[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
FOR 2000
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON VA, HUD, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
JAMES T. WALSH, New York, Chairman
TOM DeLAY, Texas ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi ROBERT E. ``BUD'' CRAMER, Jr.,
ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky Alabama
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Young, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mr. Obey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
Frank M. Cushing, Timothy L. Peterson, Valerie L. Baldwin, and Dena L.
Baron,
Staff Assistants
________
PART 1
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
57-789 WASHINGTON : 1999
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida, Chairman
RALPH REGULA, Ohio DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
JERRY LEWIS, California JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico JULIAN C. DIXON, California
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
TOM DeLAY, Texas ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
JIM KOLBE, Arizona MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
RON PACKARD, California NANCY PELOSI, California
SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
JAMES T. WALSH, New York NITA M. LOWEY, New York
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
HENRY BONILLA, Texas JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan ED PASTOR, Arizona
DAN MILLER, Florida CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
JAY DICKEY, Arkansas DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia CHET EDWARDS, Texas
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey ROBERT E. ``BUD'' CRAMER, Jr.,
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi Alabama
MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
Washington LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, SAM FARR, California
California JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois
TODD TIAHRT, Kansas CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee ALLEN BOYD, Florida
TOM LATHAM, Iowa
ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
KAY GRANGER, Texas
JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania
James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2000
----------
Tuesday, March 23, 1999.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
WITNESSES
DANIEL S. GOLDIN, ADMINISTRATOR
LEE HOLCOMB, CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER
ARNOLD G. HOLZ, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
MALCOLM PETERSON, COMPTROLLER
GEORGE E. REESE, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAMS
VICKI A. NOVAK, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR HUMAN RESOURCES AND
EDUCATION
JOHN D. SCHUMACHER, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR EXTERNAL RELATIONS
JEFFREY E. SUTTON, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND
FACILITIES
RALPH C. THOMAS, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED
BUSINESS UTILIZATION
EDWARD HEFFERNAN, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
JOSEPH H. ROTHENBERG, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR SPACE FLIGHT
SPENCE M. ARMSTRONG, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY
EDWARD J. WEILER, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR SPACE SCIENCE
ARNAULD F. NICOGOSSIAN, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR LIFE AND
MICROGRAVITY SCIENCES AND APPLICATIONS
ROBERTA GROSS, INSPECTOR GENERAL
GHASSEM ASRAR, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR EARTH SCIENCE
Chairman's Opening Remarks
Mr. Walsh. The hearing will come to order.
This morning we would like to welcome Daniel Goldin,
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration for the committee's hearing on the NASA budget
for fiscal year 2000. I would also welcome my colleague, Mr.
Mollohan.
The NASA budget request is about $13.6 billion,
approximately $100 million below the appropriation for fiscal
year 1999. Major components of the funding request for fiscal
year 2000 include $2.5 billion for the International Space
Station, development and assembly, $3 billion for shuttle
operations, $2.2 billion for space science, 1.4 billion for
Earth sciences. It is noteworthy that the area of your budget
which has the largest change compared to fiscal year 1999 is
the aeronautics program and that change is 33 percent
reduction.
At the risk of suggesting some humor, some persons have
suggested as a result that the name of the agency should be
changed to the National Space Administration given the
decreasing role of aeronautics in your mission. We look forward
to your explanation about the changes in all your programs and
the aeronautics program in particular.
Mr. Goldin, your entire statement will be made a part of
the record of this hearing. I would like you to summarize your
statement. Before you begin, I would like to ask Mr. Mollohan
if he has any opening statement?
[The statement of Mr. Goldin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Opening Remarks of Congressman Mollohan
Mr. Mollohan. I would also welcome Administrator Goldin and
compliment him on the good job he is doing at the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, and I look forward to
hearing how he is setting NASA's priorities for the future. We
recognize how difficult this task is under the current
budgetary restraints and look forward to working with him to
try to fund his priorities and move the space program on.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome.
Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Alan. I second those positive
comments about your administration. It is a difficult budgetary
time. No one knows more about that than you and your people,
and you have been very successful given those constraints. The
highest priority project seems to be the Space Station, but why
don't you let us tell us what you have been doing.
Administrator Goldin's Opening Remarks
Mr. Goldin. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. I am pleased to appear before you today and present
the President's budget request for Fiscal Year 2000. For the
first time in many years, NASA has a projected outyear budget
that is higher than the budget year request, thanks in great
part to the efforts of this subcommittee.
Funding has been added for the International Space Station,
space science and future launch. I am gratified by the
Administration's alignment of NASA's priority with theoutyear
budget. Nonetheless, the request of approximately $13.6 billion for the
fiscal year 2000 budget is very lean. It is below the fiscal year 1999
enacted levels, and in fact continues a trend for the last 6 years
where the NASA budget has come down, and I will submit this chart for
the record. And it is so tightly constructed that there are several
areas where concerns have been raised by a number of members. I look
forward to beginning a dialogue with the subcommittee today regarding
this budget proposal. Mr. Chairman, we are proud of our accomplishments
and confident about the future.
Last year a new star appeared on the horizon of the
International Space Station. When complete, this research
center in space will include over a hundred major pieces of
hardware from 16 countries, delivered by 6 different vehicles
from 4 launch complexes around the world. It will create new
opportunities for long term research, such as the growth and
study of cellular structures, including living tissue and
protein crystals.
Our vibrant space science program is producing fantastic
results as we keep driving down mission costs. We are in the
middle of an intense launch period of 10 launches in 9 months.
In fact in one more year the space science budget will exceed
that of the Space Station alone. We are on track to conduct an
expedited servicing mission for the Hubble Space Telescope to
ensure that its outstanding science remains uninterrupted. This
budget supports the next generation's space telescope which
will build on Hubble's marvelous results and it will cost about
one fifth of what Hubble cost, be about 3 times bigger and 10
times more powerful. We want to establish a virtual presence
throughout our solar system. We will have fleets of small
spacecraft, rovers and probes in orbit around various planets
and moons in their atmosphere on their surfaces and burrowing
underneath. We will need an interplanetary Internet to assemble
and send back to Earth the tremendous amount of information
that will be generated by these robot emissaries. The first
step of this Internet at Mars is in this year's budget. Our
Earth Science program is experiencing its most ambitious year
ever with almost a launch a month for the rest of the year. Our
research will give us different views of the Earth, water
vapor, the biosphere, global cloud cover, ocean temperature,
and crustal dynamics. Collectively, these views will teach us
how the Earth works as a system. By integrating detailed
measurements at the global, regional and local levels, and
combining them with predictive modeling, we hope to be able to
understand and predict weather and climate on a seasonal
annual, and ultimately decadel basis.
Commercial applications of remote sensing will continue to
grow exponentially, including agriculture, urban planning,
disaster mitigation, environmental compliance, highway and
pipeline siting and resource management. NASA continues to push
the frontiers of flight from general aviation to space access.
We are developing synthetic vision so pilots will be able to
see the landscape, no matter what the weather, day or night,
decreasing the likelihood of accidents. We will push
revolutionary aeronautics concepts through the X planes and
develop new engine technology in high temperature materials and
combustion to lower fuel consumption and improve performance.
We are looking to the future, when there will no longer be
a distinction between air and space travel. The revolutionary
reusable launch vehicle program is demonstrating technologies
that could dramatically reduce the cost of launching a payload
to orbit--from today's roughly $10,000 per pound to $1,000 per
pound--while at the same time improving safety by a factor of
10.
This budget continues our space transportation architecture
studies, to develop an investment strategy for reducing our
cost of access to space by using commercial capabilities. We
also have $10 million for next decade planning to ensure an
appropriate vision for the future that integrates robotic and
human exploration.
Our plans for the future will require revolutionary
approaches, such as Intelligent Synthesis Environment (ISE).
ISE will enable geographically dispersed scientists and
engineers to work as a team in a totally immersive, controlled
real time virtual environment for end-to-end spacecraft design,
development, test, manufacturing and operation. This will lower
costs, accelerate development time, and increase mission
success.
Because NASA doesn't think small, because we plan for the
long term, not the short term, this budget is not designed for
the next decade. It is an investment in the next millennium,
and NASA is proud to lead the way.
I would be pleased to respond to questions from you, Mr.
Chairman and Members of the subcommittee.
RUSSIAN EQUIPMENT AND HARDWARE DELAYS
Mr. Walsh. Thank you very much. I will begin on the Space
Station. As a result of Russian equipment and hardware delays,
the United States has had to make a significant investment in
alternative hardware to compensate for potential Russian
nonperformance. Two of those items are the interim control
module and the U.S. propulsion module. Assuming that the
Russians are not able to complete the service module, when does
NASA have to baseline the interim control module for launch as
a replacement for the service module in order to launch the
Interim Control Module in 1999?
Mr. Goldin. We are carrying two configurations for the
Interim Control Module. One, if the service module is not up
there and, second, as a backup to the propulsion on the service
module. Late this spring we will have to start doing the
planning for the Shuttle, and by this fall of 1999 we are going
to have to make a decision on which configuration we are going
to have for the Interim Control Module.
Mr. Walsh. What is the total cost of the Interim Control
Module?
Mr. Goldin. $156 million.
Mr. Walsh. Will the U.S. propulsion module be launched
regardless of whether the service module is in orbit?
Mr. Goldin. Yes. We believe that it is the right thing to
do to launch the U.S. propulsion module. We will have a very
large investment on orbit. We will have equipment from many
different countries. It makes the system much more robust
having the U.S. propulsion capability on orbit. It also will
allow us to ensure that even if the service module is launched,
that the Russians have problems in delivering propellant to the
International Space Station, we could keep the station up in
orbit with the proper attitude, and the cost is at the present
time estimated at about $500 million. We will be having a
preliminary design review this fall, at which time we will have
a final number, but I believe it will be somewhere around $500
million, and this year's President's budget covers the full
cost of this module.
SPACE STATION BUILDING COST
Mr. Walsh. The current estimate for building the Space
Station is 23.4 billion to 26 billion, which is 6 to 8.6
billion over your estimate of 17.4. How much of this overrunis
due to the growth of requirements and how much is due to Russian
nonperformance?
Mr. Goldin. First, let me say that our estimate for the
Space Station at development complete is between $22 and $24
billion, and the reason we say that is we will have the lion's
share of the research capability going on at that point in
time. There is significant overrun. Some would say that the
overrun is completely due to the Russians. I do not believe
that is the case. I would say a large share of that is due to
the Russians in their inability to deliver the hardware that we
need.
A significant amount of requirements growth has occurred,
about a billion dollars to just build additional equipment in
the United States to back up capabilities of the Russians and
then another billion dollars is associated with our decision to
build a crew return vehicle. Based on experience that we had on
Shuttle-Mir, we felt that it would be necessary to have a crew
return vehicle capable of taking 7 astronauts back from space.
The Soyuz vehicle is only capable of taking 3, and we felt that
it would be necessary to have 2 of these crew return vehicles
onboard. So I would say a few billion dollars of the cost
growth is due to these increased requirements. A significant
portion of the remainder is due to the problems we are having
with the Russians and growth due to our own contractors.
SPACE STATION COST OVERRUNS
Mr. Walsh. So that would put the Russians' responsibility
for overruns in the $4 to $6 billion category?
Mr. Goldin. I wouldn't say that it is that much. We have
some growth at our contractors. For the record, we would be
happy to give you the exact numbers, but my recollection is
that the cost growth at Boeing is about a billion dollars and
internal to NASA is about a half million to $700 billion.
Mr. Walsh. That is attributable to the Russians?
Mr. Goldin. Not attributable. So the remainder of the
number is attributable.
Mr. Walsh. So it is a substantial amount of money?
Mr. Goldin. Yes.
SPACE STATION SCHEDULE SLIPPAGE
Mr. Walsh. How about slippage in the schedule?
Mr. Goldin. Schedule slippage is part of the issue that we
have in terms of delays from the Russians. I don't have all of
the numbers clearly in my head, but we can submit for the
record the breakout of those numbers.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
RUSSIAN SPACE AGENCY BUDGET
Mr. Walsh. In 1998, the Russian Space Agency budget was
600.2 million, of which it received 187 million from the
Russian government and another 60 million from the U.S. Last
year NASA estimated that the Russian Space Agency needed about
300 million in 1999 to meet ISS obligations, of which NASA
proposed to provide 150 million. In your estimate of the
Russian Space Agency's funding requirements, are those figures
still accurate?
Mr. Goldin. I don't know. The major problem we have in
determining how much the Russians need is our ability to
convert Russian rubles, which is what the budget is
appropriated in, into dollars. And given the variability of the
exchange rate of rubles to dollars, A and B, the real effect of
usage of rubles in Russia is very hard for us to estimate it.
That is one of the dilemmas we have.
Secondly, that $300 million number assumed that the
Russians were going to build the science power platform and
research modules unique to them and right now their decision is
to build the hardware that is only essential to keep the Space
Station going. So they have pulled back on some of their own
needs and prioritized the needs that allow everyone else to
proceed. So it is very hard for us to explain that, and that is
the best explanation I can give.
So far I can say that on the things that they promised to
do this year they have been performing and in fact the service
module is almost ready to be packed up and shipped to the
Baikonur Cosmodrome. They are within a few weeks of being able
to pack it up and ship it to the Cosmodrome.
I don't know how to answer the question more specifically
than that.
RUSSIANS AS A FULL PARTNER
Mr. Walsh. We started out with the Russians as a full
partner where they get equal flight time and use of the labs
and so forth. Are they fulfilling their role as a full partner
or are they just like a subcontractor now?
Mr. Goldin. No, at this point in time they still are a full
partner. If they deliver that service module in roughly the
time frame that they are supposed to--there are 3 things that
we are expecting from the Russians. We would like that service
module delivered on orbit in the fall of this year. We would
like them to be able to produce three Progress per year and
deliver them to orbit and two Soyuz per year and deliver them
to orbit. That is absolutely crucial to us, and we would also
expect that the Mir Space Station will be deorbited unless they
can get funds outside of the Russian Space Agency to operate
that Mir Space Station. These are the three things that we
believe are essential to the Russians meeting their obligations
to the International Space Station. And if they do that, they
will be considered full partners. Up to the present time we
have purchased specific goods and services from the Russian
Space Agency and we have not in any way subsidized them.
Mr. Walsh. Would you like me to yield?
DEORBITING PLAN
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you. What does that mean?
Translate that statement into English. When you were here last,
you said that there would be a plan by July, didn't you? A
deorbiting plan?
Mr. Goldin. We have such a deorbiting plan on the Mir.We
have a document from the Russians which said that in August of this
year the Mir station would be deorbited. They indicated that there are
some private investors that were interested in having a private
operation of the Mir Space Station. We told the Russians that they are
a sovereign nation. It is not for us to tell them what they should do
with their resources as long as they pay their bills on the
International Space Station.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you.
INTERIM CONTROL MODULE
Mr. Walsh. On this interim control module issue, you said
late fall for a final configuration?
Mr. Goldin. Yes.
Mr. Walsh. If that is the case, what is the earliest time
you can get that into orbit?
Mr. Goldin. The spring of 2000. That is governed by the
fact that the FGB has electronics that have been certified for
about a year and a half. And if we do not have the service
module on orbit to protect the FGB and the unity node that we
have up there, we would have to launch the ICM by the spring of
2000 to keep continuity on orbit.
SERVICE MODULE
Mr. Walsh. What does that do to the schedule?
Mr. Goldin. That would be a major slip to the schedule. It
will slip the time at which we would have human presence. If we
have the service module on orbit in the fall of this year, we
anticipate that we will have permanent human presence onboard
the Space Station by early 2000.
If they do not launch the service module, we would not have
human presence for a year or two after that. I want to come
back and say at the present time the testing is almost complete
on the service module; 500 of 570 tests are complete. The plan
is to pack and ship the service module to Baikonur and I
believe the date at which it is due to arrive at Baikonur is
May 7.
Mr. Walsh. Will those additional tests be conducted at
Baikonur?
Mr. Goldin. I am sorry, I don't understand the question.
Mr. Walsh. You said 500 of 570 tests.
Mr. Goldin. There are 70 tests missing because of 4,030
pieces of hardware; 36 pieces of hardware will be shipped to
Baikonur to be integrated down there. So they couldn't perform
the remaining 70 tests, and those tests will be done down at
Baikonur.
Mr. Walsh. When you say 500 tests have been completed, does
that mean that they have been completed successfully or
adjustments have been made to make them successful?
Mr. Goldin. I believe the tests have been successfully
completed, but I can check the data when I have a break and I
can answer that more specifically.
PURCHASE OF GOODS AND SERVICES FROM RUSSIA
Mr. Walsh. You have indicated that NASA intends to request
another 100 million to be sent to Russia in April of 1999. What
specifically does NASA plan to buy for that $100 million, and
how much will each item cost?
Mr. Goldin. The most important item that we intend to buy
is a Soyuz vehicle. We have a very, very tight schedule for
building the crew return vehicle. It will be the first new
piloted vehicle that the United States has developed in over 25
years.
But we would like to start six-person operation on board
the Space Station as soon as possible. The Chabrow panel had
recommended to us in their review of the Space Station that we
consider buying an insurance policy by having one or two extra
Soyuz vehicles in advance. So we have prenegotiated a price but
we have not committed to buying it. We believe that price would
be about $65 million to get the Soyuz vehicle.
Other things we are considering is we would like to buy
some simulators for our training of our crews for the service
module and FGB that we could use in the zero gravity facility
down in Houston. There are a number of other specific pieces of
hardware: A Russian virtual reality trainer, ORLAN maneuvering
unit, equivalent to the U.S. SAFER.
Mr. Walsh. Rather than going through the whole list, this
number, a hundred million, is that a number you just plug to
the Russian Space Agency in order for it to continue operation?
To keep them gainfully employed?
Mr. Goldin. We had made an estimate last year and that was
the $300 million estimate you referred to, we anticipated that
they would get about $150 million equivalent in funding from
the Russian Space Agency and that--we had needs for specific
pieces of hardware which tallied up to about $100 million. In
fiscal year 1999, we sent them $60 million to buy specific
items that was a benefit to us. We got an initial 4,000 hours
of crew time and we got storage space. We bought those items
that we needed, but on the other hand had we not bought those
services, we think that the activity on the service module
would have ground to a halt. So it is a combination of the two.
Mr. Walsh. Thank you. Mr. Mollohan.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Goldin, welcome
to the hearing.
Following up on the chairman's line of questioning, you
were itemizing what necessary components to the International
Space Station Russia is providing, and you started listing a
number of components. Are they critical path components that
you are purchasing?
Mr. Goldin. These components would allow us to do--where is
that piece of paper that I had?
Mr. Mollohan. Are these 1999 purchases that you are talking
about or are they projected for 2000?
Mr. Goldin. 1999. No, there is no money in the budget
beyond 1999 to purchase specific goods and services from the
Russians. Last year as part of the planning process we had
looked at the possibility of including in the budget request
for fiscal year 2000 $150 million a year for 4 years to buy
specific goods and services from the Russians.
On reflection, during the preparation of the fiscal year
2000 budget, we made a decision that it would demotivate the
Russian government from paying the bills to the Russian Space
Agency if we had a line item in our budget of $150 million a
year. So as part of the process with the administration, we
decided that we would not request $150 million a year over a 4-
year period because we felt it was very important that the
Russian government meet its commitment to the Russian Space
Agency.
I might say here that the Russian Space Agency has
performed very, very well and whenever they have been funded,
they have done terrific work. So we wanted to motivate the
Russian government to pay the Russian Space Agency the dollars
that they appropriate for them. The dilemma we have is the
dollars get appropriated, but they don't get funded, and that
causes a tremendous problem in planning for us which causes the
cost growth that we talked about earlier.
CRITICAL PATH ITEMS
Mr. Mollohan. Are the goods and services that you
arepurchasing in 1999 critical path items? What would be the impact of
failures of delivery?
