[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NASA'S FISCAL YEAR 2008
BUDGET REQUEST
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 15, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-12
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
33-803 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
MARK UDALL, Colorado LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
DAVID WU, Oregon DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington KEN CALVERT, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
NICK LAMPSON, Texas FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
JERRY MCNERNEY, California W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania JO BONNER, Alabama
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon TOM FEENEY, Florida
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
MICHAEL M. HONDA, California BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
JIM MATHESON, Utah DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
BARON P. HILL, Indiana ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
C O N T E N T S
March 15, 2007
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Chairman, Committee on
Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.......... 12
Written Statement............................................ 14
Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Minority Ranking
Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 15
Written Statement............................................ 16
Statement by Representative Mark Udall, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 17
Written Statement............................................ 18
Statement by Representative Ken Calvert, Minority Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 19
Written Statement............................................ 21
Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 22
Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Member, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on
Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.......... 23
Prepared Statement by Representative Russ Carnahan, Member,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 23
Prepared Statement by Representative Harry E. Mitchell, Member,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 23
Witness:
Dr. Michael D. Griffin, Administrator, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA)
Oral Statement............................................... 24
Written Statement............................................ 25
Discussion
Budget Shortfalls and Discrepancy Between Administration
Requests and Authority Levels................................ 36
Crew Safety of Future Projects................................. 38
Status of the SOFIA Program.................................... 39
Delays in CEV Program.......................................... 40
Implementation of Decadal Survey Recommendations............... 41
Negative Ramifications of American Hiatus From Human Space
Flight....................................................... 42
Funding Needed to Maintain CEV/CLV............................. 44
Budget Prioritization Process.................................. 46
Education...................................................... 46
Status of China's Space Program................................ 47
Future Missions and Foreign Abilities.......................... 48
Global Warming and Near-Earth Object Budget Prioritization..... 49
ITAR........................................................... 51
Impact of Reductions on Shuttle Use and Workforce Flexibility.. 52
Space Station Research and Status.............................. 55
CEV Projecting and Budget...................................... 58
Decadal Survey Suggestions..................................... 60
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Michael D. Griffin, Administrator, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) 64
NASA'S FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2007
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Gordon
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
hearing charter
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NASA's Fiscal Year 2008
Budget Request
thursday, march 15, 2007
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose
On Thursday, March 15, 2007 at 10:00am, the Committee on Science
and Technology will hold a hearing on the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration's (NASA) Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request and
NASA's proposed Fiscal Year 2007 Operating Plan.
Witness:
Dr. Michael D. Griffin, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
Background Information
Overview
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which was
established in 1958, is the Nation's primary civil space and
aeronautics R&D agency. The current civil service workforce consists of
approximately 18,100 full time equivalent (FTE) employees. According to
NASA's budget request, that level is projected to decline to 17,000
FTEs by 2012. NASA has ten field Centers, including the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory (JPL) FFRDC. Although there have been discussions in the
past regarding the future disposition of NASA's Centers (e.g.,
potential closure or privatization of one or more Centers), NASA
Administrator Griffin has stated his intention to maintain ``ten
healthy Centers.''
NASA conducts research and development activities in a wide range
of disciplines including aeronautics, astrophysics, heliophysics,
planetary science, Earth science and applications, microgravity
research, and long-term technology development. NASA also operates a
fleet of three Space Shuttles and is assembling and operating the
International Space Station. NASA also maintains a space communications
network that supports both NASA missions and other federal agency
requirements. Almost 90 percent of NASA's budget is for contracted
work. In addition, a number of NASA's scientific and human space flight
activities involve collaboration with international participants.
In January 2004, President Bush announced his ``Vision for U.S.
Space Exploration'' (VSE). According to the President, the United
States is to do the following:
``Implement a sustained and affordable human and
robotic program to explore the solar system and beyond;
Extend human presence across the solar system,
starting with a human return to the Moon by the year 2020, in
preparation for human exploration of Mars and other
destinations;
Develop the innovative technologies, knowledge, and
infrastructures both to explore and support decisions about the
destinations for human exploration; and
Promote international and commercial participation in
exploration to further U.S. scientific, security, and economic
interests.''
With respect to the Space Shuttle, the President's policy stated
that NASA should:
``Focus use of the Space Shuttle to complete assembly
of the International Space Station; and
Retire the Space Shuttle as soon as assembly of the
International Space Station is completed, planned for the end
of this decade.''
With respect to development of a new human transportation system,
the President's policy states that the U.S. shall:
``Develop a new crew exploration vehicle to provide
crew transportation for missions beyond low-Earth orbit;
Conduct the initial test flight before the end of
this decade [i.e., before end of 2010] in order to provide an
operational capability to support human exploration missions no
later than 2014.''
Budgetary Information
NASA's proposed budget for FY 2008 is $17.3 billion, an increase of
3.1 percent over the FY07 President's request for NASA and an increase
of 6.5 percent over the FY 2007 Joint Resolution [P.L. 110-5]
appropriation for NASA. Attachment 1 summarizes the FY08 budget request
and its five-year funding plan. It should be noted that NASA has once
again changed its accounting structure, and the budget request now
incorporates ``full cost simplification.'' As a result, some of the
overhead burden has been reallocated among the Mission Directorates at
NASA, leading to some accounts having to include more of the overhead
costs in their budgets (and other accounts including less). NASA has
stated that no program funds have been increased or decreased as a
result of the full cost simplification process.
As noted in the Committee's Views and Estimates submitted to the
Budget Committee, the FY08 budget request is ``approximately $690
million less than the amount stipulated for FY 2008 in the FY 2005
five-year budget plan that accompanied the President's Vision for Space
Exploration (VSE). That shortfall replicates the practice in each of
the previous two years, i.e., the Administration's FY 2006 NASA request
and its FY 2007 NASA request were approximately $546 million and $1.02
billion less than the amounts stipulated for FY06 and FY07 respectively
in the five-year budget plan that accompanied the President's VSE. The
cumulative effects of those budgetary shortfalls, coupled with OMB's
under-budgeting for the costs of Space Shuttle and the International
Space Station (ISS) in that same five-year budget plan, are manifested
in the strains and stresses that are visible in all of the Agency's
programs.''
The Minority Views and Estimates echoed that conclusion, stating
that the Minority Members of the Committee are ``concerned that NASA's
budget request, together with reductions in FY07 appropriations, may
jeopardize NASA's ability to successfully accomplish its portfolio of
missions, and is especially threatening to our manned space flight
capabilities.''
Attachment 2 compares the NASA budget plan that accompanied the
President's Vision initiative with the actual funds requested (or
planned to be requested per the FY08 budget request's five-year plan)
by the President for the years FY06-12. As can be seen, the President's
requests have been significantly less (i.e., typically on the order of
a half-billion dollars or more in the early years) than what was
projected by the Administration as being needed to carry out the
Exploration initiative and NASA's other core missions. The cumulative
shortfall over that period is in excess of $3.8 billion.
The FY07 appropriation contained in the Joint Resolution maintains
NASA's overall funding level at the FY06 level. As a result, the FY07
appropriation is approximately $545 million lower than the FY07 budget
request for the Agency. NASA was not given the authority to transfer
funds between appropriations accounts. Under the terms of the Joint
Resolution, NASA is to submit to Congress by March 15, 2007 a revised
Operating Plan that reflects how the Agency will allocate its FY07
appropriation within the constraints of the Joint Resolution.
Administrator Griffin has been asked to discuss the FY07 Operating Plan
at the hearing.
To put the FY08 budget request into context, NASA has been tasked
with flying the Shuttle safely until the end of decade and then
retiring the Shuttle fleet; assembling, operating, and utilizing the
International Space Station; completing the development of a new Crew
Exploration Vehicle/Crew Launch Vehicle by 2014; pursuing human
exploration of the Moon no later than 2020; and conducting science and
aeronautics programs. The NASA Authorization Act of 2005, which was
signed into law in December 2005, authorized an FY07 funding level for
NASA of $17.93 billion; the FY07 NASA appropriation is $16.25 billion.
The NASA Authorization Act authorized an FY08 funding level for NASA of
$18.69 billion; the President's FY08 budget request is $17.3 billion.
With respect to NASA's contract management practices, NASA remains
on GAO's ``high risk'' list for its contract management practices. With
respect to its financial management, NASA once again failed to pass an
independent audit, and the auditors identified a number of ``material
weaknesses'' that NASA will have to address.
Program Areas
Space Science
The President's FY 2008 budget requests $4.019 billion to fund
NASA's space science programs, including Heliophysics, which seeks to
understand the Sun and how it affects the Earth and the solar system;
Planetary Science, which seeks to answer questions about the origin and
evolution of the solar system and the prospects for life beyond Earth;
and Astrophysics, which seeks answers to questions about the origin,
structure, evolution and future of the universe and to search for
Earth-like planets. The proposed budget represents a $16.5 million
increase (or about 0.4 percent) over the President's proposed FY07
budget.
Programmatic content changes in the FY08 budget include the
following:
Geospace Missions of Opportunity Phase B studies not
funded
MMS Solar Terrestrial Probe descoped to stay within
budget profile
New Millennium ST-9 technology demonstrator mission
award delayed at least two years
Planetary Science program reserves reduced and re-
phased; future Planetary Science projects and Juno and New
Frontier missions ``re-phased''
New ``Lunar Science'' budget line created
GLAST and Kepler astrophysics mission launch dates
slipped
Reserves for James Webb Space Telescope (JWST)
increased
Space Interferometry Mission (SIM) deferred and
reduced to a technology development program with no identified
launch date
SOFIA project reinstated.
The FY08 budget request maintains the research and analysis (R&A)
accounts at FY07 budget levels and thus sustain the 15 percent R&A cuts
included in the FY06 and FY07 NASA budgets. Astrobiology, an
interdisciplinary field that NASA created to study the origin,
evolution, and possible existence of life in the Universe, has been cut
by some 50 percent since FY06. The competitively-selected Explorer and
small missions programs that National Academy Decadal Surveys have
emphasized as vital, continue to lack the required funds to restore the
two-year cycle of issuing announcements of opportunity (AOs). The
current AO rate has been diminished considerably compared to earlier
periods. The last Explorer AO was issued in 2003; under the FY08 budget
request, the next AO is expected to be issued in late 2007 or 2008
leaving a gap of approximately five years in new selections.
Other Space Science issues include the following:
Mission Size and Programmatic Balance--The FY08 budget request
continues budgetary trends that are creating imbalances in science
programs, especially in the research and analysis (R&A) accounts, which
fund grants to analyze science mission data, and in the portfolio of
sizes for science missions. Science programs that lack balance are not
robust: they cannot be sustained or contribute adequately to high
priority research questions laid out in National Academy decadal
surveys. Moreover, in addition to their high scientific productivity,
small and medium-sized missions are instrumental in training young
scientists and engineers and in exciting the science and broader
communities through the Principal Investigator team's promotion of the
mission.
Cost-Growth in Missions--Several of the increases in the proposed
FY08 Science budget provide funds for projects that have run over
budget or schedule, or that run the risk of doing so. The factors
contributing to cost and schedule growth are not easy to pinpoint, but
include under-estimates in the technology developments required for
mission readiness; increases in launch vehicle costs; inadequate models
to estimate mission costs; internal decisions to delay missions or
alter budget profiles; project management difficulties; and delays in
contributions from international or interagency partners. Mission cost
growth erodes opportunities to conduct other high priority science and
can lead to delays, cancellations, or reduction in funds for other NASA
science missions and activities.
Launch Services/Access to Space--Officials from NASA's Science and
Space Operations Mission Directorates have called attention to a
potential crisis in launch vehicle access for science missions. The
Space Science program has been a regular user of Delta II vehicles,
which are reported to have a 98 percent success rate for science
missions flown since 1961. Between 2007-2009, NASA's Science Mission
Directorate plans to launch at least eight missions on the Delta II
vehicle. NASA is uncertain about the availability of the Delta II
beyond 2009 and is conducting a study to investigate options for
alternatives to the Delta II. The potential loss of Delta II raises the
question of reliable access to space for science missions. Shifting to
alternative vehicles could affect mission costs and schedule.
Earth Science
The President's budget for FY08 requests $1.497 billion for Earth
science research, applications, Earth observing missions, education and
outreach, and technology development. The proposed FY08 Earth science
budget represents an increase of $32.8 million (or about 2.2 percent)
over the President's FY07 budget request. The increase reflects the net
addition of funds to address cost and schedule issues for Earth Science
missions under development including the Landsat Data Continuity
Mission, Glory mission, NPOESS Preparatory Project (NPP), and the
Global Precipitation Measurement mission (GPM). Increases were also
provided for Earth System Science Pathfinder missions (Orbiting Carbon
Observatory and Aquarius) to help maintain schedule.
The proposed FY08 budget maintains the nearly 20 percent cuts to
the Earth science research and analysis (R&A) accounts that were
proposed in FY07 budget. The R&A accounts fund grants for fundamental
research, technology development, training of graduate students, theory
research, and data analysis, in essence the intellectual underpinning
for the program. As stated in the Decadal Survey, ``Without adequate
R&A, the large and complex task of acquiring, processing, and archiving
geophysical data would go for naught. Finally, the next generation of
Earth scientists--the graduate students in universities--are often
educated by performing research that has originated in R&A efforts.''
Other Earth Science issues related to the FY08 budget request
include the following:
Future Earth Observing Missions and Measurements--As discussed in the
full House Committee on Science and Technology hearing on February 13,
2007, the National Academy of Sciences recently released the results of
the first-ever decadal survey on Earth science. The report, which was
requested by NASA, NOAA, and USGS, states that ``the number of
operating sensors and instruments on NASA spacecraft, most of which are
well past their nominal lifetimes, will decrease by some 40 percent''
by the end of the decade. The report also states that ``. . .the United
States' extraordinary foundation of global observations is at great
risk.'' Many of the measurements that may be lost with these sensors
provide critical information on weather and climate. Some of the
planned replacement sensors, which are to be flown on NPOESS, are less
capable than existing sensors and may affect future abilities to
forecast El Nino events, hurricanes and weather forecasts in coastal
areas. Moreover, the Decadal Survey notes that between 2000 and 2006
NASA's Earth science budget decreased by more than 30 percent when
adjusted for inflation. The proposed FY08 budget for NASA's Earth
science programs responds to the recommendations of the interim report
of the Decadal Survey by adding funds to complete missions currently
under development that will sustain critical, high priority
measurements (e.g., the Landsat Data Continuity Mission, the Glory
mission and the GPM). However, the proposed FY08 budget does not
provide out-year funding that would enable development of even the
first few of the 15 new, high-priority NASA missions recommended in the
Decadal Survey.
Aeronautics Research
The President's FY 2008 budget requests $554M for Aeronautics
Research, which includes aviation safety, airspace systems, fundamental
aeronautics, and aeronautics test program. While the FY08 budget for
Aeronautics represents a $170.4 million decrease from the President's
FY07 NASA budget request, NASA states that the decrease can be
attributed to changes in NASA's allocation of overhead rates (referred
to as ``full cost simplification'') and does not reflect any changes in
programmatic content. If full cost simplification is taken into
account, NASA would say that the FY08 request is an increase of $24.7
million (or about 4.7 percent). After FY08, the NASA Aeronautics
funding would decline to $546.7 million in FY09. As a point of
comparison, NASA Aeronautics funding was about $1.85 billion (2006
dollars) in 1994--the current budget request is thus only about 30
percent of that level.
The FY08 five-year budget plan would increase Aeronautics funding
by $222 million (or about 10 percent) over the period FY08-11 relative
to the amounts in the FY07 five-year budget plan (assuming full cost
simplification). However, the budget request for FY08 is approximately
$336 million less than the $890.4 appropriated for NASA Aeronautics in
the FY07 Joint Resolution, or approximately $141 million less if NASA
is able to apply full cost simplification to the FY07 appropriated
amount. Thus the funding reduction from the FY07 appropriation to the
FY08 budget request would largely or completely negate the funding
increase to Aeronautics over the FY08-11 period.
The aeronautics community relies upon NASA for aeronautical
research and development. Beginning in late 2005, NASA began
restructuring its aeronautics program to move away from a program that
included technology demonstration projects and R&D that led to greater
technology maturity and towards a program focused on more fundamental
research. In addition, NASA has cut back substantially on the amount of
the research that would be conducted by universities and industry, with
almost 90 percent of the research conducted in-house at NASA. The
specific types of projects that NASA will undertake and the level of
technical maturity that the R&D will be allowed to reach are still
unclear. These changes in NASA's Aeronautics program occur at a time
when the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NGATS), which will
modernize the air traffic control system to accommodate projected
growth in air passenger and cargo rates over the next decade, is
ramping up. The FAA has traditionally relied on NASA for a significant
fraction of the R&D related to air traffic management, and concerns
have been expressed that NASA's redirection of its aeronautics research
priorities could lead to a significant ``technology gap'' in a number
of key next generation air traffic management programs.
International Space Station
The President's FY 2008 NASA budget requests $2.2 billion for the
International Space Station (ISS) program to continue ISS assembly and
development of assembly elements, augment ISS robotic capability (by
adding the Canadian Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator), conduct ISS
crew exchanges (two Russian Soyuz flights per year); carry out ISS
operations, including conducting extra vehicular activities for
maintenance, science, and assembly. The proposed FY08 budget represents
an increase of $476 million (or about 27 percent) over the FY07 budget
request. The increase reflects a number of factors, including the such
things as the transfer of the ISS Crew and Cargo Services budget from
the Exploration Systems budget where it had been book-kept; addition of
funds to deal with the Shuttle transition and retirement impacts; and
an increase in the amount of overhead allocated to the ISS program.
Some of the issues related to the FY08 budget request include the
following:
ISS Cargo and Crew Transportation Services--According to NASA, the FY08
budget request and five-year budget plan include an estimated shortfall
of $924 million in funding needed for ISS Crew and Cargo transportation
services. $308 million of the shortfall is supposed to be made up by
the Space Operations Mission Directorate and the remainder has been
placed as a lien against the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate's
programs. Commercial orbital transportation services [COTS] are still
being developed and the costs of these privately-provided options for
cargo services are uncertain. The recently released Final Report of the
International Space Station Independent Safety Task Force notes that
COTS, as a new development activity, will likely cost more and take
longer than expected. Purchases of Russian Progress, European ATVs,
Japanese HTV launch vehicles, or possibly other commercial systems
could potentially provide some back-up should the COTS program not
deliver an operational capability when needed, but those alternatives
would require some time to procure.
International Space Station Research--The ISS is intended to serve as
an on-orbit facility where R&D in support of both human exploration and
non-exploration purposes and other exploration technologies is to be
conducted. However, the ISS research budget, which is book-kept in the
Exploration Systems (ESMD) budget has been significantly cut back in
recent years to help fund the Crew Exploration Vehicle/Crew Launch
Vehicle and for other purposes. The FY08 budget request for the ESMD
ISS research budget is $78 million, a 25 percent decrease from the FY07
budget request, which itself represented a cut relative to previous
years.
ISS Reserves--According to NASA briefing charts, the ISS program is
``facing most challenging period of assembly with minimal reserve
posture. . .negative reserves in FY 2007; nearly depleted reserves in
FY 2008.''
Space Shuttle
The President's FY 2008 budget requests $4.0 billion to operate and
maintain NASA's three Space Shuttles, and to conduct four ISS assembly
flights and a Hubble Space Telescope (HST) servicing mission in FY08.
The proposed budget represents a decrease of $10 million from the
President's FY07 budget request. The decrease represents the net
difference between funding increases for flight and ground operations
and flight hardware and a funding decrease for program integration.
Some of the issues related to the FY08 budget request include the
following:
Space Shuttle Program Transition and Retirement--There will be a
significant level of effort required for program shutdown after the
Shuttle's retirement in FY10. However, the FY08 budget request's five-
year plan doesn't include funds to address Space Shuttle program
transition and retirement past FY10 even though NASA knows there will
be costs associated with the shutdown. In addition, the budget number
for FY11 only includes a ``placeholder'' amount for severance and
retention payments.
Space Shuttle Program Reserves--NASA states that the FY08 budget
request has reduced the level of reserves that would be available to
address remaining program threats. For FY08, NASA is bookkeeping $62
million in program reserves for a $4 billion Shuttle program.
Exploration Initiative
The President's proposal for NASA's FY 2008 budget provides $3.92
billion for Exploration Systems to fund Constellation Systems, which
includes the development, demonstration, and deployment of the Orion
Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) and the Ares 1 Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV)
as well as associated ground and in-orbit infrastructure; and Advanced
Capabilities, which includes human research to support ISS and future
exploration; a lunar precursor robotic program; microgravity research;
and technology development to support Orion and other exploration
programs.
The proposed FY08 budget represents a decrease of $229 million
(about 5.5 percent) from the President's FY07 budget request. In
addition, the President's request for the Constellation program (which
funds the CEV and CLV development) declines from the FY07 request level
of $3.23 billion to $3.07 billion in the FY08 budget request. The bulk
of the decline is due to the transfer of the ISS Crew and Cargo
services account from the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate to
the Space Operations Mission Directorate.
Some issues related to the FY08 budget request and FY07
appropriation include the following:
CEV and CLV schedule and budget--The President's Vision statement
directed NASA to have the CEV operational no later than 2014. The NASA
Authorization Act of 2005 directed the NASA Administrator ``manage
human space flight programs to strive to achieve. . .launching the Crew
Exploration Vehicle as close to 2010 as possible'' subject to the
proviso that the Administrator shall ``construct an architecture and
implementation plan for NASA's human exploration program that is not
critically dependent on the achievement of milestones by fixed dates.''
NASA had been saying that its budget plan would deliver an operational
CEV in 2014. However, independent of any potential impact of the FY07
Joint Resolution, NASA has recently concluded that ``As a result of
this analysis over the past two months, the FY 2008 budget request does
not support a 2014 initial operational capability, but March 2015, even
before the FY07 CR impact. . ..'' NASA is now projecting a six-month
slip in the CEV schedule, independent of the Joint Resolution impact.
NASA estimates that the Joint Resolution could potentially add another
four to six-month delay on top of that, although that would depend on
how NASA implemented the Joint Resolution.
ISS Cargo and Crew Transportation Services--The Exploration Systems
budget has had a lien of $616M put on it to help fund the $924 million
shortfall in funding for ISS Crew and Cargo transportation services
during 2010-2015 when the Shuttle is no longer operating. Those
transportation services are expected to be provided by privately-
provided Commercial Orbital Transportation Services [COTS]. COTS are
still being developed and the costs as well as the viability of these
privately-provided options for cargo services are uncertain. The
shortfall will likely have to be taken from the Exploration Systems
Advanced Capabilities program.
Lunar Robotic Precursor Program--NASA indicates that funding will be
eliminated for any lunar robotic missions that were to follow the Lunar
Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) and its accompanying payload--the LCROSS--
which is scheduled to launch in October 2008.
Exploration Technologies--As a result of the shift of Advanced
Capabilities funds to support the CEV/CLV development program, the
amount of money available to support technologies not directly related
to the CEV/CLV program needs has been significantly constrained, and
the funding outlook is bleak for any near-term restoration of such
long-term technology development activities.
Space Communications
The Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) system, which
provides in-orbit communications links between on-orbit systems (e.g.,
the Shuttle, Hubble, and near-Earth orbiting satellites) and the ground
is aging. Other agencies such as DOD also rely on TDRSS. The
communications support provided by TDRSS is projected to decline by
2011. After seeking funds to replace TDRSS satellites in several past
budgets without success, the Space Operations Mission Directorate
redirected $78.4 million from the Space Shuttle Transition and
Retirement (STAR) budget and ISS reserves, as well as $33.6 million
from Shuttle reserves as a down-payment on two TDRSS replacement
spacecraft. NASA has also secured an agreement from the DOD to fund
approximately two-thirds of the total cost of TDRSS replacements. These
replacements will ensure TDRSS support until 2016.
Education
The President's budget proposes $154 million in FY 2008 to support
NASA's Education program, including projects targeted at higher
education, minority university research and education, elementary and
secondary education; and the E-education project, which supports
development of technology products, services, and applications, as the
informal education project, which seeks to expand student, educator,
and public learning in STEM areas. The proposed FY08 budget represents
a reduction of $13.7 million (about eight percent) from the President's
FY07 budget request. In addition, funding for NASA's educations
programs is projected to decline over the next five years from the FY07
request level.
Commercial Technology
The President's budget proposes $198 million in FY 2008 to fund
NASA's Innovative Partnerships Program, which is intended to establish
partnerships with industry, academia, other government agencies and
national laboratories in the interest of leveraging technologies and
capabilities for NASA missions and programs. These programs include
technology transfer, Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) and
Small Technology Transfer Research (STTR) programs. The proposed FY08
budget represents a decrease of $17 million (about eight percent) from
the President's FY07 budget request. The Red Planet venture capital
fund program, which was modeled on CIA's In-Q-Tel program, is
eliminated in this budget request.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Gordon. The Committee will come to order, and I
want to welcome everyone. We normally meet on Wednesdays, and
so folks try to keep their schedules available for Wednesday.
On a Thursday morning, we are competing with a variety of
markups today, so we will have folks that will be, I am afraid,
coming and going. But we will still gain all of this good
information, and we welcome all of you here.
And I particularly would like to begin by welcoming Dr.
Griffin to today's hearing. And we look forward to your
testimony. You have always been straightforward with me and
this committee, and I very much appreciate that, as I have told
you on a number of occasions.
And in that same spirit of candor, I will say that--what I
have said before, and that is that I am afraid that NASA is
headed for a financial ``train wreck'' if things do not change.
Your testimony outlines some of the challenges NASA is
facing as a result of the fiscal year 2007 Joint Resolution. We
will explore those in more detail during today's hearing, but
it is clear that NASA's problems run much deeper. And let me--
or budget problems run much deeper.
Let me just list a few of them. First, the fiscal year 2008
budget request continues a pattern of the Administration's
requests that fail to ask for the level of funding that the
White House had said NASA would need to carry out the
Exploration Initiative and some other core activities.
Specifically, in the three years since the President
announced his Exploration Initiative, the White House has cut
NASA's five-year budget plan by a total of $2.26 billion. And
based on this year's budget submittal, the shortfall will
worsen by another $420 million in fiscal year 2009. The impact
of the $2.7 billion shortfall is compounded by the
Administration's under-budgeting of the Space Shuttle and the
International Space Station programs in that same five-year
budget.
The under-budgeting forced you to take some $3.7 billion
out of the rest of the Agency's programs to cover that
shortfall, which brings me to the fiscal year 2008 budget
request and its five-year budget plan.
The budget plan includes an estimated shortfall of $924
million in ISS crew and cargo services funding, a shortfall
that will have to be made up one way or the other. The budget
plan does not include funds to address Space Shuttle program
termination and retirement costs past fiscal year 2010,
although NASA concedes that there may be additional costs.
The budget plan doesn't include funds for the required
upgrade of the aging Deep Space Network, although NASA says it
will need to start funding it in fiscal year 2009. The budget
plan reduces the amount of Space Shuttle reserves available to
address remaining Shuttle program threats during the remaining
missions.
The budget plan contains almost no funds to initiate the
series of new missions recommending by the National Academies
Earth Science Decadal Survey. The budget plan defers a
significant amount of research to be done on the International
Space Station and provides no grounds for optimism that the
research will be adequately funded prior to NASA's planned
withdrawal from the ISS program.
The budget plan continues the Administration's under-
funding of NASA's aeronautics program. The budget plan
continues to cut back on NASA's long-term exploration
technology program. For example, NASA will eliminate its lunar
robotic program, the precursor program for its human lunar
initiative after only one mission.
And even before the Joint Resolution impact is factored in,
NASA's personnel were looking at a six-month slip in the Crew
Exploration Vehicle schedule to 2015.
I could go on, unfortunately, but I think it is clear we
have budgetary situation that bears little resemblance to the
rosy projections offered by the Administration when the
President announced the mission for space exploration three
years ago and a vision that is now increasingly, and
unfortunately, blurred.
And, Dr. Griffin, in your testimony, you mention the
negative impacts of the Joint Resolution passed to deal with
the unfinished fiscal year 2007 appropriations left to us by
the previous Congress.
I agree with you that those impacts are not good, and that
is the reason that I went before our Budget Committee and urged
them to increase the budget to over $1 billion, to our
authorized levels. However, I am afraid you were left hanging
by your own Administration when it said nothing about NASA in
the Statement of Administration Policy that it sent over to the
House.
The Administration's silence, unfortunately, sent a message
that it was not helpful. I will not kid you that it is going to
be--or it is not going to be easy getting the funding you are
requesting in this year's budget, especially if the White House
remains disengaged. Yet, based on the items I have already
listed, I am worried that even getting the President's
requested level is just going to push the looming budgetary
problem down the road until the next election.
And so today, I would like to find out at least the
following.
Given your assessment of the negative impact of the Joint
Resolution, did you ask the White House to weigh in with the
House of Representatives? If so, why not? If you think the
submittal--or if you think submitting a budget request with a
shortfall of almost a billion dollars in ISS crew and cargo
funding embedded in it makes sense, was it your idea or OMB's?
Given the agreement I thought NASA had with the OMB on the ISS
and the Shuttle funding last year, why did this year's budget
request come over with shortfalls and reduced reserves in the
Shuttle and the ISS accounts? Did you shift the money or did
OMB change the agreement?
Well, we have a lot to talk about, and I am sorry to start
off on such a negative or a--I won't say negative, but a
difficult posture, but these are issues that are very
important, and we need to know more about them.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Bart Gordon
Good morning. I'd like to begin by welcoming Dr. Griffin to today's
hearing. We look forward to your testimony.
You always have been straightforward with me and this committee,
and I appreciate it. And in that same spirit of candor, I will say what
I've said before--that I'm afraid that NASA is headed for a ``train
wreck'' if things don't change.
