[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NASA'S NEXT FOUR LARGE TELESCOPES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 6, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-41
__________
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
27-680 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
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 AMI BERA, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
BRIAN BABIN, Texas JERRY McNERNEY, California
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 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
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
------
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
December 6, 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
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 17
Written Statement............................................ 18
Witnesses:
Dr. Thomas Zurbuchen, Associate Administrator, Science Mission
Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 19
Written Statement............................................ 22
Ms. Cristina Chaplain, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing
Management, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Oral Statement............................................... 33
Written Statement............................................ 35
Mr. A. Thomas Young, Former Director, Goddard Space Flight
Center, NASA; Former President and Chief Operating Officer,
Martin Marietta Corporation
Oral Statement............................................... 55
Written Statement............................................ 57
Dr. Matt Mountain, President, Association of Universities for
Research in Astronomy
Oral Statement............................................... 64
Written Statement............................................ 66
Dr. Chris McKee, Professor Emeritus of Astronomy, Physics,
University of California, Berkeley, on behalf of the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine
Oral Statement............................................... 79
Written Statement............................................ 82
Discussion....................................................... 86
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Thomas Zurbuchen, Associate Administrator, Science Mission
Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration..... 102
Ms. Cristina Chaplain, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing
Management, U.S. Government Accountability Office.............. 111
Mr. A. Thomas Young, Former Director, Goddard Space Flight
Center, NASA; Former President and Chief Operating Officer,
Martin Marietta Corporation.................................... 113
Dr. Chris McKee, Professor Emeritus of Astronomy, Physics,
University of California, Berkeley, on behalf of the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine................ 114
Appendix II: Additional Materials Submitted for the Record
Hearing responses submitted by National Aeronautics and Space
Administration................................................. 118
NASA'S NEXT FOUR LARGE TELESCOPES
----------
Wednesday, December 6, 2017
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Space
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:41 p.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 now come to
order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the Subcommittee at any time. Welcome to today's
hearing entitled ``NASA's Next Four Largest Telescopes.'' I
would now like to recognize myself for five minutes for an
opening statement.
In May of this year, the primary mirror for the James Webb
Space Telescope arrived in Houston, which is in my district at
JSC, for a final round of cryogenic testing, just in time for
the hurricane season.
These components started a 100-day testing session in a
vacuum chamber at the Johnson Space Center, where three
truckloads a day of liquid nitrogen and cold helium gas chilled
the telescope to minus 233 degrees Celsius. That's a total of
300 trucks just for one test.
Well, I'm told that Hurricane Harvey complicated things by
washing out the roads so bad that they had to improvise a new
route to get the trucks to the test facility. I am very proud
of the fine job that the folks at JSC did working around the
clock to ensure the test was a success. I know firsthand the
hardships that are being experienced in Houston due to the
hurricane, Hurricane Harvey, and I pray that the recovery for
everyone there is going as well as can be expected given the
conditions. I would like to add, too, that the new continental
rainfall record is in my district of 51.88 inches and an
unofficial record of 64-plus inches.
While the 2017 hurricane season has been challenging, this
year has been an exciting time for astrophysics. The Nobel
Prize in Physics was awarded to three citizens, three
Americans, that developed the Laser Interferometer
Gravitational-wave Observatory, or LIGO, which made the first-
ever direct observation of gravitational waves, ripples in the
fabric of space and time, that were predicted by Albert
Einstein 100 years ago.
I understand several of the potential witnesses for today's
hearing could not attend because they are in Stockholm at the
prize celebrations. I'd like to congratulate these fine
Americans for their outstanding discoveries.
Our nation is proud of these achievements. Images from the
Hubble Space Telescope are some of the most iconic in history.
And we look forward to what is to come from even more capable
missions like the Wide-Field Infrared Space Telescope, WFIRST.
It has been mentioned to me that with Hubble you could take
a single picture into a meeting to show what was discovered,
but with WFIRST you'll have to wallpaper their entire office.
The capability has increased 100 times since Hubble.
WFIRST is a critical new flagship mission, and we need to
make sure that it stays on course. The assets provided to NASA
from the National Reconnaissance Office seem like a good fit
for the mission, but the program needs reasonable timelines and
a realistic budget.
It is worth noting that several years ago this Committee
proposed that NASA study WFIRST to determine if the assets from
NRO would be appropriate for this mission and whether it would
cost more to repurpose existing hardware than to build the
observatory from the ground up. Now we face additional
questions about the appropriate scope of the mission.
The recent report from the independent review committee on
WFIRST laid out several options for reining in the cost. And
I'm particularly interested to learn more about what impact
reducing capability will have on the cost, but more
importantly, on the science.
I was pleased to see NASA's Request for Information, or an
RFI, announcement on October 12th seeking input from private
parties interested in operating the Spitzer Space Telescope and
executing the Spitzer science program. NASA is looking for
partners to continue operating the space telescope on their own
dime after the NASA mission is completed. I applaud this type
of innovative approach, and I hope to see more thinking like
this in the future.
NASA is currently conducting large- and medium-mission
concepts studies for the 2020 Decadal survey. New concepts like
in-space assembly, in-space servicing, and taking advantage of
the proposed Deep Space Gateway when developing architectures
for very large space telescopes could offer tremendous new
capabilities.
However, Congress needs to understand the status of the
programs today as well as the plan going forward. Decisions
made now can have long lasting implications on future missions.
It seems the smaller principal investigator, or PI, that
lead missions generally do well at budgeting, scheduling, and
cost containment. We need to know that there isn't a systematic
or fundamental programmatic problem with how we plan and
execute these larger strategic missions.
And I am thankful that our witnesses are here today to help
us better understand where we are with these programs and how
we plan to move forward. And I very much look forward to
hearing your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Babin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. I would like to now recognize the Ranking
Member, the gentleman from California, Mr. Bera, for his
opening statement.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for having
another incredibly interesting hearing. And I look forward to
learning a lot from the witnesses.
I think we can all, you know, remember as children, you
know, just kind of laying on our backs in our backyards or
wherever we were, gazing up at the sky. And even to this day,
you know, on clear evenings, I'll go out and lay and just gaze
up at the stars. And my daughter will sit there and say, Dad,
what are you doing out there? And it's the mystery of what's
out there. What can we discover? What don't we know? That is
exciting. And you know, it's something that piques our
curiosity.
And you know, you can see a lot with the naked eye, but you
know, really you could see a lot more with the advancements
we've made in our telescopes, starting in 1990 with the Hubble
Space Telescope. What we've been able to discover in these last
two decades has been pretty remarkable. Hubble helped
scientists pin down the age of the universe, showed us some of
the most distant galaxies that we've ever observed. You know,
the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory created the first-ever all
sky map of gamma radiation. The Chandra x-ray Observatory
revealed the first-ever observations of a supernova remnant.
These are all pretty exciting.
You know, if you take Hubble, Chandra, and Spitzer, all
provided recently the observations of the neutron star merger
detected via gravitational waves by LIGO. Again, pretty
remarkable what we are discovering.
So I think this is a very timely hearing as we start to
think about, you know, the next technologies and observatories
that let us look into our origins as well as what is out there.
You know, in March 2018, TESS is going to be launched which
will build on the success of the Kepler mission to conduct the
first all-sky survey transiting exoplanets from space.
You know, the Chairman talked about James Webb, which will
follow Hubble as the next great space observatory but with 100
times the sensitivity of Hubble. Again, what are we going to
discover with that and how does that continue to propel us
forward? We're in the first early stages of the WFIRST program
and looking at where that will take us. But it will give us a
much larger field of view to advance the science of dark energy
and exoplanets. Again, you know, what is out there? Answering
that question, and you know, hoping to propel another
generation of folks like myself to just gaze and wonder and
enter the fields of science.
And you know, we're talking about the next four missions.
So as we start to think about that fourth mission, how do we
learn from the missions that have preceded it? And how do we
make sure we engage in an open process, you know, following the
Decadal Survey, looking at that and, you know, really build on
what we've learned, make sure we're using all of our resources
responsibly but that we're objectively choosing what that next
mission would be?
So again, I'm pretty excited about this hearing. I think it
builds on what I think is the best subcommittee in Congress and
certainly the most interesting subcommittee in Congress. And
with that, I'll yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bera follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you, and I do agree. I now recognize
the Chairman of our Full Committee, the gentleman from Texas,
Mr. Smith.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate both
your comments and the Ranking Member's comments, particularly
when you all pointed out that this is a fascinating subject for
the American people. They are just riveted by what's going up
in space, particularly telescopes that they can see and that
are tangible.
I might ask the Ranking Member if he would extend his
description of this being his favorite subcommittee to the
Science Committee being his favorite Full Committee or not.
Maybe? Oh, okay. We'll take any suggestions.
Mr. Chairman, space-based observations from telescopes like
the Hubble Space Telescope have amazed us for decades and
expanded our understanding of the universe. We have also seen a
rapid increase in the exciting discoveries of planets outside
our own solar system.
We have confirmed over 3,500 exoplanets and another 4,000
unconfirmed planetary candidates since 1995. Scientists
estimate that as many as 11 billion rocky, Earth-sized
exoplanets could be orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like
stars in our own Milky Way galaxy alone.
