[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                     A REVIEW OF THE DECADAL SURVEY
                     FOR ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS
                              IN THE 2020s

=======================================================================
                                 
                             JOINT HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS
                SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
                             AND TECHNOLOGY

                                 OF THE

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            DECEMBER 1, 2021

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-39

                               __________
                                     

 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                                     
                                   
        Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
        
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
46-149                     WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------           
             COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

             HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California              FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma, 
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon                 Ranking Member
AMI BERA, California                 MO BROOKS, Alabama
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan,             BILL POSEY, Florida
    Vice Chair                       RANDY WEBER, Texas
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey           BRIAN BABIN, Texas
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York              ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
MELANIE A. STANSBURY, New Mexico     MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California             JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
JERRY McNERNEY, California           MIKE GARCIA, California
PAUL TONKO, New York                 STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
BILL FOSTER, Illinois                YOUNG KIM, California
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
DON BEYER, Virginia                  JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida               CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                JAY OBERNOLTE, California
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             PETER MEIJER, Michigan
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina         JAKE ELLZEY, TEXAS
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin                VACANCY
DAN KILDEE, Michigan
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
                                 ------                                

                 Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics

                   HON. DON BEYER, Virginia, Chairman
ZOE LOFGREN, California              BRIAN BABIN, Texas, 
AMI BERA, California                     Ranking Member
BRAD SHERMAN, California             MO BROOKS, Alabama
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              BILL POSEY, Florida
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida               DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          YOUNG KIM, California
                                 ------                                

                Subcommittee on Research and Technology

                HON. HALEY STEVENS, Michigan, Chairwoman
MELANIE A. STANSBURY, New Mexico     MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida, 
PAUL TONKO, New York                     Ranking Member
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin                ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania             JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
BILL FOSTER, Illinois                JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             PETER MEIJER, Michigan
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina         VACANCY
                         
                         
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                            December 1, 2021

                                                                   Page

Hearing Charter..................................................     2

                           Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Don Beyer, Chairman, 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............................................    14

Statement by Representative Haley Stevens, Chairwoman, 
  Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, 
  Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...........    15
    Written Statement............................................    16

Statement by Representative Michael Waltz, Ranking Member, 
  Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, 
  Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...........    16
    Written Statement............................................    18

Written statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, 
  Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 
  House of Representatives.......................................    19

                               Witnesses:

Dr. Robert C. Kennicutt, Co-Chair, Steering Committee, Committee 
  for A Decadal Survey on Astronomy and Astrophysics 2020, 
  National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 
  Laureate Professor, University of Arizona, Professor of Physics 
  and Astronomy, Texas A&M University
    Oral Statement...............................................    20
    Written Statement............................................    23

Dr. Fiona A. Harrison, Co-Chair, Steering Committee, Committee 
  for A Decadal Survey on Astronomy and Astrophysics 2020, 
  National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 
  Harold A. Rosen Professor of Physics, California Institute of 
  Technology
    Oral Statement...............................................    32
    Written Statement............................................    34

Mr. William Russell, Director, Contracting and National Security 
  Acquisitions, Government Accountability Office
    Oral Statement...............................................    44
    Written Statement............................................    46

Discussion.......................................................    66

             Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. Robert C. Kennicutt, Co-Chair, Steering Committee, Committee 
  for A Decadal Survey on Astronomy and Astrophysics 2020, 
  National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 
  Laureate Professor, University of Arizona, Professor of Physics 
  and Astronomy, Texas A&M University............................    88

Dr. Fiona A. Harrison, Co-Chair, Steering Committee, Committee 
  for A Decadal Survey on Astronomy and Astrophysics 2020, 
  National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 
  Harold A. Rosen Professor of Physics, California Institute of 
  Technology.....................................................    89

Mr. William Russell, Director, Contracting and National Security 
  Acquisitions, Government Accountability Office.................    98

            Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record

Letter submitted by Representative Don Beyer, Chairman, 
  Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, 
  Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives
    Paula Szkody, President, American Astronomical Society.......   102

 
                     A REVIEW OF THE DECADAL SURVEY
                     FOR ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS
                              IN THE 2020s

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2021

                  House of Representatives,
             Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics,
                        joint with the Subcommittee
                        on Research and Technology,
               Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                   Washington, D.C.

    The Subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 11:02 a.m., 
via Zoom, Hon. Don Beyer [Chairman of the Subcommittee on Space 
and Aeronautics] presiding.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairman Beyer. With a pretend gavel, this hearing will 
come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to 
declare recess at any time. Before I want to--deliver my 
opening remarks I wanted to note, not surprisingly, that today 
the Committee is meeting virtually. And a couple of other 
reminders to the Members about the meeting, first, keep your 
video feed on as long as you're present. If you have to come 
and go, just turn the--yes, the video off, and then come log 
back in. You're responsible for your own microphones. We're not 
going to micromanage you. Also, please keep them muted unless 
you're speaking. Finally, if you have documents that you wish 
to submit for the record, please e-mail them to the Committee 
Clerk, whose e-mail address was circulated prior to the 
hearing, and I'm sure all of your staff has that also.
    So good morning, and welcome to today's hearing on ``A 
Review of the Decadal Survey for Astronomy and Astrophysics in 
the 2020's.'' Welcome to our esteemed panel of witnesses. I'm 
very excited that you're here, and I really look forward to 
hearing from you. This is a joint hearing of the Subcommittee 
on Space and Aeronautics and the Subcommittee on Research and 
Technology. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
(NASA) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) jointly lead 
this Nation's astronomy and astrophysics programs, one from 
space, one from the ground, so it only makes sense that we 
would jointly conduct this hearing. And I really want to thank 
Chairwoman Haley Stevens from Michigan for her collaboration on 
this joint hearing, and on everything else.
    ``We live in a time of extraordinary discovery and progress 
in astronomy and astrophysics.'' That's the opening--the 
opening quote to the Decadal Survey, and a recognition that a 
fascinating future is on our horizon, one that could lead us to 
understanding the interconnections within the cosmic ecosystem 
across diverse structures ranging from the tenuous gases at the 
boundaries of galaxies, to the interiors of stars, to our 
planetary systems. Our Nation's investments in astronomy and 
astrophysics research and development have led to profound 
breakthroughs. Examples of discoveries over the past decade, 
which many of us on the Science Committee have enjoyed in 
almost first person, the first detection of gravitational 
radiation from astronomical sources, the discovery of thousands 
of planets beyond our solar systems, or exoplanets, and 
precision measurements of the Milky Way's supermassive black 
hole, including a photo.
    The universe and the astronomical phenomena comprising it 
are vast. The quantities of study are virtually infinite. This 
is why the National Academies' once a decade surveys are so 
important. They focus the community's recommendations for 
scientific inquiry and prioritize the means of pursuing them, 
as well as the necessary investments required. So I'm delighted 
that both co-chairs of the National Academies astronomy and 
astrophysics decadal survey are here with us to discuss the 
report's important findings and recommendations. Their work in 
developing a scientific consensus is essential to our ability 
to support the Nation's astronomy and astrophysics programs in 
our role as authorizers, and even appropriators. It's the 
decadal survey that guides us as we seek to ensure the health 
and vibrancy of the discipline, the balance of programs that 
constitute agency activities, and the vision of those who 
study, investigate, and theorize on some of the most profound 
questions of our time--and I'm really pleased that in this 
regard the decadal survey examines the status of the profession 
too. Expanding access to and diversity and inclusion in this 
community is a key to achieving the ambitious goals that this 
decadal survey lays out. As you know IQ is spread across our 
entire human race, but we don't always get--lure it out from 
places that are that are underrepresented. The Subcommittee I 
chair involves the space-based aspect of the decadal survey, 
and NASA's role in it. NASA's on the cusp of realizing a major 
decadal priority with the upcoming launch later this month of 
the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), 2 decades in the making, 
and the Nancy Grace Roman Telescope, the old WFIRST, also a 
decadal priority, is making significant progress as well.
    I'm interested to hear what the decadal committee has 
learned from NASA's history of large-scale observatories, and 
its recommended new approach to flagship missions with the 
Great Observatories Missions and Technology Maturation Program. 
Ultimately we're going to need an acronym for that. While both 
space and ground-based activities are essential to realizing 
the decadal survey, transformational science and the goals of 
understanding dark energy, dark matter, and potentially 
habitable worlds don't recognize a space or ground-based 
division, so I'm looking forward to hearing from our witnesses 
on what the report recommends to reduce those divisions and to 
facilitate synergies across agency activities.
    Finally, I want to thank the community of astronomers and 
astrophysicists who contributed to the decadal survey, the 
amazing number of white papers, and all the steering committees 
and panels whose hard work, including through the pandemic, 
brings us this landmark report. Your efforts not only guide the 
future of the discipline, you inspire the next generation, many 
of whom will become our STEM (science, technology, engineering, 
and mathematics) leaders through the gateway of exploring our 
Universe and the science of astronomy and astrophysics.
    I'd now like to ask for unanimous consent to enter into the 
record a letter from the American Astronomical Society. And 
seeing no objections, so ordered.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Beyer follows:]

    Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing on ``A Review 
of the Decadal Survey for Astronomy and Astrophysics in the 
2020s.'' I also want to welcome our esteemed panel of 
witnesses. We are so pleased you are joining us today.
    This is a joint hearing of the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics and the Subcommittee on Research and Technology. 
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the 
National Science Foundation jointly lead this nation's 
astronomy and astrophysics programs, one from space, and one 
from the ground, so it only makes sense that we would jointly 
conduct this hearing. I want to thank Chairwoman Haley Stevens 
for her collaboration on this joint hearing.
    ``We live in a time of extraordinary discovery and progress 
in astronomy and astrophysics.'' That is the opening to the 
Decadal Survey, and a recognition that a fascinating future is 
on our horizon--one that could lead us to understanding the 
interconnections within the cosmic ecosystem across diverse 
structures ranging from the tenuous gases at the boundaries of 
galaxies, to the interior of stars, to planetary systems.
    Our nation's investments in astronomy and astrophysics 
research and development have led to profound breakthroughs. 
Examples of discoveries over the past decade include:
     The first detection of gravitational radiation 
from astronomical sources;
     The discovery of thousands of planets beyond our 
solar system or ``exoplanets''; and
     Precision measurements of the Milky Way's 
supermassive black hole.
    The Universe and the astronomical phenomena comprising it 
are vast. The questions of study are virtually infinite. That 
is why the National Academies' once a decade surveys are so 
important. They focus the community's recommendations for 
scientific inquiry and prioritize the means of pursuing them, 
as well as the necessary investments required. I'm delighted 
that both co-chairs of the National Academies astronomy and 
astrophysics decadal survey are here to discuss the report's 
important findings and recommendations.
    Their work in developing a scientific consensus is 
essential to our ability to support the nation's astronomy and 
astrophysics programs in our role as authorizers. It's the 
decadal survey that guides us as we seek to ensure the health 
and vibrancy of the discipline, the balance of programs that 
constitute agency activities, and the vision of those who 
study, investigate, and theorize on some of the most profound 
questions of our time. In that regard, I'm pleased that this 
decadal survey examines the status of the profession. Expanding 
access to and diversity and inclusion of the astronomy and 
astrophysics community is a key to achieving the ambitious 
goals that this decadal survey lays out.
    The Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics that I chair 
involves the space-based aspect of the decadal survey, and the 
National Aeronautics and Space and Administration's role in it. 
NASA is on the cusp of realizing a major decadal priority with 
the upcoming launch of the James Webb Space Telescope, an 
observatory that has been over two decades in the making. The 
Nancy Grace Roman Telescope, also a decadal priority, is making 
significant progress as well. I am interested to hear what the 
decadal committee has learned from NASA's history of large-
scale observatories, and its recommended new approach to 
flagship missions with the Great Observatories Missions and 
Technology Maturation Program.
    While both space and ground-based activities are essential 
to realizing the decadal survey's recommendations, 
transformational science and the goals of understanding dark 
energy, dark matter, and potentially habitable worlds don't 
recognize a space or ground-based division. With that in mind, 
I'm looking forward to hearing from our witnesses on what the 
report recommends to reduce those divisions and to facilitate 
the synergies of cross-agency activities.
    In closing, I want to thank the community of astronomers 
and astrophysicists who contributed to the decadal survey, and 
the National Academies steering committee and panels whose hard 
work, including through the pandemic, brings us this important 
report. Your efforts are not only guiding the future of the 
discipline, they are also inspiring the next generation, many 
of whom will become our STEM leaders through the gateway of 
exploring our Universe and the science of astronomy and 
astrophysics.

