[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BRIDGING THE GAP:
AMERICA'S WEATHER SATELLITES
AND WEATHER FORECASTING
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT &
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 12, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-5
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
___________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
93-883PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. ZOE LOFGREN, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
MICHAEL T. McCAUL FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MO BROOKS, Alabama ERIC SWALWELL, California
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
BILL POSEY, Florida AMI BERA, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma MARC A. VEASEY, TEXAS
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
STEVE KNIGHT, California PAUL TONKO, New York
BRIAN BABIN, Texas MARK TAKANO, California
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas BILL FOSTER, Illinois
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
GARY PALMER, Alabama
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
------
Subcommittee on Environment
HON. JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma, Chair
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RANDY WEBER, Texas ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
JOHN MOOLENAAR, Michigan AMI BERA, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
GARY PALMER, Alabama
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
------
Subcommittee on Oversight
HON. BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia, Chair
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., DON BEYER, Virginia
Wisconsin ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
BILL POSEY, Florida ZOE LOFGREN, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
February 12, 2015
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Jim Bridenstine, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 13
Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Enviorment, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 14
Written Statement............................................ 16
Statement by Representative Barry Loudermilk, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Oversight, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 17
Written Statement............................................ 18
Statement by Representative Donald S. Beyer, Jr, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Oversight, Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 19
Written Statement............................................ 20
Witnesses:
Mr. David Powner, Director, Information Technology Management
Issues, Government Accountability Office
Oral Statement............................................... 21
Written Statement............................................ 24
Dr. Stephen Volz, Assistant Administrator, National Environmental
Satellite, Data, and Information Services, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 49
Written Statement............................................ 52
Mr. Steven Clarke, Director, Joint Agency Satellite Division,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 66
Written Statement............................................ 68
Discussion....................................................... 72
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. David Powner, Director, Information Technology Management
Issues, Government Accountability Office....................... 98
Dr. Stephen Volz, Assistant Administrator, National Environmental
Satellite, Data, and Information Services, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration..................................... 102
Mr. Steven Clarke, Director, Joint Agency Satellite Division,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.................. 120
Dr. Alexander MacDonald, President, American Meteorological
Society; Director, Earth System Research Laboratory, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and Chief Science
Advisor, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration......................... 128
Mr. John Murphy, Director, Office of Science and Technology,
National Weather Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration................................................. 137
BRIDGING THE GAP:.
AMERICA'S WEATHER SATELLITES.
AND WEATHER FORECASTING
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2015
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment &
Subcommittee on Oversight
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim
Bridenstine [Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment]
presiding.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bridenstine. The Subcommittees on the Environment
and Oversight will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the Subcommittee at any time. Is there any objection?
No objection.
Good morning. Welcome to the today's hearing: ``Bridging
the Gap: America's Weather Satellites and Weather
Forecasting.'' In front of you are packets containing the
written testimony, biographies, and Truth in Testimony
disclosures for today's witnesses.
For opening statements, I will recognize myself for five
minutes and then I will turn to the Ranking Member and the
Chairman on Oversight and the Ranking Member on Oversight.
Good morning, and welcome to the first Environment
Subcommittee hearing for the 114th Congress. I want to thank
the Full Committee Chairman, Lamar Smith, for his continued
leadership.
I would like to congratulate Mr. Loudermilk of Georgia for
his assignment as the Chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee.
Welcome, and congratulations.
I would like to welcome back the Ranking Member, Ms.
Bonamici of Oregon, who I look forward to working with in this
Congress, and we have worked very well together in the past and
looking forward to another great Congress.
And I would like to congratulate Mr. Beyer of Virginia for
his assignment as the Ranking Member of Oversight on this
Subcommittee, so congratulations and welcome.
This Committee has held numerous hearings over the years on
NOAA's weather satellite programs. Today we continue this
oversight by examining the status of NOAA's two primary
satellite systems, the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) and
the Geostationary Environmental Operational Satellite System
(GOES). These satellites collect vital data that is fed into
the numerical weather models that are used by meteorologists to
make our forecasts, and where I come from in the great State of
Oklahoma, critically important data for predicting
thunderstorms and tornados.
These two programs comprise the lion's share of funding for
NESDIS, the satellite office at NOAA. In the newly released
Fiscal Year 2016 budget request, NESDIS accounts for over $2
billion, roughly 40 percent of the NOAA's total budget. Just
seven years ago, in 2008, NOAA's budget for satellites was less
than $1 billion and was roughly one-quarter of NOAA's overall
spending. The NESDIS budget has grown dramatically over the
last decade.
In addition, recent reports from the GAO highlight
continuing challenges with NOAA's satellite programs. The JPSS
program has been plagued with increasing costs and delays,
meaning we are probably facing a gap in satellite coverage and
data. Estimates of the data gap range from an optimistic three
months in some cases to possibly as much as five years,
depending on circumstances, in the worst-case scenario outlined
by the GAO. With a gap, our ability to predict weather would be
dramatically degraded, putting lives and property in danger.
This is especially important to me, as my home state is
Oklahoma, and we are regularly ravaged by tornados.
Likewise, the GOES program has also experienced increasing
lifecycle costs and project delays. With the first satellite
launch now pushed back to March 2016, it is important that the
program adhere to its already-delayed schedule and prevent
another gap in satellite coverage and data.
Given the criticality of JPSS and GOES to our forecasts, it
is imperative we ensure these programs receive the adequate
support and oversight to avoid further delays and costs
overruns.
I hope we can use this hearing to determine how to keep
these programs from slipping further and mitigate any possible
gaps. However, the failures of these programs to stay on track
so far highlight a recent track record for our satellite
programs that is less than good, and that the paradigm of
owning and operating large monolithic satellites might not be
the way forward.
To address this problem, we should look to augment our
satellite systems through commercial means, just as the
Department of Defense and NASA have done. There is a burgeoning
commercial industry that has incredible potential to assist us
in providing accurate information to protect American lives and
property, disaggregate risk, and save the taxpayers' dollars.
We need to have the most resilient space-based weather data
architecture ever. Instead of continuing down the path of large
government-owned satellites that are prone to cost overruns and
delays, as we look forward into the future, we must look
outside the box for new methods of providing essential weather
data. For example, there are private companies such as
PlanetIQ, Spire, GeoOptics, Tempus Global Data and HySpecIQ
that have plans to launch constellations of GPS Radio
Occultation and Hyperspectral Sounding satellites, two sources
of data that can greatly enhance our forecasting ability.
Considering options that reduce the burden on massive
government satellite systems will allow us to more accurately
predict weather in future architecture paradigms.
It has become increasingly difficult to remain optimistic
about the future of U.S. weather forecasting, which currently
lags behind the UK, Europe, and Canada in terms of accuracy,
when we have satellite programs that are plagued with
increasing costs and perpetual delays. The prospect of gaps in
satellite data are even higher. We need to look for ways to
reduce government burdens and eliminate these types of problems
while increasing our ability to protect American lives and
property.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and I
would like to recognize our Ranking Member, the gentlelady from
Oregon, for an opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bridenstine follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Environment
Chairman Jim Bridenstine
Good morning and welcome to the first Environment Subcommittee
hearing of the 114th Congress. I want to thank the Full Committee
Chairman, Lamar Smith, for his continued leadership. I'd like to
congratulate Mr. Loudermilk of Georgia for his assignment as the
Chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee. Finally, I also want to welcome
back the ranking member, Ms. Bonamici of Oregon, with whom I have
worked closely during my time in Congress. I look forward to working
with you this Congress.
This Committee has held numerous hearings over the years on NOAA's
weather satellite programs. Today we continue this oversight by
examining the status of NOAA's two primary satellite systems, the Joint
Polar Satellite System (JPSS) and the Geostationary Environmental
Operational Satellite System (GOES). These satellites collect vital
data that is fed into numerical weather models used by meteorologists
to make our forecasts.
These two programs comprise the lion's share of funding for NESDIS,
the satellite office at NOAA. In the newly released Fiscal Year 2016
budget request, NESDIS accounts for over $2 billion dollars, roughly
40% of the NOAA's total budget. Just seven years ago, in 2008, NOAA's
budget for satellites was less than $1 billion and was roughly one-
quarter of NOAA's overall spending. The NESDIS budget has grown
dramatically over the last decade.
In addition, recent reports from the Government Accountability
Office highlight continuing challenges with NOAA's satellite programs.
The JPSS program has been plagued with increasing costs and delays,
meaning we are probably facing a gap in satellite coverage and data.
Estimates of the data gap range from an optimistic three months, to
possibly five years in the worst case scenario outlined by GAO. With a
gap, our ability to predict weather would be dramatically degraded,
putting lives and property in danger.
This is especially important to me, as my home state of Oklahoma is
regularly ravaged by tornadoes. Likewise, the GOES program has also
experienced increasing life-cycle costs and project delays. With the
first satellite launch now pushed back to March 2016, it is important
that the program adhere to its already-delayed schedule to prevent
another gap in satellite coverage and data.
Given the criticality of JPSS and GOES to our forecasts, it is
imperative we ensure these programs receive the adequate support and
oversight to avoid further delays and costs overruns. I hope we can use
this hearing to determine how to keep these programs from slipping
further and mitigate any possible gaps.
However, the failures of these programs to stay on track so far
highlight a recent track record for our satellite programs that is
poor, and that the paradigm of owning and operating large monolithic
satellites is broken. To address this problem, we should look to
augment our satellite systems through commercial means, just as the
Department of Defense and NASA have done. There is a burgeoning
commercial industry that has incredible potential to assist us in
providing accurate information to protect American lives and property,
disaggregate risk, and save the taxpayers' dollars. We need to have the
most resilient space-based architecture possible.
Instead of continuing down the path of large government-owned
satellites that are prone to cost overruns and delays, we must look
outside the box for new methods of providing essential weather data.
For example, there are private companies such as PlanetIQ, Spire,
GeoOptics, Tempus Global Data and HySpecIQ that have plans to launch
constellations of GPS Radio Occultation and Hyperspectral Sounding
satellites, two sources of data that can greatly enhance our
forecasting ability. Considering options that reduce the burden on
massive government satellite systems will allow us to more accurately
predict the weather.
It has become increasingly difficult to remain optimistic about the
future of U.S. weather forecasting, which currently lags behind the UK,
Europe, and Canada in terms of accuracy, when we have satellite
programs that are plagued with increasing costs and perpetual delays.
The prospect of gaps in satellite data is higher than ever. We need to
look for ways to reduce government burdens and eliminate these types of
problems while increasing our ability to protect American lives and
property.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and yield back
the balance of my time.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want
to begin this morning by offering my congratulations to you,
Mr. Bridenstine, and to our new Oversight Subcommittee
Chairman, Mr. Loudermilk, and to our Oversight Ranking Member,
Mr. Beyer. I would also like to extend a warm welcome to all of
the new Subcommittee members. We are very fortunate to have the
opportunity to serve on the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology and to help shape policies that are critical to the
long-term health and prosperity of the Nation.
This morning's hearing is a fitting way to undertake our
work. Oversight of NOAA's weather satellites has been a
longstanding bipartisan effort of this Committee, spanning many
Administrations and sessions of Congress, and it is my hope
that this hearing is just the beginning of a productive and
bipartisan working relationship.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I doubt that the average American spends
much time thinking about the weather satellites managed by
NOAA. We might, but I do know that one of the first things many
of us do each morning is turn on the television or get on the
internet or our favorite app to read the day's weather
forecast, and that is because weather is important, affecting
everything from our commute to the food on our table. In fact,
a 2009 study from the American Meteorological Society stated
that U.S. weather forecasts generated $31.5 billion in profits
compared to costs of $5.1 billion.
On this Committee, we have worked on finding ways to
improve forecasting to protect the American people and the
economy from the impacts of severe weather, and I am proud to
be working the Chairman on bipartisan legislation, the Weather
Forecasting Improvement Act, to advance NOAA's weather research
enterprise and improve the products and services offered by the
National Weather Service. That effort is important and ongoing.
But meanwhile, any loss of coverage from the polar
satellites or the geostationary satellites would have very
serious consequences regarding the accuracy and timeliness of
our weather forecasts and the capabilities of the Weather
Service. Unfortunately, years of trouble and mismanagement in
the polar satellite program mean that we will have a gap in
coverage within the next decade, with the worst-case scenario
being a gap lasting more than five years. In addition, there
remains a chance that we face a gap in geostationary satellite
coverage as well.
I am certain that we will hear from today's witnesses about
progress that has been made in this area, and I am pleased that
NOAA and NASA are working to get these programs back on track.
I applaud you for your efforts, but we are here today to
emphasize the importance of maintaining focus on getting these
programs where they need to be to protect American people and
our economy. It may be possible to reduce the gap in coverage
if there is optimal performance by our current satellites that
enables them to greatly exceed their design lives.
Additionally, if JPSS-1 and GOES-R launch on time, that may
reduce the gap in coverage. It is still important that prudent
managers have plans in place in the event of failure, and it is
also critical that any gap mitigation strategy is well
developed and ready to implement.
Unfortunately, the testimony today from GAO highlights a
number of concerns with these contingency plans, specifically
with NOAA's plans to respond to the near-term data gap for our
polar satellites.
