[Senate Hearing 109-300]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2006
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 12, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Shelby, Hutchison, Cochran, and Mikulski.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL D. GRIFFIN, ADMINISTRATOR
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY
Senator Shelby. The subcommittee will come to order.
This hearing of the Senate Commerce, Justice, Science and
Related Agencies Subcommittee is the first meeting of the
restructured committee. I want to welcome the new NASA
Administrator, Dr. Michael Griffin, who is joining us to
discuss the President's fiscal year 2006 budget request for the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Dr. Griffin, in assuming your new post as the NASA
Administrator, I can only imagine how busy the past few weeks
have been for you. Now that you have had some time to
reacquaint yourself with NASA's activities, we look forward to
discussing your thoughts about how NASA is doing and hearing
your insights as to what they could be doing better.
I also anticipate that we will have an ongoing and open
dialogue about NASA's progress with return to flight and
achieving the President's Vision for Space Exploration. I am
very interested in discussing how we can preserve their
expertise within the activities and institutions that will be
necessary to take this ambitious journey.
More than 1 year ago, the President presented a Vision for
Space Exploration that calls for a return to the Moon and
eventually a manned mission to another planet. I am excited
myself by the opportunities that lie ahead with the exploration
vision at NASA.
However, there are fiscal realities that, like it or not,
may affect the vision. That is what we deal with on this
subcommittee, and I believe it is one of the difficulties that
you will face as the NASA Administrator: having to balance
NASA's limited resources with its programs and requirements.
I believe that we all appreciate the inherent risk involved
with many of the activities NASA undertakes. We also appreciate
that with risk comes the potential for failure. Inevitably,
failures increase the overall cost of the activity, and one of
the problems that I anticipate along the path to the Moon is
the potential for failures that could pose a significant
challenge to the forward momentum of the program and vision. Of
course, we all hope there will not be any failures, but I
believe we have to build in the possibility.
We have already experienced such a challenge with NASA's
return-to-flight requirements. Specifically, we have seen a
strain on science missions and aeronautics as NASA has
redirected funds to pay for return-to-flight cost overruns.
These fund shifts have caused programs and facility projects to
be deferred, created uncertainty regarding the fate of the
Hubble telescope and resulted in aeronautic spending being
flat.
Dr. Griffin, I believe you have the knowledge, the
background, and the ability to guide NASA. But I also believe
that you must begin your journey on a firm foundation. Getting
back to the Moon will take more than just plans for a rocket.
It will also take a sound financial structure and capable
management in order to balance all of the important activities
that NASA undertakes to make this exploration vision a reality.
I believe there are several looming issues that must be
addressed to maintain the forward momentum of NASA's
exploration goals. The first, as I alluded to before, is the
Shuttle fleet and how that impacts any future crew exploration
vehicle--CEV. NASA has been working diligently to complete the
necessary changes to the Shuttle that will provide additional
safety for our astronauts and the vehicle itself. However, the
Shuttle is targeted to be decommissioned by 2010. The next U.S.
manned space vehicle, the crew exploration vehicle, is not
currently scheduled for a manned flight until 2014. I am
concerned by such a gap in U.S. manned space flight and, more
importantly, I am concerned that the time schedule for the
current 25 or more Shuttle flights prior to the 2010 retirement
is quite optimistic. Any deviation in these schedules as they
relate to funding could cause this gap to widen even further
than is currently anticipated.
I understand that you have your own ideas, Dr. Griffin, as
to how the gap between the Shuttle retirement and the CEV could
be closed. I am interested in hearing how you believe this is a
possibility during a tight funding environment.
The second challenge, the completion of the International
Space Station, is directly linked to the first. The
construction of the station is dependent on the Shuttle for
critical supplies and parts that cannot be delivered by any
other vehicle. Our international partners have done an
admirable job filling in while the Shuttle is undergoing
repair, but there is an expectation that the Shuttle will
return as it is essential to complete the Space Station.
The United States has a commitment to our international
partners to complete the station. I believe we must maintain
that commitment, and I am interested in hearing your thoughts
about NASA's plans for completing the International Space
Station and, further, how that will impact our ability to work
cooperatively with other countries in the future on the vision
we have.
Finally, I believe NASA faces a significant challenge in
building the technical workforce necessary to carry us into the
future. NASA is one of the most publicly recognized agencies
within the Federal Government. We all know something about
NASA, whether it is the stunning pictures of the universe from
the Hubble space telescope photos from Mars, or even the
astronauts living on the Space Station. Such high visibility
and name recognition can be powerful tools in inspiring and
recruiting future scientists and engineers. But I believe the
success of NASA programs in science and exploration that
students see today is the inspiration necessary to attract the
young people of this Nation to these careers in the future.
I know you realize that the missions of tomorrow will not
be possible if there are no scientists and engineers being
developed today. This is a serious issue that must be addressed
in order to ensure that future exploration in space can occur.
I want to thank you again for being here today. It is my
hope that this will be the beginning, Dr. Griffin, of a
productive relationship between NASA and this newly constituted
subcommittee.
Senator Mikulski.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And
today is really the first hearing of the new Commerce, Justice,
Science Subcommittee, and I want to say how much I look forward
to working with you, Chairman Shelby. Though we are new
together in our assignment on this subcommittee, Senator Shelby
and I have a very long and collegial history together. We
served on the same committee in the House of Representatives,
on Energy and Commerce. We were on the Appropriations Committee
since our arrival in the Senate, and we have worked closely
with Senator Shelby when he has had other committee
responsibilities. And I must say, Senator Shelby, I have always
found you to be a good friend and a very collegial colleague,
and I look forward to that relationship.
Also, in your remarks and the priorities that you have laid
out in your opening statement, I want to assure all those are
also my priorities and that we can work on a bipartisan basis
in the interest of the United States of America and look
forward with you since we both have a parallel will to finding
the wallet.
I am excited about this new subcommittee, though I was
initially disappointed at the dissolution of the VA/HUD
Subcommittee. But what we see here, I think you and I have a
new opportunity for a true science subcommittee. I recall that
our colleague and former astronaut John Glenn said that we
should have done this a long time ago, that too much of our
science was stovepiped into too many different subcommittees.
But here now on this subcommittee we have something quite
unique. We are bringing together NASA, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Science
Foundation, the National Institutes of Standards, the Patent
Office, and the President's Science Advisor. So we would hope
that this would be the beginning of kind of a leveraged science
policy.
I am excited about this because I believe that science is
the key to innovation, and innovation is the key to our future.
If we are going to have a safer country, a stronger economy, we
need to be smarter, and that involves really leveraging our
research and technology development and a world-class
workforce. Our economy and our national security will depend
upon it.
I also think that we, because of this subcommittee, both
through NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, could present an incredible opportunity in
terms of far-reaching research and far-reaching exploration of
the stars, but in a way that we would focus efforts on Earth
science that would save lives, save livelihoods, and advance
our technological competitive edge.
So today I am looking forward to hearing from Dr. Griffin,
our new head at the helm of NASA. I personally want to thank
President Bush for appointing an actual rocket scientist to
head NASA. But I would also like to take this opportunity to
thank someone in the audience, Mr. Chairman--Mr. Fred Gregory,
who served as the Acting Director of NASA and provided a very
steady hand. And, sir, we would like to thank you and salute
you for the job you did during that time, but also in your
career at NASA. And I think it points out the wonderful civil
service we have at NASA, these wonderful men and women who give
their lives to scientific exploration, who work in the
Government sphere to advance our national priorities. So we
want to say thank you to you personally and to you representing
really what an outstanding civil service we have. So thanks
again.
We are looking forward, though, to hearing from Mr.
Griffin. As the chairman said, we have got to talk about the
Shuttle. We have got to make sure the Shuttle flies when it
should fly so that it can go to space and return our astronauts
safely. At the same time, I too am concerned about the fact
that we could be without a crew exploration vehicle for 4
years. We know that the Shuttle is aging technology. We know
that it will get us through a difficult time now. But I believe
that we owe it to the country, we owe it to our astronauts,
that we really look at what is a wide, prudent way to
accelerate this crew transportation system.
The United States of America should always have its own
access to space. The Space Station, too, we need to be able to
finish that, keep our commitment to our international partners,
and keep it as a premier research facility.
And, of course, then there is Hubble. Everyone knows my
position on Hubble, and I believe it has been the greatest
telescope invention since Galileo himself stood on that rooftop
in Florence. And as Dr. Griffin knows, I have stood on those
rooftops in Baltimore with the Space Telescope Institute and
our beloved Hubble.
But Hubble has resulted in enormous scientific
breakthroughs. We look forward to the next generation, but we
think if we can repair Hubble, give it new batteries and new
optics, it will take us far into the future at many different
levels.
But, of course, then we look at the NASA budget. I am
concerned about the Shuttle cost and our ability to pay for it,
the Space Station and our ability to maintain it, that aging
infrastructure that Senator Shelby has talked about, and our
new vision, the President's vision to go into space. But along
the way, I really hope that we do not neglect the other
dimension of the NASA responsibility, and that is aeronautics.
Twenty years ago, the United States had over 90 percent of
the market share for commercial airlines. Today we have 50
percent of that market, and the National Institute of
Aeronautics told us we must really continue to focus on our
aeronautics for our national security and our economic
security. And, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with
you, as always, on a balanced program: a reliable space
transportation system, always supporting the daring and the
outcome of human exploration, but also a special emphasis on
science both in terms of understanding our own planet, others
out there, and also new breakthroughs in aeronautics that will
help our country be safer and stronger.
So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you,
listening to Mr. Griffin, and again, Mr. Gregory, thank you
very much.
Senator Shelby. Senator Hutchison.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome
again, Mr. Administrator. I certainly look forward to having
you at my subcommittee next week as well to talk about Space
Shuttle and beyond.
The proposed budget for NASA is certainly one that reflects
difficult choices, but given the overall reductions in
discretionary spending, I think it is generous and fair.
Undoubtedly, many areas of traditional NASA activity feel the
pressure from our new priority: preparing humans for missions
back to the Moon and on to Mars. This is a new direction. It is
a bold direction and one that I totally support. NASA should be
bold, and having the long-term vision is essential for NASA.
Where I have questions and concerns about NASA, they
revolve around longer-term impacts to our current investments
in human space flight capabilities. As you know, Mr.
Administrator, I am concerned about the possibility of a gap
between the planned retirement of the Shuttle and the
availability of the replacement crew return vehicle. I think a
5-year gap is unacceptable. I think it is not only a risk to
the important scientific research that we are doing, but it is
a security risk to our country. And I am pleased that you have
shared the same concerns, and I know both the chairman and the
ranking member here have also expressed those concerns.
I also am concerned about the investment that our Nation
and our international partners have made in the International
Space Station and wanting to assure that with the budget
priorities that we have, we keep the commitments to the
International Space Station and finishing the job of building
it out.
In addition, of course, I believe that the science is going
to be the most important thing that we do with humans in space,
and, therefore, we need to have the Space Station totally ready
with its buildout and with the scientific emphasis that is so
important for the missions to succeed.
So I am looking forward to working with you. I think what
you have done in delaying the return to flight is exactly the
right thing. Your concern for safety and your jumping right in
and going to the bottom, not just the top, to determine that we
were ready to go was exactly right. And as my friend and
colleague Senator Mikulski said, we want it to go badly but we
want it to go at the right time more. So thank you very much
for being here, and I look forward to being able to hear you
and then ask questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Dr. Griffin, your written statement will be
made part of the record in its entirety. Proceed as you wish.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR MICHAEL D. GRIFFIN
Mr. Griffin. Thank you, Senators. It is also my pleasure to
be here. I thank you for the invitation to appear before your
subcommittee and begin the process of communication with you,
which I pledge will be thorough and ongoing throughout my
tenure.
In the spirit of Senator Mikulski's remarks, I would like
also to take a moment and thank Colonel Gregory for his service
between Administrator O'Keefe's departure and my arrival. Fred
is a personal friend of more than 15 years' standing, a person
who has risked his life on behalf of this country in Vietnam,
in military test flying, in weather flying, weather research
flying, and on the Space Shuttle. His services in linking the
tenures of Administrator O'Keefe and myself have been
invaluable, and he continues to be invaluable today, and I want
to take this opportunity to thank him publicly. So thank you,
Fred.
Chairman Shelby, ranking member Mikulski, Senator
Hutchison, members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to discuss the President's fiscal year 2006 budget
request for NASA and our strategic direction in carrying out
the Nation's civil aeronautics research, space and Earth
science, and space exploration activities.
A month ago today, I appeared before the Senate Commerce,
Science, and Transportation Committee as the President's
nominee to be the NASA Administrator. I want to thank the
Senate for your prompt consent to my nomination. It has been a
busy month, and the Agency is well underway toward implementing
the Vision for Space Exploration.
I have said before and will say again that, as a Nation, we
can clearly afford vigorous, well-executed programs in both
robotic and human space exploration, Earth science, and
aeronautics research. In presenting the vision last year, the
President put forth a commitment that our Nation will undertake
a journey of space exploration over the next several decades. I
am personally committed to carrying out that vision.
Every journey begins with a single step. The first step in
that journey is to return--not rush--the Space Shuttle to
flight. The next launch window for the first Space Shuttle
mission following the Columbia tragedy begins in mid-July.
Space Shuttle Discovery mission STS-114 will be commanded by
Eileen Collins. I might add ``Colonel'' Eileen Collins. Our top
priority in my tenure will be to make each successive flight
safer for the crew than we believed the last one to have been.
The second step in the vision is to complete the
construction of the International Space Station and to retire
the Space Shuttle by 2010. After two successful return-to-
flight Shuttle test flights, the Agency will complete its
assessment of the relative risks of a Space Shuttle mission to
service the Hubble space telescope to increase its capabilities
and to extend its operational life.
The next step in the Vision for Space Exploration is to
develop the crew exploration vehicle that will be capable of
ferrying the next generation of astronauts to the Space
Station, the Moon, and Mars. As you may know, I recently kicked
off an exploration systems architecture study team to examine
ways to accelerate the development of the crew exploration
vehicle in order to minimize any gaps in the United States'
capability for human space flight. As I think all of you know,
I completely share your concern about any gap between the
retirement of the Shuttle and initiation of flights of the
follow-on vehicle. I hope to share with you by mid-July NASA's
plan for how we can accelerate development of the CEV, as well
as that of the rocket needed to launch it. I also hope to share
with you NASA's plan for the space architecture that will allow
us to return to the Moon and eventually head onwards to Mars.
NASA's fiscal year 2006 budget also funds a variety of
satellite missions and scientific research in Earth science as
well as other planets in our solar system. It funds development
of even more advanced space telescopes to follow the Hubble,
such as the James Webb space telescope.
NASA's fiscal year 2006 budget for aeronautics research is
focused on achieving results, such as reducing noise emissions,
improving aircraft safety and security, and improving the
capacity and efficiency of the National Airspace System. NASA
is working closely with the FAA, the Defense Department, the
Department of Homeland Security, and others to achieve those
results.
While today's hearing concerns the upcoming fiscal year, I
also want to update the subcommittee concerning the difficult
choices that must be made in executing NASA's fiscal year 2005
budget and my guiding philosophy in dealing with those
challenges.
First, I want to thank this subcommittee and the Congress
for providing NASA with the additional flexibility to address
our challenges in this year's appropriation bill. It is my
pledge to keep you fully informed as to how this Agency spends
its allocated resources in accordance with the flexibility you
have given us.
In our fiscal year 2005 operating plan, which has been
provided to this subcommittee, NASA is fully funding a $762
million cost increase for Space Shuttle Return to Flight
consistent with the recommendations of the Columbia Accident
Investigation Board, over $400 million in congressionally
directed items, $291 million for Hubble servicing options, and
over $500 million in programmatic cost increases for various
programs, including the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, set to
launch in August, and the New Horizons mission to Pluto set for
launch in early January--and numerous others, I might add, not
just those two.
To find offsets needed to fund these items, we have made
some difficult choices. NASA cannot afford everything that is
on its plate today. We must set clear priorities to remain
within the budget NASA has been allocated.
In order to preserve the option of servicing the Hubble
space telescope and to provide for a safe deorbit, NASA must
defer work on even more advanced astronomy missions planned
after the Webb telescope. These projects, which are phenomenal
technical achievements, will be done, but at a slower pace
because we cannot afford to do everything at once.
We will also look at deferring some Mars missions in their
formative stages, currently in their formative stages, and
restructuring Project Prometheus space nuclear power efforts.
We must focus on nuclear technology efforts on our highest
priorities for near-term needs, and we will examine alternative
nuclear systems, including surface nuclear power, nuclear
thermal propulsion, and nuclear electric propulsion systems to
support human and robotic missions.
Turning to NASA's fiscal year 2006 budget request, I think
it is useful to emphasize that the proposal is balanced,
allowing us to address national priorities in aeronautics and
Earth science, while maintaining our focus on the vision for
space exploration introduced in NASA's fiscal year 2005 budget.
Budget highlights include a $5.5 billion request for the
Science Mission Directorate. This will support 55 missions in
orbit, 26 in development--including the Lunar Reconnaissance
Orbiter which will map the Moon's surface in great detail--and
34 projects in the design phase. NASA has a robust science
agenda.
Our $3.2 billion request for the Exploration Systems
Mission Directorate includes $753 million, a down payment
toward the crew exploration vehicle, so that we will have the
capability to launch humans into space as soon as possible
after the Shuttle's retirement.
One of the ways we may accelerate development of the CEV is
by down-selecting to a single contractor in early 2006 as
opposed to the previously planned 2008. Likewise, we may also
need to defer work in certain exploration-related technologies
that are not needed in the early years of implementing the
vision for exploration.
The funding request of $6.8 billion for the Space
Operations Mission Directorate includes $4.5 billion for the
Space Shuttle and $1.9 billion for the International Space
Station. NASA is currently examining alternative configurations
for the Space Station that meet the needs of the United States
and our international partners. We hope to provide the
subcommittee our results from this study of the station
configuration this summer.
NASA's request for the Aeronautics Research Mission
Directorate is $852 million. NASA's technical expertise and its
facilities for aeronautics research must continue to become
more focused and results-oriented. NASA must set realistic
priorities for its aeronautics program within its limited
resources. As we move forward, a broader national dialogue on
aeronautics R&D goals may be appropriate as we enter the second
century of aviation. These discussions must include a range of
stakeholders and customers, including the Congress, Department
of Defense, commercial civil aviation, and, of course, NASA.
NASA's education initiatives need to establish clear goals,
metrics, and monitoring techniques in the coming months to
ensure that the funds the Congress provides will achieve the
greatest benefit.
I also intend to review how NASA can best harness the
unique capabilities of the workforce at its field centers to
achieve our Nation's objectives in aeronautics research, space
science, and exploration.
To conclude, let me stress my firm belief that as a Nation,
we can clearly afford vigorous and well-executed programs in
both robotic and human space exploration, Earth science, and
aeronautics research.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I plan to work closely with your subcommittee to help
achieve these ends.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to appear before
you this morning.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael D. Griffin
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to appear today to discuss NASA's plans for the future as
represented in the President's fiscal year 2006 budget request for
NASA.
On January 14, 2004, President George W. Bush announced the Vision
for Space Exploration. The President's directive gave NASA clear
objectives as well as a new and historic focus. The fundamental goal of
this directive for the Nation's space exploration program is ``. . . to
advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a
robust space exploration program.'' In issuing this directive, the
President committed the Nation to a journey of exploring the solar
system and beyond, returning humans to the Moon, and sending robots and
ultimately humans to Mars and other destinations. He challenged us to
establish new and innovative programs to enhance our understanding of
the planets, to ask new questions, and to answer questions as old as
humankind. NASA embraced this directive and began a long-term
transformation to enable us to achieve this goal.
In June 2004, the President's Commission on Implementation of the
United States Space Exploration Policy, led by E.C. ``Pete'' Aldridge,
Jr. (the Aldridge Commission), reported its findings and
recommendations to the President. The Aldridge Commission emphasized
the crucial role that technological innovation, national and
international partnerships, and organizational transformation must play
if we are to implement the President's vision for an affordable and
sustainable space exploration program. NASA is committed to making the
necessary transformation to achieve the Vision for Space Exploration.
On December 21, 2004, the President signed a new national policy
directive that establishes guidelines and implementation actions for
United States space transportation programs and activities to ensure
the Nation's continued ability to access and use space for national and
homeland security, and civil, scientific, and commercial purposes. NASA
will play a significant role in implementing this directive, fostering
and enabling the development of space transportation capabilities for
human space exploration beyond low-Earth orbit with the Crew
Exploration Vehicle (CEV), consistent with the goals of the Vision for
Space Exploration.
The President demonstrated his commitment to the Vision for Space
Exploration by making it a priority in his fiscal year 2005 budget
request, and Congress responded positively by providing funding for
NASA at the level requested by the President. The President has
reaffirmed his commitment to the Vision by again making it a priority
in his fiscal year 2006 budget request in a very challenging budget
environment. The $16.46 billion requested for NASA reflects an increase
of 2.4 percent over fiscal year 2005.
While today's hearing concerns the President's fiscal year 2006
budget request for NASA, I must also use this opportunity to update the
Committee regarding the difficult choices that need to be made in
executing NASA's fiscal year 2005 budget, and my guiding philosophy in
dealing with these challenges.
First, and most importantly, I want to thank this Committee and the
Congress for providing NASA additional flexibility in the fiscal year
2005 appropriations bill to address the challenges facing the Agency.
It is my pledge to keep you fully informed of how this Agency spends
the funds you have provided us. A detailed fiscal year 2005 Operating
Plan update was recently provided to all of the Committees in Congress
which oversee NASA.
With this fiscal year 2005 Operating Plan update, NASA is fully
funding--within our fiscal year 2005 budget--the $762 million increase
for returning the Space Shuttle safely to flight, consistent with the
recommendations from the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB),
over $400 million in Congressionally-directed items, $291 million for
Hubble servicing, and over $500 million in necessary programmatic cost
increases, notably to cover cost growth in several space science
missions, including the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, scheduled to be
launched this August, and the New Horizons mission to Pluto set to
launch in early January 2006.
Identifying offsets needed to fund these items has created some
difficult choices for the Agency. Given a choice, I generally favor
eliminating lower-priority programs rather than reducing all programs
in the face of budget difficulties, because this allows for the more
efficient execution of the programs which remain. Thus, we must set
clear priorities to remain within the budget which has been allocated.
