[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AN OVERVIEW OF THE NASA BUDGET
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 7, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-51
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
28-938PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
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
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida MARK TAKANO, California
JIM BANKS, Indiana COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
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
March 7, 2018
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, Minority Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 8
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives
Written Statement............................................ 12
Witnesses:
Mr. Robert M. Lightfoot, Jr., Acting Administrator, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Oral Statement............................................... 14
Written Statement............................................ 17
Discussion....................................................... 31
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. Robert M. Lightfoot, Jr., Acting Administrator, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).................... 60
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Articles submitted by Representative Ami Bera, Minority Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 86
Letter submitted by Representative Ed Perlmutter, Subcommittee on
Space, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 98
Letter submitted by Representative Dana Rohrabacher, Subcommittee
on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 100
AN OVERVIEW OF THE NASA BUDGET
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2018
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:09 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian
Babin [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. The Subcommittee on Space will now come to
order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recesses at any time.
Welcome to today's hearing titled, ``An Overview of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Budget for Fiscal
Year 2019.''
I would like to now recognize myself for five minutes for
an opening statement.
The passage of the 2017 NASA Transition Authorization Act
last year was clear evidence of the Committee's bipartisan
support of NASA. The fiscal year 2019 budget request reflects
the Administration's adherence to the ``continuity of purpose''
described in the Authorization Act.
This Committee's commitment to NASA's long-term goals are
codified in law and the hearing record we've established over
the years. Mars has been, and will remain, the first
interplanetary destination for humanity. And along the way,
NASA has been encouraged to carry out any mission necessary,
including cislunar activities, to advance future interplanetary
exploration.
There are many benefits to this strategy. The moon offers a
proving ground closer to home for advancing the technologies
necessary for deep space exploration. The opportunities for
commercial and international participation could greatly
enhance a lunar mission. And the more frequent operational
cadence will better prepare astronauts, mission crews, and
commercial partners for future missions.
We were very encouraged to see the President sign the Space
Policy Directive-1 last year and the new Exploration Campaign
at NASA in the budget proposal. But the details are still
forthcoming, and as a friendly reminder, the Exploration
Roadmap called for in the 2017 Authorization Act was due back
to this Committee on December the 1st. I hope the
Administration will see fit to send this important report soon
so that the Committee has the best information to work with.
The President's budget proposal also includes some ideas
about the future of the International Space Station. Currently,
the ISS will operate until at least 2024, and the budget
proposes to end direct government funding in 2025. The idea is
that the commercial sector will step in to operate the ISS with
NASA as the customer--as a customer I should say.
The ISS, managed and operated out of the Johnson Space
Center, it is a unique testbed for deep space exploration and
serves as a significant services customer to our developing
NASA commercial partners. I remain open to new ideas relative
to future operations, but obviously, we need a detailed and
realistic, sustainable plan for any ISS transition in the
future. We will need buy-in from the industry and the workforce
well in advance of simply turning off the lights at the ISS and
walking away. Now, I know that isn't what is on the table, but
NASA will need to do a better job articulating this plan as we
move forward. As another friendly reminder, the ISS transition
plan called for the 2017 Authorization Act was also due back to
this Committee on December the 1st.
Turning to NASA's science portfolio, this budget request
continues to restore balance and support critical work across
the entire science directorate. The budget supports a robust
science program. This includes a range of small, medium, and
large missions, such as the TESS exoplanet mission next month,
the Mars Insight lander in May, the Parker Solar Probe over the
summer, and the James Webb Space Telescope in 2019, as well as
the flagship Europa Clipper and Mars 2020 rover missions, all
exciting stuff.
NASA has many exciting projects and missions across the
agency. It is amazing to see the progress that's been
accomplished over just the last year. Very soon, SLS, Orion,
Dragon 2, and Starliner vehicles will take their very first
flights. NASA will begin construction of the Deep Space
Gateway, the first permanent human outpost beyond low-Earth
orbit. And with continued bipartisan congressional support,
NASA will continue to make great strides in deep space
exploration.
I want to thank Administrator Lightfoot for his testimony,
and I look forward to this very important discussion.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Babin follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. I would like to now recognize the Ranking
Member, the gentleman from California, for an opening
statement.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And good morning and welcome to Acting Administrator
Lightfoot, and thank you for your strong leadership.
As we look at the budget, we're somewhat happy with the top
line numbers. It does suggest the Administration understands
the importance of space exploration and funding NASA. But in
the 2017 NASA Transition Authorization Act, we talked about
NASA being a multi-mission agency and organization. And as we
dive into the budget, there are some areas of concern of the
overweight focus just on exploration. None of us is going to
argue that exploration is not important but we also want to
make sure we don't lose sight of the space science side, the
space technology, the aeronautics and education.
One area of concern on the space science side is the moving
away from the focus on WFIRST. If we think about the objective
decadal process, WFIRST was a priority project there. And the
decadal survey has served us well. And again, not looking at
this scientific-based prioritization and moving away from that
certainly can set a dangerous precedent. We don't want to get
into a situation where every four years priorities are
changing. That makes it very difficult for the NASA
Administrator and NASA to focus on some of these longer-term
projects.
On aeronautics, cutting back on the X-Plane demonstration.
Aeronautics and aviation is an area where America is a world
leader, and if we don't continue to maintain that focus and
that lead, well, that doesn't just have repercussions on our
ability to be the world leader there because others will step
into that place, but it does have repercussions on an important
segment of our economy. And again, aviation is a $90 billion
positive trade balance for the United States.
In the area of education, the Chairman and I were noticing
the number of young people that are out there in the audience,
and I think it's great that the students and the young people
that are out there have such an interest in space and science
and exploration. And the diversity that you see across this
audience--and, as the father of a daughter--it is great to see
the number of young women in this room as well thinking about
science and thinking about the future, so thank you for being
here.
But let's not cut the education budget as well because
education is incredibly important, particularly programs like
the MUREP program, the Minority University Research and
Education Program, because the diversity we see in this room,
we want to make sure that next generation also reflects the
diversity of the United States, so funding programs like that
are incredibly important.
And let's touch on exploration. I mean exploration is
incredibly important, but as we start to think about--we saw
the Space Council wanting to focus on a return to the Moon and
the lunar mission. We've talked about that return to the Moon
as well. But in truth, a lot of us talk about the desire to go
to Mars, and I think my colleague from Colorado certainly will
emphasize that.
If we think about our own history and think about when
President Kennedy challenged us to put a person on the Moon, we
set a focus and we didn't change every four years. We had some
longevity. We understood what that mission and focus was. And
if our desire is to go to Mars and go deeper into space, we
have to maintain a focus on, you know, how we get there because
Mars is going to be tough. It's going to require space
technology, it's going to require an investment in space
science, it's going to require all the things that NASA does
very well, including what the commercial sector can do coming
up behind us.
So I'm going to be very interested in hearing your
impression, Administrator Lightfoot, but again, I want to make
sure that, as we look at NASA as a multi-mission organization,
we don't rob from Peter to pay Paul but we actually adequately
fund all those missions. And as we go through our budgeting
process I think that'll be incredibly important.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bera follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bera. And Mr. Chairman, I request unanimous consent to
submit four documents for the record, including opinion pieces
and statements related to NASA's fiscal year 2019 budget
proposal.
Chairman Babin. Without objection.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Mr. Bera. And I yield back.
Chairman Babin. Okay. Thank you. I'd also like to--I think
I've got the name of the school where you students are from,
the Lake Braddock Secondary School from Fairfax, Virginia. Is
that correct? Well, welcome this morning. Any other schools
participating this morning? Well, anyway, we welcome you. Thank
you for being here. And as my friend Dr. Bera said, it's very
gratifying to see young folks be interested in STEM studies and
our space program. You couldn't find a better place to come and
participate and have aspirations to join in at NASA, so thank
you for being here.
Let's see. Chairman Smith is not here. Ranking Member
Johnson is not here.
Okay. Well, let me introduce the witness today. Our witness
today is Mr. Robert Lightfoot, Acting Administrator of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Before serving
as Acting Administrator, Mr. Lightfoot served as the Associate
Administrator, the highest-ranking civil servant at NASA.
Before that, he was Director of NASA's Marshall Space Flight
Center in Huntsville, Alabama. He managed propulsion,
scientific, and space transportation activities.
From 2003 to 2005, he served as Assistant Associate
Administrator for the Space Shuttle Program at NASA's
headquarters right here in Washington where he oversaw
technical and budgetary oversight of the annual budget and
initial transition and retirement efforts for the shuttle
infrastructure.
From 2005 to 2007, Mr. Lightfoot was responsible for
overseeing the manufacture, assembly, and operation of the
primary shuttle propulsion elements such as the main engines,
solid rocket boosters, and reusable solid rocket motors. We
really appreciate all those long years of service.
Mr. Lightfoot received a bachelor's degree in mechanical
engineering from the University of Alabama--Roll Tide. He was
also named Distinguished Departmental Fellow for the
University's Department of Mechanical Engineering in 2007 and
was selected as the University of Alabama College of
Engineering Fellow in 2009. So I'd like to now recognize Mr.