Mr. Goldin. Well, we believe the purchase of a Soyuz
vehicle is really an essential element. It will allow us to do
much more research. If the crew return vehicle is not
available, we will only have to limit the total number of
astronauts to three. At that point in time we will have 17
racks available of research space on the Space Station. There
will be an additional 5 racks in the Japanese experimental
module of which the U.S. is entitled to 50 percent. We will
have a whole series of express racks, so we feel that it would
be a tremendous loss of research capability if we didn't have
the insurance policy of having this extra Soyuz vehicle.
Secondly, the Russians having the hard cash from this Soyuz
vehicle allows them to keep their labor force engaged, so I
want to be sure that it is clear. We are getting specific
things that we want, but it also provides a certain level of
stability in 1999 to keep the program going when we are going
through the most critical phase. We want that service module on
orbit. We could have significant delays measured in years and
cost growth measured in a very large number if we don't have
it. So it is for those reasons that we feel strongly that we
should have the flexibility to buy that Soyuz vehicle should we
need it.
Secondly, there is a list of other items that we are
interested in.
Mr. Mollohan. Is the Soyuz included in the hundred million
figure?
Mr. Goldin. Yes, it is 65 of the hundred million. And then
there are 35 million of other things that will help our
training and reduce our costs. We could buy things in Russia at
a much lower value than it would cost us to do it in the United
States, so we think that it would be in the interest of the
program to do those things.
But at the end of 1999, we have no planned money in the
budget for any further purchases of goods and services. We will
just have to monitor the situation and take appropriate steps
in the future. But we feel strongly that to put money in our
budget from 2000 to 2003 would disincentivize the Russian
government to pay the bills.
Service Module
Mr. Mollohan. Do you think the continuing problem with the
service module, that is to say the lack of resources coming
down to the Russian Space Agency, been solved? Or do you
anticipate it continuing?
Mr. Goldin. We believe that we are over the worst of our
problems with the service module. There has been unbelievable
progress on the service module since we purchased additional
crew time for that $60 million, and they are almost finished
testing the service module. The hardware that is supposed to be
shipped to Baikonur is almost ready to be shipped and the
Russians have demonstrated to us with the Spektr and Priroda
modules earlier in the Mir program that they can process
equipment at Baikonur in about 4 months and have it ready for
launch.
Some of our people think that it will take another month or
two, but we believe that we are on a path to get the service
module on orbit in the fall.
Funds from Russian Government to the Space Agency
Mr. Mollohan. What is the situation with funds flowing from
the Russian government to the Russian Space Agency?
Mr. Goldin. It is inconsistent. The Russians, as you know,
have----
Mr. Mollohan. Is it improving?
Mr. Goldin. This year for January, February and March, the
Russian Space Agency has received their allocated funding from
the Russian government. This is something that is a very
positive sign, but generally we see the problems occurring in
the April to August time frame, so it will be very important to
us this year to see whether the funding will come from the
Russian government in that time frame.
Service Module Launch
Mr. Mollohan. When do you expect the service module to be
launched?
Mr. Goldin. The Russians have told us that they are still
planning on launching it September 20. Our people think that
they could be 1 to 2 months later than that.
Mr. Mollohan. What are the consequences?
Mr. Goldin. We could accommodate the 1 to 2-month slip and
keep the program on track. If it goes beyond the 1 or 2-month
slip, we will have cost impact and schedule impact to the
program.
Russian Program Assurance Money
Mr. Mollohan. What is the Russian program assurance money
$200 million being used for?
Mr. Goldin. $156 million is for the Interim Control Module
(ICM). The remainder is to buy specific goods and services.
Like we had them modify the docking adaptor on the FGB to
accommodate some of our equipment. That allows us to keep the
program going in the event that they don't perform.
Boeing Contract Overruns
Mr. Mollohan. You indicated in answers to the Chairman that
part of the billion dollars in overrun cost are attributable to
Boeing's contract. How much of that overrun do you attribute to
Boeing?
Mr. Goldin. Right now I think the exact number is $783
million. I round it up to the nearest billion dollars. But the
exact number that Boeing is carrying is $783 million.
Mr. Mollohan. What are you doing about that? How are you
dealing with it?
Mr. Goldin. Boeing's award fee was impacted by it.
Mr. Mollohan. In what way?
Mr. Goldin. One time they got zero award fee.
Mr. Mollohan. That was a couple of years ago, wasn't it?
Mr. Goldin. And they have performed pretty well since then.
This is a very tough program. Boeing on average has been a good
contractor. Boeing, like NASA, had not participated in a major
program like this in over 20 years. There were some very
significant startup problems. But after we got over the
problems a year or two ago, Boeing has been performing very,
very well.
Mr. Mollohan. So the overruns are past history?
Mr. Goldin. Yes. That is correct.
Space Station Amendment
Mr. Mollohan. A final question, Mr. Chairman, on this
round.
When we go to the floor every year, there is usually an
amendment to knock out the Station. While I have certainly
supported the ISS and we have always defeated the amendment, I
want to give you the chance to add something.
Mr. Goldin. No, not at all.
Mr. Mollohan. I would like to give you an opportunity to
help us make the case to defeat an amendment to remove the
Station program from the budget; and perhaps you can comment on
it now and then follow up with a submission for the record.
Mr. Goldin. I would be pleased to give a summary and we
will follow up for the record. The International Space Station
program in my mind is one of the most difficult things that
this government has ever undertook. Clearly theManhattan
Project and the development of the ballistic missiles was much, much
tougher at the time it was undertaken.
But other than those two programs, I know of no more
difficult program due to the international interaction we have.
We have 16 nations working on this program. We are going to
have a hundred launches from six different launch vehicles from
four different launch complexes.
This vehicle is bigger than the U.S. Capitol. It is 200
miles above the ground. The first two pieces of equipment that
we sent up there weighed tens of thousands of pounds and they
were built 10,000 miles apart. They never were preintegrated.
The first place they got integrated was on orbit. This has
never been done before, and we only did it with some tens of
hours of assembly time on orbit. In my mind that is a
spectacular success, and it is testimony to the outstanding job
this team has done.
We have had some problems, but in the big picture these
problems have been very well managed and in fact an outside
panel has complimented NASA for doing a very sound job.
This Space Station is essential if we are ever to leave
Earth orbit, which we will do as a society. We must understand
how people could live and work in space and we must understand
how to develop countermeasures to counter the debilitating
effects that occur to people both physically and
psychologically. We must learn how to integrate robots and
people. We must learn how to develop telemedicine and medical
approaches so that if people are traveling 25,000 miles an hour
and 50 million miles from Earth and if they get sick, we can do
that in real time because they cannot go to a hospital.
We are going to develop communications technologies that
will be unbelievable. On Earth we communicate over tens of
thousands of miles. We will be communicating over hundreds of
millions of miles. The time delay is 20 to 40 minutes at the
speed of light to communicate with these people. During Apollo
we had tens of thousands of people on the ground to operate
this system. The system will have to have an intelligence in
and of itself. There is more computing power in your car today
than we had on Apollo 11. We will be developing intelligence
systems that will have enormous impact on the ground, based
upon doing such a mission. We will have to be able to assemble
millions of pounds in orbit. This is what is going to be
necessary and without this Space Station we will never ever do
it. And the issue is do we have a vision that this society is
going to boldly lead the world in the 21st century or is it
not. The Space Station is a litmus test of that activity.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Alan. Mr. Frelinghuysen.
Savings Due to Russian Involvement
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Good morning, Mr. Goldin.
Last year the new chairman, Mr. Walsh, made a few remarks
on the record and I was looking it over and I would like to
quote from him and your reaction.
``On the Space Station now the Clinton administration
invited the Russians to join the Space Station back in, I
believe it was, 1993 and their participation was justified by
the claim that the American taxpayers would save over $2
billion with that partnership. Now two hardware delays in
Russia and the cost of the Space Station have risen by over $2
billion, and as my colleague from New Jersey pointed out,'' he
is referring to me, ``there is some expectation it could be an
additional 2 billion for an increase of 4 billion. Have all of
those savings that we were told about evaporated?'' This is Mr.
Walsh's question.
Where do we stand now in 1999 because your answer last year
was, ``At the present time, the Russian delays in funding to
their space agency have caused significant cost impact to the
United States. If this continues, we will use up that $2
billion in savings we had in the development phase.''
Where do we stand now?
Mr. Goldin. I believe that we will not see a savings with
the presence of the Russians.
But let me come back and remind you one of the main reasons
we wanted the Russians in the program. The Vest panel led by
President Vest of MIT indicated it was essential to have dual
access to space. The Russians have the Proton, the Soyuz and
the Progress vehicles. We will have a very expensive asset on
orbit. We have had a circumstance where the Shuttle was down
for a couple of years when we had a problem. Having the backup
of those Russian vehicles we believe is still essential today,
as it was when we started the program.
Clearly we are very disappointed that because of the
Russian economy we have not achieved the savings we wanted to
achieve. I might point out during the Cold War the Russian GDP
was about half that of the United States and today it is about
1/22nd. There is a very significant economic problem in
Russian. This is something that we cannot control.
Deorbiting the Mir
Mr. Frelinghuysen. How much money will you save by
deorbiting the Mir?
Mr. Goldin. It is not a question of saving money. We
believe the Russian government, unless they deorbit----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. We want to go ahead with the Space
Station. We have our partners. You have a plan for deorbiting
the Mir. It is a little unclear to me when that plan takes
effect.
Mr. Goldin. August.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. From that point to what point, and for
how long will it take to bring the Mir down? Isn't that what we
are talking about by deorbiting?
Mr. Goldin. We believe it will come down in August.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Will there be savings by bringing it
down, which means that we can make more investment in the
International Space Station?
Mr. Goldin. The Russians we don't believe can afford to
have the Mir on orbit and fund the International Space Station
given the budget conditions they have.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. With all due respect to their budget
considerations, what are our budget considerations if the Mir
comes down? What do we save on an annual basis? We are
presently investing in our partnership with the Mir?
Mr. Goldin. We are not paying any money into the Mir Space
Station. We are done. When the last Shuttle went up to the Mir,
we are not spending any money on the Mir Space Station. The
amount of dollars that we are spending on Mir at the present
time is zero. So it is not a question of any money coming out
of the U.S. budget to keep Mir in the sky.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. How much will the Russians be saving?
Mr. Goldin. My estimate is something on the order of $50 to
$100 million equivalent per year. But they don't have that
money and it is essential that if they don't have any private
sources paying to keep Mir in the air, Mir has to come down. We
have made that very clear to them. The International Space
Station has to be their number one priority. And by April they
said if they do not have private financing to keep the Mir up
in the sky, it will come down in August as they have promised.
Russian Partners
Mr. Frelinghuysen. The public perception, and to a certain
extent we represent the public, is that we are often forgiving
of our Russian partners. We talked about this last year and you
tried to sort of correct the record in saying that there were
good reasons why we need to be supportive of Russian, but for
those of us who serve on other appropriations committees, we
are looking after their nuclear stockpile to a certain extent
and for good reason. We are helping them with their nuclear
reactors to the extent that we can in terms of clean up and
decommissioning. We are hiring their scientists, perhaps for
good reason, like 7,000 of them, and I am told that they have
70,000 that deal with nuclear weapons. We make a substantial
commitment to Russian. How many people are there in the Russian
space program, employees?
Mr. Goldin. Tens of thousands.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. 50 thousand, 60,000?
Mr. Goldin. We have heard numbers that range between 50,000
and 70,000.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. And what is our relationship with these
people? Have we hired any of these people?
Mr. Goldin. No.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Do we know what the ultimate disposition
of this workforce is? Are they all employed or are they
potentially out there for the picking by our potential
adversaries?
Mr. Goldin. Let me see if I can answer it this way. I want
to come back to what I said. During the Cold War when we were
adversaries, the Russian GDP was about 50 percent of the United
States. It is now 1/22nds of the United States. It is very
chaotic in Russia. People in the United States take for granted
getting a paycheck. Sometimes the Russian people do not get
paid for 2 or 3 or 4 months.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. My question is are there ways that we
are taking advantage of this knowledge and their technology?
Mr. Goldin. We are relying upon their Progress, Soyuz and
Proton rockets as backup to maintain the Space Station up in
the orbit. We have had an incredible learning from the Shuttle-
Mir experience that has caused us to redesign the Space
Station. The Russians contribute every day to making the Space
Station a much better facility. If we--when we redesigned the
Space Station, we would not have permanent presence until
September of 2003. We now feel that we are very close to having
permanent presence 3 years early. That will allow us to do an
enormous amount of research. We bought 4,000 hours of research,
astronaut time from the Russians----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. We are buying astronaut time. What about
all of these employees. What are they doing?
Mr. Goldin. They are working on equipment.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. To what degree are the tens of thousands
of people that have been working with their space program, one
would assume that their work with us is going to advance
science and knowledge, but they obviously have defense
satellites and other space work that has to do with their
national security. To what extent do we monitor that activity?
Mr. Goldin. We are a civil space agency. We only work with
the civil space program. I refer you to the people in the
foreign policy establishment in the United States that will
work with the Russians on other activities.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. But my point is, and this is my last
point, we are in partnership with the Russians at the very time
when some part of their apparatus continues in a way that might
be considered to be somewhat adversarial in terms of their
national defense, the building up of their national defense. We
seem to come to their aid relative to space exploration and the
Mir, but in reality they continue to build up their defense
capabilities that come through their space program in terms of
bigger and better satellites and defense, quite honestly
espionage, I would assume.
Mr. Goldin. I don't think that it is appropriate that the
NASA Administrator comment on the thrust of what you are
saying. But in civil space, the Russians are employing tens of
thousands of people that could be working on other things in
civil space. These people have done a superb job when funded by
their government.
We have a significant benefit of having a backup system
with the Proton, the Soyuz and the Progress in case our own
Shuttle has a problem. If we did not have the Shuttle-Mir
series of flights, we would not have the safest Space Station
as we have today. There is a lot of research that is going on
in zero gravity that the Russians have worked on that has
helped us do better experiments in zero gravity. There has been
a very significant technical benefit that we have accrued by
working with the Russians. It is not as though we are doing the
Russians a favor.
And on the duration of this program we have not given the
Russians any grants. Everything they have done for us has been
in the interest of the United States activity on the
International Space Station.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. If the Russians do not deorbit the Mir
in August, should we take that as a sign that they are not
serious about the Space Station?
Mr. Goldin. If the Russians are able to obtain outside
commercial financing to make a commercial venture out of the
Mir Space Station, and under that condition they keep it up in
the sky without impacting the deliveries to the International
Space Station, I think that that would bode very well for the
commercialization of the International Space Station.
But if the Russians keep the Mir up in the sky and use
government resources that should go to the International Space
Station, I think it would cause a very severe problem in our
relations in civil space.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. It would destabilize our partnership in
a very major way?
Mr. Goldin. I would say that would be a very negative
activity if they were to do that.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Cramer.
SPACE LINER 100 PROGRAM
Mr. Cramer. Welcome, Mr. Goldin, to the committee. I want
to talk to you about space transportation issues. I am an avid
supporter of space transportation issues and of course you
recognize that we have got to lower the cost of access to
space. There are currently projects that you are carrying on,
NASA is carrying on with the private industry on launch systems
that will reduce launch costs by a factor of 10; is that
correct?
Mr. Goldin. Yes.
Mr. Cramer. Talk to me about the Space Liner 100 program
that examine ways to reduce launch costs by a factor of 100.
Mr. Goldin. The cost to access to space has been about
$10,000 a pound and the reliability has been measured in parts
per hundred for potential failure. This is not adequate. The
Americans are still flying the Atlas, the Delta and the Titan,
which were developed over 50 years ago by a number of great
Americans, but we should not be flying these vehicles. The
Shuttle was developed almost 30 years ago and we are still
flying it. The Shuttle computational capacity is not as great
as that of a laptop computer. We now carry 20 laptops on the
Shuttle. Something radical has to change in America.
We used to launch 80 percent of the world's commercial
spacecraft and we now launch 30 to 40 percent and you only have
to pick up the newspaper to see what is going on in the rest of
the world relative to launch. NASA is committed to
revolutionizing launch, not making small evolutionary changes.
Our first step was the X-33 and X-34 program, which would
improve reliability by a factor of 10 and reduce costs by a
factor of 10, and we think that we are on track within a decade
to make that happen. But if we are going to be able to defend
the Nation, if we are going to be able to really open the space
frontier and have the laws of economic elasticity apply and
achieve the goals that NASA has, we must get to a factor of 100
reduction in cost and a factor of 10,000 improvement in
reliability.
This requires radical new information technologies. This
will require radical new rocket technologies, materials
technologies, and it is essential that we get on a path to make
this happen. We have been exploring the concept called Space
Liner 100 with just those goals and the folks down at NASA
Marshall have come up with a concept where we use air out of
the atmosphere rather than carrying oxidizers, which represents
up to 70 percent of the weight of the vehicle.
We are looking at advanced technologies in materials and
the way we initially launch it. Presently we launch vertically.
We are looking at magnetic levitation launches, things out of
science fiction, that could get the vehicle up to 600 miles per
hour launching horizontally. We think these technologies are
essential. Unfortunately, the present budget does not allow
adequate resources to do those things.
Mr. Cramer. Why do we need a program like the Space Liner
100?
Mr. Goldin. If we intend to lead the world in the 21st
century, space is a very crucial element. If people want to
develop access in space, they cannot afford to pay $10,000 a
pound to take payload up nor can they afford $1,000 a pound. We
have to get closer to $100 a pound.
NASA is developing the technologies that will be available
to the Department of Defense should they desire to perform
missions up in space. This Space Liner 100 would give them the
technologies that they need a generation from now to cause that
to happen.
Mr. Cramer. Is it a demonstration program?
Mr. Goldin. Yes.
Mr. Cramer. In partnership with private industry?
Mr. Goldin. Clearly in partnership.
ADVANCED PROPULSION PHYSICS
Mr. Cramer. If we are going to do what you want to do, we
have got to have a revolution in our understanding of advanced
propulsion physics. Are we committing ourselves with funding
and programs to advance ourselves in that category?
Mr. Goldin. We are doing the best we can, but I have to
point out that our budget has come down every year for 6 years.
I don't know of very many other agencies that have that, yet we
continue to push the technological barriers. But at the present
time we do not have the resources for a very robust program in
the advanced technologies you have mentioned. It is a very lean
program.
LIFE AND MICROGRAVITY SCIENCE MISSIONS
Mr. Cramer. I want to talk to you about life and
microgravity science missions. Why are those missions being
omitted from the Shuttle manifest?
Mr. Goldin. We are not omitting them from the Shuttle
manifest; but once again the issue that we have is that we are
building a Space Station. The NASA budget is not going up. We
have to reprogram resources within our own budget to fund the
things we have to do. I would love to spend more money in this
area, and in fact we would love to have a number of dedicated
additional missions on the Shuttle in this area, but at the
present time we don't have all of the resources.
Right now over the next 4 years we will perform about 60
percent of the life and microgravity research that we have
performed on the Mir and on the Shuttle between 1995 and 1998.
We are putting additional lockers into the Shuttle and in the
next year or two we will get up to 5 additional lockers where
we can do additional research. We are developing express racks
to put on the International Space Station. With the additional
crew time that we have purchased from the Russians, we will be
able to have a good program. But we are building the Space
Station and there will be a period that we will not be able to
do all of the research that we would like to do.
But I would like to help you understand the dilemma we have
at NASA. I am very troubled by not being able to do this, but
once again I want to show you this chart because I didn't show
it to you before.
This is the NASA budget for the last 6 years. We aren't
corrected for inflation. In real terms our budget has come
down. We are doing what any good business does. You take your
highest priority and you fund them and you cut your lowest
priority. This is what the American people have asked of us. If
the budget is to be balanced, you have to make hard decisions
and if you try and fund everything inadequately, you do an
inadequate job.
MICROGRAVITY SCIENCE RESEARCH
Mr. Cramer. Coming along this line, though, you have
microgravity science research under two budget lines. The first
is the life and microgravity sciences and applications and the
science aeronautics and technology appropriation, and then you
have part of it under the International Space Station side.
Because of budget overruns, schedule slips, decreased Russian
participation, has that as much jeopardized what we have not
been able to do on the microgravity science side?
Mr. Goldin. First, let me say that we are funding all of
the investigators that we committed to fund for ground-based
research, and we are ramping up to 900 investigators. We
committed to that a number of years ago. We are funding all the
key facilities, the core facilities for the Space Station.