Allow me to be as clear as possible on what the impact of these
costs means to other programs. The Agency has adopted a ``go-as-you-
can-pay'' approach toward space exploration. Several NASA missions and
activities will need to be deferred or accomplished in other ways in
order to ensure adequate funding for the priorities of the President
and the Congress in fiscal year 2005. NASA cannot do everything that
we, and our many stakeholders, would like to accomplish. Several
missions will have to be delayed, deferred, or cancelled in order to
pay for the missions where the priorities were set by the President and
Congress. We have tried to be sensitive to the priorities of the
affected research communities, and have listened carefully to their
input. For example, we seek to balance among planetary science, Earth
science, solar physics, and astronomy within the overall science
program by revisiting our Mars exploration program strategy and mission
sequence. Deferring the Mars Science Lab to 2011 is an option in this
reassessment.
In order to service the Hubble Space Telescope and provide for a
safe deorbit, NASA will need to defer work on even more advanced space
telescopes like the Space Interferometry Mission (SIM) and Terrestrial
Planet Finder (TPF). The extent of this deferral and an appropriate
follow-on strategy for the Origins program is currently under review.
Space nuclear power and propulsion are absolutely essential for future
space exploration. However, we must focus our nuclear technology
efforts on our highest priorities for near-term needs. NASA will
examine alternative nuclear systems--including surface nuclear power,
nuclear thermal, and nuclear electric systems--to support human and
robotic missions. As a result, we are able to restructure Prometheus
Nuclear Systems and Technology, which, in the near-term, helps pay for
fiscal year 2005 unrequested Congressional items and Agency priorities.
As we complete future planning activities later this summer, we
will need to further examine resources to accelerate the CEV. Likewise,
NASA's research and technology efforts to support human space
exploration missions farther out into the future will need to be
curtailed, to focus on near-term needs of developing the CEV to be
available as soon as possible.
As someone who has managed many space and advanced technology
programs, I believe that NASA's one-of-a-kind spacecraft missions must
combine technical requirements and budget authority under clear lines
of management authority and accountability. When I arrived at NASA a
month ago, I found some programs (namely, the Hubble servicing mission,
Robotic Lunar Exploration, and ISS crew/cargo) with overlapping
responsibilities among Mission Directorates. We are simplifying the
management chain-of-command and, in the May update to the fiscal year
2005 Operating Plan, are transferring management responsibilities to
the appropriate line managers.
Likewise, when I arrived at NASA, the role of the CEV in supporting
the International Space Station (ISS) was not clear. While the recently
established Exploration Systems Architecture Study team will carefully
define the CEV's requirements, I have specifically directed that the
CEV will visit the ISS. As I testified during my confirmation hearing,
I believe that the CEV development must be accelerated in order to
minimize the gap between the Space Shuttle retirement and the first
operational flight of the CEV. To that end, NASA's Exploration Systems
Mission Directorate (ESMD) will be responsible for developing and
acquiring crew and cargo capabilities to support the ISS, and funds
have been transferred to that Directorate in the May update to NASA's
fiscal year 2005 Operating Plan.
NASA PRIORITIES
Over the past year, NASA has made great strides in implementing the
Vision for Space Exploration and meeting other national priorities:
--Shuttle Return to Flight.--We are making final preparations for the
Space Shuttle return-to-flight planned for mid-July.
--International Space Station.--The ISS began its fifth year of
continuous human presence on-orbit.
--Exploring our Solar System and the Universe.--The Mars rovers,
Spirit and Opportunity, have exceeded all expectations and made
unprecedented discoveries; the Cassini/Huygens mission is
providing stunning views of Saturn and Titan; the Genesis
mission, despite its hard landing, has returned primordial
samples from space; new missions have been launched to Mercury
and to comets; and amazing discoveries continue with Hubble,
Chandra, and Spitzer.
--Laying the Groundwork for the Future.--We awarded initial contracts
in preparation for a major milestone in 2008 with the mapping
of the Moon in unprecedented detail by the Lunar Reconnaissance
Orbiter (LRO).
--Engaging the Public.--We engaged the public and enhanced national
excitement for space exploration thanks to the President's
announcement of the Vision for Space Exploration. Indeed, in a
Gallup poll, seven out of ten Americans supported the
objectives of this Vision.
--Aeronautics.--We are continuing to execute a portfolio of focused,
results-oriented technology demonstrations of next-generation
aircraft along with aviation safety, security, and airspace
systems. NASA, with its industry partners, recently
demonstrated the feasibility of significantly reducing the
sonic boom from supersonic aircraft, and, last November, NASA's
hypersonic X-43A demonstrated that an air-breathing engine can
fly at nearly 10 times the speed of sound.
--Earth Science.--We have completed deployment of the Earth Observing
System and are supporting investments in the Global Change
Science and Technology Program and the next generation Earth
observing satellites for numerous applications, including
improved weather forecasts, earthquake prediction, resource
management, and other hazard warnings.
--Education.--We are continuing to educate the public and inspire the
next generation of explorers.
AFFORDABILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
In his February 2nd State of the Union Address, the President
underscored the need to restrain spending in order to sustain our
economic prosperity. As part of this restraint, it is important that
total discretionary and non-security spending be held to levels
proposed in the fiscal year 2006 Budget. The budget savings and reforms
in the Budget are important components of achieving the President's
goal of cutting the budget deficit in half by 2009, and we urge the
Congress to support these reforms. The fiscal year 2006 Budget includes
more than 150 reductions, reforms, and terminations in non-defense
discretionary programs, of which 3 affect NASA programs. The Agency
wants to work with the Congress to achieve these savings.
To achieve the Vision for Space Exploration, NASA is proceeding, as
directed by the President, to plan and implement a sustainable and
affordable, integrated robotic and human exploration program,
structured with measurable milestones, and executed on the basis of
available resources, accumulated experience, and technology readiness.
Last year, we provided a long-range roadmap through 2020 to outline
this program:
--The Space Shuttle will be retired by 2010. Prior to its retirement,
it will be utilized primarily for the assembly of the ISS. Our
top priority will be to make each flight safer than the last
one.
--The crew transportation capability provided by the Shuttle will be
replaced by the new CEV and its associated launch system. The
CEV will be developed in the latter part of this decade and
deployed operationally as soon as possible after Shuttle
retirement. The CEV will conduct missions in Earth orbit,
including missions to the ISS, but its primary mission will be
to support exploration of the Moon and other destinations.
--A balanced program of robotic missions will continue to increase
our understanding of our home planet and will continue the
exploration of the solar system, traveling to the Moon and Mars
in anticipation of later human visits, as well as to other
destinations such as Mercury, Saturn, Pluto, asteroids, and
comets. Observatories will be deployed to search for Earth-like
planets and habitable environments around distant stars, and to
explore the universe to understand its origin, structure,
evolution, and destiny. Funding for these areas would
significantly increase over the coming years, with Science
investments growing from 33 percent to 38 percent of the
Agency's total budget.
--Human explorers will return to the Moon, possibly as early as
2015--with the CEV as the first core element of a new
exploration architecture. Major development of the other
elements in the exploration architecture will commence later
this decade and will accelerate upon the retirement of the
Space Shuttle. These exploration elements will include launch
vehicles, in-space transfer systems, lunar landers, and surface
habitation systems. Critical research and technology investment
decisions will be guided by the development requirements of
these elements.
These human and robotic explorers will enable our exploration and
scientific plans. A recent report released on February 3, 2005, by the
National Research Council, entitled Science in NASA's Vision for Space
Exploration, states, ``Exploration done properly is a form of science.
Both robotic spacecraft and human spaceflight should be used to fulfill
scientific roles in NASA's mission to explore.'' To that end, NASA has
initiated an Exploration Systems Architecture Study, to be completed in
mid-July, which will provide the analytical support for a number of key
near-term decisions for NASA, the White House, and Congress. We will
keep Congressional Committees informed as this study effort progresses.
This study effort has four products:
--Complete assessment of the top-level CEV requirements and plans to
enable the CEV to provide crew transport to the ISS and to
accelerate the development of the CEV and crew launch system to
reduce the gap between Shuttle retirement and initial CEV
flights to the ISS.
--Definition of top-level requirements and configurations for crew
and cargo launch systems to support the Lunar and Mars
exploration programs.
--Development of a reference Lunar exploration architecture concept
to support sustained human and robotic Lunar exploration
operations.
--Identification of key technologies required to enable and
significantly enhance these reference exploration systems, and
a re-prioritization of near-term and far-term technology
investments.
NASA is also currently examining alternative configurations for the
Space Station that meet the goals of the Vision and the needs of our
international partners, while requiring as few Shuttle flights as
possible to complete assembly.
NASA PRIORITIES IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET REQUEST
The President's fiscal year 2006 budget request for NASA reaffirms
the funding strategy outlined above. NASA's fiscal year 2006 request
endeavors to provide a balanced portfolio of programs to meet the needs
of our national priorities in aeronautics and civil space. It maintains
focus on key priorities, milestones, and schedules for the Vision
introduced in the fiscal year 2005 budget.
To support the Administration's goal of reducing the deficit,
NASA's budget was reduced $0.5 billion in fiscal year 2006 below the
level planned in the 2005 budget for fiscal year 2006. In addition,
returning the Shuttle safely to flight will cost $0.4 billion more in
fiscal year 2006 than previously estimated. To address these and other
items, we proposed a budget that provided $0.4 billion (11 percent)
less for Exploration Systems than previously planned for, $0.3 billion
(5 percent) less in Science, $0.1 billion (11 percent) less in
Aeronautics, and $0.2 billion (4 percent) more in Space Operations.
These changes were not easy, but in the end, we made the decisions to
protect the priorities outlined above.
SCIENCE
The fiscal year 2006 budget request of $5.5 billion for the Science
Mission Directorate will support 55 missions in orbit, 26 in
development, and 34 in design phase. By 2010, the Science budget will
increase by 23 percent over current levels.
The fiscal year 2006 budget includes $858 million for Mars and
Lunar robotic exploration. The Mars rovers, Spirit and Opportunity,
have far exceeded all goals with their unprecedented discoveries and
longevity. Last year, the rovers found definitive evidence of an
ancient body of water on the Red Planet, and they continue to gather
data more than a year after their successful landing. We recently
awarded contracts for six instruments to be flown on the 2008 LRO that
promises unprecedented mapping of the Moon's surface. The 2008 LRO will
be the first step in revolutionizing our understanding of the Moon, in
much the same way that our Mars missions have transformed our
understanding of Mars. As mentioned earlier, to simplify the management
chain-of-command among mission directorates, our fiscal year 2005
Operating Plan update transfers management responsibility for the Lunar
Exploration program, including LRO, to the ESMD. This will help to
maximize the exploration and science benefits of this important
program.
The budget also includes $218 million to maintain competitive
efforts for the Explorer Program, $56 million for the Beyond Einstein
program to study the universe, $234 million for studying the Sun in the
Living With a Star program, and $136 million for competitive
opportunities in the Earth System Science Pathfinder program. With our
international partners, we also continue to add to the constellation of
Earth-observing satellites that monitor our planet while extending our
reach and presence further into the solar system. NASA launched Aura to
look back at Earth and give us a better picture of our atmosphere and
changing climate, and the entire Earth Observing System continues to
return trillions of bytes of information about our dynamic Earth. In
the future, NASA plans to develop a ``sensor-web'' to provide timely,
on-demand data and analysis to users who can enable practical benefits
for scientific research, national policymaking, economic growth,
natural hazard mitigation, and the exploration of other planets in this
solar system and beyond.
NASA will continue to expand its exploration reach with an armada
of existing and new space observatories operating in many different
wavelengths and looking at different parts of our exotic universe. The
three ``Great Observatories''--Hubble, Spitzer, and Chandra--will
continue to bring wondrous images to our eyes and exciting new
scientific discoveries. Missions such as Kepler will provide a new
understanding and knowledge of the planets orbiting stars far from our
solar system, perhaps identifying new targets for voyages of
exploration by future generations of explorers.
This budget also includes $372 million to continue developing the
James Webb Space Telescope for a 2011 launch and provides $93 million
in development funds for the Hubble Space Telescope to extend its
scientific productivity. This investment in the Hubble, together with
the synergistic use of the other two Great Observatories, and combined
with the greatly increased capability of ground-based assets and the
emergent science of optical interferometry, will ensure many years of
new scientific discoveries.
NASA's decision in January 2004 not to service the Hubble was a
very difficult one, given the Hubble's record of spectacular successes.
That decision was made at a time when significant uncertainty remained
regarding the technical solutions and risks associated with return to
flight. After the two successful Space Shuttle flights needed to
achieve our return to flight objectives, NASA will have learned a great
deal more regarding the risks and operations of the vehicle than was
known when the previous decision was made. I am committed to
reassessing this earlier decision after return to flight, based on the
relative risks to the Space Shuttle as well as the costs and benefits
to our Nation's astronomy program. As a result, we are continuing our
efforts to preserve the option for a Shuttle servicing mission for
Hubble. Consistent with this ongoing activity, NASA's fiscal year 2005
Operating Plan update has fully funded the $291 million identified in
the Conference Report accompanying the fiscal year 2005 Consolidated
Appropriations bill and has consolidated the funding and management
responsibility within the Science Mission Directorate. NASA will use
the balance of the fiscal year 2005 funds to maintain options for HST
servicing and deorbit. NASA has also begun the analysis of how a de-
orbit module for the Hubble Space Telescope could be added to the
manifest of such a Space Shuttle servicing mission. I will make a
decision regarding a Shuttle servicing mission for Hubble following the
two successful Return to Flight missions. In the interim, the Agency
will keep all stakeholders apprised as this work progresses. NASA
remains committed to a world-class, affordable program of space-based
astronomy.
PREPARING FOR EXPLORATION
The fiscal year 2006 budget request of $3.2 billion for the ESMD
includes $753 million for continuing development of the CEV, the
vehicle that will serve as the core element for future exploration
beyond Earth orbit. The CEV promises safer travel for astronauts into
space, continuing U.S. human access to space as soon as possible after
retirement of the Shuttle.
Our earlier plans called for operational deployment of the CEV not
later than 2014. However, given the role of the CEV as a replacement
for the Shuttle in providing human access to space, we are now seeking
programmatic alternatives to allow development of the CEV to be
completed as soon as possible. Acceleration of the CEV program will be
accomplished by down-selecting to a single contractor sooner than
originally planned, and by deferring other elements of the Exploration
Systems Research and Technology plan not required for the CEV or for
the early phases of human return to the Moon.
The fiscal year 2006 budget request includes $919 million (a 27
percent increase) for Exploration Systems Research and Technology that
will enable designs for sustainable exploration, including $34 million
for a revamped technology transfer program and $34 million for the
Centennial Challenges prize program. The Agency continues to seek the
support of the Congress for authorization to enable larger prize
awards. This budget also includes $320 million for a restructured
Prometheus Nuclear Systems and Technology Theme for space-qualified
nuclear systems. The technology and capabilities being developed by the
Prometheus Nuclear Systems and Technology Theme are critical for
enabling the power and propulsion needs of the Vision for Space
Exploration. As part of the Agency's effort to define an Exploration
Systems Architecture, NASA will examine alternative nuclear systems,
including surface nuclear power, nuclear thermal, and nuclear electric
systems. NASA will restructure Project Prometheus for space-qualified
nuclear systems to support human and robotic missions with clear
priorities focused on near-term needs. We expect to make program
decisions to focus our nuclear technology efforts on our highest
priorities for near-term applications as part of the Exploration
Architecture study, to be completed this summer. In addition, the
fiscal year 2006 budget request provides $806 million for Human Systems
Research and Technology, which has been restructured so its programs
are now linked directly to exploration requirements for human missions
to the Moon, Mars, and beyond.
AERONAUTICS RESEARCH
NASA's fiscal year 2006 request for the Aeronautics Research
Mission Directorate is $852 million, a significant portion of the
government's overall investment in aeronautics research. To make the
most of this investment, NASA's technical expertise and facilities for
aeronautics research are becoming more focused and results-oriented.
NASA's current aeronautics research is focused on enhancing the public
good. NASA is also working to maintain a strong basic aeronautics
research program and to establish a series of far-reaching objectives,
each of which, if enabled, could significantly transform civil
aeronautics. The results from the basic research, technology
development, and demonstrations achieved by NASA's Aeronautics efforts
will be transitioned for use by both Government and industry. The
President's fiscal year 2006 request increased the vital research of
the Aeronautics program in Aviation Safety and Security and in Airspace
Systems. These two priority programs are fully funded to ensure timely
results critical to meeting national goals. NASA works closely and
constructively with other Executive Branch agencies to enhance our
Nation's aeronautics capability. In this vein, NASA, along with the
Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce, and
Transportation, is a principal member of the interagency Joint Planning
and Development Office (JPDO), which was chartered by the Century of
Aviation Revitalization Act to oversee research and technology efforts
for the Next Generation Air Transportation System. NASA is working
closely with industry consortia and other Government agencies to
develop advanced aircraft demonstrations, such as those that would
expand the capabilities of high-altitude, long-endurance, unmanned
aerial vehicles, which could have numerous commercial, scientific, and
homeland security applications.
At this time, NASA is also working with other U.S. Government
departments and agencies and industry to assess its facilities for
aeronautics research. NASA will need to consider the possibility of
closing some underutilized aeronautics facilities, while modernizing
some others to become state-of-the-art facilities.
As we move forward, a broader national dialog on aeronautics R&D
goals may be appropriate as we enter the second century of aviation.
These discussions should include a range of stakeholders and customers,
including the Congress. This process could lead to a national consensus
for aeronautics R&D goals.
EDUCATION
NASA's fiscal year 2006 budget request includes $167 million for
the Office of Education to support programs that will keep the United
States strong in science, technology, engineering, and math education.
NASA will establish clear goals, metrics, and monitoring capabilities
for its education initiatives in the coming months to ensure that these
funds will achieve the greatest benefit.
MEETING OUR OBLIGATIONS
The fiscal year 2006 budget request of $6.8 billion for the Space
Operations Mission Directorate (SOMD) reflects the first step in the
Vision for Space Exploration: returning the Space Shuttle safely to
flight and resuming flight operations. Going forward, all SOMD
expenditures will be consistent with the retirement of the Space
Shuttle by 2010, while maintaining operational safety of flight
throughout the program. The fiscal year 2006 budget includes $4.5
billion for the Space Shuttle program. The budget also provides $1.9
billion for the ISS. NASA currently is examining configurations for the
Space Station that meet the goals of the Vision for Space Exploration
and needs of our international partners, while requiring as few Shuttle
flights as possible to complete assembly.
A key element in the future of the ISS program is the purchase of
alternate cargo transportation services to supplement the Space
Shuttle, and the development of new crew transportation capabilities to
replace Shuttle when it retires. Because the ESMD has the mission to
develop and acquire such crew and cargo capabilities for the ISS and
beyond, I have transferred management responsibility for the activities
and budget of ISS Cargo/Crew Services to ESMD from SOMD, as stated in
the May update to NASA's fiscal year 2005 Operating Plan. The budget
request before the Congress provides $160 million for these services in
2006.
We are making final preparations to return the Space Shuttle safely
to flight in 2005. We have made more than 100 major maintenance
modifications and upgrades to Discovery and its supporting systems,
including new cabling and wiring that will support leading edge
sensors, a digital camera, and a boom extension for the Shuttle's
robotic arm that will enable us to inspect nearly all the outside areas
of the orbiter's Thermal Protection System during missions. Technicians
have installed the Forward Reaction Control System and the Reinforced
Carbon-Carbon Nose Cap, and 88 sensors are being installed on each
wing, of which 66 will measure acceleration and impact data, and 22
will take temperature data during Discovery's journey. Discovery and
its propulsion elements are now at the launch pad undergoing the final
tests and checks required prior to launch, currently scheduled to occur
not earlier than July 13, 2005.
As the United States implements the Vision for Space Exploration,
the Administration recognizes the value of effective cooperation with
Russia to further our mutual space exploration goals. At the same time,
we must appropriately reflect U.S. nonproliferation policy and
objectives in our relationship with Russia. The Administration is thus
seeking a balanced approach that continues to maintain strongly our
nonproliferation goals while advancing potential U.S. cooperation with
Russia on the Vision for Space Exploration. Such a balanced approach
must include the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 (INA), which
currently constrains cooperation with Russia on the ISS, and threatens
to have an adverse impact on cooperation with Russia in our future
space exploration efforts related to human space flight. To that end,
the Administration will soon engage the Congress, and we look forward
to working with Congress to ensure that the Vision for Space
Exploration is successful, while remaining fully consistent with
broader U.S. national security and nonproliferation goals.
This year, we began our fifth year of continuous astronaut presence
on the ISS. Astronauts continue their international cooperation onboard
the Station through a variety of joint research activities.
TRANSFORMING NASA
For the last three decades, NASA and the Nation's human spaceflight
program have been focused on the development and operation of the Space
Shuttle and the Space Station. In its final report, the CAIB was very
forthright in its judgment that these goals are too limited to justify
the expense, difficulty, and danger inherent in human spaceflight,
given the limitations of today's technology. The CAIB was equally
forthright in calling for a national consensus in the establishment of
a program having broader strategic goals. The Vision for Space
Exploration proposed by the President is that program, and NASA has
embraced this new direction. But to effect these changes, NASA must
engage in a major transformation--taking the capabilities we have
throughout the Agency and restructuring them to achieve these 21st
Century goals. This is an enormous challenge, but we have begun to
transform our entire organization to foster these changes and to
enhance a positive, mission-driven culture.
The CAIB was also clear in its assessment that the lack of open
communication on technical and programmatic matters was a direct cause
of the loss of Columbia. We have understood and embraced this
assessment, and are absolutely and completely committed to creating an
environment of openness and free-flowing communication by continuing to
assess our leadership practices.
--Embracing Competition.--NASA is embracing competition as a way to
elicit the best from NASA's Centers, industry, and academia.
The Agency is using competitive processes to encourage more
cost-effective, innovative solutions to the scientific and
technical challenges presented by the Vision. Over the past
year, competitive selections in exploration have demonstrated
increased collaboration between NASA's Centers and industry and
academia. The engine of competition is the primary force behind
the American economy, the greatest the world has ever known,
and we plan to make greater use of this engine than has been
the case at NASA in the past. NASA plans to pursue appropriate
partnerships with the entrepreneurial and commercial space
sector to the maximum practical extent.
