[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION:
ADDRESSING OPERATIONAL CHALLENGES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
July 10, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-30
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
97-570 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
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
MO BROOKS, Alabama ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan PAUL TONKO, New York
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California MARK TAKANO, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas BILL FOSTER, Illinois
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
GARY PALMER, Alabama
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
------
Subcommittee on Space
HON. BRIAN BABIN, Texas, 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
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
STEVE KNIGHT, California
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
July 10, 2015
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Brian Babin, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 14
Written Statement............................................ 15
Statement by Representative Donna F. Edwards, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 17
Written Statement............................................ 18
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 19
Written Statement............................................ 20
Witnesses:
Mr. Bill Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator, Human Exploration
and Operations Mission Directorate, NASA
Oral Statement............................................... 21
Written Statement............................................ 24
Mr. John Elbon, Vice President and General Manager, Space
Exploration, The Boeing Company
Oral Statement............................................... 33
Written Statement............................................ 35
The Honorable Paul K. Martin, Inspector General, NASA
Oral Statement............................................... 43
Written Statement............................................ 45
Ms. Shelby Oakley, Acting Director, Acquisition and Sourcing
Management, Government Accountability Office
Oral Statement............................................... 50
Written Statement............................................ 52
Dr. James A. Pawelczyk, Associate Professor of Physiology and
Kinesiology, The Pennsylvania State University
Oral Statement............................................... 68
Written Statement............................................ 70
Discussion....................................................... 81
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. Bill Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator, Human Exploration
and Operations Mission Directorate, NASA....................... 100
Mr. John Elbon, Vice President and General Manager, Space
Exploration, The Boeing Company................................ 146
The Honorable Paul K. Martin, Inspector General, NASA............ 155
DMs. Shelby Oakley, Acting Director, Acquisition and Sourcing
Management, Government Accountability Office................... 161
Dr. James A. Pawelczyk, Associate Professor of Physiology and
Kinesiology, The Pennsylvania State University................. 167
THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION:
ADDRESSING OPERATIONAL CHALLENGES
----------
FRIDAY, JULY 10, 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. Brian
Babin [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. The Subommittee on Space will come to
order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Subcommittee at any time. Good morning. Welcome
to today's hearing titled The International Space Station:
Addressing Operational Challenges. In front of you are packets
containing the written testimony, biographies, and Truth in
Testimony disclosures for today's witnesses. I recognize myself
for five minutes for an opening statement.
Good morning. I'd like to welcome everyone to our hearing
today, and I want to thank our witnesses for taking time to
appear before our Committee. Since 2013, the ISS program has
experienced a number of challenges. As a can-do nation, America
has always been committed to identifying challenges, addressing
them, and advancing to reach out and reach our goal and
destiny. We have that same commitment with the ISS. During this
time, astronauts have experienced water leaks in their suits
three times, with one incident occurring during a spacewalk. On
April the 26th, 2013, an unmanned Russian Progress cargo
vehicle damaged a laser radar reflector when docking with the
ISS. On January the 14th, 2015, a false alarm of an ammonia
leak caused the crew to retreat into the Russian segment. On
October 28th, 2014, an Orbital Sciences unmanned cargo launch
failed just after launch. On April the 28th, 2015, a separate
Russian Progress cargo vehicle failed to reach the ISS. On June
the 7th, 2015, a planned re-boost of the ISS using a docked
Progress vehicle failed but eventually was successful after
troubleshooting. On June the 10th, 2015, a visiting Soyuz
vehicle unexpectedly fired its engines without being commanded.
Most recently, on June the 28th, 2015, a SpaceX unmanned cargo
launch failed as well.
All of these incidents highlight the challenges of
operating in space, and they remind us that NASA's contractors,
engineers, and astronauts must be ever vigilant. These events
have challenged ISS operations, but the fact that the program
was able to effectively respond to these set-backs is a
testament to NASA, the ISS partners, and the contractors. We do
not know the root causes of some of the accidents yet, but once
we have more information, we will be better suited to review
those individual events. In the meantime, this hearing allows
us to evaluate the operational status of the ISS, review
efforts to utilize the unique asset, and assess the prospects
for future operations.
The ISS is one of the most complex and expensive man-made
objects ever built. The American taxpayers currently invest
approximately $3 billion dollars per year in this laboratory.
We must ensure that every dollar is spent effectively and
efficiently. The ISS offers a unique microgravity environment
for scientists and engineers to utilize. NASA recently released
its Benefits to Humanity publication this week detailing the
many benefits that ISS provides back to our lives here on
Earth. From advances in our understanding of human health and
performance to our use of new materials to the utilization of
robotics and satellites, the benefits we receive from ISS are
many and diverse and remarkable.
In addition to the benefits here on Earth the ISS offers
the conditions necessary to prepare and develop critical
technologies for deep space and long-duration human spaceflight
missions. Successive NASA authorizations direct the
administration to utilize the ISS for this purpose. The Human
Research Program and Advanced Exploration Systems Program at
NASA are on the cutting edge of developing the systems we need
to send humans ever deeper into the Solar System than ever
before. Right now, Captain Scott Kelly is on day 104 of his
year-long mission to study the effects of long-duration human
spaceflight.
In addition to the utilization efforts of NASA's research
programs, the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 designated part of
the ISS as a National Lab and the NASA Authorization Act of
2010 directed the administration to sign a cooperative
agreement with a non-profit to manage it. NASA selected the
Center for the Advancement of Science in Space, or CASIS, to
lead this effort. The Government Accountability Office noted in
a recent report that CASIS had made great strides in fulfilling
the mandate under the law but that more work needed to be done
to ensure that measurable progress was being made in a
quantifiable manner. I hope to hear from NASA today that the
agency is making progress towards answering this recommendation
from GAO.
As we keep an eye on the present operation and utilization
of the ISS, we must also look to the future. Last year the
administration announced support for the extension of the ISS
program from 2020 to 2024. At present, federal law limits the
life of the ISS to 2020. Absent action from Congress to extend
it, the administration would be required to begin closeout of
the program.
There are many questions about the request for this
extension. The bipartisan, House-passed NASA Authorization Act
of 2015 requires the administration to provide a report to
Congress on efforts by the administration to utilize the ISS
and how to quantify benefits back to the nation for the
required investment for this extension. It also requires the
Administration to develop a government-wide utilization plan
for the ISS to ensure that every minute the facility is in
orbit we are doing what we can to get the most out of it. These
reports are critical for Congress to understand the issues that
inform whether to extend the ISS.
This Committee has a responsibility to ensure that the
American taxpayers are getting all that they can from every
dollar they send to the federal government. I believe this
investment is worthwhile and that the benefits far outweigh the
cost. Support for the ISS and its operations and utilization is
not a partisan issue. It is an American issue, and I look
forward to working with my friends on the other side of the
aisle and our partners in the space industry to understand how
we can all meet the operational challenges facing the ISS
program.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Babin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Space
Chairman Brian Babin
Good morning. I would like to welcome everyone to our hearing today
and I want to thank our witnesses for taking time to appear before the
Committee.
Since 2013, the ISS program has experienced a number of challenges.
During this time, astronauts have experienced water leaks in their
suits three times, with one instance occurring during a spacewalk. On
April 26, 2013, an unmanned Russian Progress cargo vehicle damaged a
laser radar reflector when docking with the ISS. On January 14, 2015, a
false alarm of an ammonia leak caused the crew to retreat into the
Russian segment. On October 28, 2014, an Orbital Science's unmanned
cargo launch failed just after launch. On April 28, 2015, a separate
Russian Progress cargo vehicle failed to reach the ISS. On June 7, 2015
a planned re-boost of the ISS using a docked Progress vehicle failed
but eventually was successful after troubleshooting. On June 10, 2015,
a visiting Soyuz vehicle unexpectedly fired its engines without being
commanded. Most recently, on June 28, 2015, a SpaceX unmanned cargo
launch failed as well.
All of these incidents highlight the challenges of operating in
space, and remind us that NASA's contractors, engineers, and astronauts
must be ever vigilant. These events have challenged ISS operations, but
the fact that the program was able to effectively respond to these set-
backs is a testament to NASA, the ISS partners, and the contractors. We
do not know the root causes of some of the accidents yet, but once we
have more information, we will be better suited to review those
individual events. In the meantime, this hearing allows us to evaluate
the operational status of the ISS, review efforts to utilize the unique
asset, and assess the prospects for future operations.
The ISS is one of the most complex and expensive man-made objects
ever built. The American taxpayers currently invest approximately three
billion dollars per year in this laboratory. We must ensure that every
dollar is spent effectively and efficiently. The ISS offers a unique
microgravity environment for scientists and engineers to utilize. NASA
recently released its "Benefits to Humanity" publication this week
detailing the many benefits that ISS provides back to our lives here on
Earth. From advances in our understanding of human health and
performance to our use of new materials to the utilization of robotics
and satellites, the benefits we receive from the ISS are many and
diverse.
In addition to the benefits back on Earth the ISS offers the
conditions necessary to prepare and develop critical technologies for
deep space and long-duration human spaceflight missions. Successive
NASA Authorizations direct the Administration to utilize the ISS for
this purpose. The Human Research Program and Advanced Exploration
Systems program at NASA are on the cutting edge of developing the
systems we need to send humans deeper into the Solar System than ever
before. Right now, Captain Mark Kelly is on day 104 of his year-long
mission to study the effects of long duration human spaceflight
In addition to the utilization efforts of NASA's research programs,
the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 designated part of the ISS as a
National Lab and the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 directed the
Administration to sign a cooperative agreement with a non-profit to
manage it. NASA selected the Center for the Advancement of Science in
Space, or CASIS, to lead this effort. The Government Accountability
Office noted in a recent report that CASIS has made great strides in
fulfilling the mandate under the law but that more work needed to be
done to ensure that measurable progress was being made in a
quantifiable manner. I hope to hear from NASA today that the agency is
making progress towards answering this recommendation from GAO.
As we keep an eye on the present operation and utilization of the
ISS, we must also look to the future. Last year the Administration
announced support for the extension of the ISS program from 2020 to
2024. At present, federal law limits the life of the ISS to 2020.
Absent action from Congress to extend it, the Administration would be
required to begin closeout of the program.
There are many questions about the request for this extension. The
bipartisan, House-passed NASA Authorization of 2015 requires the
Administration to provide a report to Congress on efforts by the
Administration to utilize the ISS and how to quantify benefits back to
the nation for the required investment for extension. It also requires
the Administration to develop a government-wide utilization plan for
the ISS to ensure that every minute the facility is in orbit we are
doing what we can to get the most out of it. These reports are critical
for Congress to understand the issues that inform whether to extend the
ISS.
