[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION'S FISCAL YEAR 2012
BUDGET REQUEST

=======================================================================

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

MARCH 2, 2011

__________

Serial No. 112-3

__________

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

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

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
65-048 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
Wisconsin JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland DAVID WU, Oregon
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico
SANDY ADAMS, Florida PAUL D. TONKO, New York
BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona JERRY McNERNEY, California
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN, JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
Tennessee TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan
MO BROOKS, Alabama
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois
CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan
VACANCY
------

Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics

HON. STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi, Chair
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR., GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
Wisconsin MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
DANA ROHRABACHER, California TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DAVID WU, Oregon
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
SANDY ADAMS, Florida
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
MO BROOKS, Alabama
RALPH M. HALL, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

C O N T E N T S

Date of Hearing

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

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

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Chairman, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 10
Written Statement............................................ 11

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 12
Written Statement............................................ 14

Witness:

The Honorable Charles F. Bolden, Jr., Administrator, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 16
Written Statement............................................ 18

Discussion....................................................... 30

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

The Honorable Charles F. Bolden, Jr., Administrator, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration........................... 66

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record

Submitted Statement by Representative Jerry Costello, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 96

Submitted Statement by Representative Randy Neugebauer, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 97

THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION'S
FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET REQUEST

----------

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2011

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ralph M. Hall
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

hearing charter

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

A Review of the Federal Aviation Administration's

Research and Development Program

wednesday, february 16, 2011
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building

Purpose

The purpose of the Committee hearing is to review the
Administration's FY 2012 budget request for the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration and examine its priorities and challenges.

Witness

The Honorable Charles F. Bolden, Jr., Administrator, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration

Background

Agency Overview
NASA is the nation's primary civilian space and aeronautics
research and development agency, carrying out a diverse set of missions
and projects designed to expand our understanding of Earth, the Solar
System, and the universe. NASA operates the Space Shuttle fleet, the
International Space Station, and a number of satellites in orbit around
Earth and throughout the solar system. It also undertakes activities in
technology development and transfer, education, outreach, and
participates in a number of interagency initiatives such as
nanotechnology, information technology, climate change research, and
the Next Generation Air Transportation (NextGen) program.
NASA was established by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of
1958 (P.L. 85-568) and was formed by merging the National Advisory
Committee on Aeronautics (NACA) with selected space and aeronautics
research projects from the defense department. In its first year,
President Eisenhower requested $125 million for NASA. Today, the
agency's budget is more than $18.7 billion (less than half of one
percent of the federal budget), with about 83 percent of the total
budget paid to commercial entities on a contract basis. NASA employs
about 18,300 full time equivalent civil servants and another 43,000
contractors. In addition to its headquarters office in Washington, DC,
NASA has nine field centers:

Ames Research Center, Mountain View, CA

Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards Air Force
Base, CA

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, OH

Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD

Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX

Kennedy Space Center, Merritt Island, FL

Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA

Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL

Stennis Space Center, Bay St. Louis, MS

The Jet Propulsion Laboratory, located in Pasadena, CA, is a NASA-
sponsored federally funded research and development center. NASA also
owns the Wallops Flight Facility in Wallops Island, Virginia and the
Michoud Assembly Facility east of New Orleans, Louisiana.

FY2012 Budget Request

NASA's budget request for FY 2012 is $18.7 billion, the same amount
appropriated by Congress for FY 2010 and continued thus far in FY 2011.
The budget request also displays the succeeding four out-year budget
assumptions (FY2013 - FY2016) to give Congress an indication of near-
term spending plans for programs, projects and activities. The FY 2012
budget request assumes the same topline spending level through FY2016,
but unlike previous budgets, NASA's FY2012 request qualified their out-
year assumptions as `notional.' However, NASA's `notional' assumptions
are significantly higher than those in OMB's FY2012 agency request
(OMB's Blue Books) by an aggregate of $2.33 Billion. In spite of this
significant difference, NASA officials advised the Committee that they
are using their higher out-year assumptions for planning purposes.

NASA is proposing to modify its current account structure in two ways:
(1) to divide ``Aeronautics and Space Technology''
into separate accounts; and (2) merge the ``Space
Operations'' and ``Exploration Systems''
Directorates into one account. The latter may occur
by this summer.

Key Highlights and Programs from the FY2012 Budget Proposal

Earth Science. NASA's Earth Science programs seek approaches for
providing sustained, simultaneous spaceborne climate measurements to
advance knowledge of the Earth's atmosphere, oceans, sea ice, land
surfaces, and the interaction of these elements in the ecosystem,
including the impact of humans. Key elements include flight programs to
develop satellite observation missions; research analysis to understand
the flight data; developing technologies for new measurement
approaches; and advancing the use of Earth science measurements to
inform environmental policy decisions.

Compared to last year's budget, the FY2012 Earth
Sciences request - $1,797.4 million - is $4.4 million less, a
decrease of 0.2%.

NASA operates 13 satellite missions making global
observations and has seven missions in formulation or under
development, with Glory, Aquarius, and NPOESS Preparatory
Project (NPP) scheduled for launch in 2011.

Delays start of the DESDynI and CLARREO missions.

Astrophysics. NASA's Astrophysics programs seek to discover how
matter, energy, space and time behave under the extraordinary range of
conditions within our universe; explore how the universe began and
evolved; and characterize planetary systems orbiting other stars in a
search for Earth-like planets. NASA operates 13 satellite missions
including the Hubble Space Telescope, which has taken hundreds of
thousands of astronomical images shedding light on many of the greatest
mysteries of astronomy.

Compared to last year's budget, the FY2012
Astrophysics request - $682.7 million - is $51.2 million
higher, an 8.1% increase.

NASA's successor to the Hubble Space Telescope is the
James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). Last year, an external
review panel determined that JWST will require up to $1.5
billion in additional funding and at least another year before
it will be ready for launch. In an effort to get the cost and
schedule growth under control, JWST's program and project
management was moved out of the Astrophysics management
structure. NASA is currently conducting a `bottoms-up' review
to establish a new cost and schedule baseline that will be
reflected in next year's budget request. The FY2012 budget
request reduces JWST funding, ensuring that it will not meet
the current launch date of 2014.

Planetary Science. NASA's Planetary Science program conducts
robotic missions throughout our solar system to answer fundamental
questions about its origins and evolution. Planetary science data
supports NASA's longer term human exploration agenda including the use
of robotic Mars rovers, (i.e. Spirit and Opportunity), and orbiters,
(i.e., Odyssey and Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter) to map water and
minerals on or near Mars surface. NASA's Near Earth Observation (NEO)
program hunts for asteroids that are potential impact hazards to Earth.

Compared to last year's budget, the FY2012 Planetary
Science request - $1540.7 million - is $55 million higher, a
3.7% increase.

NASA and the European Space Agency have established a
joint program office to coordinate future Mars missions
beginning in 2016.

Higher launch vehicle costs is severely impacting
program, leading to reduced number of launches-per-decade
unless lower-cost launchers become available.

Heliophysics. Heliophysics seeks to understand the Sun and its
impact on the Earth's magnetosphere, ionosphere, and atmosphere. The
extended solar environment extends beyond the orbit of Pluto, but here
on Earth solar particles and fields effect high-altitude winds, radio
and radar transmissions, the electrical power grid, and spacecraft
electronics. NASA operates 14 heliophysics missions using 26 spacecraft
including the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) and the Solar
Terrestrial Relations Observatory (STEREO). Many Heliophysics missions
have been extended beyond their original lifetimes, including the
Voyager spacecraft launched in August 1977.

Compared to last year's budget, the FY2012
Heliophysics request - $622.3 million - is 19.6 million less, a
3.1% decrease.

The United States may have to eliminate one or more
instruments from the Solar Orbiter Collaboration - a joint
mission with the European Space Agency - due to the high cost
of a launch vehicle. Under the agreement, the US provides the
launcher and several of the instruments. The mission is being
led by the European Space Agency.
Aeronautics Research. NASA's Aeronautics research programs provide
direct and indirect benefit to the public. Fundamental research in
traditional aeronautical disciplines and relevant emerging fields
enable revolutionary changes which lead to a safer, more
environmentally friendly and more efficient national air transportation
system to benefit the flying public. Aeronautics research is conducted
through five programs: Aviation Safety; Airspace Systems; Fundamental
Aeronautics; Integrated Systems Research; and the Aeronautics Test
Program. NASA's Aeronautics research is a significant contributor to
the FAA's Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) program.

Compared to last year's budget, the FY2012
Aeronautics request - $569.4 million - is $10.2 million less, a
1.8% decrease.
Space Technology. For FY2012, NASA is proposing to create a new
budget line for Space Technology (in last year's budget request, it was
combined with Aeronautics Research). The program consists of technology
development and innovation projects that are broadly applicable to the
Agency's future missions in science and exploration while providing
space technologies that can improve the capabilities and lower the cost
of other government agencies and commercial space activities. It is
managed by the Office of Chief Technologist, who reports directly to
the Administrator. Space Technology has three programs: Early Stage
Innovation; Game Changing Technology; and Crosscutting Capability
Demonstrations.

Compared to last year's budget, the FY2012 Space
Technology request - $1,024.2 million - is $452 million higher,
a 79% increase. Note, however, that last year's request was
never enacted.

The Space Technology program also absorbs existing
programs, including the Innovative Partnership Program,
portions of the Exploration Technology Program, and the Small
Business Innovative Research (SBIR)/Small Business Technology
Transfer (STTR) Programs.
Exploration Systems and Human Spaceflight. See the section Human
Space Flight and the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 below for a fuller
explanation of changes and issues.
Space Operations. The Space Operations Mission Directorate (SOMD)
manages the Space Shuttle program; oversees the operation of the
International Space Station, including payloads on the ISS; provides
launch services for other NASA directorates, mainly for Space Science
missions; manages the Space Communication and Navigation (SCaN)
program, providing communications between Earth and missions in space
(Shuttle, ISS, and deep space science missions); through the Human
Space Flight Operations program, provides training for NASA astronauts
and supports their health and safety; develops future space launch
complex upgrades; and manages rocket testing capabilities through the
Rocket Propulsion Test program.

Compared to last year's budget, the FY2012 Space
Operations request - $4,346.9 million - is $540.9 million less,
an 11.1% decrease. This largely reflects the pending retirement
of Shuttle.

STS-133 Space Shuttle Discovery is currently at the
International Space Station. NASA must safely fly the two
remaining Space Shuttle missions while preparing for the
Shuttle's retirement later this year.

NASA will support utilization of the International
Space Station though at least 2020.

The FY2012 budget request includes $548 million in
pension liability for the Shuttle's prime contractor United
Space Alliance.
Education. NASA's education programs are designed to increase the
number of students who are proficient in, and choose to major in, and
pursue careers in STEM fields. NASA works through mutually beneficial
relationship s with over 500 colleges and universities, hundreds of K-
12 schools and districts, and over 400 museums and science centers to
provide education experiences.

Compared to last year's budget, the FY2012 Education
request - $138.4 million - is $7.4 million less, a 5.1%
decrease.
Cross Agency Support. Cross Agency Support (CAS) is comprised of
two themes, Center Management and Operations, and Agency Management and
Operations. Together they manage all nine NASA centers and their
personnel; agency acquisitions; financial management; maintenance and
operation of facilities; ensure safety and mission success; sustain
Agency-wide critical capabilities; and information technology.

Compared to last year's budget, the FY2012 CAS
request - $3,192.0 million - is $80.6 million higher, a 2.6%
increase.
Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration. The
Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration (CECR)
account provides for design and execution of facility construction and
revitalization projects, demolition projects, and environmental and
restoration activities. The Environmental Compliance and Restoration
program is to clean up pollutants from past activities.

Compared to last year's budget, the FY2012 request -
$450.4 million - is $53.1 million higher, a 13.4% increase.

The FY2012 request supports cleanup of the Santa
Susana Field Laboratory (CA), in preparation for dispositioning
the property.
Inspector General. Supports auditors, investigators, and analysts
to prevent and detect fraud, waste and abuse and mismanagement.

Compared to last year's budget, the FY2012 request--
$37.5 million--is $500 thousand higher, a 1.4% increase.

Human Space Flight and the NASA Authorization Act of 2010

Last year Congress passed the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, which
was signed by the President on October 11th (P.L.111-267). The Act
provided policy guidance and recommended funding levels agreed to by
the Congress. Yet the Administration's FY2012 budget request diverges
significantly from the Authorization Act in a number of ways in the
area of human spaceflight. Much of the Act was in direct response to
the Administration's FY2011 request to cancel development of the
Constellation Program (consisting of a new launch system, Ares 1 and
Ares 5; and the Orion crew capsule) as the successor to the Space
Shuttle, which will be retired from service later this year.
In lieu of Constellation, the Administration's FY2011 budget sought
$6 billion to fund development of multiple commercial crew transport
services (three or four, according to NASA), arguing that emerging
commercial companies had the capability to safely design, build and
operate launch systems and crew capsules to carry astronauts to and
from low-Earth orbit. Despite repeated requests by the Committee
throughout 2010, NASA failed to provide a credible plan or the basis
for its $6 billion estimate to Congress. As a result, Congress in its
2010 NASA Authorization Act strongly disagreed with the
Administration's proposal.
Instead, the Act provided $10.8 billion (through 2013) for
continued development of a Shuttle- and Constellation-derived launch
system (newly designated the Space Launch System and Multi-Purpose Crew
Vehicle) that would assure a backup capability to access the
International Space Station for the U.S. and our international partners
in case commercial proposals fail to materialize. The Act also directed
NASA to proceed immediately with its development with the goal of
making the system operational by 2016.
The Space Launch System (SLS) and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV)
were to continue to focus on developing the advanced human safety
features of the Orion project, and be capable of evolving into a heavy
lift launch system that could eventually carry 130 tons to orbit to
enable human exploration missions beyond Earth orbit. Congress
envisioned that the SLS and MPCV would get maximum benefit from the
more than $10.3 billion that had previously been spent on the
Constellation system. During the previous 18 months, major
Constellation components achieved a number of milestones including
successful flight tests of the Ares 1-X and the Orion launch abort
systems, and a ground demonstration of a five-segment solid rocket
motor that was to have powered the Ares 1.
In the area of commercial crew the Authorization Act provided $1.3
billion over three years to ``continue or expand activities and
agreements initiated in FY2010 that reduce risk, develop technologies,
and lead to other advancements that will help determine the most
effective and efficient means of advancing the development of
commercial crew services.''
The following table compares the policy and funding guidance that
Congress established in the NASA Authorization Act with the
Administration's FY2012 budget request. Over the next two years (FY2012
- FY2013) the Administration's request underfunds development of the
Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and Space Launch System/Heavy Lift Launch
Vehicle by more than $2.4 billion, a 31 percent decline. In the area of
Commercial Spaceflight the Administration significantly augmented
amounts already authorized for commercial Cargo Resupply Services and
Commercial Crew.
Although NASA is seeking to fund development of multiple commercial
crew systems, NASA will not own the systems and will shoulder
additional costs to "rent seats" on a per mission basis. NASA has
inserted a new line in the FY2012 budget called Mission Operations
Sustainment that will be used to pay the per seat rental if and when a
new commercial crew industry has been established. Despite repeated
requests to NASA to provide the cost basis or assumptions used to
estimate the future cost for commercial seat rental, NASA did not
provide that information to the Committee. As a result the table below
assumes that $415 million requested in FY2013 will be necessary for
seat rentals, which is roughly similar to the cost to rent seats on the
Russian Soyuz.

