[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DISCOVERY ON THE FRONTIERS OF SPACE:
EXPLORING NASA'S SCIENCE MISSION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 11, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-27
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
36-565PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma,
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois Ranking Member
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon MO BROOKS, Alabama
AMI BERA, California, BILL POSEY, Florida
Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania BRIAN BABIN, Texas
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
BRAD SHERMAN, California TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York JIM BAIRD, Indiana
BILL FOSTER, Illinois JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
DON BEYER, Virginia JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, Puerto
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida Rico
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois VACANCY
KATIE HILL, California
BEN McADAMS, Utah
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
------
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
HON. KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California BRIAN BABIN, Texas, Ranking Member
AMI BERA, California MO BROOKS, Alabama
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado BILL POSEY, Florida
DON BEYER, Virginia PETE OLSON, Texas
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
KATIE HILL, California
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
C O N T E N T S
June 11, 2019
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Kendra Horn, Chairwoman, Subcommittee
on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Statement by Representative Brian Babin, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 12
Written Statement............................................ 13
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 14
Written statement............................................ 15
Witnesses:
Dr. Thomas H. Zurbuchen, Associate Administrator, Science Mission
Directorate, NASA
Oral Statement............................................... 17
Written Statement............................................ 20
Dr. Chelle Gentemann, Senior Scientist, Earth and Space Research;
Co-chair, Committee on Earth Science and Applications from
Space, Space Studies Board, National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine
Oral Statement............................................... 28
Written Statement............................................ 30
Dr. David Spergel, Charles A. Young Professor of Astronomy,
Princeton University; Director, Center for Computational
Astrophysics at the Flatiron Institute; Former Chair, Space
Studies Board, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine
Oral Statement............................................... 51
Written Statement............................................ 53
Dr. Mark Sykes, Chief Executive Officer and Director, Planetary
Science Institute
Oral Statement............................................... 62
Written Statement............................................ 64
Discussion....................................................... 79
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Thomas H. Zurbuchen, Associate Administrator, Science Mission
Directorate, NASA.............................................. 102
Dr. Chelle Gentemann, Senior Scientist, Earth and Space Research;
Co-chair, Committee on Earth Science and Applications from
Space, Space Studies Board, National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine...................................... 114
Dr. David Spergel, Charles A. Young Professor of Astronomy,
Princeton University; Director, Center for Computational
Astrophysics at the Flatiron Institute; Former Chair, Space
Studies Board, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine....................................................... 120
Dr. Mark Sykes, Chief Executive Officer and Director, Planetary
Science Institute.............................................. 123
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Additional responses submitted by Dr. Thomas H. Zurbuchen,
Associate Administrator, Science Mission Directorate, NASA..... 130
Report submitted by Dr. Chelle Gentemann, Senior Scientist, Earth
and Space Research; Co-chair, Committee on Earth Science and
Applications from Space, Space Studies Board, National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine............... 133
DISCOVERY ON THE FRONTIERS OF SPACE:
EXPLORING NASA'S SCIENCE MISSION
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Kendra
Horn [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Horn. This hearing will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recess at any time.
Good morning, and welcome. I especially want to welcome our
witnesses, and thank you very much for being here this morning.
Before we begin our second hearing, I want to say it is
truly an honor and a pleasure to Chair this Subcommittee and to
note that our investments in space and aeronautics are
catalysts for growth, discovery, innovation, and economic
growth in America. I'm grateful for the opportunity to work
with Ranking Member Babin and all of the Members as we consider
the important issues before the Subcommittee.
We began by focusing our first hearing on human space
exploration. We have a lot to do, and today we are turning our
attention to science. Space science has come a long way in the
60 years since NASA's (National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's) founding and James Van Allen's launch of
Explorer 1, America's first science satellite, in 1958. While
Explorer 1 provided initial glimpses into what could be
discovered from vantage points above and beyond the surface of
Earth, NASA's science spacecraft have gone on to study our Sun
and every planet in the solar system, to look back into the
early universe, and to enhance our understanding of our own
planet.
Today, NASA's Science Mission Directorate (SMD) represents
a $6.9 billion investment that funds space-based and suborbital
science missions, ground-based research, data analysis, and
technology development. These elements support NASA's programs
focused on planetary science, Earth science and applications,
astrophysics, and heliophysics--the study of the Sun and its
interactions with the Earth and the solar system.
Through these programs, scientists are seeking answers to
questions--to fundamental questions: What is dark energy? And
how and why is the universe expanding, and at what rate? How
have the many chemical and physical processes that shaped the
solar system evolved and interacted over time? What are the
structure, function, and biodiversity of Earth's ecosystems,
and how and why are they changing in time and space? What are
the origins of the Sun's activity and how can we predict
variations in the space environment?
In pursuing answers to these and other questions, NASA's
scientific findings increasingly become interwoven into our
everyday lives, from decisions to reroute aircraft due to solar
activity and space weather, to surveying the skies for
potentially harmful near-Earth asteroids, to using ocean color
and temperature maps for commercial fishery forecasting, or in
using satellite data to assess the impacts of our changing
climate, and much more.
Through an organized, science community-led process known
as the decadal surveys, NASA's Science Mission Directorate has
benefited from a systemic approach to setting priorities that
guide NASA's planetary, heliophysics, astrophysics, and Earth
science program over 10 years. Not only do the decadal surveys
guide the content of NASA's science programs, they also help
commit to the highest--help us commit to the highest priorities
identified by the science community. The decadal surveys keep
us honest and focused on top priorities when funding
constraints or competing interests arise.
However, consistently following and implementing decadal
priorities has not always been easy. The complexity involved in
ambitious, large-scale missions has led, in some cases, to
significant cost and schedule growth, so we must be vigilant in
ensuring that NASA is as innovative in program and cost
management as it is in advancing scientific discovery. How can
NASA and the community both encourage ambitious breakthrough
science while minimizing unanticipated costs and delays that
may come with pushing the edges of innovation? And must pushing
the edges of innovation and discovery always be equated to
large and expensive missions? Or can the use of small
satellites and CubeSats and hosted payloads, where appropriate,
also help us acquire scientific observations and measurements
at a lower cost?
It is clear we have a lot to discuss, and I look forward to
our witnesses' testimony and perspectives on these critical
issues.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Horn follows:]
Good morning, and welcome. I especially want to welcome our
witnesses, thank you for being here.
Before we begin our second hearing, I want to say it's an
honor and a pleasure to chair this Subcommittee. Our
investments in Space and Aeronautics are catalysts for
discovery, innovation, and economic growth in America. I am
grateful for the opportunity to work with Ranking Member Babin
and all the Members as we consider the important issues before
the Subcommittee. We began by focusing our first hearing on
human exploration, and today we're turning our attention to
science.
Space science has come a long way in the sixty years since
NASA's founding and James Van Allen's launch of Explorer 1-
America's first science satellite-in 1958. While Explorer 1
provided initial glimpses into what could be discovered from
vantage points above and beyond the surface of Earth, NASA's
science spacecraft have gone on to study our Sun and every
planet in the solar system, to look back to into the early
Universe, and to enhance our understanding of our own planet.
Today, NASA's Science Mission Directorate represents a $6.9
billion investment that funds space-based and suborbital
science missions, ground-based research, data analysis, and
technology development. These elements support NASA's programs
focused on planetary science, Earth science and applications,
astrophysics, and heliophysics-the study of the Sun and its
interactions with Earth and the solar system.
Through these programs, scientists are seeking answers to
fundamental questions:
LWhat is dark energy and, how and why is the
Universe expanding, and at what rate?
LHow have the many chemical and physical processes
that shaped the solar system evolved and interacted over time?
LWhat are the structure, function, and
biodiversity of Earth's ecosystems, and how and why are they
changing in time and space?
LWhat are the origins of the Sun's activity and
how can we predict variations in the space environment?
In pursuing answers to these and other questions, NASA's
scientific findings, increasingly, become interwoven into our
everyday lives-from decisions to reroute aircraft due to solar
activity and space weather, to surveying the skies for
potentially harmful near-Earth asteroids, to using ocean color
and temperature maps for commercial fishery forecasting, or in
using satellite data to assess the impacts of our changing
climate, and much more.
Through an organized, science community-led process known
as the ``decadal surveys,'' NASA's Science Mission Directorate
has benefited from a systematic approach to setting priorities
that guide NASA's planetary, heliophysics, astrophysics, and
Earth-science programs over ten-year periods. Not only do the
decadal surveys guide the content of NASA's science programs,
they also help us commit to the highest priorities identified
by the science community. The decadal surveys keep us honest
and focused on top priorities when funding constraints or
competing interests arise.
However, consistently following and implementing decadal
priorities has not always been easy. The complexity involved in
ambitious, large-scale missions has led, in some cases, to
significant cost and schedule growth, so we must be vigilant in
ensuring that NASA is as innovative in program and cost
management as it is in advancing scientific discovery.
How can NASA and the community both encourage ambitious,
breakthrough science while minimizing the unanticipated costs
and delays that may come with pushing the edges of innovation?
And must pushing the edges of innovation and discovery always
be equated to large and expensive missions? Or can the use of
small satellites and CubeSats, and hosted payloads, where
appropriate, also help us acquire scientific observations and
measurements at lower cost?
It is clear we have a lot to discuss, and I look forward to
our witnesses' testimony and perspectives on these critical
issues.
Chairwoman Horn. The Chair now recognizes Ranking Member
Babin for an opening statement.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it and
appreciate all of you expert witnesses for your testimony.
Year after year, NASA amazes the world with new wonders to
behold, and the Science Mission Directorate at NASA makes that
happen. The Hubble Space Telescope has informed our
understanding of the age of the universe, its rate of
expansion, and provided a breathtaking perspective of our place
in the cosmos with its Deep Field Image.
Other observatories like the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory,
and the Chandra X-Ray Observatory, and the Spitzer Space
Telescope returned stunning images of our universe's
astronomical phenomena like supernova and neutron stars. The
Curiosity Rover observed whirlwinds called ``dust devils'' on
Mars and continues to search for the building blocks of life on
the red planet. We've sent probes to every planet in our solar
system, traveled through the rings of Saturn and landed on its
surface with the Cassini-Huygens mission, explored Jupiter and
its fascinating moons with the Galileo and Juno missions, and
most recently visited Pluto with the New Horizons probe and
revealed its heart-shaped icy surface.
We've located, tracked, characterized, and visited
asteroids and comets with missions like Stardust, Deep Impact,
WISE (Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer), and Dawn. NASA
missions like Kepler and the TESS (Transiting Exoplanet Survey
Satellite) discovered thousands of planets around other stars,
some of which may be habitable zones that could harbor life.
We've sent spacecraft like the Parker Solar Probe to
interrogate the sun and beyond the solar system into
interstellar space with the Voyager spacecraft.
NASA developed the next generation of weather satellites
for NOAA that decreases the warning time for severe weather
events like hurricanes and tornadoes and provides reliable
forecasts for farmers and fishermen, pilots, and every
American. These are stunning achievements.
However, NASA has more to offer. NASA continues to develop
the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the flagship follow-on
to the Hubble Space Telescope that stands to fundamentally
rewrite the textbooks. The Europa Clipper mission will explore
Jupiter's icy ocean world that has intrigued scientists because
of its potential to harbor life. Lucy and Psyche will explore
unique asteroids, and OSIRIS-REx will even return a sample to
Earth. The Mars 2020 rover will also prepare and store samples
for a future sample return mission. We live in a very exciting
time.