--The Role of the Centers.--While competitive processes are crucial
to maintaining NASA at the ``cutting edge'' of science and
technology, we must acknowledge that the NASA Centers and other
Federal research and development laboratories exist, and have
existed for decades, precisely because industrial competition
does not serve to accomplish all of our national goals. In
order to accomplish the national goals set forth by the
President and Congress, NASA must set realistic priorities
within limited resources. NASA Centers will have an important
role in definition of the architecture and requirements for
exploration beyond low-Earth orbit, and for the systems
engineering and integration functions used in building the
systems of that architecture. We will continue to assess the
skill-mix that we require, the number of people we require,
their location, and how we are organizing ourselves to fulfill
our obligations to the President and Congress. To begin to
create some of the workforce flexibility necessary for the
future, NASA has offered voluntary separation incentives
(buyouts) to employees in positions identified with excess
competencies. To the extent that NASA's workforce needs
revitalization, NASA will propose legislative initiatives to
the Congress as part of the Agency's draft fiscal year 2006
Authorization Bill. Congress's enactment of the NASA Workforce
Flexibility Act of 2004 is helping the Agency toward that end,
and additional authorities will provide even more aid in
managing the Agency's workforce.
--Improved Decision-Making.--NASA recently transformed its
organizational reporting in order to provide more integrated
decision-making. NASA field Center Directors now report
directly to the Administrator, and I am drafting a position
description for a new Associate Administrator who will manage
the internal activities of the Agency. The Office of Education
reports directly to the Director of Strategic Communications,
who is also in charge of Public Affairs, External Relations,
and Legislative Affairs, in order to provide a more integrated
picture of what NASA is doing and can do for its stakeholders
and public. NASA's new Office of Program Analysis & Evaluation
has been created in order to provide analyses and assessments
for strategic planning and budgeting decisions, independent
cost estimates, evaluation of projects at major milestones, and
feedback from the Centers on their capabilities and work
climate. This is to ensure that the acquisition strategies, if
done as planned, are executable, have exit and entrance
criteria, contain clear approval milestones, and involve
independent reviews.
--Improving Financial Management.--For the past two years, NASA has
received a disclaimer of audit opinion on its annual financial
statements due largely to two issues--financial system
conversion, and accounting for property, plant and equipment,
and materials and supplies. In fiscal year 2003, NASA converted
the 10 separate NASA Center accounting systems and the
associated 120 subsidiary systems, along with over 12 years of
historical financial data, into a single integrated Agency-wide
core accounting system. Problems associated with this
conversion have been greater than expected and are taking
longer than expected to correct. I regard improvement of NASA's
financial management as one of my priorities.
--Capital Asset Management.--The management of NASA's capital assets,
valued at $37.6 billion (83 percent of NASA's assets on the
balance sheet), lacks the necessary internal controls and
systems to support the proper valuation for management analysis
as well as for audit purposes. Therefore, NASA is developing a
comprehensive plan that will reform the manner in which we are
accounting for and managing our assets.
THE NATION'S FUTURE IN EXPLORATION AND DISCOVERY
The aftermath of the tragic loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia on
February 1, 2003, brought us to a watershed moment in the American
civil space program. Choices had to be made. The President has put
forth a choice, a strategic vision for the space program. That vision
has been enunciated with exceptional clarity, and has been subjected to
considerable public debate for over a year. While differences of
opinion exist, the President's proposal has attained broad strategic
acceptance. As a Nation, we can clearly afford well-executed vigorous
programs in robotic and human space exploration, Earth science, and
aeronautics research.
For America to continue to be preeminent among nations, it is
necessary for us to be the preeminent spacefaring nation. It is equally
true that great nations need allies and partners in this journey. That
is what the Vision for Space Exploration is about.
As President George W. Bush said, ``We choose to explore space
because doing so improves our lives and lifts our national spirit. So
let us continue the journey.''
[Budget authority, dollars in millions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full Cost
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Appropriation Account, By Mission Initial April May
Directorate, By Theme Operating Operating Operating Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
Plan Fiscal Plan Fiscal Plan Fiscal 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year 2005 Year 2005 Year 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science, Aeronautics, and Exploration........... $9,334.7 $9,335.0 $9,051.0 $9,661.0 $10,549.8 $11,214.6 $12,209.6 $12,796.1
=======================================================================================================
Science \1\................................. 5,527.2 5,527.0 5,554.0 5,476.3 5,960.3 6,503.4 6,853.0 6,797.6
Solar System Exploration................ 1,858.1 1,858.0 1,787.0 1,900.5 2,347.7 2,831.8 2,998.9 3,066.1
The Universe............................ 1,513.2 1,513.0 1,475.0 1,512.2 1,531.5 1,539.4 1,495.0 1,406.7
Earth-Sun System........................ 2,155.8 2,156.0 2,291.0 2,063.6 2,081.2 2,132.2 2,359.0 2,324.8
=======================================================================================================
Exploration Systems \2\................. 2,684.5 2,684.5 2,356.0 3,165.4 3,707.0 3,825.9 4,473.7 5,125.5
Constellation Systems................... 526.0 526.0 422.0 1,120.1 1,579.5 1,523.7 1,990.9 2,452.2
Exploration Systems Research and 722.8 722.8 766.0 919.2 907.3 989.2 1,050.3 1,078.5
Technology.............................
Prometheus Nuclear Systems and 431.7 431.7 270.3 319.6 423.5 500.6 614.0 779.0
Technology.............................
Human Systems Research and Technology... 1,003.9 1,003.9 897.7 806.5 796.7 812.4 818.5 815.8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aeronautics Research: Aeronautics Technology 906.2 906.0 962.0 852.3 727.6 730.7 727.5 717.6
Education Programs: Education Programs...... 216.7 217.0 179.0 166.9 154.9 154.7 155.4 155.4
=======================================================================================================
Exploration Capabilities........................ 6,704.4 6,830.0 7,114.0 6,763.0 6,378.6 6,056.7 5,367.1 5,193.8
Space Operations............................ 6,704.4 6,830.0 7,114.0 6,763.0 6,378.6 6,056.7 5,367.1 5,193.8
International Space Station............. 1,676.3 1,676.0 1,676.0 1,856.7 1,835.3 1,790.9 2,152.3 2,375.5
Space Shuttle........................... 4,543.0 4,669.0 4,964.0 4,530.6 4,172.4 3,865.7 2,815.1 2,419.2
Space and Flight Support................ 485.1 485.0 474.0 375.6 370.9 400.0 399.7 399.1
=======================================================================================================
Inspector General............................... 31.3 31.0 31.0 32.4 33.5 34.6 35.2 37.3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL..................................... 16,070.4 16,196.0 16,196.0 16,456.3 16,962.0 17,305.9 17,611.9 18,027.1
Year to year increase........................... ........... ........... ........... 2.4 3.1 2.0 1.8 2.4
Emergency Hurricane Supplemental................ 126.0 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Science Mission Directorate reflects the combination of the former Space Science and Earth Science Enterprises.
\2\ Beginning in fiscal year 2006, Exploration Systems moves from Exploration Capabilities to Science, Aeronautics and Exploration. Exploration Systems
Mission Directorate reflects the combination of the former Biological & Physical Research and Exploration Systems Enterprises.
Totals may not add due to rounding.
SPACE SHUTTLE RETIREMENT
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Dr. Griffin.
The proposed budget for NASA has the Space Shuttle
scheduled for retirement in 2010. We have been talking about
that. And the next man-rated vehicle, the crew exploration
vehicle, CEV, is expected to be ready by 2014. The critical
funding for the CEV, I understand, is dependent on the
retirement of the Shuttle. It has been widely reported, Dr.
Griffin, that you are an advocate of closing this 4-year gap--I
mentioned it in my opening statement--in the U.S. launched
manned space flight.
Whenever I hear about the acceleration of such programs,
concerns arise, being an appropriator, about cost increases and
development setbacks. So how much do you anticipate
accelerating the CEV will increase the near-term costs of this
vehicle? And where will these funds come from?
Mr. Griffin. Sir, the widely circulated reports of my
dissatisfaction with the gap in manned space flight have the
virtue of being true.
Senator Shelby. I am glad. Thank you.
Mr. Griffin. I am dissatisfied with those, and we will be
working to close that gap.
I will say at the outset that I cannot say, at this moment,
what the near-term cost increases will be because that study
effort is ongoing as we speak. When I have some knowledge of
that, it will be communicated to this subcommittee and to the
Congress. But let me outline the broad plan for things we might
do to accomplish that.
First of all, I might add also, I believe it is true, when
one stretches a project out beyond its appropriate and natural
lifetime, that also causes cost increases.
Senator Shelby. It does.
Mr. Griffin. The 10-year period that we have been planning
on as our first plan to design and develop and procure the new
crew exploration vehicle is a lengthy period of time relative
to our prior history in manned spacecraft development, and I
believe reflects lack of the best possible planning as much as
it does any fiscal realities.
That said, what could we do to make a difference? The first
thing, as I have indicated, that we could do is we, NASA, have
announced in our early planning documents to carry two
contractors through 2008 before making a final down-select. I
believe that the design of the crew exploration vehicle should
be sufficiently straightforward, should be sufficiently within
our experience base, that it may not be necessary to carry two
contractors that long, that it may be more appropriate to down-
select earlier, as I said, in fiscal year 2006. That saves an
amount of money on the order of $1 billion or more, which can
be used in the near term to fully fund one vehicle.
Second, some of our early planning has focused on the
possibility of hardware demonstrations in mid-term development
for the crew exploration vehicle. Those may or may not be
necessary. We will be examining that, as we will be examining
the rest of these issues, but certainly such early
demonstrations will require money that might best be spent
bringing the vehicle to completion.
Third, as I have indicated, we have a substantial
technology development line in exploration systems. I have been
in charge, on behalf of the Defense Department in prior
experience, of even more substantial technology development
budgets, and I would say that, regarding my personal
preferences, nothing would give me more pleasure than to sow
the seeds widely in our NASA technology development. It has
been a long time since we have been able to afford to do that.
I would like to do it. But we must put development of new
technology in second place behind the development of existing
capability on the part of the United States to ferry astronauts
and limited amounts of cargo to and from the Space Station and
to get started down the path back to lunar return.
COST CONTROL AND TECHNICAL VIABILITY
Senator Shelby. Doctor, along those same lines, financial
responsibility, we have a great challenge, all of us here. What
steps is NASA taking to ensure that the contracts it enters
into are independently assessed for cost control and technical
viability?
Mr. Griffin. Sir, you raise a very important area. As I
know that everyone knows, whether directly or not, you are
referring to the fact that our audit posture is not a favorable
one. We received at the end of 2004 a red audit. We expect to
receive another one, I am told. We, NASA, need to frankly get
busy on our financial accounting and make sure it passes all
the tests.
We also need, in terms of the conduct of our programs, to
make sure that, when we sign contracts, they have clearly
specified goals, funding profiles are clearly made available,
and, in general, we know what we are doing.
I am in the process of establishing a new Office of
Program, Analysis, and Evaluation (PA&E), which will carry a
set of forward-looking and backward-looking responsibilities,
to wit: for backward-looking responsibilities, we will be
assessing programs as they carry forward and determining
whether they are meeting their cost schedule and performance
goals, and making recommendations as to what to do if they fail
with those.
We will also be looking at our track record for the
development of hardware in terms of cost and schedule, and we
will be factoring those estimates from the past into our
predictions for the future.
Looking forward, the new PA&E office will carry the
responsibility for strategic budgeting, making sure that we
have appropriately accounted for all the exigencies which we
can determine. And the new office will carry a directorate for
advanced planning, helping to remove some of the responsibility
for the advanced planning function from those mission
directorates, which must carry it out. I have referred to this
as eliminating the ``fox in the henhouse'' problem. I want my
mission directorates focused on executing the direction they
are given, rather than determining what that direction should
be.
I hope and believe that this new office will assume a major
responsibility for helping to get our programs on track.
Senator Shelby. Senator Mikulski.
HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE
Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Picking up, I would like to go right to the Hubble space
telescope. You know the history. Administrator O'Keefe was
going to cancel the Hubble. He did agree to seeking a second
opinion, and the National Academy of Science recommended that
we do it, and they recommended two possibilities: a robotic
mission to repair Hubble robotically--not repair but give it
its batteries and its new optics; and then the other was a
Shuttle mission for which there is some question about the
safety of the astronauts.
Now, where are you on the Hubble? And where do you see us
going? And in support of Hubble, what will it take from this
subcommittee to support you to do that?
Mr. Griffin. Senator, as I believe this subcommittee and,
indeed, most of the world paying attention to Hubble knows, I
have committed to re-examine the decision to do a Shuttle
Servicing Mission 4, SM-4, in support of Hubble refurbishment
and upgrades once we have accomplished our return-to-flight
objectives.
To recap the reasons behind that statement, I would say
that Administrator O'Keefe's decision made in the aftermath of
the loss of Columbia, and before we had our return-to-flight
planning fully fleshed out, was the reasonable one for the
time, but when we return the Shuttle to flight, it will be
essentially a new vehicle, and in some specific ways it will
require careful examination to assess its ability to support
SM-4, and that is what we will do. It is appropriate, I think,
then to reconsider that earlier decision in light of the fact
that we will be flying, you know, a very much improved vehicle
and to assess the relative risks of a Hubble mission.
The National Academy did suggest that the human servicing
mission was the proper path to go down, and in addition, there
was an independent committee established to assess the
feasibility of a robotic servicing mission. Before I was
nominated to head NASA, I was the head of that independent
commission. I think it is safe to say, although my tenure on
that committee was interrupted by President Bush's nomination
of me to serve as Administrator, I spent enough time with that
committee to know definitely that each and every person on that
committee, all of them very capable engineers and scientists,
believed that the robotic mission was infeasible to accomplish
within the time available before Hubble would degrade
irreversibly and within any reasonable amount of money that
could be appropriated to accomplish it.
I believe that is the best technical judgment that we will
get concerning the feasibility of robotic servicing of the
Hubble within the available time, and I think we should simply
get off that page.
Senator Mikulski. Without getting on to the page, first of
all, number one, we thank you for taking this so seriously and
giving it such a high level of professional attention. In your
testimony, both on page 3 and 6 about the Hubble, as I
understand it, you say servicing of the Hubble will depend on
the performance of the return to space on the Shuttle safely
and the return of the astronauts and that it would take two
missions to do that, to assess whether, according to the
testimony on page 3 and 6, whether the station was up to a
Hubble mission.
My question then: What would be the timeline where you
would see those two missions being accomplished? And in the
meantime, what should Goddard do? Does it just stand down and
we could lose everybody and everything? Or do you see things
moving forward in a simultaneous way? And what would be the
price tag on that if that is your administrative
recommendation?
Mr. Griffin. Yes, Senator. I will return to this in a
moment, but it is correct that we need the two Shuttle return-
to-flight missions in order to fully assess certain technical
issues that I will get to in a moment.
If we were to wait for the conclusion of those two missions
to begin work at Goddard on SM-4, we would, if I could use a
colloquial expression, get ourselves behind the eight ball on
doing that servicing. And so I----
Senator Mikulski. It would be too late.
Mr. Griffin. It would be too late.
Senator Mikulski. So when do you----
Mr. Griffin. So I have directed Goddard to begin work on
Shuttle Servicing Mission 4 under the assumption that we will
be successful with return to flight and in our technical
assessment of Shuttle capabilities. The first return-to-flight
mission should occur in July, the second one in September, and,
by that time, we will have accomplished the detailed test
objectives we need to accomplish in order to know that it will
be safe and effective to allow astronauts to service Hubble
from the Shuttle.
EARTH AND SPACE SCIENCES
Senator Mikulski. Well, we, of course, wish Godspeed to our
astronauts, and I know Senator Hutchison will be raising some
important Shuttle questions, I presume. Number one, that is
heartening. Number two, we look forward to talking about what
we need to put in the appropriations to keep the simultaneity
of these two endeavors going.
But if I could add just another thing--because we need to
address the Shuttle; we are Shuttle obsessed, as you can
imagine. Earth science and space science, do you see new--as
you know, there was another National Academy study that said we
were losing ground on the study of Earth science, that projects
were either descoped, delayed, detoured, derailed, et cetera.
And now with NOAA being in this subcommittee, do you see the
potential to continue or to focus on a true Earth science set
of projects that truly serve this Nation and even friends
around the world in terms of understanding our planet both in
terms of any number of aspects that have a great impact, from
atmospherics to ocean currents to ocean winds and a variety of
other things that truly impact the global environment and also
how to make those projections that save lives and save
livelihoods, kind of a NOAA, NASA, and perhaps NSF partnership?
Mr. Griffin. Yes, Senator, I absolutely look forward to
enhancing the NOAA, NASA, and NSF partnership in Earth science.
Several comments on your points.
First of all, we at NASA have heard the response of the
community to the changes we made or proposed and carried out in
our science program in fiscal year 2005. We had allocated, and
planned to allocate, in fiscal year 2006 a substantial
increment to funding Mars exploration, robotic Mars exploration
in the out-years. We have withdrawn from that and are
rebalancing our portfolio to again provide emphasis on Earth
science as an important part of our portfolio. So we have heard
the response of the science community, and we in turn are being
responsive. And you will see that as we go forward in our op
plan for 2005 and in 2006.
Senator Mikulski. Well, my time is up, and if we have a
second round, we will return to some other important issues.
Senator Shelby. We will have a second round.
Mr. Griffin. Okay.
Senator Shelby. Senator Hutchison.
BUDGET PRIORITIES
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Griffin, we have heard that some Members of the House
have urged moving funds from the International Space Station
budget for 2006 into the aeronautics line to offset the
proposed reductions in that area. That was the President's
budget, and clearly having the International Space Station and
the return to flight are the highest priorities. I wanted to
ask you if you can tell the subcommittee what impact any
reduction such as that in the International Space Station
funding would have. And will you oppose that?
Mr. Griffin. Senator Hutchison, I am the President's
appointee and I support the President's budget. The
administration's allocation of relative priorities between
human space flight, science, and aeronautics is clear, and I do
not propose any changes to those priorities.
Within those lines, we may choose to emphasize or de-
emphasize certain things, but I simply cannot support moving
money from completing the assembly of the International Space
Station to any other activity.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
The Space Shuttles were originally intended to be capable
of flying 100 missions. The Columbia had flown the most at 27.
When you were talking about the expense of making the Shuttles
go longer, I am sure that maintaining them does get more
expensive as they grow older. But is that still something that
would be more feasible since they were supposed to have been
able to have longer terms anyway as a way to lengthen--or
shorten the gap between the crew return vehicle coming on if,
in fact, you are not able to bring that in at an earlier stage?
Mr. Griffin. Senator, I cannot support that position.
Again, I am the President's appointee, and the administration
is committed to Shuttle retirement in 2010. The expense of
maintaining the Shuttle fleet year after year is so great that,
in order to move effectively ahead on the crew exploration
vehicle systems, we must retire the Shuttle. We must retire it
in an orderly fashion. We must fly every flight safely. But we
must get it behind us.
The Shuttle is inherently flawed. It does not have an
escape system for its crew, and we all know that since human
perfection is unattainable, sooner or later there will be
another Shuttle accident. I want to retire it before that
flight can occur.
I want to work with you and this subcommittee to understand
how we can accelerate the development of the crew exploration
vehicle so that there is the minimal possible gap in
transitioning from one system to another.
On a personal note, in my late 20s and early 30s, I was
working in the space program, as I have most of my life, when
we underwent a 6-year gap between the completion of the last
Apollo, the Apollo-Soyuz flight, and the first Shuttle flight.
That gap damaged our program. It damaged our unmanned program
as well. It was damaging to the United States. I don't want to
do it again, and I know you share that view. But the way to
prevent that is not to continue to rely upon the Shuttle, which
is an outdated system, but to move as expeditiously as we may
toward the new system. And that is what I am here to support.
Senator Hutchison. I accept that, and I think you have made
the case very well. Let me ask you this: If you are going to
put more emphasis on the crew return vehicle, there have been
other suggestions that you would take money out of the basic
research budget and the International Space Station. Is that
something that would be viable in your mind? And what impact
would it have on the long-term national science asset that we
have there if you take money from the research projects in the
Space Station for the crew return vehicle?
Mr. Griffin. Senator, the impact would be of delay, not of
deletion. Yes, if I need the money to close the gap in human
space flight between the end of the Shuttle program and the
beginning of its replacement, my recommendation would be to
take money from the research to be done on Space Station or
other exploration systems research and technology development,
simply because, as I said in my opening statement, we cannot do
everything on our plate and we have to have priorities and
first things first.
Now, the research of which you speak is very valuable, and
it must be done. But if it is delayed a very few years in order
to allow us to complete, in effect, a suitable transition
between systems, then I believe that that delay would be worth
it, and that would be where I would look for the money.
Senator Hutchison. Let me just ask my final question then.
If you did something like that, you do not mean that you would
stop all of the research on the Space Station at any point, do
you? Or would it be just some projects that could be put off?
Mr. Griffin. The phrase I have used is that when cutting
budgets, you need to use a meat axe rather than a scalpel--or a
scalpel rather than a meat axe, pardon me.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
Mr. Griffin. Yes. It needs to be done carefully. We would
obviously not go in and stop, on a wholesale basis, everything
which is ongoing. Stopping projects in their middle is usually
not an effective way to save money. I would look generally
toward delaying projects which have not yet started.
The Space Station, once built, will be an excellent
platform for a number of different kinds of engineering,
physical science, and biological research. And we will do that.
It will be flying for many, many years. But if, in order to
produce the next vehicle, which will allow us to ferry
astronauts back and forth to the Space Station, I need to delay
some of that research, then that is what I will have to do.
Senator Hutchison. ``Some'' is the operable word.
Mr. Griffin. Yes.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
Mr. Griffin. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Shelby. Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Let me first congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, on assuming
the responsibility of chairing this subcommittee with an
enlarged scope of jurisdiction.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Senator Cochran. We look forward to working closely with
you to help ensure that we meet our goals and identify our
priorities in a thoughtful way. And I think starting the
process with a new Administrator of NASA is an exciting
opportunity for all of us. I want to congratulate you, Dr.