NASA's next four space telescopes will give us new ways to
search for exoplanets and potential signs of life. Each one is
designed to build on each other's success.
It's an exciting time for astrophysics. The Transiting
Exoplanet Survey Satellite, or TESS, is being prepared for
launch next year. The James Webb Space Telescope, or JWST, is
only a couple of years away from launch. The Wide Field
Infrared Survey Telescope, or WFIRST, program is well underway.
And we are now in the early stages of designing the next
generation space telescope that will hopefully answer many more
of our questions about the universe. In January 2016, NASA
initiated the four Decadal survey Mission Concept Studies for
the next space telescope that would launch in the 2030s.
With the coming heavy lift capability of the Space Launch
System, a future space telescope larger than James Webb could
be possible. SLS could enable the launch of telescopes that
could scan exoplanets for signatures that indicate the presence
of continents, oceans, atmospheres, habitable conditions and
perhaps even life itself.
The National Academy of Sciences is preparing to undertake
their 2020 Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal survey. The
survey will help inform the Academy about options for future
missions.
As fascinating as this all sounds, the space program is
hampered by delays. James Webb recently encountered additional
problems during testing that will delay the mission to as late
as June 2019. An independent review board for WFIRST concluded
the project is ``not executable'' without additional funding or
scaling back the mission. And TESS, while still on schedule and
budget, experienced a focal shift within the optics of its four
wide-angle telescopes during testing that may degrade the
science it conducts. The issues with JWST are not
insignificant; however, NASA expects the existing James Webb
budget to be able to accommodate the change in launch date and
that there will not be an impact on the planned science
observations. The remaining work will focus on integrating and
testing the instruments, telescope and spacecraft to prepare it
for its new launch date in 2019.
More troubling is the report on WFIRST. An independent
outside committee established by NASA found that various
changes made to WFIRST since it was first proposed as the top-
ranking flagship mission in the 2010 Astrophysics Decadal
survey created additional costs and technical difficulties.
Apparently NASA has not learned lessons from its past
experiences. After an extensive re-planning effort due to
excessive cost growth, NASA had to constrain James Webb in 2012
to a congressionally mandated cost-cap of $8 billion. Now
WFIRST may be subjected to a similar limitation. We cannot
allow unbudgeted cost to occur on WFIRST the same way it did on
James Webb. The impact to other science missions, as well as
other activities at NASA, would be too great. Much better
program management and discipline are required to ensure that
this does not continue to occur.
Last month NASA instructed the WFIRST program to modify the
current design to reduce costs to an earlier target of $3.2
billion. I am hopeful that the program will find creative
solutions to maintain the mission's science objectives. NASA
must remain mindful that any potential cost increase of WFIRST
will put pressure not only on other astrophysics mission, but
also on other agency priorities. NASA should continue to
explore options to reduce the costs of these large programs,
such as leveraging program surpluses, early-stage cost-caps,
and firm fixed-price contracts which will benefit taxpayers.
Partnerships between the private and public sector in
astronomy are well established, and these ties need to be
strengthened when it comes to space telescopes. Going forward,
I hope that NASA, space companies, and academia will work
together to expand public-private partnerships.
We are on the cusp of something very significant for
humanity. But we are still at the beginning. Many more amazing
discoveries await us. Going forward, Congress needs to have the
necessary confidence in NASA and its contractors to put us on
the right path at a reasonable cost.
I look forward to our witnesses' testimony today. With
representation from NASA, the National Academy of Sciences, the
Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, the
Government Accountability Office, and renowned leaders in the
field, we have the opportunity to hear a number of valuable
perspectives.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you. Now, I'd like to
recognize the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, the
gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and a good
afternoon and let me welcome our witnesses.
This hearing that's being held on NASA's Next Four Large
Telescopes is timely. And today we will receive an update on
three telescopes that are likely to revolutionize our
understanding of the cosmos. Two of those telescopes, JWST and
WFIRST, were the top recommendations of the National Academies'
widely respected and highly influential Decadal survey process,
which was pioneered by the astronomy and astrophysics community
in 1964.
Each of these independent Decadal surveys has involved
hundreds of scientists and resulted in an independent, peer-
reviewed set of recommended science goals and missions to guide
NASA's astrophysics program for the next decade. Importantly,
the Decadal survey has also consistently recommended that
federal investments be made in a way that ensures a balance is
maintained between support for large, medium, and small
missions and the research that turns data from those missions
into new knowledge. While the Decadal survey process is not
perfect, it is this independent, consensus-based process that
has been critical to ensuring that Congress supports the
priorities established by the astronomy community rather than
missions favored by some parties.
That is why Congress, in successive NASA Authorization
Acts, has consistently directed that NASA's science programs be
based on Decadal survey priorities. Most recently, the 2017
NASA Authorization Act directs NASA to set science priorities
by following the guidance provided by the scientific community
through the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine's Decadal surveys. The recommendations of the 2010
astronomy and astrophysics Decadal are particularly important
as NASA works to determine the appropriate scope of the WFIRST
mission. I commend NASA for taking the time to undertake an
independent review to assess the alignment of this mission to
the Decadal survey's guidance and to the goal of ensuring the
overall balance of the astronomy program.
In addition, I look forward to hearing about the progress
NASA is making on its next space telescopes. I am glad to hear
that NASA is preparing for the upcoming astronomy and
astrophysics Decadal survey by conducting four large mission
concept studies for the Decadal committee to consider during
its deliberations.
And I note that we only have representation from one of the
four candidate mission concepts here today. I look forward to
hearing about the other three mission concepts as well, today
or in the future, because I am sure they are equally as
fascinating. Of course, it is ultimately the role of the
National Academies and not the Congress to deliberate the
science promise of each of these mission concepts.
So I look forward to the witnesses, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you. I'd like to introduce our
witnesses. The first is Dr. Thomas Zurbuchen, and he is
Associate Administrator of Science Mission Directorate at NASA.
He earned both his Master's of Science degree and his Ph.D. in
Physics from the University of Bern in Switzerland. Thank you
for being here today.
Ms. Cristina Chaplain, good to have you, our second witness
today. She is Director of Acquisition and Sourcing Management
at the U.S. Government Accountability Office. She received a
Bachelor's degree in International Relations from Boston
University and a Master's degree in Journalism from Columbia
University. Welcome.
Mr. A. Thomas Young, our third witness, is former Director
at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center as well as former
President and Chief Operating Officer of Martin Marietta
Corporation. Mr. Young earned both a Bachelor's degree in
Aeronautical Engineering and a Bachelor's degree in Mechanical
Engineering from the University of Virginia and a Master's of
Management degree from MIT. Welcome to you.
Our fourth witness today is Dr. Matt Mountain, President of
the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy. He
received his degree in Physics as well as his Ph.D. in
Astrophysics, both from the Imperial College of Science and
Technology, University of London. Welcome to you.
And our last witness today is Dr. Chris McKee, Professor
Emeritus of Astronomy and Physics at the University of
California at Berkeley. He is testifying on behalf of the
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. He
received his Bachelor's of Arts degree from Harvard and his
Ph.D. in Physics from the University of California in Berkeley.
Welcome to you.
I would like to now recognize Dr. Zurbuchen for five
minutes to present his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. THOMAS ZURBUCHEN,
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR,
SCIENCE MISSION DIRECTORATE,
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Dr. Zurbuchen. Thank you. Members of the Subcommittee, I'm
pleased to be here today. I want to remember that over 70 years
ago, Dr. Lyman Spitzer wrote the first scientific paper that
explained the practical advantages of putting large telescopes
into space. Dr. Spitzer's dream for large space telescopes was
born in the aftermath of World War II and more than a decade
ahead of Sputnik. His dream led to a series of NASA-built space
telescopes of increasing size and capability, including one
that now bears his name. However, it has not been easy. Placing
increasingly capable and complex telescopes in the cold vacuum
of space is challenging. Some of NASA's early orbiting
telescopes suffered from launch failures. Others had on-orbit
issues which limited their lifetime. Several cost more than
originally planned. But many were ground-breaking successes and
transformed how we look at the universe.
NASA has a long history of undertaking large space
telescopes that involve significant risk but include monumental
advances in our understanding of the universe and our place in
it. Hubble was the first of NASA's observatories. Working
together, and in concert with ground-based observatories, these
large space telescopes have rewritten textbooks and inspired
young people in the U.S. and around the world to study science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics, like myself.
Along with constructing and operating large facility space
telescopes, NASA conducts more frequent smaller-scale missions
principal investigator, PI, led within the Explorer Program.
The combination of PI-led missions and large space telescopes
have achieved some amazing results. One example is the study of
exoplanets already mentioned. Thanks to the PI-led Kepler Space
Telescope mission, we now know that planets orbiting outer
stars are very common.
