[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AN OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS
AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
April 24, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-23
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RALPH M. HALL, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
Wisconsin DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia DAN MAFFEI, New York
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SCOTT PETERS, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana DEREK KILMER, Washington
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming MARC VEASEY, Texas
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona JULIA BROWNLEY, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARK TAKANO, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota ROBIN KELLY, Illinois
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
RANDY WEBER, Texas
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Space
HON. STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi, Chair
RALPH M. HALL, Texas DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
DANA ROHRABACHER, California SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DAN MAFFEI, New York
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
MO BROOKS, Alabama DEREK KILMER, Washington
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana AMI BERA, California
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas MARC VEASEY, Texas
BILL POSEY, Florida JULIA BROWNLEY, California
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
April 24, 2013
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Steven M. Palazzo, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 17
Written Statement............................................ 19
Statement by Representative Donna Edwards, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 19
Written Statement............................................ 21
Statement by Representative Lamar Smith, Chairman, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 22
Written Statement............................................ 23
Witnesses:
The Honorable Charles F. Bolden, Jr., Administrator, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Oral Statement............................................... 24
Written Statement............................................ 26
Discussion....................................................... 36
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
The Honorable Charles F. Bolden, Jr., Administrator, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).................... 56
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Submitted statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 126
Submitted letter by the Planetary Society........................ 127
AN OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Space
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steven
Palazzo [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.015
Chairman Palazzo. Well, good afternoon. Welcome to today's
hearing titled An Overview of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration Budget for Fiscal Year 2014.
In front of you are packets containing the written
testimony, biographies and required Truth in Testimony
disclosures for today's witness. I recognize myself for five
minutes for an opening statement.
Good afternoon. I would like to welcome everyone to our
hearing today, and I especially want to thank our witness, NASA
Administrator Charlie Bolden, for joining us. I know many
people put in a lot of effort preparing for these hearings, and
we appreciate you taking time from your busy schedule to appear
before the Subcommittee.
The purpose of today's hearing is to review the
Administration's Fiscal Year 2014 budget request for the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration and to examine
its priorities and challenges.
Before we review the details of the NASA request, I feel it
is necessary to express my disappointment that the
Administration has been unable to fulfill its responsibilities
for a timely budget as required under the Budget and Accounting
Act. In the future, I hope the Administration will be on time.
This year NASA is requesting $17.7 billion, a decrease of
$55 million from Fiscal Year 2012 and $733 million less than
Fiscal Year 2011. In a time of budgetary restraints such as the
one our Nation is facing, we must ensure that every agency is
doing its part, and I believe the top line request for NASA is
fair in this regard.
There are several areas of the request that I believe
require serious deliberation and thoughtful debate. Within the
Human Operations and Exploration Mission Directorate, I am most
concerned with the requests for the Commercial Crew Program,
the Space Launch System and the Orion crew capsule. Certainly
the successful launches of both SpaceX and Orbital Sciences are
significant milestones, and they should be applauded for those
achievements. However, I continue to be concerned about the
strategy NASA is employing to fund crew transportation systems.
We must recognize the times in which we are operating. If
funding multiple companies to develop these systems is no
longer feasible, we must reevaluate our strategy. Our first
priority must be getting American astronauts launching on
American rockets from American soil as soon as safely possible.
I am skeptical about continuing to develop a market as broad
and as deep as NASA suggests because I think it could delay
that goal. This is a conversation I anticipate revisiting as
the Committee prepares for the NASA reauthorization later this
year.
Additionally, I am concerned about the requests for the
Space Launch System and the Orion crew capsule. While Congress
continues to insist that these two programs be priorities, NASA
has once again offered a budget that does not demonstrate the
sustained commitment to their development. I remain committed
to ensuring our Nation has a robust exploration program, and I
am curious what milestones or important testing NASA believes
can be pushed out in the schedule to accommodate the lower
request.
I am also troubled by NASA's requested reductions in the
Science, Aeronautics, and Human Exploration and Operations
Mission Directorates, while asking for $105 million for an
Asteroid Retrieval Mission that was announced seemingly out of
the blue. This request was not accompanied by a budget profile,
technical plan or long-term strategy. Yet NASA has asked
Congress to commit to funding the first steps. I look forward
to hearing more about this mission and how NASA intends to
cover the $2.6 billion that the Keck Institute for Space
Studies estimated it would cost.
In the Science Mission Directorate, the Administration has
requested authority to transfer several climate sensors from
the troubled Joint Polar Satellite System and the Deep Space
Climate Observatory out of the NOAA budget and assign them to
the Earth Science program budget. The budget request also
transfers Landsat Data Continuity Mission follow-on activities
from the U.S. Geological Survey to NASA and the development
infrastructure for Radioisotope Power Systems from the
Department of Energy to NASA. So I am worried that NASA is
footing the bill for other agency requirements, all while being
asked to take an overall budget cut.
Finally, I am concerned by the growth of the Space
Technology program. The request for the Space Technology
program this year is a 62 percent increase over the
appropriation it received in Fiscal Year 2012. This is a
significant amount of growth in only two years. Although NASA
has announced that it will organize Space Technology as a
mission directorate, it has not requested authority to do so in
the upcoming authorization bill and it is not entirely clear
how the projects in Space Technology differ from those in the
other mission directorates.
Mr. Administrator, like you, I am committed to ensuring
that our Nation has a robust space program that will continue
to lead the world for generations. I am concerned, however,
that NASA has neglected Congressional funding priorities and
been distracted by new and questionable missions that detract
from our ultimate deep space exploration goals. These
distractions also take up precious lines in the budget at a
time when NASA can least afford it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Palazzo follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Space Chairman Steven Palazzo
Good afternoon. I would like to welcome everyone to our hearing
today and I especially want to thank our witness, NASA Administrator
Charlie Bolden, for joining us. I know many people put in a lot of
effort preparing for these hearings, and we appreciate you taking time
from your busy schedule to appear before the Subcommittee.
The purpose of today's hearing is to review the Administration's
fiscal year 2014 budget request for the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration and to examine its priorities and challenges.
Before we review the details of the NASA request, I feel it is
necessary to express my disappointment that the Administration has been
unable to fulfill its responsibilities for a timely budget as required
under the Budget and Accounting Act. In the future, I hope the
Administration will be on time.This year NASA is requesting $17.7
billion, a decrease of $55 million from fiscal year 2012 and $733
million less than fiscal year 2011. In a time of budgetary restraints
such as the one our nation is facing, we must ensure that every agency
is doing its part, and I believe the topline request for NASA is fair
in this regard.
There are several areas of the request that I believe require
serious deliberation and thoughtful debate. Within the Human Operations
and Exploration Mission Directorate I am most concerned with the
requests for the Commercial Crew Program, the Space Launch System and
the Orion crew capsule. Certainly the successful launches of both
SpaceX and Orbital Sciences are significant milestones and they should
be applauded for those achievements, however, I continue to be
concerned about the strategy NASA is employing to fund crew
transportation systems.
We must recognize the times in which we are operating, if funding
multiple companies to develop these systems is no longer feasible, we
must reevaluate our strategy. Our first priority must be getting
American astronauts launching on American rockets from American soil as
soon as is safely possible. I am skeptical about continuing to develop
a market as broad and as deep as NASA suggests because I think it could
delay that goal. This is a conversation I anticipate revisiting as the
Committee prepares for the NASA reauthorization later this year.
Additionally, I am concerned about the requests for the Space
Launch System and the Orion crew capsule. While Congress continues to
insist that these two programs be priorities, NASA has once again
offered a budget that does not demonstrate a sustained commitment to
their development. I remain committed to ensuring our nation has a
robust exploration program and I am curious what milestones or
important testing NASA believes can be pushed out in the schedule to
accommodate the lower request.
I am also troubled by NASA's requested reductions in the Science,
Aeronautics, and Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorates,
while asking for $105 million for an asteroid retrieval mission that
was announced seemingly out of the blue. This request was not
accompanied by a budget profile, technical plan, or long-term strategy.
Yet NASA has asked Congress to commit to funding the first steps. I
look forward to hearing more about this mission and how NASA intends to
cover the $2.6 billion that the Keck Institute for Space Studies
estimated it would cost.
In the Science Mission Directorate, the Administration has
requested authority to transfer several climate sensors from the
troubled Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) and the Deep Space Climate
Observatory (DSCOVR) out of the NOAA budget and assign them to the
Earth Science program budget. The budget request also transfers Landsat
Data Continuity Mission follow-on activities from the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) to NASA, and the development infrastructure for
Radioisotope Power Systems from the Department of Energy (DOE) to NASA.
I am worried that NASA is footing the bill for other agency
requirements; all while being asked to take an overall budget cut.
Finally, I am concerned by the growth of the Space Technology
program. The request for the Space Technology program this year is a
62% increase over the appropriation it received in fiscal year 2012.