Last year NASA used $50 million from the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act to fund five study proposals called Commercial Crew
Development (CCDev 2). NASA initiated a second request for proposals
(CCDev 2) and plans to award funding once the FY2011 appropriation is
finalized. CCDev 2 currently has no budget allocation so these funds
will further reduce the amount available for Human Exploration
Capabilities but is not reflected in the above chart.
Chairman Hall. All right. The Committee on Science, Space
and Technology will come to order, and I say to you good
morning and thank you for being here. Charlie, I think it is a
good morning. I know you are a good guy and likeable and
admired hero, and for some of the things I say about the
Administration, I am not talking about you directly. But you
are a big guy, and I know you are going to handle it.
I welcome all of you here to the hearing entitled the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Fiscal Year 2012
Budget Request. In front of you are packets containing the
written testimony, biography and Truth in Testimony Disclosure
for today's witness, Administrator Charles F. Bolden.
I recognize myself for five minutes for an opening
statement.
I want to thank Administrator Bolden for appearing before
our Committee today. There are a number of significant issues
facing our Nation's space program, and I look forward to a
frank and open discussion on the issues.
I am concerned that the future of our space program is in
very serious jeopardy and has been since the President ran a
line through the word Constellation. With the retirement of the
Space Shuttle, NASA faces a critical period and needs to focus
its limited resources to sustain our leadership in space.
As everyone knows we are in a challenging budget
environment. In times like these it is more important than ever
for NASA to have credible, realistic plans that can be
understood and can be defended. It must execute the programs it
has with efficiency and thrift and work closely, I think, with
the Congress to abide by congressional legislation. It is my
personal opinion that someone over at the White House seems to
have very little interest in working with the Congress. The
President made a speech to the Nation just last January told
all of us that we had not only to work together, and that is a
good speech, we should work together, that we even had to sit
together that night. His speech was great. It was just two
years too late. When the speech was shorter two years ago, I
counted the words in the January speech, 5,602 words. Two years
ago the words seemed to have narrowed down to two words, we
won, with no real cooperation sought from the Republican side.
In the area of human spaceflight, I am concerned about
having assured access to the International Space Station for
the United States and our international partners so it can live
up to its promise as a vital research laboratory. That is why
Congress several years ago authorized a follow-on system called
Constellation. The Constellation program was guided by the
safety recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation
Board. Its goals and designs were well understood and endorsed
by successive Republican and Democratic Congressmen working
together. I am sure you have heard that from many of us.
Yet last year the President, without warning, cancelled
Constellation in favor of a commercial crew proposal that
assumed spending at least $6 billion over five years on the
development and demonstration of up to three or four privately
owned and operated commercial crew systems with no or very few
details.
Despite repeated requests from former Chairman Gordon and
myself, NASA never provided the basis for its cost estimates or
a credible plan showing how the needs of the United States and
our international partners could be met at a lower cost or on a
faster development cycle than Constellation.
So last year, after intense and often contentious debate
Congress passed the NASA Authorization Act of 2010. The bill
was a product of compromise, and no one got everything they
wanted. But the Act contained policy elements and funding
guidelines that could allow the space program to move forward.
Specifically the Act provided $10.8 billion over three
years for the newly-designated Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and
Space Launch System to assure the capability to supply and
support the International Space Station for the United States
and our international partners in case commercial proposals
fail to materialize.
The Act also urged NASA to capitalize on investments
already made in the Constellation program in order to save
money, maintain a skilled workforce and minimize further
development delays.
With regard to Commercial Crew, the Act authorized $1.3
billion over three years for activities that, as the
authorization bill states, ``reduce risk, develop technologies,
and lead to advancements that will help determine the most
effective and efficient means of advancing the development of
commercial crew services.'' Commercial crew was not ignored,
but to be perfectly clear, it was not and is not Congress'
first priority. Our first priority is to continue with the
development of the Space Launch System and Multi-Purpose Crew
Vehicle.
Yet the Administration's fiscal year 2012 budget proposal
completely flips the priorities of the Act, significantly
increasing Commercial Crew funding while making deep cuts to
the Human Exploration Capabilities accounts which Congress
clearly intended to serve as our assured access to space.
Members of this Committee have been some of NASA's most
ardent supporters in the House, and we take the NASA
Authorization Act, all of us take it very seriously. We expect
NASA to make good faith efforts to abide by the policy
direction and funding limitations in the law and to cease its
efforts to delay resumption of full development of an assured
access system. The new budget proposal disregards, yes,
ignores, our authorization law.
Knowing that we face a very difficult budget environment
for years to come, it is more important than ever that NASA
have credible plans, execute them well, and work closely with
Congress to abide by the legislative direction.
We would like to work together with you to maintain our
human spaceflight program.
In order to do this, NASA should embrace the policy
direction that has been agreed to, which would help reduce the
surprise, frustration and anger from those who have been your
greatest supporters.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]

Prepared Statement of Chairman Ralph Hall

I want to thank Administrator Bolden for appearing before our
Committee today. There are a number of significant issues facing our
nation's space program, and I look forward to a frank and open
discussion on the issues.
I am concerned that the future of our space program is in serious
jeopardy. With the retirement of the Space Shuttle, NASA faces a
critical period and needs to focus its limited resources to sustain our
leadership in space.
As everyone knows we are in a challenging budget environment. In
times like these it is more important than ever for NASA to have
credible, realistic plans that can be understood and defended. It must
execute the programs it has with efficiency and thrift, and work
closely with the Congress to abide by legislation.
In the area of human spaceflight, I am concerned about having
assured access to the International Space Station for the U.S. and our
international partners so it can live up to its promise as vital
research laboratory. That is why Congress, several years ago,
authorized a follow-on system called Constellation. The Constellation
program was guided by the safety recommendations of the Columbia
Accident Investigation Board. Its goals and design were well understood
and endorsed by successive Republican and Democratic Congresses.
Yet last year the Administration, without warning, cancelled
Constellation in favor of a commercial crew proposal that assumed
spending at least $6 billion over five years on the development and
demonstration of up to 3 or 4 privately owned and operated commercial
crew systems.
Despite repeated requests from former Chairman Gordon and myself,
NASA never provided the basis for its cost estimates or a credible plan
showing how the needs of the U.S. and our international partners could
be met at a lower cost or on a faster development cycle than
Constellation.
So last year, after intense and often contentious debate Congress
passed the NASA Authorization Act of 2010. The bill was a product of
compromise, and no one got everything they wanted. But the Act
contained policy elements and funding guidelines that could allow the
space program to move forward.
Specifically the Act provided $10.8 billion over three years for
the newly-designated Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle and Space Launch System
to assure the capability to supply and support the International Space
Station for the U.S. and our international partners in case commercial
proposals fail to materialize.
The Act also urged NASA to capitalize on investments already made
in the Constellation programs in order to save money, maintain a
skilled workforce, and minimize further development delays.
With regard to Commercial Crew, the Act authorized $1.3 billion
over three years for activities that ``reduce risk, develop
technologies, and lead to advancements that will help determine the
most effective and efficient means of advancing the development of
commercial crew services.''
Commercial crew was not ignored, but to be perfectly clear, it was
not - and is not - Congress' first priority.
Yet the Administration's FY2012 budget proposal completely flips
the priorities of the Act, significantly increasing Commercial Crew
funding while making deep cuts to the Human Exploration Capabilities
accounts which Congress clearly intended to serve as our assured access
to space.
Members of this Committee have been some of NASA's most ardent
supporters in the House and we take the NASA Authorization Act very
seriously. We expect NASA to make good faith efforts to abide by the
policy direction and funding limitations in the law, and to cease its
efforts to delay resumption of full development of an assured access
system.
Knowing that we face a very difficult budget environment for years
to come, it is more important than ever that NASA have credible plans,
execute them well, and work closely with Congress to abide by
legislative direction.
We want to work together with you to maintain our human spaceflight
program.
In order to do this, NASA should embrace the policy direction that
has been agreed to, which would help reduce the surprise, frustration
and anger from those who have been your greatest supporters.

Chairman Hall. I now recognize Mrs. Johnson for her opening
remarks.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome
back to the Committee, Administrator Bolden.
I want to congratulate you and your agency on STS-133, and
I understand that the mission has been very productive to date,
and I look forward to the crew's safe return to Earth next
week.
I had another appointment, so I missed it, and I kept
telling the people going, I might not miss it because it might
not go up that day but it did.
Today is the Congress' first opportunity to review the
President's fiscal year 2012 budget request for NASA. This
budget request is coming over in a very challenging budgetary
environment with the appropriations for fiscal year 2011 still
undecided even though we are now 5 months into that year. I can
only imagine the challenges that you are facing in trying to
plan and carry out the challenging activities that the nation
has asked you to undertake when the budgetary sands keep
shifting.
I hope that we are able to resolve our current
appropriations impasse soon, but I also hope that an agreement
doesn't come at the expense of critical investments this Nation
needs to make to prepare for the future. I consider NASA to be
one of those critical investments.
One only has to look at all the advances, new technologies
and inspiration that NASA has delivered over the years to
realize that the people of NASA are one of our Nation's vital
resources and we need to support them and their important
missions in space and Earth science, aeronautics and human
spaceflight and exploration. I could spend my entire time
listing just some of the fruits of our past investments in NASA
that have become embedded in our daily lives whether they be as
broad in scope as global satellite communications or as
specific as smoke detectors, cordless power tools, digital
mammography, body imaging and firefighter breathing systems.
Other nations increasingly are recognizing the benefits a
strong and active space program can deliver, and as a result,
we see them being willing to make the necessary investments to
build their space capabilities. However, I am worried that we
here in America are forgetting how important these R&D
investments are to our future and how critical this skilled
workforce is to our future competitiveness.
I am a great admirer of you, Mr. Bolden, and the
inspirational leadership that you bring to NASA. I am also a
supporter of the President who wishes you to be successful in
this policy initiative. However, I have to say that I am
disappointed in the budget request that is before us today,
especially in light of all the work that Congress undertook
last year to forge a constructive path forward for the Nation's
space program.
While last year's Authorization Act was by no means a
perfect bill, it did clearly articulate Congress' intent that
NASA pursue a meaningful human spaceflight and exploration
program that builds on all the work that has been done over the
past five years. I had thought the Administration agreed with
the compromise that was enacted into law, but I am afraid I do
not see it reflected in the proposed NASA budget request. The
request cuts NASA's overall budget plan and its human
exploration budget even further than before, delays the
development of the next generation vehicles and eliminates any
concrete destinations or milestones beyond the International
Space Station.
This is an unfortunate situation for a number of reasons,
but its most damaging impact will be on both our existing,
highly skilled workforce and on the young people who are
inspired by NASA to dream of careers in science and technology.
The start-stop approach to finding funding goals that we have
seen over the past several years can only cause us to lose the
best and brightest of both groups, and they will never be
replaced. It will not be easy. We are really not getting them
ready, so we cannot afford to lose the ones we have.
I know that you have great sympathy for the budget and the
pressures that NASA is facing, as do we. That is why I am
hoping and expecting that the Administration would provide some
constancy of funding and direction to the Agency, and I am
afraid that I don't see it in the budget that has been
submitted to Congress.
So where do we go from here? I think that the most
constructive approach for all of us here is to consider the
budget request that you will present today as the beginning of
a discussion, not the end. We are going to need you to tell us
what you can do with your budget, not what you can't do. We
need to know about spaceflight goals that have been set forth
in successive NASA authorization acts. We want to know what is
possible. We need to know not just what you cannot do. Make no
mistake about it. This is a critical period for NASA. Our
leadership and preeminence in space and aeronautics is at
stake. Resting on our laurels from prior accomplishments is not
an option. Sustained investments in research, technology and
development must be made, not just for our sake, but for our
Nation's sake. Without this sustained investment in the years
ahead, NASA will be hard-pressed to foster the innovation
needed to inspire young generations to pursue scientific and
technical careers, and that would be a bad sign for our Nation.
I want to work with you, Administrator Bolden, and with
Chairman Hall to ensure that NASA continues to instill pride
and to inspire by pushing back the frontiers of knowledge
through exploring and living in space, advancing science and
engineering and developing innovative technologies.
I want to again welcome you, and I hope that we can work
together to see that we have a more positive NASA program. I
yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you Chairman Hall, and welcome back to the Committee,
Administrator Bolden. I want to congratulate you and your agency on the
successful launch of STS-133. I understand that the mission has been
very productive to date, and I look forward to the crew's safe return
to Earth next week.
Today is the Congress's first opportunity to review the president's
Fiscal Year 2012 budget request for NASA. This budget request is coming
over in a very challenging budgetary environment, with the
appropriations for FY 2011 still undecided even though we are now five
months into that year. I can only imagine the challenges you are
facing, Mr. Administrator, in trying to plan and carry out the
challenging activities that the nation has asked you to undertake when
the budgetary sands keep shifting under you.
I hope that we are able to resolve our current appropriations
impasse soon, but I also hope that an agreement doesn't come at the
expense of the critical investments this nation needs to make to
prepare for the future. I consider NASA to be one of those critical
investments.
One only has to look at all of the advances, new technologies, and
inspiration that NASA has delivered over the years to realize that the
people of NASA are one of our nation's vital resources, and we need to
support them and their important missions in space and Earth science,
aeronautics, and human space flight and exploration. I could spend my
entire time today listing just some of the fruits of our past
investments in NASA that have become embedded in our daily life,
whether they be as broad in scope as global satellite communications or
as specific as smoke detectors, cordless power tools, digital
mammography, body imaging, and firefighter breathing systems.
Other nations increasingly are recognizing the benefits a strong
and active space program can deliver, and as a result we see them being
willing to make the necessary investments to build their space
capabilities. However, I am worried that we here in America are
forgetting how important these R&D investments are to our future, and
how critical this .skilled workforce is to our future competitiveness.
Mr. Bolden, I am a great admirer of you and the inspirational
leadership you bring to NASA I am also a supporter of the president who
wishes him to be successful in his policy initiatives. However, I have
to say that I am disappointed in the budget request that is before us
today, especially in light of all the work that Congress undertook last
year to forge a constructive path forward for the nation's space
program.
While last year's Authorization Act was by no means a perfect bill,
it did clearly articulate Congress's intent that NASA pursue a
meaningful human space flight and exploration program that builds on
all of the work that has been done over the past five years. I had
thought that the Administration agreed with the compromise that was
enacted into law, but I am afraid that I do not see it reflected in the
proposed NASA budget request. The request cuts NASA's overall budget
plan and its human exploration budget even further than before, delays
the development of the next generation vehicles, and eliminates any
concrete destinations or milestones beyond the International Space
Station.
That is an unfortunate situation for a number of reasons, but its
most damaging impact will be on both our existing highly skilled
workforce and on the young people who have been inspired by NASA to
dream of careers in science and technology. The start-stop approach to
funding and goals that we have seen over the past several years can
only cause us to lose the best and brightest of both groups, and they
are not going to be easily replaced.
Mr. Bolden, you know that I have great sympathy for the budgetary
and other pressures NASA is facing. That is why I was hoping and
expecting that the Administration would provide some constancy of
funding and direction to the agency, but I'm afraid that I don't see it
in the budget that has been submitted to Congress.
So where do we go from here? I think that the most constructive
approach for all of us here is to consider the budget request that you
will present today as the beginning of the discussion, not the end. We
are going to need you to tell us what you can do with your budget to
meet the human spaceflight goals that have been set forth in successive
NASA Authorization Acts-not simply tell us what you can't do. And if
additional resources are needed to realize those goals, we need to know
that too.
Make no mistake about it, this is a critical period for NASA. Our
leadership and preeminence in space and aeronautics is at stake.
Resting on our laurels from prior accomplishments is not an option.
Sustained investments in research, technology, and development must be
made. Without this sustained investment in the years ahead, NASA will
be hard-pressed to foster innovation needed to inspire our younger
generations to pursue scientific and technical careers. That would be a
shame.
I want to work with you, Administrator Bolden, and you, Chairman
Hall, to ensure that NASA continues to instill pride and to inspire by
pushing back the frontiers of knowledge through exploring and living in
space, advancing science and engineering, and developing innovative
technologies.
With that, I again want to welcome you to today's hearing,
Administrator Bolden, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman Hall. Thank you, Ms. Johnson, for a great opening
statement, and if there are Members who wish to submit
additional opening statements, your statements will be added to
the record at this point.
Chairman Hall. At this time I would like to and am proud to
introduce the witness. Charles F. Bolden Jr., was appointed
NASA Administrator by President Obama and was sworn in on July
17, 2009. He is an astronaut, having flown on four Shuttle
missions, including the mission that deployed the Hubble Space
Telescope. Prior to being appointed Administrator, Mr. Bolden
served in the United States Marine Corps for 34 years. During
his service he was an aviator, having flown 100 missions in
Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War. He was a test pilot. He
held a number of commands. Mr. Bolden retired from the Corps
with a rank of Major General.
He is a true patriot, and we are very proud to have him
here today. He is also a friend of mine, admired by many. I
observed him just several weeks ago as he nurtured the care of
those that had lost others in carrying out the space program
out at the cemetery here. I was with him last Thursday as he
welcomed everybody for a great day and a day of pride that we
launched successfully, and he is a true patriot, and we are
very glad to have him before us today.
I recognize you, sir, for five minutes, but we would be
more lenient with you since I had to read all these things to
you here. If you need more time, you take it.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES F. BOLDEN JR., ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL
AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Bolden. Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Johnson, Members
of this Committee, thank you very much. And Chairman and
Ranking Member, let me congratulate both of you on your new
leadership roles. I want to thank you and all the Members of
the Committee for the longstanding support that all of you have
given to NASA.
We have a common passion for space exploration and the
benefits it brings our Nation. As you take on your new
responsibilities, I look forward to continuing our work
together in the same collegial fashion as we have in the past.
And I would like to take the liberty of also thanking you,
Chairman Hall, for getting space back into the name of this
Committee. It was missing for many years, and it is now back in
the name. So I do appreciate that.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to show a
very short video clip that we brought with us, if that is okay.
Chairman Hall. And who would object?
[Video]
Mr. Bolden. Thank you for the time to show that video, Mr.
Chairman. Not a day goes by that I don't think and pray about
Gabby. All of us in the NASA family continue to pray for her
speedy and full recovery.
The International Space Station is our anchor for future
exploration, and our crew members aboard ISS are truly serving
on the frontiers of human experience. We are delighted that
with the authorization bill passed and signed into law last
fall, the station will continue as a global resource for
another 10 years.
It is my privilege today to discuss the President's fiscal
year 2012 budget request of $18.7 billion for NASA. Despite the
commitment to fiscal restraint, I am pleased that we are
proposing to hold funding at the level appropriated in 2010,
which of course, continues to be our spending level under the
continuing resolution. This budget request continues the
agency's focus on a reinvigorated path of innovation and
technological discovery, leading to an array of challenging
destinations and missions that engage the public.
The Authorization Act of 2010 gave NASA a clear direction.
We're moving forward to implement the details of that Act with
this fiscal year 2012 budget. The President's budget for NASA
funds all major elements of the Act while supporting a diverse
portfolio of key programs.
Because these are tough fiscal times, we also had to make
some difficult choices. Reductions were necessary in some areas
so we can invest in the future while living within our means.
This budget maintains a strong commitment to human spaceflight
and the development of new technologies. It invests in the
excellent science, aeronautics research and education programs
that will help us win the future. It carries out programs of
innovation to support long-term job growth and a dynamic
economy that will help us out-innovate, out-educate and out-
build all others in the world.
[Chart]
Along with our budget proposal, last week we published our
2011 strategic plan. NASA's core mission in support of this
vision that is on the chart remains fundamentally the same as
it has since its inception in 1958. Just this past week, we
launched STS-133 on the Shuttle Discovery, one of the final
three Shuttle flights to the ISS. Along with supplies that will
support the station's scientific research and technology
demonstrations, Discovery has also delivered a robotic crew
member, Robonaut 2, R2. The Glory Earth Science Mission will
launch from California this week on a mission to help us better
understand Earth, its atmosphere and the variables affecting
our climate. Our space program continues to venture in ways
that will have long-term benefits, and there are many more
milestones in the very near term.
Yesterday, we announced three new program offices to carry
out our future work. NASA brings good jobs and bolsters the
economy and communities across this Nation.
[Chart]
This chart shows at a very high level the scope of our
activities for fiscal year 2012. Our priorities in human
spaceflight in the fiscal year 2012 budget request are to
maintain safe access for American astronauts to low Earth orbit
as we fully utilize the International Space Station; facilitate
safe, reliable and cost-effective U.S.-provided commercial
access to low Earth orbit for American astronauts and their
supplies as soon as possible; begin to lay the groundwork for
expanding human presence into deep space, the moon, asteroids
and eventually Mars through the development of a powerful,
evolvable heavy-lift rocket and multipurpose capsule; and
pursue technology development to carry humans farther into the
solar system. These initiatives will enable America to retain
its position as a leader in space exploration for generations
to come.
At the same time, in our other endeavors, our priorities
are to extend our reach with robots and scientific
observatories to learn more about our home planet and the solar
system and peer beyond it to the origins of the universe;
pursue ground-breaking research into the next generation of
aviation technologies; and carry out dynamic education programs
that help develop the next generation of science, technology,
engineering and mathematics professionals. That is a lot, but
NASA thrives on doing big things. We have vastly increased
human knowledge, and our discoveries and technologies have
improved life on Earth.
There has been some concern that NASA is abandoning human
spaceflight. This simply is not true.
[Chart]
These charts illustrate the percentage of NASA's budget
that supports human spaceflight. As you can see, it is a
substantial portion, 44 percent in this chart. If I remove the
cost of facilities and other support, it is 57 percent of our
budget.
[Chart]
Here is human spaceflight broken out with its slice of the
pie alone. We devote some resources in closing out the Shuttle
program. As the centerpiece of human spaceflight and the
critical anchor for our future deep space exploration, the
International Space Station gets the largest portion of funds.
The next generation of vehicles, the evolvable heavy-lift
rocket and the multipurpose crew vehicle, received 39 percent
of our human spaceflight budget. Our continuing efforts to
facilitate commercial access to space receive a significant
boost but still represent almost the smallest piece of our
human spaceflight pie.
I want to commend the NASA workforce, both civil servants
and contractors, across the Nation for their dedication to our
missions during this time of transition and change. These
workers are our greatest assets, and they make us all proud.
They fully understand the risks of our exploration and welcome
the challenge. They will be the ones making tomorrow happen.
These are exciting and dynamic times at NASA. The
challenges ahead are significant, but the opportunities are
great. We have to achieve big things that will create a
measurable impact on our economy, our world and our way of
life.
I thank you for the time to make my statement, and I look
forward to your questions, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bolden follows:]