The place that we have cut back a little bit, and I
emphasize a little bit, measured in tens of percentage points,
is in the unique research that is going to be done on orbit.
If you will, the analogy I have is we are building a house
and it is very difficult to make all your meals in the kitchen
while you are building the house. It is verydifficult.
Now, if we could have additional money, it would be about
$110 million, we could fly some additional dedicated shuttle
missions that would allow us to fill in the gap of the missing
research that we are having in the life and microgravity
sciences, and it is not for lack of wanting to do it, it is
just the issue of being able to prioritize, given the fact that
our budget keeps coming down.
Mr. Cramer. Well, are we more protected now, though?
Because you said, I think I heard that the overruns are over
with, or we think they are for a while, and that the Russian
participation is a date certain for ending. So will that make
the microgravity and life sciences commitment under the Space
Station budget more reliable?
Mr. Goldin. I certainly hope so. I certainly hope so. But
it is a very difficult grind to be able to continuously adapt
with a declining budget.
RUSSIAN SPACE AGENCIES
Mr. Cramer. All right. If I could, one additional question
about Russian space agencies. Eight of us went over there
recently to address the Russian Duma over ballistic missile
defense, but we met with the Khrunichev folks. Now, there are a
number of opportunities, from the private sector with the
Russian engines, but the space agency issues are divided
between two agencies in Russia, are they not?
Mr. Goldin. I am sorry, I----
Mr. Cramer. From the Russian government's point of view,
who controls the engines, the space engines that we have relied
on?
Mr. Goldin. The Russian aerospace industry is a little
different than ours. In America, we have NASA, which is wholly
controlled by the Federal Government, and we at NASA work with
independent corporations that have no relationship to the
government.
In Russia, the Russian Space Agency owns a percentage of
some of the corporations that do work for them, and it is a
much more complex relationship. They have not completed the
full activity towards privatization and separation of
corporations and the government.
Given that role, the Russian Space Agency for civil space
activities is responsible for the engine work. However,
Khrunichev has a number of contracts, commercial contracts
where they sell launch services to other countries and
companies around the world. The lion's share of those launch
activities go through a partnership they have with the Lockheed
Martin Company. How the Russian Space Agency relates to that
activity I do not know.
Mr. Cramer. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's all
I have.
Mr. Walsh. Thanks, Bud. Mr. Sununu.
SMALL PLANETARY MISSIONS
Mr. Sununu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Goldin. Let me begin by just emphasizing how
much I appreciate the difficulty of your task, and your
relative success over the past several years, particularly
making the transition from some of the most costly human space
flight elements of the program and toward the smaller programs,
leaner packages, as you have described them in your opening,
and you have a very interesting graph in your presentation that
shows the 11 small planetaries, many of which have received
well justified accolades in their success, and more
particularly in the level of their success relative to their
cost.
So again, I think you have done a good job with the
resources you have had, and I certainly applaud the transition
in the mission, but obviously that doesn't change the fact that
as Members of Congress responsible for appropriations, we are
going to be concerned with the types of issues that have been
spoken of previously, the Space Station and cost to Russia, and
what is going to happen with Mir, and whether or not we are
spending the $13.6 billion as effectively as we can.
Let me begin by asking about those small planetary
missions. I am certainly not familiar with them all; I am
familiar with a few. But rather than talk about history, let's
talk about the future. What is the mission of the Genesis,
which is scheduled to launch in early 2001?
Mr. Goldin. Genesis will go out and bring back samples of
the solar wind and particles that come off the sun that people
in the solar terrestrial physics field would like to get a
better understanding of, and it will help us understand how our
own sun operates.
Mr. Sununu. You say go out and bring back, but it is not
going to return to Earth?
Mr. Goldin. Yes, it is. It is going to bring back----
Mr. Sununu. What is its orbitary path, then? How far out
does it go?
Mr. Goldin. I believe it will stay at about one
astronomical unit, but it will leave Earth orbit, collect the
material----
Mr. Sununu. So it will be able to measure the solar winds
in close proximity to Earth and it will go one astronomical----
Mr. Goldin. It is about 93 million miles away from the sun.
Mr. Sununu. Okay. And then return. So it will be the solar
winds in that entire transition space.
Mr. Goldin. It will collect samples from the solar wind and
then land it back on Earth where we can analyze it in the
laboratory.
TRIANA
Mr. Sununu. Measuring the solar winds, that is one of the 3
scientific packages on the Triana as well, is that correct?
Mr. Goldin. Yes.
Mr. Sununu. And that in that sense it will be, although
this doesn't launch until 2001, it will be redundant to one of
the three packages on the Triana?
Mr. Goldin. Triana is a package that will be looking
towards the sun, and this package will be, if you will, a
weather station of the solar flux coming to Earth. This is a
very important measurement, because understanding that will
help us give early warning to communications spacecraft. It
will be important to give early warning to people that operate
power plants. But it will be a monitor, not a sample
measurement. It is two different measurements. They are
complementary, if you will.
Mr. Sununu. There will be no other satellite in the L-1
position measures solar wind?
Mr. Goldin. At the present time, there is a spacecraft
there called ACE. That is a measurement of the solar wind. ACE
was launched a few years ago, and its operational life will be
over and Triana will be an additional set of measurements for
that.
Mr. Sununu. So there is a craft there that is measuring
solar wind?
Mr. Goldin. Right.
Mr. Sununu. That is obviously somewhat problematic tothose
of us that are looking at the cost-benefit of these various projects,
that there is redundancy in that particular area of Triana's mission.
But before getting into detail on the other components of the mission,
let's talk about the cost, just so that I am clear on the cost. As I
understand it, the estimate right now is $75 million, is that correct?
Mr. Goldin. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Sununu. Over the past year, the estimate of cost has
increased by 50 percent, from $50 million to $75 million. And I
think it is a very legitimate question. What assurance do we
have that it is not going to increase by another $25 million by
the time we next get together here?
Mr. Goldin. With regards to Triana, our assessment for the
initial system was $50 million. When we went out for inputs
from the scientific community, they had recommended some
additional instruments and it is those additional instruments
that we put onto the spacecraft that led to the $25 million of
added cost. But from a science-to-cost-benefit ratio, we
thought it was the right thing to do.
Mr. Sununu. Does that $75 million include the cost of
launch?
Mr. Goldin. Yes. It is a secondary payload on the Shuttle.
Mr. Sununu. My sense is that the reason some of these other
packages were added on, and the reason the cost was increased
another $25 million is because there was I think very limited,
if any, scientific utility to the original scope of the
project. Do you agree?
Mr. Goldin. The basic measurement that Triana was going to
make was measurement of the heat balance on the sunlit portion
of the Earth, which is a very important measurement. That is a
good measurement, it remains a good measurement, but when we
went out for scientific peer review, there were a number of
very specific suggestions made that would enhance the value of
the mission.
Mr. Sununu. Well, with all due respect, that wasn't the
description of the project that was originally presented by the
agency. The original description of the project was visual, it
was sunlit, a full disk view, a 5-year operational mission, one
new image downlinked every few minutes. There is no suggestion
here about a heat balance. You are talking about measuring the
reflected radiation from the Earth, correct?
Mr. Goldin. Yes, we are.
Mr. Sununu. I believe that package was also added as part
of the submission to the private sector for comment?
Mr. Goldin. I think that that measurement came from the
basic camera that we had on it. Let me just check, because I
would like to be correct.
Mr. Sununu. I am reading from an agency press release.
Mr. Goldin. You were right, I was wrong.
Mr. Sununu. Thank you.
The original program was a camera, was visual, it is
described as an Earth polychromatic imaging camera, which the
best scientific people that I put on that phrase were able to
tell me it is color video. It is 2000 pixels, so we are going
to get a resolution of 5 to 10 kilometers on the image. And I
think everyone in this room can appreciate the natural beauty
of an Earth-borne image of the Earth, but it would seem to me
that at least as regard to this video image, the scientific
utility of that instrument package is zero.
Mr. Goldin. I don't know that it is zero. Let me----
Mr. Sununu. What is the scientific utility of a 5 to 10
kilometer resolution image of the Earth?
Mr. Goldin. For a number of years now, we have had
satellites at geostationary orbit. In order to piece together a
full image of the sunlit Earth would take hours. One of the
things that we at NASA are trying to experiment with is to see
if we would like to have a satellite at the L-1 and L-2 points
that would be able to peer down at Earth. Now, when they first
put those spacecraft up in geostationary orbit, they did not go
to the L-1 point because mirror technology would not allow them
to get an equivalent resolution. We wanted to have a spacecraft
that would operate at the L-1 point to give us some experience
there, because we believe with mirror technologies that are
developing, that we, NASA are developing, it raised the
possibility of looking at the full sunlit disk, if you put a
satellite at the L-2 point at the dark side of the Earth and
you could have complete measurements of the Earth.
Mr. Sununu. That is a description of the utility of having
satellites at the L-1 point conducting a variety of different
scientific experiments. That is not a justification of the
scientific utility of a video image of the Earth taken from the
L-1 point.
Mr. Goldin. We are an R&D agency. We try and do the right
thing. We went through an open scientific peer review process
saying we would like to learn how to operate at the L-1 point.
NASA came up with an initial concept----
Mr. Sununu. But to be clear, you already operate at the L-1
point. You operate the ACE at the L-1 point as you just
described and you also operate the SOHO at the L-1 point.
Mr. Goldin. But those are solar pointing only. We had never
operated a spacecraft at the L-1 point that looked back at
Earth, and there is a significant problem in trying to stitch
together data to watch storms move across the face of the
Earth.
Mr. Sununu. But to the extent that we are undertaking an
effort to give you experience for operating at the L-1 point,
which I wouldn't disagree that an operation at the L-1 point in
and of itself has scientific utility, but the question is
obviously at what cost do we develop experience. We want to
have some sort of a mission that obviously contains image
packages that have scientific utility. I would like to at least
finish this line of questioning.
Do your best. If you would like to go out into the
scientific community and have someone provide a description for
me as to the scientific utility of the video image of the
Earth, 2000 pixel resolution, what is the value of that? I have
yet to see any justification of the scientific utility of that
image.
[The information on Triana follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Goldin. Again----
REFLECTED RADIATION IMAGE
Mr. Sununu. Well, we can come back to this in the second
round.
You talked about the solar wind measurement. Obviously
there is some redundancy of that mission with ACE. Finally,
there is the reflected radiation of the Earth's disk. That is
the third package, the one you spoke of first in trying to
justify the scientific utility of the project.
It wasn't part of the original package, and I recognize
that there is no--nothing in L-1 right now that can give us the
entire image at once, but the reflected radiation measurements
can be put together by various lower orbiting satellites, can
they not, in order to put together asummation of what the total
reflectivity of the Earth is?
Mr. Goldin. This is not my area of expertise, however--and
we will get for the record the details of this. But to stitch
together those measurements from different satellites has not
given us the accuracy we believe we could get by looking at the
whole Earth. There is a real lack of accuracy in being able to
understand the reflected light from the Earth's atmosphere and
what gets absorbed. This is a very important measurement, and
we believe that this is the right way to get at that
measurement.
I want to come back and say that when we started this
program, we only had a starting point. Right now, we believe we
have a very scientifically sound approach. It is not uncommon
to have programs like this. We go to the scientific community
to get validation, and I believe we are on the right path and
this program will give us the good science that we need to do
our job.
[The information follows:]
Triana's Measurement of Reflected Radiation
Triana's measurements of reflected radiation are
complimentary to those taken from low and geostationary Earth
orbits. Its position at L1, with the Sun directly behind it,
allows a view of radiance angles that is advantageous in
detecting differences in reflectance between cloudy and clear-
sky at the level of the total Earth disk (i.e., treating the
Earth as a point source and getting a single albedo number).
This measurement can be taken at other locations of comparable
distances to L1. However, because L1 is the neutral gravity
point between the Earth and Sun, it is a stable point of
observation. Also, because it is in the Earth-Sun line of
sight, it will get the retro-reflectance, or ``hotspot'' views
that is not available from other locations.
Mr. Sununu. Well----
Mr. Walsh. Excuse me. All right. Proceed, but I would like
to ask you to wrap up. We are going to be back again later for
another round and this afternoon also.
Mr. Sununu. The genesis, no pun intended, of this program
is a bit unique. I think there is no, there is no question in
my mind that the scientific utility of the project as was
originally scoped out, not by NASA, but by others, was not just
limited, but nearly zero, and certainly not worth the original
$50 million price tag. I respect the fact that in doing what
you need to do to provide any justification for spending $75
million, you have been able to add a couple of small packages
on the system that would increase its scientific utility. One
of those systems is quite redundant. One of those systems, the
radiometer, can be supplanted I think through other
methodologies. You mentioned the accuracy. I appreciate, in the
interests of science, improving our measurement accuracies. If
you could provide me with a summary of what the improvement in
accuracy of this observatory station compared to other low-
orbiting satellite measurements on the reflected radiation
would be, I would appreciate that very much.
You talk about priorities, and I have great respect for
your ability to set priorities intelligently, and again I
recognize how difficult your mission is. But I think that the
priority of this project isn't just low in the pack, I think it
is at the bottom of the pack, and I think unless the agency or
others can provide a stronger justification for it, I think it
is going to be very difficult to approve funding for this kind
of a package, especially given the other needs in the agency
that Mr. Cramer and others and the chairman have spoken about,
and you have spoken about. I will have to leave it at that. You
will have ample time to comment later, and as you know, I very
much appreciate your personal comments on this and other
topics. Thank you.
Mr. Goldin. I will be pleased to respond in detail.
[The information follows:]
Triana's Measurement of Reflected Radiation
The value of Triana's measurement of reflected radiation is
not in improving accuracy per se, but in its addition of the
full disk view, providing an additional data set from another
viewing angle. Researchers studying the Earth's radiative
energy balance have competing models that differ by about 8% in
estimating radiation absorbed by the atmosphere. This 8% is the
largest uncertainty among the climate-relevant impacts of solar
radiation. Triana will provide part of the answer by enabling
calculation of the infrared to total radiative energy ratio for
its particular observing angle, which has never been done with
a full disk view. The additional data set provided by Triana
should help bring these competing camps closer together, by
providing evidence of which of the two competing models has the
better set of starting assumptions..
Mr. Walsh. Thank you. That was a very good, thorough line
of questions. I think we may want to revisit some of that later
on.
Mrs. Meek.
NASA's budgetary decline
Mrs. Meek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Goldin. I certainly appreciate the efficacy in
which you and your staff have led NASA. Mr. Goldin and I, a
colleague of mine from Florida, we have been very concerned
about NASA's budgetary decline over the years, and we have been
strong proponents of trying to be sure that NASA is adequately
funded. This has not been a winning kind of position we have
taken. He is from Florida and I am from Florida, and we have
seen NASA grow and we have seen it now, with its budget
declining, having to set priorities which, in many instances,
sort of not decimate, but cut very strongly on programs which
we know are essential. But with your being the person who
manages that program, there are certain decisions which you
have to make, and this committee certainly will appreciate you
making those decisions in the light of the amount of funding
that you get.
He is not here today; I am sure he is going to come in
before you leave, Mr. Goldin. He is from Pensacola, from west
Florida, and we have watched the space program for a very long
time, and I have been able to visit Kennedy and to see what you
are doing there, and to see how important it is to be able to
fund these scientific programs.
BUSINESS INCUBATORS AND TECHNOLOGY-TYPE PROGRAMS
My questions are some that I will constantly ask you, and
each time I ask these questions I do get very responsive
answers. One has to do with your business incubator and your
technology-type programs, the transfer that you have there. You
are not only doing kinds of programs that are purely
scientific, but you are trying to transfer these programs so
that we can build better businesses and certainly help the
economy as well.
Your motivation for business and economical growth is a
good one, as I see it, and I wish that this committee would
note that.
Many of our communities throughout the country are
searching for jobs and economic development. Would you comment
on the priority that this kind of technology transfer is to
NASA and in your small business development arena?
Mr. Goldin. NASA has been very successful in its business
incubators in transferring technology to the commercial sector.
It is very important that as we develop these advanced
technologies that allow us to send spacecraft to other planets
in our solar system, to operate the Shuttle, to build a Space
Station, to monitor the characteristics of our own Earth that
we pass them into the commercial sector. We have found that the
existing incubators were quite successful, and as a result of
last year, there was an earmark placed to increase the number
of incubators. We will now have an incubator associated with
each of our NASA centers, and in fact in Florida there will be
5 or 6 other incubators associated with the TDMA organization.
Is that the right?----
Mrs. Meek. TRDA.
Mr. Goldin. TRDA, I am sorry, in Florida.
We think this is a very, very good program, and has had a
very good track record. We watch over it and we are going to
continue to work in this area.
DOWNSIZING AT NASA
Mrs. Meek. I was visited, Mr. Goldin, last year. You were
downsizing in NASA last year. That is evident now in your
budget. Some of the workers from Kennedy visited me, and they
were concerned about the downsizing. And of course I talked to
you and some Members of your staff about this.
How is that working? What did you do relative to the
stations like Kennedy and some of the rest?
Mr. Goldin. Well----
Mrs. Meek. What I am really getting after, did you really
downsize to the point you had to fire people?
Mr. Goldin. No. I am very proud at NASA. We have downsized
from about 25,000 employees down to, I think we are at 18,600
right now, without one forced departure from NASA. I think this
is a very strong statement about how we work at NASA. With the
help of the Congress, we have been able to have buyouts, and in
fact, we intend to downsize, we are going to continue going
with voluntary separations of about another 1,000 people. That
is a huge reduction in force.
However, we put safety as our number one priority, and it
turns out that at Kennedy, Johnson and Marshall we were coming
down with voluntary retirements too fast and we wanted to
maintain the strength of the labor force, so in this year's
budget we put in additional money so we would come down at a
slower rate and be able to keep operations safe. We have tried
to be very sensitive to treating employees as valued members of
the team, and we are doing everything possible and have been
successful so far in downsizing as a percentage among the
largest in the government without one forced layoff, and we
intend to continue that because the morale of our team is very
important and these people made NASA great and we are going to
treat them with the dignity that they deserve.
SHUTTLE OPERATIONS
Mrs. Meek. In your budget request, you asked for $2.5
billion, a little more, for shuttle operations for an 8-month
period. Has that changed any, your forecast for that, and do
you still envision 8 shuttle launches in the year 2000? Have
you outlined these missions for us in your presentation?
Mr. Goldin. I believe it is 8 missions in the fiscal year
2000, and if you will wait a moment, I could outline those
missions for you.
I have STS numbers. If it is okay with you, for the record,
what I would like to do is get you the title of those flights
for fiscal year 2000, and our budget remains as is.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
LAUNCHING OF NEW MISSIONS
Mrs. Meek. So, my last question, how much money are you
committing in your budget for the launching of these new
missions, vehicles that you use for launching? Did you estimate
in your budget your commitment to developing these new
launches?
Mr. Goldin. The budget for the Shuttle contains all of the
resources necessary for the 8 launches that we have indicated
in the manifest. It has all of the money necessary for those
launches.
SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, MATHEMATICS AEROSPACE ACADEMY
Mrs. Meek. Well, in terms of the launches, I am very much
interested in the vehicles that you use to do that. After
visiting Kennedy, I could see the enormity of that particular
kind of thing, and that is why I asked that question.
My last question has to do with the SEMAA program, which
has been a very, very productive and responsive kind of
program. Can you tell us something about it in terms of how it
is working and just a little statement regarding SEMAA? That is
the Science, Engineering and Math programs. That means a lot in
our school systems as well as in most of our communities.
Mr. Goldin. This is a program that was started at the NASA
Lewis Research Center and their concern about youngsters not
doing well in math and science, especially youngsters in the
minority community that just haven't been doing well intesting.
It is a very creative program that has been very, very successful. It
was so successful that we used that model in Cleveland to start up
programs in other areas in Ohio, and then ultimately we hope to expand
this around the country. Given the pressures on our budget, this is one
of the other areas that we haven't been able to fund at adequate
levels. I feel terrible about that, but we had to make some calculated
decisions that we will not be able to expand the SEMAA program to the
level that we would like to.