This is a significant amount of growth in only two years. Although NASA
has announced that it will organize Space Technology as a mission
directorate, it has not requested authority to do so in the upcoming
authorization bill and it is not entirely clear how the projects in
Space Technology differ from those in the other mission directorates.
Mr. Administrator, like you, I am committed to ensuring that our
nation has a robust space program that will continue to lead the world
for generations. I am concerned however that NASA has neglected
Congressional funding priorities and been distracted by new and
questionable missions that detract from our ultimate deep space
exploration goals. These distractions also take up precious lines in
the budget at a time when NASA can least afford it.
Chairman Palazzo. I now recognize the Ranking Member, the
gentlelady from Maryland, Ms. Edwards, for an opening
statement.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon
and welcome to Administrator Bolden. Before I begin, I want to
offer my congratulations to NASA and to Orbital on the test
flight of the Antares launcher on Sunday. The successful test
flight speaks well of the teamwork among Orbital, NASA and the
Wallops Flight Facility and the FAA including the Mid-Atlantic
Regional Spaceport in the Virginia Commercial Space Flight
Authority. So congratulations.
Now today we are meeting to review the $17.7 billion
request for NASA's Fiscal Year 2014 budget, and I know, General
Bolden, that it has not been easy getting to this point. With
sequestration and the late resolution of the fiscal 2013
budget, we in Congress have not provided you with the optimal
conditions under which to plan and implement NASA's inspiring
portfolio of missions, but here we are.
Now I have said before and I will say it again that our
investments in research and development, including space, are
investments in innovation, jobs and future economic growth. If
we skimp on the input side of the equation, we can't expect
positive changes in our Nation's capacity for innovation and
growth. That is why we need to take a careful look at how the
resources requested match the program content included in the
Fiscal Year 2014 budget request.
At the Full Committee hearing just last week on the Fiscal
Year 2014 budget request for science agencies, the President's
science advisor, Dr. Holdren, testified, and I quote, ``NASA
has long had the problem of 20 pounds of mission in a 10-pound
budget and they continue to.'' I share that concern. This
proposal includes requests for NASA's key priorities, the James
Webb Space Telescope, the International Space Station and the
Space Launch System and Orion Crew Vehicle, along with its
science and aeronautics programs and its infrastructure
support.
I worry that for all the work that NASA is tasked with
doing to move forward toward fulfilling the 2010 NASA
Reauthorization Act that the agency is also cherry-picking
aspects of that strategic plan that it finds favorable while
undercutting other priorities in the law. For example, the 2014
budget request includes $105 million as a down payment to fund
initial concept work on a mission that would demonstrate solar
electric propulsion technology that is needed to capture a
small asteroid, move it into trans-lunar region and then
potentially use that asteroid as a target destination for the
first crewed flight of the SLS and Orion system. In addition,
the request includes $820 million a year over the next several
years to fund the development of Commercial Crew capability for
transporting astronauts to and from the ISS, a significant
increase from the $400 million and $500 million range that
Congress has been willing to authorize and appropriate for
those activities in the last three fiscal years. My fear is
that I have already gotten to the 20 pounds of program content
that Dr. Holdren was talking about in NASA's $17.7 billion
request. And that doesn't include the unfunded new
responsibilities for developing climate sensors that NASA's
Earth Science program has inherited from NOAA, the $50 million
increase required for full reimbursement now to the Department
of Energy for resuming the domestic production of material that
is needed to power deep space missions, or the 29 percent
increase over Fiscal Year 2012 actual spending levels that is
being sought for NASA's Space Technology program.
To NASA's credit, the agency has been making progress in
managing schedule and cost on its activities. The Government
Accountability Office just recently issued a report that stated
that NASA had success in the last two years in launching
missions on cost or on schedule. I commend the agency and the
contractor workforce on this progress, and yet the GAO also
says that sustaining the changes that have led to these
successes will be challenging within a period of flat or
decreasing budgets and with the ongoing work on several large-
scale and complex projects. Should any of the JWST, ISS or SLS/
Orion programs experience a hiccup, the financial impact could
have, and this is quoting GAO, ``cascading effects on the rest
of the portfolio.'' Indeed, GAO's word of caution gives me
pause since I don't see a lot of flexibility within the 2014
request for dealing with that situation. I hope today's
discussion can clarify the rationale for the proposed asteroid
and capture retrieval initiative proposed in the 2014 budget
and particularly how it contributes to detecting and
characterizing 90 percent of near-Earth asteroids 140 meters in
diameter or less--we have heard testimony in this Committee
about that--as set in policy and successive authorization acts.
In these tight budgetary times, we need to be sure the
proposed approach will be the most efficient means of achieving
those objectives. So I look forward, Administrator Bolden, to
what I hope will be a beginning of an active dialogue on both
the policy and resources required to support NASA and in
effectively implementing its challenging and inspiring
portfolio. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield, well, not
the balance of my time, but I do yield.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Edwards follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ranking Minority Member Donna Edwards
Good afternoon and welcome, General Bolden. Before I start, I'd
like to offer my congratulations to NASA and Orbital on the test flight
of the Antares launcher on Sunday. The successful test flight speaks
well of the teamwork among Orbital, NASA, the Wallops Flight Facility,
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Mid-Atlantic Regional
Spaceport, and the Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority.
Today, we're meeting to review the $17.7 billion request for NASA's
Fiscal Year 2014 budget.
I know, General Bolden, that it has not been easy getting to this
point. With sequestration and the late resolution of the Fiscal Year
2013 budget, we in Congress have not provided you with the optimal
conditions under which to plan and implement NASA's inspiring portfolio
of missions.
I have said before and will say again that our investments in
research and development, including space, are investments in
innovation, jobs, and future economic growth. If we skimp on the inputs
side of the equation, we can't expect positive changes to our nation's
capacity for innovation and growth.
That is why we need to take a careful look at how the resources
requested match the program content included in the FY 2014 budget
request.
At the Full Committee hearing last week on the Fiscal Year 2014
budget request for Science Agencies, the President's Science Adviser,
Dr. Holdren, testified that "NASA has long had the problem of 20 lbs.
of missions in a 10 lb. budget, and they continue to." I share that
concern.This proposal includes requests for NASA's key priorities--the
James Webb Space Telescope, the International Space Station (ISS), and
the Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion crew vehicle--along with its
Science and Aeronautics programs, and its infrastructure support.
I worry that for all the work NASA is doing to move towards
fulfilling the 2010 NASA Authorization Act, that the Agency is also
cherry picking aspects of that strategic plan that it finds favorable
while undercutting other priority areas in the law.
For instance, the FY 2014 budget request includes a $105 million
down payment to fund initial concept work on a mission that would
demonstrate solar-electric propulsion technology that is needed to
capture a small asteroid, move it into a trans-lunar region, and then
potentially use that asteroid as a target destination for the first
crewed flight of the SLS and Orion system.
In addition, the request includes $820 million a year over the next
several years to fund the development of Commercial Crew capability for
transporting astronauts to and from the ISS, a significant increase
from the $400 and $500 million range that Congress has been willing to
authorize and appropriate for those activities in the last three fiscal
years.
I fear I've already gotten to the 20 lbs. of program content that
Dr. Holdren was talking about in NASA's $17.7 billion request.
And that doesn't include the unfunded new responsibilities for
developing climate sensors that NASA's Earth Science program has
inherited from NOAA, the $50 million increase required for full
reimbursement to the Department of Energy for resuming the domestic
production of material that is needed to power deep space missions, or
the 29 percent increase over FY 2012 actual spending levels being
sought for NASA's Space Technology Program.
To NASA's credit, the agency has been making progress in managing
schedule and cost on its activities. The Government Accountability
Office (GAO) just recently issued a report that stated: "NASA has had
success in the last two years in launching missions on cost or on
schedule." I commend the NASA and contractor workforce on this
progress.
Yet, the GAO also says that sustaining the changes that have led to
these successes will be challenging within a period of flat or
decreasing budgets and with the ongoing work on several large-scale and
complex projects.
Should any of the JWST, ISS, or the SLS/Orion programs experience a
hiccup, the financial impact could have ``cascading effects on the rest
of the portfolio,'' as GAO puts it.
GAO's words of caution give me pause since I don't see a lot of
flexibility within the FY2014 request for dealing with that situation.
I hope that today's discussion can clarify the rationale for the
proposed asteroid and capture retrieval initiative proposed in the FY
2014 budget, particularly how it contributes to detecting and
characterizing 90 percent of near-Earth asteroids 140 meters in
diameter or less, and how it advances our capability of sending humans
to destinations such as Mars, as set in policy in successive
Authorization Acts. In these tight budgetary times, we need to be sure
the proposed approach will be the most efficient means of achieving
those objectives.
So, I look forward, Administrator Bolden, to what I hope will be
the beginning of an active dialogue on both the policy and the
resources required to support NASA in effectively implementing its
challenging and inspiring portfolio.