Griffin, for your selection as Administrator of this important
agency and say that we appreciate the fact that you are a
person of experience, a great deal of education in these
technical and scientific areas. I was just looking at the
number of Master's degrees that you have been awarded at
various universities, and it is really quite impressive, and I
hope you do not mind my referring to you as ``Dr. Griffin,''
because you did get a Ph.D. also, and that was in the
University of Maryland system, which I know Dr. Mikulski may
identify with, with some pleasure. This is a big job, and I
know you are well suited and totally well qualified for it. And
even though you have indicated that you support the budget
request because you are the President's nominee and you are in
this position to carry out these policies, we do notice that
the research funding has been reduced because, I guess, of the
increase in exploration initiative costs, over $675 million for
the Moon and Mars exploration initiative. So this decreases
other activities.
Have you looked at ways that you can balance that
competition inside the agency so that there is not any serious
harm done to interests for traditional activities that have
been carried out by NASA?
Mr. Griffin. Senator Cochran, the science budget in the
large at NASA has not been cut to serve the needs of
exploration, Moon and Mars. The science budget request for 2006
is $5.5 billion. We expect it to grow with inflation in the
out-years. We have not, and, unless under the most extreme
budget pressure, I would not, cut science in order to fund
manned space flight. I believe that NASA has several
substantially differing activities: human space flight,
science, and aeronautics.
The President's priorities among those differing activities
are expressed in his fiscal year 2006 budget, as are the
proportions among those numbers, and I would intend to respect
those proportions. If we need to solve problems in human space
flight, we will do it within the human space flight suite of
activities.
So I must respectfully suggest we have not cut the science
budget in order to do exploration. In fact, I would say that
the exploration budget has been reduced and exploration
activities have been delayed in order to accommodate Shuttle
return-to-flight costs.
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN THE SPACE PROGRAM
Senator Cochran. In looking at the global situation in
terms of our relationships with other countries and cooperation
in the space program--Russia has been actively involved in the
manned program for a good many years--are there other nations
that are interested or active in becoming partners in space
exploration?
Mr. Griffin. Senator, I have not had the opportunity to
assess that yet. I will be, in fact, attending the Paris Air
Show next month, and there will be, as you know, other
international events at which my attendance will be expected,
and I will be there. And then there will be formally arranged
meetings, government-to-government meetings as well. And in the
course of the next few months, I hope to get a feel for which
nations wish to join us in this venture. I hope there are some.
I think one of the best things to come out of the Space
Station program is the international partnership that has been
developed, and the administration takes very seriously this
Nation's commitments to those partners. So I look forward to
it. I have not had an opportunity to assess it yet.
Senator Cochran. Well, we look forward to working more
closely with you as we go through this budget process, and we
intend to closely consult with you along the way to be sure
that we cooperate in supporting the administration's
initiatives in these areas. We appreciate your leadership.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming Dr.
Griffin to the hearing today. NASA's history is without
comparison. Continued human exploration will broaden our
understanding of the universe, and coupled with its dedicated
pursuit of scientific research, NASA will help secure our
nation's position at the cutting edge of technology well into
the future.
Dr. Griffin, I note that you are a man of action. While you
have been in your job for less than a month, you have already
made important decisions for the future of NASA, to include
awarding the Shared Services Center contract and accelerating
the development and launch of the shuttle replacement into
orbit.
Stennis Space Center in Mississippi has been known for its
engine testing work, and I am proud to acknowledge the recent
selection of Stennis as the location for the NASA Shared
Services Center. We welcome the center to Mississippi and look
forward to the contribution that the men and women of
Mississippi will make to help NASA be more efficient in
conducting its administrative activities.
I look forward to working with you in the future and to
hearing your testimony today.
NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEM
Mr. Griffin. Thank you, Senator, and I will offer you my
full cooperation as Administrator.
Senator Shelby. Dr. Griffin, Project Prometheus has been a
priority for NASA over the past 2 years. This nuclear program
has the potential of providing great benefit to future NASA
missions and the exploration vision. However, the Jupiter Icy
Moons Orbiter mission has been determined to be too technically
difficult, and the same operating plan you have mentioned in
your written testimony also includes a reduction of $161
million to the Prometheus program to reflect the mission
deferment.
With the deferment of the Jupiter Icy Moons mission, NASA
is looking at alternative missions to demonstrate a nuclear
power system in space. Was the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter
mission too ambitious? If so, what are the possibilities that
NASA intends to explore? And how will this affect the funding
level from Prometheus in the 2006 budget?
Mr. Griffin. Senator, there were several questions there,
and if I miss one, you can remind me. Let me address the
issue----
Senator Shelby. I bet you won't miss one.
Mr. Griffin. I don't want to bet too much, but we will try.
The Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter mission was, in my opinion,
too ambitious to be attempted. Let me give a couple of
specifics.
The vehicle would have required at least two heavy-lift
launches to put into orbit where it would have been assembled
prior to its departure from Earth to go to Jupiter. That would
have been an extremely expensive undertaking, one which we have
not performed before.
The nuclear electric propulsion system being developed for
it does not presently exist, would not exist for some time, and
if successfully developed, would have required approximately
twice the world's annual production of xenon to be fueled to
carry out the mission. It was not a mission, in my judgment,
that was well formed.
The original purpose of the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter was
to execute a scientific mission to Europa, a moon of Jupiter
which is extremely interesting on a scientific basis. It
remains a very high priority, and you may look forward in the
next year or so, maybe even sooner, to a proposal for a Europa
mission as part of our science line. But we would, again, not
favor linking that to a nuclear propulsion system.
With that mission taken off the table as being something
just too big for our plate at this time, the question then
arises as to what shape and form we want the space nuclear
program to be. I will say categorically we cannot effectively
explore space without nuclear power and in the longer run
nuclear propulsion. But having taken JIMO off the plate,
Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter, the proper ordering of priorities
now changes.
The first thing we will need is surface nuclear power for
our astronauts when they return to the Moon in a decade or so.
The next thing we will need will be nuclear thermal
propulsion----
Senator Shelby. How difficult will that be?
Mr. Griffin. Sorry, sir?
Senator Shelby. How difficult will that be?
Mr. Griffin. We need to execute some development programs
that we have not done in a while, but many nuclear reactors
have been flown in space--one by the United States, many by the
former Soviet Union. We have that technology. We merely have to
integrate it again.
Nuclear thermal propulsion will be the next step. A nuclear
upper stage is the most effective way to take humans to Mars.
The United States had prototype versions of such engines back
in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In 1972, when President
Nixon decided that the Nation would not be going to Mars under
his tenure as President, the NERVA, nuclear engine for rocket
vehicle applications, program was terminated. We have not had a
need for such a program in the last three decades. As we
journey forward to Mars, we will need it.
Finally, the last priority would be the nuclear electric
propulsion which was linked to JIMO, and that will be useful
for cargo missions to Mars, but well after we start sending
humans there.
MAINTAINING SKILLED WORKFORCE WITHIN SPACE SHUTTLE AND STATION
ACTIVITIES
Senator Shelby. Doctor, in another area, to what extent
will it be possible or even desirable to maintain employment of
skilled workers currently involved in Space Shuttle and station
activities as NASA transitions to a post-Shuttle era and
reduces its station-related programs?
Mr. Griffin. Senator, it will be absolutely crucial. As I
pointed out earlier in response to Senator Hutchison's
question, I, as a professional, lived through the gap in manned
space flight from 1975 to 1981, and I do not propose to repeat
it. One of the things that happened during that period was the
loss of skilled and experienced personnel in space flight of
all varieties, both manned and unmanned, to other pursuits.
When those people have gone to other occupations, our
experience is we do not get them back. So we must effect an
orderly transition from the shuttle to the new system.
I owe this Congress a plan for doing that, and I have said
on several occasions in several ways that the first step is
minimizing that gap.
FIELD CENTERS ROLE IN THE PROMETHEUS PROGRAM
Senator Shelby. What is your view, doctor, of the role of
the field centers in the Prometheus program? In other words, do
you believe that the program is doing a good job of utilizing
the full range of research and development capabilities that
exists within the field centers, and if not, what action do you
plan to take to employ the technical talent base within NASA?
Mr. Griffin. Senator, the question was applied by you to
Prometheus, but it goes beyond that. I have not had an
opportunity to look at the Prometheus program directly. As I
said, we will be restructuring it, not because it is not a
valuable program, it is incredibly valuable, but I want to
change the definition of what is produced first.
Senator Shelby. Sure.
Mr. Griffin. Now, with regard to your broader question of
what are the value of the field centers, I have also in public
utterances been most specific on this point. The President's
Vision for Space Exploration is a multi-generation program. It
will require decades. The people who will be taking us to Mars
are in elementary and middle school today. Contractors and
businesses come and go. They succeed and they fail. The
Government ownership of the intellectual property that sustains
our space exploration journey will be with us always, as long
as there is a Government.
The core capability, the core intellectual property that
will sustain this journey, must reside within NASA as an
organization, and in particular within the NASA field centers.
I am committed to maintaining and to restoring capability where
we need to do it. I am committed to changing the skill mixes of
the centers as we transition from a Shuttle operations culture
to the development culture required for the new vehicle systems
we must bring about. But in the process of adjusting the
details of how the field centers accomplish their missions and
what they do, I am committed to retaining strong field center
capability.
HEAVY LIFT LAUNCH VEHICLE
Senator Shelby. Doctor, what is the status of planning for
a heavy lift launch vehicle to send large quantities of mass to
low Earth orbit or directly to the Moon?
Mr. Griffin. Senator, that is a very interesting question.
I can plan the development of a heavy lift launch vehicle from
a clean sheet of paper, which would likely be too expensive for
this subcommittee or the full committee to provide me the
money, or I can utilize the heavy lift launch vehicle that I
presently own as the NASA Administrator, which is the Space
Shuttle. We talk about retiring the Space Shuttle. What is
really meant is that we need to retire the Space Shuttle
Orbiter. The Space Shuttle is a system of systems. It consists
of a number of very, very valuable, very expensive to develop
components, the Shuttle external tank, the Shuttle solid rocket
boosters, Shuttle main engines and other lesser things, as well
as the assembly and launch pad infrastructure at the Cape.
Every time that stack lifts off, it carries 120 or 20
metric tons into orbit. If I remove the orbiter and put on a
cargo module, I have a heavy lifter. To me, I have indicated on
several occasions, that seems the shortest path to a heavy
lifter. If money were free and being provided in unlimited
quantities, I would enjoy the challenge of developing a new
vehicle, but we all know it is not, so I believe that that is
the appropriate way forward.
LAUNCH VEHICLES
Senator Shelby. Where are we regarding the expendable
launch vehicle versus a Shuttle derived launch vehicle?
Mr. Griffin. Do you mean the evolved expendable launch
vehicle?
Senator Shelby. Yes, evolved.
Mr. Griffin. The evolved expendable launch vehicle
families, offered by Lockheed Martin and Boeing, are the
Nation's transportation fleet for payloads of 20 metric tons or
less, and I certainly would propose no NASA development of such
vehicles because we do not need more.
In terms of payload capability above about 20 metric tons,
the field is open, and again, from NASA's perspective to meet
my heavy lift needs, I would probably stick with what I have.
Again, we need to make these judgments on a cost basis and I am
in the process of assessing those costs, but it looks likely to
me that sticking with what I have is the way to go.
Senator Shelby. Senator Mikulski.
STATION ASSEMBLY-SHUTTLE FLIGHTS
Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to pick up a line of questioning both from Senator
Shelby and Senator Hutchison, and it goes to the Shuttle and
the completion of the station. How many flights will it take to
complete the station, how many Shuttle flights, and how long do
you anticipate that this is going to take?
Mr. Griffin. Senator, the current plan on the table at NASA
is a 28 flight sequence, of which 18 flights are assembly
flights, 5 flights are logistics flights, and 5 are utilization
flights. I have indicated, in response to the Senator's
question, that some of the research to be accomplished on the
utilization flights could be deferred until we have a new
system. With some time to plan, 2 or 3 years in the future, out
to 2008 or so, some of the logistics flights cargo could be
offloaded onto expendable vehicles, the Arian Transfer Vehicle,
the Japanese HTV or new commercial systems which we would
develop.
That leaves a core of 18 Shuttle assembly flights. Again,
with time to plan, even some of that hardware could be put up
by alternate means, but right now we are looking at a core of
about 18 assembly flights.
Senator Mikulski. Well, let me jump in here because first
of all, again, we are very concerned about the Shuttle, the
safety of our astronauts, but also those 15,000 people, both
contractors and civil servants who are employed.
Now, it is 2005. We are talking about retiring the Shuttle
in 2010. So that gives us essentially 4\1/2\ years to do 15
flights. Do you think it can be done? Well, actually, that is
not the question. I am really concerned that with the magnitude
that it will take to complete the station, and we know it must
be completed for both scientific reasons, and honoring our
commitment to international partners. We do not want to
jeopardize that relationship because we are going to need it,
we both need and want international partners for other things
that we hope to do in space. But my point is then, if you have,
let us just say 18 in 4\1/2\ years, that seems like a robust
schedule, given the fact that by the time we do the next two
flights, presuming everything goes the way we hope, that will
be--we are then into 2006. So that gives you 2006, 2007, 2008,
et cetera. How do you see all of this unfolding?
Mr. Griffin. Directly answering your question, it is an
extremely robust schedule. We are not sure we can accomplish
it. We are looking at alternative assembly sequences for the
Shuttle that we would use in case we are not able to get all 18
assembly flights accomplished with the Shuttle. I will provide
a set of options for this Congress by midsummer.
Senator Mikulski. I think what we are looking at then is
the impact on the workforce, and also presuming then that they
are working nonstop to do this, we would be concerned about
then its impact on safety, just even general fatigue, of both
people and the Shuttle itself. We have three orbiters and one
has to go, one has to be ready to go, and one is taking a
breather. That is kind of a liberal arts graduate's description
of this.
But then, of course, what would be the cost to do this?
Will it accelerate, et cetera? I think you might not be able to
do this today. We know you support the President's budget, but
we would like to also know the consequences of this because we
are then talking about five or six flights a year, and we have
not even ever met that--have we ever met that type schedule?
Mr. Griffin. I believe we have, but it was very difficult,
and it was in a different environment. With the care that we
are taking today we are not planning on a six flight per year
schedule. We would need roughly four flights a year to fly 20
flights in the fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010.
Senator Mikulski. And with one flight hopefully going to
Hubble.
Mr. Griffin. And one going to Hubble.
Senator Mikulski. Which would be an additional flight.
Mr. Griffin. Senator, your question is extremely on point.
There is no question, as I said before, it is an extremely
aggressive schedule and we must have fall-back options if we
are not able to meet it, because we do not want the program to
be schedule driven. We do not want safety to be compromised. We
will provide, by midsummer, a set of options that we can offer
to avail ourselves of if we are not able to carry out the
aggressive flight rate required to get all 18 assembly flights
completed by the time we are ready to retire.
Senator Mikulski. I think this subcommittee is looking
forward very much to working with you and with our authorizer,
Senator Hutchison, on this endeavor.
I had the good fortune to visit Texas with Senator
Hutchison to see the kinds of research that we are talking
about in the Shuttle, and also at Marshall, physical science,
life science, that could be stunning, and that for an
international partnership to have a completed Shuttle where we
are really working together on breakthrough ideas, I think
would go a long way to science, a long way to international
cooperation. I think the world would feel better about the
United States and its preeminence in space, particularly in the
civilian side. So we want to be able to do that.
I know that my time is up, and my next area would be of
course aeronautics.
Senator Shelby. Senator Hutchison.
INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION COMPLETION
Senator Hutchison. I just want to follow along with what
Senator Mikulski was saying because it seems to me that you
have got two major priorities here. You were very firm about
wanting to retire the Shuttle on time, but also equally firm,
as is the President, on finishing the Space Station for all of
the reasons that Senator Mikulski said. If we cannot finish the
Space Station with what you have available--let me rephrase.
Are you prepared to say that finishing the Space Station is the
top priority?
Mr. Griffin. Well, the administration has said that we will
finish the Space Station. For the next 2 to 3 years,
unequivocally, we are dependent upon the Shuttle to go to the
Space Station and begin the process of completing that
assembly. If we look further out, there are alternative means
we could engage to get that hardware up there, and we of course
would look at that because we need options. In the longer term,
if time comes to retire the Shuttle and we are not finished,
then I have said for the record on several occasions, both
before and after becoming Administrator, that the United States
should complete the station, but we may again encounter some
delays in accomplishing that until we have the new system on
board.
I do want to complete it. I think it is worth a lot for the
United States to keep its word, to maintain our obligations to
the partnership and to go forward together, and we will try to
do that.
All we are discussing here are ways and means of
accomplishing it, not whether or not the President is committed
to completing the station, because with his speech of 1 year
ago and his budget in 2006, he clearly is committed to that
completion.
Senator Hutchison. As all of us have said, we are going to
work with you. We know that you have to have time to put
alternatives together, but just one more time to reemphasize,
in addition to keeping our word to the international community,
which is very, very important, it just seems if we are not
committed to the science that one of the key reasons that we
have NASA is diminished, and I do not want to ever have any
indication that the actual science that will be done at the
Space Station is in any way a lesser priority.
Mr. Griffin. Yes, Senator. I do not think it is a lesser
priority either, but again, if the funding to do science is
getting in the way of the funding to complete the station, I
would be presented with a Hobson's choice. I will work with you
and with the subcommittee to minimize the dislocations, but if
completion is the first priority, I must do what I must do.
Senator Hutchison. I understand, and we will work with you
in every way. I just hope we do not end up being the hospital
that is clean because there are not any patients.
I mean we really have to----
Mr. Griffin. Yes, Senator, I understand.
Senator Hutchison [continuing]. Remember the mission.
Thank you.
Mr. Griffin. I understand.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator.
Dr. Griffin, as we move forward how many Shuttle flights do
you think will be needed to complete construction of the
International Space Station?
Mr. Griffin. Well, again, the final answer on that may
depend on the outcome of some of the studies we have ongoing
and which I have promised to you by midsummer, and I understand
that commitment. The current baseline is 18 assembly flights, 5
logistics flights, 5 utilization flights.
INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS
Senator Shelby. In regard to international partners, it no
longer seems that NASA plans to provide everything that it
promised or could in international agreements that govern the
International Space Station program. What discussions are
planned or underway with the other partners to rebalance what
each partner is required to do and what it gets in return? In
other words, where are we going there?
Mr. Griffin. Senator, as we stand today, we are committed
to orbiting the partner hardware and providing the partner
flights. Disasters can ensue, as we know. If there is any
planned change to that, I would come forward to this
subcommittee and discuss it first.
Senator Shelby. Have any agreements been made in this
regard at this time?
Mr. Griffin. Not at this time.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Senator Shelby. Okay. Financial management, we have to do
this because we are in appropriation business here. NASA
continues to face significant challenges in improving financial
management. I know you have not been at NASA long, but in the
past 2 years NASA's auditors were unable to issue an opinion on
NASA's financial statements because NASA could not provide the
auditors with sufficient evidence to support the statements.
While NASA implemented a new integrated financial management
system in 2003, NASA auditors found pervasive errors in 2004
financial statements generated from the new system. In October
of this past year, the NASA Inspector General reported that one
of the most serious management challenges facing NASA is, and I
quote, ``ensuring that the integrated financial management
system improves NASA's ability to allocate costs to
programs''--we have been talking about this--``efficiently
provides reliable information to management and supports
compliance with the Chief Financial Officer's Act.''
Also in January of this year, 2005, the Government
Accountability Office, in its High Risk Series Report stated,
and I quote, ``While it has taken recent actions to improve the
contract management function, NASA continues to face
considerable challenges in implementing financial management
systems and processes that would allow it to manage its
contracts effectively.''
My question, Dr. Griffin is, does NASA have a written
corrective action plan that addresses the scope of its problems
and the resources at the time that will be needed to fix these
problems pointed out by the Inspector General and GAO?
Mr. Griffin. Senator, we do not at this point. I take the
GAO's comments and our independent auditor's comments as
seriously as I know how to say. We understand, as an Agency,
that our financial accountability has been lacking. I will not
hedge. We have lacked that. I have, as we speak, a team of
people working on putting a plan together for how we will get
from where we are to where you require and where we want us to
be.
Senator Shelby. You are committed to doing whatever is
necessary?
Mr. Griffin. I am absolutely committed to providing the
resources necessary to get our financial management on track,
and I will share with you the plan to do that when we have it.
Senator Shelby. What obstacles have you encountered that
would have an impact on your financial management efforts? Are
you there yet?
Mr. Griffin. We are really not. I have not been able to see
obstacles so much as we simply have not stepped up to the plate
on it. The major aspects of the situation are driven, as you
know, by the fact that NASA has 10 field centers. They did not
even historically all come from the same agencies. Some came
from the Department of Defense (DOD), some were created out of
a whole cloth, some came from NACA. They evolved their own
financial management systems and they were never really linked
up. Part of our integrated financial management plan, as the
name implies, is to have, if you will, one NASA, one system,
and be able to account for all the money in a common framework.
Linking those 10 centers and headquarters together in a
transparent and straightforward way has proven to be more of a
challenge than anyone had thought. Clearly it has, because we
flunked the last couple of years. I am absolutely dedicated to
seeing to it that, as my tenure goes forward, we do not flunk,
that we pass with flying colors.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Senator Mikulski, you have any more questions?
RETAINING AND ATTRACTING SKILLED WORKFORCE
Senator Mikulski. Thank you.
First of all, I want to associate myself with Senator
Shelby's questions about fiscal accountability, fiscal
responsibility and implementing the reforms in the GAO report.
I also want to thank you in this testimony here for your
candor about what you are facing. Actually, I think we are off
to a good start even if some of the things are giving us
heartburn, at least we feel that we are getting a candid
conversation and look forward to more.
I am going to raise an issue about workforce. You talked
about the astronauts that will be on the trip to Mars are now
in elementary school, and we also know that NASA has an aging
workforce in certain projects, so you need to retain, you need
to recruit, and there needs to be a development of our future
scientists and technologists.
Could you give us your view on two things, number one, the
workforce at NASA and our ability to retain the qualified
people that you need to complete the priorities that you
outline and we support; and number two, what do you see NASA's
role in really helping generate, cultivate, that next
generation of scientists and technologists?
Mr. Griffin. Well, Senator, this is a subject that, as I
believe you know, I am quite passionate about.
Senator Mikulski. I know you are.
Mr. Griffin. I sometimes say, who is it that you will find
who loves education more than I do? That said, two things.
First of all, we have $167 million in the NASA Education
Program and more in the mission directorates as we sit here
today. I believe that we need to focus that education program,
establish goals and metrics for it, and make it effective, but
it is a substantial amount of money.