Your testimony outlines some of the challenges NASA is facing as a
result of the FY 2007 Joint Resolution. We will explore those in more
detail during today's hearing, but it is clear that NASA's problems run
much deeper.
Let me just list a few of them:
First, the FY 2008 budget request continues a pattern of
Administration requests that fail to ask for the level of funding that
the White House had said NASA would need to carry out the exploration
initiative and its other core activities.
Specifically, in the three years since the President announced his
exploration initiative, the White House has cut NASA's five-year budget
plan by a total of $2.26 billion. And based on this year's budget
submittal, that shortfall will worsen by another $420 million in FY
2009.
The impact of that $2.7 billion shortfall is compounded by the
Administration's under-budgeting of the Space Shuttle and International
Space Station programs in that same five-year budget plan. That under-
budgeting forced you to take some $3.7 billion out of the rest of the
Agency's programs to cover that shortfall.
Which brings me to the FY08 budget request and its five-year budget
plan. That budget plan includes an estimated shortfall of $924 million
in ISS crew and cargo services funding--a shortfall that will have to
be made up one way or another. The budget plan does not include funds
to address Space Shuttle program termination and retirement costs past
FY 2010, although NASA concedes there will be additional costs.
The budget plan doesn't include funds for the required upgrade of
the aging Deep Space Network, although NASA says it will need to start
funding it in FY 2009. The budget plan reduces the amount of Space
Shuttle reserves available to address remaining Shuttle program threats
during the remaining missions.
The budget plan contains almost no funds to initiate the series of
new missions recommended by the National Academies' Earth Science
Decadal Survey. The budget plan defers a significant amount of the
research to be done on the International Space Station and provides no
grounds for optimism that the research will be adequately funded prior
to NASA's planned withdrawal from the ISS program.
The budget plan continues the Administration's underfunding of
NASA's aeronautics program. The budget plan continues to cut back on
NASA's long-term exploration technology program. For example, NASA will
eliminate its lunar robotic program--the precursor program for its
human lunar initiative after just one mission-LRO--has flown.
And even before the Joint Resolution impact is factored in, NASA
personnel were looking at a six-month slip in the Crew Exploration
Vehicle schedule to 2015.
I could go on, but I think it's clear we have budgetary situation
that bears little resemblance to the rosy projections offered by the
Administration when the President announced his ``Vision for Space
Exploration'' three years ago--a vision that is now increasingly
blurred. . ..
Dr. Griffin, in your testimony you mention the negative impacts of
the Joint Resolution passed to deal with the unfinished FY 2007
appropriations left to us by the previous Congress.
I agree with you that those impacts are not good, and I urged that
increased funding be made available for NASA. However I'm afraid you
were left hanging by your own Administration when it said nothing about
NASA in the Statement of Administration Policy that it sent over to the
House.
The Administration's silence unfortunately sent a message that was
not helpful.
I will not kid you that it is going to be easy to get the funding
you are requesting in this year's request, especially if the White
House remains disengaged.
Yet based on the items I've already listed, I'm worried that even
getting the President's requested level is just going to push the
looming budgetary problem down the road until after the next election.
And so today, I'd like to find out at least the following:
Given your assessment of the negative impact of the Joint
Resolution, did you ask the White House to weigh in with the
House of Representatives? If so, why didn't they?
Do you think submitting a budget request with a shortfall of
almost a billion dollars in ISS crew and cargo funding embedded
in it makes sense? Was it your idea or OMB's?
Given the agreement I thought NASA had with OMB on ISS and
Shuttle funding last year, why did this year's budget request
come over with shortfalls and reduced reserves in the Shuttle
and ISS accounts--did you shift the money, or did OMB change
the agreement?
Well we have a lot to talk about today. Once again, I want to
welcome you to this hearing, Dr. Griffin, and I look forward to your
testimony.
Chairman Gordon. Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I would like to
also welcome our NASA Administrator, Dr. Michael Griffin, to
this very important hearing.
And as I have said many times before, NASA is in the
business of doing difficult and challenging tasks. And our
country looks to NASA to inspire us and to push the boundaries
of exploration. Mike Griffin understands this. We are fortunate
to have such an intelligent man and focused man leading the
Agency, because NASA faces tough challenges ahead.
NASA actually performs best when it has a clear mission. In
my opinion, they have a clear mission, a mission they shouldn't
retreat from. The mission--the vision was established a few
years ago when the economy wasn't as strong as it is now.
Today, the economy is strong, and the time will come when the
stresses and strains of the Iraq War are going to subside. I
would like to see NASA press on. Don't be bullied into a
compromise that might cost us our allies. Those are some of the
things that we hope you will remember.
In the aftermath of the Columbia tragedy, we all recognize
that NASA needed a new, clearly-defined, affordable mission,
and a mission that would take us beyond the low-Earth orbit.
After careful study, the Administration proposed their Vision
for Space Exploration, which I support and which this committee
and the entire Congress endorsed through the NASA Authorization
Act of 2005. That consensus gave NASA the stable direction that
it had lacked.
Since the Vision was first announced, two major financial
obstacles have occurred. First, earlier estimates for the
remaining Shuttle flights understated the costs by roughly $3
billion. Second, the five-year budget run-out presented at the
time the Vision was announced assumed a higher funding profile.
In the years since, the Administration requests for NASA have
come in lower, and unfortunately, Congress failed to fully fund
the fiscal year 2007 request.
Everyone bears some blame for the funding shortfalls, but
the point I want to stress is that NASA continues to hold to
its original schedule for the Vision, but doing it with smaller
budgets, consequently, the stress on the Agency is enormous. In
our own NASA Authorization Bill, written after the vision was
announced, for 2008 we authorized $1.4 billion more than the
Administration has requested.
Mr. Griffin, I never have been, and I will never be,
critical of your performance. You are doing a superb job, and I
don't know of anyone better qualified to lead the Agency, but I
certainly encourage you to talk to your friends at OMB, to Rob
Portman, who is a class guy and a former Member of this
Congress, and to the White House and tell them that NASA's
friends on Capitol Hill are growing concerned that the Agency's
squeezing too hard and will suffer for it unless realistic
budgets are presented.
Congress supports the Vision. Congress certainly supports
NASA's science and aeronautics program, but if forced to choose
between science, aeronautics, or human space flight, I am not
sure, at the end of the day, what the final choice would be. As
one who believes in the necessity of having a robust, human
space flight program, I want to work with you to ensure we have
the CEV flying by 2014. The brave men and women we ask to
explore space deserve the best equipment and the safest
spacecraft we can build.
I thank you, sir, for coming before us, and I look forward
to hearing your testimony to help us to understand how NASA
plans to manage these challenges.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome our NASA Administrator, Dr.
Michael Griffin, to this important hearing. As I've said many times
before, NASA is in the business of doing difficult and challenging
tasks, and our country looks to NASA to inspire us and push the
boundaries of exploration--Mike Griffin understands this. We are
fortunate to have such an intelligent and focused man leading the
Agency because NASA faces tough challenges ahead.
NASA performs best when it has a clear mission. In my opinion they
have a clear mission. A mission they shouldn't retreat from. The Vision
was established a few years ago when the economy wasn't as strong as it
is now. Today the economy is strong and the time will come when the
stresses and strains of the Iraq war will subside. I'd like to see NASA
press on. Don't be bullied into a compromise that might cost us our
allies. Those are some of the things I hope you'll remember.
In the aftermath of the Columbia tragedy we all recognized that
NASA needed a new, clearly defined, affordable mission that would take
us beyond low Earth orbit. After careful study, the Administration
proposed the Vision for Space Exploration--which I support--and which
this committee and the entire Congress endorsed through the NASA
Authorization Act of 2005. That consensus gave NASA the stable
direction it had lacked.
Since the Vision was first announced, two major financial obstacles
have occurred. First, earlier estimates for the remaining Shuttle
flights understated the cost by roughly $3 billion. Second, the five-
year budget runout presented at the time the Vision was announced
assumed a higher funding profile. In the years since, the
Administration requests for NASA have come in lower, and unfortunately
Congress failed to fully fund the FY 2007 request. Everyone bears some
blame for the funding shortfalls, but the point I want to stress is
that NASA continues to hold to its original schedule for the Vision,
but doing it with smaller budgets. Consequently, the stress on the
agency is enormous.
In our own NASA authorization bill, written after the Vision was
announced, for FY 2008 we authorized $1.4 billion more than the
Administration has requested.
Mr. Griffin, I would never be critical of your performance. You are
doing a superb job, and I don't know anyone better qualified to lead
the Agency. But I'd certainly encourage you to talk to your friends at
OMB--to Rob Portman who is a class guy and a former Member of this
Congress--and to the White House, and tell them that NASA's friends on
Capitol Hill are growing concerned that the Agency is squeezing too
hard and will suffer for it unless more realistic budgets are
presented. Congress supports the Vision. Congress also supports NASA's
science and aeronautics programs but if forced to choose between
science, aeronautics or human space flight, I'm not sure at the end of
the day what the final choice would be. As one who believes in the
necessity of having a robust human space flight program, I want to work
with you to ensure we have the CEV flying by 2014. The brave men and
women we ask to explore space deserve the best equipment and the safest
spacecraft we can build.
Thank you for coming to talk to us today, and I look forward to
hearing your testimony to help us understand how NASA plans to manage
these challenges.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall.
You know, during the last couple of years, I think Sherry
Boehlert, Chairman Sherry Boehlert and I, could have exchanged
opening statements many times and not known a difference. I
think you and--I certainly could have--would have welcomed to
have given that same opening statement today. I think we are
very much in tune.
And now the Chair recognizes Mr. Udall.
Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Gordon.
Given your comments, it is tempting to just submit my
statement for the record, as well, but I think I will go ahead
and present it to Dr. Griffin, because I, too, agree with Judge
Ralph Hall and our Chairman, Mr. Gordon.
Dr. Griffin, always great to see you. Thank you for coming
up here today. As you know, this is the first formal review of
the 2008 budget request, and we are, of course, looking forward
to your testimony.
You have got a tough job, and we need to understand the
basis of the decisions you are making as well as the--any
concerns you have about the budget. As I mentioned, I agree
with Chairman Gordon's assessment of the situation we are
facing.
It is going to be a tough year to get the resources that we
need for space and aeronautics, but all of us are going to make
the best effort that we possibly can. And we are going to do so
because NASA's space and aeronautics programs are a very
important component of our overall R&D enterprise throughout
this nation. And I think there is agreement across the board
that we need to be investing more, not less, in these areas.
On Tuesday, we held a hearing on science and technology
leadership in the 21st century global economy, and we heard a
distinguished panel of witnesses stress the importance of
investing in basic research if we are going to remain
competitive in this nation. And NASA's space and Earth science
basic research activities, along with microgravity research,
are prime examples of research investments that cannot only
advance our knowledge but benefit society. And it should be
known, I think we all agree here, that the investments also
play a critical role in educating the next generation of
scientists and engineers.
Aeronautics R&D, we have discussed that at some great
length, is another area where investments we make benefit our
economy, our quality of life, and our national security. And
when we fail to invest adequately in a range of basic and
applied aeronautics R&D, as I fear we are doing in this budget,
we foreclose future options and fail to meet future needs in
ways that we are likely to regret.
Human space flight and exploration is another area that
offers benefits ranging from the very important intangible
inspiration it provides to the public, to the advanced
technologies, and research results that can come from those
initiatives.
So in sum, I strongly support a robust budget for NASA, but
as I mentioned earlier, I just don't think we are getting the
budget requests that are matched to the tasks we want NASA to
undertake. And those stresses resulting from the past
shortfalls are now reinforced by the funding plateau imposed in
fiscal year 2007 by the Joint Resolution.
Dr. Griffin, I know it is your job to put the best face on
the budget that you have to defend, but as Judge Hall and
Chairman Gordon mentioned, we need to know where the stresses
are as well as the deferred opportunities that result from this
budget request. And as an example of that, last month, we heard
from the National Academies about their recommendations for
future science research and applications missions, something
that we all care deeply about. However, as I look at the out-
year budget request, I see very little that would give me
confidence that NASA will be able to undertake any substantial
fraction of the recommended missions for the foreseeable
future.
Another example is the International Space Station. You
testified that NASA expects to cease funding the ISS after
2016, yet the plan, the budget plan, continues the deferral of
any significant investments in the ISS research through the
five-year budget horizon associated with the fiscal year 2008
budget request. And the research plan still contains no clear
research objectives and associated milestones to complete the
needed research during the Space Station's operation life. And
that troubles me. And it raises questions about the
Administration's stewardship of this unique lifetime, limited
orbital research and engineering facility in which the country
has invested so much to build.
Again, I don't fault you for attempting to prioritize
within a hopelessly inadequate budget, but we, here in the
Committee and in Congress, have to step back and consider
whether the Administration's approach to the Nation's civil
space and aeronautics R&D enterprise is credible and supported
by the needed resources, and your testimony today will help us
gather the information needed for the tough decisions that lie
ahead.
Again, let me join Chairman Gordon and Judge Hall and thank
you for your service. And I look forward to your testimony,
and, as important, to continue to work with you.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Mark Udall
Good morning. I'd like to join my colleagues in welcoming you to
today's hearing, Dr. Griffin. This will be the Committee's first formal
review of NASA's FY 2008 budget request, and we look forward to your
testimony.
You have a tough job, and we need to understand the basis of the
decisions you are making, as well as any concerns you have about the
budget.
I agree with Chairman Gordon's assessment of the situation we are
facing. It is going to be a tough year for space and aeronautics
supporters to get the budgetary resources NASA needs, but we are going
to try.
We are going to try because NASA's space and aeronautics programs
are a very important component of the Nation's R&D enterprise, and we
need to be investing more in those areas--not less.
On Tuesday, this committee held a hearing on Science and Technology
Leadership in a 21st Century Global Economy. We heard a distinguished
panel of witnesses stress the importance of investing in basic research
if this nation is to remain competitive.
NASA's space and Earth science basic research activities, along
with microgravity research, are prime examples of research investments
that cannot only advance our knowledge but also benefit our society.
And it should be noted that those investments play a critical role in
educating the next generation of scientists and engineers.
Aeronautics R&D is another area where the investments we make
benefit our economy, our quality of life, and our national security.
And when we fail to invest adequately in a range of basic and applied
aeronautics R&D--as I fear we are in this budget--we foreclose future
options and fail to meet future needs in ways that we are likely to
regret.
Human space flight and exploration is another area that offers
benefits--ranging from the intangible inspiration it provides to our
public to the advanced technologies and research results that can come
from those initiatives.
So, I strongly support a robust budget for NASA. Unfortunately, I
don't think we have been getting budget requests that are matched to
the tasks we want NASA to undertake. And the stresses resulting from
those past shortfalls are now reinforced by the funding plateau imposed
in FY07 by the Joint Resolution.
Dr. Griffin, I know that it is your job to put the best face on the
budget that you have to defend. But this committee needs to know where
the stresses are, as well as the deferred opportunities that result
from this budget request.
For example, last month we heard from the National Academies about
their recommendations for future Earth Science research and
applications missions--something I care deeply about. However, as I
look at your out-year budget request, I see little that would give me
confidence that NASA will be able to undertake any substantial fraction
of the recommended missions for the foreseeable future.
Another example is the International Space Station. You have
testified that NASA expects to cease funding the ISS after 2016. Yet
your budget plan continues the deferral of any significant investments
in ISS research through the five-year budget horizon associated with
the FY08 budget request. And your ISS research plan still contains no
clear research objectives and associated milestones to complete the
needed research during the ISS's operational life.
That troubles me and raises questions about the Administration's
stewardship of this unique lifetime-limited orbital research and
engineering facility in which the country has invested so much to
build. Again, I don't fault you for attempting to prioritize within a
hopelessly inadequate budget. But we in Congress have to step back and
consider whether the Administration's approach to the Nation's civil
space and aeronautics R&D enterprise is credible and supported by the
needed resources.
Your testimony today will help us gather the information needed for
the tough decisions that lie ahead. Again, I want to thank you for your
service and I look forward to your testimony.
Chairman Gordon. I think Mr. Calvert holds the record here,
current record, for the--going to the most NASA centers. And so
he brings us a lot of good knowledge to the Committee, and he
is now recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Calvert. Well, as my former Ranking Member, and now my
Chairman, probably knows, there are a lot of golf courses near
each one of those centers, so I do try to see every one of
them.
Mr. Chairman, I want to certainly welcome the NASA
Administrator, Mike Griffin, to this important hearing today.
The American people are lucky to have such a well-qualified
Administrator during this exciting and challenging time in
NASA's history. And it is a challenging time for the agency.
NASA is in a budgetary vice that is making it extremely
difficult for the agency to successfully meet the many demands
for its diverse portfolio of missions. The demands of the
Agency are legitimate and critical to maintaining the global
leadership our nation has held since Neil Armstrong first
walked on the Moon back in 1969 in the areas of human space
exploration, science, and aeronautics.
In 2004, the President unveiled a bold Vision for Space
Exploration to be implemented by NASA, which I strongly
support. The Vision gives this nation's human space program the
direction it has lacked, arguably, for several decades, and
lays out an approach for long-term space exploration with
measured milestones.
During my Subcommittee chairmanship in the 109th Congress,
I developed a clear understanding of the many trials of
budgetary, organizational, political, and technological
challenges facing NASA as it implements the Vision and works to
balance the needs of its many stakeholders.
In 2005, Congress passed the first NASA Authorization Act
in five years. That process underscored the lack of funding,
which is the key factor blocking the Agency from realizing its
highest potential in all its core mission areas. As made clear
in the 2005 Act, the Committee sought to provide NASA with the
rules and tools to thrive as a multi-missioned agency with
robust, cutting-edge activities in human exploration of space
and space science, Earth science, and aeronautics. For fiscal
year 2008, the Act authorizes $18.7 billion for NASA to achieve
these programs.
Unfortunately, as we have heard, the fiscal year 2008
budget request seeks just $17.3 billion for NASA, substantially
less than the authorized but still a three percent increase is
well above many other agencies within the discretionary budget.
Nonetheless, this parity, paired with the Agency's fiscal year
2007 appropriations reduction of $545 million, jeopardizes
NASA's ability to substantially accomplish its portfolio of
missions, and it comes at a time when other countries, such as
China, are eagerly ramping up their own space and aeronautics
program. The recent ASAT strike should remind us all that the
second space age will be crowded and competitive.
Now we can all argue who is at fault for NASA's quandary,
but really, the blame belongs to all involved parties: NASA,
the past and current Administrations, the Congress, and the
best way to resolve this situation is to move beyond the blame-
game and toward a coordinated effort to secure a top-line
budget for the agency that is closer to the authorized amount
and consistent with the breadth of programs, projects, and
missions. This committee must be instrumental in that effort,
so I call on my Science Committee colleagues to work in a
bipartisan fashion and aggressively educate our peers, who are
not familiar with NASA's activities and the importance of the
robustly-funded civil space agency.
For an agency that has made immense contributions to the
quality of life, our economy, and international relations, the
little more than one-half of one percent of the total federal
budget investment we are providing is just not sufficient.
NASA's stakeholders must stop fighting each other for a larger
piece of the NASA pie and work on securing a bigger overall
NASA pie.
Administrator Griffin, I don't envy your predicament to
manage our civil space agency under such daunting budgetary
circumstances. As you know, there is justified frustration with
many of my colleagues, but I am certain that no one can be more
frustrated than you. I have every confidence in your ability to
lead NASA at this time and to make the hard decisions as
required by the budget that is ultimately provided.
I do believe, like so many others, that you are, clearly,
the right person for the job. I look forward to your important
testimony, which will lay out next year's budget, as well as
give us insight into the out-years. We will continue to work
with you to provide NASA the Congressional resources and
support needed to advance our nation's civilian space and
aeronautics agency works. We have the building blocks for a
fantastic space and aeronautics program, and this country
should be second to none in those endeavors.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Ken Calvert
Mr. Chairman, I want to welcome NASA Administrator, Dr. Michael
Griffin, to this important hearing today. The American people are lucky
to have such a well-qualified Administrator during this exciting and
challenging time in NASA's history.
And it is a challenging time for the Agency.
NASA is in a budgetary vise that is making it extremely difficult
for the Agency to successfully meet the many demands of its diverse
portfolio of missions. The demands on the Agency are legitimate and
critical to maintaining the global leadership our nation has held since
Neil Armstrong first walked on the Moon in 1969, in the areas of human
space exploration, science and aeronautics.
In 2004, the President unveiled a bold Vision for Space Exploration
to be implemented by NASA, which I strongly support. The Vision gives
our nation's human space program the direction it has lacked, arguably
for several decades, and lays out an approach for long-term space
exploration with measured milestones.
During my Subcommittee Chairmanship in the 109th Congress, I
developed a clear understanding of the many trials--budgetary,
organizational, political, and technological--facing NASA as it
implements the Vision and works to balance the needs of its many
stakeholders.
In 2005, Congress passed the first NASA Authorization Act in five
years. That process underscored the lack of funding which is the key
factor blocking the Agency from realizing its highest potential in all
of its core mission areas.
As made clear in the 2005 Act, this Committee sought to provide
NASA the ``Rules and Tools'' to thrive as a multi-mission agency with
robust, cutting edge activities in human exploration of space, space
science, Earth science and aeronautics. For FY 2008, the Act authorizes
$18.7 billion for NASA to achieve these programs.
Unfortunately, the FY 2008 budget request seeks just $17.3 billion
for NASA, substantially less than authorized but still with a three
percent increase that is well above many other agencies within the
discretionary budget. Nevertheless, this disparity, paired with the
Agency's FY 2007 appropriations reduction of $545 million, jeopardizes
NASA's ability to successfully accomplish its portfolio of missions.
And it comes at a time when other countries, such as China, are eagerly
ramping up their own space and aeronautics programs. Their recent ASAT
strike should remind us all that the Second Space Age will be a crowded
and competitive.
Now we can all argue who's at fault for NASA's quandary but really
the blame belongs to all involved parties--NASA, past and current
Administrations and the Congress. The best way to resolve the situation
is to move beyond the blame game and toward a coordinated effort to
secure a top-line budget for the Agency that is closer to the
authorized amount and consistent with the breadth of programs, projects
and missions. This committee must be instrumental in that effort and so
I call on my Science Committee colleagues to work in a bipartisan
fashion and aggressively educate our peers who are not as familiar with
NASA's activities on the importance of a robustly funded civil space
agency.
For an Agency that has made immense contributions to our quality of
life, economy and international relations, the little more than one-
half of one percent of the total federal budget investment we are
providing is just not sufficient. NASA stakeholders must stop fighting
each other for a larger piece of the NASA pie and work on a securing a
bigger overall NASA pie.
Administrator Griffin, I do not envy your predicament to manage our
civil space agency under such daunting budgetary circumstances. As you
know there is justified frustration among many of my colleagues but I
am certain that no one can be more frustrated than you. I do have every
confidence in your ability to lead NASA at this time and to make the
hard decisions as required by the budgets ultimately provided. I do
believe, like so many others that you are clearly the right person for
the job.
I look forward to your important testimony which will lay out next
year's budget, as well as give us insight into the out-years. We will
continue to work with you to provide NASA the Congressional resources
and support needed to advance our nation's civilian space and
aeronautics agency's work. We have the building blocks for a fantastic
space and aeronautics program--and this country should be second to
none in these endeavors.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Calvert.
And once again, I think you can see, there is enmity in our
thoughts here, and I want to echo Mr. Calvert when he says that
we have to work with the other Members outside this committee.
We are going to have a challenge on the House Floor when it
comes, and it will be whether it is a motion to strike, whether
it is a motion to change, we are going to have a challenge at
that time, and we need to work together. We have already
started, in a bipartisan way, talking with the appropriators so
that we can try to move forward. And we want to--we will have
a--we will join this committee with them earlier. I really
would--even been thinking about having some joint hearings with
the appropriators, because this is going to be a tough one, and
we are going to have to work together. And again, I don't want
to get into the blame-game, but I do want to say, we need the
President to help us. And I mean, that is part of it. We can't
do it--well, I won't say that. It would be very difficult to do
it without the Administration and OMB's help. And so, we need
to all get on this together, because it is going to be a
challenge.
If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
statements, your statements will be added to the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
Good morning. I want to thank Administrator Griffin for appearing
before this committee to examine the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's (NASA) Fiscal Year 2008 (FY08) budget request as well
as NASA's proposed FY07 Operating Plan.
The President's budget proposal for FY08 provides $17.3 billion for
NASA, which represents an increase of 3.1 percent over the FY07
Continuing Resolution. I signed the Committee's Views and Estimates to
the Budget Committee expressing our concerns that the FY08 budget
request is approximately $690 million less than the amount authorized
for FY08, based on the FY05 five-year budget plan that accompanied the
President's Vision for Space Exploration. As the appropriations process
moves forward, I urge the Committee to work together in a bipartisan
fashion to ensure NASA's ability to continue to pioneer the future in
space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics is not
hindered by a low funding allocation.
NASA has played a vital role in the advancement of aerospace
engineering jobs and development in the U.S. A number of NASA's
scientific and human space flight activities involve collaboration with
international participants and almost 90 percent of NASA's budget is
for contract work. While I recognize the vital need to work in
conjunction with foreign countries and maintain the Agency's
flexibility to procure goods and services overseas, it is important
that NASA keeps track of these contracts and subcontracts. To this end,
I authored a provision in the NASA reauthorization legislation Congress
passed and the President signed into law, to require NASA to submit an
annual report to Congress, beginning January 2007, regarding its
contracts and subcontracts performed overseas. Following the bill's
enactment, Congressman Mark Udall and I asked the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to look into the matter and report their
findings to Congress. In October of last year, GAO concluded that NASA
will not be able to issue its reporting requirements. While I find this
conclusion concerning, I am pleased that NASA is taking steps to be in
full compliance with the reporting requirement and has agreed to work
with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to improve its
performance and establish a federal database to track these
subcontracts more fully in 2008.
I look forward to hearing from the Administrator on NASA's
progress.
Finally, I am opposed to the decrease in the President's FY08
budget request for aeronautics research, which includes aviation
safety, airspace systems, and development programs. The Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) has traditionally relied on NASA for a
significant portion of the R&D related to air traffic management. I am
concerned that NASA's funding reduction of its aeronautics research
priorities could affect the FAA's attempts to transition to our Next
Generation air traffic control system. As Chairman of the Aviation
Subcommittee and a senior Member of this committee, I intend to monitor
the funding levels for aeronautical research and development closely to
ensure technology continues to progress to accommodate projected growth
in air passenger and cargo rates over the next decade and beyond.
I welcome Administrator Griffin and look forward to his testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As a Texan, I have a great admiration for NASA. NASA research and
contracts provide important economic development for our State.
NASA inspires generation after generation of young people to pursue
careers in space, aeronautics, engineering, physics and mathematics.
Not only that, but NASA research has yielded important results that
have affected Americans' everyday lives.
The computer mouse is a product of NASA research. Cochlea implants
came from NASA research. Wine making has benefited from NASA research.
Even Internet dating match technologies came from NASA research.
As you can see, NASA funding affects us all. We on the Science and
Technology Committee want to protect and support NASA. We just need
clear information on how to do that.
It is my hope that the NASA budget receives the support it needs to
sustain strong programs that will continue to benefit Texas, and our
nation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carnahan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Russ Carnahan
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today's hearing on the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Fiscal Year 2008 Budget
Request.
As the primary civil space an aeronautics research and development
agency, NASA plays a leading role in sustaining American technological
competitiveness and economic security.
I am concerned that the President's 2008 budget request neither
adequately supports NASA, nor gives NASA the support the Administration
promised in 2004 when the President announced his ``Vision for U.S.
Space Exploration.''
While the President's budget request does propose a modest increase
of 3.1 percent over the FY07 President's request, the President's
proposal still leaves NASA nearly $690 million behind the amount
promised for FY 2008 in the budget plan that accompanied the
President's Vision for Space Exploration. This also comes after years
of deep cuts and budget freezes for NASA.
Despite the importance of the aeronautics industry to our nation,
the budget request for aeronautics research in FY 2008 is approximately
$336 million less than the $890.4 million appropriated in the FY 2007
Joint Resolution. This budget request represents a long decline in
Aeronautics Research, and NASA funding in general.
I know that today's hearing will be informative. I look forward to
hearing your testimony, Dr. Griffin. Thank you very much for being here
today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Harry E. Mitchell
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Over that past few weeks the Committee has reviewed many aspects of
the President's budget proposal. We have seen over and over again how
this proposal under funds long-term research and undercuts American
competitiveness.
I am pleased to see that the President's proposed budget includes
an increase for NASA above the Fiscal Year 2007 levels. Increased
funding for NASA is good for Arizona.
NASA business and educational contracts and grants for my district
in Fiscal Year 2007 totaled nearly $6.5 million. ASU, also in the 5th
district, receives funding from NASA to conduct important research for
the space agency.
At the same time, once again, while Fiscal Year 2008 proposed
funding is increased for space operations and exploration, educational
programs and long-term research and development are under funded.
The Decadal Survey report which we reviewed in February found that
the Earth observation systems are at ``the risk of collapse'' and are
in ``disarray.'' These critical satellites enhance our understanding of
the planet, and global warming. At ASU, researchers use data generated
from Earth observation satellites to investigate rapid urbanization.
However, development of Earth observation satellites is not a budget
priority.
Maintaining American competitiveness also means increasing the
number of innovators. We must encourage and inspire a new generation of
scientists and engineers. Under funding education programs does not
accomplish this.
If we don't invest now and invest well, we will fall even further
behind. I am concerned that the President's budget priorities are
misguided and I look forward to today's testimony.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Gordon. And at this time, now, I would like to
introduce our witness today, our only witness, and that is the
Director and Administrator, Dr. Michael Griffin. He is no
stranger to this committee. And as we have said on a number of
occasions, he is straightforward and candid.