This Committee has a responsibility to ensure that the American
taxpayers are getting all that they can from every dollar they send to
the federal government. I believe this investment is worthwhile and
that the benefits far outweigh the cost. Support for the ISS and its
operations and utilization is not a partisan issue, it is an American
issue and I look forward to working with my friends on the other side
of the aisle and our partners in the space industry to understand how
we can all meet the operational challenges facing the ISS program.
Chairman Babin. I now recognize the Ranking Member, the
gentlelady from Maryland for an opening statement.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good
morning. Welcome to our distinguished panel of witnesses. I
appreciate holding this hearing now, The International Space
Station: Addressing Operational Challenges, and as I listened
to the Chairman, I'm reminded that the challenges that NASA
faces and the agency faces in operating the International Space
Station, I would be more concerned if we weren't able to
overcome some of those challenges, and I think it's a credit to
the crew and the partners that that is true.
About a year ago, I and the members of our Committee sat in
this room, looked on the screen there, and had the opportunity
to communicate with our NASA crew that was aboard the
International Space Station, including NASA astronaut Rick
Wiseman who's from Maryland. I would note that I promised him
crab cakes, and unfortunately one of those accidents that the
Chairman referred to destroyed my crab cake delivery. But Rick
Wiseman visited with me in my office just a couple of weeks ago
and we made okay on that.
What happens when you connect real-time with our astronauts
who are living, working, and carrying out research in this
amazing laboratory that's orbiting 250 miles above us every 90
minutes is really quite an inspiration.
Thanks to NASA, the crews aboard the ISS, and so many
school children have also had the opportunity to ask questions
and learn about human spaceflight through similar downlink
events that we experienced here in this room. Yet, in the
thrill of seeing and hearing those who inhabit our on-orbit
laboratory, we can sometimes forget just how difficult,
demanding, and risky it is to maintain and operate the
International Space Station, because sometimes we think it's
just ordinary, and it turns out that it's rather extraordinary.
Orbital debris, malfunctions to key systems both internal and
external to the ISS, and human health hazards pose significant
risks to the ISS facility and its crew. The unfortunate loss of
the SpaceX-7 cargo resupply mission less than two weeks ago,
along with the earlier losses of the Russian Progress and
Orbital ATK cargo missions over the past eight months, are
again stark reminders of the risks and challenges that NASA and
its partners have to face.
The successful management of these risks for more than 15
years is a testament to NASA and its industry and to
international partners.
I am confident that SpaceX, Orbital ATK, in collaboration
with the FAA and NASA, will identify and resolve the problems
that led to the launch failures and will resume cargo resupply
to the ISS as soon as it's safe to do so. And in fact, the ISS
actually has been resupplied through its partners.
Mr. Chairman, we don't have any time to spare. The ISS is a
temporary facility. It's currently authorized for operations as
you've described through 2020, and given that the operations
cost about $3 billion in taxpayer dollars every year, a cost
that is actually projected to increase, coupled with the
challenges involved in sustaining operations, we really need to
ensure that our vision for the ISS is clear and our goals and
objectives for using this unique facility are aligned with that
vision.
I'm pleased that the number of ISS users has actually
grown. We've had concerns about that raised here in this
Committee. In addition to NASA researchers and NASA-supported
academic researchers, the ISS National Laboratory management
entity, CASIS, has drawn new commercial users including
pharmaceutical companies to the ISS.
However, while the range of ISS uses is expanding, the
resources to support those activities are not. Funding for the
ISS research represents a mere 12 percent of the overall ISS
budget. In addition, constraints on cargo transportation to the
International Space Station, as well as available power and
precious crew time, limit what research can be accomplished at
the Station.
And in that regard, I know that many of us want to
understand the implications of cargo resupply interruptions on
planned ISS research, crew operations, and the sustainability
of the Station.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, there's critical work to be done
on the ISS in the areas of human health research and technology
development that needs to be carried out if we are going to
make progress toward the long-term goal of sending humans to
Mars.
In January 2014 the Obama Administration proposed to extend
ISS operations until at least the year 2024. The Administration
has three rationales for the extension: to complete ISS
research that supports long-duration human missions beyond low-
Earth orbit; to garner societal benefits from ISS research,
some of which we see here; and to give NASA and private
partners more time to transition to commercial cargo and crew,
allowing NASA to focus on human exploration of deep space.
Today's hearing provides us the opportunity to examine
those rationales in the context of the cost and risks that NASA
and its international partners will face in sustaining the ISS
for that length of time.
So Mr. Chairman, we have a lot to discuss this morning, and
I want to thank our witnesses again for being here and with
that 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 to our distinguished panel of witnesses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on ``The
International Space Station: Addressing Operational Challenges.''
About a year ago, I and the members of our Committee sat in this
room and had the opportunity to communicate with our NASA crew aboard
the ISS, including NASA astronaut Reid Wiseman from Maryland.
Connecting real-time with our astronauts who are living, working, and
carrying out research in a laboratory orbiting 250 miles above us every
90 minutes is an inspiration.
And thanks to NASA and the crews aboard the ISS, many U.S. school
children have the same opportunity to ask questions and learn about
human spaceflight through similar downlink events. Yet, in the thrill
of seeing and hearing from those who inhabit our on-orbit laboratory,
we can sometimes forget just how difficult, demanding, and risky it is
to maintain and operate the ISS.
Orbital debris, malfunctions to key systems both internal and
external to the ISS, and human health hazards pose significant risks to
the ISS facility and its crew. The unfortunate loss of the SpaceX-7
cargo resupply mission less than two weeks ago, along with the earlier
losses of the Russian Progress and Orbital ATK cargo missions over the
past 8 months, are stark reminders of the risks and challenges that
NASA and its partners continue to face.
The successful management of these risks for more than fifteen
years is a testament to NASA and its industry and international
partners.
I am confident that SpaceX and Orbital ATK, in collaboration with
the FAA and NASA, will identify and resolve the problems that led to
the launch failures and will resume cargo resupply to the ISS as soon
as it is safe to do so.
Because, Mr. Chairman, we don't have time to spare.
The ISS is a temporary facility that is currently authorized for
operations through 2020. Given that ISS operations cost about $3
billion taxpayer dollars per year--a cost that is projected to
increase, I might add--coupled with the challenges involved in
sustaining operations, we need to ensure that our vision for the ISS is
clear and our goals and objectives for using this unique facility are
aligned with that vision.
Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased that the number of ISS users has grown.
In addition to NASA researchers and NASA-supported academic
researchers, the ISS National Laboratory management entity, CASIS, has
drawn new commercial users including pharmaceutical companies to the
ISS.
However, while the range of ISS uses is expanding, the resources to
support those activities are not. Funding for ISS research represents a
mere 12 percent of the overall ISS budget. In addition, constraints on
cargo transportation to the ISS, as well as available power and
precious crew time, limit what research can be accomplished on the
Station.
And in that regard, I know that many of us want to understand the
implications of cargo resupply interruptions on planned ISS research,
crew operations, and the sustainability of the ISS.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, there is critical work to be done on the
ISS in the areas of human health research and technology development
that need to be carried out if we are going to make progress toward the
long-term goal of sending humans to Mars.
In January 2014, the Obama Administration proposed to extend ISS
operations until at least the year 2024. The Administration has three
rationales for the extension:
To complete ISS research that supports long-duration
human missions beyond low-Earth orbit;
To garner societal benefits from ISS research; and
To give NASA and private partners more time to transition
to commercial cargo and crew, allowing NASA to focus on human
exploration of deep space.
Today's hearing provides us the opportunity to examine those
rationales in the context of the cost and risks that NASA and its
international partners will face in sustaining the ISS for that length
of time.
Well, Mr. Chairman, we have a lot to discuss this morning. I want
to thank our witnesses again for being here and with that I yield back.
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. I now recognize the
Ranking Member of the Full Committee for a statement, the
gentlelady from Texas.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
for holding this hearing on the International Space Station.
This really is an important topic, and I look forward to the
testimony of our panel of witnesses and I welcome them.
It is no secret that I have been a long supporter of the
ISS. It plays a unique role in furthering research, advancing
human spaceflight, and inspiring our young people. Moreover, in
addition to being an incredible engineering achievement, it
provides a very visible demonstration of the benefits that can
be derived from peaceful international cooperation in space.
Failures of commercial cargo transportation missions to the
ISS remind us that spaceflight is not easy. Failures will
occur, and unfortunately these failures will have impacts on
the program. We need to better understand those impacts, as
well as the plans for dealing with them going forward. And we
need to know whether there are any lessons learned that need to
be applied to the far more challenging Commercial Crew
Transportation Program.
I've said before that the ISS is a perishable commodity. We
need to be clear on what NASA needs to accomplish with this
unique laboratory while it is still operational. While the
Administration has proposed to extend ISS operations until
2024, maintaining the ISS involves risk and a significant
opportunity cost. We need to ensure that the ISS is being used
in a way that maximizes its productivity and value to the
nation.
In addition, if we are to ensure that the needed ISS
research and technology activities are carried out, it is clear
that we are going to need to make the necessary investments.
Stagnant ISS research budgets do not communicate the message
that we are serious about supporting the important research and
technology efforts that can only be accomplished on the ISS.
That is a problem that Congress could and should fix.
Well, Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of issues to discuss
today. I welcome our witnesses and look forward to a productive
hearing. I thank you, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson of Texas follows:]
Prepared Statement of Full Committee
Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on the
International Space Station. This is an important topic, and I look
forward to the testimony of our panel of witnesses.
It is no secret that I have long been a supporter of the ISS. It
plays a unique role in furthering research, advancing human
spaceflight, and inspiring our young people. Moreover, in addition to
being an incredible engineering achievement, it provides a very visible
demonstration of the benefits that can be derived from peaceful
international cooperation in space.
Failures of commercial cargo transportation missions to the ISS
remind us that spaceflight is not easy. Failures will occur, and
unfortunately those failures will have impacts on the ISS program. We
need to better understand those impacts, as well as the plans for
dealing with them going forward. And we need to know whether there are
any ``lessons learned'' that need to be applied to the far more
challenging commercial crew transportation program.
I have said before that the ISS is a perishable commodity. We need
to be clear on what NASA needs to accomplish with this unique
laboratory while it is still operational. While the Administration has
proposed to extend ISS operations until 2024, maintaining the ISS
involves risks and a significant opportunity cost. We need to ensure
that the ISS is being used in a way that maximizes its productivity and
value to the nation.