As NASA continues to awe us with scientific discoveries, we
should be ever mindful that the Science Mission Directorate is
also responsible for critical national missions that go beyond
science. Congress charged NASA to find 90 percent of 140-meter
asteroids that could harm the Earth by 2020. NASA carries out
this vital task through SMD's Planetary Defense Coordination
Office. NASA also operates a fleet of heliophysics spacecraft
that informs our understanding of space weather that impacts
everything from the electrical grid to communications and GPS
signals. Similarly, NASA's Joint Agency Satellite Division
manages the development of our Nation's critical weather
satellites that serve as the very backbone of weather
forecasting.
The Administration's budget request for science is very
strong. And while it is a reduction from the Fiscal Year 2019
appropriation, it represents the highest budget request in
history. The request was developed before the final
appropriation for FY 2019 was even determined. If you compare
this request to the final budget request of the Obama
Administration, which many on this Committee supported, this
request is much stronger. This request represents an increase
of $1.1 billion, or 21 percent, over President Obama's last
budget request for discretionary spending in FY 2017. That same
FY 2017 budget request from the previous Administration
projected a notional FY 2020 request of $5.627 billion.
President Trump's proposed science budget is $6.39 billion.
That is $767 million, or 13.6 percent, more than President
Obama planned for FY 2020. This is a solid request for science
at NASA, but that doesn't mean that we should let our guard
down.
Cost overruns like those experienced by JWST, the Mars 2020
rover, and ICESat-2 (Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite)
come at the expense of other missions like WFIRST (Wide Field
Infrared Survey Telescope) and PACE (Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud,
ocean Ecosystem) and threaten the health of not just the
Science Mission Directorate, but also the entire agency. And
that's why strong leadership is required to instill discipline
in program management early and often. Tough choices have to be
made to ensure that overruns do not threaten the existing and
future missions. The Nation's space science enterprise cannot
afford to have another JWST or ICESat-2.
And I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Babin follows:]
Year after year NASA amazes the world with new wonders to
behold, and the Science Mission Directorate at NASA makes that
happen. The Hubble Space Telescope has informed our
understanding of the age of the universe, its rate of
expansion, and provided a breathtaking perspective of our place
in the cosmos with its Deep Field Image.
Other observatories like the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory,
the Chandra X-ray Observatory, and the Spitzer Space Telescope
returned stunning images of our universe's astronomical
phenomena like supernova and neutron stars. The Curiosity Rover
observed whirlwinds called ``dust devils'' on Mars and
continues to search for the building blocks of life on the red
planet. We've sent probes to every planet in our solar system,
traveled through the rings of Saturn and landed on its surface
with the Cassini-Huygens mission, explored Jupiter and its
fascinating moons with the Galileo and Juno missions, and most
recently visited Pluto with the New Horizons probe and revealed
its heart-shaped icy surface.
We've located, tracked, characterized, and visited
asteroids and comets with missions like Stardust, Deep Impact,
WISE, and Dawn. NASA missions like Kepler and the TESS
discovered thousands of planets around other stars, some of
which may be in habitable zones that could harbor life. We've
sent spacecraft like the Parker Solar Probe to interrogate the
Sun, and beyond the solar system into interstellar space with
the Voyager spacecraft.
NASA developed the next generation of weather satellites
for NOAA that decreases the warning time for severe weather
events like hurricanes and tornados, provides more reliable
forecasts for farmers, fishermen, pilots, and every American.
These are stunning achievements.
However - NASA has more to offer. NASA continues to develop
the James Webb Space Telescope, the flagship follow-on to the
Hubble Space Telescope, that stands to fundamentally rewrite
textbooks. The Europa Clipper mission will explore Jupiter's
icy ocean world that has intrigued scientists because of its
potential to harbor life. Lucy and Psyche will explore unique
asteroids, and Osiris-Rex will even return a sample to Earth.
The Mars 2020 rover will also prepare and store samples for a
future sample return mission. We live in an exciting time.
As NASA continues to awe us with scientific discoveries, we
should be mindful that the Science Mission Directorate is also
responsible for critical national missions that go beyond
science. Congress charged NASA to find 90 percent of 140-meter
asteroids that could harm Earth by 2020. NASA carries out this
vital task through SMD's Planetary Defense Coordination Office.
NASA also operates a fleet of heliophysics spacecraft that
informs our understanding of space weather that impacts
everything from the electrical grid to communications and GPS
signals. Similarly, NASA's Joint Agency Satellite Division
manages the development of our nation's critical weather
satellites that serve as the backbone of weather forecasting.
The Administration's budget request for science is strong.
While it is a reduction from the FY19 appropriation, it
represents the highest budget request in history. The request
was developed before the final appropriation for FY19 was
determined. If you compare this request to the final budget
request from the Obama Administration, which many on this
committee supported, this request is much stronger. This
request represents an increase of $1.1 billion (about 21
percent) over President Obama's last budget request for
discretionary spending in FY17. That same FY17 budget request
from the previous Administration projected a notional FY20
request of $5.627 billion. President Trump's proposed science
budget is $6.39 billion. That is $767 million, or 13.6 percent,
more than President Obama planned for FY20. This is a solid
request for science at NASA, but that doesn't mean we should
let our guard down.
Cost overruns like those experienced by JWST, the Mars 2020
rover, and ICESat-2 come at the expense of other missions like
WFIRST and PACE and threaten the health of not just the Science
Mission Directorate, but also the entire agency. That's why
strong leadership is required to instill discipline in program
management early and often. Tough choices have to be made to
ensure that overruns do not threaten existing and future
missions. The nation's space science enterprise can't afford to
have another JWST or ICESat-2.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Mr. Babin.
The Chair now recognizes the Chairwoman of the Full
Committee, Ms. Johnson, for an opening statement.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, and good morning,
Madam Chair, for holding this hearing on ``Discovery on the
Frontiers of Space: Exploring NASA's Science Mission.''
Scientific research has been part of NASA's mission since
the agency's founding. The National Aeronautics and Space Act
of 1958--the expansion of human knowledge, a phenomena in the
atmosphere and space and one of the eight objectives of the
Nation's aeronautical and space activities.
Since the 1958 Act, NASA and the Nation have invested in
the systematic scientific exploration of our planet, bodies in
the solar system, the Sun, and the universe that have answered
many questions, and generated many more. That scientific
exploration has come with surprises. For example, who would
have imagined that Pluto may be--may have active volcanoes
spewing ice or that there is a mysterious force causing our
universe to expand at an accelerating rate?
NASA has been at the forefront of discoveries such as these
in space and Earth science since its inception with a cadence
of small, medium, and large missions and supporting research
and technology that keep the public engaged, inspired, and
learning.
That's why it perplexes me as to why the Administration
would even consider raiding Science to pay for a Moon program.
Yet that may be where NASA is headed, despite the
Administration--Administrator's assurances to the contrary. The
1-year budget amendment that came over in May would give the
Administrator carte blanche authority to move funds among
NASA's accounts from this year forward if he determines that
the transfers are necessary in support of establishment of a
U.S. strategic presence on the Moon. Why? Because the
Administration, it seems, may not request in the coming years
what NASA actually needs for its crash program to get
astronauts to the Moon by 2024.
According to media articles, NASA officials are stating
that hard choices lie ahead and that NASA find money for the
Moon program from within the agency's other programs. This
isn't a new tactic. The George W. Bush Administration, which
initiated the last Moon program, tried the same approach.
According to a 2006 National Academies report, the Bush
Administration indicated its intention to cut significantly
from Science to pay for its Moon program. The scars from those
cuts are still felt today, especially in the life and physical
sciences research program, which experienced reductions that
decimated the pipeline of microgravity research and drove
scientists to other fields.
The talented women and men at NASA and its partner
institutions deserve better. Those who have become acquainted
with the NASA workforce know that they will work tirelessly in
an effort to meet a goal. Passion can take us so far, but it
alone can't build the rockets and the landers, the spacesuits
and the habitats, and all of the other elements needed for a
safe and sustainable Moon-Mars program. NASA needs a solid
plan, sufficient resources, people, and infrastructure over
multiple years to enable deep space human exploration. Starving
science to fund human exploration is not the answer.
I know our witnesses will have much to say about the
opportunities and challenges facing NASA's space and Earth
sciences, and I look forward to your testimony. I thank you and
yield back.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
Good morning, and thank you Madame Chair for holding this
hearing on ``Discovery on the Frontiers of Space: Exploring
NASA's Science Mission.''
Scientific research has been part of the NASA mission since
the agency's founding. The National Aeronautics and Space Act
of 1958 includes ``The expansion of human knowledge of
phenomena in the atmosphere and space'' as one of the eight
objectives of the nation's aeronautical and space activities.
Since the 1958 Act, NASA and the nation have invested in
the systematic scientific exploration of our planet, bodies in
the solar system, the Sun, and the Universe that have answered
many questions, and generated even more. That scientific
exploration has come with surprises. For example, who would
have imagined that Pluto may have active volcanoes spewing ice?
Or that there is a mysterious force causing our Universe to
expand at an accelerating rate?
NASA has been at the forefront of discoveries such as these
in space and Earth science, since its inception, with a cadence
of small, medium, and large missions and supporting research
and technology that keep the public engaged, inspired, and
learning. That's why it perplexes me as to why the
Administration would even consider raiding Science to pay for a
Moon program. Yet that may be where NASA is headed, despite the
Administrator's assurances to the contrary.
The one-year budget amendment that came over in May would
give the Administrator carte blanche authority to move funds
among NASA's accounts from this year forward, if he determines
that "the transfers are necessary in support of establishment
of a U.S. strategic presence on the Moon." Why? Because the
Administration, it seems, may not request in the coming years
what NASA actually needs for its crash program to get
astronauts to the Moon by 2024. According to media articles,
NASA officials are stating that hard choices lie ahead and that
NASA find money for the Moon program from within the agency's
other programs.
This isn't a new tactic. The George W. Bush Administration,
which initiated the last Moon program, tried the same approach.
According to a 2006 National Academies report, the Bush
Administration indicated its intention to cut significantly
from Science to pay for its Moon program. The scars from those
cuts are still felt today, especially in the life and physical
sciences research program, which experienced reductions that
decimated the pipeline for microgravity research and drove
scientists to other fields.
The talented women and men at NASA and its partner
institutions deserve better. Those who have become acquainted
with the NASA workforce know that they will work tirelessly in
an effort to meet a goal. Passion can take us far, but it alone
can't build us the rockets and landers, space suits and
habitats, and all the other elements needed for a safe and
sustainable Moon-Mars program.
NASA needs a solid plan, sufficient resources, people, and
infrastructure over multiple years to enable deep space human
exploration. Starving Science to fund human exploration is not
the answer. I know our witnesses will have much to say about
the opportunities and challenges facing NASA's space and Earth
sciences. I look forward to their testimony.
Thank you and I yield back.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
If there are any other Members who wish to submit
additional opening statements, your statements will be added to
the record at this point.
At this time, I would like to introduce our witnesses
today. Our first witness is Dr. Thomas Zurbuchen. Since
October, Dr. Zurbuchen has served as the Associate
Administrator for NASA's Science Mission Directorate.
Previously, Dr. Zurbuchen was a Professor of Space and
Aerospace Engineering at the University of Michigan in Ann
Arbor. He was also the university's founding Director of the
Center for Entrepreneurship in the College of Engineering.
Dr. Zurbuchen's experience includes research in solar and
heliospheric physics--that's a mouthful--experimental space
research, space systems, and innovation and entrepreneurship.
During his career, Dr. Zurbuchen has been involved with
several NASA science missions: Ulysses, the MESSENGER
spacecraft to Mercury, and the Advanced Composition Explorer.
He has also been part of two National Academies' standing
committees, as well as various science and technology
definition teams for new NASA missions.
Dr. Zurbuchen earned his master of science and Ph.D. in
physics from the University of Bern in Switzerland.