And, Dr. Griffin, let me remind you that we all recognize
you are the messenger, and it is not our effort to shoot the
messenger. And so please keep that, as I know that you will, in
mind. We just wish you had a better message.
So I will yield, and you may proceed.
I can understand for you not wanting for us to hear this,
but you do need to turn your microphone on.
STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL D. GRIFFIN, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL
AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Dr. Griffin. I am sorry.
Chairman Gordon, Mr. Hall, thank you for having me here
today. I was about to say, I am a big boy, and I think I can
take the beating with a smile.
I had a written opening set of remarks that I would, at
this point, like to enter into the record rather than to read
to give you back the most amount of time. I would like to make
a couple of very brief remarks.
The substance of my written remarks was to the point of
asking for your strong support to get the full President's
request. I see that is not quite the topic on the table today,
so let me enter this for the record and make just a couple of
brief remarks.
First of all, there are--I think it needs to be said that
there are two ways to approach a problem of budgeting. We must
first have a strategy. And I want to remind you that when the--
and that when the Columbia Accident Investigation Board
released their findings, they made a couple of very significant
statements at the strategic level that went beyond the root
causes of the problem. One of the things they said was that the
U.S. civilian space effort has moved forward for more than 30
years without a guiding vision. And they also expressed dismay
at how previous attempts to develop a replacement vehicle for
the aging Shuttle represent a failure of national leadership.
Now, I agreed with those statements. I agreed with those
statements in testimony to this committee as a private citizen.
And they were damning statements, citing, as they did, a lack
of leadership in space policy in this country that had gone on
for a couple of generations.
I think we now have the strategic vision that will tie this
agency and our space and aeronautics program together. I think
we have the right strategic vision. And I certainly appreciate,
with you, that if that is the right strategic vision, which I
hear--to which I hear no one objecting, if that is the right
strategic vision, it is certainly true that one can adopt a
budgeting approach to say what does it take to purchase all of
the things in that vision.
The other budgeting approach that one can take, which this
Administration has taken, is to say that we will allocate a
generous budget, generous in comparison to other domestic
discretionary agencies, and we charge you, the Administrator,
with preparing the best program that you can that will fit
within that budget. And that, sir, is what I have--is what we
have done at NASA. We have--the Administration requires of me
that I carry out the best space and aeronautics program that
can be done for the budget dollars to be made available. I have
tried--I have submitted to you a balanced budget that respects
all of our portfolios, but, nonetheless, adheres to that
guiding vision, which came out of the tragedy of Columbia. It
is $17.3 billion. It is 3.1 percent above last year's request.
And it is well above the average domestic, non-defense
discretionary program.
It does reflect a strong commitment by the Administration
to NASA. It does not purchase all of the things that all of us
would like to purchase. But that is a fact of life, in public
life as well as the private, and I am here to defend that
budget as best I can do.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Griffin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael D. Griffin
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear today to discuss the President's FY 2008 budget
request for NASA. The President's FY 2008 budget request for NASA is
$17.3 billion. This represents a 3.1 percent increase over the FY 2007
request for the Agency, but not the enacted FY 2007 appropriation. The
FY 2008 budget request for NASA demonstrates the President's continued
commitment to our nation's leadership in space and aeronautics
research, especially during a time when there are other competing
demands for our nation's resources. The FY 2008 budget request reflects
a stable plan to continue investments begun in prior years, with some
slight course corrections. Overall, I believe that we are heading in
the right direction. We have made great strides this past year, and
NASA is on track and making progress in carrying out the tasks before
us.
Before I outline the FY 2008 budget request for NASA any further,
in the invitation to testify today you asked that I address current
NASA plans for the use of FY 2007 funding. On February 15, 2007, the
President signed into law a joint resolution stipulating FY 2007
funding levels for NASA and other federal agencies. This appropriation
represents a funding level that is $545 million below the President's
FY 2007 request. The FY 2008 budget request could not possibly factor
the impact of this reduced level from the FY 2007 request for NASA's
carefully-considered multi-year programs, and thus, several programs in
the FY 2008 budget request will be impacted. The FY 2007 appropriation
further specifies funding levels in human space flight of that are $677
million below the request--$577 million of that from Exploration
Systems. This reduction from the requested level may significantly
impact our ability to safely and effectively transition from the
Shuttle to the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle and Ares I Crew Launch
Vehicle. It will have serious effects on many people, projects, and
programs this year, and for the longer term. As I noted during last
year's Congressional hearings on NASA's FY 2007 budget request, we have
a carefully balanced set of priorities to execute on behalf of our
nation. So as a result of these funding levels that are less than the
FY 2007 request, NASA is carefully assessing the implications to
overall Exploration priorities and milestones, and will present
detailed impacts after a full analysis is complete. The initial NASA
Operating Plan for FY 2007, which we are endeavoring to finalize as
soon as practicable, will reflect the impacts of less funding than
planned and the requisite decisions. As always, we are here to carry
out our nation's civil space and aeronautics programs with the
resources made available by the Congress. All of our programs proceed
in a ``go-as-we-can-afford-to-pay'' manner; so if we receive less
funding than requested, we will adjust our pace. Our stakeholders have
my commitment to continue to keep them informed as to what I believe is
the best approach to carrying out NASA's space and aeronautics research
missions with the resources provided. In this determination, I will be
guided by the NASA Authorization Acts, annual Appropriations Acts,
Presidential policy, and the decadal survey priorities of the National
Academy of Sciences. If we determine that there is an Agency objective
that we will be unable to meet, I will inform our Agency's
stakeholders, including this committee.
Highlights of the NASA FY 2008 Budget Request
The FY 2008 budget request for NASA is a carefully considered and
balanced request formulated over many months with the White House.
Unfortunately, the Congress had not completed action on the FY 2007
budget at the time the FY 2008 budget was being finalized, so the
impact of the final FY 2007 appropriation outcome is not accounted for
in NASA's FY 2008 budget request. The FY 2008 budget request weaves
together the Nation's priorities in space exploration, scientific
discovery, and aeronautics research that will help fuel this nation's
future, creating new opportunities for scientific benefit, economic
growth, national security, and international cooperation.
The greatest challenge NASA faces is safely flying the Space
Shuttle to assemble the International Space Station (ISS) prior to
retiring the Shuttle in 2010, while also bringing new U.S. human space
flight capabilities on-line soon thereafter. We must understand that,
given proper goals, human space flight is a strategic capability for
this nation, and we must not allow it to slip away. In January, we
remembered those whom we have lost in the exploration of space. In the
aftermath of the Columbia tragedy, President Bush addressed the NASA
workforce, saying, ``In your grief, you are responding as your friends
would have wished--with focus, professionalism, and unbroken faith in
the mission of this agency.'' We must commit ourselves to the focus of
professionalism and unbroken faith every day in order to carry out the
tasks before us.
In analyzing not only the root causes, but also the systemic
reasons behind the Columbia accident, the Columbia Accident
Investigation Board (CAIB) made critical observations that guided the
formulation of our present civil space policy. I fear that with the
passage of time and the press of other concerns, we may be losing sight
of some of these principles, so let me reiterate some of them here
today. First, the CAIB noted that, ``The U.S. civilian space effort has
moved forward for more than 30 years without a guiding vision.''
Second, ``because the Shuttle is now an aging system but still
developmental in character, it is in the Nation's interest to replace
the Shuttle as soon as possible as the primary means for transporting
humans to and from Earth orbit.'' Third, ``the previous attempts to
develop a replacement vehicle for the aging Shuttle represent a failure
of national leadership.'' And finally, the Board noted that ``this
approach can only be successful: if it is sustained over the decade; if
by the time a decision to develop a new vehicle is made there is a
clearer idea of how the new transportation system fits into the
Nation's overall plans for space; and if the U.S. Government is willing
at the time a development decision is made to commit the substantial
resources required to implement it.''
Since then, the President, the Congress and NASA have charted a new
course in U.S. civil space policy that addresses all of these points,
and the President's FY 2008 budget reaffirms that commitment with the
necessary funds for the Space Shuttle and the ISS. NASA will continue
forward at the best possible pace with the development of the Orion and
Ares I crew vehicles. However, due to the cumulative effect of
previously underestimated costs to retire/transition the Space Shuttle
and support the International Space Station, the reduction from the FY
2007 request reflected in the FY 2007 Continuing Resolution, and the
maturing design and integrated flight tests baselined for the
Constellation program, it is unlikely that NASA will be able to bring
these new Exploration capabilities online by 2014. Full funding of
NASA's FY 2008 Exploration Systems request is critical to ensuring the
gap between retirement of the Space Shuttle and the new U.S. human
space flight capability does not grow longer. If the gap in our human
space flight capability extends even further than already planned, I
believe our nation will be ceding leadership in human space flight at a
time when China and Russia have their own indigenous capabilities and
India is developing its own capabilities. If we do not quickly come to
grips with this issue, America may have a prolonged gap between the end
of the Shuttle program and the beginning of Orion and Ares I
operational capability, a gap similar to the one that occurred from
1975 to 1981 when our nation transitioned from Apollo to the Space
Shuttle.
NASA has a lot of hard work ahead of it and many major milestones
this year and next. The transition from the Space Shuttle to the Orion
and Ares launch vehicles over the next several years must be carefully
managed, and we must be focused, professional and committed to our
mission. This is NASA's greatest challenge, and I ask the Committee's
help in meeting it.
In the important area of Earth Science, we recently received the
first-ever Decadal Survey for Earth Science from the National Academy
of Sciences, which NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), and the United States Geological Survey (USGS)
requested in 2003. As the first of its kind, the Survey has drawn
considerable attention, and we will observe the programmatic priorities
for Earth Science which it advocates. In addressing the Survey's Earth
Science priorities, and consistent with ensuring that NASA maintains a
balanced portfolio of science as directed by the NASA Authorization Act
of 2005 (P.L. 109-155), we have added funding to the Global
Precipitation Measurement (GPM) mission, the follow-on to the highly
successful Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM), to improve our
ability to keep this mission on schedule. Our plan is to launch the
first Core satellite for the GPM mission not later than 2013, followed
by the second Constellation spacecraft the following year. The FY 2008
budget request also augments funding for the Landsat Data Continuity
Mission (LDCM) and Glory missions in order to help keep those projects
on schedule. Within Planetary Sciences, funding has been identified for
Lunar Science research project beginning in FY 2008 to leverage the
many opportunities for payloads on NASA and other nations' lunar
spacecraft, such as India's Chandrayaan-1, as well as to analyze the
science data from these missions, including NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance
Orbiter. In 2008, we will launch a host of Heliophysics missions, many
with international and interagency partners, to analyze the effects of
solar flares, coronal mass ejections, and galactic cosmic rays. In
Astrophysics, the final Hubble servicing mission is currently planned
for a Space Shuttle flight in September 2008. And, as I advised the
Congress and the science community last summer, NASA has reinstated the
Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) mission.
Though we know of no technical showstoppers in regard to the
airworthiness of the aircraft or operation of the telescope, this
program has some remaining hurdles to overcome and so remains subject
to a management review later this spring. NASA will launch or
participate in seven science missions in FY 2007, followed by 10
missions in FY 2008, resulting in many new Earth and space science
discoveries in the years ahead.
The FY 2008 budget request increases the budget profile for
Aeronautics Research over the President's FY 2007 request, aligns our
aeronautics activities with the President's recently issued Aeronautics
Research and Development Policy, and advances U.S. technical leadership
in aeronautics. NASA has made significant progress in reformulating its
approach to aeronautics research by collaborating with the broad
research community including industry, academia, and other government
agencies including the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the
Department of Defense (DOD). Through these changes, NASA will help
ensure that America continues to lead the way in aeronautics research.
NASA continues to monitor and manage our ``uncovered capacity''
(employees not directly assigned to specific projects and programs). A
little over 18 months ago, nearly 3,000 of NASA's 19,000 employees were
designated as ``uncovered capacity.'' Today, largely with the work
defined in the Constellation program, we have greatly reduced that
problem to manageable levels. As of February 2007, we have fewer than
200 uncovered capacity employees in FY 2007 and FY 2008. More
importantly, many of our best engineers are working diligently on the
great challenges before us. Every NASA Center is now vested in our
space exploration mission. While we are proud of the progress that has
been made, significant human capital challenges remain. These include
matching available skills with the important work to be done, managing
attrition, retraining and hiring, and improving our workforce planning
for future years in FY 2009 and beyond. To address these challenges and
any potential impacts resulting from the FY 2007 funding reductions, we
have established a new intra-agency Workforce Planning Technical Team.
In addition, beginning in FY 2007, the Agency revised overhead
allocations to simplify how we manage under full cost accounting. These
changes will ensure a uniform cost rate for all NASA civil servants
across the Agency's Government field centers. All changes are revenue-
neutral to programs and projects; none of NASA's missions gain or lose
funding as a result of this accounting change. At first glance, this
accounting change appears to reduce the Aeronautics Research budget
because so much of that work is done at our smaller research Centers.
However, in actuality, NASA's direct spending for Aeronautics Research
has increased in the FY 2008 budget run-out by $205 million through FY
2011 compared to the FY 2007 budget run-out.
Beyond our budget request, NASA is beginning to transition the
workforce, infrastructure, and equipment from the Space Shuttle to new
Exploration systems. Many of our most experienced people will be
considering retirement between now and 2010. We will need the means to
manage this attrition in a targeted manner to achieve better alignment
of the workforce with our mission without creating unwanted losses and
skills imbalances. One tool we may be using is the authority for the
Agency to be able to re-employ selected retirees without an offset to
their annuity--thus giving them an incentive to see a project or
program to completion. To assist employees with transition to the
private sector, and to ease that upheaval, another tool would authorize
NASA to continue their coverage under the Federal Employees Health
Insurance for one year after departure.
We will also need better tools to manage the transition of our
facilities. The Agency is proposing slight changes and expansion to
existing authority to permit leasing of underutilized facilities and
related equipment. The Agency would retain the proceeds of those leases
to be deposited in a NASA capital asset account and invested in
activities to improve and sustain our facilities and infrastructure. We
plan to discuss the details of these legislative requests with Members
of Congress in the weeks and months ahead.
The remainder of my testimony outlines the FY 2008 budget request
for NASA in greater detail.
Science Mission Directorate
This past year was truly remarkable for science discovery about the
Earth, Sun, solar system, and universe. NASA was responsible for 11
percent of Science News magazine's top stories (covering all fields of
science) for 2006, which is an all-time record in the 34 years of
tracking this metric. NASA's findings ranged from new observations of
familiar phenomena like hurricanes, thunderstorms, and rainfall, to the
identification of 16 new extra-solar planets orbiting distant stars
near the center of our galaxy. As NASA continues to add observations
from long-lived assets such as the Spirit and Opportunity Mars
Exploration Rovers, it continues to successfully develop and launch the
next generation of missions and to support a vigorous scientific
community.
In 2006, NASA launched four new science missions, one technology
demonstration mission, and partnered with other federal and
international agencies to launch three other science and technology
missions, as well as the GOES-O satellite, to bring the current total
number of operational science missions to 52. In January 2006, we
launched the New Horizons spacecraft to the planet Pluto. Scheduled to
arrive at Pluto in 2015, the spacecraft is making its closest approach
to Jupiter as we speak. With the April 2006 launch of the CloudSat and
Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observations
(CALIPSO) spacecraft, NASA added to the ``A-train'' of satellites
flying in close proximity around Earth to gain a better understanding
of key factors related to climate change. In October 2006, NASA's twin
Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatories mission (STEREO) spacecraft
were launched to help researchers construct the first-ever three-
dimensional views of the sun. Although the two spacecraft will not
return images until later this year, initial results from STEREO have
provided us with an unprecedented look at solar activity. On February
17, 2007, we launched five Time History of Events and Macroscale
Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS) microsatellites to study the
Earth's magnetosphere, and we are on track to launch the Dawn mission
to main belt of asteroids between Mars and Jupiter and the Phoenix Mars
mission later this year.
NASA's FY 2008 budget requests $5.5 billion for the Agency's
Science portfolio. This represents an increase of $49.3 million (or one
percent) over the FY 2007 request and it will enable NASA to launch or
partner on 10 new missions, operate and provide ground support for more
than 50 spacecraft, and fund scientific research based on the data
returned from these missions. For FY 2008, NASA separated the Earth-Sun
System theme into two themes: Earth Science and Heliophysics, and
programmatic responsibility for studies of Near Earth Objects is
transferred to the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate.
The Earth Science budget requests $1.5 billion--an increase of
$27.7 million over the FY 2007 request--to better understand the
Earth's atmosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, and biosphere
as a single connected system. This request includes additional funding
for the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) mission to improve
schedule assurance in response to the high priority placed on GPM in
the Decadal Survey. As the follow-on to the highly successful Tropical
Rainfall Measuring Mission, NASA's plans to launch GPM's first Core
satellite no later than 2013, followed by the second Constellation
spacecraft the following year. The Earth Science budget also includes
increased funding for the Landsat Data Continuity Mission and Glory in
order to help keep them on their schedules, and provides funds for the
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System
(NPOESS) Preparatory Project (NPP) to reflect instrument availability
and launch delays. Funds are requested for continued development and
implementation of the Ocean Surface Topography Mission to launch in
2008, the Aquarius mission to measure the ocean's surface salinity to
launch in 2009, and the Orbiting Carbon Observatory mission planned for
launch in 2008. NASA will continue to contribute to the President's
Climate Change Research Initiative by collecting data sets and
developing predictive capabilities that will enable advanced
assessments of the causes and consequences of global climate change.
Over the coming months, NASA will evaluate opportunities for
implementing the recommendations of the National Research Council's
Earth Science Decadal Survey and responding to challenges to the
continuity of climate measurements resulting from the Nunn-McCurdy
recertification of the NPOESS program.
The Heliophysics budget request of $1.1 billion will support 14
operational missions to understand the Sun and its effects on Earth,
the solar system, and the space environmental conditions that will be
experienced by astronauts, and to demonstrate technologies that can
improve future operational systems. During FY 2008, the Explorer
Program will launch the Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX) mission,
focused on the detection of the very edge of our solar system, and the
Coupled Ion-Neural Dynamics Investigation (CINDI) Mission of
Opportunity conducted by the University of Texas. The Solar Dynamics
Observatory (SDO) to study the Sun's magnetic field will complete
launch readiness milestones in FY 2008 and is presently scheduled for
launch in August of 2008. The Geospace Radiation Belt Storm Probes
(RBSP) mission, presently in formulation, will undergo a Preliminary
Design Review and a Non-Advocate Review in FY 2008 in preparation for
entering development in early FY 2009. RBSP will improve the
understanding of how solar storms interact with Earth's Van Allen
radiation belts. While the ST-7 and ST-8 missions are on track for
launches in 2009, the New Millennium ST-9 mission, along with follow-on
missions, is delayed.
The Planetary Science budget request of $1.4 billion will advance
scientific knowledge of the solar system, search for evidence of
extraterrestrial life, and prepare for human exploration. NASA will get
an early start on Lunar science when the Discovery Program's Moon
Mineralogy Mapper (M3) launches aboard India's Chandrayaan-1 mission in
March 2008, along with the Mini-RF, a technology demonstration payload,
supported by NASA's Exploration and Space Operations Mission
Directorates and the Department of Defense, which may glean water in
the Moon's polar regions. In addition, the budget requests $351 million
from FY 2008 to FY 2012 for new Lunar Science research, including
Missions of Opportunity, data archiving, and research. The budget
supports the Mars Exploration Program by providing for a mission every
26 months, including the Phoenix spacecraft, scheduled for launch in
2007, and the Mars Science Laboratory, with a launch scheduled for
2009. The Discovery Program's Dawn Mission is scheduled to launch later
this year, and the Mercury Surface, Space Environment, Geochemistry and
Ranging (MESSENGER) spacecraft is already on its way to Mercury. Three
Discovery mission proposals and three Missions of Opportunity were
selected in 2006 for Phase A studies, and the Discovery Program will
invite proposals for additional new missions in 2008. With the New
Horizons spacecraft continuing on its way to Pluto, the New Frontiers
Program's Juno Mission will undergo a Preliminary Design Review and a
Non-Advocate Review in FY 2008 in preparation for entering development.
The New Frontiers Program will release its third Announcement of
Opportunity (AO) in late 2008.
The Astrophysics budget requests $1.6 billion to operate NASA's
astronomical observatories, including the Hubble Space Telescope (HST),
Chandra X-Ray Observatory, and Spitzer Space Telescope, and to build
more powerful instruments to peer deeper into the cosmos. HST is
scheduled for a final servicing mission in September 2008 using the
Space Shuttle Atlantis. Along with service life extension efforts, two
new instruments will be installed during the servicing mission that are
expected to dramatically improve performance and enable further
discoveries, including enabling some science observations that have
been affected by the recent failure of the Advanced Camera for Surveys.
After the servicing mission, HST will once again have six fully
operational instruments (including a suite of cameras and spectrographs
that will have about 10 times the capability of older instruments) as
well as new hardware capable of supporting at least another five years
of world-class space science. The ESA Herschel and Planck missions,
both of which include contributions from NASA, will launch in FY 2008
aboard an ESA-supplied Ariane-5. Kepler instrument and spacecraft
integration and test will be completed in preparation for launch in
November 2008, to determine the frequency of potentially habitable
planets. The Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST) will launch
in FY 2008 to begin a five-year mission mapping the gamma-ray sky and
investigating gamma-ray bursts. The James Webb Space Telescope will
undergo Preliminary Design Review and a Non-Advocate Review in FY 2008,
in preparation for entering development. The SOFIA observatory has been
reinstated. Though we know of no technical showstoppers in regard to
the airworthiness of the aircraft or operation of the telescope, this
program has some remaining hurdles to overcome and so remains subject
to a management review later this spring chaired by the NASA Associate
Administrator. The SOFIA program baseline will be finalized at that
time.
Exploration Systems Mission Directorate
The FY 2008 budget request for the Exploration Systems Mission
Directorate (ESMD) is $3.9 billion to support continued development of
new U.S. human space flight capabilities and supporting technologies,
and to enable sustained and affordable human space exploration after
the Space Shuttle is retired in 2010. With this budget, ESMD will
continue to develop our next-generation crew exploration vehicle, while
also providing research and developing technologies for the longer-term
development of a sustained human presence on the Moon. However, due to
the cumulative effect of previously underestimated costs to retire/
transition the Space Shuttle and support the International Space
Station, the reduction from the FY 2007 request reflected in the FY
2007 Continuing Resolution, and the maturing design and integrated
flight tests baselined for the Constellation program, it is unlikely
that NASA will be able to bring these new Exploration capabilities
online by 2014. ESMD will also continue to work with other nations and
the commercial sector to leverage its investments and identify
opportunities for specific collaboration on lunar data and lunar
surface activities. New human space flight development of this
magnitude, such as the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle, occurs once in a
generation. The next five years are a critical period in our nation's
space flight efforts.
The Constellation program includes the Orion Crew Exploration
Vehicle; Ares I, a highly reliable crew launch vehicle; Commercial
Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) demonstrations of cargo and crew
transport to the International Space Station; Ares V, a heavy-lift
launch vehicle; spacesuits and tools required by the flight crews and;
associated ground and mission operations infrastructure to support
either lunar and/or initial low-Earth orbit (LEO) missions.
For FY 2008, pending a full analysis of the FY 2007 budget impacts,
ESMD is on track to maintain its commitments for Ares I and Orion, and
to continue meeting major milestones. This year Constellation will
continue to mature and develop overall. Formulation of the
Constellation elements will continue, leading to the Preliminary Design
Review in 2008, at which time the program will be baselined. NASA will
conduct an update for the overall Constellation Systems Requirements
Review (SRR) in 2007 after the completion of all the Program Element
SRRs--the Orion Project recently completed its SRR on March 1, 2007.
ESMD released the Ares I Upper Stage Request for Proposals (RFP) on
February 23, 2007. The RFP for the Ares I Avionics Ring is scheduled
for release in May 2007, with selection and contract award scheduled
for November 2007.
Facility, equipment, and personnel transitions from Space Shuttle
to Constellation will be the major emphasis of the FY 2009 budget
process. NASA transition activities are focused on managing the
evolution from current operations of the Space Shuttle to future
operations of Constellation and emerging commercial services, in a
safe, successful and smooth process. This joint effort between the
Space Operations Mission Directorate (SOMD) and ESMD includes the
utilization and disposition of resources, including real and personal
property, personnel, and processes, to leverage existing Shuttle and
International Space Station assets for NASA's future Exploration
activities. Formalized Transition Boards are working to achieve this
outcome. A Human Space Flight Transition Plan was developed in 2006;
updates are in work, and metrics for the plan are being refined and
will be implemented in 2007.
In August 2006, NASA signed Space Act Agreements with Space
Exploration Technologies Corporation, of El Segundo, California, and
Rocketplane-Kistler, of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to develop and
demonstrate COTS that could open new markets and pave the way for
commercial providers to launch and deliver crew and cargo to the ISS.
The Space Act Agreements establish milestones and identify objective
criteria to assess their progress throughout Phase 1 of the
demonstrations. In the FY 2008 budget, funding for the purchase of crew
and cargo transportation services, either from international partners
or preferably from commercial providers, is transferred from ESMD to
SOMD. COTS demonstration funding remains in ESMD to better exploit
potential synergies with the Constellation Program.
With activities in the Advanced Capabilities program, NASA seeks to
understand the space environment as it relates to human performance by
addressing respective recommendations from the Exploration Systems
Architecture Study that was conducted 2005. This included refocusing
biomedical research and human life-support activities through new
milestones and requirements to target the timely delivery of research
products. Accordingly, ESMD created two new programs under Advanced
Capabilities: the Human Research Program (HRP) to study and mitigate
risks to astronaut health and performance and the Exploration
Technology Development Program (ETDP) to enable future Exploration
missions and reduce cost and risk. Plans for 2008 include:
Testing of prototype ablative heat shield materials,
low-impact docking systems, and landing attenuation systems;
Testing of advanced environmental control systems on
the ISS;
Developing a lightweight composite command module
test article for the Orion;
Conducting studies to assess risks of long-term
radiation exposure and continuing the use of the ISS as a
testbed for studying human health and safety in space;
Spacecraft integration and testing in preparation for
the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) launch in October 2008;
Next-generation spacesuit capable of supporting
exploration; and
Developing jointly with the U.S. Air Force the RS-68
engine that will be used on the Ares V.
Finally, the LRO and the Lunar CRater Observatory Sensing Satellite
(LCROSS) to the Moon is planned to be launched in early FY 2008. These
dual-manifested spacecraft have completed Critical Design Review and
are currently in development. The science yielded from these missions
will enable future outpost site selection and new information about the
deep craters at the lunar poles. The LRO/LCROSS missions represent
NASA's first steps in returning to the Moon.
Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate
In 2006, NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD)
conducted a significant restructuring of its aeronautics program,
allowing NASA to pursue high-quality, innovative, and integrated
research that will yield revolutionary tools, concepts, and
technologies to enable a safer, more flexible, environmentally
friendly, and efficient national air transportation system. As such,
ARMD's research will continue to play a vital role in supporting NASA's
human and robotic space activities. The reshaped Aeronautics Program
content and direction is consistent with the National Aeronautics
Research and Development Policy, signed by the President on December
20, 2006.
A primary goal across all of the programs in ARMD is to establish
strong partnerships involving NASA, other government agencies,
academia, and industry in order to enable significant advancement in
our nation's aeronautical expertise. Because these partnerships are so
important, NASA has put many mechanisms in place to engage academia and
industry, including industry working groups and technical interchange
meetings at the program and project level, Space Act agreements for
cooperative partnerships, and the NASA Research Announcement (NRA)
process that provides for full and open competition for the best and
most promising research ideas. During 2006, ARMD's NRA solicitation
resulted in the selection of 138 proposals for negotiation for award
from 72 different organizations representing 29 different states plus
the District of Columbia. NASA's FY 2008 budget request for Aeronautics
includes $51 million for NRA awards.
In FY 2008, the President's budget for NASA requests $554 million
for Aeronautics Research. This budget reflects full cost
simplification, which significantly reduces the Center overhead and
infrastructure allocated to the Aeronautics programs.
NASA's Airspace Systems Program (ASP) has partnered with the Joint
Planning and Development Office (JPDO) to help develop concepts,
capabilities and technologies that will lead to significant
enhancements in the capacity, efficiency and flexibility of the
National Airspace System (NAS). Such improvements are critical to meet
the Nation's airspace and airports requirements for decades to come. In
FY 2008, NASA's budget request would provide $98.1 million for ASP to
conduct further research in operational concepts and human-in-the-loop
simulation modeling that supports advancements in automated separation
assurance capabilities. In addition, ASP will pursue enhanced
development of airport surface movement trajectory models to provide a
basis for optimized use of super density airports, integrated airport
clusters, and terminals where demand for runways is high. Last year,
ASP took an important step toward this goal by completing development
of a system-wide operational concept that provides a detailed
description of future NAS capacity enhancements while assessing the
benefits of such system improvements. Key to the analysis of the
operational concepts was program-developed tools such as the Airspace
Concepts Evaluation System and the Future Air Traffic Management
Concepts Evaluation Tool, both of which have successfully transitioned
from NASA to the Federal Aviation Administration and the JPDO.