In addition, if we are to ensure that the needed ISS research and
technology activities are carried out, it is clear that we are going to
need to make the necessary investments.
Stagnant ISS research budgets do not communicate the message that
we are serious about supporting the important research and technology
efforts that can only be accomplished on the ISS. That is a problem
that Congress can and should fix.
Well, Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of issues to discuss today. I
welcome our witnesses and look forward to a productive hearing.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. If there are
Members who wish to submit additional opening statements, your
statements will be added to the record at this point.
At this time I would like to introduce our witnesses. Bill
Gerstenmaier is the Associate Administrator of the Human
Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate at NASA. Our
second witness today is John Elbon, Vice President and General
Manager of Space Exploration for The Boeing Company. Testifying
third is the Honorable Paul Martin who has served as NASA's
Inspector General since 2009. Our third witness is Shelby
Oakley, Acting Director of Acquisition and Sourcing Management
for Government Accountability Office, GAO. Today's final
witness is Dr. James Pawelczyk, an Associate Professor of
Physiology and Kinesiology at the Pennsylvania State University
and a retired astronaut.
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 Mr. Gerstenmaier for five minutes to
present his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MR. BILL GERSTENMAIER,
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR,
HUMAN EXPLORATION AND OPERATIONS
MISSION DIRECTORATE, NASA
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for the opportunity to testify on behalf of myself and the men
and women that work on the International Space Station. This is
one of the most talented and dedicated international teams in
the world. The ISS is an amazing research facility. Today on
the ISS during this expedition, there are 329 research
investigations in progress. These span topics from human
research into how the human body performs in microgravity,
basic biology, and biotechnology, physical science, Earth and
space science, technology development, and education. There's
never been this scope of research performed on a continuous
basis in space.
We are also in the midst of a one-year crew expedition.
This mission will give us detailed information into the human
adaptation to the space environment with mission durations
approximately equal to the Mars transit time. We will also get
a unique chance through the twins study to see how the human
genome changes when exposed to microgravity. We have kept a
continual crew presence on the ISS for almost 15 years. Eighty-
three countries from around the world have used the ISS for
research. Further, private companies through the National
Laboratory and the Center for the Advancement of Science and
Space have used the ISS.
This week in Boston there was an ISS users conference. This
is an exciting time as many new researchers are beginning to
see the advantages of space-based research to augment their
terrestrial investigations. The growth of non-NASA research is
exciting and shows that there's a generic interest in using the
unique properties of space to investigate basic research
opportunities typically only done on the Earth.
Space provides a unique window into any physical process
that is affected by gravity. Further, the human body reacts in
space with many conditions that mimic conditions facing the
elderly: bone loss, muscle wasting, immune system degradation,
and balance problems. Using animal models, unique insight, and
potential new treatments for the elderly can be developed based
on Space Station research.
As the Chairman stated earlier, operating under frontier of
space is not easy. In the past nine months, three independent
cargo vehicles were lost on the way to the ISS. This
graphically shows the difficulty of living and operating in
space. The lost vehicles have different designs, different
heritages, different manufacturing, different build processes,
and utilize different ascent trajectories. The failure of these
three systems shows the difficulty of launching and operating
in space.
We often think that ISS is only 250 miles away and that the
journey is easy. This is not true. We are essentially operating
these systems at the edge of our engineering capability. We
also often think that if only we provide more insight and
oversight, we can lower the risk of cargo delivery.
Unfortunately, the demands required to escape Earth's gravity
expose us to the same level of risk no matter how much insight
we add. But the insight can give us insight and help us
understand the designs to make sure that we can end up with
better designs.
The right level of insight can reduce and find design
errors. However, too much insight can distract the teams from
working on and improving design. It's amazing that even after
these three failures, the basic ISS operations were not
impacted. This is attributed to the teams that manage and
operate the ISS. They learned and are implementing the hard
lessons from the Columbia tragedy where the ISS had to operate
without the shuttle for several years. The consumables
management processes and logistics resupply techniques learned
are proving their worth. However, these failures are not
without consequences. Several of the agency performance goals
associated with research and cargo flights will not be met. The
ISS program is reducing consumables margins on ISS to favor
research. This will not be enough to recover the research
impacts. The delay in the Soyuz crew flight, which was required
to allow the teams to understand the Progress failure, required
the ISS to operate with three crew for approximately three
weeks longer than planned and will impact research crew hours.
The impact of the loss also had real implications to students
and researchers who lost cargo on the Orbital ATK-Cygnus flight
only to lose the replacement and return-to-flight hardware
again on the SpaceX flight. They suffered a double loss. The
loss of the international docking adapter can be accommodated
schedule-wise without impacting the crew program but will
result in a dollar loss to ISS.
ISS is a phenomenal resource for the nation. The research
being done on ISS can be done no place else. ISS can serve as
an innovation accelerator for private entrepreneurs, help NASA
prepare for journeys beyond low-Earth orbit, and benefits
directly people on the Earth. Congressional support for ISS
operations through at least 2024 would be a positive sign to
the international partners and future users of ISS. Operating
on the frontier is not easy, and we need to not get complacent
and think ISS operations are routine or easy. They are not. The
ISS team has done a great job of managing in a technically
demanding environment. The ISS team will continue to look for
ways to improve. The ISS teams need to be given flexibility to
manage, and others need to understand the benefits of
dissimilar redundancy and how it can be used to provide
robustness. The benefits of ISS will take longer to be realized
than most can envision, but the benefits of ISS will exceed the
expectations of all involved.
I would also like to thank the Committee for their support
to human spaceflight, especially the authorization activity
associated with Commercial Crew, SLS, Orion, and ISS. I look
forward to your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gerstenmaier follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Gerstenmaier. I'll
now recognize Mr. Elbon for five minutes to present his
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MR. JOHN ELBON,
VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER,
SPACE EXPLORATION,
THE BOEING COMPANY
Mr. Elbon. Chairman Babin, Ranking Member Edwards, and
Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of The Boeing Company,
thank you for the opportunity to testify today to provide an
update on Boeing's role in the International Space Station. And
Mr. Chairman, as one of your constituents, congratulations on
your selection to lead this important Committee.
Boeing is extremely proud to have supported NASA in the
design, integration and assembly of the ISS. As NASA's prime
contractor, Boeing delivered the U.S. elements of the ISS and
provided system integration for the stage-by-stage assembly on
orbit of all U.S. and international elements. We continue in
the ISS sustainment role today.
On November 2, the world will celebrate 15 years of
continuous presence in space, human presence in space, with
international crews living and working aboard the ISS. At a
time when many decry a gap in America's space program as we
transition from the Space Shuttle to commercial transportation,
we who know ISS know that America and our partner nations are
making advances in space every day.
The International Space Station has been recognized as the
largest, most complex international scientific and engineering
project in history and the world's largest endeavor in space to
date. Ongoing improvements are making ISS even better.
The Station brought together hardware and software from 16
countries around the globe and 37 states and more than 10,000
suppliers in our country. About the size of an American
football field, the ISS is larger than a six bedroom house and
has the internal pressurized volume of a 747.
ISS is an engineering marvel, a beacon for international
cooperation, and a shining example of what can be achieved
through strong leadership and unity of purpose on behalf of
humankind.
As NASA's contractor for sustaining engineering of the ISS,
Boeing is responsible for maintaining the Station and ensuring
the full availability of the unique research laboratory for
NASA, international partners, other U.S. Government agencies
and private companies. In performing this role, we continue to
work with NASA to reduce the costs of sustaining the
International Space Station.
Over the past ten years, we have reduced the cost of our
sustainment role by more than 30 percent. These savings has
enabled NASA to fund ISS improvements such as the NASA Docking
System, the critical component supporting the increase in the
number of commercial vehicles visiting the Station. These
improvements help to keep ISS at peak efficiency today and
provide a basis for continuing strong performance well into the
future. With NASA, we recently completed a technical assessment
of the useable life of major ISS hardware components. Our study
indicates that the Station will be operable at least through
2028. Long-term viability of the Station is an important factor
in continuing to attract researchers, who invest considerable
time in preparing their experiments for operation in space.
The continuing on-orbit reliability of ISS and the
improvements made to further enhance research capabilities are
a boon to maximizing facility utilization. Our work on ISS
enables many benefits and improvements both to enable
continuing human space exploration and to improve the quality
of life here on Earth.
ISS continues to be used for developing multiple
technologies to support deep space exploration. NASA is
developing highly reliable life support systems to address
needs for future exploration habitation systems. The ISS is a
test bed for learning how the body reacts to prolonged
weightlessness and allows us to develop countermeasures now.
And we are learning self-sustainment skills, such as
growing food in space and recycling water. All of these things
are important to learn and understand before we explore farther
into our solar system.
Research on ISS has led to numerous improvements on Earth,
from the medical field, to Earth observations, to providing
clean water in underdeveloped countries, to how we diagnose and
treat patients in remote areas.
Over the past several years, I've had opportunity to
interact with leaders in countries that are not engaged in the
ISS or do not have a space program. Without exception, in every
one of these conversations about space exploration, these
leaders express a strong desire to be involved in space, and
more specifically, the International Space Station. They see
the value of ISS: to inspire their youth to pursue STEM
education, to create economy-expanding high technology
industries, and to provide a significant source of national
pride. This fresh perspective from leaders outside Station
international partnership recognizing the tremendous value of
ISS serves as a strong reminder to U.S. leaders and to all who
are charged with the care of this national asset and global
resource. We must never take what we have in ISS for granted.
We must ensure that the International Space Station is well-
funded, meticulously maintained and operated, and fully
utilized for meaningful, high-value research.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Elbon follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Mr. Elbon. I now recognize Mr.
Martin for five minutes to present his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE PAUL K. MARTIN,
INSPECTOR GENERAL, NASA
Mr. Martin. Thank you for inviting us to be part of the
discussion about NASA's challenges in operating and maximizing
research on the International Space Station, a very timely
topic in light of the loss of three cargo supply flights over
the past eight months.
The Office of Inspector General has issued four reports
related to the topic of today's hearing during the past two
years, including reviews that examine NASA's plans to extend
Station operations until 2024 and its contracts with private
companies to fly cargo and eventually crew to Station. We have
five more reviews related to this topic under way, including an
examination of October's cargo resupply failure, NASA's efforts
to manage health and behavioral risk for extended space
exploration, and challenges to international cooperation in
space.
