[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AN OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS
AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION BUDGET
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 8, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-16
__________
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
26-233PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
BILL POSEY, Florida ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky AMI BERA, California
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
BRIAN BABIN, Texas JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia JERRY MCNERNEY, California
GARY PALMER, Alabama ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia PAUL TONKO, New York
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana BILL FOSTER, Illinois
DRAIN LaHOOD, Illinois MARK TAKANO, California
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
JIM BANKS, Indiana CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana
------
Subcommittee on Space
HON. BRIAN BABIN, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California AMI BERA, California, Ranking
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma Member
MO BROOKS, Alabama ZOE LOFGREN, California
BILL POSEY, Florida DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida BILL FOSTER, Illinois
JIM BANKS, Indiana EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
June 8, 2017
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....................................... 4
Written Statement............................................ 6
Statement by Representative Ami Bera, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 8
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 12
Written Statement............................................ 14
Witnesses:
Mr. Robert M. Lightfoot, Jr., Acting Administrator, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Oral Statement............................................... 16
Written Statement............................................ 19
Discussion....................................................... 30
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. Robert M. Lightfoot, Jr., Acting Administrator, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA)..................... 58
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Statement submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 76
AN OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS
AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION BUDGET
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 2017
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Space,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 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 Subcommittee on Space will come to
order. And without objection, the Chair is authorized to
declare recesses of the Subcommittee at any time.
Welcome to today's haring entitled ``An Overview of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Budget for Fiscal
Year 2018.'' I now recognize myself for five minutes for an
opening statement.
NASA is a critical national investment in our future. Our
nation has never faced a more challenging, relevant, or
promising frontier than the vast reaches of outer space. I am
very proud that this Committee clearly recognizes and
demonstrates that U.S. leadership in space is a bipartisan
priority.
The recent passage and enactment of the 2017 NASA
Transition Authorization Act this March is concrete proof of
the bipartisan and bicameral commitment to NASA. This budget
reflects the Administration's commitment to the continuity of
purpose described in the recent authorization. Honoring our
commitments in space and maintaining a balanced portfolio are
the surest ways for us to enjoy the full benefits of our space
investments.
The numbers in this request are lower than the amounts in
the enacted budget, which causes some concern. However, the
preliminary budget blueprint was released before Congressional
appropriations. Therefore, the lower request does not
necessarily reflect a reduction in Administration support for
NASA. In fact, the current request is in line with recent
levels appropriated by Congress. This goes a long way to fixing
problems that have plagued NASA programs over the last eight
years. This budget request is refreshing in that it does not
propose slashing priority programs year after year. This will
allow NASA managers to execute programs in an efficient manner.
I want to reiterate the Committee's commitment to NASA's
long-term goals, as described in law. Mars remains the first
interplanetary destination for humanity. NASA is encouraged to
carry out any necessary intermediate missions, particularly to
the Moon, provided that those missions advance future
interplanetary exploration.
Closer to home, the future of the International Space
Station is a top concern. Currently, the ISS will operate until
2024, but the role of the ISS beyond 2024 must be addressed
soon. Similarly, I am also interested in understanding what
NASA's plans are for future space suit work.
Turning to NASA's scientific exploration, this budget
request restores balance across NASA's science portfolio and
supports critical work across the entire science directorate.
Work continues on the James Webb Space Telescope, which I am
very proud to say is currently in our home district at the
Johnson Space Center for testing where I was yesterday, along
with Acting Administrator Lightfoot and our Chairman of the
main Science Committee, I'm very proud to say, along with the
Vice President of the United States, meeting our 12 new
astronauts of class 2017.
But back to the budget. The budget supports a range of
small, medium, and large science missions, including the
flagship Europa Clipper and Mars 2020 rover missions. During
the Obama Administration, the pipeline for outer-planet
missions was allowed to run dry. This budget returns support
for a robust planetary exploration program, which is a national
priority. U.S. leadership in space science is critical in part
because it supports so much of NASA's broader mission.
Under this budget, NASA Aeronautics will continue its work
on innovative technologies, including a low boom supersonic
flight demonstrator and hypersonic flight. These programs
continue to benefit our civil and military aeronautics efforts.
NASA's work in the Space Technology Mission Directorate
will be critical in future space exploration. Work on space
technologies like laser communication, in-space propulsion, and
power systems will allow human exploration to complement the
robotic exploration of Mars and other celestial bodies.
NASA has many exciting projects and missions across its
portfolio. Indeed, NASA may be on the threshold of one of the
greatest inflection points in the history of space exploration.
Soon, SLS, Orion, Dragon 2, and Starliner vehicles will take
their first flights. The James Webb Space Telescope will see
its first light. Human presence in low-Earth orbit is maturing,
and the ISS will begin evolving to the next phase of its life.
And soon, NASA will begin construction of the Deep Space
Gateway, the first permanent human outpost beyond low-Earth
orbit. Of course, this era of excitement will also be a time of
high risk. But with Congressional and Administration budgetary
and political support, the next decade could very well mark a
new golden age of space exploration. And I want to thank Acting
Administrator Lightfoot for his testimony and look forward to
his discussion.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Babin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. And now, I'd like to recognize the Ranking
Member, the gentleman from California, Mr. Bera, for an opening
statement.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning. Welcome to Acting Administrator Lightfoot,
and thank you for your dedicated service to NASA over the many
years.
The fiscal year 2018 proposal for NASA is $19.1 billion, a
nearly three percent reduction from last year's fiscal year
budget. And, in the context of the overall federal budget, you
know, $19 billion does suggest a recognition of the importance
of NASA and, you know, both from the Administration perspective
as well as ours. But there are a few things that give me pause
when I look at the detail of the budget.
Part of our goal--being a child of the space race--is
education and inspiring that next generation, and one thing
that I do worry about is the cut in the education budget, and I
certainly want to hear from Administrator Lightfoot how we
might go about continuing to inspire that next generation, our
children, and that next generation of astronauts, especially in
such a vibrant, exciting time with regards to space, when we
think about the multiple missions, when we think about human
space travel potentially to Mars and back again, when we think
about the existential questions like the search for life, are
we alone, and what does that look like the rapidity by which we
are discovering planets that potentially could house life.
The Chairman talked about the missions going to deeper
space. I thought the second half of the 20th century was a
super exciting time for space, but I truly believe the coming
decades are going to be much more exciting. You're seeing the
rapid entry of the private sector into space, the
commercialization of space, the amount of venture money that's
going into space. And I truly believe that this has the ability
of inspiring the next generation of scientists, of engineers,
et cetera, as they see that, and I want to make sure we
continue that.
There is about a nine percent cut to NASA's exploration
budget. That does give me a little bit of pause as well, again,
at a time where I think we've got to continue U.S. leadership
in space. Space in the 21st century will be an international
endeavor, as other countries get engaged. That said, I still
think U.S. leadership and American ingenuity with regards to
space is going to be incredibly important.
The last thing is, as we look at the multiple missions,
what we discover in space also helps us understand our own
planet much better and Earth, and I do want to make sure that
the Earth sciences mission is also protected. NASA obviously
has a critical role in the Earth sciences mission, and I
certainly want to hear from the Acting Administrator.
That said, NASA is a source for many of us of national
pride. It is certainly something that, you know, we think leads
the way. And I think NASA also, as we look at international
diplomacy, how we work with other countries around the world,
space, and the International Space Station is a model example
of how the world can work together, especially as these
discoveries are not just for the United States, they're for all
of humanity.
So with that, I look forward to hearing from Mr. Lightfoot,
and I'll yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bera follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Mr. Bera.
I now recognize the Chairman of our Full Committee, Mr.
Smith from Texas.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome,
Acting Administrator Lightfoot. As Chairman Babin said a minute
ago, it was good to see you at Johnson Space Center yesterday.
I'm still amazed that you got up here in time to be at this
hearing today.
Mr. Chairman, this Committee has consistently demonstrated
that U.S. leadership in space is a bipartisan priority. The
2017 NASA Transition Authorization Act, signed into law in
March by President Trump, is a clear demonstration of that. A
key concept in the current NASA Authorization is continuity of
purpose. Over the years, erratic direction and changes in
mission have repeatedly led our space exploration effort
astray.
The fiscal year 2018 NASA budget shows that Congress and
the Administration both support a consistent, focused space
program. The amounts requested in this budget for not only the
Space Launch System and Orion crew vehicle and the commercial
crew and cargo programs reflect this. These requests are much
closer to past appropriations and are realistic and reasonable,
providing an increased level of stability and continuity of
purpose for two of NASA's main initiatives.
This year's Authorization Act also declares that NASA's
goals include extending human presence throughout the solar
system. Accordingly, NASA continues to focus on Mars as its
first interplanetary destination for human exploration. NASA
should conduct missions to intermediate destinations on the way
to Mars, such as the Moon, so long as those activities support
subsequent journeys to Mars and beyond.
Previews of NASA's Deep Space Gateway program architecture
have given us a peek at NASA's plans. We look forward to
reviewing the Human Exploration Roadmap on how NASA plans to
pursue its human space exploration goals in coming decades.
It's good to see that the NASA budget request ends the
previous Administration's ill-conceived Asteroid Mission. The
2017 NASA Transition Authorization Act clearly reflects the
concerns of both Congress and NASA's Advisory Council about the
utility and cost-effectiveness of that mission. Instead, other
and more needed technologies will be developed under different
programs.
Likewise, within the Science Mission Directorate, the
budget promotes a much better balance among NASA's many
scientific endeavors, especially for planetary science. And it
starts to reverse the significant growth in earth science. The
Obama Administration's fiscal year 2017 earth science request
was 42 percent higher than its request for planetary science,
and that's 75 percent higher than the amount requested for
earth science in 2007. As a reminder, there are many other
federal agencies involved in earth science research, but only
one agency that promotes space exploration. This budget
reflects the idea that while NASA can continue to develop
state-of-the-art Earth-sensing programs, it is not a piggy bank
for funding climate activities already addressed elsewhere in
the Federal Government.