Next up is TESS, already mentioned, which was selected in
2013 as an Astrophysics Explorer. TESS's mission is to discover
those nearest planetary systems that have the highest potential
for follow-up characterization using telescopes such as Webb
and WFIRST. TESS is currently undergoing integration and
testing and is on track to meet its launch-readiness date in
March 2018. An unexpected issue encountered during development
was a slight focus shift of the cameras during low-temperature
testing. This was due to a previously unknown, low-temperature
behavior of a material that was used in other spacecraft. The
TESS science team has determined that TESS can achieve its
science requirements with that shift, and we look forward to
its launch next year.
We're also eagerly awaiting the launch of the James Webb
Space Telescope in 2019. Webb will be the most powerful space
telescope ever built, kept extremely cold by a tennis court-
sized sun shade in order to detect the infrared light from very
faint, distant objects.
Webb passed a major milestone with the end of cryogenic
testing in November at NASA's Johnson Spaceflight Center in
Houston. The test showed that the mission is meeting its
required performance levels. And I really want to also thank
the teams at Johnson which continued the testing in the
onslaught that was already described earlier.
The sun shield and spacecraft bus experienced delays during
their integration and testing at Northrop Grumman. Following a
schedule assessment of the remaining activities, the Webb
launch date was changed from October 2018 to between March and
June 2019. And as already mentioned, the existing program
budget accommodates the change of that launch date.
After Webb, NASA's next great observatory will be WFIRST.
Its purpose is to survey large swaths of sky to provide
detailed information on the expansion history of the universe
and conduct a large-scale search for exoplanets using
gravitational lensing of the light of background stars. In
addition, WFIRST will carry a technology demonstration
coronagraph instrument designed for the detailed analysis of
such exoplanets.
In 2016, the National Academy mid-term report affirmed
WFIRST scientific promise but cautioned against allowing the
cost of the WFIRST mission to affect the balance of missions
and research in NASA's portfolio. Based on the report's
recommendation, I commissioned an independent technical
management and cost assessment of the project. Upon completion
of this independent assessment this fall, I directed the team
to find reductions in scope and complexity sufficient to return
to the cost estimate, the target set at the beginning of the
project. I look forward to seeing the redesigned WFIRST mission
concept in February.
Thinking beyond WFIRST, we have initiated four concept
studies for the next great observatory, and I'd be happy to
discuss them further. But our understanding of the universe is
much richer than it was for the early pioneers of space
astrophysics. Our children are looking at the universe
differently than we did when we were kids, and this is due to
the investment this body has made over the years. And we're
deeply grateful for your support.
I really look forward to answering any questions that you
may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Zurbuchen follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you very much, Dr. Zurbuchen. I now
recognize Ms. Chaplain for five minutes to present her
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MS. CRISTINA CHAPLAIN, DIRECTOR,
ACQUISITION AND SOURCING MANAGEMENT,
U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Ms. Chaplain. Chairman Babin, Ranking Member Bera, Members
of the Subcommittee, Chairman Smith and Ms. Chairman Johnson,
thank you for inviting me today to discuss NASA's space
telescopes. The focus of my statement will be on NASA's
management of the three projects, TESS, WFIRST, and James Webb
and what lessons we believe could benefit future NASA
telescopes.
In total, the three telescopes represent an inspected
investment of at least 12.4 billion and about 50 percent of the
budget for astrophysics. As such, while it is important for
NASA to stretch technological boundaries to further scientific
research, it is also important to manage and oversee the
projects prudently.
TESS is the smallest of the three projects at 336 million
and closest to launch. It has not incurred costs or schedule
delays at this point, though it has faced technical challenges.
The projected launch date is currently March 2018. As it is in
the final phases of development, TESS has been contending with
an issue with camera performance and it faces the risk that its
launch provider, SpaceX, may need more time than anticipated to
be certified by NASA to fly. This is an upgraded version of the
Falcon 9 launch vehicle, and it's the first time NASA is using
it for science missions.
James Webb, as you know, is the largest and most
complicated of the three programs and one of the most
challenging NASA has ever undertaken. It's expected to cost
$8.8 billion which is 78 percent more than anticipated when
baselined. Since its rebaseline in 2011, James Webb has stayed
within cost and schedule despite facing a myriad of technical,
engineering, and manufacturing problems.
Healthy reserves have played an important role in keeping
the program on track, but so have management and oversight
practices which improved significantly after the rebaseline.
The project is now in the midst of integration and testing, the
most risky phase of its development. NASA recently announced a
launch delay from October 2018 to the March through June
timeframe of 2019. However, more delays are possible given the
risks associated ahead, with the work ahead, and the level of
schedule reserves that are now what is usually recommended,
they're below what's recommended.
WFIRST is still in the early phases of the development
process. It has not yet set baselines for cost and schedule but
preliminary estimates have been ranging from $3.2 billion to
$3.8 billion and preliminary launch dates range from 2024 to
2026. These estimates are under review as NASA responds to the
independent review that found that mission scope is not aligned
with resources provided.
All three telescope programs as well as many other NASA
projects are heeding lessons from the past. For example, we've
reported in recent years that NASA's made significant
improvements to cost and schedule estimating and oversight
processes. More projects are maturing critical technologies
before they undertake full-scale acquisition activities. These
and other actions have helped NASA to reduce cost and schedule
growth over time.
As NASA assesses and undertakes future telescope efforts,
there are four particular lessons learned that we believe
should continue to be heeded. One is taking more steps or
taking steps needed to ensure cost growth from a large project
does not overwhelm the astrophysics portfolio. The recent
WFIRST independent review was a good step in this direction as
it took stock of a large project's business case before the
most costly phases of acquisition begin.
Two, establish adequate cost and schedule reserves. The
current set of telescope projects have generally benefitting
from having robust reserves to address risk. But this is not
the case across NASA. Notably, the human spaceflight projects
have all been operating with very limited level of reserves.
This has led them to defer work to address technical issues to
stay within budget and put future cost reserves at risk of
being overwhelmed by the deferred work.
Three, regularly update cost and schedule estimates.
Programs have been reluctant to update joint confidence levels
they establish at their baseline, and there's no requirement
for them to do so. For James Webb, an updated estimate may have
portended the current schedule delays.
Four, enhance oversight of contractors. Much has been done
in recent years to better monitor contract performance, but we
still find some projects that do not manage contractors well
and react only after problems become overwhelming. A program on
the scale of WFIRST or James Webb requires good lines of
communication, rigorous monitoring of cost progress, insight
into contract workforce levels, and having a government
presence at contractor facilities among other actions.
This concludes my statement, and I'm happy to answer any
questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Chaplain follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you very much. I now recognize Mr.
Young for five minutes to present his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MR. A. THOMAS YOUNG, FORMER DIRECTOR,
GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER, NASA;
FORMER PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER,
MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION
Mr. Young. Space telescopes are a valuable and mandatory
asset in the scientific exploration of our solar system, our
galaxy, and the universe. Space telescopes range in size from
explorers to large flagship missions. The 2010 Decadal survey
emphasized the importance of maintaining a balance in the mix
of explorers and large missions.
Flagship missions such as Hubble, James Webb Space
Telescope and WFIRST are mandatory to pursue scientific
priorities that can only be investigated with large systems.
NASA's Explorer Program has a rich history of scientific
discovery and provides critical opportunities to develop
scientists and engineers for the future.
The excellence of the United States' Astronomy and
Astrophysics Program cannot be maintained without a healthy
balance of large, medium and small missions.
I shall concentrate my comments upon JWST and WFIRST. These
two flagship missions are in very different phases of their
development with very different current challenges. Each
mission requires bold leadership to assure mission success.
JWST was the highest ranked mission in the 2001 Decadal
survey. Clearly, JWST is one of the most important and
challenging civil space missions ever undertaken. JWST has a
history of cost growth and schedule delays. It also has a
history of development success on a project with significant
technological challenges.
NASA made a decision a few years ago to fix JWST
programmatic issues by budgeting to the most probable cost and
scheduling to the most probable schedule. Until recently,
performance to this revised plan has been quite good. The
current assessment of JWST's status is that integration and
test will take significantly longer than planned. The result is
a launch schedule delay and the consumption of most of the
remaining funding resources. In my opinion, the launch date and
required funding cannot be determined until a new plan is
thoroughly developed and verified by independent review.
The bold leadership I spoke of earlier is required to
assure that risk is not added to the program while trying to
minimize the schedule and cost impacts. JWST is at a point in
this development where the only criterion that is important is
mission success. Every appropriate thing that can be done to
maximize the probability of success should be done. At this
stage of the project, a few extra days or weeks or even months
of schedule delay or the expenditure of some additional dollars
is a small price to pay to assure success of a mission as
important as JWST.
Turning to WFIRST, it was the top priority mission in the
2010 Decadal survey. It was defined as a significant scientific
mission with medium cost and risk. However, WFIRST has had
requirements creep to the degree that medium cost and risk no
longer applies. Each of the added requirements has contributed
to the scientific value of the mission, but at a cost. The cost
is additional risk, cost, and a potential erosion of program
balance that was so strongly emphasized in the 2010 Decadal
survey.
