[Senate Hearing 111-863]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-863
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN THE
NASA FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET PROPOSAL
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND SPACE
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 24, 2010
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
64-486 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
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 ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas,
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts Ranking
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
BARBARA BOXER, California JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
BILL NELSON, Florida JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas GEORGE S. LeMIEUX, Florida
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
TOM UDALL, New Mexico SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MARK WARNER, Virginia MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
MARK BEGICH, Alaska
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
Nick Rossi, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND SPACE
BILL NELSON, Florida, Chairman DAVID VITTER, Louisiana, Ranking
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
BARBARA BOXER, California JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
TOM UDALL, New Mexico MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
MARK WARNER, Virginia
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 24, 2010................................ 1
Statement of Senator Nelson...................................... 1
Statement of Senator Vitter...................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Statement of Senator LeMieux..................................... 31
Witnesses
Bolden, Jr., Hon. Charles F., Administrator, National Aeronautics
and Space Administration....................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Gibson, Captain Robert ``Hoot'', USN (Ret.) and Former NASA
Astronaut...................................................... 38
Prepared statement........................................... 40
O'Brien, Miles, Journalist and Host, ``This Week in Space''...... 43
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Snyder, Michael J., Aerospace Engineer........................... 47
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Young, A. Thomas, Former Director, NASA Goddard Space Flight
Center and President and Chief Operating Officer, Martin
Marietta Corporation........................................... 52
Prepared statement........................................... 53
Appendix
Rockefeller IV, Hon. John D., U.S. Senator from West Virginia,
prepared statement............................................. 61
Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, prepared
statement...................................................... 61
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN THE NASA FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET
PROPOSAL
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Science and Space,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:36 p.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Bill Nelson,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. The meeting will come to order.
Thank you all for being here. We have an important subject
to discuss this afternoon.
Senator Vitter, thanks. Thanks for being here.
I'm going to make some opening comments. Senator Vitter
will, as well. And then we'll hear from the first panel, which
is General Bolden, and then we will invite up our second panel.
We have had quite a discussion about the future of our
Nation's space program, and it all started with the new
Administration impaneling a very prestigious blue ribbon panel,
the Augustine Commission, headed by a former space expert and
former CEO, Norm Augustine. And after that--it was such a
comprehensive report--many of us urged the White House, as they
started to develop their budget, to fund NASA at the level that
the Augustine Commission said. Essentially, if you wanted to
have a robust space program, other than the existing budget,
you would have to have a fairly significant increase in
funding.
Well, the White House decided a significant increase in
funding, that they would recommend to the Congress--$6 billion
over 5 years--and that, in this budgetary environment, is no
small matter. But, it was only half of what the Augustine
Commission was recommending. And over and over, as I shared
with the White House staff and with the President as well, that
there's only one person that can lead the space program, and
that is the President, and that the President--who I know,
personally, to be a space fan, a space aficionado--would have
to make that declaration of support.
And what happened was that, instead of a declaration of
support, the NASA budget, which has a lot of very forward-
thinking and cutting-edge ideas were rolled out just as part of
the regular budgetary message. In the process, it ended up, in
some cases, being misinterpreted, in other cases, giving a
false impression, and in other cases, became overlooked as part
of the President's budget.
Now, there's a lot that's good in this budget, from this
Senator's perspective. We're seeing increases in aeronautics
and science and Earth observation. The extension of the
International Space Station at least to the year 2020 was an
obvious one, but, heretofore, NASA budgets said that the
funding for the ISS was going to cutoff in 2015. And there is,
in this budget, an emphasis on encouraging science and
technology, engineering and math, and that is especially
important.
But, here's the problem. Because the President did not make
the declaration himself, and with the declaration that the
Constellation program was going to be terminated, and with the
angst that is already out there among the NASA family because
of the layoffs that are anticipated--anticipated because of
budgetary decisions that were made 6 and 7 years ago so that a
new rocket was not ready by the time that the Space Shuttle was
shut down and, therefore, there were going to be layoffs--you
add the angst to a statement that the Constellation program is
going to be killed, and add to that that it was rolled out in a
budget message without the President declaring it, and what did
it give? It gave the perception that the President was killing
the manned space program.
Now, the problem is that we live in the world of
perception, and if the substance is different from the
perception, then we've got to straighten it out. And where the
perception is substance, if we disagree with the substance,
then we have to change it.
And so, I remind you that the President proposes and the
Congress disposes. And so, what we're going to start, in the
process of understanding the NASA budget that is presented by
the Administration--and, in the process, we hope--and this is
just a first step--to clear up the perception so that the clear
declaration of the President's vision for space is there, and
that the American people understand it. And the President,
either himself or through his Administration--through his
Administrator--needs to clearly state what the goal is.
Now, it's pretty obvious that the goal that we all have
talked about for some period of time, since we went to the Moon
over 40 years ago, is to go to Mars. The question is, ``How do
we do that? How do we develop the architecture, the technology,
the way stations, the benchmarks? How do we do that?''
And so, we should develop the technology in pursuit of that
goal, not the other way around, that you develop technology and
then you set a goal. As the saying goes, ``No wind is a good
wind unless you know where the harbor is.'' Or, as that great
American philosopher stated--Yogi Berra--``You've got to be
very careful if you don't know where you're going, because you
might not get there.''
The hope is that we could provide more efficient access to
low-Earth orbit while freeing NASA to explore the heavens--the
Moon, the asteroids, Mars. But, this budget doesn't hold up the
second half of that bargain, because by eliminating the plans
for a heavy lift vehicle and a spacecraft capable of excursions
below low-Earth orbit, the U.S., this Senator fears, is going
to be on the sidelines while other countries continue to make
incremental progress toward destinations like the Moon.
So, what I am hopeful for is--from the President, the White
House, or someone--that we are going to get a bold statement of
vision and a declaration of the ultimate destination of our
space program, and that is Mars. And that vision should support
manned spaceflight beyond low-Earth orbit, and that destination
should be on the horizon. And then we can develop the
technology for getting to that destination.
And once the President has made his vision abundantly
clear, it should then be left to the NASA Administrator,
working with the Congress, to make the detailed and technical
decisions with the funding that we would assist NASA by
authorizing and appropriating, in order to achieve that vision.
And it's in that spirit that this Senator thinks that we need
the continued testing of a booster as a technology testbed, a
robust heavy-lift vehicle program and the continued development
of spacecraft for the missions beyond low-Earth orbit. And we
should accomplish these things in concert with some of the
other more positive items that are in this proposed
Administration's budget.
Technology research and development is well supported in
this budget by advancing technologies such as the on-orbit
refueling, the aerocapture techniques, the energy from space,
and in-space propulsion. It will enable more efficient, safer,
and faster missions throughout the solar system. But, the
effort should focus on technologies which make simply getting
off the pad easier.
And one of the concerns I have, Mr. Administrator, that I
will ask you about, is, as you break down your budget, you've
got about $7.8 billion over 5 years for developing
technologies, and you've got 3.1--less than half that amount--
$3.1 billion over 5 years for the development of heavy lift.
And in your remarks, I would appreciate it if you would explain
that, because we ought to be doing both at the same time, and
we have to get lift to get up and do these technology
developments like on-orbit refueling.
If you recall the giant Saturn V rocket that carried the
folks to the Moon, it was powered by those massive F-1 engines
capable of producing over a million and a half pounds of
thrust. Well, we've not had an engine of its capability in
nearly four decades, and it's time that we initiate a program
to develop a new, modern, liquid hydrocarbon engine that can
power future launch vehicles. And we're going to have testimony
from someone who knows something about propulsion technology--
Captain Gibson--in a few minutes.
This effort will serve to mature technologies, which will
benefit not only our civil space program, but our national
security space enterprise, and the commercial sector, as well.
Now, on the commercial sector, I clearly support the vision
of eventually passing to them the responsibility of going to
and from LEO, but, until that time, there are a bunch of us
that have three concerns:
First, we need to ensure that we're not putting all of our
eggs in one basket. And we can avoid this by ensuring that we
have multiple competitors from both established and
entrepreneurial companies competing with not only new,
innovative designs, but with proven vehicles, as well. And so,
that competition will ensure, as it moves forward--and some of
the inevitable problems arise--that we will have some solid
winners.
And my second concern is that the shift to commercial
spaceflight cannot come at the expense of astronaut safety. I
bring to this committee today the shared concerns of Senator
Mikulski and Senator Shelby, our two counterparts on the
Appropriations Subcommittee, particularly with regard to
safety. And the three of us have talked about this. And so, as
these companies compete, they should expect to be held to the
standards equal to those of existing government programs for
human safety. And I also urge NASA to do its part by providing
the commercial sector with the human rating standards to which
the commercial sector must adhere, and to give them those
standards as soon as possible.
And third, we simply must do right by the men and women who
have made this space program great. We're entering a period of
transition. There's a great deal of angst out there. We're at
risk of losing skills and the corporate knowledge of those
workers, and that knowledge having been acquired over five
decades. And if the entrepreneurial endeavors are to receive
billions of dollars in the years ahead, I encourage them to
remember the responsibility that comes with that funding when
they're making workforce decisions.
And so, Mr. Commercial Operators, I'm putting you on notice
that, as you start to ramp up, you've got to look at this
incredible talented workforce that may be out of a job. This is
a time of great change and challenge for our existing
workforce, and the commercial sector ought to be aware of this.
Now, it is clear that this budget carries forward the
decision to retire the Shuttle fleet by the end of this year, a
decision that was made in the previous administration. A
significant upheaval in this workforce related to the Shuttle
retirement is going to occur. But, the massive loss of jobs is
now exacerbated by the perception of the cancellation of
Constellation and all the programs under it. And so, by
continuing with certain R&D elements, such as testing of a test
vehicle, of R&D for heavy lift, and the development of vehicles
for deep space travel, we can put the workforce to greater use
during this time of transition.
And so, today's hearing is going to allow us to start a
critical examination of this budget request and to formulating
an appropriate congressional response. Again, I can tell you
that I have never seen the appropriators and the authorizers
unified, as we are.
And with that, let me stop, and let me turn to my Ranking
Member, Senator Vitter.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA
Senator Vitter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And thanks, to all our witnesses, starting with
Administrator Bolden.
I'm just sorry, quite frankly, in terms of this hearing,
that we're not going to hear from those who I suspect are the
true lead architects of this very radical budget proposal,
including Deputy Administrator Garver, and I'd ask, Mr.
Chairman, that we continue this discussion and specifically
hear from her and/or others who claim true original authorship
of this, so we can question them directly.
Let me say, as a sidenote, there has been wide speculation
that, at some point in this Administration, the Deputy
Administrator would be up for the Administrator's leadership
position, and I can tell you, based on this budget, I will be a
strong, fierce, and active opponent of that, should that be
proposed.
You can tell I'm a little bit concerned about this budget,
so let me explain why by focusing on five points:
First, I absolutely believe that this budget and the vision
it represents would end our human spaceflight program as we
know it and would surrender, at least for our lifetime, perhaps
forever, our world leadership in the area. In so doing, I
believe we would lose all of the enormous benefits of the
technological advances that go along with all of that.
Second, I believe it does this because it cancels all major
existing human spaceflight programs, not only ending Shuttle,
but completely canceling its replacement, the Constellation
program, and replaces it with little more than a hope and a
prayer that commercial providers will eventually pick up the
slack. I don't think there is any realistic hope that can be
done on a reasonable timeline. I'd also point out that this
radical vision, this radical departure from all previous NASA
plans under any administration, bears no relation to anything
laid out clearly in the Augustine Commission reports, so I'm
not really sure why we went through that whole exercise.
Third, I believe this budget, as the Chairman very
correctly noted, is a budget without a mission. Our greatest
accomplishments in human spaceflight were gained because
President Kennedy said, ``We will land a man on the Moon and
return him safely to Earth by the end of this decade.''
President Kennedy didn't say, ``We're going to spend several
billion dollars and do some really neat R&D.'' He said, ``We're
going to land a man on the Moon. We're going to return him
safely to Earth within this decade.'' It's a big difference.
And the mission this budget lays out is more like my second
statement, which is no mission at all. You don't accomplish
great things without a clearly defined mission, and this budget
has no clearly defined mission.
Fourth, what does this do to the employment gap that we've
all said we're very concerned about, including you, Mr.
Administrator? I'll tell you what it does to it. In terms of
employment within the entire industry, in my opinion, it
absolutely expands the gap. I don't believe there's any
possibility that we will be able to ramp up, depending on the
commercial sector alone, in less time than our previous
Constellation plans laid out. So, it increases that gap. I
can't tell you how many years, but it increases it.
In terms of the gap, regarding the NASA family--the folks
within NASA, within NASA programs like Constellation--it
increases the gap. It increases the gap to infinity. It says,
``There's no gap anymore; we just fall off a cliff.'' And I
think that is enormously detrimental to the NASA family and the
long-term capability of NASA.
Fifth, I want to focus on that wonderful workforce. Those
folks have been very, very patient, waiting for the signal from
this Administration, particularly concerning the next
generation and the gap. Well, I'm afraid they just got it, and
the message they have heard--not because of perception, but
because of reality--the message they have heard loud and clear
is what I just said. Their gap didn't just expand, their gap
expanded to infinity if this budget were passed.
And all I say to that is, I certainly want to offer a
completely different message. I will fight, with every ounce of
energy I have, to defeat this budget or anything like it, to
fundamentally change it. I want to give the NASA family out
there some hope of doing that. I believe there is great
bipartisan support for that effort, as Senator Nelson laid out,
including folks on this committee and including folks on the
appropriate appropriations subcommittee.
So, those are my comments. I look forward to our
discussion.
[The prepared statement of Senator Vitter follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. David B. Vitter, U.S. Senator from Louisiana
I want to thank the Chairman for scheduling this important hearing.
NASA is at a critical stage in its history and I believe that, because
of the Administration's proposed radical new direction for NASA
contained in this budget, the very lifeblood and continued relevance of
our Nation's proud and pioneering space program hangs in the balance.
Mr. Bolden, I join my colleagues in welcoming you here today. I
realize that upon becoming NASA Administrator, you inherited an agency
and space program in flux and fraught with uncertainties about its
future role, missions, and goals. And while I disagree wholeheartedly
with the new direction you wish to take NASA in with this budget, I
realize the difficulty of the position you were put in and the
decisions you have to make and have no doubt that you want the best for
our space program, and I thank you again for your service.
I would also like to welcome our other witnesses, Capt. Gibson, Mr.
Snyder, Mr. O'Brien, and Mr. Young. I look forward to hearing your
testimony and to you sharing your valuable experience and expertise on
the subject of human spaceflight, and I thank all of you for taking the
time to appear here before this committee today.
I continue to believe that the space program represents one of the
best uses of taxpayer's dollars, because it is an investment that we
can expect will return even greater value to our economy and bring
scientific, medical and other benefits that can improve the lives of
everyone. However, the FY 2011 Budget Request represents a radical and
I believe misguided departure in the way NASA conducts space
exploration, specifically in the area of human spaceflight.
The Administration's proposal to cancel the Constellation Program--
after more than $10 billion invested in its development and so soon
after the recent successful test flight of the first Ares I rocket--and
to rely instead solely on untested and unproven ``commercial''
providers with no firm timetable on when they could deliver a safe,
reliable launch vehicle and crew vehicle is a most troubling
development. I believe this proposed new path is both irresponsible and
far too risky, and places our astronauts, our space program, and our
Nation's role as the world's leader in space exploration and
technological development in serious jeopardy.
I also believe that investing billions of dollars in technology
development, as this budget proposes, without any clear vision,
mission, or target date for achieving them is counterproductive and
contrary to the way NASA has done business and been driven to reach the
monumental and awe-inspiring achievements it has over the past 50
years. Furthermore, I believe that the lack of a clear mission and
vision, which the Constellation Program provided, renders the proposed
increase for science education funding ineffective, as I firmly believe
that this proposed new path for NASA's human spaceflight program will
not and cannot inspire America's youth to study and choose careers in
math, engineering, and other sciences. Only a clearly defined mission
and vision for our space program can provide our children with the
necessary inspiration and enthusiasm to themselves reach for the stars.
The proposed new path for NASA contained in this budget also
troubles me because we have a highly skilled and dedicated workforce
that makes U.S. human spaceflight happen, and we must not risk losing
that workforce, and seeing them forced to permanently leave the very
kinds of jobs that can most directly serve to benefit the country and
our economy, especially in these troubled economic times. Literally
tens of thousands of jobs are on the line here, and with the impending
retirement of the space shuttle, the last thing this valuable workforce
could afford is the cancellation of the system designed to replace it,
and the uncertainty, confusion, and frustration these hardworking
Americans and their families are now enduring saddens me greatly.
We must find a better way, a better solution, a better vision with
clearly defined missions and goals for our space program than the one
proposed in this budget. I believe continuation and acceleration of the
Constellation Program or some variant of it is one way to achieve that,
along with examining additional ways we might more quickly obtain the
capability to explore beyond low earth orbit, such as with the
development of a shuttle-derived heavy launch vehicle. If, however, we
instead accept the Administration's proposal laid out in this budget
request, I have no doubt that it will lead to no less than the ruin of
our proud space program that the rest of the world has admired and
envied for so long.
I will have questions for the record to focus on some of these
issues and concerns, and I look forward to the chance to discuss some
of them, and some of the answers, with you today, Mr. Bolden, as well
as with the rest of our esteemed panelists.
Thank you all again in advance for your testimony.
Senator Nelson. Well, we're going to have a chance, Senator
Vitter, to perfect this budget. And that's what this process is
all about.
General Bolden, you may have bit off a little more than you
wanted to chew with these opening comments.
Let me just say that most everybody in this room knows
Charlie Bolden and knows the extraordinary kind of leader that
he is. A retired Marine major general. I shared this during the
confirmation hearing, but another astronaut had said to me that
Charlie Bolden was the best leader that he had ever run into
and had taught him more about leadership than any other person,
and that included that astronaut's experience in the Astronaut
Office and his 20 years as an Air Force officer.
General Bolden is a veteran of four spaceflights. He is a
graduate of the Naval Academy. He has had assignments in the
Marine Corps, up until the time that he retired, that have been
extraordinary assignments.
And you come well prepared to a very tough job during a
very challenging time and overlaid with a very difficult
budgetary environment. General Bolden, welcome to the
Committee. It's an honor to have you here.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR.,
ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS
AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and
members of the Subcommittee. I want to thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the President's Fiscal Year 2011 budget
request for NASA.
I'm grateful for the support and guidance of this
subcommittee, and I look forward to working with you on
enactment of the President's bold new direction for our agency.
Before I continue with my statement, let me add one thing
noted as not in my prepared statement. And I do--because my
deputy was, I feel, unfairly represented, I hope that we have
an opportunity to go back to that discussion. And I also would
like to go back to the discussion on the NASA family, because
I'm a member of the NASA family, and I have been for--since
1980. So, I, too, share the passion that you express, Senator
Vitter, about the NASA family and their welfare.
I want to say right upfront that I understand the
Committee's concerns that details such as our justification
documents have been slow to reach you. I apologize and ask your
continued patience as we finalize the details of this historic
change in NASA's direction.
Since the introduction of the budget, many have asked what
the destination is for human spaceflight, beyond low-Earth
orbit, under the President's plan. The answer, as Senator
Nelson has expressed, is that our program seeks to enable the
capabilities we will need for astronauts to meaningfully
explore the Moon, asteroids, and eventually Mars. And Mars is
which--what I believe to be the ultimate destination for human
exploration in our solar system, at least under my
administration.
The right investments in technology will allow us to map
out a realist path to this destination that continues to
inspire generations of schoolchildren, just as it inspired me
many years ago, when I was growing up in Columbia, South
Carolina, watching Buck Rogers go to Mars with ease each week,
from my seat in the balcony of the Carolina Theater, there in
Columbia.
The President's Fiscal Year 2011 budget request for NASA is
$19-point--$19 billion, including an increase of $276 million
over the enacted 2010 level. Longer term, I am pleased that the
budget commits an increased investment of $6 billion in NASA
science, aeronautics, and enabling technologies, over the next
5 years, compared with last year's plan.
All of us at NASA appreciate the President making NASA such
a high priority at a time when budget realities dictate
reductions and freezes for other worthwhile programs. At a time
when we all worry about the economy, NASA's bold new direction
will assist economic growth in the United States, particularly
in the aerospace industry. One lesson from decades of
technology investment by the Federal Government is that funding
for research and development leads to innovative capabilities
and breakthroughs which, in turn, lead to sustained private-
sector job creation. Such R&D investments are a cornerstone of
the public-private partnership between our government and
American industry.
With the President's new vision, the NASA budget will
invest much more heavily on technology research and development
than recent NASA budgets. This will foster new technological
approaches, standards, and capabilities that are critical to
enable next-generation spaceflight, Earth-sensing and
aeronautics capabilities. These investments will produce
additional opportunities for U.S. industry to spur new
businesses, such as recently announced partnership between NASA
and General Motors, to build an advanced dexterous humanoid
robot, commonly called ``R2.''
I want to share a few highlights about NASA's bold new path
to become an engine of innovation with an ambitious new space
program that includes and inspires people around the world.
Under this program, the United States will pursue a more
sustainable and affordable approach to human space exploration
through the development of transformative technologies and
systems. We will encourage the development of commercial human
spaceflight vehicles to access low-Earth orbit. We will develop
new technologies that will enable more efficient U.S. human
exploration into the solar system than is currently conceived.
As the Constellation program is ended in an orderly manner,
I want to thank all of the NASA employees and contractors who
have worked so hard on this program and given so much of their
time and their heart. Their commitment has brought great value
to the agency and to our Nation, and they will continue to play
a pivotal role in NASA's future path. Many of the things NASA
has learned from the Constellation program will be critical as
the agency moves forward.
More specifically, in Fiscal Year 2011 NASA will undertake
a flagship technology development and demonstration program
with our international partners, commercial, and other
government entities to demonstrate critical technologies, such
as in-orbit propellant transfer and storage, inflatable
modules, automated/autonomous rendezvous and docking, and
closed-loop life-support systems; heavy-lift research and
development that will investigate a broad scope of research and
development activities to support new space-launch propulsion
technologies; robotic precursor missions to multiple
destinations in the solar system in support of future human
exploration, including missions to the Moon, Mars and its
moons, Lagrange points, and nearby asteroids; significant
investments for the development of commercial crew and further
cargo capabilities; extension of the lifetime of the
International Space Station to 2020 or beyond, in concert with
our international partners; pursuit of crosscutting space
technology capabilities, led by the newly established Office of
the Chief Technologist, to spawn game-changing innovations to
make space travel more affordable and more sustainable; climate
change research and observations which will enable NASA to
substantially accelerate and expand its Earth science
capabilities, including a replacement for orbiting--for the
Orbiting Carbon Observatory; aeronautics R&D, including
critical areas of Next-Generation Air Transportation System, or
NextGen; green aviation and safe integration of unmanned
aircraft systems into the national aerospace system; education
initiatives, including the recently announced Summer of
Innovation pilot program to inspire middle school students.
