing the science investigators' need to develop this
expertise and technology;
ISS provides available on-orbit science hardware,
facilities, analysis instruments and tools, reducing the need
for science investigators to design, build, and certify
hardware required to conduct their investigations;
ISS provides routine conditioned and unpressurized
transportation services to and from ISS, dedicated to science
cargo, at no cost to the science investigator. Once Commercial
Resupply Services (CRS) are available, science investigators
could have up to five flight opportunities per year to ISS,
which will minimize time impacts due to flight availability;
ISS provides dedicated on-orbit resources including crew
time, volume, power, data, imagery, service gases, and ambient
and conditioned storage of samples at no cost to the science
investigator. Once commercial crew transportation is available,
ISS plans to increase the USOS crew to 4 (total ISS crew of 7)
in order to maximize available crew time for research.
ISS has stratified the payload hardware verification and
certification process so that the hardware developers expend
the minimum amount of time to ensure their hardware is safe and
will operate effectively onboard the ISS.
Question 4. Please provide a list of the aeronautics research at
NASA that has the potential to reduce fuel consumption and generate
savings for the airline industry.
Answer. NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate is
committed to research that promotes fuel efficiency and environmental
compatibility while increasing or maintaining aircraft safety. Fuel
currently represents the largest operating cost for U.S. airlines. Many
of the aeronautics research activities currently being conducted by
NASA have the potential, upon adoption, of reducing fuel consumption.
NASA systems analysis indicates that new operational procedures
currently in development within the Airspace Systems Program (ASP) have
the potential, if fully adopted into the National Airspace System, to
reduce fuel burn by 400 million gallons per year during landing and
takeoff phases of flight and an additional 200 million gallons per year
during the en route cruise phase of flight. These savings correspond to
about 3 percent of the annual fuel burned by U.S. commercial airlines.
ASP is also developing improvements in ground operations that have the
potential to reduce fuel burn during airport taxi operations by 15
million gallons per year, which would result in a reduction of 2
million pounds of CO2 per year of harmful emissions in and
around our largest airports. Some key areas of research within the ASP
focus on developing new capabilities to:
Demonstrate near term application of Automatic Dependent
Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) enabled technologies to enable
fuel and time efficient arrivals (new FY11 initiative);
Demonstrate near term application of ADS-B enabled
technologies to enable efficient surface operations to reduce
fuel, noise, and emissions (FY 2012 Presidents budget request);
Demonstrate Efficient Descent Advisor (EDA) technologies
with the FAA 3D-Path Arrival Management (3D-PAM) to enable
continuous descent approaches in congested airports for reduced
fuel consumption and reduced noise level during landing;
Demonstrate non-stop taxi surface operations to reduce fuel-
consumption due to current stop-and-go throttling operations;
Optimize efficient arrivals, departures and surface
operations through fuel-saving integrated arrival/departure/
surface time management, route modification and adaptive speed
control;
Maximize national airspace efficiency with new processes to
address demand/capacity imbalances from weather effects and
system wide uncertainties to reduce travel time, distance, and
delays which inherently reduce fuel consumption and emissions;
Enable safe, time and fuel efficient, en route flight with
varying weather while allowing for reduced distance between
aircraft to increase air-traffic volumes; and,
Reduce airborne and ground hold delays through enabling
increases to system capacity by bringing to bear available
resources and capacity to wherever demand is surging.