Prepared Statement of The Honorable Charles F. Bolden, Jr.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, today it is my privilege
to discuss the President's FY 2012 budget request of $18.7 billion for
NASA. This request continues the Agency's focus on a reinvigorated path
of innovation and technological discovery leading to an array of
challenging destinations and missions that increases our knowledge,
develop technologies to improve life, to expand our presence in space
for knowledge and commerce, and that will engage the public. With the
President's signing of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-
267) on October 11, 2010, NASA has a clear direction and is moving
forward. NASA appreciates the significant effort that advanced this
important bipartisan legislation, particularly efforts by the
leadership and Members of this Committee. This is a time of opportunity
for NASA to shape a promising future for the Nation's space program.
Because these are tough fiscal times, tough choices had to be made.
But the proposed FY 2012 budget funds all major elements of the
Authorization Act, supporting a diverse portfolio of programs, while
making difficult choices to fund key priorities and reduce other areas
in order to invest in the future. A chart summarizing the President's
FY 2012 budget request for NASA is enclosed as Enclosure 1.
We have an incredible balance of human space flight, science,
aeronautics and technology development. Within the human space flight
arena, our foremost priority is our current human spaceflight
endeavor--the International Space Station--and the safety and viability
of the astronauts aboard it. The request also maintains a strong
commitment to human spaceflight beyond low Earth orbit. It establishes
critical priorities and invests in the technologies and excellent
science, aeronautics research, and education programs that will help us
win the future. The request supports an aggressive launch rate over the
next two years with about 40 U.S. and international missions to the
ISS, for science, and to support other agencies.
At its core, NASA's mission remains fundamentally the same as it
always has been and supports our new vision: ``To reach for new heights
and reveal the unknown so that what we do and learn will benefit all
humankind.'' This statement is from the new multi-year 2011 NASA
Strategic Plan accompanying the FY 2012 budget request, which all of
NASA's Mission Directorates, Mission Support Offices and Centers helped
to develop, and reflects NASA's proposed direction and priorities.
Our human spaceflight priorities in the FY 2012 budget request are
to:

safely fly the last Space Shuttle flights this year
and maintain safe access for humans to low-Earth orbit as we
fully utilize the International Space Station;

facilitate safe, reliable, and cost-effective U.S.-
provided commercial access to low-Earth orbit first for cargo
and then for crew as quickly as possible;

begin to lay the ground work for expanding human
presence into deep space--the Moon, asteroids, eventually
Mars--through development of a powerful, evolvable heavy-lift
rocket and multi-purpose crew capsule; and

pursue technology development that is needed to carry
humans farther into the solar system. Taken together, these
human spaceflight initiatives will enable America to retain its
position as a leader in space exploration for generations to
come.

At the same time, we will extend our reach with robots and
scientific observatories to expand our knowledge of the universe beyond
our own planet. We will continue the vital work to expand our abilities
to observe our planet Earth and make that data available for decision
makers. We will also continue our groundbreaking research into the next
generation of aviation technologies. Finally, we will make the most of
all of NASA's technological breakthroughs to improve life here at home.

With the FY 2012 budget, NASA will carry out research, technology
and innovation programs that support long-term job growth and economic
competitiveness and build upon our Nation's position as a technology
leader. We will educate the next generation of technology leaders
through vital programs in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics education. And we will build the future through those
investments in American industry to create a new job-producing engine
for the U.S. economy.
This year we honor the legacy of President John F. Kennedy who 50
years ago set the United States on a path that resulted in a national
effort to produce an unprecedented achievement. Now, we step forward
along a similar path, engaged in a wide range of activities in human
spaceflight, technology development, science, and aeronautics--a path
characterized by engagement of an expanded commercial space sector and
technology development to mature the capabilities required by
increasingly challenging missions designed to make discoveries and
reach new destinations.
NASA's Science Mission Directorate (SMD) continues to rewrite
textbooks and make headlines around the world. Across disciplines and
geographic regions worldwide, NASA aims to achieve a deep scientific
understanding of Earth, other planets and solar system bodies, our star
system in its entirety, and the universe beyond. The Agency is laying
the foundation for the robotic and human expeditions of the future
while meeting today's needs for scientific information to address
national concerns about global change, space weather, and education.

The Mars Science Laboratory will launch later this
year and arrive at Mars in August 2012. It will be the largest
rover ever to reach the Red Planet and will search for evidence
of both past and present life.

The Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR)
mission will launch in early 2012 and become the first focusing
hard X-ray telescope to orbit Earth.

Research and analysis programs will use data from an
array of sources, including spacecraft, sounding rockets,
balloons, and payloads on the ISS. We will continue to evaluate
the vast amounts of data we receive from dozens of ongoing
missions supported by this budget.

A continued focus on Earth Science sees us continuing
development of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) for
launch in 2013 and other initiatives to collect data about our
home planet across the spectrum.

The budget reflects the scientific priorities for
astrophysics as expressed in the recent Decadal Survey of the
National Academy of Sciences. The budget supports small-,
medium-, and large-scale activities recommended by the Decadal
Survey.

The Radiation Belt Storm Probe mission will launch
next year, and development of other smaller missions and
instruments to study the Sun will get underway here on the
ground.

With the appointment of a new Chief Scientist, NASA will pursue an
integrated, strategic approach to its scientific work across Mission
Directorates and programs.
As we continue our work to consolidate the Exploration Systems and
Space Operations Mission Directorates (ESMD and SOMD), both groups will
support our current human spaceflight programs and continue work on
technologies to expand our future capabilities.

We will safely fly out the Space Shuttle in 2011,
including STS-135 if funds are available, and then proceed with
the disposition of most Space Shuttle assets after the
retirement of the fleet. The Shuttle program accomplished many
outstanding things for this Nation, and in 2012 we look forward
to moving our retired Orbiters to museums and science centers
across the country to inspire the next generation of explorers.

Completing assembly of the U.S. segment of the ISS
will be the crowning achievement of the Space Shuttle's nearly
30-year history. The ISS will serve as a fully functional and
permanently crewed research laboratory and technology test bed,
providing a critical stepping stone for exploration and future
international cooperation, as well as an invaluable National
Laboratory for non-NASA and nongovernmental users. During FY
2011, NASA will award a cooperative agreement to an independent
non-profit organization (NPO) with responsibility to further
develop national uses of the ISS. The NPO will oversee all ISS
research involving organizations other than NASA, and transfer
current NASA biological and physical research to the NPO in
future years.

In 2012, we will make progress in developing a new
Space Launch System (SLS), an evolvable heavy-lift rocket that
will be the first step on our eventual journeys to destinations
beyond LEO.

We will continue work on a Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle
(MPCV) that will build on the human safety features, designs,
and systems of the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle. As with the
SLS, acquisition strategy decisions will be finalized by this
summer.

NASA will continue to expand commercial access to
space and work with our partners to achieve milestones in the
Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) Program, the
Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) effort, and an expanded
Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) program. As we direct
resources toward developing these capabilities, we not only
create multiple means for accessing LEO, we also facilitate
commercial uses of space, help lower costs, and spark an engine
for long-term job growth. While the request is above the
authorized level for 2012, NASA believes the amount is
critical, combined with significant corporate investments, to
ensure that we will have one or more companies that can
transport American astronauts to the ISS. With retirement of
the Space Shuttle in 2011, this is a top Agency priority.

Most importantly, NASA recognizes that these
programmatic changes will continue to personally affect
thousands of NASA civil servants and contractors who have
worked countless hours, often under difficult circumstances, to
make our human spaceflight, science, and aeronautics programs
and projects successful. I commend the investment that these
dedicated Americans have made and will continue to make in our
Nation's space and aeronautics programs. These are tremendously
exciting and dynamic times for the U.S. space program. NASA
will strive to utilize our workforce in a manner that will
ensure that the Nation maintains NASA's greatest asset--the
skilled civil servants and contractors--while working to
increase the efficiency and cost-effectiveness in all of its
operations.

The 21st Century Space Launch Complex program will
focus on upgrades to the Florida launch range, expanding
capabilities to support SLS, MPCV, commercial cargo/launch
services providers, and transforming KSC into a modern facility
that benefits all range users. The program will re-plan its
activities based on available FY 2011 funding to align with
2010 NASA Authorization's focus areas, including cross
organizational coordination between 21st CSLC, Launch Services,
and Commercial Crew activities.

NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) continues to
improve the safety, efficiency and environmental friendliness of air
travel.

our work continues to address the challenge of
meeting the growing technology and capacity needs of the Next
Generation air travel system, or ``NextGen,'' in coordination
with the FAA and other stakeholders in airspace efficiency.

NASA's work on green aviation technologies that
improve fuel efficiency and reduce noise continues apace.

We also continue to work with industry to develop the
concepts and technologies for the aircraft of tomorrow. The
Agency's fundamental and integrated systems research and
testing will continue to generate improvements and economic
impacts felt by the general flying public as well as the
aeronautics community.

The establishment last year of the Office of the Chief Technologist
(OCT) enabled NASA to begin moving toward the technological
breakthroughs needed to meet our Nation's space exploration goals,
while building our Nation's global economic competitiveness through the
creation of new products and services, new business and industries, and
high-quality, sustainable jobs. By investing in high payoff, disruptive
technology that industry cannot tackle today, NASA matures the
technology required for our future missions in science and exploration
while improving the capabilities and lowering the cost of other
government agencies and commercial activities.

In OCT's cross-cutting role, NASA recently developed
draft space technology roadmaps, which define pathways to
advance the Nation's capabilities in space and establish a
foundation for the Agency's future investments in technology
and innovation. NASA is working collaboratively with the
National Research Council (NRC) to refine these roadmaps. The
final product will establish a mechanism for prioritizing
NASA's technology investments, and will support the initial
Space Technology Policy Congress requested in the NASA
Authorization Act.

As leader of the Space Technology Program, OCT will
sponsor a portfolio of both competitive and strategically-
guided technology investments, bringing the agency a wide range
of mission-focused and transformative technologies that will
enable revolutionary approaches to achieving NASA's current and
future missions.

In FY 2012, a significant portion of the Exploration
Technology Development Program is moved from ESMD to Space
Technology. These efforts focus on developing the long-range,
exploration-specific technologies to enable NASA's deep space
human exploration future. The integration of Exploration
Technology activities with Space Technology creates one robust
space technology budget line, and eliminates the potential for
overlap had NASA's space technology investments been split
among two accounts. ESMD will continue to set the prioritized
requirements for these efforts and will serve as the primary
customer of Space Technology's Exploration-specific activities.

continues to manage SBIR and STTR, and integrates
technology transfer efforts ensure NASA technologies are
infused into commercial applications, develops technology
partnerships, and facilitates emerging commercial space
activities

Recognizing that our work must continuously inspire not only the
public at large but also students at all levels, NASA's Education
programs this year focus on widening the pipeline of students pursuing
coursework in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM).
As President Obama has said, ``Our future depends on reaffirming
America's role as the world's engine of scientific discovery and
technological innovation. And that leadership tomorrow depends on how
we educate our students today, especially in math, science, technology,
and engineering.''

The FY 2012 request for NASA's Office of Education
capitalizes on the excitement of NASA's mission through
innovative approaches that inspire educator and student
interest and proficiency in STEM disciplines. NASA's education
program in FY 2012 and beyond will focus and strengthen the
Agency's tradition of investing in the Nation's education
programs and supporting the country's educators who play a key
role in inspiring, encouraging, and nurturing the young minds
of today, who will manage and lead the Nation's laboratories
and research centers of tomorrow.

Among NASA's Education activities will be a continued
Summer of Innovation, building on the successful model piloted
with four states this past year.

All of these activities place NASA in the forefront of a bright
future for America, where we challenge ourselves and create a global
space enterprise with positive ramifications across the world. The FY
2012 budget request provides the resources for NASA to innovate and
make discoveries on many fronts, and we look forward to implementing
it. See Enclosure 2 for a more detail summary of each activity.

Conclusion

As we enter the second half-century of human spaceflight, the
Nation can look back upon NASA's accomplishments with pride, but we can
also look forward with anticipation to many more achievements to come.
The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-267) has provided us with
clear direction that enables the Agency to conduct important research
on the ISS, develop new launch vehicle and crew transportation
capabilities to go beyond the bounds of LEO, utilize a dazzling array
of spacecraft to study the depths of the cosmos while taking the
measure of our home planet, improve aviation systems and safety,
develop new technologies that will have applications to both space
exploration and life on Earth, and inspire the teachers and students of
our country. In developing and executing the challenging missions that
only NASA can do, we contribute new knowledge and technologies that
enhance the nation's ability to compete on the global stage and help to
secure a more prosperous future.
These are tough fiscal times, calling for tough choices. The
President's FY 2012 budget request makes those choices and helps
advance all of these bold aims, and we look forward to working with the
Committee on its implementation.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your support and that of this
Committee. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you or the
other Members of the Committee may have.

Biography of The Honorable Charles F. Bolden, Jr.