Americans and people worldwide have turned to NASA for
inspiration throughout our history. Our work gives people an
opportunity to imagine what is barely possible. And we at NASA
get, in turn--get to turn those dreams into real achievements,
for all humankind, through missions we execute.
This budget gives NASA a roadmap to even more historic
achievements as it spurs innovation, employs Americans in
exciting jobs, and engages people around the world.
Mr. Chairman, thank you, again, for your support and that
of this subcommittee. I would be pleased to respond to any
questions you or the members may have.
[The prepared statement of General Bolden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Charles F. Bolden, Jr., Administrator,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear today to discuss the President's FY 2011 budget
request for NASA. NASA is grateful for the support and guidance
received from this committee through the years and looks forward to
working with you on enactment of the President's bold new direction.
The President's FY 2011 budget request for NASA is $19.0 billion,
which represents an increase of $276.0 million above the amount
provided for the Agency in the FY 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act
(P.L. 111-117), and an increased investment of $6.0 billion in NASA
science, aeronautics, human spaceflight and enabling space technologies
over the next five-years compared with last year's budget plan.
Enclosure 1 displays the details of the President's FY 2011 budget
request for NASA.
Before I discuss the details of the NASA budget request, I would
like to talk about the importance of NASA's direction for economic
growth in the United States, particularly in the aerospace industry.
One general lesson from decades of technology investment by the Federal
Government is that funding for research and development leads to
innovative capabilities and breakthroughs, which in turn lead to
sustained private-sector job creation. Such R&D investments are a
cornerstone of the public-private partnership between the Federal
Government and American industry.
With the President's new direction, the NASA budget will invest
much more heavily on technology R&D than recent NASA budgets, which
will in turn foster new technological approaches, standards, and
capabilities that are critical to enable next-generation spaceflight,
Earth-sensing and aeronautics capabilities. These investments will
produce additional opportunities for U.S. industry and spur new
businesses. Take the case of the recently announced partnership between
NASA and General Motors to build an advanced dextrous humanoid robot.
This robot will help GM in its manufacturing plants and assist in NASA
efforts, such as robotic assembly and repair missions.
The President's FY 2011 budget for NASA also supports critical
investments in launch infrastructure and capabilities. The budget
provides funds to support NASA and Air Force upgrades to the KSC/CCAFS
launch complex enabling us to make the Kennedy Space Center area a 21st
Century launch complex. This in time will allow us to improve launch
and processing throughput and will support the flagship demonstration
projects, robotic precursor missions, smaller scale demonstrations, and
commercial crew vehicles that are also funded in this budget at
unprecedented levels. This increased pace and diversity of launch
activity should lead to future opportunities for the launch vehicle-
related workforce, while also helping to enhance industry robustness
over the long term.
Finally, NASA's FY 2011 budget furthers the Nation's efforts to
inspire the next generation of scientists, engineers, and
mathematicians. NASA's missions will seek the involvement of students,
educators, and the public across the United States to inspire their
interest and proficiency in science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM). In this way, NASA plans to help to build America's
next STEM workforce.
Thus overall, I am very excited about the beneficial effect that
NASA's planned activities will have on economic growth in the United
States, especially in aerospace-related industries. Now let me turn to
describe our budget request in some detail.
Highlights of the FY 2011 Budget Request
The President has laid out a bold new path for NASA to become an
engine of innovation, with an ambitious new space program that includes
and inspires people around the world. Beginning in FY 2011, the United
States will pursue a more sustainable and affordable approach to human
space exploration through the development of transformative
technologies and systems. As the Constellation Program is ended in an
orderly manner, NASA will encourage the development of commercial human
spaceflight vehicles to safely access low-Earth orbit and will develop
new technologies that will lay the foundation for a more exciting,
efficient and robust U.S. human exploration of the solar system than we
are currently capable of, while further strengthening the skills of our
workforce and our Nation in challenging technology areas. NASA will
also invest increased resources in climate change research and
observations; aeronautics research and development (R&D), including
green aviation; space technology development of benefit across the
entire space sector; and education with an emphasis on Science,
Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) learning.
Here is a broad outline of the FY 2011 budget plan followed by more
details. In FY 2011, NASA will undertake:
Transformative technology development and demonstrations to
pursue new approaches to human spaceflight exploration with
more sustainable and advanced capabilities that will allow
Americans to explore the Moon, Mars and other destinations.
This effort will include a flagship demonstration program, with
international partners, commercial and other government
entities, to demonstrate critical technologies, such as in-
orbit propellant transfer and storage, inflatable modules,
automated/autonomous rendezvous and docking, closed-loop life
support systems, and other next-generation capabilities. It
will also include projects that are smaller and shorter-
duration, which will demonstrate a broad range of key
technologies, including in-situ resource utilization and
advanced in-space propulsion.
Heavy-lift propulsion research and development that will
investigate a broad scope of R&D activities to support next-
generation space launch propulsion technologies, with the aim
of reducing costs and shortening development timeframes for
future heavy-lift systems for human exploration.
Robotic precursor missions to multiple destinations in the
solar system in support of future human exploration, including
missions to the Moon, Mars and its moons, Lagrange points, and
nearby asteroids.
Significant investments for the development of commercial
crew and further cargo capabilities, building on the successful
progress in the development of commercial cargo capabilities
to-date. NASA will allocate these funds through competitive
solicitations that support a range of higher- and lower-
programmatic risk systems and system components, such as human-
rating of existing launch vehicles and development of new
spacecraft that can ride on multiple launch vehicles.
Extension of the lifetime of the International Space Station
(ISS), likely to 2020 or beyond, in concert with our
international partners, with investments in expanded ISS
utilization through upgrades to both ground support and onboard
systems and use of the ISS as a National Laboratory.
Pursuit of cross-cutting Space Technology capabilities, led
by the newly established Office of the Chief Technologist,
which will fund advancements in next-generation technologies,
to help improve the Nation's leadership in key research areas,
enable far-term capabilities, and spawn game-changing
innovations that can unlock new possibilities and make space
activities more affordable and sustainable. A NASA focus on
innovation and technology will enable new approaches to our
current mission set and allow us to pursue entirely new
missions for the Nation.
Climate change research and observations, which will enable
NASA to substantially accelerate and expand its Earth Science
capabilities, including a replacement for the Orbiting Carbon
Observatory, development of new satellites recommended by the
National Academy of Sciences Decadal Survey, and development of
smaller Venture class missions. This investment will ensure the
critically important continuity of certain key climate
measurements and enable new measurements to address unknowns in
the climate system, yielding expanded understanding of our home
planet and improved understanding of climate change.
Aeronautics research and development, including critical
areas of the Next Generation Air Transportation System,
environmentally responsible aviation, and safe integration of
unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace.
Education initiatives, including the recently announced
Summer of Innovation pilot program involving NASA scientist and
curricula to inspire middle-school students and their teachers
with exciting experiences that spur those students to continue
in STEM careers.
I wish to emphasize that NASA intends to work closely with the
Congress, including this subcommittee, to make a smooth transition to
the new Exploration program, called for in the President's request,
working responsibly on behalf of the taxpayers. With my deepest
gratitude, I commend the hard work and dedication that thousands of
NASA and contractor workers have devoted to Constellation over the last
several years. Their commitment has brought great value to the Agency
and to our Nation, and they will continue to play a pivotal role in
NASA's future path. Many of the things NASA has learned from the
Constellation program will be critical as the Agency moves forward.
The following contains more detail on the summary points made
above, in the standard budget order for NASA's appropriation accounts.
Science
The President's FY 2011 request for NASA includes $5,005.6 million
for Science. The NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD) continues to
expand humanity's understanding of our Earth, our Sun, the solar system
and the universe with 59 science missions in operation and 30 more in
various stages of development. The Science budget funds these missions
as well as the research of over 3,000 scientists and their students
across our Nation. The recommendations of the National Academies/
National Research Council (NRC) decadal surveys help to guide SMD in
setting its priorities for strategic science missions; and SMD selects
competed missions and research proposals based on open competition and
peer review.
The FY 2011 budget request for Science includes $1,801.7 million
for Earth Science. This request increases investment in Earth Science
by $1.8 billion from FY 2011 to FY 2014 compared to the FY 2010 budget,
for a more aggressive response to the challenge of climate change. NASA
will rapidly develop an Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 mission for
launch early in 2013 and a GRACE Follow-On mission for launch in late
2015, respectively, to initiate and extend key global climate data
sets. This request accelerates several high-priority Decadal Survey
missions that will advance climate research and monitoring. The
increased funding accelerates launch of the Soil Moisture Active/
Passive (SMAP) mission by 6 months from its estimated date at the
recent Agency Key Decision Point (KDP)-B review, to November 2014.
ICESAT-2 is advanced by 5 months relative to the estimated date at its
recent Agency KDP-A review, to October 2015. The Climate Absolute
Radiance and Refractivity Observatory (CLARREO) mission and the
Deformation, Ecosystem Structure and Dynamics of Ice (DESDynI) mission
are each accelerated by 2 years, with both launching in late 2017.
Thus, the budget request allows all four Tier-1 Decadal Survey missions
to be launched between 2014 and 2017. In addition, NASA--working with
the U.S. Global Change Research Program--will be able to identify and
begin development for accelerated launch of selected Tier-2 Decadal
Survey missions focused on climate change. The budget supports critical
continuity of climate observations, including a Stratospheric Aerosol
and Gas Experiment III (SAGE III) instrument to be developed for
deployment on the ISS, while also supporting an accelerated pace of
smaller ``Venture class'' missions. Finally, increased resources for
Earth Science will allow NASA to expand key mission-enabling
activities, including carbon monitoring, technology development,
modeling, geodetic ground network observations, and applications
development including the highly successful SERVIR program.
At present, NASA Earth-observing satellites provide the bulk of the
global environmental observations used for climate change research in
the United States and abroad. This year, analyses of NASA satellite
measurements quantified the rates of ground water depletion since 2003
in California and in India's Indus River valley--rates that are
unsustainable for the future. NASA conducted the first ICEBridge
airborne campaigns in both Arctic and the Antarctic, to maintain the
critical ice measurements during the gap in time between the ICESAT-1
and -2 satellites.
In FY 2011, the Glory and Aquarius missions will launch; and FY
2011 should close with the launch of the NPOESS Preparatory Project.
The Landsat Data Continuity Mission will complete spacecraft
integration and test, the Operational Land Imager will be delivered,
and the Thermal Infrared Sensor will continue development. The Global
Precipitation Mission will complete its System Integration Review in
preparation for the beginning of assembly, integration and testing.
During FY 2011, the SMAP mission will transition from formulation to
development, and ICESAT-2 will begin design. Also in FY 2011,
instrument development and observations initiated under the first
Venture class solicitation for sustained airborne missions will reach
full funding, and the next Venture class solicitations will be
released--this time for space-based mission instrument, and complete
mission, developments. Engineering studies and focused, actively-
managed technology investments--instruments, components, and
information systems--continue for the suite of future missions
recommended by the National Research Council (NRC) Decadal Survey. In
FY 2011, the Earth Science Technology Program will make additional,
competitively-selected, instrument technology investments to meet
decadal survey measurement goals. Earth Science Research and Applied
Sciences Programs will continue to employ satellite observations to
advance the science of climate and environmental change, mitigation,
and adaptation. NASA will demonstrate the use of Uninhabited Aerial
Systems in field campaigns addressing atmospheric trace gas composition
and hurricane genesis, and NASA's modeling and data analysis efforts
will contribute to assessment activities of the Intergovernmental Panel
in Climate Change and the U.S. Global Change Research Program.
The FY 2011 budget request for Science includes $1,485.8 million
for Planetary Science. The current NASA planetary missions continue to
make new discoveries and return fascinating images, including a
previously unknown large and askew ring of Saturn and a near-complete
map of the surface of Mercury. Mars continues to intrigue with signs of
water ice just below the surface at mid-latitudes. The Mars rover
Spirit is now an in situ science prospector, while Opportunity
continues to roll toward the crater Endeavor. The Moon Mineralogy
Mapper instrument on India's Chandrayaan-1 mission detected small
amounts of water and hydroxyl molecules at unexpectedly low latitudes
on the lunar surface. NASA selected three new candidate mission
concepts for further study under the New Frontiers program, and will
select the winning concept in FY 2011 to proceed to development. NASA
will issue its next Discovery Announcement of Opportunity this year,
and will select mission concepts and fund concept studies in FY 2011.
NASA will also begin Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator
development in FY 2011 to be available as an option to improve the
performance of the radioisotope-fueled power sources for use in the
next Discovery mission. The Mars Science Laboratory will complete
development in FY 2011 for launch in fall 2011, beginning the most
comprehensive astrobiology mission to the Red Planet to date. The MAVEN
Mars aeronomy mission will continue development for launch in late
2013. NASA will establish a joint Mars Exploration Program with the
European Space Agency (ESA) with a trace gas orbiter mission, including
a European technology demonstration lander. In FY 2011, NASA plans to
select instruments for the mission via a joint Announcement of
Opportunity. To advance scientific exploration of the Moon, NASA will
launch the GRAIL mission in late 2011 and continue development of LADEE
for launch in 2013. Continuing its exploration of the outer planets,
NASA will launch the Juno mission to Jupiter in August 2011. NASA will
continue studies that support the possibility of a new major Outer
Planets Mission concept pending the outcome of the NRC decadal survey
now in progress, and will coordinate with ESA on a solicitation for
science instruments. The new NRC Decadal Survey in Planetary Science
should be complete in FY 2011. The FY 2011 budget request increases
NASA's investment in identification and cataloging of Near Earth
Objects and, with the Department of Energy, begins funding the
capability to restart Plutonium-238 production here in the United
States.
The FY 2011 budget request for Science includes $1.076.3 million
for Astrophysics. The golden age of Astrophysics from space continues,
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 possibly life--exist elsewhere in
the cosmos. The NASA Kepler telescope has discovered five exoplanets,
ranging in size from Neptune to larger than Jupiter, demonstrating that
the telescope is functioning as intended; additional discoveries are
anticipated in the coming months and years. NASA's newest space
observatory, WISE (Wide-Field Infrared Explorer), has captured its
first look at the starry sky and its sky survey in infrared light has
begun. Radio astronomers have uncovered 17 millisecond pulsars in our
galaxy by studying unknown high-energy sources detected by the Fermi
Gamma-ray Space Telescope.
The Hubble Space Telescope is operating at its peak performance
thanks to the very successful servicing mission last year by the STS-
125 crew. The Herschel and Planck missions, led by the European Space
Agency with NASA as a partner, launched in 2009 and are returning
remarkable scientific results. In FY 2011, NASA will complete most of
the development of the NuSTAR mission and prepare it for launch. NASA
will also begin developing the Gravity and Extreme Magnetism (GEMS)
mission recently selected in the Explorer small satellite program. The
James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) continues to make good progress in
development toward a 2014 launch. Flight hardware for the many JWST
subsystems is being designed, manufactured and tested, including the 18
segments of its 6.5-meter primary mirror; and the mission-level
Critical Design Review for JWST will occur this spring. The SOFIA
airborne observatory successfully conducted its first open-door flight
test in December 2009--a major milestone toward the beginning of early
science operations this year. The NRC is conducting a new Decadal
Survey in astronomy and astrophysics, which will set priorities among
future mission concepts across the full spectrum of Astrophysics,
including dark energy, gravity wave, and planet-finding missions; the
``Astro2010'' Decadal Survey is expected in September.
The FY 2011 budget request for Science includes $641.9 million for
Heliophysics. The Heliophysics operating satellites provide not only a
steady stream of scientific data for the NASA research program, but
also supply a significant fraction of critical space weather data used
by other government agencies for support of commercial and defense
activities in space. These data are used for operating satellites,
optimization of power transmission networks, and supporting
communications, aviation and navigation systems. The NASA Aeronomy of
Ice in Mesosphere (AIM) satellite has provided the first comprehensive,
global-scale view of the complex life cycle of Earth's highest clouds,
Polar Mesospheric Clouds, finding clues to why they appear to be
occurring at lower latitudes than ever before. The STEREO B spacecraft
recently observed a sunspot behind the Sun's southeastern limb--before
it could be seen from Earth. In a few days, this sunspot produced five
Class M solar flares of the kind that disturb radio signals on Earth,
signaling the end of the Sun's extended quiet period of recent years.
The Solar Dynamic Observatory (SDO), launched on February 11, will
provide images of the Sun of unprecedented resolution, yielding new
understanding of the causes of solar variability and its impact on
Earth. In FY 2011, the Radiation Belt Storm Probes mission will
complete hardware manufacturing and begin integration and testing. The
Solar Orbiter Collaboration with the European Space Agency will
continue in formulation, and the Solar Probe Plus mission will undergo
an initial confirmation review at the end of FY 2011. The
Magnetospheric Multi-scale mission will continue development toward a
Critical Design Review. IRIS, a recently selected small Explorer
mission, will hold its Critical Design Review in FY 2011. The next
Explorer Announcement of Opportunity will be released in 2010, with
selection for Phase A studies in FY 2011. NASA is working with the NRC
to arrange for the next decadal survey in Heliophysics.
Aeronautics Research
The U.S. commercial aviation enterprise is vital to the Nation's
economic well-being, directly or indirectly providing nearly one
million Americans with jobs. In 2008 aerospace manufacturing provided
the Nation with a trade surplus of over $57 billion. In the United
States, more than 60 certified domestic carriers operate more than
28,000 flights daily, moving nearly one million travelers each day. We
expect these flights to be safe, affordable, and convenient. We expect
airlines to offer flights when and where we want to travel. In business
and in our personal lives, the aviation industry is a key enabler to
our way of life and the smooth functioning of our economy. However, the
air transport system is near maximum capacity given today's procedures
and equipment. Rising concerns about the environmental and noise
impacts of aviation further limit future growth.
The FY 2011 budget request for Aeronautics is $579.6 million, an
increase of $72.6 million, which will strongly support our existing
portfolio of research and development to directly address these most
critical needs of the Nation and enable timely development of the Next
Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). Through a balanced
research and development portfolio, NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission
Directorate (ARMD) is exploring early-stage innovative ideas,
developing new technologies and operational procedures through
foundational research, and demonstrating the potential of promising new
vehicles, operations, and safety technology in relevant environments.
Our goals are to expand capacity, enable fuel-efficient flight
planning, reduce the overall environmental footprint of airplanes today
and, in the future, reduce delays on the ground and in the sky, and
improve the ability to operate in all weather conditions while
maintaining the current high safety standards we demand.
The FY 2011 budget request for Aeronautics includes $228.5 million
for the Fundamental Aeronautics Program, which seeks to continually
improve technology that can be integrated into today's state-of-the art
aircraft, while enabling game-changing new concepts such as Hybrid Wing
Body (HWB) airframes which promise reduced drag (thus improving fuel
burn) and open-rotor engines which offer the promise of 20 percent fuel
burn reduction compared to today's best jet engines. In partnership
with Boeing and the Air Force, NASA has completed over 75 flights of
the X48B sub-scale HWB aircraft at Dryden Flight Research Center in the
last 2 years to explore handling and control issues. NASA is partnering
with General Electric and Boeing to evaluate performance and
integration of new open-rotor engine concepts in propulsion wind
tunnels at the Glenn Research Center. NASA is also addressing key
challenges to enable new rotorcraft and supersonic aircraft, and
conducting foundational research on flight at seven times the speed of
sound. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds have enabled NASA
to recommission a full-scale airframe structural test facility and to
improve wind tunnels at the Langley, Ames, and Glenn Research Centers
that are needed to assess new concepts that hold the promise of
significant reductions in aircraft weight and fuel consumption. In
partnership with industry, NASA has just initiated the first new
government-funded effort on low NOX combustors in 15 years.
In FY 2011, NASA will invest $30.0 million to design, build, and
demonstrate a new generation of aircraft engine combustors that will
lower the emission of harmful nitrogen oxides by 50 percent compared
with current combustors while ensuring compatibility with current and
future alternative aviation fuels.
A key research goal is to develop synthetic and bio-derived
alternatives to the petroleum-derived fuel that all jet aircraft have
used for the last 60 years, but little is known about the emissions
characteristics of these alternative fuels. In 2009, NASA led a team of
eight partners from government agencies, industry, and academia in
measuring emissions from an aircraft parked on the ground operating on
various blends of synthetic and standard jet fuel. This team discovered
that synthetic fuel blends can reduce particulate emissions by as much
as 75 percent compared to conventional jet fuels, which would offer a
major improvement in local air quality around airports. Using results
from this and other research efforts, NASA has established a publicly-
available database of fuel and emissions properties for 19 different
fuels and will perform similar tests on biofuels as they become
available.
The FY 2011 budget request for Aeronautics includes $82.2 million
for Airspace Systems. The focus of this program is to achieve
reductions in environmental impact not only through new aircraft,
engines, and fuels, but also through improved air traffic management
procedures. Using flight data from just the top 27 airports in the
country, NASA systems analysis results indicate that nearly 400 million
gallons of fuel could be saved each year if aircraft could climb to and
descend from their cruising altitude without interruption. Another 200
million gallons could be saved from improved routing during the cruise
phase of flight. Achievement of such operations requires that aircraft
spacing in the air and on-time arrival and departure from the regions
around our major airports be greatly improved. New satellite-based
navigation aids such as the ADS-B system that the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) is installing throughout the country can enable
these improvements, but safe and efficient operational procedures must
first be developed, validated, and certified for operational use. In
2009, NASA partnered with FAA, United Airlines, and Air Services
Australia to validate pilot and controller procedures for a new concept
originally developed by NASA that enables aircraft to safely conduct
climbs and descents outside radar coverage in close proximity to nearby
traffic. NASA also provided safety analyses needed for regulatory
approval. The procedures benefit both airlines and the traveling public
by providing long-haul oceanic flight with easier access to fuel-
efficient, turbulence-free altitudes. United Airlines is expected to
begin flying the oceanic in-trail procedures on revenue flights in May
2011.
The FY 2011 budget request for Aeronautics includes $113.1 million
for the Integrated Systems Research Program. Begun in FY 2010, this
program evaluates and selects the most promising ``environmentally
friendly'' engine and airframe concepts emerging from our foundational
research programs for integration at the systems level. In FY 2011, the
program will test integrated systems in relevant environments to
demonstrate that the combined benefits of these new concepts are in
fact greater than the sum of their individual parts. Similarly, we are
integrating and evaluating new operational concepts through real-world
tests and virtual simulations. These efforts will facilitate the
transition of new capabilities to manufacturers, airlines and the FAA,
for the ultimate benefit of the flying public. In addition to strongly
supporting our ongoing research portfolio, the FY 2011 budget request
includes increased funding to expand our research in new priority areas
identified through close consultation with industry, academia and other
Federal agencies. In FY 2011, NASA will initiate a $30 million targeted
effort to address operational and safety issues related to the
integration of unmanned aircraft systems into the National Airspace
System and augment research and technology development efforts by $20
million, including grants and cooperative agreements, to support NASA's
environmentally responsible aviation research.