The Fundamental Aeronautics Program (FAP) and Integrated Systems
Research Program (ISRP) conduct complementary research aimed at
reducing the fuel burn of aircraft. New concepts and technologies
undergo early-stage development within FAP. Individual technologies
which have matured are then evaluated at an aircraft system level in
relevant environments (including flight test) within ISRP. Within these
Programs, research is being conducted on technologies that will improve
fuel efficiency for a variety of aircraft and have a direct effect on
overall fuel consumption for the aircraft industry. Specific areas of
research include:
New aircraft designs and configurations, including
rotorcraft and subsonic vehicles, that are more efficient;
Lightweight structural components, such as airframes, to
reduce subsonic aircraft operating empty weight;
Advanced fuel-efficient engine designs;
Ways to reduce subsonic aircraft drag, with minimal impact
on operating empty weight, for total aircraft energy reduction;
and,
Some advanced structural and propulsion-related material
research intended primarily for supersonic aircraft
applications will also benefit subsonic aircraft by helping to
reduce vehicle and propulsion system weight thereby reducing
fuel consumption.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Warner to
NASA Associate Administrators
The promise of commercial space:
Question 1. I have always been interested in innovative ways of
financing infrastructure, including by leveraging private sector
dollars and by helping to harness the competitive and entrepreneurial
spirit that drives innovation in our private sector. I believe
commercial spaceflight has the potential to save NASA a great deal of
money by offering lower-cost options for missions that NASA currently
must pay a lot of money for. Can you talk about the potential for
savings NASA can achieve through partnerships with private-sector
entrepreneurs, and describe how NASA can foster a business-friendly
climate that will further encourage entrepreneurs?
Answer. Through our current commercial cargo and crew public-
private partnership agreements, NASA is fostering an environment that
harnesses the competitive and entrepreneurial spirit with U.S. emerging
as well as established companies to develop and demonstrate new space
transportation capabilities. With respect to financing infrastructure,
we have seen innovative ways partners meet resource and infrastructure
needs as they develop their space transportation systems.
By supporting the development of systems and capabilities targeted
toward providing commercial services, NASA has enabled providers to
determine how best to meet the needs of their eventual customers. A
combination of NASA seed money, facilities and technical expertise
along with existing partner infrastructure and innovation has resulted
in the beginning of a vibrant new commercial space transportation
industry.
NASA's commercial cargo development project (COTS) is an excellent
example of the cost savings that can result from innovative public-
private partnerships. This cost savings is described in Appendix B of
the recently released ``Commercial Market Assessment for Crew and Cargo
Systems,'' which described an analysis performed by NASA showing the
dramatic cost savings achieved in the development of the Falcon 9
launch vehicle.
NASA will continue to foster a business-friendly climate by
partnering with industry to understand government and industry needs
and enabling development of new systems and capabilities. The goal is
to achieve reliable cost effective solutions that become available to
NASA, other Government entities, and private sector customers. These
partnerships hold the potential to open new markets in space, increase
high technology jobs in the United States, as well as reduce
development and operations costs compared with traditional NASA program
practices.
Fixed-price and cost-plus contracting:
Question 2. Can you describe NASA's position on fixed-price versus
cost-plus contracting? As I understand it, one of the exciting features
of the Commercial Crew Program, a feature that saves money for the
taxpayer, is the use of fixed-price agreements. Can you describe some
of the advantages of fixed-price commercial procurement?
Answer. NASA's approach to contract type selection is to match the
unique circumstances of the procurement with the appropriate
acquisition mechanism. Given the nature of NASA's mission, many of our
procurements are for complicated research and development efforts that
involve complex requirements where the likelihood of changes makes it
difficult to estimate performance costs in advance. Consequently, due
to these complex requirements, significant technical risk, and cost
uncertainty, a cost type contract is appropriate in such cases.
Typically, as a program matures the risk shifts and contract types
should also shift toward firm-fixed price contracts which are more
advantageous to the government since they shift a substantial portion
of the cost risk to the contractor, thus heavily incentivizing the
contractor to control costs.
NASA's Procurement Tenets were published on August 1, 2008. One of
the tenets is ``Reducing Cost and Cost Risk for Procurements,'' which
states in part that cost risk for each requirement must be properly
allocated between NASA and industry. Commercial item procurements
result in fixed-price contracts and thus shift a substantial portion of
the cost risk onto the contractor. For example, NASA pursued a
commercial contracting model for the ISS Commercial Resupply Services
(CRS) contracts. These competitive, firm-fixed-price, multiple award
ID/IQ contracts will provide commercial cargo resupply services to and
from the International Space Station.