Our next witness is Dr. Chelle Gentemann. Dr. Gentemann is
a Senior Scientist at Earth and Space Research, a nonprofit
research institute in Seattle, Washington, and an affiliate of
the University of Washington.
Previously, Dr. Gentemann served as a visiting scholar to
the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Senior Principal
Scientist at Remote Sensing Systems. Dr. Gentemann is currently
the Co-Chair of the standing committee on Earth Science and
Applications from Space and is on the Academies' Intelligence,
Science, and Technology Experts Group. Her most recent research
focuses on using cloud computing, open-source software
development, machine learning, and algorithm development using
remote sensing data, air-sea interactions, and upper ocean
physical processes.
Dr. Gentemann received her bachelor's degree in science
from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a master of
science in physical oceanography from the Scripps Institution
of Oceanography, and a doctorate in meteorology and physical
oceanography from the University of Miami. Welcome.
Our third witness is Dr. David Spergel. Dr. Spergel is the
Charles Young Professor of Astronomy at Princeton University.
He is the founding Director of the Center for Computational
Astrophysics at the Flatiron Institute. Dr. Spergel is the
former Chair of the Space Studies Board and is currently the
Co-Chair of the Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope, WFIRST,
science team. Dr. Spergel's work is focused on using laboratory
experiments and astronomical observations to probe the nature
of dark matter and look for new physics.
Dr. Spergel earned his bachelor's degree from Princeton
University and his doctorate in astronomy from Harvard
University.
Our fourth and final witness is Dr. Mark Sykes. Dr. Sykes
is the Chief Executive Officer and Director of Planetary--of
the Planetary Science Institute. He has served as the Chair of
the Division for Planetary Sciences of the American
Astronomical Society. He is also Co-Investigator on the NASA
Dawn mission project to the asteroid Vesta and the dwarf planet
Ceres.
He received his bachelor's in physics from the University
of Oregon where he studied the first known black hole system,
Cygnus X-1. He received a master of electronic science from
Oregon Graduate Center and a Ph.D. in planetary sciences from
the University of Arizona.
Welcome to all of you. As our witnesses, you should know
that you will each have 5 minutes for your spoken testimony,
and your full written testimony will be included in the record
for the hearing. When you have completed your spoken testimony,
we will begin with questions from each Member, and each Member
will have 5 minutes on--to question the panel.
We will start today with Dr. Zurbuchen. Dr. Zurbuchen.
TESTIMONY OF DR. THOMAS H. ZURBUCHEN,
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR,
SCIENCE MISSION DIRECTORATE, NASA
Dr. Zurbuchen. Thanks so much. Chair Horn, Ranking Member
Babin, and Members of the Subcommittee, I'm pleased to testify
today. I want to thank you for your commitment to NASA and to
NASA science.
We'll discuss how this FY 2020 budget request enables us to
succeed in three strategic focus areas: Advancing national
exploration goals, maintaining a balanced science program, and
delivering true impact through our investments. Regarding
advancing national exploration goals, Artemis is NASA's lunar
exploration program that will send humans to the Moon by 2024,
develop a sustainable human presence there in 2028, and set the
stage for human exploration of Mars, the ultimate goal of
NASA's human exploration program.
Robotic missions delivered by commercial landers will be
the first Artemis elements to land on the Moon. Through NASA
Science's CLPS (Commercial Lunar Payload Services) initiative,
we are incentivizing speed and drawing on our commercial and
international partners to enable science investigations and
technology demonstrations on the Moon ahead of human return.
We recently selected three commercial Moon landing service
providers for the earliest missions in 2020-2021. These
missions will acquire new science measurements and enable
important technology demonstrations to provide data that will
inform future exploration systems needed for astronauts. The
amended budget request also includes $90 million for the
purchase of a commercial service--commercial services to
deliver a rover to the Moon.
SMD is committed to executing a balanced and integrated
science program that is informed by the decadal surveys of the
National Academies. In planetary science, NASA's robust Mars
program is providing groundbreaking science and exploration
information. This request supports continued progress of the
Mars 2020 rover, which will search for the evidence of life on
the red planet and collect a cache of samples. With this
request, NASA will start development of a Mars sample return
mission, completing the first round-trip to another planet.
In parallel, the cutting-edge Europa Clipper, a strategic
mission to fly to Jupiter's moon, will be our first step in
exploring ocean worlds and their potential habitability for
extraterrestrial life. Competitively selected missions like
OSIRIS-REx and the Mars lander InSight are critical ingredients
to our program, as are the Psyche and Lucy missions to explore
distant asteroids.
In astrophysics, the budget supports the revised launch
date of James Webb, the largest and most powerful space
telescope to date. Webb will examine the first galaxies that
formed in the atmospheres of nearby planets outside our solar
system. After the successful planet-counting mission Kepler, we
are now focused on TESS which will provide a rich catalog of
worlds around nearby stars including valuable targets for Webb
to explore in the future.
In August 2018, our heliophysics program launched Parker
Solar Probe. Parker has already completed two of its 24 near-
solar passes flying to within 15 million miles of our star, the
sun. We recently selected the IMAP (Interstellar Mapping and
Acceleration Probe) mission that will image the outer boundary
of the sphere of influence of our sun.
In 2018, NASA launched two strategic missions recommended
by the Earth-science decadal. GRACE Follow-On is measuring the
mass of ice sheets and glaciers and tracking Earth's water
movements across the planet, while ICESat-2 is providing
unprecedented data on the typogography of ice--topology, of
course, interesting word--of ice, forests, and oceans.
ECOSTRESS (ECOsystem Spaceborne Thermal Radiometer Experiment
on Space Station) and GEDI (Global Ecosystem Dynamics
Investigation) are now on the ISS (International Space Station)
measuring agricultural water use and drought conditions, as
well as creating 3-D maps of the world's forests. The request
funds continue progress on Landsat 9 for a launch in '21
together with our U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) partners.
NASA's Earth science continues using innovative
partnerships and new approaches, including the acquisition of
commercial data products from small satellite constellations.
Our work has societal value to the U.S. and beyond. Our Earth
science program teams with partners to develop and demonstrate
applications in areas like disaster management, public health
and resource management to provide direct benefit to our
Nation. Heliophysics-funded research enables the predictions
necessary to safeguard life and society on Earth and the
outward journey of humans and robotic explorers.
And in addition, NASA looks for near-Earth objects (NEOs)
to assess if they pose any threat to us. We found 96 percent of
the potentially hazardous NEOs that are over 1 kilometer in
diameter, and one-third of those at 140 or more. The request
funds the technology to deflect such bodies using the DART
(Demonstration for Autonomous Rendezvous Technology) mission.
With this request, SMD will help pave the way for the
success of Artemis program, initiate the first round-trip
mission to the red planet with a Mars sample return mission,
and continue investing in the groundbreaking work of our
scientists, engineers, and technologists to--every day to
answer humanity's most fundamental questions and to inspire
learners of all ages.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Zurbuchen follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Dr. Zurbuchen. Dr. Gentemann.
TESTIMONY OF DR. CHELLE L. GENTEMANN,
SENIOR SCIENTIST, EARTH AND SPACE RESEARCH,
AND CO-CHAIR, COMMITTEE ON EARTH SCIENCE
AND APPLICATIONS FROM SPACE, SPACE STUDIES BOARD,
NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES,
ENGINEERING, AND MEDICINE
Dr. Gentemann. Thank you. Chairwoman Horn, Ranking Minority
Member, and Members of the Committee, I want to thank you for
the opportunity to testify today.
As Chairwoman Horn said, I am Co-Chair of the National
Academies' standing Committee on Earth Science and Applications
from Space, CESAS. However, the opinions that I express today
should be attributed to me unless stated otherwise.
CESAS produced the most recent 10-year roadmap or decadal
survey to guide U.S. investments in Earth systems science for
societal benefit. It's charged with monitoring the progress in
the implementation of the decadal survey's recommendations. The
decadal survey discusses in detail the benefits to the Nation
from a robust Earth science program at NASA, NOAA (National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), and USGS. Drawing on
their own expertise and hundreds of solicited concept proposals
and white papers from the community, about 100 of the Nation's
leading Earth scientists, space system engineers, and policy
experts worked for almost 2 years to develop a consensus on
Earth-science priorities.
The survey made recommendations for the programs of all of
its sponsors, but I will focus on those directed at NASA today.
Most importantly, these are to complete the series of existing
or previously planned observations from the 2007 survey called
the Program of Record. To implement the designated essential
observations, which are cost-capped medium- and large-size
observing systems, to implement Earth System Explorer high-
priority observations, which are cost-capped medium-size
observing systems, to create a new program element called
Incubator to advanced future capabilities and to continue the
cost-capped Earth Venture line from the 2007 decadal, along
with the addition of a new element called Continuity designed
to facilitate development of low-cost means to sustain critical
observations. The survey report presents a plan for an
integrated program.
Completing the Program of Record is important because the
decadal survey recommendations assume and build on this
baseline from the 2007 decadal survey. The Program of Record
includes both PACE and CLARREO (Climate Absolute Radiance and
Refractivity Observatory) Pathfinder. Elimination of these
missions in the Program of Record undermines the entire decadal
survey planning and prioritization process.
PACE supports multiple research thrusts and is a key
element in the survey's planned constellation of satellites
that will give scientists and policymakers a clearer
understanding of how to use Earth systems science for societal
benefit.
CLARREO Pathfinder will provide the ability to
intercalibrate instruments in space at accuracies 5 to 10 times
beyond current capabilities.
Implementation of the full recommended program will require
appropriations beyond that assumed by the decadal survey
committee. In particular, additional funds would be needed to
complete the full suite of designated, essential, and Earth
System Explorer high-priority observations, as planned. These
are foundational observations selected to ensure that the
survey's highest priority science and application questions can
be effectively addressed.
Finally, I note that the decadal survey process began in
2015. Rapid advancements in using commercial cloud computing
and open-source software for science have outpaced planned
activities. The survey didn't plan for the additional resources
needed for a wholesale move of NASA data assets onto the cloud,
support for the open-source software libraries that underpin
the rapid scientific advancements and possible applications, or
how to enable interdisciplinary science and commercial
applications that will likely subsequently flourish.
In my view, this is one example of where comparatively
small new investments have the potential to deliver outsized
benefits. NASA's vast data resources and robust research
community make it well poised to be a global leader in this
effort. Jumpstarting these activities in NASA could grow the
public-private cloud partnership and energize the research
community.
As you consider NASA's reauthorization, I hope that the
Committee sees the value of the decadal survey process and
provides the funding to implement the decadal survey, including
the Program of Record and both designated and Earth Explorer
observables, as recommended.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Gentemann follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Dr. Gentemann. Dr. Spergel.
TESTIMONY OF DR. DAVID SPERGEL,
CHARLES YOUNG PROFESSOR OF ASTRONOMY,
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, AND DIRECTOR,
CENTER FOR COMPUTATIONAL ASTROPHYSICS,
FLATIRON INSTITUTE, AND FORMER CHAIR,
SPACE STUDIES BOARD, NATIONAL ACADEMIES
OF SCIENCES, ENGINEERING, AND MEDICINE
Dr. Spergel. I want to thank Chairwoman Horn and the
Committee for this opportunity to speak. I'm David Spergel, a
Princeton Professor, Director of the Center for Computational
Astrophysics, and the past Chair of the Space Studies Board.
While these experiences inform my testimony, these views are my
own.
Many of NASA's most important activities from Mars
exploration to studying extrasolar planets to understanding the
cosmos are centuries-long projects, the modern version of the
construction of the great medieval cathedrals. The decadal
surveys provide blueprints for constructing these cathedrals,
and NASA science has thrived by being guided by these plans.