Lightfoot for five minutes to present his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT M. LIGHTFOOT, JR.,
ACTING ADMINISTRATOR,
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Lightfoot. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify before
you on the NASA 2019 budget request.
The request places NASA at the forefront of a global effort
to advance humanity's future in space and expands on our
nation's great capacity for exploration and innovation. NASA is
focused on its core exploration mission and the many ways this
mission returns value to the United States. Through this
mission, NASA produces knowledge and discoveries, strengthens
our economy and security, deepens partnerships with other
nations, inspires the next generation, and helps provide
solutions to tough problems back here on Earth.
This year's proposal initiates an exploration campaign.
NASA will pursue exploration and development of the Moon and
deep space by leading innovative new commercial and
international partnerships, leveraging and advancing the work
we've already been doing in low-Earth orbit on the
International Space Station.
Our successful investment with a strong U.S. space industry
in low-Earth orbit allows us to focus our energies on farther
horizons. As private companies continue their successful cargo
missions to low-Earth orbit, we will once again launch
astronauts from American soil beginning with test flights this
year.
In low-Earth orbit, the International Space Station is our
cornerstone of our integrated approach to deep space. We are
dedicated to using the full potential of the station to
demonstrate critical technologies, learn about human health in
space, and focus commercial energies on the growing low-Earth
orbit economy. Further, we'll accelerate the process of
transitioning to commercial approaches to ensure long-term
human presence in LEO by the end of 2024.
In the vicinity of the Moon and on its surface, the Space
Launch System and Orion are critical backbone elements to
provide us the transportation infrastructure to and from that
location. The integrated launch of these systems in fiscal 2020
is on track, and a mission with crew in 2023 remains on track
as well. In 2019, we'll have an important test of the Orion
Launch Abort System to advance the critical safety knowledge
for the upcoming missions.
We'll also begin to build the in-space infrastructure for
long-term exploration and development of the Moon. By
delivering to the lunar orbit a Power and Propulsion Element as
the foundation of our Lunar Orbital Platform Gateway, this
gateway will expand what humans can do in the lunar environment
and provide opportunities to support those commercial and
international missions to the surface that will help pioneer
new technologies and exploration.
Our plan will draw on the interest and capabilities of our
industry and international partners as we develop progressively
complex robotic missions to the surface of the Moon with
scientific and exploration objectives in advance of a human
return. In collaboration with our robust scientific activity
across NASA's portfolio, these new lunar robotic missions will
stretch the capabilities of industry and international
partners, while returning science and knowledge we can use for
future human missions.
For the deep space domain, technology drives exploration,
both human and robotic, and helps us solve problems in space
and here on Earth. It lays the groundwork for our future
missions and addresses many needs, including how we'll live in
space, how we'll get there, and how those technologies will
allow us to move further into space. We'll focus our technology
investments on applications of the technology to deep space
exploration and innovative ways to further our goals from
concept to test to flight.
In science, our incredible portfolio will continue to
increase understanding of our planet and our place in the
universe, pursue civilization-level discoveries such as whether
or not there's life elsewhere in the universe, and scout for
knowledge to inform future human advancement into space. Our
robust activity will include a Mars rover, a lander, sample
return missions, diverse Earth and planetary missions, and
spacecraft to study the Sun and how it influences the very
nature of space. Powerful observations will study other solar
systems and their planets and peer back to the dawn of time
through other galaxies.
In aeronautics, NASA's work has always strengthened our
security and economy, and our ongoing research and testing of
new aeronautics technology is critical in these areas. It will
help us lead the world in global aviation economy with
increasing benefits worldwide. Commercial supersonic flight,
unmanned aviation systems, and the next generation of aircraft
are some of the critical focuses of this important program to
our nation.
Our mission successes will continue to inspire the next
generation like the folks with us here today to pursue science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics studies to ultimately
join us on this journey of discovery and become part of that
diverse workforce we will need for tomorrow's critical
aerospace careers. We'll use every opportunity to engage
learners in our work and our missions.
This budget places NASA again at the forefront of a global
effort to advance humanity's future in space and draws on our
nation's great capacity for innovation and exploration, to
raise the bar of human potential, and improve life across the
globe.
Finally, on a personal note, I would like to thank Chairman
Smith for his years of service to NASA and this country by his
service on this Committee. Thank you very much, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lightfoot follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you very much. I'd like to recognize
myself for five minutes for questioning.
The National Academies Pathways report from 2014 included a
sand chart that depicted the notional budget for exploration,
so I would ask if you wouldn't mind, please pull up that chart.
[Slide.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you very much. The chart broke down
funding for the ISS, for the SLS, Orion, as well as exploration
technology and research, and the chart visualizes how, without
significant increases to the exploration budget, the
development of any new projects going forward would be delayed
in order to accommodate the continued operation of the ISS on
to 2028.
Last March, this Subcommittee held a hearing on the plans
for the ISS after 2024, and at the hearing, we heard testimony
about how slight increases to the exploration budget have
allowed for some bit of flexibility to these projections. So
I'd ask you to pull up the second chart if you would.
[Slide.]
Chairman Babin. NASA's exploration budget request for
fiscal year 2019 is $10.5 billion, and while this is
considerably more than was envisioned in the Pathways report,
that $10.5 billion now includes approximately $1 billion in
activities previously funded under the Space Technology Mission
Directorate. So let's assume that budget caps are not lifted
significantly in the future. If the ISS is extended past the
current authorized date of 2024, what new projects will be
delayed, and would the Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway be
delayed? Would it prevent the start of a human lunar excursion
vehicle development until after the 2030s?
Mr. Lightfoot. Well, I think if you look at the budget
request we have, it--and we're proposing to eliminate
government funding for the ISS in 2025.
Chairman Babin. Right.
Mr. Lightfoot. That's our intent is to get--so we don't
have to fund that in the future and so that the total program,
though, when you look at it, what we want to do is work the
Mars vicinity. We want to get the platform built. We want to
build these robotic landers to and from the Moon. There--while
it's not a perfect transition from what we're doing in low-
Earth orbit, there's not like a switch we're going to flip and
magically go there----
Chairman Babin. Right.
Mr. Lightfoot. --right? What we want to use now this year,
this budget year is to go determine what are the commercial
capabilities that would allow us to fill the gap that you show
in your chart after 2024. What would they--what capabilities
are going to be there? So you're going to see a series of
announcements from us. We're trying to stimulate that with $150
million in this 2019 budget and roughly if--you know, in the
out years that would be $900 million over time to see who can
fill that slot so we can move on and build those Gateway
pieces.
Chairman Babin. Okay.
Mr. Lightfoot. That's the way we're looking at it.
Chairman Babin. Okay. Thank you. And then second, if NASA
transitions low-Earth orbit operations to the private sector,
how will NASA preserve the unique expertise and capabilities
related to mission operations, program management, systems
integration, including habitat and astronaut training, among
other core competencies that reside at Johnson Space Center? Is
there a long-term strategic plan that clearly delineates core
center roles? And for the past several years, every time we've
asked headquarters, the answer has been we need to wait and
see. So what say you about that?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, we've spent quite a bit of time in the
last two or three years defining center roles and what the
roles are and of course JSC, Johnson Space Center, has those
roles that you described. We believe those roles continue as we
move into the----
Chairman Babin. Okay.
Mr. Lightfoot. --lunar platform, and we also--one of the
other things we want to learn from the request for the
commercial folks this upcoming year is what capabilities do
they want to depend on? Because mission operations----
Chairman Babin. Yes.
Mr. Lightfoot. --astronaut training, those are things we
can offer and then get reimbursed for as we move forward.
Chairman Babin. Right. Okay. Thank you.
A backup plan for commercial crew, when the commercial crew
partners experienced delays two years ago, NASA was able to
maintain U.S. access to the station through the purchase of
additional Soyuz seats through Boeing as a result of their Sea
Launch settlement. Additional delays announced at their hearing
earlier this year once again threaten U.S. access to the ISS.
There are no more Soyuz seats to buy. Is NASA considering
accepting additional risk by flying U.S. astronauts on
commercial crew test flights? And if additional delays occur
this spring, which is not out of the question given the
complexity of work over the next several weeks, is this risky
option off the table? And are we in a position that we may need
to scale back crew on the ISS? Will we have to frontload our
agreement with the Russians to maintain a steady crew in the
near term, which will end up costing us more in the out years
to accommodate their cosmonauts on commercial providers? I know
I'm trying to get these questions in before I run out, so if
you could answer some of those, I'd appreciate it.
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, so in the spirit of time here, what I--
we are looking at several options along that line.
Chairman Babin. Right.
Mr. Lightfoot. I can tell you that we're working with the
Russians, we're working with our commercial partners, but we
maintain--we're still confident our commercial providers are
going to provide us the capability we need, and we're just
looking at contingencies in case it happens. What I would offer
is our teams can come up and brief you on the different options
we're looking at----
Chairman Babin. Right.