    Chairman Beyer. So let me now recognize my good friend, who 
represents the Johnson Space Center, from Texas, the Honorable 
Mr. Babin, for his opening statement. Brian?
    Mr. Babin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 
you, and our Ranking Member, and all of--Subcommittee 
counterparts that are here today, and I also want to thank our 
distinguished witnesses. The National Academy of Sciences 
decadal surveys are an important part of our Nation's space 
science program. They assess the current state of a specific 
space science field, and they offer recommendations for the 
executive branch to implement, and to manage, and for Congress 
to fund and oversee. The recently released report ``Pathways To 
Discovery In Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 2020's'', also 
known as Astro2020, represents a multi-year engagement with the 
best and the brightest in our Nation's astronomy and 
astrophysics communities.
    This same process informed the development of numerous 
ground and space-based observatories in the past, including the 
Very Large Array (VLA), the Chandra X-Ray Observatory, the Very 
Long Baseline Array, the Hubble Space Telescopes--Scope, the 
Spencer Space Telescope, the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, the 
James Webb Space Telescope, the Nancy Grace Roman Space 
Telescope, and the Vera Rubin Observatory, to name just a few. 
These observatories help us to understand the universe, and 
reveal the fundamental science that makes up science and time. 
They're marvels of discovery and engineering that demonstrate 
American ingenuity and industry. In keeping with this 
tradition, the Astral 2020 decadal proposes an ambitious 
program for the future.
    Aspirational, and even audacious, goals are important, 
because great nations do great things. But astronomy and 
astrophysics are also areas that are well suited for 
cooperation, not just competition, as they benefit all of 
humanity, and not just America. The Academy panel addresses the 
important balance of cooperation and leadership, and also lays 
out a compelling case for a portfolio of ambitious flagship 
missions, and a robust baseline of smaller missions, 
technology, maturation, and research work that underpins the 
entire community. They also made a concerted effort to take 
cost estimating into consideration, including off-ramps and 
recommended prioritizations, if further cost overruns or 
funding shortfalls do occur.
    This is important, because, as we've seen over the last two 
decadal surveys for astronomy and astrophysics, cost overruns 
and delays impact on the rest of the whole enterprise. The 
health of our astronomy and astrophysics enterprise is 
important to the Nation's overall industrial and scientific 
base. It takes time, and decades of investments, to create a 
skilled and knowledgeable work force, robust supply chains, 
infrastructure and institutions to support these cutting edge 
technologies that push the state-of-the-art. These same people, 
facilities, contractors, and institutions also support our 
national security, and contribute to our economic and our 
technological future.
    But the health of this enterprise is undermined by cost 
overruns and schedule slips that not only delay the start of 
new flagship missions, but also potentially erode research and 
analysis funding, and postpone the development of smaller, 
lower cost missions that serve as a pipeline for early career 
scientists. Neither of the flagships recommended by the 
previous two decadal surveys have even flown yet. With any 
luck, Webb will launch later this month, but Roman recently 
exceeded its cost and schedule baseline, and is not scheduled 
to launch until 2027.
    Unfortunately, this isn't a new problem, as the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) has listed NASA Acquisition 
Management on its high risk series since its inception in 1990. 
NASA, NSF, and DOD (Department of Defense) all have research 
and development and acquisition policies designed to address 
this challenge. GAO and agency Inspectors General have produced 
lessons learned, recommendations, and best practices. As we 
look toward the next decade, we should recognize that program 
management and execution are just as important to the space 
science sector as our people, our infrastructure, and our 
institutions. I'm excited to learn about what the community has 
in store for us in the coming decades. The launch of every new 
telescope, and construction of every new observatory, holds the 
promise of rewriting our textbooks, and inspiring the next 
generation of scientists. I want to thank the witnesses for 
their important work, and I look forward to their testimony, 
and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Babin follows:]

    The National Academy of Sciences' decadal surveys are an 
important part of our nation's space science program. They 
assess the current state of specific space science fields and 
offer recommendations for the executive branch to implement and 
manage, and for Congress to fund and oversee. The recently 
released report, ``Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and 
Astrophysics for the 2020s'' (also known as ``Astro2020''), 
represents a multi-year engagement with the best and brightest 
in our nation's astronomy and astrophysics community.
    This same process informed the development of numerous 
ground and space-based observatories in the past, including the 
Very Large Array, the Chandra X-ray Observatory, the Very Long 
Baseline Array, the Hubble Space Telescope, the Spitzer Space 
Telescope, the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, the James Webb 
Space Telescope, the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, and the 
Vera Rubin Observatory to name a few.
    These observatories help us understand the universe and 
reveal the fundamental science that makes up space and time. 
They are marvels of discovery and engineering that demonstrate 
American ingenuity and industry. In keeping with this 
tradition, the Astro2020 decadal proposes an ambitious program 
for the future. Aspirational and even audacious goals are 
important because great nations do great things. But astronomy 
and astrophysics are also areas that are well suited for 
cooperation, not just competition, as they benefit all of 
humanity and not just America.
    The Academy panel addresses the important balance of 
cooperation and leadership and also lays out a compelling case 
for a portfolio of ambitious flagship missions, and a robust 
baseline of smaller missions, technology maturation, and 
research work that underpins the entire community. They also 
made a concerted effort to take cost estimating into 
consideration, including off-ramps and recommended 
prioritizations if further cost overruns or funding shortfalls 
occur. This is important because, as we've seen over the last 
two decadal surveys for astronomy and astrophysics, cost 
overruns and delays impact on the rest of the enterprise.
    The health of our astronomy and astrophysics enterprise is 
important to the nation's overall industrial and scientific 
base. It takes time and decades of investments to create a 
skilled and knowledgeable workforce, robust supply chains, and 
infrastructure and institutions to support these cutting-edge 
technologies that push the state of the art.
    These same people, facilities, contractors, and 
institutions also support our national security and contribute 
to our economic and technological future.
    But the health of this enterprise is undermined by cost-
overruns and schedule slips that not only delay the start of 
new flagship missions, but also potentially erode research and 
analysis funding and postpone the development of smaller lower-
cost missions that serve as a pipeline for early-career 
scientists. Neither of the flagships recommended by the 
previous two decadal surveys have flown yet. With any luck, 
Webb will launch later this month, but Roman recently exceeded 
its cost and schedule baseline, and isn't scheduled to launch 
until at least 2027.
    Unfortunately, this isn't a new problem, as the Government 
Accountability Office has listed NASA Acquisition Management on 
its High-Risk Series since its inception in 1990. NASA, NSF, 
and DoD all have research and development and acquisition 
policies designed to address this challenge. GAO and agency 
Inspectors General (IG) have produced lessons learned, 
recommendations, and best practices. As we look towards the 
next decades, we should recognize that program management and 
execution are just as important to the space science sector as 
our people, infrastructure, and institutions.
    I am excited to learn about what the community has in store 
for us in the coming decades. The launch of every new telescope 
and the construction of every new observatory holds the promise 
of rewriting our textbooks and inspiring the next generation of 
scientists. I want to thank the witnesses for their important 
work and look forward to their testimony.

    Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Chairman Babin, very much.
    Mr. Babin. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Beyer. Let me now introduce Chairwoman Haley 
Stevens from Michigan.
    Ms. Stevens. Well, thank you, Chairman Beyer, from the 
Commonwealth of Virginia. I'm from the State of Michigan, but 
it's great to be with the Chair of the Aerospace Subcommittee 
on this particular topic. It's a real unique honor to be 
chairing this hearing with you. And, of course, we are grateful 
to our distinguished panel for joining us today, and we thank 
everyone for this incredible body of work. The review of our 
goals for the coming decade are just going to have an enormous 
potential for the fields of astronomy and astrophysics. Some 
might remember last term, in May of 2019, the Full Committee 
held a very exciting hearing to celebrate the first ever image 
of a black hole made by the NSF-funded Event Horizon Telescope. 
This was one of our better hearings, and I had the privilege of 
being there, and meeting with the members of the scientific 
team that captured the image prior to the hearing, and we were 
all there with the enthusiasm of the scientists, and it was 
just was truly infectious.
    So breakthroughs like the Event Horizon image just play an 
immeasurable role in inspiring students to pursue STEM studies, 
to bring people together, to help us reimagine, you know, our 
own society, and our own work, and we can't help but be 
enthralled by the stunning images in astronomy and the 
implications for how we continue to understand our place in the 
universe. And I came away from that feeling inspired and 
reenergized, and continue to bring that to this Committee's 
role in advancing U.S. science and engineering.
    In that same discussion, we touched on a range of issues 
facing the astronomy community. We heard about the importance 
of investing in research infrastructure, from large scale 
telescopes to smaller scale instrumentation, and the people and 
the partnerships that play a role in that work. A breakthrough 
discovery like that would have not been possible without 
international collaboration and the talent of early career 
researchers. We also discussed the challenges related to the 
management of big data, and the importance of investing in 
theory and simulations.
    And on the Research and Technology Subcommittee, we have a 
particular interest in the recommendations for the National 
Science Foundation from this study, and the ground-based 
facilities that are needed for astronomers to address priority 
science questions. We have tremendous scientific opportunities 
before us, and I believe that this study has charted an 
exciting, and yet achievable, path for achieving big goals. I 
also appreciate the strong focus on programmatic balance woven 
throughout the report. It makes little sense to invest billions 
of dollars in research facilities if we don't also invest in 
students and researchers who can turn those capabilities into 
new knowledge.
    Another important focus for today's discussion will be 
understanding the needs of the astronomy community. I was 
pleased to see a particular focus in this report on the future 
of the astronomy workforce, with an emphasis on addressing 
barriers to diversity and inclusion. Under the leadership of 
Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking Member Lucas, STEM diversity has 
been a cornerstone issue for this Committee. We remain eager to 
learn more about the vision of the community, and what you--the 
goals you that have set for yourself, and to better understand 
how Congress can help you realize these goals. You have done 
your part, now it is our turn to address the needs, to bring 
the agencies together, and continue to look forward to a very 
vibrant future, one that addresses the material needs, the 
scientific needs, and the ways in which we can harness 
collaborative research efforts. So thank you so much, and I'll 
yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Stevens follows:]

    Thank you, Chairman Beyer. It's an honor to be cochairing 
this hearing with you. Good morning and thank you to our 
distinguished panel for joining us today.
    This hearing will be an important review of our goals for 
the coming decade, which have enormous potential in the 
astronomy and astrophysics fields.
    In May 2019, the full Committee held a hearing to celebrate 
the first ever image of a black hole made by the NSF funded 
Event Horizon Telescope. I had the privilege of meeting with 
members of the team that captured the image prior to the 
hearing, and the enthusiasm of the scientists was truly 
infectious.
    Breakthroughs like the Event Horizon image can play an 
immeasurable role in inspiring students to pursue STEM studies. 
We can't help but be enthralled by the stunning images in 
astronomy and the implications for how we understand our place 
in the universe. I came away inspired and reenergized about 
this Committee's role in advancing U.S. science and 
engineering.
    In that same discussion, we touched on a range of issues 
facing the astronomy community.
    We heard about the importance of investing in research 
infrastructure, from large scale telescopes to smaller scale 
instrumentation, and in people and partnerships. A breakthrough 
discovery like that would not have been possible without 
international collaboration and the talent of early-career 
researchers.
    We also discussed the challenges related to the management 
of big data and the critical importance of investing in theory 
and simulations.
    As the Chair of the Research and Technology Subcommittee, I 
have a particular interest in the recommendations for the 
National Science Foundation and the ground-based facilities 
that are needed for astronomers to address priority science 
questions.
    We have tremendous scientific opportunities before us, and 
I believe you have charted a bold yet sustainable path for 
achieving them.
    I also appreciate the strong focus on programmatic balance 
woven throughout the report. It makes no sense to invest 
billions of dollars in research facilities if we don't also 
invest in the students and researchers who can turn those 
capabilities into new knowledge.
    Another important focus of today's discussion will be 
understanding the needs of the astronomy community. I was 
pleased to see a particular focus in this report on the future 
of the astronomy workforce, with an emphasis on addressing 
barriers to diversity and inclusion. Under the leadership of 
Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking Member Lucas, STEM diversity has 
been a cornerstone issue for this Committee.
    I am eager to learn more about the vision the community has 
set for itself over the next decade and to understand what 
Congress can do to help realize it. You have done your part, 
now it's on Congress and the funding agencies to make it 
happen.
    Thank you, I yield back.

    Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Chairperson Stevens, very much. 
And now, finally, we'll hear from Ranking Member Waltz from 
the--Mr. Waltz, you're----
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Chairman Beyer, and Chairwoman 
Stevens, Ranking Member Babin. I too am pleased to be here for 
this joint Subcommittee hearing to review the National 
Academies recommendations, priorities on their survey on 
astronomy and astrophysics, Astro2020. We all know, but I 
always think it's worth restating, that the National Science 
Foundation is the Federal steward for ground-based astronomy in 
the U.S., and--supported some tremendous achievements in 
astronomy and astrophysics. These include the detection of 
gravitational waves at the LIGO (Laser Interferometer 
Gravitational-Wave Observatory) Observatory, which proved--
actually proved part of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. It 
launched a new era of multi-messenger astrophysics, and earned 
the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize--2019 the Event Horizon Telescope 
Project captured the first even image of a black hole, 
providing further confirmation of Einstein's Theory of General 
Relativity.
    And as I expect we'll hear and discuss today, many of NSF's 
most interesting astronomy projects are yet to come. The Vera 
C. Rubin Observatory in Chile has the potential to advance 
every field of astronomical study, from the inner solar system, 
to the large-scale structure of the universe. And the DKIST 
(Daniel K. Inouye Solar Telescope) is the--is also the 
telescope--is also expected to come online soon in Hawaii. It 
will produce the most detailed images of the Sun ever taken by 
a ground-based device. As we look to the future, I would be 
remiss if I did not also take a moment to speak on the legacy 
of the Arecibo Observatory (AO) in Puerto Rico, which 
experienced an unexpected and catastrophic collapse exactly 1 
year ago today.
    Before its collapse, countless discoveries were made at 
Arecibo over its nearly 60-year history, including winning the 
1993 Nobel Peace Prize in Physics, and I, along with 
Congresswoman Gonzalez-Colon, and several other Members, had 
the opportunity to visit Arecibo this past summer. We saw the 
extensive damage and ongoing cleanup, but what really stood out 
to me was the importance of the facility to the community in 
Puerto Rico, and the increasing--and to increasing diversity in 
STEM, as Chairwoman Stevens just referenced.
    And while we were there, we joined several local high 
school and STAR Academy students for lunch. These were just 
amazing kids, and as a supporter of increasing diversity in 
STEM, it was great to see so many young women in particular, 
all native Spanish speakers, and each student shared their 
experience conducting hands-on research projects at the 
observatory, and their plans for pursuing STEM degrees after 
high school. In short, they blew me away, made me feel a lot 
dumber, but were really some of the most impressive students 
I've talked to in a long time.
    And the trip made clear, I think, to all of us that Arecibo 
is an important complement, and critical to this Committee's 
bipartisan tradition of promoting diversity in STEM, including 
the MSI STEM Achievement Act that the Chairwoman and I ushered 
through the House this Congress. So I strongly believe that to 
meet our true scientific and technological potential we need an 
inclusive and diverse work force that draws on the full talent 
pool available in this country, and, sitting down with these 
students, I saw this happening in real time, and achieving 
these goals at Arecibo. And the observatory's engagement in the 
community, through STEM education and outreach, should be 
applauded, exemplified, and supported by this Committee.
    I was pleased to see that the Astro2020 survey recognizes 
that Arecibo has a future role in U.S. astronomy, although I 
have concerns that the United States, like we have in so many 
other areas, has ceded leadership in radio astronomy to the 
Chinese Communist Party (CCP). For those who don't know, they 
now have the largest radio telescope in the world, known as 
FAST (Five-Hundred-Meter Aperture Spherical Radio Telescope). 
The U.S. should not, obviously, rely on the capabilities of the 
CCP to excel in radio astronomy, so I look forward to working 
with the NSF as they continue to examine the future of Arecibo, 
and I hope we can accelerate that examination, and make some 
decisions soon.
    Like Arecibo, the NSF's astronomy program focuses on 
questions going forward the NSF must evaluate. I think how it 
supports existing and new facilities, including identifying 
facilities that may be nearing the end of its life cycle, and 
then examining how we balance those commitments, and operation 
and maintenance, with funding individual research grants that 
will support the next generation of Nobel Prize winning 
astronomers. So I want to thank the survey's co-chairs for 
participating, along with GAO. I look forward to hearing how we 
can continue our commitment to the fundamental nature of 
research, and understanding the universe. I thank you. I yield 
back the balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Waltz follows:]

    Good Morning Chairman Beyer, Chairwoman Stevens, and 
Ranking Member Babin. I am pleased to be here for this joint 
subcommittee hearing to review the priorities and 
recommendations made by the National Academies for the decadal 
survey on astronomy and astrophysics, also known as ASTRO 2020.
    The National Science Foundation (NSF) is the federal 
steward for ground-based astronomy in the U.S. and has 
supported some tremendous achievements in astronomy and 
astrophysics. These include the detection of gravitational 
waves at the LIGO Observatory, which proved part of Einstein's 
theory of relativity, launched a new era of multi-messenger 
astrophysics and earned the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics. In 
2019, the Even Horizon Telescope project captured the first-
ever image of a black hole, providing further confirmation of 
Einstein's theory of general relativity.
    As I expect we will hear today, much of the NSF's most 
interesting astronomy projects are yet to come. The Vera C. 
Rubin Observatory in Chile has the potential to advance every 
field of astronomical study--from the inner Solar System to the 
large-scale structure of the universe.
    The Daniel K. Inouye Solar Telescope (DKIST) is also 
expected to come online soon in Hawaii. It will produce the 
most detailed images of the sun ever taken by a ground- based 
device.
    As we look to the future, I would be remiss if I did not 
also take a moment to speak on the legacy of the Arecibo 
Observatory in Puerto Rico, which experienced an unexpected and 
catastrophic collapse a year ago today. Before its untimely 
collapse, countless discoveries were made at Arecibo over its 
nearly 60-year history--including winning the 1993 Nobel Prize 
in Physics. I, along with Congresswoman Gonzalez-Colon, and 
several other Members had the opportunity to visit Arecibo this 
past summer.
    We saw the extensive damage and ongoing clean-up. But what 
stood out to me most was the importance of the facility to the 
community in Puerto Rico and to increasing diversity in STEM.
    While there we joined several local high school and STAR 
Academy students for lunch. As a supporter of increasing 
diversity in STEM, it was great to see so many young women, and 
all were native Spanish speakers. Each student shared their 
experience conducting hands-on research projects at the 
observatory and their plans for pursuing STEM degrees after 
high school. In short, they blew me away.
    The trip made clear to me that Arecibo is an important 
compliment to this Committee's bi-partisan tradition of 
promoting diversity in STEM, including the ``MSI STEM 
Achievement Act'' that the Chairwoman and I ushered through the 
House this Congress.
    I strongly believe to meet our true scientific and 
technological potential, we need an inclusive and diverse 
workforce that draws on the full talent pool available in our 
country. By sitting down with these students, I saw a program 
achieving those same goals at Arecibo. The Observatory's 
engagement with the community through STEM education and 
outreach should be applauded and exemplified.
    I was pleased to see that the ASTRO 2020 survey recognizes 
that Arecibo has a future role in U.S. astronomy, though I have 
concerns that we have now ceded leadership in radio astronomy 
to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and their Five-hundred-
meter Aperture Spherical radio Telescope, known as FAST.
    The US should not rely on the capabilities of malign 
foreign actors like the CCP to excel in radio astronomy. As 
such, I look forward to working with the NSF as they continue 
to examine the future of Arecibo.
    Like Arecibo, the NSF's astronomy program faces questions 
going forward. The NSF must evaluate how it supports existing 
and new facilities, including identifying facilities that may 
be nearing the end of its life cycle. It must also examine how 
it balances these commitments with funding individual research 
grants that will support the next generation of Nobel prize-
winning astronomers.
    I would like to thank the survey's co-chairs for 
participating in today's hearing, along with GAO. I look 
forward to hearing how we can continue our commitment to 
researching the fundamental nature of the universe.
    Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time.

    Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Ranking Member Waltz, very much. 
I'm sure you were just as smart as they were when you were that 
age.
    Mr. Waltz. No, I wasn't, not even close. But they were 
quite impressive. Thanks.
    Chairman Beyer. That's wonderful. If there are other 
Members who wish to submit additional opening statements, your 
statements will be added to the record at this point. Just 
please send them to the Clerk.
     [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]

    Good morning.
    Thank you, Chairman Beyer and Chairwoman Stevens, for 
holding this hearing, and welcome to our distinguished 
witnesses. We are fortunate to have both co-chairs of the 
decadal survey before us today. I know we are all eager to hear 
about the vision for the future and what astronomers hope to 
learn in the next decade about the Universe and humanity's 
place within it. I also look forward to discussion of the human 
and professional side of astronomy and research. Improving 
access, diversity, and inclusion are critical to the success of 
scientific research. I am glad, therefore, that the decadal 
survey spent time on these issues.
    The National Academies' decadal surveys are widely 
respected and highly influential. The astronomy and 
astrophysics community pioneered the National Academies' 
decadal survey process in 1964. It is a testament to the value 
of that process that we are here today, discussing the seventh 
survey. I congratulate the community on reaching this 
milestone. Each survey is a monumental effort, with the input 
and involvement of hundreds of scientists. The effort leads to 
an independent, peer-reviewed, consensus set of recommended 
science goals and new programs. Astronomy investments at NASA, 
NSF, and DOE in the coming decade will be shaped by those 
recommendations. The surveys ensure that our Nation's science 
programs are guided by the most compelling science questions 
and ambitions of the scientific community.
    We in Congress spend a lot of time conducting oversight of 
our federal science programs, particularly when those programs 
encounter challenges. This is an important role for Congress, 
as is ensuring the balance of activities necessary for the 
health of the discipline. We want our Nation's R&D programs to 
be managed effectively and maximize the scientific return on 
taxpayer investment.
    However, it is also important that we not lose sight of the 
reason we are here. Why does the U.S. pursue such ambitious, 
complex programs in the first place? In the last decade alone, 
astronomers made the first measurements of gravitational waves. 
Astronomers also discovered that nearly every star in the night 
sky likely hosts one or more planets. Finally, our investments 
in astronomy infrastructure enabled the direct image of a black 
hole in a nearby galaxy. Discoveries like these and the myriad 
others, large and small, from astronomical research teach 
humanity about the universe around us. They also inspire 
generations to be curious, to explore, and to innovate. What's 
more, the technological boundaries that astronomers push in 
computation, optics, and detectors often contribute real 
societal benefits.
    I again want to welcome our expert witnesses, and I look 
forward to their testimony.
    Thank you, and I yield back.

    Chairman Beyer. So at this time I would like to introduce 
our witnesses.
    Dr. Robert Kennicutt is a Professor at the Steward 
Observatory at the University of Arizona, and in the Department 
of Physics and Astronomy at Texas A&M University. His research 
interests are primarily observational extragalactic astronomy 
and cosmology. He's served on various committees at the 
National Academies, including the Committee on Astronomy and 
Astrophysics, and the Task Group on Space Astronomy and 
Astrophysics. He also currently serves as the Co-Chair of the 
National Academies' Committee for a Decadal Survey on Astronomy 
and Astrophysics 2020--hence your invitation today. We're very 
pleased to have the Co-Chair with us. Dr. Kennicutt received 
his Ph.D. in Astronomy from the University of Washington.
    Dr. Fiona Harrison is a Professor of Physics, and Chair of 
the Division of Physics, Mathematics, and Astronomy at the 
California Institute of Technology. Dr. Harrison's primary 
research interests are in experimental and observational high 
energy astrophysics. She served as Chair of the National 
Academies' Space Studies Board, was a member of the James Webb 
Space Telescope Independent Review Board, and chaired the 
National Academies' Committee on an Assessment of the 
Astrophysics Focused Telescope Assets Mission Concepts. She 
also serves as a Co-Chair--she's the other Co-Chair--of the 
National Academies' Committee for A Decadal Survey on Astronomy 
and Astrophysics 2020. So we have both of the big dogs on this 
really, really important survey. Dr. Harrison has her Ph.D. in 
Physics from the University of California at Berkeley.
    And finally, we have Mr. William Russell. He's the Director 
in GAO's Contracting and National Security Acquisitions team--
so he's the one who holds everyone accountable. He oversees a 
portfolio of issues related to NASA, DOD weapons systems, 
cybersecurity, protection of critical technologies, DOD 
industrial base and supply chain integrity, defense 
contracting, and the use of the Defense Production Act to 
support the Federal response to COVID-19. Mr. Russell has a 
Master's Degree in Foreign Affairs from the University of 
Virginia, simply known as The University here in the 
Commonwealth, and a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science from 
Virginia Commonwealth University.
    As the witnesses should know, you each have 5 minutes for 
your spoken testimony. Your written testimony can be, and 
probably is, much longer, and that will be included in the 
record for the hearing. When you've completed your spoken 
testimony, we will begin with questions, and each Member will 
have 5 minutes to question the panel. So let's begin with Dr. 
Robert Kennicutt. Dr. Kennicutt, the floor is yours.