Monitoring our rapidly changing planet is both a great
scientific challenge and a pressing societal need. ``Thriving
on a Changing Planet: A Decadal Strategy for Earth Observations
from Space'' identifies the highest priority study areas, the
most important observables, and recommends structuring new NASA
missions accordingly. I want to reinforce Dr. Gentemann's
comments and urge the Committee to charge NASA to implement
these priorities. Addressing climate change begins with
deepening our understanding of Earth.
The search for life is another grand challenge. Within our
own solar system, we have learned that water is everywhere.
Comets bring water to the Moon and to Mercury. Mars not only
has a wet past but still has liquid water today. Outer planet
moons such as Europa host vast oceans beneath their icy shells,
a discovery that suggests new potential habitable destinations.
Did any of these systems once host life? Do they host life
today?
To answer these questions, NASA is in the midst of a set of
interlocking missions exploring the red planet. As outlined in
the Planetary Decadal Survey, the Mars 2020 mission is the next
step in this program, culminating with the return of carefully
selected samples from Mars. NASA's also making progress in
building the Europa Clipper. The Planetary Decadal Survey,
however, did not identify a major investment in studying the
lifeless Moon as one of its highest priorities. I'm concerned
that high-priority SMD programs will be terminated to enable
lower-priority science and accelerating the lunar program.
Understanding the dominant component of our universe, dark
energy, is another grand challenge. Both Europe and China are
leading missions to study it. Fortunately, enabled by
congressional support, NASA continues to move forward with
WFIRST, the Astronomy Decadal's top priority dark energy
mission. As Co-Chair of its science team, I'm happy to say that
WFIRST is meeting its technical requirements and is on track
for a 2025 launch and on budget.
Now, all of these missions are enabled by technology
developed both internally within NASA and by external advances.
Regrettably, the Space Technology Mission Directorate is
reducing these long-term investments for its future science
missions and is focusing its resources toward the short-term
goal of Moon 2024. This is eating the seed corn of future
projects.
New commercial advances are offering NASA new opportunities
for innovation. The desire to build self-driving cars advances
autonomous systems. The machine-learning revolution provides
novel tools both for analyzing Facebook images and NASA images.
GPUs (graphics processing units) are now pushing high-
performance computing hardware. Open-code development is
driving innovation across industry and academia. NASA and the
science community needs to be open to these new innovation
sources.
While NASA does face immediate challenges like successfully
completing and launching JWST, this is an incredibly exciting
time for science. NASA satellites have discovered thousands of
exoplanets and detected the brilliant flash from the merger of
two neutron stars. NASA has launched a satellite that will
literally touch the sun. NASA's exploration of our solar system
is revealing new insights into our origins. Its satellite
observations are deepening our understanding of the rapidly
changing Earth. Most importantly, each of these discoveries
raises new questions that drive science forward. These
discoveries were enabled by an agency guided by the community
science priorities through the decadal surveys, and I urge you
to continue to let these surveys guide our science programs.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Spergel follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Dr. Spergel. Dr. Sykes.
TESTIMONY OF DR. MARK SYKES,
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND DIRECTOR,
PLANETARY SCIENCE INSTITUTE
Dr. Sykes. Chairwoman Horn, Ranking Member Babin, Members
of the Committee, and Chairwoman Johnson, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today.
As a former Chair of the NASA Small Bodies Assessment
Group, I would like to begin by congratulating Dr. Zurbuchen on
Administrator Bridenstine's recent announcement that NASA will
be proceeding with the Near-Earth Object Camera mission,
NEOCam. This space-based infrared survey of near-Earth
asteroids and beyond has been a high priority for science,
planetary defense, space resource utilization, and targets for
human exploration for almost a decade.
This mission would not exist but for the vision,
leadership, and shear management skills of the NEOCam P.I.
(Principal Investigator), Dr. Amy Mainzer. Leveraging her
experience as P.I. of the NEOWISE mission, Dr. Mainzer has
spent 15 years building a team and a mission that promises
remarkable discoveries, the retirement of the congressional
mandate to find those objects that threaten our planet, and the
necessary groundwork for expanding the future of our species in
space. Dr. Mainzer is a role model not just for young women who
aspire to have careers in science for young men as well.
I would like to--now to address the Administration's
initiative to return to the Moon by 2020. In the President's
proposed Fiscal Year 2020 budget amendment to NASA, the
Administration asks for the authority, quote, ``to transfer
funds between appropriations accounts in the event that the
Administrator determines that the transfers are necessary in
support of establishment of a U.S. strategic presence on the
Moon.'' The language authorizes transfers in this fiscal year
and in subsequent fiscal years, including funds appropriated in
prior acts. This is a disturbing request. It appears to allow
for the complete reorganization of the agency, including
expunging space science if desired, without any congressional
oversight. This must be rejected.
On a more positive note, science provides essential support
to human exploration. Scientists are the pathfinders literally.
They define where we can go and what we can strive to do there.
They determine the operational environment, the resources, and
the hazards.
We should establish a dedicated science support team for
human lunar operations. This should consist of lunar experts,
as well as heliophysicists. Their purpose is not to do
independent research but to marshal our rich data and knowledge
of the Moon and its environment to support human operations, to
anticipate their needs, to participate in planning, and to
identify what new information is needed and how best and most
cost-effectively to obtain it in a timely fashion.
I support the President's request to fund a lunar rover--at
least one. It should be deployed in advance of our return to
the Moon, particularly if there's desire to establish a long-
term operational presence. The choice of a location at the
South Pole is in part to access craters having permanently
shadowed regions containing evidence for water ice. A rover is
needed to assay any water ice and to inform us about what kind
of resource recovery and processing would be required. In the
meantime, we also need to study and mitigate the impact of
human operations on the lunar environment, particularly its
exospheric atmosphere.
Finally, every day, discoveries are being made not just by
operating spacecraft but by work funded by NASA research and
data analysis programs. These programs lay the foundation and
justification for future missions. They provide a continuing
return on investment on these missions by generating new
knowledge even decades after the data was taken. These are core
programs, and I'm concerned that they are not being supported
at the levels recommended by the Planetary Decadal Survey.
I'm further concerned about the extent to which resources
from these programs are being funneled to NASA center
scientists without competition according to public statements,
at times inconsistent, by NASA officials. The details of this
program, including its costs and impact on resources for
competed research programs need to be investigated and made
public.
I believe that the American taxpayers deserve the most bang
for the buck from their federally funded research programs. The
core of that is competition. Scientists compete for grants and
contracts all the time. It is not for the faint of heart. But
competition is further undermined when NASA--I believe alone
among other Federal agencies--hides cost information from
proposal review panels and directs them not to take cost into
consideration in their assessment of proposed research. This
started before Dr. Zurbuchen's arrival. We need to look at the
buck and not just the bang. And the subject-matter experts on
review panels are in the best position to provide that
assessment to selecting officials.
The United States has defined the forefront of solar system
exploration for more than half a century, but we cannot take it
for granted. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Sykes follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Dr. Sykes, and thank you to all
of our witnesses.
We will now begin the first round of questions, and the
Chair recognizes herself for 5 minutes.
Doctors Spergel, Gentemann, and Sykes, the Subcommittee
will be working to reauthorize NASA in the coming months. What
are your top three priorities for NASA reauthorization and why?
Dr. Gentemann. I'll start. As I said in my statement, it's
to complete the Program of Record, to fund the designated
observables, essential observations, and the Earth System
Explorer high-priority observations.
Completing--following the decadal survey and why is because
following the decadal survey recommendations is based on a huge
community effort to maximize the societal benefit from Earth
science observations, and this is the program that has been
recommended to do so. Thank you.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you. Dr. Spergel?
Dr. Spergel. My first--top priority would be to implement
the priorities of the decadal surveys in Earth science,
heliophysics, planetary science, and astrophysics. Another
priority would be to assure that the STMD continues to make
investments in science and developing technology for science.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you. Dr. Sykes?
Dr. Sykes. Similarly, I think that we need to pay attention
to the decadal recommendations of the--of having a balanced
portfolio. Too much is often--attention is placed to the most
expensive flagship missions which have the most cost
volatility, and then we tend to lose the Discovery missions,
the New Frontiers, the competed missions, which are cost-
capped.
So there's a recommended cadence for these smaller
missions. I think that needs to have more attention paid to it,
and likewise, the smallest programs, the research and data
analysis programs, need to be adequately--perhaps better than
adequately funded because this is the foundation of our U.S.
solar system exploration program.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you. Dr. Zurbuchen, Administrator
Bridenstine has stated publicly that he doesn't intend to
redirect funds from other programs such as science to pay for
the Moon initiative. However, as noted by Chairwoman Johnson,
the Administration's budget amendment that was sent to Congress
would, and I quote--and Dr. Sykes expressed concern about this
as well--``authorize the National Aeronautics and Space
Administrator to transfer funds between appropriations accounts
in the event that the Administrator determines the transfers
are necessary in support of establishment of the U.S. strategic
presence on the Moon.''
In addition to a recent article in Ars Technica, it quotes
a NASA official as stating, ``I don't think we're going to be
able to get the entire budget as new money. We're going to have
to look for some efficiencies and make some cuts internal to
the agency, and that's where it's going to be hard.''
Dr. Zurbuchen, are you currently planning or engaged in
planning for scenarios for current or future cuts, delays, or
deferrals or reductions in scope to Science Mission Directorate
programs or missions for FY 2021 and beyond to fund the Moon-
Mars 2024 program?
Dr. Zurbuchen. Our budget process for FY 2021 has just
started, and I have not been directly engaged in any scenario
planning with a massive downside to the science program.
Chairwoman Horn. OK. Thank you. If you were to have to look
at those cuts, what would the potential for those cuts mean for
the science programs and the balance within the science
programs?
Dr. Zurbuchen. The way I have implemented every cut, also
every upper, relative to a budget that I had before, is that I,
and our team--and the Administrator has been very supportive in
public as well as, you know, in our own meetings--we use the
decadals to accommodate both uppers and cuts relative to that.
That will mean, for example, that we actually protect the R&A
programs with the highest priority, for example, in planetary,
as in heliophysics. It would mean that we protect P.I.-class
missions kind of over others and so forth.
That of course always comes with an asterisk. For example,
when you have a launch window of a mission next year, it is
unreasonable through the eyes of a taxpayer to take money out
of that mission. It's much better to launch it instead of
spending a half-a-billion dollars after the fact because of the
fact that you moved some money out, $50 million or something.
So it's with that caveat that we're using the decadal guidance.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Dr. Zurbuchen. I have more, but
I'll save it for the next round. I see my time is up. Ranking
Member.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dr. Zurbuchen, NASA recently awarded contracts to three
companies as part of the commercial lunar payload services that
will deliver landers to the Moon's surface. A condition of the
procurement stipulates that awardees must be U.S. companies.
One of the companies that won a contract features a design team
from India that competed in the Google Lunar XPRIZE. A recent
article by Quartz was titled, ``America's First Private Moon
Lander Will Be Engineered in India.''
While this partnership appears to comply with NASA
solicitation, the optics obviously are not good. Can you assure
the U.S. taxpayer that we aren't simply outsourcing space
exploration when we have companies designing lunar landers
right here in America?
Dr. Zurbuchen. Thank you for that question. Of course, you
recognize that there's three selections we made, including two
where such questions did not come up. The one that you're
talking about, this particular company, before we spend any
dollars on it, has to undergo a full review of the very
question you're asking. We already told them; we actually
reviewed it at the beginning and we want to use the very same
rules that we're using for launch vehicles as well that
basically stipulate that the majority of all of the
manufacturing and design of this particular lander has to be
done in the U.S. We're going to go through one more review, an
in-depth review to ensure that very fact.
