[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AN OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROPOSAL
FOR THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 16, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-15
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
________________________________________________________________________________________
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
Wisconsin DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DANA ROHRABACHER, California DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama AMI BERA, California
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
BILL POSEY, Florida MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio PAUL TONKO, New York
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan MARK TAKANO, California
STEVE KNIGHT, California BILL FOSTER, Illinois
BRIAN BABIN, Texas
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
GARY PALMER, Alabama
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
------
Subcommittee on Space
HON. STEVEN PALAZZO, Mississippi, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma AMI BERA, California
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama, ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
BILL POSEY, Florida MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
STEVE KNIGHT, California EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
BRIAN BABIN, Texas
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
April 16, 2015
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Steven Palazzo, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 19
Written Statement............................................ 21
Statement by Representative Donna F. Edwards, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 22
Written Statement............................................ 23
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 24
Written Statement............................................ 25
Witnesses:
The Honorable Charles F. Bolden, Jr., Administrator, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 27
Written Statement............................................ 29
Discussion....................................................... 37
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
The Honorable Charles F. Bolden, Jr., Administrator, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration........................... 66
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Prepared statement submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice
Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 162
AN OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROPOSAL
FOR THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 16, 2015
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Space
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:03 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steven
Palazzo [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Palazzo. The Subcommittee on Space will come to
order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Committee at any time.
Welcome to today's hearing titled ``An Overview of the
Budget Proposal for the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration for Fiscal Year 2016.'' I recognize myself for
five minutes for an opening statement.
The first and perhaps most important point I want to make
today is that I believe the taxpayers' investment in NASA is
generally well spent, and that I support increasing NASA's
budget if we're assured American access to space. Discretionary
spending such as research and development investments at NASA
is the seed corn of future economic growth. In order to
preserve these activities, we must address the larger economic
problems we face as a nation. This involves either complying
with the President's Budget Control Act, which caps
discretionary spending, or figuring out how to repeal, replace,
or amend it. Unfortunately, this proposal does not do that.
Because this request does not provide any constructive or
workable guidance, Congress must now bear that burden. I had
hoped that the Administration would demonstrate leadership by
proposing a realistic budget, but instead we were presented
with a list of unfunded priorities. At NASA alone, the
President's request exceeds the budget caps by $519 million.
This isn't to say that this is an unreasonable request. After
all, the increase simply reflects the rate of inflation. The
concern that I have is that the Administration did not propose
offsets to account for the increase; did not propose a workable
solution to repeal, replace, or amend the President's Budget
Control Act; and once again reorganizes priorities in previous
bipartisan NASA funding bills that the President signed. For
example, the budget proposes cutting the Space Launch System by
$344 million, the Orion crew capsule by $98 million, the
Planetary Science Division by $77 million, the Heliophysics
Division by $11 million, the Aeronautics Mission Directorate by
$80 million, and NASA education by $30 million.
SLS and Orion are national assets. They are the tip of the
spear in our nation's deep space exploration efforts. Cuts to
the Planetary Science Division will empty the pipeline for
outer-planet missions and force scientists and engineers into
other fields and to foreign projects. Cuts to Heliophysics are
weakening our ability to understand and predict solar storms
that could threaten astronauts in space, and impact
communication, financial, and energy systems here on Earth.
Cuts to NASA education hurt NASA's ability to engage and
inspire the next generation of explorers.
These harmful cuts accompany increased requests for other
activities at NASA. The President's proposal seeks to increase
the Earth Science budget by $175 million this year. This
amounts to a 63 percent increase since 2007. The budget also
seeks to dilute NASA's existing earth science research
portfolio by conducting other agencies' work. It seeks to
develop climate sensors for NOAA and land-imaging capabilities
for USGS. While NASA certainly has the expertise to do this
work, they don't have the budget or the requirements.
NOAA is tasked with maintaining operational climate
measurements, and USGS is tasked to maintain Landsat
measurements. If NASA is tasked to do other agencies' work, it
should do so on a reimbursable basis as it does successfully
for other programs such as the Joint Polar Satellite System and
the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite System.
The budget request also seeks an increase of $129 million
for the Space Technology Mission Directorate and $439 million
for the Commercial Crew Program. I fully support developing the
capabilities necessary to launch American astronauts on
American rockets from American soil as soon as possible.
I also believe that NASA should be investing in the
technologies necessary to enable future exploration. Congress
will have to evaluate these proposals to ensure that they are
the most efficient uses of taxpayer resources in a challenging
budget environment. For example, NASA has argued that it is
necessary to fund two contractors in the Commercial Crew
Program to provide a redundant capability and enable
competition to drive down costs. That is why NASA selected two
contractors last fall. Congress will have to decide whether a
redundant capability is best provided by two contractors in the
Commercial Crew Program, or by external capabilities such as
the Orion crew vehicle on an existing launch vehicle. The NASA
Authorization Act of 2010 requires NASA to ensure that Orion
can serve as an emergency backup to the Commercial Crew
Program. NASA has not devoted any effort to complying with this
requirement.
The benefits of cost competition also need to be weighed
considering the government now has fixed-price contracts.
Ultimately, Congress will have to decide whether the nation
should develop a capability or should stand up a market.
One thing that would assist Congress in evaluating this
proposal is an independent cost estimate for the Commercial
Crew Program. NASA previously contracted for an independent
cost assessment, which only evaluated contractor-provided data.
Now that we have fixed-price contracts from the contractors,
NASA should initiate a more thorough independent cost estimate
to determine whether the contractors can be reasonably expected
to execute within cost and schedule.
Another NASA activity that would benefit from an
independent cost estimate is the Asteroid Redirect Mission.
Unfortunately, NASA indicated that it was unnecessary to
conduct an independent cost estimate prior to selecting
optional mission concepts, despite a recommendation from the
NASA Advisory Council. The ARM mission still hasn't garnered
any support in academic, scientific, exploration, or
international communities. NASA's own advisory bodies have
heavily criticized the mission. Without consensus, without a
realistic cost, and without a clear explanation of how it fits
into a broader exploration architecture, it is tough to see how
this proposal gains traction in the remaining 18 months of the
President's term.
NASA is at a crossroads. Unfortunately, the last six years
featured drastic change with the cancellation of Constellation
and uncertain direction with the President's ever-changing
asteroid initiative. Congress has been consistent in its
guidance to NASA that it develop a long-term sustainable
exploration strategy that is evolvable and flexible based on an
uncertain budget environment. Recent announcements from NASA
indicate that the agency is heeding that direction by working
towards an architecture that can weather the storms of change
that accompany new Administrations. Administrator Bolden and
his leadership team have a tough job. General Bolden, I am glad
you are at the reins.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Palazzo follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Space
Chairman Steven Palazzo
The first and perhaps most important point I want to make today is
that I believe the taxpayer's investment in NASA is generally well
spent, and that I support increasing NASA's budget. Discretionary
spending such as research and development investments at NASA are the
seed corn of future economic growth. In order to preserve these
activities, we must address the larger economic problems we face as a
Nation. This involves either complying with the President's Budget
Control Act which caps discretionary spending, or figuring out how to
repeal, replace, or amend it.
Unfortunately, the President's budget proposal does not comply with
his own Budget Control Act. Because the President failed to provide any
constructive or workable guidance, Congress must now bear that burden.
I had hoped that the Administration would have demonstrated leadership
by proposing a realistic budget, but instead we were presented with a
list of unfunded priorities.
At NASA alone, the President's request exceeds the budget caps by
$519 million. This isn't to say that this is an unreasonable request.
After all, the increase just keeps up with inflation. The concern that
I have is that the Administration did not propose off-sets to account
for the increase; did not propose a workable solution to repeal,
replace, or amend the President's Budget Control Act; and once again
reorganizes priorities in previous bipartisan NASA funding bills that
the President signed.
For instance, the budget proposes cutting the Space Launch System
(SLS) by $344 million; the Orion crew capsule by $98 million; the
Planetary Science Division by $77 million; the Heliophysics Division by
$11 million; the Aeronautics Mission Directorate by $80 million; and
NASA education by $30 million.
SLS and Orion are national assets. They are the tip of the spear in
our nation's deep space exploration efforts. Cuts to the Planetary
Science Division are emptying the pipeline for outer-planet missions
and forcing scientists and engineers into other fields and to foreign
projects. Cuts to Heliophysics are weakening our ability to understand
and predict solar storms that could threaten astronauts in space, and
impact communication, financial, and energy systems here on Earth. Cuts
to NASA education hurt NASA's ability to engage and inspire the next
generation of explorers.
These harmful cuts accompany increased requests for other
activities at NASA. The President's proposal seeks to increase the
Earth Science budget by $175 million this year. This amounts to a 63
percent increase since 2007. The budget also seeks to dilute NASA's
existing earth science research portfolio by conducting other agencies'
work. It seeks to develop climate sensors for NOAA, and land imaging
capabilities for USGS. While NASA certainly has the expertise to do
this work, they don't have the budget or the requirements. NOAA is
tasked with maintaining operational climate measurements, and USGS is
tasked to maintain Landsat measurements. If NASA is tasked to do other
agency's work, it should do so on a reimbursable basis as it does
successfully for other programs such as the Joint Polar Satellite
System, and the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite
System.
The budget request also seeks an increase of $129 million for the
Space Technology Mission Directorate and $439 million for the
Commercial Crew Program. I fully support developing the capabilities
necessary to once again launch American astronauts on American rockets
from American soil as soon as possible. I also believe that NASA should
be investing in the technologies necessary to enable future
exploration. Congress will have to evaluate these proposals to ensure
they are the most efficient uses of taxpayer resources in a challenging
budget environment. For instance, NASA has argued that it is necessary
to fund two contractors in the Commercial Crew program to provide a
redundant capability and enable competition to drive down costs. That
is why NASA selected two contractors last fall.
Congress will have to decide whether a redundant capability is best
provided by two contractors in the Commercial Crew program, or by
external capabilities such as the Orion crew capsule on an existing
launch vehicle. Existing law requires NASA to ensure that Orion can
serve as an emergency backup to the Commercial Crew program. NASA has
not devoted any effort to complying with this requirement. NASA could
also resort to relying on the Soyuz as well. This is certainly not an
ideal option, but it does provide a capability in the event that
domestic contractors are late or experience setbacks.
The benefits of cost competition also need to be weighed
considering the government now has fixed-price contracts. Ultimately,
Congress will have to decide whether the nation should develop a
capability or should stand-up a market. One thing that would assist
Congress in evaluating this proposal is an Independent Cost Estimate
(ICE) for the Commercial Crew program. NASA previously contracted for
an independent cost assessment which only evaluated contractor-provided
data. Now that we have fixed-price contracts from the contractors, NASA
should initiate a more thorough (ICE) to determine whether the
contractors can be reasonably expected to execute within cost and
schedule.
Another NASA activity that would benefit from an independent cost
estimate is the Asteroid Retrieval and Redirect Mission. Unfortunately,
NASA indicated that it was unnecessary to conduct an (ICE) prior to
selecting optional mission concepts, despite a recommendation from the
NASA Advisory Council. The ARM mission still hasn't garnered any
support in academic, scientific, exploration, or international
communities. NASA's own advisory bodies have heavily criticized the
mission. Without consensus, without a realistic cost, and without a
clear explanation of how it fits into a broader exploration
architecture, it is tough to see how this proposal gains traction in
the remaining 18 months of the President's term.
NASA is at a crossroads. Unfortunately, the last six years featured
drastic change with the cancellation of Constellation and uncertain
direction with the President's ever-changing Asteroid initiative.
Congress has been consistent in its guidance to NASA that it develop a
long-term sustainable exploration strategy that is evolvable and
flexible based on an uncertain budget environment. Recent announcements
from NASA indicate that the agency is heeding that direction by working
towards an architecture that can weather the storms of change that
accompany new Administrations. Administrator Bolden and his leadership
team have a tough job. General Bolden, I am glad you have the reins.
Chairman Palazzo. At this time I recognize our Ranking
Member, Ms. Edwards.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good
morning and welcome to Administrator Bolden at today's hearing.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling this hearing
on an overview of the budget proposal for the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration fiscal year 2016 budget.