             TESTIMONY OF DR. ROBERT C. KENNICUTT,

                 CO-CHAIR, STEERING COMMITTEE,

                 COMMITTEE FOR A DECADAL SURVEY

              ON ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS 2020,

                NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES,

                   ENGINEERING, AND MEDICINE,

           LAUREATE PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA,

              PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY,

                      TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY

    Dr. Kennicutt. Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking 
Member Babin, Ranking Member Waltz, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today to 
speak to you. ``The Decadal Survey for Astronomy and 
Astrophysics in the 2020's'' was charged to develop and 
recommend a broad scientific vision and plan for space and 
ground-based astronomy and astrophysics over the coming decade. 
The report is a combination of a 3-year community-based 
exercise, informed by the work of 13 expert panels, and 860 
community authored white papers. It lays out a scientific 
agenda, addressing some of the most fundamental and profound 
questions in our exploration of the cosmos, along with a 
recommended program in investments aimed at answering those 
questions.
    Along the way, difficult choices had to be made, because 
the wish list of ideas and projects proposed to us exceeded by 
severalfold the resources available. We thus have tempered the 
ambition with realism by setting firm priorities and guidance 
for the agencies, while also providing flexibility for them to 
adapt to changing landscapes over the decade.
    Mr. Chairman, we do live in an extraordinary period of 
discovery in astronomy and astrophysics. Six of the Nobel 
Prizes for physics awarded over the past decade involved 
astronomical data in subjects ranging from planets around other 
stars, to dark energy, and the birth of our universe. This rich 
Nobel harvest will be difficult to sustain, but there's every 
reason to believe that the pace of discovery will continue 
unabated over the coming decade. Our survey identifies three 
major areas which are especially ripe for breakthroughs, and 
I'll describe the first two.
    The first goal is pathways to habitable worlds, the quest 
to identify and study other planets in the universe, including 
potentially habitable and life-bearing planets like our own. To 
date, more than 4,800 planets have been identified, including 
potential Earth analogues. One of the most profound questions 
that we as humans can ask is, are we alone? Could life exist on 
planets orbiting other starts besides our Sun? Today, thanks to 
investments in technology, including the chronograph on the 
Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, we are poised to develop a 
space mission that can image some of these other worlds 
directly, and measure the atmospheres of the--those pale blue 
dots, whatever color they turn out to be, searching for 
molecules produced by life.
    Accomplishing that goal is challenging. Detecting a 
distant, Earth-like planet against the glare of a star like the 
Sun, requires high contrast imaging at the level of 10 billion 
to one, but the goal is within our reach, and we recommend the 
development and maturation of such a mission as our top large 
space priority. In the meantime, a new generation of ground-
based Extremely Large Telescopes, or ELTs, with apertures of 20 
to 40 meters, should be able to image habitable zone planets 
around fainter stars than the Sun, where the contrast 
requirements are lower. And we recommend NSF partnership in the 
U.S.-led ELT projects as our top large ground-based priority.
    The next of our science goals, unveiling the drivers of 
galaxy growth, addresses the fundamental question of our 
origins, the formation of the stars, planets, galaxies, and the 
universe itself. We now realize that these formation processes 
are tightly interconnected in a kind of grand cosmic ecosystem. 
The seeds of galaxies were planted during the first moments of 
the Big Bang, and modern numerical simulations can retrace the 
gravitational growth of those seeds into galaxies from 300,000 
years after the Big Bang to--until today. The galaxies, in 
turn, are ecosystems of their own, with matter condensing to 
form stars, and central supermassive black holes, balanced by 
feedback of energy and matter from those stars and the black 
holes, which refuel the formation cycle, and reshape the 
galaxies.
    Later this month the James Webb Space Telescope will embark 
on its quest to directly retrace this history of cosmic star 
and galaxy formation from the first objects formed, to the 
present day. Following Webb, the same large space and ground-
based telescopes already described for imagining exoplanets 
will provide transformative observations over the manner--
energy flows powering this growth in galaxies. Other insights 
will come from deep radio observations of galaxies, and the 
next generation Very Large Array (ngVLA), far infrared (IR) 
observations of star and planet forming clouds, and X-ray 
observations of the galaxies and their super black--massive 
black holes.
    That concludes my remarks. Thank you again for the 
opportunity to testify.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Kennicutt follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Beyer. Dr. Honeycutt--Kennicutt, thank you very 
much. We'll now move on to Dr. Harrison. Professor, your--floor 
is yours.

              TESTIMONY OF DR. FIONA A. HARRISON,

                 CO-CHAIR, STEERING COMMITTEE,

                 COMMITTEE FOR A DECADAL SURVEY

              ON ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS 2020,

                NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES,

                   ENGINEERING, AND MEDICINE,

             HAROLD A. ROSEN PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS,

               CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

    Dr. Harrison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairwoman, 
Ranking Member Babin, Ranking Member Waltz, and Members of the 
Subcommittees. I'm really grateful for the opportunity to tell 
you about our survey, and I'm going to pick up where Rob left 
off, and that's to tell you about your third priority science 
area, new windows on the dynamic universe.
    So this really captures the broad range of science that's 
enabled by observing the sky in new ways that have only become 
possible in the last 10 years. One of the most dramatic 
scientific events that has been alluded to already is the first 
detection of gravitational waves by LIGO in 2015, and this was 
from two black holes that, 1.3 billion light years ago, merged 
into one. And this even, unbelievably, was detected by sensing 
minute, tiny ripples in the fabric of space and time itself 
that was created in this merger.
    So gravitational waves in general are produced by very 
dense objects, black holes and neutron stars, when they orbit 
around each other, and eventually merge. And if one of these 
objects happens to be a neutron star, light can accompany the 
gravitational wave signal. And so, in one watershed event in 
2017, light was seen from such an event all the way from radio 
waves up to the gamma rays. And studying these events, and the 
complementary messengers of gravitational waves and light, will 
reshape our understanding of topics as diverse as the orbit--
origin of carbon in our bones, the heavy elements like in your 
wedding ring, so the history of the expansion of the universe 
since the Big Bang, and the physics of black hole event 
horizons.
    So searching for these light signals that it--and also 
searching for light signals that accompany detections of 
elusive, almost massless high energy neutrinos, which are 
detected by the Antarctic Ice Cube Observatory, is another 
opportunity to combine fundamentally new and different kinds of 
information to study the most energetic particle accelerators 
in the universe.
    So, actually, immediately capitalizing on the gravitational 
wave and neutrino opportunities doesn't require a large mission 
or telescope, but rather programs that consist of suites of 
coordinated small and medium-scale observatories that can 
quickly train themselves on the region where these events 
happen, and quickly study the light that come from these 
transient phenomena. And the same suite of--facilities can also 
be powerful for following up explosive events that will be 
discovered in droves with the Vera C. Rubin Telescope when it 
comes online in the next few years.
    So another opportunity in new windows is to make very 
sensitive observations of the relic radiation from the Big Bang 
itself. This is the cosmic microwave background. And what we're 
looking for is the imprint of gravitational waves that are 
produced in the very, very earliest moments of rapid expansion 
in the universe, a period known as inflation. This will 
certainly be a Nobel Prize, if it's discovered, and this can be 
achieved with the CMB-S4 (Cosmic Microwave Background--Stage 4) 
Observatory, which is a moderate-scale joint Department of 
Energy (DOE)/NSF effort.
    So while these large projects provide major new 
observational capabilities, it's already well recognized by 
this Committee that achieving a broad scientific program, being 
able to respond nimbly to new scientific discoveries, this 
requires a whole range of mission scales. Small and medium-
sized projects can be developed and deployed on 2-year time 
scales, harnessing the ingenuity of the entire community. They 
can deploy new technologies rapidly, and serve as test beds for 
future large strategic endeavors.
    So our report envisions robust ways for achieving and 
strengthening this programmatic balance by recommending that 
NSF expand its mid-scale programs, and that NASA emphasize 
continued strong support for its competed Explorer program, and 
also add a competed line of probe scale missions that serve as 
intermediates between the smaller explorers, and the large 
strategic missions.
    And so finally, the survey identifies important ways to 
foster the development of human capital, the research 
infrastructure, and future technology. Developing and 
diversifying a scientific work force is a pressing need that's 
already been identified, and bridge programs help students from 
all backgrounds get the skills and knowledge they need to 
pursue advanced degrees. Also, supporting individual 
investigators is essential, and here we emphasize increasing 
grants at the NSF, and also, finally, early stage technology 
development is essential for our future. And so I thank you 
again for the opportunity to share the highlights from the 
decadal report.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Harrison follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Dr. Harrison, very much. And 
finally we'll hear from Mr. Russell from the GAO. Mr. Russell?