Mr. Babin. OK. Thank you. And, Dr. Sykes, we often hear
that NASA should have a balanced science portfolio. However,
other agencies like NOAA fund Earth-science activities. The NSF
(National Science Foundation) funds astronomy, and NOAA and the
Department of Defense fund heliophysics. How important is NASA
funding to the planetary science community, and are there other
significant sources of funding for planetary science other than
NASA?
Dr. Sykes. Mr. Ranking Member, yes, that's a very important
question. The planetary science community kind of stands out
from these other communities because planetary science in the
modern age is the creation of NASA. Astronomy was around for
hundreds of years and is deeply embedded in universities.
Heliophysics has communication concerns about space weather.
There's industry and large industries associated with the
important areas of Earth science.
Planetary really has NASA as its sole customer, and so NASA
funding for our space exploration enterprise is basically the
only market in town, and so the stability of that funding and--
is critical for maintaining our ability to engage in that
activity into the future.
Mr. Babin. OK. And then, Dr. Zurbuchen, one more time, I
represent Johnson Space Center, home of the Astromaterials
Acquisition and Curation Office that documents, preserves, and
prepares samples from the Moon, asteroids, comets, solar wind,
and Mars. Is this office prepared to receive new lunar samples
from future missions, or would additional resources be
necessary to fully study these very important artifacts?
Dr. Zurbuchen. We are currently actually kicking off an
analysis of that very question. See, there are samples that
will come back with two characteristics we have not had before.
Our first type of sample, especially from the southern areas of
the Moon or the polar areas of the Moon I should say, because
the north also has them----
Mr. Babin. Right.
Dr. Zurbuchen [continuing]. Are cold samples, so cryo-type
of samples that we want to bring back and hold there. Those are
samples the likes of which we have not had before. The second
type of sample that we're thinking about is coming back from
areas where we want to analyze biology potential or at least
the transition of chemistry to biology. In both cases we
believe there's additional investments required, and we want to
work with the Center to that. I already informed the Senate
Director that that will occur.
Mr. Babin. OK. And last, Dr. Sykes again, NASA plans on
leveraging public-private partnerships to explore the Moon.
They've also stated that they will take a more commercial
approach. What customer other than NASA do you see on the
horizon that would make this commercial?
Dr. Sykes. Well, everything's commercial at the end,
Congressman. I think that's this is a new path for developing
new vendors for the government. We've had the innovations by
SpaceX and other companies that have developed rockets outside
of the normal process and given us some great products that we
could purchase. But at the moment the only customer that I
see--and I can be wrong--for what's being done right now under
the, quote, commercial thing is with the government as the
primary customer.
Mr. Babin. OK. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Ranking Member Babin.
The Chair recognizes Chairwoman Johnson for 5 minutes.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
Dr. Spergel, in your written statement, you noted the
impressive work of other nations in pursuing missions to study
dark energy, one of the highest priority questions about the
nature of the universe. Could you elaborate on your comment?
And do you have any concerns regarding the state of the U.S.
astrophysics or science in general as compared to other
nations?
Dr. Spergel. Well, there are two important missions. One is
the European Space Agency's Euclid mission. Now, this falls in
the category of something we've done a lot of, which is working
together with the Europeans. We're a partner in the Euclid
mission and are providing key components, and American
scientists will participate in the Euclid work. And we've been
designing the WFIRST mission to be complementary to the Euclid
mission to carry out a science program that goes beyond Euclid
and also complements it.
Perhaps of more concern is the Chinese space program. The
Chinese are building a 2-meter optical telescope that will fly
on their space station and are flying a large camera with that.
Like us with WFIRST, they are taking advantage of technologies
developed by their defense industries. And in one hand I think
it's very good to see the Chinese starting to play a role in
fundamental science. On the other hand, I think it's concerning
that we might end up yielding leadership in an area where--you
know, dark energy is something that was discovered by American
scientists, and a lot of important work is being done here--to
China.
And I see the Chinese universities trying to attract really
outstanding people from the United States. I see them making
big investments, and I think it's important that we maintain
our leadership in science and technology, and I think that's
why--one of the reasons why it's important that we continue to
invest and push forward with projects like the WFIRST mission.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Any other comments from the
other panelists?
Dr. Sykes. Congresswoman, I think that one thing we also
need to keep in mind is that, yes, China is coming up, and
they're becoming involved in all areas of space exploration.
Their Chang'e missions have been very impressive, and what
they're planning for the future will also be. But we need to be
a leader not because we want to stay ahead of the other guy and
let the other guy define the directions that we go in just to
keep ahead, but we do it because it's good for our self, it's
good for our economy, it's good for our society to continue to
invest in these broad range across Earth science and
astrophysics and heliophysics and planetary science to
understand the world that we live in and to--you know, because
as we pull back from that, you know, as evidenced by like
trying to cut back on science team support for missions and
things like that to--kind of nickel-and-diming things down, not
that I'm advocating just throwing money at things, but to
really be making solid investments in these areas, you know,
that we will fall behind, and other nations will push ahead.
You know, and they're not doing it to just get ahead of us.
They're doing it for their own purposes, and we should be
likewise deciding what our purposes are and pursuing them
vigorously.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Yes?
Dr. Gentemann. I'd also like to add that in Earth science
there's a similar situation which is the Chinese have a very
robust Earth-observing satellite program, which is in contrast
to our program where we're considering reducing the Program of
Record and not following the decadal survey guidelines to do
the essential and high-priority observations. China is
launching Earth-observing satellite after Earth-observing
satellite and working with Europe to establish leadership. And
I would like--I hope that the U.S. continues our investment in
Earth science so that we can remain a global leader in this
area for--and it's for our societal benefit.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you.
Dr. Sykes. Congresswoman, if I can make one more comment, I
don't see China as a threat. I see them as a potential partner
in a lot of these areas, a partner for advancing what we want
to do. And so I think it's a mistake to look at them as a
bogeyman.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Yes?
Dr. Zurbuchen. I think the discussion that we're having
here is a complicated discussion because both aspects are
relevant. So, first of all, we are the leaders, and you should
not have somebody else in my job if you would expect something
other than me to say I worry about remaining the leader and I
want to be ahead, actually moving forward faster than the ones
who come behind us.
At the same time, I do believe one of the most important
elements of science is the ability of nations to come together
and work on problems that transcend boundaries or even
political kind of boundaries that separate them from each
other. Over a long time, it's those kind of activities that
have brought us together as humans and have made us better
overall. And I do hope, as we go forward and learn about these
other countries, whatever it might be, whether it's China,
whether it's Russia, whether it's other countries, that we get
better at this because we sure want them to work on public
science using the policy that we have pioneered where all data
are out there for the entire science community to use
worldwide.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. My time is
expired.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Chairwoman. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Brooks for 5 minutes.
Mr. Brooks. Dr. Zurbuchen, these questions and comments
will be primarily for you. I'm looking at your written
testimony to this Subcommittee, and it states, quote, ``We are
building for the long-term, and this time we're going to the
Moon to stay,'' end quote. Later on, it says NASA, quote,
``looks to land humans on the Moon within five years,'' end
quote.
After describing the Artemis 1 and Artemis 2 missions, you
go on to say, quote, ``Then the Artemis 3 mission will send the
first crew to the lunar surface using commercial human landing
services that depart from the Gateway outpost orbiting the
Moon,'' end quote.
So, at a minimum, we've got Artemis 1, Artemis 2, Artemis
3, the Gateway outpost that has to be designed, built, launched
into lunar orbit. What's the total additional amount of money
NASA needs in order to accomplish this landing on the Moon with
humans by 2024?
Dr. Zurbuchen. That's a question that we're grappling with
as we go forward and do the analysis. We already submitted for
FY 2020, the incremental, you know, request at $1.6 billion for
that year. The increments for 2021 and beyond will be part of
the next budget proposal as we go forward. It's a question that
we are currently working with, and of course my parts of that
are the science parts, which are well-defined and I can talk
about in much more detail.
Mr. Brooks. Well, I'm on an authorization committee.
Obviously, this is Space Subcommittee-related. And for us in
Congress to be able to grapple with these things, we need some
idea of how much cost is expected to be incurred over the next
five years. Are you telling me that, yeah, we've got the $1.6
billion more or less for FY 2020 but we have no idea whatsoever
what the next four years' cost will be in order to accomplish
this human landing by 2024?
Dr. Zurbuchen. We're in the process of working through that
right now and----
Mr. Brooks. I understand you're in the process, but do you
have any idea as to what the cost ranges may be, minimal to
high, so far in this process, or do we literally have no idea
what we're getting into when we talk about Artemis 1, Artemis
2, Artemis 3, and Gateway?
Dr. Zurbuchen. I--I'm not at this moment in time able to
talk about all the elements of that, and especially in a
directorate where most of the funding is incurred, which is not
the Science Mission Directorate that I'm working on.
Mr. Brooks Let me ask the same question but with respect to
2028, by which time we're supposed to have a sustainable Moon
surface operation. Do you have any idea as to how much
additional money NASA is going to need in order for us to have
a permanent human presence on the south pole of the Moon by
2028, any idea?
Dr. Zurbuchen. The budget proposal that you have in front
of you in 2020 had----
Mr. Brooks. I'm talking not just that one year. I get the
one year. But it's more than one year, and we've got to budget
and plan. Do you have any range of numbers that you can share
with us and the American people about what we're getting into
when we try to put this outpost on the Moon?
Dr. Zurbuchen. At this moment in time I don't have a range
of numbers that I can share.
Mr. Brooks. All right. Let's talk about the Gateway outpost
for a moment. Can you please describe what that is in a way
that helps American taxpayers understand what they're paying
for in terms of size or weight or rooms or how it might compare
to the International Space Station, something that gives
American taxpayers a reference point as to what this Gateway
that's going to be circling the Moon on a permanent basis looks
like?
Dr. Zurbuchen. The Gateway also is of course funded out of
the Human Directorate, not out of our directorate but is--the
way I think of it is like an outpost we have as a high-altitude
camp next to a mountain. I'm from the mountains, you know. You
go out there, it's a small, very simple----
Mr. Brooks. OK.
Dr. Zurbuchen [continuing]. Place for----
Mr. Brooks. What does small mean? When you say small, is
that a one-room vehicle that's orbiting the Moon----
Dr. Zurbuchen. Perhaps it's a two-room vehicle or, you
know, small relative to the size of number of people involved.
It is simple at this moment in time to enable the early goal of
2024----
Mr. Brooks. I understand the purpose of it. Let me go to my
last question. With reference to the Gateway, you talk about
solar electric propulsion. What is that?
Dr. Zurbuchen. Solar electric propulsion is a way of
accelerating objects--spacecraft around. We use it in science.
In this case it will be used for Gateway. It basically loads
up--we bring a gas with us such as, you know, a noble gas or,
you know, at that--cesium or something else that basically sits
there, and we use an electric voltage that we get from--the
power of which we get from the sun to accelerate those
particles out the back and therefore propel us forward.
Mr. Brooks. Well, thank you Dr. Zurbuchen, for your answer
to my questions as best you're able. For what it's worth, no
other representative of NASA has been able to tell us what this
cost might be either.
Dr. Zurbuchen. Thanks.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Mr. Brooks.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Bera for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
So I understand Mr. Brooks' line of questioning is--you
know, if we're thinking about multi-year and potentially multi-
decadal missions, to have some sense of what that sequence
looks like. When I think about it in the context of the Apollo
mission, you know, I think there was a sense--a goal that
didn't span one Administration but went from one Administration
to the next and gave some certainty to NASA what that ultimate
goal was.
I've heard each of you talk about the importance of the
decadal survey of--kind of an objective process that is
scientific, not politically based and then really kind of rank
orders it. And each of you has emphasized the importance of
once this survey is out there, to really try to, as best as
possible, adhere to the recommendations in the survey because,
again, when you're talking about science and you're talking
about doing things that you may not have done before, there has
to be a longer-term commitment.