NASA's Fundamental Aeronautics Program (FAP) conducts research in
the engineering and scientific disciplines that enable the design of
vehicles that fly through any atmosphere at any speed. The FY 2008
budget request, amounting to $293.4 million, will enable significant
advances in the Hypersonics, Supersonics, Subsonic Fixed Wing, and
Subsonic Rotary Wing projects that make up the FAP. These projects
focus on creating innovative solutions for the technical challenges of
the future: increasing performance (range, speed, payload, fuel
efficiency) while meeting stringent noise and emissions constraints;
alleviating environmental and congestion problems of the Next
Generation Air Transportation System (NGATS) through the use of new
aircraft and rotorcraft concepts; and, facilitating access to space and
re-entry into planetary atmospheres. A wide variety of cross-cutting
research topics are being pursued across the speed regimes with
emphasis on physics-based multi-disciplinary analysis and design,
aerothermodynamics, materials and structures, propulsion, aero-servo-
elasticity, thermal protection systems, advanced control methods, and
computational and experimental techniques. A number of key activities
are planned for FY 2007 and FY 2008 including the launch of a sub-
orbital rocket to conduct flight experiments in hypersonic boundary
layer transition and re-entry shapes, the flight test of scale models
of the X-48B Blended Wing-Body concept to assess this advanced
unconventional airframe configuration for its potential to decrease
aircraft noise while also improving performance, the evaluation of
radical new concepts for variable-speed rotor technologies that can
result in highly improved performance, and the evaluation of actively-
controlled inlets for supersonic transports.
The FY 2008 budget request for NASA's Aviation Safety Program
(AvSP) is $74.1 million. The four projects within the Program
(Integrated Intelligent Flight Deck, Integrated Resilient Aircraft
Control, Aircraft Aging and Durability, and Integrated Vehicle Health
Management) will develop cutting-edge tools, methods, and technologies
with close coordination among them to improve the intrinsic safety
attributes of current and future aircraft that will operate in the
NGATS. In FY 2008, the Program will complete a study of human-
automation technology that will improve safety during approach and
landing operations by allowing for active operator assistance that
maintains appropriate levels of workload and will be conducted to
evaluate neural networks for direct adaptive control that will maximize
adaptation to simulated in-flight failures while minimizing adverse
interactions. At the same time, onboard sensor technology will be
developed and validated to achieve significant improvement in measuring
atmospheric water content that will improve the ability to detect the
onset of potential icing hazards. Challenges related to aircraft aging
and durability will also be addressed by developing models capable of
simulating the initiation and propagation of minute cracks in metallic
materials.
Finally, NASA's Aeronautics Test Program (ATP) will continue to
safeguard the strategic availability of a critical suite of aeronautics
test facilities that are deemed necessary to meet Agency and national
aeronautics needs. The FY 2008 budget request for ATP is $88.4 million,
which will enable strategic utilization, operations, maintenance and
investment decisions for major wind tunnel/ground test facilities at
Ames Research Center, Glenn Research Center and Langley Research Center
and for the Western Aeronautical Test Range support aircraft and test
bed aircraft at Dryden Flight Research Center. In FY 2006, NASA
implemented procedures to ensure affordable and competitive pricing of
its aeronautics facilities for use by other parties, including industry
and university researchers. In FY 2008, ATP plans to continue ensuring
competitive prices for ATP facilities, reducing a backlog of
maintenance issues and investing in advanced technologies such as
installing consistent angle of attack instrumentation at the research
Centers.
Space Operations Mission Directorate
This was an extraordinary year for the Space Shuttle and
International Space Station (ISS) Programs. NASA celebrated
Independence Day 2006 by launching Space Shuttle Discovery on the STS-
121 mission. The second of two test flights (the first was STS-114 in
July/August 2005), STS-121 helped validate the improvements made to the
Space Shuttle system since the loss of Columbia on February 1, 2003.
The mission also marked the return of a complement of three crew
members to the ISS. The Space Shuttle Atlantis (STS-115), which
launched on September 9, marked a return to sustained Space Shuttle
operations and placed NASA on track to completing assembly of the ISS
by 2010. STS-115 delivered the critical P3/P4 truss to the ISS, which
will provide a quarter of the power services needed to operate the
completed research facility. The last flight in December 2006, STS-116,
was devoted primarily to deactivating the electrical power systems on
the U.S. segment of the ISS and making a series of electrical and
coolant connections between the P3/P4 truss segment and the rest of the
Station. To do this, flight controllers at the mission control centers
in Houston and Moscow up-linked over 17,900 commands to the ISS during
the mission--all without a single unplanned or command error. STS-116
crew member Robert Curbeam also set a record for the most space walks
ever conducted by an astronaut on a single Space Shuttle mission, with
four excursions totaling over 25 hours.
Operational activities on-board the ISS have continued into 2007,
with a series of space walks that reconfigured the thermal system on
the Station and prepared us for future assembly tasks. The Station is
now able to provide additional power to the Space Shuttle, allowing two
extra docked days, and we have connected permanent systems in place of
temporary ones. The sequence of three complex space walks within nine
days also demonstrated capabilities we will need later this year to
fully install Node 2 following its delivery on STS-120.
These mission achievements reflect the NASA team's dedication to
safely and successfully flying out the Space Shuttle program and
meeting our nation's commitments to our international partners. The
program's successes also led to the decision in October 2006 to move
forward with plans for a final servicing mission to the Hubble Space
Telescope (HST). Following an extensive review by the relevant NASA
offices of all safety and technical issues associated with conducting
such a mission, it became clear that an HST servicing mission could be
carried out effectively and safely. While there is an inherent risk in
all space flight activities, the desire to preserve a truly
international asset like the HST makes doing this mission the right
course of action.
The Space Shuttle FY 2008 budget request of $4.01 billion would
provide for five Shuttle flights, including four ISS assembly flights
as well as the HST servicing mission. The ISS assembly flights include
the launch of major research facility modules from the European Space
Agency and Japan. The Canadian Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator
robotic system will also be flown in 2008. These flights are a major
step towards fulfilling U.S. commitments to NASA's international
partners as specified in the ISS agreements and the Vision for Space
Exploration.
The FY 2008 budget request includes $2.24 billion for ISS
activities. NASA has consulted with our international partners on the
configuration of the ISS, and is working closely with them to determine
the detailed plans for logistics required during and after assembly.
The FY 2008 budget request provides the necessary resources to purchase
Soyuz crew transport and rescue for U.S. astronauts as well as Progress
vehicle logistics support for the ISS from the Russian Space Agency.
As the Shuttle approaches its retirement, the ISS Program intends
to use alternative cargo and crew transportation services from
commercial industry. Once a capability is demonstrated in Phase 1 of
the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) Space Act
Agreements, NASA plans to purchase cargo delivery services
competitively in Phase 2 and will decide whether to pursue crew
demonstrations. In the FY 2008 budget, funding for the purchase of crew
and cargo transportation services, either from international partners
or preferably from commercial providers, is transferred from the
Exploration Systems Mission Directorate to the Space Operations Mission
Directorate. One item of significance in the FY 2008 budget run-out,
especially in the out-years, is that it allows for increases to our
previously estimated costs for purchasing commercial cargo and crew
services to support the ISS, assuming these commercial services are
successfully demonstrated and are cost-effective. Should costs for
those services be greater than what is presently budgeted, NASA has
accepted a management challenge to scale back on our space operations
costs and will curtail some of our robotic lunar exploration or long-
term exploration technology development in the out-years. COTS
demonstration funding remains in ESMD to better exploit potential
synergies with the Constellation Program.
The Space Shuttle Program's highest priority is to safely complete
the mission manifest by the end of FY 2010, using as few flights as
possible. Working through formalized Transition Control Board
processes, the Space Shuttle Program will also play a key role in
coordinating the smooth transition of Space Shuttle assets and
capabilities to the next generation of Exploration systems without
compromising the safety of ongoing flight operations. The greatest
challenge NASA faces is safely flying the Space Shuttle to assemble the
ISS prior to retiring the Shuttle in 2010, while also bringing new U.S.
human space flight capabilities on-line soon thereafter. There are a
number of major transition milestones set for FY 2008, including the
transition of one of the four high bays in the Vehicle Assembly
Building and Launch Pad 39B to the Constellation Systems Program. Space
Shuttle Atlantis may also be retired in FY 2008 after the HST SM-4
mission and its systems and parts would be used to support the
remaining Space Shuttle Orbiters, Discovery and Endeavour, during the
program's last two years of operations. The FY 2008 budget request
reflects the current assessment of costs to retire the Space Shuttle.
Over the next year, NASA will develop additional detail and refine our
cost estimates for the transition.
The FY 2008 budget also provides for the procurement of two
additional Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) satellites
to replenish the constellation. NASA projects that the availability of
aging TDRSS satellites to support overall user demand will be reduced
by 2009 and depleted by 2015. In order to continue to support all
users, NASA must begin the procurement process immediately, with
planned launches in FY 2012 and FY 2013. By replenishing the
satellites, NASA will be able to meet overall user demand through 2016.
The Space Operations Mission Directorate has partnered with non-NASA
users to provide a proportionate investment in the replacement
capabilities.
Cross-Agency Support Programs
The FY 2008 Budget Request for activities within the Cross-Agency
Support Programs (CASP)--Education, Advanced Business Systems,
Innovative Partnerships Programs, and Shared Capabilities Assets
Program--is $498.2 million. Within this amount, $34.3 million is for
the Shared Capability Assets Program (SCAP), which is designed to
ensure that critical capabilities and assets (e.g., arc jets, wind
tunnels, super computing facilities, rocket propulsion testing, etc.)
required Agency-wide are available to missions when needed. The FY 2008
budget request for Advanced Business Systems, comprising the Integrated
Enterprise Management Program (IEMP), is $103.1 million. FY 2007 and FY
2008 funding will support IEMP in implementing capabilities that
improve NASA's tracking and accountability of its property, plant, and
equipment; integrate human capital information, providing employees and
management with new, secure tools for accessing personnel data, and
planning and budgeting NASA's workforce; and, provide more relevant and
accurate financial information in support to NASA's programs and
projects. This funding also supports ongoing operations and maintenance
of NASA's financial system and other Agency-wide business systems.
For NASA's Education activities, the FY 2008 budget request totals
$153.7 million and sustains our ongoing commitment to excellence in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) to ensure that
our Agency is equipped with the right workforce to implement the Vision
for Space Exploration. NASA will continue the tradition of investing in
education and supporting educators who play a key role in preparing,
inspiring, exciting, encouraging, and nurturing the youth who will
manage and lead the laboratories and research centers of tomorrow. NASA
Education is committed to three primary objectives to help improve the
state of STEM education in our country: strengthen the Nation's and
NASA's future workforce; attract and retain students in the STEM
discipline and; engage the American people in NASA's missions through
partnerships and alliances.
The Innovative Partnerships Programs (IPP) provides leveraged
technology investments, dual-use technology-related partnerships, and
technology solutions for NASA. The FY 2008 budget request for IPP
activities is $198.1 million. The IPP implements NASA's Small Business
Innovative Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer
(STTR) Programs that provide the high-technology small business sector
with an opportunity to develop technology for NASA. Recently, NASA has
made some changes to the management structure of these two programs to
better enable technology infusion and to increase the efficiency of the
operations. IPP also manages the Centennial Challenges Program. NASA
has already benefited from the introduction of new sources of
innovation and technology development even though the Program is
relatively new and no prizes have yet been awarded. In addition,
ongoing and future prize challenges will continue to inspire brilliant
young minds.
Conclusion
NASA has many challenges ahead of us, but we are on track and
making progress in managing these challenges. The FY 2008 budget
request demonstrates commitment to our nation's leadership in space and
aeronautics research, and while we may face a significant funding
reduction for FY 2007, we will carry on, though not at the pace we had
previously hoped.
I ask your help to ensure this nation maintains a human space
flight capability. Without stable funding as requested in this budget,
we face the very real possibility of allowing that capability to slip
away for the foreseeable future--even as other nations continue to
develop similar capabilities.
I also need your help to effectively transition key elements of our
Space Shuttle workforce, infrastructure, and equipment to our nation's
exploration objectives. The provisions I referenced earlier, as well as
stable funding, will help ensure we preserve a critical and unique
industrial base capability that has allowed the United States to lead
the world in space exploration.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I
would be please to respond to any questions that you may have.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Discussion
Budget Shortfalls and Discrepancy Between Administration
Requests and Authority Levels
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Griffin.
At this point, we will open our first round of questions,
and the Chairman recognizes himself for five minutes.
Let me--you do have a dilemma, but it doesn't--the budget
doesn't even recognize what the President is asking you to do.
I mean, it is not a matter of what we want to do. I mean,
certainly we would like to do even more. But the budget doesn't
even pay for what you are asked to do. That is what we are
talking about. We are not trying to get into some la-la land of
Christmas trees. We are talking about trying to do what you are
charged to do. And that is where somewhere we have to decide
are you being charged too much.
And also, you had mentioned that it was obvious that we
don't support the President's proposal. That is right. We
don't. We support the authorizing level, not the President's
level, and we would--you know, we would like for you and OMB to
try to get to the authorizing level, rather than the
President's level, so it wouldn't be as tough.
So I just wanted to try to get ourselves in the right
perspective.
Dr. Griffin, it was my understanding that when you
testified before the Committee last year that you had reached
an agreement with OMB to correct for the under-budgeting that
had occurred in the Space Station and the Space Shuttle
accounts prior to your arrival at NASA. And it is my
understanding that the fiscal year 2007 budget request and the
five-year run-out reflected that agreement.
However, just a year later, we have been presented with a
NASA budget request for fiscal year 2008 that, according to
NASA's own data, includes an estimated shortfall of almost a
billion dollars in the ISS crew and cargo service funding, does
not include funds to address the Space Shuttle program
termination and retirement costs past fiscal year 2010. And
although NASA concedes that there will be additional costs, it
reduces the amount of Space Shuttle reserves available to
address remaining Shuttle programming threats during the
remaining missions, and it reduces the reserves available to
the ISS program during the most challenging assembly phase.
Would you agree that this is an accurate description of
what budget request or that fiscal year 2008 budget request?
Dr. Griffin. I can't agree or disagree, specifically. I can
talk about specific points of that with you. With regard to----
Chairman Gordon. Well, just for the lack of time, did
anything I state there--did you find that wasn't accurate?
Dr. Griffin. No, sir, I did not find any inaccuracies in
your statement. We did reach agreement last year, within the
Administration, to budget--to replace the previous placeholder
estimates for Shuttle and Station completion, Shuttle fly-out
and Station completion. They were about--and I would like to
correct the record of some earlier statements that were made
during the opening statements, that the overall shortfall was
about $5.6 billion in the Shuttle and Station account, which
is, you know, on the record from last year, and we were able to
reduce that to a number on the order of $3.8 billion because
the exploration architecture that we advanced had considerable
synergy with today's Shuttle fleet. So by that means, we
reduced the overall problem down to about $3.8 billion, and we
did reprioritize within the NASA budget with the assistance and
concurrence of the Executive Office of the President to produce
a budget, which addressed those shortfalls. We did, absolutely,
do that. And the budget, the 2007 budget run-out that we
brought you last year, the 2007 request, addressed everything
that Station and Shuttle were understood by the best minds we
had to be--allow us to finish out the program.
The $924 million in crew cargo to which you refer
represents a lien for transportation services against the
program after Shuttle retirement because of a very simple fact.
When we were still--when we were planning in the United States
to fly the Shuttle indefinitely, then transportation to the
Space Station of crew and cargo was essentially a free good to
the Space Station program. Now that we are retiring the Shuttle
in 2010, we must purchase transportation services----
Chairman Gordon. Well, I would agree with that, and I think
you are doing it in the most efficient way, but we still have a
shortfall. And again, I am concerned that with----
Dr. Griffin. So that does represent a lien against the
program----
Chairman Gordon. Yes.
Dr. Griffin.--which we--it is a management challenge we
have taken to try to find $924 million.
Chairman Gordon. So there is that shortfall then?
Dr. Griffin. There is that lien.
Chairman Gordon. And was it your ideas or--since there was
an agreement last year with OMB, apparently that agreement
hasn't been kept, so was it your idea to change it or was it
OMB's idea?
Dr. Griffin. Well, we have, as you might appreciate, a
multitude of discussions in the eight months or so that we take
to prepare the budget within the Administration, and I just--I
do not, and cannot, disclose or discuss which ideas came from
which parties, but--or which individuals, but the end result
was that we have a management challenge to find $924 million
within the manned space flight accounts to address the
transportation requirements----
Chairman Gordon. But I think the end result, though----
Dr. Griffin.--for the Station.
Chairman Gordon.--is that the agreement that was reached
with OMB wasn't honored. That is the end result.
So--and also, as you know, the Columbia Accident
Investigation Board documented the negative effects of the
schedule and budgetary pressure on the Shuttle program. And now
we have a Space Station and the Shuttle program that are under
pressure to complete the ISS assembly by the time the Shuttle
is retired in 2010. At the same time, we have a budget request
before us that reduces the Shuttle and Station reserves and
includes a billion dollar shortfall in the funding needed to
sustain the Station after 2010. And I guess I should say, why
should I not be worried that we are seeing parallels to the
environment that the CAIB warned us about earlier?
Dr. Griffin. I understand your concerns, sir, and we have
addressed that. Of the $924 million that we believe, based on
existing prices for commercial service, we have budgeted the
$924 million for--through the run-out to buy the services we
need. Of that, $300 million, approximately, is being--will be
sought within space ops, and the $600 million will be sought
within exploration systems. So, on an annual basis, we are
talking about an average of $60 million a year within the Space
Station and Space Shuttle accounts to provide that
transportation service. And I would not have allowed that to be
imposed on space ops if they had not stepped forward and said
they thought they could find the money.
So, with regard to safety of the Shuttle and Station
programs, in respect of the budget allocated to them, I think
they are okay. The larger issue is, of course, what does an
additional $600 million from the exploration account--the
larger issue is what does the additional $600 million cut to
the exploration account do to the delivery of the CEV and the--
or the Orion and the Ares vehicles? And we are still working
through that.
Chairman Gordon. As you can hear, we have votes going on,
so I want to let Mr. Hall move forward.
You know, I don't, in any way, want to infer that you would
ever have an unsafe mission. That will not occur. I just
remember, as hard--or as much as I wanted to dunk the ball when
I was playing basketball, I wasn't able to. Sometimes, we can
be asked--or want to do more than we are able to. I do not want
us to get into a situation where, at a later date, you have to
say, ``This is not safe.''
Dr. Griffin. Right.
Chairman Gordon. And so that is what I am trying to avoid.
And----
Dr. Griffin. I do understand, sir. I truly do. And I
believe that we are okay within space ops on our budget line.
Chairman Gordon. Okay.
Dr. Griffin. We have prioritized Shuttle and Station above
other things in order to complete that commitment. We are still
assessing the consequences of that prioritization on the other
things.
Crew Safety of Future Projects
Chairman Gordon. I yield to--five minutes to Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will try not
to take the full five minutes.
I think, Mike, that money is so important and something we
have to really be aware of at all times and in all budgetary
gusts. I have often heard it said that money ain't everything,
but it sure keeps you in touch with your kids. Well, I know
that we have got to be totally aware of the funds that we are
asking for and the funds that we are going to appropriate, but
something that keeps biting at me and something that I keep
having to note, the next thing the American people are
interested in is the safety of those that still are flying a
fragile mission and that we know that--we were reminded of that
some couple years ago.
As you know, I have always been concerned about----
Chairman Gordon. Excuse me. Mr. Hall, would you yield for
just one----
Mr. Hall. I do yield.
Chairman Gordon. We only have one vote. Mr. Lampson, would
you go on and vote, if you don't mind? We only have one vote.
You go--if you would go on, and if you could come back, and we
will impose as little as possible on Dr. Griffin.
Anyone else that would like to--well, we are going to go to
Mr. Udall, and maybe he can get through his, but any of the
rest of you, if you want to go on, you can come back and be
ready to ask questions.
Excuse me, Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. Yes, I will take the Chair for you, if you--okay.
So we will get back on now.
For several years, I have been frustrated by the fact that
the Shuttle couldn't be modified with the crew escape system,
and it couldn't for two reasons: one was the amount of money it
would have cost, and the other was the physical inability
weight-wise to do it. It just was not possible. We could never
say there is not--no amount of money was too much for safety,
but the physical facts kept us from doing that and still keep
us from doing it. But I understand that one of the benefits of
the crew exploration vehicle is the ability to jettison the
entire crew module if there is a catastrophic accident. Please
assure us that the crew escape system plan for the CEV is
robust enough to safely jettison the entire crew to safety in
the unfortunate event of a catastrophic accident. And will this
system be functional throughout all phases of the powered
flight?
Dr. Griffin. The answer to your question is unequivocally
yes.
Mr. Hall. Great. That is all I would like to hear.
Status of the SOFIA Program
I want to ask you about another mission. The SOFIA mission
is moving forward, as you know, but your statement indicates
the program has remaining hurdles. Now, I am getting fairly
tired of ``remaining hurdles'' on SOFIA. When we are 90 percent
complete on it and have 10 percent to go, surely we are not
going to have any hurdle. If it is a hurdle, it is a low hurdle
and not a high hurdle. And we--that is such an important
program. A management review is going to be held again after
this spring, is that right? Is that what your testimony was?
Dr. Griffin. Let me give you a quick couple of minutes on
the status of SOFIA.
Mr. Hall. Give me the good answers you gave to my first
questions.
Dr. Griffin. It can't be as short, I am sorry, sir, but----
Mr. Hall. Okay.
Dr. Griffin.--I will make it as short as I can.
We did a very careful review of the SOFIA program last
year. We determined that the airplane modifications, due to
changing external situation, United Aircraft--Airlines have
gone out of the business of modifying airplanes, we needed to
put the SOFIA airplane modification program at Dryden, which is
where our experimental aircraft work is located. The airplane
modifications are now going much better. We expect to be on the
verge of our first certification flights within months. We
think we have a solid handle on getting the airplane to work
properly. The German scientific payload is ready, so it is a
matter of finishing up on the airplane and integrating the
payload. We will do that. The science management operations
group that you were referring to in your question----
Mr. Hall. Yes, sir.
Dr. Griffin.--meets, I think, next month or in May. I think
they meet in May. They will be looking forward to how to
operate the observatory. I think we have got SOFIA back on
track.
Mr. Hall. Yes. That is great. We had--it seemed like we had
almost $600 million in it, and it is about 90 percent complete.
Somewhere along, if those aren't exact figures----
Dr. Griffin. The program was----
Mr. Hall.--the percentages are probably correct.
Dr. Griffin. The program was in great distress. I think we
are now okay.
Mr. Hall. I thank you. And I yield back my time.
Mr. Udall. [Presiding.] I thank the gentleman.
Delays in CEV Program
Dr. Griffin--I would, at this point, yield myself five
minutes.
In your testimony, you state that, due to the cumulative
effect of a number of factors, including the somewhat infamous
now Joint Resolution for fiscal year 2007, that NASA is
unlikely to bring the CEV online in 2015. The briefing material
indicates that independent of any Joint Resolution impacts, the
CEV program is already looking at a six-month delay, which
would slip the operational date to March 2015. Could you
explain the specific reasons for the six-month delay?
Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir. And I will, in fairness, state at
the outset, I will reinforce your point, that it is an
accumulated set of circumstances, one of which was the extra
funding needed last year to complete the Space Station and
Space Shuttle fly-out that we talked about just a few moments
ago. That, of course, was a major factor.
But added to all of that, the net programmatic effect of
reducing by some, you know, almost $600 million, the Joint
Continuing Resolution reduced the money available for the CEV
program by almost $600 million over the next five years. So
that is a fact. And the schedule slip that goes with that
reduction is about six months.
Mr. Udall. Now on top of that delay, the Joint Resolution
could result, as we understand it, another four- to six-month
delay. Is that correct? And what will determine the length of
the delay due to the Joint Resolution?
Dr. Griffin. That was about six months, yes, sir.
Mr. Udall. So it is not a cumulative 12 months? It is still
six months?
Dr. Griffin. No, no, no. It is--the effect of the Joint
Resolution, by itself, that particular reduction in ability to
obligate funding, just the Joint Resolution, that effect is
about six months. So we have several effects, and that one is
there.
Mr. Udall. So there are two effects, and you believe it
will total up to 12 months, or you think the two, cumulatively,
will result in six months?
Dr. Griffin. No, there are a number of different things,
which have gone on, over--let me take you back, again, a couple
of years, as briefly as I can.
In the 2005 budget, the Administration planned for the
start of the CEV program. At that point--or from that point, we
have had reductions, as the Chairman noted earlier, in the
amount of funding budgeted to NASA. We have had reductions in
CEV funding, which have been necessary to pay for Shuttle and
Station. We have had rescissions due to Katrina and we have had
rescissions due to other reasons. And so, the combination of
all of these things had, up to that point, delayed the CEV out
to the very end of 2014. There--no one funding reduction is
more responsible than the others. It is just that there was a
chronological sequence, and the last one to be applied was the
Continuing Resolution, and that was the--that is the most
recent delay, not the only delay, and the magnitude of that
delay was about six months.
Mr. Udall. So, at this point, we are looking at September
of 2015 or----
Dr. Griffin. March of 2015.
Mr. Udall. March of 2015. You are holding fast to that?
Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Udall. Good.
Implementation of Decadal Survey Recommendations
If I could, let me move to the National Academies'
recommendations around the new Earth science and application
missions. And while I recognize that it may not be possible to
do all of the proposed missions at the rate recommended, and I
also acknowledge that some of the Academies' cost estimates may
be optimistic, I don't see anything in the 2008 budget request
and run-out that would allow NASA to make any kind of a
credible start on these new missions. What priority do you
attach to the missions recommended by the Decadal Survey? And
do you have any plans to initiate any of the new missions
recommended by the Survey?
Dr. Griffin. The answer I would give you is exactly the
same as the answer I would give you for any of our four science
portfolios. Our priorities are strongly influenced by the
Decadal Surveys that we get from the National Academies. We do
respect those. I have said that on the record any number of
times. I think it is important that we do so. The National
Academies is as close to a governing body of science in this
nation as we are, I think, ever going to get.
That said, every one of our four portfolios has a Decadal
Survey now, and every one can use up, by itself, the entire
science budget. So we cannot do every mission on the Earth
science Decadal with the money that we have, just as we cannot
do every mission on the astrophysics Decadal or heliophysics
Decadal or planetary science Decadal. So we will use the
Decadal prioritization to inform the sequence in which we do
our Earth science missions. We have already used it to plus-up
the funding for GPM, and we will continue to use it. But we
cannot immediately start a program, which is going to go and
execute every single Earth science mission on the Decadal.
Mr. Udall. So, Doctor, I don't hear you saying you have
plans to initiate any of the new missions recommended by the
Survey, is that correct? I want to make sure the record
reflects your point that----
Dr. Griffin. I am--I will have to take that for the record.
I am not sure what the next mission that we would initiate
would be. It--anything we initiate will be in conformance with
the priorities of the Decadal Survey.
Mr. Udall. Thank you. I look forward to reading your
response, for the record, and at this point, we will
temporarily recess the Committee until the----
Dr. Griffin. Okay.
Material requested for the record
With the Decadal Survey now in hand, NASA is actively developing an
integrated Earth Science mission roadmap to address the Earth Science
scientific priorities identified in the Decadal Survey. As recommended
in the Decadal Survey, the new NASA integrated mission roadmap will
take into account contributions from international partners, the
availability of supporting measurements from precursor missions that
are expected to still be operating after 2010, and the data expected
from National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System
(NPOESS) in light of the Nunn-McCurdy recertification. NASA will work
to address the science priorities outlined in the Decadal Survey for
Earth Science through the Earth System Science Pathfinder (ESSP)
missions and Earth Systematic Missions. The FY 2008 budget request
includes $492.3 million (over five years, FY 2008-FY 2012) for a new
ESSP mission; this budget request supports a solicitation to be
released in late FY 2008, with launch of a small-to-medium class
mission in the 2014 time frame. While ESSP missions are competitively
selected from among proposals submitted by researchers, the ESSP
Announcement of Opportunity will solicit proposals for missions
addressing one or more of the top four scientific priorities assigned
to NASA in the Decadal Survey: quantitative measurement of solar
irradiance and spectrally resolved Earth radiation budget; active and
passive microwave measurements of soil moisture and vegetation freeze/
thaw cycles; detailed measurements of ice sheet dynamics and extent;
and solid Earth processes combined with measurements of vegetation
canopy characteristics. In addition, the FY 2008 budget requests
includes the start of a funding wedge for additional future Decadal
Survey missions, with a small amount of funding ($1.2 million) for
early work in FY 2009-2011 and growing to $30.6 million in FY 2012.
This funding supports future Earth Systematic Missions.
Mr. Udall. There is a vote on. There is about two minutes
left. You and I running. So we will temporarily recess, and we
will be back shortly.
Dr. Griffin. I will be here. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Chairman Gordon. The Committee will come back to order. We
thank all of you for your patience, and the--Mr. Calvert is
recognized for five minutes.
Negative Ramifications of American Hiatus From Human Space
Flight
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator, if the Shuttle is retired in 2010, and I
assume that we are on schedule to do so, and a CEV is not
operational until 2015, as NASA budget predicts, there could be
a minimum of a five-year delay in our human space flight
capability. The last time we had an extended hiatus between the
Apollo and the Shuttle programs, as you know, we paid a
tremendous price in the loss of the aerospace industries and
workforce.
In order to assure that we do not have further slips in the
CEV, is--it is vital that we maintain the funding for the
exploration systems. The fiscal year 2008 is a pivotal year. If
we do not quickly come to grips with the funding problems and
the gap in the human space flight capability extends even
further than currently planned, I believe we face the risk of
losing our young and talented workforce to other industries. We
must focus on maintaining funding for exploration, because
without some expectation of certainty in the program, people
will either choose or be forced to leave the industry.
But today, unlike the late 1960s and early 1970s, we now
face increasing competition from China, Russia, India, and
others, countries that may have agendas very different from our
own. An extended gap in America's space flight capabilities
could lead to an erosion of our workforce and our industrial
supplier base, and I am very concerned about this.
So my question, Doctor, do we risk more than loss of jobs
as a result of an extended hiatus? Do we risk losing our
technological leadership in a vital industry as well? If we
start to lose our workforce, do we run the risk of increasing
the gap further, because we don't have the talent we need to
get the job done?