          TESTIMONY OF MR. WILLIAM RUSSELL, DIRECTOR,

        CONTRACTING AND NATIONAL SECURITY ACQUISITIONS,

                GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

    Mr. Russell. Chairman Beyer, Chairwoman Stevens, Ranking 
Members Babin and Waltz, and Members of the Subcommittees, I'm 
pleased to be here today to discuss the 2020 Decadal Survey on 
Astronomy and Astrophysics. Decadal surveys are a key input 
NASA uses to determine its science missions. Three major 
projects in NASA's portfolio, the James Webb Space Telescope, 
the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, and Sphere X, are 
derived from past surveys. These telescopes are pivotal to NASA 
achieving its science mission, such as seeking to understand 
the universe, and our place in it.
    As Congress, NASA, and the science community consider 
future projects, it'll be important that new programs are 
managed in a manner that minimizes cost overruns and schedule 
delays. NASA's telescopes and other science projects will 
always have inherent technical design and integration risks 
because they are so complex, specialized, and often push the 
state-of-the-art in space technology. But too often our reports 
find that management and oversight problems, which can include 
poor planning and optimistic cost estimating, are the real 
drivers behind cost growth and schedule delays. For example, 
James Webb's launch date has been delayed by over 7 years, and 
costs have nearly doubled to almost 10 billion. Acquisition 
management remains a longstanding challenge at NASA, and in our 
March 2021 high risk update, we found that NASA still needs to 
do more to reduce acquisition risk and demonstrate progress, 
especially with costs and scheduled performance on large and 
complex programs entering the portfolio.
    NASA recognizes these challenges, and is taking steps to 
identify and address areas contributing to this acquisition 
risk. For example, in March 2021, we found that NASA had taken 
steps to improve transparency in monitoring the project costs 
and schedules. Today I'd like to highlight three lessons from 
our reviews of NASA's major projects that can be applied to 
future efforts as NASA considers this decadal study.
    First, NASA could better manage costs and scheduled 
performance for some of its large flagship projects. NASA's 
most costly and complex missions have had cascading effects on 
the rest of the portfolio. For example, James Webb's cost 
growth had an outsized effect on the rest of NASA's major 
acquisition portfolio, and required NASA to identify more than 
1.4 billion in additional resources from other efforts, such as 
the Science Mission Directorate Account, to offset these costs. 
In essence, NASA had to trade future missions and research to 
address Webb's resource needs.
    Second, NASA can better minimize risk in its programmatic 
decisions. NASA leadership has, at times, made programmatic 
decisions that compound technical challenges. These decisions 
include establishing insufficient cost and schedule reserves, 
approving baselines that do not fully follow best practices, 
and proceeding with immature technologies.
    Last, NASA can continue to regularly and consistently 
update cost and schedule information. NASA took a positive step 
in 2019 by updating its joint cost and schedule confidence 
level policy to help ensure that estimates are realistic, and 
projects are thoroughly planning for anticipated risks. NASA's 
most expensive projects will also update their estimates more 
frequently as risks change. It will be important for NASA to 
fully implement this policy moving forward so decisionmakers 
have realistic and up to date estimates as projects move 
through their development.
    In closing, the most recent decadal survey continues to 
encourage NASA to pursue transformative capabilities, including 
a new space telescope. As NASA considers the survey's 
recommendations, there's an opportunity to learn from the 
challenges of Webb, and other projects, and help better 
position future space telescopes for successful outcomes. We 
look forward to continuing to work with NASA in this--and these 
Subcommittees, and addressing these important issues. Chairman 
Beyer, Chairwoman Stevens, Ranking Members Babin and Waltz, and 
Members of the Subcommittees, this completes my prepared 
remarks, and I look forward to responding to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Russell follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Beyer. Mr. Russell, thank you very much. We'll now 
move on to questions from the Members of Congress. I have the 
privilege of going first, to be followed by Ranking Member 
Babin, and then Chairwoman Stevens. I only have nine questions 
for you in my 5 minutes, so let me begin with Dr. Harrison.
    The--in the written testimony you talked about how new 
messengers and new physics will exploit the new observational 
tools of gravitational waves and particles. Have we actually 
found a gravitational particle yet, a graviton, or are we 
just----
    Dr. Harrison. Well, we----
    Chairman Beyer [continuing]. We're just hoping that we'll 
find one?
    Dr. Harrison. Yes, we have not. In fact, the particles 
we're alluding to, of course, are the high energy neutrinos, 
but it's a forefront area of physics to study quantum gravity, 
and try to understand the nature of the graviton. So 
gravitational wave observations do place some limits on how 
fast they travel. We think very, very close to the speed of 
light. Whether it's exactly the speed of light, LIGO may tell 
us.
    Chairman Beyer. But----
    Dr. Harrison [continuing]. Combined with light may tell us.
    Chairman Beyer. But given the wave/particle duality, you 
haven't given up looking for a graviton?
    Dr. Harrison. No.
    Chairman Beyer. OK, good, good--Dr. Kennicutt, I read this 
wonderful book by Emma Chapman called ``First Light: Switching 
On Stars at the Dawn of Time'' earlier this year, and she 
talked about how they--the science was able to put together 
these cosmic webs of dark matter, and that where the dark 
matter webs--where there were dense overlaps was where the--you 
would think of galaxies beginning. How do you measure dark 
energy, and how will you see these webs? What kind of tools are 
available for that?
    Dr. Kennicutt. Yes, what you said is exactly right. I mean, 
the--this is simulated numerically. Most of the dark matter 
dominates the total mass of particles several times more than 
ordinary matter, so early in the growth of the structures it's 
the dark matter that forms the structures, but the ordinary 
matter of which it condenses in the galaxies follows along for 
the ride, and so we can trace the structure directly through 
the distribution of galaxies in the sky. We're also beginning 
to be able to do it through a technique of gravitational 
lensing, which maps the dark matter directly.
    They--that part of the physics is very well understood, and 
the goal of the ecosystems is to--the physics of the gas, what 
happens to the gas after that, is the hard part. And the models 
make predictions, but the physics isn't fully understood, and 
so that's where the cutting edge is, and that's what we aim to 
study over the next decade.
    Chairman Beyer. Well, it'll be fascinating and fun, I'm 
certain. Mr. Russell, in the survey it talks about commencing 
mission and technology maturation of a far IR and an X-ray 
large strategic mission, both scoped to have implementation 
costs in the three billion to five billion range. How are we 
going to do these--this great observation stuff with three to 
five million when James Webb costs 10 million?
    Mr. Russell. That's the key point, Chairman Beyer. I think, 
you know, as you saw with James Webb, the initial estimates 
were a billion to 3.5 billion, and here we are, hopefully 
launching later this month, you know, at about 10 billion in 
the cost. So I think the technology maturation efforts proposed 
in the decadal make a lot of sense. You know, our own lessons 
learned and best practices suggest that if you can get 
technologies to TRL (Technology Readiness Level) 096, which is 
where you can demonstrate a prototype in a relevant 
environment, that's--gives you all the markers for successful 
outcomes going forward into implementation. So, to the extent 
that those maturation efforts can lead to that kind of 
technology development, that could be a good thing. But we'll 
have to keep an eye on the costs, you know, three to five 
billion. Having good, realistic cost estimates behind some of 
those as they proceed through their development will be 
important.
    Chairman Beyer. Yes.
    Dr. Harrison. Chairman Beyer, may I add something brief?
    Chairman Beyer. Yes, please, Dr. Harrison.
    Dr. Harrison. Yes, I think part of what the survey really 
said is you need a new phasing between decadal surveys and 
telling a mission--telling NASA they should adopt a mission. 
And so this sets a cost target of three to five, and there's a 
review, and if they don't meet that cost target, then they 
don't get recommended by, you know, the follow up process. And 
so this is a new mechanism that we're trying to try to ensure 
that missions are initially scoped correctly for what a decadal 
survey feels they should be. In the case of the large UVOIR, we 
recognize that's a very--you know, that's a Webb-scale mission, 
but in these other cases, that's the point of the maturation 
program.
    Chairman Beyer. Great. A very helpful explanation, thank 
you very much. My time is up, so let me recognize the good 
Congressperson from Texas, Mr. Babin.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you, Chairman Don, I appreciate you. Mr. 
Russell, I'd like to address the first question to you. The 
2020 decadal survey recommends a new $11 billion space 
telescope. The 2000 decadal survey recommended the James Webb 
Space Telescope, that has yet to launch. The 2010 decadal 
survey recommended the Roman telescope, which is still in the 
early stages of development. Both telescopes have incurred 
significant cost schedule increases. Are there any lessons to 
be learned to NASA that--you know, that we should keep, NASA 
should keep in mind for future space telescope efforts, and 
what best practices should NASA adhere to if it pursues this 
large, complex program?
    Mr. Russell. Thank you for the question.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you, if you could? Yes, sir.
    Mr. Russell. Certainly. Just a couple of quick takeaways. 
One, NASA's already embedded into its policy doing more of 
those joint cost and schedule confidence levels. Those give you 
good point in time estimates you can use to calibrate changes 
that are going to be needed for risks that have occurred on the 
program. That's a good step, so if NASA could pay attention, 
and focus its efforts on any future projects to do those in a 
timely way, that's good. Also, to have realistic costs and 
schedule baselines as they're deciding on programs to go into 
implementation as another lesson learned. Sometimes we've seen 
overly optimistic cost estimates, which can, you know, lead to 
cost overruns later on.
    Mr. Babin. Sure.
    Mr. Russell. And then, briefly, making sure you have good, 
mature technologies when you baseline those programs, and if 
not, have some off-ramps and backups in case those technologies 
don't mature as anticipated.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you very much. And now, Dr. Harrison, I'd 
like to talk about a possible space telescope gap risk. The 
recommendations contained in Astro2020 span not only the coming 
decade, but it will also likely influence the following decade 
as well. And while we anxiously await the launch of JWST later 
this month, I'm reminded that it was recommended by the 2000 
decadal survey, and the Roman telescope was recommended by the 
2010 decadal survey as a quick way to achieve fantastic 
scientific goals, given the delays to JWST. We are now seeing 
delays to even Roman.
    Understanding that these are complicated undertakings, and 
there is a risk to recommending a multi-decade mission, when 
we're decades behind on our current programs, and if it weren't 
for multiple Hubble servicing missions that fixed initial 
problems, and extended the life of the mission longer than 
anticipated, we would be experiencing a gap in that flagship 
astronomy mission as well, right now. How should the community 
mitigate the risk of an extended gap in flagship astronomy and 
astrophysics missions if Hubble becomes inoperable, and the 
current or future missions experience further delays, or even 
failures, and what impact would that gap have on the U.S. 
astronomy and astrophysics community? Briefly--if you'd--
briefly, if you'd give us your opinion----
    Dr. Harrison. Yes, so very briefly, that's a wonderful 
question, and it's one the survey struggled with greatly. And, 
you know, our--look, this--the opportunity to find habitable 
worlds, and find life outside of our solar system, is so 
compelling, but it is a large mission, and we said, don't adopt 
it now. NASA, do not start it now. Take five, six, if it's 
needed, 7 years to co-mature it, really get the costs under 
your, you know, belt. Understand it, and then adopt it. That's 
to mitigate the risk of the large overruns, which is very 
damaging to the program.
    How are we going to fill that gap in between? And that's 
why we have these probe missions. They're capped at 1.5 billion 
to NASA. They will--they can launch on decade time scales 
because they will be more focused, they will have mature 
technologies, and that will enable us to really keep the 
progress of capable space observations----
    Mr. Babin. OK.
    Dr. Harrison [continuing]. While we're developing the large 
mission.
    Mr. Babin. Yes, ma'am, thank you very much. And now, to go 
to our Aggie professor there, Mr.--Dr. Kennicutt. The survey 
recommended an unprecedented level of NSF investment that would 
provide 1.6 billion, split between the consortia constructing 
the Giant Magellan Telescope (GMT) and the 30-Meter Telescope, 
or TMT. Is China still a partner in TMT, and if so, is it still 
responsible for polishing the mirrored segments? And then I 
have a follow up question about what impact would a formal 
commitment from the U.S. Government toward TMT construction, 
not just use, have on China's ability to develop advanced 
mirrors and optics for their national security purposes, and 
how could the TMT consortium ensure that U.S. funding doesn't, 
does not, advance Chinese military capabilities, or subject 
U.S. technology to theft or exploitation by the CCP?
    Dr. Kennicutt. I realize I have to answer quickly. To my 
understanding, they formally remain a partner in the TMT 
project. Understand that Fiona and I are involved in GMT and 
TMT institutions. We had--we have stayed away from those 
projects. I don't--I share your--personally your views that 
this cannot benefit military applications in the future, but I 
think that's an issue that the NSF would have to resolve with 
the project. It's not something--it was outside of the scope 
of--we thought we were charged to take up.
    Mr. Baird. OK. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield 
back.
    Chairman Beyer. Thank you very much, Congressman. Let me 
now recognize Chairwoman Stevens.
    Ms. Stevens. Thank you. Dr. Kennicutt, I'm very excited 
about the scientific opportunities by the large scale ground-
based facilities, and just want to make sure we're 
understanding the immense cost of operating them. So your top 
priority recommendation, the Extremely Large Telescope Program, 
would require about $32 million per year in operations funding 
from the National Science Foundation. The survey highlights the 
NSF's approach for funding facility operations and construction 
as maybe an area for concern. So could you walk us through that 
a little bit? We've got you on mute.
    Dr. Kennicutt. Yes.
    Ms. Stevens. There we go.
    Dr. Kennicutt. I'm unmuted now, right? Yes, thank you for 
that question. I really appreciate the opportunity. The problem 
you identify is a really big one for the NSF, one they 
recognized as the number--as we build more of these facilities, 
the cost of operating and maintaining all of them has slowly 
been creeping up, and the fraction--there's a concern that the 
fraction of the NSF allocation for astronomy and astrophysics 
is being taken up to the point that those costs are eroding 
support for grants, programs, technology development, and so 
on.
    And so all of the projects we recommend have what we call 
decision rules, conditions that apply, and a recommendation we 
make that applies to every ngVLA, ELTs, and CMBS-4 is that 
when--as NASA--as NSF, excuse me, contemplates these new 
missions, they have to consider the full cost implications of 
building them, and develop a plan for the case of ELTs. Where 
will that $32 million a year----
    Ms. Stevens. Yes.
    Dr. Kennicutt [continuing]. Come from? And it's--their 
current total budget is on the order of 300 million, so it's 
not intended to be insurmountable, a showstopper, but it's a 
problem that's been eroding away, and just has to be addressed. 
And----
    Ms. Stevens. Yes, and we're----
    Dr. Kennicutt. Go ahead.
    Ms. Stevens. Yes, and we're talking about a, you know, 30 
percent to the--you know, NSF increase for the Astrophysics 
Division, and obviously, you know, the need and the pressure 
for that, and the top recommendation for ground-based frontier 
facilities is a Federal investment in at least one, but ideally 
both of the Extremely Large Telescope Projects, namely Thirty 
Meter and the Magellan--and the Giant Magellan. And so in--
they're similar in size, and have similar capabilities, but--
and maybe Dr. Harrison can get in here too, but--along with 
you, Dr. K, you know, just any explanation about the benefits 
of having both telescopes operating in concert, and what would 
be lost if only one was supported.
    Dr. Kennicutt. Fiona, would you like to take that?