Mr. Lightfoot. --at some point, brief your staff on that.
Chairman Babin. Okay. Great. That's good. And I'm out of
time, so I would like to recognize Mr. Bera now.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Lightfoot, what's the basis for NASA focusing
in on a core mission of exploration, specifically lunar
exploration, when succesive of NASA Authorization Acts have
emphasized the multi-mission role of NASA?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, I think what we're looking at--I think
we still have a very balanced budget when you look across the
multi-mission opportunities in science and aeronautics and
technology, along with the exploration activity. What we're
really trying to do here is focus on a long-term plan with our
eye on Mars ultimately, right, but we had to really start to
define--and this Committee has even asked us to do that
multiple times. We had to define what we're going to do in the
decade of the 2020s to get ready to go to Mars. And I think
what you see in this budget is a series of missions to the Moon
and the lunar vicinity that are going to enable us to get to
Mars ultimately. So I think we still have a good balanced
budget from that standpoint.
Mr. Bera. And as we look at that return to a lunar mission,
I think we've talked about this on this Committee multiple
times, that that return has to be in the context of learning
something new that allows us to go on to the next capabilities.
I know we've asked for that human exploration roadmap that
talks about these interim destinations that allow us to go
further. Without that roadmap it becomes difficult for us to
evaluate kind of the exploration campaign. When do you think
we're going to get that roadmap?
Mr. Lightfoot. You could should get it by the end of the
month.
Mr. Bera. By the end of this month, okay. In my opening
statement I expressed some concerns about robbing Peter to pay
Paul and, again, the concerns of not having as well-rounded a
multi-mission portfolio. What are the short-term and long-term
impacts of giving human exploration precedence over other
priorities that were outlined in multiple decadal surveys?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, I think when you look at the priorities
that we have today, we're still meeting the majority of our
science priorities going forward. We're going to launch TESS,
for instance, this upcoming year. We've got James Webb going
out, so the astrophysics area is in pretty good shape from that
standpoint. We'd like to look at more integration between our
human exploration and science missions, and so when you look at
the lunar activity we're doing, it's not just lunar science
that we're looking at. We're looking at other science we can do
from the area of the Moon to meet the objectives--meet the
objectives in maybe different ways than we have in the past
that are in the decadals. So our science team is looking at
that as we go forward.
Mr. Bera. Okay. I made reference in my opening statement
that in the '60s when we challenged ourselves to put a person
on the Moon, the focus of the mission didn't change from one
Administration to the next. You had both Democratic and
Republican Presidents focused on that Apollo mission. And I do
think there is some concern as we go from one Administration to
another I'd be curious from the NASA perspective, it's got to
be difficult as you're trying to plan these longer-term
missions that focus changes from one Administration to another.
And how can we in Congress--we don't tend to turn over
every four years. Hopefully, some of us are here for a while to
help guide that process along. And again, we recognize it is
Congress' job, it's the House's job to set the budget
priorities and give you that budget, and your job as
Administrator is to implement that budget. What are some things
that we can do to avoid a shift every four years but allow you
to do your job of focusing in on that mission to Mars in 2033?
Does that make sense?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, I think from our end we think that this
particular budget proposal just provides some clarity and
context in terms of trying to still get to Mars as an out--you
know, kind of that horizon goal that we talked about before.
And what we're seeing is that we can use the lunar vicinity and
lunar surface, a more detailed and a more--a better
understanding of what we can do there to actually help us go
there. The Gateway is a critical piece of this. We are not just
going to the Moon. We're going to the lunar vicinity. We
believe the Gateway can also be a launching point to go to
Mars, but we've got to build it first, right?
So we haven't really--it's not as big a change in my mind
as maybe it looks like overall in terms of the exploration
planning, but what you guys can do is what you always do, is
hold us accountable to make sure we're doing the same things
that you want us to do from an overall perspective.
I will tell you multi-decadal missions like we're talking
about doing here are difficult in one-year increments----
Mr. Bera. Right.
Mr. Lightfoot. --right, and that continuity and that--is
very important to us to--for us to keep going as well, not just
from the policy standpoint but from the budgeting perspective.
Mr. Bera. And so since it's our job to hold you
accountable, do you feel the budget, as proposed, will give you
enough of that multi-mission focus and enough of that multi-
decadal focus to continue focusing in on that long-term
mission?
Mr. Lightfoot. Absolutely.
Mr. Bera. Okay. Thank you. And I'll yield back.
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Mr. Bera.
I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr.
Brooks.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I'd like to congratulate you, Mr. Lightfoot, on once
again today setting a new record as the longest-serving Acting
Director of NASA. I hope you'll have an extension of that
record tomorrow. We'll see if the Senate ever acts on who's
supposed to be nominated by the President.
Now, how much steel and aluminum does NASA use? Do you have
any judgment about that?
Mr. Lightfoot. I have no idea, sir.
Mr. Brooks. Well, I mean you use steel in the launch
platforms and of course aluminum. That's one of the metals used
in alloys or directly in providing lightweight launch vehicles,
commercial crew vehicles, all those things, correct?
Mr. Lightfoot. It's usually different material for that. I
mean, we use a lot of aluminum I'm sure. I can't tell you how
much, though.
Mr. Brooks. Has this Administration's proposed NASA budget
taken into account the higher cost for steel and aluminum that
would be anticipated because of the proposed ten percent
aluminum and 25 percent steel tariffs?
Mr. Lightfoot. No.
Mr. Brooks. All right. I hope----
Mr. Lightfoot. It was developed before that so----
Mr. Brooks. Okay. I hope you'll take that into account, and
hopefully it will be minimal, but if it's not and it's
something we need to adjust for, then we do need that
information.
In March of last year, the Committee held a hearing on the
future of the International Space Station. More recently, the
President's budget proposes additional funding to stimulate
low-Earth orbit commercialization. Would you please discuss
NASA's current thinking on commercialization and transition
strategies for the International Space Station?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, sir. We think that the commercial
industry is really on the precipice of really being able to
take over that area. We need another destination perhaps other
than ISS or use the International Space Station as a
destination maybe operated by others. Our planning and our
thoughts here are that if we're going to do this, we need to
talk about it now and not later on if we're going to--because
of the way the budget works. We--so what we want to do this
year is we want to do a series of calls for--to see what people
are doing, ask for their business plan, their business
proposal, what are they going to do, whether it's use the ISS,
have a standalone activity in low-Earth orbit, but ultimately
develop a destination in low-Earth orbit that our commercial
partners can go to that we and our international partners can
use going forward.
Mr. Brooks. If NASA is unable to reduce its cost for
operating the International Space Station by 2025, and if the
low-Earth orbit commercialization activity does not bear fruit,
what should the United States do regarding its presence on the
International Space Station at that point?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, I think the real question is what is
the research we can get, the research and science value in low-
Earth orbit that we will get from an International Space
Station or another entity. And I think that's a discussion
we'll have once we get the data back that tells us what we need
to go do, and we'll bring back a budget that addresses it.
We'll have to make that decision based on the technologies and
the research that we need to do whether we can accomplish it in
low-Earth orbit or in our future move out to the toward the
Moon.
Mr. Brooks. Each commercial crew provider is required to
fly an un-crewed flight followed by a crewed test flight before
beginning International Space Station crew missions.
Originally, commercial crew providers were required to fly
functioning environmental control and life-support systems on
their un-crewed flights. These systems provide oxygen to
astronauts, absorb carbon dioxide, provide heating and cooling
for the crew, and maintain atmospheric pressure.
Recently, SpaceX was granted a waiver by NASA to fly their
first test flight without these systems. What is NASA's
reasoning for skipping this stage? And that's assuming the
information I have is correct. First, is the information I have
correct?
Mr. Lightfoot. I'm not 100 percent sure, but what I will
tell you is no matter what we do when we fly crew, we'll have
the safety policy in place that we need, and we'll have the
risk management appropriately around those activities. So I'll
take that for the record to get back with you in terms of
exactly what we've agreed to there on that--from that
standpoint. But no matter what the first crewed flight is for
us, it will have the right safety checks that we would normally
do and require before we fly crews on those missions.
Mr. Brooks. Well, thank you. I look forward to getting that
information back and also if the proposed tariffs on aluminum
still do affect the NASA's budget, if you could get that back
to us, too, so that we can assure that NASA's properly funded.
Mr. Lightfoot. Okay.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you.
Chairman Babin. Thank you.
I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr.
Perlmutter.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, Dr. Babin.
Mr. Lightfoot, thank you for your service. Thanks for
sitting and staying in this position as Acting Administrator.
You've been doing it for a long time. You were Associate
Administrator before that. Just in a few words, is it time to
have somebody who's permanent in that position? Is it hard as
an Acting Administrator to move the agency forward?
Mr. Lightfoot. I think, you know, from my perspective on
that, as someone sitting in that chair, it is always of value
to have the person the President wants in this position, and I
think that would be important for us all from that standpoint.