The President is requesting 18.5 billion dollars for NASA's
programs and plans for fiscal year 2016. That's about a 2.8
percent increase over the FY 2015 enacted appropriation. It's a
significant topline increase given the current fiscal
environment, but the question is whether it's a proposal that's
sufficient to enable NASA to do all that we have asked and
expect it to accomplish. I want NASA to succeed, and I want to
provide it with the tools and resources needed to continue to
achieve great things for this nation and our citizens, like the
winglets we now see on commercial aircraft that improve fuel
efficiency and which were invented through NASA's aeronautics
research program, the scientific exploration of uncharted
corners of our solar system, such as Pluto, where the New
Horizons probe will provide our first close-up examination of
this remote body when it arrives there this summer, the
successful Orion Exploration Flight Test-1 that helps us
prepare to once again send humans beyond low-Earth orbit, and
being the source of inspiration that lights up children's faces
as they hear from astronauts and researchers, watch a launch,
and realize that they too can be our next space scientists,
engineers, and explorers.
Mr. Chairman, accomplishments such as these would not have
been possible without the ingenuity, knowhow, commitment, and
dedication demonstrated by the NASA federal workforce and its
partners in industry and academia. So they deserve our thanks
for all they do. They and the public also deserve to know what
lies ahead for NASA.
Over the past few years, we have heard from many witnesses
that stability is a critical enabler for NASA's progress. That
is why in my statement on the House Floor for passage of the
now House-passed, bipartisan NASA Authorization Act of 2015, I
said that NASA needs our constancy of purpose and direction now
so that we might provide some stability to the agency while we
work on multi-year reauthorization, once the current bill is
enacted into law. So I hope to hear today about whether or not
the Fiscal Year 2016 budget request provides NASA with the
clear goals that maintain a constancy of purpose. And one area
where the need for constancy of purpose has been widely
discussed is human exploration, perhaps because of the
commitment of resources and goals that must span multiple
Congresses and Presidential Administrations if we are to be
successful in that undertaking.
To that end, I'm pleased that NASA and the community have
embraced Mars as the long-term goal for human exploration. And
indeed our bipartisan Authorization Act establishes such a goal
and directs the development of a roadmap to get us there. I
hope Congress has the foresight to commit the necessary
resources to fund a humans-to-Mars plan, because it is a worthy
goal that among other things will do much to advance our
nation's technological capabilities. But as the National
Academies stressed just a year ago, if Mars is a worthy goal,
and they think it is and if we think it is, we need to provide
the resources to achieve it. If Congress is unwilling to commit
the required resources, we must not let the enthusiasm for a
goal of sending humans to Mars divert resources from NASA's
other important mission areas, because our House-passed
bipartisan NASA Authorization Act reflects an enduring
commitment to NASA's multi-mission role. This is true.
I look forward to hearing from Administrator Bolden and to
working with him and my colleagues on maintaining a constancy
of purpose for NASA going forward, and I thank you and I yield
back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Edwards follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Space
Ranking Member Donna F. Edwards
Good Morning, and welcome Administrator Bolden to today's hearing.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing on ``An Overview of
the Budget Proposal for the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration for Fiscal Year 2016.''
The President is requesting $18.5 billion for NASA's programs and
plans for Fiscal Year 2016, about a 2.8 percent increase over the
Fiscal Year 2015 enacted appropriation. That is a significant topline
increase given the current fiscal environment. But is it a proposal
that is sufficient to enable NASA to do all that we have asked and
expect it to accomplish?
I want NASA to succeed, and I want to provide it with the tools and
resources needed to continue to achieve great things for this nation
and our citizens. Like the winglets we now see on commercial aircraft
that improve fuel efficiency and which were invented through NASA's
aeronautics research program; the scientific exploration of uncharted
corners of our Solar System, such as Pluto, where the New Horizons
probe will provide our first close-up examination of this remote body
when it arrives there this summer; the successful Orion Exploration
Flight Test -1,that helps us prepare to once again send humans beyond
low-Earth orbit; and being the source of inspiration that lights up
children's faces as they hear from astronauts and researchers, watch a
launch, and realize that they too can be our next space scientists,
engineers, and explorers.
Mr. Chairman, accomplishments such as these would not have been
possible without the ingenuity, know-how, commitment, and dedication
demonstrated by the NASA federal workforce and its partners in industry
and academia. So, they deserve our thanks for all that they do. They
and the public also deserve to know what lies ahead for NASA.
Over the past few years, we have heard from many witnesses that
``stability'' is a critical enabler for NASA's progress. That is why in
my statement on the House Floor for passage of the now House-passed,
bipartisan NASA Authorization Act of 2015, I said that ``NASA needs our
constancy of purpose and direction now'' so that we might provide some
stability to the agency while we work on a multi-year reauthorization,
once the current bill is enacted into law.
So I hope to hear today about whether or not the Fiscal Year 2016
budget request provides NASA with the clear goals that maintain a
constancy of purpose.
And one area where the need for constancy of purpose has been
widely discussed is human exploration, perhaps because of the
commitment of resources and goals that must span multiple Congresses
and Presidential Administrations, if we are to be successful in that
undertaking.
To that end, I'm pleased that NASA and the community have embraced
Mars as the long-term goal for human exploration, and indeed our
bipartisan Authorization Act establishes such a goal and directs the
development of a roadmap to get us there.
I hope Congress has the foresight to commit the necessary resources
to fund a humans-to-Mars plan, because it is a worthy goal that among
other things will do much to advance our nation's technological
capabilities.
But, as the National Academies stressed a year ago, if Mars is a
worthy goal--and they think it is--we need to provide the resources to
achieve it. If Congress is unwilling to commit the required resources,
we must not let the enthusiasm for a goal of sending humans to Mars
divert resources from NASA's other important mission areas; because our
bipartisan, House-passed NASA Authorization Act reflects an enduring
commitment to NASA's multi-mission role.
I look forward to hearing from Administrator Bolden and to working
with him and my colleagues on maintaining a "constancy of purpose" for
NASA going forward.
Thank you and I yield back.
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. I now recognize
the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Smith.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I, like you,
appreciate Administrator Bolden's testifying today.
While there are some areas of agreement between the
Committee and the Administration in this budget, the
President's request regrettably changes agreed-upon national
priorities. The President's request puts NASA in a tough
position because it ignores his own sequestration levels and
fails to identify offsets for increases of $500 million. It is
hard for Congress to consider this a serious proposal when it
does not comply with the law and is not grounded in reality.
I also disagree with the Administration's continued attempt
to redistribute funding within NASA. For example, Europa is one
of the best destinations we have in our own solar system for
finding life beyond our planet. Yet this year's request of $30
million for the Europa mission is disappointing considering the
mission's potential. In contrast, Congress has funded a Europa
mission at $75 million, $80 million, and $100 million over the
last three years.
Missions like this, as well as the search for exoplanets
and signs of life in other areas of our universe, captivate the
American people. I appreciate the progress, on the other hand,
that has been made with other priorities such as the James Webb
Space Telescope, the Transitioning Exoplanet Survey Satellite,
and the Wide Field Infrared Space Telescope. Overall, though,
there is a lack of balance in the overall science account
request.
Congressional guidance and the decadal surveys advocate for
a balanced portfolio of science activities. Unfortunately, the
President's request does not adhere to that recommendation by
the space experts. One of the most glaring examples is the
disproportionate increase in the Earth Science Division that it
receives at the expense of other science divisions and human
and robotic space exploration. There are 13 other agencies
involved in climate change research, but only one that is
responsible for space exploration. In the last eight years, the
Earth Science Division funding has increased by more than 63
percent. This year, the Administration requested another
increase of $175 million over last year's levels for a total
increase of nearly $2 billion. The Administration doesn't even
come close to funding other science divisions at this level.
The Planetary Science budget request is 43 percent lower
than the Earth Science budget request. Also, the Earth Science
request is almost as much as the Astrophysics division, the
James Webb Space Telescope, and the Heliophysics Division
combined. This is anything but a balanced portfolio.
These increases come at the expense of NASA's high-priority
exploration programs, which the White House has once again
attempted to raid to fund the Administration's environmental
agenda. The budget underfunds the Space Launch System and Orion
programs and it cuts human spaceflight programs by almost $400
million. The Obama Administration seems to have forgotten
NASA's priorities--and the main one is space exploration.
This budget also continues to request funding for the
uninspiring Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM), which was recently
rebranded the Asteroid Redirect Mission. The Administration
continues to push this mission on NASA without any connection
to a larger exploration roadmap and absent support from the
scientific community or even NASA's own advisory committees.
This is an uninspiring mission without a realistic budget or
destination. It has no certain launch date or ties to existing
exploration goals. It is a mission that is without the
consensus necessary to make it a reality in the 18 months
remaining in the Obama Administration.
The Administration continues to starve NASA's exploration
programs to fund a partisan environmental agenda. NASA simply
deserves better.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'll yield back.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Full Committee
Chairman Lamar S. Smith
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate Administrator Bolden's
testifying today. While there are some areas of agreement between the
Committee and the Administration in this budget, the president's
request regrettably changes agreed-upon national priorities.
The President's request puts NASA in a tough position because it
ignores his own sequestration levels and fails to identify offsets for
increases of $500 million. It is hard for Congress to consider this a
serious proposal when it does not comply with the law and is not
grounded in reality.
I also disagree with the Administration's continued attempt to
redistribute funding within NASA. For example, Europa is one of the
best destinations we have in our own solar system for finding life
beyond our planet. Yet this year's request of $30 million for the
Europa mission is disappointing considering the mission's potential.
In contrast, Congress has funded a Europa mission at $75 million,
$80 million, and $100 million over the last three years. Missions like
this, as well as the search for exoplanets and signs of life in other
areas of our universe, captivate the American people.
I appreciate the progress, on the other hand, that has been made
with other priorities such as the James Webb Space Telescope, the
Transitioning Exoplanet Survey Satellite, and the Wide Field Infrared
Space Telescope.
Overall, though, there is a lack of balance in the overall science
account request. Congressional guidance and the decadal surveys
advocate for a balanced portfolio of science activities. Unfortunately,
the President's request does not adhere to that recommendation by the
space experts.
One of the most glaring examples is the disproportionate increase
in the Earth Science Division that it receives at the expense of other
science divisions and human and robotic space exploration. There are 13
other agencies involved in climate change research, but only one that
is responsible for space exploration. In the last eight years, the
Earth Science Division funding has increased by more than 63 percent.
This year, the Administration requested another increase of $175
million over last year's levels for a total increase of nearly $2
billion. The administration doesn't even come close to funding other
science divisions at this level.
The planetary science budget request is 43 percent lower than the
earth science budget request. Also, the Earth Science request is almost
as much as the Astrophysics division, the James Webb Space Telescope,
and the Heliophysics Division combined. This is anything but a balanced
portfolio. These increases come at the expense of NASA's high-priority
exploration systems, which the White House has once again attempted to
raid to fund the Administration's environmental agenda.
The budget underfunds the Space Launch System and Orion programs.
And it cuts human spaceflight programs by almost $400 million. The
Obama Administration seems to have forgotten NASA's priorities - and
the main one is space exploration.
This budget also continues to request funding for the uninspiring
Asteroid Retrieval Mission (ARM), which was recently rebranded the
"Asteroid Retrieval and Redirect Mission." The Administration continues
to push this mission on NASA without any connection to a larger
exploration roadmap and absent support from the scientific community or
even NASA's own advisory committees.
This is an uninspiring mission without a realistic budget or
destination. It has no certain launch date or ties to existing
exploration goals. It is a mission that is without the consensus
necessary to make it a reality in the 18 months remaining in the Obama
administration.
The Administration continues to starve NASA's exploration programs
to fund a partisan environmental agenda. NASA simply deserves better.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you, Chairman Smith.
Let me introduce our--today's witness. Our first and only
witness today is the Hon. Charles F. Bolden, Jr. General Bolden
has been the Administrator of NASA since 2009. Prior to
becoming Administrator, General Bolden served for 34 years in
the Marine Corps including 14 years as a member of NASA's
Astronaut Office. General Bolden has traveled to orbit four
times aboard the space shuttle including the flight that
deployed the Hubble Space Telescope. General Bolden has several
honorary doctorates from a variety of prestigious universities
and received his bachelor's in electrical science from the
United States Naval Academy.