The acquisition strategy for the Commercial Crew Program (CCP) has
not been finalized at this time. Careful consideration is being given
to the appropriate acquisition mechanism for this important program and
several reviews are scheduled in the next two months to address the
approach for our procurement strategy. NASA is also incorporating
lessons learned from CRS and other programs. We recognize the
advantages of commercial and other types of fixed-price contracts,
where appropriate, and will fully consider their use for CCP.
International Competitiveness on the Launch Market:
Question 3. As you know, thirty years ago, the United States has a
commanding lead in the international launch market--we launched a
number of payloads for other countries. But today, we've lost most of
our market share to China, India, Russia, and Europe. The Commercial
Crew Program would invest new resources in the commercial spaceflight
sector, which would improve America's competitiveness in the global
launch market. How do you think NASA could best work with commercial
providers, not just to launch people into space, but also to recapture
our lead in the international launch market?
Answer. NASA can best work with commercial partners to help
recapture our lead in the international launch market by partnering
with industry to understand Government and industry needs and enabling
development of new systems and capabilities with the goal of achieving
safe, reliable, and cost effective solutions that are available to
NASA, other Government entities, and private sector customers. Key
factors for customers in the launch market are reliability and
affordability.
Question 3a. How essential is the Commercial Crew Program to
ensuring the future of the International Space Station? Also, what is
the program's importance to how we get Americans into space and to the
International Space Station with the retirement of the space shuttle?
Answer. The Commercial Crew Program is essential to ensuring the
future of the International Space Station (ISS), and NASA plans to
facilitate the development of a U.S. commercial crew space
transportation capability with the goal of achieving safe, reliable and
cost effective access to and from Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and the ISS
after the retirement of the Space Shuttle. Once the commercial crew
transportation capability is matured and available to customers, NASA
plans to purchase transportation services to meet its ISS crew rotation
and emergency return obligations. The Agency anticipates the
availability of these systems by the middle of the decade, contingent
upon the availability of appropriated funding.
In the meantime, NASA intends to continue to purchase seats aboard
the Russian Soyuz spacecraft until demonstrated commercial crew
transportation services and rescue services are available in order to
maintain a U.S. presence on the ISS and to satisfy U.S. obligations to
its non-Russian ISS partners. Once U.S. commercial transportation
services become available, NASA plans to purchase 8 commercial crew
seats per year (4 seats twice a year) in order maximize ISS
utilization. The Agency plans to have a period of time where crew
transportation and rescue services provided by Russian and U.S.
commercial vehicles overlap to ensure no gap in services. The current
exception to the Iran, North Korea and Syria Non-Proliferation Act
(INKSNA) for extraordinary payments to Russia for the International
Space Station (ISS) allows the Agency to purchase or barter for Russian
seats and other services to July 1, 2016.
It is important that the Agency look to commercial providers to
sustain the ISS so that NASA can focus its efforts on developing
systems designed to carry astronauts on missions of exploration beyond
LEO. This will also have the effect of encouraging the development of
crew transportation services that could be purchased by other users, as
well.
STEM Education and Commercial Space:
Question 4. As you are well aware, the commercial spaceflight
sector has been attracting substantial attention from the media and the
public. A few weeks, ago there was a major piece in the New York Times
with the title ``Space Tourism May Mean One Giant Leap for
Researchers,'' talking about how scientists and educators can benefit
from low-cost commercial spaceflight. What do you see as the ability
for commercial spaceflight providers to inspire young people to pursue
careers in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) careers?
As you know, many of our young people are captivated by the idea of
being able to travel to space. How can NASA tap this energy and work
with the commercial spaceflight sector to keep exciting students?
Answer. NASA has a rich history of providing exciting opportunities
for students to pursue payload and flight project opportunities
including historically successful projects such as the Reduced Gravity
Education Flight Program, and more recent opportunities such as the
High Altitude Student Platform (HASP), BalloonSat High ALtitude Flight
(BHALF) competition, the University Student Launch Initiative (USLI)
competition, High Schools United with NASA to Create Hardware (HUNCH)
and the CubeSat Launch Initiative.