But I can tell you for the past year I've had no trouble having
access to the people I need to have access to. I've been
involved--I mean, I've been to both Space Councils. I've had a
chair--I haven't had to sit in the back row. I've sat right at
the table, as the Administrator would be, but there is value in
having the approved presidential nominee in the chair.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. Well, thank you. I don't know if the
students over here, are you from Lake Braddock? Okay. So I know
a lot of your classmates just left, but I'm just curious. Of
you all, any of you plan to be astronauts or work in the space
program? By a show of hands, I'd be curious. You're all going
to be doctors in the healthcare business, right? All right.
Well, I'm sorry the rest of them left because I'm a lawyer;
I'm not a scientist. I'm not any of that, but I watch--I love
science fiction--Star Wars and Star Trek and Men in Black and
Back to the Future. So some of what we're doing here reminds me
of Back to the Future, a real effort on exploration, a real
desire to do that, but when we were in the '60s, there was a
real investment in getting to the Moon or, you know, as the
Administrator knows, I want to get our astronauts to Mars by
2033, which the orbits of Mars and Earth are close, and it
saves a lot of space travel and potential danger to our
astronauts.
But I guess, Mr. Administrator, my question is this: There
is an emphasis on exploration, but it seems to be at the
expense of a lot of the other missions of NASA, one of which is
the Science or the Space Technology Mission Directorate. And I
have a letter from one of your former colleagues Bobby Braun,
who is now a dean at the University of Colorado, in effect
criticizing that--the loss of that directorate. And for the
record, I'd like to introduce this letter, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Babin. Without objection.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Mr. Perlmutter. So my question to you, sir, is--and some of
the other questions that Mr. Brooks asked, the Chairman asked,
Dr. Bera, it seems to me that in this process of focusing on
the Moon with a hope to get to Mars that we're losing a lot of
the other science elements and a lot of the other Earth science
programs at the expense of this exploration effort. Is that
true?
Mr. Lightfoot. I don't believe it is. In fact, I would
argue that our technology budget--and when you look at it
today, the exploration research and technology budget that
we've proposed is $1 billion. Today, the space technology
budget is roughly $700 million. So what we've done is we've
aligned that technology budget with the exploration
initiatives, and that particular part of the budget will now
focus on what we call our long poles to getting to Mars, things
like in-space propulsion, radiation safety, advanced life
support that we need to actually take crews to Mars, and our
entry, descent and landing activities that we're doing at Mars
that we don't have to worry about at the Moon.
So I think we are--we still have a very balanced portfolio
going forward, and I just think the alignment and the focus
from an exploration standpoint is what you're seeing out of
this budget.
Mr. Perlmutter. Do you think you're putting the building
blocks in place to get our astronauts to Mars by 2033?
Mr. Lightfoot. We're putting the building blocks in place.
I don't know if we're going to get to it in 2033 or not, but
we're putting the building blocks in place that we need with
the systems we're putting around the Moon and on the Moon.
Mr. Perlmutter. I heard you say--and I think this was
your--a quote--``We're going to try to get to Mars in the
'30s,'' try. Another one of my movies, in Star Wars--
Mr. Lightfoot. Star Wars.
Mr. Perlmutter. --Yoda said, ``Do or do not----
Mr. Lightfoot. ``There is no try.''
Mr. Perlmutter. --there is no try.''
Mr. Lightfoot. Absolutely. I know it well.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay.
Mr. Lightfoot. I use it with my team all the time.
Mr. Perlmutter. All right. So, you know, I think that this
Committee has been--you know, in Congress it's pretty fractious
sometimes, but this Committee has been pretty solid in wanting
to support the mission--the overall mission of NASA
exploration, science, Earth science, deep space, and I think
this Committee will be behind NASA in getting this done.
Part of me feels like a lot of this budget was written by
the Office of Management and Budget, which I'm not happy about.
So I want you to know that support that I think you have among
all of us Democrats and Republicans. And I want to thank you
again for your service, sir.
Mr. Lightfoot. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Mr. Perlmutter.
I'd like to recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And this is one of those rare occasions--well, actually,
it's not. We agree--my friend from Colorado just expressed a
concern about the Space Technology Mission Directorate, and I,
too, am concerned about that, and I join him in expressing
that. I have a letter as well for the record that I would
submit for the record today, and I hope you would pay attention
to that.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Mr. Rohrabacher. And for the sake of our high school
students there, yes, my friend from Colorado and I agree on
this. We're working on it. That's the type of bipartisanship
that this Committee is known for and the American space program
is known for.
However, let me note that we have today--and this is for
the kids--we don't have a full-time Administrator of NASA. This
is a temporary Administrator here. This is not, however, a
product of partisanship. This is not political. He's been in
for a year. We have a good candidate, a great candidate, but
yet we have to face this job with someone who's in the job
temporarily.
This is a product of a couple of Senators who are
bullheaded and a couple of Senators who are basically watching
out for their own little domain rather than what's good overall
for the country. And let me just put that on record so the kids
recognize that is not politics. It could happen in any--this is
not a political party-based outcome. It's based on the fact
that there's several people over in the Senate that have
demonstrated an arrogance that is unacceptable and makes things
not work as well in Washington, D.C.
Let me now note now that we've talked a little bit about
some of the other things, I, as you know, over the years--and
when we're talking about kids--there's a big threat to these
kids. There's a big threat to the people of the world, and it's
the one thing that we seem to be ignoring, and I don't think
that we're paying enough attention to it in this budget and
others, and that is at any time there could be an asteroid or a
near-Earth object that could come and wipe out half the world
if not the entire planet. Their generation needs to know that
we are preparing now for some way to defend this Earth, global
defense, if indeed something is determined, is actually sighted
ten years out--and we can do that--so that we could change the
actual trajectory of an object like this.
Now, that is not something that's likely to happen, but it
could happen. And if it does happen, it'll mean your entire
generation is wiped out. So for these kids and for the planet
in general, shouldn't we be doing more of that? And, for
example, NEOCam is something that is absolutely necessary to
see if an object would be coming from the Sun. Is there any
money in this budget for NEOCam?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, for the--so for the total picture of
planetary protection is what we call it. We have an office--
Planetary Protection Office in the agency----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Mr. Lightfoot. --and what we do there is we've increased
the budget to do more observations that we're required to do,
but we've also funded a mission called DART, which is going to
be a mission that goes out and potentially determines whether
we can deflect an asteroid or not. And we continue the
technology work on NEOCam. We do not have the NEOCam mission
yet, but the technology associated with what would become a
mission is----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, this is vitally--this is something
that's important even though the chances of a horrible occasion
like this are small, but the consequences would be incredible,
catastrophic.
In terms of your science, and budget, and the fact that
there seems to be a limitation on Earth science that has been
mentioned, let me just note that, today, we do have commercial
companies that are capable of doing things they couldn't do 30
years ago, especially in the terms of remote-sensing and Earth
observation. There's no reason in the world why, if a private
company can do something to make a profit at it, that we should
take our limited budget for NASA and spend it on something that
could be done and made a profit on in the private sector. So I
would think that that's one thing that we should facilitate
companies to get in, make a profit at doing those things in
observation and sensing that they can do and make a profit at.
Lastly, I'd like to bring up another major impediment, and
I've got one second to do it. And it's debris. And again, one
thing that we can do as a government is work together with
other governments, I might add, and other countries that want
to do things in space to help clear the debris that's limiting
what we can accomplish in space. Is there--what do we have on
space debris?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, we continue to work on the
technologies, and I think this is a topic we've brought up with
Scott Pace, the Executive Secretary for the Space Council----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Mr. Lightfoot. --is to look at an integrated policy because
we all have an interest in this across the government.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, I hope so, and I would--let me just
say that, again, if we can just give these young people a world
in which their opportunities are present, but by not doing
things about debris or a possible threat from an asteroid,
we're doing a great disservice to the next generation. So thank
you for doing your part.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. We'll work together on that.
Chairman Babin. I'd like to recognize the gentleman from
Illinois, Mr. Foster.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman----
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Foster. --and thank you for your service. I know it's--
you know, it's tough.
I'd like to just start with one sort of big-picture item.
Is it a correct reading of that plot that we looked at earlier
that with a flat, flat budget, you don't get to the Moon and
you certainly don't get to Mars? Is that correct?
Mr. Lightfoot. I think it would be quite a challenge with a
flat budget to do that.
Mr. Foster. Right. And that's true both for a flat, flat
budget and one that even inflation-adjusted, flat including
inflation?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, we think that--we actually think the--
including inflation we can do this. We've done the models.
We've run the numbers to say if--
Mr. Foster. And that assumes shutting down the ISS at some
appropriate time.
Mr. Lightfoot. Absolutely.
Mr. Foster. But without shutting down the ISS, it's a
nonstarter?
Mr. Lightfoot. Again, it depends on when we shut it down
because it--that study showed '24 and '28. I mean, there's
options in there in the middle if that makes sense. I mean,
there's other times we can do it.
Mr. Foster. Yes, you can shut it down when you decide to.
Mr. Lightfoot. Right.
Mr. Foster. But you need that money to even return to the
Moon?