Those are a number of questions, but can you provide us
your views on that subject?
Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir. I think it is clear to all those who
are in or who observe the high technology sector of this
country, of which, of course, space exploration and development
is one, that if--that the best people tend to go where the
emphasis is clearly being placed. And I do worry that if we
appear to have an unfocused space program that we will lose
people. And I consider that to be an issue. So that was your
last question, but I will answer it first. It does concern me
very greatly.
To your--to the point of your other questions, I have said
many times, beginning during my confirmation hearings, that I
believe that the American space program is one of this nation's
strategic assets in the world. It is one of the things that
distinguishes us, sets us apart from, and frankly, sets us
above many other societies. Our ability to do things that other
people can only dream about matters. It matters greatly. And
when we compromise it, we compromise our nation's position in
the world. I believe that.
When we terminated Apollo and initiated Shuttle, then, as
now, we didn't have the money to do those two things together,
so there was a six-year gap that developed out of what was
originally planned to be a two-year gap in human space flight
capability. Programmatic slips took care of the other four
years.
Today, at a comparable state in the program, we are looking
at a now nearly five-year gap in human space flight capability,
but it is at a different time. In the 1970s, we had one
competitor, the then-Soviet Union, and in what was viewed as a
race to the Moon, we had won.
In today's world, energy dollars are flowing into Russia.
Russia loves its space program, as they should. They have kept
it despite tremendous exigencies, and they have supported it.
The Chinese now have the capability to put people in space.
India has announced its intentions to join the Chinese. Other
nations could do it, if they chose to, as a matter of political
will. They certainly have the capability and have the money.
So I fear for our nation's posture as a nation among
nations when we allow this capability to be mitigated or
damaged in any way, which is why I have urged full support for
the President's budget so that we can minimize any disruptions.
There will be disruptions, but I would like to minimize it.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, if he has a half a minute left,
could I ask the gentleman a question?
Chairman Gordon. Absolutely.
Mr. Calvert. I will yield all my time to you, Mr.
Chairman--or----
Mr. Hall. You know, I think you were here when we lost the
supercollider with X billions of dollars into it. And when it
came time to reauthorize it, they asked for--it is my best
recollection it was $600 million to keep it going. And we had
$200 million for them. And because they thought they could
force Congress into keeping that program alive, and they should
have been able to, they weren't able to, and they held on to
demanding what they had when $200 million would have kept them
alive and we would still have a--we would be having it
operating by now and be a leader in the technology fields of
the world. We have a hole in the ground there now and a huge
amount of money spent. I think we ought to learn from that and
support this program and support it the way they set it out and
pull our hat down over our ears and ride this thing out.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Hall.
Chairman Gordon. Mr. Lampson is recognized for five
minutes.
Funding Needed to Maintain CEV/CLV
Mr. Lampson. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Dr.
Griffin. It is a pleasure to have you here. It is always nice
to see you.
And I have to make a comment about the opening remarks of
all our colleagues and how I want to associate myself with what
everyone said. I think that this is a wonderful opportunity for
this committee to make a big difference right now because of
the unity that we do have. And I look forward to working with
you.
I am proud, also, to serve for--to serve as the
Representative of the Johnson Space Center, and I can't think
of anything that is as important, not just to that area of
Texas where Johnson Space Center is, but that NASA is to our
nation, as Mr. Hall was just now saying. So it is a pleasure,
always, to consider these problems that we face and see if we
can't find the right ways to address them. I certainly want to.
Your prepared statement notes that previously under-
estimated costs to retire or transition to Space Shuttle and to
support the International Space Station, the reduce--the
reduction from the fiscal year 2007 request reflected in the
fiscal year 2007 Continuing Resolution and the maturing design
and integrated flight test baselined for the Constellation
program have affected the ability to deploy Orion in areas by
2014. And in previous testimony to the Senate Subcommittee on
Space, Aeronautics, and Related Sciences, you remarked that the
CEV/CLV program will slip to 2015, and you just said it again
just a minute ago.
What is the bottom line of dollars, the additional funding
that NASA needs for 2008 to maintain the 2014 CEV/CLV launch
date?
Dr. Griffin. I answered that question, for the record, for
that Senate testimony to which you refer, and I will give you
the same answer here. What we--the funding we would need to
return the Orion and Ares systems, CEV, to a 2014 capability is
not needed in 2008. It would be needed in 2009 and 2010. And
the funding requirement would be $350 million in 2009 and $400
million in 2010. Okay. So that is the direct answer to your
question.
Mr. Lampson. Okay. Thank you.
And the effect--what effect will slipping the date, if we
don't do that of the first operational--the initial operational
capability the first crewed launch have on the nature of
existing contracts for the Constellation program?
Dr. Griffin. Well, we are obligating money, of course, now
on the contract, the existing contract, to--for the CEV, so if
we do not in fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2010, and bear in
mind that we are--we start next month to prepare the budget for
fiscal year 2009. It is not as far away as it sounds. So if we,
in fiscal year 2009, do not obligate additional money to buy
back that schedule, then the date, as we currently project it,
with no further reductions, would be March 2015.
Mr. Lampson. And that will, ultimately, further drive up
the cost, overall, of the project.
Dr. Griffin. Well, lengthening the program certainly does
drive up the out-year's cost, of course. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lampson. Are you confident that NASA now understands
the costs required to retire or transition Space Shuttle,
support International Space Station, and accommodate the design
and integrated flight tests for the Constellation program?
Dr. Griffin. I am. When I came into this position, and I
think very understandably, a decision had been made to retire
the Space Shuttle in 2010 and to move on with a new system. And
not everyone agreed with that, but I think the balance of the
community of people who are concerned about space flight agreed
to that. And Mr. Gordon, you and I have talked about that. We
need--the Space Shuttle will have been in service by that time.
We need to move on. But--for 30 years by that time. We need to
move on, and we are moving on.
Now what had not been done was to properly allocate the
costs necessary to fly the Shuttle out until 2010. That--you
know, it is difficult to calculate what it is going--what is
going to be needed to fly out and retire a complex system like
that. So we had placeholder estimates in the budget when I came
in the door. We spent a good chunk of 2005 trying to refine
those estimates, and we have. And I am confident that we have
the right estimates to finish out the Space Shuttle and Space
Station program, completing it by 2010.
Mr. Lampson. Thank you very much. My time has expired.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gordon. The gentlelady from Arizona, Ms. Giffords,
is recognized for five minutes.
Budget Prioritization Process
Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Griffin, good to see you. Thank you for being here
today.
Dr. Griffin. Good to see you again, Ms. Giffords.
Ms. Giffords. I represent the University of Arizona, and
one of the interesting things that comes up all the time is
this balance between your job, in terms of manned space flight
compared to research. And I know that there is great concern on
behalf of astronomers and scientists, and I just think about
how difficult it is to be in your position, trying to balance a
budget with very different objectives.
So could you please address the Committee on how you make
those determinations in this time of a shrinking budget?
Dr. Griffin. Well, these are not solely my determinations.
It really is a community effort. I would tell you directly that
science today, at NASA, all of science, is 32 percent of our
budget. In the early 1990s, science was 24 percent of our
budget. In the Apollo era, science was 17 percent of our
budget. So science has grown within the agency. In the Apollo
era, human space flight was 63 percent of our budget. It is 62
percent of our budget today. So human space flight has
remained, across decades, a remarkably stable fraction of our
portfolio, and science has grown. It is, in my judgment, doing
well. It is at a historic high, in terms of its fraction of the
NASA portfolio.
Within science, how do we prioritize? Well, we have four
major science portfolios: astrophysics; heliophysics, the study
of the sun and the solar system, space; Earth science; and
planetary science. And while those four portfolios are not
identically equal in their funding, we try to balance them
carefully. And so astrophysics has a good share of the
portfolio but doesn't get the whole thing, just as in my
response a few moments ago about Earth science. So within the
astrophysics portfolio, one of four, we take our priorities for
missions to be done from the Decadal Surveys.
Currently, number one on the Decadal Survey for
astrophysics is the James Webb space telescope, and we are
pushing that. Number two is SOFIA. We are pushing that. We hope
to get both of those programs down the line and open up a new
funding wedge in astrophysics by 2009. And whatever the next
new astrophysics mission is, starting in 2009, it will come
from the community of astrophysicists in accordance with what
they judge to be the most important mission at the time that
decision has to be made.
Ms. Giffords. Thank you for that.
Education
And, Mr. Chairman--Dr. Griffin, in terms of this 2006
National Academies report, it stated that, you know, in terms
of technology products or projects that, you know, basically
that science not being enough, and you couple that with the
testimony we had a couple of days ago in terms of ``Rising
Above the Gathering Storm'' and us not producing enough
engineers and mathematicians and scientists. And I believe that
NASA is in a unique position, because there is really no way to
get kids or young people excited about science like space and
exploration and, I mean, this ability to go to places that we
have never been before. How do you--when you look at your
overall projections in terms of your workforce, how do you
figure into educating young kids, getting kids invited? I mean,
how does that figure into your budget in terms of how much
allocation you can spend on that next generation and educating
the sort of next group of future scientists?
Dr. Griffin. Well, our primary mission, of course, is to
conduct space missions of all kinds and aeronautical research
missions, and I mean, that is what we are paid to do, not to
determine educational strategy for the Nation. It is, of
course, in the role of executing space missions that I think we
have our highest value, which is to provide stimulating
intellectual content and fascinating things that kids can
aspire to work on when they grow up. When I was a child, I was
fascinated by space from the age of five years old onward. So I
understand that feeling that you talk about that nothing
excites kids like space flight.
Specifically, to education, we are spending about $150
million a year on specific education-oriented enterprises. Now
that will be reduced, somewhat, in respect of the fiscal year
2007 Continuing Resolution, but our 2008 budget and beyond
contains about $150 million a year specific to educational
outreach activities. In addition to that, our science missions,
when we do them as well as our human space flight missions,
have money set aside for Education and Public Outreach, E&PO,
we call it. The total amount that NASA spends on educational
activities of one kind and another is several hundred million
dollars a year. I think that is generous.
Chairman Gordon. The gentlelady's time has expired.
I was--I knew you were going to be able to work in Arizona
some way, but you were creative today. We are going to have an
oceanographic meeting soon, and so that is going to be a
challenge for you, but I know you will--somehow, you will find
a way to get Arizona, and you do every time.
Mr. Calvert, I understand, has some additional questions.
He is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Calvert. Well, if global warming does occur, we may
flood California, and Arizona will be----
Dr. Griffin. Or a sufficiently big earthquake.
Mr. Calvert. Or--that is right. We could--I remember there
was great book written in the 1970s or the 1960s, actually,
about California falling off a cliff. Hopefully, that doesn't
happen.
Status of China's Space Program
Mike, I want to kind of carry on a question I had earlier
about the competition we have out there. You know, I used to be
in the restaurant business. I used to look across the street
and look at what my competition was doing and have a better
menu and try to get customers through the door. And obviously,
China may have different reasons why they are getting in the
space business, as we saw with the ASAT demonstration recently,
which I understand they managed to clutter up outer space by,
what, about 10 percent more space debris than what we had
previously. So that is a problem we are going to have to endure
with.
How far is China--you have been to China, and you have seen
their program? How good is their space program? And more
specifically, do you think they have an opportunity to get
ahead of us? Do you think they have an opportunity to even get
to the Moon before we do, because the American public would
probably like to know that?
Dr. Griffin. Well, China, of course, has engineers and
scientists second to none, and they graduate more of them than
we do. When you have a chance to interact with Chinese
engineers and scientists, it is abundantly clear that they need
to--take a back seat to no one. And China is--if their
statements are to be believed, and they tend to have a record
for saying what they intend to do, and then doing it, if their
public statements are to be believed, they have the equivalent
of about 200,000 people working on their space program. Just
for reference, our NASA funding purchases the equivalent of
about 75,000 people. So in terms of--I can't talk about it in
terms of dollars, because the two economies are so different,
but if you talk about it in terms of the level of effort that
they are able to bring to bear, and if you believe their
statements, and I don't have any reason not to believe them,
because they have repeated them a number of times, then their
magnitude of their space effort is about three times as big as
ours in terms of the number of people.
Now, they are starting from a position well to our rear. I
mean, their human space flight capability is--I would
characterize it as being approximately equivalent to that which
we had during Project Gemini in the mid-1960s. They can put two
or three people up in orbit. They are proceeding carefully.
They are--their intransient capability of their equipment is a
little bit better than what we had during Project Gemini at the
time, but its accomplishments so far have been about at that
level. I would remind you that, for us, Project Gemini was only
a few years before Apollo when we went to the Moon. So--and the
Chinese economy today, in real dollars, is about twice as big
in constant dollars as the U.S. economy was when President
Kennedy declared the lunar goal.
So as a matter of technical capability and political will,
if the Chinese choose to do so, they can mount a lunar mission
within, you know, a reasonable number of years, say a decade.
That would easily--be easily possible for them to do. I cannot
speculate and won't speculate on what Chinese intentions are. I
just don't know that. As to capability, within some reasonable
number of years, if they wish to mount a lunar mission, they
could do so.
Future Missions and Foreign Abilities
Mr. Calvert. At the present time, based upon the schedule
that we have to have our new CEV and Ares program on track,
what is the soonest that you think we could get back to the
Moon?
Dr. Griffin. Well, that is a question that I--is difficult
to answer unless one associates it with a funding level. At our
present funding level, we will return to the Moon around 2019.
Mr. Calvert. So based on that, it is possible that the
Chinese could get to the Moon before we do?
Dr. Griffin. Of course. Yes, sir. It is possible that they
could be there before we return.
Mr. Calvert. On low-Earth orbit, on cargo delivery in a
low-Earth orbit, obviously, we are retiring the Shuttle in
2010, how long will the--do you believe, in 2010, that the
Russians are going to have a monopoly in low-Earth orbit in the
sense that they will be able to deliver the cargo to us? Or are
we going to have any other opportunities to buy that service
from someone else?
Dr. Griffin. Right now, it cannot be said whether the
Russians will have a monopoly or not. They do today. By 2010--
but after 2010, as you mentioned, we have some other
possibilities. We have initiated, as you know, two COTS
demonstrations, Commercial Orbital Transportation Service
demonstrations, to which we have allocated half a billion
dollars a year in--or half a billion dollars, total, in seed
capital. Now this is not intended to cover the total
development costs. It is money offered as seed capital for--to
attract--to allow entrepreneurial firms to attract the total
capital necessary to provide that service. We believe such
efforts have a good chance of succeeding and that, if they do,
they will be able to offer service considerably cheaper than we
can buy it from established providers, and if it matures,
believe me, we will take advantage of it. In fact, I think it
may be said that we need for those efforts to be successful.
So there are those possibilities. But by the nature of a
commercial transaction, which is conducted at arm's length,
this is not under the government's, or NASA's, control. We are
providing seed capital. We are offering all help, if asked for,
but we are not interfering with how these companies go about
their business. There are--by the post-2010 timeframe, there
will be--we also will be close to having capability from the
Japanese HTV and shortly thereafter the European ATV for cargo
services. Those, of course, will be expensive. They will not
allow for crew rotation. And although they are--as with the
Russians, they are in partnership with the United States on the
Space Station program, still, they are not indigenous
providers.
Chairman Gordon. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Chairman Gordon. We are going to go a little bit out of--
well, either in order or out of order, and--since Mr.
Rohrabacher has not had a chance to ask any questions, and then
we will--and then I think Mr. Udall wants to complete some
questions that he had earlier.
So, Mr. Rohrabacher, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, thank you very much. And I apologize
for being in and out.
Global Warming and Near-Earth Object Budget Prioritization
Mike, you are doing a great job. It is a tough job, as
everybody has said. Sometimes Congress actually makes it a
little tougher by--basically, everybody is insisting that we
balance the budget, but nobody wants to make decisions here,
and then everybody wants to complain when you make decisions.
Your job----
Dr. Griffin. I have noticed that, sir.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right. I used to be a speechwriter for the
President, and invariably, the leadership would come to me and
say, ``Look. This speech is way too long.'' And I would say,
``Okay.'' And they said, ``And by the way, we want you to add
this, this, and this to the speech.'' So you have a very
similar problem.
It is up to us to prioritize. And I know that you have had
to prioritize, and you have done your very best job at it. And
we can't just expect always to say, ``You are not spending
enough money,'' and then expect just to--well, we will just add
more money. Well, maybe we need to prioritize what programs are
worth spending the money on and give you some help in that.
Let me note, for the shortfalls that we have had, that of
the billions of dollars that we have spent over the last 10
years, perhaps as much as $5 to $10 billion, trying to prove
global warming, not to do anything about it, but to prove it.
The NPOESS catastrophe and the waste of those billions of
dollars, and some of that can be traced back to trying to
overload that satellite with missions dealing with global
warming, which may or may not exist, and--which leads me to my
question, my first question, which is, I read a recent report
by NASA that showed that the polar ice caps were melting and
that there is, indeed, warming going on on Mars. Is that right?
Dr. Griffin. I did see the brief synopsis of the same
report.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Dr. Griffin. So yes, sir.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So there is global warming on Mars.
Now my question is, then, does that mean that the warming
trend that we have here may be caused by sunspots and solar
activity, or does it mean that there are--is human-like
activity going on on Mars that is causing their temperature to
warm?
Dr. Griffin. I--the----
Mr. Rohrabacher. You don't have to answer that. It is----
Dr. Griffin. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Now my second question, the one thing I
want to focus in on, I have also read your recent report on a
project that I helped try to kick off, which is a survey of
near-Earth objects that might hit the Earth. Here, again, let
me note that it was a professional report. I really appreciated
the job that you did and that your team did. You did a very
professional analysis of where we go to catalog near-Earth
objects that might threaten the Earth. Your report concluded
that, you know--what the threat was and how we had to--how much
needed to be identified, but it also concluded that we didn't
have the money to do that.
Now, let me note, unlike my other colleagues, I will just
say that is my priority project, but I do fully understand your
answer to that. And if we are going to deal with this, the
potential challenge, I understand that there is a one in 62
chance that, in my lifetime--no, of a lifetime of a baby born
today, that there will be a huge impact on our Earth of a near-
Earth object that would kill millions of people. Now one chance
in 62. And it seems to me that we should at least be moving--
inching forward and that when we try to prioritize our various
spending programs, that that should be part--you know, that
type of long-range thinking should be part of the process and
should be one of our goals.
And I want to thank you for that report and thank you for
the good job you are doing. And I just would suggest that of
the $5 to $10 billion that we have spent trying to prove global
warming, perhaps if we would have spent only $500 million,
which your report states, we would have a full understanding of
the potential threats of near-Earth objects that might hit the
Earth and cause catastrophic loss of life. And that is the type
of prioritization that I am talking about that we need to do.
Now I understand that global warming is politically-trendy, et
cetera, but we, in here, in Congress, you know, we don't have
money to spend on everything, and we should--when we have a
choice between spending it on something that we can't do
anything about, global warming, even if it does exist, even if
it is one of those trends that go up and down over the years
with sun spots, like is happening on Mars, but if we can't do
this, wouldn't it be better to spend our money on trying to
catalog near-Earth objects and find a method of maybe
deflecting one off its path towards the Earth if we had that
opportunity--that chance to do so?
So with that, if you wanted to comment, that is fine, but I
sure appreciate your job and the things that I have mentioned
today, so thank you.
Dr. Griffin. Thank you.
We----
Chairman Gordon. The gentleman's time has expired, and I
think I can help Mr. Griffin here. We have had a lot of, I
guess, bad news discussion about our economic bad news
discussion, but there is one good news, and that is NASA does
not have to spend any more money proving global warming. It has
already been done.
And now the Chairman recognizes Mr. Udall for five minutes.
Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to propose to my good friend, Mr. Rohrabacher, that
if he is willing to acknowledge that we don't need to prove the
global warming theory anymore, we just take all that money and
put it to applications that would address the problem,
including energy independence and new technologies. And let us
quit all the studying and just agree that climate change is
upon us and begin to do what we need to do.
Dr. Griffin. I would be happy to hold your gentlemen's
coats if you wish to go at it.
ITAR
Mr. Udall. Doctor, turning to another topic that I think
concerns all of us, and that is ITAR, the Space Station
Independent Safety Task Force raised questions about NASA's
ability to interact with our international partners. If I
could, I would like to direct a series of questions at you and
then let you take your best cut.
How serious has an issue, as ITAR, been for the ISS? What
are your plans for handling those restrictions? What is your
timetable for resolving any outstanding issues with ITAR? And
are you making changes to any other missions or mission plans
as a result of these restrictions?
And I apologize for the machine-gun nature of those
questions, but I think they are all related, obviously.
Dr. Griffin. Well, they are.
It is a--let me say yes, ITAR is a concern for Space
Station partnerships, as well as any other international
partnerships that we attempt to conduct in space activities.
And I would remind that our entire human space flight program
is involved in an international partnership and well over half
of our scientific missions are conducted in the context of
international partnerships, so it can be difficult.
The difficulties are of two types. One is the length of
time necessary to get ITAR approval to conduct even the
government-to-government programs, which can easily be on the
order of 18 months or more, from my own personal experience.
And then the other thing, of course, is the question of whether
or not the partnership will be allowed and the restrictions
that are placed on the transfer of information.
The biggest concern that I have about it is that we
oftentimes end up excluding ourselves from the global
marketplace in aerospace and aerospace science because of those
restrictions in a way that I think keeps American industry out
of the world, the world market for these goods and services,
and which does not, in the long run, of course, achieve the
goal of protecting our security interests, because other
nations will develop these capabilities on their own.
So, I have those concerns.
Now, our plans for dealing with it, we are a federal
executive agency, and, of course, I follow the directions that
have been put in place by the Congress and the Administration
in response to the legislative environment, so we really do not
have a significant voice in ITAR and export control. We comply
with the regulatory environment that exists, and we work very
hard to make sure that we are in compliance, because the
difficulties of not being in compliance are hard to overstate.
So my plan is that I comply with the ITAR regulations.
Mr. Udall. Clearly, if I could make an editorial comment,
we have more to do in this regard, and I think the Committee
needs to spend some additional time understanding the
unintended consequences of ITAR, and I couldn't agree more that
we shut ourselves out of global marketplaces, and----
Dr. Griffin. This was a topic that the Defense science
board attempted to take on and--recently, and then I believe
they had to cease because of conflicts of interest in and among
their membership, but the fact that the Defense science board
chose to take it on, I think, speaks volumes.
Impact of Reductions on Shuttle Use and Workforce Flexibility
Mr. Udall. If I could, I would like to turn to the--back to
the Shuttle and talk about the STaR reductions with which I
think you are familiar.
If you could discuss, and I see the time is beginning to
run down, but you may have to do some of this for the record,
the impact of those reductions and your plans for assessing the
appropriate number and mixture of skilled workers needed to
safely fly the Shuttle through 2010 and then to transition to
the CEV.
Dr. Griffin. Let me get that for the record for you. Our
transition is something we work, literally, every day. We
discuss it with our Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel that
reports, also, to you, they have talked about that with you,
and with our NASA Advisory Council. I think that most people
believe that we are really going at this, that it is a hard
problem, and that we are doing fairly well. But we will give
you an answer for the record.
Material requested for the record
The Space Shuttle Transition and Retirement (STaR) provides funds
to ensure successful ISS operations post-Shuttle retirement. It does
this through the purchase of additional spares and by realigning costs
in several areas that are currently jointly funded with Shuttle, such
as Mission Operations Directorate, Flight Crew Operations Directorate,
and flight crew equipment. The new sparing philosophy involves buying
more spares. The old plan had the failed units returned from the
International Space Station (ISS) repaired on the ground and then
returned to space.
The FY 2008 President's budget request provides $187 million for
STaR in FY 2008, but reduces the five-year budget for STaR from the
previous estimate by $270 million in favor of other higher-priority
elements of the ISS program and other high priority Agency goals,
particularly TDRSS replenishment satellites. The $270 million cut is
achieved by reducing STaR reserves by $99 million from previous
estimates and by creating a management challenge to reduce the Space
Station's operations cost by $172 million through FY 2012 by finding
efficiencies and reducing requirements and overall operating costs,
including STaR. The resulting cost savings will be used to improve the
Program's reserve posture and offset management challenges as needed.
As the Constellation System Requirements Reviews are completed this
year, NASA will gain a much clearer understanding of the demands for
future workforce skills, which will form the foundation for making any
future decisions. Although proud of recent progress, NASA acknowledges
that more needs to be accomplished. These tasks include matching
available skills with future work, managing attrition, retraining and
hiring, and using temporary and term appointments to get the
flexibility to align agency needs with the time-phased workload.
The nature of the work many NASA employees will do will change as
we transition human space flight activities from Shuttle operations to
research and development-focused activities like planning, design,
testing and verification for Constellation systems. NASA is striving to
give its employees opportunities to build on their existing skills by
working on the new exploration systems, so that when this development
work comes on-line, many of them can transition into new positions.
Coupled with newly gained skills, the NASA workforce can take the
skills honed in Shuttle operations and apply them to the design of
future vehicles to make them fly more efficiently. From a human
resources perspective, the transition of these key personnel must be
carefully managed given the time between Shuttle retirement and Ares/
Orion operational capability.
In order to complete the remaining Shuttle missions safely,
retention of the NASA workforce, with their skills and tremendous
dedication, for the duration of the Shuttle program is critical. A
recent survey of Shuttle personnel across the NASA field Centers
clearly demonstrates that NASA has highly motivated people who want to
stay for the remainder of the program and see it succeed.
Mr. Udall. With the Chairman's indulgence, if I could ask
two more questions for the record, I would appreciate it.
Chairman Gordon. Certainly.
Mr. Udall. In that regard, too, would--if you would
comment, for the record, about any legislative tools you might
want to--in regard to the workforce flexibility that you may or
may not need when it comes to the star reductions. And if, in
fact, you do need some tools, when they might be delivered--
that request might be delivered to the Congress.
Material requested for the record
On March 28, 2007, NASA provided the NASA Transition Act of 2007 to
the Congress for consideration. The proposed legislation would provide
NASA with flexibilities essential to the successful implementation of
our programs in space exploration, scientific discovery, and
aeronautics research, including the International Space Station
Program's Shuttle Transition and Retirement (STaR) project. Title I
provides two workforce management tools.
The first authority would be used to encourage employees who are
working on the Space Shuttle Program to convert to time-limited
appointments that correspond to major milestones in that Program (or
Program completion), enabling the Administration to plan the Shuttle
workforce transition with more precision.
The second authority would add a new category of employees who
would be liable only for the employee share of Federal Employee Health
Benefits Program (FEHBP) premiums if they elect temporary continuation
of health benefits coverage upon separation from their civil service
positions. This would include surplus employees at NASA who are
involuntarily separated due to reduction-in-force or because they
declined a transfer, or surplus employees who are identified as
occupying positions that are anticipated to be eliminated under
reduction-in-force procedures. By authorizing NASA to pay the
government's share of the FEHBP premium for employees who separate
because their positions are being eliminated or transferred out of the
commuting area, the Agency would provide a ``soft landing'' benefit to
employees who desire continued health coverage while they seek other
employment and are not otherwise eligible for FEHBP coverage without
paying the full cost of the premiums.
The second question I have for the record is one that I
think has been on many people's minds, and I know you have--
feel it at other times, Dr. Griffin. But this has to do with
the NASA mission statement. And in the previous statement,
there was a clause in there ``to understand and protect our
home planet'', and that clause was eliminated in the current
mission statement. And there has been a lot of speculation
about why, and was there any message that was intended to be
sent by doing so.
And I do know my time is expired, but I would like an
answer for the record.
Material requested for the record
The 2006 NASA Strategic Plan clearly states that one of our goals
is to, ``study Earth from space to advance scientific understanding and
meet societal needs.'' The plan goes on to discuss the importance of
current Earth science missions and those we wish to conduct over the
next decade. A mission statement that calls upon NASA to pioneer the
future in scientific discovery--as ours does--includes Earth science
within the realm of scientific discovery.
Deletion of the phrase ``protect our home planet'' from the 2006
NASA Strategic Plan brought it into alignment with our statutory
responsibilities and actual capabilities.
This past year was truly remarkable for science discovery about the
Earth, Sun, solar system, and universe. In April 2006, the launch of
the CloudSat and Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite
Observations (CALIPSO) spacecraft added to the ``A-train'' of
satellites flying in close proximity around Earth to gain a better
understanding of key factors related to climate change. In May 2006,
NASA launched the GOES-O satellite. NASA also recently launched five
Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms
(THEMIS) microsatellites to study the Earth's magnetosphere.
The Earth Science budget for FY 2008 requests $1.5 billion, an
increase of $32.8 million over the FY 2007 request, to better
understand the Earth's atmosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere,
cryosphere, and biosphere as a single connected system. This request
includes additional funding for the Global Precipitation Measurement
(GPM) mission to improve schedule assurance in response to the high
priority placed on GPM in the Decadal Survey. As the follow-on to the
highly successful Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission, NASA's plans to
launch GPM's first Core satellite no later than 2013, followed by the
second Constellation spacecraft the following year. The Earth Science
budget also includes increased funding for the Landsat Data Continuity
Mission and Glory in order to help keep them on their schedules, and
provides funds for the National Polar-orbiting Operational
Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) Preparatory Project (NPP) to
reflect instrument availability and launch delays. Funds are requested
for continued development and implementation of the Ocean Surface
Topography Mission to launch in 2008, the Aquarius mission to measure
the ocean's surface salinity to launch in 2009, and the Orbiting Carbon
Observatory mission planned for launch in 2008. NASA will continue to
contribute to the President's Climate Change Research Initiative by
collecting data sets and developing predictive capabilities that will
enable advanced assessments of the causes and consequences of global
climate change.
Dr. Griffin. I will give you an answer, for the record, but
briefly, NASA does not have the tools to ``protect our home
planet.'' We seek to understand our planet and all others, and
the revised statement reflects that, but NASA is not a
protection agency.