Per the requirements of the America Competes Reauthorization Act of
2010 (PL 111-358; Sec 205), NASA will continue to study and assess the
potential impacts on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) education of a program that would facilitate the development of
scientific and educational payloads involving United States students
and educators and the flights of those payloads on commercially
available orbital platforms, when available and operational, with the
goal of providing frequent and regular payload launches.
The recent NASA-chartered Education Design Team (EDT) report
recommended that the NASA Education program place increasing emphasis
on providing experiential opportunities for students, internships, and
scholarships for high school and undergraduate students; and engage
strategic partners with common objectives and complementary resources.
NASA has been given Congressional direction to pursue activities
through the International Space Station (ISS) National Laboratory
Education (NLE) project which leverage the resources of entities
external to NASA, including commercial companies, academic
institutions, not-for-profit organizations and other U.S. Government
agencies. Collaborative educational activities directly partnered with,
or in conjunction with, the ISS Program International Partner space
agencies are included in the expansion of ISS educational activities.
Under the ISS National Lab and ISS NLE concept, commercial payloads
such as the Commercial Generic Bioprocessing Apparatus (CGBA) Science
Inserts, the Synchronized Position Hold Engage and Reorient
Experimental Satellite (SPHERES), and Space Dynamically Responding
Ultrasonic Matrix System (Space-DRUMS) are poised for additional
partnering opportunities and expansion of their educational activities.
Some of these payloads will expand their educational scope to
incorporate content applicable in the both the Kindergarten through
12th grades (K-12) as well as at the University level. Activities to
include international student participation as well as students from
traditionally underrepresented and underserved institutions will also
be emphasized and considered part of an expansion opportunity.
Commensurate with the NLE goals, the NanoRacks ISS National Lab
payload (also known as CubeLab), offers flight opportunities for K-12
schools and Universities to conduct experiments of their own design
within the NanoRacks facility. The NanoRacks hardware is developed by
NanoRacks LLC in partnership with Kentucky Space, an ambitious non-
profit enterprise focused on R&D, educational and small entrepreneurial
and commercial space solutions involving several Universities in the
state of Kentucky.
The Flight Opportunities program, managed by the Office of the
Chief Technologist, helps foster the development of the commercial
reusable suborbital transportation industry, an important step in the
longer-term path that envisions suborbital reusable launch vehicles
evolving to provide the Nation with much lower-cost, more frequent, and
more reliable access to orbital space. The Flight Opportunities program
will competitively secure commercial suborbital flight services and
extend the opportunity for flights through a competitive process. By
reducing the cost of suborbital flights, researchers and students will
have increased access to testing payloads in a reduced gravity
environment. The program has already provided contracts to Armadillo
Aerospace and Masten Space Systems to provide developmental test
flights. One of these vendors will provide flights for the Excelsior
STEM mission, a commercial unmanned suborbital mission sponsored by
Teachers in Space and scheduled to fly in 2011. Experiment kits for the
Excelsior STEM mission will be assembled by teachers at a Suborbital
Flight Experiment Workshop to be held August 1-5, 2011 at the NASA
Dryden Flight Research Center's AERO Institute in Palmdale, California.
NASA hopes to make more opportunities available as more commercial
suborbital flights are scheduled.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. John Boozman to
Douglas R. Cooke
Question. As you know, the 2010 NASA Authorization Act requires
NASA to use innovative and non-traditional costing, schedule and
procurement strategies in formulating its plans for implementation of
the required developments of the Space Launch System (SLS) and the
Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV). This was done to ensure that NASA
could implement and expedite development activities for those systems
in an affordable and sustainable manner within a limited resources
environment. Can you describe what innovative or alternative approaches
have been considered and planned for implementation in the SLS and MPCV
development activities, and how they contribute to the viability,
affordability and sustainability of those vehicles?