In order to allow time for discussion, please limit your
testimony to five minutes. Your entire written statement will
be made part of the record.
I now recognize General Bolden for five minutes to present
his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR.,
ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS
AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)
General Bolden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Mr.
Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, five years ago
yesterday, President Obama came to the Kennedy Space Center and
laid out what I consider to be a bold, transformative agenda
for NASA. He challenged us to embark on a journey to Mars. He
challenged us to extend the life of the International Space
Station and increase Earth-based observations. He called for
investments in new, advanced technologies that will not only
take Americans farther into space than ever before but also
will provide spinoff benefits and create high-paying jobs here
at home. Five years later, we've made landmark progress toward
these goals. SpaceX's successful launch just this week is a
shining example.
The budget proposed by the President furthers the goals we
share of extending our reach into space while strengthening
American leadership here at home. It is an $18.5 billion
investment that represents a leap into a future greater of
discovery, job creation and economic growth as well as a
healthier planet.
Thanks to the hard work of our NASA team and partners all
across America, we've made a lot of progress on our journey to
Mars. In fact, we have now progressed farther on this path to
sending humans to Mars than at any point in NASA's history, and
this budget will keep us marching forward.
The support of this Subcommittee and the Congress are
essential to this journey. The International Space Station is
the crucial first step in this work. It is our springboard to
the rest of the solar system, and we are committed to extending
space station operations to at least 2024. Thanks to grit,
determination, and American ingenuity, we've returned ISS cargo
resupply missions to the United States in-sourcing these jobs
and creating a new private market in low-Earth orbit.
Under a plan outlined by the Administration earlier in its
term, we have also awarded two American companies, SpaceX and
Boeing, fixed-price contracts to safely and cost-effectively
transport our astronauts to the space station from U.S. soil.
This will end our sole reliance on Russia. It is critical that
we receive the funding requested for 2016 so that we can meet
our 2017 target date and stop writing checks to the Russian
space agency.
Our newest, most powerful rocket ever developed, the Space
Launch System, or SLS, has moved from formulation to
development, something no other exploration-class vehicle has
achieved since the agency built the space shuttle. The Orion
spacecraft performed flawlessly on its first trip to space this
past December. The SLS and exploration ground systems are on
track for launch capability readiness by November of 2018, and
the teams are hard at work on completing technical and design
reviews for Orion.
Our budget also funds a robust science program with dozens
of operating missions studying our solar system and the
universe. New Horizons is preparing for its arrival at Pluto in
July and Dawn has entered into orbit around the dwarf planet
Ceres.
Before we send humans to Mars, robots are paving the way.
We are at work on a Mars rover for 2020 and have begun planning
a mission to explore Jupiter's fascinating moon Europa.
NASA is a leader in Earth science and our constantly
expanding view of our planet from space is helping us better
understand and prepare for these changes. NASA has 21 research
missions studying Earth, and in the last year alone, we
launched an unprecedented five more. We also are at work on
Humanity's first voyage to our home star, a mission that will
repeatedly pass through the sun's outer atmosphere.
NASA's Hubble, Chandra and Kepler Space Telescopes explore
the universe beyond our solar system. Hubble's successor, the
James Webb Space Telescope, is taking shape right now out in
Maryland, and a new mission is in development to extend
Kepler's pioneering work in finding planets.
Technology drives science exploration and our journey to
Mars. With the President's request, NASA will continue to
maintain a steady pipeline of technology to ensure that we
continue to lead the world in space exploration and scientific
discovery.
NASA is also with you when you fly, and we are committed to
transforming aviation by dramatically reducing its
environmental impact, maintaining safety in more crowded skies,
and paving the way toward revolutionary aircraft shapes and
propulsion systems.
Mr. Chairman, America's space program is not just alive; it
is thriving. The strong support we receive from this
Subcommittee is making that happen, and I particularly
appreciate the generous FY 2015 appropriation. As the President
said at the Kennedy Space Center, and I quote, ``For pennies on
the dollar, the space program has improved our lives, advanced
our society, strengthened our economy, and inspired generations
of Americans.'' NASA looks forward to working with the Congress
to continue making this vision a reality.
I would be pleased to respond to your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Bolden follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you, Administrator Bolden, for your
testimony. The Chair recognizes himself for five minutes for
questions.
The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 directed NASA to develop
the Orion crew vehicle and the Space Launch System, or the SLS
rocket. The development of these systems is managed by NASA's
Exploration Systems Development program. Congress has
consistently provided more funding for exploration systems
development than NASA has requested. This was true even in the
FY 2013 budget despite reductions due to sequestration.
The first test flight of Orion and SLS without a crew,
known as EM-1, was formerly expected in 2017. When NASA
completed key decision point C on the SLS last year, why didn't
NASA use the review to develop a budget to maintain the 2017
launch date instead of using the Joint Confidence Level
development process to delay the launch and cut the budget?
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, you mentioned the 2010
Authorization Act, and I was going to go back to that anyway
because that is what established the bipartisan priorities for
this agency, and I will just review them. They're the James
Webb Space Telescope, exploration through the Space Launch
System and Orion, and ISS at that time extended to 2020. We
have subsequently gotten it extended to 2024, and we recently
got the agreement from our Russian partners that they too
believe that we should extend ISS to 2024.
We have done everything that we promised in the
appropriations--in the Authorization Act, and we continue to be
focused on those as our key priorities. We have actually
accomplished, as you have already mentioned, many of the things
that many people would not have believed we would have done by
now. If you go to Michoud, we are actually welding barrel
sections for SLS. If you go down to the Cape, we're going
through the study of Orion from its first flight trying to get
it ready. We are working on the next milestone for Orion where
we will go through a similar process that we did for SLS and
the ground systems so that we can establish an availability
date for the first integrated flight of Orion and SLS.
We e have taken the funds that the American taxpayer has
allowed us to have, and I think we have delivered on the
promises that we've made to this Congress and to the American
public.
Chairman Palazzo. I don't think you actually answered the
question. So after the decision point C was made, why didn't
NASA go back and use the Joint Confidence Level to try to
maintain the 2017 target?
General Bolden. The team did what I asked them to do. I
originally said I am willing to accept a 30 percent confidence
level where NASA accepts as a general rule a 70 percent
confidence level, and so that everybody understands what that
is. That says that we are 70 percent confident that we can do
this project within the budget that we proposed and by the date
that we proposed. Once we went through KDP-C, I could have said
okay, let's go back to a 30 percent confidence level. That
would have almost guaranteed that we wouldn't make 2017 or any
other date, and I have promised this Committee and others that
we're past telling you that we're going to do something and
then not performing.
I think if you look at our performance over the last few
years, whether it's in science, in human exploration or
anything else, for the most part we have delivered on time, and
that's because we have chosen a very structured process like
the Joint Confidence Level process to tell us when we think
things are going to be available and how much they're going to
cost.
Chairman Palazzo. Okay. I understand that, and I just want
to kind of remind people that several times you've testified in
front of this Committee that we were absolutely on schedule for
2017 launch and that even the lower level funding requests that
came from NASA, Congress always exceeded what the President's
ask was because of the importance of SLS and Orion.
The NASA Advisory Council (NAC) recently voted unanimously
to find that NASA's proposed Asteroid Redirect Mission, or ARM,
ought to be repurposed toward a mission to Mars itself. They
claim that ARM's asteroid retrieval aspect didn't efficiently
contribute to the journey to Mars and that the scientific
material provided by ARM would be a duplication of work
performed by OSIRIS-REx. NAC was further skeptical of ARM
because NASA already has a robotic asteroid sample return
mission in OSIRIS-REx, which would cost significantly less than
the ARM. Have you considered the NAC's alternate proposal of
simplifying ARM into a Mars mission that functions purely as a
solar electric propulsion test bed?
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, ARM is a precursor for Mars.
ARM is a critical component of getting humans to Mars. Among
the things that the ARM mission does is it forces us so it is
providing us the opportunity to upgrade our solar propulsion to
high-energy solar electric propulsion that will enable us to
move large masses from Earth to Mars or from lunar orbit to
Mars. That is essential. The NAC has said that no matter what
we do with ARM, we must not lose that demonstration.
The second thing that ARM allows us to do, provided we're
successful in getting a portion of an asteroid or an asteroid
into orbit around the moon is, it allows us to put humans in
connection with that particular piece of an asteroid to learn
how to operate in low-gravity or no-gravity environments, the
way we're going to have to do it when we go to Mars. So ARM
accomplishes several, two at least, of the primary functions or
technology developments that even the NAC says we have to do.
The other thing, you know, I appreciate the fact that
people appreciate that we're going to bring back some samples
with OSIRIS-REx. What people don't appreciate is that we're
going to have astronauts interacting with an asteroid in orbit
around the moon, and that is not being done by any other
mission on the books. It has not been done before.
And then finally, there is a small thing that is on my mind
all the time, because Chairman Smith hosted Dr. Holdren and
General Shelton and me to what I tell him all the time was the
most substantive hearing I have participated in, and that was
one on near-Earth objects, and at that time Mr. Posey, Mr.
Brooks and others bombarded me with demands that I tell them
what we were going to do if an asteroid was inbound, and I
finally gave up and said I would pray. That was not a good
answer. That was not a technical answer. It made big time with
my priest but it didn't help anywhere else.
Chairman Palazzo. All right. Well----
General Bolden. Today if asked that question, I would tell
them that we now have a mission underway which is called the
Asteroid Redirect Mission that is going to inform our ability
to actually deflect an asteroid or do something to protect this
planet. So, two years ago in the hearing, my answer was
repeatedly, we don't have a thing we can do. That was the
reason I resorted to my religion. Today I can tell you have a
mission that is on the books that is being developed that will
answer the question from Mr. Posey and Mr. Brooks and anyone
else who is concerned about the threat from near-Earth
asteroids.
Chairman Palazzo. We can definitely probably hold
additional hearings. I think we've held two----
General Bolden. Yes.
Chairman Palazzo. --already on near-Earth objects and the
threats that they may pose to Earth and the human race. But in
essence, you disagree with your advisory committee?
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, I don't disagree with the
advisory committee. That's not my place. They are an advisory
committee. That means in fact--you know, I find that--two of
the people that I respect the most who are astronauts, are Buzz
Aldrin and Gene Cernan, because I have to choose between their
beliefs. Gene Cernan says I should be going to the moon. Buzz
Aldrin says I should be going to Mars. I don't disagree with
either of them. I respect their opinion. But only one of them,
you know, is right as a number one priority. I happen to choose
Buzz Aldrin's number one priority as Mars because moon is on
the way. We will put people back on the moon but we can do that
on the way to Mars. You can't get to Mars if you stop at the
moon.
Chairman Palazzo. All right. Well, I appreciate your
responding to my questions, and of course, you know, without
consensus in the scientific, the exploration and international
communities, not to mention the people here on Capitol Hill, I
think you will be challenged to make ARM last longer.
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, may I----
Chairman Palazzo. I realy am three and a half minutes over,
and I know she's going to take at least three and a half
minutes over too. Hopefully she won't. This is a well-attended
hearing. But at this time I recognize Ranking Member Edwards
for her questions.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and you've come to
know me so well.
Administrator, I want to go back to the budget proposal
because I indicated this in my opening statement about this
idea of constancy of purpose for NASA and what's required, and
so I'm really confused. Part of me thinks it's kind of a game
where the proposed reductions to SLS and Orion from the FY 2015
enacted levels and then Congress come back and the
Administration proposes one thing, Congress comes and puts it
in. Here we go again. The proposal is one thing, and I don't
know, is there an expectation that Congress is going to say
well, SLS and Orion of course, those are signature important
programs and we'll put the money in. If this is an important
priority for the agency and for the nation, why don't you just
put it in the budget and not have us sit there and ask
questions about why it's not in the budget? And knowing that
the proposal that you have in front of us probably doesn't
support the integration that's necessary. It may not support
the pathway along to EM-2. What's the real number for SLS,
Orion? And maybe we should pencil that in.