Mrs. Meek. Mr. Chairman, I will ask the rest of my
questions later.
Mr. Walsh. If you are finished, we will have another
session this afternoon, and there may be another opportunity
this morning, depending on how time goes. Thank you.
Mr. Goldin. Excuse me. Mr. Chairman, could I just add one
thing to the question Mrs. Meek asked. For the record I will
put in all of the sites we have, the existing sites and the new
SEMAA sites and the actual funding levels we have. But the
concern I have is here is an opportunity to really have an
impact, but given the stresses on the budget, we are not able
to expand the SEMAA program to the level we desire.
[The information follows:]
Science, Engineering, Mathematics Aerospace Academy (SEMAA) Replication
The success of the SEMAA program at Cuyahoga Community
College in Cleveland has led to its nation-wide replication:
Detroit, MI--Wayne County Community College
Dayton, OH--Sinclair Community College
Washington DC--DC Public Schools and the University of the
District of Columbia
Atlanta, GA--Fernbank Science Center
Chicago, IL--Chicago Public Schools
Jamaica, NY--York College
Additional sites to be added in Baltimore, MD; Greenville,
NC; St. Louis, MO.
During the past budget year NASA was given $10M for the
replication of 7 new sites and the continuation of the existing
sites.
Mrs. Meek. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh. Thank you. Mrs. Northup.
NEW AGREEMENTS--SPACE STATION COOPERATION
Mrs. Northup. Thank you.
Welcome, Mr. Goldin. I am quite in awe of what is
accomplished in the space program and I struggle to keep up
with an understanding of it, but I am eager to see your work
progress and progress efficiently and quickly, and I believe it
is essential to our country's purpose.
I do want to ask you, though, several questions, and I will
start right out with asking you whether there will be any joint
announcements about Space Station cooperation, new agreements,
working together with Mr. Primakov's visit next week.
Mr. Goldin. I don't know. Mr. Primakov is scheduled to meet
with Mr. Gore I believe from tonight through Thursday, and I
will be attending those meetings on Wednesday, and I will hope
that what will come out of those meetings is a rededication of
the Russian government to pay their bills to the Russian Space
Agency so we can continue this program. I don't anticipate any
major new agreements coming out of that relative to the Space
Station. We are very close to getting that service module up on
orbit, and if we could get the appropriate funding from the
Russian government to the Russian Space Agency, we will be
there.
COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA
Mrs. Northup. I want to return to funding. I think the
cooperation with Russia and our relationship with Russia, I am
concerned in a number of areas. First of all, I am interested
in sort of what the autonomy is between your--between NASA and
the Russian space organization in terms of, let me say of other
departments in this country, other cabinets that have an
interest in our relationship with Russia.
Mr. Goldin. I feel that we have complete freedom within the
laws of the land, within appropriate laws, or appropriate
agreements that the Russians are supposed to operate within to
do the things that we need to do. Clearly, there are issues of
foreign policy that when they come up we refer them to other
agencies of government, but given the actual building of the
Space Station, the relationship we have with the Russian Space
Agency, I believe we have appropriate freedom to do what is
right.
Mrs. Northup. Well, you know, sort of going in either
direction too far would be a concern, but let me start right
out by saying if you believe tomorrow that cost-wise it made no
sense for us to continue with Russia as a partner, could you
decide to end that?
Mr. Goldin. We have a set of agreements with Russia, and
clearly, these agreements are agreements at a government-to-
government level. But certainly, if I felt that there was
something improper, I would make the appropriate
recommendations.
Mrs. Northup. Well, I am not necessarily talking about
improper. I mean the fact is they haven't lived up to their
agreements in terms of being able to pay and deliver. I mean
originally we expected that we would save $2 billion by your
own testimony, I believe, by cooperating with the Russians. Now
we know it is actually going to cost us. There will be no
savings. It is actually going to cost us $1 billion more to
cooperate with the Russians. So based on that, based on the
concerns you are hearing from this committee, if you decided
that the best way to get that up and get it operating would be
to say to the Russians, I am sorry, we can't afford your
participation, and end it, could you do that?
Mr. Goldin. Well, before I answer the hypothetical
question, I would like to correct something--I would like to
just provide some background on where we are. If we were to
separate from the Russians right now and not take delivery of
the service module on orbit, which we want and which we need,
it could delay the program by years and cost yet billions of
dollars additional. I don't see the upside of separating at the
present time from the Russians. I don't know how to put a value
on the Russians having the backup Proton, Soyuz and Progress
vehicles, which we think is essential and which was the
foundation of why we entered in with them.
DEVELOPMENT OF PROPULSION MODULE
Mrs. Northup. But in fact, in your budget, don't you now
have a new project to replace our dependence on them? Aren't we
actually going to appropriate $780 million to actually replace
any dependence on those products?
Mr. Goldin. We will be developing a propulsion modulewhich
will allow us to operate in case the Russians don't launch Progress
vehicles, but the fact that they have the Proton rocket and the Soyuz
vehicle is very essential to us in case a problem happens with the
Shuttle. If you will, it is a very, very important insurance policy.
Crew Return Vehicle
Mrs. Northup. Well, does that mean that your crew return
vehicle that you are asking for appropriations for isn't
actually going to go forward unless the Soyuz becomes not an
option for us, or are we going to go on and develop that?
Mr. Goldin. We are going to develop the crew return
vehicle, but it will not be available I believe until 2003,
which is 4 years from now. So if we were to just say to the
Russians we are not interested in working with you, we wouldn't
have access to the Soyuz vehicle for that period of time. It
just takes time to bring these things up and have them ready.
So I don't think at the present time it would be in our
interests to say, let's walk away. We are very close to getting
that service module on orbit.
Intergovernmental Agreements
Mrs. Northup. Let me return to my original question. Is
that strictly NASA's decision, or is that part of our foreign
policy?
Mr. Goldin. NASA has agreements with the Russians, but some
of these agreements are coordinated at higher levels of
government, and certainly we would coordinate with the other
levels of government before we would take such a decision.
Mrs. Northup. Let me get more--I guess I am having a hard
time sort of understanding the answer here, so let me ask
specific questions.
Do you hear from, for example, Secretary Albright about
what she wants to have happen? Do you hear from other
departments regularly about our continued relationship with
Russia based on these projects?
When you decide that we are going to have to actually spend
more, when there is in here additional appropriations for us to
reimburse Russia for services that we didn't anticipate
earlier, or to actually pay for receiving things, do you
consult with the people that formulate our foreign policy?
Mr. Goldin. Well, 15 nations signed up to an
intergovernmental agreement. It was not signed at my level, it
was signed I believe at the Secretary of State level. These
governments are committed to building the International Space
Station. So it is not for NASA to take unilateral action.
Mrs. Northup. But did that include the price and the sort
of technology that would be transferred vis-a-vis the money
that would be transferred?
Mr. Goldin. I don't believe costs were part of that, but I
might point out that we have had issues with our other
partners, it is just that we have had problems with the
Russians. This is a U.S.-led space station and it is a very
complicated set of issues.
Mrs. Northup. Well, Mr. Goldin, though, if I could say,
throughout all of this I mean Russia is sort of the repeated
issue in cost overruns. I mean there may be--I mean it
dominates the testimony and the budget justifications. There
may be issues, there are always issues.
Mr. Goldin. That is correct. The single biggest set of
issues and problems we have are with the Russian government's
inability to pay the Russian Space Agency to do the things that
it promised in the intergovernmental agreement. That is a
statement of fact.
Mrs. Northup. So let me now sort of turn away from just the
financial issues and who is the controlling authority in this
country about how long and how fragile or cemented this
relationship is with Russia. I would say, though, let me just
finish by saying that it seems to me there are a considerable
number of expenses that are being proposed this time that are
sort of based on the ``if Russia doesn't continue'' theory, as
though we are at least entertaining within our government the
idea that Russia wouldn't continue to be a partner forever.
Mr. Goldin. I don't believe that that is the basis for
those investments we are making. We want to do the prudent and
the right thing, and given the economic condition in Russia, we
are concerned that over the long run, there may be times when
the Russians may not have enough money to do the things they
said they would do, and given the level of investment we are
making, we think it is the prudent thing to have this equipment
on orbit. If the Russians do have the ability to meet their
obligations, we still would like to have this equipment on
orbit, because it gives us an additional level of insurance and
redundancy. We do think that this is the right thing and making
these investments is clearly a recommendation that NASA has
made. We were not asked by any other level of government to do
it, but the President and the OMB supported us when we made the
recommendations to buy these insurance policies. But it does
not presuppose that we think Russia is going to leave. It is
there as an insurance policy.
Russia's Defense Industry
Mrs. Northup. Let me turn now to Russia's relationships in
its own country with other scientific powers; specifically, its
defense industry. I feel like these agreements were signed when
there was an increasing reassurance in this country that the
United States and Russia's best interests were on a parallel
path. We hope they continue in that direction.
My question is, how much relationship in exchange of
information, use of technological information is exchanged, do
you believe, between the Russia space program and other
scientists, particularly those involved in Russia's defense
systems?
Mr. Goldin. We at NASA have a specific set of rules that we
put in place on technology transfer to assure protection of
U.S. technologies that are crucial to us not to go to Russia. I
don't know how to comment on what discussions the Russian Space
Agency has with their own defense establishment. I can only say
that in the United States, we, NASA, are very supportive of our
own defense establishment, and when they come to us and we have
technologies that they could use, we do make those technologies
available to them.
Mrs. Northup. But do you assume that happens in Russia too?
Mr. Goldin. I just don't know.
Mrs. Northup. What is your assumption? Is your assumption
that it does? I mean you almost sound as like of course that is
what happens every day.
Mr. Goldin. I always am hesitant to comment on something
that I don't have specific knowledge on.
United States Defense Industry
Mrs. Northup. How often does technology that you have help
our Department of Defense in their creation ormaintenance of
our weapons systems?
Mr. Goldin. Well, I could say that NASA is playing a major
role in the development of reusable launch systems that will be
of great benefit to the defense of this Nation. NASA plays a
very great role in aeronautics technologies. We do an enormous
amount of testing for the Defense Department, and today, even
though our aeronautics budget is low, we are assuming more and
more of a responsibility for the long-range aero propulsion
technologies that the Defense Department is going to rely on.
So we don't develop weapons, I want to be clear about that, but
we do act as a good partner to the defense of our Nation.
Mr. Hobson. If the gentlewoman will yield, I am going to
ask some questions about that, because there are some positive
things happening between Wright Patterson Air Force Base, NASA,
and Glenn in Ohio.
Mrs. Northup. With all due respect, my concern is entirely
different, and that is that as we pour billions of dollars into
Russian space programs that we, in a sense, are indirectly
aiding their defense programs, and that if their defense--if
they are a very unstable country, is anybody, is anybody at any
level sort of judging whether indirectly we are fueling their
defense industry?
Mr. Goldin. Let me make one thing clear. We have a very
limited number of dollars going to Russia. Last year I think we
purchased $60 million of goods and services, and this year we
are going to anticipate buying $100 million. We are not buying
billions of dollars from the Russians.
Mrs. Northup. Don't you have a projection for next year's
budget?
Mr. Goldin. Zero.
Mrs. Northup. Zero, okay.
Mr. Goldin. It is zero thereon. So there is a perception
that we are funding the Russian space program with billions of
dollars. We are not. We are expecting the Russian government to
fund the Russian Space Agency at the levels that they committed
to so that the Russian Space Agency can meet their obligations
to us. Every time the Russian Space Agency has been funded at
appropriate levels, they do really good work. So our issue is
that the Russian government makes commitments in its
appropriations process in its Duma, and the money does not flow
to the Russian Space Agency, which causes our problems.
I also want to say that we certainly rely on the foreign
policy establishment of the United States to protect critical
assets of the United States and, clearly, we consult with them
to assure that we are living within the laws of the land and
doing the appropriate thing, and we do participate in those
meetings.
Mr. Walsh. Mrs. Northup, could I just interrupt for just a
second. We have been pretty liberal with the time, giving
everybody a chance to really explore their questions, but we
are up over 15 minutes now, so if you could----
Mrs. Northup. That is fine.
Mr. Walsh. Do you want to wrap up?
Mrs. Northup. Well, I would just say, you know, what you
have said to me, that there is a lot of information developed
by NASA that is of great interest and use to our Department of
Defense. These are the same scientists that are working with
Russia, and I am concerned about who is sort of the controlling
authority in sharing that information, that technology, and/or,
even if there is none that crosses international grounds, what
sort of work goes on in Russia based on our encouraging of a
space program and a partnership that then becomes of use to
their Defense Department.
Mr. Goldin. We, NASA, abide by the rules of export control
and technology transfer. There are very specific rules that we
live under.
John Shumacher, who is the Associate Administrator for
External Relations, carries out those rules. We check and we
validate. So we live within our laws to not transfer technology
to Russia.
The thing that I am just reluctant to comment on, Russia is
a sovereign nation. If they have a space agency that does
something equivalent to what we, NASA, do in our own country, I
just don't know how to comment on that, except to say we are
working with them in civil space. We believe we are doing the
appropriate thing in our relationship, and we rely upon the
foreign policy and intelligence establishment of this Nation to
tell us whether we are on the right track.
Mrs. Northup. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walsh. Mr. Price.
Increasing Cost of the International Space Station
Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Goldin, welcome back to the subcommittee. Glad to see
you again.
You may notice, if you have checked the transcript from
last year, that there is a certain repetitiveness in the
questions that I am going to ask. That is not because I or my
staff lack imagination, however, it is because we don't seem to
have made a lot of progress on some of the matters that we did
discuss, and so I hope your answers will be somewhat different
this year. We do, I think, need to revisit some of these
matters, which mainly have to do with academic and research
programs at NASA.
Many colleagues, myself included, have expressed concerns
about the increasing costs of the International Space Station.
I am a supporter of the station, but I am becoming increasingly
aware that increased station costs and pressures on the NASA
budget overall are cutting away at other NASA programs,
academic, education and research programs in particular.
Cut in Academic Programs
The academic programs at NASA are slated for a $17.5
million decrease from $71.6 million to $54.1 million in your
budget request with a large portion of this decrease coming in
educational technology. In particular, the space grant college
and fellowship program would be cut in the President's budget
by nearly 30 percent, from $19 million to $13.5 million.
Now, last year I asked whether NASA supported the programs
funded in the academic program, and if so, why was there such a
dramatic cut proposed when you came here last year? Was it
because of Space Station, or was there some other factor? The
answer I received was actually that NASA had made a mistake in
that request, in the space grant request, and that it would be
fixed in the fiscal year 2000 operating plan. Yet, the requests
we are dealing with this year, it looks to me like almost the
identical request that supposedly was mistaken last year.
So what is going on? I do think we need an explanation. And
if it was a mistake last year, why is the mistake being
repeated in requesting this kind of draconian cut in these
academic programs?
Mr. Goldin. First, let me ask Mr. Peterson, who is the NASA
comptroller, to answer the question on the mistake oflast year,
because he is the one who pointed it out to me and I will add the
broader context to your question.
Mr. Peterson. Sir, last year we made a mistake in our final
allocations of the Fiscal Year 1999 budget proposal to you, and
indeed, of course it did get fixed in the 1999 operating plan.
A significant amount of money was added by this committee and
others in the Congress to our academic programs. When we came
to the fiscal year 2000 budget, when we had to resolve the
final numbers with the Office of Management and Budget, given
the direction that we were under, we were not able to fund the
academic programs at the level that we had intended to fund
them in 2000. When we have come forward to brief the
Congressional committee staff, we have acknowledged our extreme
regret that that was the case and have asked for some latitude
in the fiscal year 2000 operating plan to resolve that issue.
Mr. Goldin. I would like to add a broader context. It is
not the International Space Station because we did not touch
the education budget for that. But what I would like to point
out is something that happens year after year, and I know the
Members are very interested in the NASA space program, but when
you take a sum of the administration actions and the
congressional actions, I showed this before. This is a very
important chart to note. The NASA budget has come down about $1
billion over the last 6 years. It came down about $100 million
this year, and I know the tremendous interest people have.
When I read about the Federal budget, if you take a look at
the broad range of the Federal budget, the goal is to keep the
agencies on track with inflation. Not only do we not get
correction for inflation, but our budget is coming down $1
billion, $100 million in the last year. This is something that
is very, very difficult to do, but being committed to a
balanced budget, I feel everyone ought to kick in.
Another misnomer is the Space Station is using up the
research funds, and I have a curve here which shows the total
human space flight program measured over time, and in 1999, it
crossed over, and this bottom line is the Space Station plus
the Space Shuttle, and this is our science budget. The science
budget is going up each and every year while the sum of the
Shuttle and the Space Station, costs go down.
Now, I know that that is not solace for this education
budget, which I agree is very, very important. The dilemma that
we have is given this situation with the NASA budget, and I
don't know that there are very many other agencies of the
Federal Government that have this situation, given this, we
don't know what to do. Education I believe is very important,
and what we did is we maintained the education funding at the
level we had before the additional money was put in for the
earmarks. We didn't know what else to do, and I am very, very
frustrated. If given just a level budget, we would be able to
deal with it. But each year the budget comes down, and I don't
know where to go to do the right thing. It is a very, very high
level of frustration to me, and your being concerned, I will
agree with you again this year. I just don't know what to do.
GUIDELINE LEVELS FOR ACADEMIC PROGRAMS
Mr. Price. Well, as you said, the fix last year involved a
substantial increment of funding added by this committee and by
the Congress. Is that possibly what is going on here with the
concentration of the cuts in these accounts? Are you cutting
items you think Congress will increase? I mean what explains
the disproportionate cut here? I am just struggling to
understand. I understand the overall budgetary pressures. I
understand you are eager not to have a trade-off with the Space
Station perceived, although the chart that you referred to,
while a long-term trend is as you describe it, the year 2000
trend is for a steeper increase in the Space Station account
than in space science generally, and you anticipate apparently
a reversal of that trend.
Mr. Peterson. Sir, if I may respond, the guidance that we
operate under in formulating this budget was to adhere to the
previous guideline levels. The previous guideline levels for
the academic programs for fiscal year 2000 is exactly the
amount we requested. We were allowed to go above guideline only
for two areas. One was the Space Station and the other was for
some technology investments. The Office of Management and
Budget held all of the programs to their previous guideline
levels. So it would have been an increase to that guideline--
actually that we proposed and did not receive in the education
programs area.
Mr. Price. How does that----
Mr. Peterson. We did not cut it, although relative to the
1999 President's requested level, it is certainly a cut in
funding from the FR 99 enacted level. However, it is absolutely
consistent with the budget plan that the administration put
forward last year for fiscal year 1999.
Mr. Price. Well, that is true, because it was a cut last
year, which was described in this hearing as actually a
mistake, and Congress put the funding back in. So is that what
you mean, that the request is consistent with last year's
request?
Mr. Peterson. Yes. The fiscal year 2000 request is the same
as our plan was in the fiscal year 1999 run-out. We were not
allowed an increase. That is unlike the case in the fiscal year
1999 where a mistake was made by us in the final allocation of
the agency, internal distributions. In this case, we did not
have that luxury.
Mr. Price. These guidelines you are describing take no
account of last year's congressional action.
Mr. Peterson. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Price. And basically revert to last year's
administration request.
Mr. Peterson. That is correct, sir.
MOVING PROGRAMS FROM PHASE II TO PHASE I
Mr. Price. Was the fiscal year 1998 budget used in the same
way that the fiscal year 1999 budget is projected to be used?
Here is the reason I ask that question and what I am
specifically interested in.
The potential for elevating some of these Phase II programs
to Phase I, which of course does imply a higher funding level
and a more advanced status for these projects. As I understand
it, about $1 million of the congressional add-on went to what
you call designated competition, which is designed to elevate
some of these Phase II projects to Phase I status. If I am
wrong in that assumption, please tell me. But that is my
understanding, and that is almost $1 million in your current
fiscal year 1999 budget breakdown. So that is one question.
What kind of success have you had in moving the Phase II
projects to Phase I, and then what if we made a similar
addition this year for fiscal year 2000? Could we anticipate
that--and that of course would just simply be flat funding from
what you have this year. Could we anticipate that that would
enable you to transfer, or transform Phase IIprograms into
Phase I?