The James Webb Space Telescope, which I saw under
construction yesterday at Johnson Space Center, continues on
budget and on schedule after NASA and Congress worked to
correct for overruns and delays. We continue to expect a launch
in October next year. NASA science supports other activities,
too. The Transitioning Exoplanet Survey Satellite and the Wide
Field Infrared Space Telescope will increase our understanding
of exoplanets.
And I want to emphasize that the recent authorization bill
directs NASA to, quote ``search for life's origin, evolution,
distribution, and future in the universe.'' The James Webb
Telescope, Wide Field Telescope, and Exoplanet Survey Satellite
will certainly advance this priority.
Congress has the responsibility for setting the top-level
direction and missions for NASA and has done so with the 2017
NASA Transition Authorization Act. NASA is responsible for
providing a compelling plan and executing it. Now that we have
received the budget request, it is Congress' next
responsibility to ensure NASA's budget is prioritized and
funded. Of all the non-defense, non-security agencies in the
Federal Government, NASA has received the most favorable
proposed budget. And I am sure that this Committee will
continue to support American leadership in space.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and yield back.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Ranking Member of the full Committee is not here yet,
so we're going to go on to introductions of our guests. Mr.
Robert M. Lightfoot, Jr., our witness today, Acting
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. His permanent title is Associate Administrator
for NASA.
Before serving as Acting Administrator, Mr. Lightfoot was
Director of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville,
Alabama, where he managed propulsion, scientific, and space
transportation activities.
From 2003 to 2005, he served as Assistant Associate
Administrator for the Space Shuttle Program at NASA's
headquarters right here in Washington where he oversaw
technical and budgetary oversight of the annual budget and
initial transition and retirement efforts for the space shuttle
infrastructure.
From 2005 to 2007, Mr. Lightfoot was responsible for
overseeing the manufacture, assembly, and operation of the
primary shuttle propulsion elements such as the main engines,
solid rocket boosters, and reusable solid rocket motors.
Mr. Lightfoot received a bachelor's degree in mechanical
engineering from the University of Alabama. He was also named
distinguished departmental fellow from the University's
Department of Mechanical Engineering in 2007 and was selected
as a University of Alabama College of Engineering fellow in
2009.
And I would like to recognize Mr. Lightfoot for five
minutes to present his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT M. LIGHTFOOT, JR.,
ACTING ADMINISTRATOR,
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS
AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Lightfoot. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's
great to be here. I want to thank you and Chairman Smith for
being in Houston yesterday. It was a very exciting event, and
we appreciate your support----
Chairman Babin. Absolutely.
Mr. Lightfoot. --the team. Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee, I'm pleased to have the opportunity to discuss
NASA's fiscal year 2018 budget request. We appreciate the
Committee's support and especially your bipartisan commitment
to the constancy of purpose for NASA. The Transition
Authorization Act for 2017 and the Consolidated Appropriations
Act of 2017 are concrete contributions to this vital
continuity, and we appreciate the Committee's hard work on
NASA's behalf.
NASA's historic and enduring purpose can be summarized in
three major strategic thrusts: discover, explore, and develop.
These correspond to our missions of scientific discovery,
missions of exploration, and missions of new technology
development in aeronautics and space systems. NASA is focused
on these missions, but we never lose sight of the other
contributions that our unique achievements make possible.
NASA's missions inspire the next generation. They inject
innovation into the national economy, they provide critical
infrastructure, information to national challenges, and they
support global engagement and international leadership.
The fiscal year 2018 request of $19.1 billion supports a
vigorous program that leads the world in space and aeronautics.
And while we had to make some difficult decisions in regard to
earth science and education, this remains a great budget for
NASA.
With this budget, we will advance U.S. global leadership in
aeronautics by developing and transferring key enabling
technologies. In fiscal year 2018 we'll award a contract for
detailed aircraft design, build, and validation of a low boom
flight demonstrator. This low boom X-plane will demonstrate
quiet overland supersonic flight, opening a new market to U.S.
industry.
NASA will also use 20 spaceborne missions to study the
Earth as a system. The request supports two new missions by the
end of 2018, the GRACE Follow-On mission, which will track
water across the planet by precisely measuring Earth's
gravitational field; and ICESat-2, which will measure ice
sheets, clouds, and vegetation canopy heights. We supply earth
science data for weather forecasting, farming, water
management, disaster response, and even disease early warning.
In September, Cassini will make a final series of 22 daring
dives through the 1,500-mile-wide gap between the planet and
its rings as part of its grand finale end-of-mission maneuvers.
The OSIRIS-REx mission will conduct a search for elusive
objects known as Earth trojan asteroids on its journey to the
asteroid Bennu.
We'll also launch Mars InSight lander in 2018 to study the
interior structure of Mars, and we're on track to launch the
next Mars rover mission in 2020.
James Webb continues on schedule for its 2018 launch. That
will be our next giant leap forward in our quest to understand
the universe and our origins.
NASA's Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite or TESS will
launch in 2018 as well, extending the pioneering discoveries of
the Kepler Space Telescope.
In heliophysics, we'll also launch the recently named
Parker Solar Probe on a mission to fly closer to the sun than
any previous mission. That'll join 18 other missions that are
dedicated to studying our closest star.
It's vital that NASA continues the investment in
transformative space technology. In 2018, we'll continue to
work in deep-space optical com, high-powered solar propulsion
technologies, and advanced materials.
The International Space Station, our first step on the road
to deep space exploration, is delivering the knowledge and
technology we need to keep astronauts safe, healthy, and
productive on deep space missions of increasing duration.
Working with our commercial crew partners, NASA plans on
returning crew launch capability to American soil in 2018.
We'll also continue the development of the SLS rocket, the
Orion crew capsule and the ground systems, and the technologies
and research needed to support and deploy critical life-support
and habitation capabilities leading to crewed missions beyond
the Earth-moon system.
In 2019, we'll plan a launch of the un-crewed Exploration
Mission 1 using the new heavy lift launch vehicle SLS and Orion
on a mission to lunar orbit. Shortly after that, no later than
2023, we'll have a crewed mission of EM-2.
With your continued support, we look forward to extending
human presence into deep space, exploring potential habitable
environments around the solar system, and deepening our
understanding of our home planet. We look forward to pushing
our observations of the universe back to the time when the
first stars were forming and opening the space frontier. While
the future benefits of discovery are always difficult to
predict, we are confident that the resources we are requesting
represent an investment that will deliver significant return to
the nation.
Mr. Chairman, I'd be pleased to respond to your questions
and those of other members of the Committee. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lightfoot follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Mr. Lightfoot. I appreciate it.
Thank you.
The Chair recognizes himself for five minutes for
questioning. And again, thank you for being here. We really
appreciate you.
The GAO recently found that both of the commercial crew
contractors are likely to be delayed into 2018 into 2019. Under
normal contracting mechanisms, there would be a penalty
associated with not meeting schedules. My understanding is that
under these contracts the penalty is simply not receiving
payment until the work is completed.
GAO also recently found that the SLS and Orion programs
would also face schedule delays. Conversely, under those
contracts, my understanding is that the contractors could face
the loss of award fees. Can you explain which model provides
the government the best tools to procure a system or service in
the most timely and least costly manner?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, sir, great question. We have--you know,
both groups continue to make great progress, and when we did
the commercial crew program, we tried a new acquisition
strategy approach with fixed-price contracts where, when they
slip, we do simply just pay when they make their milestones. We
have had success with both processes. If you look at TDRS,
which we fly today, it was a fixed-price contract as well.
And what we do internally in the agency is we make an
assessment from an acquisition perspective which way is the
best way for us depending on the amount of development. If
there's a lot of development, we figured--we feel like cost-
plus is the way to go because we may not have the perfect
requirements nailed down. We felt pretty confident in our
requirements when we went to the commercial crew guys and we
felt we could go fixed-price.
So that's really how we assessed it. We have what's called
an acquisitions strategy process that allows us to make an
assessment which way we're going to go as we move forward. So
that's how we did this one, and we think both are options that
we should always consider when we do this.
Chairman Babin. Yes, okay. Thank you. And then regarding
science, the decadal process plays a significant role in how
NASA prioritizes and how Congress funds scientific missions.
This budget proposes cancellation of several earth science
missions that were never recommended by the decadal process,
specifically, PACE, OCO-3, RBI, and DSCOVR, EPIC, NISTAR, and
NISTAR instruments.
With the next earth science decadal survey forthcoming, the
request also rightly proposes cancellation of the CLARREO
Pathfinder. CLARREO could potentially cost in excess of $5
billion, and it is in the early stages of development.
Decisions about the mission would be well served by more
information from the community. All of this begs the question,
why are we funding missions that were not prioritized by the
decadal process?
Mr. Lightfoot. Well, Mr. Chairman, we have always looked at
the decadal process as our guiding principle from that
perspective, but there's other things we can do outside of the
decadals. When we got the budget for this year for the 2018
budget, we went back to our principles of decadals and we
said--we used kind of a three-tier process. We said what's in
the decadals, what's in the--what are the--is this the best
science value for return for what we're doing, and then how are
they performing? So some of the issues like RBI we were having
some performance issues associated with that. And so that's how
we came up with a list of ones that we proposed coming back to
you guys for the fiscal year 2018 budget.
Chairman Babin. Okay. And Mars is often referred to as a
horizon goal for human space exploration. However, if we are
careless in our planning, Mars exploration could become
unsustainable, perhaps even a dead-end. So how would the Deep
Space Gateway make exploration to Mars more sustainable and
help NASA to achieve its mission of extending human presence
throughout the solar system?
Mr. Lightfoot. We believe that what we need is an
infrastructure throughout--from low-Earth orbit to get to Mars
we're going to need some infrastructure along the way. And the
Gateway concept, which is just a concept at this point,
actually provides us kind of a steppingstone approach, and we
figure that's the better way to do it if you go from a
stepping--if you take it one step at a time, we think we can
actually get there in a more efficient way.
It also gives an opportunity for public-private
partnerships to come into play, and we think there's a good mix
that we can do. And if you do it in the steppingstone way,
you're not committing to the final answer first. You're doing
it in a pretty measured way that I think is consistent with the
budgets that we have.