In addition, I think it is time to recognize that NASA's
biggest, most important, most lasting contribution to education
for our future workforce is to do the kinds of things that
excite young kids enough to want to be part of the space
program and to get an education to do it. They can get almost
any kind of an education and we will have a place for them at
NASA. We are a very broad Agency. We need a lot of different
specialties, but an education is a requirement.
If we return to the Moon, if we set up a permanently manned
lunar base there, if we go to Mars, if we visit the nearest
asteroids, if we service the James Webb space telescope in
future years, if we look beyond the Moon and Mars, young kids
today and young kids of the future will want to be part of that
program, as I did when I was a small boy, and they will do what
is necessary with their education to get it.
It is in that sense that NASA best served the educational
community in my humble opinion.
Senator Mikulski. On a personal note, you grew up in
Maryland. You grew up in Aberdeen, close to a military base. It
is the home of Cal Ripken.
Mr. Griffin. Yes, Senator, I was born on a military base.
Senator Mikulski. That is exactly right, and you went to
our public schools. What was it that got you interested in--
what do you think--you have outlined those projects, but what
got you interested?
Mr. Griffin. This story is almost embarrassing to recount.
I have not told it in public for some years, but it is true
that--my mother was a teacher when I was a kid, and the first
book that I was ever given was a book on astronomy and space. I
have since commented that sometimes that based on what we know
today, everything in that book was wrong.
Senator Mikulski. Gee, and I started with ``The Three
Bears.''
Mr. Griffin. Well, we went down different tracks. I still
have that book actually, and I was 5. This was in 1954, and I
was absolutely fascinated by it, and from that time forward I
never considered for myself anything other than being a
scientist or engineer or mathematician and involving myself in
the space business. And I never did. So that was what motivated
me.
I have no doubt--I hear often from--they are not kids any
more--you know, men or women in their 30s whose early memories
are the Apollo landings on the Moon, stimulated them into
science, development of science and engineering. I hear from
other young men and women who have technical educations that
they were fascinated by Bob Ballard's discovery of the Titanic.
Any sort of exploration into the unknown, any sort of discovery
of the new and unknown excites our kids. And if you catch them
at that age, they are with you forever.
We all went through puberty. If you let kids get to middle
school and high school before having fastened onto that
interest, they are going to be interested in girls and
football, or guys and football, whatever it is, but it is less
likely to be science and engineering because science and
engineering are hard.
Senator Mikulski. They are hard. Well, first of all, I
could not agree with you more that it is, number one, people
interested in young people to expose it to them; number two,
that it is wonderful projects that get people excited and young
people knowing and hearing about them. And then also, I
believe, that with that $167 million in NASA's education
budget, that we really get perhaps more of a focus on where we
would like to do it. Should it be in those areas like what we
would call extra educational institutions like science centers
and others? Today is not the day of doing that, but we want
this year to be a success. But we want to be preeminent for the
decade. We want to be preeminent for the century in science and
exploration.
So we look forward to working with you, and we would hope
that all the work you do, you can start a treaty negotiation
with NOAA and we will look forward to hearing about that. And I
and the Hubble will be keeping an eye on you.
Mr. Griffin. Senator, I will make sure that you do not have
to keep a sharp eye. I will make sure that you know what we are
doing with Hubble and with NOAA.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Mikulski.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Dr. Griffin, I want to thank you for appearing here today
before our subcommittee. I am sure you will be back many times.
We will all be carrying on a dialogue with you. You have a lot
of work cut out for you. I think you are up to the challenge.
You bring the experience. You are candid, which is something we
like, it is refreshing. We look forward to working with you. We
have some hurdles to jump over, and you will be our leader in
that regard.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Administration for response subsequent to
the hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
Question. The implementation plan for the Vision laid out in the
fiscal year 2005 budget request was prepared based on underlying
assumptions. How have these assumptions changed? What is the impact of
any changed assumptions on NASA's funding needs?
Answer. As communicated in its September 2005 Operating Plan
Update, NASA has concluded the Exploration Systems Architecture Study
(ESAS) to implement the Vision for Space Exploration. Based on ESAS
recommendations, NASA has laid out a detailed plan to support sustained
human and robotic lunar exploration operations. This plan features
accelerated development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) and Crew
Launch Vehicle (CLV) systems for missions to the International Space
Station, Moon, and Mars, and identifies key technologies required to
enable this exploration architecture.
ESAS results are broadly consistent with the assumptions on which
the fiscal year 2005 budget request was based. However the specific
architecture defined by the ESAS study allows NASA to accelerate CEV
and CLV and to further focus and refine ESMD research and technology.
To stay within planned budget guidance for Exploration Systems
while accelerating CEV and these launch systems, it is necessary to
redirect existing funding for longer-term and lower-priority research
and technology (R&T) elements within the Exploration Systems Mission
Directorate (ESMD), while focusing on those R&T activities that support
the acceleration of the CEV, launch systems, and high-priority, long-
lead items.
In the fiscal year 2006 budget amendment, $292 million was
identified as moving from R&T activities into Constellation for CEV and
CLV acceleration. Following the results of the ESAS, as described
above, an additional $493 million is identified from the R&T activities
for acceleration of CEV and CLV, as detailed below. This yields a total
shift from R&T to Constellation for acceleration in fiscal year 2006 of
$785 million, relative to original plans for fiscal year 2006.
Constellation Systems.--NASA plans to accelerate the timeline for
flight of the next human flight system by two years, from 2014 to a
goal of not later than 2012. The first flights will be to the
International Space Station (ISS), but the primary goal of the CEV is
to support exploration efforts, including enabling humans to return to
the Moon for weeklong stays as early as 2018, but no later than 2020.
Longer-duration human presence on the Moon is targeted for 2022. The
changes in the R&T programs will provide funds required to accelerate
the design, development, and fabrication of the elements and systems
needed to support a return to the Moon on the above timeline.
Human System Research and Technology.--NASA is focusing HSRT
funding on program elements that mature technologies needed to support
ISS access and lunar sortie missions, while reducing program elements
targeting longer-term or lower priority needs. As NASA concentrates the
use of the Shuttle on ISS assembly, ISS utilization will be deferred.
Exploration Systems Research and Technology.--NASA is realigning
projects to support the ESAS recommended architecture requirements.
This realignment has resulted in a focused and phased, requirements
driven, R&T program in which some projects are curtailed, some are
adjusted, and some are added. Ongoing projects are streamlined to
deliver Technology Readiness Level 6 capabilities when needed (system
preliminary design review) so as to enable the CEV, launch systems, and
lunar lander development schedules. Examples of technology projects
focused on the near-term include ablative thermal protection and
oxygen-methane propulsion for CEV. Additional work is phased in after
the first few years for lunar lander propulsion systems and nontoxic
power and reaction control for launch vehicles. Finally, funding for
technologies, such as in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) and those
applicable to lunar surface systems, are phased in only during the out
years. Discontinued, descoped or delayed technology projects include
nanomaterials, inflatable structures, large-scale solar power,
intelligent robotic systems, Mars mission specific technologies, and
electric propulsion.
Prometheus Research and Technology.--Program elements have been
deferred as a result of the ESAS architecture study. Surface nuclear
power systems to support potential long- duration stays on the Moon
will not be required until after 2018. Nuclear propulsion will not be
required until planning for Mars missions begins in earnest. The result
will be a total reformulation in the nuclear program, yielding $76
million in fiscal year 2006 to accelerate development of CEV and CLV.
NASA's funding of the DOE's Naval Reactors program, the JIMO mission,
and several technology research programs related to electric propulsion
will be curtailed.
Question. The fiscal year 2006 budget request contains less than
half the percentage increase proposed by President Bush last year. [It
was projected to increase by 4.7 percent above fiscal year 2005, but
instead is 2.4 percent more when compared with what was appropriated in
the fiscal year 2005 regular appropriations bill, or only 1.6 percent
more if the $126 million provided by the emergency supplemental for
hurricane relief are included.] How would the lower-than expected
funding affect execution of the Vision?
Answer. NASA is pleased to have received a 2.4 percent increase in
the President's fiscal year 2006 budget request. This is about half the
increase that was planned in the fiscal year 2005 budget runout, with
the reduction representing NASA's contribution toward overall deficit
reduction efforts--a priority for the President.
In his State of the Union Address on February 2, 2005, the
President underscored the need to restrain spending in order to sustain
our economic prosperity. The fiscal year 2006 budget request includes
more than 150 reductions, reforms, and terminations in non-defense
discretionary programs, of which 3 affect NASA programs. Overall,
NASA's budget is up, growing 2.4 percent in fiscal year 2006 and is
projected to continue to climb thereafter at the approximate rate of
inflation. This is a significant increase, when compared with other
non-defense, non-homeland security funding, which is generally flat or
declining.
In comparison with last year's fiscal year 2005 budget projected
runout, the fiscal year 2006 budget is about $546 million less. This
reduction, contributing to overall deficit reduction, is spread among
NASA's Exploration, Science and Aeronautics Mission Directorates, while
enabling increased funds for Shuttle Return to Flight requirements.
None of the reductions in Science and Aeronautics Programs is directed
to Exploration Systems.
With proposed fiscal year 2006 funding levels, NASA is capable of
implementing the Vision for Space Exploration and other national
priorities. It should be noted that, as a result of the President's
fiscal year 2006 budget amendment and NASA's proposed adjustments in
the fiscal year 2005 Operating Plan September update, NASA has
identified realigned a total of $785 million within planned fiscal year
2006 Exploration Systems funds from Research and Technology efforts to
Constellation for acceleration of CEV and CLV relative to original
fiscal year 2006 plans.
Question. In your opinion, should NASA be a ``single-mission''
agency focused on implementing the President's Vision for Space
Exploration, or a multi-mission agency as it has been in the past? If
you intend to lead NASA as a multi-mission agency, to what extent is
the budget you are requesting for fiscal year 2006-2010 sufficient to
accomplish that objective?
Answer. NASA is and should remain a multi-mission agency. Over the
past year, NASA has made great strides in meeting national priorities
in its missions not directly connected to milestones in the President's
Vision for Space Exploration:
--Earth Science.--We have completed deployment of the Earth Observing
System and are supporting investments in the Global Change
Science and Technology Program and the next generation Earth
observing satellites for numerous applications, including
improved weather forecasts, earthquake prediction, resource
management, and other hazard warnings.
--Aeronautics.--We are re-establishing NASA's dedication to mastery
of core competencies in subsonic, supersonic and hypersonic
flight, along with aviation safety, and airspace systems. NASA,
with its industry partners, recently demonstrated the
feasibility of significantly reducing the sonic boom from
supersonic aircraft, and, last November, NASA's hypersonic X-
43A demonstrated that an air-breathing engine can fly at nearly
10 times the speed of sound.
--Exploring our Solar System and the Universe.--The Mars rovers,
Spirit and Opportunity, have exceeded all expectations and made
unprecedented discoveries that will help prepare for eventual
human exploration; the Cassini/Huygens mission is providing
stunning views of Saturn and Titan; the Genesis mission,
despite its hard landing, has returned primordial samples from
space; new missions have been launched to Mercury and to
comets; and amazing discoveries continue with Hubble, Chandra,
and Spitzer.
NASA's fiscal year 2006 budget request provides a balanced
portfolio of programs to meet the needs of our national priorities in
space and aeronautics.
--The fiscal year 2006 budget request of $5.5 billion for the Science
Mission Directorate will support 55 missions in orbit, 26 in
development and 34 in design phase. By 2010, the Science budget
will increase by 23 percent over current levels. NASA will
continue to expand its exploration reach with an armada of
existing and new space observatories operating in many
different wavelengths and looking at different parts of our
exotic universe. The three ``Great Observatories''--Hubble,
Spitzer, and Chandra--will continue to bring wondrous images to
our eyes and exciting new scientific discoveries. Missions such
as Kepler will provide a new understanding and knowledge of the
planets orbiting stars far from our solar system.
--NASA's fiscal year 2006 request for the Aeronautics Research
Mission Directorate is $852 million, a significant portion of
the government's overall investment in aeronautics research. To
make the most of this investment, NASA's technical expertise
and facilities for aeronautics research are becoming more
focused and results-oriented. NASA's current aeronautics
research is focused on enhancing the public good. NASA is also
working to maintain a strong basic aeronautics research program
to ensure continued mastery of core competencies in subsonic,
supersonic, and hypersonic flight. The results from the basic
research, technology development, and demonstrations achieved
by NASA's Aeronautics efforts will be transitioned for use by
both Government and industry.
--The President's fiscal year 2006 budget amendment, submitted July
15, 2005, continues to reinforce a balanced, multi-mission
proposal, allowing NASA to address national priorities in Space
Science, Earth Science, and Aeronautics, while maintaining
focus on the Vision for Space Exploration outlined by the
President in January 2005. The multiyear budget plan is
sufficient to accomplish this balanced portfolio. It should be
noted that the President's fiscal year 2006 budget amendment
accomplished several objectives within the request level,
including initial steps to accelerate development of the Crew
Exploration Vehicle (CEV) and Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV), while
preserving funding for Science and Aeronautics Programs. NASA's
fiscal year 2005 Operating Plan September update identifies
further reallocation within proposed fiscal year 2006 funding
levels for Exploration Systems to support these objectives. It
is important to note that NASA has not redirected funding from
Science and Aeronautics activities to support exploration
activities.
Question. How important is meeting the milestones set out in the
President's speech--2008 for a demonstration flight of the Crew
Exploration Vehicle, 2008 for the first Vision-related robotic lunar
probe, and 2015-2020 for a human return to the Moon? Is there
flexibility in the dates so that other NASA activities do not
necessarily have to be sacrificed in order to meet them? If there is
flexibility in meeting those dates, is there also flexibility in the
2010 date for retiring the shuttle?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2006 budget request, as
amended, provides resources to enable NASA to implement the milestones
established in the Vision for Space Exploration. These key milestones
include the Shuttle Return-to-Flight, 2008 Lunar Robotic Orbiter, and
accelerated development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) and Crew
Launch Vehicle (CLV), to return Americans to the Moon before 2020. NASA
is not prepared to be flexible with respect to the major milestones
established for the agency by the President.
It is important to note that NASA has not redirected funding from
Science and Aeronautics activities to support exploration activities,
either in the fiscal year 2006 budget request as submitted in February
2005, or in the President's fiscal year 2006 budget amendment,
submitted to Congress on July 15, 2005. NASA has no plans to reduce
funding for other NASA activities to support exploration goals.
In accordance with the President's direction, NASA intends to fly
out the Shuttle program in an orderly, safe, and disciplined fashion,
with retirement not later than 2010.
Question. Please clarify what your plans are for personnel cutbacks
over the next year and a half. How many full time equivalents (FTEs)
does NASA employ today, and how many will have to leave the agency,
voluntarily or involuntarily, by the beginning of fiscal year 2007?
What is the breakdown of those personnel cuts by center and by
discipline?
Answer. NASA's fiscal year 2005 actual FTE (Full Time Equivalents)
including the NASA Inspector General's office, was 18,807. As of early
October 2005, the current rate is 18,630.
NASA is implementing the Vision for Space Exploration. In doing so,
we are implementing an orderly retirement of the Space Shuttle by 2010,
defining the architecture for space exploration, and accelerating the
development of the new exploration vehicles and associated launch and
support systems. We are continuing to work on the International Space
Station, fulfilling our commitments to our partner countries. We are
establishing an aeronautics program focused on technological advanced
in cutting-edge areas of research and development. In addition, we are
retaining a robust science portfolio.
These activities require a balanced workforce skill mix and
productive NASA Centers to complete the work over several years. We are
in the process of developing plans to reshape our workforce and capital
asset portfolio to ensure that we can meet our goals. In the short
term, however, we have an imbalance of skills at the Centers because we
have not yet fully matched up the new and revised work with the
existing workforce.
We have already taken several actions to reduce the uncovered
capacity at the Centers, including two early retirement/buyout programs
which resulted in approximately 650 employees retiring or resigning
from the Agency. In addition, job fairs were held at NASA Centers,
which resulted in 119 jobs offers and 95 placements. While these
actions have helped reduce the extent of the problem, a significant
imbalance still exists. As of early October 2005, the following
uncovered capacity existed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uncovered
Center Capacity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARC........................................................ 246
GRC........................................................ 268
LaRC....................................................... 181
MSFC....................................................... 226
------------
Total................................................ 921
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2005, the senior leadership at NASA initiated an
aggressive plan to reduce the uncovered capacity for fiscal year 2006
and fiscal year 2007, with the ultimate goal of avoiding or minimizing
the need for a Reduction in Force (RIF) in fiscal year 2007. Targets
numbers were established for each NASA Center to either identify
program work within their Center for their own uncovered personnel or
identify work packages from existing or newly-assigned programs that
other Centers can perform. The goal is to assign work equitably to
maintain a reasonable balance among 10 healthy NASA Centers. A team of
representatives from all NASA Centers and Mission Directorates are
working together to identify the competencies available at the Centers
and the work packages available for placement. Work packages will be
transferred as soon as possible, with a goal of completing the action
no later than June 2006. At that time, an assessment will be performed
to determine the remaining uncovered capacity and the likelihood of
NASA needing those competencies in the near future. For those
competencies that will not be needed, RIF proceedings will be
initiated, with a targeted implementation date in fiscal year 2007.
By identifying required skills and working collaboratively to match
those skills with funded work, NASA intends to retain the expertise
we'll need to achieve the Vision for Space Exploration.
Question. What is NASA's total estimated cost to develop and
implement IFMP?
Answer. Development and implementation of IFMP (now Integrated
Enterprise Management Program) will be completed in fiscal year 2008.
Investment through that time will be $662.6 million.
AERONAUTICS
Question. NASA's requested budget for aeronautics in fiscal year
2006 is $852 million, a reduction from $906 million this year. Further
reductions are projected for fiscal year 2007. According to the
program, this will mean the elimination of about 1,100 jobs at NASA
centers. Since coming on board as NASA Administrator, have you
reexamined these proposals? Do you anticipate modifying them at all?
How does NASA reconcile the National Institute of Aerospace's call
for increased funding with NASA's funding stream which can only be
interpreted as de-emphasizing aeronautics research and development? To
what extent is NASA using the NIA report in its planning for future
aeronautics research investment?
Answer. NASA is using the NIA report, along with the
Congressionally directed Joint Program and Development Office report on
the Next Generation Air Transportation System, the report of the
Congressionally-chartered Commission on the Future of the U.S.
Aerospace Industry, past reviews by the National Research Council, and
the newly formed Decadal Survey of Civil Aeronautics, to contribute to
identification of potential opportunities for additional research and
establishment of priorities for aeronautics programs and projects. NASA
agrees with the national needs and critical aviation technology sectors
called out in the NIA report. We are beginning to address the
technological needs listed in the NIA report by initiating a national
dialogue within the Executive Branch and the Congress about the future
of aeronautics research and the role of the Federal government in this
research arena. In addition, H.R. 2862, the fiscal year 2006 Science,
State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies appropriations bill
calls upon the President to develop a comprehensive, national
aeronautics policy similar to the one we now have for space
exploration. In a Statement of Administration Policy regarding H.R.
2862, the Administration endorsed the Committee's call for the
development of a national aeronautics policy. While the NIA report
makes several significant and useful recommendations, the doubling of
the aeronautics budget will not be possible to achieve within projected
funding levels for NASA. Rather, NASA must ensure that our current
investments in aeronautics research and technology are prioritized and
effective.
The Agency is addressing its workforce and institutional issues
with two teams. The NASA Workforce Transition Review team is focusing
on identification of additional work the Agency needs done in the near
future that both contributes to the Agency's mission agenda and which
could be directly assigned to NASA Centers. The Systems Engineering and
Institutional Transitions Team (SEITT) is conducting a long-term study
focused on the institutional requirements needed to ensure the Agency's
goals are met with minimum cost, maximum reliability, and measurable
high performance. NASA is attempting to identify additional activities
from other Agency programs, such as Exploration Systems, to assign to
Agency Research Centers, but it remains unclear whether this will
totally resolve projected ``uncovered capacity'' within the Agency
workforce by the end of fiscal year 2006.
As NASA Administrator, I am working to the best of my abilities to
resolve these workforce issues, and I will continue to work with the
Congress to resolve them.
SCIENCE
Question. Funding constraints are forcing difficult choices in
NASA's Science programs. What process or processes, and criteria, do
you use to prioritize among your space and earth science programs that
are in planning or development? For example, the National Research
Council prepares decadal strategies that prioritize within particular
disciplines (planetary exploration, astrophysics, etc.), but what
mechanism and criteria does NASA use to prioritize across disciplines?
Similarly, how do you determine which existing probes--such as
Voyager--should be turned off because they are past their design
lifetimes, even though they continue to return useful data? What is the
status of your decision-making on whether or not to turn off Voyager?
Answer. NASA works to maintain a balanced portfolio of investment
over time among the several disciplines in the Earth and Space
Sciences. We start from the baseline of existing programs and most
recent strategic plans, and update them based on recent progress,
Presidential initiatives, and science community advice. As you point
out, the NRC decadal surveys are very useful in prioritizing within
major disciplines. In any given period, choices among programs in
different disciplines can be driven by recent scientific discovery,
technology readiness, or partnership opportunities that can leverage
NASA's investment. A chief factor is ``science value''--the anticipated
scientific return per dollar investment--though that is not always
readily estimable. Over the longer term, portfolio balance is
maintained as we listen to our stakeholders in the science community
and the Executive and Legislative branches of government.
Regarding extension or termination of existing probes and
satellites that have fulfilled their prime missions, NASA also relies
heavily on science value as determined by independent scientific peer
review. Those nearing or beyond their prime mission (the period of
operation proposed when selected) are subjected to a Senior Review
Process. In this process, mission science teams are required to submit
a proposal describing what science they propose to accomplish via
continued operation, and at what cost. An independent panel of external
scientists reviews, evaluates, and scores the proposals on their
merits. NASA uses this ranking in deciding which missions to operate
and for how long, given the funds available.
