[Senate Hearing 110-49]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-49
NASA FY 2008 BUDGET
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE, AERONAUTICS, AND RELATED SCIENCES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 28, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
34-851 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
0SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West TED STEVENS, Alaska, Vice Chairman
Virginia JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts TRENT LOTT, Mississippi
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
BARBARA BOXER, California OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
BILL NELSON, Florida GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
Margaret L. Cummisky, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Lila Harper Helms, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and Policy Director
Margaret Spring, Democratic General Counsel
Lisa J. Sutherland, Republican Staff Director
Christine D. Kurth, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Kenneth R. Nahigian, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE, AERONAUTICS, AND RELATED SCIENCES
BILL NELSON, Florida, Chairman KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas,
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts Ranking
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota TRENT LOTT, Mississippi
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 28, 2007................................ 1
Statement of Senator Dorgan...................................... 23
Statement of Senator Hutchison................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Statement of Senator Nelson...................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Statement of Senator Stevens..................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Witnesses
Griffin, Dr. Michael D., Administrator, NASA..................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Appendix
Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii, prepared
statement...................................................... 41
NASA FY 2008 BUDGET
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Space, Aeronautics, and Related
Sciences,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:36 p.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Bill Nelson,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. Well, good afternoon. It's been a long time
since I chaired one of these Space Subcommittee hearings. I was
Chairman from 1985 to 1990 of the Space Subcommittee of the
House of Representatives. There are actually a few faces out
there in the audience that were around at that time. So, thank
you all for hanging in there.
I want to take the occasion of introducing you all to our
Shuttle crew that flew in December, Commander Mark Polansky and
Mission Specialists Robert Curbeam, Joan Higginbotham, Nicholas
Patrick, and Christer Fuglesang. They had a terrific mission
so, let's all welcome them to Washington.
[Applause.]
Senator Nelson. You all do us proud. And, oh, boy, every
time I see that Shuttle come back--it's just amazing, Mark, how
you can just put it on a dime, and you don't have an engine.
The only correction you have is in that vertical stabilizer,
where you've got that speed brake. Other than that, it's your
pure native talent that puts it down. And folks like Mark put
it on a dime every time, coming back from a point way out in
space. So, thank you for your expertise. Thank all of you for
coming and visiting with us today.
We welcome Dr. Griffin. Senator Hutchison will be here
momentarily. What I'd like you to do, Dr. Griffin, rather than
hold up, I'd like us to go on. We're going to put your written
testimony into the record.
Oh, here is Senator Hutchison.
What I'd like you to do, instead of reading your testimony,
just talk to us, like you would when you come in to visit us in
the office. Then we'll get into a dialogue in Q&A, later on.
So, Dr. Griffin, thank you for the leadership that you are
offering, and for how you have turned the agency around. Thank
you for tackling tough issues, like Hubble, and how you put 10
pounds of potatoes into a 5-pound sack. Thank you for the team
that you're leading, which included a Nobel winner this year,
Dr. John Mather, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics. And thank
you for getting us back into space, and doing it not once now
but twice, with human missions.
If the crew would like to sit up here at the Committee
table, please. No, come on up here. Look, I'm running the show.
I have the authority to do this now.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Griffin. Well, and for my part, I'm happy to let Roman
do the hearing, too.
[Laughter.]
Senator Nelson. Well, he may be gone by that time.
Thank you, also, Dr. Griffin, as you try to keep that gap
narrowed between the time that we have to shut down the Space
Shuttle and when we fly the new Crew Exploration Vehicle. Thank
you, also, in an uncertain budget year, where we haven't had
budgets submitted by the White House that have matched with the
authorization. We didn't even pass an appropriations bill last
year. They went to something known as a continuing resolution
or CR. And, thanks to Senator Hutchison and to Senator Barbara
Mikulski, they had added another billion dollars, over and
above the White House request, in the bill that was passed out
of the Senate Appropriations Committee. And then, at the end of
the year last year, we never could get the leadership to agree
to take up the appropriations bill, so they did this pared-down
thing, called a Continuing Resolution, and that just adds to
your headaches.
We're looking forward to having your testimony. Again, your
statement will be put in the record. If you will just talk
informally with us, I would appreciate it.
[The prepared statement of Senator Nelson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator from Florida
Good afternoon and welcome to this hearing on NASA's 2008 budget
request. We welcome as our witness today NASA's Administrator, Dr.
Michael Griffin, and extend a special welcome to the crew of STS-116
who are here visiting this afternoon. In December, Commander Mark
Polansky and Mission Specialists Robert Curbeam, Joan Higginbotham,
Nicholas Patrick, and Christer Fuglesang successfully completed the
latest construction mission to the International Space Station. This
crew conducted four spacewalks and installed the Station's permanent
power system. Congratulations on your success and thank you for being
here today.