General Bolden. Congresswoman, I honestly believe that the
number that we put in the President's budget will get us to the
target dates and the target achievements that we say. As I have
responded to this and many other committees, when you give me
more money, I appreciate it and I use it, and what we do is, we
buy down risk. We were able to get to a 70 percent confidence
level on SLS and Orion, or SLS and the ground systems, because
we did have more money. I was willing to accept a lower
probability but I don't think we should operate that way. So if
you gave me more money today and told me to spend it on SLS,
that's not going to change the date of availability for SLS for
EM-1. I would much rather take the money as we have it planned
out to make a sustainable program.
We are not talking about one flight. In fact, when we go
through the milestone review for Orion, we're going to give you
a budget plan and a date that we think we can make for the
second flight of Orion and SLS because that's the critical
flight for us, not the first flight. The second flight is the
first human flight, and so we made the decision that for Orion,
then KDP-C and other milestones would look at the first human
flight. If you tell me to put the money into SLS for EM-1, I
can do that, and then we have a one-flight program that I've
got to later figure out how to sustain.
Ms. Edwards. Okay. So, I appreciate your saying that, but
let's just remember this day when that is said because if we
come down the line, we're going to take you at your word----
General Bolden. Yes.
Ms. Edwards. --that you don't need that, and so then I want
to ask you about the impact of the cuts that are proposed to
aeronautics on our ability to maintain leadership in aviation
and aeronautics with an increasingly competitive global
environment. We've had that conversation before on this
Committee where it feels like aeronautics kind of gets short
shrift. So can you explain those cuts?
General Bolden. The cuts came at my direction because
that's--when I looked at the top line that I was willing to
submit, which was over what we had been asked to submit, I had
to decide where we could make the most, where we could pick up
the most with money that we had, and aeronautics was once again
an area that I had to take some funds from.
So it was simply prioritizing funds that we had and trying
to see what we could do the most with. Dr. Jaiwon Shin and his
team did a new strategic plan, they have six strategic thrusts,
and we think with the funds that we put in the budget, we'll be
able to continue to make progress in those areas.
Ms. Edwards. So let me just ask you then about Europa and
the Europa mission really quickly because there are also
proposed reductions in Planetary Science in the middle of the
development of a very ambitious Mars 2020 mission. So can you
explain that?
General Bolden. Yes, ma'am. You know, I get this from the
planetary scientists all the time. In July, we will achieve
something that has never before been done by anyone, any
country, any anything. We will have satellites that will be
studying, orbiting several planets in the solar system and the
dwarf planet Pluto, and we will have a spacecraft that is in
interstellar space. We managed to do that with limited funds
because we appreciate everything that the Congress has given us
but it is limited, and so we can either take stuff off the
plate or we can figure out ways to do the best we can to
achieve the missions that you have given us, and sometimes we
have to come back and tell you it can't be done in the time
frame that you want. People want Europa in 2022. It can't be
done in that time frame. We will continue to say that. We know
about how long it will take us to put a mission on Europa. So
it's simply a matter of prioritization again.
All of you have mentioned in your opening statements that
we're over the Budget Control Act number. Yes, we are, maybe.
Ms. Edwards. Oh, you didn't hear that complaint from me.
Because the time is limited, even though I'm going over,
out of respect for the Chairman, I didn't want to go here but
now that you've taken me to Asteroid Redirect, in our
authorization, and we know that it is not law, but you've
promised a roadmap on sort of laying out what the choices are
and how we're going to get to Mars, and what happens is that
you come in front of the, you know, Committee, and with all due
respect, you haven't provided the roadmap but you've said this
is the direction that we're going using the Asteroid Redirect,
and it feels like we're missing a little bit of communication
here.
It would be important for this Committee to have a roadmap,
to have something that says here are the choices and this is
why we've decided to go in this direction, and instead what we
get is a budget line for Asteroid Redirect that doesn't say
here are the choices but says this is the choice we've made. So
which is it? Have you all just ditched any other possibilities
and everything is focused on the Asteroid Redirect as the way
to go to Mars? Because if that is true, then what's the point
of providing a roadmap?
General Bolden. Congresswoman, the place we're going is
Mars. Our ultimate focus is the journey to Mars, and everything
comes back to that. When you talk about getting to Mars, we
need high-energy solar electric propulsion. We need to be able
to operate in and around low-gravity, no-gravity bodies. The
Asteroid Redirect Mission is going to provide that. We need a
sustained low-Earth orbit infrastructure from which we can
operate. The International Space Station is vital to that.
We've gotten the International Space Station to agree that we
will extend it to 2024. That is essential. We have to supply
the International Space Station.
That takes us to Commercial Crew and Cargo. I want to get
away from dependence on the Russians. We now have American
commercial cargo capability demonstrated. The importance of two
providers was ultimately eminently demonstrated when we lost
Antares and Cygnus last October because when we launched SpaceX
6, it was loaded. It was loaded with everything that would've
been on Cygnus. So without having two providers, redundancy and
American providers, we would not have been able to do that.
We are on the road to having commercial crew availability
in 2017. So that's going to take us to Mars. If I don't have
commercial crew and cargo, the International Space Station, I
can't get to Mars.
Ms. Edwards. My time is like totally gone, but I'm just
going to say to you that I think that this Committee, many of
us want to figure out a way that we can best support the
ultimate goal of Mars, but we have to have some level of
communication with the Committee laying out what the
alternatives are, what the choices are, and not just have you
come to the Committee and say this is what we're doing. Our job
is to take in the information and say this is how we as a
Congress, as an American people, feel that we need to go in
this direction, and that hasn't happened yet. It would be a
really good idea offline, online, whatever it is, bring it in
to us, put it on paper, lay it out for us so that we have the
ability in subsequent authorizations to help figure that out
with you and not just be told a direction that we're going
without any level of communication.
Thank you very much.
General Bolden. Yes, ma'am.
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. I now recognize
Mr. Brooks for five minutes.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Bolden, the acronym NASA stands for the ``National
Aeronautics and Space Administration.'' I underscore the words
``aeronautics and space,'' yet each year almost $2 billion of
NASA funding is diverted from aeronautics and space to Earth
sciences, i.e. global warming and climate change and similar
initiatives. To the extent America wishes to spend taxpayer
money on global warming and climate change, I'd submit these
programs should be paid for out of the Environmental Protection
Agency's budget, not America's aeronautics and space budgets.
General Bolden, given a choice between adequately funding
NASA's aeronautics and space efforts such as the Space Launch
System, the various telescopes, planetary sciences and things
of that nature so that America's space program is no longer
reduced to hitching a ride from Russia to get to the Space
Station and diverting NASA funding to the study of the Earth's
environment, a subject I submit is better suited to the
Environmental Protection Agency, what is your preference and
why?
General Bolden. Congressman Brooks, NASA since its
inception has had responsibility for exploring the universe and
helping us understand it better, and also taking care of this
planet, which I think it happens to be my favorite planet. If I
followed the logic that you just presented, since science is
missing from the acronym--and people have suggested that NASA
drop science from its programs because it's not in the acronym.
However, that would be absurd to do. NASA is eminently
responsible for science and we provide four areas of science--
Earth science, astrophysics, planetary science and
heliophysics--and that is our portfolio and we cover that
adequately with the funds that we are given. We are able to do
things. We provide instruments and satellites that are used by
other operational agencies. We don't do weather forecasting. We
don't do operational science.
Mr. Brooks. I understand that. If I could please interject
for a moment, my question is one of choice. Do you want
aeronautics and space money, NASA money, going to aeronautics
and space or are you comfortable with the diversion of about $2
billion a year to global warming, climate change initiatives,
which in my judgment should be funded by the Environmental
Protection Agency, thereby freeing up that $2 billion for
aeronautics and space.
General Bolden. Congressman, my choice is to distribute the
money in the best way that we feel possible to cover our
portfolio because we do feel that science, aeronautics, human
exploration and technology development are critical missions or
critical functions that NASA has to do. We don't divert money
from science for human exploration. We don't divert money from
human exploration for science. We present what we think is a
logical budget that will enable us to achieve all of our
missions any time that we lay out in those budgets, and I think
we're doing that very well. I think----
Mr. Brooks. Well, General Bolden, if I might continue, in
my opinion, based upon what I have seen since the cancellation
of the shuttle program, since America has been reduced to
hitching a ride from the Russians for our astronauts, America
is losing ground and could arguably no longer be the preeminent
space program, which was a position we've held since the 1960s.
Given this choice, if Congress were to shift NASA Earth
sciences funding, roughly $2 billion a year, to restoring
America's preeminence in space and requiring that global
warming and climate change study be paid out of the
Environmental Protection Agency's existing budget so that you
still have that kind of Earth science being funded but out of
the Environmental Protection Agency, which seems to be a more
logical agency since we're talking about the environment, would
you support that shift of $2 billion a year to NASA's
aeronautics and space programs with the understanding that the
EPA would be doing the environmental work on global warming and
climate change?
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, there is only one agency that
sends people to space, as you all have said. That's NASA. Right
now there is a preeminent agency that provides the
instrumentation that gathers the data to do the work of EPA and
NOAA and others that you say. If we stop doing that, there is
no other agency that does it. The reason that our earth
science----
Mr. Brooks. Now wait a second----
General Bolden. --had an increase this year was because we
build satellites for NOAA.
Mr. Brooks. There's nothing that would stop the EPA out of
their budget from hiring NASA to put those satellites up there,
is there?
General Bolden. That's what we do right now, so why do it
and pretend we are not----
Mr. Brooks. But right now it's cutting into the space
program, I would submit, and as a consequence, I think you've
got a very good argument out there that America is losing
ground and the highest ground, and that's space, and we're
doing it because aeronautics and space has not been adequately
funded over the years.
General Bolden. Congressman----
Mr. Brooks. Now, I'm trying to figure out a way to improve
funding for aeronautics and space, and if I understand
correctly, here you are, the NASA Administrator, and you're
saying no, we don't want that $2 billion for aeronautics and
space and we don't want the Environmental Protection Agency to
take over an environmental issue, which would be global warming
and climate change initiatives. Am I erring in my
interpretation of your remarks?
General Bolden. Congressman Brooks, if you're saying that I
disagree that we should take the money that NASA has in Earth
science and shift it to aeronautics and space, you are
absolutely right. I disagree. I think that the balance of funds
that NASA has today in our science, human exploration,
aeronautics and space technology portfolios is about right, I
am really sorry that you don't believe that we are the
preeminent agency in the world for exploration in space.
I just came back from the Space Symposium, and there is no
one out there who agrees with anyone who has that low opinion
of NASA and the United States. We are the preeminent leader in
the world, always have been, always will be.
Mr. Brooks. Well, let me break it down. When it comes to
human spaceflight, we are no longer the preeminent country in
space. When it comes to non-human space endeavors, I think you
can make an argument that America still has preeminence. But
when you put the two together and when Russia has reduced the
United States of America to saying if we want to go to their
space station, we can do it by a trampoline, that's not the
kind of preeminence at least I'm accustomed to having seen the
Saturn V rocket built, researched and developed in the Fifth
Congressional District of Alabama.
Chairman Palazzo. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Palazzo. At this time I recognize Mr. Beyer for
five minutes.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General and Administrator, NASA's Wallops Flight Facility
and Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport play a critical role in our
nation's launch infrastructure providing half of the cargo
resupply launches to the ISS as well as other important NASA
and DOD missions. It's one of only four operational sites in
the United States capable of orbital launch, and only one of
two on the East Coast capable of supporting NASA's human
spaceflight programs, and it's my understanding that last year
Wallops nearly tied Vandenberg AFB for the number of launches.
And last fall, the Congress with bipartisan and bicameral the
support, appropriated $20 million for NASA's Wallops for the
long overdue range upgrades as well as support recovery from
the Orb-3 accident last October. I was pleased to learn that
the first $5 million was actually--of the appropriate funding
was released last week but I think I and all the Virginia
delegation are concerned about five months after the bill is
signed into law, the other $15 million still hasn't flowed into
Wallops. Can you tell me when that funding is going to come to
Wallops and what the delay might be?
General Bolden. Congressman, we have continued to build
Wallops up to what we consider to be a 21st century launch
complex. It is our intent that Wallops will be returned to the
capability of launching medium- and small-class orbital
vehicles, and we will see that when Orbital Sciences is ready
to launch again, the facility will be fully up and running. But
if you look at the funds that we have expended through the
years at Wallops, we don't count a particular pot, you know,
for work on the pad or whatever. We're trying to restore it to
a 21st century launch complex.
