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

EXAMINING NASA'S DEVELOPMENT
ON THE SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM
AND ORION CREW CAPSULE
=======================================================================

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

__________

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2012

__________

Serial No. 112-102

__________

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
76-236 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas PAUL D. TONKO, New York
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas JERRY McNERNEY, California
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
SANDY ADAMS, Florida FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN, SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
Tennessee VACANCY
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia VACANCY
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi VACANCY
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., JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
Wisconsin TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
DANA ROHRABACHER, California FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
SANDY ADAMS, Florida EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
MO BROOKS, Alabama
RALPH M. HALL, Texas

C O N T E N T S

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

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

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

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Steven M. Palazzo, Chair,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 9
Written Statement............................................ 10

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 Hansen H. Clarke, Acting Ranking
Minority Member, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 11
Written Statement............................................ 12

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 52
Written Statement............................................ 52

Witnesses:

Mr. Dan Dumbacher, Deputy Associate Administrator for Exploration
Systems Development, NASA
Oral Statement............................................... 13
Written Statement............................................ 16

Mr. Cleon Lacefield, Vice President and Orion Program Manager,
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Oral Statement............................................... 21
Written Statement............................................ 23

Mr. Jim Chilton, Exploration Vice President, The Boeing Company
Oral Statement............................................... 29
Written Statement............................................ 31

Dr. Matt Mountain, Director, Space Telescope Science Institute
Oral Statement............................................... 39
Written Statement............................................ 41

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Mr. Dan Dumbacher, Deputy Associate Administrator for Exploration
Systems Development, NASA...................................... 62

Mr. Cleon Lacefield, Vice President and Orion Program Manager,
Lockheed Martin Corporation.................................... 68

Mr. Jim Chilton, Exploration Vice President, The Boeing Company.. 72

Dr. Matt Mountain, Director, Space Telescope Science Institute... 78

EXAMINING NASA'S DEVELOPMENT
ON THE SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM
AND ORION CREW CAPSULE

----------

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2012

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

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steven
Palazzo [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.007

Chairman Palazzo. The Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
will come to order.
Good morning, everyone. Before we get started, there has
been an incident in the Middle East last night where four
Americans lost their lives in attacks on U.S. soil, U.S.
embassies. If we could just take a moment of silence and pray
for not only those that were murdered but also for their
families.
Welcome to today's hearing entitled ``Examining NASA's
Development of the Space Launch System and Orion Crew
Capsule.'' In front of you are packets containing the written
testimony, biographies and Truth in Testimony disclosures for
today's witness panel. I recognize myself for five minutes for
an opening statement.
I would like to welcome everyone to our hearing, and I
especially want to thank our witnesses for joining us today. I
know many people put in a lot of effort preparing for these
hearings, and we appreciate you taking time from your busy
schedules to appear before the Subcommittee. I also want to
assure you that we greatly value your expertise and wisdom, and
that your testimony will benefit this Committee in the weeks
and months ahead as we endeavor to ensure uninterrupted
development of these important new programs.
The purpose of today's hearing is to discuss NASA's and
industry's progress, next steps, and challenges developing our
Nation's next-generation heavy-lift launcher and crew capsule.
For the next several decades, the Space Launch System and Orion
multipurpose crew vehicle will give our country the capability
to launch exciting new human spaceflight exploration missions
and robotic science missions.
No other country has the technical expertise or industrial
base to produce anything similar to SLS or Orion, making it all
the more compelling to ensure that these programs continue
without interruption.
It is also important to realize other significant benefits
that flow from the SLS and Orion programs. First, by building a
heavy-lift vehicle, we will enable bold new science missions,
and I look forward to Dr. Mountain's testimony about the scale
of potential flagship missions that might be conceived for
launching 10 or 15 years from now. I am optimistic that once
our government's fiscal health has been restored, NASA will
have the resources to once again consider robotic flagship
missions that will maintain the momentum we currently enjoy
with missions such as MSL.
Second, looking at the health and vitality of our aerospace
industrial base, SLS and Orion will continue to challenge our
best and brightest engineers to design and develop advanced
propulsion, avionics and manufacturing capabilities that will
maintain America's preeminence in space. While no other country
currently has the capability to match what we can do with SLS
and Orion, a number of emerging space powers may, in time, be
tempted to challenge our leadership in space. That includes
space-based technologies that are fundamental to our economy,
our quality of life and our national security. By scaling back
investments in aerospace R&D, we risk putting future
generations of Americans at risk.
Finally, I worry that without SLS and Orion, NASA's and our
country's ability to do the hard stuff--cutting-edge space
exploration--would be seriously impaired. NASA's first 50 years
plus of programs and missions have been awe-inspiring. I want
to keep that spirit alive for decades to come.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Palazzo follows:]

Prepared Statement of Subcommittee Chairman Steven M. Palazzo

Good morning. I'd like to welcome everyone to our hearing. I
especially want to thank our witnesses for joining us today. I know
many people put in a lot of effort preparing for these hearings, and we
appreciate you taking time from your busy schedules to appear before
the Subcommittee. I also want to assure you that we greatly value your
expertise and wisdom, and that your testimony will benefit this
committee in the weeks and months ahead as we endeavor to ensure
development of these important new programs.
The purpose of today's hearing is to discuss NASA's and industry's
progress, next steps, and challenges developing our nation's next
generation heavy-lift launcher and crew capsule. For the next several
decades, the Space Launch System and Orion multipurpose crew vehicle
will give our country the capability to launch exciting new human
spaceflight exploration missions and robotic science missions. No other
country has the technical expertise or industrial base to produce
anything similar to SLS and Orion, making it all the more compelling to
ensure that these programs continue without interruption.
It's also important to realize other significant benefits that flow
from the SLS and Orion programs. First, by building a heavy-lift
vehicle, we'll enable bold new science missions and I look forward to
Dr. Mountain's testimony about the scale of potential flagship missions
that might be conceived for launching ten or fifteen years from now. I
am optimistic that once our government's fiscal health has been
restored, NASA will have the resources to again consider robotic
flagship missions that will maintain the momentum we currently enjoy
with missions such as MSL.
Second, looking at the health and vitality of our aerospace
industrial base, SLS and Orion will continue to challenge our best and
brightest engineers to design and develop advanced propulsion,
avionics, and manufacturing capabilities that will maintain America's
preeminence in space. To be clear, there are a number of emerging space
powers who may, in time, be tempted to challenge our leadership in
space, and especially space-based technologies that are fundamental to
our economy, our quality of life, and our national security. We simply
can't afford to scale back investments in aerospace R&D or we may, in
time, put future generations of Americans at risk.
Finally, I worry that without SLS and Orion, NASA's and our
country's ability to do `the hard stuff' --cutting edge space
exploration--would be seriously impaired. NASA's first 50 years plus of
programs and missions have been awe-inspiring. I want to keep that
spirit alive for decades to come.
Thanks again to our witnesses for appearing before us this morning.