There are currently 12 operating missions funded within the Earth-
Sun System division of NASA's Science Mission Directorate that have
fulfilled their primary mission and are in the extended mission phase,
including Voyager 1 and 2. Additional funding is identified in the
President's fiscal year 2006 budget amendment to maintain continued
operation of the fleet of spacecraft conducting space and solar physics
missions pending decisions on scientific priorities to be made once
NASA receives input from both the Sun-Earth Connection and Earth System
Science Senior Review Panels. These Panels, composed of external and
independent senior researchers with relevant knowledge and experience,
meet periodically to review proposals for innovative research,
accomplished with existing space assets. NASA will permit the Sun-Earth
Connection missions to operate while the Senior Review process provides
for a new assessment of the future scientific value of these operating
missions. At the conclusion of the Panels' deliberations, NASA will use
their assessment and findings to develop Agency decisions regarding the
continued operation of these missions.
Question. The National Research Council recently issued an interim
report on NASA's Earth Science program, saying that it is ``at risk,''
citing reduced funding levels for Earth Science projects following the
announcement of the Vision for Space Exploration. What is your reaction
to that report?
Answer. While funding for Earth science declined in the fiscal year
2005 budget request, the Earth science budget was largely protected
from further reduction in the fiscal year 2006 request. The President's
fiscal year 2006 budget amendment reallocates funding within the
Science Mission Directorate to focus resources on near-term
requirements while deferring investments in longer-term activities.
Specifically, the Earth-Sun Theme is increased by $88.3 million to
fully fund a standalone Glory mission, provide additional funding for
extending the missions of currently operating satellites, and maintain
the launch schedule for the Solar Dynamics Observatory. To the extent
possible, we will address some concerns raised in their interim report
in the fiscal year 2007 budget process. We look forward to receiving
the NRC's decadal survey report for Earth science (expected around the
end of next year), which will help guide NASA's future investments in
Earth science and observation.
Question. The fiscal year 2006 budget request and its projections
through 2010 assume a cut of about $1 billion to programs within the
new Science Mission Directorate compared with the fiscal year 2005
budget projections. How much of that $1 billion cut was taken from
programs previously under the former Office of Space Science versus
those in the former Office of Earth Science?
Answer. Given past budget reductions to former Office of Earth
Science programs, the Science Mission Directorate protected these
programs from further reductions in the fiscal year 2006 budget
request. As a result, the vast majority of reductions contained within
the fiscal year 2006 budget request for the Science Mission Directorate
came from planned growth in programs previously part of the Office of
Space Science. Of the reductions in the Earth-Sun System Theme, only
the Earth System Science Pathfinder (ESSP) program and Glory reductions
affected programs from the former Earth Science Enterprise. It is
important to note that the reduction to ESSP was used to offset a
budget increase for the Hydros mission. The fiscal year 2006 budget
request has since been amended to increase funding for the Earth-Sun
System Theme by $88.3 million to fully fund a standalone Glory mission,
provide additional funding for extending the missions of currently
operating satellites, and maintain the launch schedule for the Solar
Dynamics Observatory. All reductions in the fiscal year 2006 budget
amendment in the Solar System Exploration and Universe division budgets
were taken from former Office of Space Science programs.
Question. What is the status of planning to send a probe to further
study Jupiter's moon Europa? NASA proposed a Europa mission in fiscal
year 2002, but replaced it a year later with the Jupiter Icy Moons
Orbiter (JIMO). Now JIMO has been indefinitely deferred. Does the
planetary science community still have a Europa mission at the top of
its list for the next large-class planetary mission? If so, when do you
expect to launch such a probe?
Answer. The 2003 National Research Council decadal survey report
entitled, ``New Frontiers in Solar System Exploration: An Integrated
Exploration Strategy,'' identified a Europa mission as the top priority
flagship-class mission (those missions costing $650 million or more).
NASA recognizes the priority the scientific community places on the
science returned from the Europa mission. Therefore, we are continuing
to examine the technological challenges and our mission options for
such a probe.
Question. You have stated that once the shuttle returns safely to
flight, you will reexamine the option of a shuttle mission to service
the Hubble space telescope. What has changed since your predecessor's
decision that safety considerations preclude using the shuttle to
service Hubble?
Answer. Based on analysis of the relative risks immediately
following the loss of Columbia, NASA decided not to proceed with a
Shuttle servicing mission. NASA's decision not to service the Hubble
was a very difficult one, given the Hubble's record of spectacular
successes. That decision was made at a time when significant
uncertainty remained, regarding the technical solutions and risks
associated with return to flight. After the two successful Space
shuttle flights needed to achieve our return to flight objectives, NASA
will have learned a great deal more regarding the risks and operations
of the vehicle than was known when the previous decision was made. The
Administrator has committed to reassess the earlier decision, after
return to flight, based on the relative risks to the Space Shuttle as
well as our efforts to preserve the option for a Shuttle servicing
mission for Hubble in advance of that decision. He has further
indicated that he will make a decision regarding a Shuttle servicing
mission for Hubble following the second successful Return to Flight
mission. In the interim, the Agency has funded the option for a Hubble
servicing mission in the fiscal year 2005 Operating Plan at $291
million. In addition, $30 million has been included in the President's
fiscal year 2006 budget amendment to continue to preserve the option
for a Hubble servicing mission, pending the second return to flight
mission of the Space Shuttle. NASA will keep the Committee informed of
our efforts and conclusions in this regard.
Question. Is the option of servicing Hubble robotically now
completely off the table? What is the last date at which a decision
could be made to service Hubble robotically? What have we learned from
the work that was done on this option?
Answer. Based on analysis of the relative risks immediately
following the loss of Columbia, NASA decided not to proceed with a
Shuttle servicing mission (the previously planned Servicing Mission 4,
or SM-4). That decision was made at a time when significant uncertainty
remained regarding the technical solutions and risks with Return to
Flight. In response to Congressional direction, NASA tasked the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to examine all reasonable options
for extending the lifetime of the HST. The NAS concluded that it was
``highly unlikely that NASA will be able to extend the science life of
[Hubble] through robotic servicing,'' and recommended that ``[a]
robotic mission approach should be pursued only to de-orbit Hubble.''
Consistent with the conclusions of the NAS study, NASA discontinued the
robotic servicing effort this past spring.
In the future, however, robotic concepts for an eventual de-orbit
mission for HST may be considered, and, in the meantime, much of the
work done for the robotic servicing concept is being used in developing
new capabilities needed for the Exploration Vision as well as other
advanced robotics concepts. The Agency believes that an aggressive use
of robotics in the Exploration Vision is required to execute many of
the elements of that program.
Question. If NASA proceeds with a Hubble servicing mission, and it
is successful, how much longer will Hubble operate? What will be the
annual operating costs for extending Hubble's lifetime? What impact
will these additional costs have on other NASA astronomy programs? At
the end of Hubble's extended lifetime, should we anticipate calls for
yet another extension?
Answer. The expected (design) life of the equipment planned for the
potential SM-4 is 5 years. That said the design of the HST and its
hardware is robust and redundant. The Agency has not done an extensive
analysis of the potential lifetime of the HST after servicing, but the
prime mechanism for the end of science is loss of the fine pointing
gyroscopes. With new batteries, gyros, and science instruments
installed on SM-4, and the improved operational concepts developed as
part of the ongoing life extension program, it is reasonable to expect
that the system as a whole will be producing quality science for up to
7 years after servicing.
The cost of operations of the HST after servicing depends on
several variables, including the amount of overlap with other programs
using the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) and the outcome of
negotiations with the contracted management organization. It is
expected that it will cost less to operate the HST in the future if
there are no subsequent servicing missions.
Existing operational missions should not be impacted by additional
years of operations of the HST. At present, we have budgeted sufficient
funds to operate the telescope until the end of our present budget
cycle. The greatest impact to Space Science has been and continues to
be the additional costs driven by the delay in SM-4 due to the Shuttle
accident and NASA's goal to demonstrate two successful Shuttle Return
to Flight missions before proceeding with a Hubble servicing mission.
After SM-4, any future required servicing, if desired, to further
extend the life of HST, would be after the retirement of the Shuttle
fleet.
EXPLORATION
Question. The fiscal year 2006 budget request indicates that NASA
plans to spend through fiscal year 2010 over $10 billion on the Earth
Orbit Capability (Spiral 1) program to develop, demonstrate and deploy
the capability to safely transport a crew to and from earth orbit, by
2014, in preparation for future missions to the moon. The five-year
forecast in your fiscal year 2006 request shows steep increases in
anticipated funding needs for the Spiral 1 program in fiscal years 2009
and 2010. What is a reasonable timeframe in which we could expect you
to share the total cost of the Spiral 1 program and future Spirals with
the Congress?
Answer. Exploration Systems is no longer using the term ``Spiral''
to categorize its development process. The initial capability developed
by the Constellation Program will be transportation of crew and
supplies to the International Space Station in low-Earth orbit.
As part of its Exploration Systems Architecture Study, the Agency
has completed preliminary cost estimates for the new Exploration
architecture. NASA has briefed Committee staff on these estimates and
the methodology followed to arrive at them.
Question. You said last year that the issue wasn't whether there
was enough money allocated to the Vision, but ``why we are expecting so
little for the money which has been allocated?'' How, specifically,
will you get more ``bang for the buck'' as you execute the Vision?
Answer. In order to provide the maximum return for the taxpayer's
investment, NASA must make priority decisions within the exploration
program by focusing on those activities that are best able to produce
significant results, and by ensuring that individual programs
complement each other.
In September, NASA promulgated an integrated exploration
architecture derived from the Vision for Space Exploration that
specifies the capabilities necessary for future exploration activities.
Based on that architecture, clear priorities have been established to
focus NASA efforts on those development activities designed to provide
the greatest return to the taxpayer. Teams have been established to
assess how to best utilize our resources and workforce to ensure that
we get the most ``bang for the buck.'' Funds have already been
redirected from projects that do not need immediate funding (such as
Project Prometheus) towards those that do (e.g., the CEV). Additional
cost savings and efficiencies will be realized through a careful,
focused transition between Shuttle infrastructure and new exploration
capabilities. These new capabilities will create new opportunities for
exploration, discovery and understanding.
Question. NASA has announced that it will accelerate its plans for
the Crew Exploration Vehicle. Given this maiden flight was not to have
occurred until 2014, where do you anticipate the associated funding
will come from and which NASA programs will be impacted as the result
of advancing the development of the CEV? What steps would you take to
ensure that accelerating the program would not lead to excessive cost
growth and/or technical risk?
Answer. The capability to accelerate the development of the CEV
will be driven by development schedules, test schedules, safety
considerations, and funding. These were areas of interest for the
Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS).
To stay within planned budget guidance for Exploration Systems
while accelerating CEV and these launch systems, it is necessary to
redirect existing funding for longer-term and lower-priority research
and technology (R&T) elements within the Exploration Systems Mission
Directorate (ESMD), while focusing on those R&T activities that support
the acceleration of the CEV, launch systems, and high-priority, long-
lead items.
In the fiscal year 2006 budget amendment, $292 million was
identified as moving from R&T activities into Constellation for CEV and
CLV acceleration.
Constellation Systems.--NASA plans to accelerate the timeline for
flight of the next human flight system by two years, from 2014 to a
goal of not later than 2012. The first flights will be to the
International Space Station (ISS), but the primary goal of the CEV is
to support exploration efforts, including enabling humans to return to
the Moon for week-long stays as early as 2018, but no later than 2020.
Longer-duration human presence on the Moon is targeted for 2022. The
changes in the R&T programs will provide funds required to accelerate
the design, development, and fabrication of the elements and systems
needed to support a return to the Moon on the above timeline.
Human System Research and Technology.--NASA is focusing HSRT
funding on program elements that mature technologies needed to support
ISS access and lunar sortie missions, while reducing program elements
targeting longer-term or lower priority needs. As NASA concentrates the
use of the Shuttle on ISS assembly, ISS utilization will be deferred.
Exploration Systems Research and Technology.--NASA is realigning
projects to support the ESAS recommended architecture requirements.
This realignment has resulted in a focused and phased, requirements
driven, R&T program in which some projects are curtailed, some are
adjusted, and some are added. Ongoing projects are streamlined to
deliver Technology Readiness Level 6 capabilities when needed (system
preliminary design review) so as to enable the CEV, launch systems, and
lunar lander development schedules. Examples of technology projects
focused on the near-term include ablative thermal protection and
oxygen-methane propulsion for CEV. Additional work is phased in after
the first few years for lunar lander propulsion systems and non-toxic
power and reaction control for launch vehicles. Finally, funding for
technologies, such as in situ resource utilization (ISRU) and those
applicable to lunar surface systems, are phased in only during the out
years. Discontinued, descoped or delayed technology projects include
nanomaterials, inflatable structures, large-scale solar power,
intelligent robotic systems, Mars mission specific technologies, and
electric propulsion. Transitional action is being taken in fiscal year
2005 to discontinue plans for 80 tasks and activities, previously
planned at $206 million in fiscal year 2006, which do not directly
support ESAS architecture or schedule requirements. These actions will
yield $174 million in fiscal year 2006 that will be applied towards
accelerated development of CEV and CLV.
Prometheus Research and Technology.--Program elements have been
deferred as a result of the ESAS architecture study. Surface nuclear
power systems to support potential long-duration stays on the Moon will
not be required until after 2018. Nuclear propulsion will not be
required until planning for Mars missions begins in earnest. The result
will be a total reformulation in the nuclear program, yielding $76
million in fiscal year 2006 to accelerate development of CEV and CLV.
NASA's funding of the DOE's Naval Reactors program, the JIMO mission,
and several technology research programs related to electric propulsion
will be curtailed.
Further, in order to reduce cost and technical risks, ESMD and
Constellation Systems are currently investigating innovative approaches
to software development, early incorporation of operational expertise
into the program, a lean program and theme office, and a robust
oversight role for the theme and program.
Question. Generally speaking, do you anticipate that the decision
to merge the EELV programs will save money for the government, and
specifically for NASA? If so, how will it save money, and how much?
Answer. The Department of Defense is in the best position to
evaluate impacts to EELV due to changes in the program structure.
Nonetheless, NASA is an important customer for EELV and we are very
interested in potential efficiencies that could reduce our costs over
the long run.
We have been following the initiative to consolidate elements of
the individual EELV programs into common, integrated activities under
the proposed ``United Launch Alliance (ULA).'' We understand that this
initiative could drive economies of scale and allow us to reduce the
individual ``standing armies'' that contribute to fixed costs for each
of the EELV programs. This approach holds some potential for
significant cost savings and we look forward to benefiting from them if
and when they occur. However, we have not evaluated the ULA proposals
in enough detail to quantify any potential cost savings.
Question. Considering the large amount of information that we have
from the Apollo program, and the number of lunar probes being launched
by other countries, why does NASA plan to launch lunar probes of its
own prior to a human return to the Moon? Please explain what these
probes will be doing that is crucial to accomplishing the President's
goal. What is the status of planning for these lunar probes?
Answer. NASA intends to launch lunar probes--including orbiters and
lenders--in order to prepare for extended human presence on the Moon.
As a synergistic benefit, NASA also expects to contribute to the
advancement of scientific knowledge of the Moon, which in turn will
advance our understanding of our own planet's evolution.
As noted in the question, other countries are also launching probes
to the Moon. NASA expects to take full advantage of the knowledge
gained from those probes. However, there are more questions NASA must
answer to meet the lofty goals of the Vision for Space Exploration.
NASA probes will focus on filling gaps in knowledge needed to ensure
the safety of future human missions to the Moon. They will address
specific questions related to human exploration of the Moon, and
demonstrate key technologies required for future human missions. The
programs are designed to avoid unnecessary redundancy and take full
advantage of the results from other probes.
For example, NASA is planning a Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO)
launch in 2008, which will provide a much higher fidelity map of a
larger portion of the lunar surface, especially the poles, than is
offered by any other probe. Such a map is critical for selecting future
sites for human landing. LRO instruments will also provide information
to help NASA protect our astronauts from the Moon's radiation
environment and to identify likely sources of water.
Shortly after the LRO mission, NASA plans to send a lander to the
Moon. This lander will help demonstrate precision navigation techniques
that will be important for positioning humans on the exact lunar
landing site of choice. It will conduct a more detailed survey of a
potential human landing site and confirm the existence and composition
of resources that can support an extended human presence. Eventually,
lenders may demonstrate capabilities needed for extended human
presence, such as the ability to convert lunar water into hydrogen and
oxygen for life support and propulsion.
In summary, NASA's lunar probes are intended to meet the needs of
the Vision for Space Exploration. Other probes complement planned NASA
lunar probes. We design our probes to provide additional knowledge
critical to ensuring future successful human missions to the lunar
surface.
SPACE OPERATIONS: THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION (ISS) AND THE SPACE
SHUTTLE
Question. What is your current cost estimate for returning the
space shuttle to flight status--for fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year
2006, specifically, and the total cost (fiscal year 2003-2009)?
Answer. NASA's estimate for Space Shuttle Return to Flight (RTF)
costs from fiscal year 2003 through the end of fiscal year 2006 is just
over $1.4 billion. Overall, Return to Flight costs are stabilizing as
technical solutions have reached maturity and implementation of
solutions nears completion. The estimates provided in the latest
Implementation Plan for Space Shuttle Return to Flight and Beyond,
dated June 3, 2005 (attached), remain valid and have not substantially
changed since November 2004. Management tools are in use to monitor
progress and provide early warning of potential problems. However, the
potential exists for additional content that may be required in the
post-Return to Flight time frame depending on the ongoing work
addressing issues seen during STS-114 and the results of the Shuttle's
performance on the second Return to Flight mission, STS-121.
Current estimates for RTF costs are: Fiscal year 2003--$42 million;
fiscal year 2004--$496 million; fiscal year 2005--$602 million; and
fiscal year 2006--$288 million.
If there are any increases in Return to Flight costs, NASA is
committed to accommodating them within its total budget request.
Actual costs to date are tracking very closely with the November
2004 estimate provided to Congress. The total estimated cost for
returning the Shuttle to flight status through fiscal year 2009 is
approximately $1.98 billion. The outwear costs are associated with
added manpower for Systems Engineering. NASA's plan and our budget
reflect the end of RTF after the second RTF mission and subsequent
post-flight assessment actions. These milestones will take the Agency
through most of fiscal year 2006. RTF, from a budget perspective, will
end in fiscal year 2006, and will no longer be tracked as a separate
effort, beginning in fiscal year 2007.
Implementation Plan for Space Shuttle Return to Flight and Beyond
RETURN TO FLIGHT COST SUMMARY
Proposed Program solutions for all return to flight (RTF) actions
are reviewed by the Space Shuttle Program Requirements Control Board
(PRCB) before receiving final NASA implementation approval. The PRCB
has responsibility to direct studies of identified problems, formulate
alternative solutions, select the best solution, and develop overall
cost estimates. The membership of the PRCB includes the Space Shuttle
Program Manager, Deputy Manager, all Project and Element Managers,
Safety and Mission Assurance personnel, and Management Integration and
Planning Office. This process applies to solutions to the Columbia
Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) recommendations as well as to the
Space Shuttle Program (SSP) corrective actions.
In the process of down-selecting to two or three ``best options,''
the projects and elements approve funding to conduct tests, perform
analysis, develop prototype hardware and flight techniques, and/or
obtain contractor technical expertise that is outside the scope of
existing contracts.
The Space Flight Leadership Council (SFLC) is regularly briefed on
the overall activities and progress associated with RTF and becomes
directly involved when the SSP is ready to recommend a comprehensive
solution to a CAIB recommendation or an SSP corrective action. The SFLC
receives a technical discussion of the solution as well as an
assessment of cost and schedule. With the concurrence of the SFLC, the
SSP then receives the authority to proceed. The membership of the SFLC
includes the Associate Administrator for the Office of Space
Operations, Associate Deputy Administrator for Technical Programs,
Deputy Associate Administrator for ISS [International Space Station]
and SSP, Associate Administrator for Safety and Mission Assurance,
Space Shuttle Program Manager, and the Office of Space Operations
Center Directors (at Johnson Space Center, Kennedy Space Center,
Marshall Space Flight Center, and Stennis Space Center).
All recommended solutions are further reviewed, for both technical
merit and to determine whether the solution responds to the action, by
the Return to Flight Task Group (also known as the Stafford-Covey Task
Group).
Processes established by NASA to estimate and capture all costs
related to RTF have steadily improved the accuracy of Agency budget
forecasts. As the technical plan for RTF has matured, so the cost
estimates have matured. NASA incurred costs in fiscal year 2003, valued
at $42 million, to initiate RTF actions based on preliminary CAIB
recommendations. Since November 2003, additional corrective actions
have been initiated, in accordance with the process described above and
based on the final CAIB Report recommendations and internal SSP
actions.
During fiscal year 2004, RTF activities moved rapidly from planning
to execution, with several key option ``downselect'' decisions being
made by the end of the year. The July 2004 RTF cost estimate is
considered the first credible Agency projection because it was based on
a more mature technical plan. NASA estimated that RTF activities in
fiscal year 2004 would cost about $465 million. By the end of the year,
the actual costs totaled $496 million. The costs incurred included work
carried over from fiscal year 2003 as well as late-year changes in
fiscal year 2004 technical content.
The value of RTF activities for fiscal year 2005 is estimated at
$602 million, of which $413 million have been approved through the
PRCB. Of the remaining $189 million, $73 million represent the
estimated value of work review by the control board, but with
additional technical effort required before a directive is released,
and $116 million is the value of activities that are still in technical
definition. As NASA gains actual flight experience, the estimates for
fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 will be adjusted and the changes
will be reported to Congress as soon as they are fully assessed.
Fiscal year 2006 is planned to be a transition year for the Shuttle
Program. RTF technical content that must be sustained for the Program's
remaining service life, along with the workforce required to continue
safe flight, will be absorbed into the Program's baseline. Therefore,
at the end of fiscal year 2006, RTF costs will no longer be budgeted or
reported separately.
Excluded from the cost estimates provided below are other RTF-
related funding requirements resulting from a complete evaluation of
Columbia accident impacts across the Program, such as replacement of
hardware (e.g., cargo integration, Orbiter pressure tanks). Several
solutions to improve NASA's culture and some of the Program's actions
detailed in ``Raising the Bar--Other Corrective Actions'' are
integrated into existing processes and do not always require additional
funding.
TABLE 1.--RETURN TO FLIGHT BUDGET ESTIMATES/IMPLEMENTATION PLAN MAP FOR NEW ESTIMATES INCLUDING THREATS \1\
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year-- Recommendation Numbers Map to Implementation Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAIB #
2003 2004 2005 2006 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SSP
3.2-1 3.3-1 3.3-2 3.3-3 3.3-4 3.3-5 3.4-1 3.4-2 3.4-3 3.8-1 4.2-1 4.2-2 4.2-3 6.2-1 6.4-1 7.5-1 7.5-2 7.5-3 9.1-1 9.2-1 Recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
( \2\ Total Initiated SSP RTF Activities 42 496 602 288 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..............