So the questions and issues for our witnesses today are
quite simple: How can we best minimize the duration and impact
of a gap in the polar program? How can we avoid a gap in the
geostationary program? And are plans to fill gaps in coverage
appropriately mature, prioritized, and ready to implement?
The American public may not spend much time thinking about
where their weather forecasts come from, but they will notice
if those forecasts aren't reliable. I am looking forward to
hearing from the witnesses from GAO, NOAA and NASA to discuss
how their agencies' plans to address the looming gap in
satellite coverage.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Environment
Minority Ranking Member Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to begin this morning by offering
my congratulations to you, Mr. Bridenstine, the new Chairman of the
Environment Subcommittee, to our new Oversight Subcommittee Chairman,
Mr. Loudermilk (Louder-milk), and to new Oversight Ranking Member Mr.
Beyer. I'd also like to extend a warm welcome to all of the new
Subcommittee members. We are fortunate to have the opportunity to serve
on the Science Committee and to help shape policies that are critical
to the long-term health and prosperity of the nation.
This morning's hearing is a fitting way to undertake our work.
Oversight of NOAA's weather satellites has been a long-standing
bipartisan effort of this Committee--spanning many Administrations and
sessions of Congress. It's my hope that this hearing is just the
beginning of a productive and bipartisan working relationship.
Mr. Chairman, I doubt the average American spends much time
thinking about the weather satellites managed by NOAA, but I do know
one of the first things many of us do each morning is turn on the
television or get on the internet or our favorite phone app to read the
day's weather forecast.
That's because weather is important, affecting everything from our
commute to the food on our table. In fact, a 2009 study from the
American Meteorological Society stated that U.S. weather forecasts
generated $31.5 billion in benefits compared to costs of $5.1 billion.
On this Committee, we have worked on finding ways to improve
forecasting to protect the American people and the economy from the
impacts of severe weather. I am proud to be working the Chairman on
bipartisan legislation, the Weather Forecasting Improvement Act, to
advance NOAA's weather research enterprise and improve the products and
services offered by the National Weather Service. That effort is
important and ongoing.
But meanwhile any loss of coverage from the polar satellites or the
geostationary satellites would have very serious consequences regarding
the accuracy and timeliness of our weather forecasts and the
capabilities of the Weather Service.
Unfortunately, years of trouble and mismanagement in the polar
satellite program mean that we will have a gap in coverage within the
next decade, with the worst case scenario being a gap lasting more than
five years. In addition, there remains a chance that we face a gap in
geostationary satellite coverage as well.
I am certain that we will hear from today's witnesses about the
significant progress that's been made in this area, and I am pleased
that NOAA and NASA are working to get these programs back on track. I
applaud you for your efforts, but we are here today to emphasize the
importance of maintaining focus on getting these programs where they
need to be to protect American people and our economy.
It may be possible to reduce the gap in coverage if there is ptimal
performance by our current satellites that enables them to greatly
exceed their design lives. Additionally, if JPSS-1 and GOES-R launch on
time, that may reduce the gap in coverage. It's still important, that
prudent managers have plans in the event of failure, and it's also
critical that any gap mitigation strategy is well developed andready to
implement.
Unfortunately, the testimony today from GAO highlights a number of
concerns with these contingency plans, specifically with NOAA's plans
to respond to the near-term data gap for our polar satellites.
The questions for our witnesses today are simple: How can we best
minimize the duration and impact of a gap in the polar program? How can
we avoid a gap in the geostationary program? And, are plans to fill
gaps in coverage appropriately mature, prioritized, and ready to
implement?
The American public may not spend much time thinking about where
their weather forecasts come from, but they will notice if those
forecasts aren't reliable. I'm looking forward to hearing the witnesses
from GAO, NOAA, and NASA discuss the agencies' plan of action to
address the looming gap in satellite coverage.
I'm also interested in learning how NOAA and NASA are working to
ensure that we don't face a similar situation in the future. The
President's fiscal year 2016 budget request includes $380 million for a
Polar Follow-On program. How will this program make our satellite
program more robust? Do we need to rethink or modify the model we use
for acquiring weather data?
Mr. Chairman, let me end by again offering my congratulations. I
look forward to working with you and the Subcommittee on important
issues like those we are discussing today. Thank you and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. I now
recognize the Chair of the Oversight Committee, the gentleman
from Georgia, for an opening statement.
Mr. Loudermilk. Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chairman,
and congratulations to you, the Ranking Members of both
Subcommittees, and especially thank the members of the
Oversight Subcommittee for being here today.
And Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today.
This is our first joint Environmental and Oversight Committee
hearing of the 114th Congress, and I look forward to working
with you on the oversight of environmental issues important to
all of us.
We are here today to hear from GAO, NOAA, and NASA
regarding the progress of NOAA's polar orbiting and
geostationary satellite programs, respectively JPSS and GOES-R,
as well as how the data collected by weather satellites turns
into weather forecasts depended on by so many in the United
States, and quite frankly, around the entire world.
GAO recently published a report detailing its concern that
the NOAA polar satellite program, JPSS, is facing an
unprecedented gap in satellite data. GAO believes that, while
JPSS remains within its new lifecycle cost estimate and
schedule baselines, recent rises in component costs and
technical issues during development increase the likelihood of
a near-term data gap. Additionally, although NOAA has recently
reduced its estimated potential gap from fifteen to only three
months, GAO notes that this assessment was based on incomplete
data, such as the risks posed by space debris to satellite
hardware. GAO estimates in its report that a data gap may occur
earlier and last longer than NOAA anticipates.
Perhaps even more troubling is the potential data gap
facing NOAA's GOES-R program, the geostationary satellite
system. Since its inception, the GOES-R program has undergone
significant increases in cost and reductions in scope, and as
GAO's report indicates, NOAA has yet to reverse or even halt
this trend. The program was originally planned to launch mid-
2012, a date that has now been pushed back to March of 2016.
NOAA will retire one of its two operational satellites this
year and move its backup satellite into orbit. This means we
will face a period of up to 17 months without a backup
satellite in orbit.
History has shown us that backups are sometimes necessary
to reduce risk to public safety and the economy. In 2008 and
2012, the agency was forced to use backup satellites to cover
problems with operational satellites, a solution we may once
again find ourselves needing.
When talking about the consequences of a gap in weather
data, the first thought in the minds of many is of the
devastating effects of extreme weather on the ground. My
professional and personal history, however, demands that I
discuss another type of weather with which I have quite a bit
of experience, and that is aviation weather.
As a private pilot, I know the importance of having
accurate and timely weather forecasts to assess flying
conditions. Pilots must evaluate conditions on the ground and
in the sky throughout the entire flight process, from preflight
planning to takeoff and landing. If a pilot does not know which
aviation-specific weather conditions to expect, such as
embedded thunderstorms, turbulence, and freeze levels, that
pilot runs the risk of what we call getting behind the plane.
That is a general aviation phrase which means that the plane is
responding to the weather and the pilot is responding to the
plane, and that is a situation that spells trouble for even the
most seasoned pilots.
From this perspective, you can see how a gap in weather
data, and consequently less accurate forecasts, could
negatively affect not only commercial flight safety, but also
the $1.5 trillion in total economic activity that the aviation
industry contributes to the national economy.
I hope that today's hearing will shed some light on the
complex issue and cost demands facing NOAA's weather satellite
programs and that the Subcommittees will walk away better
equipped to consider these issues moving forward.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Loudermilk follows:]
Prepared Statement of Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Barry Loudermilk
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing
today. This is our first joint Environment and Oversight Subcommittee
hearing of the 114th Congress, and I look forward to working with you
on the oversight of environmental issues important to us both.
We are here today to hear from GAO, NOAA, and NASA regarding the
progress of NOAA's polar orbiting and geostationary satellite programs,
respectively JPSS and GOES-R, as well as how the data collected by
weather satellites turns into weather forecasts depended on by so many
in the United States, and quite frankly, around the world.
GAO recently published a report detailing its concern that the NOAA
polar satellite program, JPSS, is facing an unprecedented gap in
satellite data. GAO believes that, while JPSS remains within its new
lifecycle cost estimate and schedule baselines, recent rises in
component costs and technical issues during development increase the
likelihood of a near-term data gap. Additionally, although NOAA has
recently reduced its estimated potential gap from 15 to only 3 months,
GAO notes that this assessment was based on incomplete data, such as
the risks posed by space debris to satellite hardware. GAO estimates in
its report that a data gap may occur earlier and last longer than NOAA
anticipates.
Perhaps even more troubling is the potential data gap facing NOAA's
GOES-R program, the geostationary satellite system. Since its
inception, the GOES-R program has undergone significant increases in
cost and reductions in scope, and as GAO's report indicates, NOAA has
yet to reverse or even halt this trend. The program was originally
planned to launch mid-2012, a date that has now been pushed back to
March of 2016. NOAA will retire one of its two operational satellites
this year and move its backup satellite into orbit. This means we will
face a period of up to 17 months without a backup satellite in orbit.
History has shown us that backups are sometimes necessary to reduce
risk to public safety and the economy. In 2008 and 2012, the agency was
forced to use backup satellites to cover problems with operational
satellites, a solution we may once again find ourselves needing.
When talking about the consequences of a gap in weather data, the
first thought in the minds of many is of the devastating effects of
extreme weather on the ground. My professional and personal history,
however, demands that I discuss another type of weather with which I
have quite a bit of experience: aviation weather. As a private pilot, I
know the importance of having accurate and timely weather forecasts to
assess flying conditions. Pilots must evaluate conditions on the ground
and in the sky throughout the entire flight process, from takeoff to
landing. If a pilot does not know which aviationspecific weather
conditions to expect, such as embedded thunderstorms, turbulence, and
freeze levels, that pilot runs the risk of ``getting behind the
plane,'' a general aviation phrase which means that the plane is
responding to the weather and the pilot is responding to the plane, a
situation that spells trouble for even the most seasoned pilots.
From this perspective, you can see how a gap in weather data, and
consequently less-accurate forecasts, could negatively affect not only
commercial flight safety, but also the $1.5 trillion in total economic
activity that the aviation industry contributes to the national
economy.
I hope that today's hearing will shed some light on the complex
schedule and cost demands facing NOAA's weather satellite programs and
that the Subcommittees will walk away better equipped to consider these
issues moving forward.
Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Loudermilk. I now
recognize the Ranking Member from the Subcommittee on
Oversight, the gentleman from Virginia, for an opening
statement.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to add my
congratulations to Chairman Bridenstine and Chairman
Loudermilk, and we are really looking forward to working with
you. I am thrilled to work with Ranking Member Bonamici, and
just join myself with all the comments welcoming the various
folks.
I am told that historically, this Committee has been a
haven of bipartisanship, and in the area of oversight, I really
hope that we can work together to improve the quality of
government services and protect taxpayer interests, and from my
side, I am really looking forward to working with my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle.
You know, six years ago I had the remarkable responsibility
to lead the transition team for President-Elect Obama at the
Department of Commerce. Seventy-seven days, 6:00 in the morning
until midnight. I learned to drink coffee for the first time.
And I very quickly discovered that the number one problem in
the Department of Commerce were the weather satellites, that
the things we saw were the cost overruns were many multiples of
the original idea. There were no reliable launch dates at all.
We couldn't get the equipment to work. The satellites were
loaded up with lots and lots of different ideas but none of
which could work out. They had this tripartite management
system with DoD, NASA and NOAA, and no one was in charge, so it
was actually very encouraging to see how far we have come in
these six years to have narrowed it to where we are.
But we still had a rocky acquisition with the new series of
weather satellites, and the polar orbiting satellites
especially have been troubled. Costs have doubled. The money is
now buying just two satellites instead of the original
intention to acquire six, and the satellites that fly will be
less capable because the instruments are going to be reduced
from 13 down to just 5, and they are still years behind
schedule.
By comparison, the geostationary satellites seem to be
models of efficiency, but they too have had trouble too with
cost growth and areas of delays. As satellites that have a
critical role in weather forecasting, losing coverage of either
system could have serious, perhaps catastrophic effects on
public safety. Both the Joint Polar Satellite System and the
Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites face this
possibility of a gap in coverage, and I hope that if we learn
only one thing today, learning how to really address this gap,
will help us go forward.
At this point, the only way to avoid the gap is to be very,
very lucky, and that is not a really good plan. You know, the
problem is that the cost of these satellites distorts all the
rest of NOAA's budget and limits the agency's resources for the
many, many other important functions that they have--research
into weather, oceans, climate science. Surely NOAA understands
that the JPSS program represents a failure and an unsustainable
model, so going forward, we have to find a more efficient,
reliable means to put these instruments into orbit, and Mr.
Chairman, I was interested in your alternatives.
GAO has been working with this Committee on these satellite
programs for ten years. Without their expert and committed
assistance, the Congress and the public would know far less
about the risks in these programs. Every GAO product and team
has to be measured on its own terms, but this group that has
been working on the satellites system is among our very best,
and I think the Committee has to be very grateful for their
service.
For all the lessons that can be learned from the JPSS and
GOES acquisitions, the most important immediate challenge has
to be to complete both projects as expeditiously as possible.