Mr. Peterson. Yes, sir. We are, in fact, doing so in fiscal
year 1999, moving programs from Phase II to Phase I.
Mr. Price. What number of programs?
Mr. Peterson. The selections are for four new programs that
are going to move up to that level.
Mr. Price. So that is in the designated competition item,
that is the way that is being spent.
Mr. Peterson. Yes, sir. And we are unable to maintain the
same funding level for all of the consortia in the fiscal year
2000 budget without increased funds. So what we would be doing
is taking sort of an across-the-board reduction. Instead of
eliminating designated, what we would be doing is giving
everyone a little bit less money.
Mr. Price. So you would anticipate, even with your--even
with the reduced fiscal year 2000 budget request, you would
still be able to move four additional programs into Phase I?
Mr. Peterson. Sir, I think I better defer on that. I will
give you an answer for the record. I don't know that given the
funding level which is clearly inadequate, whether I know
whether that moving 4 additional programs up is in the cards.
Mr. Price. Well, let me ask you to give us three kinds of
information for the record. Number one, an account of the
programs that are being moved up this year; number two, the
programs that--the number of programs you would expect to be
able to supplement, upgrade with your current budget request;
and then thirdly, the number that could receive that treatment
with an increase similar to what the Congress voted last year.
Mr. Peterson. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
Phase II to Phase I Programs
An account of the programs that are being moved up this
year:
There are 21 consortia that are eligible for the upgrade to
Phase I. We received 11 proposals of which 4 will be selected
in August, 1999.
The number of programs that you would expect to supplement/
upgrade with your current budget request:
In FY 1999, we will have upgraded 4 consortia; with the
current FY 2000 request, there are no plans to upgrade
additional consortia.
The number that could receive the Phase I upgrade with an
increase similar to what the Congress voted last year:
None. The FY 1999 funding of 19.1 M allowed for 4 upgrades.
At that level in FY 2000, we would be able to maintain all of
our consortia at their current (and newly upgraded levels). To
upgrade additional states beyond the 4, we would need a SG
budget greater than 19.1.
Just a reminder, the 19.1M in FY 1998 and FY 1999 allowed
for a 25% increase in the base award for all consortia, in
addition to the opportunity to upgrade 4 consortia to
designated status.
HIGH-SPEED RESEARCH ACCOUNT
Mr. Price. All right.
Another area with a large decrease is the aeronautic
research and technology account. Now, as I understand it, the
majority of this decrease is due to the closing out of the
high-speed research account.
Can you explain that closing out, and particularly, what
kind of point we are at with respect to transferring this to
the private sector and enabling private industry to produce a
high speed civil transport?
Mr. Goldin. This was a very difficult termination,
especially since I was involved in its initiation. The dilemma
we had is we have one major airframe company in America,
Boeing, and we had a contract with Boeing to develop the
technology that could lead to a high-speed civil transport.
Boeing had been very supportive of this approach and really was
committed to the future, with this very critical technology,
which is probably about 20 years off, because it is a very
long-lead, very highly intensive R&D activity. With the
downturn in the Asian market, and the financial conditions that
the Boeing Company had found itself in, it was a cooperative
agreement, so it was a Space Act agreement, so they had to
provide in-kind goods and services which was creating a
significant financial problem for them.
So the Boeing Company made a corporate decision that they
would not be able to work with us on this since this was so far
out, and they had incredible pressures in the near term. So
independent of any other action, we decided without a
commercial partner that would actually be there to do the
development and building and selling of these planes, it would
be inappropriate for NASA to continue with this on our own.
It is a very, very significant decision because the High
Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) program is delivering unbelievable
technologies that we feel are breakthroughs. We had the goal of
developing a plane that would carry 300 people 5,000 miles at
knot 2.4. That would allow the plane to have such a high
productivity, to go back and forth across the ocean twice in 1
day, and it looked like it really was going to have a huge
impact on the future. But because we didn't have a partner,
there was no fee involved in this contract that we had, but
Boeing wasn't there to do it. So we are going to have to
regroup and figure out what we should do now.
But we also ought to take a good hard look at this. This is
a very loud signal that we are receiving about the ability of
American corporations to look 20 years out in the future. I am
very concerned about the signal we are receiving.
Another area of concern that I have, if you take a look at
the jet engines that used to be sold in America just a
generation ago, 75 percent were sold to the Department of
Defense, and 25 percent were sold to commercial airliners.
Today it is reversed. It is 75 percent commercial and 25
percent to Department of Defense.
And if we take a look at where this technology is going, if
America does not lead the world in the commercial aeronautics
sector, it will have a significant impact on our defense. So we
at NASA are regrouping. We are very concerned about this
signal, and just yesterday I met with the leadership of the
airline industry, the airports and the manufacturers, and we
are openly discussing the implication of what happened on this
High Speed Civil Transport.
I am very concerned. I don't have the answers yet, but I do
intend to talk to the highest levels of government and
industry, and I would like to talk to this committee about the
subject because there are other things that this government is
not doing that are essential for the commercial vitality that
no one corporation could afford to fund, and this is something
that we really need to explore together.
Mr. Price. So the reduced request that we are referring to
is a negative rather than a positive signal in terms of
aprospect for a timely commercialization?
Mr. Goldin. Yes. I think we have lost about 10 years on
this possibility.
Commercializaton Plan for the Space Station
Mr. Price. I know that my time has expired, Mr. Chairman. I
would like to pursue, or maybe you can submit for the record
some kind of--you have a commercialization plan for the Space
Station dated November 16, 1998. I assume that helps explain
some of the declining costs that you are projecting there.
Maybe it doesn't, but I wonder what kind of lessons, positive
and negative, this high-speed privatization experience may hold
for your projected plans for the Space Station.
Mr. Walsh. Maybe you could provide that in a thoughtful
written response.
Mr. Goldin. I would be honored to do that.
[The information follows:]
High Speed Civil Transport
The privatization experience associated with High Speed
Civil Transports (HSCT) is very different from the
commercialization of space, particularly the privatization of
the Space Station. The United States airline industry has been
privatized for years, employs millions of Americans, is the
leader of the world-wide aviation industry and produces the
largest balance of trade surplus in our country's exports.
NASA's High Speed Research (HSR) program was focused on
developing technology to enable HSCT to reduce travel time to
the Far East and Europe by 50% within 25 years. The HSR program
is being terminated at the end of FY99 because of change in
support by industry partners brought about by emerging business
trends. Nevertheless, the NASA program made significant
progress toward the original targets developed at the beginning
of the program. We are much closer today to a commercially
viable supersonic transport, making major advancements in noise
reduction, emissions reduction, weight reduction, and
affordability. And while progress will slow significantly at
this point, NASA will continue to support high-speed research
through our basic research programs.
NASA's efforts on the Space Station are in an arena in
which there is currently no industry. Whereas HSCT involves
introducing a new airplane into the mature airline industry the
Space Station is NASA's attempt to enable the commercialization
of an infant industry. In high-speed travel, industry would
recoup its investment through passenger ticket sales, transport
revenues, etc. At present the Space Station is being built
solely because the Federal government is paying for its
construction and will continue to pay for its operations and
maintenance. The Space Station is not a for-profit venture.
Mr. Goldin. I am not as concerned about the Space Station
as the broad technology base of this Nation. I am very
concerned about the stress on American corporations on near-
term performance and their not being able to work on a
cooperative basis on real high-risk, high-payoff and high
technology. I have grave concerns about this area.
Mr. Walsh. We will be glad to share that with our other
colleagues who have decisions to make about research funding.
Mr. Hobson.
Competitiveness in the Aeronautics Industry
Mr. Hobson. I was going to ask the question that Mr. Price
asked because I think that is going to have a negative effect
on the competitiveness in the aeronautics industry in this
country. At some point I would like you to comment about that,
the effect on our competitiveness as you look out into the
future.
Mr. Goldin. I was in the private sector for 25 years, and
up until 10 years ago when we restructured in America,
corporations were able to fund things with a much longer time
horizon on it. As we went through restructuring in the 1980s,
that time horizon began getting shorter and shorter. We talk
about research and development, but what we are really talking
about in industry is product development and applied research,
not the long-term, high-risk research.
I think there is great concern. I know Mr. Curt Weldon, who
is very interested in this subject, is going to hold a
conference in Philadelphia on it because of his concern about
the long-term R&D investment, and I think this is a subject
that is bigger than NASA, and we need to take a look at the
relationships between the government and industry in this area
of long-term, high-risk research. And if you take a look at the
budgets in these areas for the long-term, high-risk research,
the budgets are coming down, and most of the R&D money is going
into near-term product development and applications.
During the cold war we had the strength of the defense
budget, which was robust in this area, and the NASA budget
funding this long-term, high-risk research, but today it is
very stressful, and I wish I could give you obvious answers,
but the alarm bells went off. And we don't have any ill feeling
toward Boeing. In fact, Boeing did what it had to do, but the
alarm bells went off, and our concern about long-term, high-
risk partnership with industry needs to be reexplored.
Mr. Hobson. I worry about the European industry taking over
the competitiveness. Do you think that they have the capability
of stepping up?
Mr. Goldin. Not yet, but I will tell you the European
research in aeronautics is high-quality research. It is really
good. I am very impressed, especially by some of the efforts
that I have seen in Germany and France and England. They do
really good work in aeronautics. The Japanese are getting
stronger also. And when the Russian economy returns, you know,
even if it is 10 years from now, the Russians are very good in
this area, too.
So this is an area that I think needs some time, and in the
President's budget we wanted to make sure that at least we had
a core effort in aeropropulsion, so we are proposing an ultra
efficient engine program.
NASA's Management Skills
Mr. Hobson. That is my next question.
Before I get to that, I want to say to you that I think
sometimes it is a little disheartening to come before these
committees. You are one of the few agencies in this entire
government that has taken to heed the change in government.
Most people come in here, and they are getting their budgets
floated higher, bigger, but you are the one person that I think
has brought outside management skills to an agency that we all
expect perfection from. A lot of people were concerned about
NASA's spending. You grappled with it, and you have continued
to struggle with it, and I guess our job is to continue to poke
at you to do even better. But I do want to commend you because
of all of the agencies, and I sit on a number of different
appropriations committees, you are the only one outside of the
Department of Defense that has taken a real whack along the
way.
Evolvable Expendable Launch Vehicles
Before I get into the UEET, can you tell a little bit about
the Lockheed Martin engine deal with the Russians?
Mr. Goldin. I know that we purchased time on the Russian
TU-144. Is that the program that you are talking about? Is it
the EELV?
Mr. Hobson. Yes.
Mr. Goldin. Lockheed Martin Corporation made a decision.
They took a look at all of the engines that exist in the world
to power that vehicle, and they decided that the RD-180 engine
built by the Russians was the most cost-effective, efficient
engine in the world, and they are going to build their
evolvable expendable launch vehicle based upon that technology,
and Pratt Whitney is working with this Russian company so that
technology will get transferred to the U.S. so we have a backup
capability to build that engine in the U.S.
But the fact of the matter is, that is an incredible
engine. The Russians are very good rocket engineers. I know
that there was some concern of American technology going to
Russia. Here is an example where we are buying Russian
technology and bringing it to this country, and there is a lot
of concern in Russia because Pratt Whitney will get transfer of
that technology.
Docking System
Mr. Hobson. What about docking; didn't you buy a docking
system from the Russians?
Mr. Goldin. Yes. We bought it for $25 million, and for us
to develop it would have cost a quarter of a billion.
Mr. Hobson. I think there is a tendency to think that
technology exchange is a one-way street. These are two examples
of the U.S. working with Russia to develop technology more
efficiently and at a lower cost, which is mutually beneficial.
Ultra Efficient Engine Technology (UEET)
I would like to turn to a question on the UEET program. As
I understand it that this program was developed to respond to
concerns about the growing amount of air traffic, new safety
requirements and more stringent engine noise and emission
standards. Given that NASA eliminated two other aeronautics
programs in the fiscal year 2000, does the new UEET program
fully develop the technology base needed to regain America's
role in aeronautics? And you indicate that the success of this
program is contingent partnerships being able to transfer
resulting technology. What are these partnerships, and how is
NASA going to enhance them?
Mr. Goldin. Aeropropulsion is crucial to the future of
aviation. In fact, I was with the GE people yesterday, and we
showed them what we are doing in aeronautics. They said, do you
understand what NASA has done over the last 10 or 20 years in
developing aeropropulsion technologies? It has provided the
basis for a lot of engines that GE is now selling competitively
worldwide.
It is the intention of this ultra efficient engine
technology program to make leap-frog changes in how we develop
jet engines. At the present time jet engines are limited in
their efficiency because they operate at 1,700 degrees, the
melting point of alloys that we have. We are now looking at
materials that operate at 2,000 and 3,000 and 4,000 degrees. If
we can build combustion chambers based on ceramic matrix
materials that can operate at those temperatures, the fuel
consumption would go way down. From the military standpoint,
you get longer range from your planes. From a commercial
standpoint, fuel is a very big expense; and with less fuel, you
have less emissions. So we think this is crucial to future
directions.
At the same time other nations are developing low-noise
technologies which are allowing them to cut the noise levels at
airports so they can go sell their planes and their engines.
Remember what I said, 75 percent of the engines now sold are to
the commercial supplier, so it is crucial as a Nation that we
develop the most efficient, quietest, cleanest engine, because
if we don't do that, our people will not be keeping up with the
other corporations. And I have to say that the Europeans are
very, very good in this field. Rolls Royce builds the engines,
and they do a very good job.
Collaboration Between NASA and Other Agencies
Mr. Hobson. Recently, I saw some reengined KC-135s at
Mildenhall AFB. I asked to see the engine shop, but the engines
are so reliable, there was no need to have that in-theater. It
is unbelievable the reliability that is in these engines today.
This is a question about NASA and DOD which you and I have
discussed before. Over the years I have pushed for cooperation
and collaboration between NASA and other Federal agencies, and
I think this is vital to ensure that taxpayers get the most
bang for their buck without unnecessary duplication between the
various agencies. You don't build weapons, I understand that,
but in your budget you recognize NASA's supportive role in
helping DOD to maintain our defense capabilities, specifically
in the field of aeronautics.
Can you elaborate how this propulsion technology is going
to assist DOD in its military aircraft? One effort which I
mentioned in the past is the issue of aviation safety, and I
notice in this year's budget you are introducing a new aviation
safety program. Is this coordinated with DOD's current aviation
safety initiative, and can you also comment on other
coordinated efforts between NASA and DOD?
Mr. Goldin. We are working with DOD. They have a program
where they are making evolutionary upgrades to the jet engines
to enhance the performance of the military planes. We would
like to be able to take some of these new technologies and
support them with revolutionary technology leaps because this
is the area of NASA's strength, and the limitations on the
defense budget don't give them the latitude to look at these
revolutionary changes, and General Armstrong, who heads up the
aerospace activity, is in the process of working with the DOD
in this area.
With regards to safety, we have added an activity called
synthetic vision, which will allow pilots to see on a flat
panel display day/night, all weather. It would get us to the
point where we can improve the safety of operations inzero/zero
conditions. We feel this is essential for situational awareness of
pilots. Whether you are piloting a military plane or a commercial
plane, this is something that is essential technology, and clearly we
are going to make this technology available to the DOD.
Last year you worked me over pretty good on some of the
test facilities, and rightfully so. And we have been
aggressively working with the DOD on doing propulsion testing.
That was one of the areas of your concern, and we are really
converging, and I believe both the Air Force and NASA will have
better test programs as a result of this convergence.
Clearly the area of real intense cooperation is the Air
Force is now actually putting money into NASA reusable launch
vehicle programs, and I think that is a real testament to the
support we have been giving them, and the deputy program
manager of one of our new reusable launch vehicle programs is
an Air Force officer. So we are now literally sending NASA
employees over to the DOD to ensure this tech transfer, and
they are sending employees over to NASA, and I said we are
proud to have people walk around NASA in military uniforms.
AGING AIRCRAFT
Mr. Hobson. And you are also going to talk to DOD about the
aging craft?
Mr. Goldin. Yes. I am going to be meeting with Secretary
Peters, and we are going to talk about the aging aircraft
studies that you recommended to us.
NASA AUDITING RUSSIAN FUNDS
Mr. Walsh. That completes our first round. We are scheduled
to go to 12:30 and come back. We will try to keep it to 5 or 7
or 8 minutes, and everybody gets another crack. If not, we will
just pick up where we left off. I am going to try to make these
questions brief.
We have talked a lot about the U.S. money that has gone to
Russia for the space program. Has NASA audited those funds, and
what control mechanism does NASA have to ensure that the
questions on the use of these funds can be answered?
Mr. Goldin. First let me say that we negotiate firm fixed-
price contracts with the Russians with very specific, very
descriptive milestones that they have to meet, and we give them
a distributed set of payments based upon completion of
milestones. We have people in their plants in Russia. And
relative to the audit, I would like Mal to answer that part of
the question.
Mr. Peterson. The simplest form of an audit is to not pay
until you take delivery of any goods or services, and what we
do is we negotiate a value to us of a particular good or
service that the Russians are going to furnish, and then we do
not pay them until we have determined that they have satisfied
that obligation. So that is our first and foremost line of
defense.
The other is that we maintain a constant awareness of what
is going on within their plants with our resident officials
there so we can track progress and make sure if there are any
concerns that the funding is flowing to the suppliers. Where
there has been an issue with the supplier not delivering
hardware because of not getting paid, we actually go to that
supplier's plant and make sure that the funding is provided to
the supplier so that the hardware can get delivered.
SOYUZ PURCHASE
Mr. Walsh. Let me latch onto that question. Your
explanation of the best audit is one in which you pay after
services have been rendered and a contract has been satisfied.
The Soyuz purchase that we are talking about this year, the
$100 million purchase of Soyuz and other additional equipment,
my understanding is that will not be ready for 2 years, so how
can we--maybe this is not your approach on this specific case,
but if the best audit is one that you pay for services rendered
and the contract is completed, satisfied, why are we spending
$100 million on a Soyuz that won't be completed for 2 years?
Mr. Peterson. The hardware takes 2 years to build, that is
certainly true. What you are doing is actually making progress
payments. As you go through each step of the build process, you
are making your payments based on milestone accomplishments, so
you are tying it to actual progress.
Now, it turns out that for the Russians, in order to place
the orders for that hardware, they have to go out and provide
their suppliers with the money in order to build--their
suppliers who work sort of on a don't trust, actually give us
the money first, and then we will build it for you. So we go in
and look at that delivery, make sure that the hardware has been
ordered, that the work is in progress and then monitor the
progress along the way.
Mr. Walsh. Last year we appropriated at least 60 million to
the Russian Space Administration, I believe is the title. What
did we get for that?
Mr. Goldin. We got a commitment for 4,000 on-orbit hours
from Russian astronauts. They were initially going to be doing
research for their activities. That in essence doubles the
amount of astronaut time that we have for the early phases for
the Space Station and allows us to do much more research.
Mr. Walsh. That is future, so we are not really getting a
services rendered contract in that case?
Mr. Goldin. That is correct. And the other thing that we
obtained was storage space. We need additional storage space
for some of the critical subsystems that we want to put on
orbit in case we have problems, and we got, I think, 3 cubic
meters of storage space committed on the service module once it
is up there. So those are the two exchanges that we got, but
they are in the future.
Mr. Walsh. That is a contractual agreement, is it not, for
that space and that time?
Mr. Goldin. Yes.
Mr. Walsh. We have a signed document?
Mr. Peterson. The purpose for the $60 million was not--we
secured a benefit to us for that. The other benefit, of course,
was to have their service module schedule be maintained or
actually put back on track. So we tied the milestones for the
payment of that $60 million to specific items that the Russians
had to put into place on that service module.
Mr. Walsh. That service module is still in doubt; is it
not?
Mr. Goldin. We are getting much more confidence in it
because we think that they are going to be ready to pack it up
for shipment in about 2 weeks. If it does arrive down at
Baikonur in the first or second week of May, we will be ready
for a launch in the fall. But we have a written agreement for
these hours and the storage space.