The FY 2011 budget request for Aeronautics includes $79.3 million
for the Aviation Safety Program. This program conducts research to
insure that aircraft and operational procedures maintain the high level
of safety which the American public has come to count on. Safety issues
span aircraft operations, air traffic procedures, and environmental
hazards and this program is supporting research and delivering results
in all three areas. American carriers operate 6,500 aircraft on more
than 28,000 flights daily. For most of the day the FAA is controlling
more than 4,000 aircraft in the sky at the same time. Further increases
in capacity will require increased levels of automation for command and
control functions and to analyze vast amounts of data, as well as
increased complexity of the overall system. It now costs more to prove
today's flight-critical systems are safe than it does to design and
build them. The Joint Planning and Development Office has identified
Verification and Validation (V&V) of aviation flight-critical hardware
and software systems as one of the major capability gaps in NextGen.
Therefore in FY 2011, NASA is initiating a new $20 million research
activity in V&V of aviation flight-critical systems to develop
methodologies and concepts to effectively test, validate and certify
software-based systems that will perform reliably, securely, and safely
as intended.
NASA will continue to tackle difficult issues that threaten the
safety of commercial flight, ranging from human/machine interaction to
external hazards such as weather and icing, as the aircraft industry
has come to rely on NASA expertise in predicting the effects of icing
on aircraft performance at low and intermediate altitudes. However,
over the last 10 years a new form of icing problem has surfaced,
occurring primarily in equatorial regions at high cruise altitudes and
causing engine power loss or flameout. These conditions cannot be
duplicated in any existing ground test facility. To study this problem,
in 2009 NASA initiated an effort to modify the Propulsion Systems
Laboratory at the Glenn Research Center to enable research on ways to
mitigate the effects of high-altitude icing and development of new
engine certification procedures.
The FY 2011 budget request for Aeronautics includes $76.4 million
for the Aeronautics Test Program (ATP), which makes strategic
investments to ensure availability of national ground facilities and
flight assets to meet the testing needs of NASA and the Nation. The
program also invests in the development of new test instrumentation and
test technologies. One such example is ATP's collaboration with the
Aviation Safety Program to provide a new testing capability in the
NASA-Glenn PSL facility to address the threat of high-altitude ice
crystals to jet engine operability. The program recently demonstrated
for the first time the ability to generate ice crystals at the very
cold temperatures (-60 +F) encountered at commercial aircraft cruise
altitudes. The PSL high-altitude ice crystal capability will become
operational in FY 2011. The program also completed the development of a
new Strategic Plan to provide the vision and leadership required to
meet national goals; provide sustained support for workforce,
capability improvements, and test technology development; and provide
strategic planning, management, and coordination with NASA, government,
and industry stakeholders. This plan will provide informed guidance as
ATP develops a critical decision tool for building well-coordinated
national testing capabilities in collaboration with the Department of
Defense through the National Partnership for Aeronautical Testing
(NPAT).
Partnerships with industry, academia, and other Federal agencies
are critical to the success and relevance of NASA research. Through
close collaboration, NASA ensures that it works on the right challenges
and improving the transition of research results to users. NASA is
using NASA/FAA Research Transition Teams (RTTs) to conduct joint
research and field-trials to speed acceptance of new air traffic
management procedures. The Agency is also coordinating management and
operation of the Federal Government's large aeronautics ground test
infrastructure through the NPAT. Through NASA Research Announcements
(NRAs), NASA solicits new and innovative ideas from industry and
academia while providing support for Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Math departments. The Agency also funds undergraduate and graduate
scholarships, Innovation in Aeronautics Instruction grants to improve
teaching programs at the university level, and sponsor student design
competitions at undergraduate and graduate levels for both U.S. and
international entrants. By directly connecting students with NASA
researchers and our industrial partners we become a stronger research
organization while inspiring students to choose a career in the
aerospace industry.
Exploration
The FY 2011 budget request for Exploration is $4,263.4 million, an
increase of $483.6 million above the FY 2010 enacted level. Included in
this budget request is funding for three new, robust programs that will
expand the capabilities of future space explorers far beyond those we
have today. NASA will embark on these transformative initiatives by
partnering with the best in industry, academia and other government
agencies, as well as with our international partners. These partners
have been integral to much of NASA's previous success and are vital to
our bold new vision.
NASA will encourage active public participation in our new
exploration missions via a new participatory exploration initiative.
Additionally, the FY 2011 budget request builds upon NASA's commercial
cargo efforts by providing significant funding for the development of
commercial human spaceflight vehicles, freeing NASA to focus on the
forward-leaning work we need to accomplish for beyond-LEO missions. The
FY 2011 budget request is a 40 percent increase over last year's
investment in the Human Research Program, to help prepare for future
human spaceflight exploration beyond low-Earth orbit. Last, the
Exploration FY 2011 budget request includes funding for the
Constellation Program close-out activities spread across FY 2011 and FY
2012.
In the near term, NASA is continuing Constellation work to ensure
an orderly closeout of the program in FY 2011 and to capture of all of
the knowledge learned through its key efforts. The Constellation
Program is focusing on completing its Preliminary Design Review (PDR),
which will conclude this year. NASA believes that completing the
Constellation PDR will support not only the close-out process for
Constellation, but also will ensure that historical data from
Constellation work is documented, preserved and made accessible to
future designers of other next-generation U.S. human spaceflight
systems.
The Exploration FY 2011 budget request includes three new robust
research and development programs that will enable a renewed and
reinvigorated effort for future crewed missions beyond low-Earth orbit:
Technology Development and Demonstration Program: $652.4
million is requested in FY 2011, and a total of $7,800.0
million is included in the 5-year budget plan, to invent and
demonstrate large-scale technologies and capabilities that are
critical to future space exploration, including cryofluid
management and transfer technologies; rendezvous and docking
technologies; and closed-loop life support systems. These
technologies are essential to making future exploration
missions more capable, flexible, and affordable.
Heavy-Lift and Propulsion Research and Development Program:
$559.0 million is requested in FY 2011, and a total of $3,100.0
million is included in the five-year budget plan, for an
aggressive, new heavy-lift and propulsion R&D program that will
focus on development of new engines, propellants, materials and
combustion processes that would increase our heavy-lift and
other space propulsion capabilities and significantly lower
operations costs--with the clear goal of taking us farther and
faster into space consistent with safety and mission success.
Robotic Exploration Precursor Program: $125.0 million is
requested in FY 2011, and $3,000.0 million is included in the
five-year budget plan, for robotic missions that will pave the
way for later human exploration of the Moon, Mars and nearby
asteroids. Like the highly successful Lunar Reconnaissance
Orbiter and Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite
missions that captured our attention last fall, future
exploration precursor missions will scout locations and
demonstrate technologies to locate the most interesting places
to explore with humans and validate potential approaches to get
them there safely and sustainably.
Cross-agency teams for each of these three areas are working to
develop plans that delineate key areas for research and development,
specify milestones for progress and set launch dates for relevant
missions. They will report to the Administrator over the coming months,
and the results of their efforts will be shared with the Congress when
they are complete.
The Exploration FY 2011 budget request for Commercial Spaceflight
is $812.0 million, which includes $500.0 million to spur the
development of U.S. commercial human spaceflight vehicles, and a total
of $6 billion in the five-year budget plan. This investment funds NASA
to contract with industry to provide astronaut transportation to the
International Space Station as soon as possible, reducing the risk of
relying solely on foreign crew transports, and frees up NASA resources
to focus on the difficult challenges in technology development,
scientific discovery, and exploration. We also believe it will help to
make space travel more accessible and more affordable. An enhanced U.S.
commercial space industry will create new high-tech jobs, leverage
private sector capabilities and energy in this area, and spawn other
businesses and commercial opportunities, which will spur growth in our
Nation's economy. And, a new generation of Americans will be inspired
by these commercial ventures and the opportunities they will provide
for additional visits to space. NASA plans to allocate this FY 2011
funding via competitive solicitations that support a range of
activities such as human-rating existing launch vehicles and developing
new crew spacecraft that can ride on multiple launch vehicles. NASA
will ensure that all commercial systems meet stringent human-rating and
safety requirements before we allow any NASA crew member (including
NASA contractors and NASA-sponsored International partners) to travel
aboard a commercial vehicle on a NASA mission. Safety is, and always
will be, NASA's first core value.
In addition to the $500 million identified for crew transportation
development efforts, the budget also includes $312.0 million in FY 2011
for incentivizing NASA's current commercial cargo program. These
funds--by adding or accelerating the achievement of already-planned
milestones, and adding capabilities or tests--aim to expedite the pace
of development of cargo flights to the ISS and improve program
robustness.
Today, NASA is using $50.0 million from the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 to help drive the beginnings of a commercial
crew transportation industry. Through an open competition, in early
February, NASA awarded Space Act Agreements to five companies who
proposed ideas and concepts intended to make commercial crew services a
reality. While there are many vibrant companies out there that we hope
to partner with in the future, these five companies, along with our two
currently funded Commercial Orbital Transportation Services partners
(Space Exploration Technologies and Orbital Sciences Corporation) are
at the forefront of a grand new era in space exploration.
The Exploration FY 2011 budget request includes $215.0 million for
the Human Research Program, an increase of more than 40 percent over
the FY 2010 enacted level, and an investment of $1,075 million over the
five-year budget plan. The Human Research Program is a critical element
of the NASA human spaceflight program in that it develops and validates
technologies that serve to reduce medical risks associated for crew
members.
The Exploration FY 2011 budget request includes $1,900.0 million
for Constellation Closeout requirements, and a total of $2,500.0
million over the FY 2011-2012 timeframe. These funds will be used for
related facility and close-out costs, potentially including increased
costs for Shuttle transition and retirement due to Constellation
cancellation. The Agency has established senior planning teams to
outline options for Constellation close out expeditiously and
thoughtfully and to assess workforce, procurement and other issues,
which will report to the Administrator over the coming months, to
ensure that people and facilities are best utilized to meet the needs
of NASA's new missions. NASA will work closely with the Congress as
these activities progress.
NASA recognizes that this change will personally affect thousands
of NASA civil servants and contractors who have worked countless hours,
often under difficult circumstances, to make the Constellation Program
successful. I commend the investment that these dedicated Americans
have made and will continue to make in our Nation's human spaceflight
program. Civil servants who support Constellation should feel secure
that NASA has exciting and meaningful work for them to accomplish after
Constellation, and our contractor colleagues should know that NASA is
working expeditiously to identify new opportunities for them to partner
with the Agency on the new Exploration portfolio.
Space Technology
Through the new Space Technology Program, led by the recently
established Office of the Chief Technologist, NASA will increase its
support for research in advanced space systems concepts and game-
changing technologies, enabling new approaches to our current mission
set and allowing the pursuit of entirely new missions. Using a wide
array of management, funding, and partnership mechanisms, this program
will engage the brightest minds in private industry, across the NASA
Centers, and throughout academia. This new program builds upon the
success of NASA's Innovative Partnerships Program and directly responds
to input from multiple NRC reports, as well as the Augustine Committee.
The Space Technology program will meet NASA's needs for new
technologies to support future NASA missions in science and
exploration, as well as the needs of other government agencies and the
Nation's space industry in a manner similar to the way NACA aided the
early aeronautics industry. Many positive outcomes are likely from a
long-term NASA advanced space systems concepts and technology
development program, including a more vital and productive space future
than our country has today, a means to focus NASA intellectual capital
on significant national challenges and needs, a spark to renew the
Nation's technology-based economy, an international symbol of our
country's scientific and technological leadership, and a motivation for
many of the country's best young minds to enter into educational
programs and careers in engineering and science.
The FY 2011 budget request for Space Technology is $572.2 million,
and $4,925.9 million is included in the five-year budget plan. With
this initiative, NASA will expand its Technology and Innovation
portfolio to include: open competitions to stimulate highly innovative,
early-stage space system concepts and ideas; development of
technologies that can provide game-changing innovations to address NASA
and national needs; and development and infusion of cross-cutting
capabilities into missions that address needs from multiple NASA
Mission Directorates, other government agencies, and commercial
activities in space, while fostering and stimulating a research and
development culture at NASA Centers. Beginning in FY 2011, activities
associated with the Innovative Partnerships Program are transferred to
Space Technology.
The need for advanced capabilities is increasing as NASA envisions
missions of increasing complexity to explore and understand the Earth,
our solar system, and the universe. Technology and innovation are
critical to successfully accomplishing these missions in an affordable
manner. The Space Technology program will enhance NASA's efforts to
nurture new technologies and novel ideas that can revolutionize our
aerospace industrial base, as well as to address national and global
challenges and enable whole new capabilities in science and exploration
that will be of benefit to the Nation. Key focus areas include
communications, sensors, robotics, materials, and propulsion. The Space
Technology program will use open competitions such as NASA Research
Announcements and Announcements of Opportunity, targeted competitions
such as those for small business (SBIR), universities (STTR), and
engage early career scientists and engineers. NASA will also continue
to use challenges and prizes to stimulate innovative new approaches to
technology development and will encourage partnerships with both
established and emerging commercial space industries. Through the three
major elements of this program--Early-Stage Innovation, Game-Changing
Innovation, and Crosscutting Capabilities--a broad suite of management,
funding and partnership mechanisms are employed to stimulate innovation
across NASA, industry and academia.
The Early-Stage Innovation program element sponsors a wide range of
advanced space system concept and initial technology development
efforts across academia, industry and the NASA Centers. This program
element includes: (a) the Space Technology Research Grant program
(analogous to the Fundamental Aeronautics program within NASA's
Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate) that focuses on foundational
research in advanced space systems and space technology, (b) re-
establishment of a NIAC-like Program to engage innovators within and
external to the Agency in accordance with the recommendations of the
NRC's Fostering Visions of the Future report, (c) enhancement of the
Innovative Partnership Programs Seed Fund into a Center Innovations
Fund to stimulate aerospace creativity and innovation at the NASA field
Centers, (d) NASA's SBIR/STTR program to engage small businesses, and
(e) the Centennial Challenges Prize Program to address key technology
needs with new sources of innovation outside the traditional aerospace
community. Competitive selection is a major tenet of all the activities
within this low technology readiness level (TRL) program element.
The Game Changing Innovation program element focuses on maturing
advanced technologies that may lead to entirely new approaches for the
Agency's future space missions and solutions to significant national
needs. Responsive to the NRC report, America's Future in Space:
Aligning the Civil Space Program with National Needs, this program
element demonstrates the feasibility of early-stage ideas that have the
potential to revolutionize future space missions. Fixed-duration awards
are made to PI-led teams comprised of government, academia and industry
partners. These awards are evaluated annually for progress against
baseline milestones with the objective of maturing technologies through
ground-based testing and laboratory experimentation. NASA intends to
draw from DARPA's experience to create and implement collaborative
game-changing space technology initiatives. New technologies considered
may include advanced lightweight structures and materials, advanced
propulsion, power generation, energy storage and high bandwidth
communications. With a focus on such potentially revolutionary
technologies, success is not expected with each investment; however, on
the whole, and over time, dramatic advances in space technology
enabling entirely new NASA missions and potential solutions to a wide
variety of our society's grand technological challenges are
anticipated.
A Crosscutting Capabilities program element matures a small number
of technologies that are of benefit to multiple customers to flight
readiness status. Technical risk, technology maturity, mission risk,
customer interest, and proposed cost are discriminators planned for use
in the selection process. For infusion purposes, proposing teams are
required to have a sponsor willing to cost share a minimum of 25
percent of the planned development effort. With objectives analogous to
the former New Millennium program, NASA will pursue flight
demonstrations not only as standalone missions, but also as missions of
opportunity on planned NASA missions as well as international and
commercial space platforms. The Commercial Reuseable Suborbital
Research Program (which provides suborbital flight opportunities for
technology demonstrations, scientific research and education), the
Facilitated Access to the Space environment for Technology (FAST)
project (which focuses on testing technologies on parabolic aircraft
flights that can simulate microgravity and reduced gravity
environments) and the Edison Small Satellite Demonstration Missions
project (which develops and operates small satellite missions in
partnership with academia). are also included in this program element.
NASA has had past success in the development of game-changing
technologies and the transfer of its products and intellectual capital
to industry. As an example, consider the Mars Pathfinder mission of the
early 1990s. In addition to accomplishing its science and technology
objectives, Mars Pathfinder established surface mobility and ground
truth as important exploration principles, created a groundswell of
interest and a foundational experience for a new generation of Mars
scientists and engineers, re-engaged the public with Mars as a
destination worthy of exploration, led to the creation of NASA's Mars
program and establishment of a Mars program budget line, and led to a
wide spectrum of small missions to Mars, the asteroids, comets and
other bodies in our solar system. For NASA's robotic exploration
program, Mars Pathfinder was clearly a game-changer. In a more recent
example, consider NASA's recent improvements to thermal protection
system (TPS) materials through an Advanced Capabilities development
project. Over 3 years, a NASA-industry team raised the TRL of 8
different TPS materials from 5 different commercial vendors, eventually
selecting the best as the system for the Orion heat shield. In addition
to providing a heat shield material and design for Orion on time and on
budget, this Advanced Capabilities development project re-invigorated a
niche space industry that was in danger of collapse, re-established a
NASA competency able to respond to future TPS needs. For example, the
team identified a potentially catastrophic problem with the planned MSL
heat shield and remedied the problem by providing a viable alternate
heat shield material and design within stringent schedule constraints.
The mature heat shield material and designs have been successfully
transferred to the commercial space industry, including the TPS
solution for the SpaceX Dragon capsule. Beginning in FY 2011, the new
NASA Space Technology program aims to strengthen and broaden these
successful innovation examples across a wide range of NASA enterprises
and significant national needs.
Space Operations
The FY 2011 budget request includes $4,887.8 million for Space
Operations, funding the Space Shuttle program, the International Space
Station Program, and the Space and Flight Support program.
The FY 2011 budget request for the Space Shuttle program is $989.1
million. In 2009, the Space Shuttle flew five times, delivering to the
ISS its final set of solar arrays and the equipment needed to support a
six-person permanent crew; servicing the Hubble Space Telescope;
completing the assembly of the three-module Japanese Kibo science
laboratory; outfitting the Station with two external payload and
logistics carriers, the Materials Science Research Rack-1, the Fluid
Integrated Rack, the Minus Eighty-Degree Laboratory Freezer, a
treadmill, and air revitalization equipment; and, delivering key
supplies.
In 2010, the Shuttle is slated to fly out its remaining four
missions, including the recently completed STS-130 mission. In April,
Shuttle Discovery will carry up critical supplies for the ISS using a
Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM) and the Lightweight Multi-Purpose
Experiment Support Structure Carrier (LMC). Atlantis will launch in May
with the Russian Mini-Research Module-1, as well as the Integrated
Cargo Carrier--Vertical Light Deployment (ICC-VLD). This summer,
Endeavour will carry the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) and attach
it to the Station's truss structure. The AMS is a particle physics
experiment, which will use the unique environment of space to advance
knowledge of the universe and contribute to understanding the
universe's origin. AMS is presently undergoing critical thermal and
electrical testing at the European test facilities in the Netherlands.
If these tests are successful, AMS will ship to KSC in May for the July
launch. The final Shuttle mission, STS-133, is targeted for September
of this year. Discovery will carry supplies to ISS, as well as an MPLM
that will be installed on ISS as a permanent module, expanding the
Station's storage volume. This flight will mark the completion of ISS
assembly.
For almost 30 years, the Space Shuttle has carried U.S. and
international astronauts into orbit; played a key role in the
construction, outfitting, and resupply of the ISS; serviced the Hubble
Space Telescope five times; served as an Earth-orbiting laboratory
through the Spacelab and SpaceHab missions; and deployed a diverse
array of payloads, including science probes and research experiments
(such as the Magellan mission to Venus and Earth-orbiting tether
experiments), communications satellites; and even student projects.
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.
FY 2011 will be the first full year of major Space Shuttle Program
(SSP) transition and retirement (T&R) activities. T&R is focused on the
retirement of the SSP and the efficient transition of assets to other
uses once they are no longer needed for safe mission execution. These
activities include identifying, processing, and safing hazardous
materials, and the transfer or disposal of SSP assets, including the
preparation of Orbiters and other flight hardware for public display.
T&R also covers severance and retention costs associated with managing
the drawdown of the SSP workforce.
A key element of America's future in space is the International
Space Station. The FY 2011 budget request for the International Space
Station Program is $2,779.9 million. As of May 2009, the ISS has been
able to support a six-person permanent crew, and during the STS-127
mission last July, the Station hosted 13 astronauts representing the
five space agencies in the ISS partnership, including those of the
United States, Russia, Japan, Europe and Canada. The three major
science labs aboard ISS were completed in 2009 with the delivery of the
Exposed Facility of the Japanese Kibo module. In addition, the first
flight of Japan's H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV) was successfully carried
out last fall, adding a new cargo-carrying spacecraft to the fleet.
This year will mark the completion of assembly of the ISS--the
largest crewed spacecraft ever assembled, measuring 243 by 356 feet,
with a habitable volume of over 30,000 cubic feet and a mass of 846,000
pounds, and powered by arrays which generate over 700,000 kilowatt-
hours per year. The ISS represents a unique research capability aboard
which the United States and its partner nations can conduct a wide
variety of research in biology, chemistry, physics and engineering
fields which will help us better understand how to keep astronauts
healthy and productive on long-duration space missions. Funding for ISS
research is also reflected in the Exploration budget request and in the
Space Technology budget request.
The FY 2011 budget request includes a dramatic increase in the
Nation's investment in the research and capabilities of the ISS. With
this investment, NASA will be able to fully utilize the ISS and
increase those capabilities through upgrades to both ground support and
onboard systems. Importantly, this budget extends operations of the
ISS, likely to 2020 or beyond. This budget makes a strong commitment to
continued and expanded operation of the ISS. The United States as
leader in space made this first step and will now work with the other
ISS international partners to continue International operation of the
ISS. ISS can inspire and provide a unique research platform for people
worldwide.
ISS research is anticipated to have terrestrial applications in
areas such as biotechnology, bioengineering, medicine and therapeutic
treatment. The FY 2011 budget request for ISS reflects increased
funding to support the ISS as a National Laboratory in which this
latter type of research can be conducted. NASA has two MOUs with other
U.S. Government agencies, and five 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. This budget request supports both an increase in research and
funding for cargo transportation services to deliver experiments to the
Station.
ISS can also play a key role in the demonstrations and engineering
research associated with exploration. Propellant storage and transfer,
life support systems, and inflatable technology can all benefit by
using the unique research capabilities of ISS.
In addition to supporting a variety of research and development
efforts, the ISS will serve as an incubator for the growth of the low-
Earth orbit space economy. NASA is counting on its Commercial Resupply
Services (CRS) suppliers to carry cargo to maintain the Station. The
first CRS cargo flights will begin as early as 2011. It is hoped that
these capabilities, initially developed to serve Station, may find
other customers as well, and encourage the development of further space
capabilities and applications. The suppliers involved will gain
valuable experience in the development and operation of vehicles that
can: (1) fly to the ISS orbit; (2) operate in close proximity to the
ISS and other docked vehicles; (3) dock to ISS; and, (4) remain docked
for extended periods of time.
As a tool for expanding knowledge of the world around us; advancing
technology; serving as an impetus for the development of the commercial
space sector; demonstrating the feasibility of a complex, long-term,
international effort; and, perhaps most importantly, inspiring the next
generation to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics, the ISS is without equal.