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. I now recognize
the Chairman of the Full Committee for a statement, Mr. Smith.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. America is a
Nation of explorers, and space is the next frontier. Just last
week, NASA announced the discovery of new worlds beyond our
solar system that resemble our own planet.
We in Congress need to be diligent in our review of the
Administration's proposed budget for NASA to ensure that this
agency remains focused on its primary mission, space
exploration.
In April 2010, almost three years ago, President Obama
addressed the NASA workforce at the Kennedy Space Center. He
stated that the next mission for American astronauts beyond the
International Space Station was an asteroid and canceled NASA's
many years of work to return to the surface of the Moon.
Last December, a National Academy of Sciences review of
NASA's strategic direction made the following observation.
``The Committee has seen little evidence that a current stated
goal for NASA's human spaceflight program, namely to visit an
asteroid by 2025, has been widely accepted as a compelling
destination by NASA's own workforce, by the Nation as a whole
or by the international community. On the international front
there appears to be continued enthusiasm for a mission to the
Moon but not for an asteroid mission.''
Not having found a suitable asteroid for NASA astronauts,
the President's budget now proposes a robotic Asteroid
Retrieval Mission to bring one closer to the Moon. NASA's
budget does not identify where the funding for such an Asteroid
Retrieval Mission will come from, but it is likely to detract
from NASA's human spaceflight projects, the International Space
Station, Orion Crew Vehicle, and Space Launch System.
Further, the President's budget requests over $1.8 billion
for NASA's Earth Science programs.
How does this high level of spending affect other NASA
priorities, especially planetary exploration?
Here are the priorities for NASA's exploration missions
that have been consistent in Congressional authorizations for
the past eight years. We need to make the International Space
Station both an international and scientific success that will
enable further exploration beyond Earth orbit. We need to build
new systems to once again launch American astronauts on
American rockets as soon as possible. Today, the United States
pays Russia $63 million to take each of our astronauts to the
station.
While we support certain investments by NASA to fund
private sector cargo and crew initiatives to support the
station, Congress has been clear over the years that the Orion
Crew Vehicle serve as a backup option.
And finally, after receiving testimony from many engineers
and astronauts, Congress has been insistent that in order to
venture beyond low-Earth orbit, a heavy-lift launch vehicle,
NASA's Space Launch System, needs to be developed.
The goal of NASA's human spaceflight program is to go to
Mars and beyond on a path that includes returning to the Moon
or asteroids as necessary. This stepping-stone approach for our
exploration out of low-Earth orbit is clear and unambiguous.
While Federal budgets will continue to be uncertain,
congressional support for NASA's exploration mission is clear
and unwavering.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Lamar Smith
America is a nation of explorers, and space is the next frontier.
Just last week, NASA announced the discovery of new worlds beyond our
solar system that resemble our own planet.
We in Congress need to be diligent in our review of the
Administration's proposed budget for NASA to ensure that this agency
remains focused on its primary mission-space exploration.
In April 2010-almost three years ago-President Obama addressed the
NASA workforce at the Kennedy Space Center. He stated that the next
mission for American astronauts beyond the International Space Station
was an asteroid, and canceled NASA's many years of work to return to
the surface of the Moon.
Last December, a National Academy of Sciences review of NASA's
strategic direction made the following observation:
``The Committee has seen little evidence that a current stated
goal for NASA's human spaceflight program-namely, to visit an asteroid
by 2025-has been widely accepted as a compelling destination by NASA's
own workforce, by the nation as a whole, or by the international
community. On the international front there appears to be continued
enthusiasm for a mission to the Moon but not for an asteroid mission.''
Not having found a suitable asteroid for NASA astronauts, the
President's budget now proposes a robotic asteroid retrieval mission to
bring one closer to the Moon. NASA's budget does not identify where the
funding for such an asteroid retrieval mission will come from. But it
is likely to detract from NASA's human spaceflight projects, the
International Space Station, Orion Crew Vehicle and Space Launch
System.
Further, the President's budget requests over $1.8 billion for
NASA's Earth Science programs.
How does this high level of spending affect other NASA priorities,
especially planetary exploration?
Here are the priorities for NASA's exploration missions that have
been consistent in Congressional authorizations for the past eight
years:
We need to make the International Space Station both an
international and scientific success that will enable further
exploration beyond Earth orbit.
We need to build new systems to once again launch
American astronauts on American rockets as soon as possible. Today, the
U.S. pays Russia $63 million to take each of our astronauts to the
Station.
While we support certain investments by NASA to fund
private sector cargo and crew initiatives to support the Station,
Congress has been clear over the years that the Orion Crew Vehicle
serve as a backup option.
And finally, after receiving testimony from many
engineers and astronauts, Congress has been insistent that in order to
venture beyond Low-Earth orbit, a heavy-lift launch vehicle-NASA's
Space Launch System-needs to be developed.
By contrast, I am disheartened by the Administration's ever-
changing goals and their lack of justifications and details.
The goal of NASA's human spaceflight program is to go to Mars and
beyond on a path that includes returning to the moon or asteroids as
necessary. This stepping-stone approach for our exploration out of low-
earth orbit is clear and unambiguous.
While federal budgets will continue to be uncertain, Congressional
support for NASA's exploration mission is clear and unwavering.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If there are
Members who wish to submit additional opening statements, your
statements will be added to the record at this point.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson appears in appendix
II]
Chairman Palazzo. At this time I would like to introduce
today's witness, The Honorable Charles F. Bolden, Jr., the
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. I now recognize Administrator Bolden to present
his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR.,
ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS
AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
General Bolden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
Members of the Committee. Let me thank you for the opportunity
to appear today to discuss NASA's Fiscal Year 2014 budget
request.
Let me start by thanking the Full Committee as well as this
Subcommittee for your continued bipartisan support of NASA and
the world's second-to-none civil space program. That support is
also reflected among the American people and the White House as
evidence by the President's $17.7 billion funding request for
NASA. The budget reflects today's fiscal realities, and it
aligns NASA's full spectrum of activities to meet the
President's challenge to send humans to an asteroid by 2025 and
to Mars in the 2030s.
As part of the agency's overall asteroid strategy, NASA is
planning a first-ever mission to identify, capture, and
redirect an asteroid into orbit around the Moon. This mission
represents an unprecedented technological challenge raising the
bar for human exploration and discovery while helping protect
our home planet and keep bringing us closer to a human mission
to Mars in the 2030s.
This budget also supports NASA's partnerships with American
industry partners who are developing new ways to reach space.
These partnerships are creating jobs and enabling NASA to focus
on new technologies that benefit all of our missions. An
industry partner, Space-X, has begun resupplying the
International Space Station with cargo launched from the United
States, and Sunday's successful test launch of Orbital
Science's Antares marks another significant milestone in NASA's
plan to rely on American companies to launch supplies and
astronauts to the International Space Station.
Orbital is now poised for its first demonstration launch
and mission to the ISS later this year. The Administration is
committed to launching American astronauts from U.S. soil
within the next four years, and this budget provides the
necessary resources to achieve this goal. This budget fully
funds the International Space Station that remains the
springboard to our next great leap in exploration. It also
continues investments that are developing the SLS rocket and
Orion Crew Vehicle that will take astronauts to deep space and
it supports driving the development of space technologies such
as solar electric propulsion that will power tomorrow's
missions and help improve life here on Earth.
This budget continues to build on our Nation's record of
breathtaking scientific discoveries and achievements in space
with science missions that will reach further into our solar
system and provide critical knowledge about our home planet.
Among other science goals, the budget will sustain NASA's
vital role in helping us understand Earth system and climate
and the dynamics between our planet and our sun. These efforts
will provide critical knowledge about our home planet and
potential threats.
We will continue our steady progress toward our next great
observatory as we develop the James Webb Space Telescope
scheduled to launch in 2018. NASA's program of innovative
aeronautics research is pursuing an ambitious research agenda
for substantially reducing aircraft fuel consumption, emissions
and noise. With the 2014 request, NASA begins a new $25
million-a-year advanced composites project that will focus on
innovative composite materials and structures.
Mr. Chairman, we have had to make some pretty tough choices
with this budget, but I am committed to making sure NASA is
using its resources strategically for a cohesive exploration
program that bolsters our economy, improves life on Earth and
raises the bar of what humans can achieve.
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Bolden follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.025
Chairman Palazzo. I want to thank again the witness for
being available for questioning today. I also want to remind
Members that Committee rules limit questioning to five minutes.
The Chair will at this point open the round of questions.
Administrator Bolden, under current topline funding levels,
what is the cost schedule confidence level for SLS being
operational by 2017?
General Bolden. Sir, if you are asking about the joint
confidence level number, I don't think we have finished
developing that yet, but I will get to it for certain. But I
will say that I know it will be a number with which I will be
very comfortable for a number of reasons. Unlike other brand
new programs, SLS is an evolving system in which we are using
previously proven hardware, if you will. The shuttle main
engines are the main propulsion system for SLS in the
beginning. We are using, granted, a five-segment solid-rocket
motor as the initial boosters for the system, but it is still
very well-proven technology. Orion has been through now two
programs, Constellation and presently the Orion program itself.