Nominated by President Barack Obama and confirmed by the U.S.
Senate, retired Marine Corps Major General Charles Frank Bolden, Jr.,
began his duties as the twelfth Administrator of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration on July 17, 2009. As
Administrator, he leads the NASA team and manages its resources to
advance the agency's missions and goals.
Bolden's confirmation marks the beginning of his second stint with
the nation's space agency. His 34-year career with the Marine Corps
included 14 years as a member of NASA's Astronaut Office. After joining
the office in 1980, he traveled to orbit four times aboard the space
shuttle between 1986 and 1994, commanding two of the missions. His
flights included deployment of the Hubble Space Telescope and the first
joint U.S.-Russian shuttle mission, which featured a cosmonaut as a
member of his crew. Prior to Bolden's nomination for the NASA
Administrator's job, he was employed as the Chief Executive Officer of
JACKandPANTHER LLC, a small business enterprise providing leadership,
military and aerospace consulting, and motivational speaking.
A resident of Houston, Bolden was born Aug. 19, 1946, in Columbia,
S.C. He graduated from C. A. Johnson High School in 1964 and received
an appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy. Bolden earned a bachelor of
science degree in electrical science in 1968 and was commissioned as a
second lieutenant in the Marine Corps. After completing flight training
in 1970, he became a naval aviator. Bolden flew more than 100 combat
missions in North and South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, while
stationed in Namphong, Thailand, from 1972-1973.
After returning to the U.S., Bolden served in a variety of
positions in the Marine Corps in California and earned a master of
science degree in systems management from the University of Southern
California in 1977. Following graduation, he was assigned to the Naval
Test Pilot School at Patuxent River, Md., and completed his training in
1979. While working at the Naval Air Test Center's Systems Engineering
and Strike Aircraft Test Directorates, he tested a variety of ground
attack aircraft until his selection as an astronaut candidate in 1980.
Bolden's NASA astronaut career included technical assignments as
the Astronaut Office Safety Officer; Technical Assistant to the
Director of Flight Crew Operations; Special Assistant to the Director
of the Johnson Space Center; Chief of the Safety Division at Johnson
(overseeing safety efforts for the return to flight after the 1986
Challenger accident); lead astronaut for vehicle test and checkout at
the Kennedy Space Center; and Assistant Deputy Administrator at NASA
Headquarters. After his final space shuttle flight in 1994, he left the
agency to return to active duty the operating forces in the Marine
Corps as the Deputy Commandant of Midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy.
Bolden was assigned as the Deputy Commanding General of the 1st
Marine Expeditionary Force in the Pacific in 1997. During the first
half of 1998, he served as Commanding General of the 1st Marine
Expeditionary Force Forward in support of Operation Desert Thunder in
Kuwait. Bolden was promoted to his final rank of major general in July
1998 and named Deputy Commander of U.S. Forces in Japan. He later
served as the Commanding General of the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing at
Marine Corps Air Station Miramar in San Diego, Calif., from 2000 until
2002, before retiring from the Marine Corps in 2003. Bolden's many
military decorations include the Defense Superior Service Medal and the
Distinguished Flying Cross. He was inducted into the U.S. Astronaut
Hall of Fame in May 2006.
Bolden is married to the former Alexis (Jackie) Walker of Columbia,
S.C. The couple has two children: Anthony Che, a lieutenant colonel in
the Marine Corps who is married to the former Penelope McDougal of
Sydney, Australia, and Kelly Michelle, a medical doctor now serving a
fellowship in plastic surgery.

Chairman Hall. Thank you, Mr. Bolden. I think most of you
know that our Committee rules limit questioning to five
minutes. I will recognize myself for five minutes.
Mr. Bolden, as I said in my opening remarks, I want us to
have the safest possible assured access to the space station
that meets the goals of the United States and our international
partners, and I know you want that same thing.
Trying to stimulate commercial competition is a worthy goal
that I support but not at the expense of insuring the safest,
most robust system for our astronauts. Norm Augustine's
committee report said while there may be potential benefits of
commercial services that transport crews to the low-Earth
orbit, there are simply too many risks at the present time not
to have a viable fallback option for risk mitigation.
Congress has taken these concerns to heart and expressed
them in the policy and funding direction in the NASA
Authorization Act and in subsequent appropriations measures
including the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution. Yet,
NASA's fiscal year 2012 budget request once again seeks to
reverse Congressional priorities by proposing increased funding
for commercial crew activities and significant reductions in
the multipurpose crew vehicle and space launch system that
builds on the experience, the workforce of the Shuttle, the
workforce of Republicans and Democrats alike and the
Constellation program to ensure that we have the capabilities
to do the things in space that are strategically important for
the United States.
Mr. Bolden, frankly we are exasperated that NASA is not
listening to our message, and I guess maybe you are listening
to our message and maybe your advice falls on non-receptive
ears. I don't know what the problem is, but I think for this
Committee here, we would appreciate if you could just justify
why NASA is proposing the reductions to the human exploration
capabilities budget that is clearly our priority.
Mr. Bolden. Mr. Chairman, I get your message loud and clear
and so does the President, and as I mentioned, I think the
budget does in fact reflect following your guidance.
As I mentioned, these are very difficult times. Things have
changed significantly since last year when we all thought that
we were on a certain path. I took a look at the priorities that
were established for us in human spaceflight, and I will tell
you, it was probably 2004. You will remember better than I. But
I came with John Blaha, former astronaut. The two of us came up
to brief you on potential future human spacecraft when we were
trying to decide how we were going to execute the vision for
space exploration, and John Blaha got down on his knees at your
desk and took a pad of paper and started drawing guidelines and
descriptions of why a certain spacecraft could not work or
would not work. And you made the statement to us that you
understand all that but I need to understand something else and
I need to take this message back to the NASA Administrator. We
will not lose another crew in spaceflight, and if we do,
somebody will have hell to pay. Those words have stuck with me,
and I do not intend to have to pay any debt on losing a crew.
So safety of our crews is always my number one priority.
When I looked at how we get them safely to the
International Space Station on American-made rockets, the best
way to do that, and we can discuss this in the coming months,
but the best, most efficient, perhaps fastest way to do that is
by relying on the commercial entities that are well-along in
their development programs to provide access to low-Earth orbit
while NASA engages exploration, uses the evolvable heavy-lift
vehicle and crew exploration vehicle to go do exploration
beyond low-Earth orbit.
So I think we are complying with the major elements of the
Authorization Act, and we made the adjustments in the balance
inside that Act that now causes the consternation because we
wanted to make sure that I put number one priority, safety of
the crew. The heavy-lift launch vehicle and the multipurpose
crew vehicle, while they are exploration vehicles, and
everybody needs to understand that. They are not being built to
double as low-Earth orbit vehicles. That is inefficient. I
think anybody around here knows that when you try to build one
system to do everything, you end up with nothing.
So we are building, we are going to build an exploration
system, heavy-lift launch vehicle and multipurpose crew
vehicle. Anything that can go beyond Earth orbit can go to low-
Earth orbit. It is just very inefficient and a big waste of
money. But the exploration systems will have the capability of
providing backup should any commercial entity fail. And failure
is not meant they failed to produce. They will produce because
the commercial entities have produced for years. Orbital, that
is one of our competitors right now in both the COTS program
and the CRS program and has announced that they intend to
compete in commercial crew. Orbital has a record of success
since the 1980s and 1990s. They have launched 155 successful
space launches. Many of my satellites that are on orbit today
were put there by Orbital sciences. So they can produce. Anyone
who would try to convince you that they cannot, that American
industry cannot produce, is just not being factual and they are
not being truthful and they are being disingenuous.
So we have made the decision that safety of the crew is
number one priority. The quickest, most efficient, safest way
for me to get them there is through relying on commercial
entities to handle to access to low-Earth orbit, and then my
focus on safety for crews that are going beyond low-Earth
orbit.
Chairman Hall. I don't know how much more time I have, but
30 years ago or over 30 years ago when I first came up here, I
was lucky enough or fortunate enough to be on this Committee.
And I took trips to the areas that launched our people. You and
many other brave men and women that made the program such an
American program, something we were so proud of, and I had
hoped at that time that some day commercial people could, that
the private sector could launch these things and take it away
from the government. But knowing that it took the tax basis,
the background of all of the people of the United States to
make it go, I realized that was going to be a long time coming.
I think you have the opinion that it is basically here or that
we are hoping that we can reach that. And I hope that we can
all get together. You and I differ on this, and some of us
differ on it. Some of our Members here are good, valuable
Members, agree with you 100 percent.
So you have support on this Committee and you have my
support, but I want to get together with the people that can
make it go and be sure they can make it go. And I don't want to
close the bidding to anybody in the world, but I want them to
do more than just sign a contract. I want them to show as you
say that they can do what they are contracting to do and not go
halfway and look back over their shoulder and say so sorry.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Chairman Hall. That is what we have to guard against, and I
thank you for your answer.
Mr. Bolden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hall. At this time, I recognize Mrs. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. I am not really sure
where to begin. You have indicated that NASA has planned the
last Shuttle mission, STS-135 if funds are available.
Recognizing that the appropriations for 2011 have not been even
finalized, what priority does STS-135 have relative to the
priorities of NASA otherwise?
Mr. Bolden. Congresswoman, STS-135 is on my schedule, and I
intend to fly STS-135 in June. I have a launch date. I think it
is June 28, and unless this Congress does something that
changes the fiscal status of present conditions, and you can do
that. I mean, if you take drastic action and significantly
reduce the amount of money that I get whenever we get a 2011
budget, then it could change things. But right now, I
anticipate that reasonable people can disagree and that the
Congress is going to come to agreements that will not cripple
NASA and the rest of the Nation, and we will fly STS-135.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, and I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Hall. At this time I will recognize the gentleman
from Texas, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bolden, less than a
year ago the President gave a speech and said that he actually
wanted to increase NASA's budget by I think $6 billion. The
White House budget is now I think $2.5 billion less than NASA's
flat line budget. You imply in your testimony that there are
going to be sufficient resources for the heavy-lift rocket, for
the crew vehicle and for landing systems for missions to I
guess Mars, moon and the asteroids.
It seems to me that vision without resources is a fantasy
and that it is not really credible to say you can complete all
those missions with the resources that have been designated,
and I just wondered if you would respond to that. There are a
lot of professionals, a lot of NASA professionals, that just
say it can't be done, and you and the Administration are saying
it can be done.
Mr. Bolden. So you are the only one that I have heard in
the last few weeks that I am saying that anything can be done.
Everybody else tells me I am saying it can't, and I do believe
it can.
Mr. Smith. So you stand by your budget and think you are
going to accomplish all that with the resources that you have
designated?
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir, I do.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Would you please give me a timetable and a
cost for the missions, not to Mars. That is just I think off
the books and too expensive. But give me a cost and a timetable
for the missions back to the moon and to the asteroids.
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, I am unable to give you a
timetable at this particular time because we need to find out
first of all what my 2011 budget is going to be. I am spending
right now at the 2010 spending level hoping that that doesn't
get dramatically reduced below that. If it does, all bets are
off because as we get close--I don't intend to be preaching to
the choir here, but I just want to remind everybody, the closer
we get to the end of the fiscal year, if I get a drastic
reduction in my budget, it all hits at one time and all bets
are off. We have got to go back to the drawing board. I don't
anticipate that that is going to happen. It is my hope that we
will be able to continue spending at the 2010 level or higher,
and then I think we are planning to bring to the Congress in
the summer a plan for a multipurpose crew vehicle and evolvable
heavy-lift system that will enable us to meet targets set by
the Congress and the President, and those targets to date are
an asteroid in the timeframe of 2025 or so and a mission to or
around the moon with a follow-on landing some time in the '20,
'30s. So those dates I still stand by.
The other date that you gave me in the Authorization Act,
2016 for a heavy-lift launch vehicle and a multipurpose crew
module, those were difficult meeting even under the proposed
2011 budget and the amounts, the level of the Authorization
Act. And that was what I said in my 90-day report, that I
can't--I did not say we could not do it. What I said was given
the level of funding in the 2010 Authorization Act, you have
now made it very difficult for me to be able to execute the
development of a heavy-lift launch system and a multipurpose
crew vehicle that is flying in 2016. I have not said I cannot
do that, but I don't want to mislead anyone and make them think
that I am saying we can do it.
There are a lot of industry representatives sitting behind
me here who will tell you that we, together as a team, are
going to be challenged no matter how much money you give us.
But we will make our effort to do what it is that the Congress
and the President----
Mr. Smith. Mr. Bolden, let me squeeze in one more question
and that is I was glad to see I think an eight percent increase
in the astrophysics program. A lot of that is going to be
directed to the search for Earth-like planets. What is the
latest development in that area and what do you expect us to
learn in the next couple of years?
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, you sound like someone who is
interested, so I will tell you the results from WISE and
results to date from the Kepler observatory have been next to
phenomenal. We have identified, and I can't hold it in my
brain, the numbers, but we have just in the last year
identified literally hundreds if not thousands----
Mr. Smith. What about the future, the next couple years?
Mr. Bolden. We are going to fly additional missions that
will just build upon that knowledge. Kepler is not done. WISE
is shut out, but we are looking at a follow-on to WISE. You
know, I would love to fly something that goes around Venus and
looks back at Earth because I am not an astrophysicist or any
of that stuff, but my science experts tell me that if we can
put something like a WISE satellite in a Venus orbit looking
back at Earth, when it comes to near-Earth objects, for
example, things that will threaten this planet, we will have a
much better look at them, a much better ability to make early
determinations on their trajectory. And I know this is hokey
stuff to some people and they will want to laugh me off the
planet but potentially will save the planet one of these days.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Bolden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hall. Thank you. At this time the Chair recognizes
the gentleman from Oregon, Congressman Wu. All right. The
gentlelady Ms. Edwards. I recognize Ms. Edwards and I am proud
to.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Administrator.
I just have a question that goes to the consistencies
between the authorization and your budget, and I think there
are a number of areas where--what I am trying to read is
whether the authorization that we only just recently approved
kind of matches your budget priorities. And so I would
appreciate your speaking to that, and then further going to the
details of the Earth sciences. And my concern is that I think
where we try to step up our investment in Earth sciences, it
seems that, you know, some of that is being sacrificed in this
budget. And so I would like you to address that and address, if
you will, the continuing resolution as we have known it, and I
think we will see some evolution of that over the next couple
of weeks, and what the budget impact of the CR would be on the
Earth sciences component, stretching out some of these
programs. And in some cases, I guess I wonder whether, you
know, once you began to stretch out or cancel these programs,
the investment that we have already made in them might cancel
out any potential savings from cancelling them. So I am a
little unclear about that, and if you could give us some
insight into those areas of the budget proposal, I would
appreciate it.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, ma'am. Congresswoman, let me go back to
October of last year. Some of you will remember I was making
phone calls to you as debate was going on on the floor of the
House about the Authorization Act. I was criticized for being
out of the country. Nonetheless, I don't think that any of you
knew that I was because I was on the phone to you all night
when we debated the level of authorization or even the passage
of the authorization bill. At that time we had not had an
election. The fiscal environment in the Nation was a lot
different than it was one month later when the President
finally signed the bipartisan Authorization Act.
So things really changed between the time that this
Congress labored to develop the 2010 Authorization Act and the
time that the President signed it and now. We always face the
budgetary problems that we do today, but none of us have taken
the time to sit down and say, okay, we are really going to deal
with it.
So the 2012 budget made our first effort to say we are
really going to deal with the fiscal reality, and so we took a
cut. We made some very difficult choices in all of our
programs. The Earth science programs to which you question,
many of them went back to the dates of launch that were planned
when I became the NASA Administrator. If you remember, when we
proposed the President's 2011 budget, we were really happy
because we had a significant amount of plus-up for Earth
science. We were going to pull programs like DESDynI and
CLARREO forward by as much as two years. We had Earth science
missions that were going to be flown that we didn't even know
that we could put on the books. Today things have really
changed, and so in the case of those two as examples, CLARREO,
DESDynI, they are now back to the original dates when I became
the administrator which is about 2018.
Ms. Edwards. Mr. Administrator, let me just ask you. So if
you add together the investments that have already been made in
DESDynI and GPM and the Joint Dark Energy Mission and CLARREO,
add all of those things together, are we really getting savings
by cancelling or stretching these out?
Mr. Bolden. We have no choice but to stretch out DESDynI
and CLARREO because we don't have the money available that we
were going to use to bring them forward. And it appears that we
are stretching them out. We are taking them back to the
original launch dates. Those two. JDEM is no longer on NASA's
books. We are looking for other dark energy missions to replace
that. The one that I think came out of the Astrophysics Decadal
Survey was WFIRST which is a major mission of significant cost
that we may or may not be able to bring into this decade, so it
may have to wait.
I don't see any reason to take any of our Earth science
missions off the table right now. I am doing everything I can
to preserve those missions.
Ms. Edwards. Well, you can just answer this for the record
when you can, but I really would appreciate a response from the
Administration on the effect that these kind of program cuts
have on experiments that provide satellite reporting that help
us in the present--understanding and tracking tropical storms
in Florida and the Gulf Coast, monitoring wildfires in
California, tornado formations in the middle of the country. I
mean, these have actually present-day impact when you look at
the kinds of cuts that are being proposed.
So if you are telling me that maybe it is that we are not
going to have any storms, maybe we are not going to have any
wildfires or tornados, that would be really cool. You would be
quite a projectionist. But the reality is we won't have the
tools to look at these things in the way that we need to that
cost human lives, cost property and damage and impact our
commerce. And with that I close.
Mr. Bolden. Congresswoman, I will take that for the record,
and I would say I thank you for your observation. We are in
dire straits as a Nation when it comes to weather and climate
prediction. NPOESS is a satellite system jointly done by NOAA,
NASA and the Department of Defense which is no longer there. We
have had to break it up because of problems that we had, and we
really do need to take a focused look at our Earth science
programs so that we make sure that we don't allow gaps to occur
in the coverage for things like weather.
I need to get people thinking about Earth science as the
study of our planet, its atmosphere, its oceans and the
topography, the land, so that we don't do dumb things like
think we can do away with an Earth science satellite because it
is talking about global warming. That is not what I do. I don't
do global warming. I do Earth science. And so we should talk
more about.
Chairman Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't do global
warming, either. We are sure on the same side there.
Thank you, Ms. Edwards. Now, I recognize one of the real
veterans of this Committee, Mr. Rohrabacher, the gentleman from
California.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Did somebody say global warming? I want to
thank you, General, for mentioning Earth objects. And again,
too many people take this issue so lightly, and it would
surprise no one if tomorrow there was a discovery made that an
object was heading toward the Earth that could cause tremendous
loss of life, and we would be caught flat-footed. So those of
us who are willing to take the laughs, et cetera, and the
scoffing, are playing a very important role in protecting a
large number of people on this planet.
I understand in your budget you are taking care of certain
usage of the Arecibo telescope that will ensure that that
important part of identifying objects that could threaten the
Earth stays in play. Let me know about NPOESS. Had that
project, NPOESS project, been on time and on budget, we
wouldn't be worried about anything right now, would we? We
would have all the money we want. If we just would have run
that one project, all of the money for heavy lift, all of that,
would have been available because it has all been wasted. Your
most important job, General, is to make sure that never happens
again and that we never waste billions of dollars by having
programs managed so inefficiently as that program was managed.
I would like to place in the record, Mr. Chairman, a letter
for the record of 50 leaders, a letter signed by 50 leaders
from the space community, including former NASA executives and
former astronauts and one former chairman of this very
committee, talking basically--I would like to submit this
letter for the record at this point, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hall. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Open Letter to Congress
01 March 2011