Mr. Lightfoot. I believe so, to build the entire system to
do that, absolutely.
Mr. Foster. Yes. Okay. And then I want to talk about----
Mr. Lightfoot. That's why we have the plan we have, right?
It's what we're showing to get off of it in 2024.
Mr. Foster. Now, if you talk about missions to Mars, an
obvious suggestion is to have international partners taking a
significant fraction of that. There's a lot and growing
enthusiasm among other countries. And what is your attitude
towards collaboration for a Mars mission with other countries?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, we--all of this we're trying to do we
think is going to be a great opportunity not only for industry
partners in the country but also international partners. Last
week, I was in Japan at the International Space Exploration
Forum, and I was able to brief all our international partners
that work with us on space station on what we're trying to do.
They're all very interested in coming forward to help us not
only at the Moon but also as we go to Mars. That's our plan all
along is to include that. That's one of the differences between
the '60s and now is we have other players that want to come and
be part of this. They just need us to lead.
Mr. Foster. And the other thing that is potentially really
changing are the increased capabilities of artificial
intelligence and robotics, that you have robots today doing
things that could only be done by people even a few years ago.
And so this is an opportunity to really knock some cost out of
future missions by either having robots precede people to--
which is--it seems like there is a shift in focus in that
direction now, where you're talking about relatively
sophisticated robotic-first missions and then deferring the
human--the much more expensive manned component as necessary to
meet your budgetary constraints.
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, we're using robotics--to your point,
we're using robotics on the International Space Station
actually doing things robotically that ten years ago we needed
crew time for. We will take things--when SpaceX flies to the
station today, for instance, they carry instruments in the
trunk, in the unpressurized cargo area for the SpaceX. While
the crew's asleep, we take the arm, we would pull it out, we do
it all robotically from the ground. You can do the same thing
from the platform at the Moon. You can do robotic operations of
landers on the Moon, so it goes both ways.
Mr. Foster. Sure. You can have--you know, the old dream----
Mr. Lightfoot. The advances are incredible.
Mr. Foster. Yes, the old dream of having self-replicating
factories on the Moon using completely robotic equipment, these
sort of things people are making, you know, prototypes of
components of that on Earth, and it's something actually the
next generation should get very excited about because these
sort of prototype facilities on Earth could really lead the way
for, you know, orders-of-magnitude reduction in the cost of
future missions.
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, we believe our International Space
Station lets us demonstrate that in space as well.
Mr. Foster. Okay. Now, in my last time, I'd like to go to
something very microscopically focused, which is the choice of
using high-enriched uranium or low-enriched uranium for power
sources. There is a huge difference in the danger, the
proliferation danger and the terrorist danger, between high-
enriched uranium and low-enriched uranium. If you have weapons-
grade high-enriched uranium and a terrorist steals it, they
can, without much sophistication, make a nuclear weapon. On the
other hand, if they steal low-enriched uranium, they have to go
and build a centrifuge hall and so on, and so it's almost
useless to them.
And so, I'm a little puzzled why you seem to have both
high-enriched uranium and low-enriched uranium for propulsion
and for surface power in different parts of your program. And I
was wondering specifically, have you looked at the real cost of
security when you choose high-enriched uranium for--that means
you need armed guards, you need barbed wire, you need
everything, and it's very expensive because of the terrorist
threat if you choose high-enriched uranium. You know, it does
make a slightly more compact design for typical reactor
applications, but I'd encourage you to look hard at seeing if
you can lead the world in standardizing low-enriched uranium.
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, we've been working on technologies for
that for the exact reason you're talking about. It is high-
enriched uranium creates a lot of extra challenges there. We've
been looking at it for power and propulsion. What I'd like to
do is let our team bring you--get--provide you a report on what
we've been doing in LEU and how we're trying to use it and the
applications we see going forward. Would that be okay?
Mr. Foster. Yes, it'd be very--yes, I mean, there was a
letter from a long list of Nobel Prize winners just focusing on
how the United States should lead--there's a danger also that
countries which are not necessarily nuclear countries will say
we need a large inventory of high-enriched uranium not to build
bombs but for their space program. And so if there's a
technological way to avoid this, I just really encourage you to
try to lead the world towards exclusively using non-weapons-
grade uranium for your programs.
Chairman Babin. Okay. Thank you. The gentleman's time is
expired.
And I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr.
Lucas.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is always a
challenge on the Republican side to follow Mr. Rohrabacher from
California, but here we go.
A number of my colleagues have touched on this question,
Acting Director, about the nature of the agency and the ability
of the things to be done that are necessary in this environment
we work in with an Acting Director. And you're a long-term
career guy, and you've done an outstanding job and a very good
role as Acting Director. But ultimately, as my friends are
noting here, in the environment we work in, the resources that
the agency needs in the long-term, having a Director nominated
and confirmed by the United States Senate from the
Administration is critically important, and I think we would
all agree on that. And while this body can't really give advice
to that other institution--notice I was very careful in my
phraseology there--nonetheless, having a full-time Director is
a critically important thing.
And I spent five or six years sitting next to the OMB
Director on the subcommittee of another committee, and I
understand how challenging the circumstances can be there, so
we need someone, and I agree with my colleagues.
Another observation in a general sense I would note my
friend from Colorado's focus on having people on Mars by 2033,
that would make me 73 years old. I would like to be alive for
this great accomplishment. And while I come from reasonably
decent genetics, once we get past the mid-80s, it starts to be
a little questionable, so I want to help you get there and the
agency get there.
So for a comment or two in the weeds now that we've
discussed indirectly Mr. Mulvaney and the environment we're
working in, NASA's expressed an interest in building a second
mobile launch platform for the SLS as a way to address some of
the scheduling pressure on the first crewed mission of SLS and
Orion. And I was looking through your request, and I noticed
the second platform is not included. What effect would building
a second mobile launch platform rather than modifying existing
platform have on the launch schedule for SLS and Orion, and
what would the cost be thinking about our justifications to our
other friends in government about why we need the resources to
do things?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, I think we took a hard look at that
during this cycle, and what the advantage of the second mobile
launch platform gives you is I could fly on the mobile launch
platform I'm building today, and I could potentially fly Orion
if I bought another interim cryogenic propulsion stage, an
upper stage. So I could fly quicker, fly humans quicker,
probably 2022 time frame.
The opposite of that is the cost is a pretty expensive
proposition to build a new mobile launcher and to buy another
interim cryogenic propulsion stage. And so just as we had the
discussion, we had the debate, and our answer came back we just
should stick with our plan that we've got. So, I mean, that was
the difference. We can provide you the numbers. I'd be glad to
provide the cost associated with that to the Committee.
Mr. Lucas. I would be fascinated by the numbers, Director--
--
Mr. Lightfoot. Okay.
Mr. Lucas. --because that's one of the issues that we as a
committee need to take up in our work with the appropriators if
we really want to get there in 2033 or a day or two earlier,
providing those necessary resources.
Now, let's touch for a moment, are the flat, notional,
nominal, topline, out-year numbers on the budget request a
result of the decision to keep funding flat, or are they simply
placeholders for subsequent requests that the Administration
will be making as the long-term formula gets put together as
all the pieces come into place in the Administration?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, we believe that our job is to present
the budget we need every year to OMB, and so without years
being notional, I don't really think about them either way as
placeholders or direction. I just think we have to present our
budget going forward, so----
Mr. Lucas. Another observation that I would make to my
colleagues on the committee that it's our responsibility to
address some of these long-term issues, our responsibility to
focus the resources to do what is in the common good and the
best interest.
Just one casual question to conclude with, Director. Tell
us about the funding situations and circumstances of the James
Webb. Are we still on track? Do we still have the resources
necessary to help it live up to its potential?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, we believe we have the resources
necessary now. We're in a pretty significant review from a
schedule standpoint about when we'll launch it. We're having
some challenges with a couple of the technical parts of the
spacecraft, not the telescope part but the actual spacecraft
bus that's being built. The telescope is already delivered and
it's ready to go. We've done through--gone through the testing.
They're around the sunshield and around some of the propulsion
elements associated with that. So we--we're--I'm supposed to
get briefed by the end of the month on where we are, and we'll
let--obviously let everybody know where we are from that
standpoint.
Mr. Lucas. And I bring that up, as important as the manned
program is, nonetheless, your satellites in orbit around the
Earth have provided us with, as my mother would have said, a
lot of ``Buck Rogers'' moments in the last 20 years, and we
need to continue that focus and generating the imagination of
our fellow citizens.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you very much, Mr. Lucas.
And I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Crist.
Mr. Crist. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Babin. Certainly.
Mr. Crist. I appreciate that.
And thank you, Mr. Lightfoot, for being with us today. We
appreciate the situation you're in, and thank you for your
tenacity in the mission.