The bold leadership I spoke of earlier is required to
assure that the most comprehensive and scientifically valuable
Astronomy and Astrophysics Program, including WFIRST, is
implemented. As the Decadal survey's highest priority, WFIRST
must be successfully completed. The good news is that WFIRST
has not yet reached Milestone B. All requirements are currently
controllable. NASA is to be congratulated for taking an
important step with the establishment of the WFIRST Independent
External Technical/Management/Cost Review. This review has
effectively defined the scope, cost, and risk issues for
WFIRST. The next step is to decide the scope, cost, and risk
appropriate for a top priority flagship mission that is
consistent with a balanced Astronomy and Astrophysics Program.
I want to emphasize that there is no cause for panic. What
is transpiring is a perfectly healthy process to assure that
the scope, cost, and risk are appropriately defined prior to
proceeding past Milestone B.
Many studies have shown that the two most significant
causes of cost growth and schedule erosion are failure to
budget to the most probable cost and failure to control
requirements. The history of JWST has been plagued with the
failure to budget to the most probable cost. This problem has
been true for many space programs. NASA has largely corrected
this problem by implementing a policy that requires statistical
and independent cost estimating and budgeting to the most
probable cost which NASA has defined as 70/30.
WFIRST has been plagued with continual requirements creep.
The implementation of a comprehensive, independent requirements
review prior to Milestone B, followed by a rigorous decision
process, will mitigate this issue. The process being
implemented for WFIRST should become standard for all major
NASA projects.
I believe NASA has the ability to manage large space
telescope projects. Implementing statistical and independent
cost estimating followed by budgeting to the most probable cost
is a major improvement. Prior to Milestone B, conducting an
independent, external review of requirements, cost and risk
that is followed by a decision process that assures the mission
is consistent with the Decadal survey including a balanced
scientific program is equally important. Following Milestone B,
requirements must be rigorously managed to prevent requirements
creep.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Mr. Young. I appreciate your
testimony. I now recognize Dr. Mountain for five minutes to
present your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. MATT MOUNTAIN,
PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITIES
FOR RESEARCH IN ASTRONOMY
Dr. Mountain. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,
Chairman Smith, thank you for the opportunity to testify.
These are exciting times. The progress of science and
technology that's been under the purview of this Subcommittee
and the Science Committee overall has been quite
transformative.
We now have the potential, for the first time in human
history, to answer a profound question that's haunted us for
millennia: Are we alone in the universe? We are at a unique
point in our history.
As we've heard from Dr. Zurbuchen, we know almost every
star we can see has a planetary system. We heard from Chairman
Babin what incredible things happened down at the Johnson Space
Center where, through a hurricane, we showed the largest space
telescope mirror ever built can be made to work at deep space
conditions.
Consequently, we now know how to build future telescopes,
which could have the power for the first time to detect the
faint fingerprints of life imprinted on a planet going around
another star. And because of investments made by the National
Science Foundation on the Gemini Telescope and NASA at JPL and
elsewhere, we can now use coronagraphs to suppress the light
from stars and allow us to actually see other solar systems.
And we hope to fly the first truly advanced coronagraph on
NASA's WFIRST mission, laying the technical foundation for
imaging Earth 2.0 around another star.
We can now bring all of these three advances together,
combined with NASA's new SLS capabilities to launch a space
telescope that could detect the signs of life on an exoplanet
nearly 200 trillion miles away. This would have been science
fiction a decade ago. Today, NASA, in one of its four studies
for future advanced space observatories, is looking at a large,
15-meter diameter ultraviolet optical infrared telescope we
ungainly call LUVOIR, which, with the right commitment, could
be ready for launch by the early '30s.
Now, why is such an ambitious telescope with a mirror
almost three times the size of James Webb required? First, we
have to realize how faint another earth orbiting a neighborhood
star would be.
This image, which you can see from here, of course, was
taken by NASA's Cassini spacecraft. We already see at the
distance of 900 million miles--all we see is a faint, blue dot.
That of course is us. At a distance of over 200 trillion miles,
that's over 30 light years away, an Earth-like planet is an
incredibly faint object. In fact, fainter than the faintest
galaxy in this Hubble deep field.
And then we have to understand what we're looking at. You
think with 10 to the 23rd stars in the universe--that's one
with 23 zeros after it--you would think that life exists
somewhere else. Statistically that should be the case. However,
if you talk to biologists, these optimistic statistics tell us
not so fast. The only place we know life exists is here on
Earth. And the only way to actually determine if life exists
elsewhere, to find out how unique we actually are, is to go out
for ourselves to see. And that is exactly what NASA now has the
capabilities to do.
But finding one Earth-like planet won't be enough. We
already know two Earth-like planets in our own solar system
where there are no visible signs of life, Venus and Mars.
So we're going to have to examine hundreds of exoplanets
hunting for those faint signatures of life to find out if
habitability exists. If there are habitable planets orbiting
around stars near a sun, telescopes like the LUVOIR concept
will certainly find at least one. If a LUVOIR does not detect
any signs of habitability, we will know that life as it exists
on our home planet is extremely rare. This, too, would be
profound if a somewhat lonely discover for humanity.
NASA and uniquely this nation has laid the foundation, both
scientifically and technically, for such a transformative tool
for space astronomy. And this is a telescope we can actually
now build because of those investments. And it's important to
state without the leadership of NASA's Space Mission
Directorate, exemplified by Dr. Zurbuchen, and with the support
of committees like these, none of this would be possible. We
would not be sitting here today making this case.
So let me make an audacious claim, that the discovery of
extraterrestrial life would profoundly change history.
Apollo 8's iconic image on the left of the earth from the
moon established the United States as the leader in space,
science, and exploration that inspired every generation since,
including myself. The discovery of a living planet elsewhere in
our galaxy, like this artist concept on the right, would have
as profound an impact on the 21st Century as Neil Armstrong's
first step would have on the moon. And it is this quest that
only NASA is capable of doing, recognizing this. This Committee
and Congress added the search for life's origins, evolution,
distribution, and the future of the universe to NASA's
Authorization Act.
We can build on this vision. We can carry the spirit of
Apollo into the galaxy. And let me briefly finish. As Carl
Sagan so eloquently said, ``When our far descendants perhaps
centuries, even millennia in the future, look back from their
new home planets and hunt for the pale blue dot in the sky,
that was us. They will wonder how humble and fragile were our
beginnings, how many rivers we had to cross before we found our
way.'' With American vision, with American leadership and
optimism, we can find our way. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Mountain follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you very much. Now I'd like to
recognize Dr. McKee for your testimony for five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DR. CHRIS MCKEE,
PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF ASTRONOMY, PHYSICS,
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY,
ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES,
ENGINEERING AND MEDICINE
Dr. McKee. Chairman Babin, Ranking Member Bera, Chairman of
the Committee, Mr. Smith, and Ranking Chair Johnson, thank you
very much for the opportunity to appear before you today in my
capacity as a member of the Committee on Astronomy and
Astrophysics, the CAA, of the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering and Medicine. CAA is one of five subcommittees of
the Academies' Space Studies Board that span the science
disciplines supported by NASA. Each of the five subcommittees
is charged to assist the federal government by providing advice
on the implementation of Decadal survey recommendations. As you
know, the National Academies' Decadal surveys, which are
mandated by law, provide NASA with consensus advice from the
scientific community on proposed science priorities for the
decade ahead.
I have the honor of serving on the CAA, and I was also one
of the co-chairs of the 2001 Decadal survey in astronomy. The
highest recommendation in our report was the James Webb Space
Telescope, JWST, a truly remarkable feat of engineering that is
expected to deliver ground-breaking scientific capability
beyond that envisioned when we recommended it.
Chairman Babin, I would like to thank you and the Committee
for giving me the opportunity to present to you today some of
the perspectives on the status of NASA's program in
astrophysics, drawing in particular on the Academies' 2016
report, New Worlds, New Horizons: A Midterm Assessment. This
report concluded that already in the first half of the decade,
scientists and teams of scientists working with these cutting-
edge instruments and with new capabilities in data collection
and analysis have made spectacular discoveries that advance the
NWNH vision.
While these discoveries are really remarkable, the fact
that they occurred is not. The Congress, the executive, and the
research community have relied on the independent and non-
advocacy convening power of the National Academies to develop a
national consensus on which science space missions NASA should
pursue. This process, over a period of nearly 60 years, has led
to the United States developing clear leadership across all the
fields of space science. This is why the Congress has
repeatedly instructed NASA and the executive to use the
Decadals as the foundation of the agency's strategic planning
in space science.
An essential feature of the Decadal process is it involves
a broad cross-section of the community. In the case of the 2010
Decadal survey in astronomy and astrophysics, the Academies
appointed nearly 200 astronomers to the survey committee, the
supporting panels, and the working groups. Hundreds of
additional astronomers provided input. In fact, I would venture
to guess that a significant fraction of the entire astronomical
community participated.
The committee then undertook the hard and painful task
which was necessitated by the relatively severe financial
constraints under which the agencies were expected to have to
operate of prioritizing the many exciting and realizable
activities presented to it.
Mr. Chairman, today NASA is implementing the Decadal
survey. The Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope, WFIRST, which
was the 2010 Decadal's highest-ranked large space telescope is
``designed to settle essential questions in both exoplanet and
dark energy research and will advance topics ranging from
galaxy evolution to the study of objects within our own
galaxy.''