Chairman Babin. And one last question. The Administration
has expressed interest in public-private partnerships. When
used appropriately, funded Space Act agreements are very
useful--a useful tool to advance partnerships. NASA's current
policy limits the use of funded Space Act agreements to cases
where contracts, grants, and cooperative research and
development agreements cannot achieve agency objectives. This
ensures that there is proper oversight of the use of funded
Space Act agreements. Does NASA intend to keep this policy in
place?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, sir. We think we got--we use the entire
suite of tools we have for acquisition, and I think we can--
we'll keep that policy in place.
Chairman Babin. Okay. Thank you very much.
And now, I'd like to recognize the Ranking Member of our
Subcommittee, Mr. Bera.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just continuing on Chairman Babin's line of questioning,
with Mars as a longer goal and thinking about that and looking
at the budget for Space Launch--for SLS and the Orion crew
vehicle--and it does look like it comes in for Orion about $164
million under fiscal year 2017 budget, as well as $212 million
for SLS relative to the fiscal year 2017. How does this impact
our ability to get to Mars if our goal is still, as many of us
on this Committee have said, by 2033? So----
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, I think the budget we've proposed has
got the systems we need in 2018 to keep making the progress we
think we need to make on all the different systems we have.
Clearly, we think we're going to need something commensurate
with inflationary growth or economic growth going forward as we
move forward, but for '18 for this budget, we think we'll make
the progress we need to make on all the systems to get us to
our goals of the Moon and Mars down the road. So----
Mr. Bera. And also, you know, there's a proposed
termination of the Asteroid Redirect Mission. Part of the
thought there was also when that mission was in place was the
next generation of propulsion systems, particularly solar
electric propulsion. I'd be curious, with the proposed
termination of that mission, how's that going to impact solar
electric propulsion?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, this budget keeps solar electric
propulsion in there. One of the things that we discovered in
the work on the Asteroid Redirect Mission is that's a pretty
big enabler for us on some of the things we can do, especially
in the infrastructure we're going to need around the Moon.
Mr. Bera. Right.
Mr. Lightfoot. So we're proposing to keep that and we'll
continue developing that in space technology and use it as part
of something like a power propulsion bus that we'll use around
the Moon as the core for some of the infrastructure we need.
Mr. Bera. So you'll continue to work in that direction----
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bera. --if you've got the resources? And last thing in
my opening comments I talked about the importance of inspiring
the next generation of astronauts, our kids and grandkids. How
does NASA, you know, again with the current budget that's being
proposed for the coming fiscal year propose to continue its
education mission?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, so we've been working on that for a
while with--internal to NASA in terms of the better way to
actually deploy our educational activities that we do in a more
efficient way. So that was one thing we were working before
this came out.
The other thing that we truly believe is that our entire
budget is for inspiring the next generation. I mean, if you
think about yesterday's event with the astronaut candidates, I
mean, it was just really awesome to see the excitement around
that and excitement it generated. The emails I've got today
from just people I know, public I know that they said this is
really neat. And that wasn't an education event; that was us
talking about our missions. And I think our missions are what
inspire people, and I think as long as we're doing the missions
we're doing, we'll continue to inspire the next generation.
Mr. Bera. And do you feel within the current budget you'll
have the ability to go out to schools and continue to do some
of that direct education stuff?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, what we've done is we've got a baseline
services activity we're doing inside the agency to sync--better
sync up our education activities with our outreach activities
so make sure that they're better aligned we go out, and we
absolutely think we'll continue those activities.
Mr. Bera. Okay. And then also, obviously, these are
multiyear missions, multiyear strategic planning as we're
looking at longer-term goals. You know, the Chairman brought up
the International Space Station and we've committed to funding
through 2024. Obviously, that's one thing we've certainly been
meeting with folks, chatting with folks at NASA, as well as
others, the potential possibility as more commercial entities
get into space, as other institutions see this valuable asset
and the academic sector and others, the potential of life after
2024. And I'd be curious in NASA's long-term planning how are
you guys thinking about the ISS in longer-term?
Mr. Lightfoot. Well, as you said, we're approved till
2024----
Mr. Bera. Right.
Mr. Lightfoot. --and what we're working on now is what are
the transition indicators as we would call them? There's very
technical reasons you can go into, science, technologies we can
do, but there's also the question of that is a destination----
Mr. Bera. Right.
Mr. Lightfoot. --for a lot of folks, you know, other than
just us, and it's an enabler frankly of the commercial
industry. So we're looking at that now. We're not planning on
going past 2024, but we're actually talking about what would it
do. And I think as a policy for the United States, we have to
decide whether, you know, it's a symbol of our leadership up
there, too, right?
Mr. Bera. Well, now's the time to do that planning, right?
So we don't----
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, that's what we do.
Mr. Bera. --start that conversation in 2023.
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, agreed.
Mr. Bera. Right. Thanks. I'll yield back.
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Mr. Bera.
I now recognize the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr.
Smith from Texas.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lightfoot, I've already commented on the budget, so let
me ask you some general questions, but let me preface them by
pointing out the obvious, and that is the American people are
absolutely fascinated by space. They're fascinated by space
exploration, they are fascinated by the night sky. I think
there is a real good reason why the Air and Space Museum here
in DC. is the most popular museum in America. It's not an art
museum in California, it's not a history museum even in D.C.,
it's the Air and Space Museum.
And we had an indication of interest in our space program
yesterday when we were at Johnson Space Center, and we had
twice as many people as ever before apply to be an astronaut.
And it is absolutely incredible to me we had 18,000
applications for 12 spots. And that comes out to I think one to
every 1,500 applications, probably the hardest job to get in
America without any question, but on the other hand, they are
our real heroes today and will be tomorrow.
When we think about space exploration and how inspired the
American people are by it, another example would be the
discovery of what, in just the last 12 years of 3,500
exoplanets, several dozen Earthlike planets, and every time
there's any kind of discovery in space, it makes the front page
of the papers, it leads the news at night, and so forth.
But my general question is this: What do you think are the
most exciting things happening in space today? What is going to
seize the imagination of the sixth-grader walking to school or
the adult in their homes?
Mr. Lightfoot. I think you kind of nailed it with your
preface there. To me I think there's--anything that we do with
humans is one piece of that. When you can actually see another
human doing something in space, it really is----
Chairman Smith. Yes.
Mr. Lightfoot. --in our DNA to explore and I think people
feel part of that. But on the science side and the aeronautic
side if you look at the discoveries we're making from the
science standpoint, when we found TRAPPIST-1, the seven
exoplanets--you know, potential exoplanets around the star,
four billion hits on our social media, four billion in all our
different platforms that we have. That's incredible. I mean,
that's the kind of region interest that people have in what
we're doing. And I think--again, I think it's just the fact
that people are--they're inspired by anything we discover,
right, because you're challenging things that we thought we
knew. And I think that's what--so as long as we're doing the
good missions and the big missions like we're talking about, I
think the inspiration will be there.
Chairman Smith. Okay, good. Let me ask you a more specific
question and a leading question, and it's a subject that I'm
fascinated by. And that is that sometime what may be in the
next five to ten years we're going to have the capability of
analyzing the spectra of Earthlike planets and being able to
determine, for example, whether there is methane or oxygen in
the atmosphere, and if so, that is very strong evidence that
there is something alive on the surface. It may be vegetative,
it may be sentient. we don't know. But what do you think we
might discover over the next few years that will possibly be
the biggest space news in a century?
Mr. Lightfoot. Wow. From my crystal ball perspective, I
think--really, I don't know what that discovery will be. You
know, I don't think ten years ago I could've told you we'd have
had 3,500 exoplanets----
Chairman Smith. Yes.
Mr. Lightfoot. --right? But I think what we're doing is
we're working on the systems that allow us to make those
civilization-level discoveries, the kind that really impact us
as humanity. If you look at WFIRST, the Widefield telescope
we're going to put up, we're working that to have a starshade
that goes front of it so that we can actually see even more----
Chairman Smith. Yes.
Mr. Lightfoot. --of these potential planets throughout the
universe. That's exciting. And then we can make some plans,
right? You know, not in my lifetime but we can make some plans
on how do we reach out to those locations. And so I think if we
could--to me, you know, our goal at the agency and the science
community has always been is their life out there, and if so,
what is it and where is that, right?
Chairman Smith. Exactly.
Mr. Lightfoot. If we find that, that's a civilization-level
impact I think.
Chairman Smith. Yes, I agree completely. You also make a
good point, and that is it's hard to predict. And sometimes our
imaginations can't even conceive of what might happen in the
future. A good example of that would be of course that it was
only 50 years before the Wright brothers flying the sort of
contraption 60 seconds about 30 feet above the ground, 50 years
between that and putting six astronauts walking on the surface
of the Moon, so we really don't know what the future holds. We
only know what will be fascinating and inspiring.
Mr. Lightfoot. And the research we're doing on the
International Space Station, you never--that could----
Chairman Smith. Same thing.
Mr. Lightfoot. If we find something, we just--you know,
that's what we're working there for.
Chairman Smith. Right. Thank you, Mr. Lightfoot.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lightfoot. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Babin. Fascinating questions, thank you.
Now, I recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas.
Mr. Lucas. Pass, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Babin. Okay. All right. Let's see, you know what,
I went to the wrong direction. I'm sorry. I apologize. The
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Beyer.
Mr. Beyer. There are so many people down there; I
understand it completely. And I'm going to just begin by
thanking Chairman Smith and Chairman Babin for holding this and
also just for the shared bipartisan enthusiasm that we have for
space.
And, Mr. Lightfoot, I just think about following up on
Chairman Smith's--with what you're doing with James Webb, with
Mars, with the ISS, with the Pluto stuff which was so exciting,
and we got a chance to visit with the heliophysics people out
at Goddard, which is terrific, the hearings we've had on SETI,
and especially thank you for the investments in Wallops. In
Virginia we very much want to be part of space.
And by the way, I'd like to suggest to Chairman Smith, if
you can find hyperspace and find ways to overcome the distance
problems that we have in space, that would be terrific for NASA
to do. It's not yet in your mission but--questions: Your budget
proposes total elimination of the $100 million for the Office
of Education. And I understand reading the stuff that there are
issues with strategy and outcome-related data and you need to
rethink it. I'm concerned about the complete elimination of
that Office of Education when everything we hear is that we
need a lot more scientists, mathematicians, and engineers, that
STEM education has to be the heart of education moving forward.