    Dr. Harrison. Why don't you go ahead and start, and I'll 
fill in.
    Dr. Kennicutt. Sure. Yes. So there are a number of benefits 
to both. For one thing, there's only probably 20 to 25 percent 
of the time available on either one, because they've already 
signed up a large number of other partners. And so, if you can 
get involved in both, you essentially double the amount of 
observing time, number of nights a year that the U.S. community 
will be able to observe on these telescopes. Also, having 
access to the northern--southern hemispheres means no event in 
the sky will go unobserved, and also there are benefits of 
complementary instrumentation on the, you know, synergies 
between the two in coordination. Those are the main reasons for 
favoring two. But if only one project proves to be viable, then 
we've recommended NSF pursue as big a share of time on the one 
that is there as possible.
    Dr. Harrison. Yes, I don't have anything to add, but----
    Ms. Stevens. And so we're going to have the capabilities of 
the combination of these telescopes, and we've got another one 
under construction in the European Southern Observatory too, so 
does that--is that the same sort of thing, Dr. K, where we're 
going to get the--you know, the ability to capture these 
images, you know--any other relevance in terms of that 
comparison with the European----
    Dr. Kennicutt. Yes. This is an area where Europe has gone a 
bit ahead. They--theirs is a somewhat larger telescope, 39 
meters. It probably--it's suffered its own delays due to all 
sorts of reasons, will probably commission ahead, but the 
amount of science to be done on these telescopes is immense. 
Europe had the same debate when the two CAT telescopes were 
built 25 years ago, should they build their four eight-meter 
telescopes? Now there are 18, I believe, CAT class telescopes 
in the world, and it's difficult to get time on essentially all 
of them.
    Ms. Stevens. Yes.
    Dr. Kennicutt. But----
    Ms. Stevens. Yes. Well, that's great. Well, thank you both 
so much, and--and to everyone, and, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens. Ranking 
Member Waltz is up next, if he is present. Give him a second. 
If not, let's move, then, to Congressman Meijer. Peter, the 
floor is yours.
    Mr. Meijer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for all of 
our witnesses who are here today, and for the opportunity to 
dive deeper into an area that I will confess I only had 
rudimentary knowledge of before joining this Committee. But I 
think, you know, as Mr. Waltz was saying about Arecibo, and 
some of the challenges we have in terms of being able to 
compete in this realm with China, to be able to continue to 
gain upon the advances that have been made in decades past, and 
make sure that that growth is exponential going forward, I 
think this is a very relevant, timely, and important topic for 
us to be renewing.
    A few questions for either Dr. Harrison or Dr. Kennicutt. 
The decadal survey highlights, you know, a concerning issue 
with the way NSF funds its programs, as it budgets for the 
constructions and the operations through separate funding 
streams. We've seen this funding method financially limit NSF's 
ability to fund research grants and other science programs when 
those construction costs run high, and obviously even before 
the current inflationary environment we're in right now, it's 
always the challenge of that projection on where costs will be 
relative to expectations. How do you believe NSF can create a 
more balanced funding mechanism that can give both 
predictability, and make sure that, you know, future costs are 
better anticipated?
    Dr. Harrison. Rob, do you want to take that, or do you want 
me to?
    Dr. Kennicutt. Go ahead, Fiona. Why don't you take--I 
take--this turn.
    Dr. Harrison. Yes. So, you know, there's always been a 
structural issue at the National Science Foundation, in that 
construction and operations are very separate lines, and so 
it's hard for a survey to really understand all the 
implications of changing that mechanism. For example, you could 
build operations into the congressional line that funds 
construction, but that has its pluses and minuses. There may be 
other mechanisms. So we feel that the agencies, working with 
the National Science Board and Congress, need to evaluate those 
mechanisms, and come up with a solution, but we don't dictate 
that solution.
    And so I think you're absolutely right, it's anticipating 
more accurately the construction costs, which I believe the NSF 
is making progress with, and also anticipating the operations 
costs, and building them in in a sensible way, either to the 
astronomy budget, or to the MREFC (Major Research Equipment and 
Facilities Construction), the line that funds the construction. 
And I think either of those is viable.
    Dr. Kennicutt. Congressman, could I add a bit to that?
    Mr. Meijer. Please.
    Dr. Kennicutt. Yes. I think the situation is a bit 
different with NSF. I think the history of construction costs 
shows that actually their projects tend to meet--come on board 
for cost much better than many of the NASA flagships, so the 
real problems are somewhat different. One is the very long 
lifetimes of their facilities. Also--so facilities tend not to 
be shut down in as large a race as a space mission, of course, 
where they degrade more rapidly. One recommendation we make is 
to follow the lead of NASA. NASA reviews its operating missions 
every 3 years in what they call the senior review. NSF did this 
about 10 years ago as--what they called a portfolio review. 
We've encouraged them to hold reviews of their whole suite of 
operating facilities more often so they could be--looked and 
compared in a kind of competitive environment. And that, we 
hope, might help alleviate the problem over the long run.
    Mr. Meijer. I mean, and the point on the longevity of these 
assets I think is very well taken, especially the need to be 
focusing, then, on, you know, enduring and preventative 
maintenance so that that lifetime could be extended, especially 
as some of these platforms are able to be, you know, further 
modified, upgraded to reflect advances that we have.
    My time is running a little bit short, but I guess any kind 
of last words on this question when it comes to, then, 
incorporating preventative maintenance, you know, assume--
presumably into an operation schedule? But would it be, you 
know, most helpful to have those periodic reviews to get that 
across that asset class? Or just any thoughts you might have.
    Dr. Harrison. No, I think funding there, because I have a 
space mission, and we undergo these regular 3-year senior 
reviews, and that does look not only at what improvements and 
enhancements are needed, what maintenance is needed, and how 
could budgets be streamlined by--perhaps for older 
observatories? Is it appropriate to take a little more risk? 
And so I think that's the balance that those portfolio 
reviews--or regular reviews bring.
    Mr. Meijer. Thank you. With that, I yield back.
    Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Congressman Meijer. I now 
recognize Dr. Foster, but before doing that, just note that we 
probably have time for a second round, so you don't need to 
cram all nine questions into the 5 minutes, if you need to. 
Congressman Foster?
    Mr. Foster. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate 
that, and intend to capitalize on that. First, I want to second 
Dr. Harrison's endorsement of having multi-messenger and 
targets of opportunity be a big part of this. You know, I got 
my Ph.D. thesis building a proton decay detector, the first of 
the giant underground detectors, and doing Planck-scale 
physics, and then ended up--and the--our sensitivity to 
supernova was sort of a standing joke among all the grad 
students. And then, lo and behold, in 1987 the--you know, the--
well, actually, we finally got the radiation from a supernova 
that went off 160,000 years ago, and so we saw in our 
underground detector the neutrinos, and at the same time the 
optical astronomers saw the optical signal, and learned a lot 
about supernova. And so it's good that you maintain the 
flexibility and the agility that you get from these multiple 
maybe smaller things, so I definitely endorse that.
    Now, when you're doing things like decadal surveys, it's an 
easier thing to design if the United States is the only show in 
power, and it's not anymore. And so this makes you sensitive 
not only to cost and schedule delays, basically, in the U.S. 
program, but in having correct predictions of when, you know, 
scientific competitors will actually do these things, because 
you can mess up either way. If you accept at face value the 
schedules for competing experiments, you may be under-
ambitious, because you'll just say, well, we can't possibly 
complete with that. Now, I can certainly point to things in my 
career where that mistake has been made. And so how do you 
evaluate not only your realistic, you know, cost and schedule 
estimates, but those of the EU, Japan, and other competitors? 
Where do you get that input from?
    Dr. Harrison. Rob, do you want to take a first----
    Dr. Kennicutt. Yes, I'll start. It's a great question. You 
know, a question we're often asked is why didn't we give really 
specific timelines and roadmaps direct to NASA, for example. Do 
this mission in 2023, and the next one in 2027, and so on, and 
it's for the very reasons you describe. The landscapes change. 
Funding landscapes, international landscapes change, and so on, 
so what we try to do is lay out broad road maps and guidelines, 
and leave the details to them.
    Fortunately, this time, at least for space, Europe just 
completed its own exercise. It's called Voyage 2050, and 
they've laid out a set of priorities. They announced their 
outcome just as we were finishing ours, so--but, in fact, 
there's some projects in common. There will certainly be 
collaborations. Little known--well over half of the NASA 
portfolio of missions involved international partners, and we 
hope that will continue.
    Part of the issue of the gap that was raised earlier, 
before the next big flagship, is that the U.S. is a partner in 
the LISA (Laser Interferometer Space Antenna) Gravitational 
Wave Observatory and the Athena X-Rays, which are all European-
led, but with partnerships from NASA. I'll stop there, and see 
if Fiona wants to add anything.
    Dr. Harrison. Yes, well, I'll just go direct to your point. 
You know, would you make a mistake by just giving up because, 
you know, Europe's doing it? And I think that the ELT is a 
perfect case in point, because, yes, Europe is pursuing a large 
telescope, in fact larger than the ones we've envisioned. 
Should you just say, OK, even though this is an area where the 
U.S. has led, we're just going to let Europe do the, you know, 
big thing, and we'll go off and find some other, you know, 
corner? No, absolutely not. This is the forefront. This is the 
vision. We know that by being inventive and innovative with 
instrumentation technologies, we build these telescopes, we can 
keep refreshing them in creative ways that keep us absolutely 
competitive with the European efforts.
    And it's not just the competition. I imagine the way this 
will evolve is Europe will choose particular instruments on 
their telescope, and we'll choose different ones on ours, and, 
you know, this pushes the forefront of science cooperatively 
worldwide.
    Mr. Foster. OK. Yes. So it's complicated, and then you 
can--so thank you for taking a swing at that. And it gets even 
more complicated when you have less transparent competitors, 
like China, enter into it, where you simply don't have the 
level of communication you have with the Europeans. Anyway--so 
I thank the Chairman for the second round of questions that I 
anticipate, and at this point I'll yield back.
    Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Dr. Foster, very much. Next, 
if--our Ranking Member Waltz is with us, so, Congressman Waltz, 
the floor is yours.
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you. And, Dr. Kennicutt, the first 
question I want to throw your direction. In the middle of the 
survey, and as I mentioned in my opening statement, a year ago 
today the Arecibo Observatory experienced an unexpected and 
catastrophic loss and collapse, excuse me. My understanding's 
the Survey Steering Committee assessed the impact of Arecibo's 
loss on the key science questions and programs. Are there 
future opportunities for continued utilization of the Arecibo 
site for radio astronomy, and can you discuss the potential 
opportunities for the future of Arecibo?
    Dr. Kennicutt. Absolutely. The loss occurred at a very 
awkward time for the survey, to the extent there was no way you 
could actually do a full review, of course, of all the 
possibilities. But we did look very closely, with help from our 
radio panel, at the scientific impacts. We think there is a 
bright future for Arecibo. The example that we think is most 
attractive is as a major part of the ngVLA, the next generation 
VLA site. As you probably know, the next--the VLA currently is 
based in New Mexico. New Mexico isn't big enough to hold the 
ngVLA. The ngVLA will cover the entire country, at least the 
major part of the northern--or the--of our hemisphere, and 
already there were plans, preliminary plans, to site some of 
the dishes and so on there. That would provide front and center 
what will be the cutting edge of radio astronomy in the coming 
years. The other element we think is very important is the 
outreach efforts, all of the community engagement, because the 
community values what Arecibo brought there, and we want to see 
that preserved. I don't know if that answers all of your 
question, sir.
    Mr. Waltz. No, it does. I wanted to get Dr. Harrison's 
perspective on the loss as well, I mean, as we know, as the 
most powerful--or it included the loss of the most powerful 
planetary radar in the world, and it affects our capabilities--
again, you know, correct me if I have a misunderstanding, but 
it affects our capabilities to accurately map surface planets 
and predict orbits for potentially hazardous asteroids. And so 
I think you mentioned--you just got at the issue, but, Dr. 
Harrison, I wanted to get your take as well on which existing 
instruments have similar sensitivity capability and 
availability to fulfill the role that AO had, and how does the 
Committee suggest we continue our planetary defense actions 
against near Earth objects?
    Dr. Harrison. Yes, that's a great question. And so first 
let me say that our remit was astronomy and astrophysics, and 
so we didn't have as part of our charge to look at the other 
aspects like planetary defense. And, you know, Arecibo, of 
course, had a very broad range of things it was doing. Our task 
was to look at the area, the impact on astronomy and 
astrophysics, and--so I'm afraid I'll have to not answer the 
first--that part of your question.
    But just say--as far as astronomy and astrophysics go, you 
know, Arecibo was key in timing pulsars, which is another way 
to detect gravitational waves, and--so that will be a gap in 
our capability, but increased investments in the Green Bank 
Telescope to do that, and international cooperation, we hope 
will tide us over until the point where we have the next 
generation VLA, which is absolutely essential for keeping our 
leadership in radio astronomy.
    And so, you know, in--with the focused lens of astronomy 
and astrophysics, we both feel like the Arecibo site is 
essential. It--you know, it's very well protected for radio 
noise, and, you know, siting an ngVLA element there is highly 
attractive, and--so I'll stop there.
    Mr. Waltz. No, thank you. No, I appreciate that. And just 
in the few seconds I have remaining, Dr. Kennicutt, can you 
just elaborate on the outreach piece that I think is so 
important? I just can't overemphasize how I really, you know, 
in many ways think I saw the--not just the diversity, but the 
future of our country, in many ways, with the students that I 
met there. So this--how important is Arecibo for that kind of 
nexus between education, community, and developing STEM?
    Dr. Kennicutt. Well, I envy you. I--I've heard about the 
center for years. I've never been there myself, so I really--
but your----
    Mr. Waltz. We'll make sure you get an invitation. I'll 
speak to----
    Dr. Kennicutt. OK.
    Mr. Waltz. You'll be hearing from their Congresswoman, I 
think, very soon.
    Dr. Kennicutt. It--the--first of all, there's a whole 
section of our report, of course, that recommends that our 
profession do a better job with engaging with the communities 
that host our key observational sites. This is an ideal 
example, where the community has embraced--they have the 
outreach center that attracts--I don't have the numbers for 
you, of course, the number of visitors, but it's a combination 
of the--just the number of people, but it's the impact on young 
people, and particularly just targeting a demographic--a part 
of the community where we are still underrepresented, and this 
is just a perfect example of what needs to be done to diversify 
our profession. And to--it would be a pity to see it go, and it 
is such high impact for such low cost.
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you. I'm over my time. I appreciate the 
indulgence, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
    Chairman Beyer. Absolutely, Congressman. Thank you so much. 
If Congresswoman Stansbury is with us? I know her--she's still 
logged in. And, if not, Congressman Ellzey? If Jake is with us? 
I know we have his office, if not him. We had Mr. Brooks there 
for a minute. OK. With the consent of Chairwoman Stevens and 
Dr. Foster, we'll move to a second round. And if our folks show 
up again, we'll--we will thus introduce them. So let me begin.
    Dr. Harrison, you guys talked about cosmological inflation, 