It is great that we have a pretty reliable launch date, but we
have got to get them in orbit, checked out, and bring their
data online as quickly as possible, and after years of truly
worrisome reports, it appears that NOAA and NASA have good
management teams in place and the contractors are now
delivering as promised, and the Committee wants to be as
helpful and supportive as we can as we reach this last stretch
going into launch.
At the same time, the news from GAO that NOAA is not well
positioned on the data-gap mitigation plans in place is
disappointing, and I hope we learn more today about we are
going to do that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Beyer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Oversight
Minority Ranking Member Donald S. Beyer, Jr.
I want to associate myself with the comments from my colleague,
Ranking Member Bonamici, in welcoming everyone. I am told that
historically, this Committee has been a haven of bipartisanship. In the
area of oversight, I hope that we can work together to improve the
quality of government services and protect taxpayer interests. I am
looking forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle.
NOAA has had a rocky acquisition with the new series of weather
satellites. The Polar Orbiting satellites have been particularly
troubled. The costs have doubled. More money is buying just two
satellites instead of the original intention to acquire six satellites.
The satellites that fly will be less capable, with instruments reduced
from 13 to just 5. Finally, the satellites are years behind schedule.
By comparison, the Geostationary satellites are models of efficiency,
but they have had trouble too with cost growth in some areas and
delays.
As satellites that have a critical role in weather forecasting,
losing coverage of either system could have serious, perhaps
catastrophic effects on public safety. Both the Joint Polar Satellite
System (JPSS) and the Geostationary Operational Environmental
Satellites (GOES) face a possibility of a gap in coverage--with the
risks on JPSS being so high that a gap appears to be almost
unavoidable. At this point, the only way to avoid such a gap is to be
very, very lucky. Luck is not a plan, and bad luck is as probable as
good luck.
The cost of these satellites distorts NOAA's budget, and limits the
agency's resources for weather forecasting and important research into
weather, oceans and climate science. Surely NOAA understands that the
JPSS program represents a failure and an unsustainable model. Going
forward the agency has to find a more efficient, more reliable means to
put its instruments on orbit.
GAO has been working with this Committee on these satellite
programs for ten years. Without their expert and committed assistance,
the Congress and the public would know far less about the risks in
these programs. Every GAO product, and team, has to be measured on its
own terms. The group that has worked on the satellites system is among
the best this Committee has ever worked with and we are very grateful
for your help.
For all the lessons that can be learned from the JPSS and GOES
acquisitions, the most important immediate challenge has to be to
complete both projects as expeditiously as possible. We must get
working satellites on orbit, checked out, and bring their data on-line
as quickly as possible.
After years of truly worrisome reports, it appears that NOAA and
NASA have good management teams in place and the contractors are now
delivering as promised. The Committee wants to be helpful and
supportive as we reach the last stretch going into launch.
At the same time, the news from GAO that NOAA is not well
positioned with data-gap mitigation plans in place is disappointing.
This is an issue I want to hear more about and I hope we can leave this
hearing with a clear commitment to preparing for what to do should the
worst happen.
Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Beyer.
If there are other Members who wish to submit additional
opening statements, your statements will be added to the record
at this point.
At this time I would like to introduce our witnesses. Our
first witness today is Mr. David Powner, Director of
Information Technology Management Issues at the GAO. Our second
witness is Dr. Stephen Volz, Assistant Administrator of the
National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service--
NESDIS--at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration--NOAA. Our third witness today is Mr. Steven
Clarke, Director of the Joint Agency Satellite Division at the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. We will also be
joined for questioning by Dr. Alexander MacDonald, Director of
the Earth System Research Laboratory at NOAA, Chief Science
Advisor for NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research,
and this year's President of the American Meteorological
Society. Finally, we are joined for questioning by Mr. John
Murphy, Director of the Office of Science and Technology at the
National Weather Service for NOAA. Thank you, gentlemen, for
all being here.
Pursuant to the Committee rules, all witnesses will be
sworn in before they testify, so if you would please stand up
and raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear or affirm that
the testimony that you are about to give will be the truth, the
whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? You may
be seated. Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered
in the affirmative. Thank you.
In order to allow for discussion, please limit your
testimony to five minutes for your opening statements. Your
entire written statement will be made part of the record.
I now recognize Mr. Powner for five minutes to present his
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MR. DAVID POWNER, DIRECTOR,
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT ISSUES,
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Powner. Chairmen Bridenstine, Loudermilk, Ranking
Members Bonamici, Beyer, and Members of the Subcommittees, two
years ago, GAO added potential gaps in weather satellite
coverage in consultation with this Committee as a high-risk
area demanding immediate attention from NOAA management.
Gaps in weather satellite coverage are likely and could
affect lives and our economy. This morning I will provide a
brief update on these gaps, contingency plans to address the
gaps, and an update on the JPSS and GOES satellite
acquisitions.
Starting with JPSS, an $11.3 billion acquisition that is to
result in two polar orbiting satellites expected to be launched
in March 2017 and December 2021. There has been significant
progress on both the flight and ground components, and the
program is expecting to meet its cost and schedule targets.
However, since July 2013, cost estimates have gone up two
percent, or over $220 million. The ATMS and CriS instruments
have had the most significant increases. Although this doesn't
sound like much, if this cost growth continued annually, the
program would surpass its cost baseline by 2018 and end up
costing $2 billion more through 2025.
The launch date of March 2017 looks good, but a key
instrument to watch is ATMS. Its delivery slipped 12 months to
March 2015 as we reported last month but we have now learned
that there is another three month slip to June. Schedule
reserves continue to dwindle, and oversight of this June
delivery is very important to make sure that the March 2017
launch date holds.
A key risk to the current operational satellites to note is
space debris. NASA recently updated its assessment of orbital
debris, which concluded an increased likelihood at the altitude
where the JPSS satellites operate. The current operational
satellite that was originally intended as a demonstration
satellite was not built with the appropriate shielding to
protect against small debris the way the first JPSS satellite
is currently being constructed.
The likely gap in satellite coverage is 11 months. The
current operational satellite is expected to last through
October 2016, and with the March 2017 planned launch date and
the six month checkout, NOAA could very well be facing a gap in
coverage from October 2016 through September 2017, as shown on
the one-page summary in my written statement. Any issues with
space debris or delays in the JPSS launch or the checkout
period would result in a larger gap.
Multiple alternatives exist to prevent or reduce the impact
of the gap. The best alternatives according to experts include
extending the use of legacy satellites like POES and obtaining
data from European mid-morning satellites, obtaining additional
observations from commercial aircraft and radio occultation,
enhancing forecast models, and increasingly high-performance
computing capacity.
NOAA has improved its satellite gap contingency plans by,
among other things, adding more alternatives, which now total
21 mitigation projects. However, there are three things we
would like to see more done.
NOAA needs to, one, update its polar satellite gap
assessment to include changes in the current satellite's
expected lifespan; two, revise its contingency plan to include
an assessment of alternatives based on cost, and three,
prioritize the mitigation projects in its plan.
Moving now to GOES, a $10.8 billion acquisition that will
result in four geostationary satellites with the first expected
to be launched in March 2016. The GOES program continues to
make excellent progress as all six satellite--as all six
instruments have completed testing and the program is well into
the integration and testing phases. The program is currently
operating within its $10.8 billion lifecycle cost estimate but
we saw a slight increases in both the ground system and two
instruments but we think overall the program is on solid cost
footing.
We have more doubts whether GOES will meet its scheduled
launch date because we are seeing delays in key testing dates
and also because the spacecraft integration testing has moved
to 24 hours a day, seven days a week testing schedule.
Maintaining this March 2016 launch date is crucial because an
operational GOES satellite is expected to reach the end of its
useful life by April of this year, and GOES-R is expected to
have a 6-month checkout period. Therefore, there may be no
backup from April 2015 through September 2016. GOES's latest
contingency plan released in February of 2014 overall looks
very good but we would like to see more focus on preventing
additional launch delays.
In summary, on the JPSS, we have more concerns about cost
and schedule, while on GOES we are more concerned about the
launch date. Both programs are likely to face gaps, and
improvements to contingency plans need to continue.
This concludes my statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Powner follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Powner.
I now recognize Dr. Volz for five minutes to present his
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. STEPHEN VOLZ,
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE,
DATA, AND INFORMATION SERVICES,
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Dr. Volz. Good morning, Chairmen Bridenstine and
Loudermilk, Ranking Members Bonamici and Beyer, and Members of
the Committee, I am pleased to be here today along with my
colleagues from NOAA, John Murphy and Sandy MacDonald. All of
us share a desire to ensure that the JPSS and GOES-R series
programs are successful and support the Nation's weather
enterprise.
We appreciate that Congress is supportive of NOAA's
programs in the Fiscal Year 2015 appropriations bill. With
these resources, NOAA will continue to provide environmental
intelligence that is timely, accurate, actionable, reliable
space-based information that citizens, communities and
businesses need to stay safe and to operate efficiently.
Funding stability is essential for NOAA to maintain our
operational readiness and to continue our progress in our
critical research programs. For the NOAA satellite portfolio,
we will provide continuous satellite data for current
operations while maintaining essential satellite development to
ensure the continuity of service to our customers and users
into the future.
Every day, decisions are made by citizens and individuals
and businesses based on the weather forecast, and we understand
and appreciate it is our responsibility to operate the
satellites that provide those data that go into the weather
forecast. Our current operational geostationary and polar
orbiting satellites provide on a 24-7 basis the space-based
weather data required to support the weather enterprise of both
the National Weather Service and the private weather industry.
Research like in Sandy MacDonald's organization and in academia
use these satellite data to develop products that can help the
weather forecasters in John Murphy's organization produce those
improved forecasts. And just yesterday, working together, NOAA,
NASA and the Air Force launched the Deep Space Climate
Observatory, or DSCOVR satellite on a SpaceX rocket from Cape
Canaveral and it is now on its way to its observation point a
million miles away from the Earth.
DSCOVR is a NOAA-operated follow-on to NASA's Advanced
Composition Explorer, or ACE satellite, and as our buoy in
space for geomagnetic storm warnings, the DSCOVR satellite will
provide critical in situ data of these approaching solar storms
in NOAA's Space Weather Prediction Center, or SWPC, and SWPC
and the NWS provides the alerts, forecasts and warnings to
commercial users, customers such as the aviation industry,
telecommunications, operators of the electrical grid system,
all of whom could be significantly affected by such events.
Turning to the GOES-R series and JPSS satellites that are
the focus of this meeting, I am pleased to report that these
programs are making excellent progress towards their launch
dates. About this time next year, we will be preparing GOES-R
at Cape Canaveral for its launch in March of 2016. GOES-R, the
first in a series of four satellites with significant enhanced
capabilities over the current GOES satellites, will continue
NOAA's satellite provisions of 24/7 constant monitoring of the
Atlantic Ocean, the continental United States, Hawaii,
California and the Pacific Ocean for weather. Through ongoing
work at the GOES-R proving ground, we are providing simulated
GOES-R data to users now so that they will be ready for the
real data flow immediately after launch and instrument
commission in 2016.
NOAA announced recently that GOES-R satellite will be
placed into operational service immediately following its
initial onboard checkout period, again to ensure these
measurements are made available to the Federal and public users
immediately.
Moving to JPSS, by March 2017 the second satellite in the
JPSS program, JPSS-1, will be launched. The launch of JPSS-1
will continue the numerical--the gains in numerical weather
prediction modeling that we have benefited from since the Suomi
NPP satellite was launched four years ago. The high-resolution
sounders on Suomi NPP, ATMS and CriS, have provided immediate
benefits to the quality of the NWS weather prediction models
and ultimately the weather forecasts we all depend on.
In addition, the VIIRS imager on Suomi NPP has brought much
improved observations of sea ice in the Alaskan and Arctic
waters. The NWS and the U.S. Coast Guard are using blended
products from VIIRS and commercially purchased synthetic
aperture radar data to better map the ice and warn boats to
avoid water where sea ice hazards exist.
The joint NASA-NOAA JPSS team has completed the procurement
activities for the JPSS-2 instruments to accelerate the launch
date for that mission. NESDIS is also advancing the development
of the ground system for the COSMIC-2 radio occultation
mission. This mission, which will be launched in 2016 in
partnership with the U.S. Air Force and the National Space
Organization of Taiwan, will provide thousands of critical
radio occultation sightings per day and making a significant
contribution to the NWS weather models.
In their reports, Mr. Powner and his staff have provided a
number of observations along with specific recommendations from
their most recent reviews of the GOES-R and JPSS programs. We
value the dialog with the GAO as well as with other independent
reviewers. As I have noted from my years with NASA, preparing
for review is more benefit sometimes than actually the review
itself. We concur with their assessments about the importance
of these missions and need to stay vigilant and focused on
mission success as indicated in the recommendations, and we
folded those recommendations into our implementation plans
moving forward.
In conclusion, these important programs, GOES-R and JPSS,
have benefited from the best experience of NOAA, NASA and our
aerospace partners and are making strong and consistent
progress towards launch. Data from the satellites will support
the complex process of developing the weather forecast in a
three to seven seven day period. We believe these satellite
programs have potential for success and to be able to provide
the information needed for decision-making.