So how do we reconcile this tremendous need for more
mathematicians, scientists with eliminating this office?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, sir. I think one of the things that we
worked on was trying to--as I said earlier, try to--trying to
integrate our education outreach a little better from the
overall formal program. I think the important thing to remember
is we still do a ton of education within our mission
directorates. In aeronautics, for instance, we have the
university innovation and challenges activity where we actually
fund undergraduate research and graduate research to do some of
our technical challenges. We have the STEM science activation
activity in science is still there. We have the NASA space
technology graduate research--research fellowships that are
still there. There are several programs still running in the
missions that actually--we actually engender folks to actually
come help us solve some of the technical challenges we have. So
that's another way that we actually invest in the STEM
workforce for the future for us. So--and that's still in this
budget as we go forward.
Mr. Beyer. Our Chairman said--I'm paraphrasing--that NASA
couldn't be the piggybank for climate change research that
could be realistically done by other agencies. And I looked
just at the five that are going to be eliminated, the Plankton
Aerosol Clouds and ocean Ecosystem, Orbiting Carbon
Observatory, the Climate Absolute Radiance and Refractivity
Observatory, the Radiation Budget Instrument, and Deep Space
Climate Observatory. All those are out in space. Is there
really any other institution of the Federal Government that
could do those?
Mr. Lightfoot. Well, I think for us, right, the spacecraft
that we build and the ones that we put up are all part of what
we think we do for earth science, which is inform the decision-
makers on the risk to the planet, right? There are other
agencies that we work complementarily with. We build the
spacecraft for NOAA, for instance, and then we hand them over
once they get them in orbit and get them operational. We work
Landsat with USGS. These are missions that we do together. The
20 remaining missions we have in the agency for earth science
we think provide the data that NASA should be providing to the
decision-makers going forward. So I think we have a very robust
earth science program right now going forward and will still
provide the data that we can provide.
Mr. Beyer. Is the theory that these five out of the 25 are
the least-high priority?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, what we did is we did an assessment
based on--if you look at the Earth, we kind of--I'm an
engineer, not a scientist, right, so we took a risk management
approach the way we looked at these missions and what we're
going to go do, and if you look at the Earth as a system--and
it is; it's an ecosystem that has a ton of different things
that engage in what we do and how the Earth lives and
operates--we took a look at that, we took--and we looked at the
science value, where can we get the data that these missions
were going to get, maybe not at the resolution or the degree we
wanted, what's in the decadals, and then how are they
performing from a performance--from a cost, schedule, and
budget performance perspective? And that's how we came up with
the list that we came up with.
Mr. Beyer. Great. Thank you. In the five-year budget it's
fascinating how completely flat it is. It's $19,092,000 all the
way out. But you figure with inflation--I think our data said
2.3 percent--it comes to a cumulative loss of $4.5 billion in
purchasing power. So, you know, if you look at it just a little
askance, it looks like the NASA budget is actually shrinking
every year over this five-year period of time. So how do we--
how can we argue that this is a long-term budget that truly
reflects our robust commitment to space?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, the--we have concerns about the out
years as well. The '18 budget is good for us, and we'll be
working on--in the '19 proposal process to work the--out--the
flat-year thing because it is--that's exact calculations we've
had is $4.5 billion in loss of buying power over the next five
years. So we'll work that in the next budget cycle going
forward.
Mr. Beyer. Well, I'm hopeful that this will be something
bipartisan we'll be fighting for your increased budget, too,
over these next five years. Yes, thank you.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Chairman Babin. Sir, thank you, Mr. Beyer.
And I now recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr.
Bridenstine.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Lightfoot, for being here. And I think from
both sides of the aisle up here, we're very grateful for your
leadership at NASA for so many years and of course going
through this transition and the continuity that Chairman Smith
talked about is important. You've provided that, and we're all
very grateful for your leadership there.
I wanted to bring up to start some of the processes related
to earth science. You mentioned in the budget that you went
through a process, you started with the decadal survey and then
the science value and finally performance. And from that you
were able to determine that these were the missions that were
the most important and more in keeping with the budgetary
constraints that NASA has to adhere to.
I think on both sides of the aisle we all want to make sure
we know what's happening to the planet. We can disagree about
the policies that need to be implemented from Congress, but we
all want to know what is happening to planet Earth. Can you
assure us, given this budget, that we're going to have the
science and the data necessary to know what's happening to the
planet?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, we believe so. And I think the other
thing that I haven't mentioned yet that I'll share is we have
the next earth science decadal comes out in 2017, right? And
we're----
Mr. Bridenstine. Okay.
Mr. Lightfoot. And for the one we're living to, it's 2007.
Clearly, there's a lot of information since then, and so for
us, it was a good opportunity to say, okay, let's see what the
decadal says for--when it comes out, and we'll use that data
actually to inform us in our next cycle if we need to make any
changes on there. But I believe so in terms of how we've
assessed where we can get all the data we need within the--
again, looking at the Earth as a system----
Mr. Bridenstine. Right.
Mr. Lightfoot. --and all the pieces of the system, where
can we get the pieces of data that help us assess that, the
Earth as a system?
Mr. Bridenstine. Okay. Fantastic. My second question, there
was a lot of excitement in Congress, a lot of excitement
throughout the entire nation, I think a lot of excitement at
NASA when you made the determination that we were going to
study whether or not we are going to put humans on EM-1. And
earlier, you mentioned how important it was that when the
American public and in fact the world, when they see humans in
space doing stunning achievements, that that inspires the next
generation, and I think there's broad agreement here as well.
Can you go through the process that you went through to
determine whether or not to put humans on EM-1?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, sir. We--you know, we talked to the
Administration when they came in, and this is one of the things
they asked us to look at. We looked at it before obviously, but
we hadn't looked at it in a while. And what we did is we put a
team in place to do--ask them to look at the feasibility, you
know, could we technically do this. And the teams were--they
were very--just like you said, very energized what they did.
The approach we took was go back two or three years to when
we made this--when we made the decision to not fly crew and
look and see what things we've done that we would have to back
up and back out of to redo because now we're going to put crew.
That's one example of the technical pieces. We asked the
schedule, how much extra schedule would you need and then how
much extra budget would you need going--to do all this?
It was a fascinating exercise just because it energized our
teams, it provided us some insight in some areas we did not
know people had concerns about necessarily, and so we're going
to pull some testing forward. But at the end of the day when we
had the discussion around this, we were going to increase the
cost, we were going to slip the schedule a little bit, and we
were going to accept some more technical risk than we had. And
so it really just confirmed that the plan that we were on--that
we had in place was actually a good one for us and the right
one for us to go do. In the meantime, we'll go do some work on
the heat shield for Orion. We'll probably advance an ascent
abort test, move it forward, and some other testing that we
found in the process.
But it really got the teams focused on what we need to do
to get there. And so I--it was a good exercise, and I think,
you know, we had to deal with the--there was some
disappointment that we're not going to go try to do this, but I
think people recognized at the end of the day that it actually
focused us even better to try to get there.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll yield back.
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you.
And now, I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Illinois,
Mr. Foster.
Mr. Foster. Yes, thank you, Mr. Lightfoot. And first, I'd
like to congratulate you in general terms on your management of
the whole unmanned science program and, you know, this is--
you've been doing this in very trying times and have had to
make a lot of our decisions, but I think, you know, as a--I
guess the only Ph.D. scientist in Congress, I'm really excited
to just think about what the James Webb Space Telescope is
going to mean. It's--you know, people believe it's going to be
a Hubble-like step in our understanding of the universe, and so
I know that I am--probably almost all scientists on Earth are
excited to see what that will reveal.
I'm less sanguine about the goals of the manned space
program, you know, in particular the whole concept of having
Mars as a horizon project as you say because, you know, when I
look back at the fraction of GDP that was associated with
actually paying for the Apollo program and, you know, the fact
that it was paid for basically by having, you know, more than
80 percent marginal tax rates at the time on the wealthy, you
know, then you have to imagine--you have to--for Congress to
start planning that and to start preparing the public for it,
we have to have some sort of zero-order cost estimate for that.
And so, you know, you can imagine going to Mars with
different strategies. The traditional low-cost one is a massive
heavy launch vehicle, which has traditionally been the low-cost
way of doing things. You can imagine the infrastructure
approach that you're talking about, step-by-step, and then you
have to deal with the challenges of the operating cost for
these things for which we I think have pretty good data now
from the ISS of just the order of magnitude of those. And then
there are more speculative things like the robots-first
approach to going to Mars, which is one I'm personally a fan
of.
So the question is have you gone through those exercises to
get even a broad range of cost estimates for that? Because I
think it's very destructive to an organization, you know, in my
experience managing things to give a group of people orders
that are impossible to execute. And I view going to Mars on a
flat budget as an example of that. And so in order to make sure
we have a consistent overall plan here, I think it would be
very valuable to even have a very broad range of cost estimates
for different things that tells you, among other things, how
aggressively you should pursue new technologies if that's the
only way you can get to a plausible budget. And so I was
wondering, have you gone through those exercises even in rough
terms for--if you had to write down the plan today with today's
technology and with specific technological innovations, what
are the rough cost estimates for our manned mission to Mars?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, so we've kind of come at it from a
different direction, so let me push on this. We've looked at
this as what's--we're not expecting an Apollo-like injection of
funds, right, so what we told our teams is just you need to
assume what we call current services, which is basically our
baseline budget that we have today plus a rate. And what we've
talked about is--we call it the ``and'' proposition. It's not
just the heavy lift, it's not just infrastructure, it's not
just public-private partnerships. It's all that.
It's also not just robotic or human; it's both, right?
Think about it. We're on Mars today with rovers, and you know
that all too well. And the next rover that's going in 2020 is
actually part of our human spaceflight planning because we've
put an instrument on there to allow us to see if we can
actually pull oxygen out of the atmosphere.