Chairman Palazzo. I would now like to yield my remaining
time to the chairman of the full Committee, Representative
Ralph Hall, for any comments he would like to make.
Chairman Hall. Mr. Chairman, I of course thank you for
holding this morning's hearing, and I thank the four gentlemen
there for the time they gave in preparation, travel and for
giving us this information that you give us.
The Space Launch System, as the Chairman said, and Orion
crew vehicle are going to enable NASA's future human deep space
exploration and it is vitally important that they be continued,
I think, and I think most of us think that, and if Congress and
the Administration work together to keep these programs on
track and on schedule, but having said that, I continue to
worry about NASA's commitment to the Space Launch System and
Orion.
The agency delayed design selection of SLS for 11 months
following enactment of the 2010 Authorization Act. Its budget
request for these two programs falls significantly short of
amounts authorized. I have yet to see evidence that design and
development of Orion service module, which would be required to
support any multiday mission, has begun. No mission destination
has been selected other than an asteroid to be named later, and
while I acknowledge the Administration argues we have already
been to the moon, I find it questionable that a trip beyond
low-Earth orbit does not include the moon as an interim
destination, maybe or maybe not, but to be considered to keep
in view that we are considering it, the research and
development systems that will be required for missions to other
planets such as Mars. I have sense enough to know we are not
going to Mars or on asteroid or anywhere else until people can
go to the grocery store, and by that I know that the economy
has got to get a lot better, but we have to be ready for it and
that is continuing to be preparing and seeking it.
Once the International Space Station is retired, we will
have no manned presence in space except for missions launched
on SLS and Orion. Without this new launch system, the
technological capability, inspiration and innovation that
springs from our human spaceflight programs is going to wither.
None of us can afford to allow that to happen.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]

Prepared Statement of Chairman Ralph M. Hall

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this morning's
hearing.
The Space Launch System and Orion crew vehicle will enable NASA's
future human deep space exploration program. It is vitally important
they be continued, and that Congress and the Administration work
together to keep these programs on track and on schedule.
But having said that, I continue to worry about NASA's commitment
to SLS and Orion. The agency delayed design selection of SLS for 11
months following enactment of the 2010 authorization act. Its budget
requests for these two programs fall significantly short of amounts
authorized. I have yet to see evidence that design and development of
an Orion service module--which would be required to support any multi-
day mission--has begun. No mission destination has been selected, other
than an asteroid to be named later. And while I acknowledge the
Administration argues we've already been to the Moon, I find it
questionable that a trip beyond lower earth orbit does not include the
Moon as an interim destination to research and develop systems that
will be required for missions to other planets such as Mars.
Once the International Space Station is retired, we will have no
manned presence in space except for missions launched on SLS and Orion.
Without this new launch system, the technological capability,
inspiration, and innovation that springs from our human spaceflight
program will quickly wither. None of us can afford to allow that to
happen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Chairman Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks again
to our witnesses for appearing before us today.
I now recognize Mr. Clarke for an opening statement.
Mr. Clarke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the
opportunity to be Ranking Member of this Subcommittee on this
very important issue. We want to make sure that the plans,
status and development of these two important projects are on
time, and as we are well aware, our Authorization Act in 2010
directed NASA to develop both support human exploration beyond
low-Earth orbit, provide backup capability to deliver crew and
cargo to our International Space Station, and to preserve the
critical capabilities of our aerospace workforce and industrial
base. And we are all aware that the task of getting SLS's and
Orion's architecture underway wasn't an easy one.
Back in March of last year, this Subcommittee pressed
members of NASA for a final decision on the configuration of
the next heavy-lift vehicle for returning Americans to human
exploration beyond low-Earth orbit, which is our ultimate goal,
at least on an interim basis, by 2021.
A year ago this month, we got the decision that the
integrated SLS and Orion crew capsule architecture that NASA is
currently developing, we got a decision on that. This system
builds on the successful and proven space shuttle technologies
as well as new developments begun under the former
Constellation program before it was ended.
While NASA's decision took some time, I am encouraged that
in just a year since announcing the final architecture, NASA
and its industry contractors have made considerable progress,
and that is something I would like to talk to you about today
as well.
The Orion capsule has been delivered to the Kennedy Space
Center in preparation for an uncrewed test flight in 2014. The
SLS has completed its initial stage of review, which confirmed
the vehicle concept, the overall architecture, and the design
and integration approach. Now, in addition to the 2014 test
flight of Orion, NASA's plans include an integrated SLS and
Orion uncrewed test flight in 2017 and the first crewed test
flight by 2021.
So it is my hope today that you as witnesses can help us
understand how these test flights will help identify risks
early on to human flight, any challenges that they face in
meeting those milestones, and what is needed to ensure the
earliest possible date for returning Americans to deep space
exploration.
My next remarks have some great references to an
outstanding American, Neil Armstrong, who came to this
Committee a year ago next week. But as someone that is a Baby
Boomer that was a kid during the 1960s, I remember as a kid
President Johnson standing before, President Kennedy as well
standing before the American people and being committed to the
goal of sending Americans to the moon. President Kennedy said
that in such an inspiring way. Those same principles of what he
spoke about are embodied in the success of NASA Authorization
Acts over the last several years, and what I believe is so
important is that we work to achieve those goals set forth by
Congress in those Acts by returning Americans to deep space
exploration.
Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Clarke follows:]

Prepared Statement of Acting Ranking Minority Member Hansen H. Clarke

Chairman Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Clarke.
If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
statements, your statements will be added to the record at this point.
Before introducing the witnesses, the Chair wishes to express his
thanks to Mr. Lacefield and Mr. Chilton for agreeing to appear before
this Committee on relatively very short notice. While we normally
require witnesses to provide testimony 48 hours in advance of a
hearing, under the current circumstances, it would be inappropriate to
hold them to the same standard, and we are pleased they are able to
join us here this morning.
At this time I would like to introduce our panel of witnesses, and
then we will proceed to hear from each of them in order. Our first
witness is Mr. Dan Dumbacher, the Deputy Associate Administrator for
Explorations Systems Development at NASA. Mr. Dumbacher joined NASA in
1979 at the Marshall Space Flight Center. He has held a number of
management positions during his career including most recently heading
the Engineering Directorate at Marshall. Mr. Dumbacher has also served
as Deputy Director of the Exploration Launch Projects Office, Deputy
Director of the Ares Project Office, and Deputy Director of the Safety
and Mission Assurance Office. He has received a number of awards and
honors during his career with NASA, and Mr. Dumbacher graduated from
Purdue University with a degree in mechanical engineering.
Our second witness is Mr. Cleon Lacefield, Vice President and Orion
Program Manager at Lockheed Martin Corporation. He has more than 34
years of aerospace experience beginning in the Navy as an A-7 pilot,
then moving over to NASA where he participated in a number of
spaceflight programs including as Flight Director at Mission Control in
Houston and as Director in the X-33 program. Mr. Lacefield earned a
number of awards and honors during his tenure at NASA and as a graduate
of California Polytechnic State University.
Our third witness is Mr. Jim Chilton, Vice President and Program
Manager for Exploration Launch Systems at Boeing. Previously, Mr.
Chilton served as Program Manager for the checkout, assembly and
payload processing services contract at Boeing's Kennedy Space Center
facility. Mr. Chilton joined Boeing at the Rocketdyne division as an
engineer serving a number of roles in engine test and launch
operations. Mr. Chilton holds a bachelor's degree in mechanical
engineering from Washington State University and a master's degree in
space technology from the Florida Institute of Technology.
Our final witness is Dr. Matt Mountain, Director of the Space
Telescope Science Institute. Dr. Mountain has been director of the
institute since September 2005. He leads the 400-person organization
responsible for the science operations of the Hubble Space Telescope.
He is the James Webb Space Telescope's telescope scientist, a member of
the JWST Science Working Group, a professor at the Johns Hopkins
University's Department of Physics and Astronomy, and a visiting
professor at the University of Oxford. Dr. Mountain is a fellow of the
American Astronomical Society and the Royal Astronomical Society and
the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Thanks again to our panel for being here this morning. As our
witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited to five minutes
each. After all witnesses have spoken, Members of the Committee will
have five minutes each to ask questions.

I now recognize our first witness, Mr. Dumbacher, to
present his testimony.