So we are at a level of maturity with those programs that we
would not ordinarily be with another program. So I am very
confident in our cost estimates.
We have had an independent cost assessment done that has
been available to this Committee and Congress for about a year
or so now in which they assess that our estimates were well-
founded, that the process for determining what we thought the
cost would be was grounded in good budgeting and cost planning.
They cautioned us that we probably could use more, but as I
think I have told this Committee and others before, I don't
remember a time that we couldn't use more to buy down risk on
any of our projects.
Chairman Palazzo. So you don't have a joint confidence
level percentage right now?
General Bolden. We don't have a joint confidence level
percentage right now because we have not reached what we call
the key decision point C which is the point at which we
determine whether we are going to go forward with a program.
If that number came out to be really bad, which I don't
anticipate, it might dictate that a program be cancelled. But I
don't anticipate that at all.
Chairman Palazzo. When can this Committee expect one?
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, I will get back to you. I
think the KDPC is sometime this summer, but I will get back. I
will get that for the Committee.
Chairman Palazzo. Well, if there is not an official joint
confidence level, what would General Bolden say would be as a
percentage?
General Bolden. Oh, yeah, that is what I said. My guess is
that----
Chairman Palazzo. A percentage.
General Bolden. --that my guess, and I shouldn't do this--
no, let me not.
Chairman Palazzo. Okay.
General Bolden. I shouldn't and I won't.
Chairman Palazzo. Well, I just want to remind you, I mean,
the SLS is one of NASA's top priorities, and we in this
Committee look forward to seeing a joint level, confidence
level as soon as possible.
General Bolden. Sure.
Chairman Palazzo. The Administration's budget request for
the Space Launch System includes a reduction of $60 million.
How was this reduction calculated?
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, let me make sure I
understood. Were you saying that the budget shows a $60 million
decrease----
Chairman Palazzo. Decrease, correct.
General Bolden. --in SLS, in the vehicle itself?
Chairman Palazzo. Yes, sir.
General Bolden. From the beginning, we used to give you one
line for SLS, and every time we came back with a budget, there
was always a lot of confusion and okay, that is less money than
we told you to spend on SLS. So we now have started breaking
out the system into the vehicle itself which is SLS,
Exploration Ground Systems, which is included in 21st Century
Launch Complex at the Kennedy Space Center, its construction of
facility upgrades at Stennis, and we try to break those out
individually now. So while there may be what seems to be a
reduction in funding deliberately applied to the vehicle, I
think our budget numbers have been relatively consistent from
what the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate
has said we needed for the program from the very beginning.
Chairman Palazzo. Can you identify the parts of the program
that we are either eliminating or reducing?
General Bolden. We are not eliminating anything. To my
knowledge, we are not reducing anything in the program, but
what we are trying to do is more definitively document the
amount of money that is going toward the B-2 test stand
upgrades at the Stennis Space Center. That was not spelled out
in the budget before, and now when you look under what we call
CECR, the construction of facilities account, you will see a
specific reference to the B-2 test stand, you will see a
specific reference in the write-ups to advanced boosters which
we think is very critical, not to the 70-metric ton version of
SLS, but we will need it when we move up to 150-metric ton
version, and we can't wait until we need it in 2025 to start
constructing it.
So those are numbers that I count toward SLS but the
Committee may not attribute to SLS.
Chairman Palazzo. So just to clarify, with the reduced
funding, you don't see any anticipated missed deadlines for
SLS.
General Bolden. I don't see, anticipate any missed
deadlines, and I would remind the Committee, and I think, Mr.
Chairman, you know probably better than anybody sitting in this
room because you have seen more than I have at Stennis, we have
been testing the J2-X consistently at Stennis very
successfully. We have got 500 second tests several times now.
We are running tests at ATK with the boosters. We have gotten
Orion where it is ready. It is almost ready to fly in the fall
of 2014. We could tick off the achievements in both SLS and
Orion that meet our milestones, and we have not--with one
exception that I know of which is delaying or putting off the
abort, the Airborne abort test, for Orion, which we don't need
for many years. We delayed that so that we could get some other
things done.
Chairman Palazzo. Okay. I now recognize Ms. Edwards for
five minutes.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a statement
that is submitted by the Planetary Society expressing concerns
about the Fiscal Year 2014 budget that I would like to request
be entered into the record.
Chairman Palazzo. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Bolden, I
want to start by asking you about your budget because it seems
that it assumes that the sequestration will end. And so I want
to know what you believe would happen if sequestration
continues to affect the NASA budget in 2014 and beyond, and
what would be the likely impacts and have you thought about the
planning for that in terms of new initiatives in Fiscal Year
2014 such as the asteroid mission? Would that be eliminated?
How would you translate your priorities for 2014 into funding
decisions in the event that sequestration continues?
General Bolden. Congresswoman, first of all, let me confirm
your assumption about the budget itself. The 17.7 is based on
the President's confidence that he will be able to work out an
agreement with this Congress in the budget for Fiscal Year 2014
that will negate the sequester. So that is a correct
assumption.
If this Congress and the Administration are unable to do
what the American public expects and we have to deal with
sequestration for a ten-year period of time, to be quite
candid, all bets are off. And things that we talk about, what I
do now, when I come to this Committee and say we are fully
funding all of our priorities, I can't do that. It puts more
than 20 pounds in a 5-pound sack, and we will not be able to do
that. Examples would be some of the testing that is necessary
for our Commercial Crew Program will have to slip. Several of
you have referenced the amount of money that we consistently
ask for for Commercial Crew Program and say why do we keep
doing that. The reason we keep asking for at first $1 billion
annually for the Commercial Crew Program, and then we decided,
okay, maybe we can make it for $822 million. What I explained
to the Committee four years ago was if we don't get back then
it was a billion dollars, we won't be able to deliver
Commercial Crew Program in 2014.
Ms. Edwards. What about the asteroid mission? What happens
to that?
General Bolden. The asteroid mission will probably go away.
Congresswoman we are in the stage of developing the asteroid
mission. The President requested, $105 million for a strategy.
Everyone needs to understand, that is not the mission. It is an
asteroid strategy that includes $78 million for the development
of the mission itself in the Human Exploration and Operations
Mission Directorate.
Ms. Edwards. So General Bolden, let me ask you about that
because in the National Academy's 2012 report on NASA's
strategic direction found that there is actually little support
for an asteroid mission in the science community. What is your
overall objective and your testimony as you have just described
refers to an overall asteroid strategy. Can you describe that
strategy and if you don't have it here, can you give it to us
for the record?
General Bolden. I can describe it because it is relatively
simple, and I would have to refer back to the April 18 hearing.
I think it was April 18 when we met on asteroids. Dr. John
Holdren, General Shelton, and me and I think it was--I can't
remember whether it was Congressman Brooks or Congressman Posey
to whom I responded after much of their frustration that the
only thing we could do today was pray. The asteroid strategy
gives us the capability of being able to increase the number of
asteroids that we identify that threaten Earth, to characterize
them such that we can determine how we reach them. We are
developing a process or a technology that will come forward in
the Asteroid Retrieval Mission that will demonstrate that
humans can, in fact, alter the path of an asteroid that is
headed toward Earth.
So these are very important parts of the asteroid strategy.
It is--
Ms. Edwards. Let me just interrupt you for a minute.
General Bolden. Yes.
Ms. Edwards. I apologize. But are you saying to us then
that the goal is an asteroid and a capture and retrieval of an
asteroid? Or is the goal an interim step to Mars?
General Bolden. The goal of our program is to remain the
world's leader in space exploration to meet the President's
goal for us, or challenge for us, of putting humans in Martian
orbit in the 2030s. That is the ultimate destination for
humans, and we must not lose track of that.
An asteroid is an intermediate destination on the way to
our ultimate destination of Mars. An asteroid mission must
stand by itself, however. So as a part of the strategy, the
asteroid mission answers several other questions that have been
asked of us or challenges that have been given us. Putting a
human with an asteroid. That is one that the President
expressed to us. This Committee and others in this Congress and
the National Space Policy demands that we be able to identify,
as you said, 100 percent of the asteroids that are 40 meters or
less, and this is one of the ways that we intend to move toward
answering those questions for the Nation.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope we will be
able to get to follow-up with this. Thanks.
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. We are going to
try to get through as many Members as possible, but then we are
going to recess for votes. But we are also going to return, so
I now recognize Mr. Smith for five minutes.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It sounds like a
number of us have the same type of questions, and Mr. Bolden,
you should not take these personally if we ask tough questions
because I think we all admire you as an administrator and
appreciate the job you are doing.