The FY 2011 budget request for Space and Flight Support (SFS) is
$1,119.0 million. The budget request provided for critical
infrastructure indispensable to the Nation's access and use of space,
including Space Communications and Navigation (SCaN), the Launch
Services Program (LSP), Rocket Propulsion Testing (RPT), and Human
Space Flight Operations (HSFO). The SFS budget also includes a new and
significant investment in the 21st Century Space Launch Complex,
intended to 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 2011, the SCaN Program will begin efforts to improve the
robustness of the Deep Space Network (DSN) by initializing the
replacement of the aging 70m antenna capability with the procurement of
a 34m antenna. The NASA DSN is an international network of antennas
that supports interplanetary spacecraft missions and radio and radar
astronomy observations for the exploration of the solar system and the
universe. The DSN also supports selected Earth-orbiting missions. In
the third quarter, a System Requirements Review (SRR) of the Space
Network Ground Segment Sustainment (SGSS) Project will be conducted,
and the Program will have begun integration and testing of the Tracking
and Data Relay Satellites (TDRS) K&L. In the area of technology, the
Communication Navigation and Networking Reconfigurable Testbed
(CoNNeCT) will be installed on ISS. This test bed will become NASA's
orbiting SCaN laboratory on the ISS and will validate new flexible
technology to enable greater spacecraft productivity. NASA will also
have its first optical communication system ready for integration into
the Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) spacecraft.
In addition, the Disruption Tolerant Networking (DTN) protocols will
complete their development at the end of FY 2011 and should be ready
for operations throughout the solar system. The SCaN operational
networks will continue to provide an unprecedented level of
communications and tracking services to over 75 spacecraft and launch
vehicles during FY 2011.
The LSP has six planned NASA launches in FY 2011 including Glory,
Aquarius, Juno, Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR), NPOESS
Preparatory Project (NPP) and the Gravity Recovery and Interior
Laboratory (GRAIL) mission. In addition to processing, mission
analysis, spacecraft integration and launch services, LSP 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. These
facilities will support many of the tests planned under ESMD's
propulsion research program.
HSFO includes Crew Health and Safety (CHS) and Space Flight Crew
Operations (SFCO). SFCO will continue to provide trained crew for the
manifested Space Shuttle requirements, four 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 space
flight and how best to mitigate that risk.
The 21 st Century Launch Complex initiative will primarily benefit
NASA's current and future operations at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC),
but will also help to improve KSC launch operations for future and
current non-NASA users of the range, with the goal of transforming KSC
into a modern facility. This new initiative focuses on upgrades to the
Florida launch range, expanding capabilities to support commercial
launch providers, such as commercial cargo flights and future
commercial crew flights in support of ISS, and expendable launch
vehicles in support of the Science mission directorate payloads and
robotic precursor missions. Additional areas under consideration
include modernization activities to support safer and more efficient
launch operations; enhancing payload processing capabilities through
capacity increases, improvement, and modernization, in addition to
potentially relocating the KSC perimeter where appropriate and
feasible, to enable certain existing private sector facilities to lie
outside the security perimeter, thus making it far more convenient to
use those facilities; environmental remediation to reduce the impact on
the surrounding areas; and supporting the modernization of the launch
range capabilities. We will fully coordinate this activity with all
users of the range.
Education
The FY 2011 budget request for education is $145.8 million. This
budget request furthers NASA's commitment to inspiring the next
generation of explorers in the STEM disciplines. In FY 2011, NASA will
continue to strongly support the Administration's STEM priorities and
will continue 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. This
strategy will increase the distribution and impact of NASA progressive
opportunities for elementary and secondary teachers, university
faculty, students of all ages, and the public.
In FY 2011, NASA will support the Administration's STEM education
teaching and learning improvement efforts, including Race to the Top
and Educate to Innovate, while continuing efforts to incorporate NASA
content into the STEM education initiatives of other Federal agencies.
This summer, NASA will launch Summer of Innovation, an intensive STEM
teaching and learning program targeted at the middle school level that
includes follow-on activities during the school year. NASA content and
products will be incorporated into evidence-based summer learning
programs across participating states with the goal of improving student
academic performance and motivating them to pursue further education
and successful careers. The FY 2011 request includes funding for Summer
of Innovation over a three-year period.
NASA will also continue to partner with academic institutions,
professional education associations, industry, and other Government
agencies to provide K-12 teachers and university faculty with the
experiences that capitalize on the excitement of NASA discoveries to
spark their student's interest and involvement. Examples of such
experiences are the NASA student launch initiatives and other hands-on
payload development and engineering opportunities. The FY 2011 budget
request also places increased emphasis on Education and cyber-learning
opportunities and expands teacher pre-service, professional development
and training programs. Additionally, NASA seeks to prepare high school
students for undergraduate STEM study through experiences that blend
NASA research and engineering experiences with classroom study and
mentoring. Another Agency education goal is to broaden community
college participation in NASA research and STEM workforce development.
In FY 2011, the Agency aims to increase both the use of NASA
resources and 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. The project will seek
innovative approaches to providing 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
NASA Cross-Agency Support 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. Cross-Agency Support includes two themes: Center
Management and Operations and Agency Management and Operations. The FY
2011 budget request includes $3,310.2 million for Cross Agency Support.
NASA's FY 2011 budget request includes $2,269.9 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 continue to provide high-quality support and
the technical talent for the execution of programs and projects.
NASA's FY 2011 budget request includes $1,040.3 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, and
Strategic Capabilities Assets Program. Beginning in FY 2011, activities
associated with the Innovative Partnerships Program are transferred to
the Space Technology program. The FY 2011 budget request provides:
$428.1 million for Agency Management, which supports
executive-based, Agency-level functional and administrative
management requirements. Agency Management provides for the
operational costs of Headquarters as an installation;
institutional and management requirements for multiple Agency
functions; assessment and evaluation of NASA program and
mission performance; strategic planning; and independent
technical assessments of Agency programs.
$201.6 million for Safety and Mission Success activities
required to continue strengthening the workforce, training, and
strengthening the fundamental and robust checks and balances
applied on the execution of NASA's mission, and to improve the
likelihood for safety and mission success for NASA's programs,
projects, and operations. The engineering, safety and mission
assurance, health and medical independent oversight, and
technical authority components are essential to NASA's success
and were established or modified in direct response to many of
the key Challenger and Columbia accident board recommendations
for reducing the likelihood for future accidents. Included
under Safety and Mission Success is the Software Independent
Verification and Validation program.
$177.8 million for Agency Information Technology Services,
which encompasses cross-cutting services and initiatives in IT
management, applications, and infrastructure necessary to
enable the NASA Mission and improve security, integration and
efficiency of Agency operations. NASA plans significant
emphasis on continued implementation of five major Agency-wide
procurements to achieve the following: (1) consolidation of IT
networks leading to improved network management, (2)
consolidation of desktop/laptop computer services and mobile
devices to improve end-user services, (3) data center
consolidation to provide more cost-effective services, (4)
Agency public website management to improve access to NASA data
and information by the public, and (5) Agency business systems
development and maintenance to provide more efficient and
effective business systems. NASA will also continue to improve
security incident detection, response, and management through
the Security Operations Center.
$29.8 million for the Strategic Capabilities Assets Program
(SCAP). This program funds the costs required to sustain key
Agency test capabilities and assets, such as an array of flight
simulators, thermal vacuum chambers, and arc jets, to ensure
mission success. SCAP ensures that assets and capabilities
deemed vital to NASA's current and future success are sustained
in order to serve Agency and national needs. All assets and
capabilities identified for sustainment either have validated
mission requirements or have been identified as potentially
required for future missions.
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 for closed facilities, and environmental compliance and
restoration. The FY 2011 budget request includes $397.4 million for
Construction and Environmental Restoration, made up of:
$335.3 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 program are safe, secure, environmentally sound,
and operate efficiently. The Agency continues to place emphasis
on achieving a sustainable and energy-efficient infrastructure
by replacing old, inefficient, deteriorated building with new,
efficient, high performance buildings that will meet NASA's
mission needs while reducing future operating costs.
$62.1 million for Environmental Compliance and Restoration
(ECR) Program, which supports the ongoing cleanup of current or
former 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 for future missions. This program also supports
strategic investments in environmental methods and practices
aimed at reducing NASA's environmental footprint and lowering
the risks of future cleanups.
Conclusion
Americans and people worldwide have turned to NASA for inspiration
throughout our history--our work gives people an opportunity to imagine
what is barely possible, and we at NASA get to turn those dreams into
real achievements for all humankind. This budget gives NASA a roadmap
to even more historic achievements as it spurs innovation, employs
Americans in fulfilling jobs, and engages people around the world as we
enter an exciting new era in space. NASA looks forward to working with
the Subcommittee on implementation of the FY 2011 budget request.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your support and that of this
subcommittee. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you or the
other Members of the Subcommittee may have.
Senator Nelson. And we will enter into the record the
opening statement of the Ranking Member of the full Committee,
Senator Hutchison.
General Bolden, you've just made some news, because you
have stated that the destination is Mars; that's the goal. Do
you have, in what you have just stated, do you have the
approval of your superiors?
General Bolden. Sir, the words I used have been through
every wicket I can think of, so it--I assume that that means I
have approval to say that.
Senator Nelson. All the way up through the wickets of the
White House, as well.
General Bolden. All the way up through the wickets of the
White House, as well.
And I would comment, Senator, that when we went to the
Moon, we didn't know what we were doing, but the Moon's a
couple days away, and so we felt confident that that would not
be a problem. When we take on Mars, it's radically different,
and it offers radically different challenges. So, I cannot give
you, unfortunately--whereas, President Kennedy said he wanted
us to go to the Moon and safely return humans in this decade, I
wish that I could ask President Obama to do that. He could
issue that challenge, but I can't tell him we can do that,
because, at this particular time, I can't provide a date
certain for the first human mission to Mars, because there are
too many capabilities that we don't have in our kitbag. And so,
I'm hopeful that, through the technology demonstrations and
technology development that we will undertake with Mars as the
focus of our design reference mission, that we'll be able to
get there, hopefully, quicker than we would have before.
Senator Nelson. Well, how will NASA determine the research
priorities for a destination of Mars?
General Bolden. Senator, over probably the last 20 years--
and I refrained from bringing in a stack of studies, that I'm
certain you and your subcommittee members are very familiar
with, that have been--that have come out over at least the last
20 years. If you look at those studies and the technologies and
capabilities that have been listed in all of them, they've been
pretty consistent. And they have all been focused on getting
humans to Mars. So, the big difference that we have today is
that the President has decided that he wants to fund the
research and development that's necessary to bring about those
technologies and to give us those capabilities. So, I am
confident that the budget that I've been given will allow us to
do that.
You commented about the difference between technology and
heavy lift, the fact that there was more in technology than
there was in heavy lift. I can use any vehicle to get things to
orbit--to low-Earth orbit--to develop the kinds of technologies
that we need. I don't need a heavy-lift launch vehicle, nor
would I want to use a heavy-lift launch vehicle, to put a
propellant storage demonstration in orbit; that would be a
waste of the taxpayers money. I can use a Falcon, I can use a
Taurus, I can use a Delta, an Atlas. I can use anything that
can successfully get me to low-Earth orbit to get the
technology demonstrators that I want to get there. So, that's
why I think it's important to have more that we spend on
technology development today than we do on the actual heavy
lift itself. There will come a time that I will ask for more
money on heavy lift.
Senator Nelson. Well, I found some additional money that
you can use, General Bolden. We've spent $9 billion on
Constellation thus far, and in this budget is another $2.5
billion to shut it down. If the Constellation program is
canceled, how do we make sure that those valuable assets are
integrated into the new program? And if the Constellation
program is not shut down, how can we use that $2.5 billion that
otherwise would have shut it down?
General Bolden. Senator, no matter what happens to the
Constellation program, what cannot be forgotten is the work of
the dedicated men and women who made that program possible. And
already, although I have asked that we take a really hard look
inside--deep into the Constellation program to determine what
technologies and capabilities may be there that we want to
retain, I can give you examples of things that have already
come out of the Constellation program that are going to
transfer directly to commercial space.
We had a thermal protection system study that was done
under the Constellation Technology Development Program. The
SpaceX Corporation, that is going to fly the Falcon 9, saw that
technology and has adopted it. And so, they will actually use
the thermal protection system, or a hybrid of it, on their
vehicle. That came out of the Constellation program.
When I had an opportunity to tour Launch Complex 40 and
talk to the people who actually work on Falcon 9 from SpaceX, I
discovered that they intend to use a pusher type of launch
abort system. I asked them if they had had any information or
had had an opportunity to discuss MLAS--the Max Launch Abort
System that our folks at NASA had developed and tested--
successfully tested out of Langley, at the Wallops Flight
Center. They told me they did not know about it. So, I
encouraged them to go talk to the people at Langley, because
that is a technology--that is a capability that was developed
out of the Constellation program that might be directly
applicable to them. So, it was $9 billion, if that's the right
figure, that has been very well invested, and it has already
brought great returns to the American public, as well as to
industry.
Senator Nelson. And part of those returns, as you
ultimately want to develop a heavy-lift vehicle, are the
testing that's ongoing on the existing rocket--we don't have to
call it what its name is; let's call it Rocket X. So, what's
the value of the testing of a Rocket X in the R&D development
of a heavy-lift vehicle?
General Bolden. Senator, the--anytime you can--you know,
there are some people who say you can never test enough. I
happen to be one of those, but I am also quite aware of fiscal
constraints to testing. In my past life, as a tester, you know,
in--when I looked at--Hoot Gibson, who's sitting behind me,
will tell--we both, during our time as test pilots--you know,
you look at your test plan, and you always wanted to add one
more flight so that you could say with a great degree of
certainty that it was OK for some--for a normal pilot to go fly
what you just finished testing. There's not enough money to do
that. So, we need to look at prudent ways to test as much as we
can, but not too much. And so, any testing that I would be
allowed to do in development of a new heavy-lift launch system
would be fantastic--within fiscal constraints.
Senator Nelson. Senator Vitter?
Senator Vitter. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Administrator, you took exception to my statement about
the Deputy Administrator; you said you wanted to explore that.
So, let's explore that. By the way, I agree completely with the
Chairman's very strong positive comments about you, and it's
for that reason that I don't think you were the original or
prime architect of this budget at all.
So, let's explore the question. Who, within NASA or the
Administration, was the original prime architect of this
radical new budget?
General Bolden. Sir, without going into predecisional
discussions or predecisional information, I can tell you that I
participated in the construction of the budget. That's part of
my responsibility as the NASA Administrator. So, I have to
take--you know, if you want look at somebody to blame--if
that's what you want to call it--as the NASA Administrator, I
represent the inputs that we made to the budget. But----
Senator Vitter. Mr. Administrator, you're confirming
everything I just said. Let me ask the question again. Who is
the prime, original author of this radical budget vision?
General Bolden. You know, Senator, I was a contributor to
this ``radical budget,'' as you----
Senator Vitter. Mr. Administrator----
General Bolden.--want to call it.
Senator Vitter.--you took umbrage----
General Bolden. Oh, sir, my comment----
Senator Vitter.--when I said----
General Bolden.--and if--yes, sir.
Senator Vitter.--about my comment about Deputy
Administrator Garver.
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
Senator Vitter. Are you prepared to completely refute what
I think is the fact there?
General Bolden. What I--and I'm not refuting anything,
Senator. I just wanted to say that I think----
Senator Vitter. I didn't think you were.
General Bolden.--I think Mrs. Garver was misrepresented in
leaving the impression that she is an enemy of human
spaceflight or she is an enemy of NASA or anything of that
nature. I have found her to be a very competent, capable
deputy. We have--we come from different backgrounds.
I think when I met with you earlier, I described two
radical groups, one group being those who are radically in
favor of Constellation, those who are radically in favor of
commercial spaceflight. And if you ask anybody out of either of
those two groups, they will tell you, ``Don't listen to those
guys over there, because they're stupid. You can't go that
way.'' I'm trying to get somewhere in the middle.
And, you know, we both come from different backgrounds, and
I appreciate that. I tell people in my meetings every day, ``I
don't ever want to walk away from a meeting when I have a
unanimous opinion about a decision we've made,'' because it
means either everybody's been intimidated by something I said,
or they've given up that they can reason with me, and they've
sided with me for some unknown reason. I always want there to
be difference of opinion among my leaders, because it means
that we're at least keeping an open mind and we're looking for
the optimal solution for the Nation. And Lori is tremendous in
providing me insights that I don't have about commercial space.
Senator Vitter. OK, so just to be clear, are you refuting,
or not, my conclusion that she was a prime leading architect of
this?
General Bolden. Senator, I can't refute that, because I
don't--you know, there are--there's OMB, OSTP----
Senator Vitter. OK.
General Bolden.--the Executive Office of the President; we
all contributed to the budget.
Senator Vitter. Mr. Administrator, you highlighted a top
goal of this budget, to inspire schoolchildren.
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
Senator Vitter. Talked about middle school kids. And I'm
looking for that inspiring nugget. I haven't found it yet.
General Bolden. Senator, I can give you the----
Senator Vitter. What is the quote?
General Bolden.--inspiring----
Senator Vitter. Quote----
General Boldern. Yes, sir.
Senator Vitter. Quote, ``Mars is the focus of our design
reference mission,'' close quote. I can tell you, I have two
seventh-graders at home; that's not going to inspire them. So,
what----
General Bolden. Senator, I don't want----
Senator Vitter. What is the quote?
General Bolden. Senator, I don't want a seventh-grader to
think about Mars. I want a seventh-grader to get excited when,
in his or her classroom, they have an opportunity to talk,
personally, with astronauts on the International Space Station,
as we frequently have them do almost every month.
When the President communicated with Expedition 22
increment astronauts and the STS-130 crew last week, and was
surrounded by school students who had an opportunity to
communicate with them, they were inspired. I can--trust me--I
could look at their eyes. The President is inspired, when he
has a opportunity to do that. We are going to inspire children
by having an opportunity for them to interface and interact
with astronauts on the International Space Station now, thanks
to this budget, until 2020. We would not have been able to do
that before.
And it doesn't make any difference how an astronaut gets to
orbit. There are two things. There's access and there's
exploration. I need a heavy-lift launch vehicle so I can go do
exploration. I don't--you know, I want redundant, reliable
access to space. I don't think there is any difference of
opinion in this room in that regard. You know, whether I get to
space on an Ares or an Atlas or a Delta or a Falcon or a
Taurus, that's immaterial. What is important is that we have an
American-made capability to get astronauts to low-Earth orbit
so that they can do developmental work on the International
Space Station that, one of these days, is going to make it
possible for us to go to Mars, because we'll understand a
little bit more about bone loss, we'll understand a little more
about muscle mass loss, we'll understand a little bit more
about what disturbs the neural vestibular system. That's what I
need. It doesn't matter--no one will know how an astronaut got
to the International Space Station, 10 years from now. They
won't know what vehicle they went on, nor will they care.
Senator Vitter. Well, Mr. Administrator, we--I think we
just have a disagreement here. You said, you don't want
seventh-graders to think about Mars. I absolutely want seventh-
graders to think about Mars, because that is the sort of thing
that will inspire them. And, you know, the Shuttle, the
International Space Station--those are great things, and those
people and those astronauts are heroes--don't get me wrong.
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
Senator Vitter. But, to my seventh-graders, that is, to use
their language, ``so last week.'' That is not----
[Laughter.]
General Bolden. Senator, I--you know----
Senator Vitter.--going to inspire them. That is not going
to inspire them.
General Bolden. Senator, with all due respect, I think you
underestimate your kids. They--you know, when I talk to school
kids and they tell me they want to be an astronaut, ``What do I
need to do to be an astronaut?'' I tell them--the first thing I
say is, ``Forget it.'' And then they look at me real strange. I
said, ``Forget it, because, unless you study and work and get a
technical background, a technical undergraduate degree, you
have no hope of becoming an astronaut. So, I want you to go to
school, I want you to be in class, I want you to study really
hard, I want you to do the absolute best you can do, and I want
you to go to college, and I want you to get an undergraduate
technical degree. And if you want to be a pilot and you want to
be like me, and that's all you can do, then go to the military.
If you want to be a scientist or an engineer or somebody who's
going to do the hard stuff in space, get a Ph.D. or a master's,
and then think about being an astronaut.''
So, I think your kids understand that. And as long as I can
keep them interested in staying in school and learning a lot of
science and math, they're going to go to Mars; they're going to
enable us to go to Mars.
Senator Vitter. Well, I'll be honest with you, I'm afraid
they're going to look at the messages of this budget, and if
they want to be an astronaut, they're going to conclude,
``Forget it.'' That's my concern.
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
Senator Vitter. Mr. Administrator, what relation does this
very dramatic change of vision have with anything laid out in
the Augustine Commission? I mean, point us to a page of the
Augustine Commission report that really suggests anything like
this.
General Bolden. Senator, with all due respect, you know, I
don't really think that this is a radical departure from--it's
not a radical departure from the vision for space exploration,
if I can say, and it's not a radical departure from any other
visions or dreams that people have had about going to space.
What is different is, it funds what is necessary to realize
that vision. I--somebody once told me a vision without
resources is a hallucination. If you look at where we were
prior to the 2011 budget, we were living a hallucination. We
had a great--I won't use the term ``great''--we had a vision
for getting to--back to the Moon, getting to Mars and other
places in our solar system, but we did not have the funding to
do it; we didn't have the assets to do it. We now have the
assets to make an orderly progression to getting humans to a
place like Mars, and I'm confident that we can do that.
Senator Vitter. Again, I just disagree. I believe the
consensus opinion reaction to this budget is that it is a
radical departure. And if vision without resources is a
hallucination, resources without vision is a waste of time and
money. And that's what I think this budget represents.
Mr. Administrator, a final question. You said you're a
member of the NASA family, and you are. And I absolutely know
that you want all the best for those folks, and feel for them
and are supportive of them, but this budget, canceling every
major internal human spaceflight program in sight--most
obviously, Constellation--extends their gap, as I said, to
infinity. So, what do you tell those people in the NASA family?
General Bolden. Senator, as I have told them in the last 2
weeks or so since the budget came out, I tell them I don't know
how they feel.
My kids are 38 and 33, and they're out of school, So, I
don't know what a young engineer with a 15-year-old kid feels
like, right now. I know they're hurting. And if they happen to
be a civil servant, I can tell them that they're going to be
OK, because they're going to have a job. But then, as a young
lady told me at Johnson Space Center, ``I don't want a job. I
want to be able to come to work every day and feel that I'm
making a difference.''
And so, I can tell them, as I have, that I'm going to do
everything in my power to try to make sure that we develop some
programs that are going to help us get to where they all--where
we all want to go, as soon as possible.
I don't think we would have ever gotten there with the
Constellation program set up and funded the way it was. I don't
think anyone said Constellation was a bad program; I haven't
read that anywhere. But, I think that we can develop
capabilities that will allow--potentially allow us to get back
to the Moon and--because we are going to go back to the Moon--
and will enable us to get to Mars much quicker than we would
have under the ``program of record.'' The program of record
would have ended the Space Station in 2015. And if we had
developed Ares, Ares would have had nowhere to go, because the
Space Station would have been defunct.