And you may have addressed these things. I had to step out
for a meeting or two. During your state of NASA address last
month, you mentioned that the Administration is putting NASA,
quote, ``on a path to return to the Moon with an eye towards
Mars.'' That's an interestingly worded statement, and I
appreciate that. It seems to avoid a firm commitment as to
either of the two objectives may be accomplished. And while
it's clear that this fiscal year 2019 budget focuses heavily on
lunar exploration, I am a bit concerned that the Administration
may be shying away from Mars. Can you elaborate on that? And
you may have already, so forgive me----
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes.
Mr. Crist. --if that's the case.
Mr. Lightfoot. No, it's fine. I'd be glad to articulate
where I think we are. I think we are still keeping an eye on
Mars for sure, and the technologies I mentioned earlier
around--that we're going to still continue to fund. There are
some pretty long--what we call long poles, challenges, to get
to Mars: entry, descent, and landing; and space propulsion;
advanced life support; radiation protection for the crews as we
go there. These are big challenges for us. So we're going to
keep working on those while we build the systems that we're
building at the Moon that we think are going to be extensible
to get us to Mars.
The Gateway is a critical piece of that. If--we could've
decided just go to the Moon from Earth, right, and then that
would've not been extensible to do anything to get to Mars, but
the fact that we're going to build a platform that allows us to
operate to and from the platform to the Moon can also be the
platform we use to operate to and from to Mars. So that's--I
think that's a pretty nuanced difference from a technical
perspective in terms of this architecture.
Mr. Crist. Where do we think we are in terms of the timing
of a Mars mission?
Mr. Lightfoot. Well, you know, as Congressman Perlmutter
said, he wants 2033. I think what we'll do is see what--how
much progress we make in the lunar vicinity in building those
systems we need and knocking down the technical requirements,
but it will be no earlier than 2033, how about that? I'll just
leave it at that.
Mr. Crist. Okay. I appreciate that. Is there an
opportunity, do you think, for the private sector to assist
NASA in getting humans to Mars?
Mr. Lightfoot. Absolutely. We--there--not only an
opportunity, we are expecting them to help. I mean, they're
helping today by helping us with low-Earth orbit the activity
we're doing from a cargo perspective and ultimately the crew
perspective and even some of the systems that we have on the
International Space Station. We want to leverage that in a big
way as we move forward because the more they can do, the more I
can move out going forward. So it's the entire system of what
we're doing in low-Earth orbit, around the Moon, and getting to
Mars. That's going to need international cooperation, it's
going to need American industry and commercial folks to come
forward, and then the NASA team themselves. And I think that's
what's important is to look at that total spectrum.
Mr. Crist. Yes, sir. Thank you. The budget proposes to end
direct funding for the International Space Station in 2025 when
under this proposal the station would be transferred to
commercial management and control. Will the research being done
on the space station to mitigate the risk of extended space
travel on humans be completed by 2025?
Mr. Lightfoot. Well, we have a roadmap for doing that
research obviously. The important thing is we're not going to
quit doing research. We'll be doing research around the Moon on
the reaction--what happens to humans as well. That's part of
our discussion this upcoming year is what do we need to do and
what commercial platforms can actually provide us the same
research that we get on the International Space Station. So we
will get the research done that we need to do to move humans
forward, but we don't ever stop researching for humans no
matter where we are, at the Moon or even at Mars.
Mr. Crist. Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Lightfoot. I'll
yield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you.
I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Florida, Dr. Dunn.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much, Dr. Babin----
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dunn. --Mr. Chairman. I'm going to stay on the same
line of questioning if I may and ask you to elaborate a little
more about the transfer of the space station to the commercial
sector, private sector. You know, how exactly does that work?
Mr. Lightfoot. Well, part of it is--so we have to
coordinate with our international partners, too, I want to be
really clear, as they are part of the International Space
Station today. What we're really looking for is----
Mr. Dunn. Are all the governments stepping out or just
ours? It's just ours?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, we've just proposed it, and we've been
talking to them going forward----
Mr. Dunn. Okay.
Mr. Lightfoot. --but today, all the governments were agreed
to to 2024. If we go past 2024, all the governments are going
to have to agree to as well.
Mr. Dunn. So a new negotiation?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes. And I think that's not a difficult
thing. It may be difficult for them and their ministries and
all the different things they do.
But what's really important here is we think when you look
at the rise of the commercial entities and the--really the--
their abilities and the things they're bringing where there's
the habitats--we got a tremendous amount of interest in our
NEXTSTEP, BAA, the Broad Area Announcement around habitats. We
think by 2025 there's great potential for them to have orbiting
platforms in low-Earth orbit. It doesn't have--some of them
might want to use the International Space Station; some may
want to stand alone. So the plan would be those come along, and
if they do, we can get our research done and use them--just
basically buy that as a service for our needs going forward. So
this next year we'll get--we'll ask folks for that kind of
feedback. We'll get that kind of feedback from all these
companies, and we'll see where they really are, which allows us
to influence our 2020 submit based on that--what that date
might be.
Mr. Dunn. So during--on the same theme of reorganization
here--you stated that NASA plans to reorganize the Human
Exploration Operations Missions Directorate and Space
Technology Mission Directorate. Can you also elaborate on that
transition?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, so the goal here is to move what the
Space Technology--Space Technology Mission Directorate today
into an exploration, research, and technology arm, and we're
still working the details around the organization. We'll have
that back in the spring. And what we're really trying to do is
make sure our technologies that we're working on are truly
aligned with the things we're trying to do at the Moon and
ultimately at Mars, as I talked about some of the technologies
we got to work on before.
And we think having them housed under one organization,
while today I am very comfortable--I really am pretty
comfortable with the alignment, there's things we're doing in
technology that may not be aligned. You know, there's other
things, and so we're trying to make sure they're all focused.
And having them under one spectrum so I know what I'm doing in
low-Earth orbit, I know what I'm doing with the Moon, and I
know what I'm doing with my technologies, I can make sure those
are integrated and not on their own, so that's what we're
trying to do.
Mr. Dunn. I'm going to lower our altitude just a little bit
here. I'd like you to elaborate on the X-Plane program, which
is fascinating to me. And by the X-Plane, I think you mean the
low boom.
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes.
Mr. Dunn. Are there other X-Planes you're working on?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, we have a plan ultimately I think for
four X-Planes in our--in what we call our New Aviation
Horizons. The first is the low boom supersonic demonstrator--
flight demonstrator.
Mr. Dunn. Do you feel pretty confident about that?
Mr. Lightfoot. Absolutely.
Mr. Dunn. Great.
Mr. Lightfoot. I feel very confident. I think you'll see
some announcements probably in the next month about some
selections we've made moving forward.
Mr. Dunn. I'm going to hold you to that.
Mr. Lightfoot. You can on that one. We're pretty excited
about that. And the goal there of course obviously is to create
supersonic transport across the continent of the United States,
which we can't do today, right? Can we provide a demonstrator
that allows the commercial market to learn from that
configuration and move forward?
The next demonstrator, the next X-Plane is what we call X-
57 Maxwell. It's an all-electric aircraft----
Mr. Dunn. Yes, yes.
Mr. Lightfoot. --and so that's the next one. And they we're
going--we're continuing working on subsonic technologies, which
is flight technologies from a subsonic perspective. That would
be the next demonstrator. It's not in this budget, but that
would be the next one. There'd be a third one even. And we just
think--I mean, I just think it's critical that we stay engaged
from an aviation and aeronautics technology perspective.
Mr. Dunn. It is.
Mr. Lightfoot. It's a huge global market that we don't want
to get out of.
Mr. Dunn. Yes, no really, I'm glad that NASA hasn't lost
sight of the atmospheric efforts.
Mr. Lightfoot. Not at all.
Mr. Dunn. That's very good. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. I yield back.
I appreciate your answers, Mr. Lightfoot.
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you.
I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Beyer.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Mr. Lightfoot, thank you very much for being here. In your
testimony you mentioned that the budget request provides for,
quote, ``critical infrastructure indispensable to the Nation's
access and use of space,'' and you discuss the importance of
maintaining the ISS and supplying both crew and cargo through
NASA's commercial cargo partners. I certainly agree that those
are very important priorities, which is why I want to discuss
the Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia. The space launch range
at Wallops is technically NASA's only launch range, considering
that launches from Kennedy Space Center in Florida use the Air
Force's eastern range. In fiscal year 2018, the National
Defense Authorization Act that Congress established a launch
support and infrastructure modernization program for DOD's
eastern range in Florida and the western range in California.
I'm concerned because there appears to be no similar program
within NASA to sustain and invest in long-range assets for
Wallops, which are also used for your mobile range missions in
the United States and around the world.
Even more troubling, the fiscal year 2019 President's
budget request did not include any funding for the 21st-Century
Launch Complex Program, which has been used to fund some of
these needs at Wallops in the absence of a dedicated launch
range program. This Committee included its support for the
continuation of the 21st-Century Launch Complex Program in the
2017 NASA Transition Act, but I'm disappointed the budget
request didn't follow along with this Committee's
recommendations.
So I was encouraged that Chairman Culbersonas, Ranking
Member Serrano, and Members of the House Appropriations'
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies continued funding for this program in their fiscal
year 2018 bill, and I know that my colleagues and I will be
pushing for this again in our eventual fiscal year
Appropriations Act.