Thank you, and I look forward to answering questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Volz follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you for your testimony, Dr.
Volz.
Mr. Clarke, you are recognized for five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF MR. STEVEN CLARKE, DIRECTOR,
JOINT AGENCY SATELLITE DIVISION,
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Clarke. Chairmen, Ranking Members and other Members of
the Subcommittees, good morning, and thank you for the
opportunity to appear today to provide you information
regarding NASA's role in and commitment to NOAA's Joint Polar
Satellite System (JPSS) and Geostationary Operational
Environmental Satellite-R (GOES-R) series programs.
JPSS and GOES-R programs are critical to the nation's
weather forecasting system, environmental monitoring and
research activities. NASA and NOAA have been partners for more
than 40 years in developing the nation's polar and
geosynchronous weather satellites.
Following the restructure of the National Polar-orbiting
Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) program in
2010, NASA and NOAA returned to the successful partnership for
JPSS. A NASA program office for JPSS was created and is staffed
with a complement of NASA's civil servants and contractors.
NOAA and NASA established joint agency-level program management
councils to oversee JPSS and GOES-R and have integrated their
decision-making processes to efficiently and effectively manage
this cooperative activity.
The NASA and NOAA teams have continually demonstrated a
strong working relationship over the last four years, and as
Dr. Volz mentioned, I am very pleased and proud the NASA and
NOAA team in partnership with the U.S. Air Force and SpaceX in
launching the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR), which
will maintain the Nation's real-time solar wind monitoring
capabilities. These measurements are critical to the accuracy
and lead time of space weather alerts and forecasts. Once it
reaches its destination at the first Sun-Earth Lagrangian point
L-1, DSCOVR will help provide timely and accurate warnings of
space weather events like the geomagnetic storms caused by
changes in solar wind, which have the potential to disrupt
nearly every major public infrastructure system, including
power grids, telecommunications, aviation and the Global
Positioning System (GPS).
Additionally, in the past four years of our partnership,
NASA and NOAA have successfully launched the Suomi National
Polar-orbiting Partnership (NPP) mission and the Total Solar
Irridiance Calibration Transfer Experiment (TCTE) payload.
Suomi NPP celebrated its three-year on-orbit anniversary this
past October, providing operational data to NOAA for use in
weather forecasting. The satellite was developed to extend the
record of key observations from the NASA Earth Observing System
series of satellites and to demonstrate spaceflight and ground
data-processing technologies for the next generation of
operational polar-orbiting meteorological satellites.
The JPSS-1 mission is on track towards the planned second-
quarter Fiscal Year 2017 launch. The spacecraft Integration
Readiness Review was completed in December and both the Clouds
and Earth Radiant Energy System (CERES) and the Ozone Mapping
and Profiler Suite-Nadir (OMPS-N) instruments have been fully
integrated with the spacecraft. The Visible Infrared Imaging
Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) and Cross-track Infrared Sounder
(CrIS) instruments have completed environmental testing and are
ready for installation onto the JPSS spacecraft.
The GOES-R series program of four geosynchronous satellites
continues to make progress toward launching GOES-R, the first
satellite of the series, in the second quarter of Fiscal Year
2016, and manufacturing GOES-S, the second satellite of the
series, with a planned launch date in the third quarter of
Fiscal Year 2017. Last year, the GOES-R Series Program
successfully completed the GOES-R spacecraft Mission Operations
Review and System Integration Review, allowing the spacecraft
to enter the assembly, integration and test phase.
NASA and NOAA are committed to the JPSS and GOES-R
programs, and ensuring the success of these programs is
essential to both agencies and the Nation. The NASA and NOAA
teams have established strong working relationships and are
striving to ensure that weather and environmental monitoring
requirements are met on the most efficient schedule without
reducing system capabilities. I am confident the NASA/NOAA
partnership will successfully develop and deliver the next-
generation polar and geosynchronous weather satellites to our
Nation.
Mr. Chairmen and Ranking Members, I appreciate the
continued support of these Subcommittees and the Congress, and
would be pleased to respond to any questions you or the other
Members of the Subcommittees may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Clarke follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Clarke.
Members are reminded that the Committee rules limit
questioning to five minutes. I will now recognize myself for
five minutes of questioning.
Dr. Volz, I have heard some of my colleagues suggest that
NASA should be in charge of procuring satellites and NOAA
should be in charge of operating weather satellites. Clearly,
you have a background that include both NASA and NOAA. What are
your thoughts on this?
Dr. Volz. Mr. Bridenstine, I think specifically NASA and
NOAA are working together and in a very productive relationship
now. NASA is the development agency for us. They do the
satellite systems engineering, the mission systems engineering,
the project management of all of our large satellite systems,
but in a close partnership relationship with NOAA. So with NOAA
being responsible for the program--overall program from the
initiation to the requirements to the decisions based on what
performance the satellites are expected and need to provide to
the implementation of the data products, the analysis, the user
community supporting the mission weather projects and all that.
So it is--to separate those, the beginning-to-end
responsibility of NOAA as the eventual provider of the weather
predictions, the weather forecasts from the actual
implementation would be generally a very--would be a poor
choice to make.
The partnership now does recognize the skills of both
agencies, NASA as a very strong research and development
organization with systems engineering and mission development
experience and NOAA as the weather service, the weather
provider, the agency that knows the requirements and has the
community outreach and engagement to provide the weather
products into the future.
So such a partnership--a change in the partnership would be
to--would adversely affect the performance, I think, of our
agency, of NOAA's ability to meets its requirements and deliver
the services to the Nation.
Chairman Bridenstine. Is it safe to say that if NOAA is
responsible for generating the requirements, they should also
be in charge of the budget and maybe not NASA? NASA can do the
actual technical innovation but NOAA would be responsible for
the budget?
Dr. Volz. That is fair to say, sir, but when you actually
are implementing a satellite program, it is not a question of
just setting a set of requirements, handing it over and coming
back when the satellite is delivered. The development, as we
have seen in these programs, of satellites takes many years and
innumerable trades that are made during the design, development
and testing phase which may affect the ultimate performance of
the satellite. So it is not a simple question of just setting
something and waiting for the delivery. There is an iterative
process which involves active engagement between the user
community that will use the eventual product coming out of it
and the implementers, so that is why the partnership as it is
written where NASA is at the table with NOAA through all of
those major decision points in the development of the satellite
is really critical, and yes, the budget should be on the side
of the organization that is responsible for the requirements
but the management and the execution requires a very close
coordination throughout the development process of the system
as well.
Chairman Bridenstine. Got it. Thank you.
Mr. Powner, you mentioned in your testimony that yesterday
the GAO released its 2015 High Risk Report. JPSS was included
on that report as was GOES. In 2013, when you were before this
Committee, you suggested that the likelihood of a satellite
data gap was ten out of ten. Do you stand by that assessment
today?
Mr. Powner. I still say there is a very high probability of
the gap if you go with the best data, and the best data is NPP
lasts until October 2016 and you don't launch until March 17
and you have a six month checkout. Now, there have been a lot
of discussions about NPP lasting longer, but if you look at
NOAA's budget submission for Fiscal Year 2016, they are still
showing a one-year gap based on that data.
So we go with the best data that the experts out there have
to say, so I still think it is prudent to go with expected life
and not bet that it is going to last longer than what the
experts are telling us. Now, if there is new news, that would
be good to know, but I think you need to plan accordingly or
you are kind of playing with fire.
Chairman Bridenstine. I am down to one minute to go.
Dr. Volz, do you have a comment on that?
Dr. Volz. Yes. I think the point that Mr. Powner made, that
the plans show the mission life design life as the endpoint of
a satellite is an appropriate way to manage a program. You
manage a program assuming a design life, and you should be
prepared for a gap whether it occurs at any point. We could
lose a satellite at any point because of orbital debris or
other points. You should have contingencies in place to make
sure that you can handle such a loss of any asset in space, a
functionally redundant or a reliable system overall.
Now, the actual performance of Suomi NPP, which we update
every year based on performance, shows that our expectation is
it will last much longer than 2016. That doesn't mean we
shouldn't prepare for mitigations for potential gap but we
don't expect that to happen but that doesn't mean we don't plan
for it.
Chairman Bridenstine. Got it. Okay. So I have got 15
seconds. Suomi NPP, you just mentioned, obviously was not built
for an operational capacity but a test capacity yet it is
operating right now as an operational satellite. If we knew it
had operational capabilities, why was it not originally
designed to be an operational satellite?
Dr. Volz. Suomi NPP was initially intended to be a test bed
development demonstration project, was actually called an
NPOESS preparatory project before--that was the NPP--and was
intended to give an on-orbit performance demonstration of the
key NPOESS, which would have been the NPOESS instruments, those
five instruments that are on there now. During the redefinition
of the NPOESS program, as Mr. Beyer referenced, in 2007 and
2008, Suomi NPP was already in development, the instruments
were being built, and it was determined it would be necessary
as an operational--to be used operationally even though it was
a research satellite. That doesn't mean that all the efforts
didn't go into making the instruments as accurate and careful
as we could, the spacecraft built to NASA standards as a very
high-quality instrument and spacecraft, but it was not intended
from its initial inception to be in operation. It was supposed
to be a demonstration. It is--we have many examples where
research satellites are being used for operational purposes
such as the AIRS instrument on MODIS. It is used operationally
but it wasn't designed to be an operational asset to begin
with.
Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you, Dr. Volz. I now recognize
the Ranking Member, Ms. Bonamici, for five minutes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for your testimony and for defining your
acronyms, which in the interest of time, I am not going to do.
So I wanted to really zero in on who is responsible for
what. As I understand it, NOAA's mitigation activities really
fall into two categories: preventing or limiting a gap, and
reducing a gap if or when one does occur. So Dr. Volz, Dr.
MacDonald, Mr. Murphy, could you really talk about who at NOAA
is responsible for coordinating and managing mitigation
activities?
Dr. Volz. I will take that first and then I will turn it
over to my colleagues.
The preparation for and the activities around preventing a
gap and mitigating the impact of a gap is a NOAA
responsibility. On a regular basis, we report directly up to
the Deputy Under Secretary for Operations on a monthly basis.
John can talk about the more frequent meetings on the NWS side
of the house. So we have--it is a NOAA responsibility but there
are elements that are accomplished within the NESDIS
organization, my organization, some within Sandy MacDonald's
organization, some within John's as well, but we all
integratedly in an integrated fashion report up the chain on a
regular basis on how all of these different activities are
progressing.
So I am responsible on the NESDIS side for extending
satellite life, preparing the ground systems for the next
generation, making sure JPSS-1 stays on schedule and is
delivered on schedule, and I can let John Murphy talk about the
NWS side.
Ms. Bonamici. That would be terrific, and I want to save
time for another couple questions.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, ma'am. I just want to thank the
Congress actually for Sandy supplemental funds that really
enabled us to accelerate a lot of development activity that
answered the call for mitigation efforts so things like
aircraft data, we are now receiving additional aircraft data as
a result of those funds. They are flowing into our system. They
are being processed. So that is one example.
Getting back to, you know, the responsibility, since the
very beginning of discussions of the mitigation activities, the
individual line offices--I am the representative for the
Weather Service but I have been meeting with my colleagues in
the other line offices in NOAA on a weekly basis to discuss the
various projects within the line offices and how they
complement and work together with each other and execute, and
as Dr. Volz said, we report to our AAs on a monthly basis and
up to the Director of Operations on a quarterly basis and
report to the Hill as well on a quarterly basis.
Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. I am going to let Dr. MacDonald
take a stab at this.
Dr. MacDonald. Just quickly. The Sandy supplemental allowed
us to work on both the assimilation and the models really
effectively, so there are some improvements that we are going
to see in the relatively near future that I think will really
help with the gap.
Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. And one of the things that Mr.
Powner said in his testimony was, one of the approaches is
increasing high-performance computing capacity, and it is my
understanding that a lot of the work in that area was from the
Sandy supplemental. Are there still needs in increasing high-
performance computing capacity that can help mitigate any gap?
Dr. Volz?
Dr. Volz. I would turn that one over to John from the
computing side or from Sandy.
Mr. Murphy. I will take the first stab and let Sandy back
me since he has really got the expertise here, but there is
always a need for more computing power. Right now we got a real
shot in the arm and a big leap in our operational
supercomputing and now there is a need to keep balance between
the research computing and the operational computing, and so
with all the supercomputing we have right now, we are going
from 700 teraflops to 500 petaflops, and I know that doesn't
mean anything to anybody other than it is a huge jump in
capability, and when you look at that five, that five has to be
split between the primary system and the backup system if you
have true operational computing so that you never have a down
time, so that all went on----
Ms. Bonamici. I don't mean to cut you off but I wanted to
get another question in. I just wanted to get some input on
that.
So a constituent of mine in Oregon recently contacted my
office and brought to my attention that there is a gap in radar
coverage along the Oregon coast. So as Dr. Volz noted in his
testimony, radar coverage and satellite data combine to make
nowcasting of severe weather events possible. So I am concerned
about the hole in radar coverage but it is particularly
worrisome when considered alongside a gap in satellite
coverage. So any gap in GOES coverage, especially an extended
one, could have serious consequences for the safety of my
constituents and the health of the economy.