The President has given us authorization to go and talk to
our international partners and get their concurrence in
extending the International Space Station to 2020. That at
least gives us hope that we will have someplace for our
researchers to go for another 5 years to help us try as hard as
we can to fill the gap on some of these capabilities that keep
us from being able to go to Mars right now.
If you gave me an infinite pocket of money--pot of money, I
could not get a human to Mars within the next 10 years, because
there are just some things that we don't know. We don't
understand the radiation environment. We don't understand fully
what happens to the human body in transiting for 8 months. What
I would like to do is develop an in-space technology that
allows us to go to Mars in days instead of months. And I am
told by very good friends of mine, people that Senator--you
know, Senator Nelson has had an opportunity to live with for a
while, who think that we can go to Mars in days, at least half
the time that it would take us right now. But, we've got to
invest in that technology. And we're, oh, so close, but we're
just not there yet. So, there are things that we have to do and
there are technologies that we have to develop if we want to be
able to realize any of these dreams.
And that--you know, I--that's not a radical departure from
anything. It's just a departure from the way that we were
trying to get there. And the way we were trying to get there,
I'm just not confident was going to get us there anytime soon,
if ever, in today's fiscal environment.
Senator Vitter. Well, let me say that I'm not sitting here
defending the previous vision and the budget that was attached
to it; it was inadequate. But, I believe this new budget is a
big step backward, because of the, you know, fundamental
problems I've tried to underscore.
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
Senator Vitter. Thank you.
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
Senator Nelson. Senator Vitter, you and I had a private
conversation over this issue of who developed the budget, and I
shared with you my private concern. And since you've shared,
publicly, your private concern, I'll just share mine.
[Laughter.]
Senator Nelson. I don't think it's any different than the
George Bush Administration. I think OMB is running the space
program, because it designs the budget. And this is where I
think that the President has to step out and take control and
exert and offer the leadership on the goal that has now been
articulated by the Administrator of NASA, of which he had White
House approval to say, today, which is Mars. If you leave it to
OMB, if we get there, it's going to be a long time coming. But,
if you have a Presidential decision that that's what we're
going to do, and then he turns to his Marine general and says,
``General Bolden, make it happen,'' then things can start
popping. And that's where I think the genesis of this budget
is.
Senator Vitter. Well, I certainly hope that we have a
change and a new direction as you're working toward, so I
certainly hope that. I guess I don't think it's primarily from
OMB, because this budget has some significant amount of new
money. So, if the goal is just to stay status quo on money or
cut money, they could have done that a lot more dramatically.
There is some significant new money here, but it's accompanied
by a dramatic--radical, in my opinion--change of vision and
approach, which I don't think suggests OMB simply counting
beans. But--that's my honest reaction--but, I certainly hope we
get the change and the new direction you're describing.
Senator Nelson. And that's in the context of, they were
making decisions with the backdrop of the Augustine Commission.
So, since there is new money here, that gives us the
opportunity to perfect this budget.
Senator LeMieux?
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE S. LeMIEUX,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator LeMieux. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General thank you for being here today, and thank you for
your service to our country.
I want to join my colleagues in my disappointment about
this budget. And I can tell from listening to you that this is
difficult for you, especially as it affects the NASA family
and, as my colleague Senator Nelson knows better than anyone,
what impact this is going to have on our home State of Florida.
I want to go back to something that the President of the
United States said when he was seeking the office of the
presidency. He was in Florida as candidate Obama, and he spoke
about the space program. He said, America will need to lead the
world to long-term exploration of the Moon and Mars. Even
though I think you have done your best to give us some
assurances that we eventually will go to Mars someday, I have
great concern about not having a goal for NASA and canceling
existing programs that would put us on a path to get us beyond
lower Earth orbit further, without a destination and goal for
NASA, I am concerned that the agency will simply revert to
directionless spending, making the budget situation and
justification even worse next year.''
A lot has already been said about the frustration of the
members of this committee, and we certainly are going to look
more at this budget, and we're going to look more at our
priorities.
It is not as if this Administration doesn't know how to
spend money. The last 2 years, the combined deficit exceeded
the deficit of the past 8 years, combined. This year, for 2011,
the Administration is proposing a $3.8-trillion budget. We're
going to have $2.2 trillion in revenues. So, for this
Administration with respect to NASA, it's not a question of
money; it's a question of priorities. And if we are going to
still be the world's leader in space exploration and not
abdicate that role to others who would certainly like to
fulfill that mandate, we have to have a goal, as Senators
Nelson and Senator Vitter said, we have to have a target, we
have to have a plan. And I have great concern about saying,
``We will get there someday,'' and not knowing when that's
going to be.
But, let me ask you some specific questions about the
cancellation of the Constellation program. Whose idea was it or
who made that recommendation to cancel Constellation?
General Bolden. Senator, the decision and the discussion
that went on is predecisional, and I think, as you know, I am
not at liberty to discuss predecisional information.
Senator LeMieux. So, was there a consensus, then, of all
those on the Committee, that this was the right thing to do?
General Bolden. I'm not clear as to which committee----
Senator LeMieux. In this decisionmaking process, was it
unanimous that Constellation be canceled?
General Bolden. Senator, I--as I said before, I am one
component of the discussion that goes into any Presidential
decision, and that information, or that predecisional
discussion that I have with the President, I'm not at liberty
to share with anyone. I don't know what the input was from
others that I may never have talked to.
Senator LeMieux. When you talk about a plan of getting to
the Moon or Mars someday, what is your view of what the steps
are going to be to get there?
General Bolden. Sir, the steps are pretty complex and
complicated. We've got to, first of all, sit down and look at
where we are, in terms of the Constellation program and what
was in it. We need to make sure that we don't throw away the
baby with the bathwater. We need to determine what technologies
and what smaller projects are worthy of retaining, because that
will tell us how much we actually have to expend, in terms of
brand new technology or brand new assets. So, that's the first
step.
The next step is actually to sit down and say, ``OK, the
way that we generally start is, if we're trying to get to
Mars--and it's--I will use Mars, since that is the ultimate
destination--what do we need--from what we have, what we know
exists today, what do we need to enable us to get there as soon
as possible?
Senator LeMieux. Are we going to go to the Moon first,
before we go to Mars?
General Bolden. You will--my thought is that you will
inevitably have to go to the Moon, but you'll spend a lot of
time on the International Space Station, now that we're going
to have it there until 2020, developing some of the
technologies. You know, whether humans need to go on--I will
tell you, I don't think humans need to go and live on the Moon
to do anything anymore. We have rovers that have come out of
the Constellation program that enable us to put astronauts on
the surface of the Moon for a month at a time, completely self-
sustained, and we don't have to build habitats. That in itself
is a saving, and--savings--and that came from the Constellation
program. But, this is one person's thinking, and I happen----
Senator LeMieux. Yes, but you're the Administrator.
General Bolden. Yes, but, sir, I don't----
Senator LeMieux. I am sure it is up to you for some
guidance.
General Bolden. I'm giving you at least, you know, a
beginning of an idea. But, I--you know, there's a lot of work
that has to be done by our team to determine what the steps are
that eventually get us to Mars, or get you to any destination.
There are other things that we have to do, and that's the
study of asteroids. And you may say, ``Well, why?'' Well, it's
because they can do really bad things to Earth, and if one of
them happens to head this way and we don't--either don't
understand it or don't have a way to deflect it or something
else, that's--part of my job is defense of the planet against
things--not people, but things. We--all we needed to do was
look at the Hubble image of Jupiter after it was impacted by an
asteroid that left a scar that's several Earths in diameter;
that's a very serious potential impact to Earth, or--no pun
intended--but, a danger to all of us on the planet. So, we need
to study asteroids a little bit better. Some people say that
that would be one of the earlier missions. One of the earlier
human missions would be to put an astronaut on an asteroid. You
know, how we get there, I don't know yet, because these are
things that, when I was in the Astronaut Office, and before
coming back to NASA, people weren't talking about. So, these
are new----
Senator LeMieux. When do you think----
General Bolden.--challenges that----
Senator LeMieux.--you might have a plan, Administrator, for
where we're going, when we're going to get there, and what the
steps along the way will be?
General Bolden. --Senator, I can tell you that, over the
coming months, and not years, we'll develop a plan, and we will
do that in conjunction with the Congress, with members of this
committee and others that--for whom--to whom we're responsible,
and we'll develop a plan over the coming months. But, you know,
2 weeks after the budget rollout, I just--you know, I--I'm not
capable of giving you a complete plan on something as important
as how we get to an--get deeper into the solar system.
Senator LeMieux. Well, I think the concern that we all have
is that plans and money go together.
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
Senator LeMieux. So, when we're talking about $6 billion,
or whatever sum it's going to be, the funding without a plan
gives me concern.
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
Senator LeMieux. And the funding needs to drive the plan,
and vice versa.
General Bolden. Senator, I--you know, if I can use--let me
use Constellation as an example and tell you where I was when I
came into this office. You know, Constellation, at the time
that I came into this office, was a lunar-centric program. And
it was because, I think, there was not sufficient funding for
NASA to go off and plan a way to go to Mars, so we kind of
drifted toward the Moon again.
Constellation, when I came into this office, did--while
it--while landers and those types of things were an important
part of the program, they weren't funded, so there was nothing
there. You know, there was thought about how we were going to
do it, but it wasn't there, because we didn't have the assets
to do it.
So, we were planning to send humans back to the lunar
surface, and when I came in, we were talking about habitats and
the like. I'm not sure we need--as I mentioned earlier--I'm not
sure you need habitats on the lunar surface. I do know that you
don't have to send humans to Mars to make it habitable, or
least to begin to make it habitable for humans. We now have
robots that can go do that. I would never send a human to do
something in space that I had been--become confident a robot
could go do.
I served on the National Academy board to study saving
Hubble, back in 2004, when one of my predecessors canceled the
last servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope. And one
of the witnesses who's going to come in the next panel, behind
me, will--can probably share the same story. When we began our
meeting, we all determined that, you know, the risk was too
great to send humans, and we wanted to send a robotic mission
to service Hubble. We talked to every expert we could find in
this country and in some other countries, and we were told,
``We'd love to help you, but the technology is just not there
yet.'' And we finally convinced ourselves that the right thing
to do was a human servicing mission, which we did incredibly
well, at the end of last year, with STS-125. If we were to ask
a panel today if they could do a human--a robotic servicing
mission to Hubble, they would tell you, ``Yes, we can.'' I can
take you to the Johnson Space Center today, and let--and
introduce you to R2--that's a dexterous robot that, you know,
can do things with its fingers that I can do with mine, that,
in our work with General Motors, can now take a waterproof
panel and put it on an automobile door and seal that panel in
place using the same motions that we saw astronauts on 125 do
putting the thermal shields on the outside of the telescope. We
couldn't do that in 2004, when we--when that panel met and made
the determination that it was worth risking humans; we're not
there anymore.
You know, technology develops out of need. As all of you
have said, we do have to know where we're going. We want to go
to Mars. We can't get there right now, because we don't have
the technology to do it. We're sort of in the same conundrum
that I and my panel members were with Hubble.
Senator LeMieux. Respectfully, when President Kennedy
challenged us to go to the Moon, we didn't have the technology,
in that year, to go to the Moon. When we decided that we needed
to build an atomic bomb, we didn't have the technology when we
made that decision, but we pushed forward because we had a
goal. And if we don't have a goal to go there by a specific
time, it seems to me that the drive, both funding and
purposefully, will be lacking. So, I think that's the concern
that the folks have here on this committee and others.
And let me ask you one more question if I may. You talked
about getting to the Space Station, how are we going to get
there?
General Bolden. Sir, we're going to get there, for the next
3 years, on Soyuz, the same way we did after the Columbia
accident. That was the only way we had to get to the Space
Station following the unfortunate loss of Columbia and seven
crew members. We used Soyuz, we used our partners, the
Russians. They have been reliable partners with us now for a
number of years. We understand their system, we send astronauts
there to train, who are able to fly their system. When we get--
we are going to make commercial----
Senator LeMieux. This is the Russian system, right?
General Bolden. This is the Russian system. And that--we
are stuck where we are because we don't have an alternative
American-made system. It is my hope that by 2015, 2016, we will
have successfully enabled American industry to produce launch
vehicles that can provide us routine, reliable access to low-
Earth orbit.
Senator LeMieux. What about extending the Shuttle for that
period?
General Bolden. Sir, that is something that I would not
recommend to the President and I could not honestly recommend
to you. There is little value in trying to stretch the Shuttle,
you know, until we have the capability--a commercial capability
to get to low-Earth orbit.
Again, funding is something--you know, it costs us 2-point-
some-odd-billion dollars a year to operate Shuttle. I would
like to get out of the responsibility--the cost of the
operation and the infrastructure that is costs us with Shuttle
right now. There would be, potentially, recertification of the
vehicle. It would be starting up production lines. There are a
lot of things that make extension of the Shuttle not a very
good idea, in my mind.
Senator LeMieux. Well, you talked about these employees,
these members of the NASA family, these rocket scientists, who
are going to lose their jobs. I have a great concern, as do my
colleagues, about reassembling those folks once they disperse.
And those 7,000 folks, directly in Florida, and maybe 14,000
others who are impacted, what are we going to say to them?
General Bolden. Senator, it is my hope--you know, I will
never be able to save all the jobs. We knew that we were going
to have a bathtub, if you will, where we were going to lose
people when the Shuttle program came to an end in 2010--decided
a long time ago--and we were looking for ways to keep as many
of them employed as we could. And that method, at the time, was
going to be transitioning a portion of the workforce to the
Constellation program, but we were never going to be able to
retain the entire workforce. I'm hopeful that we'll be able to
transfer some of them to the commercial sector.
Senator Nelson mentioned, and I have talked to the people
in the commercial sector, and I've told them I'm going to hold
their feet to the fire. They have provided certain numbers for
employment that they say commercial space will bring a minimum
of this, a maximum of that. I can't make that happen, and they
must. And I'll hold them--I will hold them responsible for
that. So, when they promise jobs, they ought to be there. You
know, I would say a question that you could ask, as a member of
the Florida delegation, is, ``OK, tell me how many people are
working right now from the State of Florida?'' That's the
question I asked. And when they told me, ``None,'' I said,
``That's unsatisfactory.'' And I got a note, you know, the next
week that said, ``OK, we now have some Florida technical people
working here, and we intend to convert it to 100-percent
Florida by the time we're well into this program.'' I think
those are the kinds of things that are important. You know,
moving workers from one State to another does not help your
State. And that's what I'm trying to do to help our workforce,
is to make sure that someone speaks for them when we talk to
the commercial entities.
Now, again, I can't make them do anything. I'm--the
President didn't empower me to order a commercial company to
hire people from anywhere. But, I can sure encourage them to do
all that they can to take advantage of the workforce that I
have, take advantage of the infrastructure that we have at the
Kennedy Space Center and at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station,
and that's what I'm dedicated to do over the coming years.
Senator LeMieux. Well, General, I appreciate your
testimony.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.
Senator Nelson. We're going to move to the second panel. Do
you have any further comments?
I just want to say, Senator LeMieux, one of the things that
we pride ourselves on this panel--and I think it's applicable
to the similar panel in the House of Representatives--is that
space is a nonpartisan issue, and we always run this committee
in a bipartisan way. And as we analyze all of these things that
are going on, as you can hear by the comments of the three of
us, there have been sharp differences that we have with the
Administration's budget. But, we've got to put it in the proper
context, also, of the circumstance that this Administration
came into in which NASA had been starved, for the last half
dozen years, of money, and it didn't have a rocket ready to go
when the Space Shuttle was being shut down, so that there was
this hiatus of a number of years that we were not going to have
an American vehicle.
So, we've aired our differences and our grievances with
what has been proposed by the President. And I want this
committee to be very active, along with our colleagues on the
Appropriations Committee, as--to use a nice word--as we perfect
this budget, because there is a great deal at stake here, and
it's not only for our employees in our respective states, but
it clearly is for this Nation being the leader in technology
through its space exploration program. And we've got to make
sure that it's right.
So, with that, General Bolden, thank you very much for
coming and being with us.
And may I invite the second panel to please come up.
General Bolden. Senator, thank you and your colleagues very
much for allowing us to come before you today. And I really do
look forward to continuing to work with you all. We'll get it
right.
[Pause.]
Senator Nelson. Good afternoon.
Well, we have a distinguished panel. I assure you, there
won't be nearly as many fireworks as there were on the previous
panel. But, each of you brings to the table exceptional depth
of experience, each in your own way. And let me introduce this
distinguished panel.
Captain Robert Gibson, United States Navy, Retired, was
known, in the Astronaut Office, as the best of the best. He's
flown five times. He came by way of flying off of a carrier
over Vietnam; went to Top Gun. He graduated first in the class
in Top Gun. He was chosen for extraordinary missions and the
first docking of an American spacecraft, the Space Shuttle,
with the Russian Space Station Mir. And Captain Gibson--Hoot
Gibson--was chosen to be the commander of that flight.
Miles O'Brien is a 30-year broadcast news veteran, and he
was, by good fortune and because of his expertise, chosen to be
the first journalist in space, and then, by the misfortune of
the Columbia disaster, never got to fly. He has worked for
years and years as a correspondent, anchor, and producer. And
one of the major flights--I think it was John Glenn's flight--
Miles co-anchored with Mr. Space, Walter Cronkite, on that
historic achievement of a 77-year-old--the original space
hero--being able to go back into space. And maybe space does
turn back time, because if you see John Glenn now, who is
closing in on 88 years of age, he looks as good as many people
in their 60s.
And then we have Michael Snyder. And Mike has been in NASA
for years and years. He started at the Kennedy Space Center. He
has been in the Orbiter Element Division at the Johnson Space
Center. He has been an engineer in all kinds of subsystems and
orbiter propulsion and power systems. For those propulsion and
power systems, Mike has been one of the managers responsible
for technical management of those systems. And we wanted
somebody to testify today who has his on-the-line experience
which is so valuable for us to constantly remind ourselves that
we hear not just from the guys at the top; we want to hear from
the guys on the line, as well.
And then, Tom Young brings the gray hair to the panel, and
we need that, because here's one of the most accomplished
people in America, with regard to aerospace, defense, and
space, and space applications. He is a member of the National
Academy of Engineering. He is the former Director of the
Goddard Space Center. He is a former President and Chief
Operating Officer at Martin Marietta, and he has been a member
of several other aerospace boards of directors.
So, we couldn't have a better panel. And I'm going to go by
alphabetical order, so we will start with Captain Hoot Gibson.
STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN ROBERT ``HOOT'' GIBSON, USN (RET.)
AND FORMER NASA ASTRONAUT
Captain Gibson: Mr. Chairman, good afternoon.
Thank you for inviting me to address this distinguished
committee, and I'm going to say it's amazing how we have
somewhat all focused on the same points.
I was asked to talk about the Administration's new
proposal, and specifically a few items: the proposal to cancel
the Constellation program; the reliance on commercial
spacecraft for low-Earth orbit; testing of Rocket X in support
of a heavy-lift vehicle; and astronaut safety issues. And I'm
going to speak from the perspective of a long-time member of
that NASA family, and indeed, I feel somewhat that I still am;
somewhat like a Marine--always a Marine.
And, notwithstanding the comments that we heard today, the
Administration's proposal opens more questions than it answers.
What is the vision? Where are we going? And this abrupt change
in NASA's exploration approach has no clear path; no
destination, no milestone, no program focus; hence, none of the
technology pull that is so important to real innovation. With
no specific program, it becomes too easy, in the future, to
cancel something called technology development as simply
unfocused and unaffordable, and this could take NASA down a
path that would completely end its human spaceflight endeavor.
NASA must maintain global leadership in human spaceflight.
With the International Space Station in low-Earth orbit now,
NASA has established a frontier in space. To maintain the
global leadership and core competencies in human spaceflight,
NASA must now focus on establishing the new frontier, beyond
low-Earth orbit.
The Augustine panel had several things to say about that.
This is a quote: ``There is now a strong consensus in the
United States that the next step in human spaceflight is to
travel beyond low-Earth orbit.'' Another quote: ``The Committee
concluded that the ultimate goal of human exploration is to
chart a path for human expansion into the solar system.
Establishing this new frontier is inherently governmental, due
to the risks that must be accepted by our professional
astronauts and the huge investments required.'' This means, in
spite of the words that we've heard today, NASA needs a
destination--a goal. Whether it is Mars, Lagrange points, near-
Earth asteroids, or whatever, NASA must define the roadmap and
the technological achievements required to achieve this goal.
This becomes the flexible path, gives us the technology pull,
and focuses our investment. NASA needs a heavy-lift vehicle to
accomplish these goals.
The specific questions. I want to start with astronaut
safety. That was always a subject very dear to my heart, not
just as an astronaut, but as a former member of the NASA family
and a former chief astronaut. And, of course, Senator Mikulski,
as we know, has some very specific feelings in that area, too.
She said, ``Astronaut safety. The safety of our astronauts is
my number one priority. This means whatever transportation
system is chosen, it must protect our astronauts during launch,
mission execution, reentry, including long-duration
spaceflight.''
As to the Space Shuttle part of this question, the
Augustine Commission had several things to say there, too:
``Space operations are among the most complex and
forgiving--unforgiving pursuits ever undertaken by humans. It
really is rocket science.''
And, ``New human-rated launch vehicles will likely be more
reliable once they reach maturity, but, in the meantime, the
Shuttle is in the enviable position of being through its infant
mortality phase. Its flight experience and demonstrated
reliability should not be discounted.''
And I think it's important to consider, just briefly, how
successful we have been. And I want to say, no one feels the
loss of the Challenger and the Columbia more than I do, because
I knew both of those crews. But, it's significant to note that
we have flown 130 missions now. We just completed the 130th
mission of the Space Shuttle. And compare that to our previous
entire space program, which was 31 total launches. All of
Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo amounted to 31 total launches. So,
therefore we have flown more than four times as many launches
with the Shuttle as our entire space program prior to this. So,
it has been, I think, a great accomplishment.
As for the commercial sector, they may very well ultimately
achieve the success and the reliability that we demand for
human endeavors, but, to me, it makes no sense to turn
everything over, at this time, to an unproven vehicle. We need
to allow them to establish a track record flying cargo that
will allow us to evolve into human carriage with those types of
vehicles.
Now, at the same time, NASA needs to help the commercial
service providers to be successful. And for that to happen, we
need to leverage the core talents and the abilities, the
operations, the safety of our NASA human spaceflight centers,
and let's not lose the lessons that we've learned over 50 years
of human spaceflight, some of them at fairly high cost.
We must also maintain the core expertise in the people that
we have at NASA that is so necessary to keep up any human
spaceflight endeavor. With the ending of the Space Shuttle
program and the proposed cancellation of the Constellation
program, and with no specific program to replace them, more
than a third of NASA's workforce of experience-based
professionals is at risk of being lost. This would represent a
major disruption in our human spaceflight program, as well as
our economic and industrial base; we must make sure that we
maintain that.