STATEMENT OF MR. DAN DUMBACHER,

DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR

EXPLORATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT, NASA

Mr. Dumbacher. Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to update you on
NASA's Explorations Systems Development Programs, which are
depicted on the posters to my left: the Orion multipurpose crew
vehicle, the Space Launch System and the related ground
systems, and you can see there evidence of some of our
progress.
Today marks the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy's
speech at Rice University in which he discussed America's space
efforts and particularly the coming missions to the moon. As
the Nation celebrates the achievements of Neil Armstrong and
the realization of President Kennedy's goal, I am pleased to
inform you that we are making excellent progress towards
developing the next-generation capabilities for human space
exploration beyond low-Earth orbit.
Orion is a four-person spacecraft designed to support
exploration missions to multiple destinations. We have pressed
forward with the design and manufacture of the first flight
test article and the first flight test crew module structure is
at Kennedy Space Center for assembly and integration. In
addition, the program has completed significant acoustic and
vibration testing, water impact test and parachute tests.
Fabrication of the heat shield has been initiated, and the
testing of avionics and software systems continues.
Orion will be used in the uncrewed exploration flight test
in 2014. This will be a two-orbit, high-energy reentry test
mission that will obtain critical performance data needed to
confirm the design of the spacecraft. Exploration flight test
one will also serve as a pathfinder to validate innovative
approaches, reduce cost, demonstrate recovery procedures and
develop the launch vehicle adapter. This adapter will also be
used on the uncrewed flight in 2017 and the first crewed
flights beginning in 2021.
The Space Launch System is a heavy-lift launch vehicle that
will transport Orion as well as cargo and other systems with a
range of lift capabilities from 70 metric tons evolving up to
130 metric tons. The Space Launch System team completed the
required acquisition strategy process and had all contractors
working by December 31, 2011. The team has completed key
reviews and over the next year is proceeding to preliminary
design review for the booster and core stage elements as well
as the integrated Block 1 vehicle.
The Space Launch System core stage team has successfully
completed its systems definition review. Fifteen RS-25D liquid
hydrogen engines have been delivered to the Stennis Space
Center in preparation for installation and tests on the core
stage. NASA has initiated efforts to prepare the B-2 test stand
at Stennis for the core stage testing. Solid booster segments
are being prepared for the qualification motor test with the
first such test slated for next May.
In July, NASA selected six proposals under an open,
competitive NASA research announcement to improve the booster's
affordability, reliability and performance. These initial risk
reduction tests will be followed by full and open competition
for the full-scale design and development work leading to an
advanced booster for the evolved Space Launch System.
The 130-metric-ton Block 2 Space Launch System
configuration will require a new upper stage utilizing the J-2X
engines currently in development testing. J-2X has completed a
total of over 3,250 seconds in 29 tests on the engine power
pack.
In the exploration ground systems effort, the Kennedy Space
Center team has made significant progress on the necessary
infrastructure design, development and refurbishment to support
the Space Launch System and Orion. The Kennedy Space Center is
proceeding also through its key reviews. The Center has
completed the first phase of mobile launcher construction.
Refurbishment and upgrades to the crawler-transporter are being
performed at a pace to support the 2017 flight test.
In addition, work is beginning on the vehicle assembly
building to support the Space Launch System. Pad 39B has been
prepared for the mobile launcher with lightning towers in place
and the needed refurbishment to pad infrastructure.
As we move forward, NASA is working to keep all of these
efforts integrated and coordinated. We successfully completed
an integrated systems requirements review in February of 2012
for all of the integrated systems, and are progressing toward
our integrated systems definition review early next year. The
agency is working with an affordable model using a smaller
number of level 1 requirements similar to what we did during
the Apollo program. We have also streamlined the decision and
integration processes to assure timely decision-making while
addressing the needed technical aspects.
The NASA industry team has made great progress over the
past year. Orion and the Space Launch System fit well within a
broader U.S. launch strategy of procuring commercial launches
for crew and cargo to the International Space Station while
concentrating NASA's development efforts on exploration
missions beyond low-Earth orbit including flights to asteroids.
Both Orion and Space Launch System are being designed to
support multiple missions and destinations rather than being
optimized for one particular mission or architecture.
Ultimately, these capabilities will pave the way for the human
missions to the Mars.
Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today to provide you with our progress and
status over the past year. I would be happy to respond to any
questions you or the other Members of the Subcommittee may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dumbacher follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.012

Chairman Palazzo. Thank you.
I now recognize Mr. Lacefield for five minutes to present
his testimony.

STATEMENT OF MR. CLEON LACEFIELD,

VICE PRESIDENT AND ORION PROGRAM MANAGER,

LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION

Mr. Lacefield. Chairman Palazzo, Chairman Hall, Mr. Clarke,
Congressman Clarke, and Members of the Space and Aeronautics
Subcommittee, it is a pleasure for me to testify before you
today concerning the Orion spacecraft and its contribution to
the future of America's human space exploration program.
As you are well aware, Orion is the world's first
interplanetary spacecraft supporting safe, long-duration human
exploration and scientific discovery missions to deep space
including the moon, asteroids, the moons of Mars, and
ultimately Mars itself. Orion is complementary to and indeed
has contributed to the development of technologies for many of
NASA's programs.
The NASA-Lockheed Martin, Orion team is comprised of
Lockheed Martin, Aerojet, ATK, Hamilton Sundstrand, Honeywell
and many business suppliers in 41 states. It is an exceptional
team that includes some of the most highly motivated engineers
employed by in industry. On the government side, it is led by
NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, and involves a number
of other NASA centers across the country. The Orion team
continues to make tremendous progress developing,
manufacturing, assembling and testing this state-of-the-art
space exploration vehicle.
We are currently advancing toward our next major milestone,
Exploration Flight Test-1, or EFT-1, in 2014, leading to
follow-on orbital flight testing of Exploration Mission-1, EM-
1, and subsequent crewed flight far beyond low-Earth orbit in
deep space, Exploration Mission 2, or EM-2. EM-1 and EM-2 will
fly on the Space Launch System managed by NASA's Marshall Space
Flight program in Huntsville, Alabama.
The following are examples of major program technical
progress and our commitment to crew safety and system
reliability. We have successfully tested a new launch abort
system during Pad Abort Test-1 at White Sands Missile Test
Range in New Mexico to demonstrate our capability to protect
the crew under emergency conditions. In collaboration with NASA
and our Colorado-based Ball Aerospace teammate, we developed an
innovative navigation and docking system called STORRM, which
was successfully tested during space shuttle mission STS-134.
We have completed parachute tests at the Yuma Proving
Ground in Arizona, and we are continuing water landing tests at
the Hydro Basin facility at NASA's Langley Research Center in
Virginia, and we are building propulsion system components at
Lockheed Martin's facility located at NASA's Stennis Space
Center in Mississippi. We have successfully completed
spaceflight acoustic and vibration testing on the Orion Ground
Test Article spacecraft at Lockheed Martin's facility in
Colorado, and we delivered the EFT-1 Orion crew module to the
Operations and Checkout facility--America's spacecraft factory
for the future--at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida, with
work moving forward on critical subsystem installation,
assembly and test.
The NASA-Lockheed Martin team has also initiated major
affordability measures and streamlined Orion program management
oversight by incorporating proven commercial practices. That
said, it remains critically important that Congress maintain
fiscal 2013 funding at the current level to ensure timely and
successful implementation of EFT-1 in 2014, as well as outyear
budgets to support EM-1 and EM-2. In fact, Orion's considerable
progress and the importance of our continued commitment to crew
safety, reliability and risk mitigation testing was emphasized
by the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, ASAP, in its most
recent review of the Orion and SLS programs.
Mr. Chairman, with your leadership and continued bipartisan
support of this Committee, Congress and the President, Orion,
together with SLS, is prepared for unprecedented missions of
exploration and discovery, taking humans further into the solar
system than ever before experienced, while encouraging STEM
education among our youth and providing high-tech careers and
jobs.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to answering your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lacefield follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.018

Chairman Palazzo. Thank you.
I now recognize our third witness, Mr. Chilton, for five
minutes to present his testimony.