Since the last time we gathered to hear from Dr. Griffin in this
forum, NASA has safely flown three Shuttle missions, bringing the
International Space Station to 60 percent complete and restoring
America's confidence in the Space Shuttle Program. NASA has
successfully launched five science missions that will lead to better
understanding of our home planet, our solar system, and the universe
beyond. A NASA scientist, Dr. John Mather, was awarded the Nobel Prize
in Physics this year, and the transition is underway to replace the
Shuttle with the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle and Ares Crew Launch
Vehicle.
With the successes of the past year in mind, we are also aware of
the challenges NASA faces in the future. First, it must safely complete
the International Space Station and the remaining Shuttle flights. NASA
must develop a new vehicle to take humans to the Space Station, the
moon, and beyond--and do so with the shortest possible gap between the
Shuttle and Orion/Ares programs. And, NASA must continue implementation
of a balanced program of exploration, science, and aeronautics. This is
an ambitious agenda that was accepted by this Committee and the
Congress, in a bipartisan way, when we passed the NASA Authorization
Act of 2005.
However, in each year since, the White House has requested less
funding for NASA than authorized by that Act. For that reason, and due
to the continuing resolution for this fiscal year, NASA will receive
$1.7 billion less than authorized in 2007. If the President's 2008
budget is adopted, NASA will have received three billion dollars less
than the amount planned under the two-year authorization Act. These
shortfalls are in addition to the $2 billion that this little agency
had to take from other programs to recover from the tragedy of the
Columbia accident and return the Shuttle to flight. If we continue on
the President's path, we face an extended period when the United States
will have no human access to space. I say this is unacceptable--
especially at a time when other nations are aggressively developing
space technology. Last month's reckless anti-satellite test by the
Chinese reminds us that we cannot afford to remain Earth-bound while
others pursue space capabilities with questionable intent.
And so Dr. Griffin, we've invited you to tell us today about the
challenges you face implementing NASA's program in this budget
environment. We will also be looking into steps we in the Congress can
take to help you meet some of those challenges, and I look forward to
working with you to see if, together, we can find some helpful answers.
Thank you for your presence here today, and I look forward to hearing
your testimony.
Senator Nelson. Senator Hutchison?
STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS
Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am
very glad that we are having this hearing.
I will say, having been Chairman of this Subcommittee last
year, and having Senator Nelson as the Ranking Member, that I
can't see that there is one iota of difference in our goals for
NASA. He was so helpful to me last year, and the year before
that, in passing the reauthorization of NASA, which did,
certainly, solidify our position that we wanted the Space
Station to be finished, that we wanted good science to come out
of the Space Station, and that we wanted a very small window--
in fact, Senator Nelson and I tried to make it ``no window''--
but, working with you, Dr. Griffin, we came up with a very
small window for the time that we would not have a Shuttle and
would not yet have the Crew Exploration Vehicle.
But I think it is fair to say that Senator Nelson and I
will continue to work in tandem to try to assure that that
window is very small, which I know you agree with, but the
budget is an issue.
So, I want to have the designation of the Space Station as
the National Lab mean something. I think it is a very
important, creative way for us to add funds to that scientific
base of the Space Station. And I think that we are going to
work with Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, who are also very
strong supporters of NASA, and Senator Mikulski, who has been a
champion, to try to increase the funding that we see, either in
the supplemental or in this 2008 budget.
The 2008 budget looks very strong, a 3.1 percent increase,
but when you look at what happened last year with the flat
funding, it still leaves us short of being able to achieve the
goals that we have, which are ``no window'' and humans being
able to go into space, and also real science being able to be
done on the Space Station, which means finishing it properly.
I visited with the crew earlier, and was so impressed with
the job they did of configuring the Space Station, and trying
to make sure that it is going to be viable and have everything
that we can have working on it. So, we're glad that you're here
and that we have an international component to the team. And,
as I said to you earlier today, Senator Nelson and I are a
bipartisan team. We have the Chairman and Ranking Member of the
full Committee also in absolute sync that we want NASA to be
the great treasure that it has been to our country in
innovation, in defense leadership, security leadership, and
also we want to make sure that it can support the scientific
achievements that can keep the quality of life in our country
and our world on the continuing rise.
So, thank you for what you're doing. We've certainly
visited a number of times, and I hope that we will continue to
be able to fund you, and that you will continue to be able to
have the means to accomplish the priorities that we share.
Thank you.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Hutchison follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison, U.S. Senator from
Texas
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for beginning the hearings under your
leadership with this important discussion of NASA's FY 2008 budget
request. I have always enjoyed our very strong and bipartisan working
relationship, and look forward to working with you and your staff as we
move forward with the work of the Subcommittee.