So can you please describe what risk factors are most
likely to cause a delay in GOES, and is this gap in radar
coverage something that we can address?
Dr. Volz. From the GOES satellite point of view, I agree
with Mr. Powner that the largest single risk for the successful
launch of GOES in March of 2016 is the compressed schedule we
have right now. All systems, all instruments have been
integrated to the spacecraft. The spacecraft subsystems are all
together and we are now entering what we call the acceptance
test and launch operations phase, which is very compressed. It
is a very aggressive schedule, but the team is working hard and
is focused on that. So I think that is the largest risk on the
flight side of the house.
We have the amount of reserves that are expected and
recommended by NASA guidelines, and we follow the NASA
standards because they were the ones who built the spacecraft
for us, but we think that is definitely the largest watch item.
Do I think it is a significant risk? I would say no, not in
the absolute value. I don't think it is going to--it is so
large that I am worried about the March 16 launch date but it
is our largest risk and is something the team is focusing their
efforts and activities on.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, and I yield back. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you. I would like to recognize
Mr. Loudermilk, Chairman of the Oversight Committee, for five
minutes.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
all the witnesses who have come today. This is enlightening,
and I know we have got to find ways to go forward that are much
better.
Most of what we have talked about today is the possibility
of gaps in extreme weather forecasting and the effects it has
had on public safety which is our greatest concern, but there
is another side of this as well, and that is the effect it
could have on the U.S. economy.
In 1997, I personally experienced that when the Hughes
satellite, I believe a communications satellite, spun out of
control. Being in the IT services business, we ended up
spending almost a month helping industries and businesses
reposition their satellite dishes to a backup satellite. I saw
that that gap in service cost these industries millions of
dollars in down time, in lost productivity. Retailers were not
able to connect back to their systems.
This is for anyone on the panel, have we done any estimates
on what a gap in this data would do to U.S. economy?
Mr. Powner. I think one of the best examples if you look
back at Superstorm Sandy when there was a post-evaluation of
that and you took the polar data out of that forecast, it
showed--and that forecast was right on. The location, the
intensity and the timing forecast was spot on, and it helped
move a lot of people to safe areas and save lives. If you take
the polar data out of that forecast, it shows that storm dying
100 miles out at sea, so that is the importance of the polar
data in terms of predicting severe storms.
Dr. Volz. And I think I would add to that, as Mr. Powner
just said, it is the community's reaction to the weather
forecast that we provide that allows them to mitigate what
might be great big cost increases. For example, the recent
snowstorm in New York, the responses in the community--the
immediate responders can make choices and decisions which can
lessen the impact of the storm's effect on all of us.
So the loss of a complete asset, a complete satellite
system, would be very significant, devastating, but the
responsibility of our organization is to make sure that loss of
any particular element doesn't cause that kind of impact, and
that is the benefit of generating a resilient system which is
single-fault tolerant, as we say. You can lose any asset and
still provide the bulk of the return and the needs that we
have, and that is the objective of building a more robust
global--I mean geo and low-earth orbit system is that we are
fault-tolerant. It is not preventing all of them but we are
tolerant to failures in any single system so that we don't have
those impacts hitting.
Mr. Loudermilk. Besides the extreme weather, you know,
basically what we were talking about here was Sandy and other
issues, there is weather that we don't consider extreme that
can have serious consequences on different industries, such as
the construction industry. In modern construction, there is a
lot of forecasting done because we have just-in-time delivery
of materials. You have of course aviation, maritime
transportation as well as state and local governments who are
preparing like in Atlanta we experienced snowstorms a couple of
years ago. What type of impact would we see in the gap on non-
extreme weather forecasting?
Mr. Murphy. I am unaware of actually a study that has done
exactly what you are asking, but as Representative Bonamici
said earlier, I think it was, you know, the benefit is $31.5
billion, and there is impacts to not only aviation but to many
different societal benefit areas of society, and as you lose
confidence in those forecasts, you are less likely to make
decisions that reap the benefits. So it is sort of a how bad
does it get before you can really quantify the impact.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you. I have one minute left.
From what we are hearing that Europe and other nations are
leading us in their models of weather forecasting, and as I
think back, the United States of America has always been the
leader in space exploration, in satellites, in technology. Is
it possible in the next several years that our U.S. forecasting
system could be restored to compete with the European model?
Mr. Murphy. We are closing the gap. It is very close. You
know, we are talking about--the way the world measures the
performances on a 500-millibar root mean error doesn't mean
anything to us on the surface of the Earth, but that is the
standard, and we are--you know, what separates us is a few
percent, and so we are very close.
Mr. Loudermilk. Where would you rank us as compared to
other countries?
Mr. Murphy. I just looked at the statistics the day before
yesterday, and we were number three, not to argue with anybody
who said we were number four earlier, but it is that close that
it changes pretty routinely given a weather scenario.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you. I would like to recognize
the Ranking Member on the Oversight Committee, Mr. Beyer.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to start with Dr. Volz with a--and others with
a small, then a larger question.
On NPP, the prediction now is the end of 2016. NASA said,
``There is an increased likelihood of a collision with space
debris at the altitudes at which the JPSS satellites fly.''
They also talked about NOAA having a rosy view of how long the
NPP will last. It is just debris that we are concerned about
with the end of NPP?
And then the larger question, especially that Chairman
Bridenstine talked earlier about the many different commercial
companies getting into launching satellites, what are we going
to do about space debris in the larger picture?
Dr. Volz. Well, related specifically to NPP, I think we are
dealing with a communications here and the way that we analyze
the expected life, and as Mr. Powner and the GAO have done is
they used the design life in their analyses, which is
appropriate because that is the way we set up the initial
system. Now, as the expected on-orbit life is much longer
typically than the design life, once you get into orbit and you
see you don't have infant mortalities, the term we call for
satellites that die earlier because of something that was built
in. Once you get past that, the design life is routinely much
longer. So I would not say they expected the lifetime of Suomi
NPP will end in 2016. Our analyses show that it is likely to go
well past 2020. That doesn't mean it is going to be relied--
that we should count on that and then sit back and wait and we
don't have to launch anything because we have got ten years or
five years. But we do use very careful analysis on on-orbit
performance of our satellites and our measurements and the
instruments to do accurate and continuous updates on the
performance of those satellites.
Regarding the orbital debris, it is a common problem. All
satellites in orbit are dealing with the increase in orbital
debris. Every time you have a collision, you create more
debris. It is something we watch. It is something we monitor.
Our spacecraft are monitored daily and operate. We have
maneuverable satellites so we move them out of the way when we
see orbital debris projections, conjunction analysis, we say,
and we have done that in increasing frequency over the last few
years as the debris clouds have increased but it is still a
very--it is a very diffuse cloud, and we move maybe a dozen
times a year to get out of projected debris. We have not been
impacted by it--pardon the pun--but we are aware of it, we are
monitoring it, and we take active steps to prevent it. Now, as
far as orbital debris, removing the debris from space, I
don't--I would yield to my NASA colleague here, who probably
will not like that but----
Mr. Clarke. Can I defer back?
Mr. Beyer. Well, let me move on to Dr. MacDonald then.
Mr. Clarke. Okay.
Mr. Beyer. The data validation, in the literature here that
you gave us, you said it took two years to validate the data
from NPP, and when you look at the charts on the overlap and
the potential gaps, some of that, as I read, is six months to
validate the data from some of these new satellites. Why does
it take that long when we have so much data validation in the
past?
Dr. MacDonald. Actually, I think that we can go faster,
partly because we do have a lot of experience with these
sensors like ATMS and CRiS and so on, so we have--with our
Joint Center and with our OAR research colleagues, we think we
can do better.
Mr. Beyer. Dr. Volz, the Chairman in his opening statement
talked about turning to commercial space operations. Does NOAA
have any concerns about the use of commercial data to fulfill
the requirements of its polar satellite program?
Dr. Volz. Regarding the question of commercial space,
commercial sources of space data and satellite data, we think
that is probably a very capable and open field into the future.
We have our backbone system that has been built, I mean, using
for many, many years, but the capabilities of the commercial
side over the past few years and looking forward in the future
are likely to be very significant and are definitely worth
evaluating and using.
What we do from the NOAA--what we need to assure from the
NOAA side is the data that we get meets certain quality
standards, they are accurate, reliable, traceable, and can be
validated so that when we use these data in our numerical
weather models, we get outputs which we trust. We can't just
take the data because you can get bad outputs which could be
even worse than no input, than no output. So it is the
essential nature of us as NOAA and the NWS, NESDIS needs to
make sure that the data that we get are accurate and can be
used in the modeling, and we think--and I think looking to the
future, we will be using--we will be evaluating and there is a
good probability we will be using some commercial data as long
as it meets our quality criteria and is consistent with our
collaboration approaches of open data to be used with our
partners.
Mr. Beyer. And Mr. Clarke, I was initially disappointed
that the climate sensors were eliminated from the satellites,
you know, the perfect being the enemy of the good enough, but
now I read that the Radiation Budget Instrument (RBI) and the
Ozone Mapping and Profiler Suites are going to be on the JPSS-
2. Can you talk about the current status of these instruments
and do you anticipate they will be ready in time to fly with
JPSS-2?
Mr. Clarke. Yes, Mr. Beyer. Those instruments are being
developed now. They are in the assembly and initial part of
testing, and so those instruments are on schedule to support
the JPSS-2 spacecraft. Keep in mind, I think I mentioned in my
opening remarks too, CERES is kind of the precursor to RBI, and
so those instruments are all set and ready to go and they are
installed on JPSS-1. So this is really a continuation from
JPSS-1 to build continuity between 1 and 2.
Dr. Volz. And if I could comment too, it is another example
where the research bases of NASA and the operational bases of
NOAA work well together. We provide the platform, JPSS-1 and J-
2, and we are--all the operational instruments that we need for
the weather forecasting are built into it, but the platform was
also designed in Suomi NPP to accommodate the Radiation Budget
Instrument, and NASA as the research and development agency
took the responsibility of that one. They build that, they meet
our specifications, and together we fly on the same platform
for a much more efficient approach to making the measurements.
Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
I recognize the gentleman from Colorado for five minutes----
Mr. Perlmutter. She was here first and has a higher rank.
Chairman Bridenstine. The gentlelady from Maryland is
recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you. I have waited six years on this
Committee to hear that, and I want to thank our witnesses and
obviously our Chairpersons and Ranking Members.
You know, I remember when I first came on to the Committee
that it was in the throes, I guess the summer of--I don't
know--2008, and it was at a time when there was great
consternation about the satellite programs, the management of
those, the relationship between NASA and NOAA and DoD, and I
think that we have come--we heard from GAO at that time and I
think we have come a long way since then, and so I really
wanted to be able to salute NASA and NOAA for, you know, after
some period of time in fits and starts figuring out the working
relationship using the best capabilities of NASA and NOAA to
make sure that we could try to get this program back on track.
As the GAO has indicated, you know, we still have some
challenges obviously and possibilities for gaps in coverage,
and so that remains a concern for the Committee in addition to
the predicted cost. I think we started out with the idea that
we were going to have six satellites. Now we are at two. And so
this has been a really difficult thing.
I want to also acknowledge that today in our audience are a
group of students from the University of Maryland in College
Park, which is the home to NOAA's Center for Weather and
Climate Prediction. The home for NOAA is actually in Suitland,
Maryland, right down the street from my office. I spent a lot
of time there. I think I did go to observe the NPP launch, and
thankfully, rather than just being an experimental platform, it
is usable and operational, because I think that helps in the
consideration of this discussion.
I guess the question I have actually has to do with the
gaps in coverage, and I understand, you know, the imprecision
with which one can predict whether there is going to be a gap
or not, but I wonder, Dr. Volz, if you could respond to the
idea that--of what NOAA's current gap assessment is, and it is
also my understanding that NOAA is estimating a longer life
expectancy for NPP than before because of its strong
performance to date and, you know, so what is your anticipation
of the operational period for NPP and what activities are being
undertaken to ensure NPP's longevity?
Dr. Volz. So thank you, ma'am, for the question. The NPP
satellite, as I mentioned earlier, is monitored on a regular
basis and we update its performance projections every year. The
most recent one shows that we are still operating all primary
systems on NPP. All the instruments are functioning well and
within specification, some changes, as we note, as you normally
do with instruments but the projection is the satellite,
barring something we haven't seen, is likely to survive and
work past 2020.
As far as the steps we are taking to make sure that that
satellite continues to work, we are very carefully looking at
all operations that might have life-limiting features on it,
which is whether is an instrument operation mode that may burn
out degrade the performance over time faster, but with the
focus then on making sure that ensuring that the satellite is
operating effectively for a long time.
Ms. Edwards. And so in hearing that, I mean, if I look at
the various scenarios, and I understand the chart that we have
has been updated since then, but that would mean that we are
falling more in the range of, you know, a scenario one than we
are in a scenario three where there would potentially be a much
wider gap in coverage if we are making some predictions that
NPP has greater lifespan and capacity than we might have
thought originally. Is that right?