Let me go to the Asteroid Retrieval Mission and follow up
on that. NASA's Small Bodies Advisory Group reported, ``While
the participants found it to be very interesting and
entertaining, it was not considered to be a serious proposal.''
Why would the Administration dismiss the advice of those whose
advice they sought?
General Bolden. I am not aware of that advice, to be quite
honest. That is the first--I just haven't seen that, sir.
Chairman Smith. Really? That Small Bodies Advisory Group--
--
General Bolden. I know what the Small Bodies Advisory Group
is. I am saying I am not aware that they offered that. I have
in my possession the letter from the Planetary--everybody
generally cc's me on everything that comes to Congress so I
won't be surprised.
Chairman Smith. That was----
General Bolden. I am surprised by this.
Chairman Smith. That was a direct quote. I will get it to
you----
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
Chairman Smith. --soon then. The other question, this
follows up a little bit as well. Everything I have seen makes
me believe that scientists and others who are experts think
that a Moon landing rather than a rendezvous with an asteroid
is a better precursor to a Mars mission. Would you agree with
that or do you think the asteroid is better preparation?
General Bolden. Congressman, I would agree with anyone who
says that a Moon landing is good. We have done it. We have done
it six times, and it was incredibly good.
Chairman Smith. There is a lot more to do than what we have
done so far.
General Bolden. There is so much more to do than what we
have done so far. But if I go back to the premise that the
Chairman opened up with that we can only do so much.
Chairman Smith. Which would be better for the Mars mission?
Would it be back to the Moon or would it be the asteroid?
General Bolden. I don't think that either would be better.
They both are good. In our particular case since we are
operating under a flat budget. The one that is executable in
today's budget environment is an asteroid mission.
Chairman Smith. If various experts said the Moon, would you
heed their advice?
General Bolden. We get expert advice all the time, and we
try to heed. However, I think you know, Mr. Chairman, it is
impossible to heed the advice of all experts. Some expert is
going to feel that he or she is being disregarded. I have
utmost respect for the National Research Council Committee that
looked at us and said----
Chairman Smith. Pretty soon----
General Bolden. --that there was--asteroids.
Chairman Smith. --on some subject you are going to have to
take the expert's advice, whether it be from Small----
General Bolden. We are taking the advice of experts with
this.
Chairman Smith. Whether it be from the Small Bodies
Advisory Group or for others saying that the lunar mission
would be better for the Mars mission.
My next question is this. On the James Webb Space
Telescope, which is one of our great scientific adventures,
there is some concern about technical problems there. I think
it is maybe overweight. I think there are two instruments that
are running close to a year behind. Do you see us able to meet
our deadlines and get the James Webb up in fall, I think, 2017
as expected?
General Bolden. Chairman Smith, I would----
Chairman Smith. 2018.
General Bolden. Again, I would have to ask for the source
of the information. That is in direct contrast to what I get
every week in terms of status of James Webb. We are 14 months
ahead on the critical path toward flight.
Chairman Smith. So you are not----
General Bolden. So for someone to say that we are a year
behind with two instruments. We have two instruments that we
have been working quite a bit. The vendors have delivered
NIRCam and NIRSpect, and if they think they are a year behind,
I need to know it.
Chairman Smith. Well 11 months behind is what I am told.
General Bolden. If they think we are 11 months behind on
those two instruments----
Chairman Smith. I keep coming up with all these news
breaks.
General Bolden. Sir, that is a serious newsbreak because
that would be contradictory to what the leadership of Northrup
Grumman and NASA's James Webb Space Telescope program are
telling the administrator.
Chairman Smith. We will----
General Bolden. That is not a----
Chairman Smith. We will get you our----
General Bolden. That is a serious absence of information to
me if that is true.
Chairman Smith. Okay. We will get you our source on that as
well.
General Bolden. Yes, sir. I would appreciate that because I
promised this Congress that I was responsible for the James
Webb Space Telescope. I think you may remember when I stood
here and I said no one feels as bad about this as I do.
Chairman Smith. The information that I just mentioned, the
two instruments being 11 months delayed, was in a GAO report
that came out last week.
General Bolden. I would have to go back and check with my--
we have carried GAO by the hand through Goddard, through the
Johnson Space Center and everywhere. So if GAO is reporting
that we have instruments that are 11 months behind----
Chairman Smith. This is GAO, April 2013, two of the
instruments, 11 months behind.
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, I will get back to you.
Chairman Smith. Okay.
General Bolden. That is news to me.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you. Last quick question. I
want to go back to what the Chairman mentioned about SLS
beginning operations by 2017 as hoped. Do you think that is
very guaranteed, very likely or probable?
General Bolden. I think if this Congress and the
Administration are able to solve the sequester problem, 2017
inaugural flight on the integrated SLS on Orion is very good.
Nothing is ever a certainty in this business. Barring no
accidents, barring a successful flight of Orion next year, we
are well on the way to a 2017 inaugural flight of SLS on Orion.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Bolden. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Smith. I now recognize Mr.
Kennedy for five minutes.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, thank you
very much for being here. I thank the Committee for calling the
important hearing.
General, just a couple of questions for you. I understand--
shifting gears a little bit from the asteroid mission to
something that is near and dear to my district is the STEM
education programs that you have at NASA, and I understand from
the budget materials that there has been a reorganization and a
consolidation of some of those priorities for the
Administration, focusing on four priority areas and
consolidating programs into three different agencies.
So my question to you, sir, is, is there any thought on how
this transition is going to--well, you can minimize the
disruption to some of these programs that are extraordinarily
popular and important to school children as young as
kindergarteners. In my district, there is a number of education
programs that have been extraordinarily successful. I was at
one recently in Sharon. There was about 1,200 students learning
about space and STEM training to be an astronaut. One of the
high schools, the Tri-County High School in Franklin, was one
of only eight highs schools in the country that were selected
to participate in United with NASA to create a hardware program
last year, a far more interesting science class than I ever
took, building robots, trying to come up with ways for
astronauts to scramble eggs in space which I am sure is
probably something useful to you.
So how can we ensure, General, that programs like these
that are already highly successful and are inspiring an
entirely new generation of engineers don't disappear?
General Bolden. Congressman, in answering your question, I
need to go back and tell you what I think is successful. When I
became the NASA Administrator, I asked for metrics. I am not an
engineer, but I play with a lot of them. And so I have learned
to have an appreciation for metrics, to demonstrate that
something is successful or valuable.
When I asked what the metrics were on the effectiveness on
our K-12 STEM education program, I got blank stares. I was told
that we touch a million kids a year, and I said, okay, I got
it. But what effect have we had on those 12 million kids? Did I
take one who was not interested in science and have them, when
they get to high school, take very difficult science and math
courses and go to college and major in engineering? And the
answer I got was we don't know. And I said, well, how do we
know we are effective? I feel good because I go out and talk to
school kids all the time. I feel great. But have I made a
difference in their life? And the only way I have to know that
is metrics.
The President and I happen to share this belief. And so
what we are trying to do with the consolidation of the STEM
education programs across the 13 or so STEM-related agencies in
the government--and I see Congresswoman Edwards is smiling
because she and I have talked about this at length. I think she
shares my passion for metrics and demonstrating we are
effective in what we do. We are not able to demonstrate our
effectiveness today. The President is tired of it, and so he
has said we are going to try something new. When you try the
same thing over and over and the same answer, it is not
working. You ought to try something new.
NASA is assuming a leadership role, if you will, in helping
to craft this new consolidated STEM education program. And I
would caution everyone. Nothing is changing right now. We have
a long time remaining in this fiscal year, so the programs in
existence continue to go. In NASA, programs like MUREP, EPSCoR,
Space Grant, all of the critical programs that we uniquely do
that reach underrepresented minorities, tribal, colleges and
schools, those programs will remain, even in the consolidated
program.
I don't do very well in being able to measure the
effectiveness of my fellowships and scholarships. I am told the
National Science Foundation has a pretty good system. So we are
going to work with them to help us identify the effectiveness
of our fellowships and scholarships. I don't do well at all. I
have no metrics for--well, I shouldn't say that. I don't do
well with metrics for K-12. I am told the Department of
Education has a pretty good idea of how to establish those
metrics. That is what we are working on to roll out effective
the 2014 budget.
So I think the kids that we are taking care of today will
be taken care of, and my hope is we will be able to show you
that we have an effect, not just tell you that I feel good
because I touched a million kids.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you.
Chairman Palazzo. Okay. As we know, a vote has been called.
The Committee will recess subject to the call of the chair
which I would like to be about five minutes after the last vote
in this series. Without objection, so ordered. The Committee
stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman Palazzo. The Committee will now come to order. I
recognize Mr. Brooks for five minutes.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I want to make a
quick comment about your focus on asteroids. Personally I
concur. I think that is a good direction to go. At the same
time I would add some benefit from the approach that the White
House and you are recommending. First, I think it recognizes
the risk to our country and our world. While at any point in
time it is a small risk, over the accumulation of time it is a
significant risk. Second, I think it is another reason why we
need the Space Launch System to have the capability of doing
whatever needs to be done. So I see it as a hand-in-glove
effort. And finally, along those same lines, the technology
that is developed as the history of NASA has shown, it is not
limited to just one thing. The technology that NASA develops is
expansive and is useful in many different ways. Whatever
technology we can develop by initiating efforts with respect to
asteroids I believe are beneficial.