So my question is how is NASA investing in upgrades at
Wallops to improve the launch range infrastructure, and why are
there no dedicated range improvement programs for NASA's range
as there are for the DOD ranges?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, so the way we--what we typically do
from an infrastructure standpoint is we'll build the
infrastructure, and then once the program comes into operate
it, they inherit the infrastructure costs. So we'll do--kind of
do the upfront investment, and then we let the programs like
commercial cargo that flies out of Wallops, as you know,
Sounding Rockets Programs, the Balloons Programs, they support
the infrastructure that's there. So that's where we are.
What I will do is I will--I don't know the exact details of
what we're funding there from an infrastructure perspective,
but we have an infrastructure process through our Office of
Strategic Infrastructure that allows us to look for
modernization and investment. And what I'll do, sir, is I'll
just provide you what we're doing at Wallops inside that
budget.
Mr. Beyer. Okay. That'd be great because the companion
question is, though, wouldn't the continuation of the 21st-
Century Launch Complex funding help address some of the
backlog, continue to make NASA's range more competitive,
basically just strengthen NASA's only range at Wallops?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, I think--well, obviously, it would, but
we fund that out of our Safety, Security, and Mission Support
area, which is our--kind of our institutional area, and that's
an area that gets challenged quite often, so that's--let us get
you the data on where we are. I'd rather not try to just do it
off the top of my head from that standpoint.
Mr. Beyer. Okay. Great. Mr. Chair, that's all I have, so I
yield back.
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you.
And now I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Indiana,
Mr. Banks.
Mr. Banks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr.
Lightfoot, for being here. You have been an adequate Acting
Administrator. You've done a great job. We appreciate your
leadership, so no offense to you, but I hope next time we're
sitting here that Administrator Bridenstine will be in the
chair. It's an embarrassment to the process that that hasn't
happened yet, but we appreciate the leadership that you have
provided in the meantime.
I want to ask you a little bit about the WFIRST mission.
This project was a top priority for astronomers in the last
decadal survey. What would be the consequence of canceling the
mission in your opinion?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, I think the big consequence is the gap
in astrophysics data that we would get from the WFIRST. I mean
as--to the astrophysics community, that's a challenge from a
scientific perspective.
The other--the positive side of that, though, is that we
can--that those funds can perhaps get the data in a different
way, and I think that's what our Science Mission Directorate is
going to look at.
Mr. Banks. So you would agree that it would undermine the
decadal survey?
Mr. Lightfoot. It's definitely what the decadal survey has
asked for, but we think there's other ways to get that same
data.
Mr. Banks. You do? Okay. Well, many of the important parts
of the spacecraft for the WFIRST mission have already been
completed. Would you agree?
Mr. Lightfoot. I'm not sure I would agree.
Mr. Banks. For example, at the Harris Corporation, which is
a major employer in my district, several hundred constituents
of mine have completed construction of the optical assembly. So
how much of this spacecraft for the mission has already been
completed?
Mr. Lightfoot. Can I get you those numbers? Can I just
provide them for the record? Because I don't--again, I don't
want to do it off the top of my head, but there's--
Mr. Banks. Yes.
Mr. Lightfoot. --there's quite a bit more to go.
Mr. Banks. Okay. Please do. Thank you very much.
Can we really expect, though, substantial savings given the
amount of work, do you believe, that has already gone into the
WFIRST mission?
Mr. Lightfoot. I think when you see the numbers--when
you're looking at a $3.2-3.9 billion mission, we have not spent
nearly that much at this point.
Mr. Banks. Okay. Thank you. I look forward to seeing those
figures.
I know the Webb Space Telescope has already been mentioned.
It continues to experience several complications on the path to
being ready to fly. Given the intricacy of the design with no
room for error in the deployment, how would NASA's ability to
conduct deep space science if WFIRST was canceled and if there
were further problems with the Webb Telescope after it was
launched?
Mr. Lightfoot. I think that's the balance and the challenge
that we're counting on. We're counting on tests in James Webb
to fill the astrophysics needs for quite a bit of time, so
clearly, if we had challenge with James Webb, that would be
something we'd have to look at.
Mr. Banks. Okay. And finally, in this day of ever-changing
innovation and technological advancements, could you explain
the reasoning for merging the Space Technology Mission
Directorate with an operations organization?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, I think when you look at the way--
there's really three lines of business in here. There's the
low-Earth orbit activity where the International Space Station
is; there's the lunar vicinity area, what we're going to do at
the surface of the Moon and around the Moon; and then there's
deeper space exploration, which includes Mars. If you're going
to have a steppingstone approach, those three steppingstones
need to kind of be aligned together, and so that's what we're
trying to do. And if you look at the total budget, it's
actually a better budget for technology than we had, a
standalone Mission Directorate, and it'll be more aligned and
more focused, we believe, with what we're trying to do.
Mr. Banks. Okay. Thank you very much. That's all I got. I
yield back.
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you.
I'd like to recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
Knight.
Mr. Knight. Mr. Lightfoot, thank you. Thank you for your
leadership, and thank you for hiring my Legislative Director
and taking him away for me. I'm sure he's doing as good a job
for you as he did for me.
You know what we're going to talk about. We're going to
talk about the big A. So the LBFD, the UEST, these are kind of
projects that I think would advance mankind. It would
definitely advance this country, and I'm going to jump on an
airplane tomorrow and I'm going to .7 Mach, hopefully, if the
winds aren't so bad. But if I jumped on an airplane in 1968,
I'd be going .7 Mach across this country. And so for about 62
years, it's been that. Coming East, we get to go a little
faster; going West, we get to go a little slower, but that's
about where we are.
And so I think the LBFD and then even transitioning a
little bit into ultra-efficient subsonic transport and saving
fuel costs and putting these same amount of people into the
airplane but saving those fuel costs, maybe making a little
wider seats for me, too, would be a big, big deal to advancing
mankind and taking that step that maybe we haven't taken in the
last 60-some years. So that's just my pitch to continue to push
on that.
New horizons--and this is a big part of that--but all of
the X-Planes--and I think that Dr. Dunn started on what you're
doing with the X-57, and I know that that's progressing very
well and what we're doing with the Low-Boom Flight
Demonstrator. What else are we seeing in the future outside of
what I've kind of just stated?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, there's a couple of things that we're
working on in aeronautics that are just as important in my
opinion and that's getting--integrating unmanned systems into
the airspace. Our teams at Ames are working really hard on
that--well, all over the country frankly are working on that
with our partners at FAA and how we would go about doing that.
You can see the proliferation that's happening everywhere.
There's personal air mobility coming along, and we're involved
in the technology and research around that.
Hypersonics, we're involved in that from a----
Mr. Knight. That's next.
Mr. Lightfoot. --very much a research perspective, so those
are all in that budget that go with the X-Planes that you
talked about, and very important to us and--I think.
Mr. Knight. So hypersonics over the last five or ten years
there's been a lot of advancements to get us to probably a
position where hypersonics are very achievable, very reachable.
NASA's been a big part of that, and industry has been a big
part of that. I think that we're going to see that not just
from what NASA can do with hypersonics but from a national
defense situation, hypersonics are very, very important in
moving forward with new technologies, new ceramics, and new
materials that make those things achievable.
I'm going to push over into another realm. We've got some
companies out there that are doing some innovative things, and
one of them is in Mojave. It's a Paul Allen company called
Stratolaunch. Stratolaunch is going to fly an airplane this
year, a very large airplane, and when they do that, they're
going to kind of bring a new realm into what we can do for
space launch because that airplane will be able to fly at a
couple different airports depending on the taxiways, and
they'll be able to launch differently than just on the West
Coast and just on the East Coast, is what we hope. Do you see a
good partnership with companies like that with Stratolaunch and
things like that?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, I think we have that we have--our
launch services process that we have inside the agency and
flight opportunities process we have inside the agency really
allows new entrants to come in. We have a really good on-
ramping way for them to demonstrate their capability and become
part of our--really our toolbox to get our missions done, so
yes, absolutely we see an opportunity for those folks.
Mr. Knight. Yes, I think that's a perfect answer, that this
could be part of the toolbox. This is part of the future.
And then closer to home to me that not many people know
about but everybody's talked about the James Webb Space
Telescope, and so you know I'm going to talk about SOFIA, all
of the things that SOFIA does. How is that doing?
Mr. Lightfoot. Still continues to fly its missions. We
constantly--not only do--are we flying missions, we're engaging
a lot of educators in that process as we go forward. The data
is coming back. It'll go through senior review in a couple
years just like all our missions do, and we'll see--it'll get a
good assessment of the science value versus the cost and that's
what we'll do so----
Mr. Knight. Yes.
Mr. Lightfoot. It's in--it's still over in Germany right
now, and there's annual maintenance period----
Mr. Knight. Correct.
Mr. Lightfoot. --so we look forward to getting it back here
in a couple--I think we get it back in a couple of weeks.
Mr. Knight. Yes. Thank you very much, and I yield back.