Our audit from last September of NASA's plans to extend the
ISS reported that the agency had identified no major obstacles
to continued operations through 2024. However, we found NASA
must address a series of technical challenges, including
ensuring adequate power generation in light of degradation of
the Station's solar arrays as well as a limited ability to
transport large replacement parts to Station.
While NASA officials estimate an annual ISS budget of
between $3 and $4 billion through 2024, we anticipate the cost
may be higher. First, much of the projected increase is
attributable to higher transportation costs, and we found
NASA's estimates for cargo and crew transportation optimistic.
Second, most of the agency's international partners have
yet to commit to Station operations beyond 2020, and a decision
by one or more not to participate could drive up costs for
NASA. As noted in our report, the number one operational risk
for the ISS program is ensuring the ability to deliver supplies
and astronauts to Station. While NASA is working with two
commercial cargo providers for redundancy, flights by Orbital
and SpaceX are now on hold pending the outcome of accident
investigations and approvals from the FAA and NASA.
In addition to the loss of important supplies, the failed
cargo flights have affected NASA research aboard Station in at
least three ways: number one, by reducing available crew time
due to a temporary delay in returning the Station's crew
complement to six astronauts; number two, by increasing cost to
replace the lost research; and number three, by delaying return
of experiments due to the suspension of flights by SpaceX, the
only company capable of bringing cargo back to Earth.
Because NASA uses the ISS as a research platform to study a
variety of risks associated with human travel and long-term
habitation in space, it is an important part of its plans to
send humans beyond low-Earth orbit. As we have reported in the
past, utilization of the ISS for research has increased over
the years, but several factors continue to limit its full
potential. For example, until a seventh astronaut is brought
aboard the Station, NASA will not be in a position to maximize
crew time devoted to research. In addition, on-board crew will
soon devote substantial time to reconfiguring the ISS to
accommodate the commercial vehicles NASA hopes will transport
astronauts beginning in 2017. To that point, late last year,
NASA awarded $6.8 billion in contracts to Boeing and SpaceX to
complete development of their spaceflight systems for crew. But
NASA's Commercial Crew Program faces several significant
hurdles, including unstable funding, the need to provide timely
requirements and certification guidance to contractors, and
coordination issues with other federal agencies. Given its
importance, the OIG recently initiated a follow-up audit to
review the status of NASA's Commercial Crew Program.
And that concludes my prepared remarks. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Martin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Mr. Martin. And I now recognize
Ms. Oakley for five minutes to present her testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MS. SHELBY OAKLEY, ACTING DIRECTOR,
ACQUISITION AND SOURCING MANAGEMENT,
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Ms. Oakley. Good morning, Chairman Babin, Ranking Member
Edwards, and Ranking Member Johnson and Members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss
GAO's work on NASA's management of the International Space
Station.
As you know, the United States has spent tens of billions
of dollars to develop, assemble, and operate the Space Station
over the last two decades. The United States could spend
billions more in coming years to further capitalize on the
investment, given the potential extension of operations to
2024. Today I will discuss three areas: First, NASA's budget
for ISS; second, some challenges that could affect increased
use of ISS; and finally, steps that NASA and CASIS could take
to better document and assess progress in this regard.
NASA continues to make a significant investment in ISS each
year. This investment is projected to increase over the next
five years mainly because the ISS program will begin to fund
commercial crew flights. In 2020, transportation costs will be
over 55 percent of the projected $4 billion ISS budget. Unlike
transportation costs, costs to operate and conduct research on
ISS are projected to remain relatively stable through 2020.
NASA officials have indicated that the funding priorities for
ISS are crew safety and transportation, maintaining the
facility, and finally research. As a result, any increases to
transportation costs or operations costs could diminish
available funding for research. Furthermore, the potential
increases to the ISS budget as a result of the planned
extension to 2024 are currently unknown.
Second, NASA and CASIS face several challenges that could
negatively affect their efforts to increase use of ISS for
science including cargo transportation failures and delays,
limited progress in raising additional funding for research,
and increased demand for crew time and facilities.
Recent mishaps of the commercial cargo vehicles have had a
direct impact on both CASIS and NASA efforts to increase
research on ISS. For example, launch failures and delays have
already resulted in the loss of CASIS-sponsored research and
increased costs by almost $500,000, and let's not forget your
crab cakes, Ms. Edwards. Furthermore, additional increases are
likely as a result of the most recent failure.
For CASIS, absorbing these increases has and could continue
to be challenging because it has thus far made limited progress
raising additional funds for science from external sources. For
example, in 2014, CASIS had only received a little over $9,000
in contributions. However, CASIS has seen an increase in
commitments from external donors. Specifically, in 2014, it
received commitments of over $12 million.
CASIS also faces challenges with competition for available
crew time and a heavy demand for key facilities which limits
the amount and types of experiments that CASIS can bring to
ISS. Crew time is already allocated at or over 100 percent. To
address this challenge, NASA and CASIS are dependent on
commercial crew providers delivering promised capabilities as
planned in 2017. With these capabilities, NASA will be able to
add a crew member to ISS who will devote most of his or her
time to research, effectively doubling research time.
However, many technical challenges and NASA's ability to
fund the Commercial Crew Program could delay these efforts.
Finally, even if NASA and CASIS can effectively navigate these
challenges, demonstrating a return on investment is very
difficult in scientific research and can oftentimes take many
years.
In the short term, it is essential that CASIS continues to
make progress promoting research and achieving its goal of
increased use of ISS.
We reported in April that NASA and CASIS could do more to
objectively define, assess, and report on such progress, for
example, by assigning measurable targets or goals to its annual
performance metrics. NASA and CASIS concurred and agreed to
take action in response.
In conclusion, potential extension of ISS to 2024 will
likely require significant continued investments. As a result,
ensuring that ISS capabilities are being used to support
significant scientific gains is critical. Furthermore,
demonstrating and communicating the return on investment could
help support NASA and CASIS in achieving their shared goal of
developing sustained commercial markets in low-Earth orbit.
Chairman Babin, Ranking Member Edwards, and Members of the
Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared remarks. I'm happy to
take any questions that you have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Oakley follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Ms. Oakley. Now I'd like to
recognize Dr. Pawelczyk for five minutes to present his
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. JAMES A. PAWELCZYK,
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF
PHYSIOLOGY AND KINESIOLOGY,
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Pawelczyk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Subcommittee, good morning to you. I thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the status of research using the
International Space Station. It's the only platform of its
kind, and it is absolutely essential to NASA's exploration
goals.
To prepare for this hearing, you asked four specific
questions, and I would like to briefly address each in the time
allotted. You asked about opportunities and challenges. Well,
the Augustine Commission emphasized three unique stressors that
future astronauts will face: prolonged exposure to solar and
galactic radiation; prolonged periods of exposure to
microgravity; and confinement in close, relatively austere
quarters. All of these stressors are present in the ISS
environment. Martian operations add more stressors: a dusty,
dim, environment and a gravitational field that is a little
more than a third of our own. Unless we improve our centrifuge
capabilities on the ISS--they are limited at the moment--we
risk sending humans to Mars with little or no knowledge of how
mammalian biology responds over years in a gravitational field
less than Earth's.
Two challenges dominate the landscape, limited crew time
and limited access to the ISS. We can reasonably anticipate
that competition for time will become worse as the facility
ages and demands to perform necessary maintenance become more
acute.
Access is really a matter of competing programs. CASIS-
sponsored research and peer-reviewed NASA-sponsored research
vie for scarce resources. Better coordination between the two
entities is needed.
You asked about critical areas of research. The National
Research Council's Life and Physical Sciences Decadal Survey,
which was completed in 2011 at Congress' request, summarized
and sequenced 65 high-priority research tasks. Furthermore, the
decadal study created two notional research plans, one with a
goal of rebuilding a research enterprise and the other with a
goal of a human mission to Mars. More about those goals in just
a moment.
You asked about priorities. Well, prioritizing ISS research
isn't a new concept. In fact, we've been working on that
problem for close to 15 years. But the key question for
prioritization isn't scientific, it's programmatic and it's
something like this: Shall discovery research or fundamental
research or translational research take precedence in the
mature years of the ISS research program? The answer to that
question has to be provided by government. Once those
programmatic priorities are sequenced, can we prioritize the
research? Absolutely. The LPS Decadal Survey provided a very
detailed scheme and used eight unique criteria to do so.
The process for operations, you were curious about that, is
well understood. CASIS receives its 50-percent allocation
followed by human research, then technology demonstrations, and
what resources remain are devoted to biology, physical
sciences, and the Science Mission Directorate.
You asked about implications for extension and criteria
that Congress should consider. I think one of the first tests
that Congress should apply can be answered with a simple yes or
no question. Is NASA prepared to operate a robust research
program through 2024? And in my opinion, the answer is an
unqualified yes, exclamation point. Absolutely. The
transformation of this organization in the past five years has
been nothing short of remarkable in the life and physical
sciences. I've provided seven examples of that in my written
testimony. But there are large knowledge gaps for Mars missions
that will be one year or longer. The IG recently reported on
this topic, and there are four areas where I'd like to see the
report go a little bit further. First, the IG found that
extension to 2024 wouldn't provide enough time to mitigate 13
human health risks for a Mars mission. I'm not quite prepared
to accept that conclusion. There's simply too many degrees of
freedom to establish useful risk criteria at this point in
time. These risks need the context provided by a thorough task
analysis of future Martian operations.
Second, the report didn't address powered down mass to any
great extent, and we may need powered sample return for
additional research tasks.
Third, the IG emphasized average crew time as a metric to
quantify research utility. It's a good metric, but I'm not sure
it goes far enough. I think we need to work on the concept of
efficiency and evaluate and improve the efficiency of the
research time we have.
And finally, the IG noted that research time is constrained
with a six-person crew. We need that seventh member.
So my top recommendations are the following: Prioritize the
programmatic goals, review the essential resources for extended
mammalian research, including that seventh crew member, a
scientist astronaut whose nominal responsibility is research,
and finally to extend biological experiments to cover a
substantial portion of mammalian life cycle and incorporate
Martian gravity equivalents wherever possible. Given those
sufficient resources, I am very optimistic that NASA can
deliver another decade of rigorous translational research.
I sincerely thank you for your support of the program and
the opportunity to appear.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Pawelczyk follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Dr. Pawelczyk. I thank the
witnesses, all the witnesses, for your testimony. Members are
reminded that committee rules limit questioning to five
minutes. The Chair now recognizes himself for five minutes.
This question will be for Mr. Gerstenmaier and Mr. Elbon.