Answer. Industry discussions with prime and sub-contractors, and
review of data from the heavy lift Broad Agency Announcement (BAA)
study contracts showed that large cost reductions can be realized
through innovative management approaches and contract vehicles that
give clear requirements and allow the contractor to find and deliver
solutions using industry standards and processes Both SLS and MPCV are
actively challenging the heritage cost structure and redefining the
Programs to become more entrepreneurial/affordable. For example, the
MPCV Program has met with the Orion prime and all of its major sub-
contractors to discuss cost/schedule drivers and common themes for
affordability. During those discussions, the team identified and
adopted many processes and values such as implementing a development
strategy that adopts ``learn early and inexpensively'' principles;
right-sizing reporting requirements, streamlining joint decision making
processes, employing an incremental (metered) development approach
including proposed early flight tests; streamlined facility approaches
for integrated testing, and distributed and proto-flight qualification.
Another major affordability approach being implemented is a change in
organizational processes and values to shift the focus more onto
adaptability, affordability and speed. This will be accomplished by
NASA insight/oversight reform--deploying a smaller/flatter
organization, streamlined deliverables and decision processes, and
adopting vertical integration in key development, management and
manufacturing areas.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Boozman to
William Gerstenmaier
Question 1. ISS research is about to move into full swing. Can you
please describe how research on the ISS has grown to date and indicate
some of the most important discoveries which impact human on Earth?
Answer. The International Space Station (ISS) is now fully
assembled, and includes three major international science laboratories:
the U.S. Destiny, European Columbus, and Japanese Kibo labs. During
Expeditions 0-24 (from September 2000 to October 2010), 1,149
investigations were conducted aboard Station (including 454 completed
investigations, 734 International Partner investigations, and 25
National Laboratory pathfinder investigations (NOTE: data as of January
20, 2011). This work involved more than 1,600 scientists and has
resulted in more than 310 scientific publications (international count
ongoing). In FY 2010 alone, astronauts aboard ISS conducted over 250
Station-wide research experiments, including 150 U.S. experiments,
supporting the work of over 400 scientists world-wide.
In addition to conducting research in support of future human
missions into deep space, astronauts aboard the ISS carry out
experiments anticipated to have terrestrial applications:
ISS research has shown that bacteria can become more
virulent in microgravity (i.e., more aggressive in causing
disease). In several cases, scientists have successfully
identified the genes responsible for this increased virulence
and are now developing vaccine candidates. AstroGenetix, Inc.
has funded their own follow-on studies on ISS and is now
preparing to submit Investigational New Drug applications to
the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of both
salmonella-induced food poisoning and methicillin-resistant
Staphaureus (MRSA).
Microcapsules are tiny micro-balloons used in cancer
treatment to deliver anti-cancer drugs directly to a tumor
site. Microcapsules with improved cancer treatment properties
developed on the ISS were reproduced on Earth and were
successful in targeting delivery of anti-cancer drugs to
successfully shrink tumors in ground tests. A device to produce
similar capsules on Earth has now been patented, and clinical
trials of the drug delivery method are planned at M.D. Anderson
Cancer Center and the Mayo Clinic.
A Japanese scientist crystallized the HQL-79 protein (human
prostaglandin D2 synthase inhibitor protein) on the ISS,
producing an improved structure that identified the location of
critical hydrogen bonds that were not previously known. This
allowed drug design for a candidate treatment to inhibit the
progression of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Continuing work is
looking at other proteins and viruses.
Numerous plant growth experiments have investigated both the
effects of microgravity, as well as the capability for growing
regenerable food supplies for crew. Technology developed for a
greenhouse flown on the ISS is now widely used on Earth,
killing 98 percent of airborne pathogens (including Anthrax)
for food preservation, doctors' offices, homes, and businesses.
Research into areas such as biotechnology, bioengineering,
medicine, and therapeutic treatment will be enabled by the National
Laboratory function of the Station. NASA has five Memoranda of
Understanding (MOUs) with other U.S. government agencies, and nine
agreements with non-government organizations to conduct research aboard
the ISS. NASA intends to continue to expand the community of National
Laboratory users of the ISS. In support of this effort, on February 14,
NASA released a Cooperative Agreement Notice (CAN) for an independent
non-profit organization to manage the multidisciplinary research
carried out by NASA's National Laboratory partners. This organization
will: (1) act as a single entry point for non-NASA users to interface
efficiently with the ISS; (2) assist researchers in developing
experiments, meeting safety and integration rules, and acting as an
ombudsman on behalf of researchers; (3) perform outreach to researchers
and disseminate the results of ISS research activities; and (4) provide
easily accessed communication materials with details about laboratory
facilities, available research hardware, resource constraints, and
more. On July 13, NASA selected the Center for the Advancement of
Science in Space Inc. (CASIS) to develop and manage the U.S. portion of
the International Space Station that will be operated as a national
laboratory.