Mr. Walsh. On Mir you said if--I think Mr. Sununu asked or
maybe it was Ms. Northup, I can't remember, if Mir stays up, is
that a show of bad faith to the United States in this
arrangement that we have? You suggested if they can keep it up
there with private investors and service it without sacrificing
servicing the space lab, that would be a goodthing, but you
don't really believe that can happen, do you?
Mr. Goldin. I would say the probability of that happening
is 1 in 10.
Mr. Walsh. That is a good short answer.
Mr. Goldin. I am trying, sir.
RELATIONSHIPS WITH STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Walsh. That was very helpful. It puts things in
proportion.
NASA has obviously lots of spin-off benefits which we have
been able to sell to the American public. One of those is, I
believe, the technology in satellite imagery and the uses of
that technology for local governments--local and State
governments for land use planning and agriculture and flood
control and so on.
How would you characterize NASA's relationship with State
and local governments?
Mr. Goldin. I think it is good, but could be much better.
Mr. Walsh. How could we improve it?
Mr. Goldin. I think we need to reach out to local
governments and State governments with the intensity that we
have worked with the commercial sector. I don't think we are
doing a good job. I haven't thought about it until now, but I
would like to give you a thoughtful answer.
Ghassem, would you like to say something?
Dr. Asrar. We are in the process of establishing a dialogue
with all of the Governors of all of the States, and we are
trying to identify what their needs are, and this would be the
basis for formation of a solicitation later this year or early
next year for expanding our relationships with the State and
local governments.
Mr. Goldin. But still I am not satisfied. I know that we
are doing a lot better with industry than we are with State and
local governments. I will commit to you a thoughtful response
to the record integrating what Ghassem said.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Walsh. I want to be realistic here. Your budget is
going down. You have major challenges ahead of you. You have
huge commitments, time commitments, space and energy and human
commitments. But I would like to get your thoughts on how we
can improve that situation down the road.
Mr. Mollohan.
INTELLIGENT SYNTHESIS ENVIRONMENT (ISE)
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Goldin, NASA has proposed a new Intelligent Systems
program in the 2000 budget, but it doesn't seem to be located
in any one place, and you have a Technology Investments
pamphlet that contains an Intelligent Synthesis Environment
program, which includes a 5-year projection for $180 million. I
don't think that you speak to it in your written submission, at
least I can't find it, but I understand that the new Technology
Investments program includes $20 million in fiscal year 2000
for this Intelligent Synthesis Environment program. Could you
tell the subcommittee a little about this new program? It is
difficult to piece it together from your budget submission.
What are the pieces to the initiative, and could you tell us a
little bit about it?
Mr. Goldin. You find it in the aeronautics research and
technology base under information technology. That is where you
find it in the budget. But let me talk briefly about it.
One of the lessons that we learned from the International
Space Station and a number of other programs is that we don't
have adequate design tools, and, by the way, we have talked to
many corporations on the subject. We would like to be able to
simulate a spacecraft before we build one piece of hardware. We
would like to be able to have globally distributed teams of
scientists and engineers that would go into virtual space and
spend their time on the creative process, not spending their
time on all of the routine processes required with present
information systems.
We think this is the single most important set of tools we
can develop that will get us to a cycle time goal of a few
years from the 5 years we are at right now. We also believe
this is a critical tool for American industry also. And in
developing these specific tools, we are going to be building
test beds. We have $180 million planned over the next 5 years.
We will begin to take the best tools available and train our
people and integrate it into our basic design processes and
each year make progress on improved approaches.
Right now when we commit to a major program, we commit--
when we have perhaps 10 or 20 percent detailed design
knowledge, we commit 90 percent of the costs. In the long term,
and I think this is a decadal goal, we would like to be able to
have 70 or 80 percent design knowledge when we commit 90
percent of the cost. This is the fundamental problem of
engineering today. This is not just true in government
programs, these are true in commercial programs. These are the
core technologies that we want to go into.
Mr. Mollohan. What centers are going to have the lead in
this program?
Mr. Goldin. Intelligent Synthesis Environments will be led
by the NASA Langley Center in Virginia, and the intelligent
systems that form the intellectual basis for these tools will
be led by the NASA Ames Center in Sunnyvale.
Mr. Mollohan. What is the requested funding level for the
fiscal year 2000?
Mr. Peterson. You are asking about for the ISE, sir?
Mr. Mollohan. It is hard for us to break it out, but yes,
if you can give us that, and then if there are any other pieces
in the budget request that relate to this program?
Mr. Peterson. Well, the specific request for the ISE is
augmentation of $20 million, and that, of course, is located in
that information technology element of the R&T base in
aeronautics.
The other parts of the intelligent systems world are in our
core technology spending that is located in the Space Science
budget.
Then there are a significant number of corollary
activities, the high-performance computing, which is
distributed not only within the Aeronautics budget as a
separate program, but is also found in both Earth and Space
sciences. There are a number of related activities that are
secondary contributing factors. I would be glad to provide you
with a breakdown of how we distribute our spending both
specific on this case and the related.
Mr. Mollohan. Would you, please?
Mr. Goldin. Yes, we will do that.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
OMB REQUEST FOR ISE
Mr. Mollohan. What was your request to the OMB for the ISE
initiative?
Mr. Peterson. It was for $60 million. We received $20
million of that.
Mr. Mollohan. But still your 5-year projection was 180
million? That wasn't affected by OMB?
Mr. Peterson. Our 5-year projection to OMB was 300----
Mr. Walsh. I just realized I made a mistake. This was
scheduled to end at noon. I have a 12:00 appointment that I am
going to be late for. Would you fellows mind if we came back at
1:30? Do you want to finish up, Alan? I wasn't watching my
schedule as closely as perhaps I should, and I apologize.
Mr. Mollohan. That is fine.
Mr. Walsh. Why don't we break here then. Again, I apologize
for the confusion, and we will reassemble at 1:30. Thank you.
AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
Mr. Walsh. The subcommittee hearing will come to order.
We were ending up the morning session with Mr. Mollohan
asking questions and we will go back to him. Welcome back, Mr.
Goldin, and all of your staff.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Goldin, I'd like to follow up on some of the questions
exploring the cuts in science and aeronautics particularly
targeted at the aerospace technology program. I was listening
to your questions with interest and thought I heard you saying
that perhaps you were in the process of reevaluating these
proposed cuts because of some perhaps push-back you had
possibly gotten from industry or concerns about the effects of
those cuts on America's commercial aerospace and commercial
airline industry.
Did I hear you perhaps laying a foundation for a
reconsideration of the cuts proposed?
Mr. Goldin. I wasn't at that point yet. We are taking a
look at our overall strategy with how we deal with the
aeronautical sector of the American business community. We had
been working mainly with the air frame manufacturers and the
engine manufacturers and the first and second tier parts
suppliers.
As part of that reevaluation, we are now exploring working
more directly with the people who use them rather than those
who build them to be sure that we have the right set of
requirements.
Mr. Mollohan. Is that reevaluation in response to the
reaction that you received from this industry to your proposed
cuts to the aerospace technology programs?
Mr. Goldin. No, it was in reaction to the dilemma that
Boeing found itself in.
Mr. Mollohan. That is why you proposed the cuts?
Mr. Goldin. Right.
Mr. Mollohan. Are your recommendations for a $330 million
reduction in that area a result of Boeing's problems, or an
effort to meet a budget target and this was just a place that
you felt came out at the lowest priority?
Mr. Goldin. The first cause of the problem we had was the
dilemma that Boeing found itself in in not being able to solve
its near term problems and fund the long term solution. That is
real. Once we saw that was the issue and we cancelled the
program, clearly we had a need for additional monies in the
International Space Station and that is where we put the money.
There was the initial cause and we utilized it.
We then recognized that we couldn't completely take all of
the money we had out of the aeronautics program so we put back
into the program, in working with the OMB, $50 million for the
ultra efficient engine program and----
Mr. Mollohan. And the safety program?
Mr. Goldin [continuing]. $10 million a year for the safety
program and some money in for the revolutionary concepts
activity, and then ISE. So we took some out and put some back
in recognizing that we couldn't take the full amount out.
INCREASING AEROSPACE FUNDING
Mr. Mollohan. What I am trying to ask is: are you, in the
answers to these questions, telegraphing an interest in coming
back to the committee and working with the committee as the
year progresses, and perhaps increasing the funding above your
budget request in the aerospace line item?
Mr. Goldin. I believe that is the case. We are concerned
that we might be below critical funding levels, yes. You have
perceived that correctly.
Mr. Mollohan. If you do come back, how would your request
be different and how would you recommend that the dollars be
spent differently than your current budget submission
recommends?
Mr. Goldin. Right now we believe we have core money in
there to keep the NASA workforce intact at the Glenn Center and
at Langley. We are concerned that the engine companies who have
been putting in a considerable amount of their own money and
have that money to expend--we may not have enough money to cost
share with them. That is one of the areas we are very concerned
about. United Technologies, Pratt Whitney, and GE, are having
discussions with our people about the potential investment that
they would like to make in this ultra efficient engine. They
are talking about putting in their own money. We would like to
have the matching funds so we do the right thing, but we
haven't had those complete discussions yet.
And we are a little bit concerned that we may have cut too
closely on some of the noise activities that we had been
working on. Those are two areas that come to mind right now.
Mr. Mollohan. I don't think I am going to ask the question
of you think the money is going to come from right now. I am
going to wait until the process unfolds a little bit.
Mr. Goldin. Thank you.
RUSSIA'S PERFORMANCE FAILURES
Mr. Mollohan. If I may ask this question, Mr. Chairman, in
closing up this round, there were a lot of questions in the
first round about the quality of Russian performance with
regard to their role in the Space Station.
In the face of all of the disappointments associated with
their performance failures--coming through with the funding
commitments and timeliness of delivering on their various
commitments--when all of that is said and done and you get to
the bottom line, how do you evaluate the importance of the
Russian participation in the Space Station from this point
forward to the success of the program, specifically, and the
other issues that surround the involvement, the national
security issues, the policy issues that surround the value of
the Russian participation in the Space Station?
Mr. Goldin. I would like to----
Mr. Mollohan. A bottom line answer.
Mr. Goldin. Bottom line, if I had it to do over again and
the President asked me to ask the Russians, in knowing what I
know today, I would still do it. It is absolutely clear that
the Russians knew so much more than we did about having
astronauts in space for decades. We had flown the Shuttle and
we have only had experiences of a couple of weeks at a time.
The experience that the Russians had in training, operations,
logistics, building hardware, the experience they had in
dealing with the contingencies and emergencies, the experience
with protecting lives and safety, has been an invaluable
experience and I don't believe we could have built the Space
Station.
In this morning's session we talked about we didn't save
the money that we thought that we would save, but I will
contend that had we not worked with the Russians, had we not
done Shuttle-Mir, had the Russians not been gracious enough to
tell us about extended duration space flight, I don't know that
we could have built the Space Station on schedule, and the
potential for overrun and management problems would have been
enormous. There is no doubt in my mind from a technical
standpoint, I am not even getting into the politics, from a
technical standpoint we needed the Russians.
In modern America it is difficult because many of us have
not recovered from the relationship we had during the Cold War,
but the bottom line, it was clearly the right thing to do.
I would like to add two other things to that. First, we
negotiated with the Russians that they would take down their
independent national space station which they operated without
any other country for 20 years. They have signed up to that.
The head of the Russian Space Agency signed that protocol. That
in and of itself is a statement from the Russian side that they
trust America. Keep in mind this is a U.S. led Space Station
and it is not a sovereign national program, so they have made a
step in our direction and I think that is a step of a true
partnership.
Now there are a couple of issues and the road is a little
bumpy, but in the end I think they are going to deorbit that
Space Station. That is a tremendous trust that they are putting
in America.
I come back to the issue of backup launch. We as a Nation
mourned, as we had to keep the Shuttle down for 2 years after
Challenger. If the Shuttle goes down, we will not be able to
keep that Space Station up there and it will be essential to
have these backup Russian resources. If we were to sever
relationships with the Russians now, and we will not have the 3
or 4 years necessary to build the backup propulsion module and
the crew return vehicle, I don't think that we could keep the
Space Station that we have up in the sky right now. So bottom
line, if we had it to do over again, I would say do it over
again.
The one issue that I would have done differently and I
accept responsibility and accountability for it, I would have
pushed harder, even though the budget was tight, to start some
of these contingency activities 3-4 years ago. That is one
issue that NASA and Dan Goldin should have done better.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh. Mr. Knollenberg.
POLITICIZING OF SCIENCE
Mr. Knollenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Mr.
Goldin. It is good to see you and everybody here.
One of my biggest concerns I think is not NASA, but it is
the politicizing of science, and I want to talk to you a little
bit about how that may or may not be a problem with NASA. I
want to get your read on some of the things that bother me.
There are times when Members of Congress, perhaps agencies use
science to--use in fact manipulation of science to fulfill a
political agenda, and I believe that we should rely upon sound
science and I trust that NASA does. I am appreciative of the
record that NASA has in terms of producing what appears to me
to be sound independent science.
But let me then proceed into an area of climate change that
has to do with some of the work that NASA does. I think there
is about 1.6 billion that is devoted to Earth science. I don't
know how that is sorted out, but I am just reading from the
page here. There was a bump of some--about 47 million in that
category, but let me get into some of the questions.
Mr. Goldin. Sure.
Mr. Knollenberg. Maybe just briefly and I don't need much
on this, but what does NASA do to assure us that there is
objectivity and independence in coming to their conclusions
with respect to the agency's science?
Mr. Goldin. First, we are strong adherents of the peer
review process. It is very, very important to us. In fact, if
you look in the Earth science area, NASA's mission is to supply
basic science without injecting policy into the output of the
science, especially in the area of global climate change. We
fund researchers for the peer review process that are both
sides of the issue. As an example, there is Dr. Hansen at the
Goddard Institute in New York who is feeling that there is
significant climate change induced by human behavior. And then
there is Spencer and Christy at NASA Marshall down in
Huntsville, Alabama. We fund them both. We do not want to
prejudge the results of what is going to come out, but we want
that debate to take place in the open scientific arena.
One other example, we have some researchers at NASA Johnson
who believe that they found samples of microbial life in a
martian rock. I encouraged them to publish their results and I
also encouraged other researchers to compete for pieces of that
rock so they could do their own research and have an open
debate. Today there are scientific meetings that are set up to
deal with do we believe there is fossilized microbial life in
that rock or not. The key thing for NASA to do is to fund the
science and not to get into policy; and we try very, very hard
to do that.
Mr. Knollenberg. As you well know, this issue is being
discussed here in Congress, not as much as I would like but it
will be soon, and I want to take science out of politics as
best we can and make sure that the scientists, the real experts
do it. And I am glad to hear that you have point/counterpoint
already in your agency. My question is: The additional money
this year that goes into Earth science, and I am estimating, 47
million, that is an increase. I know in many cases it is down.
Your various categories of expenditures are down. That one went
up. Where is the 47 million being spent and how much of that
might be spent in the area of analysis of greenhouse gases and
their impact on the Earth's climate?
Dr. Asrar. I will explain that.
Mr. Knollenberg. I want to know what the justification is.
Dr. Asrar. Most of the added funds are going towards our
applications and commercial remote sensing activities. Plus the
analysis of data from those missions that have about 10
missions to launch this year, and we thought that we have to
add more money into the analysis of data resulting from these
missions to fully realize their potential.
Mr. Knollenberg. When do you expect to be done?
Dr. Asrar. With what aspect?
Mr. Knollenberg. You mention that you have a series of
missions?
Dr. Asrar. Ten of them are being launched this year and 26
total over the next 5 years. In anticipation of this great
volume of data resulting from these missions, we wanted to make
sure that there is a robust and healthy basis forutilizing the
data from these missions. Plus as I stated, we are putting an added
emphasis on applications of the data resulting from these missions
toward solving practical societal problems.
Mr. Knollenberg. I would assume that the work that you do,
the analysis that you do, and specifically the money that goes
into these missions, is that in any way being done elsewhere?
Is this a totally compartmentalized effort?
Dr. Asrar. The scientific objectives that we pursue are the
national scientific priorities identified through the National
Research Council.
Mr. Knollenberg. What about the U.S. Global Change Research
Program?
Dr. Asrar. We do work through that forum in some of the
scientific objectives that we pursue.
Mr. Knollenberg. Would you say that your work, your
scrutiny and observation has more to do with outer space? When
I say outer space, I guess I am talking about the area, the
arena in which you find yourself that you are in, I guess that
is outer space?
Dr. Asrar. Yes. Our unique contribution is providing that
unique vantage point from space. That is what we bring to the
table in the form of remote sensing of the entire Earth system,
for example oceanography or looking at the vegetation over the
surface of the Earth or the atmosphere itself, both the
chemistry and physics of the atmosphere.
COMMUNICATE FINDINGS WITH OTHER AGENCIES
Mr. Knollenberg. How do you communicate your findings with
other agencies?
Dr. Asrar. Through coordinating mechanisms such as U.S.
Global Change Research Program, which is multiagency. We also
have agency-to-agency arrangements. For example, we do work
very closely with FEMA, Federal Emergency Management Agency, in
extending the benefit of what we do to actual practical
applications that FEMA requires.
Mr. Knollenberg. What about EPA?
Dr. Asrar. EPA we only have some limited work on the aspect
of land cover, land use change in the U.S., which is very
limited. That pertains to the global and carbon cycle and land
cover, land use change.
RESEARCHING CLIMATE CHANGE
Mr. Knollenberg. I am looking for your comment here because
it appears to me that NASA has a unique role when it comes to
researching climate change, a kind of reserve for that upper
atmosphere or beyond the atmosphere. And there is a statement
that I wanted to relate to you that appears in one of the
science publications which has to do with the same folks, the
U.S. Global Change Research Program. It has to do with why
climate models can't keep up, and you may have seen this. It
seems that the thrust of this article or criticism is that the
U.S. models can't keep up. We have to in some cases--American
analysts have to rely on other countries to get the kind of
detailed data that they need.
Is that statement correct that appears in this publication?
Dr. Asrar. Partially the statement is correct. Within the
U.S. we still continue to provide the scientific leadership
towards developing these models and understanding the
fundamental chemistry, physics and biology that analyze the
phenomenon of the Earth and its climate. What we haven't done a
good job of is integrating the outcome of that research into a
series of operational models that we can use by operational
agencies such as National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. That is one aspect that is missing.
The second aspect that is missing, our ability in the area
of high end computing capabilities has eroded in the past few
years so that we cannot improve--we are not keeping up with the
developments across the globe in terms of being able to have
higher computing capability to improve the resolution of these
models so that they continue to capture smaller events at local
to regional level so we can extend the benefit of the global
science to the local.
Mr. Knollenberg. How much of NASA's studies is based on
absolute evidence?
Dr. Asrar. Most of what we do is based on the actual
observations, but to bring out the full benefit of those
observations, we couple them with the modeling effort. So it is
really observations and modeling, but the unique contribution
of NASA at the 80 percent plus or close to 90 percent is in the
form of observations, the actual evidence. We do have some
modeling data, but it is very minimal compared to some other
agencies.
EFFECTS OF GREENHOUSE GASES
Mr. Knollenberg. Let me come back, do current satellites
have the capacity, the capability, to measure the effect of
greenhouse gases in the clouds? I don't mean outer space but
back on Earth. Do you have anything to relate to that?
Dr. Asrar. Only the upper atmosphere, the stratospheric
component, the issues associated with ozone and the chemical
constituencies that contribute to the ozone depletion.
Coming down to the troposphere where we live, we currently
do not have any capabilities in space that allows us to measure
those gases directly. However, we do have some space-based
capabilities to assess the strength of the pools or the sinks
for these gases, primarily the ocean, which takes up the
CO2 and the forests in the research mode, not in the
operational mode.
Mr. Knollenberg. How long has NASA been measuring the
globe's temperature as it relates to climate change from the
satellites?
Dr. Asrar. Basically NASA helped NOAA to have that
capability in place since we have put in place the weather
system. So we currently do not have any research satellites. We
rely heavily on the operational monitoring satellites for that
purpose. That is part of the reason for this controversy
because those satellites were not intended to provide highly
accurate precise measurements, and we are extending their use
to some objectives that they were not intended for.