Dr. Volz. I believe that is true. Mr. Powner can comment. I
think the point of those scenarios is not ``we think, this is
going to fail here,'' but if it were to fail, what would the
gap be, and I think that is the point of preparing for a gap is
not that we are trying to project a failure of any individual
asset, but if an asset fails at a particular time, what is the
impact on the overall constellation, and that is the planning
challenge that we have in front of us to make sure that under
these different scenarios, which are single fault--one thing
can take out a satellite or a launch that JPSS-1, a launch
failure could take out a satellite--what is our response to
that and how do we mitigate the impact if that were to occur.
It doesn't mean we expect it but it means we have to prepare
for it.
Ms. Edwards. Thanks, and just in closing, I just want to
share with the Chairman and Ranking Members, it is my
understanding that in the President's budget proposal, there is
an absolute recognition that we are actually now, with respect
to these satellites, really not focused on the development of
climate sensors but really focused on weather, and I think that
that also represents a change in strategy and direction over
the last several years, and with that, I yield.
Chairman Bridenstine. The gentlelady yields back. Without
objection, I would like to recognize the gentleman from
Colorado.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Bonamici. Thank you for letting me participate today. This is
my first of the Science hearings. I sit on the Energy and the
Space Committees. I am not on this Committee, but this is of
great interest to me.
Like Representative Edwards, I sat on the Rules Committee
at the time we were going through the NPOESS saga, and you
know, from 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, there was a real question
how NASA and NOAA were going to work with the Defense
Department and how we were going to go forward, and that slowed
things down. There is no ifs, ands or buts about it. That is
history. We have got to focus on the future. And I appreciate
the GAO for identifying and focusing on this subject because
one of my quirks is my favorite channel is the Weather Channel,
and that is pretty sick actually.
But Mr. Loudermilk hit on a point that is so important in
discussing this subject. There is a public safety aspect to
this and there is an economic aspect to the services you all
provide, and the potential for a gap here, I think may have
come from the Bush Administration, the Obama Administration and
Congress but we have got to deal with that. We cannot allow for
gaps to grow or we need to shrink these things.
And so I would start with you, Mr. Powner. What is the best
way as you have analyzed this to deal with this gap and to
shrink it if possible?
Mr. Powner. Well, hopefully NPP does last longer, and we
are all hopeful that is the case. What is in your control is
the March 17th launch date of J-1. That cannot slip. So we have
ATMS as the long pole in the tent and it keeps slipping, and
the more that slips, the March 17 launch date will be in
jeopardy, and I am not here saying the sky is falling, but the
other thing on the October 2016 date--and I keep hearing other
dates that it is going to last longer. I would like to see it
in writing. There was a NASA assessment that it was going to
last three to five years. There is supposed to be a gap
assessment from 2014. It hasn't been released yet. The budget
still says one year. So if it is 2020, let us put it in writing
and say that is where we think it is at.
We have been at this for a long time, Congressman
Perlmutter, and the way some sensors were constructed on NPP
concerns us, and I think that is why the NASA engineers had the
three- to five-year time frame, VIIRS in particular. VIIRS was
the--that was a very difficult sensor during the NPOESS days,
and there were a lot of shortcuts taken when they constructed
VIIRS and put it on NPP. We know that. I visited Raytheon
multiple times out in California, and I hear from their
engineers about that.
So there are still concerns about that, and I am not here
to, you know, say that it is not going to be 2020, but we need
to be aware of the facts, and then when we mitigate the gap, we
went out and talked to experts including Dr. MacDonald sitting
on this panel, and there we identified 40 mitigation
alternatives. NOAA's plans have 21 mitigation alternatives.
There are four areas that you actually improve the forecast
much greater than others. We would like to see a prioritization
on those mitigation activities so that we are addressing the
most important things as part of the contingency plans.
Mr. Perlmutter. All right. So I guess--I appreciate that,
and I would ask that we take those mitigation factors and
really, you know, exercise them, use them to the best of our
advantage.
I think part of where I am coming from is, you know, there
was a leadership issue back in the NPOESS days, and I would say
to my friends on the Republican side of the aisle--and we take
responsibility too--we are coming into a better economy and I
would want us to assist you all in budgetary ways so that you
can accelerate this so we are--so that we do meet that first
launch date, that we can accelerate JPSS-2, that we are moving
forward. We--things got stalled, then we had a bad economy, and
we have got to get back on track because the potential loss of
life and the potential to the economy by missing some of these
things is too big.
And so Dr. MacDonald, since we are both Coloradans, I want
to give you an opportunity to say whatever it is you want to
say, and I will turn the floor over to you.
Dr. MacDonald. My comment would be as Mr. Powner just said,
we are really working hard on many, many ways of improving
things, a lot of it because of the Sandy supplemental funding,
so I think there has been a positive that has come out of this,
and we are excited to see some improvements from those efforts.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you for the opportunity to sit today.
Chairman Bridenstine. You bet. The gentleman yields back.
We will go into a second round of questions, and you identified
ATMS as the critical path for JPSS, and my question is, ATMS is
on NPP, correct? Did the requirements change between NPP and
JPSS for ATMS?
Dr. Volz. No, sir. The requirements did not change. As Mr.
Powner--as we said, Suomi NPP was built as a preparatory
program under one set of--there was a--one set of contractual
arrangements with the vendors. The requirements that NOAA has
have not changed. The implementation has--some of the--you
often find problems in the development of an instrument, the
repeat of processes, et cetera, which may led to a slight
change in the implementation and that has led to significant
challenges in the ATMS development.
Chairman Bridenstine. Okay. I want to talk about some of
the mitigation efforts. The GAO report indicated that one of
the best ways that we can mitigate the gap, especially as it
relates to the polar satellites, would be GPS-RO, radio
occultation from GPS satellites.
My question is, how significant is GPS-RO to the numerical
weather models that help us forecast weather? Dr. Volz, I will
let you answer that question.
Dr. Volz. I will turn that over to John.
Mr. Murphy. Without a doubt, it is in the top 10. All the
studies around the world show that depending on which one you
look at, it is number four, five or six. So it is very
significant. Radio occultation falls right behind the microwave
and IR sounders.
Chairman Bridenstine. And correct me if I am wrong, but the
COSMIC-2 program, which is a joint program between the United
States and Taiwan, is fully funded for the first six satellites
of the COSMIC-2 program. Is that correct?
Dr. Volz. That is correct.
Chairman Bridenstine. And how many radio occultations per
day would we get from a COSMIC-2 program?
Dr. Volz. The COSMIC-2 in whole is 12 satellites, two sets
of six, and from a combined set of those 12 you end up on the
order of 10,000 occultations a day.
Chairman Bridenstine. And the first six, though, are set to
launch by when?
Dr. Volz. Next spring, 2016.
Chairman Bridenstine. And how many would we get from those
first six?
Dr. Volz. About half of that.
Chairman Bridenstine. So 5,000 radio occultations per day?
Dr. Volz. Correct.
Chairman Bridenstine. And then as far as what the private
sector could provide or augment, is there a limitation on how
many radio occultations per day would--at what point do you get
diminishing marginal returns from every additional radio
occultation?
Dr. Volz. It is a unique measurement type which that
saturation point is really high. We have looked at studies
which go 50,000, 100,000 a day, and there is a rollover but it
is not significant. So certainly we are potentially scratching
the surface of the value you can get from radio occultations
with the 10,000 per day.
Chairman Bridenstine. The Europeans are at 128,000 and they
haven't reached saturation. So let us say the private sector
commercial satellites, if they were being launched right now,
and of course we have got the challenges with testing and
validation and calibration and all those things that go into
feeding the numerical weather models, if they were able to
provide that capability, that would in essence help us augment
the data going into the numerical weather models, for example,
to predict thunderstorms in my State of Oklahoma. Is that
correct?
Dr. Volz. That is correct, sir.
Chairman Bridenstine. Right now we don't have an identified
limitation on the number of radio occultations. When you said
it was in the top 10, if you had, say, maybe 100,000 or a
couple hundred thousand radio occultations, would that move it
up to maybe number two or number three, or is that a stretch?
Mr. Murphy. Yes, I think it would come up. That is an
interesting aspect that the more you get in--I think we know
that 5,000 or 10,000, you get a big improvement and it just
goes right on, 20,000 or 30,000, so it would help.
Chairman Bridenstine. So is it safe to say that if there is
a gap, that the GAO report is indicating might be more likely
than some others might suggest? If the gap does occur and the
private sector has the capacity to launch satellites into space
that could produce 40,000 or 50,000, is NOAA open to the idea--
if those data could be validated and calibrated and fed into
the numerical weather model, would NOAA be open to the idea of
maybe purchasing that data from the private sector?
Dr. Volz. We have been in active communication with a
number of the vendors who are proposing to launch and fly these
satellites for us, and yes, we have been in agreement that
these data could be useful and we would be open to using them
as soon as--as long as they meet, as we talked about, the
criteria for reliability, dependability and accuracy. So I have
had meetings with all of those companies you mentioned up
front, and actually we have a planned workshop at the end of
April this year to sit down and show how we do our requirements
and how they can match their developmental processes to work
well with us.
Chairman Bridenstine. And real quick, I am almost out of
time, Dr. MacDonald, this might be a question for you. When you
talk about hyperspectral and now that is not going to be
available on the GOES satellites, how does that impact the
weather data models for our Nation?
Dr. MacDonald. I think hyperspectral is another sensor that
has a lot of potential and we are trying to study that with
various techniques.
Chairman Bridenstine. We currently have hyperspectral on
NPSS, right? Or no, we don't. Do we have hyperspectral in space
right now?
Dr. MacDonald. Yeah, we have interferometers that give us
indication of what you can get from a polar orbiter but there
is also a geostationary issue that we are trying to learn
about.
Dr. Volz. That sensor was originally on GOES. It was called
HESS, and it was dropped.
Chairman Bridenstine. Okay. And is there--I am out of time,
so I am going to turn it over to the Ranking Member for five
minutes, but thank you for your testimony.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We had some good conversations about how potential gap
would affect safety, the economy. I want to talk about how it
would affect research.
Dr. MacDonald, can you talk about the importance of
satellite data to NOAA's research, comment on the impact that a
gap in polar data would have on weather and climate research
efforts, and then Mr. Clarke, can you talk about the use of
polar satellite data by NASA scientists and what would a lack
of continuity--what effect would that have on NASA research?
Dr. MacDonald. Thank you, Representative Bonamici. It
does--we really do depend on the polar orbiters and the
satellite sensors. It is our whole Earth look, and with time,
we used to--when I started my career, we had little models over
little areas and now we can do the whole Earth. So these
sensors you have already heard so much about, the
interferometers, the microwave. They really are the future, and
I think forecasts are going to improve because of it.
So we use one. That is a difficult thing. One area that is
important is that we use these for also records of how the--
what is happening in climate, so we have lots of in situ
sensors and lots of satellites. We try and make up by using
continuity from those.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. Mr. Clarke.
Mr. Clarke. Yes. Thank you. The NASA Earth research
community, certainly we collaborate with NOAA and other
agencies to be able to obtain data from all types of sources.
NASA has plenty of Earth-observing assets on orbit gathering,
that kind of information, but it is always good to have
additional data to help correlate. So there would be some
impact of not getting that data, but we do have other assets to
rely on, and if we wanted to get into more detail, I could take
the question for the record and then talk with my Earth science
colleagues in NASA and provide you more detail.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. I would appreciate that.
Dr. Volz, Mr. Powner talked--expressed some concern,
frankly, about the testing schedule for GOES-R. There is some
concern that compressing the test schedule increases risks of
further delays, there would be little time to resolve any
issues that arise. So how long can the GOES program operate on
a 24/7 testing schedule, and is there some risk of delaying the
launch by operating at sort of an intensive schedule and what
are the alternatives, I guess.
Dr. Volz. I believe the current plan for the GOES-R is to
continue the three-shift operation through maybe the end of
March, early April this year at which point we will be getting
into the system-level testing, thermal vacuum testing where you
are working around the clock anyway. There is no definitive
point that at this point it becomes dangerous to go on with
three shifts. We have a very capable contractor with Lockheed
Martin, who has a lot of resources, so there is no--and like I
said, no point where that would be an issue. But I think the
launch schedule, however, is still of critical concern, and
having--it is a single-point flow for these, and if problems
arise, we will have to deal with it with the reserves that we
have. We do still have a number of several weeks of unscheduled
reserve, which for the purposes of that, which is typical that
you see for a project at this point in development schedule.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And finally, I was curious about
the difference between the number of mitigation alternatives.
Mr. Powner talked about approximately 40 and NOAA talked about
a little more than 20. So what explains the difference, and how
are you coordinating to determine which mitigation alternatives
rise to the top in terms of priority?
Dr. Volz. That is a good question, and I don't have a list
of 40 or 20 or the average of those in front of me, and I would
be happy to sit down with Mr. Powner and with my team
afterwards to reconcile so we don't have that--I don't think we
are disagreeing on the things that we need to do but in terms
of how we numerate I think is maybe confusing, and I don't have
an answer for you. I would be happy to work with him to clear
that up.
Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. I appreciate that. And I yield back
the balance of my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you so much. I yield five
minutes to the Chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee, Mr.
Loudermilk.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We have talked a lot about lessons learned and going
forward, and our focus has been on getting this launch on
schedule. But my question, Dr. Volz, is, have we started
planning, has NOAA started planning on the next generation of
weather satellites?
Dr. Volz. Yes, sir, we have, and it takes a long time to
bring a new system online, which is part of the reason we are
having difficulties over the past with both the GOES and the
JPSS programs. Both programs were significant steps up in
technology from the legacy missions that preceded those, so we
recognize that you don't start five years before; you start ten
and twelve years before. And part of our planning right now is
doing the architecture studies and the analyses of what
measurements we need in the 2030 time frame, what the
capabilities are now and projected to be in the next few years,
and we have been doing those for the last year and we expect to
do those in the coming year, for the next two or three years so
that in about two to three years we can lay out a plan which
specifically identifies the next generation including, as we
mentioned earlier, the changes in the--the landscape of
commercial sources, launch vehicles and data-processing
capabilities, which are all part of the next generation. We are
starting the analysis now.
Mr. Loudermilk. What changes, if any, have you made to
avoid the issues that we have faced with the cost overruns,
gaps, future delays? What kind of changes have you made?
Dr. Volz. I think one of the major elements from my
perspective is a rationalization of the requirements and the
capabilities, and a critical part of doing the architecture up
front is not to start with a shopping list of too many
requirements and then figure out how much it costs but to do
that in an iterative real-time process, look at the
requirements, look at the implementation costs.
The other part, which was mentioned in Mr. Bridenstine's
first question about the relationship between the partners
doing the implementation is absolutely critical, so the NPOESS
history was, it was--there was a difficult relationship between
the three agencies, which almost guaranteed you would have a
problem between requirements and application and
implementation, and making sure that you have the right sharing
of responsibilities and very clear delineation of
responsibilities is essential as you go forward with the
planning and going forward.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you. I want to shift back to our
current subject that we are on, and it is the launch of this
satellite. We have mentioned mitigation alternatives. Has NOAA
done a cost-benefit analysis to determine which ones are likely
to be most effective and worthy of investment?
Dr. Volz. We are investing in the ones that we think are
the highest probability. I can't point to a specific cost-
benefit analysis by individual elements but the ones we are
extending the lifetime of Suomi NPP, enhancing the data process
and capabilities with the supercomputing capabilities and
advocating and moving forward with the radio occultation
measurements are examples of places where we think there is the
most return on investment and the capability, availability of
the technical capability to go forward.
Mr. Loudermilk. Mr. Powner, do you have any thoughts on
this?
Mr. Powner. Yeah, this is at the heart of some of our
recommendations. Not only do you want to focus on the priority
mitigation activities but you want to focus on the cost, so
there was a huge discussion here about use of commercial data.
Commercial data could really help augment our forecast today
but what is the cost? So you have to factor in costs on all
these mitigation activities. It is, what is the benefit and
what is the cost and then you weigh those two, and that is what
you end up pursuing. We would like to see more of that going
forward.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you. One last question. Does NOAA
have any statutory limitations which would allow you to procure
weather data from private space-based observing systems?
Dr. Volz. I don't know of any, sir, but I have been with
NOAA for three months, so I can imagine there are people behind
me who are saying don't answer that question until you are
clear, so I will be happy to take that. I don't believe there
are but I will take that for the record and get back to you.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. I would appreciate it. I yield back.
Chairman Bridenstine. I would like to thank the gentleman,
and I would like to recognize the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee on Oversight, Mr. Beyer.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Volz, when this hearing started at 10 o'clock, my
biggest concern was about the gap in the weather prediction
from three months to eighteen months, but listening to the
testimony, it seems that NOAA's expectation of the NPP
satellite could well go to 2020 and beyond. Is there any reason
not to follow up on Mr. Powner's suggestion that NOAA actually
put these expectations in writing? And does that then change
the mitigation plans that we would otherwise make?
Dr. Volz. To the first question, no, I think if we
haven't--I have seen a draft report on the updated prediction
and reliability of Suomi NPP, and I don't see any reason why
that shouldn't be public. I think we will--and I wrote a note
down when Mr. Powner was saying that that says let us get this
written down and get it released. I think it to everybody's
interest to see that.
As far as the second, I don't think it is going to change
our approach. Knowing or believing that the satellite will last
longer than the worst-case scenario doesn't mean the worst-case
scenario might still occur, and we need to do the mitigation
activities in any case so that we have a resilient system that
is accommodatable to major failures which can occur outside of
our best estimates.
Mr. Beyer. And Dr. Volz, the President's budget request
includes $380 million for a polar follow-on program in order to
achieve robustness in the polar weather constellation. Can you
please describe the kinds of activities that you would take on
as part of this polar follow-on request and how they would
actually improve robustness?
Dr. Volz. Yes, sir. Thank you. The polar follow-on is--the
current program of record, which is JPSS, is two satellites, as
we have identified, one launching in 2017 and the next
scheduled to launch in 2021 which, by the way, was accelerated
per additional funding to bring that in a few months so it is a
quicker return. But a robust program requires that you have
redundant or a capable system up there in case of a single-
point failure. The polar follow-on establishes the baseline to
deliver the next two, JPPS-3 and JPPS-4, along the same lines
using the same vendors, the same demonstrated and proven
instruments and approaches so that we can have that ready as
soon as--in the event of a JPSS-2 failure on launch, just like
we talked about J-1. So the same logic applies in the
extension.
What it also does by starting it in 2017 or 2016, as
requested in the President's budget, it allows us to buy those
instruments now from the instrument vendors and most of our
funds go to the industry because the U.S. industry builds these
instruments for us, allows those instruments to get under
contract while we have the production line, the expertise and
the intelligence of the community there to build those
instruments effectively and efficiently. Having those JPSS-3
instruments built and ready during the late part of this decade
is a natural mitigation for if I have a problem with a JPPS-2
instrument so I can switch and plug in and I can switch out,
and that also accelerates or provides more reliable delivery of
the J-2 satellite. So having this suite allows you then to
ensure that you have the regular cadence of missions available
when you do.
Mr. Beyer. And Mr. Clarke, you had kindly deferred when Dr.
Volz had tossed you the space debris question. Please tell me
that someone at NASA is thinking big picture about vacuuming up
the space debris and what is going to look like in the years to
come.
Mr. Clarke. Well, I would have to take that for the record
for the future plans. That may be discussed in other areas
within NASA that I am not privy to, but I can take that for the
record.
I will tell you, though, that for all of our spacecraft
that are in development now, we do look at those on a case-by-
case basis based on the updated probability in these orbital
debris models. We also look at the probability and where these
spacecraft are going, and implement changes if we need to
protect in certain areas on these spacecraft during
development. So NASA is just as concerned with on-orbit debris
and so we continue to look at it.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you so much. I would like to
recognize, without objection, the gentlelady from Maryland, Ms.
Edwards.
Ms. Edwards. You are so kind, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very
much.
I wanted to get back to the ATMS issues, and I wanted to
hear from Mr. Clarke, because there were some comments about
ATMS being on a critical path, and I am wondering what your,
you know, take is on the status of ATMS, and I am a little bit
curious that if ATMS is integrated in NPP and we are not--maybe
we have seen some of the problems that we are, you know,
experiencing with JPSS development, but if that is true, is it
an integration problem with JPSS rather than an instrument
problem? And give us an idea of the kinds of things that you
are concerned about there.
Mr. Clarke. Well, ATMS is a complex instrument just like
the rest of the instruments that are part of that suite, and
the one that is operating on NPP is doing well, but again,
these are complex instruments. They don't--I don't want to--how
do I put--they don't come off a production line like many end
items. They are not stamped copies, so to speak. They are very
detailed, intricate instruments, and the ATMS that we are
working on now was manufactured in the early part of that
NPOESS phase and then turned over as part of the hardware
afterwards, and so we have found issues with that particular
when we started going through testing, and due to the
complexity, we are working through those challenges. It is not
unlike other development programs where we have had very
complex instruments and we have had to go in and resolve
issues.
The benefit of this, particularly the JPSS program, with
these instruments, we have been able to work through how to
integrate those instruments and when, and to preserve the
schedule for JPSS, and that is what we have done. We have
worked with our contractors and with NOAA and looked at
mitigation options of how to keep that on track, the overall
spacecraft project, which we have done, while we are working
through the ATMS issues, and we feel like we are beginning to
get a handle on the issues with ATMS, and I feel confident we
are going to resolve those problems. But it is not unlike other
programs where we may have one particular area experience a
challenge or an issue, and we will work through it and find
ways to continue to stay on track with the schedule like we are
doing now.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you very much, because I didn't want us
to leave here just thinking while you have got, you know, ATMS,
NPP, just plop it up and, you know, set it into JPSS and so
what is the problem, and so I appreciate your comments, and
with that, I yield the balance of my time.
Chairman Bridenstine. The gentlelady yields back. We will
go into a final--or actually the gentleman from Colorado is
back. You are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Just as a beginning to this, a prelude, you mentioned, Dr.
Volz, about a suite, you know, sort of assembly, production. I
think, Mr. Clarke, you talked about production lines. Some of
these things are very intricate but some things can be built
sort of not in an assembly-line mode but certainly you can
prepare and you can have teams of contractors in place.
So first question I have for you, Dr. Volz, is, if by some
circumstances the Congress were to appropriate more money to
try to accelerate and to have an assembly line of one, two,
three and four, can NOAA absorb that. Can NOAA deal with that?
Can we acceleration the production schedule and the launch
schedule?
Dr. Volz. Okay. That is a very good question, and I think
the nature of block buys, is often the term used. If you buy a
bunch of them at once, do you get some efficiencies and
economies and a better-performing system? And in fact, that is
the reason for the polar follow-on proposal in the Fiscal Year
2016 budget, which allows us to buy the third and fourth
variations of these instruments as contract options with the
same vendors so they can do exactly that. They can optimize the
development schedule so the subsystems are integrated and
brought forward on a regular and reliable place.
Now, the question of accelerating is a different challenge
because some of these things are process-intensive and it
takes, you know, a few weeks for this, a few weeks for that, so
adding more money----
Mr. Perlmutter. And I appreciate that. I am just a lawyer.
You guys are the scientists, you are the engineers, you are the
technicians. But I guess I come from a spot where, you know,
President Kennedy said we are going to be on the moon, you
know, nine, ten years from now, and everybody going wow, how in
the heck are we going to do it. You guys all figured it out. So
I don't doubt that if we want to send somebody to Mars we can
get going on it. If we want to get these satellites built, you
can do it. We need to provide you with the resources obviously,
and you know, I am going to be pushing for that kind of thing.
Mr. Powner, are the teams in place? I mean, because of the
upheaval and kind of the delays here and there between NPOESS
and JPSS and to a degree GOES. Are the teams in place if we
wanted to move this thing forward? Do we have the vendors? Do
we have--you know, somebody mentioned Lockheed or Ball or
whomever. Do we have those vendors in place?
Mr. Powner. Yeah, we currently have vendors in place. We
have a very solid team on the government side. I think the
collaboration between NASA and NOAA far better than we have
ever seen, nothing like we had on NPOESS.
I do think you have raised a really key question, though,
about building clones down the road when you start looking at
J-3 and J-4. There is a fundamental question about how much do
we advance the sensors and improve versus just building a clone
and continuing the status quo, and I think that is a tough
call, especially when you start looking at continuity of
operations, but that is why this follow-on program is so
important.
Mr. Perlmutter. Dr. MacDonald, do you have anything to add,
since you are from Colorado?
Dr. MacDonald. No, but thank you for asking.
Mr. Perlmutter. I yield back, Mr. Chair. Thank you very
much.
Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you. Anybody from Oklahoma, by
the way?
Mr. Clarke. Does my spouse's family count?
Chairman Bridenstine. You are my preferred testifier.
Mr. Clarke. Thank you, and she thanks you.
Chairman Bridenstine. So we will go into a final round here
without objection, and I will recognize myself for five
minutes.
I was just reading your testimony, Dr. Volz, and you
indicate that currently NOAA purchases data from the commercial
sector such as ground-based lightning data and space-based
synthetic aperture radar data. Is this true, and in what
quantities and how much do we spend on that as an organization,
if you know offhand?
Dr. Volz. I don't know the dollar value. We can get that to
you, and I am happy to do that.
As far as how it is used, the synthetic aperture radar data
is a key element of our ice mapping and Arctic forecast
measurements that are done with our National Ice Center
combined with VIIRS Day/Night Band imagery. The local lightning
data is used by the National Weather Service. I don't know
again the cost for that but it is a regular input, and John
Murphy may want to address that in more specific detail.
Chairman Bridenstine. And just as an example, if we were to
have a model where we were to purchase data from the private
sector whether it is GPS-RO or hyperspectral, would these
models be good ways to go that we are already doing it? Could
we not do it in other space-related activities?