which I think is, like, one of the coolest things since sliced 
bread. How--I'd love for you to just talk a little bit more 
about--No. 1, how do you even begin to measure it or think 
about it, and No. 2, if our universe ends at--say as far as 
light has gone, you know, in the last 14 billion years, is it 
wholly possible that cosmological inflation has taken place in 
other places, and is still taking place now?
    Dr. Harrison. Sure. Well, let me address the first 
question, which is how do you even begin to think you can 
detect this bizarre moment, the earliest moments in the 
expansion of the universe, where, you know, the expansion was 
so rapid it's faster than the speed of light in--if you think 
about it, in certain ways. But it's amazing, it's thought 
that--and this period is absolutely necessary, by the way, to 
explain the absolute smoothness of the universe when we look 
back at the cosmic microwave background. So we have good reason 
to believe it existed.
    And we think when it happened, it created gravitational 
radiation, which would interact with the surface and the 
universe that we see when we look at the cosmic microwave 
background, and that would produce a particular pattern of that 
cosmic microwave background light in what's called its 
polarization, that if you can see that, it has a very 
distinctive signature. That will be the smoking gun that 
inflation occurs, and actually analyzing the pattern, and its 
level, will tell you a lot about inflation. And it's absolutely 
amazing, astounding, to me that there's the opportunity to 
probe back beyond the last surface we can actually see.
    And on your question of--I think you're getting at is--are 
there multiverses? Could this have occurred? I'm--you know, 
that's not my area of expertise. I know that, yes, people 
theorize this, but maybe Rob has an opinion.
    Chairman Beyer. Just the level one multiverse.
    Dr. Kennicutt. It's not my area of expertise either. It's 
very highly speculative. On the other hand, inflation is an 
absolutely fundamental tenet of our current cosmology. If these 
V-modes are detected, to confirm it, you've confirmed one of 
the cornerstones of not--of the cosmology, which includes 
cornerstone of physics as we know it. If those modes aren't 
detected, if they aren't there, then it means there's something 
really fundamentally off in physics. So hence, you know, why 
this has Nobel implications.
    Dr. Harrison. Right. Back to the drawing board, in other 
words.
    Dr. Kennicutt. Yes.
    Chairman Beyer. So, Rob, one of the things in your guys'--
you talked about the neutrino observations are important in 
understanding, and the IceCube--Generation Two is making 
important advances, but it's beyond the charge of the decadal 
survey to recommend it. Well, were you essentially de-
emphasizing the IceCube survey, or----
    Dr. Kennicutt. No. It's simply the logistics of the 
survey--there were two projects presented to us, IceCube--
Generation Two, also further technology development for future 
gravitational wave observatories. Those programs are funded out 
of the NSF Physics Division. We were asked by the NSF to assess 
the importance of those projects for astronomy and 
astrophysics, which we did, but they will compete in the--for 
funding with all the rest of--you can--you know, condensed 
matter physics, nuclear physics, nuclear physics, and 
everything else. And--so we can't put ourselves in a position 
to tell the physicists just do the astronomy things. That's the 
only reason----
    Chairman Beyer. OK.
    Dr. Kennicutt [continuing]. For why we can't. It's not a 
backhanded compliment whatsoever. It's a statement of our 
charge.
    Chairman Beyer. Thanks. One of the things that comes up 
again and again is data across the Federal Government. I 
introduced the National Secure Data Act a month or so ago, I 
think with Dr. Foster, to try to get all these different 
databases, and we were thinking, you know, NOAA, and Census, 
and IRS (Internal Revenue Service), et cetera, but what about 
NASA and NSF, and the work you're doing? How interoperable are 
those databases, and what could we do to contribute to that?
    Dr. Kennicutt. Fiona, would you like to take that one?
    Dr. Harrison. Well, why don't you address it for the NSF 
side, and then I can say something about NASA?
    Dr. Kennicutt. Yes. They--the--they're actually--astronomy, 
I think, is a leader in creating public datasets, and this 
contributes to the internationalization of astronomy. The--it's 
integrating--globilizing the whole enterprise. NSF does a very 
good job for the data from its national facilities, by and 
large, but for the telescopes that are operated by universities 
and institutions, more work needs to be done to make those data 
accessible and available in a form that is digestible readily 
by the community.
    Fiona will address NASA in a moment. There is a big 
challenge now with the multi-messenger astronomy, and being 
able to access across the two, but I'll let her take it from 
here.
    Chairman Beyer. And Dr. Harrison----
    Dr. Harrison. Well, I don't know if you want me to--I'd be 
happy to stop, if you're----
    Chairman Beyer. Yes, let me--let's--we'll come back. I'd 
love to hear what you have to say about it, but I feel an 
obligation to move on to Congressman Ellzey, who's with us 
again. Jake, the floor is yours for questions, if you would 
like it.
    Mr. Ellzey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No, I am good at this 
time. I appreciate it.
    Chairman Beyer. Then let's move on to our Ranking Member, 
Dr. Babin, for a second round.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. Good 
to have a second round. I would like to address a question to 
Dr. Harrison. Section 508 of the NASA Transition Authorization 
Act of 2017 directed NASA to work with the National Academies 
to develop an exoplanet science strategy. What impact did this 
have on the recently released decadal survey?
    Dr. Harrison. Yes. So it was highly impactful. What this 
report did was it--it did an in depth study across 
opportunities in exoplanets, and also considering astrobiology, 
and it had findings about what would be the, you know, 
forefront areas. And so this was really our starting point, 
along with our own panels. And so we took that report very 
seriously, and, in fact, you'll see some of our top 
recommendations mirror what they said, which is top priority 
really is to look for signatures of other--of life on other 
planets, here's the road map that we think is required. And we 
adopted many--not all, but many of their recommendations. So 
yes, it was highly influential for us, and I think a good model 
going forward for the agencies to ask--in complicated areas to 
ask that--National Academies to do preparatory studies, which 
just help the surveys.
    Mr. Babin. OK. Thank you so much. And, let's see, the next 
question I would have would be to--addressed to Mr. Russell. 
The Great Observatories Mission and Technology Maturation 
Program proposed by the 2020 decadal survey is intended to 
invest early in technology maturation efforts to reduce risk 
and decrease the likelihood of cost and schedule issues with 
the telescope development. How should these activities be 
accounted for, should they be included in the program baseline 
commitment for costs, and schedule estimating, and tracking, or 
is this a way to remove program content from the underlying 
project to make it appear to cost less than it really does? I 
would like to see what you think about that.
    Mr. Russell. Yes, thank you for that question.
    Mr. Babin. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Russell. Certainly I think the--there's a lot of 
promise in that maturation effort, and--to the extent that it 
can delivery technologies that are at a sufficient maturity 
level. Usually we look for TRL-6 by preliminary design review. 
That's going help strengthen the NASA projects going forward. 
But in terms of accounting for some of those costs, you know, 
we've seen some good practices, I think, with the Roman Space 
Telescope, the Corona instrument. There was a recognition that 
it might be easier to manage it as a technology demonstration, 
and that's what NASA has done, and they're effectively tracking 
those costs.
    But then we've seen other examples, for--with the space 
launch system, where it might be good for the next block, Block 
1B. We recommended that they set a separate baseline, because 
it's such a significant effort that they separately track and 
provide oversight of some of those key efforts.
    Mr. Babin. OK. Thank you very much. And, Mr. Chairman, I 
think that concludes my questioning, so I'll yield back.
    Chairman Beyer. Thank you. Thank you, Ranking Member Babin, 
very much.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you.
    Chairman Beyer. I'll let the--let--OK. Let me recognize now 
Congressman Foster from Illinois. Dr. Foster.
    Mr. Foster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I'd like to 
follow up for a moment on the Chairman's question involving 
gravitons. It's my impression that, you know, LIGO, and similar 
projects, are looking not really for the quantum nature of 
gravity, but since--looking essentially at the classical limit, 
that, you know, these are quantum states with enormous quantum 
numbers, and just coherent states with, you know, huge--and are 
there--first off, is that a correct impression, and are there 
efforts anywhere that have a realistic chance of getting at the 
quantum nature of gravity at this point, or is that still 
looking out of reach?
    Dr. Harrison. Yes, I'm happy to take a crack at that. Yes, 
absolutely, you're completely correct. I think what I was 
saying about LIGO is the one, you know, measurement it can make 
is the speed of travel of the graviton----
    Mr. Foster. Sure.
    Dr. Harrison [continuing]. And is that close to the speed 
of light? And that's, obviously, an important measurement, but 
it's not getting at the fundamental nature of quantum gravity. 
And yes, actually, rather amazingly, there are efforts related, 
in fact, to things that come out of quantum sciences efforts, 
quantum information, quantum matter intersecting with--physics 
that are developing new theories that can actually be tested, 
searching for the quantum nature of gravity. And I'm not an 
expert, but I know that, for example, there's an effort in DOE 
to build a very sensitive interferometer that can actually look 
for some effects of quantum gravity theories at the very low 
energy scale. So it's a very active field.
    Mr. Foster. OK.
    Dr. Harrison. It's been a big mystery in physics, as you 
well know, for----
    Mr. Foster. Yes, well, for forever, you know, and so----
    Dr. Harrison [continuing]. Forever, yes.
    Mr. Foster [continuing]. So we still need a great new idea 
to get at the graviton.
    Dr. Harrison. We do.
    Mr. Foster. All right, back to the prosaic here. Yes, Dr. 
Kennicutt referred to what appears to be a sort of trend for 
larger cost growth in NASA-based experiments than in NSF-
based--or NSF/DOE-based, and I wonder, is that just 
attributable just to the difference in difficulty of operating 
in space, or are there structural--maybe this is a question for 
Mr. Russell, that--are most of the, you know, really large cost 
growth that we've seen in experiments due just to the things 
that wouldn't happen if it wasn't in space?
    Mr. Russell. Certainly the environment of space is very 
difficult, and a lot of what NASA is doing with their science 
mission is one of a kind. You know, James Webb's Space 
Telescope's a good example, pushing the edge of possibility. So 
I think where we focused is you're always going to have that 
risk, and your acquisition process is really intended to manage 
that risk, but not eliminate it. So just things like having 
sufficiently mature technology to really determine your 
requirements, make sure you have resources that match those 
requirements before you start, you know, bending metal----
    Mr. Foster. Yes.
    Mr. Russell [continuing]. And building things.
    Mr. Foster. So it's more complicated than just space versus 
non-space----
    Mr. Russell. Exactly.
    Mr. Foster [continuing]. So that it's--OK. That there are 
maybe management differences? And when you're looking at sort 
of decadal survey level of thing, very often there is 
competition between space-based and ground-based ways to do the 
same physics or astronomy. And so, when that happens, you're 
talking about--you know, if you're going to say, OK, we're 
going to take this project out of space-based, and move it to 
ground-based, or vice versa, you're actually going up through 
this Committee, in terms of, you know, moving authorizations 
from one potential pot of money, and one agency to another. How 
do you deal with that? Do you operate something like--we have 
this pot of money that we're going to spend on the ground, and 
this pot of money that we're going to spend in space, and just 
use those as input to your deliberations, or do you actually 
make recommendations that involve, you know, moving, you know, 
ground-based versus space-based monies around?
    Dr. Kennicutt. Generally when we--we are given, of course, 
separate budget profiles for the agencies which we have to 
meet, so in the last steps, those budget analyses are 
segregated. It's not often that we have competing missions on 
ground and space aiming at the same thing. In this case there--
in the case of cosmic ray background, we did have proposals on 
both sides, and we just----
    Mr. Foster. I think there were competing dark energy 
proposals, if I recall correctly, for ground-based versus 
space-based----
    Dr. Kennicutt. Yes.
    Mr. Foster [continuing]. Operations, and, you know----
    Dr. Kennicutt. So we asked the--the first test is always 
asking--you use the input from the science panels. You know, we 
do--the steering community does a scientific assessment of the 
two options very often. There's that--there's always 
differences in what you're going to get from the two, and often 
it's a matter of deciding the phasing. But Fiona, do you--
perhaps you have to----
    Dr. Harrison. Well, yes, just very----
    Dr. Kennicutt. Um-hum.
    Dr. Harrison [continuing]. Quickly. We take the 
complementarity of ground and space observations into account 
when we make recommendations, and if we look at the, you know, 
question to find life sought--life outside of our solar system, 
there the EL--the very large telescopes on the ground, and the 
space-based thing are absolutely complementary, because on the 
ground you can do the small stars, in space you can do the Sun-
like stars. And you can't do the smaller stars from space, you 
can't do the Sun-like stars from ground. You need to have a 
whole gamut to answer this question. And so we consider 
complementary like--complementarity like that. We're trying not 
to replicate capabilities.
    So, for example, in our Time Demand Program, we say, NASA, 
do in space those time demand things that you have to do in 
space, X-rays, gamma rays, that can't get through the 
atmosphere. On the ground, do the optical, do the infrared.
    Mr. Foster. Yes. Thank you. Because, you know, our 
Committee needs a more systematic way, in the cases where you 
have to move the balance of effort between space-based and non-
space based, and we actually--you know, I don't see a clear 
picture of what that mechanism might be. Thank you, my time's 
up, and yield back.
    Chairman Beyer. And, Congressman Foster, if you want to 
stay for another round, we have them captured for the moment, 
and we're in the Zoom where it happens right now. Let me 
recognize Congresswoman Stansbury from New Mexico. Melanie, if 
you have questions for our distinguished panel?
    Ms. Stansbury. Yes. Good morning, and thank you, Mr. 
Chairman, for convening this very important and interesting 
discussion this morning. In my community, and across New 
Mexico, we are so privileged to have the ability to step into 
our backyards, and look up at the night sky, and see exactly 
what has inspired countless generations to study the cosmos, 
and get where we are today, able to peer into the far reaches 
of the universe, and study objects that are light-years away, 
and able to see and understand extraordinary events that help 
us understand the universe, and our place in it.
    New Mexico has been home to advanced astronomers dating 
back millennia, from the ancestors of our indigenous 
communities who were guided by the stars in creating great 
cities and trade networks, to the generations of physicists and 
astronomers who have worked to understand our place in the 
universe, including those who have worked on the Very Large 
Array in Central New Mexico, the Sunspot Observatory in 
Southern New Mexico, and laboratories and universities across 
the State.
    So as we look forward to the next generation, and the next 
decade of studying space, and what it can teach us about our 
place here on Earth, the Next Generation Very Large Array in 
particular will help to fuel discovery to help to create jobs, 
and to inspire countless New Mexicans to pursue a career in 
science. So I'm particularly interested in the Next Generation 
VLA, and the plans to upgrade and merge this facility with 
antennas across the country in order to increase our capacities 
in radio astronomy for decades to come.
    Like the current Very Large Array, the Next Generation VLA 
will contribute to new discoveries well into this century, and 
if we follow the guidance that's laid out in the decadal 
survey, we'll also be able to ensure that space research and 
discovery truly reflects and benefits all of our communities 
across race, gender, and community lines. While the Next 
Generation Very Large Array will directly create 200 
manufacturing jobs, many of which will go to New Mexicans, the 
project also provides aspiring scientists with the opportunity 
to train and conduct research with some of the most 
sophisticated equipment in the country, and in the world. And 