The $5 million that we contributed to the repairs on the
pad were because we took the leadership in trying to get the
three teams together, meaning Orbital, Mid-Atlantic Regional
Spaceport (MARS) and the State of Virginia to move, to get some
movement on restoring the pad. So we felt it was essential to
do that.
I would have to remind people that what is not counted
because it wasn't in our budget but we were able to find ways
to do it was, how did we get Wallops to the point where it
could launch in the first place. We brought people up from
Stennis, we brought people up from Kennedy, we brought people
up from Langley to enable MARS and the State of Virginia to
have an operating launch pad. So we have always supported
Wallops with funds over and above what shows up in the budget
for a particular budget line, so----
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, General.
General Bolden. --I pledge we'll continue that.
Mr. Beyer. We look forward to the other $15 million. That
would be great.
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Beyer. I was very impressed with this notion of
constancy of purpose and our Ranking Member Edwards' concerns.
Much is made of it, and reading through all this, you see
there's so much on your plate. Just look at the budget--
exploration, space operations, science, aeronautics, education,
et cetera, in specific programs, SLS, Orion, commercial crew,
JWST, heliophysics, Earth science, et cetera, Mars, exoplanets,
ISS, Landsat. Is there any way you can tell me what NASA's
constancy of purpose actually is?
General Bolden. Oh, Mars is the planet that is most like
Earth. It is the one that we believe may sustain life, probably
did sustain some type of life and will sustain life when humans
get there in the 2030s. It is critical for us to understand
Mars like every other planet in our solar system so that we
better understand planet Earth. We've been exploring Mars for
about 40 years. Every precursor has been with one purpose in
mind, and that's being able to put humans on that planet one of
these days. That is the reason we have Curiosity there. That's
the reason we're going to put Mars 2020 there, the reason we're
going to launch InSight next year.
Mr. Beyer. So is it safe to say if I'm explaining NASA's
constancy of purpose to a high school physics student, I'd say
you can look at all this through the lens of Mars?
General Bolden. That is one example, and it depends on--if
you're talking to kids in high school, some of them are going
to have no interest in planetary science, so some of them may
be interested. They may be techies, and then I need to be able
to show them the constancy of purpose in NASA's Space
Technology Mission Directorate that's enabling like them the
young people back here from Carnegie Mellon in a university
that's noted for its computer science.
Mr. Beyer. So----
General Bolden. They've got to believe they can come to
NASA and contribute also.
Mr. Beyer. I was clear and now I'm confused again. So it
sounds like we have just a huge buffet at NASA rather than a
single focus or a singled constituted purpose. Is there a way
to define it clearly? We opened with all the concerns about we
cut money from this and we added money to that, and where was
our constancy of purpose?
General Bolden. When I talk about constancy of purpose, I'm
really talking about exploration, and that is the primary focus
of this agency in trying to keep up with the charter that
established NASA in 1958 to understand our universe. We believe
that if we can put humans on Mars, our journey--if we can shore
up our journey to Mars and say we're going there, we may wander
along the way as people always do when they're on a journey but
that's the ultimate destination, here's the plan that we have
in place that Congresswoman Edwards mentioned. We have three
things we've got to do. We're Earth-reliant right now. We've
got to get away from being Earth-reliant and that means we've
got to spend some time in the proving zone. We've got to go
back to the lunar environment so we'll be in cislunar space,
and ultimately we want to be Mars-ready. We want to be Earth-
independent.
So it takes all of these little pieces that I mentioned.
Congressman Perlmutter just came in. He is one of my biggest
cheerleaders for MAVEN. You know, we've got to understand
Mars's environment and what happened to it in order to
understand Earth's environment right now and what might happen
to it if the magneto gets turned off, and----
Chairman Palazzo. The gentleman's time has expired. At this
time I'd like to recognize Chairman Smith for five minutes.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, let
me say at the outset that I think we've heard excellent
questions today from both sides of the podium. I still think
we're searching for more direct answers to a lot of those
questions, and to that end, Director Bolden, let me go to the
Asteroid Redirect Mission for a second.
It is amazing to me that the Administration actually thinks
that changing this mission and securing an asteroid and taking
it into orbit and around the moon and now change it to getting
a boulder from an asteroid and putting it into orbit is going
to somehow attract the American people's attention and inspire
them.
But the main point I want to make here is that the NASA
Advisory Council actually made a recommendation to you all, and
it found ``Instead of relocating a boulder from an asteroid, we
suggest that a more important and exciting first use of this
new solar electric propulsion stage would be a round-trip
mission to Mars, flying it to Mars orbit and then back to the
Earth-Moon system and into a distant retrograde lunar orbit.''
Why isn't the Administration following its own experts' advice?
General Bolden. Congressman Smith, we believe, I believe
that we are going to stand a better chance----
Chairman Smith. So you disagree with your experts? And
you're entitled to do that.
General Bolden. I agree with some of my experts, who happen
to think the Asteroid Redirect Mission is awesome.
Chairman Smith. In the last two years, all the experts have
recommended the NCR mission, and you all keep----
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman----
Chairman Smith. --forging ahead.
General Bolden. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, if I
lined up the experts and had them sit----
Chairman Smith. All of these experts have been unanimous.
These experts have been unanimous in not recommending the ARM
Mission, and you all just keep forging ahead, and I'm asking
you why you're ignoring all these experts' advice.
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, because I believe in
constancy of purpose. I believe that my job is to determine the
direction in which this agency is going to go, recommend it to
you and to the President, and then pick that path and follow
it. We are on a path----
Chairman Smith. Director, I'd rather you listen to the
experts more than maybe yourself in this particular instance.
General Bolden. I don't--I listen to the experts, and I----
Chairman Smith. Well, I wish you would heed them and do
what they recommend, but on that same subject of ARM, and
another example of what I'm talking about, NASA's Advisory
Council also said that you should conduct an independent cost
estimate of ARM, and so far you have not committed to doing so.
Will you commit today to conducting that cost estimate of ARM
and the two mission options?
General Bolden. We committed to the----
Chairman Smith. That's a pretty easy answer, yes or no.
General Bolden. We committed--because what you say we
committed or what they recommended, we committed to them that
when we get to beyond the mission concept review, which we have
now done, that we will have an independent cost assessment----
Chairman Smith. When can we expect to see that independent
cost estimate since you're now at that point?
General Bolden. I will get that to you, sir. We are not--I
don't have a date for an independent cost assessment on the
option that we've selected for ARM.
Chairman Smith. Well, do you have a month?
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, I will take that for the
record and I will get it to you.
Chairman Smith. Is it this year, the next six months, the
next three months?
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, you know, I will take it for
the record and I will get back to you.
Chairman Smith. Okay. You're kind of proving what I said
about these answers.
All right. Let me go to the next one. You proposed an
overall cut in Planetary Science by $76 million, Orion by $98
million, SLS by $344 million, and you've cut other space
programs as well. That is why I happen to think the
Administration is starving NASA.
But in regard to SLS and Orion, those are over $450 million
worth of cuts. You've got a situation where the GAO has said
those $400 million cuts are a risk to the program, and now the
launch date has gone from 2017 to 2018. It seems to me that the
Administration's actions contradict their words, because if you
look at the money, Earth Science may be a priority but Space is
less of a priority.
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman----
Chairman Smith. When you look at the money, can you come to
any other conclusion?
General Bolden. Yes, sir. I would say--I would request that
people look at performance, that you look at achievement. I
would ask people to look at the fact that we flew Orion in
December. We finished----
Chairman Smith. But if you look at the budget, if you look
at the budget and you're cutting space and you're increasing
Earth Science, doesn't that suggest that the Administration has
a greater priority for Earth Science than Space?
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, if we look at the money, we
spent--since this Administration has come into office, we have
spent $49 billion on----
Chairman Smith. I understand all that, but if you look at
the cuts, don't cuts mean something?
General Bolden. Cuts mean that we are trying to effect--we
are trying to select priorities and get the missions and the
goals----
Chairman Smith. That's my point. Your priority is not
space; it's something else.
General Bolden. Our priority is--our priority is very
clear. We are on a journey to Mars. We are trying to continue
to get support from this Congress and the Administration on
that journey to Mars. We have demonstrated that we know what
we're doing.
Chairman Smith. Then why did you cut the Space programs?
You have SLS slipping a year. You're not going the right
direction if Space is a priority. I'm not saying it's not a
priority but it's less of a priority because of what those cuts
represent.
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman, we have provided an
availability for launch date for SLS and the Exploration Ground
Systems as we have gone through our formal process of
evaluating schedules and----
Chairman Smith. And it's gone from 2017 to 2018.
General Bolden. We never presented a formal finding. We did
not go through the formal process when we came up with a date
of 2017. It's like Europa. I think I can do Europa in 2029. We
will know----
Chairman Smith. You don't consider 2017 to 2018 to be a
delay then?
General Bolden. I do not consider it to be a delay, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Smith. This may be the only Administration in
history that doesn't consider going from 2017 to 2018 being a
delay. I happen to think it is.
I'll yield back. My time is expired.
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this time the
Chair recognizes Mr. Perlmutter for five minutes.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Bolden, good to see you. I do think that
Chairman Smith and I are in total agreement on our desire to
get our astronauts to Mars and to be very focused in that
respect, and there are obviously other things that need to be
done, whether it's looking back at Earth or looking farther
into space. I would take issue with a couple of my colleagues.
You know, to me, NASA is by far the preeminent space
exploration agency in the world.
Now, I think what's important, and I think the real problem
here--and the Chairman and I have had this conversation--is
that I think we can get to Mars, and I would like to see us
accelerate the time frame of us getting to Mars and do the
other things that are important in terms of weather satellites
and a number of the other responsibilities that you all take
on, and I'd like to pull up a chart, because I think this is
the real problem, and we've had this conversation.
So this is NASA's budget as a percentage of the federal
budget over the last 40 years, and so as a result, we see when
in the early years in 1962 through 1968 where your budget
peaked, which was our effort to get to the moon, and it
succeeded. But we had as a nation, we had to dedicate ourselves
to doing that, and it cost us money, and since then, we have
not been prepared as a nation to make it the priority that it
was back then, and so you then are in a position where you have
finite resources, which I think are too low for your agency, if
our goal is to get to Mars and get there sometime within my
lifetime. You know, I want to see us get there by 2020. I have
no idea exactly how you can do it but I want to make sure you
have the resources to do it and to do the other things that are
important to the mission, whether it's MAVEN and understanding
the atmosphere and what the heck happened as a precursor to us
going to Mars.
And so I'd like you just to kind of respond to my rant if
you would, and your budget as a percentage of federal spending.
General Bolden. Congressman, I appreciate your rant to be
quite honest, and in many ways you're correct. But I don't want
people to lose sight of what we've been doing over the last 40
years. We have been flying robotic precursors throughout this
solar system for 40 some-odd years now. We have been on Mars,
the only nation in the world to successfully land an operating
vehicle on Mars. So those precursors are very important to our
human journey to Mars.
We can't get there without the precursor missions because
there are things we still don't understand. We can't get there
without developing the technologies such as solar electric
propulsion. We can't get there without developing the
techniques such as operating in and around low-gravity and no-
gravity bodies, all things that the ARM mission we hope will
do. We can't get there without Commercial Crew and cargo. We
have to get away from reliance on the Russians.
When we lost Columbia, nobody planned for that. The only
way we were able to sustain our occupancy of the International
Space Station was to call on our partners the Russians and to
rely on them for a period of time. That has been far too long.
With the funding that this budget requested, we can return the
launch of our astronauts to American soil and that is
absolutely critical. I don't think--when it gets down to the
basic fundamental question here, I don't think there's any
disagreement between me and anybody on this panel. We all want
to get humans to Mars. There is a correct way to do that and we
cannot do it by saying we're going to fly a one-way mission or
we're going to fly a solar electric propulsion vehicle out and
bring it back. There is a progression through which we have to
go. We've got to go from being Earth-reliant, go to the proving
ground, and then get on out to Mars and be Mars-ready. And
those are programs that are slow-developing that take time to
make sure that we're doing the right thing, and that's what
we're doing. We----
Mr. Perlmutter. All right. Well----
General Bolden. We are trying to institute constancy of
course.