So what we've been doing for the past couple years is
really integrating the science and human missions to say that
any time we go anywhere is an opportunity for both sides, human
or science, to actually get a benefit out of it instead of
stovepiping the way we're thinking about that. So it's a
sustainable process. And where we've come from is--or the way
we've been approaching it is assume what you have today and
then let's see where the technologies come in, where does
private industry coming in? I mean, you see a lot of folks that
really want--are really bringing systems into play in the
private world.
Our international partners, we are engaging with our
international partners on what they can bring because we think
going to Mars with humans is going to be--is definitely going
to be a global effort. Is not going to be just us. We'd love to
lead it. We want to lead it and we are leading it, but we've
met with the international partners twice now since I've been
in this role and looking at their niche areas to come forward
like they did for the International Space Station.
So that's how we've done it so far. When we bring the plan
in in--there's a plan I think we're deliverable here in
December--you'll see the pieces of that that come back----
Mr. Foster. Will that include a zero-order cost estimate
for the whole endeavor with a given target date?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, we'll----
Mr. Foster. I think that's fundamental to--you know, we
have to plan----
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes.
Mr. Foster. --how to convince the public to write a great
big check to do this. And so we need a zero-order cost
estimate. And also, as I mentioned, it's fundamental to the
choice of technologies you are developing.
Mr. Lightfoot. Absolutely. And we have for those
technologies, but it'll come in. And again, our cost estimate
will be based--it won't be we need this. It'll be based on
this. This is what we think we can do and when. So, I mean,
that's what you'll see.
Mr. Foster. Yes, and you mentioned escalation. In my
experience managing technical projects, that's--inflation for
technical projects was--generally ran above CBI inflation. And
what number do you actually use internally for that?
Mr. Lightfoot. We've been using 2.3.
Mr. Foster. All right.
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes.
Mr. Foster. Okay.
Mr. Lightfoot. But we've also I think--real quick, and I
know we're over on time, but one thing I want to add is if you
look at the GAO report recently on high-risk projects, we've
actually gotten--we've actually shown improvement. We're not
going to break our arms patting ourselves on the back here, but
we've shown a tremendous amount of movement with our program
project techniques and estimates that we've done and within the
agency to actually be better at predicting the performance of
these things going forward using a lot of lessons learned.
We've had some--for some issues that we've had in the past, so
I feel pretty confident that we can bring a number that we can
stand behind.
Mr. Foster. All right. Thank you.
Chairman Babin. Thank you very much. I'd now like to
recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Knight.
Mr. Knight. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Administrator, for being here.
You know, I'm going to talk about the big A because I
always do. There are several things that are happening today,
and I appreciate everyone talking about space exploration, and
I wish Congressman Perlmutter was here so he could raise up his
bumper sticker saying 2033. And all those are great and
laudable goals, but we are doing great things that are near-
term and can change our economy.
You brought up the low boom supersonic demonstrator. I
think there is probably nothing bigger that's happening right
now for our near-term that could change our economy. And
remember, as you know, for the last 60-plus years we've been
flying across the country at .8 Mach, and we've been doing it a
lot safer and economical, and we have been doing everything to
make engines cleaner and all of that. But now, it's time to go
faster. Let's get across the country faster. And I think the
low boom supersonic demonstrator is that key that will get us
there very quickly. Also, the X-57 is now moving very quickly
into its stage of maybe changing flight over the future and
making that a lot cleaner and maybe for the folks to get an
airplane in their yard.
But one of the things I wanted to bring up is the education
budget because education to me for NASA is accomplishments. If
you show something to that 8-year-old, that 8-year-old wants to
be an astronaut. There is no doubt about it. If you give him a
coloring book, they might, but if you show them something, they
will. There's no doubt. So as I think that education is a huge
part of what NASA does, the more accomplishments you do, the
more you're going to get. And I think that is a good indicator
of what the Chairman brought up of how many people we've got
applying to be an astronaut today is just because they want to
be involved. And also what's been happening with Hubble over
the last couple days have been huge accomplishments. So that's
just my advertisement for what NASA is doing, and I thank you.
So my questions are more about aeronautics. The budget has
changed. We think that the budget is going in a better
direction for aeronautics, but it is still a very, very small
part of the NASA budget, and so we're still under four percent.
I think we're at about 3.6, somewhere in that range. Do you see
that as a good spot? And it could be as a good spot for where
aeronautics could be or should be. Or some of these programs
that we could bring on board that could be funded by NASA, do
you think that may be a little bit more money into aeronautics
could get us there?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, I think with the goals we have, New
Aviation Horizons, for instance, that our aeronautics team has
laid out which has so many fascinating, exciting missions in
there, I think when you look at what we're trying to do with
low boom, as you said, with X-57, just getting our teams back
into the business of X-planes again has just reenergized them
in a big way.
And we think this budget is actually pretty good for us for
'18. We'll look and see what kind of energy we get around low
boom, and we'll look at future--potential future--should we
accelerate other things, but when you want to tap into a $2.5
trillion global economy, you know, of aviation, the U.S. needs
to be in the middle of that, and our researchers are ready to
go to that and I think that's what we're going to be doing. So
I'm excited about what the guys have done from an aeronautics
perspective. You know it just as well as I do because I know
you meet with the guys a lot.
And I think the energy--we talk about the energy around
human spaceflight. The energy around having an X-plane program
is just enormous. It doesn't get spouted as much because it's
not human spaceflight, but when you talk to our teams, you
know, the ones at Armstrong in particular, they've been beating
on me for five years to get some X-planes----
Mr. Knight. Good.
Mr. Lightfoot. --so we finally got one, and so they're
excited.
Mr. Knight. And I appreciate you, you've been a good voice
and a good leader in that aspect, and I appreciate that.
And then the last thing I'd like to talk about is NASA as a
whole, we've kind of looked at everything that's happening,
whether it be James Webb, whether it be our space exploration,
whether it be aeronautics. Do you see that as a very healthy
position right now, in other words, from the budget standpoint?
Because I know the Chairman of this Subcommittee and the
Chairman of the complete Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will always talk about the budget and where we are,
are we healthy moving forward, are we accomplishing the goals?
Because now, we're into a different realm over these last few
years where the public is doing a lot of these things. They're
doing low-Earth orbits, they're doing things that NASA kind of
paved the way so that they could do it, but now they're taking
over some of the things that NASA maybe doesn't do or doesn't
have to do. So are we healthily moving forward?
Mr. Lightfoot. I think we've got a good balance. I think--
and I think we're doing it with a risk management process that
allows us to understand that balance in a good way. You know,
it's exciting to see American industry be so interested in the
innovation that comes with that because that's what makes this
country great, right, the American innovation that comes in. We
can enable that, and then what we're trying to do is decide
where that line is where we need to own it and we'd let
industry take off. And I think we're still learning that, but I
think we're at a good balance. I feel very comfortable with the
balance we have right now.
Mr. Knight. Very good. And I appreciate your leadership.
Mr. Lightfoot. Thank you.
Chairman Smith. Would the gentleman from California yield
for a minute?
Mr. Knight. I will. I don't have any time, but I will yield
to the Chairman.
Chairman Smith. I thought I'd point out for fun since we're
among friends today something that not many people know about
you, and that is that Congressman Knight has a special interest
in space, particularly speed and space, which was indicated by
his first question because his father set the record for speed
that lasted, I think, for several decades----
Mr. Knight. Still----
Chairman Smith. --as--still----
Mr. Knight. --50 years ago this year.
Chairman Smith. Oh, my gosh, 50-year record and counting
then as far as the speed of a manned aircraft. So we appreciate
Congressman Knight being on the Committee and particularly his
personal interest in this subject.
And I'll yield back.
Mr. Knight. Thank you.
Mr. Bridenstine. [Presiding] And I would second those
comments, Mr. Chairman. Pete Knight is a hero to many of those
of us who fly.
So I'd now like to recognize the gentleman from Louisiana,
Mr. Abraham.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let's continue
the speed discussion and talk a little bit about hypersonics.
Of all the things that we have to worry about for national
security, we seem to be focused now, rightly so, on ballistic
missiles of North Korea, Iran, those nefarious countries that
want to do us harm evidently. But hypersonics are the weapon of
not just the future but they're weapons of now. And I know NASA
has some great research going on with the X-43 and other X-
planes that will become critically important for national
security because, unfortunately at this point, we can't
intercept a hypersonic vehicle like we can a ballistic missile.
So if you'll expound on that a little bit as NASA's roles in
hypersonics and national security issues, please.
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes. I think what we do in hypersonics,
it's--for us, the part of hypersonics we're very interested in
and we think we have the skill set to support from a national
perspective is kind of the fundamental research where there's
materials, where there's guidance, navigation, and control,
propulsion, those kinds of areas that are basic in our--kind of
our capabilities we have. And then there's a piece of it called
the systems analysis where you can do the analysis around all
those as a--when they become a system. It becomes a flight
demonstration system. So that's where NASA's strengths are in
hypersonics. We have some facilities that are very unique, and
we have people that operate those that clearly have the
intellectual capacity to understand all the history there.
So what we've done is we've partnered with DARPA and DOD in
that area, and so what we do is we help them from just a
fundamental research perspective, bringing the systems analysis
in, and we think we're a part of their team. They've been very
open to having us participate with them, and so I think that's
where we think we bring--we bring to bear in that particular
situation. Their job is the military side of that. Our job is
the fundamental research.
And the reason we're interested--I want to be real clear.
The reason we're interested is because at some point down the
road you could actually potentially use hypersonic technology
for--to get to orbit, right?
Mr. Abraham. And to explore----
Mr. Lightfoot. Absolutely.
Mr. Abraham. --where we can't go yet----
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes.
Mr. Abraham. --literally Star Trek-type technology. And you
alluded to it a little bit with the intellect. We all in this
room certainly understand that NASA has always employed the
best and the brightest. What is NASA doing to continue that
evolution of pulling those students and those young people in
so that we can stay ahead of our competitors and near peers in
the global security world?
Mr. Lightfoot. I think what--well, several things. We have
several programs I mentioned earlier that each mission
directorate has, whether it's Science STEM activation, whether
it's the university activities that Aeronautics is doing. Space
Technology has graduate fellowships that they do--or research
fellowships that they do. So that's the direct piece of it.