Mr. Udall. Congressman Rohrabacher thinks you have the
capacity to protect our home planet, particularly when it comes
to asteroids, and I do have to associate myself with his
concerns. I think there are very legitimate concerns about
asteroids.
Dr. Griffin. As do I.
Mr. Udall. But thank you for the forthcoming way in which
you have shared your point of view with us today, and again, I
want to add my voice to those who believe you are doing an
outstanding job. And it is our job to get you additional
resources.
Dr. Griffin. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Udall. Thank you.
Dr. Griffin. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Gordon. Yeah, the gentleman's time has expired. I
will suggest that providing good information for us to adapt to
threats, whether--whatever form they might be, is a form of
protection.
And I think that we see that Dr. Ehlers has arrived. The
gentleman is--has five minutes, if he so chooses.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize, I am
bouncing between three different committees here, so I can't
ask a question of extreme intelligence, but I first want to
thank you, Dr. Griffin, for your good work. It is always good
to have a steady hand at the helm, and sometimes that is a
little infrequent in the scientific--pardon me, in the
governmental arena. So we appreciate you doing that.
Also, just picking up on this last comment about the
asteroids, there is, of course, a probability that one will hit
the Earth at some time. They have hit the Earth in the past,
but I have to confess, I worry far more about nuclear weapons
than asteroids. I just think the probability of improper human
behavior is still, unfortunately, greater than the random
probability of a heavenly body running into us. So I guess we
have to take our pick as to which is most important.
Space Station Research and Status
I--just a question, an iconic, classic question about the
Space Station. Is any significant research being done there,
anything that is essential to the ongoing efforts of going to
the Moon or to, some time in the distant future, Mars? Is there
good reason to keep it going? And if so, for how long should we
keep it going?
Dr. Griffin. Peer-reviewed scientific research is now
coming out of the Space Station. I can cite examples, for the
record, if not off the top of my head.
Material requested for the record
The International Space Station (ISS) is NASA's long-duration test-
bed for lunar missions as well as a flight analog for Mars transit. The
six-month ISS mission increments are temporal and operational analogs
for Mars transit. NASA is using the ISS as a laboratory for research
that directly corresponds to the Agency needs summarized below:
1. Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation of Biomedical
Protocols for Human Health and Performance on Long-Duration
Space Missions.
2. Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation of Systems
Readiness for Long-Duration Space Missions.
3. Development, Demonstration, and Validation of Operational
Practices and Procedures for Long-Duration Space Missions.
NASA also utilizes the ISS for non-exploration-related life and
physical science research when the uniqueness of the microgravity and
space environment unmask phenomena that cannot be observed or studied
in the normal Earth environment.
ISS international collaborations provide valuable insights into how
our Partner countries approach building, operating, and maintaining
spacecraft. As such, the ISS is a cornerstone in advancing knowledge
about how to live and work in space for long, continuous periods of
time and will remain critical to our future exploration missions.
International collaboration allows for leveraging of data and resources
to obtain answers for critical research problems.
Since the start of human occupation of the ISS in November 2000,
there have been 17 NASA Human Research Program investigations with the
ISS-based portions of their research completed, supporting the research
of 44 investigators worldwide. Presently 16 Human Research Program
investigations are ongoing on the ISS supporting 49 investigators
worldwide. Over the next 12 months, NASA plans on conducting nine
additional ISS Human Research Program investigations supporting 25
investigators worldwide.
Research and technology experiments have been, are being, and will
continue to be conducted on the ISS in the areas of Human Research,
Applied Physical Science Research, and Technology Demonstrations in
support of space exploration.
For a complete list of ISS experiments and for further information
see the following websites:
http://exploration.nasa.gov/programs/station/list.html
http://exploration.nasa.gov/programs/station/expedition.html
http://exploration.nasa.gov/programs/station/publications.html
http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/listfiles.cgi?DOC=TP-2006-
213146
http://hrf.jsc.nasa.gov/science.asp
http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/Exploration/Advanced/ISSResearch/
Future ISS research beyond the above will consist of the following:
Human research content that will be documented in the
Human Research Program Integrated Research Plan. This plan, to
be published in December 2007, will consist of content informed
by the Office of the Chief Health Medical Officer crew health
standard requirements and Constellation Program needs.
Physical science research content that will be
documented in the Physical Sciences Strategic Plan for use of
the Combustion Integrated Rack, the Fluids Integrated Rack, the
Microgravity Materials Research Rack, the Microgravity Science
Glovebox and the Expedite the Processing of Experiments to
Space Station Rack--ISS Utilization from 2010 and beyond. This
plan will consist of content informed by National Research
Council study recommendations for research and technology
supporting space exploration and Constellation Program needs.
Technology demonstrations that will be informed by
the Constellation Program needs.
As we--and I--again, I would remind everyone that we are
still assembling the Space Station. It is only 55 percent
complete.
Mr. Ehlers. Now that is my next question. Is----
Dr. Griffin. And that----
Mr. Ehlers. What----
Dr. Griffin.--several--I mean, the European laboratory, to
which we have some access, and the Japanese laboratory, to
which we have some access, have yet to be in place. The
European laboratory and the first of the Japanese flights will
be later this year. So we are still building the Station, and
its full capability as a research laboratory is mostly in front
of us. But we can't have a research laboratory until we get the
power and the water and the air conditioning fully in place.
And that is what we are doing right now.
How long should the Space Station be sustained? I believe
it should be sustained as long as the costs of its operations
and maintenance, once built, as long as the cost of its
operations and maintenance seem to be justified by the
research, which is being returned, then I think the case can be
made that it should be retained.
We have already committed to the cost of building it. The
cost of building it is largely sunk. The cost to complete is
the cost of finishing the Space Shuttle program out to complete
the flights. The equipment is built. It is largely sitting at
Kennedy Space Center, ready to be put on orbit. So ceasing the
Space Shuttle program--the Space Station program today would
save some money, but not much, and I think we should commit to
its completion, as we have--as the President has done, on
multiple occasions. And when we are done, we should use it in
the fashion that we have planned. And as for when the time--
again, when the time comes that we are not getting research
worth the cost of its logistics, we will know that, and it will
be time to cease its operation.
Mr. Ehlers. And is the Centrifuge going to be installed, or
is--has that part been dropped?
Dr. Griffin. The Centrifuge will not be installed.
Mr. Ehlers. And is there a particular reason for that? Is
that a cost factor, or is it--is there--was there a problem
with building it?
Dr. Griffin. We are just out of Shuttle flights to deploy a
Centrifuge, and that particular set of equipment didn't make
the prioritization.
Mr. Ehlers. And then what happens when the--when you retire
the Shuttle? Could you expect the CEV to be the--transporting
personnel and equipment back and forth?
Dr. Griffin. After we retire the Shuttle, for a period of
about four to five years, we will be purchasing commercial
cargo service from Russia as well as from other nations and,
hopefully, from indigenous cargo providers in our own nation.
We will be purchasing crew-rotation services from Russia and, I
hope, commercial providers within our own country, but again,
that is a commercial transaction, and it is not something that
I can guarantee.
Mr. Ehlers. Right.
Dr. Griffin. Right now, we are--actually, we are
negotiating a definitive contract with Russia to provide crew
rotation and cargo services out through 2012, through the end
of 2011 until 2012, in accordance with legislative relief that
the Congress gave us on the ISNA Act. After 2012, we will, of
course, have to rethink that. In 2015, we will start flying the
CEV, and if commercial providers are not available, we will use
the CEV to conduct Station logistics, but I have made it very
clear that it is my intent that our provider of choice for crew
and cargo is commercial services, if those can be brought into
being.
Chairman Gordon. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Hall is recognized for five minutes.
CEV Projecting and Budget
Mr. Hall. Actually, on Mr. Udall's questions, maybe I was
gone to vote or something, and you may have answered this. If
you have, tell me. But there is some confusion about the answer
to his question. When asked about the--when he asked about the
delay in the CEV, it is my understanding that your answer was
based on the CEV that was delayed until March of 2015. Now,
somewhere, I understand that there has been a review at NASA,
or new content, I guess, is the word that you used, that have
added content, and they still have a launch of 2015, the same
date, or maybe a couple of months on down. Now, let me finish.
Dr. Griffin. Okay.
Mr. Hall. And that is the same date. So, I guess the
question is, what was deleted to keep the 2015 goal? You added
new tasks or new content, and the current fiscal year 2008
budget didn't support initial operating capability in 2014, and
last month, you said NASA added important content to the
Constellation program, including one test flight to check out
orbital systems prior to flying astronauts for the first time.
Of course, that is logical, and you will be making some
slippages and some changes between now and 2015, I understand
that. But what would be eliminated to keep the same date and,
yet, there was a slippage?
Dr. Griffin. I understand the question in the large, and
let me, if--I think I can do this in five minutes.
Mr. Hall. Okay.
Dr. Griffin. Let me take it from the top and sketch out the
whole picture----
Mr. Hall. Okay.
Dr. Griffin.--because I think anything less than a complete
answer is misleading, and I just don't want to do that.
Mr. Hall. Yeah, and I have found out that they have taken
from my money that I put in the budget, $15 million to study
the safety features and $150 million maybe to keep it going,
that they took $75 million of that out to put John Glenn back
into space, and I found that out when your head of NASA came
and sat right where you sit there and told us about his budget.
But we would like to know ahead of time.
Dr. Griffin. I am completely forthcoming on that point,
and----
Mr. Hall. And I was for old people going into space, too.
Dr. Griffin. Well, I regard Senator Glenn as a personal
hero and a valued advisor, but we are not sending him into
space again with your money. So let me take it from the top.
I will start at the endpoint. Today, we are sitting on
March 2015 as our--as what we think our launch capability will
be for the CEV with crew. We have not ``added any new content''
to the program. The way that I would say that is we have
finalized, after a period of about 18 months of planning, and I
think a certain amount of planning is necessary, we have
finalized the content that the CEV program should have, which
test flight specifically, how many test flights do we need to
do, what will each test flight attempt to do, and in fact, one
of the discussions we have been having is upon which test
flight will we demonstrate the abort system that you earlier
expressed an interest in? But by and large, content adjustments
have been, you know, quite minimal. What we are trying to do is
to lay out the very specific program that we will fly to get
from here to the delivery of the CEV. We have that.
That amount of program content comes with a certain cost.
Now, there have been a number of delays to our hoped-for
delivery date for the CEV. Let me take a couple of the larger
ones. When I sat here in 2005, two years ago, it was my hope
that we could deliver a Shuttle-replacement capability, the
CEV, some time in 2012, and we were attempting to do that. We
laid out a plan by which that could be accomplished. We were
not able to fund that plan. The first disruption to that plan
was, as Chairman Gordon mentioned earlier, that it was
necessary to put money into the Space Station and Space
Shuttle. That--from exploration systems, that required about
$1.6 billion, and that delayed us from 2012 until--and I won't
be specific about the time, some time in 2014. There were
rescissions for Katrina and other purposes. That delayed us. As
Chairman Gordon mentioned, the amount of money projected to be
available for NASA from the Administration decreased. That
caused delays.
The sum of all of those different delays, all on our side
of the House, all on the Administration side of the House,
whether within NASA or not, pushed the program out to late
2014. At that time, it had been--well, we had never--we had not
yet re-baselined the program since the contract had been
awarded to Lockheed. And if you will recall in earlier
testimony, I had said that we wanted to do our budgeting at a
65 percent confidence level in contrast to the lower confidence
levels that had been used in the past, and I believed--I
strongly believe I have the support of this committee in doing
that.
So then we undertook our baselining activity to establish
with the known program content and given the prior reductions
in funding and inserting the 65 percent confidence level
requirement what date would we--what date would fall out. The
date, which fell out, was March 2015.
Now, hang on with me for just another minute more.
Following that, we then had to deal with the issue of the
reduction in our planned funding, not an actual cut, but the
reduction in our planned funding due to the 2007 Continuing
Resolution. As I testified a few moments ago, when Mr. Udall or
Mr. Gordon, I now forget which, asked the question, that
specific delay was an additional six months. That, then, took
us from March 2015 to September of 2015. Okay. Within my own
resources, within the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate,
we then terminated some lower--in our judgment, lower-priority
activities in order to buy back some schedule for the higher-
priority activity, which is the CEV. That, then, returned us to
March of 2015, which is where we sit today.
So, to end up, we are at March of 2015 today, but I no
longer have any latitude, at all, within my Exploration Systems
budget, to absorb any other funding reductions. There is no
lesser-priority content left that I can extract from the
program in terms of moving money around.
Now, that is a long story, and I am sorry. I hope--it was
as clear as I can do it.
Mr. Hall. I thank you for that. And what I gather from that
is that there was not any program or part of a program
eliminated or delayed. The slippage was there, and it happened
just as you have put it on the record.
Dr. Griffin. I think that is right, sir.
Mr. Hall. He says you did say the robotic lunar----
Dr. Griffin. I did. It is in order to----
Mr. Hall. Okay.
Dr. Griffin.--achieve the best schedule on CEV, I did
extract what I determined to be lesser-priority stuff, which
was the robotic lunar lander that would have followed Lunar
Reconnaissance Orbiter and certain advanced technology
development.
Mr. Hall. So as much as the CR or that elimination, you are
firm--you are pretty firm, as you can be--possibly be, at this
date, on the date of March of 2015.
Dr. Griffin. Right.
Mr. Hall. I thank you, and I yield back my time.
Thank you.
Dr. Griffin. And the CR, by itself, was a six-month delay,
but there have been other delays, and that is not the only one,
and I don't want to leave the impression that it was.
I also must say, for the record, that we have certainly not
eliminated lunar robotics from our vision. One of the most
important things we are going to do with lunar robotics is to
in--place the communications and navigation structure around
the Moon that will tie it to the Earth-orbiting communications
and navigation network, and that will be crucial for the out-
years.
Mr. Hall. You have sure clarified it for me, and I hope it
helps my friend from the west.
Dr. Griffin. I have tried. It is very hard.
Mr. Hall. And I yield back. You have done very well, and I
thank you for it.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall.
Decadal Survey Suggestions
In conclusion, Dr. Griffin, as you know, there are a lot of
folks that are interested in the Earth science application
recent Decadal Survey. I understand that when you were
answering a question, and I wasn't here, with Mr. Udall, that
you weren't prepared to say whether or not--if you are going to
do any of them, not do any of them, or what--which ones they
might be. So when can we--when can you tell us that you will be
able to give us an indication if you are going to do any of the
missions? And if not--and then, but if you are, which ones?
Dr. Griffin. Well, we are working----
Chairman Gordon. We have got spare time.
Dr. Griffin. We are working on a couple of things on that,
and I am trying to--I just want to get the plan. There--I have
been before this committee to testify in connection with the
NPOESS program on other occasions, and with my colleagues
Admiral Lautenbacher and Dr. Sega. But I believe this committee
is aware that the climate change research that was previously
planned to have been done on NPOESS as a result of the Nunn-
McCurdy breach on NPOESS, that climate research instrumentation
is largely now removed. Okay. NASA's--a few years ago, NASA's
climate change research money was put toward the trilateral
NPOESS program, so that money is now no longer in our
programming. So at OSTP's request, we, along with NOAA, are
prepared--we have analyzed the descoping of NPOESS, and now we
are working to provide a report back to OSTP on how we, at NASA
and NOAA, will undertake to conduct the climate change
research. That report is due in May. We have commissioned a
National Research Council study this--to--also for this spring,
to assess that same question. Into this mix must go the input
from the Decadal. And so, later in the spring, at most--well,
when we receive these reports and then for us later in the
summer, we should be able to provide this committee with an
assessment, going forward, of how 2009 and beyond budget run-
out will be modified to take into account the loss of climate
change research on NPOESS and the new conclusions from the
Decadal. Now, bear in mind that the fiscal year 2008 budget was
prepared before the Decadal was out. And we did modify the
fiscal year--we had a look at the Interim Report on the new
Decadal from Earth science, and we did adjust funding on GPM
to--you know, to take that into account, but the full effect of
the Decadal, replanning it to the extent that it affects Earth
science, won't be available in 2008. It will have to start in
2009 and beyond.
Chairman Gordon. That is a fair answer, and we look forward
to your reporting us--to us on that.
And again, we thank you for your testimony, as always.
If there is no objection, the record will remain open for
additional statements from Members and for answers to any
follow-up questions that the Committee may ask of the witness.
Without objection, so ordered.
The hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Michael D. Griffin, Administrator, National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA)
Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon
Q1. The recently released Final Report of the International Space
Station (ISS) Independent Safety Task Force recommends an additional
billion dollars to support post-Shuttle logistics. This recommendation
reflects the Task Force's serious concerns for long-term logistical
support to the ISS (p. 43, ISS Independent Safety Task Force) and risks
of depending on the COTS program [i.e., commercial logistics carriers]
to support expected logistics requirements in the post-Shuttle
environment.
Q1a. What is your response to the concerns raised by the Task Force
and the funding recommendation? Are the concerns valid?
A1a. NASA is taking the International Space Station (ISS) Independent
Safety Task Force (IISTF) report seriously and is continuing to closely
examine the logistics support needed to safely maintain and operate the
International Space Station, as well as the potential cost, performance
and availability of domestic and international space transportation
systems during the post-Shuttle timeframe. At this time, many variables
remain in our analyses, and this represents a program risk that we are
actively managing and mitigating to the maximum degree possible. The
IISTF report raises valid concerns that the Agency will continue to
review. NASA is actively addressing this issue as part of our FY 2009
budget formulation and are developing a compatible budget and strategy
that addresses these concerns.
Q1b. If COTS systems do not prove viable for ISS crew and cargo
services, what will you do?
A1b. On March 1, 2006, in response to direction in section 505 (c) (2)
of the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-155), NASA submitted to
the Committee an ISS Logistics Contingency Plan that outlines the
Agency's plan to provide logistics and on-orbit capabilities to the ISS
in the event of a contingency such as the Space Shuttle or other
commercial crew and cargo systems being unavailable. NASA is committed
to purchasing commercial cargo and crew services to support the ISS
once these services are successfully demonstrated and cost-effective.
Although commercial services are the strong preference, NASA could also
employ Orion/Ares when it is available or purchase launch services from
within the ISS international partnership.
Q1c. Do you believe you will have sufficient time to procure Russian
Progress/Soyuz vehicles, European ATV vehicles, or Japanese HTV systems
to cover these crew-cargo service requirements?
A1c. NASA is structuring the acquisition process to undertake
procurement actions as late as possible in relation to the COTS
demonstration program, while still preserving options that allow lead-
time for alternative sources. NASA recognizes the implications of
delaying cargo transportation services and is carefully considering the
risk to International Space Station maintenance while taking all steps
feasible to mitigate the risk.
Q1d. With the COTS uncertainty, how great a risk is there of not
having a viable Station or having it shut down, due to inadequate
logistical support?
A1d. It is not possible to predict a specific degree of risk with high
certainty at this time. Each International Space Station (ISS)
increment yields new data on system, subsystem and component
performance and our analyses are continually refined with operational
experience. The ISS Program is committed to delivering the highest
performance possible within available resources. The contingency
Shuttle flights play a key role in providing a robust COTS
transportation plan.
Q2. The International Space Station Independent Safety Task Force
concluded that both of the Space Shuttle flights book-kept as
``contingency'' flights [i.e., ULF-4 and ULF-5 Shuttle missions] ``are
needed to assure the long-term viability and perhaps survivability of
the ISS.'' The Task Force goes on the recommend that ``The
Administration, Congress, and NASA should commit to completing the
Shuttle assembly manifest, including ULF-4 and ULF-5, to enable the
accomplishment of the ISS program's objectives.''
Q2a. Do you agree with the Task Force's recommendation?
A2a. NASA agrees the two contingency flights play an important role in
assuring long-term viability of the International Space Station (ISS).
For this reason, the Agency is continuing to hold open the option to
add these missions following deployment of the ISS international
elements and achievement of a six-crew capability--both of which remain
a higher priority.
Q2b. In the wake of the Safety Task Force's report, has the
Administration--including OMB--committed to completing the Shuttle
assembly manifest, including the ULF-4 and ULF-5 missions?
A2b. The Administration is committed to completing the International
Space Station assembly manifest and honoring our international
commitments as demonstrated by the current baseline assembly sequence.
The decision on whether or not to add the two potential contingency
flights to this baseline and begin detailed flight planning and
integration is not required at this time. A better-informed decision
can be made in the future as the assembly process advances and the
schedule margin available prior to Space Shuttle retirement becomes
clear.
Q3. The Final Report of the International Space Station Independent
Safety Task Force discusses the risks of micrometeoroid and orbital
debris to the ISS. How does NASA plan to address those risks?
A3. In its final report, the International Space Station (ISS)
Independent Safety Task Force (IISTF) notes that ``The ISS Program has
done considerable work to research and model the MMOD environment. This
work has enabled the Program to identify criteria for design and to
determine the level of risk from MMOD to the ISS vehicle and crew. More
importantly, these criteria have aided NASA and the IPs in identifying
and incorporating design solutions to address the problem.''
The report continues to state that ``The ISS is the first crewed
spacecraft to be developed considering MMOD protection as a primary
design requirement.'' NASA, the European Space Agency and the Japanese
Space Agency (JAXA) elements meet established ISS requirements for
micrometeoroid and orbital debris (MMOD) protection. As the IISTF,
report states that ``Russian hardware that was designed before they
were intended for use on ISS (i.e., Russian SM, Soyuz, and Progress)
fall short of meeting the specifications.'' The IISTF recommends that
``the ISS program should place the highest priority on options to
decrease the risk of MMOD,'' specifically:
``5.1.1 The ISS Program should launch and install the Service
Module MMOD modification kits at the earliest practical
opportunity consistent with other safety risk trade-offs.''
``5.1.2 For current systems, the Russians should pursue and
implement design options to meet the integrated programs MMOD
requirements. If necessary, the program should negotiate or
barter with the Russians to implement the Progress and Soyuz
MMOD enhancements.''
NASA continues to monitor the Russian Segment MMOD risk as its top
program risk and has taken steps to mitigate this risk. Roscosmos and
NASA have been in discussions regarding enhancements to the Service
Module (SM), Soyuz and Progress vehicles. MMOD environment models are
being revalidated and the MMOD failure probabilities for docked Russian
vehicles are being reviewed with our Russian partners.
In December 2006, 17 Conformal SM Debris Panels were delivered on
STS-116/12A.1. The panels, along with six panels delivered earlier,
will be installed on the SM in June 2007. Operational procedures are
also in place to orient the SM solar arrays as a MMOD shield.
NASA is currently pursuing a modification to an existing contract
with the Russian manufacturer of the Service Module, RSC-Energia, to
complete a feasibility study for SM MMOD deployable wings that will
further enhance protection against MMOD risks. The study is expected to
verify the design and deployment methods this year, allowing sufficient
time for design, manufacture, installation procedure development and
crew training. The SM MMOD wings are currently manifested for delivery
to ISS on Assembly Flight 20A in 2010. The proposal to execute this
contract modification with RSC-Energia is currently undergoing
interagency review to ensure compliance with the reporting requirements
of the Iran Nonproliferation Amendments Act (P.L. 109-112).
Q4a. What is NASA doing to further the development of supersonic
aircraft?
A4a. The Supersonics Project of the Fundamental Aeronautics Program in
NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate is focused on
maintaining intellectual stewardship of aeronautical core competencies
for the Nation in the supersonic flight regime and on developing
advanced technologies and concepts that can be leveraged by industry to
develop future supersonic aircraft.
From before the first flight of the X-1, through the development of
early supersonic aircraft designs, to the understanding of rocket
booster plume effects on the supersonic performance of the Space
Shuttle, NASA researchers and facilities have played a key role in
finding solutions to the problems of supersonic flight. Recent advances
have contributed to a resurgent interest in supersonic cruise flight.
Sonic boom reduction technology, for example, may make overland
supersonic cruise a reality. Benefits to the general public would
include reduced travel time for business and pleasure, rapid delivery
of high-value, time-critical cargo such as medical items, and rapid
response of disaster first responders. Supersonic cruise technology is
also of high interest to the U.S. military.
One of the most significant barriers common to both military and
civilian supersonic cruise applications is overall aircraft efficiency.
Significant efficiency improvements over what has been demonstrated to
date will in fact be required to make such systems viable.
Breakthroughs in cruise efficiency will be required to achieve the
needed improvements, and for civil aircraft, the technical challenges
are compounded by environmental factors such as airport noise, sonic
boom, and high altitude emissions.
The Supersonics Project team has identified technology challenges
for future supersonic aircraft. These include elimination of the
efficiency, environmental and performance barriers to practical
supersonic cruise flight. Recognizing that the solutions to these
challenges will be highly integrated, the Supersonics Project is
partnering with both the Hypersonics and Subsonic Fixed Wing teams to
develop rapid multi-disciplinary design, analysis and optimization
methods and frameworks that this team can in turn apply to its selected
vehicle class challenges.
The specific technology challenge areas and the levels of
improvement that are required to realize the vision of future
supersonic cruise are:
Efficiency Challenges
Supersonic Cruise Efficiency: To achieve economic viability,
supersonic cruise civil aircraft need to achieve unprecedented levels
of cruise efficiency, without excessively penalizing performance in
other speed regimes. Cruise efficiency, comprising airframe and
propulsion efficiency needs to be increased by a combined total of
approximately 30 percent in order to provide the required supersonic
cruise range.
Light Weight and Durability at High Temperature: Significant
reduction in high-temperature airframe and propulsion system weight is
a key element of achieving practical supersonic flight. New material
and structural systems must achieve these weight targets without
effecting life or damage tolerance. Overall, a reduction on the order
of 20 percent of structural and propulsion system weight is envisioned
to be required.
Environmental Challenges
Airport Noise: Supersonic aircraft must meet the same airport noise
regulations as subsonic aircraft, without incurring significant weight
or cruise performance penalties. This challenge is particularly
difficult because supersonic cruise requires lower bypass ratio than
state-of-the-art subsonic aircraft. Approximately 20 EPNdB of jet noise
reduction relative to an unsuppressed jet will be required to meet this
challenge.
Sonic Boom: In order to achieve maximum utility, supersonic
overland flight must be achievable. This requires that the aircraft
must be designed and operated so that no unacceptably loud sonic boom
noise is created over populations. It is estimated that a reduction of
loudness on the order of 30 PLdB relative to typical military aircraft
sonic booms will be required.
High Altitude Emissions: Supersonic aircraft cruise most
efficiently at altitudes where exhaust emissions have a potentially
large impact on the atmosphere. The impact must be minimized or
eliminated. As an example, the emission of oxides of Nitrogen must be
reduced from 30 g/kg of fuel to five.
Performance Challenges
Aero-Propulso-Servo-Elastic (APSE) Analysis and Design: Slender
supersonic aircraft exhibit unique Aero/Propulsive/Servo/Elastic
behavior. Controlling this behavior is key to designing a vehicle that
is safe, comfortable and easy to fly. Controlling flutter, gust, and
maneuver loads in a manner that is synergistic with the vehicle
structural design, is an important element of reducing empty weight.
Multi-disciplinary Design, Analysis and Optimization Challenges
Understanding and exploiting the interactions of all these
supersonic technology challenges is the key to the creation of
practical designs. This requires the development of a flexible
integration framework in which variable fidelity analysis tools can be
used in a ``plug and play'' fashion depending on the type of problem
being studied.
The Supersonic Project is addressing all of these challenges
through a combination of in-house research and partnering strategies
with academic and industrial entities. Detailed five-year plans have
been setup to achieve the goals mentioned above and can be found at
http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov. It is expected that the resolution of
these challenges will lead to furthering the goal of developing viable
supersonic aircraft.
Q4b. What is NASA doing to develop our understanding of low-sonic boom
supersonic flight so that appropriate sonic boom standards can be
established? What is the timetable for those activities?
A4b. The issue of sonic boom is considered by the Supersonics Project
as one of the key technical challenges that need to be addressed in
order to make viable supersonic cruise flight a reality (see the answer
to the first part of the question). Leveraging past NASA contributions
for the understanding of sonic boom creation, propagation, impact and
minimization, the Supersonics project is currently focused on
furthering our understanding of the effect of the sonic boom
phenomenon, and on developing tools and technologies that can be used
to tailor the sonic boom so that this impact is significantly reduced.
Past research efforts have helped understand the effect of both N-
wave and low-boom (tailored) signatures on outdoor noise levels. These
efforts have ranged from psycho-acoustic studies (in the sonic boom
simulator at the NASA Langley Research Center) to flight tests (DARPA/
NG/NASA Shaped Sonic Boom Demonstrator, F-15 low-boom flights at the
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, and the Quiet Spike flights in
partnership with Gulfstream Aerospace) that give a fairly good
understanding of what would be acceptable to the public in an outdoor
setting.
Current in-house research efforts focus on:
Assessment of the effects of the atmosphere on the
propagation of shaped sonic booms. Atmospheric turbulence and
winds can significantly distort the predicted shape of a ground
shaped boom signature.
Development of building transmission models to better
understand the impact on indoor perception (noise, vibration,
rattle). Indoor noise is now becoming the leading obstacle to
realizable low-boom aircraft.
Development of high-fidelity prediction tools for the
understanding of the creation and propagation of the entire
boom signature. To date most efforts in sonic boom reduction
have focused on the front portion of the boom signature
(created by the front portion of the aircraft). The more
complicated aspects of shaping the aft end of the signature
(including engine plume effects) remain to be solved.
The timeline for the key deliverables in our understanding of the
boom phenomenon and its tailoring for realizable low-boom supersonic
aircraft is included in the tables of milestones (taken from our Task
Plans) below:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In addition to these in-house efforts, the Supersonics Project is
engaging the research and industrial communities by means of the NASA
Research Announcement (NRA). The second round of the NRA closed in late
March 2007, and a large number of proposals addressing the sonic boom
challenge are currently being reviewed and it is anticipated that they
will be awarded during the summer months. These research contributions
will be aligned with the goals of the Supersonic Project in this area
and will significantly enhance NASA's contributions.