Dear Members of Congress:

We, the undersigned space leaders-over 50 of us, are strong
supporters of human spaceflight. We are writing to urge you to fully
fund NASA's plan to use commercial companies to carry crew to the Space
Station because it is critical to the health of the Nation's human
spaceflight efforts.
Among us are former NASA executives and advisors, former
astronauts, CEOs and directors of firms large and small, space
scientists, space journalists, and others. We include 14 former NASA
astronauts, 5 former NASA senior executives, 13 educators and nonprofit
leaders, and 24 space industry leaders from a wide variety of firms and
institutions, both large and small.
We are a diverse group, but we are only a tiny fraction of the
Nation's citizens who support U.S. leadership in human space flight and
the development of competitive commercial human spaceflight.
By creating competition, and using fixed price contracts, NASA's
commercial crew program offers a much less expensive way of
transporting NASA astronauts to the Station than any other domestic
means. Funding NASA's Commercial Crew program would lower the cost of
access to low Earth orbit, thus enabling more of NASA's budget to be
applied to its focus on exploration beyond low Earth orbit, and better
enabling the kind of program laid out in NASA's authorization bill.
NASA's competitive commercial crew program is the best way to
restore US human launch capability after the Space Shuttle retires
later this year, to ensure NASA's long-term role in the International
Space Station, and to open up budget resources to send crew beyond
Earth orbit.
Moreover, by being less expensive than other approaches to Space
Station crew transport, the Commercial Crew program represents one of
the best means to prevent damage to NASA's human spaceflight
capabilities in the face of across the board spending cuts being
discussed by Congress.
After the Space Shuttle retires, Russia is set to carry American
astronauts to the Space Station. By hiring American businesses, NASA's
Commercial Crew to Space Station program also generates thousands of
high tech American jobs across states ranging from Florida, to Alabama,
to Texas, to California, to Virginia, to Colorado, to Nevada, and to
Maryland, rather than sending these jobs overseas to Russia to build
Soyuz capsules and rockets.
For these important reasons, we fully and enthusiastically support
full funding for NASA's commercial crew to Space Station program and
urge you to support this program as well in your votes this year.

Sincerely,
The undersigned, listed alphabetically

Dr. Loren Acton, Mr. Bretton Alexander
Former NASA Astronaut,
Professor, Montana State
University, Bozeman, Montana President, Commercial
Spaceflight Federation,
Alexandria, Virginia

Mr. Eric Anderson Mr. Jeffery S. Ashby, USN, Ret.
CEO, Space Adventures,
Chairman of the Board,
Commercial Spaceflight
Federation, Seattle,
Washington Former NASA Astronaut, Colorado
Spring, Colorado

Dr. Jim Bell Mr. Ken Bowersox, USAF Ret.
Professor, ASU School of Earth
and Space Exploration,
President, The Planetary
Society Phoenix, Arizona Former NASA astronaut, Vice
President of Mission
Assurance and Astronaut
Safety, Space Exploration
Technologies Corp.,
Hawthorne, California

Dr. Jay Buckey Ms. Heather Bulk
PFormer NASA Astronaut,
Dartmouth, New Hampshire President and CEO, Special
Aerospace Services, Boulder,
Colorado
Dr. Robert Farquhar Dr. G. Wayne Finger, P.E.
Senior Mission Designer,
KinetX Corp., Fairfax,
Virginia Vice President, Aerospace &
Defense, Reynolds, Smith &
Hills, Inc., Jacksonville,
Florida

Dr. Louis K. Friedman Dr. Owen Garriott
Former Executive Director, The
Planetary Society, Pasadena,
California Former NASA Astronaut,
Huntsville, Alabama

Mr. Richard Garriott Mr. Jeffrey Greason
Space Adventures Astronaut,
Austin, Texas CEO, XCOR Aerospace, Mojave,
California

Mr. Gerald D. Griffin Dr. Leroy P. Gross, MD, MPH
Former Director, NASA Johnson
Space Center, Former Deputy
Director, NASA Kennedy Space
Center, Former Deputy
Director, NASA Dryden Flight
Research Center, Hunt, Texas CEO, Innovative Health
Applications, LLC

Dr. Jeffrey Hoffman Dr. Rick Holdridge
Former NASA Astronaut, and MIT
professor, Cambridge,
Massachusetts Chairman of the NM Spaceport
Authority, Las Cruces, New
Mexico

Mr. James Muncy Mr. Elon Musk
Co-Founder, Space Frontier
Foundation, Alexandria,
Virginia CEO and CTO, Space Exploration
Technologies Corp.,
Hawthorne, California

Dr. George D. Nelson Mr. Joseph E. Palaia, IV
Former NASA Astronaut,
Bellingham, Washington Manager, NewSpace Center, Vice
President, 4Frontiers Corp.,
New Port Richey, Florida

Mr. Robert Poole Ms. Jayne Poynter
Former Member, Bush-Cheney
Transition Team, Director, The
Reason Foundation, Los
Angeles, California President, Paragon Space
Development Corp., Tucson,
Arizona

Mr. Bob Richards Dr. Russell L. "Rusty" Schweickart
CEO, Moon Express Inc. Google
Lunar X Prize Team, Sunnyvale,
California Former NASA Astronaut, Sonoma,
California

Col. Richard Searfoss, USAF
Ret. Col. Jim Voss, USAF Ret.,
Former NASA/Shuttle Commander,
Chief Test Pilot, XCOR,
Mojave, California Former NASA Space Shuttle
Astronaut and Director of
Advanced Programs, Sierra
Nevada Corporation, Space
Systems, Louisville, Colorado

Mr. Robert Walker Dr. Jack Burns
Former Chair, House Science
Committee, Chairman, Wexler
and Walker, Public Policy
Associates, Washington, D.C. Professor, University of
Colorado, Former Chair, NASA
Advisory Council Science
Committee, Denver, Colorado

Mr. Andy Chaikin Mr. Robert Cenker
Space Historian/Science
Journalist, Arlington, Vermont Former NASA Astronaut, East
Windsor, New Jersey

Mr. Keith Cowing Mr. Tom Crabb
Former Payload Manager, NASA
Space Station Program,
Founder, SpaceRef
International, Reston,
Virginia President, ORBITEC, Madison,
Wisconsin

Dr. Peter Diamandis Dr. Michael Drake
Chairman and CEO, X Prize
Foundation, Playa Vista,
California Head, Lunar and Planetary
Laboratory, University of
Arizona, Tucson, Arizona

Mr. Art Dula Mr. Edward Ellegood
CEO, Excalibur Almaz, Houston,
Texas Former Director, Spaceport
Florida Authority, Director
of Aerospace Development,
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical
University, Daytona Beach,
Florida

Prof. G. Scott Hubbard Prof. Millie Hughes-Fulford
Former Director NASA Ames
Research Center, Stanford
University, Dept. of
Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Palo Alto, California Former NASA Astronaut,
University of California
San Francisco, California

Mr. Michael Joyce Mr. Dale Ketcham
President & Founder, Next
Giant Leap Google LLC Lunar X
Prize Team, Boulder, Colorado Director, Spaceport Research &
Technology Institute, Merritt
Island, Florida

Dr. John Logsdon Mr. David Masten
Founder, Space Policy
Institute, George Washington
University., Washington, D.C. CEO, Masten Space Systems Inc.,
Mojave, California

Mr. Taber MacCallum Mr. Robert Meyerson
CEO, Paragon Space Development
Corp., Tucson, Arizona Program Manager, Blue Origin,
LLC, Kent, Washington

Mr. Bill Mitchell Mr. Brewster Shaw, USAF Ret.
Chairman, Environmental
Tectonics Corporation/NASTAR,
Southampton, Pennsylvania Former NASA Astronaut and Vice
President and General
Manager, Space Exploration
Division, Boeing
Houston, Texas

Mr. Mark Sirangelo Ms. Patti Grace Smith
Chairman, Sierra Nevada
Corporation Space Systems,
Former Chairman of the Board,
Commercial Spaceflight
Federation, Louisville,
Colorado Former FAA Associate
Administrator, and Aerospace
Consultant, Washington, D.C.
Mr. George F. Sowers Mr. Craig E. Steidle, Rear Admiral U.S.
Navy, Ret.
Vice President for Business
Development and Advanced
Programs, United Launch
Alliance, Denver, Colorado Former NASA Associate
Administrator for
Exploration, U.S. Naval
Academy, Department of
Aerospace Engineering,
Annapolis, Maryland

Dr. S. Alan Stern Dr. Kathryn Thornton
Former NASA Associate
Administrator for Science,
Niwot, Colorado Former NASA Astronaut,
Charlottesville, Virginia

Mr. Lee Valentine Mr. Robert W. Werb
Chairman and Executive Vice
President, Space Studies
Institute, Mojave, California Chairman of the Board, Space
Frontier Foundation, Nyack,
New York