The other thing that we're doing I think is really
important is we're taking a hard look at the capabilities we
think we should be stewards for for the nation, whether it's
propulsion, mechanical systems, you know, guidance navigation
control, materials. Where do we need on that and where does
industry have that that we can go take advantage of? And so
we've spent the last couple of years really saying these are
the technical capabilities we should be stewards of.
Mr. Abraham. Are you guys actively recruiting in the
universities----
Mr. Lightfoot. Oh, yeah.
Mr. Abraham. --or are you waiting for the students to
collect the 18,000 applicants for 12 slots of astronauts?
Mr. Lightfoot. No, we are actively recruiting. We don't
have--that is an area where we do not have a challenge. We get
a ton of applications--and you heard 18,000 for astronauts. We
get a lot for any engineering position that pops up. And we
are--we--our brand does well in the universities, and so we're
pretty successful there.
Mr. Abraham. And we're glad it does, I assure you.
One last question. Previously, we in this Committee have
been told that I think maybe 80 percent of NASA's
infrastructure is beyond design life. And I'm assuming that's
still true considering that the budget has remained fairly
flat. How critical is that right now?
Mr. Lightfoot. Well, we--it's pretty critical, and what
we've done is we've put in place a pretty extensive process to
look at duplication and overlap in facilities and capabilities
to make sure when we give you that number that that number is
not a bunch of the same stuff, right? And so we've spent the
last three years going through that and defining what the
center role should be so that we know where to target to get
out of some of the older infrastructure that we have, and we've
been very successful in that so far.
So the teams are doing a good job depending on each other.
Instead of being nine different centers across the United
States, we're an integrated system. And so that's what we're
trying to do to get that down. We won't--the biggest way to get
rid of the backlog of maintenance is to tear the old stuff down
and build new stuff, right? And so that's the way we're looking
at it, and we're actually being very strategic about how we go
doing that--
Mr. Abraham. Good.
Mr. Lightfoot. --in terms of attacking the higher-
maintenance things first.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you. We appreciate NASA.
Mr. Lightfoot. Thank you.
Mr. Abraham. I yield back.
Mr. Bridenstine. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Dunn, is
recognized.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Mr. Lightfoot, for being here.
Let me, if I can, stay on the subjects of aeronautics,
science, and strategy just a bit. We've had a lot of talk about
the Deep Space Gateway. Can you elaborate a little bit on how
that impacts the strategy for our country going forward and
maybe discuss just a little bit for everybody how that works?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes. So when we talk about leaving low-Earth
orbit, we think we need an infrastructure, kind of a backbone
that allows us to do that. So what we've been looking at is a
way to very affordably--not a large system that we have to
maintain, to the earlier question. What are the--what is the
actual minimum capability we need around the Moon to allow us
to start testing these systems out?
So what--we talk about a gateway, we talk about an
infrastructure, and it's in the concept phase. We still--we're
still working with the Administration on what that will look
like at the end of the day. But we believe it includes a power
propulsion unit that'll be built off of what we did for the ARM
mission, Asteroid Retrieval Mission. We think we'll have a
habitat. We're working right now with five different potential
vendors on our NextSTEP BAAs to do habitat systems, habitat
concepts. And then we'll have an airlock on there, and you'll
be able to move this around and you can operate telerobotically
on the Moon. You can use it as a place that you actually take
off and go to Mars from there with a different system. It's
almost a node if you want to call it that. So--
Mr. Dunn. Does it impact cislunar missions as well?
Mr. Lightfoot. Oh, yes, absolutely. It would allow us to
move around the Moon and do multiple types of missions around
there.
Mr. Dunn. All right. Thank you very much. So what other
countries are in that space besides us?
Mr. Lightfoot. In the cislunar space?
Mr. Dunn. Yes.
Mr. Lightfoot. Right now, no one's there--the Chinese. I
should say the Chinese are going to the Moon; we know that. But
what we've been doing is we've been talking to all our
international partners, the same ones we have on the
International Space Station today, about where they would like
to participate in those exploration plans as we go forward. So
we continue to share with them what we're thinking, and they
bring in their niche areas that would be good for them. They
actually bring--I mean, several of them bring very good
capabilities to us.
And so as we look at a global effort in a resource-
constrained environment, you know, those partnerships, whether
they're international or whether they're public-private here in
the United States, are all for us things that we can use.
Mr. Dunn. And last, I'd like to ask you to talk a little
bit about the CubeSats that have become so popular, the smaller
mission satellites and the launching clusters. And I know we're
now assembling those on the Cape----
Mr. Lightfoot. Right.
Mr. Dunn. --in the center, and maybe talk to us a little
bit about how NASA is going to be interacting in that space.
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, this is an exciting area I think, a
very exciting area. As CubeSats have gotten--CubeSats and
SmallSats have gotten--we got--we're able to control them
better. We're able to get actual science data. We're actually
using them for communications. It's a very interesting area. We
have an initiative in this budget that does--a SmallSat/CubeSat
initiative. Their science is actually going to look at a way to
get some of the data that we've been getting with big missions.
Can you actually get the same kind of data, close data from a
capability perspective using CubeSats because we can launch
them as part of another mission, right? You've seen that. We
take them up to space station and we launch them from the space
station out of the Japanese module.
So we're learning more and more about that, and we're also
getting better with the systems. I mean, the systems are
getting smaller and smaller. It's amazing what you can do with
these CubeSats now in terms of controlling their attitude and
propulsive maneuvers on orbit. So that's what we--we think
that's a big opportunity for us, and that's why it's in the
science budget this year to--
Mr. Dunn. And are those CubeSats, are they hardened in an
EMP sense, are they hardening and stuff?
Mr. Lightfoot. Oh, I don't know. I don't think we've gotten
that far yet to think about that but--
Mr. Dunn. That's your task.
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much, Mr. Lightfoot. I enjoyed
your testimony.
Mr. Lightfoot. Thank you.
Mr. Dunn. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Posey. [Presiding] The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Indiana, Mr. Banks.
Mr. Banks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Administer Lightfoot, just a brief statement, not a
question for you this morning. My district in northeast Indiana
is one of the largest manufacturing districts in the entire
country, building everything from RVs to military hardware. We
have some companies as well that specifically support NASA
programs, including the designing and building of sophisticated
satellite payloads for national and international weather
observations.
One specific program important in my district is called the
Radiation Budget Instrument. It will leapfrog current
technology by accurately measuring the impact of the Sun's
energy on the Earth and the Earth's own energy than the current
generation of sensors that we currently utilize. The technology
advances are critical to researchers to help improve longer-
term and seasonal weather forecasting, such as seasonal tornado
and hurricane forecasts. There are many parts of the country,
including Indiana, which will benefit from these breakthrough
technologies.
I understand the agency must make priority calls, but it is
my understanding that the program is 80 percent complete, is on
track for an on-time delivery, and has solved all major
technical challenges. Looking forward during the budget
process, I would like to work with you and my colleagues to
ensure that we don't discard investments that we've already
made in these next-generation technologies and lose the
opportunity for greatly increased seasonal forecasting, which
will help our emergency managers, and in our agriculture and
energy sectors, among many others.
So I look forward to working with you and having those
discussions in the future. I appreciate your testimony today.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Posey. The Chair will now recognize himself for five
minutes.
Mr. Lightfoot, I've heard that there might be some
challenges at KSC due to a shortfall of funding for ground
systems. Could you comment on that for me, please?
Mr. Lightfoot. I think ground systems is okay from a
perspective of what they're trying to do. We have some of the
money that normally would be in the ground systems budget is
actually in the construction budget. When you add them
together, it's the money they need to get the job done.
Mr. Posey. Okay. We both know that if everything's a
priority, then nothing's a priority, and so I'm curious about a
roadmap to Mars and our ability to stick to that roadmap,
subject to funding of course.
Mr. Lightfoot. Well, I think--I mean, we have a report due
back I think to this Committee in December 1 that's going to
show the plan. I believe we were asked to provide a plan of
getting to Mars by 2033. And so we're working on that, and I
think you'll see why we think it's actually a sustainable plan
based on the budget that we've got. So I think if you look at
the series of missions we're planning on doing in the 2020s
with the SLS Orion combination, the missions we're talking
about doing with our commercial partners to actually, you know,
provide the supplies for what we're trying to do, I think
you'll see that there's--it's a sustainable plan and it's
actually doable if we had--to your point, if we'll just stick
with it.
Mr. Posey. Okay. If you had one percent of our budget
instead of just a half a percent or if you could have like four
percent during Apollo or something, what would you do?
Mr. Lightfoot. Wow. I think what--so I think the way I
would answer that question is that you see what we do today
with the budget that we get----
Mr. Posey. Yes.
Mr. Lightfoot. --right? And I think you would just see more
contributions to the scientific discovery, the exploration, the
pushing humans further into space. But I also recognize that
we're part of bigger federal budget here, and I think that
balance has to be maintained. And, you know, that's for--to me,
that's for you guys to decide where that balance is for us.
Could we do more? Sure, we could do more, but within the
other constraints we have as a nation, you know, that to me
is--I think we have a good budget for what we need to go do.
Mr. Posey. Okay. Could you comment on the Administration's
decision not to put crew on the first flight?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, sir. I--as I said earlier, I think that
was as much our decision as it was theirs. We worked with them
directly on that. We just felt that the addition of the
technical risk, the addition of the cost risk, and the addition
of the schedule risk actually showed that our plan was--that we
had to start with was actually probably the right one and the
right way to go. And I think to me it was--it was a--when we
got--when the teams brought all the information, as excited as
we were about possibly doing it, it actually confirmed we
should be doing what we're doing from an overall perspective.
Mr. Posey. It hasn't been very clear in the press, but, you
know, China has been quite active on the Moon, and I wonder if
you'd comment on that.
Mr. Lightfoot. Well, I think the Chinese have--you know, I
know as much as you do from a press perspective, but you can
see there--they've got their first piece of what would be their
space station on orbit now. They've gone to the Moon. They're
talking about going again. They've made some announcement this
week about that in terms of a sample type return from the Moon.
So they're very active.