The midterm report underscored the continuing scientific
case for the pursuit of this mission. The report noted that
implementation of WFIRST with a larger mirror than it
envisioned at the time of the Decadal's prioritization with
larger infrared detectors, and with the addition of a
coronagraph makes WFIRST an ambitious and very powerful
facility.
However, because the risk of cost growth in WFIRST could
distort the NASA program balance and limit options for the next
Decadal survey, the midterm report called for an independent
and technical, management, and cost assessment of WFIRST. That
assessment has been carried out, and the descoping effort is
now under way.
Meanwhile, it's also worth noting that the midterm report
endorsed NASA's plans for executing the second priority
recommendation of the 2010 Decadal, the enhancement of the
Explorer program. The Explorer program is currently supporting
the development of the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite,
TESS, which is scheduled for launch next March. NASA is also
implementing the third and fourth high-priority recommendations
in partnership with our European colleagues at ESA through
participation in the Athena x-ray telescope and in the LISA
gravitational wave observatory.
LISA will open a new window on the cosmos by measuring the
ripples in space-time produced by the merger of black holes
which are far larger, more massive than can be detected with
the NSF-supported LIGO facility. That facility has confirmed
Einstein's theory of gravity and solved the mystery of the
source of many of the elements in the periodic table beyond
iron, such as gold and uranium.
The next Decadal is expected to start in about a year's
time, and at the CAA we have heard how NASA is supporting teams
of astronomers and engineers to develop mission concepts for
both flagship missions and moderate-scale missions. This
methodical approach to preparing the community for the Decadal
is, in my personal opinion, vitally important. The CAA is at
the same time preparing to release the first call for white
paper inputs from the community in advance of the survey so
that when the chair is appointed, she or he will have fresh
community input on the science what is nominally called Astro
2020.
Mr. Chairman and the members of the Committee, the bottom
line result of the Decadal survey process in astronomy and
astrophysics and indeed in all the scientific fields supported
by NASA is that the United States has reaped the benefits of
this community-based process that the Academies conduct on
behalf of the nation under its unique charter from Congress.
I'm here today to discuss why this process works as well as it
does and to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. McKee follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you very much for your testimony, Dr.
McKee. The Chair would like to recognize himself for five
minutes for questions.
Dr. Zurbuchen, NASA indicated that the delay to JWST is a
result of issues identified in integration and testing, but
there was also a potential conflict in French Guiana with the
European BepiColombo mission. Why was the decision made to
launch the $8 billion JWST on the European Ariane 5 rocket
instead of a reliable U.S. launch vehicle? Was cost the only
consideration? And what are the risks associated with the
transporting of JWST to the European launch site located in
South American French Guiana?
Dr. Zurbuchen. Thanks for your question, Mr. Chairman. Part
of the decision to go with this other launch vehicle, of
course, was cost. And at that moment in time, you remember of
course, I was not sitting here when that decision was made.
Cost was an important factor but so was international
collaboration that's really part of the James Webb Space
Telescope. It's part of the telescope itself and instruments.
We have important international collaborations that really
contribute to the leadership that we have in space
astrophysics. So we don't believe that there's a conflict of
leadership for the United States and some of these
collaborations.
I will submit, if so desired, Mr. Chairman, more
information for the record----
Chairman Babin. Yes.
Dr. Zurbuchen. --on the details of that decision and all of
this. You should know that the path to that launch site has
been under consideration, and in detail, I've heard a briefing
for every part of that. And we understand what the risks are.
Indeed though I'm comfortable with it.
Chairman Babin. I understand they're going to have to even
change bridge heights and things like that. Is that the case?
Dr. Zurbuchen. There's a number of things that we have to
do for testing with Webb. Some of the tests we actually wanted
to do in some other districts we didn't do because of bridges.
In some cases, yes. Some bridges might be lifted or some roads
will be enlarged for that. Again, I'll provide the details.
Chairman Babin. Right. One of the lessons learned that GAO
highlights is the need to manage cost and schedule performance
for large projects to limit the impacts to the entire science
mission portfolio. What ways can NASA balance its portfolio
better and ensure that problems and large programs do not
overwhelm the smaller ones without losing sight of science
objectives, Dr. Zurbuchen?
Dr. Zurbuchen. I believe that what we did with WFIRST is
exactly what we should be doing to ensure that balance. I mean,
I'm committed to keeping that balance in place through the
astrophysics portfolio as well as the other disciplines where
similar recommendations are provided from their respective
Decadals. And I believe that what is required, especially prior
to Key Decision Point C which is what Tom Young talked about,
it's absolutely important to create management processes to
make sure that these missions don't blossom without boundary,
without limit, into bigger missions. So the independent review
as well as the action that I took is precisely motivated, not
because of anything that we don't like about the mission, but
motivated by the importance of creating that balance and
keeping it for the years to come.
Chairman Babin. Okay. Thank you. Now, Dr. McKee, the cost
estimates for both JWST and WFIRST increased drastically from
the time the Academies recommended them as part of the Decadal
survey. Does the Academy provide any recommendations on the
maximum cost a program should grow to before it compromises
other astronomy and astrophysics priorities? And does the
Academy recommend any capabilities to descope if problems are
encountered during formulation or development?
Dr. McKee. Let me begin by discussing the first of the
projects you mentioned, James Webb. At that time, we did not
have the cost control measures that NASA has implemented since,
and as I think has been noted, there was a drastic increase in
the overall cost of that mission.
At the time of the 2001 Decadal survey, we did not
anticipate such a cost growth. By the time of the 2010 Decadal
survey, there was a much greater awareness of the impact of
these large missions, and as a result, that Decadal survey
considered several different scenarios for the budget of the
program. However, to my knowledge, they did not explicitly put
in any, you know, hard-and-fast rules as to how you would
descope.
As the issue of the problems come up with the NASA budget,
the importance of maintaining a balanced program is very high
on the priority list for the Academies, and they have been, you
know, working with NASA to try to maintain that.
Chairman Babin. I have several more questions, but I'm out
of time. So we're going to go to the gentleman from California,
the Ranking Member, Mr. Bera.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In my opening comments I
talked about, you know, just gazing at the sky and, you know,
what Hubble allowed us to do was those fuzzy patches that we
see out there prove that those galaxies full of millions or
billions of stars existed. It also proved that the universe was
expanding.
I guess, Dr. Zurbuchen, as I'm thinking about, you know,
TESS, James Webb, and WFIRST, science building on itself, I
just want to make--with TESS, we'll do that all-sky survey.
We'll learn more about exoplanets and find more exoplanets.
With James Webb, am I understanding this correctly, we'll look
sometimes backwards in time and look at star formation and, you
know, trace the evolution of these galaxies from birth to death
and learn much more about our universe? And then in the WFIRST
program, you know, this dark energy that is expanding our
universe and the purpose of WFIRST is to better understand that
dark energy as well as to continue to learn more about the
exoplanets that are out there as, you know, we search for life,
as we search for, you know, what else is out there. Am I
thinking about that correctly? One building on the next, each
mission informing the next mission. For those folks that are
watching at home, because I know they're riveted to their
televisions, you know, trying to figure out where we go next,
and so if we're building one mission on the next, if we think
about the Decadal survey which is our objective way of--you
know, as much as Decadal informed us to do James Webb, Decadal
informed us that we should focus on WFIRST. You touched on the
four possibilities going into this next Decadal survey. And
would you briefly just go over what those four----
Dr. Zurbuchen. First of all, Congressman, you're really
well informed about how these spacecraft relate to each other
and how they're really building on top of each other. You could
not imagine a WFIRST without the Hubble being there, kind of
doing that kind of work because what we're really doing is
looking at the big-data version of the Hubble which is 100
times bigger in terms of many dimensions, but including the
data that are coming down for us to mine. And we look at these
large-scale structures that are out there and talk about the
science overall. What is the universe made out of, you know?
Things we call dark just because we don't know what they mean,
really.
So the next four that are under consideration, first of
all, is a concept called HabEx. You heard, you know, Dr.
Mountain talk about LUVOIR. Just like LUVOIR, HabEx is really
focused on habitability. So it's focused on looking at, with a
slightly different concept but it's looking at emissions that
come in atmospheres from planets that would tell us about both
the physics of these atmospheres but also whether there's
something there that could hint towards the presence of life.
So those are the two that are there, HabEx and LUVOIR. And
Lynx is the next generation x-ray surveyor. So there what we're
looking at is really the energetic part of the universe,
really, in x-rays and gamma rays, looking towards the next
generation, looking at these physical processes that--you
talked about Chandra or it was talked about, looking at the
next generation of physical processes that help us understand
how energy actually gets created in some of the weirdest places
in the universe.
And then the final one is Origins Space Telescope. It's a
system that's following matter around, dust, and elements of
the type that we discussed as part of, you know, this unique
event there. You know, like how are these transferred around,
really. Talk about kind of the origins of these contributions
to stars and then what of course could create habitable planets
as well.
So those are the three missions looking at a variety of
spectral ranges, looking at the variety of centers that
actually where these things are rooted.