Mr. George Whitesides
Former NASA Chief of Staff,
President and CEO, Virgin
Galactic, Los Angeles,
California
Mr. Rohrabacher. These credentialed experts are urging that
NASA fully fund the use of commercial companies to carry crew
to the space station because it is that in and of itself is a
strategy that is critical for the Nation's success in our space
efforts. Furthermore, they point out that funding of NASA's
commercial crew program would lower the cost of low-Earth
orbit, thus enabling more of NASA's budget to be applied to its
focus on exploration beyond low-Earth orbit and better enabling
the kind of program laid out in the NASA authorization bill.
Let me note it makes no more sense today to have government
employees being the ones who manage and operate and build all
the space transportation vehicles than it would be if we said
20 years ago or 30 years ago, no, I am sorry, all of the jet
airplanes, all of our jet airliners, have to be built and
operated by a government-run airline. No, we have reached a
technological stage when indeed the private sector can plan a
major role in reducing the cost of what it takes for government
employees and government programs to operate.
So I, number one, am one person I know at least on this
Committee that sides with you and the Administration on at
least trying to make sure that we maximize the benefit that the
private sector can provide perhaps in partnership with NASA
because that is what it is about.
Mr. Bolden, the 2010 authorization painted a stark line
between low-Earth orbit operations for which it demanded a
commercial process and the exploration applications for which
it relied on for the standard NASA development process. Does
your budget request support this structure of having that line
between those two approaches?
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, I am not sure I fully understand
the question, but I would like to say I have been unfortunately
remiss in effectively articulating the connection among all the
NASA programs. We are trying to get rid of stovepipes because
we are trying to stay within the budget, fulfill our obligation
to live within the elements of the 2010 authorization act and
then when it comes to human spaceflight keeping our crews safe.
The International Space Station as I mentioned earlier is
the anchor for all future exploration. That is our moon right
now. What is going on at the International Space Station with a
full six-person crew and today an additional six plus one in
Robonaut, in R2, that we are developing technologies, we are
understanding science that we will need to send humans beyond
Earth orbit. So it is the anchor.
Mr. Rohrabacher. We also have a lot of investment in this--
Mr. Bolden. Yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. But we are talking about an investment of
money. How much money will be saved, for example, if we would
rely on this private commercial transportation of crew to the
space station and back as compared to if we simply kept the
Space Shuttle going for another 10 years?
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, I wish I could answer that
question, but that would be pure conjecture because we haven't
flown a single commercial crew flight yet, and I don't want to
try to blow smoke. I don't know.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, let me conjecture----
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rohrabacher. --and I would conjecture that we are
talking about saving billions and billions of dollars as
compared to keeping the Shuttle going or developing other kind
of craft only by a NASA program because at least these
companies will be investing hundreds of millions of dollars of
their own money. Now, how much money have private companies,
and which private companies, have invested their money that is
not coming from our budget. We are actually having people come
in from the outside, releasing further money from NASA to do
other things. How much money are we expecting from the private
sector?
Mr. Bolden. Sir, I will take that for the record, but I can
tell you, I do know it is substantially more than we have paid
in our fixed cost for the COTS program and we will pay in our
fixed cost for the cargo resupply mission.
So the private entities have already invested substantially
more than we have. I will take it more for the record because I
think your staffs were briefed earlier this week on some dollar
figures, and they tried to give me that and I couldn't remember
it so I said I would take it for the record.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, General.
Chairman Hall. At this time I recognize Mr. Clarke, the
gentleman from Michigan for five minutes.
Mr. Clarke. Thank you, Chairman Hall, Ranking Member
Johnson. Administrator Bolden, thank you for being here.
I have got a series of questions, and all of them relate to
the impact of the proposed CR and the President's budget on
NASA's ability to produce technology that can create jobs. And
you know, I don't have any space centers or rocket
manufacturers in the district I represent. I am from Detroit,
and I represent metro Detroit. We do make cars. And back 40
years ago NASA released some structural analysis program
technology that auto manufacturers were ultimately able to use
to make better front ends, to design better front ends, and
steering linkages.
Most recently, their research in advanced fuels and fuel
technology I believe has a lot of potential to help us make
better plug-in hybrid vehicles and alternative fuel vehicles.
Essentially it is this, is that NASA technology has meant
better automotive technology which means that Detroit is able
to sell better cars and that creates more jobs for the people
that I represent. What if any is the impact of the proposed CR
and the President's budget on these types of initiatives that
can be commercialized to create good jobs in our country?
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, I don't want to speculate on what
the impact of a potential CR would be, but in the President's
budget, it will allow us to continue the technology and
technological innovation that has always been the hallmark of
this Administration.
And if I may, I would suggest that you go back home and
brag about Detroit's part in STS-133. Detroit is aboard STS-133
in the person, if you will, of R2, Robonaut. Robonaut is a
product of a three-year space act agreement between General
Motors and NASA. It was done on our nickel and General Motors'
nickel. It was not in anyone's budget, but it was exploration
technology that came back from the old Constellation program.
General Motors came to us and said we are having to pay
hospital costs, injury costs, on our workers who are putting
the rain panel into cars because they are having to exert so
much pressure to put that panel in place. Can you help us? And
together we started developing R2. R2 now, I don't know whether
it is in operation yet on the GM production line, but the
intent is that R2 will take the place of humans in doing some
of this high-level maintenance reducing injuries. And General
Motors continues their work in the SSA on the International
Space Station now because R2 will be unfurled in the springtime
and then will begin to do a series of evolutions that are both
General Motors' projects as well as NASA's projects. So you and
the people of Detroit are on board the International Space
Station.
Mr. Clarke. Well, thank you. That gives me more reason to
support your agency and serve on this Committee.
A couple questions I have deal with the refocus of your
agency on commercial development and also the impact of the
proposed cuts on NASA education programs. But just for a
backdrop, you know the President recently said that our
economic crisis was this generation's Sputnik moment, and
decades ago when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, that
created huge public and political support for massive R&D
investment that ended up creating a lot of economic development
and spurred investment in education. A lot of people went into
math, science and technology fields. Some of the investments
Ranking Member Johnson noted in NASA resulted in technology
that was applied to the manufacturing of calculators, the
microchip and other technologies that we use in everyday life.
How does your agency's reorientation, especially your focus on
commercial development, really square with that long-term
commitment to overall economic activity for our country?
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, the President has said the Nation
that out-educates wins. You will probably know that education
is a passion of mine, and we have put serious investment into
education through programs like the Summer of Innovation, that
we piloted last year and will continue the next two summers.
We now have an Office of Chief Technologist. His focus is
on working with academia, industry and just general
researchers. Trying to find innovative ways to bring value to
our own economy, to grow our economy if you will. Those things
are still covered in the President's 2012 budget, not to the
extent that they were in the President's proposed 2011 budget,
but still I think effectively covered--we have got to
demonstrate that we can do what we say we can do.
So while I would love to have more money for technology
demonstrations, NASA has a history of promising a lot in
technology demonstrations and then squandering the money. We do
not intend to do that. We intend to work with centers like the
Glenn Research Center, the Langley Research Center, Ames
Research Center and others and actually bring some of this
technology development to the forefront where industry and
academia are participating. If you go out to Colorado where one
of our competitors in commercial crew development program is
building their rocket, they bring college students in, and they
work alongside engineers. That is not NASA, but that is a
commercial entity that is supporting NASA and the future of
commercial spaceflight. They are bringing college students in
to get them excited about being a part of this program.
Chairman Hall. You know, in my brief 8 weeks as Chairman of
this Committee, I have my first real problem. We recognize
those who I am to call upon to speak for five minutes by the
time they get here. There are two who got here at identically
at the same time, Mr. Rigell and Mrs. Adams. Not only that,
they sat down at exactly the same time, and knowing Mr. Rigell
as a gentleman, Mrs. Adams is a very lovely lady, I am going to
recognize Mrs. Adams for five or six or seven or eight minutes.
Whatever she wants.
Mrs. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Bolden, I want to
commend you for your statement, the safety of our crew members
is our priority, and I don't think you will see anybody in this
Committee that disagrees with that statement.
I am going to go back to the authorization bill and the
budget request. NASA told Congress in January there was no way
it could meet the 2015 flight schedule deadline for
multipurpose crew vehicle and space launch systems, citing
among other things, financial constraints. Based upon the
request for $1.2 billion less for these systems than what was
authorized by Congress. I am concerned that you are really not
interested in meeting this deadline at all, coupled with the
recent interview with your chief technologist, Mr. Robert
Braun, he was quoted as saying that a new vehicle for NASA's
spaceflight is, ``Let us call it, think about it as a decade if
you want to put a timestamp on it.'' Is this your timetable?
This is something I want to know. Is this what you believe
Congress has authorized?
And then the NASA authorization bill stated that the space
launch system and the multipurpose crew vehicle should act as a
back-up in case the commercial crew is not ready in time. And
again, is this something you are pursuing? I want to state that
when you were earlier speaking, you said that this would not be
a productive use of the cost and time and ability of NASA, or
something similar to that. And it struck me as interesting that
you said that we would not use this as a capability of this
vehicle.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, ma'am. We would not want to use an
exploration vehicle as a low-Earth orbiting vehicle because it
would indicate two things had happened, one, we had either had
a loss, a physical loss, of a low-Earth orbiting vehicle,
whether it is Soyuz currently or whether it was an Orbital or a
Boeing or a Space X or any other vehicle. It would mean that we
had lost a vehicle and crew, and that would be why we would
have to rely on a government back-up. I don't ever want to get
to that day that I have failed in my effort to keep my
astronauts safe if we have to rely on Orion or----
Mrs. Adams. But shouldn't we have a back-up vehicle?
Mr. Bolden. We should always have a back-up vehicle. We
don't have one right now once I land the Shuttle in June. The
multipurpose crew vehicle on a heavy-lift vehicle will serve as
a backup to any system. I ideally would like to have two
commercial----
Mrs. Adams. And a timetable?
Mr. Bolden. The timetable for this? The timetable for
commercially available crew access is the 2015, 2016 timeframe,
there are a lot of people who--that is dependent on. If you ask
industry, I have been told by them that three years from the
day they sign a contract, they will be able to fly a commercial
crew to orbit.
So the sooner I can get them through the early stages where
we are now, the sooner we can sign a contract and make it
possible for them to fly.
Mrs. Adams. Since I only have five minutes, I want to get
as many questions as possible----
Mr. Bolden. Okay.
Mrs. Adams. --because I have a lot of questions. On page 1
of your testimony you state, ``The request supports an
aggressive launch rate over the next two years with about 40
U.S. and international missions to the ISS for science and to
support other agencies.'' Can you please tell the Committee how
many of those flights are NASA flights?
Mr. Bolden. Those are all NASA-related flights.
Mrs. Adams. NASA flights.
Mr. Bolden. I will get back to you on that, ma'am.
Mrs. Adams. Page 2 you outline the 2012 budget priorities
for human spaceflight. Can you please tell the Committee where
those priorities were developed, from the most recent
authorization bill or sources or other methods?
Mr. Bolden. The priority for human spaceflight has been on
the record for a number of years as we developed the
International Space Station. So since that is our only
destination over the next ten years, that schedule is already
laid out, relatively firm.
Mrs. Adams. Through the authorization bill or----
Mr. Bolden. Long before the authorization bill was even
thought of
Mrs. Adams. And you said something about global climate
change, and I just wanted to ask you. I know that you
referenced global change. That is not climate change?
Mr. Bolden. Change in the climate is it could be global
warming, it could be global freezing, it could be anything.
Mrs. Adams. What is global change in your eyes then?
Mr. Bolden. Change is what we are experiencing today. When
you go out in the middle of the summer and it is blistering hot
and you come in in the middle of the winter and it is the
coldest winter you have ever felt, that is climate change.
Mrs. Adams. But you have global change in your testimony.
And so I am trying to determine, is that global----
Mr. Bolden. Global climate----
Mrs. Adams. --change or climate change?
Mr. Bolden. The testimony probably says global climate
change which says----
Mrs. Adams. It says global change. That is why----
Mr. Bolden. I will go back and check.
Mrs. Adams. Thank you.
Mr. Bolden. We missed the word
Mrs. Adams. Thank you.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, ma'am.
Chairman Hall. Thank you. I now recognize Mrs. Fudge, the
gentlelady from Ohio, for five minutes.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to see you again,
Mr. Bolden.
Mr. Bolden. Always good.
Ms. Fudge. Administrator Bolden, as you know, I have many
NASA Glenn employees in my district, as well as we have a NASA
Glenn Visitor's Center. I am glad to see that the President's
budget request includes a diverse portfolio of initiatives for
Glenn that utilizes them as strength and core capabilities.
However, I am concerned about anticipated shortfalls in the
center management and operation funding at NASA Glenn.
A continuation of fiscal year 2010 level funding as
described under the current CR represents an $8 million
reduction of what is being proposed for fiscal year 2012. I
have been to NASA Glenn, and the one thing I am certain of is
that this is a group of extremely hard-working and brilliant
scientists who know how to achieve extraordinary things on a
tight budget, but I am very concerned about the effects that
cuts to the center management and operations will have on the
contractor workforce and the facility's maintenance at Glenn.
Could you please just discuss with me how you see these
cuts impacting NASA Glenn if government continues operating
under the CR and will it have similar effects on other centers?
Mr. Bolden. Congresswoman, if I understood correctly, if
you are talking about the amendment to the CR that took---
Ms. Fudge. Yes.
Mr. Bolden. --cross agency support out, I don't want to
speculate on what would happen to any single center, and I
really am going to violate my rule and I am not going to
speculate, I am going to tell you what that amount of money
equals. That amount of money equals a couple of NASA centers.
So if in fact the Congress were to pass, you know, that CR, I
would have to find a way to either stretch money around or--we
are talking about the funds to run two NASA centers.
Ms. Fudge. Correct.
Mr. Bolden. But that is not what I expect to happen. As I
said earlier, I expect that reasonable people can disagree and
come to an ultimate agreement that is best for the Nation. And
so we continue to expect that we will be operating at a 2010
level through the end of fiscal year 2011 and then that we will
work to reach an agreement on a 2012 budget that follows along
the lines of the budget that was proposed by the President and
I introduced two weeks ago, you know, that will fund NASA and
allow us to do the things that you want us to do.
Ms. Fudge. So that there is in fact still a commitment to
make sure that when we have discussions about the fiscal year
2012 budget that we were still talking about the same level
that was proposed in the President's budget as we go forward?
Mr. Bolden. Congresswoman, that is correct if I understand
the question correctly. When we look specifically at Glenn,
Glenn will do well under the proposed fiscal year 2012 budget,
and I think you have had this conversation with Ray Lugo.
Ms. Fudge. Absolutely.
Mr. Bolden. And Ray is very conservative. Ray does not like
to go out and brag about things for fear that someone will take
them away. Ray understands, as do most of our center directors,
that the money to the community does not come with a program
office designation. The money to the community comes with
projects and task orders through that program. So the fact that
a center does--I don't have enough programs to make sure that
every center has a program office. But it really doesn't matter
to the people of the center. It may matter to people who are
looking for titles, but to the workers in that community, it is
really important that they get projects and task orders, and
Glenn will do well.
Ms. Fudge. Well, certainly obviously I am pleased with the
2012 budget. I think that Glenn has done well as it relates to
that budget, but if you look at fiscal year 2010, you are
looking at $196 million to Glenn. In fiscal year 2012, you are
looking at $204 million. So for the year of 2011, the effect of
trying to move forward with projects knowing what is happening
in 2011 that we are going to remain at this 2010 level, is a
problem. It is a question. Let me not say it is a problem. Let
me say that we need to understand better how we function at
this fiscal year 2010 level knowing that there is much expected
as we go into the fiscal year 2012.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, ma'am. I agree.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you so much.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
Chairman Hall. Now the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Rigell.
Mr. Rigell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Bolden, thank
you so much for being here and providing your testimony. I
certainly respect your military service and your bravery as a
test pilot and now your service with NASA. I think it is a
distinguished career.
In your opening statement, you mentioned that there was, I
think you characterized it as some concern about NASA's
commitment to manned spaceflight or human spaceflight. I would
say that doesn't capture my view. I am deeply troubled and
really disturbed by it. I think the figure that you referenced,
you said look, we are allocating 44 percent of our budget to
human spaceflight. Well, I come to the exact opposite
conclusion. That doesn't reinforce the idea that we are
committed to human spaceflight. That number in my view
indicates that we are not as committed as we were, nor are we
as committed as we should be to human spaceflight.
I see human spaceflight really as the essential DNA of
NASA, and I would like for us to get back on a path of really
investing in human spaceflight as quickly as we can. I think as
you said, reasonable people can disagree over these matters,
but I am here today to petition you and to move back in the
direction of allocating more toward human spaceflight.
We can talk about the proper allocation between commercial
and actual NASA flights, but I still think we need to move in
the other direction.
You mentioned also in response to a question offered today
that the savings of commercial spaceflight versus NASA human
spaceflight, I believe, your response was, I don't know. It
seems to me that that is an essential question that is really
fundamental to some of the things that we are going to have to
deal with here on the Committee. Would you please just expound
on that answer a bit?
Mr. Bolden. I am glad you asked the question because it
gives me an opportunity to elaborate. When we talk about
connecting all the aspects of NASA, the NASA portfolio, we
cannot separate human spaceflight from science. Our science
missions may in the future utilize the same launch vehicle that
we use to launch astronauts into space. Today my science budget
is under attack because of the rising cost of a launch vehicle.
If I can find a way to get a cheaper launch vehicle, I can fly
more science, that same launch vehicle that would take humans
to low-Earth orbit.
So the integrated advantage of going to commercial
carriers, to adding competition to the mix, whereas today--if
you look at Orbital Sciences, Orbital designed the Taurus II
not to take humans to orbit. They designed it to meet a market
that they saw being there which was for medium-lift rocket.
They say that is where the science market is. That is the way
that they targeted. We have done a little bit of conversation
and some analysis of the market.
So they are very comfortable. Whether they participate in
human spaceflight or not, they have hit the target because that
is where the market lies. If they can win in being one of the
carriers for humans to low-Earth orbit, they have multiply
magnified, you know, their profit. They have decreased the cost
to orbit for me because now all I do is buy service. I don't
operate it, I don't carry the infrastructure costs, and there
is some debate now about how much I am really spending on the
Kennedy Space Center. There is disagreement even among my own
people. We spend a lot of money every day, every month, every
year, just maintaining the infrastructure of the Kennedy Space
Center, whether I fly a Shuttle or not. I am trying to get rid
of that.
Mr. Rigell. Well, on this point, I think we are in full
agreement. I think that there is a place for a commercial role
here, and I think that having--as a businessman who is now a
representative in our Congress, I am instinctively drawn to the
statement, you know, about competition and having companies
compete here. But the question specifically is, and I think one
that I would ask that you maybe circle back around and provide
some more information for the Committee and for me in
particular, is the ability to properly develop and answer to
that legitimate question of what are the relative costs of NASA
putting a human in flight versus the private sector. And I
think that merits more exploration
Mr. Bolden. Sir, I will get you that answer, and the word
you just used, that requires more exploration, the reason I
can't give you the answer is because exploration is just that.
It is something that we pursue having no idea what we are going
to find. If I looked at, you know, putting a dollar value on
the A-Train, it is a five Earth science satellites that orbit
Earth, near polar orbit, every day, you know, what is the
dollar value on having the A-Train there to the people in Haiti
many of whom were saved because one of the satellites revealed
three areas of the country that were subject to landslides with
the big Earthquake that we would have never found for weeks?
What is the value on the people of the Gulf Coast for what came
out of the A-Train to help us understand the Gulf Oil spill? I
can't put a dollar value on that.
So I appreciate your question and will try to get you an
answer.
Mr. Rigell. Thank you. My time is expired. Thank you very
much.
Chairman Hall. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Rigell. I
recognize the gentlelady from Alabama, Mrs. Sewell, for five
minutes.
Ms. Sewell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Bolden.
NASA's proposed budget indicates that there will be $138
million for education initiatives, including the Space Grant
and Minority University Research programs. These are valuable
partnerships that exist in the State of Alabama where I am from
for institutions such as the University of Alabama in
Huntsville (UAH) and Alabama A&M and the University of Alabama
at Birmingham (UAB) and University of Alabama. This is a 5.1
percent decrease from the nearly $146 million for fiscal year
2011. How will this anticipated decrease in funding impact
these valuable educational initiatives? I, like you, are quite
concerned about educating the next generation and would like to
see those partnerships continue.
Mr. Bolden. Congresswoman, like every other agency in the
government and like every company in America, we are looking
for ways to streamline the way we do business. Leland Melvin,
who is my new Associate Administrator for Education, once
chaired and now since he is the Associate Administrator, he
oversees the work of an education design team within NASA. We
have gone out and we are working with professional educators,
colleges and universities, secondary educators, to determine
how we can better implement our education program within NASA
so that we get the same value that we get right now for less
money.
So the $138 million is a significant amount of money for
our education efforts. We are also trying to collaborate much
more with other agencies. We are working with the First Lady's
White House initiative for things such as helping military
families. An aspect of that is education for military families.
We have content that we can offer that we don't spend another
dime on. It is already there, whether it is talking to
astronauts from the International Space Station. One of the
best things I did when I was flying was we used to do something
called SAR-X where you get on a ham radio and you talk to kids
in schools. That is incredible, and that comes at almost no
cost.
So we are trying to find better ways that we can implement
what we have at lower cost.
Ms. Sewell. Great. The proposed budget for fiscal year 2012
also provides $1.8 billion to help develop a heavy-lift
vehicle, the SLS, that will launch the crew. Marshall Space
Center in Huntsville, Alabama, will likely be a very major
contributor in designing that heavy-lift vehicle. And in fiscal
year 2012, the funding request for this project significantly,
is it sufficient, I would say, to fully fund and sustain the
development of the heavy-lift vehicle through 2016 which is the
desired timetable, and are you committed to making sure that
those funding levels stay about the same?
Mr. Bolden. I am committed to try to make sure that the
funding levels remain about the same, and one of the things
that you will see in our congressional justifications is
beginning in 2013 I have asked, and I think I have been
granted--it remains to be seen whether the Congress will
agree--that we put human exploration in one budget line so that
as we go with the development of an evolvable heavy-lift system
and a multipurpose crew vehicle, that we can move the funds
around as necessary in each successive year so that we marry
those programs up when we need them, that being the 2020
timeframe is when we will need an integrated heavy-lift launch
vehicle and crew exploration vehicle that can go beyond low-
Earth orbit. There may be available systems before that time,
but I don't need one for beyond low-Earth orbit until 2020.
Ms. Sewell. Thank you.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, ma'am.
Chairman Hall. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the
Chairman of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, Mr.
Palazzo, the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Bolden, for being here, and like my colleague, Mr. Rigell,
thank you for your 34 years of service to the Marine Corp.
After seeing that you have been in Vietnam and had over 100
missions, I doubt there is much that I can say or do to rattle
you.
Mr. Bolden. Just don't shoot me.
Mr. Palazzo. Or shoot at you, right? Absolutely. I do have
some questions for you, and one is you have often made the
argument that access to low-Earth orbit is well-understood
enough that we can turn this over to commercial providers. How
can you be confident that the commercial crews and cargo is
sufficiently mature enough to justify firm fixed contract, and
if so, can you explain some of the significant delays in time
and cost that are in the COTS and the CRS program today?
Mr. Bolden. I am certain that commercial entities can
deliver because in the past, if you look at the two that I am
working with right now, at least one of them has been doing it
for more than 20 years. Orbital has been delivering cargo and
other things--well, not cargo, delivering satellites to orbit
since their inception. And if I look at just one of the rockets
that they prepare for us, Minotaur, which is a government
rocket that we procure and surplus and then it is given to
Orbital to prepare. They have 100 percent success rate with
Minotaur launches. So I am not concerned about their ability to
deliver.
In terms of why have we had setbacks, we are now trying to
take in some cases existing systems or emerging systems and
certify them for human spaceflight. So the companies are trying
to get as much information data as they can while they are
doing the COTS and CRS programs that can be transferred into a
commercial crew program so that it cuts down on the amount of
time that they have to invest in development of techniques and
procedures and the like for them. And like in a development
program, they experienced setbacks.
I give the example, and I will make it really quick----
Mr. Palazzo. Okay.
Mr. Bolden. If I had had a failure or a problem like
Orbital had last December before they launched the Dragon
capsule on Falcon 9, where they had a crack in an engine bell,
I would still be sitting on the ground. We would not have
launched. It took me four months to get Discovery off the
ground successfully on STS-133 after we found a small crack in
foam which revealed a structural problem we had in the external
tank. Commercial entities do what we do, they just don't have
the bureaucracy that we have.
So we will learn from them, and we will be able to speed up
the time--decrease the amount of time we have when we do
experience a delay.
Mr. Palazzo. And you know, we are going to be watching
closely, so it would be nice to see if they can actually come
in under budget, on time and within cost.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Palazzo. Now, NASA has not always been forthcoming with
details of its acquisition strategy for commercial cargo and
has not shared their strategy for commercial crew, but the key
to both has been to open with a Space Act agreement. Devoid of
any meaningful checks and balances followed by an overlapping
fixed price contract to the same contractors, it is hard to see
how there can be a true, full and open competition for the
fixed price contracts under those circumstances when Space Act
selectees are already under contract. Why is NASA proceeding in
this manner and why avoid using a traditional FAR acquisition
process?
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, we have not decided on the
acquisition strategy yet. I have not approved it, so it is not
that we are not being forthcoming, I am pushing my people now
to get to the point where we develop an acquisition strategy
for commercial crew. So the hold-up is us. It is not the
commercial entities. They are asking for our acquisition
strategy. We have given them what we call human ratings
standards. We gave it to them in the draft form. They utilize
that. We now have published human ratings standards, so we are
making as much as we can available to the commercial entities
as quickly as we can.
Mr. Palazzo. Now as you know, Stennis Space Center is in my
district, and as NASA moves forward with plans for both NASA
and commercial activities, I want to know if there will be any
impact on Stennis and their leadership in rocket propulsion
test, and will Stennis remain the leader for NASA and
commercial rocket propulsion?
Mr. Bolden. We made an announcement yesterday that Marshall
Spaceflight Center will be the home of the program office for
the SLS, the space launch system. A sister center that used to
be a part of Marshall and is now its own entity is the Stennis
Spaceflight Center. Stennis is the Nation's center for
propulsion test. It is where people go, and we are trying to
encourage the commercial entities to come and fully utilize the
facilities at Stennis, to a much greater extent than they do
right now. And we are starting to get overtures from some of
the commercial entities that say we really would like to come
down and look at your facilities and perhaps use that.
Ideally, everyone will come to Stennis to test engines.
When I was there and you had been there the day before at
Stennis, I went down for the test firing of the second AJ-26
engine produced by AeroJet for Orbital. It was incredible. I
mean, the morale of the people there was absolutely incredible,
and they now have completed the test on two engines for a
commercial entity that will now put those two rockets on the
Taurus II that eventually will be Orbital's entry into COTS.
Mr. Palazzo. And I have one last, brief question. Many NASA
facilities are going to require upgrades to continue providing
their mission for NASA's future. Are you committing to
providing the necessary resources to upgrade the test
facilities at Stennis?
Mr. Bolden. I am committed to do that, and I think we have
talked to you about the A-3 test stand. My commitment to
complete the work on the A-3 test stand is an example.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Bolden.
Chairman Hall. Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman
from California, Mr. McNerney, five minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bolden, thanks
for coming and testifying this morning. This is certainly an
issue that I think everybody is interested in in this country,
space exploration, spaceflight and so on.
I had the opportunity to visit the SpaceX reception here in
DC a couple weeks ago. Apparently they sent up a vehicle that
launched, orbited and reentered successfully. What is your
assessment of that mission? Was it very successful?
Mr. Bolden. Awesome, in one word. You have to understand
what the significance of that was. Only three nations up until
now, and there are many who want to be able to do this. India
is one. The three nations are China, Russia and the United
States that have successfully launched something from the
planet, put it into orbit and then safely deorbited and then
recovered it intact. The fourth entity to do that became SpaceX
in December when they launched Falcon 9 and Dragon. I did not
go, but I understand what you saw was the Dragon capsule that
had been pulled out of the Pacific Ocean, and you could tell
for yourself what condition it was in. Their intent is for it