Now to a question about the Space Launch System, as you can
imagine. Thank you for coming before our Tennessee Valley
Chambers of Commerce that were here on Monday. We had roughly
180 people that came to The Hill, and I was very pleased to see
that you were one of the speakers, and thank you for your
remarks.
Space Launch System continues to receive less than the
authorized levels, yet NASA is supporting not one but three
different Commercial Crew Programs, and if I am reading the
President's proposed budget correctly, he is proposing a 64
percent increase in funding for Commercial Crew above the
authorization bill level of $500 million, roughly from $500
million to $800 million, if the information I have is accurate.
That being the case, why the big increase for Commercial
Crew but not a similar increase for Space Launch System being
requested?
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, not Mr. Chairman. I am sorry.
Mr. Brooks. That is all right. If Mr. Palazzo doesn't mind,
I don't mind.
General Bolden. Congressman, let me talk precise, exact
numbers. If we took what we are requesting in the increase for
Commercial Crew, which is from $525 million to $822 million, so
$300 million. If I added $300 million to the SLS program, you
wouldn't know it.
Mr. Brooks. Well, I was thinking more of the 64 percent
figure.
General Bolden. But that is my point, sir, is that it
depends on the numbers you use, and if you choose to use
percentages, then percentage of a number like $500 million may
seem very big. It is not big at all. We are trying to get close
to the level that the President asked for when he decided to
fund the Commercial Crew Program, which had not been done by
any previous administration to be quite candid.
We have asked for, and I think Bill Gerstenmaier, the head
of the Human Exploration Operations Mission Directorate, has
stated over and over that this is the amount of money that we
need to deliver SLS on the date and time that we said, 2017 for
the inaugural mission, integrated with Orion, 2021 now for the
asteroid mission perhaps. And I don't need more money than
that.
If you give me money to put against SLS, against the
vehicle, it means I can't put some money that I would
ordinarily put against Advanced Booster Program.
Mr. Brooks. Given our funding limitations, do you have a
concern that there may be some duplication of effort,
particularly inasmuch as we are funding three different private
sector contractors in the Commercial Crew environment? Do you
suggest keeping it at three or reducing it to two or reducing
it to one?
General Bolden. Congressman, our acquisition strategy,
which we spelled out pretty well several years ago and we had
to modify because we didn't get the money requested, was that
we would try to promote competition for as long as we could and
that at some point, which will be this summer, this spring, we
are going to issue a draft request for proposal. The vendors
will have an opportunity to look at that, tell us what they
think. We will issue a final request for proposal in the fall,
and by next spring we hope to be able to announce who the
Commercial Crew provider is going to be.
My hope is that Congress will fully fund us to the $822
million level, and that may allow me to carry one and a half.
It will not allow us to carry three vendors. If we go down to
one, if I am forced to go down to one provider at any time,
there is no competition, and it is exactly as I am. It will be
exactly as I am today with the Russians and--there is no
competition. It went from----
Mr. Brooks. I am running out of time, and if the Chairman
would permit, I will follow up with one final question.
Hopefully it will be a brief answer because it will be a brief
question.
The word commercial has always been puzzling to me because
I am not very familiar with a commercial or private-sector
market for Commercial Crew. Do you envision that Commercial
Crew is in fact going to have as its primary if not sole
customer the United States Government?
General Bolden. I do not anticipate that. I believe
industry when they say--when Boeing and Boeing's Board of
Directors commit to a program as they have done with the
Commercial Crew Program, they are betting on the----
Mr. Brooks. Well, if you have any studies that suggest that
there truly is a private market out there for ``Commercial
Crew,'' if you could share it with me, I would very much
appreciate it.
General Bolden. I will make an effort to get some of the
commercial companies to release what they provided to their
Boards of Directors. I will try.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Palazzo. I now recognize Ms. Wilson for five
minutes.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon.
General Bolden. Good afternoon. How are you doing?
Ms. Wilson. It is my understanding that Congressman Kennedy
mentioned STEM, and I would just like to follow up because I am
concerned about potential funding shortfalls with regard to
STEM.
As you know, training a STEM workforce is essential to our
economic competitiveness, and NASA's education programs, both
within its mission directorate such as science and aeronautics,
are as well as within its Office of Education, have taken a
significant hit in the Fiscal Year 2014 budget proposal. It is
a decrease of about 46 percent from Fiscal Year 2012. Who made
the decision on what education activities are proposed to be
cut? Was the interagency Committee on STEM involved? And what
was OMB's role?
General Bolden. Congresswoman, I can't tell you what OMB's
role was, but I can tell you what I did. I have been intimately
involved in the decisions within NASA on STEM education because
I think most people will tell you no one is as passionate about
STEM education as am I.
Our decision was, after we listened to the proposal that
came from the President, that he wanted--as I said a little bit
earlier, he wanted to find a way to make the programs
effective, that we would be able to measure the effect of the
STEM education programs. We decided that we would go along with
that effort. We had already been part of the way down with
CoSTEM that you mentioned. Their report I think is supposed to
come out this summer, and we will integrate the work of CoSTEM,
two years. worth, into the consolidation effort that is ongoing
right now.
So I can tell you what we did. We participated in the
decisions. I think what they did was across the board. It was
decided to take all educational outreach funds from the
agencies, the STEM agencies, to consolidate them, rather than
try to cherry pick, I think we took everything, except some
special ones that I mentioned earlier that go to underserved
minorities, like MURAP, EPSCoR and then Space Grant, which
covers everybody.
Ms. Wilson. Just a follow-up. What resources would the
Smithsonian, Department of Education and the NSF have as a part
of the 2014 budget request to support infrastructure, to work
across government and to implement the proposed consolidation?
How would that infrastructure compare to the proven structure
that NASA has developed over time which is supported through
competitive selection and peer review to implement----
General Bolden. Yes.
Ms. Wilson. --STEM education and outreach, especially
within the Science Mission Directorate? How will you do that
with a 46 percent cut?
General Bolden. My agency is really good. We are the best
place to work in government, and I don't mean that pejoratively
or anything. What will happen with the consolidation is that
what I can do every day, bringing downlink TV from aboard the
International Space Station, taking it into a classroom, every
one of the STEM-related agencies will now have access to NASA
content. So that is one of the things we are giving. We will be
allowing everybody else to have access to the content that we
have.
What it will give us, what we will gain, will be access to
the Department of Education, to the National Science Foundation
and even to the Smithsonian in some of their metrics and some
of their methods for promoting and reaching people with STEM
education. I think there is value on both sides. Everybody
gives but everybody gets something if we do it right.
Ms. Wilson. One follow-up. Who is going to oversee this?
Who will oversee it? What segment of government?
General Bolden. The program is actually going to----
Ms. Wilson. Department of Education----
General Bolden. The program is actually presently being
overseen by the Executive Office of the President. The
President is the one that all of us are responding to in this.
I am overseeing with Leland Melvin as my emissary, if you will,
what we are doing in NASA. And every other principal is quite
well aware of what is going on and is taking part, and we have
all had an opportunity to express our opinion about how things
should be done. Examples would be one of the things we proposed
was take the people from each agency, each STEM agency, who are
good at what they do and put them in a pool so that when the
Department of Education or the National Science Foundation or
Smithsonian starts looking to build a cadre of people that are
going to be the overseers if you will, that we take people who
have experience with this. And I expressed the desire and a
willingness to offer NASA people anytime anybody wants to take
them so that we make sure the program is done correctly.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you.
Chairman Palazzo. I now recognize Mr. Stewart for five
minutes.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, good to see
you again.
General Bolden. Always good to see you.
Mr. Stewart. It has been a pleasure being on this Committee
and having a chance to get to know you a little bit.
I would like to be big picture if we could for a while, and
I certainly don't mean to beat a dead horse, and I don't think
that we will. But help me if you could bring some clarity to I
think some fundamental visions or goals of your organization,
and that is with the Asteroid Retrieval Mission. What is the
main objective or goal that you have there? And if I can maybe
rephrase the question, help me understand why that was placed
as a priority over other possibilities, say for example a
manned Moon mission?
General Bolden. Congressman Stewart, I would not say the
asteroid mission replaces anything. We did not have a lunar
mission in our portfolio. We had a $17.7 billion budget with a
notional, you know, five-year out that would not accommodate a
lunar mission. I think it is in the record that if we went back
and tried to replicate the lunar program that was in place
under constellation, I have asked and I am told that Altair,
the lander, is in the $8- to $10- billion range. I don't have
$8 to $10 billion to put into a lander for a lunar program.