And Senator Mikulski also touched on that when she said,
``Workforce transition. The retirement of the Space Shuttle
should proceed as planned in 2012 after ISS assembly is
complete, and any future direction must include a plan to
maintain critical skills and incorporate lessons learned from
our previous efforts to replace the Shuttle and to soften any
job dislocation impacts.'' That was her quote.
Commercial spacecraft, as I've already touched on, may
eventually be reliable enough to give us the capability that we
need, but there's still a large learning curve that's ahead of
them, and for them to succeed in space is going to take a lot
of involvement with the NASA centers of expertise.
There is a quote that the Augustine committee had to say,
as well, about that, and it is, ``If we craft the space
architecture to provide opportunities to this industry, there
is the potential, not without risk, that the cost to the
government would be reduced.'' And it's this very risk inherent
in this approach that demands that NASA remain vitally
involved.
We also need a backup to the Russian Soyuz for transporting
our astronauts to the ISS. The present cost, of $51 million per
crewmember, will change when we no longer have our own access
to space. The head of the Russian Space Agency, Anatoly
Perminov, has already stated--and this is a quote--``We have an
agreement until 2012 that Russia will be responsible for
this.'' And ``this'' is referring to transporting astronauts of
other nations to the International Space Station. And then he
goes on to say, ``But, after that? Excuse me, but the prices
should be absolutely different then.'' And his statement,
``absolutely different then,'' is somewhat frightening to me.
The Russians are new to capitalism, but they know how it works;
and when you have a monopoly, you charge monopoly prices.
We have an opportunity at this time to leverage a lot of
the research and the development and the funding that went into
the Constellation program to continue with development of
Rocket X, a vehicle that would support heavy-lift vehicle, by
continuing to develop the five-segment rocket booster, the J-2
engine and the Orion spacecraft, as the quickest and most
inexpensive way to working our way to a heavy-lift vehicle.
In summary, I want to state that, with the retirement of
the Space Shuttle later this year, and if the administration's
proposal is followed, the United States will no longer be a
space-faring nation. We will have placed the future of our
space program in the hands of the Russians and the unproven
commercial sector. And with no program on the drawing boards,
we will have ceased exploration beyond low-Earth orbit, and
we'll be many years away from any hope of regaining what we
once had. And what we once had was a--an exciting and vibrant
space program that was the envy of the world and literally lit
up the eyes of thousands of schoolchildren around the world
that I've spoken to over the last 30 years.
Mr. Chairman, I'm hopeful that you and your colleagues can
alter the course that we appear to be on.
Thank you for allowing me to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Captain Gibson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Captain Robert ``Hoot'' Gibson, USN (Ret.)
and Former NASA Astronaut
Mr. Chairman, good afternoon. Thank you for inviting me to address
this distinguished committee, and I have to say I believe you really
have your work cut out for you! In the letter from Senator Rockefeller
I was asked to address the Administration's new overall direction for
NASA including the following areas:
The proposal to cancel the Constellation program
The reliance on commercial spacecraft for access to low
earth orbit
Testing an Ares I-like rocket en route to building a heavy
lift vehicle
Astronaut safety issues associated with both the Space
Shuttle and commercial spaceflight
The Administration's proposal opens more questions than it answers.
What is the vision? Where are we going? The abrupt change in NASA's
exploration approach has no clear path, no destination, no milestones,
and no program focus, hence none of the Technology Pull so important to
real innovation. With no specific programs, the budget cutters in
future years will likely be able to reduce and eliminate funding for
``Technology Development'' as simply unfocused and unaffordable. This
will take NASA down a path which will quickly end its Human Spaceflight
endeavor.
I would like to state that it is imperative that NASA must maintain
global leadership in Human Space Flight! With the International Space
Station (ISS) in low earth orbit (LEO), NASA has established a frontier
in space. The Administration has directed NASA to turn over ISS
transportation to the commercial/ private sector, which I will say more
about in a moment.
To maintain global leadership and core competencies in Human Space
Flight, NASA must now focus on establishing the next frontier beyond
LEO. In fact, the Summary report of the Augustine Panel stated:
``There is now a strong consensus in the United States that the
next step in human spaceflight is to travel beyond low-Earth
orbit.''
``The Committee concluded that the ultimate goal of human
exploration is to chart a path for human expansion into the
solar system. This is an ambitious goal, but one worthy of U.S.
leadership in concert with a broad range of international
partners.''
Establishing this new frontier is inherently governmental due to
the risks that must be accepted by professional Astronauts and the
large investments required. The commercial and private sector will then
follow. International partnerships should be fully leveraged to reduce
the burden on any one nation--but NASA must lead!
This means:
NASA needs a destination--a goal. Whether it is Mars, Lagrange
Points, Near Earth Asteroids, or whatever.
NASA must define the roadmap and technological achievements
required to achieve the goal. This becomes the ``Flexible
Path,'' provides the Technology Pull, and focuses investment.
NASA needs a heavy lift vehicle to achieve these beyond LEO
goals.
A Human Spacecraft that goes beyond LEO is very different from
a Spacecraft that only transports crew to and from ISS. NASA
needs to start working on that vehicle right now.
As to the specific points that Senator Rockefeller asked that I
address, I want to start with ``Astronaut Safety Issues associated with
both the Space Shuttle and commercial spacecraft'' because crew safety
has always been extremely high on my list. In fact, Mr. Chairman, in
her letter to you, Senator Mikulski listed as her first principle:
``Astronaut Safety--The safety of our astronauts is my number
one priority. This means whatever transportation system is
chosen, it must protect astronauts during launch, mission
execution and re-entry, including long duration space flight.''
As far as the Space Shuttle part of this question, there are
several other statements from the Augustine report I want to mention:
``Space operations are among the most complex and unforgiving
pursuits ever undertaken by humans. It really is rocket
science.''
``New human-rated launch vehicles will likely be more reliable
once they reach maturity, but in the meantime, the Shuttle is
in the enviable position of being through its infant mortality
phase. Its flight experience and demonstrated reliability
should not be discounted.''
I think it is important to consider how successful the Space
Shuttle has actually been. I want to add that no one feels the losses
of ``Challenger'' and ``Columbia'' any more than I do--I knew both of
those crews. But it is also very revealing to look at how many missions
we have successfully accomplished and the great steps forward we have
made with the Shuttle. We have just completed the 130th Space Shuttle
mission. We have launched dozens of satellites, docked with the Russian
Space Station and built the ISS. The entire United States Space Program
prior to Shuttle had amounted to 31 total launches! This includes all
of Mercury, Gemini, Apollo including all the moon landings, Apollo-
Soyuz, as well as Skylab. We have therefore flown more than 4 times as
many flights with the Space Shuttle than our entire previous space
program, which I feel has been a great accomplishment. Our tragic
losses in the program both occurred when we let our guard down in
applying the necessary rigor that space Flight demands. It truly is
``Rocket Science.''
As for the commercial sector, they may very well ultimately achieve
the success rate and reliability that we demand for human endeavors,
but it makes no sense to just turn over the entire operation to an
unproven vehicle or company. We need to allow them to establish a
``track record'' with cargo before we turn over the human portion of
launches. At the same time, NASA needs to help the commercial service
providers to be successful. For this to happen, the commercial
providers need to be incentivized to take advantage of the operational,
safety, and technical expertise of the NASA Human Space Flight Centers.
Don't lose the lessons learned over 50 years of Human Spaceflight--some
of those lessons very costly.
Testing an Ares I--like rocket en route to building a heavy lift
vehicle. We should most definitely continue with the testing of an Ares
I vehicle in support of a heavy lift launcher. We have an opportunity
at this time to capitalize on a significant investment in time and
money that has gone into the development of the 5 segment solid rocket
motor, the J-2 rocket engine, and the Orion vehicle as the quickest and
most economical way to a heavy lift and crew capability. The launch pad
has had the modifications, the launch tower is in place, the team is in
place, and it makes all the sense in the world to complete this
program.
This also ties into the question of the proposal to cancel the
Constellation program and continuing the Ares I testing, and has a
significant bearing on what we derive from the nearly $10 billion
investment that went into Constellation. The need for the heavy lift
vehicle has already been discussed, and the cancellation costs in these
contracts would add significantly to the overall price of this program,
with nothing to show for it. For no more cost, the completion of the
Ares I testing would support the heavy lift launcher with the
technology needed such as the 5 segment booster, and the J-2 engines.
To launch and fly this spacecraft will not cost any more than actually
canceling it. In addition, it would maintain the skilled team in place
necessary for any future space endeavor. With the ending of the Space
Shuttle program and the proposed cancellation of the Constellation
program, and with no specific program to replace them, more than a
third of NASA's workforce of experienced space professionals is at risk
of being lost. This will result in a major disruption to our industrial
base and loss of core expertise for exploration and Human Spaceflight
within both industry and government. At least one of the commercial
developers has stated that they can not succeed in Human Spaceflight
without this core of expertise within NASA to rely on. Maintaining this
knowledge base is critical to our future in Space as well as preserving
our place in global competitiveness. Senator Mikulski mentions this as
well in her letter stating:
``Workforce Transition--The retirement of the Space Shuttle should
proceed as planned in 2011 after ISS assembly is complete, and any
future direction must include a plan to maintain critical skills and
incorporate lessons learned from our previous efforts to replace the
Shuttle, and to soften any job dislocation impacts.''
The reliance on commercial spacecraft for access to low-Earth
orbit. I have already touched on this subject in several other places,
but there is still more to be said. As much as we all want to see the
commercial sector succeed in space, there is a large learning curve
that lies ahead of any such efforts, particularly in the area of human
rated vehicles. The Augustine Panel said:
``If we craft the space architecture to provide opportunities
to this industry, there is the potential--not without risk --
that the costs to the government would be reduced.'' (emphasis
added).
It is the very risk inherent in this approach that demands that
NASA remain vitally involved in this effort, and that we do not turn
this over completely to the commercial sector until they have proven
their capabilities.
It is additionally important to realize what the commercial segment
would accomplish for the overall space program. Estimates of the length
of time required for the commercial sector to develop this capability
range from 3 to 5 years, and even assuming that they proceeded with no
setbacks whatsoever, it only accomplishes a capability to LEO. It does
not begin to achieve any of the more desirable goals mentioned in the
Augustine Report; that is beyond LEO. It is not unimaginable that with
failures or problems, this time could extend well into 10 years for the
commercial sector.
It is relevant to consider how long it took to develop the Space
Shuttle System. The propulsion system was based on rocket engine
technology that was already developed, and consisted of Liquid
Hydrogen/Liquid Oxygen Engines, Solid Rocket Boosters, and Hypergolic
rocket motors. The airframe of the Shuttle would be of mainly aluminum
construction as would the External Tank, and it would employ avionics
that were largely representative of what had been done before. The new
developments would be in the realm of the Thermal Protection System
(Tiles, Blankets and Reinforced Carbon-Carbon), and the fact that the
Shuttle would be a reusable vehicle. Development started in 1972 and
the estimate for the first space flight was originally 1976. In
actuality, it required until 1981 for the Shuttle to fly, in spite of
the significant amount of developed technology that was utilized in the
vehicle. For all these considerations, it is incredibly premature and
naive to simply turn over all efforts toward LEO to the commercial
sector.
We also need a backup to the Russian Soyuz for transporting our
astronauts to the ISS. The present cost of $51 Million per crewmember
will change when we no longer have a way to access space on our own.
The head of the Russian Space Agency, Anatoly Perminov, has already
stated: ``We have an agreement until 2012 that Russia will be
responsible for this,'' about ferrying astronauts from other countries
into low earth orbit. ``But after that? Excuse me, but the prices
should be absolutely different then!'' His statement ``Absolutely
different then'' is frightening to me! The Russians are new to
capitalism, but they know how it works, and when you have a monopoly,
you charge monopoly prices. To knowingly commit our Space Program to
this for years on end, without a truly viable solution in work, is
irresponsible and fiscally dangerous, not to mention the National
Security implications as well!
In summary, I want to state that with the retirement of the Space
Shuttle later this year, and if the Administration's proposal is
followed, the United States will no longer be a space-faring nation. We
will have placed the future of our Space Program in the hands of the
Russians and the unproven commercial sector, and with no program on the
drawing boards we will have ceased exploration beyond low earth orbit
and will be many years away from any hope of regaining what we once
had:
An exciting and vibrant Space Program that was the envy of the
world, and literally lit up the eyes of thousands of school
children that I have spoken to around the world over the last
30 plus years.
Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful that you and your colleagues can alter
the course we appear to be on. Thank you for allowing me to address
this distinguished group.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Captain Gibson.
Miles O'Brien.
STATEMENT OF MILES O'BRIEN, JOURNALIST
AND HOST, ``THIS WEEK IN SPACE''
Mr. O'Brien. Mr. Chairman, Senator Vitter, thank you for
allowing me to sit beside Hoot Gibson--he, in the right seat
beside me; that makes him my co-pilot.
[Laughter.]
Mr. O'Brien. I often wondered what it was like for those
poor Southwest captains when he would sit down in the right
seat beside them, and there was Hoot, flying that 737. ``Here--
it's yours, pal.''
Captain Gibson. I'm here to support you.
Mr. O'Brien. Thank you. It's good to have a wingman.
I'm a freelance journalist now--18 years covering the space
program, most of that with my former employer, a large cable
news network.
[Laughter.]
Mr. O'Brien. Lowercase. I moved on. I'm now working on the
Web, as a lot of my compadres in journalism are right now, in
partnership with spaceflightnow.com. We have a weekly program
called ``This Week in Space,'' and this will be the lead story
this week.
I also need to tell you, I serve as the chairman of the
Education and Public Outreach Committee for the NASA Advisory
Council, and, to be clear today, my views here are my own, not
anything to do with my NAC business.
Mr. Chairman, Washington in general, we have a problem.
There is an uproar across the land about NASA's budget, its
course change, and it says a lot about how the public is no
longer in the loop with the space agency. You know, the
headlines read, ``NASA Cancels Its Moon Mission.'' I would
submit to you that most people reading those stories didn't
know we were going to the Moon. And guess what? We really
weren't, the way it was funded.
The program was packaged as ``The Vision for Space
Exploration.'' It never got its promised funding, as we've
discussed here. And the vision, frankly, was focused a little
bit on the rearview mirror. Constellation was touted as
``Apollo on steroids,'' but it really turned out to be a bit of
a 90-pound weakling, didn't it? It was uninspired in its
attempt to bring back the magic of the 1960s. NASA, it seems to
me, was acting a little bit like one of those middle-aged guys
who was the high school football hero and won the State
championships and spends all his time talking about the glory
days. But, the country has grown up and moved on. And I think
it's time for NASA to get off the barstool a little bit here
and think about what's next.
And that's what I see in this budget; I see a lot of
optimism here. There is--this is a grownup approach to space
exploration. It syncs the goals with national needs and the
budgetary realities right now. I'd love it if we could do it
all. It would be great if we could go back to the Moon. But,
does that lead us, really, anywhere farther out?
The space agency is getting a bit of a slap in the face.
They should be saying, ``Thanks, I needed that,'' I suppose,
but what we're hearing is not that. Now, change is never easy.
But, let's think about this for a minute. NASA is supposed to
be all about change. In fact, if NASA cannot embrace change--
actually invent change--we should close the place down.
But, there's more to this than that, because, as much as
anything else, we have here a failure to communicate. I give
the Administration plan high marks for its reassessment of
priorities, but it did a horrible job telling the story. The
headlines should have been, ``Space is Now Open for Business,''
or, ``Space Travel for the Rest of Us,'' or, ``Space Station
Science Gets a Reprieve,'' or, ``NASA is Working on Green
Aviation and Fixing Air Traffic Delays,'' or, ``Focusing on Our
Favorite Planet: Mother Earth.'' You get the idea. Instead, we
got a bunch of the blue Moon stories.
Well, one of the reasons for this is, it is my
understanding this decision was closely held in the White House
Office of Science and Technology, and it was rolled out,
essentially, to NASA--to the key people at NASA--the weekend
before the budget rolled out. I guess they were reluctant to
tell the kids. So--but, most people knew that Constellation was
essentially a dead man walking. But, denial is a powerful
thing, and so NASA was caught a bit flatfooted, with no
strategic plan on how to explain the nuance of this story. And
let's face it, the mainstream media doesn't have a clue,
either. Reporters who know some things about this beat have
been unceremoniously dumped by the big papers and networks,
right and left, and many of them are--well, they're webcasting,
I guess.
So, I guess you could say it's the perfect storm. The
agency is really not sold on the change internally, the
communication plan was nonexistent, and the reporters are not
well informed, and the public is disengaged. But, the people,
like me, who care a lot about this and have a passion for it,
are out there. And in advance of this testimony, I sought some
opinions, via Twitter and Facebook, my little circle of space
cadets, and I'd like to have those comments submitted for the
record, if you don't mind. There's a lot of passion out there,
and a lot of--people care deeply about what happens next.
Like so many of the people I have heard from, many of whom
have worked long and hard on Constellation--and I do hope we
create sort of a Space Station freedom scenario here, where
pieces of this can live on--I wish that NASA had not been
painted into this corner. I wish we could have been thinking
about, and investing in, the next great adventure for humans in
space, decades ago, so we wouldn't be facing this huge gap
right now in human spaceflight capability. It could morph into
abyss, if we're not vigilant. That's the hand we've been dealt.
Trying to recreate the past is not the path to go; yesterday's
technology is not the path. The public won't support it.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. O'Brien follows:]
Prepared Statement of Miles O'Brien, Journalist and Host,
``This Week in Space''
Mr. Chairman--thanks for inviting me--it is a pleasure. I am a
freelance journalist with about 18 years experience covering the U.S.
space program--most of that time with my former employer--a large cable
news network. Since I moved on, I have been covering space on the web--
in partnership with spaceflightnow.com. We offer continuous live
interactive coverage of shuttle launches--and draw a large global
audience--in the past few month we have been producing a weekly half
hour program to the web called this week in space--which has become the
definitive video chronicler of the events that bring us here today.
I also need to tell you I serve as Chairman of the Education and
Public Outreach Committee of the NASA Advisory Council--but to be
clear--my views expressed here today are my own.
Mr. Chairman, I am a child of the Space Race and I consider myself
pretty darn lucky to be able to say that. I, like most of you in this
room, bore witness to a stunning moment in history--a towering
accomplishment that defied the odds that made us feel good about what
humanity can accomplish collectively when we combine big goals with
hard work, ingenuity and bold action.
It is a lesson that my generation took to the bank. We (well not
me)--but we collectively embraced the disciplines we now call STEM--
science, technology engineering and mathematics. This planted the seeds
of success in Silicon Valley--and insured U.S. economic dominance for
many decades.
I sure wish my teenage son and daughter had been as lucky as I.
They have no first hand experience with those amazing exciting days.
And so, even in my household, where my interest and passion in the
subject is well understood--perhaps tolerated is a better term--there
is little evidence NASA is connecting well with the children of the
post space race generation.
And truth be told, NASA lost many members of my generation over the
past thirty years. How many people even know when a space shuttle is in
on the launch pad? Or that U.S. astronauts in orbit continuously on a
space station for nearly a decade now? Or that we have a space station
at all. A shocking number of otherwise smart people don't have a clue.
Many of those same people did not know the shuttle program was near
its end--and that, until recently, the plan was to return to the Moon
in a suite of rockets and vehicles collectively called
``Constellation.'' When they asked me for more about this, I would
frequently quote former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin--who called it
``Apollo on steroids.'' This was my (lame) attempt at making it as
interesting--as say--professional sports or something.
The truth is the public in general long ago stopped paying much
attention to what NASA is doing in the manned space realm. There have
been some spikes of interest here and there--for Hubble repair
missions, to see John Glenn fly or, sadly, for the returns to flight
after the accidents--but in general--it has been a long, steady decline
that really began on July 24, 1969--when Columbia capsule carrying
Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins splashed down in the Pacific. Let's not
forget Apollo was never built to be a sustainable program. It was all
about the sprint. Is it any surprise it did not sustain public
interest?
Washington, we have a problem . . .
Now a natural reaction for those of us who lived through the
triumph of Apollo is to harken back to the good old days. Bring back
those ``One small step. . . Failure it is not an option'' moments and
surely our kids will get space bug--and thus we hope--they will be
stirred toward STEM as well. . . . Hey--it worked like a charm then?
Why not do it again for old time's sake . . .
There are a lot of good reasons the recipe for Apollo moment cannot
be replicated: there's the Cold War context, the desire meet a
seemingly unattainable goal set by a martyred president and, of course,
there was the NASA budget that would equate to more than $30 billion
this year. Now that's some launching around money!
None of those elements are in the cards today. And let's not forget
we have been there, done that--and those footprints are forever etched
in the regolith. While the mission planners and engineers will point
out the proposal to build a more permanent Moon base is an entirely
different--and new--challenge, I am afraid this detail is lost on a
jaded public that wants to hear about something entirely new and
different.
So what do people care about when it comes to space? So what are
the stories that leak out from under my little tent of space lovers?
Well--speaking of leaks--a new image from the Cassini spacecraft which
rolled out yesterday is a great example. it shows huge water plumes
spurting out from the surface of Saturn's moon Enceladus. Very cool
stuff. Stories about extrasolar planets get a lot of pickup . . . so do
interesting images from the spacecraft that orbit and rove Mars . . .
anything form Hubble--or anything about the former planet Pluto.
And when it comes to human beings in space--there is insatiable
interest in the effort to open space up to the rest of us. I will never
forget the thrill I had covering SpaceShipOne as it captured the X-
Prize in Mojave in October of 2004. The excitement in the air was
palpable--for a flight that went about as high as Alan Shepard went in
May 1961.
But this time it was one of us. The candle was lit beneath a rank
civilian. No Right Stuff required. Suddenly, it all seemed within our
grasp--in our lifetimes. Nearly fifty years after Gargarin and Shepard
flew--only 500 humans have made it to space--you Mr. Chairman are one
the of the lucky ones. I had hoped to be on the list by now myself.
People want to go there themselves--simply sending a GS-13 civil
servant does not thrill them anymore.
It is high time the government helped open up the space frontier to
the private sector--just as it helped the railroads span the continent
. . . or as it built the interstates . . . or created our aviation
infrastructure. And I applaud the White House for placing this bet on
what amounts to nascent spacelines that may one day carry hundreds of
people to space every month . . . or every week. Arthur C. Clarke would
be proud. An while this exciting aspect of the plan got lost in badly
bungled public rollout of the news--I think it will generate a lot of
excitement as time goes on.
I applaud extra money spent on aeronautics and earth sciences.
Theses efforts will go a long way in helping the agency answer those
every day relevancy questions that always come up. These will be good
stories to tell the public.
I applaud the money that will be spent on participatory
exploration. The public that wants to go to space--also demands to be
looking over the shoulders of NASA scientists as they download the
latest Hubbble, Cassini or Opportunity images.
And I am glad the station won't be deep-sixed before it even has a
chance to prove its scientific value. It turns out the absence of
gravity can make germs more virulent. Turning up the volume on this
might make it easier to learn how to make vaccines. There might be some
real news that comes out of this unique national laboratory in the next
decade.
Which bring us to the mission. What is the next great human mission
in space? Frankly it isn't clear. And that is a bit worrisome. It is
nice to have goals. We children of the Space Race love a destination
and a deadline. But goals that simply lead to uninspired jobs programs
are not what we need.