Maybe, Dr. Gentemann, if you want to just describe, you
know, briefly what the decadal survey process looks like and
why it is so important.
Dr. Gentemann. Thank you. The decadal survey process starts
with the Academies issuing one or two maybe RFIs, requests for
information, from the community to one or both of those white
papers. Often, you know, you have a specific word limit. Those
white papers are generated--I think for the Earth science
decadal there were 290. Some of these were written by one or
two authors. Others were written by hundreds. So you end up
having the opinion, a consensus opinion of multiple communities
within the Earth science.
Those white papers are then given to subcommittees who
distill them down. For the Earth science they were distilled
to, I believe, 130 science questions that were seen as
important by the community. Those 130 science questions were
distilled to 35 observables. Those were then prioritized and
ranked so that there could be--if one observable maybe
addressed multiple scientific questions, you would prioritize
that higher. This was a very difficult and thoughtful process,
which is why the community stands behind it so strongly. Thank
you.
Mr. Bera. And, Dr. Sykes, what's the downside of not trying
to adhere to the decadal survey recommendations?
Dr. Sykes. Well, then it's just kind of random in terms of
what happens. And our development becomes more constrained by
political considerations than science considerations. So it's a
way of coming together. The value of the decadal is it's
supposed represent a consensus of the community. It's a process
that could be improved. I know the Academy has its limits. If
it was up to me--and I was involved in the first Planetary
Decadal Survey--I would allow public comment on the committee
reports and the steering committee report before things are
finalized, but----
Mr. Bera. So it's not a perfect process, but it is----
Dr. Sykes. But it is----
Mr. Bera [continuing]. A very good process?
Dr. Sykes. Yes, it's a good process. We started to solicit
white papers from the community back 20 years ago. The
astronomers were very jealous of that because they would like
to have the individual input. And getting that community input
is, I think, essential.
Mr. Bera. And it's something that, you know--that we as
Members of Congress with oversight should pay attention to and
help guide us in our authorizing process, as well as kind of
the appropriations process.
Dr. Sykes. If I could make one comment, Congressman, but
often we're too distracted by the bright shiny objects. The
largest projects recommended by the decadals, on the planetary
side at least, it's the recommendation for the largest mission.
It's not the top recommendation of the survey, and we need to
pay attention to the little stuff, too.
Mr. Bera. Right. So in the decadal survey are they ranking
order of what programs and objectives we should--they don't
always rank order the big shiny objects first, though----
Dr. Sykes. Oh, yes.
Mr. Bera [continuing]. They do rank order.
Dr. Sykes. Yes. In planetary----
Mr. Bera. So----
Dr. Sykes [continuing]. They do. It's the recommendations
for the largest missions, what kind of medium missions should
be pursued----
Mr. Bera. So this is when we're authorizing and we're
thinking about the budget, we should sit down with the NASA
administrators, scientists, et cetera, and make some of those
tradeoffs, taking small programs as well as large programs into
account.
I'm about out of time, so I will actually yield back.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Mr. Bera.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Olson for 5 minutes.
Mr. Olson. I thank the Chair, and a big Texas welcome to
our four expert witnesses.
I want to talk about going back to the Moon. I had the
honor to spend a whole day with the most recent American to
walk on the Moon, Captain Gene Cernan. He was back home in
Texas 22 for a better part of a day to just drive around and
talk to kids about getting excited about NASA and space. Our
discussions were overshadowed by the Obama Administration's
cancellation of the Constellation project, the one that was
supposed to take us back to the Moon under George W. Bush. That
was sort of shading the whole environment down there.
But Captain Cernan was very adamant about going to the
Moon. He said that's the best place to go to prepare for going
to Mars. He's pointed out that we've only spent 300 hours on
the Moon, a little over a week, 12 Americans, not a whole lot
of presence, six places we actually landed upon. We've missed a
lot of the whole Moon. He also said we don't know what we don't
know about the Moon. He pointed out, for example, that about 37
years after he walked on the Moon, we found out, hey, there's
water on the Moon in those craters. And as you guys know, going
to Mars or going in deep space, we have to have water for human
beings to survive. So that's great progress.
My question is for you, Dr. Zurbuchen. You mentioned we can
discover things on the Moon to help us go to Mars. As I
mentioned, Captain Cernan agrees with you. Can you go further
in detail on this topic? How can we help us learn more about
the Moon that gets us to Mars quickly?
Dr. Zurbuchen. That's a really important question that
you're asking, a question worth thinking about both from the
science side but also from the human and technological side.
There's a fundamental difference about being in low-Earth orbit
and being away from Earth, and that has to do with the
radiation environment that's out there. The radiation
environment, of course, is much less in low-Earth orbit because
of the fact that we have a magnetic field that kind of pulls
away, directs away particles that are coming from deep space.
That radiation environment, living in that environment for a
longer duration is something that is existential to go to Mars
but is something that we're going to learn being near the Moon
on the surface of the Moon for a long time. We want to learn
about resources like you talked about.
Ultimately, what we want to learn is actually to live off
the land, if you want, relative to the resources that are
there, whether it's the water there, some resources that may
actually lead to companies or kind of commerce in other ways.
That is a positive thing. It's something that we should think
about, that has guided us. We would not sit in the United
States here, this country we love, if the people ahead of us
did not think that way. So it's about learning how to do that,
also developing the technologies to sustain life in deep space.
Mr. Olson. And as you mentioned, too, having access to
water out of our orbit is huge because with our current
propulsion systems it takes 10 pounds of propellant to put up 1
pound of water into orbit, so that means you have to have a
huge rocket pulling all that water out of Earth going through
our atmosphere. If it's there on the Moon, it's there for the
taking, and I think that's something we should push. And
getting there in five years is very, very doable if we make a
commitment.
Another question for you, Doctor, is about the presence in
this budget request for science. It's a decrease from the FY
2019 appropriations but still the highest ever proposed by an
Administration. It's increased again. The President added an
amendment there. He put on another $90 million. What does NASA
plan on doing with that extra $90 million, and how does that
differ from the existing commercial lunar payload services
initiative?
Dr. Zurbuchen. I'm really glad for the question because it
relates directly to what we just discussed. What we seek to do
ahead of a human landing is actually bring robotic mobility, so
a rover to the south areas, the polar areas of the Moon and
actually look for water and the state it's in just in a way, as
Dr. Sykes talked about in his testimony. That's what the
additional $90 million allows us today, to buy that service to
go over and accelerate going there ahead of humans going to
that very region.
Mr. Olson. I have a few more questions but not much time,
so I'll yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes
Ms. Wexton for 5 minutes.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Madam Chair, for yielding. And thank
you to the witnesses for coming to testify today.
I am from Virginia where we have two incredible NASA
facilities at Langley and Wallops Island. They both play
important roles in many of NASA's scientific missions from
launching CubeSats designed and built by Virginia students to
testing key components of the Europa Clipper. So we know
firsthand how NASA science missions increase our understanding
of our solar system, deep space, and our own planet.
Dr. Gentemann, you wrote in your prepared testimony that
the PACE and CLARREO Pathfinder missions proposed for
cancellation in the Administration's FY 2020 budget request are
considered part of the Program of Record for the decadal survey
recommended--and recommended to be continued as a top priority.
What would the impact be to our scientific understanding of the
Earth and its changing climate if these two missions were
canceled?
Dr. Gentemann. Thank you, Ms. Wexton. So the PACE mission
is the Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, ocean Ecosystem. It's a
critical mission for quantifying the role of the ocean
ecosystem and the global carbon cycle. When it's launched, it
will give us unprecedented insight into the Earth's ocean and
atmosphere, and collecting data on these systems is critical to
understanding their effects on climate and Earth's
habitability.
The instruments on PACE will allow for more detailed
understanding of carbon uptake by the various phytoplankton
species, and this is sort of the crux of it. This data will
allow scientists and policymakers to be in a stronger position
when prioritizing climate change mitigation strategies.
The CLARREO Pathfinder mission is designed to demonstrate
in-space satellite intercalibration, and I've been involved in
satellite calibration for over 20 years, and having this
capability is just incredibly exciting to me as a scientist.
It's essential to provide accurate well-characterized data. And
it will provide the ability to intercalibrate instruments in
space at accuracies 5 to 10 times beyond current capabilities.
These are both part of the assumed baseline Program of
Record, and the Program--the decadal survey, all of these
observations from these missions are interwoven into what sort
of societal benefits we can expect by following this
recommended guideline and including new missions so that it's
all built on each other. Thank you.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you very much. So I served in the State
legislature in Virginia before I came to Congress, and one of
the things that we have--it's kind of unique in Virginia is we
have a 1-term Governor. And, as a result, we've got 4 years
when one thing might be a priority for that Governor, and then
another Governor comes in 4 years later and changes the
priorities. So it had been cybersecurity, and now it's high-
tech manufacturing or whatever it may be.
So seeing this decadal survey that is peer-reviewed and,
you know, scientifically based is very encouraging to me rather
than have, you know, the politics or the--you know, what a
current administration may want to be focusing on be the focus.
But, Dr. Sykes, you testified that there were some
shortcomings in the way that this program is administered and
the issues with transparency and competition. Can you elaborate
on that a little bit more?
Dr. Sykes. Well, yes, I believe competition is key,
particularly in our research data analysis programs that we
need to make sure where the money is going, to what parties,
and so there's some open questions about that.
One of the main things which has come up over the last, you
know, 6 years or so has been the hiding of costs of proposals
from reviewers. I mean, this was something that, for the
decades that I've been in the community and serving on panels
and stuff, was a regular thing of being asked, well, is this
good--is this a cost-effective proposal or, gee, this proposal
is 3 times as much as 3 lower-ranked proposals. But what's the
value of those 3 proposals taken together? That's not something
a program officer can really answer.
I had an interesting--and I don't want to waste your time--
experience where a proposer--top-ranked proposal wanted all the
money of the program.
Ms. Wexton. Imagine that.
Dr. Sykes. So we dealt with that. But--so making this
information available, being transparent about costs, and also
in terms of compliance with the decadal, just being open about
what budgets are actually being spent. As you see in my
testimony, there are some pretty interesting variations in
terms of--in the planetary side what was considered research
and analysis programs from 1 month to the next.
Ms. Wexton. OK. Thank you very much, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Ms. Wexton.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Posey for 5 minutes.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Madam Chair. When you talk to people
who aren't familiar with history and you mention the importance
of our space program to the survival of our species, you get
some chuckles and you even get some harassment. A lot of that
diminished somewhat when we had that relatively small asteroid
implode over Russia 1,000 miles from the nearest living person
and injured 1,000 to 1,500 people. It did wake up some people
to the possibilities.
The Planetary Science Division of the Space Mission
Directorate is responsible for the Planetary Defense
Coordination Office, which searches for, characterizes,
catalogs near-Earth objects that could collide with the Earth.
NASA established the Planetary Defense Coordination Office in
2016 in response to the NASA Inspector General's report. And
the Trump Administration is calling for significant increase in
near-Earth orbit funding.
Congress asked NASA to identify 90 percent of all hazardous
near-Earth objects by 2020. NASA recently provided us a report
that indicated they're not able to reach the goal in that time
period but that the National Science Foundation's Large
Synoptic Survey Telescope, coupled with a space-based infrared
mission, could accelerate the survey.
Mr. Zurbuchen, I just wonder if you could tell me if NASA
is now ready to go and what the time element may be.
Dr. Zurbuchen. Thanks for the question. We're committed of
course that--to achieve that goal. We're not going to make it
by 2020. I should have started a few years before. Sorry, but--
no, I mean, look, I mean, we are--what we're focusing on are
two things. First of all, we want to use any and all assets
that are available, whether it's from the National Science
Foundation or from our own missions to look at the data that
are there and include it into the very database that you're
talking about.