Dr. Volz. I think as far as the actual getting under
contract, they would work fine. The distinction that I would
make between these particular examples and some of the GPS-RO
and our global modeling examples is, when we take data and use
it as part of our global numerical weather prediction models,
we are also--we are ingesting along with data from European
satellites, the Japanese satellites and our other partners. We
have a longstanding relationship with all of our partners who
share these models that we all share each other's data, and
that makes all of our models better and makes all of our
predictions more accurate, and it is the best environment for
this collaborative engagement.
If we were to purchase data, we would bring that into that
environment so we want to make sure that the data are readily
transferrable and usable by all of our partners, and that is
one of the key elements, that it is free and open data as far
as our numerical weather predictions, and I don't think for
local data around an airport or something like that, that is
not an issue for that because we don't share that. It is not of
interest to our international partners.
Chairman Bridenstine. Okay. So the SAR--but the SAR data
would not be local, right?
Dr. Volz. SAR data is an agreement with Canada, the
Canadian government and their satellite data system there, and
it is for--it is a mutual benefit. Both Canada and the United
States are using those data, and we share the outputs both in
Alaska and the Arctic, and I believe in the Great Lakes region
as well, again, on a collaborative basis with--it still is
local but it is local across a particular boundary with a
specific agreement.
Chairman Bridenstine. And the lightning data is what you
would suggest is probably more localized data----
Dr. Volz. Yes.
Chairman Bridenstine. --that our international partners are
not interested in?
Dr. Volz. Correct, sir, and John, if you want to add?
Mr. Murphy. Just add that we procure mesonet data,
lightning data, aircraft data. We are in the process of
exploring other data sources, data buys, and as Dr. Volz said,
typically the providers don't want to share their data openly
but it is a local--more of a local effect.
Chairman Bridenstine. Got it. I saw in the President's
budget request there is $380 million for the JPSS follow-on,
and I want to be really clear, I support JPSS, I support GOES.
I come from Oklahoma. We have thunderstorms and tornados where,
you know, in May of 2013 we had 24 of the folks from my state
get killed, $2 billion worth of damage. It was a big, big deal,
and of course, that is why I took such an interest in this to
begin with. So I don't want to see anything happen to JPSS or
the GOES programs that feed our numerical weather models. I
want to be really clear about that.
But I think we need to move to a day where we have a
different kind of space-based architecture that is resilient,
that is disaggregated. I know we have been talking about NPP.
It was launched as a test satellite, and I know it came from
the NPOESS program, but it is not shielded, and because of
that, it is susceptible to the space debris that we have had
conversations about here. But if we were to disaggregate and
move to a different kind of space-based model where we took
advantage of commercial technologies that could be launched, I
think we could move to a day--and we have done it in the
Department of Defense as it relates to communications. We have
done it in the Department of Defense as it relates to imagery
and other kinds of remote sensing. If we could go that
direction on the weather side of things, I think we would have
more resilience, we would mitigate data gaps, and we could move
to a day where we move from JPSS-2 to JPSS-3.
Maybe we are not having a hearing about a gap that is
coming and instead we are saying okay, we have got everything
we need, how do we focus NOAA on doing the things that the
private sector cannot do, and I think that is the direction
ultimately where we can go, and the private sector, of course,
my opinion is, you will get greater innovation, lower cost,
more competition, all these kind of benefits that we have seen
NASA take advantage of as well.
So I guess my ultimate question is, when you think about
that $380 million from the President's budget request, is there
any openness to maybe using a portion of that money to create a
pilot approach where we could purchase from the private sector
data for NOAA rather than focusing on, you know, buying
another--and again, JPSS-3, if it is necessary, I am all for
it, but I want to be clear, if there is an opportunity to take
a portion of that money and use it to purchase data from the
private sector, is that something that you are open to?
Dr. Volz. Well, sir, I think you identified the--the
targeted funds in the polar follow-on are really essential to
getting the instruments under contract, and I think of the 380,
approximately 80-plus percent of that is going directly to our
commercial space industry, which is building these instruments.
I do agree with you entirely in the principle that we need
to be--we need to have a constellation which has both
backbones, government-supplied solutions, and complemented by
other alternative approaches, and in the future as the
capabilities get stronger is likely to be more--is going to be
more prevalent.
I think we have to be very careful of the risks to the
user, the end user, which is if we get commercial approach
which doesn't work out, we cannot let that compromise our
ability to provide the weather forecast, and I know you are
very sensitive to that as well.
So as far as the $380 million in the polar follow-on, that
is very carefully targeted to making sure we have that backbone
system capable through the end of the next decade so that we
have the opportunity to try these alternative flexible
approaches without jeopardizing our critical basic performance
that the Nation expects.
Chairman Bridenstine. I am out of time. I would like to
recognize the gentleman from Virginia for five minutes.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Volz, in the notes that we had, it said that three
offices within NOAA have primary responsibility for
implementing the mitigation plan--NESDIS, OAR and the National
Weather Service--but the NOAA office appears to be in charge of
the mitigation activities. Is this accurate? Is there someone
who should be the central decider and implementer----
Dr. Volz. As I said----
Mr. Beyer. --coordinator?
Dr. Volz. As I mentioned earlier on in the presentation
here, there are many tasks, whether it is 21 or 40, in terms of
the mitigation. There are a number of different tasks which
have different disciplinary requirements, whether it is the
Weather Service, Oceans Research or NES for satellite
management and development, and those tasks are developed down
to those different line offices. We each--we coordinate across
the organization, and yes, there is a single person in charge,
and that is the Under Secretary for Operations that we report
to on a regular basis, and we report to the Secretary as well
on a --the Under Secretary as well.
So it is coordinated and reported up through the chain of
command but the individual activities are delegated down to
their Centers of Excellence where the expertise is.
Mr. Beyer. That sounds great.
Mr. Murphy, if the NPP satellite was lost tomorrow, hit
with debris, what would be the status of your gap mitigation
plans now?
Mr. Murphy. As I said earlier, the aircraft data is
flowing. We have several other projects that are not matured
yet. We have improved data assimilation, which will be
completed first quarter of 2016, and we have some improved
modeling capabilities that are also coming in early in 2016. So
really, all we have completed thus far as far as gap mitigation
has been the studies to demonstrate the impact and the aircraft
data which was--it is not--none of the mitigation steps that I
have seen anywhere completely mitigate the loss of the
satellite.
I would remind you that we do have legacy satellites up
there, the earlier NOAA satellites and the earlier science
missions at this time, so it wouldn't be like we would lose all
the satellites if it went out right now.
Dr. Volz. Yeah, and if I could comment on that too, I am
glad John mentioned it. The POES satellites that were launched
and are still flying, two of them in that same orbit, have been
and still are operating. Now, they are older and they could
fail as well, but if you had a--if the Suomi NPP went down,
those would still be there.
What you will lose is that leap forward that I mentioned
before, that Suomi NPP is much more capable than previous ones,
but the backbone, we have infrared sounding and we have
microwave radiometry out of those satellites, which would still
be part and are used by the models and predictions.
Mr. Beyer. Mr. Powner, do you a reaction to this?
Mr. Powner. Yeah, I think clearly what we heard on the
mitigation activities, there were four areas, and one was--four
primary areas that are the priorities, and one is extending the
life of the existing POES satellites along with using the
midmorning European satellites, and that actually came from
folks sitting at this table, so we had them prioritize what the
improvements in the forecast would be, that radio occultation,
commercial aircraft, the high computing capacity as well as the
improvements in the models. Those are the priority areas.
Mr. Beyer. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Perlmutter. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Bridenstine. Yes.
Mr. Perlmutter. Rumor has it, Mr. Powner, you are from
Colorado?
Mr. Powner. Yes, I am.
Mr. Perlmutter. All right. I am so glad I asked you
questions. I yield back.
Chairman Bridenstine. All right. I would like to recognize
the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Babin, for five minutes.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Volz, in April of 2013, NOAA removed funding for three
years of operations at the end of JPSS missions to keep the
lifecycle cost of the program around $11 billion, two-part
question. Even though JPSS-2 will be operational through 2028,
operations, I see, are only funded through 2025. Is this a
gimmick to hide the true cost of the program?
Dr. Volz. I can't speak to that specifically, sir. I will
definitely go back and check and see what the funding--how the
fundings are distributed. We certainly will operate the
satellite as long as it is functioning and operating
effectively.
Mr. Babin. Okay. Are you anticipating no funding for a
fully operational satellite program or are you anticipating
that we will find more money after the satellite is airborne?
Dr. Volz. You are talking about post-2025, sir?
Mr. Babin. Yes.
Dr. Volz. Well, the polar follow-on proposal that we have,
which is to build the J-3 and J-4 instruments, includes in it
the operational--in the long run. It is outside of this budget
cycle particularly. It includes the operation and maintenance
costs for these polar satellite constellation to the 2038 is
the expected lifetime of those satellites as well. Whatever
satellites are in orbit, we will be operating within those
budgets as defined in our program.
Mr. Babin. Okay. Thank you. And then one other question for
Mr. Clarke. Where did the space debris come from that has led
to the degradation of our polar orbiting satellites?
Dr. Volz. Well, sir, I can't comment in detail since I am
not very--I don't have a lot of insight into it, but I do know
the latest model using data from the last ten years, shuttle
data particularly, that helped update those models. As far as--
that is probably the level of detail I know. I can take that
for the record and go back and get some more information for
you if you would like.
Mr. Babin. Okay. And then Mr. Powner, how important is
improving NOAA's supercomputing capabilities to mitigating a
data gap?
Mr. Powner. It is clearly one of the top priorities.
I would also like to address the space debris that you just
mentioned. Clearly, there has been an increase in space debris
but there has also been some unfortunate incidents that
contributed to the space debris. In 2009, there was an iridium
satellite that hit a Kosmos satellite that increased the space
debris and then also unfortunately in 2007, there was a Chinese
military operation where they shot a satellite as part of their
military ops, and that contributed to space debris. So those
events in 2007 and 2009 clearly contributed to the space debris
issue.
Mr. Babin. Absolutely. Thank you.
Dr. Alexander MacDonald and Mr. Murphy, where does our
supercomputing capacity rank relative to the rest of the world?
Dr. MacDonald. I think that in--if we talk about our
operational computing, it has been behind for quite some time.
However, it was recently announced that we are going to get a
major upgrade to our operational computing. I think it is
actually five petaflops this fall, and I think that puts us on
a par with the others, and I want to say that that is a big
part of the mitigation, that is, we think with that additional
computing, it is going to help us a lot in our predictions and
help for the gap.
Mr. Babin. Okay. One other thing. Should NOAA be placing a
higher priority on this?
Dr. Volz. It has been a top priority. So, I have problems
with all this discussion of priorities about these mitigation
efforts because every mitigation step that I know has been a
top priority for us.
Mr. Babin. Okay. Thank you.
One thing else. I am sorry. Do you feel budgetary pressures
elsewhere in NOAA's budget prevent you from having access to
the best resources?
Dr. Volz. I am not sure if that is directed to all of us,
sir. I don't believe we have pressures that limit us from doing
the right thing and making the right choices.
Mr. Babin. Okay. Thank you. That is all. I yield back the
rest of my time.
Chairman Bridenstine. Okay. We are coming to the end here,
and Dr. Babin, your question about the operations piece of this
where we are funding a technology that is, JPSS-2 specifically,
which will last through 2028, and the operations side of it is
only funded through 2025 in order to hold the cost of the
program down to $11.3 billion. That is something that we will
need to have addressed as we are at the end of this hearing.
Maybe we can get that for the record.
And then also lastly, before we close out, I would just
like to--Dr. Volz, I asked the question. I just want to get it
on the record. If you are open, whether it comes from the $380
million for JPSS-3 or some other place, are you open to a pilot
approach where NOAA would fund a certain amount of money to buy
private satellite data, whether it is JPSS or GPS-RO or
hyperspectral, to purchase it from the private sector for the
purposes of resiliency and disaggregation?
Dr. Volz. I think we are open to buying appropriate data
with the quality and the validation capabilities that meet our
needs, and using that as an input into our numerical weather
models, and we are happy to work with vendors to define a
process by which we can validate the quality of their data sets
and the reliability of them.
Chairman Bridenstine. Could NOAA be an anchor tenant for
that project?
Dr. Volz. I am not sure that I would call it an anchor
tenant because the question is, do we invest in their
development costs on the premise that the outcome will be
something we can use, and that is a higher-risk approach than I
would prefer to take from the NOAA side.
I am not in the--I don't think it should be appropriate for
us to develop a commercial capability that we might use in the
future. I am happy to look at their data. I am happy to work
with them on the way that they are developing their approaches
in an open forum, and if it meets criteria, I am happy to buy
it and use it.
Chairman Bridenstine. Would you have had that same position
on the NPOESS program had you been at NOAA back when that
started?
Dr. Volz. Oh, boy. I am not going to answer that one, sir.
I am sorry.
Chairman Bridenstine. Well, I appreciate your testimony. I
thank the witnesses for their testimony and the Members for
their great questions.
The record will remain open for two weeks for additional
comments and written questions from Members. The witnesses are
excused and this hearing is adjourned. Thank you so much.
[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the Subcommittees were
adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Mr. David Powner
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Stephen Volz
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Mr. Steven Clarke
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Alexander MacDonald
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Mr. John Murphy
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]