NASA was not getting anywhere doing business the way it had been.
Over the years, the money required to keep flying the shuttle safely
left little room to push the envelope--as they say. With this budget,
the money will be there to pursue some new propulsion technologies that
might get us to Mars in a reasonable period of time; or find some
better ways to arrive in orbit and on the surface of another planet; or
work on closed loop life support systems; or come up with ways for
future explorers to use the resources that exist on Mars.
In one sense, we won't going anywhere I suppose. But we will be
exploring--taking the necessary first steps on the journey we have
dreamed of for years. I only wish we had started sooner.
It is time for our space agency to reboot and rethink its mission.
I look forward to telling the story of NASA 2.0.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. O'Brien.
Mr. Mike Snyder.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. SNYDER, AEROSPACE ENGINEER
Mr. Snyder. Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today to
discuss the challenges and opportunities of the proposed Fiscal
Year 2011 budget for NASA.
My name is Mike Snyder, and it has been my honor and
privilege to work on the Space Shuttle program for the past 13
years. I'm an engineer, and I'm one--just one of the tens of
thousands of people across America who work daily on the
Nation's efforts in human spaceflight programs.
The views you hear today are my own, but I can assure you
that they are representative and shared by many in the
aerospace force at large.
The space program is often referred to as a national asset,
an asset that has, does, and hopefully will continue to set the
United States of America apart from all other nations. By
extension, that same reference could, and should, be applied to
the men and women that make it all happen.
Today, unfortunately, I must inform you that morale across
the entire human spaceflight workforce, both civil servant and
contractor, is low. Perhaps the single biggest contributor to
the low morale is the perceived lack of any detailed plans with
clearly defined objectives and timetables for the future of
spaceflight.
Hanging on a wall in my office building is a poster that
states, ``If you aim at nothing, you are certain to hit it.''
And I cannot escape the potential relevance of that statement
in this case. All too often, it seems, we are not allowed a
policy that, while planning for the future and developing the
technologies that will ultimately be necessary, that we take
those first steps with our abilities and capabilities of today.
We must break free of the cycle that any new program first
requires the elimination of all that has come before it for the
sake of that implementation.
If NASA is to make such a dramatic change in course all at
once, the question the workforce is left asking is, How can all
the necessary details associated with this new direction be in
place a short 7 months from now, when two out of the three
major human spaceflight programs are scheduled for termination?
The answer, we believe, is that they will not. If that is
indeed the case, then who will perform this work? Where will
this work be located, and when will it be available?
Many of us, obviously, have families who we, obviously,
need to support. We cannot, and will not, be able to wait
around and assume that better days are ahead. For the Nation
and this industry, the result will be a workforce with valuable
and unique skills and experience that will be greatly
diminished or lost completely, and one that cannot be rebuilt
without significant time and effort.
Contributing to the workforce dilemma is the apparent
arbitrary 2010 retirement date of the Shuttle. It would be far
easier to stand down this unique capability if there were other
vehicles ready to fill the void that Shuttle retirement will
surely create. We had hoped that we could pass the torch onto
the follow-on program. Now, however, it simply looks like we're
extinguishing it, regardless of the circumstances that that
decision will create.
As of today, no American replacement vehicles exist that
are operational. And the Nation is hinging the sustainment and
full utilization of the International Space Station--our $100-
billion investment, 26 years in the making--on the hope and
assumption that they arrive. In my opinion, that is a strategic
mistake of vast proportions, and one that requires the utmost
reconsideration from all levels of the Federal Government.
Instead, we have chosen to rely on a foreign nation as the
sole method of transport for an unspecified amount of time to a
Space Station which owes its very existence to U.S. leadership,
it has been so heavily funded by the American people. In
general, this has been interpreted as a lack of faith from our
government in our ability to fly the most capable vehicle to
ever orbit and return to the Earth in support of the ISS.
The reality of the situation is that we need a better and
smoother transition that recognizes the new robustness of the
Space Shuttle performance, and one that does not instantly and
all at once swing the pendulum to the opposite extreme. We need
a transition that not only plans for the future with a detailed
program, including timetables for beyond-Earth-orbit
exploration, but also supports our immediate and critical
mission: full utilization of the ISS. We need a transition that
takes advantage of the capabilities of multiple commercial
providers, in combination with any potential NASA follow-on
vehicle, to ensure that use of ISS.
At present, this use can only be accomplished with the
extension of the Space Shuttle program. Once these commercial
providers or other capabilities have met the appropriate
performance milestones that prove their capability, then that
is, and should be, the trigger for Shuttle retirement. If this
Nation allows ISS to degrade and not realize its full
potential, then, potentially, so does the business case for
these commercial providers.
Extension of the Shuttle program also opens up the
possibility of a Shuttle-derived heavy-lift vehicle. A
recombination of Shuttle elements into a new inline
configuration could yield that capability in just a few years
and take advantage of the natural synergies between Shuttle,
the potential HLV, their shared infrastructures, and the
current experience base of the workforce.
Finally, we have heard a lot about education and inspiring
the nest generation; it's an obviously worthy goal. My fear is
that kids who would otherwise do well in this field will
ultimately be discouraged from entering it by multigenerational
programs where we promise to go somewhere and then always
retreat. If we, as a Nation, are serious about spaceflight,
then that is something that we must absolutely change. I never
saw a man walk on the Moon, and that was something already
relegated to history books by the time that I was born. My real
concern with the current proposal is that my girls will grow up
in a country where they, too, have to look to the history books
to see what this Nation used to be capable of achieving.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I'm happy to respond to
any questions you or other members may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Snyder follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael J. Snyder, Aerospace Engineer
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before your
Subcommittee today to discuss the ``Challenges and Opportunities of the
Proposed FY 2011 Budget for NASA.''
My name is Mike Snyder and it has been my honor and privilege to
work on the Space Shuttle Program for the past 13 years. I am not a
civil servant, a CEO of a major aerospace corporation or even a member
of senior management. I am an engineer and one of the tens-of-thousands
of people across America who work daily on this Nation's efforts in
human spaceflight programs. The views you hear today are my own but I
can assure you they are representative and shared by many in the
aerospace workforce at large.
It has always been my dream to be a part of the Space Program, and
even as a kid, I never wanted to do anything else. This is more than
just a job to me. It is a passion. It is about diligence and
dedication. It is about service and about being part of something
greater than myself. However, my story is not unique as these feelings
and beliefs are shared by countless others who make up the backbone of
any undertaking this Nation makes with regard to spaceflight and
exploration.
The Space Program is often referred to as a national asset, an
asset that has, does and hopefully will continue to set the United
States of America apart from all other nations. By extension, that same
reference could and should be applied to the men and women that make it
all happen. However, I cannot escape the impression now of being taken
for granted, of being considered expendable. It seems to be assumed we
are to quickly adapt and possibly relocate our families and reorient
our lives easily. Perhaps most importantly, in the workplace, we are
expected to compartmentalize all the unknowns and concerns about
everything we have worked for seemingly slipping away and still do the
job, the mission, we know we have to do. Today, I must inform you that
morale across the entire human space flight workforce, civil servant
and contractor, is extremely low. The lowest I have seen it in all my
years of service.
Perhaps the single biggest contributor to the low morale is the
perceived lack of any vision, purpose or detailed plans with clearly
defined goals, objectives and timetables for the future of human
spaceflight. We can all agree that Research and Development (R&D) is
vitally important. However, R&D without direction and purpose, without
a planned and well-defined operational concept is no more useful or
sustainable than assuming we can explore the solar system and beyond
without development of new technologies. I cannot stress enough the
importance of having an over-arching program with clearly defined goals
that focus these R&D efforts to near term as well as long term
capabilities with the intent and strong National will to use them.
Congress must not let our Nation fall into the trap yet again that
vaguely ties these technologies and capabilities to some future date,
future Administration and future Congress--because that way will
ensure, in my opinion, that these expensive initiatives never bear
fruit and will serve only as a disservice to this industry's current
and future workforce and to the United States of America as a whole.
Along these lines, we are all told by our Center Directors, company
CEOs, and our senior management that more information will be
communicated about the direction of the Agency. However, the problem is
that they do not yet know either. What the everyday worker does know is
the inescapable fact that two of three of this Nation's major human
space flight programs are proposed to be terminated. We are told by
senior Agency officials that this will ultimately be good for every
center, even if that does not make logical sense to us. We also know
that it can be a lengthy process to chart a new course, request
contract proposals, to negotiate contracts, and to turn that work on so
people can do that work.
The question we are left asking is how can all of this possibly
happen in any reasonable amount of time? The answer, many of us
believe, is that it will not, given the fact we are only 7 months away
from the proposed end of these programs. With that knowledge, we non-
civil servants are forced to choose: do we risk completing a program
that was at one time in the Nation's best interest, and in which we
have personally invested so much, then to find there are no jobs and
that our dedication has been at the expense of our families? Or do we
leave now, potentially abandoning our careers in a field and in a cause
we find important, worthy and noble in order to assure our families are
properly cared for? These are the questions we face and each of us will
have to answer individually--but for the Nation the result will be the
same: a workforce with valuable and unique skills and experience that
will be greatly diminished or lost completely and one that cannot be
rebuilt without significant time and effort.
Contributing to the workforce dilemma is the arbitrary 2010
retirement date of the Space Shuttle that is now upon us and all the
consequences that brings. Those of us who have worked on this program
for the last several years obviously knew the end of the Shuttle era
was coming. We had hoped that we could ``pass the torch'' onto a
follow-on program, but now, it looks more like we are simply
extinguishing it. The Space Shuttle's main reason for existence and its
primary mission was the construction and periodic resupply of a space
station. By the end of this year, that mission will still only be
partially complete. It would be far easier to stand down this unique
capability if there were other vehicles ready to fill the void Shuttle
retirement will surely create.
However, as of today, no American replacement vehicles exist that
are operational and this Nation is hinging the sustainment and full
utilization of the International Space Station, our one-hundred-
billion-dollar investment twenty-six years in the making, on the hope
and assumption that Russian, Japanese, European and unproven commercial
vehicles will provide adequate personnel and logistic support to the
ISS. In my opinion, this is a strategic mistake of vast proportions and
one that requires the utmost reconsideration and serious attention from
all levels of government. We are on the verge of giving up the
inherently robust and flexible capabilities of the Space Shuttle,
capabilities that are unique to this world and not likely to be
duplicated by any nation or any company in the near future, simply
because we choose to do so. Instead we have chosen to rely on a foreign
nation as the sole method of transport, for an unspecified amount of
time, to a space station which owes its very existence to U.S.
leadership and has been so heavily funded by the American people. In
general, this has been interpreted as a lack of faith from our
government in our ability to fly the most capable vehicle to ever orbit
and return to the Earth in support of the ISS, all so we can reallocate
the approximately eight one-hundredths of 1 percent that represents the
cost of the Shuttle Program to the Federal budget to something else.
Those of us that work on the Shuttle Program daily hear a lot about
how the Orbiter is an aging vehicle on the verge of falling apart, that
it has outlived its usefulness, that it is inherently unsafe and other
more colorful analogies. This is the incorrect perception that
constantly challenges us. As someone with intimate knowledge of our
processes and procedures, I assure you each Space Shuttle flight is as
safe as it can possibly be. Anyone who thinks otherwise, I invite you
to Johnson Space Center, Kennedy Space Center, Marshall Space Flight
Center, our other field centers, our various support and depot
facilities or the countless vendors still supporting across this
country. Spend a day with the everyday workers and see our attention to
detail, how we rigorously test and inspect the vehicle before every
flight, how we work problems to ``pound them flat,'' how we run
countless simulations and how we manage, minimize and accept, or do not
accept if the situation warrants, the risk that is and will be
associated with sending humans into space for the foreseeable future.
It is time to challenge the misconceptions about the Space Shuttle that
have been so carefully promoted over the last several years, simply to
help justify using the Space Shuttle budget for other activities.
To help dispel those misconceptions, allow me to cite just a few of
the newer capabilities that make the vehicle safer than at any previous
time in the Program's history. The External Tank has been significantly
improved to reduce the likelihood of losing foam that can harm the
Orbiter. There are cameras on and around the vehicle we did not have a
few years ago giving spectacular views never before seen but, more
importantly, provide invaluable data on the performance of the
integrated stack during launch and ascent. We have capabilities on-
orbit that allow us to know in near real-time the structural integrity
of the vehicle and the state of the Thermal Protection System. This
allows the opportunity to rigorously evaluate, and if necessary repair
in some conditions, all abnormalities long before ever committing to
entry. We have worked an effort for the past 7 years addressing all
critical and critically redundant component and system level
certifications verifying we ``fly how we test and test how we fly'' and
in some cases making the appropriate changes or performing additional
testing when discrepancies were found.
All of this, along with other improvements and our normal duties,
has led to the fleet performing better than it ever has, and as
evidence of this, I point to the just-completed STS-130 mission.
Endeavour returned home from a challenging and complex mission, having
performed magnificently and with zero major problems and virtually
nothing to be evaluated prior to committing to the next mission. That
said, we stand ready to address any problems that may surface and we
remain ever vigilant looking for and trying to anticipate that next
problem before it even occurs. This is the product of a highly skilled
team and a vehicle with history--a history whose final chapter should
not be written until we are certain there will be a story on the next
page so that full utilization of ISS to 2020, and possibly beyond, can
truly be realized.
When I and others point out the vast improvements in Space Shuttle
safety and reliability, we are often labeled as ``shuttle-huggers''
trying desperately to maintain the status quo for our ``government-
funded jobs program.'' We have heard it all before and I assure you
that anyone who truly knows me would not use the words ``status quo''
to characterize me. The reality of the situation, in my opinion, is
that we need a better and smoother transition that recognizes the new
robustness of Space Shuttle performance and one that does not instantly
and all at once swing the pendulum to the opposite extreme. We need a
transition that not only plans for the future with a detailed program
including feasible and realistic timetables for beyond-Earth-orbit
exploration but also supports our immediate and critical mission: full
utilization of the International Space Station. We need a transition
that takes advantage of the capabilities of multiple commercial
providers, in combination with any potential follow-on NASA vehicle, to
ensure full utilization of the ISS. At present, this full utilization
can only be accomplished with an extension of the Space Shuttle
Program. Once these commercial providers or other vehicles have met the
appropriate performance milestones that prove their capability, then
that is and should be the trigger for Shuttle retirement. However, if
ISS is allowed to degrade or not realize its full potential, the
business case for these commercial providers could possibly degrade
with it.
Extension of the Shuttle Program also opens up the possibility of a
Shuttle-Derived Heavy Launch Vehicle (HLV). Some form of an HLV has
generally been agreed to be needed, along with several other potential
technologies, to enable exploration beyond low-Earth orbit. It has been
suggested that we spend some of the proposed R&D money on technologies
to be used for another HLV that may come online twenty or so years from
now. However, we have an HLV today and a recombination of the Space
Shuttle elements into a new in-line configuration could yield that
capability in just a few years and take advantage of the natural
synergies between Shuttle, HLV and their shared infrastructures,
potentially driving down the costs of both.
Finally, we have heard a lot about education and inspiring the next
generation--an extremely worthy goal no doubt and one I have been
fortunate enough to play a part in from time to time and will do so
again as my two little girls grow. It is said that the proposed new
direction will do just that. However, I believe there are some concerns
that need to be considered. In my opinion and experience all young
people will not get excited about only research and development that
only offers the possibility of going somewhere, somehow, with something
like what may be in a test stand, someday in the future. I believe the
best way to inspire the next generation is for them to see real plans
in action, with real hardware doing real missions and knowing there is
more to come and that they too can be part of it.
I use myself as an example. I was born after the Apollo moon
missions and have never seen anyone leave the confines of Earth orbit.
My generation inherited the Space Shuttle Program and I am lucky enough
to be a part of it and to be involved in the construction of the
International Space Station. However, the Space Station Program was
first announced when I was 10 years old. Today, at 36 years old, we are
just finishing up construction. My fear is that kids who would
otherwise do well in this field are ultimately discouraged from
entering it by multi-generational programs and the constant threat of
policy changes.
We are already seeing the signs of that pattern repeating, where
students in college studying engineering and technology today, could be
older than I am now when the theoretical HLV under the current proposal
finally lifts off the ground for the first time. If we as a Nation are
serious about spaceflight, then that is something we together must
absolutely change. As I said earlier, I never saw man walk on the moon
and that was something already relegated to history books by the time I
was born. My real concern with the current proposal is that my girls
will grow up in a country where they too have to look to the history
books to see what this Nation used to be capable of achieving.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I am happy to respond to any
questions from you or members of the Subcommittee.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Mike Snyder.
Mr. Tom Young.
STATEMENT OF A. THOMAS YOUNG, FORMER DIRECTOR,
NASA GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER
AND PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER,
MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION
Mr. Young. Chairman Nelson and Mr. Vitter, I'm please to
have the opportunity to comment on the proposed Fiscal Year
2011 NASA budget.
As requested, I will concentrate on NASA's budget proposal
beyond human spaceflight; however, I can't resist offering a
few comments on human spaceflight at the conclusion of my
remarks.
It's important to define the basis and criteria for my
assessment. I believe what NASA does says much about our
country. What NASA does is very much a part of what we believe
to be important, our role in the world, and our values. I have
no doubt NASA's accomplishments in the past five decades, to
use an Olympic analogy, have placed the United States at the
center position on the podium. We must assure that our current
decisions result in a continuation of this success.
The operational elements of the NASA budget are science,
aeronautics and space research and technology, and human
spaceflight, including both exploration and space operations.
There is significant growth in the new science budget, as
compared to Fiscal Year 2010 budget. This growth is in Earth
Science. Planetary science and astrophysics are largely
unchanged, and some decline exists in heliophysics.
The National Academies produce Decadal Surveys that provide
scientific basis and proposed priorities for each discipline of
science. I have the privilege of serving as Vice Chairman of
the Space Studies Board, which, along with other boards,
provides oversight of the Decadal Surveys. I'm also a member of
the committees currently conducting astrophysics and planetary
surveys. The Decadal Survey process is enormously
comprehensive, representing the best in scientific debate and
decisionmaking. The result is a 10-year plan with extraordinary
support and credibility.
The Earth Science Decadal has been available for a few
years, and provides a sound basis for the growth proposed in
the physical year 2011 budget. Astrophysics and planetary
surveys are currently in development. While the proposed budget
will support impressive astrophysics and planetary missions,
there are extraordinary mission opportunities responsible to
the most profound questions concerning our solar system and the
universe that will not be affordable. I believe the same
observations are true for heliophysics, which is just beginning
the next Decadal Survey process.
In summary, much can be accomplished within the proposed
science budget that will contribute to our understanding of
Earth, our solar system, and the universe. Although it is
frustrating knowing that there are worthy opportunities that
cannot be accomplished within the proposed budget, there is
some consolation in knowing that we're implementing the best of
the best.
The growth in aeronautics and the new space technology line
are most positive. It is difficult doing the things NASA does
without a strong technology base. The proposed space technology
line will strengthen this critical area. The growth in
aeronautics and the new space technology program should be
strongly supported.
There is also considerable technology funding included in
the exploration budget. While significant benefits can be
realized from the total proposed technology investments, we
must recognize the lack of focus and identified mission uses
can result in wasteful and nonproductive hobby-shop activity.
Much is yet to be done to structure a technology program
that is properly focused. It is easy to spend technology money;
it's hard to spend it productively. And the critical aspect of
spending it productively is to have it as a part of an
integrated strategy.
That brings me to my overarching comments on human
spaceflight. The Augustine Commission report had a subtitle
that I believe deserves our attention: ``A Human Spaceflight
Program Worthy of a Great Nation.'' I believe the human
spaceflight program contained in the proposed Fiscal Year 2011
budget fails this test. My reasons for reaching this conclusion
are:
One, I believe the reliance upon commercial human
spaceflight for access to low-Earth orbit is a risk too high
and is therefore not a responsible course. I do hope the
commercial endeavors are successful.
Two, the absence of a clearly defined human exploration
program with no expectation of any human exploration for
decades is not consistent with my views of a great Nation.
We can only hope that, by this time next year, we will
recognize that our current course is not tenable, address those
areas that need the most attention, and reestablish a human
spaceflight program once again deserving of a great Nation.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
Prepared Statement of A. Thomas Young, Former Director, NASA Goddard
Space Flight Center and President and Chief Operating Officer, Martin
Marietta Corporation
Chairman Nelson and committee members, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to comment on the proposed FY 2011 NASA Budget. As
requested, I will concentrate on NASA's budget proposal beyond human
spaceflight. I will also offer a few observations on human spaceflight
at the conclusion of my remarks.
It is important to define the basis and criteria for my assessment.
I believe what NASA does reveals much about us as a country. What NASA
does is very much a part of what we believe to be important, our role
in the world and our values. I have no doubt NASA's accomplishments in
the past five decades, to use an Olympic analogy, have placed the
United States at the center position on the podium. We must assure that
our current decisions result in a continuation of this success.
Greatness is determined by what one does during challenging times that
is discretionary.
The operational elements of the NASA budget are science,
aeronautics and space research and technology, and human spaceflight
(exploration and space operations).
There is significant growth in the new science budget as compared
to the FY 2010 budget. This growth is in Earth Science. Planetary
Science and Astrophysics are largely unchanged with some decline in
Heliophysics.
The National Academies produce Decadal Surveys that provide
scientific basis and proposed priorities for each discipline of
science. I have the privilege of serving as Vice Chairman of the Space
Studies Board, which, along with the other boards, provides oversight
of the Decadal Surveys. I am also a member of the committees currently
conducting Astrophysics and Planetary Surveys. The Decadal Survey
process is enormously comprehensive, representing the best in
scientific debate and decisionmaking. The result is a 10-year plan with
extraordinary support and credibility.
The Earth Science Decadal has been available for a few years and
provides a sound basis for the growth proposed in the FY 2011 budget.
Astrophysics and Planetary Surveys are currently in development. While
the proposed budget will support impressive Astrophysics and Planetary
missions, there are extraordinary opportunities responsive to the most
profound questions concerning our solar system and the universe that
will not be affordable. I believe the same observations are true for
Heliophysics, which is just beginning the next Decadal Survey process.
In summary, much can be accomplished within the proposed science
budget that will contribute to our understanding of Earth, our solar
system, and the universe. Although it is frustrating knowing that there
are worthy opportunities that cannot be accomplished within the
proposed budget, there is some consolation in knowing we will be
implementing the best of the best.
The growth in Aeronautics and the new space technology line are
most positive. It is difficult doing the things NASA does without a
strong technology base. The proposed space technology line will
strengthen this critical area. The growth in Aeronautics and the new
space technology program should be strongly supported.
There is also considerable technology funding included in the
Exploration budget. While significant benefits can be realized from the
total proposed technology investments, we must recognize that lack of
focus and identified mission uses can result in wasteful,
nonproductive, ``hobby-shop'' activities. Much is yet to be done to
structure a technology program that is properly focused.