Q5. NASA's FY 2008 proposed budget cuts ISS and Shuttle reserves to a
total of just $100 million in FY 2008. That represents a 1.6 percent
reserve level. Do you consider that an appropriate level of reserves
for two large and complex human space flight programs?
A5. In the FY 2008 President's budget request, the Space Shuttle
Program reserves are $62 million and the International Space Station
(ISS) reserves are $38 million. These levels of reserve are tight, but
executable if no major anomalies occur. NASA reduced its Shuttle
reserve posture to address remaining program threats. The program
retains the capability to meet the manifest, but its flexibility is
reduced if technical problems arise. The ISS Program reserves in 2007
are depleted, as the program enters one of the most challenging
assembly years yet. The program will seek to rebuild additional reserve
levels throughout the year by closely monitoring costs.
Enactment of Katrina transfer authority to reimburse Shuttle and
ISS programs would improve these programs' risk posture. Shuttle and
ISS loaned funds for immediate Katrina needs in FY 2005. Without
Katrina transfer authority, reserve levels assumed in the FY 2008
request for Shuttle and ISS will be insufficient to address other
threats that may become reality.
Q6. We have heard you use the term ``go as you can afford to pay''
with respect to the components of NASA's Exploration program. NASA
officials have also said the Agency is not going to use the ``year by
year'' approach that was used for ISS development. Could you please
explain the difference between these two general approaches and in what
ways the development programs in the Exploration program will differ
from the development program for the ISS?
A6. Both the International Space Station (ISS) Program and the
Constellation Program have been planned in a phased process based upon
technical requirements, but the ``go as you can afford to pay''
strategy for exploration includes several factors intended to avoid the
problems experienced by the ISS Program. For the ISS Program, NASA
planned the full architectural scope and specific deliverable content
during the Preliminary Design. During that early phase, the ISS Program
did not have the cost estimation and cost management tools that NASA
uses today and overran their budget during the later phases of
development. Due to these overruns, limits were put on the program's
annual budget late in the process, introducing many inefficiencies and
limiting NASA's ability to most effectively manage the program. These
annual spending constraints put the ISS Program into a ``year by year''
operating mode.
The cost estimation process is more refined for the Constellation
Program than it was with the ISS Program, so overruns are less likely.
Constellation employs a flexible development approach based on
establishing milestones to achieve initial operational capability to
low Earth orbit in 2015 and a first lunar landing in 2018. NASA also
developed a carryover strategy, which helps to mitigate minor funding
fluctuations. In addition, exploration consists of several different
projects; as available resources vary, funding can shift between the
exploration projects to minimize deleterious effects on development.
The improved cost estimation process, carryover strategy, and
separation of projects in exploration all allow NASA to be more
flexible and achieve milestones within the currently projected budget.
Q7. To what level of technical maturity will NASA take it Next
Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) technologies? Does FAA
agree with NASA on the level of technical maturity to be achieved by
NASA prior to hand-off to the FAA? If so, please provide the agreement
to the Committee.
A7. First, it is important to note that all three of the Aeronautics
Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) research programs (Fundamental
Aeronautics, Aviation Safety, and Airspace Systems) contribute directly
and substantively to the Next Generation Air Transportation System
(NextGen). Together, these programs address critical air traffic
management, environmental, efficiency, and safety-related research
challenges, all of which must be worked in order for the NextGen vision
to be realized. The outputs of this focused commitment and investment
will include advanced concepts, algorithms, tools, and methods, in
addition to technologies, and all of these products will be critical to
the success of NextGen.
It should be evident from the clearly stated goals of the NextGen
that a focus on fundamental, cutting-edge research is absolutely
essential to the successful realization of the NextGen vision. The
Vision 100 Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (Public Law 108-176)
clearly states that ``The integrated plan shall be designed to ensure
that the Next Generation Air Transportation System meets air
transportation safety, security, mobility, efficiency, and capacity
needs beyond those currently included in the Federal Aviation
Administration's operational evolution plan. . .'' (emphasis added). In
other words, the NextGen vision is not simply an incremental advance on
the existing system; it represents a true paradigm-shift from what we
have today, and it requires a commitment to cutting-edge research
across a breadth of aeronautical disciplines (from noise and emissions
research to safety research to advanced mathematical optimization
algorithms for airspace management, just to name a few). Such a
commitment is precisely what NASA's new program is offering. Our return
to fundamental, innovative research will increase the probability of
development of the revolutionary technologies that will be required for
the successful implementation of NextGen and will broaden the advanced
technology development options.
While many have embraced NASA's return to the cutting-edge, and
understand that such a focus is critical to the NextGen vision, some
have raised concerns about ``technology transition.'' According to
Public Law 108-176, it is the responsibility of the Joint Planning and
Development Office (JPDO) to facilitate ``the transfer of technology
from research programs such as the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration program and the Department of Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency program to federal agencies with operational
responsibilities and to the private sector.'' In other words, the
responsibility for transition resides with the JPDO and all of its five
member agencies. This responsibility is reinforced in the newly drafted
JPDO Memorandum of Understanding, which both NASA and the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) have signed.
Transition of research into operational use is of course not a new
challenge, nor is it particular to the FAA and NASA. One way to
jeopardize successful transition, however, regardless of the agencies
involved, is for the parties to become fixated on ``technology maturity
levels,'' or ``technology readiness levels.'' The level of maturity to
which a technology is developed is irrelevant if that technology does
not enable the desired goals of the intended users. Successful
transition requires the researchers and the users to engage closely
from the very beginning on whatever is being developed or invented. The
users must understand the assumptions and limitations that the
researchers are operating under as they perform their research and the
researchers must understand how their assumptions will impact the
usefulness of their technology or method. Successful transition relies
upon a close working relationship among those who conduct the research
and those who use its results, and the JPDO has been established
precisely to address this challenge. NASA intends to work closely with
all of the member agencies of the JPDO, including the FAA, throughout
the entire technology development process to ensure that, to the
greatest extent practicable, researchers and system operations
personnel collaborate to make the technology development and transition
as effective as possible. Figure 1 below illustrates our approach in
the case of the transition of our airspace systems research to the FAA.
This approach enables both NASA and the FAA to do what each does best
according to its charter and mission in the best interest of the
Nation.
Finally it must be noted that the Enterprise Architecture and the
Integrated Work Plan, the primary planning documents of the NextGen,
are still being developed by the JPDO. Baseline versions for each of
these documents are scheduled for completion during FY 2007. However,
these documents will need to be vetted with the stakeholder community
and will undoubtedly continue to evolve over the next few years. As
these documents mature, gaps will most likely be identified in
technology development, knowledge, schedule, or other areas, and NASA,
the FAA, and the other JPDO member agencies (DOD, DHS, DOC) will work
together to address those specific gaps as they impact NAS transitions
and system implementation. At the moment, in the absence of these
plans, no agreement can or does exist regarding what specific gaps need
to be addressed and how they need to be addressed. Therefore, in the
interim, NASA will continue to work with the JPDO to refine its
technical roadmaps and resource plans, which have been developed in
substantial collaboration with the JPDO, as information regarding the
JPDO plans becomes available.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Q8. In 2003, NASA was authorized to demonstrate enhanced use leasing
(EUL) at two centers, allowing the agency to retain the proceeds form
leasing out underutilized real property and to accept in-kind
consideration in lieu of cash for rent. NASA has requested that
Congress extend this authority to additional centers. GAO recently
issued its report and recommended that NASA develop an agency wide EUL
policy to address weaknesses in the agency's implementation of EUL.
a. What is the status of NASA's agency wide EUL policy?
b. What are NASA's plans and timeframe for implementing the
policy, specifically in the areas pointed out by the GAO (best
economic value criteria, measures of effectiveness, and
accounting controls)?
A8. NASA has begun development of the new Agency-wide EUL policy. The
NASA-wide EUL policy will include the recommendations from the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) to provide clear and unambiguous
requirements and procedures on EUL as well as procedures and lessons
learned from the two NASA centers in the EUL demonstration program. The
policy will be based on sound business practices and will establish
controls and processes to ensure accountability and to protect the
government's interests. NASA anticipates that the Agency-wide guidance
will be implemented before the end of the current fiscal year, and
guide the execution of any expansion or modifications of the existing
EUL authority that may be enacted by Congress.
Q9. NASA recently delivered the report on Near Earth Objects called
for in the NASA Authorization Act of 2005. However, that Act also
directed NASA ``to plan, develop, and implement a Near-Earth Object
Survey program. . .for near-Earth objects equal to or greater than 140
meters in diameter. . .'' and to deliver a report that provides ``a
recommended option and proposed budget to carry out the Survey program
pursuant to the recommended option.'' The report delivered does not in
fact provide a recommended option that would fulfill the statutory
requirement regarding surveying near-Earth objects equal to or greater
than 140 meters in diameter. When do you intend to comply with the
statutory requirement?
A9. NASA intends to continue its existing NEO program as currently
planned. However, NASA will also take advantage of opportunities using
potential dual-use telescopes and spacecraft--and partner with other
agencies--to attempt to achieve the legislative goal within 15 years.
At the present time, NASA cannot initiate a new program.
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Exploration Systems
Q1a,b. The FY 2007 Continuing Resolution cut the Exploration Systems
program by $577 million. Please describe the program changes NASA has
taken or will take in FY 2007 to accommodate these reductions? Exactly
what projects within the Exploration Systems program will be reduced or
eliminated as offsets?
A1a,b. The FY 2007 reduction will primarily impact the funds available
for the Orion CEV and Ares I CLV development work in FY 2008-2010, not
the current fiscal year. While near-term milestones will be achieved,
the Constellation program will not likely be able to meet several
milestones originally planned during the FY 2008-2010 timeframe. Due to
the cumulative effect of previously underestimated costs to retire/
transition the Space Shuttle and support the International Space
Station (ISS), the reduction from the FY 2007 request reflected in the
FY 2007 Continuing Resolution, and the maturing design and integrated
flight tests baselined for the Constellation program, it is unlikely
that NASA will be able to bring these new Exploration capabilities
online by 2014. NASA is working to define program options within the
Exploration Systems budget for FY 2008 to shore up funding for the
Orion CEV and Ares I launch vehicle. We will communicate NASA's plan to
our oversight Committees later this year.
While the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) and its secondary
payload, the Lunar Crater Observing and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS),
remains on schedule for launch in 2008, all other activity under the
Lunar Precursor Robotic Program, which were directed towards future
precursor robotic missions, will cease. Exploration Systems Mission
Directorate (ESMD) will not be working on additional independent
robotic missions, such as a robotic lander, at this time. ESMD will
instead focus on analysis and processing of available lunar data (from
LRO and other international missions) and execute a Lunar Mapping
effort that will support the Lunar surface operations planning of the
Constellation program.
In the Exploration Technology Development Program several lower
priority technology efforts will be impacted. The spacecraft autonomy
and reliable software projects and the NASA Institute for Advanced
Concepts will be closed out in an orderly fashion and several other
research and technology efforts, such as dust mitigation, non-toxic
cryogenic propulsion systems, and radiation hardened and low
temperature electronics will be reduced.
Q1c. Is NASA contemplating cuts to the science and aeronautics
programs as offsets, and if so please identify them along with budget
offsets?
A1c. NASA's initial FY 2007 Operating Plan, submitted to the Committee
on March 15, 2007, included the reductions to Exploration Systems
resulting from the funding reductions reflected in the FY 2007
Continuing Resolution. No reductions to science and aeronautics were
made as offsets to these reductions.
Q2. Based on your FY 2008 Budget Request, NASA plans to spend nearly
$26 billion on the Constellation program beginning in FY 2008 through
FY 2012. Of this $26 billion, nearly $16 billion is planned for fiscal
years 2011 and 2012. What is NASA's basis for the large increases in FY
2011 and 2012?
A2. FY 2011 and FY 2012 show increased activity and costs as the Ares I
Crew Launch Vehicle, Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle, and Ground
Operations facilities move from design phases to hardware fabrication,
integration, and ground and flight testing. This period includes two
ascent abort test flights, two Orion/Ares uncrewed test flights,
preparations for the first crewed flight, and the start of production
for follow-on flights. Constellation is taking over selected Shuttle
infrastructure and costs in this period, and staffing up ground
operations to prepare for operational flights. Also, in this time
frame, we will see the start of significant development work for
systems to return to the Moon--the Ares V Cargo Launch Vehicle, Lunar
Surface Access Module, and other lunar Surface Systems.
Shuttle
Q3. If further delays are experienced in the Shuttle flight rate it is
likely that one or several flights could be eliminated from the
manifest. How will NASA decide which flights to cancel?
A3. NASA is committed to safely flying the Shuttle through its
retirement in 2010 to complete construction of the ISS, which will
fulfill our commitments to our International Partners and enable us to
conduct exploration-focused research on-board. The Shuttle manifest
calls for 13 assembly flights to the ISS and one to service the Hubble
Space Telescope. In addition, two ISS logistics flights may be flown
There is currently sufficient schedule margin in 2010 such that if a
flight had to slip out of 2008 or 2009 it could still be flown before
September 2010. If any of these flights slip beyond September 30, 2010,
we will investigate the current state of ISS and delete the least
critical equipment to be transported to ISS. This process will evaluate
the maintenance backlog to prioritize what components will be flown.
Q4. Bill Gerstenmaier has recently said that NASA is nearly ``past the
point of no return'' in shutting down vital shuttle suppliers in
anticipation of retiring the Shuttle. Exactly what milestones will
signal the ``point of no return?'' How is NASA ensuring sufficient
spares remain available to support Shuttle operations through 2010? How
has NASA determined at this point whether those suppliers will be
needed for Orion or Ares?
A4. There is no single ``point of no return.'' As contracts are
completed and hardware delivered, it becomes increasingly difficult to
reestablish contracts and procure hardware for the Space Shuttle. For
example, aluminum lithium ingot production for the external tank has
been terminated and all procured ingots provided to Orion. This loss of
material will eliminate the option of cost-effectively continuing
manufacture of multiple tanks.
NASA is building additional spares to insure that the Agency can
fully support the manifest through the end of FY 2010. NASA carefully
reviews each Shuttle component with the Orion and Ares programs and
determines if the supplier will be needed for the future program prior
to ceasing the Agency's relationship with the supplier.
Space Station Human Research Program
Q5a. What is the limiting factor in achieving the Human Research
Program goals?
A5a. The following factors could be construed as limiting to the
success of the Human Research Program:
Significant deviations from the planned Shuttle and
Soyuz launch sequence.
Sample Return capability to maintain the viability of
physiological samples.
The availability of non-assembly crew time.
Availability of crew members as subjects for
research.
Q5b. How will NASA sustain the Human Research Program if any of the
Shuttle logistics flights are not flown by 2010?
A5b. NASA will have to rely on the capabilities of commercial services
if available, or our International Partners if necessary, to fulfill
the up mass and down mass requirements.
Q5c. How much has NASA budgeted for the alternative transportation?
A5c. The table below shows the NASA budget for ISS crew and cargo
services and the budget to develop additional alternative capabilities.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Questions submitted by Representative Mark Udall
Q1. Does NASA plan to initiate any of the new missions recommended by
the Earth Science Decadal Survey and if so, what are the next missions
that NASA would initiate? Does the FY 2008 budget request with its
five-year runout currently contain any funds to initiate any of the
Decadal Survey-recommended missions?
A1. With the Decadal Survey now in hand, NASA is actively developing an
integrated Earth Science mission roadmap to address the Earth Science
scientific priorities identified in the Decadal Survey. As recommended
in the Decadal Survey, the new NASA integrated mission roadmap will
take into account contributions from international partners, the
availability of supporting measurements from precursor missions that
are expected to still be operating after 2010, and the data expected
from National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System
in light of the Nunn-McCurdy recertification.
NASA will work to address the science priorities outlined in the
Decadal Survey through the Earth System Science Pathfinder (ESSP)
missions and Earth Systematic Missions. The FY 2008 budget request
includes $492.3 million (over five years) for a new ESSP mission; this
budget request supports a solicitation to be released in late FY 2008,
with launch of a small-to-medium class mission in the 2014 time frame.
While ESSP missions are competitively selected from among proposals
submitted by researchers, the ESSP Announcement of Opportunity will
solicit proposals for missions addressing one or more of the top four
scientific priorities assigned to NASA in the Decadal Survey:
quantitative measurement of solar irradiance and spectrally resolved
Earth radiation budget; active and passive microwave measurements of
soil moisture and vegetation freeze/thaw cycles; detailed measurements
of ice sheet dynamics and extent; and solid Earth processes combined
with measurements of vegetation canopy characteristics.
In addition, the FY 2008 budget requests includes the start of a
funding wedge for additional future Decadal Survey missions, with a
small amount of funding ($1.2 million) for early work in FY 2009-2011
and growing to $30.6 million in FY 2012. This funding supports future
Earth Systematic Missions.
Q2. The FY 2008 budget total reductions of $270 million for FY 2008-
2012 from the Space Shuttle Transition and Retirement (STaR) funding.
Q2a. What is the impact of the STaR reductions?
A2a. The Space Shuttle Transition and Retirement (STaR) provides funds
to ensure successful ISS operations post-Shuttle retirement. It does
this through the purchase of additional spares and by realigning costs
in several areas that are currently jointly funded with Shuttle, such
as Mission Operations Directorate, Flight Crew Operations Directorate,
and flight crew equipment. The new sparing philosophy involves buying
more spares. The old plan had the failed units returned from the ISS
repaired on the ground and then returned to space.
The FY 2008 budget request provides $187 million for STaR in FY
2008, but reduces the five-year budget for STaR from the previous
estimate by $270 million in favor of other higher-priority elements of
the ISS program and other high priority Agency goals, particularly
TDRSS replenishment satellites. The $270 million cut is achieved by
reducing STaR reserves by $99 million from previous estimates and by
creating a management challenge to reduce the Space Station's
operations cost by $172 million through FY 2012 by finding efficiencies
and reducing requirements and overall operating costs, including STaR.
The resulting cost savings will be used to improve the Program's
reserve posture and offset management challenges as needed.
Q2b. What are NASA's plans for assessing the appropriate numbers and
mix of skilled workers needed to safely fly the Shuttle through 2010
and to transition from Shuttle to CEV?
A2b. As the Constellation System Requirements Reviews are completed
this year, NASA will gain a much clearer understanding of the demands
for future workforce skills, which will form the foundation for making
any future decisions. Although proud of recent progress, NASA
acknowledges that more needs to be accomplished. These tasks include
matching available skills with future work, managing attrition,
retraining and hiring, and using temporary and term appointments to get
the flexibility to align agency needs with the time-phased workload.
The nature of the work many NASA employees will do will change as
we transition human space flight activities from Shuttle operations to
research and development-focused activities like planning, design,
testing and verification for Constellation systems. NASA is striving to
give its employees opportunities to build on their existing skills by
working on the new exploration systems, so that when this development
work comes on-line, many of them can transition into new positions.
Coupled with newly gained skills, the NASA workforce can take the
skills honed in Shuttle operations and apply them to the design of
future vehicles to make them fly more efficiently. From a human
resources perspective, the transition of these key personnel must be
carefully managed given the time between Shuttle retirement and Ares/
Orion operational capability.
In order to complete the remaining Shuttle missions safely,
retention of the NASA workforce, with their skills and tremendous
dedication, for the duration of the Shuttle program is critical. A
recent survey of Shuttle personnel across the NASA field Centers
clearly demonstrates that NASA has highly motivated people who want to
stay for the remainder of the program and see it succeed.
Q3. You have indicated that ISS research is being deferred. However,
you also testified last year that NASA expects to cease funding the ISS
after 2016. That leaves a very limited window to conduct the research
NASA has said it needs to conduct to answer questions related to human
exploration of the solar system. Given that NASA's current ISS research
and utilization plan contains no documentation of specific research
questions to be answered along with the specific research protocols and
milestones to be met to achieve the answers to those research
questions, what specific documentation can you provide to Congress to
demonstrate that NASA has credible and appropriate plans for
utilization of the ISS prior to NASA's planned withdrawal from the
program?
A3. NASA's tactical and strategic plan for utilization of the
International Space Station (ISS) and a list of recent reports are
described below.
Tactical Plan for ISS
1. Launch and conduct manifested payloads. Examples are provided:
Human Research--Analyzing Interferometer for Ambient
Air, Bisphosphonates as a Countermeasure to Space Flight
Induced Bone Loss, Validation of Procedures for Monitoring Crew
Member Immune Function, Vibrational Inhibition of Bone Erosion.
Life Science Research--Streptococcus pneumoniae Gene
Expression and Virulence Potential in the Space Environment,
Advanced Plant Experiments on Orbit--Cambium.
Physical Science Research--Shear History Extensional
Rheology Experiment, Coarsening in Solid Liquid Mixtures-2,
Capillary Channel Flow, Zero Boil-Off Tank Experiment, Smoke
and Aerosol Measurement Experiment, Multi-User Droplet
Combustion Apparatus/Flame Extinguishment Experiment, Light
Microscope Module/Constrained Vapor Bubble.
Constellation Program Technology Demonstration--
Electronic Nose, and Vehicle Cabin Air Monitor.gQ04
For a list of specific ISS experiments and for further information
see the following website: http://exploration.nasa.gov/programs/
station/list.html
2. Develop future ISS experiments based on National Research Council
(NRC) or program needs.
The Human Research Program (HRP) is currently developing an
integrated research plan, which has as an important ISS research
element and extends past 2010. HRP is developing NASA Research
Announcements (NRA's) in the following areas: Space Radiation,
Exploration Medical Capability, Human Health Countermeasures,
Behavioral Health & Performance, and Space Human Factors &
Habitability, which will include experiments conducted on the ISS. NASA
will develop physical science NRA's based on NRC study recommendations
for research supporting exploration and emphasizing the use of existing
flight hardware.
Future technology demonstration experiments will be informed by
Constellation Program needs.
Strategic Plan for ISS:
The ISS is NASA's long-duration testbed for lunar missions as well
as a flight analog for Mars transit. The six-month ISS mission
increments are temporal and operational analogs for Mars transit. NASA
is using the ISS as a laboratory for research that directly corresponds
to Agency needs, as summarized below:
1. Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation of Biomedical
Protocols for Human Health and Performance on Long-Duration
Space Missions.
2. Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation of Systems
Readiness for Long-Duration Space Missions.
3. Development, Demonstration, and Validation of Operational
Practices and Procedures for Long-Duration Space Missions.
NASA also utilizes the ISS for non-exploration-related life and
physical science research when the uniqueness of the microgravity and
space environment unmask phenomena that cannot be observed or studied
in the normal Earth environment.
Reports:
1. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Research and Utilization Plan for the International Space
Station (ISS), 2006. Website to obtain the NASA ISS utilization
report: http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports.html
2. Also, NASA is currently developing two reports--the HRP ISS
Research Plan, to be published in December 2007, and a
comprehensive ISS Research Plan.
Q4. With respect to the CEV program:
Q4a. What effect, if any, will slipping the date of the first Initial
Operational Capability (IOC) (i.e., first crewed launch) have on the
nature of existing contracts for the Constellation program?
A4a. The slip of the Initial Operational Capability (IOC) will not
change the plans for the existing Orion contracts.
Q4b. How much is NASA spending on Constellation programs per month?
Does current spending reflect costs at full-scale program levels or at
levels to reduce the pace? What will the maximum monthly costs per
month be once Constellation is fully ramped up?
A4b. The Constellation program is spending about $120 million per month
as of mid-FY 2007. Constellation is still ramping up, so the current
rate does not reflect any changes due to the funding reductions
reflected in the FY 2007 Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution.
Peak rate within the budget horizon will be about $540 million per
month in 2012, assuming the FY 2007 funding reduction is recovered.
Q4c. Are you confident that NASA now understands the costs required to
retire/transition space shuttle, support ISS and accommodate the design
and integrated flight tests for the Constellation program?
A4c. A major focus of NASA's formulation of the FY 2009 budget is to
adequately quantify the costs to retire and transition the Space
Shuttle and understand the impact of that activity on the International
Space Station (ISS) and Constellation programs. NASA's Space Operations
Mission Directorate and Exploration Systems Mission Directorate have a
joint transition team that is managing the day-to-day issue of
transition from both an overall Agency perspective, as well as issues
specific to the Space Shuttle and ISS. Significant progress has been
made in identifying the risks and challenges associated with Shuttle
retirement, transition of key Shuttle workforce, and the disposition of
facilities across all NASA Centers. While there has been significant
progress made in understanding the issues under a joint transition
effort, much work still remains regarding the understanding of the
costs required to retire the Space Shuttle program and transition to
Constellation systems. It is being managed as a top risk. Independent
of transition dynamics, the operational costs of supporting the ISS are
well understood and the Constellation program has completed its Systems
Requirement Review and is progressing to complete the Preliminary
Design Review in 2008. NASA's confidence level to achieve initial
operational capability for the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle by 2015
is currently at 65 percent.
Q5. Is funding provided in the FY 2008 budget request to develop
alternative means of obtaining the climate measurements eliminated from
NPOESS as a result of Nunn-McCurdy? If so, how much? If not, why not?
A5. While NASA's FY 2008 budget request does not include funding to
develop alternative means for obtaining these climate measurements,
NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
have recently agreed to provide those funds required to fly the Ozone
Mapping and Profiler Suite (OMPS) Limb sensor on the National Polar-
orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System Preparatory Project
(NPP) mission. NASA is working as part of a broad Administration effort
to assess options for recovering the climate measurements that the
other de-manifested NPOESS sensors would provide. As a follow-on
activity to the recently released Decadal Survey for Earth Science,
NASA and NOAA have asked the National Research Council to assess the
loss of climate measurements from NPOESS and provide mitigation
recommendations. An addendum to the Decadal Survey is due this summer.
Q6. The Earth Sciences Decadal Survey discusses he need for
transitioning research satellites to operational systems. The NASA
Authorization Act of 2005 calls for NASA-NOAA coordination on research
to operations.
Q6a. How often has the NASA-NOAA Joint Working Group met? When was the
most recent meeting?
A6a. The NASA-NOAA Joint Working Group has formally met twice, once in
January 2006 and once in April 2006. In addition to these meetings,
NASA and NOAA have been working together in order to address specific
issues of interest to both agencies, as described in the NASA response
to question 6b below.
Q6b. What specific issues has it addressed?
A6b. The NASA-NOAA Joint Working Group has addressed a number of
issues, as detailed below.
1. The primary focus of NASA-NOAA joint activities has been on
the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite
System (NPOESS). NASA and NOAA worked together in late 2006 and
early 2007 to develop a white paper, requested by the Office of
Science and Technology Policy, on the impacts of the de-
manifestation of the NPOESS climate sensors. NASA and NOAA also
worked together to restore the Ozone Mapping and Profiler Suite
Limb sensor on the NPOESS Preparatory Project (NPP) mission.
2. Discussions on coordinating research and operations were
held at the two NASA-NOAA roundtables in 2006.
3. As required by the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (P.L.
109-155), NASA and NOAA have been coordinating the development
of a report to Congress detailing proposed joint activities for
FY 2008. This report will be delivered to Congress shortly.
4. The NASA senior review process for operating missions has
been altered to more specifically reflect the recommendations
of the National Research Council (NRC) to bring NOAA in as part
of a separate review involving operational users of NASA
satellite data.
5. NASA and NOAA are jointly reviewing the results of the
Decadal Survey for Earth Science, as well as working with the
NRC on their addendum to that report to assess the loss of
climate measurements from NPOESS.
Q6c. Is the Joint Working Group with NOAA able to effectively plan for
transitions from research to operations?
A6c. While NASA is making progress working with NOAA, it is still very
early in the planning process, especially given the relatively recent
release of the Decadal Survey for Earth Science, to be able to say that
the problem of transitioning from research to operations is solved.
However, recent examples of NASA-NOAA coordination, such as working
together to restore the OMPS-Limb sensor and conducting a coordinated
senior review process to look at mission continuation, demonstrate that
the agencies are making progress.
Questions submitted by Representative Baron P. Hill
Q1. A report by the National Research Council on humans in space
recommended that the medical and the psychological issues related to
humans engaging in long-duration space flight need to be better
understood. It also suggested that countermeasures for the effects of
exposure to both cosmic rays and solar proton radiation and reduced
gravity will have to be developed.
What efforts is NASA undertaking to respond to these
recommendations with regards to solar proton radiation?
A1. The Agency has developed the NASA Space Radiation Laboratory (NSRL)
at the Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Lab at Upton, New
York. The NSRL opened in October 2003 for scientific research studying
the effects of space radiation and the development of shielding and
biological countermeasures to solar proton and galactic cosmic rays.
The NASA Human Research Program supports more than $30 million per year
on research conducted at NSRL through competitive research awarded to
U.S. universities or government laboratories.
The NSRL is a unique facility in the world for simulating both
solar protons and galactic cosmic ray heavy ions. NSRL can accelerate
protons to energies of 3,000 Megaelectron volt (MeV), and heavy ions
from carbon to gold to high energies. These energies provide an
accurate representation of both solar protons and galactic cosmic ray
heavy ions.
In comparison, other proton facilities located around the country
(i.e., Indiana University Cyclotron Facility, Loma Linda University
Medical Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, the University of
Florida, and the University of Texas's MD Anderson Hospital) can
accelerate protons only up to energies of a few hundred MeV, which is
insufficient to properly simulate solar protons. Also, such facilities
cannot properly simulate galactic cosmic ray proton and heavy ions.
Q2. Researchers at the Indiana University Cyclotron Facility (IUCF)
are collaborating with NASA to better understand the radiation risk
from solar protons during space exploration. How has this research
effort supported the recommendations from the NRC report?