I also join you in welcoming the STS-116 crew to our hearing room
today. I had the opportunity to visit with them briefly in my office
earlier today, and, as always, am impressed with their enthusiasm and
dedication to their missions and the vital and important role of human
spaceflight and exploration.
This crew performed an extremely complex mission--perhaps the most
complex one to date--and did it successfully and made it look easy.
They literally began the process of bringing the backbone of the Space
Station to life in preparation for the great promise of scientific
research that lies ahead.
Thank you, Dr. Griffin. for joining us today to outline the
President's FY 2008 budget request for NASA.
On the face of it, the request is a good budget, with a 3.1 percent
increase over what had been requested for FY 2007.
However, as we all know, NASA did not receive the amount it
requested in FY 2007--in fact, it has been, for all intents and
purposes, held flat in FY 2007 with an appropriations level based on
the amount it received in FY 2006.
That outcome, of course, was not known when this budget request was
developed. The result is, however, that this budget request, in the
context of the FY 2007 Continuing Resolution, is not an adequate budget
and will not, by itself, allow NASA to move forward effectively with
its plans for the future.
A little over a year ago, the Congress passed legislation, authored
by this Subcommittee, authorizing NASA funding for FY 2007 and 2008.
For FY 2007, we authorized $17.9 billion; for FY 2008, we authorized
$18.7 billion. The amount appropriated for FY 2007 was $16.2 billion;
the amount requested for FY 2008 is $17.3 billion. A combined total of
$3.1 billion less for those 2 years than we authorized.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, we did not pick those authorization
numbers out of a hat. We--and our House counterparts--determined those
were the appropriate numbers to ensure a healthy and balanced NASA
budget that could effectively meet the challenges it was facing then--
and continues to face now.
I am disappointed that the appropriations for FY 2007 were so far
below even the amount requested. I am equally disappointed that the
White House has not seen fit to request amounts even close to what we
authorized. I believe those decisions have forced Dr. Griffin to make
the kinds of painful choices we are hearing about from the scientific
community.
I am further concerned that being forced to make those choices can
have the effect of undermining the traditional constituency for NASA
that is vital for this Nation to sustain an aggressive and viable space
exploration program.
What is also becoming more and more certain, as we look at the
world around us, is that if the U.S. does not sustain an active space
exploration program, other nations will--and are preparing to--step
into that vacuum.
The challenges are great, and the stakes are high, Mr. Chairman,
and I look forward to working with you to find the right kinds of
answers to meet them and keep our Nation at the forefront of space
exploration.
Senator Nelson. Senator Stevens, we're honored to have you
here today.
STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much. I would like to
have my opening statement submitted.
I'm delighted to see the members of the crew that are here.
And we were very pleased to have an Alaskan, Commander Bill
Oefelein as the Pilot of the recent mission.
So, I don't want to prolong it. I'm here to hear Dr.
Griffin and go on to another meeting. So, I appreciate your
courtesy.
[The prepared statement of Senator Stevens follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ted Stevens, U.S. Senator from Alaska
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing on
NASA's FY 2008 budget request. NASA has an important role to play in
helping this Nation expand its technological edge and conducting
exciting exploration into the heavens--and in better understanding our
own Earth.
I am also delighted to see some of the crew members of the most
recent Space Shuttle mission--STS-116--join the Administrator briefly
at this hearing, led by their Commander, Mark Polansky.
Their mission was extremely successful and marked an important
turning point in assembling the International Space Station by getting
its permanent power system ready to receive the research laboratories
of our international partners, and come closer to being the great
scientific laboratory we have always intended it to be.
Of course, I am always pleased when an Alaskan native is able to
play a key role in a mission, as did Astronaut and Navy Commander Bill
Oefelein, the Pilot for this mission, who is from Anchorage. I am sorry
that he had a scheduling conflict and could not be here with you today,
but I want to congratulate all of you on your fine service and
dedication to space exploration.
The NASA budget request reflects the continued support of the
Administration for NASA. In a very constrained budget, the President
has recommended a little over 3 percent increase over what was
requested for FY 2007.
As it happened, the amount appropriated in the year-long Continuing
Resolution did not get approved, and so there will have to be some
adjustments to the request, which I understand Dr. Griffin will be
providing to the Congress in the near future.
I believe we need a strong commitment to NASA and its programs, and
I hope we can find the best means of providing the resources to allow
the agency to carry out all its objectives.
One area I am especially interested in is the research NASA is
doing to help us understand the question of the causes and effects of
global climate change.
This is an area of particular interest to Alaska, where we feel the
impacts of many environmental changes sooner than much of the rest of
the world.