That brings me to my overarching comments on human spaceflight. The
Augustine Commission report had a subtitle that I believe deserves our
attention: ``A Human Space Program Worthy Of A Great Nation.'' I
believe the human spaceflight program contained in the proposed FY11
budget fails this test. My reasons for reaching this conclusion are:
1. I believe the reliance upon commercial human spaceflight for
access to low earth orbit is a risk too high and is therefore
not a responsible course. Nevertheless, I do hope the
commercial endeavors are successful.
2. The absence of a clearly defined human exploration program
with no expectation of any human exploration for decades is not
consistent with my views of a great Nation.
We can only hope that, by this time next year, we will recognize
that our current course is not tenable, address those areas that need
the most attention, and reestablish a human spaceflight program, once
again, deserving of a great nation.
A. Thomas Young
A. Thomas Young is the former Director of the NASA Goddard Space
Flight Center and President and Chief Operating Officer of Martin
Marietta Corporation. Mr. Young retired from Lockheed Martin in 1995.
Mr. Young is a member of the Science Applications International
Corporation (SAIC) Board of Directors. He is currently involved in
various space advisory and review activities.
Mr. Young is a member of the National Academy of Engineering.
Senator Nelson. You are an excellent panel. Thank you. You
have contributed mightily.
I might point out that this committee will hold a hearing
on commercial spaceflight, and we will dig into the details
with appropriate witnesses over the course of the next few
weeks.
Let me ask just a few questions and we'll round out this
hearing today.
For Hoot Gibson, how do you think NASA will certify crew
safety on commercial vehicles?
Captain Gibson. I'm not sure what their approach stands,
right at this moment, but the way that they need to do it needs
to be the way that we have always done it with our inherent
NASA-developed crew vehicles, and namely, by following the
human ratings standard that NASA has in place for these
vehicles.
I don't think that we could arrive at the right place if we
just say, ``We're going to build it for cargo, with some
relaxed requirements, launch it a couple of times and see what
our success rate is, and then declare it safe for human
spaceflight.'' I think there's going to have to be a rigorous
process that we go through in the same manner that we do on the
vehicles that we develop ourselves.
Senator Nelson. So, the agency is going to have to define a
process to validate the commercial providers for human
requirements.
Captain Gibson. Yes. And many of these, Mr. Chairman, are
very specific items--the design of the electrical systems, the
design of the structure, the structural margins. All of these
things are very much spelled out in the human rating standards,
and we're going to have to make sure that every step of that
process is followed by the commercial providers, as well.
Senator Nelson. I'm going ask a question that I know your
answer is yes, but I want to get it on the record. Should the
Astronaut Office be involved with this certification and
validation process?
Captain Gibson. Absolutely yes, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Nelson. You are a propulsion expert. Is heavy lift
a priority?
Captain Gibson. Yes, it is. Yes, it is. With all of the
comments that we've heard from the Augustine Commission, and
all of the direction that we have seen in the country, in many
years now--for many years now, we need to branch out beyond
low-Earth orbit, and that's going to require heavy lift, for us
to do that. And the obvious path, in my opinion, for us to
follow at this point, is to leverage the $9 billion of
investment that we have already made in the previous program
and take the things that we have developed, which are in direct
support, as I mentioned earlier, of the heavy-lift vehicle. If
we take the cancellation costs that are involved in that
program, and add it to the amount we've already spent, we wind
up with a fairly significant price, with nothing to show for
it. If we continue the testing up through the envisioned
testing at this time, we can accomplish that at no additional
cost over what the price would have been, and we wind up with
something, instead of winding up with nothing.
Senator Nelson. So, the $2 and a half billion in the
President's budget to cancel the program--instead, use that to
continue testing on Rocket X and to continue to develop a
capsule that ultimately would go on the heavy lift?
Captain Gibson. Yes, sir, exactly. Exactly the direction
that, my opinion is, that we should be proceeding in. And that
way, as I say, we wind up with something at the end of this
whole entire process, instead of cancellation costs and winding
up with nothing.
Senator Nelson. Mr. O'Brien, you have pretty well commented
on the mood of the country, and we've heard it from other
witnesses, as well. And yet, you noticed things that have to
change, and that NASA has to change. How can you--I'm asking
you an impossible question, but it's one that we have to
ultimately answer--how do we get from the doom and gloom of the
perceived program, through this paradigm shift, to make and
remake NASA?
Mr. O'Brien. It's really important we bring people along
for the ride, one way or another. And I thought it was really--
I was struck and impressed that there is talk in this budget
about participatory exploration.
You know, if you think about it, NASA has really pioneered
this whole notion of bringing people along for the ride. You
know, it really started way back in the Mars Pathfinder days,
when scientists would be seeing images on Mars at the same time
people at home were watching them on the Internet. The more we
bring people along for the ride, the more they're going to be a
part of this whole process. And that's why I think, you know,
if we can figure out how to thread the engineering needles that
Hoot has laid out here--and that's very important, that this is
a safe way to fly; I don't think anybody in the commercial
sector would tell you they want to do it in an unsafe manner--
if we can figure out how to do that, it portends tremendous
opportunities for a lot of people to go to space. We've had 500
people go to space since it all began; two of you are in the
room here. And I wish I had had my opportunity, as well. We
should be sending 500 people a month. And for NASA to figure a
way to get out of the way in low-Earth orbit and allow this
industry to thrive, I think we'll enthuse the public in ways we
can't imagine.
I remember being out there to cover that X PRIZE, back in
2004--October of 2004. It was positively electric in the
atmosphere out there, because even though it was a suborbital
hop, something we did in 1961 with Alan Shepard, it was just a
rank civilian doing it. You don't need the right stuff. And I
think if NASA can make that happen, make it possible for more
people to go, and bring people along for the ride in other
ways, I think they'll recapture that connection to the public.
Senator Nelson. Deep down, I believe that the public has a
yearning for space travel by humans, because it is our nature,
as a people. We are explorers. We are adventurers. We've always
had a frontier. Along the way, space travel has become ho-hum
to the public. Why the disconnect?
Mr. O'Brien. Well, I think, because people couldn't go, or
they had the feeling they couldn't be a part of it in any
meaningful way, without being number one at Top Gun school. You
know, I guess, when you look at the previous frontiers, anybody
could get in a covered wagon and head West, right? This is a
different kind of frontier. And for a long time, rightly so, it
was the bastion of a very elite, exclusive club of people who
got to go. Well, that's got to change. We're at the point now
where we can change that, and NASA can help enable that change,
if it decides to do so; and this budget is all about that.
So, you know, I think there are a lot of pitfalls here, and
we're talking about a lot of unproven things. And we've been
talking about a robust commercial sector for as long as I've
been covering space, but this is the first time I've seen NASA,
in a meaningful way, put some bets down in this area, and place
some investments in a way that may open up this frontier to
more people.
Senator Nelson. So, you don't think that these bets are
necessarily bad, that the commercial boys will be able to
produce?
Mr. O'Brien. Well, I'm not an engineer; I'm a history
major. I just play a scientist on TV, or actually on the Web
now. But, no, I can't assess the engineering aspects of it. My
sense of being a student of all of this is that we're very
close to making this a possibility. And it's not something that
this industry can do entirely on its own; there's not a
business model that stands on its own yet.
But, if you go back to the origins of NASA--the NACA--what
did it do? It fostered technology and it shoved it out into the
commercial sector. I think it's time to--for NASA to get back
to that NACA mentality here a little bit, at least as far as it
goes in low-Earth orbit. I'm not talking about commercial trips
to Mars; I think that's where NASA should be, and that's where
the technology push should be, and that's where--this budget
recognizes that fact. Enabling the technology to go way beyond
low-Earth orbit is what NASA should be doing. Getting out of
the way of low-Earth orbit and helping these commercial players
make it possible for lots of other people to go there is
exactly what should be happening right now to keep NASA engaged
and vital.
Senator Nelson. You've got as good a sense of the American
public's feelings as anyone. If the President said, ``We're
going to go to Mars,'' and he laid out a vision, how do you
think the American public would respond?
Mr. O'Brien. Well, I can imagine it would be an interesting
discussion, in this time we live in, with the budgetary
constraints that we're all dealing with, and with the economy
the way it is. But, John F. Kennedy made his similar
announcement; the economy wasn't so great, by my read of
history. So, I think a broad vision, if it's supported in the
context of enabling technologies, inspiring kids, and
maintaining our competitiveness, keeping us, technologically,
the leaders of the world. In all that context, I do think it
would be supported, but it has to be laid out in those terms.
Senator Nelson. Mr. Snyder, of course we talked about how
Constellation has been canceled in this program, and we've
talked a bit about how the NASA budget is increased by a fairly
substantial amount. In the first year, however, it's de
minimis; it's $6 billion over 5 years with about a percent and
a half in the first year, but there is the renewed commitment
to technology development. Can you give us your views about how
these changes affect the overall number of jobs supported by
NASA and the workforce distribution across different NASA
centers?
Mr. Snyder. I think that's the real question, Senator. What
we are thinking is, we all know how long it takes to change
contracts, to change directions, to get all these--the people
that you need to do that work in place. And, given the fact
that we are 7 months away from the end of those programs, many
of us are going to have no choice but to disperse, to go off
into other industries, to go potentially to other states, to
other locations, to do what we need to do to support our
families. Now, ultimately, eventually those contracts will be
in place. Will people necessarily be able to, or want to, jump
ship back to NASA? I don't think so, because they're going to
be--a feeling of being burned, of it being unstable, and all
those factors that will go into it. And so, you are looking at
a net loss--significant net loss of experience that I do not
think is going to be easily reestablished.
Senator Nelson. As I have shared privately with various
people in the government, including NASA, about trying to take
care of the workforce with additional work, such as an emphasis
in this budget on research and development, it is my hope that
you could see, in part of this workforce transition, that there
is a specific plan put in place by NASA for that transition so
that those areas that are hard hit by the retirement of the
Shuttle and the cancellation of Constellation would have a
softer landing. If I sense correctly that the Congress is at
least going to make a stab at--don't call it Constellation--
call it the continuation, as Captain Gibson has, of testing of
test rockets that would lead us in the R&D process of
developing a heavy-lift vehicle and the capsule to go do what
NASA can do best, which is explore the heavens, then that, of
course, will be some amelioration of the jobs and would give
some part of your workforce that you're referring to some hope.
You want to comment on that?
Mr. Snyder. I think it would. But, even if we continued
what has been referred to as the ``program of record,'' I think
we are still looking at a significant strategic mistake in
shutting down the Space Shuttle before we need to. The Space
Station is up there now. We are relying on the Russians for,
you know, some unspecified amount of time. You heard General
Bolden here today say that he wants redundant access. As soon
as we stand down that fleet, that redundant access is gone and
it's a foreign monopoly now at this point. The Shuttle is the
most capable vehicle that we have ever had. I challenge anybody
who will stand up and say that it is unsafe or use other more
colorful analogies to describe it. Clearly, they don't know
exactly what we do day-in, day-out to make sure that that
fleet--every mission is as safe as it possibly can be.
I think commercial space is ultimately going to be capable
of it, but, for the sake of the Space Station, all that money
that we have spent on getting it up there, that we can't just
walk away from it until we know that we're going to be able to
support it.
If you look at what happened to the Space Station during
the Columbia return-to-flight phase, we went from three crew to
two crew. We did mainly maintenance. We did just what we had to
do to get--to keep the Station operational. Today, that Station
has five or six people on board. It has got many more labs, and
much more complex. And yes, we have our ATVs and the HTVs from
our international partners, but those were always meant to be
in support of the orbiter. So, I cannot logically see how, if
we get the orbiter out of the loop--the main cog out of the
loop--that we just think that everything is going to be fine.
Ultimately, like I said, those commercial people could--the
providers could probably get there, but until that time, I
don't see that it makes sense to retire Shuttle. With the
HLVs--the potential HLV--clearly, keep the Shuttle going, there
is some synergies there that could certainly help ultimately
drive down your cost of your HLV, as well as, potentially, the
cost of your Shuttle program, because you could draw off of
those and off of that workforce.
Senator Nelson. Mr. Young, you've been Vice Chairman of the
Space Studies Board. Can you explain how NASA has used the
results of the Decadal Surveys to determine their priorities?
Mr. Young. It's actually quite a--I think, quite an
impressive process, watching it work. If I can give just a tad
of background, it's probably a year and a half of effort by a
large number of people in the scientific community that go into
producing a Decadal Survey. So, it's well thought out, well
debated, and highly credible when it's finished. I think NASA--
and I'll also say the Congress and the OMB, I believe, have
significant--based on experience, have significant confidence
in the Decadal Surveys. And NASA today--Administrator Bolden,
I've heard say it clearly; Ed Weiler, who runs the Space
Program; has a lot of experience; commented--they look at it as
the basis for the science program that NASA and the country
does today.
So, we really have a very comprehensive process that I
think we should be very proud of, and the net result is that we
really do do things that are the absolute best of the options
that are out there, which is the reason that we make
considerable progress on understanding both the Earth, our
solar system, and the universe.
Senator Nelson. You have been Chairman of the independent
review team that looked at the NPOESS program. This is a
program between several agencies. Now, the Administration's new
plan would greatly increase NASA's role. What's your reading of
the Administration's recent restructuring of the NPOESS
program?
Mr. Young. It's extraordinarily better than status quo. And
though we probably went farther in our recommendations, I think
it's time to get on with the program, and I would strongly
recommend support for the restructured program.
Senator Nelson. Well, we have had a good hearing. This is
the first step on a journey of many, many steps.
And we will keep the record open for 2 weeks for Senators
to submit questions for the record.
Thank you all for your participation. It has been
excellent.
And the meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:45 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
Thank you again to all of today's witnesses for their
participation. I know this is Administrator Bolden's first time
testifying before the Committee since his confirmation and I look
forward to his testimony.
This afternoon's topic is the President's FY 2011 budget proposal
for NASA. At a time when many agencies are seeing their budgets
decrease, the President is proposing an additional $300 million for
NASA next year, building into an increase of $6 billion over the next 5
years.
Significant investments in science, technology, aeronautics, and
education are enormously important. They are a foundation for our
future. However, I am going to be looking at this proposal very
carefully and will expect strong leadership and financial
accountability from the Administrator, the Chief Financial Officer, and
NASA's Inspector General.
I have been critical of NASA's financial and program management in
the past. And, in these extremely tough budget times, this proposed
budget increase requires even more diligence and certainly, more
oversight.
In addition to outlining the Administration's plans for the entire
budget request for the upcoming Fiscal Year, this proposal also
provides a long-awaited response to the options presented by the
Augustine Commission for human space exploration.
To say that there has been some ``interest'' in this decision is an
understatement. As the sole authorizing committee for NASA in the
Senate, we will be paying very close attention to that discussion as we
move forward with NASA's authorization this year.
I am pleased to see an increase in the requested funding for
aeronautics research, especially at a time when jobs are this Nation's
top priority. The aerospace industry is one of the few remaining
manufacturing industries that continue to be a major U.S. exporter.
However, I am troubled by the significant decrease in funding for
the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCOR).
EPSCOR helps states establish academic research efforts to contribute
to economic development. That is why Congress went above and beyond the
President's request last Fiscal Year, to make absolutely clear just how
important this program is. At a time when jobs have never been more
important, it seems like a bad idea to cut funding for a program that
supports quality, high-tech jobs.
I realize that this budget proposal represents a significant change
in direction for the agency. And I am encouraged by certain elements,
including the agency's rededication to science missions.
But I also know that there is a lot of unease, particularly when it
comes to the proposed plans for human spaceflight. I firmly believe
this is a turning point, an incredible opportunity for Congress and the
general public to reexamine what we want out of this agency. And that
is exactly what I intend to do as the Commerce Committee moves forward
with a reauthorization.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison, U.S. Senator from
Texas
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Vitter, I appreciate your
subcommittee holding this very important hearing on NASA's Fiscal Year
(FY) 2011 Budget Request. I join you in welcoming General Charles
Bolden, NASA's new Administrator, and the excellent panel of witnesses
who will follow him:
Captain Robert ``Hoot'' Gibson, whose distinguished career
at NASA as a space shuttle pilot and commander included
commanding STS-61C, the mission that included as crew members
both General Bolden, as the Pilot, and the Subcommittee
Chairman as a Payload Specialist in January 1986;
Mr. Miles O'Brien, who for many years was CNN's eyes and
ears on the space program, and I understand was eager to be the
first Journalist in Space--once Walter Cronkite became
ineligible to fly;
Mr. Tom Young, whose distinguished first career included
management of a major aerospace corporation, and his second
``career'' in so-called retirement has included serving on the
Space Studies Board as well as leading or participating in a
great many independent space-related study panels and advisory
groups; and
Mr. Michael Snyder, a constituent of mine in Houston, and a
fine example of the highly skilled and dedicated workforce that
functions as the real backbone of our Nation's space endeavors.
I am especially grateful that Mr. Snyder has chosen to come
today at his own personal expense to give us insights into the
workforce and the potential impacts of the Budget Request from
the perspective of the ``troops in the trenches,'' whom we
rarely have the opportunity to hear from.
This hearing begins the Commerce Committee's consideration of the
President's FY 2011 Budget Request, as we undertake our responsibility
to establish the policies and authorize the funds necessary to ensure
the United States maintains its leadership in space exploration. Our
work is particularly vital this year, as it is critical that the
Congress examine closely the very underpinnings of the proposed NASA
budget request, which I believe, if accepted and supported by the
Congress in its present form, would spell the end of our Nation's
leadership in space exploration. That would certainly be the case in
the area of human spaceflight capability.
Since the release of the FY 2010 Budget Request last year, the
future of human space flight programs has been in question. As part of
that request, the Administration announced it would establish an
independent review panel, chaired by my good friend Mr. Norman
Augustine, to review U.S. Human Space Flight Plans and provide options
for how those programs should proceed in the future.
The Augustine Panel completed its review in late August of last
year, and released its Summary Report in September. Shortly thereafter,
this subcommittee held a hearing on the report with Mr. Augustine
appearing as the sole witness. Since the release of the full report in
September, we have all been waiting for the Administration's response.
The Augustine Panel provided a total of seven approaches that could
be taken to ensure America's continued leadership in space--to
establish a space program ``worthy of a great nation,'' as suggested by
the title of their final report. None of those options leapt out as the
obvious, consensus answer to the mix of vehicle development options and
strategies necessary to meet the challenges of the next generation of
human spaceflight. There was, however, a clear consensus on two
important points.
First, the Panel found that, without a significant increase in the
total amount of funding made available to NASA, none of the options
presented could be expected to succeed--including the current plans and
programs for developing the Ares I and Ares V launch vehicles and the
Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle. Second, the Panel recommended that a
decision be made to formally extend U.S. plans to operate and utilize
the International Space Station (ISS) through at least the year 2020.
The Panel's key conclusions underscored what we in the authorizing
committees have been saying for the past 5 years, and which formed the
basis for the funding levels and directives that we authorized in both
our 2005 and 2008 NASA Authorization Acts. Our directives would have
led to a more timely and successful level of development for the
vehicles to replace the space shuttle systems, and would have ensured
that NASA allow operations of ISS through at least 2020.
I remind my colleagues that we imposed these requirements because
up to that point, NASA's internal planning--and budget guidance from
the Office of Management and Budget--was to cease operations aboard the
space station in 2015, just 5 years after its assembly and outfitting
would finally be completed by the remaining Space Shuttle flights.
Unfortunately, the FY 2011 Budget Request does not provide the
means to ensure that the extension and full utilization of the Space
Station can be realized. We are already planning to fly 10 fewer
missions in completing the Space Station than had been planned in 2005.
As a result, 10 flights' worth of flight-ready payloads--averaging
between 40,000 to 50,000 pounds per flight--were essentially relegated
to storage warehouses where most of them remain today, ready to fly,
ready to use, but with no guaranteed ``ticket to ride'' to be of any
use to the station. What is most important to remember, is that the
decisions about which instruments and equipment to swap into the
remaining flights were based on the internal assumption of the need to
support the ISS through 2015--not through 2020.
The result of this is that we do not know how many, or which, of
those ``grounded payload'' items might actually be needed in order to
ensure the station can be supported and maintained safely and reliably
until 2020. Not only that, we do not know which, or how many, of these
payloads are simply too large or too heavy to be carried to orbit by
any existing vehicle other than the Space Shuttle. And finally, we do
not know what additional items might need to be ordered, manufactured
and delivered in the future, or what launch vehicle capacity will be
needed to deliver them to the station. This is simply not the way a
great nation should conduct its civil space program. This is not the
way to ensure that a decision and pronouncement to continue operations
through 2020 will not become an empty gesture due to the deterioration,
damage, or failure of equipment and systems vital to providing the
oxygen, water, power to make the ISS habitable and to support
scientific research.
I am also deeply troubled about the Administration's proposal to
simply cancel the Constellation programs of Ares I, the low-Earth orbit
crew launch vehicle, the Ares V Heavy Lift vehicle for enabling flights
beyond low-Earth orbit, and the Orion Crew Exploration capsule to carry
the crews for both of those missions. The proposed budget request
offers a completely different approach, which is essentially to place
all of this country's human spaceflight capability in the hands of
commercially-developed crew launch systems, which are not yet defined
and for which no real design requirements, development milestones, or
even approximate cost estimates are provided.
There also appears to have been little thought given to how we
might leverage the $9 billion already spent on the Constellation
vehicles in developing an alternative government-operated space
transportation system to ensure we have the ability to take personnel
into space, should those commercial efforts not succeed, or in case
they are delayed. I believe that is irresponsible and unworthy of this
Nation's historical leadership in space.
I have been, and continue to be a supporter of the current COTS
(Commercial Orbital Transportation Systems) activities being pursued
with SpaceX and Orbital Sciences Corporation for cargo delivery
services for the Space Station. But, until those efforts are proven to
be successful, we have no business investing large amounts of
taxpayers' dollars to begin active development of crew-carrying
commercial vehicles, especially when we have no assurance that the
government will not end up being the only customer for those launch
services.
Instead of sending up a white flag for our Nation's premiere
science agency, we should embrace efforts to close the gap in U.S.
human space flight. If not, we must face the reality that we will be
totally dependent on Russia, far from our strongest ally, for access to
space until the next generation of vehicle is developed. Not only would
we be turning our backs on 40 years of American space superiority, we
would be giving up vital national security and economic interests to
other nations that are eager to exploit this situation. I am simply not
prepared to allow the United States to lose its edge in this critical
area. That is why I have drafted, and will introduce, a comprehensive
bill to address America's human space flight programs. My bill would
allow us to reach full utilization of the space station, provide for
the Shuttle to continue operations if necessary to bring essential
equipment to the station to reach a 2020 service date, and mitigate the
need for our Nation to rely on others to provide access to space for
our astronauts corps and researchers.
I do want to acknowledge some good news in the FY 2011 Budget
Request, which is that the Obama Administration agrees with the need to
continue supporting the Space Station to at least 2020, and to expand
and increase its utilization for research. That is very welcome news.
But my earlier concerns are very significant examples of how Obama
Administration appears to have ignored the recommendations of the
Augustine Panel. Therefore, I am pleased that we will begin examining
these issues today, and I commend the Chairman and Ranking Member of
the Subcommittee for their leadership. I look forward to the testimony
of the witnesses and the discussions with the Subcommittee.
Thank you.