STATEMENT OF MR. JIM CHILTON,

EXPLORATION VICE PRESIDENT, THE BOEING COMPANY

Mr. Chilton. Good morning. Chairman Palazzo, Chairman Hall,
Ranking Member Clarke, Congressman Brooks, on behalf of Boeing,
thanks for the opportunity to be here. We want to thank you for
your continued support of human spaceflight. You enabled a safe
fly-out of the shuttle, completion of ISS and outlining this
path for beyond-Earth-orbit exploration. Without your
Committee, this wouldn't have happened, so thank you very much.
It is a great honor to be here.
As previously stated, the Space Launch System is an enabler
for human deep space exploration needed to propel elements free
of Earth's gravity. It can serve as the backbone of our
Nation's space program in any post-ISS era.
I would like to start by talking about challenges per your
request. It is worth noting up front that many potential
challenges on SLS have already been avoided. NASA quite wisely
selected an architecture that allows reuse of designs and
elements that have been very successful in other programs. This
separation of product development and technology development
increases our overall confidence in schedule, cost and mission
success.
That said, accomplishing rapid development of the core
stage of Block 1 of the SLS is foremost among the remaining
challenges. The SLS engines and boosters are heritage space
shuttle elements. The SLS Block 1 upper stage is directly
adapted from our Delta IV heavy launch vehicle but the core
stage, on the other hand, is a clean-sheet design, meaning the
existing elements are waiting for the core stage to catch up
with them.
To see the schedule challenge, we can compare the lead time
required to produce a shuttle external tank to the time
allotted for this core stage development. As the shuttle neared
her end schedule estimates for calling up another ET ranged
from 36 to 44 months. The time allotted from system
requirements review completion that Mr. Dumbacher mentioned is
about 51 to 54 months, and the core stage has got to design and
certify that design in close to the same time, so it gives you
a feel for the kind of challenge.
A flat budget profile for SLS, which is atypical for
development programs, creates yet another unique challenge, and
it necessitates that SLS development occur through an
evolutionary process. Simultaneous development of all the
elements needed to get to the final configuration of the SLS
won't be possible under that flat budget profile so NASA will
have to choose so that each succeeding element developed offers
the most incremental beyond-Earth-orbit performance for the
smallest cost. As we work the cryogenic stages, we are
retaining the option for that element to be a large upper stage
should NASA choose it so that the maximum economic efficiency
can be gained from our core stage efforts.
As far as risk reduction goes, we are reducing risk through
adaptation of existing subsystems and components even though
the core stage will be new. We have to ensure SLS is a
standalone exploration-class rocket that can be adapted to many
missions that emerge over many years. This is going to require
a guidance system independent of payloads or crew systems so it
can serve multiple users in crew and cargo configuration. To
ensure we can get there on time, we have chosen to produce many
of the key elements in-house at Boeing. The best example of
this is the overall vehicle flight computer. We have based it
on a proven Boeing commercial satellite design and already have
gotten to a critical design review and put test versions in the
lab for NASA software.
To keep SLS and the overall programs stable over the long
haul, it is important to ensure SLS is protected and nurtured
long enough to succeed. Preventing temporary budget variations
from impacting schedules is a key part of that. Stable funding,
which should include planning for funding that escalates with
inflation, will allow a steady and predictable progress.
Construction of facility tasks should be fully funded even
under continuing-resolution conditions early in the program so
we can get the factory and test facilities up and active. We
also will work hard with NASA to get defined contracts in place
that allow thorough interrogation of costs and schedule for the
long haul and the integrated baseline reviews.
Our progress has been really strong. We started in
December, as Mr. Dumbacher mentioned. We have already passed
through a system requirements review and system definitions
review 2 months ahead of our contract milestones. Our first
hardware deliveries are already behind us in the avionics area,
and design tempo is increasing daily.
On the manufacturing side, we are past 50 percent on all
the major tools. We will begin installation of the big tooling
mission at Michoud late this year and finish late next so we
will have an active factory by early 2014.
Our manufacturing developments are influenced and designed
very positively. Early test welds indicate we are going to get
to four weld thicknesses and about 14 unique schedules compared
to 14 thicknesses and about 75 schedules on an external tank.
That and less costly materials are going to make it much more
affordable for the government.
Our plan for progress upcoming, we get to a preliminary
design late this year or early next, critical design mid-2014,
and we plan for first flight in 2017.
To close, NASA's unrelenting focus on mission success has
always driven us and it still is in the way we are designing
the SLS today on our pace.
Thank you for the chance to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chilton follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.026

Chairman Palazzo. Thank you.
I now recognize our final witness, Dr. Mountain, for five
minutes to present his testimony.

STATEMENT OF DR. MATT MOUNTAIN, DIRECTOR,

SPACE TELESCOPE SCIENCE INSTITUTE

Dr. Mountain. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,
Chairman Hall, let me first thank you for your continuing
support of space science, an endeavor where the United States
leads the world.
In response to your questions about the role large space
launch vehicles like NASA's Space Launch System could play in
space science, let me provide some context. The partnership
between NASA's science and human spaceflight programs has led
to globally recognized icons of science such as the Hubble
Space Telescope. A large launch system such as SLS provides
another opportunity that could allow us to observe amazing
phenomena that are well beyond the capabilities of the Hubble,
the James Webb Space Telescope or our existing fleet of
interplanetary spacecraft.
Imagine being able to answer the question that spurs
endless wonder across the millennia: are we alone? That answer
is now within reach. Imagine returning samples of Martian soil
back to Earth in a single mission for analysis. Imagine landing
a new generation of probes on far more distant bodies such as
the icy moons of Jupiter, to drill through the ice of Europa
and see if life may have existed or even continues to exist
there.
Our imagination can become reality if NASA and the science
community can find cost-effective ways to use the Space Launch
System. Let me give some examples. The SLS has the potential to
completely change the paradigm for building future space
telescopes that simply would not be possible today. To search
for the evidence of biological activity, life on hundreds of
potentially habitable worlds that exist beyond our solar system
would require a telescope that has a primary mirror that is 15
to 25 meters across. That is three to four times larger than
the James Webb Space Telescope. The SLS would allow us to
efficiently bring greatly simplified building blocks of such a
telescope to low-Earth orbit where they could be assembled and
moved to a more distant orbit. By both having the transport
capacity and by providing the human or robotic infrastructure
to assemble such a system in space, the SLS is the key tool
needed to answer the question: are we alone?
Another example is the recent Planetary Decadal Survey's
top priority: Mars sample return. To make this complex mission
feasible with existing launch technologies, it had to be
carried out over three separate launches, significantly
stretching out this mission's duration and potential cost. The
current SLS has the capability to combine all three into a
single launch.
So what are the characteristics of an SLS that enable such
an exciting scientific future for the U.S. space program?
First, the 70- to 130-metric-ton lift capacity to low-Earth
orbit means that more conventional materials and components can
be used in spacecraft and observatory design. Ultra-lightweight
components could be replaced with heavier, more rigid
structures and perhaps more high-cost, specialized components
could be replaced with more commercialized systems. This
simplifies the design, consequently reduces mission risk, and
hopefully cost.
Secondly, the SLS must be able to launch not just more mass
but the payload fairing must be able to accommodate large
volumes so we can simplify telescopes and large missions by
reducing all or many of the on-orbit deployments that could
otherwise be needed if one only had access to smaller launch
vehicles.
Third, for some science missions, the ability of an SLS
system to also bring up sophisticated robots or astronauts to
assemble or service future complex science missions is a really
exciting opportunity.
Fourth, the solar system missions, the increased energy of
SLS launch vehicle also means planetary science payloads can be
launched over a wider range of launch windows and in some cases
being able to travel directly to solar system bodies, saving
transit time.
Finally, but crucially, science can only realistically use
Space Launch System if its availability for research missions
is both reasonably frequent, probably at least once a year, and
not excessively costly to the science mission providing that
payload. There is a multi-decade precedent for this: the
partnership between human spaceflight and science that has
enabled 22 years of unparalleled discoveries with the Hubble
Space Telescope. The costs of a space shuttle for the Hubble
was not fully borne by NASA's Space Mission Directorate, rather
provided as part of NASA's spaceflight infrastructure for use
by the entire agency. Science should be considered an essential
and exciting partner in the exploration endeavor but science
cannot drive the development of a human spaceflight system.
In closing, the SLS can definitely enable several very
ambitious and imaginative science missions that only NASA and
this Nation can do. The results will be truly inspirational.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for your support and that of
the Subcommittee. I will be pleased to respond to any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Mountain follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.032