to be a reusable capsule. That is why it was awesome.
Mr. McNerney. I know that some of these questions have been
asked before, so I am just going to sort of run over them. You
expect this sort of mission to be more cost-effective than NASA
could do it for reasons that you mentioned. How about compared
to Russia or some of the other countries that we have heard
NASA may use once the space Shuttle stops operating?
Mr. Bolden. We will continue to use the Soyuz spacecraft to
get our astronauts to and from the International Space Station
since we have done since the Columbia accident.
My hope is that as soon as possible we will finally have
American-made rockets by American-made companies that will be
available to take our astronauts back and forth, do it safely
and efficiently. And so that is why I made the tough decision
to take some of the funding away from heavy lift and MPCV and
put it toward commercial development because I have to have a
way to get my crews safely to the International Space Station
as soon as possible. I don't think anybody on this Committee
wants to have to rely on the Russians but they are an
incredible partner. They have been with us through thick and
thin. They rescued us after the Columbia accident and until we
were flying Shuttle's again. They took our crews back and forth
to space and they continue to do that. I don't want to have to
do that forever. I want to have American-made rockets and
American-made capsules that take our crews to low-Earth orbit,
and I have been ineffective in explaining the critical value of
making that possible as soon as possible.
I don't have enough money to give them to bring it in--I am
trying to buy down the risk on that. Every dime I can put
toward that effort buys down the risk.
Mr. McNerney. You know, I was in industry before I came
here, and I understand the importance of having multiple
suppliers because if you just have one, they are going to--you
are at their mercy. What is the prospect for having multiple
private companies in this country capable of carrying out these
missions, these transportation missions?
Mr. Bolden. I will give you my guess, and that is only a
guess. And with all due respect to everybody on this Committee,
I don't run a company. I have never run a company. But I talk
to people who run companies, and they have boards that they
have to convince that it is worth the investment. And so I
think some of my industry partners are still back here. They
will tell you, they have had to fight to convince their boards
that what we are about to do is worth the risk. It is a big
risk for these companies, and they have convinced their boards
that they need to put assets against it and I am going with
them. I think they can do this.
Mr. McNerney. Are there foreign companies doing the same
thing?
Mr. Bolden. There are foreign companies that are teaming
with American companies in everything we do.
It is hard to find any industrial effort today where people
are not teaming with international partners. The President's,
our own space policy, emphasizes the importance of teaming with
international partners. The Hubble Space Telescope, which I
helped deploy in 1990, would have never been possible without
the cooperation of the European Space Agency as a partner. The
solar rays came from the British Aerospace.
Mr. McNerney. So the last question I have then is are there
going to be any restrictions on these companies in terms of
carrying out commercial missions that may have some harm to our
national security?
Mr. Bolden. There are always restrictions, and that is
where you have to help me. I am not sure which committees you
are on, but the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State,
the President, all of us are pleading for help from the
Congress in streamlining the export/import laws so that we
don't continue to penalize American industry. You hurt NASA
because I have to rely on my industry partners. When they are
held to very strict standards under the Iran, North Korea, and
Syria Nonproliferation Act (INKSNA) and you name it--they could
give you a whole list of import/export laws, there is a happy
medium somewhere and we are not there right now. We have driven
business offshore, and we have got to get it back. Just having
commercial launch services available is not going to bring the
business back. We have got to make some changes in our export/
import laws.
Mr. McNerney. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hall. Thank you, and the Chair recognizes now the
Chairman of Research and Science Education Subcommittee, Mr.
Brooks, the gentleman from Alabama, for five minutes.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bolden. Mr.
Bolden, were you aware that a couple of weeks ago when the
House was debating a continuing resolution for this fiscal year
that there was an amendment proposed to cut roughly $300
million from the NASA budget and divert that to the COTS
program?
Mr. Bolden. Oh, yes, sir. I am very much aware of that. We
talked about it quite a bit.
Mr. Brooks. And what harm would be done to NASA if any by
the diversion of this $300 million if it is left to stand in
the Senate?
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, you know, if we talk just about
that amendment to the provision and nothing else, I might be
able to give you an answer but because I don't know what is
going to be the final result of the CR, it would be conjecture
for me to guess. There may be some offsetting adjustments made
in the final CR that puts all that money back. So I don't want
to run the risk of guessing on something that is not there yet.
Mr. Brooks. Well, as it stands right now, would the loss of
that $300 million adversely affect NASA's capabilities?
Mr. Bolden. I think I answered a little bit earlier, that
amount of money--I think what you are asking is that amount of
money is a couple of NASA centers, maybe, you know, in terms of
day-to-day operations.
Mr. Brooks. I am a freshman, but that sounds pretty
significant to me. Would you agree that that is a significant
adverse effect?
Mr. Bolden. That would be a significant adverse effect, but
again, I am not going to speculate because that is a decision
that has not been made by the Congress yet, you know, the House
has passed and the Senate will still have a say. So you are
asking me to guess on something that the other house of this
Congress is going to----
Mr. Brooks. Well, I am not asking you to guess about what
the Senate may or may not do. I am asking you to testify
whether there is an adverse effect from what the House's
position has been, and that is the loss of $300 million to
NASA. Do you have a position?
Mr. Bolden. Sir, there is always an adverse impact about
any decrease in funding. If I look at the effect on
contractors, I am told that that is about 4,000 contractor
jobs. So that is an adverse impact.
Mr. Brooks. Given that kind of adverse impact on NASA, what
effort did either NASA or the White House undertake to
communicate that adverse impact to congressmen before they
voted in order to help protect the NASA budget?
Mr. Bolden. I don't know what effort the White House made,
and I just know that whenever we came to the Hill and were
asked about it, we generally said it would have an adverse
impact but we tried not to second-guess what the Congress was
going to do as we always try to do.
Mr. Brooks. Well, I am not aware of any effort by NASA or
the White House to communicate any kind of adverse impact to
the Members of the House of Representatives from the diversion
of $300 million from NASA to a local police and deputy program.
Are you aware of any effort by the White House or NASA to
communicate that to House Members before the vote?
Mr. Bolden. Congressman Brooks, I am not personally aware,
but let me take it for the record, and I will get back to you
on any actions that our folk took because we have been up here
over the last several weeks or months, and I will find out for
you.
Mr. Brooks. Well, I am pleased to report that 70 percent of
the Republicans in the House tried to protect the NASA budget.
Unfortunately, 83 percent of the Democrats tried to undermine
the NASA budget by diverting the programs to a local police
officer program which I would submit is not an essential
function of the Federal Government, while NASA is a function of
the Federal Government. So I would appreciate anything you can
do in the future to try to help communicate to House Members or
Senators as the case may be when these kinds of amendments come
up that can have that kind of adverse impact on NASA, on 4,000
contractors and their jobs, or two NASA centers as you just
brought up.
Moving onto a different matter, going back to April 15,
2010, the President made public remarks at the Kennedy
Spaceflight Center that suggested the moon was no longer a
destination for future manned missions when he said, ``The
simple fact is, we have been there before. There is a lot more
space to explore.'' However, in looking at your comments today,
I am thankful that on page 2 of your official statement you
mention that the moon is a target. Is that correct?
Mr. Bolden. Sir, the moon is a continuing target for NASA.
We have ongoing missions to the moon all the time, so lunar
exploration remains in our portfolio.
Mr. Brooks. What is the targeted date for landing on the
moon?
Mr. Bolden. A human landing on the moon?
Mr. Brooks. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bolden. We don't have a target date for a human landing
on the moon because at present that is not one of the missions
that I think is essential for us to be able to do.
Mr. Brooks. So if I am clear on this, we are planning on
sending scientific instruments, but as of now, NASA has no
plans to have any human space activity on the moon?
Mr. Bolden. I have no plans that I have brought forth to
the Congress or anyone. That does not say what is going on
inside the agency does not include human lunar missions. You
know, we are developing a lunar rover right now that would
completely do away with any need for habitats on the surface of
the moon.
So we are always looking at where we can go in the future.
That is a part of being prepared to do exploration.
Mr. Brooks. Well, my time is expired. Thank you for your
assistance.
Mr. Bolden. Thank you very much, sir.
Chairman Hall. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, if you are
short of people that you want to send to the moon, I got
several in my district that I would like to volunteer for you.
Next we will have the gentlelady, one of my very favorites,
from California, Ms. Woolsey----
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you.
Chairman Hall. --for three minutes or five minutes.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Last week I had the
privilege of attending a conference on the subject of energy
security, and it was bipartisan, bicameral, and it was clear in
our discussions with scientists and experts that the decision-
makers in our country, which is all of us and others, have to
come to terms with climate change. You can call it global
warming, climate change. And so I want to go on record and have
always been one that is willing to talk climate change and know
that we have to start addressing it and doing something about
it, and I appreciate that NASA's view of the Earth is going to
be very helpful in that regard.
And that leads me directly to what I want to talk about and
that is about being educated and having the right support in
order to be able to do what you need to do as an agency.
President Obama has set a goal of recruiting 10,000 teachers in
the STEM fields. He calls these subjects essential to competing
in the 21st global economy. Yet, his proposal for his budget
drastically cuts funding for NASA's education programs
including the STEM education programs.
So I ask you, how are we supposed to increase participation
in STEM if we are cutting the very programs that foster
interest in STEM in the first place, and how are you, how is
your agency adjusting to this? You need those smart people.
Mr. Bolden. Congresswoman, the difference between what you
see in the 2012 budget and what you saw in previous budgets is
actually the result of action on the part of, thankfully, the
Congress. The proposed amount of funding for education from
this Administration has been consistent, and it usually is at
about the $140 million level each year, give or take. And that
has been consistent. But what happens, thankfully, is that the
Congress usually ads money back onto that. So if you say that
we have cut spending on education, we didn't cut it. We didn't
add back in what the Congress chose to put on in previous
years, if that is not too confusing.
Ms. Woolsey. Well, it is not confusing because we work
very, very hard to get that additional funding for STEM. And
Chairman Gordon was a leader in it, and he worked with Chairman
Hall when they were in reverse positions and really made
something positive happen for NASA and for STEM programs.
Mr. Bolden. Yes, ma'am. And Congresswoman, as I mentioned
before, our focus is on STEM education. The Summer of
Innovation targets middle school children and most importantly
their teachers because we want to make middle school teachers
very comfortable with teaching math, and science. We want them
not to run away from it. That pilot program last year we
understand was very successful. If we can reach 1,000 teachers,
multiply that times the number of students in a classroom. So
that is our big focus.
The design team that we put in place is trying to, as I
mentioned to Congresswoman Sewell, I think I can do a better
job with $138 million than we have done in the past because we
are going to take the recommendations from the design team and
we are going to redo the way that we do education in NASA.
People will have to trust us, though, because if everybody
makes me go back to doing education the way I have always done
education, it is $138 million and we will get the--you know,
insanity is doing the same thing over and over and assuming
something is going to be different. If somebody makes me spend
my $138 million exactly the same way year after year, I can't
have any effect.
Ms. Woolsey. Well, one of the recommendations I would have
is, in reevaluating your programs, that you put an extra effort
into women and minorities joining the STEM fields.
Mr. Bolden. That is a point of emphasis for us. We are
active on the President's Council on Women, you know,
everywhere. I have three granddaughters and a daughter. I have
a son, too, but I try to take care of the women in my life, so
education of women and minorities is pretty important since I
happen to be one.
Ms. Woolsey. Well, therefore, they can take care of
themselves if they----
Mr. Bolden. I want them to take care of me years from now
and so----
Ms. Woolsey. That is right. I got it.
Mr. Bolden. --they need to be very well-educated and they
need to be astronauts and doctors and engineers.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you very much.
Chairman Hall. I thank the lady, and I recognize
Congressman Hultgren from Illinois. I got a chance to know
Randy very well. He accompanied me to watch the Discovery
launch, what, last week. Thanks for that. I recognize you for
five minutes.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Chairman Hall. Administrator,
thank you so much. I'm hiding in the corner over here. But I
just wanted to say I really appreciate you being you here. It
really was a privilege to be down for the launch with Chairman
Hall and other Members of the Committee last week, and to steal
or borrow one of your words, it was awesome. So it was great,
and it really was helpful for us. Everybody there was so
informative in really helping us understand the mission, and I
was so excited to be a part of that. So thank you for your
work.
I want to shift gears just quickly. Oftentimes we wear
different hats here, and I want to get your perspective on
something. I also sit on the Transportation Committee, Aviation
Subcommittee. One of the areas that we have worked on and
talked about pretty significantly is NextGen, looking at Next
Generation Air Transportation System. I know NASA has had a
significant part along with other departments as well, and I
just wanted briefly to get your thoughts on NextGen, some of
the work there as a key partner along with the FAA, Defense
Department, other federal agencies. What does NASA see as some
of the biggest challenges confronting NextGen and from your
perspective, how do you feel like this multi-agency
collaboration is going? What can we do to improve that, to make
sure that lower space travel is going well?
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, NextGen is incredibly important to
this Nation, and I am thankful you asked the question and I
will try not to take all your time, but I could talk forever
about this.
NASA is heavily involved in NextGen. If you look at what we
have done in terms of aircraft safety with the Next Generation
Transportation System development, and if you look at the
descent and arrival profiles that are being worked on with the
FAA and DoD, we actually, through Langley Research Center and
Ames Research Center, have designed some of the software and
the programs that now have allowed us to go through some actual
demonstrations of constant descent, constant climb-outs. United
Airlines and Continental were participants in tests that we did
at Denver over the last few years. Those have all proved that--
we are talking about hundreds of thousands of gallons of fuel
saved.
My aeronautics budget is $588 million or something like
that. Somebody asked about giving them a cost benefit. If I
look at the amount of money that the airlines will save just
through some of the work that came from NextGen, new airplanes
and engine designs that we participated in, the estimate is one
percent of the savings to the airlines will pay for my
aeronautics budget. If I could find a way if you all could
devise some system such that industry put money back into us
when we help them realize savings, then all of our jobs would
be a lot easier. But one percent of the projected savings from
some of the work that NASA has done in NextGen would fund my
aeronautics budget.
Mr. Hultgren. Well, I want to thank you for that, and I
agree with you. I think that is part of our job, is to get that
message out there and to see that although it was great to be
down there last week, that there is so much more that NASA is
doing that we all appreciate and see the benefit from. Many of
us are frequent air travelers coming back and forth to
Washington, DC. My district is just west of Chicago, so I think
I have got the highest number of folks who are helping to make
sure that our skies are safe, who help with air traffic control
with O'Hare, one of the busiest airports in the world. So I do
appreciate your work there.
I think we have to keep telling that message of the work of
NASA and collaboration that is happening, the savings that we
see and the better environment that we have, the cost savings
that are there. And the thing I am most excited about is the
safety, where it is has been over two years now since we have
had a fatality with commercial airlines. So we need to continue
that record, and I just again want to say thank you for the
work that you are doing, and hopefully we can tell that story
of how collaboration does make our lives better and save so
much money into the future. So thank you so much.
Mr. Bolden. Sir, I thank you for the question and I would
just ask if you would keep asking aeronautics questions, I
don't get very many of them, and I would really like to tell
our aeronautics story. But we get caught up in human
spaceflight. If we can do what you say, aeronautics covers
everything right up to the edge of the atmosphere. It is the
way we get into space, and it is the way we come back.
Hypersonic aeronautics is entry. It is what SpaceX learned how
to do to bring the Dragon capsule back. So that is aeronautics.
Everybody has got to come back to Earth some time. Thank you.
Chairman Hall. That is exactly five minutes. Well done. And
to the very patient, Mr. Sarbanes, from Maryland, I recognize
you for five minutes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for being here today and for your testimony.
I am a new Member to the Committee, and it seems it is
common practice to let NASA know if you have a facility in your
district, so I will present by credentials by saying that I
have the Applied Physics Lab in my district in Howard County,
and they do tremendous work, particularly with respect to deep
space exploration which I know is one of the areas that is
funded by NASA, so I hope to learn more about that particular
relationship.
I am also new to this discussion on commercial spaceflight.
It is a pretty fascinating one. I understand the broad
implications, and we have a lot of different perspectives in
the mix. I had this past weekend the opportunity to spend a
fair amount of time with Peter Diamandis who founded the X
Prize, of course, and he really gets you going with his vision
of things and he has obviously been very involved in this.
I was hoping you could--and again, I apologize because I am
getting, you know, this is a curve for me, but with respect to
the commercial spaceflight and the costs associated with it, is
there a way you could just describe kind of the baskets that
those costs go into? So in other words, I understand there is a
cost associated with making certain NASA facilities available
for, I guess, co-development of the technologies that will help
promote commercial spaceflight. I gather that once those crews
are in place that NASA will have costs associated with renting
space or seats on those flights. And there must be other
dimensions of being a partner in the development of the
commercial spaceflight program that represent part of the
expenditures that you lay out.
So I was wondering if you could just talk about the broad
baskets that those costs go into, and then the extent to which
some of those represent kind of transitional costs in effect
launching the commercial spaceflight program as opposed to
ongoing costs that NASA will incur with respect to commercial
spaceflight, you know, over time.
Mr. Bolden. If I go back to the very beginning of our
efforts, the COTS program, the Commercial Orbital
Transportation System, which is just getting cargo to orbit,
that was a Space Act agreement with a defined amount of money,
like a fixed-price contract for all intents and purposes. NASA
paid a certain amount--as milestones are met by the two
participants. The two companies were SpaceX and Orbital. And so
through the completion of a COTS, we will pay them a pre-
determined amount of money for each milestone they meet. When
we move into the CRS which is cargo resupply portion, that is
where we get into a contractual arrangement, and we have made
contractual arrangements with those two companies since again,
they were the winners. So they get paid again as they meet
certain milestones. But once they start delivering cargo for a
set price we will buy the ride to the International Space
Station or wherever else we take it.
When you get into commercial crew, that is the area that
has some vagueness right now because those prices are not yet
determined. There are things that need to be determined. I have
to present to industry a procurement strategy. That is what we
talked about a little bit earlier, an acquisition strategy.
That is what we have not fully developed yet. Once we have a
fully developed acquisition strategy, we can sit down with the
competitors and say, okay, here is what we are going to do.
These are the types of contracts we are going to use, whether
it is Space Act agreements, fixed-price contracts, cost-plus,
you name it, and here are some of the requirements that you are
going to have to meet. We can then sit down and say, okay, what
is NASA's percentage of investment in this enterprise? Once we
decide what that is, then I will have essentially a fixed
price, a cost----
Mr. Sarbanes. Let me ask another question. My time is about
to expire, and I don't want to go beyond the allotted time if I
can help it.
There is a lot of focus on NASA helping to support and
develop commercialization with respect to human spaceflight.
But what are some other areas of what NASA does where you see
this kind of commercial partnering effort going on that maybe
you don't get to discuss so much?
Mr. Bolden. The ones that don't get discussed are the ones
we do all the time. And just before you came in, we were
talking with the representative from Detroit. Robonaut 2, R2,
is a humanoid robot that is now on the International Space
Station. It was taken there by Discovery last week, STS-133. R2
is the result of a collaboration and a Space Act agreement
between General Motors in Detroit, and I will get in trouble
because they will say it was, well, General Motors in Chicago,
but General Motors, the automobile manufacturing arm of General
Motors, and NASA where General Motors needed a robot that could
relief some of the problems they were having with injuries to
workers. NASA needed a robot to help offset some of the risks
to spacewalk crew members, things that a robot could do that we
wouldn't even have to send an astronaut outside to do. That is
one example.
There are a number of examples like that where we have done
it on a shoestring because it is technology development. We
turn a few guys loose in a laboratory somewhere around the
country, and they go off and pick an industrial partner and
develop something that comes into play. How many of them are
successful? I couldn't tell you. Most of them don't work, but
that is the good part about it. Scientists and engineers love
it because they bring college kids in.
We have something now called Small Sats or Micro Sats.
Colleges and universities around the country, even secondary
school kids now are getting involved in Small Sats or Micro
Sats. It is something that NASA and DoD developed and now we
utilize to try to reach kids and help them understand that
they, too, can participate in space exploration from their
classroom. So these are all good things.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back. I have no more time, thank you.
Chairman Hall. He is right on the dot. At this time I will
recognize a very, very patient Mr. McCaul, the gentleman from
Texas.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been sitting
here patiently, and I assure you, next time I will arrive
before the gavel comes down.
Chairman Hall. You know, when I was first up here 30 years
ago, I was the second one here always. I didn't want to wait
until the end to talk.
Mr. McCaul. I guess I will close out the proceedings,
possibly. I plan to attend the April Shuttle launch, and I
think that is going to be a historic mission. I know Gabby's
husband, Mark, will be leading that effort. And you mentioned
her in your testimony very affectionately. I think we all look
forward to the day that she will be serving back on this
Committee, and there is no greater champion for the human
spaceflight program than Gabby. And I remember working with her
on the reauthorization. She was obviously opposed to the
President's decision to cancel the Constellation program. One
of the last conversations I had with her, in fact, the last
one, was we were walking onto the House Floor just a day or two
before the tragic event, and she talked about NASA. She was
just a staunch advocate for the human spaceflight program, as
am I.
I represent a district that was once held by Lyndon
Johnson, and on the Houston end of my district in the suburbs,
I represent many Johnson Space Center employees and
contractors. I know in our reauthorization we restored a lot of
funding for human spaceflight in spite of this Administration's
attempt to kill that, and I guess as you present this budget
and as I go back home to my district, they will want to know
what is their future? So I guess what I am asking you is what
am I to tell them when they ask me about contracts related to
human spaceflight, about the future of human spaceflight
program. And I know these are some of your dearest friends. But
what am I to tell my constituents who are part of the Johnson
Space Center?
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, you should tell them that the
future of human spaceflight is bright and robust and that we
need their help in rapidly developing new systems so that we
can go explore.
This Nation has not ventured beyond the moon with humans.
We have been saying we were going to do it forever. I get
chastised when I talk about wanting to go to Mars. I want to go
to Mars. When I came into the astronaut office in 1980, I
thought I would fly on the Shuttle a couple of times, and then
I would be among those that would be returning to the moon, and
then Challenger happened. And my dream of ever going to another
planet went away.
I don't want that for my grandkids. So I need their help.
We have got to develop commercial capability to get to low-
Earth orbit so that we can continue to support the
International Space Station. That is our moon right now. That
is where we do technology development. That is where we do
medical research. That is where we do things to make life
better on Earth.
Contrary to what people think, NASA doesn't do stuff just
for astronauts. Most of what we do is returned to Earth in
terms of benefits for humankind. And I can go down that you all
can do it yourselves. You can look at an EMT ambulance that has
the developments that were put in place for the Apollo program.
Wireless communications. Congresswoman Johnson listed a whole
bunch of them in her opening remarks.
The Nation needs to become unafraid of exploration. We need
to become unafraid of taking risks. Is it a risk to go with
commercial entities? For me, no more risk than anything else
because I have always--every rocket I have flown on, and I have
only flown on three, four times but three, was built by a
commercial entity. It was Rockwell when it started and when I
finished, I think it was Boeing maintained by U.S.A., United
Space Alliances.
Mr. McCaul. If I could ask one last because my time is
running out. I appreciate your passion. I know you are very
passionate about returning to the Moon. I would hope that I
could work with you in terms of restoring the morale at some of
the employees at the Johnson Space Center and assure them that
there is a bright future ahead. And I think we in the Congress
have a responsibility to make sure you have the resources to do
this.
You mentioned in your testimony, if I am correct, that it
would be 2030 before we could get back to the moon. You know,
it has been 42 years since we landed on the moon. President
Kennedy set the goal by the end of the decade, and less than
ten years we were on the moon in 1969. I think a lot of people
wonder why now it would take almost 20 years to get back to the
moon. Most Americans, they don't understand we landed there so
long ago. Why has it taken so long to get back? Because like
you, I agree with the--and you are very passionate about it--
with the goal that eventually we are going to have to go back
to the moon and beyond. So perhaps if you can explain that to
me and the American people?
Mr. Bolden. Congressman, I need to correct one thing. It
would not take us until 2030 to go to the moon. If we decided
that we wanted to go to moon and put humans there, that
potentially could be done by the end of this present decade,
but that is not one of the targets that has been produced
either by the Congress or the President. What has been set
forth as targets are 2025 to an asteroid and then the 2030s to
be able to get to Mars with a follow-on landing. The reason we
have not been there is because that has not been a goal of the
Nation, and you know, we were content to stay in low-Earth
orbit, which is hard. But it has not been something that the
Nation thought was important.
Mr. McCaul. Well, no, the prior Administration, President
Bush, did set that as a goal, the moon, Mars and beyond. So I
think that was at one point in time the goal for NASA. And Mr.
Chairman, I hope we can work together to perhaps restore that
vision and that goal in the Congress which I think is so
vitally important and I know, Administrator, you agree with.
With that, I yield back. Thank you.
Chairman Hall. I thank you, and if the Ranking Member would
have a final question for the Administrator, please?
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Administrator
Bolden, thank you very much for your time here and your passion
and your interest and your ability. It is extraordinary that
you are sitting there defending the President's budget. I think
it is grossly inadequate, and I hope that we can help a little
bit. I know that I heard the gentleman I think from Mississippi
mention that we had no aviation deaths the last two years. I
know that you know why. We have got those satellites that are
predicting weather and making sure that even farmers know when
a drought is coming and whether for food supply and what have
you. Do you know the condition of those satellites?
Mr. Bolden. Congresswoman, I will get back to you on
specific satellites and their life expectancy. Most currently
on orbit have outlived their planned lifetime. We tend to not
remember that our technology is such that we always build
things that last a lot longer than we thought. When we ought to
be thinking about obsolescence. And so we are behind as a
Nation in providing Earth science satellites, those that can
supply weather and the like, not only for civilian use but for
the Department of Defense. You talk about trafficability. My
son is a Marine, and if he is on the ground, he needs to know
what the soil is going to be like before he goes somewhere.
That comes from satellites. And so we owe it to these young men
and women who are doing things for us to provide them with
satellite systems that are reliable, and we are behind.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you. One final question. I know that
NASA had something to do with helping to rescue those miners in
Chile. Could you explain that?
Mr. Bolden. I could explain that. I love it. It has nothing
to do with NASA, no intent, whatsoever. No one in NASA ever
dreamed that we would be able to do what we did, but when we
learned of the Chilean miners, the 33 who were trapped were
still alive, a number of our NASA employees from around the
country, three doctors and one engineer, had asked if they
could go down to Chile and just ask around, see what needed to
be done. And they started finding that, okay, we need to find
ways to get food to these people. We need to determine what is
needed to keep them alive for the months that we originally
thought they were going to be down there. When we bring them
back to the surface, how do we triage them, how do we get them
back to normal. What we used was all the lessons we have
learned from flying on MIR, the International Space Station,
and all the way back to Skylab days.
So we put to work the lessons that we had learned in
exploration, things we never thought about. One of our
engineers from the Langley research center who was a Navy
submariner got together with a Chilean submariner who happened
to be an engineer on the project, and the two of them led the
team that designed the capsule that brought all 33 miners back
to the surface, plus the additional five or six that went down
to stabilize everybody.
So that is one of the most phenomenal success stories that
excited the President because nobody ever dreamed we would do
that. Same thing with the Earthquake in Haiti, same thing with
the Gulf oil spill. NASA is sort of the Marine Corps of the
science and aeronautics community. We are the most ready when
the Nation is least ready.
Ms. Johnson. Well, thank you very much, and I think that
the life of NASA depends on the life of our Nation. Thank you.
Mr. Bolden. Thank you very much.
Chairman Hall. Thank you. Those are the things that should
be better known to school children and everybody else that has
ill words for the work of NASA.
I thank you, Mr. Bolden, and I thank you for your very good
testimony, and the Members of the Committee will have
additional questions maybe for you and ask you to respond to
those in writing. The record will be kept open for two weeks
for additional comments from Members as Mrs. Johnson I think
has suggested she has some comments she wants back. So you are
excused. I really do thank you. We appreciate you very much.
Mr. Bolden. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And we will
try to get the responses back to you in a timely manner.
Chairman Hall. And just before I hit the gavel I want to
recognize the gentleman from New York, the long-time chairman
here, Chairman Boehlert. And with that, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