The SpaceX mission had a new commercial crew docking mechanism,
water filtration device, and a new spacesuit on board. Can you
explain the impact of the loss of these items on the ISS and
Commercial Crew Programs? And how do you plan to mitigate these
impacts? Mr. Gerstenmaier?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Okay. We'll start with the international
docking adaptor that's scheduled for Commercial Crew. It was
lost. We wanted to have two units on orbit before we began
commercial crew flights. We'll still be able to, I believe
we'll be able to, support that schedule. We'll take the parts
from a third unit that was being assembled as a spare or a
backup and work with the contract to go ahead and extend that
and get that delivered on time.
The next docking adaptor is scheduled to go in the next
several months, and we'll figure out the right cargo flight to
take it up. And one docking adaptor will be sufficient to
support the Commercial Crew Program. So I think we can
accommodate that. The biggest impact to us is the cost
associated with now having to manufacture a third unit from the
spare parts that remain.
On the multi-filtration beds, we think before the Japanese
transfer vehicle flies in August, we should be able to get a
new transfer bed manufactured again through the outstanding
work of the Boeing Corporation to help us expedite that work,
and we've got plans in place to do that.
We've been trending down on the toxic organic compounds on
board Space Station, so we're still in a stable configuration
with the beds we have on orbit. We'll continue to monitor that
carefully. But we should be okay from that standpoint.
The loss of the spacesuit, we will probably now reconfigure
one of the spacesuits we had planned on returning on Space
Station. We'll do more repairs on it on orbit, and we'll have
that space suit available to go do EVAs. And again, we've also
put a contract change in place to work with the Orbital
Sciences Corporation to look at carrying spacesuits in the
future for us.
So I think we've mitigated all three of the concerns that
you have. The impacts will be not significant, and we can
accommodate them but there are impacts with each one of them.
Chairman Babin. Thank you. Mr. Elbon?
Mr. Elbon. I'll just add to what Mr. Gerstenmaier said. The
most significant involvement from Boeing's perspective is with
the docking adapter. The second unit is in Florida and will be
ready to fly when we resume flying. And the third unit, the
parts are available at our suppliers and in Houston and we're
under way putting the plan together to assemble that third unit
to replace the one that was lost.
As Mr. Gerstenmaier mentioned, we're working very closely
with NASA to understand the water filtration issue and to get
those components ready to launch on the next resupply vehicles
that go up. So I agree that we're in good shape to support the
crew on orbit.
Chairman Babin. Okay. Thank you. Next question. NASA's
Aerospace, and this will be for Mr. Gerstenmaier, NASA's
Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel has recommended that as NASA
assesses ISS life extension, it should also review the
objectives for continued ISS use and clearly articulate them to
ensure that the costs and safety risks are balanced. Given that
human spaceflight is inherently risky, that risk always needs
to be weighed against the value to be gained by the endeavor.
What are NASA's objectives for extending ISS operations
through 2024?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Again, on the human research front,
there's many medical investigations we're looking at that were
described by other panel members about the radiation
environment, the microgravity environment, and we need to
understand those and have those risks mitigated and understood
before we're ready to commit to longer endeavors in space. And
those are all in plans and are in place. We have detailed
investigations and the current one-year expedition on board the
Space Station is addressing many of those issues and concerns,
and that's moving forward.
Chairman Babin. Okay. Thank you. And then finally, for Mr.
Martin, what insight does NASA have into the mishap,
investigations being performed by Orbital ATK and SpaceX?
Looking back at the Apollo 1 accident, the Challenger accident,
and the Columbia accident, do you believe that the
investigations have benefitted from an independent review
separate from the contractors or the program?
Mr. Martin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My understanding is
the FAA granted licenses to the private contractors, both
SpaceX and Orbital ATK, and under the contract, they are
leading the accident investigations. I believe with the Orbital
mishap that NASA has a separate review ongoing to try to get to
the root cause there. But there is not the same kind of
independent accident investigation board if it were a NASA-
owned failure. And I think we're currently conducting a review
that's going to look at some of the concerns we have about the
independence of a contractor-led accident investigation board.
But again, pursuant to the contract and the license for the
FAA, that's the way it's intended to be.
Chairman Babin. Okay. Thank you. And that completes my
questions. I now recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Edwards.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
witnesses again. Mr. Martin's report of September 2014 found
that NASA's estimate for the ISS budget $3 to $4 billion per
year through 2024 is overly optimistic. That was reiterated
obviously in your testimony. And so I'm just really curious
from Mr. Gerstenmaier, if you could talk to us about the basis
of your estimates for projected crew and cargo transportation
costs to support ISS. And I would note in that for example,
there have been three cargo mishaps in the last eight months.
Was that factored into your projections for costs? Because it
would seem that that alone would then begin to shoot costs up
if those kinds of accidents, which one could expect might
happen, over the course of operations over another--to 2024. So
it would be helpful to know what your basis for those estimated
costs are and respond to the challenges that Mr. Martin has
laid out in his September 2014 report.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. We've been looking and working very
aggressively to look at cost management and cost control. We've
consolidated some contracts into a smaller number of contracts.
We also are using competition to attempt to drive down the
cost. We're in the process--right now we're in a blackout
period of where we're going through a cargo resupply services
number two contract award. We've got extremely good competition
from that activity, and we believe competition will help us
control and hold those costs down.
So I think we're actively working. We're aware of those
cost issues and the challenges in front of us. The teams have
objective acquisition strategies. We have effective
consolidation plans, and we're removing costs from the program
as we can. And we believe we can hold those costs down, and we
can provide some objective evidence of what we've done and seen
in past contracts versus future contract entities.
Ms. Edwards. And Mr. Martin, I've heard from Mr.
Gerstenmaier, but since your 2014 report, would it still be
your assessment that NASA's projections are overly optimistic?
And in your analysis, would you factor in three, you know,
mishaps, failures, in a year in terms of looking at the costs?
Mr. Martin. Yes. I'm not exactly sure whether they factored
how many accidents in. But I do think that their cost
projections are overly optimistic and continue to be. Over the
life of the program, the ISS has shown eight percent increase
annually in costs over the life of the program. In fact, from
2011 to 2013, there was a 26 percent cost increase for the ISS.
So moving forward, as we go out, as NASA considers extending
the life of the Station to 2024, it's projected that in 2024,
59 percent of Station expenses will be for crew and cargo
transportation. That's a big piece of the pie.
Ms. Edwards. Just curious for all of the panelists, if you
look at NASA's rationale for extending to 2024, they include
research and technology discoveries that benefit society,
enabling human exploration to Mars, establishing crew and cargo
to low-Earth orbit, and sustained commercial use of space.
Just curious as to whether any of you believe what NASA's
top priority should be. I mean, that's a big list in itself,
and it's kind of hard to figure out what should be first versus
fourth. Dr. Pawelczyk?
Dr. Pawelczyk. Thank you very much for that question. And
it's a great one, and I think it's an extremely important one
for this Subcommittee to take on.
So the three biggies as you mention them really are this
idea of discovery science. What are the big science questions
that we want to have answered? We may not recognize the utility
of those for a period of years. A piece of research equipment
that we flew on my mission in 1998 was largely used in last
year's Nobel Prize-winning awards. So that's 16 years to
recognize some return on that investment, but it's a very
important return nonetheless.
There's also translation, this idea of what do we need to
do in order to go further. And of course, you mentioned the
commercialization aspects. We have contended in the scientific
community for many years that it is not our job to sequence
those priorities. It is the job of government. It is the job of
either the executive branch or the legislative branch, and I'll
leave it up to you to sort out which is which. But I believe
you've been pretty clear at this point. When I look at the
authorization language for this year, you've said Mars is very
important, but it's not an either/or. It's an and. NASA will
also maintain a fundamental research program.
So I think you've already told us that Mars is the answer.
And when you look at the research that remains to be done, the
risks that sit in the red, most of them, and about half of
them, are associated with the extended duration on Mars, so a
notional mission of approximately three years duration.
I don't know of another research platform that is going to
provide us extended research capability to answer those three-
year questions. The ISS is our choice for that, and I think
that's how it should be used.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Babin. Thank you. And now I'd like to recognize
Mr. Brooks.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Babin. Five minutes.
Mr. Brooks. Yes, sir. Mr. Gerstenmaier, in light of the
recent launch failures, is NASA reassessing their insight and
oversight approach for the development, production, and
operations of commercially provided vehicles that service the
International Space Station?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. As part of the accident investigation
with the SpaceX event that occurred, part of our Commercial
Crew Program representatives are part of that activity with
SpaceX. So they are actively involved in analyzing and
understanding what occurred on the cargo vehicle with an eye
towards any design changes, any process changes, any hardware
changes that need to be made in the crew program. So we're
actively involved in transitioning that information from this
failure directly into the crew program.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, and I appreciate that response, an
effort on behalf of NASA. In my experience, NASA has a
tremendous amount of insight and expertise, and I would
encourage NASA to show the leadership that you indicate they
are showing and the management skill that you indicate that
they are doing to assist with Commercial Crew so that they can
be more successful than they have been most recently.
This question is with respect to Mr. Elbon and Mr.
Gerstenmaier. The loss of the SpaceX vehicle two weeks ago has
been described as a big loss. Part of that loss was a
replacement spacesuit for the International Space Station. What
are the implications to the International Space Station program
for the loss of this suit?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. As I described earlier, we'll probably
take one of the suits that are on orbit and then refurbish it
on orbit instead of returning it to the ground, and then we
will develop a capability to transport suits that areon all of
our cargo vehicles so that we can bring other suits up to Space
Station as needed to support the EVA activity.
Mr. Brooks. Mr. Elbon, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Elbon. The space suits themselves are not part of our
sustaining contract, so I'm not in the middle of working that.
We do however help NASA with all the analysis necessary to
figure out which activities need to be done on EVA so that we
can make sure that Space Station can continue to operate with
the capabilities that exist there.
Mr. Brooks. What was the cost of that lost spacesuit?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. I don't have a specific cost, and I can
take that for the record. We have 13 spacesuits that's
available to us. They're from the Shuttle Program, and this was
one of those suits. We will not replace that suit. It will just
continue to be lost, and it will not be replaced. We have
sufficient suits remaining in our inventory to continue to
operate safely through the 2024 and beyond timeframe.
Mr. Brooks. Well, the items that NASA's had on these most
recent launches, who is it that is absorbing the cost of those
lost items that were being transported to the International
Space Station? Is that the commercial crew provider or is that
NASA?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. For the NASA items, the losses are borne
by NASA, and we estimate the NASA cargo loss roughly at about
$110 million or so on the SpaceX flight. The researchers,
they're responsible for their hardware. They bear the loss from
the research hardware that was lost, and that's how that splits
out.