For example, the TESS mission that's out there in
astrophysics is one of those sources that we're piping into
that very analysis. The second one is through the increase by
close to a factor of three of that particular budget line
together with our team were enabled to actually do the very
mission that you're talking about. In fact, we've started to
invest in the technology, the sensor technology to detect those
very cold objects. And it's our expectation to go forward with
that mission in the next few years as a budget wedge becomes
available in that line.
Mr. Posey. OK. Mr. Sykes, did you want to comment on that?
You had the largest grin when we were talking about survival of
the species.
Dr. Sykes. Well, we do have the technology, and with the
moving forward of the NEOCam mission, that provides the space-
based infrared component. The limit to Earth-based
observatories--and I'm a telescope jockey myself--is that you
can only observe at night. And when you can only observe at
night, that means that you can't see much interior to the
Earth's orbit toward the sun. And we can be hit by stuff from
there, too. The NEOCam mission is placed at Earth-sun L1 in
between the sun and the Earth, closer to the Earth, and it's
scanning tens of degrees closer to the sun, so it captures well
inside the orbit of Venus, all the objects that are moving in
there.
And there's an interesting thing--I'm sorry, please cut me
off, but----
Mr. Posey. Yes, go ahead.
Dr. Sykes [continuing]. That, you know, for instance, those
Chelyabinsk-sized 20-meter type objects that exploded in the
atmosphere over Russia. Well, about 5 times as many of those
objects are hitting us--based on detecting flashes in the
atmosphere and infrasound--than are predicted by the asteroid
population models from ground-based observatories.
Why is that? Well, there is a possible answer is that you
could have a breakup of interior--asteroid interior to the
orbit of the Earth, and we're getting fragments from that. But
you wouldn't pick that up in a ground-based telescope, but you
would with NEOCam. So there's all kinds of--having this
combination of these ground-based sources in combination with
NEOCam is really going to put this to rest not by 2020 but, you
know, probably within 5 years of its launch.
Mr. Posey. The longest silence I've ever heard in this
Committee is when the President's Chief Scientist, the NASA
Administrator, and the Secretary of the Air Force were asked in
one of our Committee hearings if a relatively small asteroid,
the one that detonated over Russia, were headed for the Big
Apple and we had a week's notice, which we wouldn't have, what
would we do? And that's the longest silence we ever heard in
this Committee.
Thank you. Thank you, witnesses.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Mr. Posey.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Perlmutter for 5 minutes.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you. And, Dr. Sykes, never apologize
for your enthusiasm. We appreciate it. We've had some
tremendous panels lately, and I just want to thank all of you
for being here.
So I'm going to start with a couple softballs, and then
we'll work it up from there. So, Dr. Zurbuchen, I understand
you visited my alma mater last week----
Dr. Zurbuchen. That's right.
Mr. Perlmutter [continuing]. University of Colorado at
Boulder, so I'm just curious what you were talking about, what
kinds of science matters were generally discussed, and also how
is NASA getting along with its university partners?
And then, Dr. Spergel, I'll let you kind of follow up from
an academic institution point of view.
Dr. Zurbuchen. We at NASA think of the university partners
as just that, they're partners. They're part of our mission
without whom we cannot be successful. I therefore personally
visit universities on a regular basis all around the country,
and I was in Colorado talking about a variety of both missions
that are ongoing there but also of ideas that are there that
would make us better as we go forward.
The University of Colorado is among universities unique in
the sense that it's the only university I'm aware of where
during a Saturday football game, in the middle, the ad comes on
and talks about NASA, so I love those games.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you. Dr. Spergel, how do you see the
partnership or the relationship with NASA working between the
institutions and the agency?
Dr. Spergel. Thank you. Generally working well in that I
see it working in sort of two different forms, both of which I
think are important. For the scientific missions, we often have
situations where some of the leadership of the missions sit at
the universities. For example, in the IMAP project that was
just selected, my colleague Dr. McComas at Princeton is leading
IMAPs and working together with NASA centers. When I worked on
the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, we worked very
closely with our Goddard colleagues.
And I think universities bring some flexibility, some
innovation, perhaps most importantly really smart, eager, young
students. And they bring a lot to projects.
And, on the other hand, I think what NASA centers do well
is continuity. There are long-term capabilities that sit at the
centers, and I think we can get a balance between the two.
To go--to echo something that Dr. Sykes talked about,
another important role the university plays is in the research
community. And it's the universities that train and develop
graduate students. And one of the things that happens that we
have to be very careful about when mission overruns, there's
always a temptation to cut the research budget and research
analysis budget in order to make sure that those projects go.
When those things are cut, that eliminates, you know, graduate
student careers----
Mr. Perlmutter. Right.
Dr. Sykes [continuing]. Because a lot of the funding goes
to students. And I think educating the undergraduates and
educating the graduate students is a really important role that
the universities play in the whole scientific enterprise.
Mr. Perlmutter. A couple weeks ago we had a young woman who
was a computer scientist who was the one who knit together all
the pictures of the blackhole at the center of our galaxy. And
she was, you know, brilliant and excited and enthusiastic, and
she jazzed all of us up. So it's important to have that energy,
that enthusiasm, and that, you know, new look at things.
So let's talk about space weather for a second. You know,
we had a bill last cycle--it's coming back--to try to, you
know, provide some more information about, you know, whatever
kinds of flares, radiation, et cetera, are coming to us from
the Sun. So can you talk a little bit, Dr. Zurbuchen, about,
you know, what we're doing with the heliosphere and those kind
of things?
Dr. Zurbuchen. The space environment of the Earth, just
like the Earth itself, is a system that has both magnetic
forces and plasma streams that interact with us as a
technological society. The decadal of heliophysics that is
driving our investments talks--has a key element, a whole
chapter dedicated to space weather. That chapter 7 basically
tells us we should, from NASA, provide and support to our
operational agencies and, for example, look at L1 monitors as a
continuing kind of capability. That's something we're working
on right now with NOAA.
It also said that we should focus on research-to-operations
work and also in reverse, look at how the operational data will
help us drive more research. We started programs in both of
those areas and are working with NOAA to do that. It also
talked about investments in knitting together to create more
strength and capability. It's something that we're working on
and focused on.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, and I yield back to the Chair.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Mr. Perlmutter.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Waltz for 5 minutes.
Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank you so
much, witnesses, for coming today.
So my questions today focus on the Commercial Lunar Payload
Services, CLPS, the CLPS program, which is of course within
NASA's Science Mission Directorate and provides commercial
lunar landers for S&T payloads and has been described by NASA
as the first major step to return astronauts to the Moon. So
I'm a supporter of the program and in fact submitted an
appropriations request to fully fund CLPS in FY 2020.
Bottom line, the 21st century space race is on. The Moon
will be a critical part of it. On May 31, NASA awarded
contracts to three companies under CLPS, and one of these
companies, Beyond Orbit Inc., has elected to locate its lunar
lander assembly facility in my district in Volusia County, Port
Orange, Florida, which is fantastic, something we're very
excited about. My district is just north of the Cape. And we're
looking at at least 50 employees coming to our communities.
So my questions, and forgive me, Dr. Zurbuchen----
Dr. Zurbuchen. Yes.
Mr. Waltz. So a condition, and I know there's been some
questions on this already, but just to clarify, a condition of
the CLPS procurement stipulates that the awardees have to be
U.S. companies. So, again, can you assure Florida's taxpayers
that NASA will not outsource its space exploration and will
continue to focus on American companies, as it has throughout
its history?
Dr. Zurbuchen. Absolutely. We will use the very same
processes that we're using for launch capabilities in which we
assure that the majority of all design manufacturing is right
here for it to be falling under any contract that we would
support from NASA. We actually have initiated a review of that,
an audit of that right now before we put money into that
particular company. We'll do so with others.
I, for now, actually think that it's a strength of the
United States to attract companies that might have been
invented elsewhere and come here and hire Americans and give
them jobs and create economic activity right here on our soil.
Mr. Waltz. No, I completely agree, and obviously there is
an IP issue here, there's a national security issue, there's a
number of issues wrapped around that on top of ensuring
taxpayers receive that return on investment. So thank you for
that.
You've also said, Dr. Z, and I agree with my colleagues,
that the landers contracted through CLPS will, quote, ``bring
us closer to solving the many scientific mysteries of our Moon,
our solar system, and beyond, and what we learn will not only
change our view of the universe but also prepare our human
missions to the Moon and eventually Mars.'' Can you elaborate
on those thoughts and explain how these lunar payloads and the
broader science mission is preparing NASA for human missions to
the Moon and again, then, the follow-on to Mars?
Dr. Zurbuchen. If one looks at lunar science, what's really
exciting about this is the Moon that we investigated during the
Apollo program with the probes that we brought back, today is a
very different science discipline than then. For example, even
in the last few years, kind of a decade or so, again, the
prevalence of water in--both on the inside of grains but also
in--observed remotely from the Moon, it's basically reshaped
our view of that--of our celestial companion.
So we have those kind of questions that actually were
mentioned in the decadal in the planetary decadal that we can
now do because we actually don't have to buy a whole billion-
dollar spacecraft but we have a chance of doing through this
new methodology. There's other questions that relate to the
absolute age of the solar system, questions that are out there
that actually have sharpened our understanding of activity,
geologic activity in this planet that otherwise we did not
think about before. It's those kind of questions we want to go
up after, driven by principal investigators through a
competitive process and taking advantage of that capability.
Mr. Waltz. Well, you have a supporter here, presuming we
need to spend those moneys smartly and efficiently.
I have Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in my district.
If you could submit for the record how the Mission Directorate
partners with STEM institutions like Embry-Riddle for research
and development, I'd be very appreciative. Thank you, and I
yield.
Dr. Zurbuchen. Will do so.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Mr. Waltz.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Beyer for 5 minutes.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you. And, Chairwoman Horn, I really want
to thank you for holding this hearing.
You know, we hear so much about the Administration's
plans--constantly changing plans--to send humans to Moon or to
Mars. It's actually great to hear about NASA's key science
programs.
Dr. Spergel, in your testimony you stated that, quote,
``Understanding the nature of dark energy is one of the most
compelling problems in physics, and that Europe and China are
leading the way on this.'' Without WFIRST, would we be behind
other nations in studying dark energy?
Dr. Spergel. Yes, we would. I mean, now, we are partners
with the Europeans on Euclid, but they are the leading--they're
leading that study where we're partners there.
I mean, one of the--WFIRST, you know, is a mission that I
think we want to do because of the compelling science it does.
Mr. Beyer. So tell me why--in layman's terms, why is dark
energy compelling?
Dr. Spergel. It's 75 percent of the universe, and we don't
know what it is, so it's most of what's out there. It's driving
the expansion of the universe. It will determine the universe's
fate, whether it expands forever, whether it's torn apart by a
big rip, whether that--it turns around and collapses. It will
be governed by the nature of dark energy.
Mr. Beyer. Will our research into dark energy also give us
insight into dark matter?
Dr. Spergel. Perhaps. We--we're in the embarrassing
situation of not knowing what makes up 95 percent of the
universe. We know there's dark energy; we know there's dark
matter. One of the things--actually working right now with an
undergraduate with--my assignment for the train ride on the way
back is to send him some detailed notes is, does dark energy
interact with dark matter?
Dark matter clusters gravitationally. It behaves
differently from the dark energy. It clusters in our galaxy so,
you know, in this room we think there's lots of dark matter
streaming through us. But, again, we don't know what it is.
There are a number of different ways that NASA missions are
going after studying dark matter. The Compton Gamma Ray
Observatory is looking for dark matter annihilation. We are
mapping the large-scale distribution of the dark matter right
now with Hubble. We will be able to do that with much more
power with WFIRST. It can image more than 100 times the area in
each image as the Hubble does.