You know, I think, you know, for us we have to decide
some--at some point what's going to be our interaction with
them from an overall perspective as a Federal Government, how
we're going to deal with them. Their--the stuff we've worked
with them on has been mostly scientific in nature going
forward, and I think we just should keep paying attention to
what they're doing and make sure we're not ceding leadership
from that perspective.
Mr. Posey. I think that's very important. Do you see any
militarization of the Moon by the Chinese?
Mr. Lightfoot. I don't. That's probably for somebody else
to answer so I haven't--not in my world.
Mr. Posey. Do you think we're still ahead of them on
efforts to go to the Moon again?
Mr. Lightfoot. I think so. I think the systems that were
put in place are--I think we are, but I don't have any insight
into their systems as much as I do ours, so I'm pretty
confident in our ability to do what we want to go do, and I
think that's where we--I think we're okay from that standpoint.
Mr. Posey. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Lightfoot.
Mr. Lightfoot. Thank you.
Mr. Posey. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Louisiana, Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lightfoot, thank you very much for being here. This is
fascinating conversation. I was born in 1961. I have a very
nostalgic memory of NASA as I grew as a young lad and observed
the Moon landing, and for my entire life I've looked forward to
our return to space and our return to dominance in space, which
we certainly seem to have lost that clear dominance as a nation
as we explore beyond our planet.
The history of NASA is replete with the smartest guys and
women in the world, doing more with less, and I'm happy to say
that the current budget, as requested by the President, cuts
NASA's budget, it's the lowest of any nondefense or non-
security-related part of the executive. And because this is a
discussion about budget and NASA and what you can do and we
recognize that, certainly on this Committee from a bipartisan
perspective, we recognize that if we're to be first on Earth,
we must be first in space, and yet we must protect the people's
Treasury.
One of the projects that I've followed through the years
which is a fascinating success is Cassini. In your written
testimony you stated that after 13 years orbiting Saturn our
Cassini spacecraft has begun a series of 22 daring dives
through the 1,500-mile-wide gap between the planet and its
rings as part of the mission's grand finale. That'll be in
September of this year, 19 years from launch. This mission also
included a lander on Titan, Saturn's largest moon, which sent
back fascinating data. And it's important to note that the
success of Cassini and the Titan lander was reflective of 25-
to 30-year-old technology, 1980s and early '90s technology.
So my question to you would be considering the fact that
this technology and the success of Cassini is that old, is
predigital--we should note that the iPhone was introduced in
2004--what do you expect from Cassini's September end-of-
mission controlled crash into the surface of Saturn, and what
might we expect from missions developed with current
technologies as we move forward and as that relates to NASA's
historic ability to do more with less?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, I think--so I've gotten--I've been in
this business long enough and in this agency long enough to not
speculate on what we might see because we always get surprised
with what we learn. If you look at the recent images from Juno
that went around Jupiter, I mean, just stunning.
Mr. Higgins. Right.
Mr. Lightfoot. And that's newer technology still, you know,
when we launch a missile, a little older, but I think what
you'll see with Cassini is--this is why we're doing the dives.
We want to see what's there, what's in there. We've already
learned even from some of the initial passes. To me what's
happened, the reason we're able to do more with less is because
of the advances in technology, right? If you look at the
miniaturization--like you said, your iPhone--if you look at the
miniaturization of sensors, propulsion systems, all the things
that are happening, you try to pack those into a spacecraft
that's going to go make these incredible discoveries, that
miniaturization actually helps us, right? It helps us to be
able to build these spacecraft because they're--to get them off
Earth is the hardest part of this, you know, getting there.
So I think the technologies we're working on, whether
they're new detectors, new sensors, that's what we have in our
budget from a science standpoint and the technology standpoint.
Both of those mission directorates are working on those kind of
things to allow us to get that even better kind of data that we
get. New Horizons is another great example of when it went by
Pluto and did stuff that we got back there. So technology is a
critical piece of this. That's why we think the Space
Technology Mission Directorate and the technology that the
Science Mission Directorate does is actually beats forward into
the next mission. The starshade, for instance, that I talked
about earlier is another technology we'd love to get on orbit
and again be able to use those technologies to just do better
discoveries and more discoveries.
The thing that I've learned is every question we answer
causes more questions, right, and that's what's so exciting
about what we do from a science standpoint. And that technology
helps us to actually move forward.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you for that answer. Just briefly, could
you address regarding the budget as it currently begins to
manifest for NASA, what's the general morale within NASA? It
seems to be an exciting time of rebirth. And please address
that briefly.
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes. You know, we're the best place to work
in government for the last five years, and I think that
probably says it the best. That's our workforce filling out the
governmentwide survey. People are excited. I mean, the Chairman
was there yesterday at Johnson. Goodness gracious, people were
just--it's--they're excited about what we're doing, and they're
excited because we're--if you look at the cadence of
discoveries--we make a lot of news, right, and it's usually
good news, you know, usually. And I think that inspires our
teams to actually do even more. So, yes, I think the morale is
good, very good.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
Chairman Babin. Thank you.
I now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Webster.
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Posey was asking about the money constraints, and you
laid out a time frame of how you could work out a trip to Mars.
Isn't that also constrained by timing? It seemed like we had
testimony before about the fact that there are certain good
times and they come around not so often.
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, there is a--it's a--you look at 2031,
2033, for instance, they are very good times for us to go to
Mars based on the orbital mechanics of where Mars is located
and where the Earth is so----
Mr. Perlmutter. I just like '23.
Mr. Lightfoot. I know. I almost brought the bumper sticker,
sir. Anyway--but I do think that there are more optimal times
because the crew transit time, if you have crew, you want to
take those shorter--that's why 2033 is probably one of the--I
think it's a nine-month transit--I probably got that wrong but
that's what we're looking at.
Mr. Webster. You mentioned nodes, and are there ways that
we can advantage ourselves with those nodes in other places
like the Moon and maybe launch from there? Does that change any
of that?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, that's one reason we're looking at
that, that kind of gateway concept that I talked about. It
would be a place where you can actually operate down at the
Moon if you wanted to, but you can also take whatever system
you want to take to Mars and launch from that location.
Mr. Webster. So wherever you get to, you're advantaged by
the fact you're there as opposed to having everything in one
hub, which would be the Earth.
Mr. Lightfoot. And you go--with the way we look at it is
you go back and forth from that node to Mars, and then you come
from that node home with a different system so----
Mr. Webster. Would the funding that you have proposed or
you're going to share and the timescale and all of that, would
that include taking stuff with you?
Mr. Lightfoot. Taking stuff?
Mr. Webster. Okay. So let's say it's 2033, and you're
saying if you were to launch from there, from that node, isn't
your plan not only to get there but also take things that would
facilitate a future launch maybe from there?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, that's the goal, right, would be to set
that infrastructure up so that you can go do that. But we're
also looking at ways that we can live off the land when we get
there. It's called in situ resource utilization. Today on the
International Space Station we process all that moisture into
water that these guys can drink so I don't have to carry it.
Water is pretty heavy. I don't have to take it with me.
We've also been doing 3-D printing in space. We have a 3-D
printer on the International Space Station that we're thinking
is kind of a precursor to what you might take with you when you
go. And if something breaks----
Mr. Webster. Can you manufacture things there?
Mr. Lightfoot. You can do your part--we're doing parts
today on station using the powders that we've got. So it's
pretty exciting from that standpoint. That's the kind of way
we're looking at it, so it's going to be a combination of what
do we need to take but what can we also have with us?
Mr. Webster. And I guess that advances as technology moves
forward?
Mr. Lightfoot. Oh, yes. Oh, yes.
Mr. Webster. Great. I yield back. Thank you.
Chairman Babin. Thank you so much. That's fascinating.
I now recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr.
Perlmutter.
Mr. Perlmutter. Mr. Lightfoot, as always, it was music to
my ears to hear about 2031, '32, '33. So let's just remember we
can do this and we will do this. And I know that a lot of the
morale is high because you really are beginning to, you know,
really expand your reach and go farther and put all that talent
that you have within NASA really to work on so many different,
you know, exciting projects. So thank you for that.
So how are we doing budgetarily in terms of putting the
pieces together to get us to Mars by 2033?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes. I think the '18 budget that we've
proposed here actually keeps the progress going----
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay.
Mr. Lightfoot. --on what we need to do to do that. For us,
the process is pretty simple. It's use the International Space
Station to the maximum extent possible to develop those
systems. That really is our jumping-off point. We're putting
systems up there now. We've got Bigelow up there that, you
know, is an expandable module. We have technologies we're
taking up there constantly that we think will be used for
future parts of this. And then we're doing the human research
that we need to understand what happens to the human body,
right? So we just--the data coming back from that is going to
actually help us with--as we take these longer missions to
Mars.
And then we think we--then, we're going to establish some
infrastructure around the Moon in cislunar space, and then that
will be our jumping off point as we start going to Mars. So
that--this--the '18 budget continues those systems. We think
we're pretty confident in that.
Mr. Perlmutter. Good. Are you working with outside
companies, with other nations? How's that going?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes. We--so let's start with--we think
there's a lot of opportunity for public-private partnerships.
We do--we've seen a great deal of interest from a lot of the
industry in this country and how they want to participate and
where they're going to bring things to bear for us. So that's
been very positive, kind of building off what we do with
commercial cargo and commercial crew, right----
Mr. Perlmutter. Good.
Mr. Lightfoot. --using that model. The other piece is the
international piece. We've had several--as mentioned earlier,
I've had a couple of heads-of-agency meetings with my
counterparts internationally. Mostly the ones that we deal with
on the International Space Station, they're very interested in
participating with us on this journey. It's going to be a
global journey; we know that. And I think--because when we get
there, that's going to be a civilization-level impact, right,
just like when we landed on the Moon. And I think that's the--
to me, that's going to be a we did it, we as a globe, you know,
not just the United States, not just NASA. And I think that's
what we're going to have to do. But we've got a ton of interest
from them as well.
Mr. Perlmutter. All right. So let me switch to a couple
smaller programs that are particularly important to Colorado.