Mr. Brooks. Is there going to be any future effort by NASA
inasmuch as we're hiring private contractors to require those
private contractors to reimburse NASA for equipment and
materials lost because the private contractors were
unsuccessful in launching their vehicles?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Our contracts today have a final
milestone payment associated with successful delivery of cargo
on orbit. Obviously, they will not receive payment for the
accomplishment of that milestone, and we're investigating the
advantages and disadvantages of having essentially insurance
provided for these other capabilities, or to provide for lost
cargo in the future. We haven't made a decision yet on whether
that is cost-effective for us or not, but we're taking a look
at that to see if it's effective to have insurance or it's
better that we just essentially indemnify and the users bear
the risk of the loss.
Mr. Brooks. The monies that will be withheld as payment to
the private entity spacecraft providers, is that enough to
offset the losses that NASA has incurred?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. It offsets a portion but not the entire
amount.
Mr. Brooks. So American taxpayers can rest assured then
that at least we'll have some recoupment of the losses that
American taxpayers have suffered as a consequence of the
private sector providers' failure to provide the represented
craft?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Yes.
Mr. Brooks. That's all, Mr. Chairman. I yield the remainder
of my time.
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you. And I now recognize
the Ranking Member from Texas, Ms. Johnson. Is she here?
Voice. She left.
Chairman Babin. Oh, okay.
Voice. It's Mr. Bera.
Chairman Babin. Mr. Bera from California. I'm sorry.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the Ranking
Member for this hearing. As a child growing up in Southern
California in the aerospace industry in the '60s and early
'70s, it was remarkable what we could accomplish as Americans
when we dreamt big. And when we think about the International
Space Station, it really, truly is an engineering marvel,
something that over time has, as the witnesses have noted, 15
years of uninterrupted humans living in space. Remarkable.
When we think about this and when we think about where we
want to go, we have to continue to think big as a nation. We
have to not be afraid of thinking and addressing the issues,
particularly as we dream about human space travel to Mars. We
don't know how we're going to get there, but that should not
daunt us and that should not stop us, and that should not stop
us from making the investments that allow us to continue to
incrementally dream big.
Again, that is what we've done throughout our existence as
human beings. We've not been afraid to explore. We've not been
afraid to ask those questions, and certainly this body has a
responsibility to continue to push for the next generation of
discovery.
That said, we increasingly move to this coordinated role
between what the public invests in partnership with
commercialization of space. The last few months have been a bit
concerning. We've been fortunate that the accidents did not
have human beings on there and only cargo. But as we look at
this partnership of commercialization and human space travel
and taking human beings to the Space Station and beyond, it is
a bit worrisome.
My question, let me direct it to Mr. Martin. In light of
these recent accidents and the investigation of these
accidents, could you elaborate and maybe expand on NASA's role
in making sure there's a transparent investigation? I mean
there is some concern if just the commercial entities are
investigating without NASA's role.
Mr. Martin. Sure, and I think Bill could go into a lot
greater detail. Again, under the contracts, since this is a
commercial spaceflight, the FAA gives the license, and under
the contract, the contractor leads the accident investigation
review, unlike a past Challenger accident or something like
that where NASA itself would convene an independent accident
investigation board.
My sense is that NASA is a member, sort of an advisory
member, of Orbital's, and soon to be SpaceX's, accident review
boards, but they aren't leading that activity. And perhaps Bill
could go deeper on that.
Mr. Bera. That would be great.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. The NASA team is participating directly
along with the FAA team and NTSB on the SpaceX accident board.
They developed a fault tree, just as NASA has done, and the way
they disposition each fault item is all three entities--NASA,
FAA, and NTSB--and SpaceX all have to agree that this item is
closed and not contributing to this accident.
So it's by consensus. It's the engineering teams
essentially led by SpaceX but fully represented by the
government, and the government can say whether we accept or do
not accept their explanation for what the root cause was. So
it's a fairly effective way for us to have good insight in. We
can do our own independent research on the side and contribute
directly to the conclusions and make sure that we are
representing the government. So we have the best from the FAA,
and the best from NASA, participating in those activities along
with the contractor-led activity.
Mr. Bera. And do you feel confident that there's that
transparency in there and that we as a body, Congress, will be
able to see that transparency and get the full details?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. So far it's been extremely transparent.
It was the same with the Orbital investigation. We had that
same transparency with them, and it's been effective for both
and we can show direct evidence of where that transparency is
and how it's being implemented.
Mr. Bera. Okay. Great. And with that I'll yield back.
Chairman Babin. Thank you. Now I'd like to recognize the
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey.
Mr. Posey. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Gerstenmaier, we
know that planning for the ISS began 20 years before it was
actualized, and now we're less than ten years out from the
administration's proposed extension to 2024. Does NASA have
plans for some sort of station in low Earth orbit beyond 2024,
perhaps some sort of public/private partnerships? Perhaps there
are current international partners for an ISS replacement? Or
does NASA intend to leave any LEO station entirely to
commercial companies?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. I think at this point we're looking to
see if we can leave low-Earth orbit to commercial companies.
What we're doing is we're allowing them to do investigations on
Station to see if they can get a market return, and it makes
sense to do that. Then we believe the agency's role is then to
push further out into space to go into the region around the
moon we call the proving ground region of space. We will move
our research and our endeavors into that further region that
helps the agency get prepared to take bigger missions
ultimately towards Mars.
So at this point, we're envisioning the low-Earth orbit to
essentially be more of a private-sector activity, and we'll use
the remaining lifetime of Station to let the private sector
understand the benefits of microgravity research to their
terrestrial investigations and see if it helps them from a
fundamental research standpoint.
Mr. Posey. Now that's great to hear. Our government is
investing in capitals, Orion, Dragon, CST-100, Cygnus. Most
capitals are optimized to get crew and cargo back and forth to
the ISS. What role will capitals play once the International
Space Station reaches the end of its life?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Again, for the Commercial Crew Program
and also the Commercial Cargo Program, the companies have an
interest just beyond the NASA need. They're building these
capsules. They'll own the intellectual property. They'll be
able to operate these capsules for their own purposes. If this
private station we discussed earlier is available, they can use
this transportation system to deliver cargo to it. They can
deliver a crew to it, et cetera, outside of the government. So
this will essentially allow the private sector to go get
transportation services on its own from these companies that
we've enabled through these initial start-up contracts on ISS.
Mr. Posey. That's great. The Space Shuttle and X-37, both
examples of reusable spacecraft that lands on a runway also
have had track records of success. Has NASA completely ruled
out the use of reusable runway-capable vehicles for crew or
cargo in the future?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. The simple answer is no. I think in the
case of the Orion vehicle, it's geared towards deep space
activities where carrying wings makes it very difficult to
reenter into the Earth's atmosphere. So the deep space vehicles
will typically be a capsule-type vehicle, but for low-Earth
orbit transportation, winged vehicles are very nice and have
many advantages as we got to see through the Shuttle Program.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Babin. Thank you, and I'd like to now recognize
the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Beyer.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Gerstenmaier, on
the one hand we've had the three unfortunate losses that have
been previously mentioned. On the other hand, it seems that our
commercial space industry is getting ready to grow
exponentially, adding great value to our economy and our
civilization of the new satellites, internet, space tours of
even Mars are talked about.
Can you help us put these accidents in the proper
perspective, especially compared to train and airline and
automobile accidents, 30,000 deaths last year, by the way, NASA
tragedies and all the transportation accidents in history? Are
we looking at the relatively two or three that have come up in
the right perspective compared to the last 150 years?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. That's an interesting question. Again, I
think the positive thing is that in all three of these cases,
there's been no loss of life. So that says our basic processes
and procedures are in place. So we protected the public. We
protected the launch site. We did the right things.
I think the important thing is to not get so fixated on the
problem but how can we learn from this problem, right? As an
emerging industry and developing new transportation system, the
more we fly, there will be small problems. They're acceptable
in this case. As we described earlier, the impacts are not
devastating to Station. They hurt research, but they're still
recoverable. The real tragedy will be if we don't learn from
these events and we don't understand the engineering behind the
failures and improve overall the industry.
So I think just as the aviation industry has suffered a lot
of failures throughout its history, the reason for its success
today and the safety we get in the aircraft industry is a
result of lessons learned and those lessons being applied to
build better and safer aircraft. We need to do the same thing
in the space industry. We need to take this learning from these
events, internalize it, not be afraid of it, figure out how to
make design changes, change the way we build spacecraft and
build a more robust transportation system.
So I see this as a painful but maybe somewhat necessary
learning process. It's excellent to learn on cargo. We do not
want to learn on crew. We will learn from cargo and apply those
lessons to crew.
Mr. Beyer. Well, thank you for your positive and your
optimistic attitude which I very much appreciate.
While you have the microphone though, the Aerospace Safety
Advisory Panel, ASAP, has identified micro-meteoroid and
orbital debris as a top safety risk facing ISS. How does NASA
address these concerns about orbital debris?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. We have shielding on board our Space
Station and spacecraft that can protect for some debris. We
cannot protect for all debris. We've recently implemented some
changes to the Progress vehicle, the Progress launch that just
occurred. It had new debris shields on that Progress vehicle.
So we're continuing to improve the debris protection
capability, and then we actively train on orbit. Just as we
train terrestrially for fire drills, et cetera, we train for
evacuation drills of Space Station in case we get hit by a
piece of micro-meteoroid debris that penetrates a pressure
shell. So we're prepared in that event. It is our highest risk
when we look across the risk scenario. We protect it with the
shielding levels that we can protect for it at this stage of
Station's life.
Mr. Beyer. All right. Thank you very much. Dr. Pawelczyk,
you testified that during the 2000s, it resulted in NASA's
priorities that the life, space life, and physical sciences
were particularly hard hit, and a lot of scientists actually
left the field. Do you have any concerns about the level of the
workforce and expertise in that field today, especially as we
get ready to think about man's missions to Mars?
Dr. Pawelczyk. Thank you very much for the question. I'd
say the short answer is no. You're absolutely right that those
particular functions were very hard hit. We saw about an 80
percent decrement in the science portfolios in fundamental
biology and in the physical sciences. One of the great things
that has happened since 2011 is that NASA has reinstituted a
ground-based program. If you look at the numbers of people who
are applying, they're in the hundreds for solicitation right
now. There's active funding that is happening and bringing
research up to the Station. So you're starting to see that
coming back. But what's even more interesting about it is that
you're seeing maybe some of the youngest scientists that have
really schooled in the entrepreneurial spirit saying, hey, this
is something I'd like to take an opportunity and check out.