Mr. Perlmutter. Well, I do want to thank you and I felt it
was a very successful mission, the first test flight of Orion,
and I do want to see us accelerate. So to some degree I do
agree with the Chairman. If we can continue to have our major
focus getting to Mars, that's what I would like to see it be. I
think we've got to, if that's the kind of mission and
dedication we have, you have to see some increase in your
budget so that we can do all the steps necessary to get us
there and get us there promptly. Because if we're going to
really have a mission that the nation can embrace and embrace
enthusiastically, like they did that first test flight, we've
got to keep it moving. You can't have too much time lag----
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Perlmutter. --through this process. And with that, I
have a whole bunch of other questions but I'll save those for
my next round.
General Bolden. Yes, sir.
Mr. Perlmutter. And I yield back to the Chairman.
Chairman Palazzo. I want to thank the gentleman.
At this time the Chair recognizes Mr. Rohrabacher for five
minutes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The one thing that I've learned in my life is that people
who try to do everything for everybody end up not being able to
do anything for anybody. And that's why it's so important to
make sure that we have goals in mind that are achievable as a
package rather than just independently each goal is an
important goal. And I would just have to say that I believe
that we are not doing that. And I say ``we.'' I don't mean just
you. I mean all of us. We're part of the team that's--we are
America's space team and it's not just NASA. It's all of us in
this committee as well.
I think we have overreached and it will prevent us from
accomplishing some very important goals that--we hear the
arguments and I think they're legitimate arguments about having
NASA being involved in global warming research and other things
that are not--shouldn't be priorities. I understand the
position you're in and you're doing a job in defending what the
Administration's goals are and the Administration hired you on
to this job to do this.
But let me just say I don't think that we are going to
achieve the goals, even the important goals, unless we start
being more realistic.
Let me ask you. I of course have been one over the years
promoting--rather than the trip to Mars I've been promoting,
utilizing the commercial involvement in space in order to let
us accomplish things that are accomplishable in space. And the
Commercial Crew launch system, and by your own budgets have
suggested that the idea of going the more commercial direction
actually is a valid methodology of achieving our space goals,
our certain space goals at a cost-effective way.
And I understand that of course we've got--we're now
dependent on the Russians to buy six seats per year from the
Russians in order to do--in order to maintain Space Station at
a cost of $76 million per seat, is that correct?
General Bolden. That's approximate, sir.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
General Bolden. Presently.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And basically we are looking forward to
the fact that Commercial Crew, the Commercial Crew Program will
free us from that obligation. And, however, just a two year
delay in what we have expected from Commercial Crew, we have a
two year delay. That by my calculation is $900 million extra
that we're spending for the Russians because the Commercial
Crew formula has had to be pushed off for two years. Is that
right?
General Bolden. That is correct, sir, and that is a delay.
When I came into this position and we presented the Commercial
Crew Program to this Congress and the Administration, we
proposed a level of funding that would have had us launching
this year. We did not get that level of funding. We did not get
the----
Mr. Rohrabacher. That's correct.
General Bolden. --continuous support, and so we now hope to
launch in 2017.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well----
General Bolden. If we don't get what we ask for this year,
then--because we now are working on contracts----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, General, let me note that--I agree
with what you're saying, and the reason why we've had--we did--
you didn't get the money is because we're draining money off
for other projects like flying off to Mars in the long run and
costing us almost a billion dollars because we haven't--you
know, we're not doing things responsibly. That's a billion-
dollar waste as far as that--I'm concerned.
And let me just put it this way. If you calculate that--if
you are calculating that a Commercial Crew approach and doing
this through a commercial rather than through the old system
that we had is actually going to save money in the long run,
why are we--and we're pouring--at the same pouring money into
global warming, but also in the SLS and the Mars concept of
putting a man on Mars rather than just rely on robots. Don't we
have--there's been some indication by one of the companies
that's providing us Commercial Crew, SpaceX, that the owner of
that company has said, well, he himself is interested in
financing a trip to Mars. So if we do--if we have recognized
that there is validity to letting the private sector get
involved in this, why are we spending so much in the long run
on Mars, which is costing us money in the short run because
we're not budgeting correctly? Why don't we just hold off on
spending money and going to Mars to see if the private sector
can contribute to that effort?
General Bolden. Mr. Chairman--or Mr. Congressman, the
reason we're spending the money on it or we're investing is
because experience has told us that only nations do the things
that we're trying to do. Commercial companies will follow I
hope. Commercial companies followed us to low-Earth orbit. We
now have two companies that provide cargo support and hopefully
two years from now will provide crew support. But that's only
because we blazed the trail.
There is--I don't care what anyone says. Getting to Mars is
hard and there is no commercial company that without the
support of the government and without the support of NASA is
going to independently take a trip to Mars, so I would hope
that no one on this Committee----
Mr. Rohrabacher. The same--let me----
General Bolden. --buys into that.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So let me note that the same thing could
have been said in terms of providing transportation to
government programs for astronauts, the same thing could have
been said about the commercial sector 10, 20 years ago. The
private sector has a lot to contribute and I would hope that we
don't have our long-term projection into Mars as a government
program doesn't cost us these extra billions of dollars that
could be put to use by NASA or by the private sector in
accomplishing some goals right now. Thank you very much----
General Bolden. Yes. Thank you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. --Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Palazzo. I want to thank the gentleman.
At this time the Chair recognizes the Ranking Member of the
full committee, Mrs. Johnson.
Mrs. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
and I apologize for being late. I had an essential meeting that
I had to attend.
And let me welcome the Administrator and thank you for your
long-time and continued service to this nation.
As the Chairman and others have indicated, we're here to
review NASA's fiscal year 2016 budget request. And before I
discuss specifics, I'd like to say that I appreciate the
President's commitment to NASA as expressed in his budget
request, as well as his support for R&D overall. It is clear
that he understands the importance of investing in our nation's
R&D enterprise, of which NASA is a key component.
So while I may differ on some of the specific funding
decisions reflected in this budget request, I think that NASA's
overall request is a good starting point for our deliberations,
and I hope that Congress will at least equal that budgetary top
line, if not exceed it.
Because the reality is that successive Congresses and
Administrations have tasked NASA with a number of critical
important endeavors and yet we have lagged in our providing the
resources needed to carry them out. The truth is that NASA's
buying power has actually decreased, as it has been pointed out
here, by 15 percent from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2013
and is expected to continue to decline if the budgetary outlook
doesn't improve. So, Mr. Chairman, the hardworking men and
women of NASA really does deserve better.
Let me cite an example. Just about a year ago, a
distinguished panel of the National Academies completed its
review of the Nation's Human Space Exploration Program. The
panel was headed by former Governor and OMB Director Mitch
Daniels, an individual well known for his fiscal conservatism,
which makes the panel's conclusions even more impressive,
namely America's Human Spaceflight Program is worth continuing.
Mars is the appropriate goal. The government needs to come to a
consensus on a pathway to Mars--and I don't believe that
commercial is going to happen until first the government
reaches it, a set of interim destinations and milestones of
course, and it's going to require funding above the constant
dollars if NASA is to succeed.
So that's pretty unambiguous advice that we have failed to
follow. So it came as a bit of a shock to me that the very next
budget request for NASA to be submitted after the report's
release would actually propose cutting the funding for the
Space Launch System of Orion--two fundamental enabling elements
of the Human Exploration Program--is directly counter to the
National Academies' findings, and I think that Congress needs
to correct that.
Neither has NASA yet told us how it plans to get to Mars.
What's the pathway or the roadmap? NASA needs to look beyond
just the next four or five years and lay out the milestones it
needs to pursue to get humans on Mars, as the National
Academies panel made clear. Defining such a roadmap is not just
for NASA's benefit. None of what NASA has done has been for
NASA's benefit as such. It has benefitted our nation and our
world.
Congress and the American people will need to be confident
that NASA has a well-thought-out plan if we are going to be
able to sustain support for such an ambitious understanding
over the coming years. I am sure we will discuss further during
this hearing so I won't pursue this any further now.
NASA is a crown jewel of America's research and development
enterprise. It advances knowledge, promotes technological
innovation, projects a positive image of America throughout the
world, and inspires especially our young minds. Its workforce
is dedicated and accomplished and I really do think that NASA
deserves our support.
I want to ask this question as my time is running out. How
do NASA employees beyond your leadership feel in terms of their
confidence of gaining greater steps towards reaching Mars and
the goals for getting there when when we are not providing the
adequate money?
General Bolden. Congresswoman, I'm a person who believes in
metrics. The best metric we have for how NASA employees feel is
something that's done by the Partnership for Public Service,
and it results in a listing of best places to work in the
Federal Government. For the last three years, the number one
place to work in the Federal Government in our class has been
NASA, and I think that speaks to the attitude, the enthusiasm,
the excitement of the people in the agency.
I just came back from Georgia Tech last week. Young people
want to come work for us because they're excited about what
we're doing. And they want to do things that have not been done
before. They are excited about Mars, and the workforce. There
are all kinds of intangible things that you do that tell you
what the attitude of a workforce is. If you go over there right
now, we're engaged in a fitness challenge that goes over the
next two weeks or so, I mean people stepping in line as they
order their sandwiches. That may not seem like a significant
thing to most people, but to us, that says that we have a
workforce of 18,000 people who are enthusiastic about what
they're doing, who are excited, and who believe we can deliver
on the things that we say we can deliver.
We're on a journey to Mars. We have a plan to get there and
we have delivered on that plan. As we go through the budget
horizons, within the budget horizon we've flown Orion into
space. We've tested the RS-25 rockets that are going to go on
the first two missions. We've fired the solid rocket booster
out in Utah. We have done the things that are inside the budget
horizon because that was a concrete plan with money put toward
it.
We talk to your staffs about 20, 30 years out and so I
would hope that they all were very much aware of the
deliberations that were going on on the Asteroid Redirect
Mission, the fact that we had two options--that we were looking
at two options, that we came to the decision that we did
because we were looking for the best option that supported the
journey to Mars and kept us on that journey.
So I hope that if you talk to any of my employees, they
would tell that they're excited about what we're doing.
Mrs. Johnson of Texas. Thank you. My time is expired.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Johnson of Texas follows:]
Prepared Statement of Full Committee Ranking Member
Eddie Bernice Johnson
Good morning, and welcome Administrator Bolden. I look forward to
your testimony, and I thank you for your continued service to this
nation.
As the Chairman has indicated, we are here to review NASA's Fiscal
Year 2016 budget request. Before I discuss specifics, I would like to
say that I appreciate the President's commitment to NASA as expressed
in this budget request, as well as his support for R&D overall. It is
clear that he understands the importance of investing in our nation's
R&D enterprise, of which NASA is a key component. So while I may differ
on some of the specific funding decisions reflected in this budget
request, I think that NASA's overall request is a good starting point
for our deliberations--and I hope that Congress will at least equal
that budgetary top line, if not exceed it. Because the reality is that
successive Congresses and Administrations have tasked NASA with a
number of critically important endeavors, yet we have lagged in
providing the resources needed to carry them out. The truth is that
NASA's ``buying power'' has actually decreased by15 percent from Fiscal
Year 2005 to Fiscal Year 2013 and is expected to continue to decline if
the budgetary outlook doesn't improve. Mr. Chairman, the hardworking
women and men of NASA deserve better.
Let me cite an example. Just about a year ago, a distinguished
panel of the National Academies completed its review of the nation's
human space exploration program. The panel was headed by former
governor and OMB Director Mitch Daniels, an individual well known for
his fiscal conservatism. Which makes the panel's conclusions even more
impressive, namely: America's human spaceflight program is worth
continuing, Mars is the appropriate goal, the government needs to come
to a consensus on a pathway to Mars--that is, a set of interim
destinations and milestones--and it's going to require funding above
constant dollars if NASA is to succeed.
That's pretty unambiguous advice.
So it came as a bit of a shock to me that the very next budget
request for NASA to be submitted after the report's release would
actually propose cutting the funding for the Space Launch System and
Orion, two fundamental enabling elements of the human exploration
program. It's directly counter to the National Academies' findings, and
I think Congress needs to correct that.