A2. To date, no results from IUCF have emerged to better understand the
radiation risk from solar protons. However, pilot studies of new
dosimetry systems are underway and could lead to advance response
capabilities for solar proton events.
Q3. The IUCF is currently being utilized by NASA to support various
aspects of its mission. What additional NASA requirements might be met
through the use of IUCF as a support facility?
A3. The IUCF is working with the NASA Johnson Space Center's
Engineering Directorate to develop new instruments for dosimetry
applicable to solar proton irradiation.
The Agency's research program at the NASA Space Radiation
Laboratory (NSRL) is addressing all of the concerns of the recent
National Research Council report. IUCF has severely limited capability
in NASA's space radiation protection research goals because the
energies possible are not sufficient to simulate space radiation. NSRL
is the only facility capable of addressing the problems of solar proton
and galactic cosmic radiation risk to astronauts.
Questions submitted by Representative Charles A. Wilson
Q1. As part of the Constellation Systems architecture, NASA is
developing major space flight hardware, such as Orion, Ares I, Ares V,
and the Lunar Surface Access Module. Experience has shown that robust
testing of such space flight hardware, particularly large integrated
testing, is essential for mission success. What is being done to assure
that the hardware of Constellation Systems will be thoroughly tested
and that NASA facilities will be effectively utilized across the
Constellation Systems theme?
A1. NASA agrees that past experience has shown that a robust test and
verification program is essential for mission success. Recognizing this
need, the Constellation Program took the proactive approach of standing
up a Test & Verification (T&V) Office early in the program to provide
the necessary leadership. The T&V Office is responsible for producing a
robust integrated verification strategy essential to ensuring mission
success. It has documented this strategy in what is now called the
Constellation Program Master Integration and Verification Plan.
The plan was baselined in December 2006 as part of the
Constellation Program's System Requirement Review. This plan provides
the framework for the Program's integrated verification strategies
including major test activities such as Avionics and Software
Integrated Testing, Propulsion Systems Testing (e.g., J-2X), individual
Flight Element Environmental Testing (e.g., Acoustics or Thermal/Vacuum
testing), Flight Element Integrated Testing (e.g., Orion to Ares I),
Multi Element Integrated Testing (e.g., Orion to International Space
Station (ISS), Orion to Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM)/Ares V-Earth
Departure Stage (EDS) ), Flight Testing (Ares 1-X) and In-space
Integrated Testing (e.g., Orion to ISS Rendezvous and Docking).
The T&V Office also has the lead for identifying facility
requirements necessary to fulfill the Program's integrated verification
strategy. To perform the function, the T&V Office set up the
Constellation Asset Management Panel (CAMP) to review and provide
Constellation Program recommendations on the use of existing
commercial, Department of Defense, and NASA institutional assets
required in support of Constellation integrated verification planning
activities.
The Shuttle Program has developed a facility capability list that
CAMP is currently reviewing for potential Constellation use. The
Constellation Program's recommended infrastructure plan will then be
coordinated with Agency Level Boards and Forums such as the Shuttle
Transition Control Board or the Human Space Flight Capabilities Forum
to ensure that NASA T&V facilities will be effectively utilized across
the Constellation Program.
Q2. A critical element of the Exploration Vision is the establishment
of lunar outposts for extended missions on the Moon. To enable such
outposts, advanced technologies will need to be developed in the areas
of surface power, communications, propulsion and habitation. And these
technologies will need to be verified and demonstrated prior to
entering into systems development. What are NASA's plans, in terms of
schedule and funding, for developing and demonstrating these critical
technologies?
A2. NASA is conducting advance technology development in several areas
as outlined in more detail below.
Surface Power
Preliminary plans for the lunar outpost call for the use of solar
power systems during the initial assembly phase. After the outpost is
complete, nuclear power systems may be tested on the Moon to reduce
risk for future human missions to Mars.
A key element of solar power systems that does require new
technology development is energy storage, which will allow the outpost
to operate during the lunar night. NASA is developing advanced
batteries and regenerative fuel cells to store energy generated by
solar power systems. Energy storage technologies will also provide
power for mobile lunar surface systems such as rovers and spacesuits.
Major milestones for energy storage technology are:
2007--Demonstrate lithium-ion battery for spacesuits
in desert field test.
2008--Demonstrate fuel cell power system for lunar
rover in desert field test.
2009--Demonstrate 10 kW regenerative fuel cell.
2012--Integrated test of solar power system with
energy storage.
NASA is also developing concepts and technologies for affordable
nuclear fission surface power systems. NASA is developing proof-of-
concept liquid metal cooling systems for the nuclear reactor, and
Stirling converters to generate power from the heat supplied by the
reactor.
Major milestones for nuclear power technology include:
2007--Complete affordable fission surface power
conceptual design studies
2008--Demonstrate a 10 kW power conversion system in
the laboratory
2010--Demonstrate deployment of a simulated fission
surface power system in desert field tests
2011--Demonstrate integrated power conversion and
simulated liquid metal cooled reactor operations
Communications
NASA is planning a communications infrastructure and developing
advanced communications technologies to support the lunar exploration
program. It is envisioned that a communications relay satellite in
lunar orbit will be required to provide communications for the lunar
outpost.
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission to be launched in 2008
will fly a miniature radar instrument (mini-RF) that will demonstrate
many significant technology and miniaturization improvements including
an ability to operate in two frequency bands and has an antenna much
smaller than previous synthetic aperture arrays.
Propulsion
NASA's technology efforts in propulsion are focused on delivering
prototype high-performance cryogenic propulsion systems for the Human
Lunar Lander, and on improving the performance and reliability of the
RS-68 engines needed by the Ares V rocket.
The key elements of the Human Lunar Lander propulsion system
include a deep throttling liquid hydrogen/oxygen engine for the descent
stage, a liquid methane/oxygen engine for the ascent stage, reaction
control system thrusters, and zero boil-off cryogenic propellant
storage.
Major milestones for propulsion technology include:
2007--Testing of deep throttling RL-10 engine for
Human Lunar Lander descent stage
2008--Prototype reaction control system thruster
2008--Prototype liquid methane/oxygen main engine for
Human Lunar Lander ascent stage
2010--Demonstrate zero boil-off cryogenic propellant
storage
2012--Integrated liquid methane/oxygen propulsion
system including main engine, thrusters, and cryogenic
propellant storage
The development schedule and major milestones for the RS-68 engine
are still in the planning phase so that NASA and Air Force requirements
can be aligned.
Habitation
NASA is developing critical life support and habitation
technologies. These include atmospheric management, environmental
monitoring and control, advanced air and water recovery systems, waste
disposal, and fire detection and suppression. These technologies will
enable sustainable life support systems for long-duration missions and
protect crew health from hazardous contaminants.
Major milestones for habitation technology include:
2007--Test prototype carbon dioxide and moisture
removal system for Orion
2007--Test bacteria monitoring instrument on ISS
2008--Deliver eNose for flight on ISS (instrument to
detect atmospheric contaminants)
2009--Deliver Vehicle Cabin Air Monitor instrument
for flight on ISS
2011--Test atmosphere revitalization system for lunar
outpost
2011--Test water recovery system for lunar outpost
2012--Test waste management system for lunar outpost
Funding for developing and demonstrating technologies is reflected
below.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Q3. Assuring the safety, health and performance of astronauts is
critical to the success of the Exploration Systems Mission and must be
our highest priority. However, funding for the Human Research Program
has been dramatically reduced in recent years with no significant
growth in funding requested for FY 2008 and beyond. It is hard to
reconcile this funding plan with the criticality of keeping and
maintaining the health and safety of our astronauts. What is NASA's
plan to develop the necessary understanding of the effects of zero and
partial gravity environments on humans, develop effective
countermeasures to mitigate risks and deliver required medical care to
astronauts on exploration missions, including outposts on the lunar
surface?
A3. NASA believes that assuring the safety, health and performance of
astronauts is critical to the success of the Exploration Systems
Mission. NASA has responded to the Vision for Space Exploration by
restructuring and focusing its biomedical research program. Part of
this restructuring included the establishment of the Human Research
Program (HRP). The HRP is working more closely with NASA's Medical
Operations community to focus its research and technology investment to
investigate and mitigate the highest risks to astronaut health and
performance to ensure that appropriate countermeasure investments and
mitigation strategies are made that satisfy exploration mission
requirements.
HRP is helped by its interaction and integration with the National
Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI), a consortium of 12
academic institutions from across the Nation. The goal of this
important partnership is to conduct research to understand the effects
of microgravity on humans, and to develop effective countermeasures to
mitigate the risks associated with space flight. Further, NASA has
established a flow-down of requirements from the Office of the Chief
Health and Medical Officer (OCHMO) to the various Program Elements of
the HRP at the Johnson Space Center. The NASA OCHMO has developed an
initial set of space flight health standards that serve to guide the
HRP in the expansion of the evidence base regarding human space flight
health and performance risks.
This document establishes NASA's space flight crew health standards
for the pre-flight, in-flight, and post-flight phases of human space
flight. These standards apply to all NASA human space flight programs
and are not developed for any specific program. A copy of the document
can be found at: http://standards.nasa.gov/default.taf. The highest
priority risks have been identified by HRP and allocated to the Program
Elements within the HRP.
The main Program Elements within HRP include Space Radiation,
Exploration Medicine Capability, Human Health and Countermeasures,
Behavioral Health & Performance, and Space Human Factors &
Habitability. The HRP is using the ISS as a research platform to
understand the effects of long duration space flight on humans, to
identify research gaps associated with long-duration space flight, and
to develop and test countermeasures that reduce the medical risks of
human space flight. NASA is also using ground-based space analog
environments (e.g., bed rest, Antarctica, undersea habitat) to
understand the effects of zero and partial gravity on humans. The HRP
strives to strengthen its partnerships with academia, other federal
agencies (e.g., NIH, DOE), international space agencies, the emerging
commercial space transportation industry and other private industries,
in order to leverage resources and provide the most extensive evidence
base possible and help ensure the timely development and validation of
countermeasures and technologies to mitigate risks to our astronauts on
exploration missions.
Questions submitted by Representative Ken Calvert
Exploration Systems
Q1. Based on experience to date with the Orion and Ares programs, what
do you consider the three highest risks, and what steps are being taken
to address them?
A1. The Constellation Program utilizes an active risk management
approach, which involves regularly identifying, evaluating, and
retiring the risks which are affecting the program. At the present
time, the Constellation Program has identified the following top three
risks: (a) a human space flight capabilities gap from Shuttle
retirement until Ares Initial Operational Capability (IOC); (b) Orion
Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) mass allowance; and (c) ground flight
test qualification for the first crewed lunar return.
a. A prolonged gap between Shuttle retirement and Ares IOC
increases the risk that NASA will lose launch processing and
mission operations capabilities.
Constellation is on a path to complete Design Development
Test & Engineering for high-risk hardware to support IOC in a
timely fashion. Additionally, test flights and requirements for
crew launch & crew exploration vehicles are being reviewed to
align technical, schedule, and budget targets to minimize the
deleterious impact of the hiatus in NASA crewed vehicle
launches.
b. Current Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) mass estimates are
exceeding previously established allowances.
By the late summer of 2007, the requirements will stabilize
and mature, allowing NASA to analyze the design decisions and
determine their effects on current and target weights. For a
further risk reduction, two external consultants will
accomplish mass properties reviews six months prior to
preliminary design review and critical design review.
c. The first crewed lunar return may occur without a full-
scale test of the CEV heat shield, since current U.S. arc jet
facilities capabilities do not provide full coverage of lunar
return entry environments and a flight test of the heat shield
has not been programmed.
A Thermal Protection System Analysis of Alternatives study is
underway to develop a risk mitigation strategy in 2007. Options being
evaluated include ground facility upgrades, exploring non-NASA ground
test facility capabilities, sub-scale test flights, and full-scale test
flights.
Shuttle
Q2. What is the effect of the delay of STS-117 on NASA's overall plan
to fly out the Shuttle manifest? If flown in mid-May, as currently
forecast, will NASA still be able to fly all remaining missions,
including the Hubble servicing mission by December 2010?
A2. On June 8, NASA successfully launched Space Shuttle Atlantis' STS-
117 mission to the International Space Station (ISS). Completion of
this mission allows NASA to fly out the remaining flights needed for
ISS assembly. By the end of 2008 or the first part of 2009, the ripple
in the manifest caused by this delay will have settled out, and NASA
will be back on track to complete the manifest by the end of FY 2010.
NASA will still have the same schedule margin as today to complete any
ISS assembly flights and the Hubble servicing mission.
The Space Shuttle and ISS Programs agreed to the manifest changes
during an April 16, 2007, meeting to evaluate options following the
STS-117 mission's delay, which was caused by hail damage to the
external fuel tank. Flights beyond STS-124 have not been assessed. Both
Shuttle and ISS Program officials will continue to assess options for
the remainder of the shuttle flights, and those target launch dates are
subject to change.
Upcoming shuttle missions:
-- STS-118 targeted for no earlier than Aug. 9, 2007, on
Endeavour
-- STS-120 targeted for no earlier than Oct. 20, 2007, on
Discovery instead of Atlantis
-- STS-122 targeted for no earlier than Dec. 6, 2007, on
Atlantis instead of Discovery
-- STS-123 targeted for no earlier than Feb. 14, 2008, on
Endeavour
-- STS-124 targeted for no earlier than April 24, 2008, on
Discovery instead of Atlantis
The orbiters for STS-120, 122 and 124 were exchanged to best meet
the demands of the missions and to have the least amount of impact on
the overall flight schedule.
Aeronautics
Q3. Under the FY 2007 continuing resolution, NASA's aeronautics
program received an additional $166 million. How does the agency intend
to allocate this unanticipated sum during the balance of this fiscal
year?
A3. Below are details outlining how NASA intends to spend the $187
million increase reflected in the Agency's initial FY 2007 Operating
Plan. The $187 million total includes the $166 million difference
between the $724 million President's FY 2007 budget request for the
Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) and the $890 million
reflected in the FY 2007 Revised Continuing Resolution (P.L. 110-5) ,
and further includes an increased overhead assessment to ARMD of $21
million. NASA allocated the Congressional FY 2007 budget augmentation
to the three Aeronautics Research Programs consistent with the funding
priorities reflected in the FY 2007 President's Budget request. NASA
also increased the Aeronautics Test Program (ATP) budget level to fund
strategic facility investments that will benefit both the Agency and
the aeronautics user community.
The breakdown of the FY 2007 budget augmentation by research
project is shown below.
Airspace Systems Program ($31.2 million)
The Next Generation Air Transportation System (NGATS) Air Traffic
Management (ATM): Airportal Project: $6.7 million
The Airportal Project develops and validates algorithms, concepts,
and technologies to increase throughput of the runway complex and
achieve high efficiency in the use of airportal resources such as
gates, taxiways, runways, and final approach airspace. Currently, the
growth of air traffic demand and fleet diversity is causing the
operational volume at hub airports to rapidly approach their maximum
capacity. NASA research in this project will lead to development of
solutions that safely integrate surface and terminal area air traffic
optimization tools and systems with Four-Dimensional (4D) trajectory
operations. The budget augmentation is directed toward:
Application of data-mining techniques to study safe
and efficient surface operations
Human-in-the-loop simulations to test runway
incursions and 4D taxi clearances
Investigation of human roles and responsibilities in
the airportal to enable gate-to-gate NGATS operations
Comparison of competing concepts for metroplex
operation during super density operations
Funds have also been used to enhance critical core competencies in
data mining for surface traffic optimization, human-in-the-loop
simulation modeling that supports research in automated separation
assurance, autonomous operations technologies, modeling and simulation
for airspace system design and human factors design issues for
transitioning to the future NGATS.
The NGATS ATM: Airspace Project: $24.5 million
The Airspace Project develops and explores fundamental concepts and
integrated solutions that address the optimal allocation of ground and
air automation technologies necessary for NGATS. The Project will focus
NASA's technical expertise and world-class facilities to address the
question of where, when, how and the extent to which automation can be
applied to moving aircraft safely and efficiently through the National
Airspace System (NAS). Research in this Project will address 4D
Trajectory Operations, including advances in the science and
applications of multi-aircraft trajectory optimization that solve the
demand/capacity imbalance problem while taking into account weather
information and forecast uncertainties and keeping aircraft safely
separated. The Project's research will develop and test concepts for
advanced traffic flow management to provide trajectory planning and
execution across the spectrum of time horizons from ``strategic
planning'' to ``separation assurance.'' Ultimately, the roles and
responsibilities of humans and automation influence every technical
area and will be addressed. The budget augmentation expands the
research and development portfolio for NGATS to include:
Integration of weather information with automation
concepts, algorithms and technologies for traffic flow
management and super density operations
Development of design principles to allow multi-
objective trades of capacity, safety and uncertainty for NGATS
and application of these principles to examine critical
technical issues regarding insertion of new vehicles,
procedures, operations, technologies and safety systems in
NGATS
Models of NGATS procedures and technologies that are
integrated into NASA's software baselines such as the Airspace
Concept Evaluation System, ACES, a core investment analysis
tool used by the Joint Program and Development Office (JPDO),
and
Multi-vehicle coupled capacity and safety concepts,
algorithms and technologies.
Funds have also been used to enhance critical core competencies in
human-in-the-loop simulation modeling that supports research in
automated separation assurance, autonomous operations technologies,
modeling and simulation for airspace system design and human factors
design issues for transitioning to the future NGATS.
Aviation Safety Program ($28.5 million)
The Aviation Safety program is committed to providing the means to
conduct experiments that support its program objectives. The program
uses testbeds and simulators to conduct its core research experiments,
however, the opportunities offered by new testbeds and improved
simulators will fundamentally strengthen the outcome of the
foundational, discipline and multi-disciplinary research that is
planned.
Integrated Resilient Aircraft Controls (IRAC) Project: $8.6 million
The ability to conduct full-scale flight experiments as part of the
IRAC Project will expand the quality and potential application of the
results of the validation and verification (V&V) efforts within the
project in the field of adaptive controls--the most promising direction
for resilient control. The F/A-18 provides the ability to conduct full-
scale experiments that, in concert with the sub-scale model and
analytical methods, are key in the field of adaptive control for both
aeronautics and space applications. Funds will therefore be used to
provide an integrated, one-time upgrade to the F/A-18 testbed. Funds
will also be used to enhance critical core competencies in adaptive
flight control, software design & validation and autonomous systems
technology.
Integrated Vehicle Health Management (IVHM) Project: $5.7 million
Funds will be used to develop an IVHM testbed that will provide the
computer processing capability to develop and validate tools and
methods for integrating and analyzing large and disparate sources of
data. The capability will be used to support the development of
advanced data-mining tools and methods in the IVHM Project. Funds will
also be used to enhance critical core competencies in icing research,
software design & validation and autonomous systems technology.
Integrated Intelligent Flight Deck (IIFD): $11.6 million
The IIFD Project relies significantly on simulation of off-nominal
conditions for its research. Funds will be used for simulator upgrades
that will provide unique capabilities to integrate human-display
testing, as well as better integration of sensor modeling. Funds will
also be used to enhance critical core competencies in computer science
and human factors research.
Aircraft Aging and Durability (AAD): $2.6 million
Funds will provide large-scale composite containment test specimens
that will be used for in-house experiments, as well as for research
conducted under cooperative agreements with external research
organizations (our NRA partners). Funds will also be used to enhance
critical core competencies in composite research.
Fundamental Aeronautics Program ($93.1 million)
The Fundamental Aeronautics (FA) Program is dedicated to the
mastery and intellectual stewardship of the core competencies of
aeronautics for the Nation across all flight regimes. The long-term
research that the FA Program conducts is both focused and integrated
across disciplines, and will be used to provide feasible solutions to
the performance and environmental challenges of future air vehicles.
Funds from the budget augmentation are targeted to further and
accelerate this mission. In order to achieve significant results more
rapidly, we are focusing on investments in advanced research ideas,
improved facilities, stronger external partnerships, and additional
testing and validation. In addition to the project-specific content
provided below, funds from the budget augmentation will be used for
four program-wide research initiatives that are intended to jump-start
efforts to develop NASA's future computational capabilities (for
predictive capabilities in fluid mechanics, combustion, acoustics, and
materials and structures), to create environments and standards for
multi-disciplinary analysis and optimization, to generate innovative
new ideas, methods, and sensors to acquire experimental data that we
cannot obtain today, and to speed-up the development of advanced, high-
temperature, multi-functional materials for higher propulsive
efficiency and to sustain harsh environments across the speed regime
(in both airframe and propulsion applications).
Hypersonics Project: $33.4 million
The goal of the Hypersonics project is to conduct long-term,
cutting-edge research in the core competencies of the hypersonic regime
to address the technical challenges for two high-payoff missions:
Highly Reliable Reusable Launch Systems (HRRLS) and High Mass Mars
Entry Systems (HMMES). Funds from the budget augmentation will be used
to enhance our capabilities to acquire data relevant for the validation
of tools for the entry, descent, and landing (EDL) phase of planetary
re-entry, for enhanced research in combined-cycle approaches for
hypersonic propulsion, and to support partnerships (specifically, for
the HyBoLT/SOAREX/ALV-X1 partnership with ATK, and the X-51 partnership
with the Air Force and DARPA). Through these partnerships, we intend to
create databases for transition to turbulence in very high-speed flows
and to solve key outstanding problems in supersonic combustion for
hypersonic, air-breathing systems. Funds will also be used to enhance
critical core competencies in advanced structural concepts, durability
technologies, nondestructive evaluation methods and arc jet
experimental techniques.
Subsonic Fixed Wing Project: $34.1 million
The goal of the Subsonic Fixed Wing project is to conduct long-
term, cutting-edge research in the core competencies of the subsonic
fixed wing regime to enable improved prediction methods and
technologies for lower noise, lower emissions (including NOX,
CO2, water vapor, volatiles, unburned hydrocarbons,
particulate matter, and soot), and higher performance for subsonic
aircraft. Funds from the budget augmentation will be used to enhance
the results produced in collaboration with our NRA partner institutions
by allowing for the proof-of-concept development and testing of a
number of innovative ideas. We also intend to improve key facilities
that can significantly strengthen the quality of acoustics and
emissions/combustion experimental data in support of future concepts
for significant reductions in noise and emissions. Furthermore, funds
will be used to build and enhance new and existing partnerships to
enable future improvements to the aircraft fleet (specifically, our X-
48B/BWB partnership with AFRL and Boeing in pursuit of revolutionary
aircraft concepts, our Ultra-High Bypass Ratio Fan partnership with
Pratt & Whitney, and our Cruise Efficient Short Take-Off and Landing
partnership with AFRL and Northrop-Grumman). The content of all of
these partnerships is focused on the development of new aircraft
concepts that can enable the 2-3X growth in the air transportation
system with minimal environmental impact. Funds will also be used to
enhance critical core competencies in combustion foundational research
and system integration of aerodynamics and heat transfer in the
propulsion flow path.
Subsonic Rotary Wing Project: $12.8 million
The goal of the Subsonic Rotary Wing project is to conduct long-
term, cutting-edge research in the core competencies of the subsonic
rotary wing regime to enable improved prediction methods and
technologies for lower noise, lower emissions, and higher performance
for rotary wing aircraft. Higher performance includes improved speed,
range, payload capacity, propulsion efficiency, and control systems for
safe operations. A number of necessary facility improvements will be
made to enable the acquisition of additional data to assess the
performance of key efforts in the project (gear spur, variable-speed
transmission). The variable-speed transmission effort, a potentially
revolutionary technology that can be used to increase the cruise speed
of rotorcraft vehicles, will see significant benefits from this budget
augmentation. In addition, funds will be used to enhance and develop
external partnerships and to allow for additional data to be obtained
during key tests planned for the coming months. For example, additional
data will be gathered during the DARPA SMART rotor test to assess the
ability of actively-controlled helicopter blades to reduce the noise
from blade-vortex interactions during high-speed flight and descent.
Funds will also be used to enhance critical core competencies in
advanced control methods and cabin noise modeling and reduction.
Supersonics Project: $12.8 million
The goal of the Supersonics project is to conduct long-term,
cutting-edge research in the core competencies of the supersonic regime
to address the technical challenges for two supersonic vehicle classes:
practical supersonic cruise aircraft and supersonic descent for High
Mass Mars Entry Systems. Funds from the budget augmentation will be
used to improve key facilities for the acquisition of acoustic data and
the development of improved materials for high-temperature operation.
Additional test opportunities will be made possible in the areas of
sonic boom assessment and impact, noise suppression through advanced
nozzle concept development, and aeroelastic predictive methodologies.
Furthermore, funds will be used to enhance our ability to predict the
supersonic deceleration phenomena of the EDL phase. Funds will also be
used to enhance critical core competencies in high-temperature sensors,
advanced inlet/nozzle concepts, aero-propulsive-servo-elasticity,
composite structures, and lightweight multi-functional materials.
Aeronautics Test Program ($34.6 million)
Flight Operations and Test Infrastructure: $28.7 million
The budget augmentation will be used to ensure the strategic
availability of critical capabilities at the Dryden Flight Research
Center, which include Western Aeronautical Test Range (WATR), support
aircraft (chase, pilot proficiency, and project support), testbed
aircraft (directly participates in tests) and loads laboratory and
simulators.
Aero Ground Test Facilities: $5.9 million
The budget augmentation will be used to upgrade the Unitary Wind
Tunnel and Arcjet facility at Ames Research Center and the National
Transonic Facility at the Langley Research Center to support NASA's
missions over the long-term.
Q4. During last year's committee hearings on the Decadal Survey for
Aeronautics, many industry and academic witnesses expressed deep
concern about NASA's plans to limit its R&D efforts to a basic level of
development. They argued that such a policy could jeopardize the
success of the Joint Planning and Development Office by halting
development of promising air traffic management technologies at a level
that FAA would be unable to adopt them into the next generation air
transportation system. What steps are NASA and FAA taking to ensure
this ``technology gap'' doesn't come into play?
A4. First, it is important to note that all three of the Aeronautics
Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) research programs (Fundamental
Aeronautics, Aviation Safety, and Airspace Systems) contribute directly
and substantively to the Next Generation Air Transportation System
(NextGen). Together, these programs address critical air traffic
management, environmental, efficiency, and safety-related research
challenges, all of which must be worked in order for the NextGen vision
to be realized. The outputs of this focused commitment and investment
will include advanced concepts, algorithms, tools, methods, and
technologies, and all of these products will be critical to the success
of NGATS.
It should be evident from the clearly stated goals of the NextGen
that a focus on fundamental, cutting-edge research is absolutely
essential to the successful realization of the NextGen vision. The
Vision 100 Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (Public Law 108-176)
clearly states that ``The integrated plan shall be designed to ensure
that the Next Generation Air Transportation System meets air
transportation safety, security, mobility, efficiency, and capacity
needs beyond those currently included in the Federal Aviation
Administration's operational evolution plan. . .'' (emphasis added). In
other words, the NextGen vision is not simply an incremental advance on
the existing system; it represents a true paradigm-shift from what we
have today, and it requires a commitment to cutting-edge research
across a breadth of aeronautical disciplines (from noise and emissions
research to safety research to advanced mathematical optimization
algorithms for airspace management, just to name a few). Such a
commitment is precisely what NASA's new program is offering. Our return
to fundamental, innovative research will increase the probability of
development of the revolutionary technologies that will be required for
the successful implementation of NextGen and will broaden the advanced
technology development options.
While many have embraced NASA's return to the cutting-edge, and
understand that such a focus is critical to the NextGen vision, some
have raised concerns about ``technology transition.'' According to
Public Law 108-176, it is the responsibility of the Joint Planning and
Development Office (JPDO) to facilitate ``the transfer of technology
from research programs such as the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration program and the Department of Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency program to federal agencies with operational
responsibilities and to the private sector.'' In other words, the
responsibility for transition resides with the JPDO and all of its five
member agencies. This responsibility is reinforced in the newly drafted
JPDO MOU, which both NASA and the FAA have signed.
Transition of research into operational use is of course not a new
challenge, nor is it particular to the FAA and NASA. One way to
jeopardize successful transition, however, regardless of the agencies
involved, is for the parties to become fixated on ``technology maturity
levels,'' or ``technology readiness levels.'' The level of maturity to
which a technology is developed is irrelevant if that technology does
not enable the desired goals of the intended users. Successful
transition requires the researchers and the users to engage closely
from the very beginning on whatever is being developed or invented. The
users must understand the assumptions and limitations that the
researchers are operating under as they perform their research, and the
researchers must understand how their assumptions will impact the
usefulness of their technology or method. Successful transition relies
upon a close working relationship among those who conduct the research
and those who use its results, and the JPDO has been established
precisely to address this challenge. NASA intends to work closely with
all of the member agencies of the JPDO, including the FAA, throughout
the entire technology development process to ensure that, to the
greatest extent practicable, researchers and system operations
personnel collaborate to make the technology development and transition
as effective as possible. Figure 1 below illustrates our approach in
the case of the transition of our airspace systems research to the FAA.
This approach enables both NASA and the FAA to do what each does best
according to its charter and mission in the best interest of the
Nation.
Finally, it must be noted that the Enterprise Architecture and the
Integrated Work Plan, the primary planning documents of the NextGen,
are still being developed by the JPDO. Baseline versions for each of
these documents are scheduled for completion during FY 2007. However,
these documents will need to be vetted with the stakeholder community
and will undoubtedly continue to evolve over the next few years. As
these documents mature, gaps will most likely be identified in
technology development, knowledge, schedule, or other areas, and NASA,
the FAA, and the other JPDO member agencies (DOD, DHS, DOC) will work
together to address those specific gaps as they impact NAS transitions
and system implementation. In the interim, NASA will continue to work
with the JPDO to refine its technical roadmaps and resource plans,
which have been developed in substantial collaboration with the JPDO,
as information regarding the JPDO plans becomes available.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]