Question 2. What steps are being taken to ensure the availability
of up mass and down mass to private companies or commercial entities to
enable and further expand ISS utilization?
Answer. The ISS has transitioned from the construction era to an
operations and research era, with a six-person permanent crew, three
major science labs, and an operational lifetime through at least 2020.
The ISS represents a unique research capability, aboard which NASA,
other Government agencies, commercial entities, and partner nations can
conduct a wide variety of research in biology, chemistry, physics and
engineering fields. NASA anticipates that this research will support
future human missions into deep space, and have terrestrial
applications.
In order to provide cargo transportation to and from ISS--for the
Agency and for users of the Station in its capacity as a National
Laboratory--NASA will depend on U.S. industry to provide commercial
resupply services (CRS) following the retirement of the Space Shuttle.
On December 23, 2008, NASA awarded CRS contracts to Orbital Sciences
Corporation (OSC) and SpaceX for the delivery of cargo to the ISS after
the retirement of the Shuttle. The CRS contractor will provide an end-
to end service to deliver, and return or dispose of ISS cargo. NASA
anticipates that both providers will have their systems operational in
2012.
NASA ordered 12 CRS flights valued at $1.59 billion from SpaceX.
SpaceX will provide pressurized and unpressurized upmass and
return services.
SpaceX currently has currently completed 14 funding
milestones for the four CRS missions in process. In addition,
one more CRS mission may be turned on if progress continues.
Finally, two milestones in support of COTS demonstration cargo
have been paid.
The first SpaceX CRS flight is currently scheduled for late
January 2012, and the company is currently slated to fly three
CRS missions each Fiscal Year from 2012 through 2015.
NASA ordered eight CRS flights valued at $1.88 billion from OSC.
OSC will provide pressurized upmass and disposal services.
OSC has currently completed 11 funding milestones for three
CRS missions. Finally, 2 milestones in support of COTS
demonstration cargo have been paid.
The first OSC CRS flight is currently scheduled for the end
of the first quarter of calendar year 2012, and the company is
currently slated to fly two CRS missions each Fiscal Year from
2012 through 2015.
These commercial services are planned to help support U.S.
operations and utilization of the ISS to meet NASA mission objectives,
NASA obligations for international utilization cargo under the ISS
Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs), and the needs of other civil and
commercial users of the Space Station. Additional proposed funding for
cargo to support U.S. National Laboratory users was included in the
President's FY 2012 budget request.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. John Boozman to
Leland D. Melvin
Question. The Arkansas Space Grant Consortium has participated in
NASA's Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR)
for 10 years. What kind of impacts can they expect from the President's
FY 2012 Budget Request?
Answer. The President's budget request for FY 2012 reflects the
need to develop a balanced education portfolio for the Agency that
supports its efforts in higher education, K-12 student and teacher
programs, and informal education.
NASA anticipates offering a competition in FY 2012 for EPSCoR
Research Awards and plans to continue the opportunity for states to
participate in the Research Infrastructure Development component of
NASA EPSCoR. Arkansas NASA EPSCoR will be eligible to participate in
both of those opportunities.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Boozman to
Dr. Jaiwon Shin
Question 1. With your essentially flat budget, how are you further
increasing investments into new materials, composite structures, and
structural analysis tools which have been showing benefits to the
aviation and aerospace industries?
Answer. NASA currently conducts research on materials, composite
structures, and structural analysis within both the Fundamental
Aeronautics Program (FAP) and the Integrated Systems Research Program
(ISRP) within Aeronautics Research. New concepts and technologies
undergo early-stage development within FAP. Individual technologies
which have matured are then evaluated at an aircraft system level in
relevant environments (including flight test) within ISRP.