But the earliest we can have such a well-calibrated mission
launch would be the end of next year, that measures the
temperature of the atmosphere precisely to about to 1 degree
Kelvin in slabs of 1 kilometer.
Mr. Knollenberg. Are there new technologies being utilized?
Dr. Asrar. That is the role that NASA plays, to shed some
light on the scientific issues that are being discussed or
studied at the moment.
Mr. Knollenberg. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Walsh. Mr. Cramer.
LIFE AND MICROGRAVITY SCIENCES
Mr. Cramer. Mr. Goldin, I want to bring you back to life
and microgravity science and try to extend some of the
conversations that we were having this morning in part 1.
There is a $15 million budget item that was to have been
reserved for life and microgravity science that is now kind of
lost in this discussion, or can you help me understand where it
is and what it might be used for?
Mr. Goldin. Yes. In fact, this committee had suggested that
NASA take a look at a standby mission in case we had delays in
the Space Station building, and they put $15 million in the
budget to get such a mission started. We took a look at it and
we found that a standby mission in and of itself didn't make
sense in that we could only get about 1,300 pounds of equipment
up at a relatively high expense where typically we take 7,500
to 8,000 pounds of equipment up. There was a factor of 5 ratio
in the real utility of that mission.
We said maybe we should consider a dedicated mission, and
we do believe that a dedicated mission does make sense, but the
$15 million only gets us part of the way there because to just
pay for the rental of this equipment, which we would rent from
the SpaceHab Company, would require an additional 15 to 25
million to get the double module that they have, and then we
need another $84 million in expendables to have the Shuttle
mission. So we are off by about $110 million. So that is the
only reason that we are not at the present time scheduling such
a mission.
We are going to try to move along the path that if the
money became available we could have such a mission, and we are
looking at a time frame of early 2002 as a place that the
manifest would allow such a mission. But absent that $110
million, we don't know how to do this dedicated mission. So we
agree with the concept that the committee had when we started
and just shifted it from a dedicated to a standby mission. But
it is the absence of additional money that precludes us from
doing it.
Mr. Cramer. So to spend this $15 million which OMB has
concerns about now, we would have to come up with this
additional amount for this now different mission that you are
talking about?
Mr. Goldin. A dedicated mission, and we are about $110
million away from having the capacity to do that mission.
Mr. Cramer. Is there payload room on the October Hubble
repair mission?
Mr. Goldin. No.
NASA'S ROLE IN EDUCATION
Mr. Cramer. I want to switch now to NASA and NASA's role in
education.
There is a lot of debate going on about what we can do to
strengthen elementary and middle school education over science
and math issues, and even senior high school education. Is NASA
doing enough to reach elementary and middle school students,
our next generation of engineers and scientists, and do you
have any programs on the books that would address this issue?
Mr. Goldin. We have a number of programs; and are we doing
enough? No. Could we do more? Yes. Is this an area that I
personally am frustrated with? Absolutely.
We have a way of reaching children with the space program
that no other organization in the country could use. We have a
number of programs where we train teachers, I think we touch
some 20,000 teachers a year. We do everything from giving
scholarships where they will come to our facilities for a few
weeks to a whole summer to learn how to do a better job of
teaching. We touch 3 million children a year through a whole
range of programs that we have, and they are very effective.
The dilemma is the continued compression on the budget, and
this is an area where we would love to do more. We think that
we can have a very major impact. And when I get a chance to
talk to teachers--I spend a lot of time going and talking to
schools, and I see the direct impacts we have, especially on
disadvantaged children which have a problem relating to math
and science, and on young girls that don't always get that
extra push to look at math and science. And this is an area
where we would love to do more, but we are limited by the
capacity.
Mr. Cramer. Is there a consolidated program out of
headquarters that is carried on through all of the centers?
Mr. Goldin. Each of our centers works on it. I can give you
a few facts. We have 151 programs. They are spread across our
10 centers, so there is a broad range of activity.
Mr. Cramer. That you would call educational activities?
Mr. Goldin. Yes.
Mr. Cramer. Which partner you with the private sector?
Mr. Goldin. The private sector sponsors a van that we take
around the country, and in this van teachers can upload CD-ROMs
and get videos and lesson plans. It will pull up to a school
and teachers use it for a day or two, and then it is on to the
next city. A number of the aerospace companies sponsor that van
and cost share it with NASA.
Mr. Cramer. And I would assume in my community with my NASA
center there at Marshall there are such programs that are in my
district.
Mr. Goldin. Yes.
Mr. Cramer. I would like more information about that
because in my community we have a unique opportunity with the
presence of private sector companies like InnoGraph and others
to partner with schools, adopt individual schools. There is a
new science center that is going up there, and we may be able
to broaden our impact with limited dollars on teachers and
consequently young people.
Mr. Goldin. American students are doing terrible in testing
when compared to students in other countries. Math aptitude is
very low, especially among eighth graders, and we are going to
have a society in the next few decades that are going to be
totally dependent on technology, and if we want to lead the
world in the 21st century, this is what we need to do.
I will point out that the NASA budget even in education is
not at the expectations we would like to have. Even though the
NASA budget came down over the last 7 years, the education
budget has gone up. We have disproportionately increased it,
but we can't keep on doing that given the fact that the budget
keeps coming down.
Mr. Cramer. The President's fiscal year 2000 budget
included increases in research and development funding for DOE,
the National Science Foundation and EPA, several other
departments and agencies, but NASA's R&D budget will actually
suffer a 4 percent decrease. Do you believe that NASA is being
adequately funded in the area of research and development?
Mr. Goldin. NASA is better.
Mr. Cramer. In what sense?
Mr. Goldin. I guess the President is confident that we will
do more with less.
Mr. Cramer. Do you think that you can?
Mr. Goldin. We would not object to an increase in our
budget. We might even smile a little.
TOTAL COST BUDGETING
Mr. Cramer. Talk to me a little bit about your full cost
practices that were initiated in 1995, the multiyear initiative
to introduce full costs practices into NASA.Where are we with
that now?
Mr. Goldin. We would like NASA to operate just like a
private business. When I arrived at NASA, our people were
working real hard but they didn't know what their overhead
costs were, what their general expenses were, and it would
always be cheaper to do it in-house than to have a contractor
outside the agency.
So we wanted to better manage the costs, and you need to
understand the bases for those costs, not just the direct
charges but the indirect charges. One of the reasons that
American industry has been so productive in the last decade,
they have gone after the overhead costs. Total cost management
says that we will be able to break out the NASA costs
completely, understanding all of the overhead that goes along
with it, so that our center directors can do a much better job
in how they manage the taxpayers' resources.
We are planning on doing total cost budgeting for the
fiscal year 2001 process and by fiscal year 2002 we hope to be
implementing total cost management.
Mr. Cramer. Agencywide?
Mr. Goldin. Agencywide. Let me just double-check with our
CFO. Arnold?
Mr. Holz. That is correct.
Mr. Goldin. I believe we will be one of the first agencies
in government to undertake this. When we do this, I ask the
Congress to have a certain level of understanding because you
are going to have a full level of detail from NASA, and it will
be very easy to go in and say, gee whiz, look at all of this
waste. We are going to have sunshine on it and we are going to
want to work with you on it.
One of the dilemmas that we have in implementing total cost
management is if we have too many accounts in our management
and appropriations and not have the flexibility to move between
accounts, we may not be able to implement total cost
management.
For example, even though NASA Marshall doesn't play a major
role in some of the space science areas, a lot of the space
science projects come to NASA Marshall for specific support.
Now if under total cost management we can't move people back
and forth between centers and utilize the facilities at NASA
Marshall, it will put a chilling effect on the ability of other
centers to use NASA Marshall in the space science area.
So one of the areas that we have really made a plea for is
to not put up too many barriers in the terms of appropriations
accounts. We have the operating plan that allows the Congress
to have total oversight in how we move the money around. If we
have too much inflexibility, we may not be able to give you and
ourselves the opportunity to understand how to get our overhead
costs down even more.
Mr. Cramer. It has to be agencywide or it is a
contradiction or there is going to be some domino that is going
to stop.
Mr. Goldin. By the way, my employees will be very unhappy
with me because I told them to trust everybody and be very
open. And if the first reaction to total cost budgeting,
management and accounting is to come in and start punishing
people for laying things down to the table openly like they do
in industry, it is not going to work. In industry you get
rewarded for identification of overhead problems.
Mr. Cramer. We in the Alabama congressional delegation have
held your feet to the fire with what has been going on or has
not been going on at the Marshall Space Flight Center, and you
have done a terrific job of making sure that we settle things
down there, that we understood the future that will exist for
the Marshall Space Flight Center. Art is doing a terrific job.
The NASA community seems to be responding to him very, very
well. The reorganization that has occurred there, the way that
the employees have realigned that I was apprehensive about at
first because change is tough for a lot of people, specifically
where they are required to work and who they are required to
work with, but that has gone very, very well. So I think we as
one space center representing the space family that we are so
proud of appreciate what you have done there.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Goldin. May I just note that Art Stephenson is who you
are referring to. He left the private sector at a tremendous
financial disadvantage because he is a patriot.
Mr. Cramer. We were anxious about him because he was from
Texas, and so we were a little anxious. I personally was not,
but I knew the community would be anxious. They would interpret
here come the Johnson folks again. But Art Stephenson is doing
a terrific job. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
BUDGETARY CONSTRAINTS--SCIENCE MISSIONS
Mr. Walsh. I would like to stay with this science mission
issue for a minute, if I may.
You are saying that it is not going to happen because of
budgetary constraints; is that correct?
Mr. Goldin. I'm sorry?
Mr. Walsh. The idea of putting on an additional science
mission because of budgetary constraints?
Mr. Goldin. The dilemma is we don't have the additional 15
to $25 million required to fund the activity through Space Hab
and the additional $84 million to pay for the expendable parts
necessary to have this launch on the Shuttle. Those are our two
problems.
HUBBLE AND TRIANA MISSIONS
Mr. Walsh. Did you opt to do the Hubble and the Triana
mission in terms of priorities, putting them above this?
Mr. Goldin. We felt that in the case of the research
mission, we had about 60 percent of the research covered
because we added extra lockers to the Shuttle. This happened
after the request that you had made of us to do more research
and to the express racks that we were going to put on the Space
Station.
In the case of Hubble we thought that was a higher priority
because the Hubble is one of the most productive scientific
instruments we have and that we wouldn't have the threat of
losing the spacecraft, but we were afraid that we would lose a
significant flow of science and so we prioritized that above
it.
In the case of Triana, we believe that Triana is a very
crucial mission to get us to the L-1 point, and it is a
secondary payload so we don't have to pay for the actual launch
itself, and that Triana we believe has the potential in the
future of perhaps replacing five geostationary satellites,
three of which the United States owns, two of which we depend
on other countries, with perhaps just two satellites at the L-1
and L-2 points. We think that it has a real potential.
On top of that, we think that it is going to fill in some
gaps in our scientific knowledge. There we would get zero
without Triana.
In the case of this scientific microgravity and lifescience
research, we are getting 60 percent of what we did in the prior 4
years.
Mr. Walsh. Were you surprised when you found that in the
budget deal last fall?
Mr. Goldin. No.
Mr. Walsh. The Triana mission? That was--as I understand
it, that was included in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
at the end of last year; is that correct?
Mr. Goldin. I think we submitted it as an operating plan.
Mr. Walsh. Were you surprised?
Mr. Goldin. I was pleased.
Mr. Walsh. And surprised?
Mr. Goldin. No, I was pleased.
SHUTTLE MISSIONS
Mr. Walsh. Will you not save money in terms of Shuttle
missions that could be used on a science mission because of
delays with the service module?
Mr. Goldin. It is not that we save money. Every time a
Shuttle goes up, the marginal cost for that flight is $84
million. So if we don't fly a mission this year, the mission is
still scheduled and we still have to do it. And at some point
down the line you will have to find that $84 million if you add
in an additional mission, and that is the dilemma that we have.
Mr. Walsh. What if Congress encouraged you to do that
sooner than later in the event that you get behind on these
other missions and we try to make that whole in the next
budget?
Mr. Goldin. If we knew that the money would get paid back,
I believe it would give us a lot better ability to go do such a
mission. Let me talk to my comptroller, who is having an
anxiety attack. He agrees with me. It is okay. He works for me
and he agrees with me. But I would say if we can have some
agreement with the administration and the Congress that we
could get the money paid back in the future, I think we could
go ahead and do such a mission.
HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE MISSION
Mr. Walsh. Did you work that kind of a deal for the Hubble
mission?
Mr. Goldin. Right now my instructions for the Hubble
mission are to go find the money and to----
Mr. Walsh. That is the kind of deal you worked, it sounds
like.
Mr. Goldin. We are going to look to see what we will not do
or cancel to do that Hubble mission. We are not being given a
promise that we will have money in the outyears. It is a very
tough issue, and I have asked Ed Weiler, who is the
Administrator for the Space Science Enterprise, to start
prioritizing his activity, and I have asked Joe Rothenberg to
do the same thing.
Mr. Walsh. How will you reprogram that $15 million if you
don't spend it for that mission?
Mr. Goldin. If we do not spend it, it is not appropriated
and it does not belong to us. You told us to do it, and so we
would look to your guidance and direction. No one is going to
spend that money without your giving us direction.
CENTER VISITS
Mr. Walsh. We have asked you some hard questions. Let me
throw you a softball.
Mr. Goldin. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh. I am new to this chairmanship. I have been on
the subcommittee, and I have a lot to learn about your
business. If you were to suggest some things to see and places
to go for myself and the subcommittee to get a better handle on
what NASA does generally and specifically and also in relation
to the Space Station, what would you suggest?
Mr. Goldin. If you could afford a two-day trip, it has been
very valuable, we have done this with other Members, I would go
to NASA Johnson, NASA Marshall and NASA Kennedy. Those are the
3 places where the lion's share of that work gets done. To see
the hardware, to see the people, to get a chance in an informal
setting to ask deep penetrating questions, I believe would be
the best way you could come up to speed the fastest. And we
could do it in a two-day period. If you do that with the
committee, I would personally like to come along on such a
trip.
Mr. Walsh. We will see if we can work it out.
I think Mr. Knollenberg is next.
Y2K COMPLIANCE
Mr. Knollenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I understand that this may not have been asked this
morning. It is the Y2K question. Has that come up?
Mr. Goldin. It has not.
Mr. Knollenberg. Well, I have to ask a question about it.
As it applies, I suspect that if Y2K compliance were going to
occur anywhere, it would probably occur in outer space first,
perhaps. Maybe that is saying a little bit too much, but I have
reason to believe that--every reason to hope that NASA's Y2K
problem is not a problem. And I guess I would like some
assurance from you as to what the status of the issue is and
while we are talking about that, I guess you ought to reflect
on Russia's situation, too. And whether that is in some kind of
awkward--it might become an awkward marriage due to that
problem.
Mr. Goldin. First, let me say that we are on track by the
end of March to have our modifications and tests done of our
Y2K issues. But we are not going to stop there. We are going to
be running a whole series of end-to-end tests in 12 different
areas. We have already run some end-to-end tests with our
partners in Russia. I met with the leadership of all of the
partner agencies on the International Space Station and
discussed with them the fact that we expect them to be Y2K
compliant. The Russians are implementing a plan, and it looks
like they will be on target to do that. But to check that we
are correct, we are going to run an end-to-end test between
Mission Control Houston and Mission Control Moscow.
I believe we will be successful with the Russians, the
Europeans, the Japanese and the Canadians.
The one area that gives me concern because we don't have a
complete contingency plan worked out is the infrastructure
support like power and communications, not just in Russia but
in the United States. And what we are doing at our NASA centers
is we have a set of criteria where we are asking our people to
guarantee if you lose power from the local power company, I
believe they have to go for so many days, so we will be putting
in motor generator sets, and we are looking at alternate
communications channels in case the communications channels
break down.
We have a set of criteria in this area. I have asked Joe
Rothenberg how to back up the Russians in case their
communications or power systems go down. So we are not stopping
at the borders, we are looking at the broad system integrations
and doing end-to-end tests to validate it.
Mr. Knollenberg. What about other countries?
Mr. Goldin. We are working with all of the partners that we
have. I sent out 3,000 letters to all of our sub tier suppliers
telling them about our expectations on Y2K compliance. So we
are trying to spread the net not just beyond what we control,
but we are trying to go over the interfaces.
Mr. Walsh. You may want to ask questions of Roberta Gross,
who is the Inspector General, who is here today, who has done
some audits of Y2K with the different centers.
RUSSIANS IN THE SPACE PROGRAM
Mr. Knollenberg. I will be happy to do that. I want to ask
a couple of questions. That might eat up my time, and if I have
time, I will be more than happy to get into that.
I want to come back to a question about a subject you and I
had about a matter a year ago and we discussed in particular
the Russians and the safety features of the space work, and you
shared with me what was kind of an eye opener in that the
Russians seem to do a better job than we might have expected
when it comes to space. I questioned you about why don't they
seem to have that same quality when it comes to some of the
things on Earth, such as their whole business with the nuclear
waste problem, et cetera, et cetera.
And I think you answered then that you are aware but did
not know. Have you come to any further knowledge or any further
information that might help tell us why they are so good, so
thorough, so great about outer space, but they don't do so well
at home?
Mr. Goldin. I am going to leave that to Secretary
Richardson at Energy. I just don't know enough about the
subject, and I am very concerned that with my inadequate
knowledge I may be saying something inappropriate.
Mr. Knollenberg. But you still feel very good about what
takes place with the Russians in the space program?
Mr. Goldin. To date they have done a superb job. One more
example that I would like to give you, Vladimir Titov, who flew
on the Shuttle twice, was on top of the Proton rocket that blew
up underneath him. They had such a good safety escape system
that he walked away from a Proton rocket with all of its fuel
blowing up on the launch pad.
Today we do not have such a similar escape system in our
own Shuttle. I know that the Russians are very conscientious,
and I have to say to date in what they do in space, and so far
we have seen they seem to be very, very much on top of it. So I
will stick with that and not take myself into other areas I am
not an expert in.
SHUTTLE COST
Mr. Knollenberg. I noticed by the chart that the Shuttle
costs are coming down. I suspect that you have an expectancy of
that continuing on into the future. This chart gives us some
indication of what has taken place in the last several years
since 1993?
Mr. Goldin. Yes.
Mr. Knollenberg. And I suspect that you are looking for
greater reduction in addition to what is here. What about the
current fleet of our four space shuttles? They wear out, too.
This may have been asked previously and if it has been, I
apologize.
Mr. Goldin. No, it has not.
Mr. Knollenberg. At what point do they become hazardous to
the passengers?
Mr. Goldin. The shuttles were designed for 400 trips to and
from space. We rated them at only a hundred trips to and from
space, and they are at about 25 percent of that derated design
life taken in average. We have had about a hundred flights,
four shuttles on average. They are about 25 percent into their
design life.
The issue is not the shuttles wearing out, the issue is
obsolescence of parts and subsystems and components, and this
is a focus of NASA and the United Space Alliance, and one of
the areas that we are going to have to make some additional
investments in the years ahead to keep the Shuttle safe is to
avoid the problems associated with obsolescence and to
incorporate advanced technologies to make the Shuttle even
safer than it is today and I anticipate the expenditure of
additional funds to increase the 4 to $500 million a year we
spend in Shuttle upgrades and continue to make the Shuttle
safer.
Mr. Knollenberg. Is that reflected in your projection of
expenditures?
Mr. Goldin. We have about $400 million in Shuttle upgrade
money now. And as part of the 2001 budget process, we are going
to take a look at what additional upgrades we need to make to
the Shuttle. But I would like to say openly and publicly, one
of the reasons that we hired the United Space Alliance, we want
to turn the Shuttle over to the private sector, and we expect
them to make the Shuttle safer with higher quality, shorter
turnaround time at lower cost.
Mr. Knollenberg. Do you have anybody yet?
Mr. Goldin. Yes, the United Space Alliance. We have had
about $200 million since the contract began. But that is not
enough. I want more.