NEOCam, something that we had talked about earlier that--I was
looking for it in the budget but I'm not sure that I saw it in
there. Can you tell us about NEOCam and where you are?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, so we--NEOCam was part of a recent set
of selections, and what we decided to do was we were interested
in the technology associated with NEOCam. It went a little bit
further than we thought we needed from a planetary defense
perspective, so we've asked them to go back and say, okay, if
you--just as a planetary defense satellite, could you do this?
We continue to identify the potential hazards, asteroids, you
know, in this--that we're required to go do.
We think NEOCam is a tool we could actually bring to bear,
but it had a science piece in it that we really wanted to go
back to use the planetary defense from a focus standpoint. So
we've kept the guys going to develop that technology, come
back, and we expect to hear--I think in about a year they're
coming back from a formulation perspective to tell us where
they are. And it can be a tool that gets added to our tool
chest because we think there's also other ways to do it may be
with a SmallSat, something like that to get the same data.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. And then--I mean, so it'll fall in
the planetary defense category, but even at some point maybe we
put some science money into it, too, if that were----
Mr. Lightfoot. Well, the planetary defense budget is in
science so that's good.
Mr. Perlmutter. But, I mean, you've got certain categories
that fit nicely in that one so let's just make sure we keep
pursuing that.
The last one--last question I have is on CLARREO, which
University of Colorado is very interested in. And I think it
was taken out of the budget. Can you explain that, please?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, the CLARREO Pathfinder mission----
Mr. Perlmutter. Yes.
Mr. Lightfoot. --which was going to fly on the
International Space Station, that was some precursor work we
were doing associated with a bigger CLARREO mission. The
CLARREO mission--the bigger mission estimated out about $1
billion overall. So what we wanted to do was we wanted to wait
until the decadal was done. There's a decadal in 2017 for
science to see where--while that ranked--while the bigger
mission--not the Pathfinder mission but the bigger mission
ranked on the 2007 decadal, we wanted to see what would happen
on the 2017 decadal, and so that's why we did what we did. That
was choice we made before we made that next big investment.
Mr. Perlmutter. So we'll know over the course of next year?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, well, we're canceling Pathfinder. We've
proposed to terminate Pathfinder.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay.
Mr. Lightfoot. And what we'll do is when the next decadal
will come out, we'll see where those particular science
objectives--where they rate and relook at the whole portfolio
from earth science.
Mr. Perlmutter. All right. Thank you for your testimony and
thank you for your service.
Mr. Lightfoot. Thank you.
Chairman Babin. Thank you.
And now I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
apologize, going back and forth between hearings, so if I ask a
repetitive question, I apologize.
We just heard that we are spending money for the tracking
and characterization of near-Earth objects. Is there anything
in place if we do discover a near-Earth object heading towards
us, do we have a procedure in place that would then be
activated in order to some way deflect that near-Earth object
if it threatens the planet?
Mr. Lightfoot. We don't have anything that we're building
to deflect it at this point. We've got a defense coordination
office, you know, that does all the notifications to everyone
if we see something coming, but I don't--I mean, we'd have to
see what we would do after--at that point. We're not building
anything related to that.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, one
of the things we need to do is to insist that we actually
have--if a near-Earth object is spotted coming to the Earth,
could kill millions of people, if not even worse--that we
should demand someone, whether it's NASA or whoever, to
actually have a system where you say punch the red button, it's
time to go on this particular emergency. We need to do that.
Now, let me ask you about space debris. We know that we've
got--there's lots of examples. I mean, the debris shield, was
it last March it had floated away from the space station. It
was a debris shield, so we know that debris is actually causing
some problems already. We know the space shuttle was postponed
a couple times for space debris accumulation. Do we have
anything in place where we have planned that will in some way
deal with that problem meaning to remove space debris?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, this--so obviously, micrometeorite
debris and other debris up there is actually our number-one
risk for our human spaceflight mission in terms of----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Mr. Lightfoot. --the area where they are. And we--so we
track it. We have a great system for tracking it, as you would
say.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right. All right. But----
Mr. Lightfoot. But what we've been working on in the agency
is simply--we haven't worked on these systems to get removed;
we've been working on some of the technologies that might be
able to do it, but it's a very low-level effort. I don't want
to imply that it's a big effort----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yeah.
Mr. Lightfoot. --but that's what we've been doing.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I would suggest that it threatens the
viability of our entire system. By the way, what is the--going
to be the cost of the SLS rocket in the--per rocket?
Mr. Lightfoot. Let me get back to you on that number. We
just--only because we just finished an activity that they're
briefing me on next month.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Is it going to be over $1 billion or----
Mr. Lightfoot. I haven't seen the number, sir, honestly
so----
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. Okay. Well, let me just note
that my guess, if we're spending several billion dollars a year
now, that these rockets are going to be phenomenally expensive.
I would hate to think of a little bit of space debris coming
along and negating $2-3 billion worth of spending on an SLS
rocket. So whether it's planetary defense, we ought to have a
system in place. We ought to get serious about space debris
before space debris starts hemming us in so much that it's put
costly restrictions on our own space program. And I would think
that this should be an international effort. And have we had
any type of international meetings on space debris?
Mr. Lightfoot. I think there's several things in place that
we're required to do like de-orbiting second stages and things
like that that are discussed internationally.
Mr. Rohrabacher. But we haven't had a--some sort of a major
meeting where people get together and say what can we do to
clear space debris as an international effort?
Mr. Lightfoot. And--not that I know of unless we've done
something through the UN COPUOS stuff. I'd have to----
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right.
Mr. Lightfoot. But I'll get back with you on that one. I'll
certainly take that one----
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right.
Mr. Lightfoot. --for the record and let you know.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. And finally, let me just note
about earth science. There are so many other people that can
analyze what's going on in the Earth. I don't see any reason
why we should--I love the Hubble telescopes and the various
things that are aimed outward, but I have no reason to believe
that people in NASA have any more expertise at trying to study
what the Earth is about. They're supposed to be out studying
what the universe is about, and I would think that we should,
Mr. Chairman, move away from funding of earth science missions
and start focusing on the real mission of NASA, which is the
missions we are aiming into space.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Babin. Thank you for that line of questioning.
Mr. Veasey, the gentleman from Texas, I call on you.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you. Thank you very much.
And I wanted to ask a question about human space
exploration. And under the funding level proposed for
exploration habitation systems, when could NASA expect to have
a habitation system operational for use on an exploration
mission? And what will that habitat actually be used for?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, so I think the way we're looking at now
we've got a process in place called our NextSTEP BAAs that are
looking at what habitation systems could be available for us
from some--we've got five people that are--five different
companies that are working that with us. The habitation model--
module based on our current plans, you know, would fly roughly
in the middle of the 2020s. It would be located somewhere
around--or in the vicinity of the Moon so that we could
actually use that area there going forward. It would have the
systems in it. We would help outfit it with the systems that we
would need for a longer-term journey so we can test the systems
out there as well. So that's what we're looking at.
Mr. Veasey. Okay. As far as the CASIS key accomplishments
for this year regarding broadening the use of the ISS national
laboratory, can you just go over some of the--what you think
some of the key accomplishments are?
Mr. Lightfoot. Well, I think CASIS has done a great job in
terms of bringing some of the critical research, whether it's
rodent research, you know, that we do to understand the effects
of medications or space travel on rodents that I--the CASIS
team has done a great job working with researchers there.
They've been bringing different CubeSats up, different things
that they're working on to give us more scientific data when we
actually deploy from the International Space Station. They're
just--they're continuing to really develop that market if you
want to call it that, the people that can actually come up
there, whether it's scientific research, medical research, or
just the other deploying of CubeSats from the station. So
they've done a really good job as a partner for us on that.
Mr. Veasey. Oh, good. Good. What about progresses you think
NASA has made in just helping, you know, retire and mitigate
some key risks that are associated with human exploration in
deep space?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, I think the--to me that--those key
risks kind of fall in two categories as the risk on the human
and it's the risk on the systems that we need. So we're
continuing to work in our Space Technology Mission Directorate
on some of those key technologies, whether it's entry, descent,
and landing, whether it's radiation protection, those kind of
activities. On the station itself, we're utilizing the systems
that we have. If you think we did--Scott Kelly did the one-year
mission, right, to understand the impacts of somebody being on
the station for year as opposed to six months. So we've got a
list of human research, things that we would like to do on the
International Space Station before we start pushing out
further, and we've got some technical things with life-support
systems, radiation protection that we're working on. And we
continue to work on those, and they're supported in this
budget.
Mr. Veasey. How do you think adding the fourth member
aboard ISS will help mitigate some of those risks?
Mr. Lightfoot. I'm super excited about that because we
get--by having four members doing the research that we do, we
expect to really increase the production, you know, because
operating station takes some of their time. Now, we'll have
somebody that can really be focused on the research. And we've
got lots of research up there. Because of the resiliency of our
transportation systems now with the commercial cargo guys,
we're getting a lot of research up there for these guys to do.
And so having an extra crewmember will be outstanding for that.
Mr. Veasey. Do you think that NASA is confident that all of
human exploration health risks will be retired before the ISS
is decommissioned in 2024?
Mr. Lightfoot. Well, all is a big word. I don't know if
we'll ever have all our risks retired on anything we're doing.
I think we will--the way we look at risk is we manage it. From
a perspective of the critical ones, I think we will have--I
don't think we'll have the critical risks retired, but we'll
know what we need to do when we're in cislunar space to
mitigate those risks going forward.
Mr. Veasey. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you very much.
And I want to ask one quick question here, Mr. Lightfoot.
Should NASA be responsible for regulating private sector
planetary protection standards? What would you say about that?
Mr. Lightfoot. I think we would like to be engaged in a
conversation. I think we have some expertise that we can bring
to bear there. I don't see us so much as a regulatory agency as
one that should be consulted is the way I look at it.
Chairman Babin. Yes. So that's kind of a yes?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes. Yes, I think as long as we're--we would
love to play a consulting role in that particular activity.
Chairman Babin. Okay. All right. Thank you very much.
I want to thank the witness today for his testimony, very
valuable, very interesting, and thank the members for their
very insightful and interesting questions as well.
The record will remain open for two weeks for additional
comments and written questions from Members who may want to ask
something additional.
So with that, this hearing is adjourned.
Mr. Lightfoot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir.
[Whereupon, at 11:42 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]