Mr. Beyer. Let me jump on a WFIRST question because----
Dr. Spergel. Yes.
Mr. Beyer [continuing]. The President zeroed it out in his
last couple budgets. We've put it back. You know, we like to
say here it's the most important issue in the decadal survey
that's been ignored by this Administration. But in casual
conversations, you know, the cocktail-party conversations with
NASA scientists, they say the other side of that is that by
turning over $510 million or some billions of dollars to the
outside government contractors, we're squeezing out the other
essential science that needs to be done within NASA.
Dr. Spergel. Well, I think it's important that NASA
maintain a balanced program, right? So you don't--we don't want
to see WFIRST funded at the expense of severe cuts in the
research program. This is why--and I think the--I would applaud
the budget that's been--you know, come out of the
Appropriations Committee here in the House this year that
provide support in astrophysics both for research and analysis
and for the WFIRST mission. And that goes beyond what was
requested by the President's budget.
Mr. Beyer. Yes, thank you. Dr. Z, there's an article
published 4 days ago in Scientific American that stated--and
let me quote again--``The White House is considering whether to
require scientists from NOAA, NASA, or other agencies to
participate in the review, and the review being the program run
through the National Security Council portrayed as a
`correction' to the National Climate Assessment according to
sources involved in the planning.'' The article notes that Dr.
Gavin Schmidt, a scientist at Goddard Institute for Space
Studies was identified by the White House as a possible
participant.
Are NASA scientists going to be required to debate the
credibility of the National Climate Assessment? And how does
NASA feel about its scientists being dragged into the climate
skeptics at the White House?
Dr. Zurbuchen. And so, just like you, I've read the article
in the press. I have personally not been engaged in any of the
detailed discussions on that very issue. I would have to take
additional information that you might want to know about this
for the record.
Generally speaking, I believe that the science that we're
doing, whether it's in this question or any other question, has
the same kind of rules and that is it's perfectly fine to ask
questions. We want to use the scientific method to answer those
questions. And I have every belief that, no matter what the
discussion is, that our scientists, whether at universities or
within the government, would know how to handle this and other
questions.
Mr. Beyer. Yes. And I certainly heartily agree that it's
perfectly right to ask the questions, but you do have the
concern when they say that being part of this could actually
damage their careers, you know, by giving them the taint that
they're part of something that is anti-scientific.
Dr. Zurbuchen. I just want to say that it will be a shame
if the science community would turn on people who are asked to
serve their government in whatever form to help in a discussion
and do what scientists do. And if somebody said we can no
longer talk to you, it would be a shame if the science
community behaved that way.
Mr. Beyer. All right. Great. Thank you very much. Madam
Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Mr. Beyer. And thank you,
witnesses.
The Ranking Member and I have a couple of additional
questions, and then we will wrap this up. There were just a
couple of things that we haven't quite touched on yet, and I
want to say thank you to all of you. You've been very engaging
and have been very helpful witnesses.
So, Dr. Spergel, I wanted to ask you about life and
physical sciences. Right now, we know at--you're the former
Chair of the Space Studies Board, and so you've looked across
NASA's activities. And given that this science helps us
understand how microgravity, how space environments impact
human physiology and physical systems and then this research is
helping inform our space exploration, that right now, this is
under the Human Space Exploration Operations Mission
Directorate, which is absolutely understandable.
What I'd like to hear is your views on how effective this
placement of life and physical sciences is under the human
exploration mission and in enabling our scientific progress and
if you foresee any need for any potential changes moving
forward in the placement.
Dr. Spergel. There's very good science going on in life and
physical sciences. That said, I'm sometimes concerned that the
Earth--the Exploration Directorate does not have the culture of
scientific review that SMD has. I think one of the real
strengths of the SMD is whether you're looking at big mission
proposals or a small research grant, everything is evaluated by
peer review and most everything is competed, and I think that's
very important.
I think for physical and life sciences it's not--doesn't
matter so much whether it sits in exploration or sits in SMD. I
think the argument for sitting in SMD is it's doing science.
The argument for sitting in exploration is that it informs
particularly the life science aspects of the exploration
mission. I think what is important is that it operate under the
principles of competition and peer review.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you very much. And I want to turn
our attention now--several of you have addressed the issue of
graduate students filling the pipeline and so, Dr. Z, the GAO
(Government Accountability Office) and the NASA Inspector
General have both identified challenges with workforce
shortages related to our science missions. And clearly, that is
an issue moving forward as we delve into this.
So I'd like to hear what are NASA's biggest challenges to
sufficiently staff NASA science missions and your insight in
the most efficient or effective ways to address those?
Dr. Zurbuchen. The IG report that you're referring to is
specifically focused on Europa Clipper, and this has been with
me for the year, so it was no surprise whatsoever. I'm focused
on it. The issue there is that we're right now finishing off
the Mars 2020 lander, and frankly, the top talent is working on
that pushing it over the finish line.
I visited the group last week and actually had a review of
that work yesterday. The good news is we're on track and we're
making a lot of progress. The bad news is some of the people
that we were going to put on the next mission were working,
finishing off Mars 2020. That has to be the highest priority.
So we will take the recommendations, as provided by the IG,
look at the schedule of what we're doing and going back. What I
don't want to do is increase necessarily the Center size. What
I want to do is think about how we distribute the work and how
we in fact space strategic-scale missions relative to each
other to make sure that we don't step on each other's feet.
The other thing that I've talked to the Director about is
really focusing on mentorship of that next-generation leader
that is out there. I strongly believe that the most important
predictor for our leadership 10, 20 years from now is the
talent that we're attracting and growing right now in our
organizations. So I've focused on that as a second priority.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you. Would any of the other
witnesses like to comment on that last question?
Dr. Sykes. Well, I believe what Dr. Zurbuchen was referring
to is operational personnel, but when it comes to the science
team, that's another issue because the Mars scientists are not
the people that are working on the Europa mission. And there
seems to be some kind of consistent over the years scaling down
of science team population and support and relying more on some
of the research programs to try to pick up the slack for
analyzing the data. And of course research programs can't do
that in real time, which is what missions, you know, need. So
that's another issue.
And as far as the young people are concerned, it's--I think
we--it doesn't help young people to be pushed in the profession
if there's no--you know, early career if there's no midcareer,
so we need to be looking at that as well.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Dr. Sykes.
Dr. Spergel, did you have----
Dr. Spergel. Yes, I just want to comment that I--one piece
of this problem is the changing enforcement of our immigration
laws, that we attract outstanding scientists from throughout
the world to study here, and many of the best want to stay
here. And I think it's important that we remain open to these
outstanding scientists who want to remain here.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you. Dr. Gentemann?
Dr. Gentemann. I'd also like to emphasize I think we're at
a--the--attracting new talent, we're right at the cusp of this
very exciting time in science where how science is being done
is being reorganized. Within cloud computing and within open-
source software, suddenly the types of questions that you can
ask are completely different because you've sort of put aside a
lot of the data wrangling and you can handle the information
that you have very differently.
And being able to attract very exciting cutting-edge young
scientists means that we also have to evolve as scientists in
how we do science so that we can attract them and let them know
that, you know, interdisciplinary science and open-source
software will help them build their careers. And I think it's a
very exciting time for science, and I think that we have a good
chance of attracting these young technologically capable
people. Thank you.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you very much. Mr. Babin?
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a couple of
questions.
Dr. Zurbuchen, NASA is increasingly leveraging novel ways
to acquire science data such as data buys, hosted payloads,
ride shares, and CubeSats. Can you speak to the progress that
NASA has made on this front?
Dr. Zurbuchen. I really appreciate that question. We look
at commercial opportunities like that as opportunities to get
more science per dollar. That's the motivator for us. Instead
of building a whole spacecraft, we can take data that a
commercial entity might acquire for other market needs and
make----
Mr. Babin. Right.
Dr. Zurbuchen [continuing]. That data available to the
public. We have at this moment in time--besides the commercial
lunar initiative we already talked about--a handful of other
programs in play in which we're experimenting and learning
about that, the most important of which in my opinion is the
one focused on the data of our planet. We're in the middle of a
year-long trial period. Frankly, what we're trying to learn is
how to price in the market what we should pay for data. And
that's a really important thing because on the one hand we want
to spend--of course support our own U.S. companies. On the
other hand, we also are deeply aware that we're spending
taxpayers' money. So we're trying to figure out how to find
that right price point. That's exactly what we're learning
right now. There's other experiments just like it.
Mr. Babin. OK. Well said. Also, the budget request proposes
launching the Europa Clipper on a commercial launch vehicle
despite appropriations laws that require the mission to be
launched on an SLS (Space Launch System) to decrease the
transit time and maximize the science conducted around Europa.
How will the mission science be impacted by this particular
decision?
Dr. Zurbuchen. If we launch on a commercial launch vehicle
that could currently be available, it would add between 3 to 5
years or so of transit time depending on how we go there. That
would have, of course, cost relative to the overall science
team because we don't want to fire every scientist and then
somehow hope we can hire them back.
Mr. Babin. Right.
Dr. Zurbuchen. We need to keep essential teams there. It
would of course require some resilience, and depending on where
we fly by--for example, there's orbits where we would fly by
Venus. Venus is a hot planet, so we have to do a different
thermal design as we fly by there, so it's important to us to
figure out which way we're going to go as we go forward. Of
course, we will follow the law.
Mr. Babin. You bet. You know what, I've got one more I want
to ask if you don't mind.
Chairwoman Horn. Of course.
Mr. Babin. Dr. Sykes, sometimes missions are delivered
under cost. In order to incentivize cost-effective development
of principle investigator-led missions, and this is to you as
well, Dr. Zurbuchen, should NASA explore the possibility of
allowing the principal investigator to use funding saved on
development for research and analysis activities? If both of
you gentlemen would like to answer that.
Dr. Sykes. Well, I think that in the context of the cost-
capped missions that we don't want people to be busting the
budget by borrowing from, you know, Peter to pay Paul here.
Mr. Babin. Exactly.
Dr. Sykes. And I think that--and we don't do accounting
across, you know, many years, you know, on these missions, so I
don't know if that would be workable. So I----
Mr. Babin. OK. Dr. Zurbuchen?
Dr. Zurbuchen. So, generally speaking, even though we have
not made it a policy, what we have done to incentivize people
under running their budget is by enhancing in some ways
sometimes one-to-one their research programs. So many of the
researchers frankly, what motivates them for a given mission, a
P.I.-class mission, is that they want to do science, the
mission is a path to the goal. The goal is to science. And so
what we're trying to do is encourage them by basically not
ripping away the money that they save the government and all of
us but reinvesting that into a team because obviously we don't
even have--we don't have just the good scientists. We already
checked that. We also have a good leader, so we want to invest
in those people.
Mr. Babin. Well, thank you. Thank you very much. And with
that, I yield back.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you very much, Mr. Babin.
Before we bring this hearing to a close, I want to
sincerely thank all four of you for being incredibly good
witnesses. The--your insights, the clarity, the way you
answered questions, and the reminder of the importance of the
work that NASA Science Mission Directorate does and the
importance of balancing the needs of science and being
responsible stewards of our taxpayer dollars, as well as I
think, Dr. Spergel, the reminder of the known unknowns and the
unknown unknowns that are out there. So thank you all for being
with our Committee today.
The record will remain open for 2 weeks for additional
statements from Members and for any additional questions the
Committee may ask of the witnesses.
The witnesses are excused, and the hearing is now
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Thomas H. Zurbuchen
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Chelle Gentemann
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. David Spergel
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Mark Sykes
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Additional responses submitted by Dr. Thomas H. Zurbuchen
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Report submitted by Dr. Chelle Gentemann
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]