RE/RP Orbiter RCC Inspections and ...... 39 41 5 ..... X X ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... X ..... ..... ..... ..... X ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..............
Orbiter RCC-2 Shipsets Spares
RE/RP On-orbit TPS Inspection and 20 71 167 49 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... X ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... X ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... X
EVA Tile Repair
Orbiter Workforce ...... ...... 38 46 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... X ..... ..... ..... X ..... ..... X
RE/RP Orbiter TPS Hardening ...... 29 1 ...... ..... ..... X ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..............
Orbiter/GFE ...... 8 4 ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..............
RE Orbiter Contingency ...... 8 4 ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..............
RE/RP Orbiter Certification/ ...... 47 9 ...... ..... X ..... X X ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... X ..... X ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... X X
Verification
RE/RP External Tank Items (Camera, 10 93 88 14 X ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... X ..... ..... ..... X ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..............
Bipod Ramp, etc.)
RE/RP SRB Items (Bolt Catcher, ETA 1 14 4 ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... X ..... ..... ..... X ..... X ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... X
Ring Invest., Camera)
RE/RP Ground Camera Ascent Imagery 8 40 13 11 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... X ..... ..... ..... ..... X X ..... X ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..............
Upgrade
KSC Ground Operations ...... 15 38 42 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... X ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... X X ..... X ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... X
Workforce
RE/RP/AC Other (System Intgr. JBOSC 4 132 178 121 ..... X X X X ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... X X X X ..... X
Sys. Full Cost, Additional
FTEs, etc.)
RE/RP Stafford-Covey Team ( \3\ \4\ 1 \5\ 4 ( \6\ ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... X
) )
=============================================================================================================================================================================================
Other RTF Related: NASA ...... 45 77 79 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... X X X ..... ..............
Engineering and Safety Center
(NESC) \7\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE = Reestimated Item; RP = Rephased; AC = Added Content.
\1\ These estimates could change due to improved estimates, additional tasks, and added scope as we better understand the implementation of RTF recommendations.
\2\ This update includes added scope of work and improved estimates. RTF costs are stabilizing as technical solutions reach maturity. The Congress will be kept informed as we refine these requirements and associated cost
estimates.
\3\ NASA assumed an estimate of $94 million in budget authority for fiscal year 2003 of which $52 million of fiscal year 2003 planned work and associated cost were carried into fiscal year 2004.
\4\ The fiscal year 2004 RTF cost estimate of $496 million includes $423 million of activities that have been approved for implementation. The remaining $73 million of RTF activities are pending approval. As soon as these
additional activities are definitized, they will be shared with Congress.
\5\ The fiscal year 2005 RTF cost estimate of $602 million includes $413 million of activities that have been approved for implementation. Of the remaining $189 million potential, $73 million is in work and $116 million of
activities are in technical definition. As soon as these additional activities are definitized, they will be shared with Congress.
\6\ The fiscal year 2006 RTF cost estimate of $288 million includes $188 million of activities that have been approved for implementation. Of the remaining $100 million potential activities, $26 million is in work and $74
million of activities are in technical definition. As soon as these additional activities are definitized, they will be shared with Congress.
\7\ The NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) is funded through NASA's Corporate G&A. The NESC at NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, VA, provides comprehensive examination of all NASA programs and projects. The
Center thus provides a central location to coordinate and conduct robust engineering and safety assessment across the entire Agency.
Chart 1.--February 2005 RTC/CAIB Estimates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------------------
2003 2004 2005 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimates Published in July 42 465 643 331
2004.......................
===========================================
Value of Control Board 42 423 413 188
Directives Issues..........
Estimates for Control Board ......... 73 73 26
Actions Work...............
Estimates for Activities ......... ......... 116 74
Still in Technical
Definition.................
-------------------------------------------
Total Board Actions/ 42 496 602 288
Pending Board Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 2.--FEBRUARY 2005 RTF STATUS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------------------
2003 2004 2005 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RTF Activities--Control 42 423 413 188
Board Directive............
RTF Activities--Been to ......... 73 73 26
Control Board/Awaiting.....
RTF Activities--In Review ......... ......... 116 74
Process....................
-------------------------------------------
TOTAL RTF............. 42 496 602 288
===========================================
RTF Activities--Control
Board Directive:
Orbiter RCC Inspections ......... 39 22 .........
& Orbiter RCC-2
Shipsets Spares........
On-Orbit TPS Inspection 20 71 151 20
& EVA Tile Repair......
Orbiter Workforce....... ......... ......... 33 41
Orbiter Hardening....... ......... 29 1 .........
Orbiter/GFE............. ......... 7 4 .........
Orbiter Contingency..... ......... 8 12 .........
Orbiter Certification/ ......... 47 ......... .........
Verification...........
External Tank Items 10 42 25 2
(Camera, Bipod Ramp,
etc.)..................
SRB Items (Bolt Catcher, 1 14 4 .........
Camera)................
Ground Camera Ascent 8 40 13 11
Imagery Upgrade........
KSC Ground Operations ......... 15 38 42
Workforce..............
Other (System Intgr., 4 110 107 71
JBOSC Sys., SSME Tech.
Assess, Ground Ops
Workforce).............
Stafford-Covey Team..... ......... 1 4 .........
-------------------------------------------
Total, RTF Activities-- 42 423 413 188
Control Board
Directive............
===========================================
RTF Activities--Been to
Control Board/Awaiting:
Orbiter RCC Inspections ......... ......... ......... .........
& Orbiter RCC-2
Shipsets Spares........
On-Orbit TPS Inspection ......... ......... 6 8
& EVA Tile Repair......
Orbiter Workforce....... ......... ......... 5 5
Orbiter Hardening....... ......... ......... ......... .........
Orbiter/GFE............. ......... ......... ......... .........
Orbiter Contingency..... ......... ......... 5 .........
Orbiter Certification/ ......... ......... ......... .........
Verification...........
External Tank Items ......... 51 50 9
(Camera, Bipod Ramp,
etc.)..................
SRB Items (Bolt Catcher, ......... ......... ......... .........
Camera)................
Ground Camera Ascent ......... ......... ......... .........
Imagery Upgrade........
KSC Ground Operations ......... ......... ......... .........
Workforce..............
Other (System Intgr., ......... 22 7 4
JBOSC Sys., SSME Tech.
Assess, Ground Ops
Workforce).............
-------------------------------------------
Total RTF ......... 73 73 26
Activities--Been to
Control Board/
Awaiting...........
===========================================
RTF Activities--In Review
Process:
Orbiter RCC Inspections ......... ......... 19 5
& Orbiter RCC-2
Shipsets Spares........
On-Orbit TPS Inspection ......... ......... 10 21
& EVA Tile Repair......
Orbiter Workforce....... ......... ......... ......... .........
Orbiter Hardening....... ......... ......... ......... .........
Orbiter/GFE............. ......... ......... ......... .........
Orbiter Contingency..... ......... ......... ......... .........
Orbiter Certification/ ......... ......... 9 .........
Verification...........
External Tank Items ......... ......... 14 3
(Camera, Bipod Ramp,
etc.)..................
SRB Items (Bolt Catcher, ......... ......... ......... .........
Camera)................
Ground Camera Ascent ......... ......... ......... .........
Imagery Upgrade........
KSC Ground Operations ......... ......... ......... .........
Workforce..............
Other (System Intgr., ......... ......... 64 46
JBOSC Sys., SSME Tech.
Assess, Ground Ops
Workforce).............
-------------------------------------------
Total RTF ......... ......... 116 74
Activities--In
Review Process.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. You have said that the United States will (1) terminate
the space shuttle by 2010, and (2) fulfill our commitments to the
partners in the International Space Station (ISS) program. How will
that be accomplished, considering that the partners were relying on the
availability of the shuttle during the operational phase of the ISS
program?
Answer. NASA is currently studying the options, including the
utilization of commercial or partner vehicles and acceleration of the
Crew Exploration Vehicle, to meet our obligations to our International
Partners and to meet our commitment to retire the Shuttle by 2010.
Question. Under what circumstances would you advocate waiver of the
Iran Nonproliferation Act?
Answer. Section 6 of the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 (Public
Law 106-178) (INA) restricts U.S. Government payments, in cash or in
kind, to certain Russian entities for work related to human space
flight, including the International Space Station (ISS). Section 6
adversely impacts U.S. interests by limiting/eliminating U.S. human
access to space and pursuit of the President's Vision for Space
Exploration. Russia has said they will no longer provide critical ISS
crew rescue and logistics services and have publicly stated their
intention to interrupt Soyuz training for 2006 ISS U.S. astronauts
unless they are compensated. The United States is dependent on Russia
for Soyuz crew rescue with no other options until the new NASA Crew
Exploration Vehicle is available. By April 2006, INA restrictions will
prevent the United States from maintaining American crew members on the
ISS expect during Space Shuttle visits.
On July 12, 2005, the Administration proposed to Congress an
amendment to INA to advance U.S. Government interests by enabling
NASA's work and cooperation with the Russian Federal Space Agency to
proceed: (1) operationally on the ISS and meet U.S. commitments to
International Partners; and (2) programmatically in implementing the
Vision for Space Exploration in a manner that maintains the strong
commitment of the U.S. Government to nonproliferation. The
Administration's proposed amendment took into consideration
Congressional concerns voiced to date by proffering an amendment that
retained all nonproliferation elements of INA (Sections 1-5) and made a
minimal change to definition in Section 6 which, in effect, removed the
prohibition on payments to Russian entities related to most ISS and
human space flight activities.
The Senate passed S. 1713, the Iran Nonproliferation Amendments Act
of 2005, by unanimous consent on September 19, 2005. As passed, the
measure amends INA to a limited degree, allowing NASA to meet near-term
ISS operational and programmatic needs, but maintaining the
restrictions of the INA for any payments related to human space
exploration, and for ISS-related payments, beyond January 1, 2012.
Question. If NASA is unable to get relief from the Act, how do you
plan to provide crew rotation/rescue services?
Answer. Assured crew return is an important safety protection under
current ISS operational plans. Should the Soyuz vehicle be unavailable
at any time in the future, U.S. crews would only be maintained on the
ISS while the Space Shuttle or a potential future vehicle capable of
serving as a crew rescue vehicle (e.g., the CEV or a commercial crew
transfer vehicle) is docked.
Question. What are the potential costs to NASA if you are given the
authority to purchase crew rotation/rescue services from Russia?
Answer. Actual costs are subject to negotiations with Russia, but
NASA anticipates that the total amount of purchases of crew and cargo
services from Russia would fit within the total funds appropriated by
Congress for fiscal year 2005 and requested for fiscal year 2006 for
the ISS Cargo and Crew Services budget line. [Fiscal year 2005--$98
million; fiscal year 2006--$160 million; fiscal year 2007--$160
million; fiscal year 2008--$160 million; fiscal year 2009--$500
million; and fiscal year 2010--$890 million.] Costs for other services
would fit within the total ISS budget.
Question. What decision has been made about whether to continue
building the centrifuge? How much has Japan spent on it to date? If
NASA decides the centrifuge no longer is needed for ISS, are there
alternative uses for it? Will NASA have to reimburse Japan for its
costs if the program is canceled? What other termination costs would be
associated with a decision to cancel it?
Answer. Pursuant to the NASA-Government of Japan Memorandum of
Understanding for the International Space Station (ISS) and an
Agreement in Principle for JEM Launch Offset, Japan is developing the
U.S. Centrifuge for NASA to partially offset NASA's costs for launching
the Japanese Experiment Module, Kibo, to the ISS.
On September 27, 2005, NASA informed officials from the Japan
Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) and the Japanese Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) that the
United States had withdrawn its requirements for development and launch
of the U.S. Centrifuge Accommodation Module based on a re-
prioritization of research requirements with greater focus on research
having a direct and near-term benefit to the exploration mission.
NASA has not incurred termination costs and we believe we do not
have an obligation to directly reimburse Japan for its costs. Under the
arrangements described above, however, NASA is committed to launch the
Japanese Experiment Module to the International Space Station in
exchange for Japan's provision of the Centrifuge, associated hardware
and H-IIA launch services.
Discussions are currently underway between NASA and Japanese
officials to discuss the implications of this NASA decision including
areas of continuing commitment by both parties.
While the Japanese Government has not provided NASA with the
detailed Japanese budget for development of the U.S. Centrifuge, the
following information is known:
--In April 2004, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA)
informed NASA that they had contracted $425 million to date for
the Centrifuge. JAXA's estimate for total Centrifuge
development costs at that time was $692 million.
Question. When will the Administration submit its plan to Congress
for coping with the issues posed by the Iran Nonproliferation Act in
terms of assuring access to ISS by U.S. astronauts after 2006? What can
you tell us today about the strategy the Administration plans to take?
Answer. Section 6 of the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 (Public
Law 106-178) (INA) restricts U.S. Government payments, in cash or in
kind, to certain Russian entities for work related to human space
flight, including the International Space Station (ISS). Section 6
adversely impacts U.S. interests by limiting/eliminating U.S. human
access to space and pursuit of the President's Vision for Space
Exploration. Russia has said they will no longer provide critical ISS
crew rescue and logistics services and have publicly stated their
intention to interrupt Soyuz training for 2006 ISS U.S. astronauts
unless they are compensated. The United States is dependent on Russia
for Soyuz crew rescue with no other options until the new NASA Crew
Exploration Vehicle is available. By April 2006, INA restrictions will
prevent the United States from maintaining American crew members on the
ISS expect during Space Shuttle visits.
On July 12, 2005, the Administration proposed to Congress an
amendment to INA to advance U.S. Government interests by enabling
NASA's work and cooperation with the Russian Federal Space Agency to
proceed: (1) operationally on the ISS and meet U.S. commitments to
International Partners; and (2) programmatically in implementing the
Vision for Space Exploration in a manner that maintains the strong
commitment of the U.S. Government to nonproliferation. The
Administration's proposed amendment took into consideration
Congressional concerns voiced to date by proffering an amendment that
retained all nonproliferation elements of INA (Sections 1-5) and made a
minimal change to definition in Section 6 which, in effect, removed the
prohibition on payments to Russian entities related to most ISS and
human space flight activities.
The Senate passed S. 1713, the Iran Nonproliferation Amendments Act
of 2005, by unanimous consent on September 19, 2005. As passed, the
measure amends INA to a limited degree, allowing NASA to meet near-term
ISS operational and programmatic needs, but maintaining the
restrictions of the INA for any payments related to human space
exploration, and for ISS-related payments, beyond January 1, 2012.
Question. How many Shuttle flights are needed to complete
construction of the ISS? What is your plan if that number of flights
cannot be accomplished by the end of 2010, when the Shuttle program is
supposed to be terminated?
Answer. The NASA Administrator commissioned an assessment known as
the Shuttle/Station Configuration Options Team (S/SCOT) study to
evaluate options for the assembly and utilization of the ISS, taking
into account the plan to retire the Space Shuttle by 2010 and honor
U.S. commitments to the Space Station International Partners. The
assessment also considered that Space Shuttle flight rate planning must
account for the limitations of the Shuttle that became apparent after
the loss of Columbia, namely that NASA's ability to successfully
conduct 28 Shuttle flights by 2010 was no longer technically feasible.
The results of the study now have been thoroughly reviewed by the
Space Operations Mission Directorate and other NASA offices and the
Administrator has approved a plan for discussion with the ISS
International Partners. The International Partners were informed of
NASA's proposed approach the week of September 26, 2005.
NASA is operating under four key parameters:
--Retiring the Shuttle by the end of fiscal year 2010;
--Developing an achievable and robust Shuttle flight manifest;
--Meeting our International Partner commitments; and
--Completing the Space Station with a sustainable configuration with
acceptable vehicle and crew risk.
Each of these parameters brings with it a number of unique
considerations and constraints, which were assessed using a series of
potential approaches. NASA management together with technical experts
from the ISS and Space Shuttle programs developed a plan to optimize
the capability of each program.
Key Elements of NASA's Proposed Plan for Space Station
NASA's proposed plan, subject to the normal budget and
appropriation process, as well as ongoing return-to-flight
considerations, is to fly the Shuttle in a disciplined, measured
fashion, targeting 19 Shuttle flights. The 19 flights include 18
flights to the ISS beginning with STS-121, plus a possible additional
flight to service the Hubble Space Telescope. The flights to the ISS
would provide the infrastructure for the International Partner modules
first, followed immediately by the Partner laboratories. Maintenance
and logistic flights for sustainability are at the end of the sequence.
The order and flight strategy is as important a consideration as the
specific number of flights.
The plan includes the launch of key NASA-provided infrastructure
elements and other capabilities to enable a potential 6 person crew and
meaningful utilization of the ISS. NASA has determined, however, that
its exploration research objectives no longer require the Centrifuge
Accommodation Module that is being developed for NASA by JAXA under a
barter arrangement.
The approach would also accommodate almost all of the International
Partner elements currently planned for launch to the ISS, with the
notable exceptions of the U.S. Centrifuge and the Russian Solar Power
Module. In both cases, NASA is prepared to immediately engage in
detailed bilateral discussions to establish a mutually beneficial
arrangement to accommodate the proposed change.
The first 13 flights, scheduled to occur over the three years after
the Shuttle returns to flight, would not vary significantly from the
reference assembly sequence endorsed at the Multilateral Coordination
Board and Heads of Agency meetings in Montreal last January.
Question. To what extent does imposing a date certain on ending the
shuttle program create schedule pressure similar to that which existed
prior to the Columbia accident (according to the Columbia Accident
Investigation Board)?
Answer. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board recognized that
schedules were a recognized, even unavoidable tool for managing large
and complex systems such as the Space Shuttle and International Space
Station programs. As such, the Columbia accident wasn't caused by
schedule pressure per se, but rather by a safety system that had lost
much of its independence and had grown too weak to act as an effective
check on safety issues in the face of normal schedule factors.
The Vision for Space Exploration outlines an ambitious series of
goals, including completing assembly of the International Space
Station, retiring of the Space Shuttle Orbiter fleet, and developing
the next-generation of crew and cargo vehicles that will support ISS
utilization and missions to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. These goals are
now supported by a strong, independent, and proactive safety
organization, one that has played a key role in returning the Space
Shuttle to flight as expeditiously and as safely as possible and that
will continue to ensure safe mission execution throughout the rest of
the Space Shuttle's operational lifetime.
Question. What are the current plans for the ISS once it has
reached the end of its useful life? What is the current plan for de-
orbiting, or decommissioning, the ISS?
Answer. There is no current specific plan for de-orbiting or
decommissioning the ISS. The budget plans announced in 2004 indicated
the completion of essential U.S. exploration research in 2016, and an
end of the funding for ISS operations. Some hardware elements of the
ISS reach their service life limitations in 2016. Prior to 2016, a
determination will be made on the costs of extending the Station's
service life and benefits of continuing U.S. ISS operations beyond
2016. Based on that determination, NASA will develop plans to address
the potential future involvement of NASA, the U.S. government,
International Partners, the private sector, and academic institutions
in ISS operations and utilization.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
Question. Dr. Griffin, in the President's new National Space
Transportation Policy, you are directed, in coordination with the
Secretary of Defense, to recommend an option to meet future heavy lift
requirements. This Committee, as well as that chaired by Senator
Stevens, is keenly interested in the costs of the preferred option.
--Have your studies progressed far enough to identify the potential
most cost effective solution?''
--Is the process of ``coordination'' with DOD working to your
satisfaction?
--What are the implications of the recent news about the Air Force's
intention to increase their space presence?
Answer. NASA has conducted a detailed assessment of our launch
vehicle requirements, including heavylift requirements and crew launch
requirements. We believe those studies have identified highly effective
solutions that include cost-effectiveness, schedule, minimization of
programmatic risk, mission reliability, and crew safety. Based on all
of these factors, NASA and the Department of Defense (DOD) have agreed
on a policy for use and development of national launch systems. The
attached letter, signed on August 5, 2005, by the NASA Administrator
and the DOD Executive Agent for Space, outlines that policy.
Specifically, NASA has chosen Shuttle-derived options for its future
crew and very heavy cargo lift requirements because of their proven
safety and superior cost and schedule availability. Specifically, the
Space Shuttle propulsion elements are reliable, human-rated, and best
able to fit the available architecture within the available timeframe.
Throughout the process, we have been actively engaged with the DOD,
including senior management and staff levels. We have been very
encouraged by the constructive dialogue and support at all levels, and
believe the process of coordination is working well.
We look forward to continuing our close working relationship with
the Air Force. While the Air Force and NASA each has unique and
independent roles and responsibilities, it is also true that we benefit
from each others investments, experience, and talents.
Question. Dr. Griffin, in your response to questions from my
colleagues in other sessions, you stated that it costs about $4.5
billion to own the Shuttle, whether it flies or not. Unlike the post-
Challenger return to flight efforts, your current continuing extensive
efforts are not being funded by a supplemental appropriation. You are
trying to execute four major tasks in the human space flight program:
return the Shuttle to flight, fly the Shuttle safely until 2010,
complete the assembly of the International Space Station, and have a
new CEV available in a timeframe consistent with Shuttle retirement.
How much money has been spent on return to flight?
Answer. NASA's estimate for Space Shuttle Return to Flight (RTF)
costs from fiscal year 2003 through the end of fiscal year 2006 is just
over $1.4 billion. Overall, Return to Flight costs are stabilizing as
technical solutions have reached maturity and implementation of
solutions nears completion. The estimates provided in the latest
Implementation Plan for Space Shuttle Return to Flight and Beyond,
dated June 3, 2005 (attached), remain valid and have not substantially
changed since November 2004. Management tools are in use to monitor
progress and provide early warning of potential problems. However, the
potential exists for additional content that may be required in the
post-Return to Flight timeframe depending on the ongoing work
addressing issues seen during STS-114 and the results of the Shuttle's
performance on the second Return to Flight mission, STS-121.
Current estimates for RTF costs are: Fiscal year 2003--$42 million;
fiscal year 2004--$496 million; fiscal year 2005--$602 million; and
fiscal year 2006--$288 million.
If there are any increases in Return to Flight costs, NASA is
committed to accommodating them within its total budget request.