Mr. Bera. So all of these, in an ideal world, we'd have
unlimited resources and all of these missions would provide us
vast knowledge and help us. And again, our way of guiding
Congress as well as NASA in a purely objective way is to do the
Decadal survey, to take this group of scientists and experts,
you know, who have much more knowledge than--we're a pretty
smart body I think--but who have much more knowledge and
expertise than we do and give us guidance. Is that an
appropriate, you know, high level----
Dr. Zurbuchen. Absolutely, one of the jobs that I don't
have is to prioritize which one is the most important one. And
you don't want me to have that job. And the simple reason for
that is if there's another person sitting in this chair, the
whole strategy changes, you know? So we really believe and I'm
a strong believer in the wisdom of having a process like the
National Academies' insights really driving us because what
that creates is constancy of purpose and it creates success,
consistency, projects that actually exceed the timeframe of any
one of us in any of our respective positions.
Mr. Bera. And would you say the Decadal survey has served
this body as well as NASA and the scientific community well?
Dr. Zurbuchen. I really do believe so. And you should know
before I went to NASA, I was actually actively involved in some
of this advisory structure and saw from the inside the kind of
high quality of deliberation and the high quality of decision
making that's going on there. So I really believe in it and I
rely on it every day.
Mr. Bera. Great. Thank you. And I'll yield back.
Chairman Babin. I now recognize the gentleman from Alabama,
Mr. Brooks.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My questions are
directed at Dr. Zurbuchen, but if anyone else wants to chime
in, feel free. In September 2017, following a schedule
assessment of remaining integration and test activities, NASA
announced that it was planning to launch the James Webb Space
Telescope between March and June of 2019, a five- to eight-
month delay from the previously planned October 2018 launch
readiness date.
Given current technical challenges, new information gained
from recent deployment tests of the sun shield and remaining
work to complete, to what extent is the current expected launch
readiness window of March 2019 to June 2019 achievable?
Dr. Zurbuchen. At this moment in time, with the information
that I have, I believe that it's achievable. But I actually
believe what Mr. Young told us about an independent review is
exactly what we should be doing. And frankly, I have directed
the team to do just that in January. The reason I do it in
January and not right now is we're going through fold number
two. Remember, what we're really spending time on right now is
practicing how to unfold. We want to get this right. And so
basically we went through fold number one which took us a lot
longer, which to a large extent, together with the propulsion
system issue also at the contractor, basically contributed to
the majority of the delay. Actually, the only real, you know,
delay that was on the outside of the schedule reserve that we
had----
Mr. Brooks. Dr. Zurbuchen, you've already answered my
question.
Dr. Zurbuchen. Yes.
Mr. Brooks. I wasn't asking for the causes of delay to
date, just what the future looks like.
Dr. Zurbuchen. Thank you. I apologize.
Mr. Brooks. Next, when will the agency announce a specific
launch readiness date within this window and how will it
determine that this new launch readiness date is realistic?
Dr. Zurbuchen. I will submit the exact date for the record
because I want to have a schedule from our project office to
really make sure that the review is actually, can be done at
the right time. I'll submit it for the record. My guess is kind
of in January, February timeframe but I don't want to commit to
that before I really talk to everybody involved.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you. Next, the Government Accountability
Office testimony states that the Transiting Exoplanet Survey
Satellite, also known as TESS, program no longer has cost
reserves to cover a delay past March of 2018. What does that
mean for the project and how does NASA plan to fund a test
launch if it is delayed past March 2018?
Dr. Zurbuchen. We expect to solve the problem, through the
processes that we have to deal with this kind of unexpected
expenditure and basically deal with any delay that will come
because it will not be from the fault of the project itself. It
will come from the outside.
Mr. Brooks. In March next year, NASA is planning to launch
TESS on the Block 4 version of the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket.
SpaceX has experienced two mishaps in the previous two years
with its Falcon 9. In June 2015, a Falcon 9 rocket was
destroyed while it was carrying a Dragon cargo spaceship loaded
with supplies bound for the International Space Station, and in
September 2016 a Falcon 9 exploded on the launch pad while
loading fuel for a routine engine test, destroying a commercial
satellite. In light of these mishaps, what remains for NASA to
certify the Block 4 version of the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket for
the purposes of launching the TESS satellite?
Dr. Zurbuchen. I was updated earlier this week that the
certification of meetings are scheduled for early next year and
basically involved a series of interactions with the contractor
and external views of various systems and subsystems. At the
completion of that, I really trust the part of our agency
that's doing that. I will ask them directly. Is it safe to
launch? I'm waiting for that process to come to its conclusion.
Mr. Brooks. Do you have any concerns or reservations that
the Block 4 version of the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will not be
certified in time for TESS to launch in March of 2018?
Dr. Zurbuchen. At this moment in time, I don't have any
such concerns.
Mr. Brooks. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back the balance of my time.
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. Now, Ms.
Johnson has left. I recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr.
Perlmutter.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, Dr. Babin. So I want to start
quickly with starshade, because I do have a prop. This is like
that, okay? So it helps to--let's go this way. No, that's
better. I shouldn't put it in front of my face. That's not a
good idea.
But Dr. Zurbuchen, can you tell me about starshade and
about the use of both the Academy as well as universities in
working with NASA to make sure that starshade provides value
and helps us see even more distant objects?
Dr. Zurbuchen. The starshade technology together with the
coronagraph technology--of course, you're aware that starshade
technology was invented in Colorado.
Mr. Perlmutter. At the University of Colorado, yes.
Dr. Zurbuchen. Exactly.
Mr. Perlmutter. Go Buffs.
Dr. Zurbuchen. I met the guy. He's an amazing guy, right,
because it's more than one invention, of course. It's not the
only one. But together with coronagraph technology, starshade
technology is a really good way of actually covering up the
light of the star to actually blend out that flood of light so
we can see the few photons that the faint light that comes from
planets. And so basically in many ways it's a very elegant
process. It's basically a big shade of the shape that you had
there that is perhaps 30 meters or even larger, depending on
the geometry, flying 10,000 kilometers ahead of the telescope
at a really accurate location and actually use the properties
of optics to blend out the star at the telescope to very, very
high precision. Coronagraphs are very different. It's much more
like a thumb and the camera, like we use when we look at the
sun. It's taking light away, internally. Again, a lot of
advances are being made there, some advances even today.
So both of these technologies are being developed right now
through the technology investments in a variety of places
including universities, including within NASA or the
organization that Dr. Mountain leads to really look at what the
right way is. My prediction is as we go forward in this very
new field, that on a timescale of five to ten years, if we have
a hearing like this again, there will be even additional
technologies that will be proposed, additional ways to solve
this really important problem.
Mr. Perlmutter. So and I would just encourage you and I
imagine Dr. McKee and Dr. Mountain would agree to continue to,
you know, partner with the Academy, with the universities as
you expand this science.
Now, what I really want to talk about, I'm going to focus,
Mr. Young, to you and to Ms. Chaplain. Dr. Mountain mentioned
earlier a number with 23 zeros behind it. The number I have in
mind isn't that big but it's big. So right now we're dealing
with a tax reform bill, the deficit of which is $1.5 trillion.
That's what the Budget Office predicts from the House version
of that. And it's a number that has 12 zeros after the first so
12 digits.
So just, Ms. Chaplain, help me with the math. You've helped
me with other budget issues in the past. And so do you know
what the NASA budget is this year?
Ms. Chaplain. The budget request is about $19 billion.
Mr. Perlmutter. All right. So let's make it easy. Round it
up to 20, okay? $20 billion. That $1.5 trillion hole in the
deficit is 75 years' worth of NASA's budget, okay? Let's go to
something else. How about -- you said we've got a potential or
we have a cost overrun on James Webb, initially a $5 billion
projected project. Now it's up to $9 billion. How many James
Webb telescopes could we build for this budget loss we're going
to take of $1.5 trillion? Can you do the math in your head?
Ms. Chaplain. I probably can't do it that quickly, but it's
a lot of telescopes.
Mr. Perlmutter. Well, let's say the telescope, it booms up
to $10 billion in costs. That's 150 of those.
Ms. Chaplain. Yeah.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay? Now, you know what's near and dear to
my heart? It's getting our astronauts to Mars, and you and I've
had a lot of conversations. Mr. Young, you and I have had a lot
of conversations. And at one of our hearings, the number of
$200 billion over the next 16, 17 years was suggested by NASA.
So let's do the math on that one. How many times could we
go to Mars for this deficit that's coming from this tax bill
that the republicans are proposing? I'll do it. It's a
rhetorical question but about eight. And that's starting from
scratch.
So these numbers are big, and we need to manage these
projects the best possible way we can. But on the other hand,
when we do things like we're doing, this week and over the next
few with this tax bill, we potentially hurt your agencies and a
lot of others. And we don't need to inflict wounds on ourselves
like that. And with that, I yield back.
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Mr. Perlmutter. I would remind
the crowd out here that there's some of us hoping that we will
have enormous growth with this tax bill.
We will now go to the gentleman from Florida, Dr. Dunn.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to
turn our attention to some of the life sciences that NASA gets
involved in. In the '18 appropriations bill as marked up by the
Committee, we inserted a provision for NASA to spend at least
$10 million on life detection technology. Can you explain
briefly, whoever is the right person here, for what are we
using for life detection technology? Maybe tell me a little bit
about how that compares to the older and what we're developing,
briefly, five minutes.