You know, the ISS Research Conference this week was about
three times bigger than what it was just a year ago. So there's
a growing spirit, and we need to continue to feed that spirit,
and I think great things will happen as a result.
Mr. Beyer. That's great, and thank you for your enthusiasm.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you. Now I'd like to
recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Bridenstine.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
all of our panelists for coming and testifying before this
Committee. Mr. Gerstenmaier, I appreciate your long and
distinguished service at NASA going back to negotiating with
the Russians on the Mir program and other things in the '90s,
and that's really where I'd like to start today. When you think
about right now, given the recent accidents that we've gone
through, we are seeing how important our reliance is on things
like the Russian Progress cargo spacecraft and of course the
Russian Soyuz crew spacecraft. Given how the relationship has
changed between the United States and Russia, and we've even
heard that, you know, the Russians have talked about pulling
out of the International Space Station, what is your judgment
on how this relation can go forward? How is it going on the
civil space side given the strained relations in other areas?
Can you share with us your opinion on that?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Yes. On the civil space side, the
relationship between the United States or between NASA and the
Russians is very strong. We exchange data every day back and
forth. We pass many commands to the Space Station, Russian
commands through UAS. We use their assets as you've said for
transportation reboost. We're very much mutually dependent upon
each other for operations in space, and from a technical
standpoint, the relationship is extremely strong, extremely
transparent in spite of the governmental tensions between the
two governments.
So the challenge of human spaceflight kind of transcends a
little bit of the toughness of the outside world, and we're
working together extremely effectively with the Russians. The
recent Progress loss, they've been sharing data with us. We've
been working together to actively get ready to go fly crew on
the 23rd of this month with the Russians, and they've been open
with us, sharing data with us, helping us understand. They
understand our needs. So the relationship is extremely strong
between the civil space side.
Mr. Bridenstine. How confident are you that they will
continue the partnership beyond 2020?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Again, I think they're working through
their governmental approval process. I think it's likely
potentially by the end of this year when their federal space
program gets approved that there will be an extension of the
Russians to support the Space Station through at least 2024.
Mr. Bridenstine. Mr. Elbon, we have heard the IG has a
report indicating that the operations of the ISS are going to
become more difficult because of the ability to take
replacement parts to the International Space Station. Recently
Boeing had a report that might not have contradicted but dealt
with some of those issues. Can you share with us the Boeing
position? They were suggesting that beyond 2020, things get
really difficult. I think your report suggested 2028. Can you
share with us how you're dealing with those issues?
Mr. Elbon. Sure. Thanks for the question. The study that we
did looked at things like the structural integrity of the
elements on board, the ability to survive micro-meteorite kind
of penetration and came to the conclusion that through 2028 is
completely feasible relative to the hardware that's on orbit.
The other part of the question is what about the logistics
resupply to replace boxes that fail on orbit of computers, et
cetera, and to supply the crew? And based on the logistics
model that NASA's laid out and is using for the procurement of
Commercial Resupply Services 2, you know, that kind of volume
and up-mass is sufficient to support the logistics resupply
that's necessary based on our analysis.
So we think through 2028 is completely doable.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you. Thank you for that testimony.
Mr. Gerstenmaier, I appreciated Mr. Posey's question about, you
know, what comes next after the ISS? Clearly whether it's 2020,
2028, we could lose partners. We don't know when we might lose
certain partners. We have to think about what comes next in
LEO. And I would like to just follow up with that. Can NASA
provide a report to Congress on its plans for a roadmap or a
timeline for certifying and testing, you know, a post-ISS
station in LEO? And I understand this question was about
commercial and things like that, and certainly, that's of
interest as well. But it would have to be tested and certified,
and NASA would have to be involved, is that correct? Can you
provide a timeline to Congress for that?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Again, I think the way we need to think
about this is that the next private Space Station may not be--
in fact, I don't believe it will be as massive or as big as
this Space Station we have today, with this International Space
Station. There's been discussion by the SpaceX Corporation of
using their crew transportation modules called Dragon Lab where
they can do individual investigations. We've talked to Orbital
about potentially using their cargo vehicle as a temporary
space station in low-Earth orbit. So I think when we think
about the private sector taking over, we don't need to think
about this big massive investment of a space station. They can
learn what research really benefits them. If it's in the
pharmaceutical area, if it's in materials processing, if it's
in protein crystal growth, they can build a unique capability
to do that. It can be much smaller.
So I think the private sector has the capability and can do
that on their own, and again, I think NASA's role is to kind of
move that human presence further. And we want to go into the
region around the moon so there may be a habitation capability
again supplied potentially by the private sector for cargo in
the vicinity of the moon. But I think NASA's next focus is some
kind of habitation capability potentially in the vicinity of
the moon.
Mr. Bridenstine. Roger that. I yield back.
Chairman Babin. Thank you. And now I'd like to recognize
the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
panelists. Mr. Administrator, it's good to see you. Some days
you're here after we've had successes. Some days you're here
after we've had some disappointments but appreciate the fact
that we just keep moving forward. And it's not easy. You know,
this is a risky business that you all are in, and we recognize
that. And we don't want to have many disappointments. We want
to have mostly successes.
And I became more comfortable in understanding the kind of
oversight that goes with the contractor-led investigation
process, that in fact you are very involved and that there has
to be some kind of sign-off as part of all of this because,
oftentimes we have everybody looking over everybody else's
shoulder. This seems to be a pretty sensible way to approach
it, and I appreciate that.
My questions are generally for you, Dr. Pawelczyk, and for
you, Ms. Oakley, just really on what our research is doing on
the Space Station that will help us as we move forward to
sending our astronauts to Mars and for you so we have the
researcher and the futurist, if you will, sitting next to the
one who has to figure out how do you pay for it and what's the
return.
So I'd like to have you answer. Just generally, how do you
see the Space Station advancing our goal of going to Mars? And
I'd like to ask you, Ms. Oakley, what do you see in terms of
the cost and the benefits from an accountant's point of view?
So I'll just turn it over to you two.
Dr. Pawelczyk. To make sure that Ms. Oakley has time, I'll
be brief. There are really three issues that we're dealing with
here. They are the biological changes that we see in this
continuous reduced gravity environment. Bone and muscle are
some of the largest. It is this very energetic radiation
environment that we understand to a large extent from the
standpoint of solid tumors, but when we start to look at
interactions of things like effects in the brain, accelerated
cardiovascular disease----
Mr. Perlmutter. Is this part of why you have one Kelly on
the Space Station and one Kelly on the ground?
Dr. Pawelczyk. It is. It's an absolutely unique experiment
because genetically they're identical. And so the changes in
space give you a chance to really talk about what's the
variation that's exclusively because of the space environment.
And then of course there are the behavioral issues. You
know, we're moving in that futuristic role. Right now the ISS
really works in concert with the ground. When we begin to go to
inter-planetary operations, those crew members are going to be
working quite autonomously from the ground. It's just a matter
of distance. And so how people function, independent of this
planet, will be very different than how we operate on the ISS
today.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you.
Ms. Oakley. The bottom line is NASA does need a robust
science program on the International Space Station to be able
to achieve those longer-term exploration goals. However, NASA
has to be able to pay for it, and the Congress has to be able
to pay for it. And that relies on a robust commercial
participation in low-Earth orbit to be able to do some of the
things that NASA needs to divert funding for the longer term
exploration goals, too. Like Mr. Gerstenmaier was referring to,
being able to establish those markets in low-Earth orbit to do
some of the research that's going to be required to support
those long-duration human exploration flights is going to be
essential, and getting them to pay for it is also going to be
essential because going to Mars is expensive.
Mr. Perlmutter. So are you comfortable with the accounting
and the auditing that's gone on to date on this program? I
mean, the numbers?
Ms. Oakley. On the International Space Station program? I
haven't looked specifically at the accounting associated with
that. What I will say is that I haven't seen any cost estimates
associated with extending the International Space Station
program beyond 2020, and I think that that's going to be key
for the understanding of approving the funding and for
everybody getting a very good understanding of what it's going
to take to do the extension, to do the science that's required
and to do it safely.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. Thank you. Just one more question,
and to Mr. Martin, we've had some incidents now where there
have been some failures. We had some schools in Colorado that
had experiments on both the Orbital launch and also most
recently on the SpaceX, same school. They did it twice, and
they lost both.
How do we account for the cargo that's lost? Is there any
compensation to those people or those schools or whatever?
Mr. Martin. There is not. I think CASIS on the two flights
of SpaceX and the Orbital failures lost over $650,000 of CASIS-
funded experiments on those flights. The poor school children
in your district lost two sets; NASA, as Mr. Gerstenmaier
indicated, over $100 million, that's gone. The taxpayers are
paying for that.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. Well, I thank you for your testimony.
Thank you all for being here today, and I yield back.
Chairman Babin. Thank you, sir. And now I'd like to
recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Knight.
Mr. Knight. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a couple of
questions. Mr. Gerstenmaier, as a police officer who does
investigations on accidents, we have seen a big change in our
accident investigation over the last 50 years. I would expect
to have seen a big change in investigations over space problems
over the last 60 years.
It hasn't been easy going to space in the 1960s. It isn't
easy today. Can you give me an idea of how investigations go
today and how we can either move through the process, making
sure that we're going through and hitting the points and making
sure that we're becoming safer as we move through the
investigation, but also making sure we can go quicker because
the faster we can move, the faster we can do more of this.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Kind of our underpinning is first of all
we need to be careful we don't jump to conclusions or assume
that we know what the failure is to begin with. So we do a very
methodical process of where we gather all the data. We need to
make sure the time synchronization of that data is all
critical, and that's not easy. You know, these events occur in
milliseconds. So if you have a camera that's running and the
time is on that, you have to make sure that the time on that
camera is identical to the telemetry that's coming from the
spacecraft. You know, is the timing of when the event occurred
recorded on the spacecraft versus recorded after it's received
on the ground? So that radio delay time to get down is
important.
So the first thing is to gather the data, get it all time
synchronous. Then you can start through the methodical process
of building what we call a fault tree. So we essentially
brainstorm. There are now electronic tools available that
automatically build a fault tree for us. They ask inquisitive
questions. You lay out all the potential failures that could
occur, that could have contributed to the event, which ones
have to occur maybe with another event. Then your team
meticulously goes through and then crosses off each one of
those events as they move forward.
In terms of speed, what we're seeing here in the case of
SpaceX is because they're a very much vertically integrated
company. They do almost all of their work in-house. They
immediately went to testing certain components. So even though
they showed up on the fault tree, they said why don't we just
go ahead and build up a test rig right now and we'll be
prepared to go test.