Appendix I:

----------

Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Responses by The Honorable Charles F. Bolden, Jr., Administrator,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Appendix II:

----------

Additional Material for the Record

Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry Costello

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's hearing on the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Fiscal Year 2012
(FY12) budget request.
NASA's FYl2 budget provides $18.7 billion and follows the direction
Congress laid out in the 2010 NASA Authorization bill. However, the
administration's budget proposal raises several questions about NASA's
mission and the future of human space flight.
First, investing in Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) education programs is necessary to ensure the next
generation of our aerospace workforce is competitive. For this reason,
I applaud NASA's new focus on working with community colleges to
prepare students for pursuing STEM education at four-year universities
and building new skills for careers in aerospace. In addition, I am
pleased NASA will continue its partnerships with schools to ensure
students in 4th through 9th are exposed to STEM curricula.
Second, I appreciate NASA's efforts to complete the development of
a multi-purpose crew vehicle and space launch system. I am interested
to hear from Administrator Bolden if 2016 is still a viable deadline
for completing this work and how NASA will continue its work at a
reduced funding level.
Finally, NASA's aeronautics research program is vital to ensuring
the safety and security ofthe flying public and the competitiveness of
the aviation and aerospace industry. In particular, NASA's
contributions to NextGen will play a critical role in increasing
airspace capacity in the future. I am concerned about the $10.2 million
reduction from the Fiscal Year 2011 request in aeronautics funding
included in the FY12 request. This lower request will make it harder to
recover from the $143 million reduction in funding for NextGen in
Fiscal Year 2010. I am interested to hear from Administrator Bolden how
this reduction will impact the ongoing work on NextGen and other
aeronautics and aviation priorities.
I welcome Administrator Bolden, and I look forward to his
testimony. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.

Prepared Statement of Representative Randy Neugebauer

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this full Committee hearing to
examine the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's budget
request for Fiscal Year 2012. Administrator Bolden, welcome.
Since 1958, NASA has played an important role in American
innovation and inventiveness. Much of the technological advancement in
the United States over the last five decades can be attributed to the
projects undertaken at NASA. I am confident that it will continue to
develop valuable and cutting-edge technologies.
I am, however, concerned that the Administration's budget for
fiscal year 2012 does not adequately address our nation's current
fiscal crisis. Americans are earning less, over nine percent of our
population is unemployed, and families are struggling to find ways to
make ends meet, yet federal government agencies are not feeling that
same pain. Our country is on an unsustainable path of spending. We will
not successfully decrease our $14 trillion debt by increasing spending
or even maintaining current spending levels. It is imperative that the
federal government make difficult choices to cut spending below current
levels, and NASA is no exception. The Administration's proposed budget
would maintain NASA funding at Fiscal Year 2010 levels, but I believe
it must be reduced to 2008 levels.
The cuts will not be pleasant, and they do not imply that NASA's
work is not important or beneficial. I understand that NASA made some
difficult choices to reduce funding for some programs in this budget
proposal, while other programs would see an increase in funding. But
without immediate, significant reductions in bottom-line spending,
future generations will have difficulty even paying down the interest
on our national debt.
Administrator Bolden, look forward to hearing your testimony.