Actual costs to date are tracking very closely with the November
2004 estimate provided to Congress. The total estimated cost for
returning the Shuttle to flight status through fiscal year 2009 is
approximately $1.98 billion. The out-year costs are associated with
added manpower for Systems Engineering. NASA's plan and our budget
reflect the end of RTF after the second RTF mission and subsequent
post-flight assessment actions. These milestones will take the Agency
through most of fiscal year 2006. RTF, from a budget perspective, will
end in fiscal year 2006, and will no longer be tracked as a separate
effort, beginning in fiscal year 2007.
Question. What is your strategy for executing the other three
priorities while coping with the cost impact of return to flight?
Answer. NASA has completed the Exploration Systems Architecture
Study (ESAS), which outlines NASA's approach to implementing the Vision
for Space Exploration. The Vision calls for the Agency to return the
Space Shuttle to flight, complete the International Space Station,
return to the Moon, and move on the exploration of Mars and beyond.
Based on ESAS recommendations, NASA has now laid out a detailed plan to
support sustained human and robotic lunar exploration, operations,
accelerate the development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle and launch
systems for missions to the International Space Station, Moon, and
Mars, and identify key technologies required to enable this exploration
architecture. This plan is a safe and sustainable approach that seeks
to affordably accelerate the pace of space exploration. An important
aspect of this plan is that it is a ``go-as-you-can-afford-to-pay''
approach,'' within planned budgets for Exploration Systems, through
redirection of funding for longer-term and lower-priority research and
technology (R&T) elements within the Exploration Systems Mission
Directorate.
NASA has also completed the Shuttle/Station Configuration Options
Team (SSCOT) study to evaluate options for the assembly and utilization
of the International Space Station, taking into account the President's
decision to retire the Space Shuttle by 2010, while still honoring U.S.
commitments to the Space Station International Partners. Based in part
on this assessment, NASA has developed a plan, subject to the normal
budget and appropriations process, as well as ongoing return-to-flight
considerations, to move forward and begun discussions with our
international partners.
Question. In an ideal world, I suspect that your agency would be
relieved if some of the return-to-flight costs could be funded through
a supplemental appropriation so as not to detract from other
activities, many of which have been supported in the past by the
Congress. What would the supplemental requirements be were the
supplemental avenue open to NASA?
Answer. The President requested budgets for NASA that were
sufficient to return the Shuttle to flight without the need for a
supplemental appropriation, and NASA does not expect to need any future
supplemental to pay for residual return to flight costs. As stated in
response to Question 2(a), actual costs to date for RTF are tracking
very closely with the November 2004 estimate provided to Congress. If
there are any increases in RTF costs, NASA is committed to
accommodating them within its total budget request.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
Question. While the President's budget proposal would add resources
for its plans to finish construction of the International Space
Station, increase exploration of the solar system, and develop the
technologies needed for future Moon and Mars missions it would cut a
servicing mission critical for the survival of the Hubble Space
Telescope, as well as drastically decrease aeronautics research.
In addition, I have concerns about the NASA education programs and
their ability to work with community education efforts to inspire and
prepare the next generation of scientists and engineers.
It is my understanding that many experts in the field claim that
the Hubble Space Telescope is one of the most beneficial programs
currently being operated by NASA, as it has helped expand our
understanding of the universe in ways scientists never thought possible
just 15 years ago. Administrator Griffin, if you were to move forward
with a plan to end the Hubble program what research programs would take
its place to keep increasing our scientific understanding of distant
parts of the universe?
Answer. NASA has a number of missions capable of investigating
distant parts of our universe. Currently we operate three Great
Observatories: The Hubble Space Telescope, the Chandra X-ray
Observatory, and the Spitzer Space Telescope. Each of these facilities
(all of which will be operational until 2009 and possibly beyond) is
used daily by the astronomical community to further our understanding
of the heavens. In addition to these operating programs, we have a
number of missions in development that will advance our understanding
of the distant universe. The Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope
(GLAST) will launch in 2008 and enable astronomers to study high-energy
phenomena with unprecedented precision. The Wide-area Infrared Survey
Explorer (WISE), scheduled for launch in 2009, will map the sky in
infrared bands of light providing astronomers with a new catalog of
objects (both near and distant) for additional study. The James Webb
Space Telescope (JWST) will follow these missions in the middle of the
next decade and will be the premier platform for observing the distant
universe. By virtue of its large collecting area and infrared coverage,
JWST will see the earliest galaxies to form in the universe. Finally,
NASA also supports a number of cosmic microwave background studies,
such as the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, or the Balloon-borne
Large Aperture Submillimeter Telescope, that permit astronomers to
study the remnants of the Big Bang, very first light ever emitted by
the universe. These missions were designed to provide unique views of
the universe beyond those obtainable from Hubble. Servicing Hubble
would provide additional time to sequence some of these missions, but
would not replace the need for this follow-on research.
Question. As you know NASA has been built around the dual missions
of space exploration and aviation research. Representing an aviation
rich state I am concerned that recent proposals by NASA demonstrate
that its commitment to aeronautics and aviation is waning. Aeronautics
experts from NASA have developed innovations throughout its history
including the X-15 ``rocket plane'' of the 1950s and 1960s, de-icing
systems, and the ``supercritical wing''--the rounded-bottom wing design
used today by virtually every commercial jetliner to increase speed,
improve range and save fuel. Administrator Griffin, I am curious as to
why it is that NASA has decided to move away from its critical mission
on aeronautics and aviation? And what you foresee is NASA's role, if
any, in helping to advance aviation technology in the future?
Answer. Dr. Lisa Porter was recently selected as Associate
Administrator to lead NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate.
In that role she has begun the process of reshaping NASA's Aeronautics
research program allowing the Agency to take responsibility for the
intellectual stewardship of the core competencies of Aeronautics for
the Nation. This will require us to reinvest in the Agency's in-house
expertise to ensure that we retain the world-class skills, knowledge,
and facilities needed to guarantee our Nation's ability to consistently
contribute world-class innovation to aeronautical challenges, both
civilian and military.
The reshaped aeronautics program will strengthen our partnerships
with the Department of Defense (DOD) and Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), capitalizing on each agency's unique capabilities
and resources to strengthen the Nation's leadership in aeronautics. Our
partnership with DOD will include close collaboration to establish an
integrated national strategy for management of the Nation's most vital
wind tunnels. We will forge new partnerships and continue to benefit
from partnerships built in the past with academia and industry. We will
seek long-term, intellectual partnerships with industry that will be
able to rely on us to invest in the ``seed corn'' that is the critical
ingredient in revolutionary technological advancement.
As a first step, NASA is reshaping the three major programs within
the Aeronautics Mission Directorate. The previous Vehicle Systems
Program is being renamed the Fundamental Aeronautics Program in order
to reflect properly its new focus on basic aeronautical sciences.
Within Fundamental Aeronautics, and consistent with direction we
received from the Congress, we will re-establish the Agency's
dedication to the mastery of core competencies in subsonic, supersonic,
and hypersonic flight. We will create projects that provide continual,
long-term investment in the fundamentals and that build upon that
investment to develop system-level, multidisciplinary capabilities that
will enable both the civilian and military communities to build
platforms that meet their specific needs. As part of our investment in
fundamental aeronautics, we are positioning the program to continue
important long-term research activity in fiscal year 2006 that
preserves the core competencies in rotorcraft and hypersonics, drawing
upon NASA's critical inhouse expertise. We are transforming the
Aviation Safety and Security Program into the Aviation Safety Program,
where we will focus research on safety areas that are appropriate to
NASA's unique capabilities. Projects in Aviation Safety will address
integrated vehicle health management, resilient aircraft control,
intelligent flight deck technologies, and aging aircraft. The Airspace
Systems Program is being realigned to directly address the air traffic
management needs of the Next Generation Air Transportation System
(NGATS) as defined by the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO).
Leading scientists and engineers from the NASA field centers
participated in workshops in September and October to lay the
foundation for a technical plan to reshape the Aeronautics Research
program. As the year progresses, this technical plan will be guided by
the National Aeronautics Policy that is being developed by Office of
Science and Technology Policy and NASA in collaboration with other
agency partners. (Dr. Porter is co-chair of the National Science and
Technology Council's Aeronautics Science and Technology Subcommittee.)
In addition, the National Research Council is currently conducting a
decadal survey for aeronautics, which will also provide inputs to our
plan.
Question. On the issue of NASA's education programs I have several
questions. As you know the Office of Space Science once operated a
widely-respected program that focused on all of NASA's core missions.
Under Administrator O'Keefe there was a major shift to centralize the
education programs and focus efforts on space-exploration focused
schools and sending a teacher into space. Furthermore it is my
understanding that the NASA Explorer Schools have been focused on
manned space flight instead of broad scientific endeavors. Can you
explain why NASA made this shift in the focus on education and what the
thoughts and analysis behind eliminating and or altering the old
programs were? At a broader level, what is NASA doing within its
education program to develop lasting enthusiasm in science to truly
help create the scientists of the future?
Answer. Early in fiscal year 2003 NASA did indeed shift management
responsibility for some of its education programs by establishing its
Office of Education, separate from the Mission Directorates but to
address and coordinate within NASA and for NASA education endeavors
with other federal agencies. This shift did not eliminate or
significantly alter any education programs conducted by either the
Office of Space Science or the Office of Earth Science.
In August 2004, the Office of Space Science and Office of Earth
Science were merged to create the new Science Mission Directorate. The
education programs of these predecessor organizations have continued
and efforts are underway to exploit synergies to enhance the science
education program. These efforts will build on the strengths of the
current programs and focus on engaging learners of all ages in the NASA
mission of exploration and discovery. In fact, for the most recent
reporting year [2004] the space science programs reached over 400,000
direct participants in workshops, community and school visits, and
other interactive special events; 7 million Internet participants for
web casts, web chats, and other web events, and, a potential audience
of over 200 million for lectures, planetarium shows, museum
exhibitions, conference exhibits, radio, television, and other forms of
public media. Through the NASA Science Mission Directorate, NASA backed
science education can be found in all 50 states, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The Mission Directorates
continually assessing the educational opportunities and content
presented to ensure
The NASA Explorer Schools (NES) project, launched in 2003 and
managed by NASA Office of Education as one of four Pathfinder
Initiatives, is designed to engage all NASA Centers and the four
Mission Directorates, has six primary objectives:
--To increase student interest and participation in mathematics,
science, technology and geography;
--To increase student knowledge about careers in mathematics,
science, engineering and technology;
--To increase student ability to apply mathematics, science,
technology and geography concepts and skills in meaningful
ways;
--To increase the active participation and professional growth of
educators in science, mathematics, geography and technology
resulting in higher quality education for K-12 students;
--To increase the academic assistance for and technology use by
educators in schools with high populations of underserved
students; and
--To increase family involvement in children's learning.
The NES project is specifically designed to meet the individual
needs of each competitively selected school. Upon entering the project,
each school completes a needs assessment which NASA uses to create a
multifaceted approach to meeting school needs, and which reaches far
beyond the NES network to provide opportunities to highlight and
implement all Mission Directorate programs. Content material includes:
pre-algebraic concepts, inquiry-based math modules related to the
science, engineering and technology of space flight, digital image
processing and analysis (IPA) and geographic information systems (GIS),
integrate NASA earth and space content, updated NASA-content as we
learn more about the space environment, and providing symposia for
participating schools in topics ranging from spaceflight to robotics to
Mars exploration.
NES will also provide opportunities to all interested schools in
the United States. These challenges focus on science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics--subject areas needed for technical
careers at NASA. Areas to be addressed included: Space Flight
Opportunities; Imagine the Moon; Crew Exploration Vehicle Design; and
Multi-media Explorations. Furthermore, the NASA Aerospace Education
Services project utilizes all available NASA content and resources to
support not only the NASA Explorer Schools but schools from across the
country that express an interest in our assistance. Content and
resources come from across NASA.
NASA education continues to create and promote educational
materials and opportunities within all Mission Directorates--
Aeronautics Research, Science, Space Operations, and Exploration
Systems, as well as through its Office of Education.
Question. Furthermore, I am interested in how NASA can improve its
education mission to build long-term partners with community based
science and education efforts? Specifically, what ways are you looking
at to take NASA resources and imbed them within the efforts of
community based organizations in order to make NASA's education
programs sustainable and ensure that those efforts become institutional
and long-lasting?
Answer. NASA is continuing efforts to expand education in the
sciences, technology, engineering and mathematics through numerous
venues within the informal education community, to include museums,
science centers planetariums, youth and community groups among others.
These activities take place every day, conducted through the four
Mission Directorates, the ten NASA Centers, and the NASA Office of
Education.
In fact, one of the nationwide NASA Pathfinder Initiatives, the
NASA Explorer Institutes (NEI) project is specifically designed to
enhance the capabilities of the informal education community to inspire
the next generation of explorers by:
--Providing access to NASA staff, research, technology, information,
and/or facilities and by engaging the informal education
community in discussions about how to involve the public in
shaping and experiencing NASA-related missions;
--Identifying NASA-related instructional content, resources, and
information, in collaboration with the informal education
community that will enhance informal education program goals
and objectives;
--Providing NASA-related professional development opportunities for
members of the informal education community across the nation;
and
--Facilitating the formation of collaborative partnerships between
informal and formal education communities.
The project is in the second full year of its 3-year roll out. In
fiscal year 2004, activities involved organizations in 46 states, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the Overseas
Military Program. Organizations represented science centers, museums,
planetariums, libraries, parks, aquariums, nature centers, youth
groups, community-based organizations, and state and federal agencies.
In fiscal year 2004, NASA conducted eleven focus groups across the
nation on a variety of topics, with each group focused on a different
set of strategies. But, each shared similar goals of improving the
public's understanding and appreciation of science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines; establishing linkages
that promote new partnerships/relationships between providers of
informal and formal education; exciting youth, particularly those who
are underrepresented and underserved, about STEM disciplines; and
expanding STEM informal education programs and activities to
communities/locations that have been traditionally underserved by such
opportunities. Many of the focus groups resulted in previously
unconsidered collaborations, such as now-growing connections in Native
American communities with space scientists, and connections in nascent
or changing industries, such as data visualization and digital
productions. Participants of these focus groups represented over 200
institutions (museums, science centers, community groups, industry,
etc.), and they expressed support at NASA's willingness to listen and
openness to new ideas.
NASA Explorer Institutes also supported six pilot professional
developments workshops, connecting informal educators to NASA's unique
facilities and expertise. These workshops led to a number of successful
follow-up projects, including a number of regional collaborations by
workshop attendees. Based upon results of the workshops and focus
groups, the NASA recently released a new solicitation for NASA Centers
to host NASA Explorer Institutes later this year.
Through the NEI project NASA also leveraged partnerships with
several organizations to share NASA's discoveries and experiences: (1)
For the Nation's afterschool programs, the American Museum of Natural
History conducted an eighteen-month study and demonstration project
that included a scan of existing science programming in afterschool
environments, the development of prototype curriculum packets based on
NASA resources, pilot testing and staff training in three afterschool
programs in New York City, a review of science education research and
promising practice literature, and consultations with experts in
science education, afterschool, and curriculum development. (2) With
the National Park Service, NASA developed an agreement that resulted in
the design of professional development experiences for interpreters
that include NASA content to enhance the compelling stories of natural
and cultural resources of the parks.
Workshop participants adapted space science and earth sciences
resources for use in their parks, and developed new interpretive
material. (3) With the Girl Scouts of the USA (GSUSA), NASA broadened
the knowledge of national master trainers to increase their
understanding of an integrated NASA Earth and Space Science Story.
These master trainers are now mentoring trainers across the nation,
competitively selected from GSUSA councils with significant populations
of ethnically, economically, and/or geographically underserved girls.
(4) Finally, several NASA Centers are collaborating to produce the
Workshop for Informal Education Specialists, a Return to Flight public
engagement event with over 80 informal education venues (museums,
science centers, planetariums) to prepare partners to help NASA
positively engage the public in experiencing the excitement of
exploration and human space flight.
Question. Finally, Mr. Administrator, as you know, the country
needs capability to deliver cargo to and recover it from the
International Space Station. NASA has indicated that it intends to
release a ``request for proposal'' (RFP) this year for the
International Space Station commercial cargo transportation services.
What is NASA's timetable for its release and response?
Answer. NASA has undertaken a number of steps to assess its future
requirements for crew and cargo transportation in support of the ISS
and future human exploration. A Request for Information (RFI), issued
in September 2004, solicited information regarding capabilities and
market interest from existing and emerging domestic commercial space
transportation providers. NASA also conducted an ISS Cargo Industry Day
earlier this year to exchange technical information with potential
commercial providers. Within the next month, NASA will issue a draft
solicitation requesting commercial service demonstrations for ISS crew
and cargo delivery and return. Where commercial providers have
demonstrated the ability to meet NASA needs and safety requirements,
commercial services will be purchased instead of using government
assets and operations.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
UPPER MIDWEST AEROSPACE CONSORTIUM
Question. Last year, Congress earmarked a number of projects in the
fiscal year 2005 Omnibus bill including $2,000,000 to the University of
North Dakota in Grand Forks for the Northern Great Plains Space
Sciences and Technology Center under the Earth Science account. What is
the status of these funds?
Answer. NASA has completed review of the proposal from the
University of North Dakota for the Northern Great Plains Space Sciences
and Technology Center, and funding has been approved for release. Grant
award is expected within the next few weeks.
SPACE AND EARTH SCIENCE
Question. NASA conducts both Space and Earth Science. Earth Science
appears to be more weakly supported within the agency. What role do you
envision for Earth Science?
Answer. NASA maintains a vigorous program in Earth science that
makes important contributions to several interagency Administration
initiatives, including Climate Change Science, Earth Observations, and
Ocean Action, as well as NASA's Vision for Exploration. As an example,
NASA's contribution to the Administration's Climate Change Science
Program (CCSP) is far and away the largest of any Federal agency,
constituting some 60 percent of the total CCSP investment by the U.S.
government. NASA's support for Earth science has remained consistent,
and recent statements by Dr. Griffin emphasize NASA's commitment to a
robust portfolio across Earth and space science disciplines that will
continue NASA's historic support.
WINDOW OBSERVATIONAL RESEARCH FACILITY (WORF)
Question. The University of North Dakota has been developing AgCam,
a sensor intended to operate on the International Space Station. With
the problems with the Shuttle, and getting equipment to the Space
Station, there is some question as to when AgCam will be able to go up.
AgCam was designed to go into the WORF (Window Observational Research
Facility). The WORF provides an enclosed environment at a comfortable
temperature and pressure, so that AgCam did not have to be built to the
specifications of devices in the vacuum of interplanetary space.
However, the WORF is not scheduled for a shuttle flight until May 2007
and may not be sent then.
Is the Window Observational Research Facility (WORF) scheduled for
a launch on the Space Shuttle? When?
Answer. NASA has assessed its plans for the utilization of the ISS,
and focused its research and technology development goals toward those
activities that most closely support the Vision for Space Exploration.
In this environment of limited opportunities for the launch of
facility-class payloads, it is critical that utilization planning align
as closely as possible with the needs of the human exploration planning
effort. The only missions for which specific payloads have been
manifested on the Space Shuttle are the first two Return to Flight
missions. Consistent with the Vision, the Space Shuttle will be retired
by 2010. Prior to its retirement, it will be utilized primarily for the
assembly of the ISS. Our top priority will be to make each flight safer
than the last. As we noted in our November 2004, correspondence to you
on this topic, in the event that a future flight opportunity does
become available on the Space Shuttle, the WORF facility will be
considered for delivery to the ISS. The University of North Dakota has
been apprised of the situation and is aware that NASA cannot commit to
the flight of WORF on the Space Shuttle.
Question. If the WORF cannot be launched to the ISS, could AgCam be
accommodated some other way?
Answer. The AgCam hardware has been designed and built to be
operated in the WORF. The WORF would provide resources such as power,
thermal control, data and mounting positions for operations of the
AgCam. The hardware as designed could not operate independently of the
WORF. It might be possible to redesign the AgCam hardware and its
operations concepts, but the University would require additional
funding, testing, and development time; even with such a redesign, it
is unclear whether the redesigned hardware could achieve the expected
scientific value without the WORF.
Question. What are the plans for Earth observations from the
International Space Station?
Answer. While NASA is not pursuing new Earth sciences research on
the ISS because of the limited launch opportunities on the Space
Shuttle, we are continuing with two Earth observations programs already
on-orbit.
The Earth Knowledge Acquired by Middle Schools (EarthKAM) program
allows middle school students to command, via computer, a digital
camera mounted in a window of the ISS and integrate Earth images taken
by the camera with inquiry-based learning for 5th-8th grade students.
Photos are made available on the Web for viewing and study by
participating schools around the world. Educators use the pictures in
conjunction with curricula for projects involving Earth Science,
geography, physics, math, and technology. To date, over 80 schools with
more than 1,600 students from the United States, Japan, Germany, and
France have participated in the EarthKAM program.
The Crew Earth Observations (CEO) program continues, with the ISS
crew photographing various Earth sites on a daily basis. Hand-held
photography of the Earth from human spaceflight missions, spanning more
than 40 years, provides insights and documents changes on the Earth.
The ISS crew members are building on this time series of imagery, which
was started in 1961.
INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION PROPOSAL
Question. Mr. Administrator, it is my understanding that in the
coming months NASA is expected to release a ``request for proposal''
(RFP) for International Space Station (ISS) commercial cargo
transportation services, which would provide the necessary means for
getting cargo to and from the ISS. In order for markets to have time to
plan, could you provide a general timeframe for the RFP's release and
the expected response time?
Answer. NASA has undertaken a number of steps to assess its future
requirements for crew and cargo transportation in support of the ISS
and future human exploration. A Request for Information (RFI), issued
in September 2004, solicited information regarding capabilities and
market interest from existing and emerging domestic commercial space
transportation providers. NASA also conducted an ISS Cargo Industry Day
earlier this year to exchange technical information with potential
commercial providers. Within the next month, NASA will issue a draft
solicitation requesting commercial service demonstrations for ISS crew
and cargo delivery and return. Where commercial providers have
demonstrated the ability to meet NASA needs and safety requirements,
commercial services will be purchased instead of using government
assets and operations.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Shelby. The subcommittee will now stand in recess
until 10 o'clock, on Tuesday, May 24, when we will hear
testimony from the Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, and the
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert
Mueller, on the Department of Justice's budget for 2006.
The subcommittee is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 3:28 p.m., Wednesday, May 11, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday,
May 24.]