students visiting the VLA, such as myself as a youngster, will 
also be inspired to pursue careers in STEM, and help to fuel 
the next generation of discovery.
    So I look forward to supporting this Committee's work to 
advancing priorities from the decadal survey, and to empower 
the scientific community to continue to expand our 
understanding of the universe. And, as New Mexico's space 
research and commercial industry continues to grow, I'm excited 
about the groundbreaking work that will come out of our 
communities, and how it can contribute to our understanding of 
the cosmos.
    So with that in mind, I just want to ask a quick question 
to Dr. Kennicutt. I am very interested in--as I noted--in the 
survey's recommendations for the Next Generation VLA, and I'm 
wondering if you can talk to us a little bit about the 
significance of the expansions of this network, and also some 
of the scientific discoveries that may be advanced by this 
facility?
    Dr. Kennicutt. Yes. The--this telescope will be 
transformational for radio astronomy. It will have anywhere 
from 10 to 100 times the scientific power sensitivity of the 
current VLA, depending on, of course, how you measure things. 
The kinds of science it will enable is--we've talked about 
imaging planets around other stars, invisible light and in the 
infrared. In radio wavelengths, you can image planetary--
planets in the process of formation. And actually, in the 
proposal, it's in visage--by taking radio images over time, you 
will actually be able to watch the development, motions, planet 
formation literally in action, just as one example.
    In the case of the ecosystem science, we talked about--part 
of the feedback that shapes galaxies is radio jets emitted from 
these supermassive black holes, and ngVLA will map those with 
unprecedented sensitivity and resolution. I'll stop there, 
because I know your time's limited, but happy to follow up.
    Ms. Stansbury. Um-hum. Yes, I think----
    Dr. Harrison [continuing]. Very briefly add that I'm really 
excited about it for the new windows, because one of the most 
astounding things about this gravitational wave merger of 
neutron stars was that there was radio waves the VLA was able 
to monitor over time, which showed us that there are jets of 
particles going nearly the speed of light emitted in this 
merger, and that's--to see these at the distances of the, you 
know, upgraded gravitational wave observatories, it's going to 
take the ngVLA.
    Ms. Stansbury. Wow. It's amazing, and I just--I'm so 
excited about the work that will be spawned by this survey, and 
all of the incredible work that all of you do. And for any of 
you that'd like to come down and see the VLA, it's really quite 
an amazing thing to behold. It stretches across the mesas of 
New Mexico, and is helping, as was noted, to fuel our 
scientific discovery of the outer universe, so come and visit 
us. Thank you, everyone.
    Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Congresswoman Stansbury, very, 
very much. Again, let me offer Congressman Ellzey--Jake, if you 
want to jump in at all, you're welcome.
    Mr. Ellzey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I didn't have a 
question for any of these folks. I just wanted to say thank you 
for spending some of your day with us. I grew up in the 1980's. 
I grew up reading science fiction 2001, 2010: Contact. I'm 
fascinated by this. It's an honor to be on a panel with Dr. 
Foster, who won the Rossi Prize for the things that we're 
talking about today.
    And if I asked any questions, it would just merely show 
that I'm a political science major, and not a scientist, but I 
think that what you're--the work that you do is extremely 
important. It's work only the Federal Government can do on a 
national level, and furthermore, it's work only that the U.S. 
Government can afford to do. So it's extremely important--the 
work you do is important in ways that most of us can't even 
imagine right now. While I don't have any questions, I've 
appreciated everything that you've said, and it's a fascinating 
topic. It's disappointing that we're a little bit behind 
timeline, a lot behind timeline, on some of these projects, but 
great science is going to come from it.
    I look forward to meeting you all in person at some point, 
and thank you for the opportunity to speak, Mr. Chairman. Mr. 
Foster, it's a pleasure to be on this with you, and thank you 
all very much for your time. I yield back.
    Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Congressman, very much, but it 
is the political scientists that authorize and fund all this. 
We need those too.
    Mr. Ellzey. Well, I might add that my uncle, Lawrence 
Ellzey, is a Professor of Physics at UTEP (University of Texas 
at El Paso), and Dr. Foster I don't know if you ever--
Congressman Foster, I don't know if you've ever met him, but 
I'm very proud to be on this, and I spoke with him that I'd be 
on this panel today, and he said, you're not qualified to be on 
this panel. But here I--so, anyway, thanks again.
    Mr. Foster. Well----
    Chairman Beyer. I mean, you----
    Mr. Foster. Well, my daughter, in fact, lives in El Paso, 
and so I will make it a point of visiting next time we're 
there.
    Chairman Beyer. Sure. And you're more than qualified to 
serve on this panel. I have three short questions before 
passing off to Dr. Foster again. No. 1, in your written 
testimony you talked about how the cadence of one probe mission 
per decade is realistic. You're looking at cost--and it seems 
to me there have been a lot more than that just in the last 
decade. For example, we have DAVINCI, and VERITAS about to go 
probe Venus, and--why just one per decade?
    Dr. Harrison. So we were referring strictly to astrophysics 
probes, and this is a program that we imagined would mirror 
what's done in planetary science with the discovery missions, 
which are probe class in the same way we imagine. And so we'd 
like to expand this incredibly successful model to astronomy 
and astrophysics. And, you know, the one per decade really--you 
know, if you look at NASA's great observatories that were 
alluded to and--in the opening remarks, you know, these really 
had a whole range of scales, from what we would call probe 
class up to flagship class, and so, you know, achieving this 
broad range of capabilities really is going to be enabled by 
adding this line. And so, again, we were just referring 
strictly to astronomy and astrophysics, which has never had a 
competed class of missions at that scale before.
    Chairman Beyer. And one more thought, you--you know, with 
the Mauna Kea Telescope was all interrupted by the protests 
over how indigenous people were built into it, and you all 
were--developed a community astronomy model of engagement. Is 
there anything that we can do here in Congress in a bipartisan 
effort to help with those community astronomy laws? I mean, 
should there be?
    Dr. Harrison. Rob, do you want to take that one?
    Dr. Kennicutt. Yes. It's--you know, it's an excellent 
question that I don't' have an immediate answer for. That 
recommendation was largely aimed at our professional community. 
Subjects like archaeology obviously have very--have activities 
on cultural sites--sensitive cultural sites that are--you know, 
are very sensitive, and those professions have developed sort 
of codes of interaction that help. We don't think every new 
project should be reinventing the wheel, and that's the nature 
of our recommendation. I think something--endorsement or--from 
Congress could be very helpful, but I'd have to think about it 
a little longer, to be quite honest with you, sir. It's a 
really, really good question.
    Dr. Harrison. Yes. I mean, and if there are things--we'd be 
happy to follow up with you after the hearing if things come 
up.
    Chairman Beyer. All right. Yes, thank you--I'm running the 
office by myself too while we're--OK. Thank----
    Dr. Kennicutt. Yes. Well, to fill--one--of course, if the 
NSF does become a partner in the 30 Meter Telescope Project, 
and Mauna Kea is still a site under consideration, of course, 
Federal Government will have a role, of course. You know, it 
will have to meet certain, you know, guidelines, you know, 
broadly interpreting environmental impact, and cultural impact, 
and so on. So I think that is an area where, you know, 
government involvement will be critical. But I----
    Chairman Beyer. It's----
    Dr. Kennicutt [continuing]. That's a rather lame answer, I 
suspect.
    Chairman Beyer. No, no, it's fine. That was a lame 
question. So--if--my last trivial question, Dr. Harrison, when 
you're talking about inflation theory, and how it--you had this 
uniform background radiation, so it--actually, like, it's 
perfectly background--uniform, or else we wouldn't have had the 
galaxies form. So one of the interesting speculations is was it 
the original quantum variations at the very beginning that 
created enough variation to give us the rest?
    Dr. Harrison. That is indeed at the heart of it. And when I 
said smooth, yes, obviously not perfectly smooth, but if you 
look at the cosmic microwave background, the fluctuations are 
really tiny. And it mean somehow that whole surface was in--
contact at some point, and that's sort of what leads to the 
idea of inflation. But you're right, I mean, it's absolutely 
astounding that those tiny, tiny little fluctuations somehow 
grew to the amazing density variations----
    Chairman Beyer. Um-hum.
    Dr. Harrison [continuing]. We see today in the universe. 
And that is--you know, I don't know, Rob, you can chime in, but 
it--to me it just--it's amazing. Tremendous progress has been 
made in numerical simulations, and understanding dark matter's 
essential role. But yes, the seeds of these tiny fluctuations 
probably came from inflation.
    Dr. Kennicutt. Yes, in one part, and--less than one part in 
100,000. And if not for the quantum nature of matter, we 
wouldn't be here. It's just--it's quantum fluctuations that 
grew. Those were the seeds. It's amazing. I----
    Chairman Beyer. Well, I want to argue to Bill Foster is way 
rarer than one part in 100,000, so let me give you the final 
word, Dr. Foster.
    Mr. Foster. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. Let's--actually, 
I'd like to speak a little about the issues about optical and 
radio interference, and the degree in which these may become 
mission threatening, to the extent that you may have to start 
incorporating them into your decadal planning. You know, one of 
the projects that you recommend is prioritizing the Cosmic 
Microwave Background--Stage 4 Observatory, CMB-S4, which is the 
next generation ground-based cosmic microwave background 
measurement. This project is of some parochial interest, since, 
although it is a collaboration among a large number of 
institutions, there are some--several in Illinois, like Argonne 
National Lab, Fermilab, University of Chicago, and University 
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaigne.
    Now, earlier this year the full Science Committee had a 
hearing on spectrum needs for observations in Earth and space 
science, and the hearing mostly focused on weather science, but 
it really highlighted how anytime you're doing noise-limited 
measurements, you have to worry a lot about man-made 
interference. This has also become an issue with these 
satellite constellations that are now being talked about and, 
in fact, being launched. And so, you know, at what point does 
that become something that you have to--you're going to need a 
model for how the public, the world public, will behave, and 
whether we're really going to be willing to, you know, 
sacrifice the performance of our cell phone system for 
scientific purposes?
    You know, how do you--well, first of all, how close to 
being a critical issue is that, where you can say, this is a 
great experiment, but it's just not going to be possible 10 
years from now? Are we anywhere near that point?
    Dr. Kennicutt. Should I start, and then you take--I think, 
you know, in the radio, this problem has been around for 
decades, and the NSF in particular, coordinating with other 
international bodies, has done an excellent job of regulating. 
It's one of reason we have these radio quiet sites in Arecibo, 
and Green Bank, and Socorro, and----
    Mr. Foster. Yes.
    Dr. Kennicutt [continuing]. And some----
    Mr. Foster. Yes. I have to say, it just sounds like heaven 
to be in one of these places where no one is allowed to have a 
cell phone.
    Dr. Kennicutt. That's right. But now the problem is--well, 
5G, of course, is eroding more and more of the spectrum itself. 
It--but the satellites are everywhere. That's--that--if the 
satellites start broadcasting in these frequencies, that is the 
real game changer. And--Fiona can address the optical satellite 
constellations in a moment, but it's way above our pay grade to 
know how you regulate it.
    As you say, this impacts human--if you were absolutely 
strict, and it's also international. It does no good at all for 
one country, you know, us to set rules if every other country 
in the world, of course, has satellites flying over us that 
follow a different set. So I think this is one reason we think 
government action, whether it's through the Federal executive 
agencies, or through Congress, is absolutely essential, and we 
think our best role is to empower the NSF, NASA, to the extent 
it may need to be involved, to providing you with the 
information that's needed. And----
    Mr. Foster. Yes, so at least we can quantify, here is the 
damage to science, as opposed to----
    Dr. Kennicutt. Exactly.
    Mr. Foster [continuing]. What is deployed.
    Dr. Kennicutt. Yes.
    Mr. Foster. And I think you rightly point out it's an 
international issue.
    Dr. Kennicutt. Yes. And it's----
    Mr. Foster. And I'm very encouraged the Biden 
Administration is really focused on engaging internationally on 
a number of fronts, and it's clearly----
    Dr. Kennicutt. I should answer your--it's not catastrophic 
yet, but if current trends continue, it could be----
    Mr. Foster. Well, OK. Now--yes, what about optical?
    Dr. Harrison. Yes. So, you know, the most recent issue was 
things like the Starlet Network from SpaceX, which aims to 
provide, you know, cell phone coverage all over the globe 
through very, very large arrays of satellites. And the issue 
here is that, especially at dawn and dusk, you get glint off of 
them, and you see them as streaks of light. In fact, you can go 
out--you know, if you're in a dark spot--I live in L.A., so I'm 
not, but you can see these streaks very prominently.
    And the Vera Rubin Telescope is struggling with this a lot, 
because their wide field surveys will be contaminated with 
these streaks, and they have to figure out how to deal with it. 
There are mitigating things to do. In fact, there was a hearing 
in which Elon Musk sort of listened in, and they did try to 
paint them black, but, you know, this is global problem.
    And going back to Representative from New Mexico's point, 
this could change the way we as human experience the night sky, 
right? What does it mean if you go to the desert, and you look 
at the horizon, and you see these streaks of light, and that 
dominates over the stars and the sunset. And so this is a 
problem, I think, that, again, you know, Congress and 
legislation is going to have to--and international cooperation 
is going to have to try to deal with. And I think it--again, 
it's not catastrophic yet. The Vera Rubin Telescope has found 
ways to deal with it, at least at the levels there are--they 
are now.
    And I realize that time is up, but I just very quickly want 
to point out planetary protection has had similar challenges. 
This is--you know, spacefaring nations that send probes to the 
planets don't want to contaminate them with, you know, microbes 
or things that might be interpreted by a future generation as 
life. And that's coordinated through the--CoStar. And so there 
are models where, you know, there is cooperation to try to 
protect our precious scientific resources.
    Mr. Foster. Yes. So I think just collaborating with your 
international colleagues to at least quantify the damage, so 
that policymakers understand the tradeoff they're making, and 
not just sort of stumble blindly into it. Anyway, my time is 
expired. I yield back, and thank the Chairman for a very good 
hearing, and our witnesses as well.
    Chairman Beyer. Yes. Thank you, Dr. Foster, very much. And 
we are currently at the end. I just--before we bring the 
hearing to a close, I just want to thank you for--this is my 
favorite hearing of my seven years. And thank you so much for 
reading the 835 papers that went into putting the decadal 
survey together, thank you for co-chairing it. Mr. Russell, 
thank you for keeping us all on track, and spending within our 
limits, or something like that. And the record will remain open 
for two weeks for additional statements from the Members, and 
for any additional questions the Committee may want to ask the 
witnesses. So, with that, the witnesses are excused, the 
hearing's now adjourned, and we're formally over. Thank you all 
very much, it was truly wonderful. And good luck. We look 
forward to seeing you in 10 years, when we've accomplished 
everything in your survey. Thank you.
    Dr. Kennicutt. Bye.
    [Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the Subcommittees were 
adjourned.]

                               Appendix I

                              ----------                              

                   Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
                   
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                              Appendix II

                              ----------                              

                   Additional Material for the Record

              Letter submitted by Representative Don Beyer
              
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]