Recognizing and responding to a growing use of new materials and
composite structures, beginning in FY 2012, NASA will be increasing the
investment in new materials, composite structures and structural
analysis tools. NASA research will focus on the development of new
Ceramic Matrix Composites (CMC) materials with increased temperature
capabilities and models to understand them. Additionally, composites
structural analysis capabilities will be improved and expanded with the
creation of new tools to support the design of advanced airframes
(including those that have come from the recent advanced aircraft
concepts studies). Examples of improved capabilities will include
analysis of multifunctional structures and science based analysis of
safety factors. Ultimately this may lead to safer and lighter
structures with improved damage tolerance characteristics and a
reduction in testing time.
In a related area, NASA will also be expanding research into the
lightning effects, sensors, and related damage on composite materials.
Adequate damage models for the effects of lightning strikes on
composites do not currently exist. Further, existing sensor and
mitigation methods are low maturity and/or heavy resulting in weight
penalties on aircraft. The expanded research activity would accelerate
the development of standardized test procedures from FY 2013 to FY 2012
and demonstrate multifunctional sensors that protect and diagnose
composites to meet FAA requirements in FY 2013. At the same time,
funding was reduced for lower priorities, including hypersonics.
Question 2. What other strategic investments are you making? In
what areas of research or infrastructure and how do you expect these
investments to benefits NASA and the United States?
Answer. NASA Aeronautics fully supports the National Aeronautics
Research and Development Policy and Plan, in which strategic
investments by the U.S. government are identified, in order to ensure
our technological leadership in the aeronautics enterprise is
maintained and strengthened. Investments being made by NASA Aeronautics
cover areas including mobility through the air in order to best support
the realization of the Next Generation Air Transportation System
(NextGen), safety of flight, air vehicle and air traffic operations,
energy efficiency, and minimizing the effect of aviation on the
environment. With regards to infrastructure, we continue to support the
ground testing and experimental flight research capabilities of the
Agency and the Nation through strategic management of assets as wind
tunnels, engine test cells, materials and structures laboratories and a
variety of subsonic and supersonic aircraft. With the FY 2011
appropriation, we have started new efforts in several areas, including
providing technology-based solutions to ease the integration of
unmanned aircraft systems into the national air space and in the
development of new approaches for verifying and validating the proper
function and operation of increasingly complex air vehicles and air
traffic management systems.
In FY 2012, NASA is focusing its efforts on areas that directly
support U.S. strategies for realizing safer and more efficient flight.
These include increased research into efficient and safe airport
surface operations. Technologies will be integrated from the current
NASA portfolio to further advance greater utilization of Automatic
Dependent Surveillance--Broadcast (ADS-B) application technologies
providing optimization of airport surface movements with precise
scheduling to reduce surface and en-route traffic delays and enhance
safety. Research into high altitude ice crystal effects on aircraft
engines will be increased to improve the probability that NASA's
capability will support the Federal Aviation Administration's new rule-
making and thus increase aviation safety for the community in a timely
manner. Alternative fuels research will be increased to help advance
our understanding of the emissions characteristics of these new fuels
(including biofuels) as their use in aircraft increases, which is a key
factor in substantially reducing the impact of aviation on the
environment--specifically reducing the gaseous and particulate
emissions of aircraft. Also beginning in FY 2012, NASA will be
increasing the investment in new materials, composite structures and
structural analysis tools. The primary focus of this effort will be in
the development of new Ceramic Matrix Composites (CMC) materials with
increased temperature capabilities and models to understand them
Additional research will be conducted into the effects of lightning
strikes on composite materials.