So even these short number of days between the event and
now they're off, actually off in the laboratory doing some
stress tests on some components that may contribute kind of as
a parallel activity to this more methodical process I laid out.
So I think the advantage and the speed piece is we can use
tools. We can use analysis. We have software, and then we can
do physical tests in a much faster time than we did before.
Mr. Knight. No, and I agree. I talked to SpaceX several
times since the incident, and Virgin and The Spaceship Company,
after Spaceship II went down. And they were. They were jumping
on it quickly, and they were learning things very fast. And it
seems to me that the investigation process, and now with
private companies being in fault, it seems like it is going a
little bit faster. And that is a good thing. We want to make it
safer. I know everyone wants to make it as safe as they
possibly can, and that's the truth. Spaceflight still is in its
infancy, and we're still learning and we will be for hundreds
of years yet. And the faster we can get through some of these
investigations, the faster we can move and progress.
Doctor, I just had one question for you because I think
that there was some good conversation there that we've got an
astronaut working today, and we've got one on the ground. And I
think that we'll get some good information there on what the
effects are on the body when we actually send people to Mars on
such a long, prolonged spaceflight.
Can you give us an idea of what we're going to look at in
the next 35 years, or maybe shorter as Administrator Bolden
thinks, of when we are going to go to Mars and the effects on
the body, not just the radiation but the time in space?
Dr. Pawelczyk. So Mr. Knight, I apologize. I forgot my
crystal ball this morning. But I'll do the best I can.
Mr. Knight. You're a kinesiologist. You should know this.
Dr. Pawelczyk. So we have mentioned, you know, a couple of
those risks that we're seeing in the radiation realm. What's
been really interesting to look at, if I talked to you ten
years ago I would have told you that I expected to see about 50
percent bone loss from a human being. We thought that that's
essentially what gravity confers.
We've seen with some of the implementation strategies for
countermeasures on the ISS, that we're looking probably a lot
better than that. I'm not willing to say that we have bone
completely mitigated at this point. But some of the loading
strategies are considerably better.
We've also seen some newly-emergent risks, and that's
always the problem. One particular with vision of astronauts.
And that is actively being worked on by NASA. So there's been a
number of ground-based research protocols. So this is a great
example of how NASA quickly identified a problem, immediately
engaged the scientific community to try to effect solutions.
Mr. Knight. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir. I'd like to recognize the
gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Well, thank you, folks, and I'm a big
fan of space exploration. I'm a big Buck Rogers fan, Star Trek,
all of those kinds of things, growing up with them as a kid. I
say that jokingly, but I can tell you that sitting in my living
room floor between the summer of my ninth- and tenth-grade year
and watching Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin land on the moon,
it captivated me as it did the rest of the world, and I've
never gotten over that. So I have tremendous respect for what
you folks do and the discoveries that we're making through our
space exploration process.
Mr. Gerstenmaier, just one question for you to start off
with. The ISS has not yet been extended by Congress. However,
the administration has proposed to extend to 2024. How many of
our international partners have agreed to extension? And what
steps is NASA taking to build a coalition of our international
partners for an extension?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. The Canadian Space Agency has agreed to
extend to 2024. So we have one partner on board, that's the
Canadian Space Agency, who does a lot of our robotic activities
and have the robotic equipment aboard Station. As I described
earlier, the Russians, potentially by the end of this year,
could be on board with the extension to 2024. The Japanese are
also actively looking at Station extension. They could do that
again probably by the end of this year, possibly by the start
of their next fiscal year which is in April of 2016, and the
Japanese are actively working on that and we're working with
them.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. All right.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. And the European Space Agency, they're
again working through their overall budget process. They've
committed to support us on the Orion capsule as you know. The
teams in Ohio are working with them on the European Service
Module that sits underneath the Orion capsule. They're pretty
much committed. They're not committed to Station yet. They will
do probably that in 2017 formally, but they're doing all the
activities of getting with all the member states and all the
member countries to approve, and they see again tremendous
benefit. It's just working through their big governmental
process on the ESA side. So I think all partners are heading
towards Station extension to 2024 in a varying timeframe.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. A quick follow-up. How significant of
a partner are the Russians? I mean, we're pretty dependent upon
the Russians right now in terms of getting there and back,
correct?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Yes. We're dependent upon them for crew
transportation. We also use them for altitude adjustments of
Space Station. They provide the propellant that reboosts
Station. They're dependent upon us for solar as ray or power
generation. They also use us for commands and other activities.
So we're kind of mutually dependent back and forth between
both.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Are you having any discussions--I'm
sure you've heard the testimony of the potential incoming new
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs who has stated that the Russians
are our biggest security risk, security threat? I mean, we're
kind of in a dichotomy with the Russians here. You guys
concerned about that? And what's your back-up plan?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Again, I would say, first of all, from a
civil space standpoint, as I described earlier we have a very
strong relationship with the Russians and will continue to do
that. I think we need to again look at what happens if the
Russians pull out in certain key areas. As we're working hard
on the Commercial Crew Program, we want to end our sole
reliance on the crew transportation system as soon as we can,
and funding for that is absolutely critical to get it in place
so we can have a U.S. capability to augment the Russians in the
December 2017 or so timeframe.
So I think we're moving out on crew transportation. The
other areas that I described where we're dependent, we have
work-arounds and we can put systems in place to recoup that if
we have to. But at the end, I think it's advantageous to us if
we can cooperate. There's real advantages to us. That's the
right way to go forward. These endeavors require of us all to
work together, but we also need to be not so naive that if a
problem occurs, that we can't continue on without a certain
partner.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Okay. All right. Well, you know, I
guess, you know, we've had some failures with the commercial
avenue. And I'm sure that you are, but I hope there's a lot of
discussion going on because if we continue to experience
similar failures like we had with the Commercial Cargo Program
and the Russians were to back out, our options become smaller
and fewer. Okay, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Babin. Thank you. Now I'd like to recognize the
gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I
remember when the Space Station was first approved. It only won
by one vote in this Committee, one vote. Boy, I'm glad I voted
for it. Don't disappoint me. Don't disappoint me now.
Does anyone here know the level of CO2 that is
in the atmosphere of the Space Station? You have an internal
atmosphere. What element do we put CO2 in? There's a
lot of talk about CO2 in the planet now. What does
CO2 do in the Space Station?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. I believe we've been holding it low
because of the potential eye problems. I think we're running
about three millimeters of mercury of partial pressure of
CO2 on board Station.
Mr. Rohrabacher. How does that compare to the CO2
that we have in our atmosphere here?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. It's higher than the atmosphere we have
in the room here, and we've typically allowed, prior to the
intracranial pressure problems associated with the vision, we
allowed it to go up on the order of six or so millimeters per
mercury, and that's dramatically higher than the environment
here. So it's higher CO2 levels on board Station
than we see here.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Have there been any health-related
problems, this increased level of CO2 that
astronauts breathe in during their time at the Space Station as
compared to what they would breathe in here?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Yes, we're not sure but we think it could
contribute to the intracranial pressure problem which causes
the eye and vision problem we described. At higher elevated
levels of CO2 you can get headaches. You can have
some other physiological problems. And again, we try to control
that as low as we can. We have a Russian device that removes
carbon dioxide. We have a U.S. device that removes carbon
dioxide. Then we also have some absorbent material that also
removes it. And then we have a next generation of system that
will fly on the Orion capsule that's also on board Station, and
we can use that also to remove CO2.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Because we are actually exhaling CO2
all the time, right? So we have to be--if you're in an enclosed
environment, be very concerned with what the human body itself
is exhaling.
In terms of the future of Space Station, do we have plans
to expand, put different elements onto the Space Station at
this point?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Currently on the U.S. side, we just
reconfigured the permanent multi-purpose module from one
location to another location. That was to make room for a
docking adaptor that we discussed earlier to let commercial
vehicles come. That's about all we're going to do on the U.S.
side. There's no major new additions coming. The Russians have
talked about a solar power platform to provide some solar
energy for their segment. The Russians have also talked about a
multi-purpose logistics module, another research module that
they may add to Station.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Does the----
Mr. Gerstenmaier. So the Russians may add some additional
modules, but we on the U.S. side don't have any major additions
planned.
Mr. Rohrabacher. The Bigelow Company has actually invested
a considerable amount of money in developing a new concept for
space habitat, the inflatables. Is there any use of this
technology?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Yes, it'll be added to Space Station next
year. It's a demonstration capability. This is an expandable
module that will be added to the outside of Station. It will
stay there for about a year or year-and-a-half, and then we'll
remove it from Station. Its purpose is to investigate the
advantages of an expandable module. So instead of a rigid
pressure shell, it's to understand what we can gain from the
expandable technology. It has some very thick walls, so it may
be better from a micro-meteoroid to penetration standpoint. It
also may be better thermally. That needs to be looked at. And
the acoustic environment may be better.
So the idea is to get it on orbit, actually take those
claims, test them on orbit with Space Station, use the unique
capabilities of Station, confirm if that module technology is
something we want to use going forward.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And it might also be cheaper than the
traditional way of building a space station which is something
we should be concerned about.
Let me just note two things, one is that orbital debris
continues to be and always was and is an expanding concern. I
believe that this is something NASA should look at, not just in
terms of Space Station, but we should be thinking about
international cooperative effort to just deal with the debris
problem. That's something we need to, this Committee should be
dealing with at least in the time ahead.
And second and last of all, let me just note that your
report on your cooperation with Russia during this time period
when there are, how do you say, frictions going on between the
United States and Russia, I think demonstrates a very wonderful
aspect of space and that is once you get up there, you look
back down on the Earth and some of those problems don't seem as
important or we're able to put it in perspective, and I'm happy
to hear that we are and that the Russians are putting these
areas of friction in perspective to the point that we can work
together and create a better world while we're doing it. So
thank you very much for demonstrating that to all of us.
Chairman Babin. Thank you. We have just had votes called,
and I want to thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony
and the members for all their questions. I'd really, if we
would have had time, I would have liked to have gone through
with a second round, but the record will remain open for two
weeks for additional comments and for written questions from
members. And it's our hope that the Office of Management and
Budget will work more expeditiously with NASA to put together
responses to these questions.
The Committee is still waiting for NASA's responses to
questions for the Commercial Crew hearing from six months ago.
Mr. Gerstenmaier, please send back the message that these
delays are not acceptable.
The witnesses are excused, and this hearing is adjourned.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 10:45 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]