Chairman Palazzo. I thank the panel for their testimony,
reminding Members that the Committee rules limit questioning to
five minutes.
The chair will at this point open the round of questions.
The chair recognizes himself for five minutes.
Both the SLS and the Orion programs are operating under a
flat funding profile through the first uncrewed flight in
December 2017. How will NASA address any developmental
challenges that cannot be managed within the constraints of the
current budget, Mr. Dumbacher?
Mr. Dumbacher. We are working hard within that flatline
budget to phase the content. Our plan is set up to deliver on
2017 and 2021 as it has been submitted. The process that we
have to go through, number one, is to make sure that the
integrated system stays together in terms of SLS, Orion and
ground systems all arriving at the needed delivery dates with
the needed technical capabilities on time, and we work hard to
do that.
How we do this is, one, we purposely chose a system that
had minimal development risk. In the past with launch vehicle
development propulsion systems are typically the high-risk
items. By utilizing the RS-25's shuttle main engines from the
shuttle program as well as boosters with shuttle heritage and
Constellation development behind them, we have minimized a lot
of that risk, and then we have to phase in the content, the
program content, to support 2017 to be able to handle the
natural development curve for things for elements such as the
core stage, and we have been very deliberate, very detailed in
our planning to put that plan together, to phase the content so
that we arrive with the integrated system at 2017 to 2021.
Chairman Palazzo. Mr. Lacefield or Mr. Chilton, if you
would like to comment?
Mr. Lacefield. Yes. I would like to add that we are very
well synchronized with the Space Launch System and Gemini have
a lot of contact and we are staying closely integrated between
Orion and SLS. What that allows us to do is, we have put
together a plan working with NASA and industry that we feel is
a high-confidence plan working towards 2017. We have worked
multiple options with NASA looking at things that we could
defer or things that we could pull forward, depending on the
activities on the program or the needs of the program, and I
think that allows us a great flexibility to accomplish what Dan
is talking about.
Chairman Palazzo. Although potential missions have been
discussed, NASA is currently designing SLS and Orion to be
flexible with regard to multiple missions and/or destinations.
When does NASA expect to determine these missions and
destinations? What is the impact of designing a vehicle with
multiple capabilities, some of which would not be used
depending on the destination, Mr. Dumbacher?
Mr. Dumbacher. First of all, as you have seen in the
agency's delivered exploration goals and destinations report
from a week or so ago, we are looking at multiple destinations.
We are in the process of doing the mission analysis at this
time. We know that the ultimate destination is Mars. The
intermediate destinations between where we are today and Mars
and the exact timing of those are being sorted out through our
mission analysis, and we are looking at options such as the
asteroids, lunar space, lunar orbit, Lagrangian points, et
cetera, on the way. That mission analysis is in work and also
starting to understand what the implications can be to Orion
and SLS. The process we are working very hard to do is get the
fundamental capabilities, that is, the heavy-lift launch
vehicle and the spacecraft, in place. We need those for any
destination we go to, and then as we sort the mission planning,
add the additional elements in that we need to execute the
given missions at a given time, and of course, the timing of
all that is based on the mission analysis and the available
funding.
Chairman Palazzo. Mr. Lacefield, do you anticipate each
production Orion to be essentially the same basic design with
components and systems to be inserted based on mission
requirements?
Mr. Lacefield. We are certainly set up that way. We have a
very capable vehicle that we can actually add mission kits to
for whatever the destination is. We have done a lot of mission
work with NASA, and Boeing has been with us as we have been
supporting NASA in their mission development to make sure that
the capability that we have or the mission kits that we have
are easily obtainable and easy for us to reconfigure flight to
flight if so needed.
Right now, the way that we are looking at the architecture
is most everything that we need will be built into the first
vehicle that we fly, EM-1, so that there is little update, if
any update, for EM-2 such that we have the capability as soon
as possible to get as much flight test time as we can on the
vehicles before we put humans in the vehicles.
Chairman Palazzo. Same basic question for Mr. Chilton on
the Boeing's SLS design.
Mr. Chilton. Yes. For all our cryogenic stages and
especially core stage, we contemplate the same production
configuration for economic advantage, and mods, we would
anticipate, would only be driven by missions that are much
further out than the early configs, and anything for
obsolescence. All of that we see as next decade or beyond, so
your question about schedule, to hold schedule and make sure we
can get into a single configuration for economic advantage, we
plan to fly the same stages every time.
Chairman Palazzo. Mr. Lacefield, your hearing statement
makes reference to work being done on Orion at Stennis. Could
you please elaborate on the nature of the Orion work being done
there?
Mr. Lacefield. Certainly. We are utilizing our Lockheed
Martin space satellite factory there to manufacture all of the
propulsion components needed for Orion so we are doing all of
the tube styles, regulators and actually a lot of the
insulation blankets are all done at Stennis and then shipped to
Florida for assembly into the vehicle. It is a facility that in
Lockheed Martin is known for its ability to put high-pressure
systems together and weld them and have high reliability and we
are using that factory for Orion.
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Clarke.
Mr. Clarke. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I also have concerns
about adequate funding for both of these important projects. I
am also from the city of Detroit, metropolitan Detroit. We are
also concerned about creating more jobs, but we will deal with
the economic benefits of these projects later on.
Mr. Dumbacher, under a Continuing Resolution for fiscal
year 2013, what level of funding and what spend rate will SLS
and Orion get?
Mr. Dumbacher. Under the current understanding of what the
six month Continuing Resolution will contain, we are planning
to 50 percent of the fiscal year 2012 appropriations levels,
and that will be the spend rate that we are working to on SLS
and Orion for the first six months. We do have to recognize,
however, that the uncertainty in the potential budget
appropriations for the remainder of the fiscal year also need
to be included in our planning, and we are working to address
that. But in the near term, we are planning for the next six
months to plan at 50 percent of the fiscal year 2012
appropriations level.
Mr. Clarke. Now, have you been given any guidance regarding
the CR?
Mr. Dumbacher. What I just talked about, the fiscal year
2012 50 percent level is the guidance I have been given.
Mr. Clarke. All right. Even though we have made
considerable progress in the development of both of these
projects, we still have critical milestones ahead. As Congress
and the Administration are weighing our funding priorities, how
important is the need for funding and spending stability over
this next year, and what is the impact of not getting it? I
know many of you have actually alluded to this but, Mr.
Dumbacher, I would like to know your opinion.
Mr. Dumbacher. Funding stability of any endeavor of this
magnitude--launch vehicles, spacecraft--is critical to the
program planning and program success. The ability to plan into
the future and to understand what the future holds within some
reasonable level of understanding allows us to set up our
program plans, to address that and then allows us to go
execute. Changes to or instability in the funding forces replan
work, rework, and all of that effort takes away from our
ability to actually execute and get the hardware developed and
build the program.
Mr. Clarke. Thanks, Mr. Dumbacher.
Mr. Lacefield or Mr. Chilton, do you care to comment on the
impact of not getting the funding that we need?
Mr. Lacefield. NASA has been very good at telling us what
the levels are to assume and we have planned the program to
those levels. But I would like to emphasize that with our
workforce, and our workforce is our most important asset, and
maintaining those critical skills across the program we believe
is really important, the funding stability is extremely
important to us because that is the way that we have to look at
the program as we go through the different phases and we go
from engineering phase to development phase to a test phase. It
allows us to bring those people across those interfaces so they
are available for the EM-1 and EM-2 missions. So having that
stability allows us to keep that professional workforce, which
is vital to these high-performance programs.
Mr. Clarke. Thank you.
Mr. Chilton. I would like to add that there is a bit of an
unseen element in addition to cost, schedule and skills. We
have had great luck attracting talent fresh out of college. A
lot of young people have joined these programs. They see it as
a very attractive place to go. I have experience on other
programs where we started and didn't finish and had to stop. We
don't get those young people back. They begin to see this
industry as unattractive or unstable. They have a strong desire
to start something and finish it, take something to flight. So
I would argue our STEM attraction, it is important to keep
stable and make progress.
Mr. Clarke. Mr. Chilton, that is an interesting dimension
to this funding issue. How important is it to actually get our
young college graduates into the space programs?
Mr. Chilton. In my----
Mr. Clarke. Or do you have enough people right now in place
at NASA with to be able to--and with your company and other
contractors.
Mr. Chilton. I will speak for Boeing. The Space Launch
System currently is a great attractor of students out of
college and a high proportion of our program is composed of
them. If you just look at a talent pipeline over a couple of
decades, you have to fill the entry level and you have to put
them on our programs or you don't have the ability to touch
stuff with senior people later. So I would argue keeping this
stable and continuing to attract those young people is
important for all of us.
Mr. Clarke. And probably these programs too, I mean, it is
a great incentive to encourage our college students to actually
go into science and to get their advanced degrees to be able to
do the work that is needed here to advance SLS and Orion. Thank
you.
Yes, Mr. Lacefield?
Mr. Lacefield. Just as Mr. Chilton talked about Boeing, a
third of our team, I would classify as under 30 and right out
of school, and these kids are highly motivated and they have a
technology level, especially when we talk about advanced
computing, advanced avionics, that is really vital, I think, to
not only NASA but also to the Department of Defense. So we see
a lot of these technologies that these kids are involved with
as playing forward to other vital programs in the United
States.
Mr. Clarke. Thank you, and I yield my time.
Chairman Palazzo. I now recognize the gentleman from
Alabama, Mr. Brooks.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
According to our Committee notes for this hearing, Orion is
much further along in development than SLS because the
Administration's decision to cancel Constellation was more
disruptive to the launch vehicle development than to Orion's,
and so I imagine that there is some plus then from the billions
of taxpayer dollars that were sent on Constellation and that we
at least have something to show for it, the progress that was
made on the Orion capsule. On the other hand, though, we have
much less to show for the billions of dollars that we spent on
the Constellation launch platform. That having been said, Mr.
Dumbacher, what assurances can you give America that this White
House, this Administration won't unilaterally undermine or
cancel the Space Launch System as it pretty much did with
Constellation at a cost to taxpayers of again some billions of
dollars?
Mr. Dumbacher. Well, Congressman, I think the fiscal year
budget request from the President demonstrates the stable
funding and the intention to continue on and the desire to make
SLS and Orion productive. I think that President's budget
request is the plan that we have developed. It is what we are
working to, and that--the support is there to go make that
happen.
I will also add that we are taking more advantage than just
Orion from the Constellation program, particularly in our solid
rocket boosters that we are using on the first two flights. The
five segment boosters do have shuttle heritage but they are
coming out of the Ares development, and that development made
great strides and we are taking advantage of that as part of
the Space Launch System to move that forward, and that is an
element of our success with the development motor that we
completed firing on that a year ago and next May we will be
doing our first qualification motor firing.
Mr. Brooks. Well, the assurances that you have given me
sound a lot like the assurances that were given to the
Constellation program prior to its cancellation. Is there
anything else that you can add that would make us in Congress
or the American people feel more comfortable that we will not
continue along this path spending billions of taxpayers'
dollars on the development of the Space Launch System only to
have once again the White House pull the rug out from
underneath us?
Mr. Dumbacher. I think, Mr. Congressman, as I have
mentioned, the President's budget request demonstrates that
commitment to continue on. The team that we have across the
country at the various NASA centers, our industry partners, as
well as the leadership of the agency has demonstrated its
commitment and we are continuing to move forward with all due
haste in order to meet our 2017 flight date, and that is our
target.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you.
Mr. Lacefield and Mr. Chilton, how have continuing
resolutions as a funding mechanism for NASA impacted the
private sector's ability to do what needs to be done to advance
Orion and the Space Launch System? Has there been any adverse
effect at all? Is it something that the private sector is
comfortable with? As you know, we are about to face another
continuing resolution for some number of months into this
fiscal year. Can you help educate me on whether there is any
impact on the private sector by continuing resolutions, and if
so, please describe it?
Mr. Lacefield. Mr. Congressman, I will try to give our
viewpoint on that. Continuing resolutions are an impact but
this is one where over the last several years NASA has been
very good at telling us what to plan to or what to anticipate
to plan to. So we have really done a lot of planning to make
sure that we can meet those numbers, and we have worked options
so that if we have contingencies that arrive that we can work
around those. They are hard constraints when you are working a
development program because at this point in the development
program of course there is a lot of hardware in the loop that
you are trying to make sure that you can purchase and develop
and test, but that is part of the planning, you know, that we
have gone through.
I think what we have seen with the stress in the system has
really allowed the team to go at this from a different point of
view, from an affordability point of view. I know there has
been a lot of discussion about the government programs versus
the commercial programs. We have brought in a great deal----
Mr. Brooks. Mr. Lacefield, if you don't mind, I am going to
interject. My question was limited just to the impact of
continuing resolutions.
Mr. Lacefield. Okay.
Mr. Brooks. Are you saying there is no harm or there is
harm?
Mr. Lacefield. It is very difficult but it is something
that we plan around.
Mr. Brooks. Mr. Chilton, please.
Mr. Chilton. In general, we would always rather be
executing our programs than replanning them. Any continuing
resolution can push you into a replan situation. Mr. Dumbacher
testified that NASA has protected us from that for the first
six months of government fiscal 2013 by planning for 50 percent
of 2012.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, gentlemen.
Chairman Palazzo. I now recognized the Ranking Member of
the full Committee, Ms. Johnson from Texas.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I would
like to ask unanimous consent to place my opening statement
into the record and simply apologize for having two conflicting
very important committee hearings.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson

Good morning, and welcome to our witnesses. I look forward to your
testimony.
Mr. Chairman, I will be brief in my remarks. Today's hearing is
important for a number of reasons. In a season that seems to be
consumed by partisan rhetoric and campaign slogans, I am glad that
Members will instead have a chance this morning to focus on the serious
work being done by a dedicated NASA and industry team to bring the
future of our nation's human space exploration program into being.
As you know, successive Congresses and Administrations have said
that it is time to again move humanity beyond low Earth orbit and
continue the voyages of exploration begun by Neil Armstrong and his
fellow astronauts. And we will pay tribute tomorrow at the National
Cathedral to Mr. Armstrong, a man who spoke eloquently about the
importance of a national program of human exploration when he testified
before our Committee.
Yet, as I have said before, I think the most fitting tribute we can
give to Mr. Armstrong's memory is not a eulogy, but instead a real
commitment to the spirit of exploration that he embodied. And that's
one oflhe reasons today's hearing is so important.
It is easy for us to talk of returning to the Moon or going to an
asteroid, or visiting Mars long after most of us will be gone from our
positions in Congress and the White House. It is another thing for us
to actually sustain the needed investments and provide the programmatic
stability that will help turn those words into reality. Yet if we fail
to do so, the consequences of our failure will be long lasting.
Based on the testimony we will hear today, it is clear that NASA
and its contractor team have made significant progress under very
challenging conditions. They are turning designs and concepts into
hardware and software and are moving forward towards flight tests in
spite of funding that has been significantly less than authorized.
However, they can't do it alone. We--Congress and the White House--
can set them up for failure if we disrupt their funding and
programmatic plans in the name of short-term cost savings or if we
allow the funding that Congress provides for these programs to be
reallocated or otherwise restricted within NASA during the upcoming
Continuing Resolution. We will need to guard against both dangers in
the coming months.
Finally, while I am pleased that the Space Launch System and the
Orion crew capsule appear to be progressing well given the level of
funding that has been available to them, we also need NASA to layout
the plans for the use of these vehicles. SLS and Orion are simply the
means to achieving the ends we are seeking in our human exploration
program, and not ends in themselves. As NASA continues work on the
development of these vehicles, it is not too soon for NASA to start
clearly defining the steps it plans to take to achieve the broad
exploration goals laid out by Congress in successive NASA Authorization
Acts.
That, however, is the topic for a future hearing. Today we will
hear about the status of the SLS and Orion vehicles that will make
those exploration missions possible. My thanks again to our witnesses
for their participation in this morning's hearing, and I yield back the
balance of my time.