LAUNCH VEHICLES
Mr. Knollenberg. This is a softball type question too, but
within the HEDS program or the--what is called HEDS, there is a
statement that the major goals, of which there are four, are to
increase human knowledge of nature's processes using the space
environment; number two, explore the solar system. This next
one, achieve routine space travel, does that fit into the way
out there, 20, 30, 40 years from now or does that fit into this
program, the privatizing?
Mr. Goldin. That is a key part. And the other part is the
part that Mr. Cramer asked me about before and that is
revolutionary approaches to launch vehicles that go well beyond
the Shuttle, and in that next 20-year period we hope to bring
in a number of new launch vehicles that will be competitive
with the Shuttle. We are not going to arbitrarily shut down the
Shuttle. We think that we are making great strides in making it
safer, and we like the competitive marketplace to take part.
And by having NASA not own the Shuttle, having a private
corporation, it sharpens that competition, which I think is the
strength of our economy.
CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR THE SPACE STATION
Mr. Knollenberg. Thank you very much.
Mr. Walsh. I would like go out of order on this Y2K
question because Joe raised it. It is an issue and the two
principals are here. Let me ask, the NASA Inspector General
released a report last week that is critical of your agency--of
your contingency planning for the Space Station. The report
concluded that the contingency plan does not comply with NASA
procedures and guidelines because management has decided to
omit year 2000 computer issues and planned actions to prevent
further Russian delays from the detailed contingency plan. Do
you care to comment?
Mr. Goldin. I would like to ask Joe Rothenberg to answer
that.
Mr. Rothenberg. Let me start with reiterating Mr. Goldin's
statement. We do have a comprehensive test plan that is in
place now that will demonstrate our readiness, including the Russian
partners, to deal with the year 2000.
The second part of it is that there are a number of issues
relative to things like power and communications. We are
looking at portable satellite phones and things like that as
backup. We have people who are currently doing an audit of what
the Russian capabilities are at the mission control center at
Moscow, which is the most critical facility because that is
providing command and control for the first two elements up
there.
At this point we still don't have a report back to say what
kind of backup they have and what kind of capability they have
to ensure that they have power to their control center in the
event of industrial outages due to year 2000. The second thing
is voice communication links back and forth. We expect to hear
a report on the 9th of April at the general design review.
Mr. Walsh. Do you contest this report that the Inspector
General has made that NASA does not comply?
Mr. Rothenberg. At the current moment my information says
we will comply and we need to complete some testing and also
evaluation of the backup facilities.
Mr. Walsh. Would the Inspector General care to respond?
Ms. Gross. We evaluate at a point in time and what Joe is
describing is some plan for the future. It is not there at this
time, and we will follow up the backup contingency plans that
he is describing. Like I say, it is a snapshot in time. We do
not have those reports that he was talking about. We will only
follow up an audit.
Mr. Walsh. Should we be concerned?
Ms. Gross. You have an International Space Station. NASA
has to make sure that it has contingency plans. That is why we
did the audit. We said you need to follow up. That is why Mr.
Rothenberg is also taking the steps to find out what
contingency plans are there.
Mr. Goldin. That was precisely why I asked Mr. Rothenberg
about 3 months ago to take a look at the backup situation that
the Russians had and not just rely upon the Russians solving
their Y2K, but in the event that the Russian power system and
the phones were down, in a similar fashion to what we are doing
even at our own centers in the United States. Until he finishes
that study, we will not be compliant with the comment that the
IG made on the report.
Mr. Walsh. Thank you.
Mr. Mollohan.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AIRCRAFT AND SENSOR TECHNOLOGY (ERAST) PROGRAM
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Goldin, I would like to ask you a couple questions
about the unmanned aerial vehicle program or the Environmental
Research Aircraft and Sensor Technology program, ERAST. Could
you give us a status report on this program, what you have
achieved, and what you feel is left to be done in the short
term--and I am interested in the long-term plans for the
program as well?
Mr. Goldin. Yes. We felt that there was an area in the
development of these remotely piloted vehicles that was not
being looked at. This is the low cost end and so we undertook
this ERAST program to build the vehicles and the sensors. Mr.
Knollenberg asked questions about understanding the atmosphere,
not just looking down from space. We felt that we needed to
make some measurements in the upper atmosphere, and so we
started a program to look at reciprocating engine technology
and solar power technology, and in both of those areas we have
made record breaking flights and we have done it with very,
very low costs by working in partnership with industry.
The area of the consumables or reciprocating engines, we
think that work will be concluded in 1 to 2 years. There will
be vehicles available that could be then commercialized and
NASA could use them to make environmental measurements at about
the 60,000 foot range.
We are also developing a very efficient solar powered
aircraft that could stay up indefinitely at altitudes of 80,000
feet and the key technology there is energy storage to have
ultra lightweight energy storage systems. We think that will be
available in 3 years and our goal is to have a plane that could
go up for a half year at a time and operate at 60 to 80,000
feet and take hundreds of pounds of payload. That we think will
be a very major breakthrough and we intend to spend about $20
million a year to develop this technology and we hope that it
will be available commercially in 3 to 5 years. These
technologies are helping us to build planes to fly on Mars
because the martian atmosphere is the equivalent of 100,000
feet and having this experience in these very thin atmospheres
is going to be very useful in helping us fly this plane on
Mars.
Mr. Mollohan. I bet the companies wish that was a market
available today.
Mr. Goldin. We are getting interest from a lot of
communication companies. They told us if we could have such a
plane available, it could open up a whole new capability in
mobile communications.
Mr. Mollohan. The solar plane?
Mr. Goldin. The solar plane. The key is getting a plane
that could stay up there indefinitely because when the planes
have to go up and down, you have to buy more of them.
Mr. Mollohan. Are these two different planes? You sound
like you are describing the solar plane for the 80,000 feet
missions, but do you see solar planes fulfilling the 60,000
feet missions as well?
Mr. Goldin. They may. The planes that carry consumables and
have reciprocating engines could take a bigger payload, and
they will be used in different applications. You have to build
a pretty big wing to get a few hundred pounds, and the planes
that operate at 60,000 feet today could take 500 pounds, and
that may be a more attractive payload for certain applications.
It depends on what you want to use it for.
Mr. Mollohan. NASA is committed to developing both
technologies and capabilities?
Mr. Goldin. That is correct. We believe in another year or
two we will have demonstrated the capability of these
reciprocating engine planes. I think it will take a few extra
years to get the solar plane developed.
Mr. Mollohan. Two years to get the reciprocating engine
planes approved?
Mr. Goldin. A year or two.
Mr. Mollohan. Do you want to check that?
Mr. Goldin. A year or two is right. We have another year or
two worth of development on the reciprocating engines.
RECIPROCATING ENGINE PROGRAM
Mr. Mollohan. What are the list of challenges with regard
to the reciprocating engine program?
Mr. Goldin. Sam, I need a little help.
Mr. Venneri. Good afternoon. The challenges on the
reciprocating engine programs, and the Department of Defense
also has some interest in that regime of being able to flyand
so we are going to cooperate with the DOD.
Mr. Mollohan. Are they participating in ERAST?
Mr. Venneri. No, but they are parallel in many ways so we
understand their progress. The challenges are in lightweight
materials, autonomous flight. They are not really breakthrough
kinds of things. That is why we say between the DOD effort and
our effort, within a year or two we will reach that point in
time where we will have a capability that several different
organizations or industry could use.
Mr. Mollohan. So the current team that is involved in the
reciprocating engine project, you think it would take a year or
two more of testing and refinement in order to prove or to
develop a successful model?
Mr. Venneri. If we are talking about time. Not in the
fiscal year 2000 budget, that is correct.
Mr. Mollohan. Yes, that is what I am talking about.
And so, in this budget, what commitment to that part of the
ERAST program is requested?
Mr. Venneri. Well, we have one line in there and that is
$20 million and exactly the breakout between the high flyer and
the sustainable 65,000, I would have to look that up. There is
a division between those two efforts.
Mr. Mollohan. But you do have a commitment to proving out
that technology?
Mr. Venneri. We do have a commitment to follow through on
the Alliance promise, yes.
[The information follows:]
Reciprocating Engine Program
With regards to the ERAST program objectives, the most
significant remaining challenges are in two areas: (i)
demonstrated operational flight reliability and maintainability
for deployment to remote locations; and (ii) enabling
technologies for operations in unrestricted air space. This
latter element applies equally to consumable fuel and solar
powered aircraft. The ERAST Alliance will utilize reciprocating
engine UAV's (uncrewed aerial vehicles) for this development,
since the technology readiness of these platforms is much
further developed than the solar platforms.
The FY-00 budget allocated to meet these commitments will
depend largely upon flight test results from the three ERAST
consumable fuel UAV's during the Spring and Summer of 1999. In
any event, the funded technology developments will comprise
incremental improvements to the existing ERAST engines. There
are no plans for any significant modifications or upgrades to
these existing ERAST engines, nor for a totally new
reciprocating engine development program. This would require
substantial amounts of additional funding, which alone would
easily exceed the total ERAST budget.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walsh. Mr. Frelinghuysen.
MIR SPACE WALKS
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for
my absence.
I just wanted to ask Mr. Goldin about this little article
news brief in Space News. You know it is Space News when the
news is dated March 29, 1999. They seem to project themselves.
Maybe we ought to question the accuracy of this little comment
with the headline, Cash Shortage Prompts Cut in Mir Space
Walks. ``Financial shortages have forced Mir's Flight Control
Center to cut the number of space walks planned by the Russian
station's current crew from 5 to 2, officials say. The lack of
finances has played a major role in our decision two walks
would be enough.''
Victor Blanov, Deputy Chief of Flight Control, told Space
News, ``Two space walks are planned for April and July,'' he
said, ``and will carry out additional space walks if the
Russian space researchers raise enough cash to send more
equipment to be installed in Mir's exterior in the next few
months.'' It doesn't sound that this program is about to be
deorbited or am I misreading?
Mr. Goldin. I told the chairman----
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Did something occur in my absence?
Mr. Goldin. The chairman asked me what I thought was the
probability Mir would stay up in the air, and I said 1 in 10;
unless there is someone who is willing to come up with a
quarter of a billion dollars a year to commercially finance the
Mir Space Station, I don't believe it will be up in the sky
after August of this year.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. So all of the talks, certainly they are
having a financial crisis, it doesn't mean that this Mir will
have a life much longer than you have projected?
Mr. Goldin. Unless there is commercial--someone who wants
to bring commercial money to the Mir, I don't believe that it
will be up in the sky beyond August of this year.
GAO REPORT
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you. Shifting gears a little bit,
Mr. Hobson and I last year had a number of questions and you
gave us quite lengthy responses on that GAO report that was
critical of NASA and the Department of Defense, critical in the
sense that there was--they underlined the point that there were
a lot of duplicative efforts. We heard a few minutes ago, and I
didn't catch the name of the gentleman who was sitting to your
right, but the DOD has one program and you have one program. In
his words, similar but separate programs, which sort of gets to
the gist of my question, and maybe my understanding of what we
said was inaccurate.
What are you doing relative to working on this problem, if
there is a problem between DOD and NASA?
Mr. Goldin. I don't believe that there is a problem. In
fact I think the relationship with the Department of Defense
and NASA has not been better. In fact, we are taking the
responsibility in a multibillion dollar activity we have of
developing reusable technology for civil, commercial and
defense space. And in fact the DOD joined with us in a program
called Future X. They are spending additional monies that they
have to make sure that that program is successful. They expect
that that program will lead to what they describe to be a space
maneuvering vehicle.
LAUNCH VEHICLES
Mr. Frelinghuysen. What about the use of launch facilities?
Do you have separate launch facilities?
Mr. Goldin. We have launch facilities associated with
reusables, i.e., the Shuttle. We launch all of our rockets
from--expendable rockets from DOD facilities. We do not have
any unique launch facilities for expendable rockets. We use
their facilities.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. They are not separate?
Mr. Goldin. No.
PRIVATIZATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Recently I was visited by what I
classify as a pro space organization which, among other things,
advocated for the privatization of the International Space
Station. I know that you have testified some this morning and
you have testified in the past that you supportthis
privatization goal. Has NASA developed a conceptual plan?
Mr. Goldin. Yes, we have. We have provided copies of that
plan to the Congress. I have just asked someone to leave
industry and come and be my special assistant for
commercialization, Mr. Daniel Tam. He just left the private
sector, as with Art Stephenson, at a great financial sacrifice.
He was doing acquisitions for TRW and he has come to NASA to
help us in our commercialization. We are going to be talking to
a variety of companies. We have some pathfinder companies that
are planning on using the Space Station for commercial
activities and we are exploring the possibility of running an
open competition to have a nongovernment organization run the
science utilization activities on the Space Station.
So we want to do everything possible, but what we don't
want to do is pretend that it is privatization by having
companies do 100 percent of their business with NASA and
calling it commercial. We would like to amortize the overhead
costs across the government and the private sector, and that is
the direction that I am going to drive in.
SPACE STATION OPERATING COST
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Review the estimated costs to operate
the Space Station, annual costs?
Mr. Goldin. $1.3 billion a year is our present estimate.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. You may have been asked this, is it
realistic to believe that private enterprise can operate such--
can handle these types of expenses?
Mr. Goldin. Well, we have set aside up to 30 percent of the
utilization facilities on the Space Station to private
enterprise, and we said if they can go up to 50 percent we will
make it available. We are going to see what is possible.
I think the biggest single barrier to commercial is not the
operation on the Space Station but the $10,000 a pound to get
it up to orbit. That to me is the biggest problem that we face,
not just for the Space Station but we face this for commercial,
military and civil space. This is why we have such an
aggressive program to try and get the costs of launch down, and
that will be the enabler in my mind of commercial operation in
the broadest sense.
And we hope in 10-15 years NASA will be able to move at a
lower orbit if we achieve some of the goals and access to lower
orbit.
ENGINE TESTING
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Goldin, I understand that you have
begun the testing of the engines that will be used in the X-34
vehicle. Can you tell me how that test is going?
Mr. Goldin. A hundred percent successful. We are now ready
for the full certification and qualifications tests. We will be
testing eight engines. Three have been delivered, and we will
be ready for testing. So we will be on track.
X-33 PROGRAM
Mr. Frelinghuysen. What is the next milestone for the X-33
program?
Mr. Goldin. To resolve the issue on the composite tanks.
The rest of the vehicle has come together. The launch pad is
complete. In fact, I might point out that what used to cost
hundreds of millions of dollars was done for $32 million. We
have a complete launch complex out in the Mohave Desert at
Edwards Air Force Base. As soon as we can resolve the problems
we are having in building these huge composite tanks, I think
the last of our problems will be behind us on the X-33 and we
will be readying it for launch.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. It is my understanding that NASA is
currently pursuing a lightweight synthetic aperture radar which
would be developed in a cost shared agreement with industry.
What will this effort cost your agency?
Mr. Goldin. Mal, can you give me that number.
Mr. Peterson. Just a second.
Mr. Goldin. I think it is $120 million.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. He knows his stuff.
Mr. Peterson. That is correct.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Chairman, make a note, another
positive mark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walsh. I along with everyone else in the room duly
noted that.
Let's see. Does anyone else have any--Joe, do you have any
questions that you need to ask?
Mr. Knollenberg. No. I just want to reserve the right to
submit some questions for the record.
Mr. Walsh. I think we are in agreement that we have
exhausted at least the verbal questions, although you are still
going strong, and we will submit some questions for the record.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. He is still in orbit.
Mr. Goldin. I wish I were.
Mr. Walsh. I think we will leave it right there and submit
questions for the record and hope that you would respond back
quickly. Do you have any closing remarks?
ADMINISTRATOR GOLDIN'S CLOSING REMARKS
Mr. Goldin. Yes. There are two issues. One, I wanted to
verify some numbers about the testing that the Russians had
done. You said how many tests had they done and how many were
accepted.
As of--and this is on the service module. As of the 15th of
March, they had completed 445 tests of 526 and 411 were
accepted.
Mr. Walsh. You said that they did 500 out of 570.
Mr. Goldin. I was giving some verbal information. That is
why I said as of 3-15. The verbal information is that the
number of tests increased to 570, of which they completed 500,
and about 540 were accepted, but that is verbal information and
that will not be verified until another 24 hours. I wanted to
be correct on that.
Another item, there was a question that you asked me that I
was confused on and I wanted to verify over lunch, and the
question was regarding the growth on the Space Station, how
could we categorize the costs.
Through development complete, the estimate is $22.1
million. If we put in a 1-year schedule margin it is 23.7
million. Of the growth, overrun is about 900 million.
Additional scope, namely a crew return vehicle and building
additional equipment to compensate for what we were concerned
the Russians might not be able to deliver, the total of that is
2 billion. And the schedule ranges from 1.7 billion--schedule
slip, 1.7 billion if we hold the present schedule. If we put in
the 1-year reserve, it is 3.3 billion, and I felt that I should
verbally tell you that and I apologize for my confusion.
Mr. Walsh. That is all right.
We had scheduled a hearing for tomorrow also and I don't
think that we will need to do that, so you are free to go.
Thank you.
Mr. Goldin. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh. The hearing is closed.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
I N D E X
----------
Page
Administrator Prepared Statement................................. 3-37
Aeronautics and Space Technology:
Advanced Propulsion Physics.................................. 56
Aging Aircraft............................................... 84
Competitiveness in the Industry.............................. 81
Engine Testing............................................... 116
Environmental Research Aircraft and Sensor Technology (ERAST)
Program...................................................111-113
Evolvable Expendable Launch Vehicles......................... 82
High Speed Research.......................................... 78-80
Increasing Aerospace Findings................................ 96
Intelligent Synthesis Environment (ISE)...................39, 92-96
Space Liner 100 Program...................................... 55-56
Ultra Efficient Engine Technology (UEET)..................... 82-83
X-33 Program................................................. 116
Agency Science Programs.......................................... 98
Budget:
Decline...................................................... 65
Total Cost Budgeting........................................104-105
Budget Justifications...........................................171-866
Closing Remarks:
Administrator Daniel Goldin.................................. 117
Department of Defense:
Relationship with NASA....................................... 114
Earth Science:
Effects of Greenhouse Gases.................................. 101
Global Climate Change........................................99-101
Hubble Space Telescope......................................105-107
Small Planetary Missions (Earth Probes)...................... 58
Triana...............................................59-65, 105-106
Federal Agencies:
Cooperation With Other...................................83-84, 100
Human Resources and Education:
Academic Programs............................................ 75
Downsizing at NASA........................................... 66
Education (NASA's Role)...................................... 102
Science, Engineering, Mathematics Aerospace Academy (SEMAA).. 69-70
International Space Station:
Auditing Russian Funds....................................... 84
Boeing Contract Overruns..................................... 49
Building Cost................................................ 40
Commercialization Plan....................................... 80
Contingency Plan............................................. 110
Cost Overruns................................................41, 42
Crew Return Vehicle..........................................41, 71
Critical Path Items.......................................... 47
Docking System............................................... 82
Increasing Cost.............................................. 75
Intergovernmental Agreements................................. 71-73
Interim Control Module (ICM).................................40, 45
International Cooperation.................................... 70
Operating Cost............................................... 115
Privatization of............................................. 115
Propulsion Module............................................ 71
Russian Equipment & Hardware Delays.......................... 39
Russian Partnership.......................................... 44
Savings Due to Russian Involvement........................... 52
Schedule Slippage............................................ 41-43
Service Module........................................40-41, 45, 48
Soyuz Purchase............................................... 85-86
Space Station Amendments..................................... 49-50
Why Space Station Is Important?.............................. 51
Life and Microgravity Research Missions..................56-58, 101-102
Opening Remarks:
Administrator Daniel Goldin.................................. 38
Chairman's................................................... 1
Congressman Alan Mollohan.................................... 38
Questions for Record............................................118-170
Russian Space Agency:
Budget....................................................... 44
Deorbiting Plan..............................................45, 52
Performance Failures......................................... 96-98
Purchase of Goods and Services............................... 46-47
Space Shuttle:
Cost........................................................109-110
Missions..................................................... 106
Operations................................................... 67-68
State and Local Government:
Relationship With............................................ 86-92
Y2K Compliance.............................................107-108, 110