This research will accelerate development of standardized test
procedures to support development of sensor concepts, advanced models,
and protection methods. NASA Aeronautics Research has a long history of
directly benefiting the Agency, as our in-house aeronautical sciences
expertise is brought to bear on agency efforts ranging from the design
of launch vehicle system to the development of materials that allow
safe atmospheric entry/re-entry of both manned and unmanned capsules
and science mission landers. More so though, the taxpayer investment
through NASA in aeronautics research primarily benefits the U.S.
economy and the general public. The strategic investment that we are
making in FY 2012 will ensure that the overall benefits to the U.S.
economy that are realized through safe and efficient flight operations
continue to be realized into the future. The ultimate benefit of NASA
developed knowledge and technologies is realized when U.S. industry
develops superior products aided by NASA research results and
collaboration with NASA in a fiercely competitive global market, which
will not only maintain but advance U.S. aviation industry's pre-
eminence in an increasingly global enterprise.
______
NASA Administrator Selects Orion-based Design
for MPCV Development Phase
NASA has reached an important milestone in defining the next
transportation system that will carry humans into deep space in
accordance with the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, the FY 2011 Full-
Year Continuing Appropriations Act and Administration policy. While
NASA is down-selecting and further focusing options for developing the
heavy-lift Space Launch System (SLS) within the Agency, NASA has
reached an important milestone with regard to our path forward on the
Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV). After careful analysis and very
thoughtful deliberations by a senior management team, Administrator
Bolden has decided to accept the Orion-based reference vehicle design,
first outlined in NASA's January 2011 report to Congress, as the
Agency's MPCV.
As part of his decision process, the Administrator determined that
the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle was already being built to meet the
requirements of a deep-space vehicle--the current design is sound, and
testing has proven the vehicle to be the best option for this phase of
exploration efforts beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO). Additionally, the
Administrator determined that the Agency's current Orion contractual
partnership with Lockheed Martin Corporation maps well to the scope of
the MPCV requirements outlined in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010
and, therefore, the current contract will be used at least for the
development phase of the MPCV.
Moving forward, work on the MPCV will focus only on the deep-space
design. While the MPCV could be called upon to service the
International Space Station (ISS)--a backup requirement established by
the NASA Authorization Act of 2010--it should be well understood that
utilizing the MPCV would be a very inefficient and costly use of the
MPCV deep-space capability. NASA is confident in the ability of our
commercial partners to provide all currently foreseen support for the
ISS. Therefore, there is no intention to conduct routine LEO missions
with the MPCV.
It is important to point out that the Administrator's decision
regarding MPCV does not reflect a ``business as usual'' mentality for
the Agency. Over the last year, the NASA/Lockheed Martin team has shown
exceptional creativity in finding ways to keep costs down by
implementing new management techniques, technical solutions and
innovation within the Orion Project. Examples include implementation of
a new oversight model to ensure the most efficient use of NASA and
contractor workforce and applying technology such as composite
materials, friction stir welding and advanced avionics networks to
enhance performance as well as affordability . . . and that's just the
beginning. These innovations have allowed the Orion team to continue
technical progress within reduced budget estimates.
In the coming weeks, NASA will be making further decisions with
regard to transportation architecture. In the meantime, NASA is
refining the SLS concept and defining strategy alternatives based on
detailed Government analysis and completed input from industry through
Broad Agency Announcement study contracts. Additionally, the MPCV team
is focusing on further development of the Ground Test Article, other
development design and analysis, as well as coming up with an
integrated MPCV/SLS plan that will be affordable, sustainable and
realistic. Due diligence will ensure the best value for the taxpayer
with respect to cost, risk, schedule, performance and impacts to
critical NASA and industrial skills and capabilities.
Further details about NASA's analysis and decisions regarding SLS
and MPCV and their path forward will be provided to Congress in a
follow-on report in the late spring/summer timeframe. But even when
that report is submitted to Congress, work will remain ahead for the
Agency, particularly as we finalize development plans and acquisition
decisions per normal Agency processes--decisions that must remain
consistent with NASA's Strategic Plan and Agency commitments. For
example, NASA will need to hold a Procurement Strategy Meeting to
approve the specific details for each individual procurement action.
In conclusion, NASA remains committed to meeting the goals and
requirements of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, and we look forward
to working with Members of Congress as we finalize our plans for
achieving human spaceflight exploration of multiple destinations in our
solar system.