Dr. Zurbuchen. Why don't I get started? So part of the life
detection technologies are actually the type of technology we
already talked about here. So it's basically starshade. It's
coronagraph technology as well as other promising approaches
that would really help us to actually collect a spectrum of the
type that was shown here by Dr. Mountain, like a spectrum that
would help us read, if you want, a fingerprint of life
elsewhere. And so, it's that kind of technology that we're
currently investing in and are committed to doing so in the
future.
Mr. Dunn. All right. So life takes some pretty surprisingly
different shapes and forms. It can be a little hard for us
right here on Earth to decide what is life and what isn't life.
I wonder if we are needlessly or unnecessarily limiting the
search for the type of lives we might find on an exoplanet.
Dr. Zurbuchen. I think it's a really hard question you're
asking, what we know about life is what I would always talk of
in science language is an N = 1. So we have exactly one type of
life and many variations thereof.
And so basically what we're doing as scientists--and
there's people who are scholars in this, perhaps even at this
table--what we're doing is we're going the other way and really
asking what does the universe provide us with from in many
cases basic principles, from the early universe. But how also
how stars work? What are the building blocks and how can life--
what would be the principles that we would be using from these
building blocks that basically would actually create
signatures, in many different scenarios, that are actually
different than ours that we could really see.
So it's not so much how exactly what life is but what life
does in an atmosphere and so forth.
Mr. Dunn. That's good. So can you explain why it is to the
public in general, why are we so fascinated with looking for
life? And I don't want a long, I don't want an essay. Have you
got a sound bite for me back home?
Dr. Mountain. For millennia, we've wondered where origins
come from. Are we alone? I mean, for four billion years we've
looked up at the sky and wondered are we alone? And that
loneliness may come to an end if we discover that we are no
longer alone. That would change the way we think about biology,
change about our civilization. And if we find nothing, think
how precious this planet is.
Mr. Dunn. So one of the ways we can spend some of this $10
million is looking for life on Mars with whether manned or
unmanned missions we send there. I know we've done that in the
past. I know that the answers have been cloudy, murky. But I
think there's ways to rather inexpensively clean up those
experiments and rerun them with some several Mars landers that
are coming right at us.
Let me--because of time, I'm going to skip to the next
question. So we've proposed four telescopes here, gentlemen. So
why four? Why do we need four different scopes to look at the
exoplanets.
Dr. Zurbuchen. I just want to make sure. I assume you're
talking about telescope studies for the future, the four?
Mr. Dunn. Right, yeah.
Dr. Zurbuchen. Yeah. So there, my full expectation is that
through the Academy process, prioritization will come. So by us
focusing on four, basically what we hope to do is provide a set
of options for the Academy to really put the pieces together
and actually see what's possible, really translate, if you
want, scientific aspiration into some engineering language, and
help from that, based on the scientific knowledge we have at
that point during the Decadal----
Mr. Dunn. Are you telling me you might cut down to less
than four, one, two, three?
Dr. Zurbuchen. One will be the first one out of the four.
We will not do four at the same time.
Mr. Dunn. Oh, I understand. It just seems funny to be
planning for four all at once. So in the few seconds left, why
are we launching the James Webb on the Ariane? I understand the
cost things. Is it just cost? Why are we using a European
missile rather than a good, old-fashioned American rocket?
Dr. Zurbuchen. It's a really good question. I already
promised to submit that answer for the record and really go
through the history of this. I really--I mean, I told you what
I know from that.
Mr. Dunn. So, good. Yeah. So I'm a physician. I'd love to
get involved with you guys and your life science and your proof
of life if you will on whatever planets we land on. And I yield
back. Thank you very much.
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you. More Democrats? Let's
see, Mr. Higgins from Louisiana for five minutes.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Babin. Sir.
Mr. Higgins. Dr. Mountain, my questions will be directed to
you. I'd like to jump right into the next generation of space
telescope and space technology as you envision it from your
unique perspective, sir.
Over the last several years, microbial life,
microorganisms, have been discovered to be quite resilient
living in space on the exterior of the hull of the
International Space Station and then experiments within
minerals and rocks. Do you envision the next generation of
search for life throughout the cosmos with our next generation
telescopes, do you envision them to be able to measure that
spectrum of the wavelengths that we study and search for
microbiotic life? Given the fact that the Hubble's been up
there for quite some time and future telescopes have been under
development for quite some time, and yet it's only recently
that we discovered microorganisms on the hull of the
International Space Station itself.
Dr. Mountain. And again, I can refer to my colleague, Dr.
Zurbuchen. I mean, it's a very good question. So the issue is
that all those microorganisms, whether they be in the space
station or in the depths of the Chernobyl reactor or on these
deep sea vents, they've all come from one place. It's Earth.
This N = 1 problem. And we know that this type of bacteria
affected the atmosphere of our Earth roughly a billion years
ago and created the oxygen that we now breathe. And so that was
the signature that, if we had been on another planet and looked
back, we would have seen. The problem is Earths, as I've tried
to say, are very faint. We haven't had the power and the
capability to look at another Earth-like planet. And I think
that the power of this whole idea for NASA's perspective is, it
isn't just looking around other stars. NASA wants to go to
Europa. It wants to put people on Mars. All of those are
potential places where life could have independently come, not
just come from our Earth.
Mr. Higgins. Specifically speaking of next-generation
telescopes, which is trying to stay within the parameters of
the purpose of this particular committee and discussion and the
search for life by investing massive sums of the people's
treasure, we're discussing microorganisms and the search for
them. What about silicon-based life, which has been a great
deal of scientific discussion about that recently. And do you
envision in next-generation telescopes the ability to detect
silicon-based life?
Dr. Mountain. Again, as Dr. Zurbuchen said, we don't yet
know what silicon life would look like which is why we believe
that the only way to look at this is to analyze the whole
spectrum of another Earth-like planet to see things we don't
expect and then try and build up models.
What we understand about life is that carbon and water and
oxygen are pretty essential. We know, that we don't yet know
what silicon life would look like. I don't know if, Thomas, you
had anything further. But we haven't yet found a way to
recognize what silicon life would be like.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you for that answer. In the interest of
time, I'd like to jump into what your thoughts are regarding
dark matter or dark energy as they relate to current and next-
generation telescopes. Dr. Mountain, again, the telescopes
we're discussing investing massive amounts of money in will be
embedded within the dark energy or dark matter that we call it
that because we don't know what it is. Do you envision this
next generation of investment to be able to measure that in
some way, to give us some answers as a people, be we Democrats,
Republicans, or anything in between? We would sure like to know
what dark energy and dark matter is.
Dr. Mountain. As would we scientists. I mean, we are in
that fortunate or incredible time where we're using telescopes
like the Hubble and other telescopes. We've discovered we
haven't understood where the matter comes from. That's dark
matter. We haven't understood where the dark energy comes from.
That's 75 percent. And that mystery is what's driven missions
like WFIRST. We're hoping to be able to measure across the
whole sky these very weak effects and give us real insight.
What physics are we missing? How is it that we sit in 2017 and
we have to say to you we don't understand what 95 percent of
the universe is?
Mr. Higgins. Exactly. And Mr. Chairman, my time has
expired. But should any of the other panel members have input,
please, we would like for you to submit your answers in writing
regarding the considerations of dark energy. I yield back.
Chairman Babin. That's very fascinating. Thank you for
those questions and answers. Absolutely. I think that's the
first time I'd heard of silicon life. I don't want to run into
one of those critters any time soon.
Now I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Mr.
Banks.
Mr. Banks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Harris Corporation
located in my district has provided vital technical support for
both the James Webb Space Telescope and the Wide-Field Infrared
Survey Telescope which we are very proud of, coming from Ft.
Wayne, Indiana.
My first question is for you, Dr. Zurbuchen. NASA has put a
great deal of time and money into the development of the Webb
telescope, and it has the potential to expand on the
discoveries of the Hubble telescope. However, since it will be
launched into an orbit that makes astronaut repair impossible,
it's important that the complicated process of building and
launching Webb is done the right way. Do you believe that Webb
can be launched and deployed successfully and achieve its
objectives?
Dr. Zurbuchen. You're talking about--so do I believe that
Webb can be launched successfully? Yes, I do.
Mr. Banks. Okay.
Dr. Zurbuchen. So I believe that the work has to be done
from all aspects, looked at multiple times. Webb can be done
successfully. I'm going to be really nervous during that time,
as I always am. Every time I look at a launch now, I'm nervous.
But yes . . .
Mr. Banks. Okay. Good answer. The missions that we're
discussing today are very large in scale. The large scale makes
these missions expensive and complicated. Is there any
consideration, Doctor, at the agency to utilize the growing
expertise in small spacecraft to accomplish some of the goals
being discussed here today?