Ms. Johnson. My question is to Mr. Lacefield and Mr.
Chilton. NASA has set a schedule of 2014 and 2017 for unmanned
test flights with 2021 as the first manned test flights of the
integrated Orion and SLS system. What of your funding levels
will be required to achieve this schedule, and given the
current funding constraints, what parts of the test plan are
most at risk and what are the implications? What would be the
implications of any funding reductions?
Mr. Lacefield. I think from the Orion point of view, we
have planned the program through the scope to accomplish the
2014 mission and the 2017 mission at the marks that NASA has
received so that we see those as high confidence level tests
that we can get to. I think the thing that we worry about the
most is trying to do the human spaceflight earlier than the
2021 and that is where we have probably spent the most time
looking at options to bring that forward, but at the current
time we are not able to bring that forward with the funding
marks that we have today.
Mr. Chilton. From a test perspective, it is very important
that we get our government facilities ready to run tests. That
includes test stands at the Stennis Space Center. The core
stage of the SLS, the first flight stage will actually go to
Stennis and undergo what we call a proto flight test. We will
put her on the stand, learn about the tanking, run
instrumentation and firing sequences that get us ready to fly.
If we have budget disruptions that make it so those government
facilities aren't ready, going back to Congressman Brooks'
question, if under a CR, if our colleagues at the agency can't
have those ready, that will certainly be a schedule challenge,
so that funding is important.
And I would also agree with Mr. Lacefield. We think our
production systems and our supply chains and our people will be
ready to produce the Space Launch System and Orion more than
one in 2017 and more in 2021 and we will just let funding
dictate whether we get to do that or not.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you.
Mr. Dumbacher, do you care to comment?
Mr. Dumbacher. I think our available funding is--the 2014,
2017 and 2021 dates are all within our available funding and
the plan that we have, we are working to mitigate the risks
associated with that but we believe we can execute the plan to
those dates. The testing is very important. Twenty fourteen,
the exploration flight test is critical for our Orion flight
test, particularly because it addresses 12 of our 16 top risks
for that spacecraft, as well as an opportunity to test out our
recovery systems for recovering the crew module from the ocean
once we land, and it is also critical from an SLS perspective
in that we get the payload to launch vehicle adapter designed,
developed and built and we will use that same adapter for the
2017 and 2021 flights. So our integrated test plan is very
important. We have laid it out very carefully to make sure we
address our high-risk items and to work that within the budget
and we believe we have the answer and the plan that we need to
execute.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you. My time is about to expire.
Chairman Palazzo. I now recognize Mr. Rohrabacher from
California.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am trying to figure out exactly how much money we are
talking about here, and we keep getting answers dealing with
the percentage of this and the percentage of that. What exactly
is the budget amount that you are seeking to have appropriated
for fiscal year 2013 for Orion/SLS?
Mr. Dumbacher. The President's budget request as I recall,
and we can take it for the record to go back and get the exact
numbers, but we are in the ballpark of about $1 billion
annually for Orion and $1.3 billion for SLS per the President's
budget request. Now, we can go back and get the exact numbers
but that is working off the top of my head, Congressman.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. To be fair about it, I would
think that someone would know exactly how much money they are
requesting when they come to a hearing to talk about those
projects. So roughly $2-1/2 billion is what we are talking
about for Orion/SLS. And did we just hear that there is going
to be no test with people on Orion until 2021?
Mr. Dumbacher. Our first crewed flight is 2021, and that
plan is based on the available funding level that we have
today.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And that $2.3 billion that we are doing
today, do you expect that level of spending to continue or to
go up according to your plan?
Mr. Dumbacher. Our plan is laid out with--the President's
budget request is laid out with constant year funding across
the budget horizon, and that is what our plan has been built
upon, and one item I would like to identify is that in addition
to the SLS and Orion funding is also the funding that is
necessary for the ground systems program at KSC in order to
have the launch infrastructure ready to support both Orion and
SLS.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Is that included in the $2.3 billion
figure you just----
Mr. Dumbacher. Now, that is an additional $400 million
plus.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So now we are talking more like----
Mr. Dumbacher. We are talking----
Mr. Rohrabacher. --$2.7 billion, about?
Mr. Dumbacher. In that--yes, and we will take it for the
record to go back and get the precise numbers.
Mr. Rohrabacher. That is a lot of money. We would hope
that--you know, when we are dealing with these big projects, we
are dealing with big money, and if something goes wrong, we end
up losing big money, and we have seen a lot of examples of that
in the past.
I am wondering if there is other ways to go about this. Let
me ask, is it Mr. Lacefield? Did I pronounce the name? Now, the
SLS is not scheduled to be ready but Orion will be ready
before. Is that correct?
Mr. Lacefield. What we have done is, we have a test flight
or a flight test of Orion early to----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Mr. Lacefield. --prove that we can----
Mr. Rohrabacher. And that is going to go up on a Delta IV?
Mr. Lacefield. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yeah. What is the cost of a Delta IV
flight?
Mr. Lacefield. It is in the ballpark of $300 million.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. And a test flight--and when we get
the SLS done, what will be the cost of that flight, a flight on
the SLS, beside all of the expenses of developing this $35
billion development cost? Who can answer that?
Mr. Dumbacher. Well, I will take that one, Mr. Congressman.
We are still working that number up. It will be a higher number
than the Delta IV heavy cost that Mr. Lacefield mentioned.
Mr. Rohrabacher. It is going to be higher and we have all
the development costs. What can we do? Are there other missions
that we can do with the Orion on top of a Delta IV? Mr.
Lacefield?
Mr. Lacefield. When we look at the exploration missions and
we start looking at the nearest mission that we are talking
about doing is in the Cis-Lunar or the lunar environment. It
takes the SLS for us to do that mission. So EM-1 and EM-2,
which will fly to 300,000 miles out there, it takes an SLS to
boost us there.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So Delta IV's would not permit the Orion
capsule from doing these lunar missions. Are there other
missions that Orion might be able to do on Delta IV's?
Mr. Chilton. May I address that? We seem to be talking
about a big rocket versus a small rocket. Meaningful beyond-
Earth-orbit exploration requires a heavy-lift rocket. It has
been studied by the agency, many others, most recently and
famously by the Augustine Commission. Both Augustine panels
said a heavy-lift rocket is required to do beyond-Earth-orbit
exploration. He confirmed that again, in fact, in an interview
with Space News in April.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right, for manned flight. You can do a lot
of things with the Delta IV but unmanned.
Mr. Chilton. So the driver is the size for human-rated
elements and the velocity to escape Earth's gravity.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, we are going to be watching, and we
wish you luck. We want you to succeed, and we have just been
through a number of these in the past where we end up having
budget problems on this end and then we end up losing billions
of dollars. So, I hope that you are successful, and we are on
your side. Thank you very much.
Chairman Palazzo. We are going to be going into a second
round of questioning, and I will lead it off for five minutes.
Dr. Mountain, what is more important to the people
designing trajectories for science missions, an emphasis on the
amount of mass that can be carried to low-Earth orbit or an
emphasis on the amount of mass that can be delivered to escape
velocity for beyond-Earth orbit? Is the SLS being designed to
optimize beyond-Earth-orbit missions?
Dr. Mountain. It depends entirely on the science you want
to do. There are several methods. If you are trying to get to
interplanetary science, you care about going out of the Earth's
gravity well and getting into interplanetary space, and that is
where you need the acceleration and the energy to take these
missions out. When you are looking at building very large
telescopes, the kind of telescopes that can perhaps detect
life, what you care about there is volume and mass to get
something out of the Earth's atmosphere and into orbit where
you could either assemble it or have a big enough telescope
that you could then send out to a Lagrange point too. And so it
really depends on the science. Where we are right now are
limited in both those areas by our current launch technologies.
We don't really have the energy or the acceleration to go
directly to places like Europa and we don't have the volume or
the lift capacity to launch bigger telescopes than the James
Webb Space Telescope.
Chairman Palazzo. Your statement noted that even if the SLS
was primarily a vehicle for human exploration, as long as it
was available for the science missions and wasn't excessively
costly for the science mission providing the payload that it
could serve to unify and integrate NASA to be greater than the
sum of its parts. The synergy between the shuttle and the
Hubble Space Telescope are a good example. With the retirement
of the shuttle, in your view, has NASA lost some of the synergy
between human spaceflight and the science community?
Dr. Mountain. Certainly, when you come to look at missions
like the Hubble Space Telescope, there is no way back to the
Hubble, for example, or no way back to contemplate missions
like a future Hubble or a future large telescope. We have gone
down another path where we are going to send out specialized