We already had solar electric propulsion underway in our
Space Technology Mission Directorate. We have had that for
years. We think we can accelerate it with the funds that are
coming, $40 million of the funds that are coming out the 105.
Human exploration has been working for no less than three years
on an asteroid-type mission. So we are levering what we have
been doing for years.
As Congressman Brooks mentioned, SLS and MPCV were made for
the human exploration part of an asteroid mission. It gives us
an opportunity to demonstrate that vehicle and its capability,
Orion's capability to go beyond the Moon to deep space long
before we have to make an 8-month mission to Mars and hoping
that our people will survive in that.
Mr. Stewart. Well, and I think actually, General, you bring
up my point, and this is actually my primary question. If your
ultimate objective is to go to Mars and knowing that there are
building blocks that are required to do that, technological
building blocks along the way that you have to accomplish in
order to do that, does a lunar mission or the asteroid
retrieval, does either of those give you a more significant
foundation to build on, if that is your objective?
General Bolden. You asked the question a little bit
differently than was asked earlier, and I thought about it. The
Chairman told me to think about it again and come out and say
forget about the asteroid mission. I am not ready to do that
yet.
There is a decided advantage in an asteroid retrieval
mission on the road to Mars. Solar electric propulsion is
something we have got to have for deep space exploration.
People have heard us say we are looking for game-changing
propulsion. Solar electric propulsion has been around for a
while but not the way we want to use it. There are varieties--
you know, solar electric propulsion is a big name for a lot of
different things you can do, hall thrusters, ion thrusters,
VASIMR. That is one thing. Life support systems in the Orion
module, I don't need to change the--I can take the existing
system in the first Orion and go to the Moon. So there is no
technological advantage here.
If I want to push technology, I want to go to deep space. I
want to go somewhere where it is really, really, really
challenging, and if we don't get it right, we are going to lose
people.
Mr. Stewart. I appreciate that.
General Bolden. And let me tell you----
Mr. Stewart. Then if I could in the minute or so that I
have left, you have given some great examples of technologies
which are developed with this mission. Are there any
technologies that we sacrifice or that we would develop with
another lunar mission that would not be developed in----
General Bolden. It is not a matter of sacrificing
technologies. It is a matter of requiring no new technology. We
must remember, this is the greatest Nation in the world in
terms of exploration of the universe. We have been to the Moon
six times. We know how to do that.
Now, Dr. Gilruth, who most of you don't know, once said at
the end of the Apollo program people will realize how difficult
it was to go to the Moon when we try to return. So just because
we went once doesn't mean it is going to be easy the next time.
I don't need any new technology to go to the Moon. I need
money to go to the Moon. It is expensive to go into a gravity
well of the lunar surface. I need new technologies to go to an
asteroid in deep space or in a stable orbit rendezvous point
around the Moon. And we have already started investing in that
technology, and the minimal amounts of money--somebody asked
why are we putting more money into technology development?
Because we need it to fill the gaps. We have a technological
roadmap that was certified by the National Research Council.
This is not an overnight thing. We didn't just think of
this. You know, I have to correct Members of the Committee who
have said several times it seems like we just thought this up.
NASA has been working on this for decades. The President
focused us like a laser when he stood up at the Kennedy Space
Center. And people don't relate it, and I am not trying to
relate it to John Kennedy, but there were people who thought
the President lost his mind when he stood in Rice University
campus and said within this decade we are sending humans to the
Moon and bringing them safely back.
Gene Kranz who is a role model of mine and a flight
director from-- he is Mr. Failure-is-not-an-Option. He said he
went home. He said he thought the President had lost his mind.
He woke up the next morning and he said no, that is not the
case. The President trusts us, and he thinks we can do this.
To have the President of the United States go to Florida
and say NASA is going to send somebody to an asteroid in 2025
and to Mars in 2030, I couldn't be more proud.
Mr. Stewart. And my time is up. Thank you, General. I
appreciate it. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Palazzo. I now recognize Ms. Bonamici for five
minutes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
General Bolden, for returning and for your service to our
Nation.
In a previous hearing in this Committee I pointed out some
of the work that NASA does that affects Oregon's first district
in several important ways from education opportunities, through
the Space Grant program, to whale monitoring activities through
NASA's National Ocean Partnership. And I wanted to ask you
about the weather and climate monitoring. The marine economy in
Oregon is very important to the coastal areas, and they rely on
the data provided by NOAA and NASA. And in this NASA budget, I
see that the Joint Polar Satellite System two climate sensors
are being transferred from NOAA to NASA. But there doesn't
appear to be an accompanying increase in NASA's Earth Science
budget. So I wanted to ask you if you could please elaborate on
how NASA is going to carry out this new responsibility. What
are the criteria for having NASA assume responsibility because
we want to ensure that there are long-term measurements and
observations that are sustained.
General Bolden. Congresswoman, I will take it for the
record to get the exact amount, but I think we did get a
modicum of funding that came with the climate sensors. But I
will take that for the record. But I will say just as we did
with the DSCOVR mission and others, we asked. We actually came
to the House Appropriations Committee and said look, we would
like to take this on because we think this is very important.
In the case of DSCOVR, we have instruments that have already
been built. They are already installed on the satellite. It
makes no sense to us to take them off and put NASA's simulators
on. And Chairman Wu said, look. I don't want to do that, but
give it your best shot. You know, send me a proposal, and tell
me what you are going to do.
And we demonstrated to him how doing it a different way we
could bring it in at a much less cost than it had originally
been proposed. And that is what we have become accustomed to
doing.
Somebody mentioned earlier the fact that many of our
missions have come in on budget or under budget and on schedule
recently, and it was attributed to an increase in budget. That
is not the case. I attribute it to the incredible people I have
who are working for NASA who now have had a change of culture,
if you will. They understand that we are not going to get any
more money. And so they are looking for innovative ways to do
things. We knew we couldn't get enough money for a classic
asteroid mission, you know. That would be great if we could put
humans on a big rocket and send them to an asteroid between
Mars and Jupiter. Our budget is not going to allow that. Never,
ever. I doubt it, unless we really do something big and you all
decide to be generous.
So we had to innovate, and we came up with the concept that
is now the hallmark of an asteroid retrieval mission. So that
is the way we do things.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. I had a great conversation with
members of the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics. They were in town to talk about research funding
which is of course very important. We talked about the
biological and physical science research that is done at the
Space Station. As you know, there has been a lot of research in
space that affects medical care here, and I wondered, because
of the potential for key medical advancements, is it surprising
that what seems like a relatively small amount of the funding
for ISS goes to research functions. So will you elaborate on
that a bit?
General Bolden. I think we have priced it about right, the
amount of money that we put in our human research program, and
I think what you are looking at is HRP that is dedicated to
astronaut health and safety. What is not seen in that number is
the amount of money that goes into human research. For example,
the National Institutes of Health has a grant program in the
millions of dollars, and the grantees do work on the
International Space Station. One stipulation, can't have
anything to do with astronauts. It has got to impact life here
on Earth. Now, if it happens to help astronauts, great. But we
don't count that kind of money that is being spent. CASIS,
which is now the non-governmental organization that is
responsible for going out and recruiting, selecting and then
overseeing science experiments flown in the American segment of
the International Space Station. Our utilization of the Space
Station is up. The number of experiments that astronauts are
able to do now that construction is over is up. It is a dynamic
laboratory, better than anything everybody has ever seen
before.
Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. I will see if I can get one more
question in. I understand that there is some work being done to
develop a prototype exploration suit for use on board the ISS,
and I wondered, is that a repurposing of the current, I guess
it is the EMU that is used----
General Bolden. EMU?
Ms. Bonamici. --or is it going to be replaced and will
there be a competitive process for that?
General Bolden. My understanding is it will replace the
EMU. It is a suit that is made to operate in a less than 1G
environment of Mars. Looks like Buzz Lightyear, the one I have
seen. You know, it is much less cumbersome, much less hard on
the shoulder joints, for example, where we actually have had
injuries with astronauts in the current EMU. So it is a new
development.
Ms. Bonamici. Did you have a competitive process for that?
General Bolden. It was chosen, it will be chosen, through a
competitive process, yes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. Thank you very much. My time is
expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Bolden. I am sorry.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you.
Chairman Palazzo. I now recognize Mr. Posey for five
minutes.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the general
for joining us again. I have said it before and I will say it
again, of all the agency heads that I have had the privilege to
sit in, you have been the one that has been the most
forthcoming and straight talking, and I appreciate that. Thank
you.
I don't want to get redundant. I just want to get these
things in a proper perspective, just kind of for my memory bank
here. The Keck study suggested that an asteroid mission would
cost $2.6 billion, and I understand NASA disagrees with that
number. And I was just wondering how much NASA thinks it will
cost to retrieve and return an asteroid or move it, whatever
the goal ends up being?