Chairman Babin. Thank you very much. And, yes, we'll take a
second round here. And I'll tell you what, I'll call on you
first there, Mr. Bera, the gentleman from California.
Mr. Bera. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've just got a
quick question, and again, I appreciate the service, Acting
Administrator.
You know, when you talked about the space technology budget
increasing from $700 million to $1 billion, we're happy about
that obviously. I think, you know, echoing a theme that I think
a number of members have said and I certainly touched on--one
of the concerns, though, is with that increased budget but with
that increased focus on exploration we do have a worry that
more of the budget for space technology is going to focus on
the exploration mission as opposed to kind of the cross-
sectional multi-mission piece. And again, it's that borrowing
from Peter to pay Paul. Could you touch on that?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, I think that's a concern of mine as
well. I mean, we worry about that in the agency all the time in
terms--there's several things, right? There's the concern of
will the technology get eaten by the operational side of the
house, right?
Mr. Bera. Right.
Mr. Lightfoot. And I think that's the biggest concern we
had for a while. What we've done, though, is we've put some
things in place that allow us to monitor that and make sure
we're not doing that. I have a strategic integration activity
between the mission directorates today that allows--they have
to come to me to say when they're doing that, so we don't
internally rob from Peter to pay Paul, and I'm pretty
comfortable with that process and feel like that alignment will
stay in place.
Not only that, when you see the details behind the
engineering--or the exploration research and technology line,
there's still some crosscutting budget in there. There's--just
the majority of it is going to be focused to exploration.
There's early-stage activity still there, a small amount but
it's still in there to make sure we're keeping that seed corn,
not just all exploration-focused but most of it is.
Mr. Bera. And, you know, as my colleague from Colorado, Mr.
Perlmutter, pointed out I think most of the Members on this
Committee in a bipartisan way are very supportive of the multi-
mission aspect of NASA and--as it's our constitutional duty to
set budget numbers and so forth. We do want to work with NASA
and work with your administrators to make sure we're robustly
supporting that multi-mission focus.
I do have one last question. Would you agree that the
decadal survey has served us fairly well in terms of
prioritization and so forth?
Mr. Lightfoot. Oh, yes. I think it's a stalwart for what we
do from an agency standpoint----
Mr. Bera. Right.
Mr. Lightfoot. --but we don't always do exactly what the
decadal says. It's just a good advising for us.
Mr. Bera. And that's a somewhat objective, nonpolitical way
of advising and prioritizing projects. Well, I'll just go on
the record. Not doing the WFIRST mission from an astrophysics
perspective is probably going to be perceived as leaving a hole
in that continued science. I think we ought to work together to
try to figure out how we continue to fill that hole or continue
to move forward with the WFIRST project.
Thanks. And I'll yield back.
Chairman Babin. Okay. All right. Thank you.
And I have a few more questions, too, if you don't mind.
Concerning Orion, last year, NASA requested $1.186 billion for
Orion, and Congress appropriated $1.35 billion in fiscal year
2017, which continues under the current continuing resolution.
The additional funding was necessary to carry out important
work on EM-1 rather than deferring it to EM-2. NASA is once
again requesting to decrease Orion funding. What content would
be removed if NASA received $1.16 billion rather than the $1.35
billion in fiscal year 2019?
Mr. Lightfoot. Let me--can I submit that for the record?
Chairman Babin. You sure can.
Mr. Lightfoot. Let me get that back to you so I get the
exact content that's in there.
Chairman Babin. Yes, we'd like to know.
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes.
Chairman Babin. Okay. And then concerning risk, in your
January talk to CSIS, you spoke about risk and that trading
between specific engineering choices and national strategic
imperatives is a difficult but occasionally necessary
discussion. Is this the right time now for the Nation to
reassess how we handle risk? Is this something that NASA should
engage with industry, trade associations, and academia on?
Mr. Lightfoot. I think this is a good time as any to do
that. I think we should do that all the time. You know, nothing
we're going to take on in this exploration agenda is going to
be without risk.
Chairman Babin. Right.
Mr. Lightfoot. But we're not going to do it in a way--you
know, we're not going to take excessive risk either. We're
going to make sure we manage that risk appropriately. And I
think the American public, this body, all need to understand
that that's what that risk is. And risk comes in many fashions.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, there's technical risk for a given
mission, there's political risk for not doing it or doing it,
there's programmatic risk in terms of the budget and the
challenges we're trying to meet. And at the end of the day, I
could make an argument that the least risky thing is to sit on
the ground and not fly.
Chairman Babin. Right.
Mr. Lightfoot. But I could tell you that's probably the
most risky thing for us to do as a nation from an overall
perspective.
Chairman Babin. I would agree.
Mr. Lightfoot. And so that's--to me is--so I think the time
to have that discussion is probably now as we enter this next
phase of exploration and pushing and then would love to engage
not only the groups you talked about but frankly this body as
well because you guys are the ones that help us authorize what
we're going to go do and understand that.
Chairman Babin. Okay. And then on hurricane relief, you
know, we just got hit really hard by Hurricane Harvey at
Johnson Space Center. My entire--all nine counties that I
represent were federal declarations of disaster. What is the
status of hurricane funding for NASA centers?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, we're working the apportionments with
OMB now----
Chairman Babin. Yes.
Mr. Lightfoot. --at a level of detail that we haven't done
before, so we're trying to make sure we get that done correctly
and so that we're all tracking where the dollars go and make
sure we know where it is, so we're working that, and we should
get that out hopefully soon.
Chairman Babin. Okay. And then to kind of go back to a
subject that's already been broached this morning on the mobile
launch platform, you had spoken to it already, but I was
wondering about the--I was down in Florida a couple weeks ago
for the National Space Council meeting, and you were there and
I appreciated your testimony. The Center Director was telling
us about some of the things that he thought about the mobile
launch platform, and it sure sounded like it would be a great
thing if we could get a second one.
And as far as the time element and the construction of it,
if I understood you correctly earlier today--you said that's
really kind of off the table right now, correct?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes.
Chairman Babin. If we decided to put it on the table, would
we be behind the eight-ball as far as the time elements in EM-1
and EM-2 launches?
Mr. Lightfoot. I think the challenge would be if we--if a
mobile launcher showed up on the--as something we're going to
go build, we would not start modifying the one that we're
building for EM-1. We would not start that modification
process, and therefore, once we flew once on that launch
platform, it's now ready to fly again, and so we would go
through the process of hopefully purchasing another ICPS----
Chairman Babin. Right.
Mr. Lightfoot. --again with the expense that comes with it.
I want to be really clear.
Chairman Babin. Yes.
Mr. Lightfoot. And also human-rating that and so we could
fly Orion with crew quicker. And so maybe the first launch off
of the new MLP that we would build in that mode would--might be
EM-3 or EM-4, right, but it would leave us the capability to
keep flying on the mobile launcher that we're building today
instead of going in and modifying it.
Chairman Babin. Well, modifications on the existing mobile
launch platform, are they--does that lead to any kind of an
increased risk to be changing and remodifying and remodeling,
et cetera?
Mr. Lightfoot. Yes, I think it's--we believe there is risk
with that. I mean, we've got a 33-month time period right now
between----
Chairman Babin. Right.
Mr. Lightfoot. --the EM-1 and EM-2, mainly to do those
modifications because basically you have to add just a length
to it----
Chairman Babin. Right.
Mr. Lightfoot. --to be able to handle the new--the Block 1B
SLS configuration, so that--any time you do that, you're going
to have some risk when you go in there, and that's a pretty
complex piece of hardware. When you walk up and down the mobile
launcher, you see how complex it is, so to add that----
Chairman Babin. Right.
Mr. Lightfoot. --is some risk, so I think there's risk
there. There's also risk in the amount of dollars we need to go
do an MLP and an ICPS, and that's got to be--you know, that's
a--I would say that's above my pay grade to make that decision.
But from an Administration perspective, we just decided that
we'd rather not--that those dollars weren't really available
for us to go do that.
Chairman Babin. But ideally, it would be best to have a
second one----
Mr. Lightfoot. You could----
Chairman Babin. --that you built from scratch?
Mr. Lightfoot. You could see that from a--it depends on
what your definition of ideal is, but yes.
Chairman Babin. Got you. Okay. All right. Mr. Lightfoot,
this concludes my line of questioning, unless anybody--I don't
think there's anyone else here. But I want to just commend you,
compliment you on an excellent job that you've done stepping
into the gap as our interim Administrator.
And I would also like to echo some of the comments of my
colleagues today that we're certainly hoping that the one that
the President--Mr. Bridenstine that the President has chosen to
be the next Administrator, we hope that that happens soon. But
listen, that doesn't take anything away from the great job that
you've done, and I just want to thank you and thank you for
being here this morning as well.
Mr. Lightfoot. All right. Thank you all. Thanks to the
Committee.
Chairman Babin. Okay. All right. I want to thank the
witness and his valuable testimony, the Members for their
questions. The record will remain open for two weeks for
additional comments and written questions from Members.
So with that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]