Neither has NASA yet told us how it plans to get to Mars-what's the
pathway or roadmap? NASA needs to look beyond just the next four or
five years and lay out the milestones it needs to pursue to get humans
on Mars. As the National Academies panel made clear, defining such a
roadmap is not just for NASA's benefit. Congress and the American
people will need to be confident that NASA has a well thought-out plan
if we are going to be able to sustain support for such an ambitious
undertaking over the coming years.
There are other examples in the budget request that I could cite as
areas of concern: the cuts made to NASA's Education program, to
Aeronautics, and to Planetary Science, among others. However, I am sure
we will discuss them further during the hearing, so I won't pursue them
here. Instead, I will close by
saying again what I have said many times already: NASA is a crown
jewel of America's research and development enterprise. It advances
knowledge, promotes technological innovation, projects a positive image
of America throughout the world, and inspires. Its workforce is
dedicated and accomplished. NASA deserves our support.
Thank you, and I yield back the remainder of my time.
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
At this time the Chair recognizes Mr. Lucas for five
minutes.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, General, for being here today.
Clearly, many of our colleagues are very concerned about
how we not only maintain the flow of scientific accomplishments
and the support of the American public, and a great deal of
focus here has been on Mars and what it requires to get there.
Let me take you back for a moment, though, a little closer to
home and let's talk about the James Webb Space Telescope. There
are a few things I think that have caught the imagination of
the public to the degree that the Hubble has over the course of
the last 25 years, tremendous science. It's also brought the
American public along with us. James Webb, with its literally
quantum leap forward, I personally believe has the ability to
continue that attention span of the American public.
But let's talk for a moment about the process of getting
that done, the delays we've gone through, the setbacks, some of
the challenges with the cryocooler. Do you believe that the
telescope will still be able to launch on schedule and still be
within budget?
General Bolden. Mr. Congressman, I firmly believe because I
have personally been involved in the oversight of the James
Webb Space Telescope from the time we brought our restructured
plan to this Congress and to the White House. So I can speak
with confidence that we're on schedule and below cost right now
for delivering James Webb in 2018. I think we will make that.
You mentioned the cryocooler. That presented a
technological challenge that, you know, we always know that
they're going to be difficult things but I work with Wes Bush,
the Chairman of Northrop Grumman Corporation. We have telecoms
every month because we both realize the significance of the
James Webb Space Telescope. So it is something that I take very
seriously and I think we're going to launch in 2018.
Mr. Lucas. And the differences, of course, between Hubble
and James Webb where we're putting out in orbit, the fact that
we can't repair it, it has to be perfect the first time.
General Bolden. That's the challenge.
Mr. Lucas. One of the miracles of NASA was the fix----
General Bolden. Yes.
Mr. Lucas. --on Hubble early on, one of the great
accomplishments.
Tell me, James Webb is a rather substantial portion of your
budget and has been in recent years. Hopefully, we're on the
verge of completion of that. Where do you envision that slice
of the pie winding up when it's not committed to the
development and the testing and the launching of James Webb?
General Bolden. That slice of the pie that some people
refer to as a wedge is what is now going into the planning for
the nonbudget years, the out years, 20, 30 years out. And there
are a number of projects that are being considered, WFIRST and
AFTA, an advanced telescope for space, telescopes on the moon.
There are any number of things that the science community has
no shortage of ways that they would like to spend the wedge,
but I assure you that we have what we call a strategic
implementation planning process where we try to look at the
things that come in--we help inform the decadal surveys which
Chairman Smith referred to, but we will get input in the
planetary decadal survey, for example, in 2021. So we're trying
to do our research and inform them now such that when they
recommend something to us, it is something that is achievable.
Mr. Lucas. Once again, Director, your personal involvement
demonstrates the importance of the James Webb and----
General Bolden. Critically important.
Mr. Lucas. --enhances your level of confidence that we will
get there on time, on budget, and in the way that we need to
be.
Let's come even a little closer to home so to speak for
just a moment to that and discuss the unmanned aerial systems.
NASA is expected to build one, the UAS Traffic Management
System, UTM, in FY 2016 to help integrate all of this into the
National Airspace System. I guess my question is when we've
talked about private challenges and opportunities in all of
these areas, explain to me again why NASA is taking the lead on
this traffic management instead of somebody in the private
industry.
General Bolden. Because we have the expertise. You know, if
you look at the Langley Research Center and Ames Research
Center and to some extent Glenn, we have the national
capability, the national expertise is resident in NASA. We
could pass it off to industry except people like working for
us, and so people come to NASA when they want an answer about
things that deal with aeronautics, and we're very proud of the
packages that we have delivered to the FAA and to the airlines,
for example.
There is an en route traffic management package that we
delivered to the FAA that's being tested by American Airlines
primarily out of Dallas. I went down and worked with them or
talked to them several months ago and they are thrilled with
the package. We have a departure package that is in the hands
of U.S. Airways down at Charlotte right now. We're working on
unmanned aerial systems trying to help the FAA go about
revising their regulations so that people can get unmanned
aerial systems into the National Air Transportation System.
Mr. Lucas. Are you confident, General, that we're going to
wind up with a system that can support what potentially will be
a very complex environment out there with the interest shown by
industry and everyone? It's hard to tell just where this----
General Bolden. Yes.
Mr. Lucas. --will ultimately lead to.
General Bolden. I am very confident that we will make
advances. I am not confident that we will stay ahead of
industry and entrepreneurs. So, you know, as you said, NASA can
only do so much. We work with the FAA, we work with the
Department of Defense, we're working with industry, we're
working with everyone, but the pace of spending on technology
is not keeping up with the pace of innovation on the part of
the private sector, and that's why when we talk about needing
money for NASA's Space Technology Program, that is not just
about space. The Space Technology Program looks across our--
much of their work is done to support the Science Mission
Directorate. We've got to put more money into technology
development if we're going to keep pace with the private
sector. Otherwise, they'll dwarf us.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, General.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Palazzo. At this time the Chair recognizes Mr.
Knight for five minutes.
Mr. Knight. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, General, I have a couple questions. I know a lot of
people have been talking about the A in Aeronautics in NASA and
so I have a few questions but I would like to make a couple
comments that I do believe that it is a top goal to go to Mars.
I think that that is a laudable goal for humankind. I think
that over the last 60 years we've seen quite a lot of jumps and
leaps, and in your business you can't jump a step because when
you do, you lose data and you lose lives. So I understand that
very well.
There are a couple systems in aeronautics that have made
our lives better and have made our war fighter better. And I
know that Ranking Member Edwards hit on one with the winglets
on our airliners. But you have a couple systems that have gone
into place in the last couple years like our GCAT and our
collision avoidance for our war fighter being now employed in
our F-16s in their day-to-day efforts. And also with the F-15
sonic boom jousting that you did much testing on in the last
five or ten years, which I appreciate because if you could ever
do that, then I wouldn't have a five hour flight back to
California; I'd have an hour-and-a-half flight.
So I appreciate all of those missions in aeronautics. I
don't appreciate the three percent budgeting for aeronautics,
and I think that that's a bone of contention probably with many
people on this dais and I'm sure we can talk about that.
But one of the programs that was talked about was the James
Webb and it is true; once the Webb telescope goes, it's gone.
But there is a telescope that we bring back to Earth every day
and we fly it about three or four times a week, and that's
SOFIA. SOFIA takes up fourth and fifth graders, teachers, and
does great science projects about three or four times a week.
It's a joint mission with Germany. I know you know this very
well. And Germany has just placed a whole bunch of money in
reconfiguring and redoing the SOFIA telescope.
So I'd like to hear a little bit of the status of SOFIA,
the future of SOFIA because there's been such changes that
we're going to have a senior review by about '18 or '19, which
would have been five years into the project, which is--that's
about right. And now we've heard that we're going to be in
spring of 2016, which is only two years into its fully
operational period. So I'd like to hear just a little bit of
status on SOFIA.
General Bolden. Congressman, SOFIA is doing awesome, as you
said. It represents a unique capability in that it is an
airborne platform, and we can change out the instruments on it.
That's the advantage we have there.
The reason that we moved the senior review up was very
similar to the reason that we had an early senior review with
Hubble. In the early days of Hubble the senior review was
scheduled to be years away. We knew that we were going to want
to upgrade the observatory, and in order to do that, the best
way to do it was to hold a senior review to look at both the
present performance but also what are the things that we need
to be thinking about in the future to enhance its ability to
perform.
So the senior review is not just to determine whether or
not it's performing and whether it's worth the money we spend
on it but will also give us some guidance as we go forward
about what we should think about for future instruments. So I
would say, you know, an important part of the future of SOFIA
is how much are our German partners going to be willing to put
in because it is a partnership? It's a critical partnership,
but if they say that we're not going to put in any more money
so you pay for it, then that puts us at a--you know----
Mr. Knight. No, sir, and I agree----
General Bolden. --a fiscal dilemma.
Mr. Knight. --it is a partnership and I think that their
commitment, because of the refurb and all of the work that
they've done in the last year is--but I will go back to
aeronautics and talk about this just a little bit more in my
last 45 seconds.
You know, we're going to move forward with other programs
out in aeronautics and they're going to enhance our lives and
they're going to help us survive in a crash, help us maybe
maintain a better lifestyle. Intelligent flight control systems
I know is something that NASA is working on and I appreciate
NASA for doing digital fly-by-wire and all of the kind of
experiments to get us up to this.
So that's what I will say. With the three percent--it
doesn't look like the commitment to aeronautics is as much as
it has been in the last 40 years. And part of that might be
because we don't have a solid X-Plane mission. And if we would
revisit the X-Plane mission, and I know that that's something
that you've talked about and I know that that's something that
NASA has talked about, but in today's age an X-Plane mission
might be a joint effort, not with the Air Force but with a
private industry. And you've seen that with other things like
the Dream Chaser or other programs.
So that is my request that we revisit that.
General Bolden. Yes, sir. Thank you very much.
Mr. Knight. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Palazzo. The Chair wants to recognize Mr. Johnson
for five minutes.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Bolden, you and I have had chances to talk. I think
you know that I'm a big NASA fan, you know, from Buck Rogers to
James Kirk to the real-life accomplishments of John Glenn and
Neil Armstrong and so many other pioneers of space travel. I'm
one who believes that regardless of the mission that the
sciences, technologies, and great marvels of discovery that
have been realized through our space program have bettered our
country and have bettered the world in so many, many ways.
So that is a backdrop for my questions. Just one right up
front, General Bolden, does NASA believe, do you believe that
the Asteroid Mission will help with planetary defense, which is
contrary to the findings of the Small Bodies Assessment Group
and the asteroid experts?
General Bolden. Congressman Johnson, as I have said before,
I don't want to overpromise or over-commit but we believe that
the Asteroid Redirect Mission, when flown and if the science is
the way that we think it is will inform those who follow us in
developing concrete technologies and systems to deflect
asteroids or to protect the planet if you will. So it will
contribute to our ability to deflect asteroids, and that's why
I told both Congressman Posey and Congressman Brooks, I can
answer the question today. I couldn't two years ago. We have a
plan to do that.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Okay. General Bolden, you know, the
United States is presently sanctioning the Russian Federation
in the field of high-tech exports as a result of Russia's
actions in the Ukraine. Last summer, the Russian Deputy Prime
Minister Dmitry Rogozin even threatened to cut off American
access to the Station saying that we could get there by jumping
on a trampoline if we wanted to, what absurdity.
If the Russian Federation followed through on these threats
and withdrew cooperation, how would the Space Station be
affected?
General Bolden. Congressman Johnson, we have a plan today.
When people ask me about my contingency plan, we're two years
away from having our own capability of sending our crews to the
International Space Station. That will take us away from
reliance on the Russians. We currently are--contrary to what's
in the paper and the political and diplomatic relations between
the two countries, Station continues to be the perfect example,
the role model if you will for international relations and
collaboration and cooperation.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Let me point out, General Bolden, you
know, in kind of an explanatory to what some of my colleagues
have said. This is what we mean, what you just commented on
there, that we're two years away from being able to deliver to
the Space Station ourselves. We can't disregard what's in the
media. We can't disregard the public perception. And when we
tell you--and I'm one that agrees that we are and we will
remain forever the premier space explorer in the world. I
understand that. The general public does not. And when they see
and they read in the media that we have to hitchhike with the
Russians to the Space Station, that's the perception that is
out there. And you know as well as I do that reality is
oftentimes dictated by perception. It's not reality.