missions that can't be serviced or upgraded or repaired, and
one has to examine the model, whether that is a smart model for
future, even more ambitious missions. I think the power of
being able to actually reconnect the human spaceflight program
and science is demonstrated by the tremendous success of the
Hubble or our ability to test things initially on Space Station
that would then allow us to try new technologies into deeper
space. I think there is a huge opportunity to actually connect
some of the technologies in the human spaceflight with the
ambitions of the science program, and development of new
technologies always goes hand and hand with exploration and
science.
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you.
Mr. Lacefield, what is the significance of the friction
stir welding technique that you referenced in your statement
with respect to the manufacturing of the Orion crew module, and
what role was played by the team at Michoud Assembly Facility
in the application of that technique?
Mr. Lacefield. Well, the welding teams that both Boeing and
Lockheed Martin have are located at the Michoud facility. It is
state-of-the-art. It allows us to not have joints on the
vehicle. It is a huge mass savings for Orion and I think it is
a huge mass savings for Boeing also on SLS. It is something
that does play forward into other programs, into other
industries, and it is a significant accomplishment, I think,
for the program.
We were able to build the first article without any
problems that we had to go back and grind out in the welds--
they just came out pristine. So it is one of the best welding
processes that we have seen for spacecraft.
Mr. Chilton. I would add, it is significant from a safety
perspective. You have very few defects with a friction stir
weld because there is no heat, and that makes it economically
more efficient, you get more schedule certain, but also the
type of flaw you could get is going to be an order of magnitude
bigger than the standard industrial detection capability so we
are not going to have much chance of ever having a problem we
don't find, so I believe it is a safer method as well.
Chairman Palazzo. Mr. Dumbacher, in response to a previous
question, you said that NASA was planning to the President's
request. Could you elaborate? Was your response in the context
of SLS and Orion or is NASA using the budget request as
guidance for all programs, projects and activities?
Mr. Dumbacher. Well, I can only speak to the exploration
systems development area, which is SLS, Orion and the ground
systems, and we are planning to the President's budget request
as it has been submitted. I would like to emphasize that one of
the advantages we have going for us is that the development
risk associated with the configurations we have chosen, we
purposely chose the configuration as well as set the dates for
the flights were set up consistent with that President's budget
request, and that is what you have before you.
Chairman Palazzo. And does that include commercial crew
planning?
Mr. Dumbacher. No, the commercial crew is outside of my
jurisdiction. That is a separate office within the Human
Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, and that is
outside of the SLS and Orion budgets.
Chairman Palazzo. I now recognize Mr. Clarke.
Mr. Clarke. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have several questions of different aspects of these
projects, but just to go back to the progress that all of you
have indicated that we have made on the architecture of both
Orion and SLS in the last year, in spite of that progress, what
are the key challenges in maintaining that progress and what is
needed to address those challenges? Any of you, in your
opinion?
Mr. Dumbacher. I think the major challenges, we have talked
about one earlier, which is the budget stability and being able
to plan the program out from an integrated fashion in order to
arrive at the 2017 and 2021 flight dates. As is usual with this
kind of work, we have technical challenges ahead of us but they
have been minimized by the choices we have made in terms of the
configuration for the launch vehicle and we are also starting
to see--and Mr. Lacefield and Mr. Chilton can elaborate--we are
also starting to see the typical first unit kind of problems
that you have as you work through hardware with the suppliers
and making sure that they are able to supply the right hardware
on the right dates in order to support the flight dates. Now,
we have planned margin into the schedules and other things in
order to be able to adjust for much of that but that is the
typical program planning, program execution challenges that we
see from an integrated level. I will leave the rest, the
further details to Mr. Lacefield and Mr. Chilton.
Mr. Lacefield. I totally agree with what Mr. Dumbacher
said. I think that the one thing I would like to bring up is
that I think our supply chain in the United States is very
fragile. When we look at the triple-E parts needed, you know,
for avionics, all the electronic components for electronics, in
the environments that we see, which is a radiation environment
in deep space, those components are very hard to find in the
United States right now, and just our program with Honeywell,
Lockheed Martin and Hamilton Sundstrand buying those
components, we are seeing lead times that we have never seen
before. So I would say that the supply chain is the area that
we really have to focus on. We really have to focus on the long
lead times of these components, and the robustness of that
supply chain isn't what it was, you know, ten years ago.
Mr. Clarke. Just to follow up on that, Mr. Lacefield,
because that is very disturbing, so number one, you have got
long lead times because the components are hard to find, and
then secondly, you see a fragility overall in our supply chain.
Can you address that?
Mr. Lacefield. So we have outsourced our composites because
we have a great deal of lightweight composites on the vehicle.
Approximately, I think, 40 percent of the vehicle is
composites. We have outsourced those composites across the
country so that we would be able to meet the schedules of the
2014 flight. We have outsourced across all of the electrical
components to get the parts that we need by the time we need to
do the vehicle checkout on the pad next March, the electrical
checkout, and we are waiting on those parts to enable us to do
the vehicle checkout on the pad in Florida. That is what we are
waiting on. We have outsourced all of the mechanical components
across the country also. With our program, we are using up a
great deal of the capacity that is required in spacecraft so
that the lead times that we are seeing, you know, we are in
line with other DOD programs and it is just something we
haven't seen here recently, and I think it is something that we
should all be aware of, what is happening with the supply chain
in the United States on American suppliers.
Mr. Clarke. I know this is likely off topic from the focus
of our hearing, but if you have any thoughts on what we could
do to actually shorten those lead times and strengthen our
supply chain, because it is very disturbing. It has enormous
impact on other industries as well. If anyone has any other
comment on that, on the supply chain, what we can do to
strengthen it and shorten the lead times on those components?
Mr. Lacefield. Well, I think when we talked about the
funding stability and the stability in high-tech programs as
they exist today supporting DOD and NASA, I think we need to
see some stability there for those suppliers to make it, and
because they aren't seeing that stability, they are all
retrenching, you know, with their capability and capacities.
Mr. Clarke. I got you. That is important.
I yield back my time. Thank you.
Chairman Palazzo. I now recognize Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Just sitting here listening with a thousand thoughts going
through my mind, I am fully aware that we are facing lots of
constraints and I fully acknowledge that we have some real
concerns about how we are going to able to fund. I hope we can
stay online. But I am also aware that until we out-innovate,
and we only can innovate through research, our economy is
really not going to get much better, and so I am hoping that
you will keep the pressure on us--sometimes we get a little
lightheaded here--to stay on track because when you just
reflect, we are aware that where we are today basically came
from this type of research and where we are going to be
tomorrow, it will come from this research. It will either be
done here in partnership or it will be done somewhere else. If
it is not done by the United States or not a major part, we
will be watching it as spectators.
And so I would just simply say to keep the pressure up,
keep young people intrigued so that we can continue to educate
the manpower we need. We simply cannot afford to do without
this research. Thank you.
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you.
I thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the
Members for their questions. The Members of the Subcommittee
may have additional questions for the witnesses, and we will
ask you to respond to those in writing. The record will remain
open for two weeks for additional comments and statements from
the Members.
The witnesses are excused and this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:24 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Appendix I

----------

Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Responses by Mr. Dan Dumbacher

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.036

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.037

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.038

Responses by Mr. Cleon Lacefield

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.040

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.041

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.042

Responses by Mr. Jim Chilton

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.043

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.044

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.045

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.046

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.047

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.048

Responses by Dr. Matt Mountain

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.049

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.050

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.051

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.052

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.053

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.054

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6236.055