General Bolden. Congressman Posey, I will correct you and
say we don't disagree with the Keck number. However, our
mission, as we envision it, is different from what the Keck
number on which it was based. Keck, very respected group of
scientists who studied this, they did not have an SLS or an
MPCV. They did not have a head start on solar electric
propulsion. They assume that we were going to use a big rocket
and go between, I think, between Mars and Jupiter into the
asteroid belt to put humans with an asteroid. And so I think
that is where the $2.6 billion came from. I have been cautioned
by many, and so I will take their advice and not try to give
you a number right now. We are going into mission formulation
this summer. After we talk with our international partners,
with academia, with amateurs to be quite honest, to find out
what this mission should have in it, and then we will come back
with a more definitive number on what we think it is going to
cost. But my guess would be for a similar mission that Keck
had, it will be something less than their estimate.
Mr. Posey. Well, that is something because certainly when
you talk to people about appropriations, they want to know what
is at the end of the line. You know, if it costs this much to
go to an asteroid or twice as much as going to the Moon, I
mean, that makes sense and you can understand that.
How would you compare the cost of the Administration's
lasso mission with a return to the Moon?
General Bolden. If I can use the example of the Keck study,
and I am not adopting that but it is an example. An example is
Keck said $2.6 billion to carry out their type of asteroid
mission which we think is more expensive than ours. The numbers
quoted to me for Altair, for the lander, for a human lunar
exhibition or landing, $8 to $10 billion.
So going back to the Moon, if we use the numbers quoted for
Altair which came from NASA in the Constellation program, and
we use, we accept the numbers from Keck, then going to the Moon
is almost a factor of three more expensive. And our budget
won't sustain that, won't accommodate that.
Mr. Posey. Yeah, and I heard that number when Congressman
Stewart and you were having dialogue. Now, what is that number
based on?
General Bolden. The Keck number or the Altair number?
Mr. Posey. The return to the Moon number.
General Bolden. Return to the Moon? It is the number that I
have been--I wasn't around, so I can't tell you. But I was
quoted $8 to $10 billion for the lunar lander that was planned
for the Constellation program. And one of the reasons that it
never materialized was because NASA at the time did not have
the funding.
Mr. Posey. Yeah. Can you get us a copy of that, just that
document just so we will have it?
General Bolden. We can do that.
Mr. Posey. Because I hadn't seen it before.
General Bolden. We will do it.
Mr. Posey. You know, could the hardware obviously that is
being developed such as the SLS be used for both missions? I
mean, wouldn't we use the same rocket to go to the asteroid
that we would to the Moon?
General Bolden. If we are going anywhere in deep space, and
I will stipulate that we can call the Moon deep space, but we
don't consider the Moon deep space anymore. But you could use
SLS to go to the Moon. You will use SLS to go to an asteroid,
to Mars and the like.
Mr. Posey. Okay. The next thing of course I was going to
ask if there is anything salvageable from the $9 billion
Constellation mission to nowhere.
General Bolden. We are using Orion quite effectively. We
have gotten its cost down, its weight down and it is on
schedule to fly in 2014.
Mr. Posey. Okay. Because I think that might offset some
costs if we got some stuff in the ground or----
General Bolden. And to be fair, we flew Ares 1-X which was
a part of the Constellation program. That was the last thing we
did in the Constellation program. Ares 1-X was the most heavily
instrumented rocket to ever go in space, and the data that we
collected from Ares 1-X is now available to every rocket
manufacturer in the country plus any rocket manufacturer that
is cleared to receive ITAR related data I think.
Mr. Posey. When Kennedy set the goal of going to the Moon
within a decade, he literally inspired a Nation. You might have
known a skeptic, but you know, as a teenager, it inspired me
and my entire generation. When we heard the idea of going to an
asteroid and maybe doing two space walks on asteroids, all I
heard was crickets. So you know, what do you think the
difference----
General Bolden. What is the difference?
Mr. Posey. Yeah.
General Bolden. We are not at war. I was not marching in
the streets of Columbia, South Carolina, as we were when
President Kennedy announced we were going to the Moon. We were
in the midst of the Civil Rights Era. You know, there was
hatred being spewed all over the streets of the United States.
We were at war in another country, and we were racing the
Russians, the Soviets back then. We are not racing the Soviets.
We have no--hopefully we will not have an enemy like we had
then. Hopefully we will not go back into the streets in racial
discord again, although I can't guarantee that sometimes. And
definitely, you know, this Nation will be very cautious before
it enters into another war like Vietnam or some others that
people could cite. Significant difference in time and
conditions.
Mr. Posey. Thank you. I see my time has expired. Thank you.
Chairman Palazzo. I now recognize Ms. Brownley for five
minutes.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, General
Bolden, for your courageous service to our country. I really do
appreciate it very much.
I have some questions about the budget request for
construction and environmental compliance and restoration,
specifically I am very interested in the budget request for
cleanup of the Santa Susana Field Lab. This has been affecting
my district for decades. NASA's original Fiscal Year 2013
request included $5.5 million for the Santa Susana Field
Laboratory cleanup, and I understand that the Administration
has not yet released its Fiscal Year 2013 spending plan and
that the appropriations law enacted March 26 gives NASA 45 days
to do so.
So a couple of questions here. Will NASA allocate the $15.5
million request in 2013 to the Santa Susana Field Lab cleanup
and what activities does NASA intend to complete with those
funds? And then further, will NASA's 2014 request of $20.6
million for the cleanup keep the project on schedule for
completion by 2017? And what activities does NASA expect to
complete with the 2014 year funds? And if Congress does not
provide NASA with the full amount requested for 2014, how would
the impact of NASA's ability to stay on track for cleanup
completion in 2013?
General Bolden. Congresswoman, you know, I am as dedicated
as anyone to making sure that this planet is as good as it can
be and that life here is good. As far as I know, and I will get
back to you for the record, we have not made any proposal for a
change in the funding dedicated to Santa Susana. The last time
I talked to the folk in the office responsible for that we were
on target for completion of the cleanup by 2017, and that is
what we intend to do.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you very much.
General Bolden. Yes.
Ms. Brownley. I would love it if at any time you were
available to come visit the site and see it for yourself.
General Bolden. I would be glad to come.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you.
Chairman Palazzo. I want to thank the Administrator for his
valuable testimony and the Members for their questions. The
Members of the Committee may have additional questions. It has
already been expressed to me that they will, so we will ask you
to respond to those in writing. The record will remain open for
two weeks for additional comments and written questions from
Members. The witness is excused, and this hearing is adjourned.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 3:52 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Hon. Charles F. Bolden
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.093
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Submitted statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives
Good afternoon. I want to welcome NASA Administrator Bolden back to
the Committee, and I look forward to his testimony regarding NASA's
Fiscal Year 2014 budget request.
As you know, last week, the full Science, Space, and Technology
Committee heard from Dr. John Holdren, the President's Science Advisor
and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy. He described the President's budget request for R&D as one that
recognizes the ``profound importance of continued progress in science
and technology even as we work to reduce budget deficits and hold the
line on government spending.'' I could not agree more. A commitment to
deficit reduction should not negate the need to invest in our future.
And I consider NASA and its programs to be one of the most
strategic of the investments we can make as a nation. Not only is NASA
an engine of innovation for America, but it has an additional feature
that sets it apart from much of the rest of the federal R&D
enterprise--namely, its ability to inspire. That quality of inspiration
not only sets NASA apart, but it has also helped to make NASA one of
the most positive symbols of our nation, recognizable throughout the
world.
We need that inspiration, now more than ever, as we seek to
encourage our young people to pursue careers in science and
engineering. Because it is that inspiration that breathes life into
STEM education initiatives and helps the STEM curricula motivate a
diverse cross-section of our youth, including those who have
traditionally been under-represented in the STEM fields. That is one of
the reasons I told Dr. Holdren that I need to know more about the
Administration's proposed reorganization of federal STEM programs
before I can make an informed assessment of the proposed changes.
NASA's STEM initiatives and educational outreach, particularly through
its science missions, have long been able to excite our young people,
and I don't want to lose that excitement.
Ultimately, though, it is the challenging work that NASA undertakes
that makes it such a crown jewel of our nation's R&D enterprise. Yet,
as a recent report by the National Academies makes clear, ``NASA cannot
execute a robust, balanced aeronautics and space program given the
current budget constraints.'' That finding should not be a surprise to
anyone who has been on this Committee for more than a few years. We--
successive Administrations and Congresses alike--have asked NASA to
carry out many important tasks, but too often we have allowed short-
term fiscal pressures to overrule the strategic imperative to invest in
NASA at levels that are commensurate with those tasks.
I hope as we prepare to reauthorize NASA this year, that we see
investing in NASA not as a discretionary luxury, but rather as what it
is--a critical investment in the future well-being of this nation and a
beacon of inspiration for the generation that will be coming along to
create the jobs of the future, explore the unknown, and improve the
quality of life back here on Earth.
Submitted letter by the Planetary Society
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80562.097