If absolutely necessary, then could Boeing or SpaceX send a
human mission to the Space Station in the near future?
General Bolden. No. If you're calling the near future
sooner than 2017, no.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Okay. All right.
Do you think NASA could down-select to one provider
immediately and devote all of its resources to be ready sooner,
any plan mitigation that you could do to get us ready sooner?
General Bolden. I think the path on which we are currently
embarked with two providers, it maintains competition, it
guarantees that I will have the safest vehicle possible, and I
think if we down-selected to one, it would not speed up the
process at all. It may even slow it down because then that one
provider becomes the monopoly that dictates to me what it can
or can't do and what it will and won't do.
We have fixed-price contracts with them today and I can
tell you, it's interesting to engage with the two providers in
discussions about what we think the vehicle should be able to
do because they know that if they don't perform--you know, they
have a contract right now that's for up to six missions.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Um-hum.
General Bolden. It is not a good business model to say I'm
going to fly six missions and then I'm going to get out of
this. So they all want to be the contractor for life for
Commercial Crew.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. I get----
General Bolden. So they want to perform
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. I get that. And of course from your
background you understand the relevance of the question. The
Russians are getting increasingly testy with their rhetoric,
with their boldness, with their trouncing upon their European
friends and neighbors, everything from cutting off gas supplies
to forcing us to jump on a trampoline to get to the Space
Station. So what happens over the next two years if tomorrow
the Russians were to say you're out? What would we do? What's
NASA's plan?
General Bolden. Well, Congressman Johnson, first of all,
the Russians can't say you're out because it's not a Russian or
an American space station. The Russians can decide to withdraw
from the International Space Station, which we'd have to
adjust, but as I have said before, we would not----
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. But what if they were to say we're not
taking your people up there? What would happen? Because they
could certainly say that. We might get mad about it and we
might try to bring world pressure----
General Bolden. Congressman, I'm----
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. --but in the time----
General Bolden. If--and I hate dealing in whatever we call
them----
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Now don't go there because you--in
your background you know you've got to have contingency plans
for every----
General Bolden. And I do. And I do.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. --outcome.
General Bolden. And that's why I said we have probably the
best contingency plan possible, considering where this nation
is, and that contingency plan is to fully support Boeing and
SpaceX to flying in 2017.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. No, I'm asking you what you're going
to do over the next two years if the Russians say you're not
going with us.
General Bolden. I am going to continue to work with my
Russian partners to continue to encourage them to be as
enthusiastic about maintaining the International Space Station
as they are now. I would call it to everyone's attention the
same Deputy Prime Minister Rogozin who was going to put me on a
trampoline Tweeted out after my meeting with my counterpart
that the Russians had decided that it's a good idea to stay
with the Space Station until 2024.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Well, General, I'll----
General Bolden. That's what I do.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. I respect you greatly and I respect
what NASA does, but what you've basically told me is that there
is no option, there is no plan within the next two years if the
Russians pull out, other than hoping like hell that they don't.
And I would say I understand the pressures that you're under
and I understand that that may be an avenue, but things have
changed a lot over the last two years in our relationship with
the Russians, and I hope somewhere in the dark rooms of NASA
you guys are considering what we're going to do if they pull
the plug because they could.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Palazzo. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Babin for
five minutes.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Bolden, thank you for being here.
Over the past several years, part of the NASA Authorization
Act of 2010 NASA has been systematically reducing its footprint
and operational costs by closing various facilities,
laboratories, and test structures. And it leaves many in the
ranks and surrounding communities to question if a center
closure perhaps is next.
Relative to the Johnson Space Center, which is in my
district, Texas 36, are you aware of any organization,
government, university, or private sector, proposed to any NASA
officials or official at headquarters or at the center that
management and operation centers be turned over to an academic
institution or other entity similar to that of the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory to operate as an FFRDC?
General Bolden. Congressman Babin, I am aware that that is
a recommendation that is out there forever. As long as I am the
NASA Administrator, it is not a thing that I'm considering. So
when you go back home to Houston, you can let people know there
is no plan, not even the remotest plan to accept a
recommendation from the experts that we turn JSC into an FFRDC.
Mr. Babin. Okay.
General Bolden. That is not going to happen, not on my
watch.
Mr. Babin. Well, I'm glad to hear that because that's--that
is what's floating around out there around JSC, I can tell you
that.
All right. What is--what will--obviously your perspective
on that, you obviously would not support that. That's my----
General Bolden. I am saying the way that we're organized
today, we have something called TCAT. I hate to use another
acronym.
Mr. Babin. Um-hum.
General Bolden. We're looking at our technical
capabilities. We're trying to find out how in this budget
environment we maximize the utilization of the talent that we
have, and that determines what we do to facilities. I see us
reducing facility footprint everywhere because we don't need
the historic infrastructure that we've had. I do not see us
reducing to the point where we close a center, not in the
foreseeable future.
I cannot say that, you know, down the road I don't know
what will come when someone else is sitting in this chair as
the NASA Administrator, but there is nothing that we've done,
no studies that we've conducted that say that would be the wise
thing for us to do right now. We have one FFRDC. It is the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory and that serves our purpose.
Mr. Babin. Okay. Thank you. It's good to hear that.
All right. To follow up on my previous question, relative
to the agency's strategic planning and operational structure,
are you confident that collectively the centers and their
industry partners have the critical capabilities, resources,
and infrastructure, as well as operational experience required
to successfully implement the agency's core missions and
objectives? And that would include engineering, mission
operations, training, research, and systems development.
General Bolden. I'm confident that the pathway that we're
on, the budget that we have, and the pathway on which we're
embarked is actually shaped by the budget that we have, so that
everybody remembers that. I'm confident that we have the right
people, the right facilities, and the like.
You're probably aware, Dr. Ellen Ochoa, the Center
Directorate at Johnson, made a major change in her
organizational structure because she was trying to get to where
she thinks we need to be to support an exploration program. So,
you know, that's the prerogative of the team in the local areas
as to how they organize to best do--to help us accomplish the
agency's strategic mission. And she has to have the flexibility
to do that.
That causes, you know, a little kerfuffle because that
means we're not going to operate the same way we did yesterday,
and I like the way we operated yesterday if I happen to be a
person who's affected by it. But all of our centers are making
minor tweaks to be able to fit into the Mars pathway if you
will.
Mr. Babin. Right. Okay. So would you agree that JSC has a
unique role in NASA's deep space exploration objective?
General Bolden. Now, if Ellen Ochoa decided she was going
to pull out of the International Space Station, I'd be
affected. I'd be worried. That--they are vital----
Mr. Babin. Okay.
General Bolden. --you know. It's not like a threat from
Russia pulling out of the International Space Station.
Mr. Babin. Absolutely.
General Bolden. That's where it's run so that's the reason
that--you know, my contingency plan, again, going back to that,
is to make sure that Ellen Ochoa and her team at the Johnson
Space Center and Patrick Scheuermann and his team at Marshall,
who happen to be the two primary centers for day-to-day
operations of the International Space Station, make sure that
they stay happy and appropriately occupied and manned is--I
don't know what the right term is--peopled--staffed. Staffed.
Mr. Babin. Staffed.
General Bolden. And as long as Marshall is doing the
science work for Station, and Johnson doing the human
exploration, the human spaceflight preparation with our
astronauts, as long as they're doing what they're doing and
Kennedy Space Center is doing what it's doing, all the centers
continue to do what they're doing today, then we're strong and
we will continue to be the dominant operator of the
International Space Station on whom everyone depends, to
include the Russians.
So I appreciate everyone's concern. You know, it would--I
just appreciate everyone's concern.
Mr. Babin. Absolutely, because there's a lot of concerned
people there.
General Bolden. Yeah.
Mr. Babin. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Palazzo. I want to thank the gentleman.
I also want to remind the Administrator that Goddard Space
Flight Center and Stennis Space Center--I know, you just--you
mentioned the other----
General Bolden. I said all the other centers. I didn't want
to--because I can't always remember all nine----
Chairman Palazzo. It's like a grandfather trying to
remember all of his grandkids' names.
General Bolden. That's true. All I need to do is look in
front of me.
Chairman Palazzo. It's----
General Bolden. Stennis----
Chairman Palazzo. I've witnessed that personally----
General Bolden. As you know, Mr. Chairman----
Chairman Palazzo. --by my parents----
General Bolden. --everything that goes through space goes
through Mississippi, as we say at Stennis.
Mr. Babin. And, Mr. Chairman, I'm fixing to have a grandkid
today.
Chairman Palazzo. Congratulations.
Mr. Babin. Thank you.
Chairman Palazzo. Congratulations.
In closing, I want to follow up on your exchange with
Chairman Smith. You said that you never formally committed to
the 2017 launch date for EM-1. However, you have testified
before this committee that the President's budget request for
fiscal year '14 and fiscal year '15 would keep the EM-1 launch
date for 2017. You even told this committee that if Congress
gave you $300 million more, you wouldn't notice it.
NASA could have presented Congress with a budget that kept
the 2017 date, but instead they chose to delay the program, and
I hope we can work together to keep SLS on track.
With that, I want to thank General Bolden for his testimony
and the Members for their questions. The record will remain
open for two weeks for additional written comments and written
questions from Members.
This hearing is adjourned.
General Bolden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 10:52 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Statement submitted by full Committee Ranking Member
Eddie Bernice Johnson
Good morning, and welcome Administrator Bolden. I look
forward to your testimony, and I thank you for your continued
service to this nation.
As the Chairman has indicated, we are here to review NASA's
Fiscal Year 2016 budget request. Before I discuss specifics, I
would like to say that I appreciate the President's commitment
to NASA as expressed in this budget request, as well as his
support for R&D overall. It is clear that he understands the
importance of investing in our nation's R&D enterprise, of
which NASA is a key component.
So while I may differ on some of the specific funding
decisions reflected in this budget request, I think that NASA's
overall request is a good starting point for our deliberations-
and I hope that Congress will at least equal that budgetary top
line, if not exceed it. Because the reality is that successive
Congresses and Administrations have tasked NASA with a number
of critically important endeavors, yet we have lagged in
providing the resources needed to carry them out. The truth is
that NASA's ``buying power'' has actually decreased by15
percent from Fiscal Year 2005 to Fiscal Year 2013 and is
expected to continue to decline if the budgetary outlook
doesn't improve. Mr. Chairman, the hardworking women and men of
NASA deserve better.
Let me cite an example. Just about a year ago, a
distinguished panel of the National Academies completed its
review of the nation's human space exploration program. The
panel was headed by former governor and OMB Director Mitch
Daniels, an individual well known for his fiscal conservatism.
Which makes the panel's conclusions even more impressive,
namely: America's human spaceflight program is worth
continuing, Mars is the appropriate goal, the government needs
to come to a consensus on a pathway to Mars-that is, a set of
interim destinations and milestones--and it's going to require
funding above constant dollars if NASA is to succeed.
That's pretty unambiguous advice.
So it came as a bit of a shock to me that the very next
budget request for NASA to be submitted after the report's
release would actually propose cutting the funding for the
Space Launch System and Orion, two fundamental enabling
elements of the human exploration program. It's directly
counter to the National Academies' findings, and I think
Congress needs to correct that.
Neither has NASA yet told us how it plans to get to Mars--
what's the pathway or roadmap? NASA needs to look beyond just
the next four or five years and lay out the milestones it needs
to pursue to get humans on Mars. As the National Academies
panel made clear, defining such a roadmap is not just for
NASA's benefit. Congress and the American people will need to
be confident that NASA has a well thought-out plan if we are
going to be able to sustain support for such an ambitious
undertaking over the coming years.
There are other examples in the budget request that I could
cite as areas of concern: the cuts made to NASA's Education
program, to Aeronautics, and to Planetary Science, among
others. However, I am sure we will discuss them further during
the hearing, so I won't pursue them here. Instead, I will close
by saying again what I have said many times already: NASA is a
crown jewel of America's research and development enterprise.
It advances knowledge, promotes technological innovation,
projects a positive image of America throughout the world, and
inspires. Its workforce is dedicated and accomplished.NASA
deserves our support.
Thank you, and I yield back the remainder of my time.
[all]