Dr. Zurbuchen. Absolutely. I mean, so there's a number of
approaches that we're looking at, many of them actually on the
outside of astrophysics, just because there's many more photons
around. The light is much stronger when it comes from the
Earth, for example, or from the Sun. And so there's a number of
approaches that we're looking at as part of an initiative that
I launched when I came to NASA to relook at these systems. And
as we go forward and learn how to fly these spacecraft, perhaps
they become more relevant for astrophysics on a timescale of
10, 20 years. We don't know. At this moment in time, most of
the applications are elsewhere, but even in astrophysics, we're
starting to look at them.
Mr. Banks. So you would agree then that we could reduce
mission cost and duration by utilizing small spacecraft?
Dr. Zurbuchen. In some of the cases the answer is yes, and
in some of the cases like the one with the exoplanets, the
bucket size--how big the telescope is is really important
because that's the most important driver.
So at this moment in time with the technology we have today
anywhere, we don't know how to use small spacecraft for that
because it's basically we don't know how to span out a mirror
of that size. But you know, I'm sure there's smart people
either in your districts or elsewhere that will think about
this and really try how to use small spacecraft flying
information or otherwise to learn how to do this. I don't know
what's going to happen there. Right now we can't.
Mr. Banks. Good. So it's clear that the projects we're
discussing today have the potential for very exciting
discoveries. Does NASA have a plan to do outreach to middle and
high school students in order to get more young people
interested in NASA and space exploration?
Dr. Zurbuchen. Absolutely. We're committed to telling our
story to all learners of all ages. And I'm personally very
excited about middle schools and high schoolers. Of course, I
have children that age but also just because I see how much
knowledge like this can really impact their careers and their
lives. So yes, we're committed. Our programs are doing that now
and we commit to doing it in the future together with our
partners, many of which are here at the table.
Mr. Banks. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. I'd like to
now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. I apologize for just
coming in now. I was chairing my own subcommittee hearing
downstairs, so I apologize. But I will be reading your
testimony. I think that the idea of space telescopes and also
just the whole idea of astronomy is so important. It's hard for
people to come to grips with how important it is for us to know
what's going on out there because it sets down--well, anyway, I
don't have to explain it to you. You're explaining it to me.
But with that said, there's one element that I'd like to talk
about, and I don't know. I understand it has not been
discussed. And that is I think one of the things that behooves
us to work and to have a system that we can identify things as
far out as we can go and learn the fundamentals of the universe
but also see if there's something out there that could be
harmful to us. And we just had--and I don't know if it's still
there or if it's gone by--an asteroid that was what, three
miles wide, that was just within several million miles of the
earth. We need to have a system that we can identify anything
coming towards the earth that may well hit the earth at least
five to ten years out.
Now Erasevo telescope was almost shut down about ten years
ago. They almost closed Erasevo, and Erasevo, it's my
understand, is at this point essential to making sure we can
identify an object and then track it so we know whether it's
actually going to hit the earth or not. But we need to make
sure that capability is built into our satellites and our
telescopes that we're going to be putting into orbit so that
they are also expanding our understanding of the universe but
they're also, they are our guards. They are the sentries
looking for danger that might be heading in our direction.
Now, is that--I don't know if it's been discussed, but
where do you see that in terms of our planning for what type of
telescopes and things we will be doing in the future. And I
don't know who to ask but whoever would like to comment on
that?
Dr. Zurbuchen. Congressman, the planetary defense program,
which is what you're relating to, is part of our planetary
division and is multi-faceted. And like you correctly said,
Arecibo is an important part of that because it helps us
characterize objects that are really near Earth because we can
bounce off, you know, radiation off it and actually look at it
at Earth. There's many other assets that we're using--both
ground-based and space-based that are there, and actually we're
looking as we go forward at even assets that Dr. Mountain and
his organization are working with to really in fact provide
that kind of information. You of course are aware of that
interstellar object that is such a unique first that we found
as part of such a survey, a routine survey, at NASA.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Anyone else?
Dr. Mountain. Again, just going outside of what NASA does,
we are building, you know, the large synoptic survey telescope
which will scan the whole sky every three days, and that will
provide information that we can provide to NASA as well.
So there is--as you can understand, there is continued
coordination. I mean, the asteroid that came in from the
outside was actually found by a telescope in Hawaii, ground-
based telescope initially and then followed up with NASA's
assets including Hubble and other things. And so we are very
aware. And of course, the wide-field survey telescope will also
have the capability to survey wide areas of the sky. So we're
going into this generation of telescopes that can take enormous
images of enormous swaths of the sky which is of course what
you need to find these rare objects that may be coming our way.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And Mr. Chairman, I've never talked to a
scientist who said, oh, no, we're never going to have a big
asteroid hit the world, not one. And not one has ever said, no,
we're not--it's impossible that we wouldn't know about it ten
years down the road. Well, that's just not--I mean, they all
understand that tomorrow, because of what we have not done so
far, we could be surprised to find out that most of the earth
would be destroyed within a short period of time, within a year
or two.
We need to make sure we change that reality. That should be
one of our primary goals is that the earth isn't going to be
destroyed, for Pete's sakes. And I think that space-based
telescopes are going to play a major role in protecting us from
that danger, from that ultimate danger. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you. And my Ranking Member
over here, Mr. Bera, said he wanted to ask one question.
Mr. Bera. And I'll make it quick because they called votes.
Dr. Mountain, you said one to the 23rd? As I wrote this out,
that's a lot of potential planets that are out there.
Last year Kepler discovered 1,284, and the total number of
exoplanets that we've discovered is about 2,325, 9 of which are
potentially in the habitable zone. So part of what we're trying
to--the occurrence of life is a rare event, right, and just
from my understanding, we're trying to cast a wide net to see
as many of these planets as possible. Is that correct, to
identify?
Dr. Mountain. One with 23 zeros is our estimate of all
number of stars there are to our universe. Within our galaxy,
we believe there's 100 billion, and now from the observations
of Kepler just by extrapolation, we believe that most of those
have planets. What we can see with our telescopes is only out
so far, but we believe that we should search all nearby stars
because we believe there are a lot of planets. What we don't
know is how many of them have life. But we are going to try
with tests, with WFIRST, with all the things that we're doing
with our assets on the ground we're going to try and cast that
net as widely as we can because life may be extraordinarily
rare. We just don't know what that number is. Biologists will
argue that even with one to the 23rd, we could be it. I mean,
there are good, intellectual arguments from the biology side.
We would like to resolve that by going to observe.
Mr. Bera. Thank you.
Chairman Babin. Fascinating. I also have one, and I think
Mr. Rohrabacher's got one as well. We still have about ten
minutes. This is for Mr. Young. Would a congressionally
mandated cost cap for WFIRST instill cost, schedule and
requirements discipline? Would it be satisfactorily done?
Mr. Young. I actually don't think so. I'm not a fan of cost
caps.
Chairman Babin. Okay.
Mr. Young. I think the better solution is what NASA's doing
and that is understand the requirements and the cost and risk
and technical complexity of the requirements that exist now and
adjust those to be what we collectively believe to be
affordable and appropriate for WFIRST mission and then, in a
rigorous fashion, control them as we implement the program.
Chairman Babin. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, and I realize that space telescopes
are going to play a really important role in our search for
intelligent life somewhere in the universe. We have to cope
with the fact that we're trying to find intelligent life here
in Washington, DC. right now so--especially on budget issues.
I'd like to ask Dr. Zurbuchen about--what about the NEOCam
project and how does that fit in with the space telescopes and
the asteroids that I was talking about?
Dr. Zurbuchen. So NEOCam is an extended Phase A type of
project that we funded out of the Planetary Discovery Program.
We're learning through that Phase A what it would take to get
to the congressionally mandated numbers of covering, these
searches that you talked about earlier within a given number of
years. So NEOCam is one of the actual designs that will do so.
And there's a couple other things we're looking at with also
smaller spacecraft but very much in the spirit of NEOCam. So
we're looking at that right now as we go forward and plan.
Mr. Rohrabacher. But you're saying that that program is
under consideration but not decided upon yet?
Dr. Zurbuchen. We, at this moment in time, we don't have a
budget line or anything at this moment in time that would
basically allow us to fund that as part of this. Right now we
have our planetary defense budget that you talked about
earlier, and it's integral at over $50 million a year. And
NEOCam, if you look at the numbers, it's closer to the half-
billion type of dollars in round numbers. Of course, it may be
50 million less or more.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, this is just a thought and one major
strike. Any type of thing we do to give us some notice or try
to knock an asteroid out of the path because we got enough, we
have enough warning, would certainly be worth any investment we
could make.
Chairman Babin. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. We are
down to seven minutes. So we need to--I want to thank the
witnesses for their very valuable and fascinating testimony and
all the members for their questions. I'm sorry, did you have--
--
Mr.Bera. No, no, I was just going to do the math. How many
times does 50 million go into 125?
Chairman Babin. There's a bunch of smart guys right here.
You all come up with that. Anyway, the record will remain open
for two weeks for additional comments, and we would appreciate
that and written questions by the Members as well.
So with that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you so much.
[Whereupon, at 4:19 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Thomas Zurbuchen
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Ms. Cristina Chaplain
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Mr. A. Thomas Young
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Chris McKee
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Materials for the Record
Responses submitted by NASA
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]