There are complex relationships between such forces as ocean
surface changes and temperature variations and air currents bringing
warmer precipitation to places like Alaska, where the permafrost is
affected, and causing increased release of methane gases, which in turn
affects the ozone layer.
We need to understand these forces, and I will be interested to
hear how NASA's Earth Science programs can help increase that
understanding.
I look forward to your testimony, Dr. Griffin, and working with the
Chairman and Ranking Member of this Subcommittee and the Chairman of
the full Committee in charting a solid future for NASA.
Senator Nelson. Yes, thank you, Senator Stevens.
Dr. Griffin, one of the things that you might also comment
on is this Chinese ASAT test that has put a huge debris field
in space, which is probably--all of the debris that's up there,
it's a huge percentage in addition, as a result of that ASAT
test, and it's up there at about 500 miles, which means it's
going to be a long time coming down. It is not only a threat to
our meteorological and other satellites, but also a threat to
the Space Station. So, at your pleasure, if you will share with
us.
STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL D. GRIFFIN, ADMINISTRATOR, NASA
Dr. Griffin. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Hutchison, and
Mr. Vice Chairman, Senator Stevens, thank you for being here.
It's always a pleasure to appear before you.
As you have all noted, we have goals in common. There is no
difference between what you want and what we want. In fact, I
ask your support, not really so much on behalf of NASA, but on
behalf of the American space program and our mutual goal to be
a leader in forging a spacefaring civilization. That is what we
are about. That is what the vision is about.
This year, above all years, we need your help. This is a
Fiscal Year 2008 budget request. I can only say, at the
outset--you've asked me not to read my statement; I won't. I
will make a few points from it, if you don't mind, as if we
were just talking in your office.
We accept the will of the Congress on the Fiscal Year 2007
continuing resolution, but it causes us a lot of pain. I will
describe some of that. It is imperative that we have the full
request for Fiscal Year 2008 if we are not to do great and
lasting damage to the program. We need your help with that.
In fact, this Committee demonstrated enormous leadership in
crafting the 2005 Authorization Act which sets the course for
NASA and our country to go out again beyond low Earth orbit, to
explore the Moon, Mars, the near-Earth asteroids, and to learn
to utilize space for our benefit, building on the legacy of the
International Space Station.
Last year, the budget I brought you recognized the changes
we had made since the earlier years; in particular, prior to
the loss of Space Shuttle Columbia. This year's budget contains
no surprises. It continues on exactly in the tradition that we
laid out for the FY07 budget, which, unfortunately, was not
passed. But if you studied that budget--and I know you did--you
will see no surprises this year.
Last year, we actually carried out, sir, three Shuttle
missions, and the fourth since I assumed office. All of those
have been very successful. We had a bit of difficulty returning
the Shuttle to flight, dealing with external tank debris. I'm
happy to report that we now have a much greater understanding
of that problem than in the years before we lost Columbia, and
our last three flights have been conducted with near-historic
minimums of debris problems from the external tank.
As you know, because you just introduced them, we have here
most of the crew from our December mission. Up until yesterday,
we were looking forward to the March launch of Shuttle
Atlantis, with Rick Sturckow, Marine colonel, commanding. That
launch will now likely be toward the end of April, at the
opening of the next window, because we had a major hail storm
in Florida. Senator, I'm surprised, being from Florida, that
you've not managed to get a handle on those hail storms. But we
had some damage to the tank, and we're going to have to roll
back.
By March 15th, I will present to this Committee, and, in
fact, to the Congress, an operating plan outlining how we
intend to cope with the reduction in the planned amount for
Fiscal Year 2007. The reduction, I will tell you now, does not
halt any planned work that we were going to do on the Crew
Exploration Vehicle (CEV) or the Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV), the
Orion and Ares. It does stretch it out. I know that you will
want me to tell you how much of a stretch out. Our funding was
extremely limited, as you know, coming in, and we were fighting
to hold a renewed human spaceflight capability in 2014, the
last year mandated by the President to do so. Regrettably, I am
projecting a 4- to 6-month slip in our launch dates, our first
launch date for the Orion and Ares, and I think we can expect
them to slip into early 2015.
We are working, as we speak, to prioritize all of our
funding at NASA and to orient all of it that we can toward the
replacement of the Shuttle. But I am afraid that I do not have
good news for you in that regard, particularly with your
concern for minimizing the gap in human spaceflight.
We have deferred a great deal of the research on the
International Space Station. If I have to prioritize, then I
must prioritize completion of the International Space Station
over utilization of the International Space Station. If I have
to prioritize, I must prioritize access to the International
Space Station over utilization of the International Space
Station. So, we have deferred some research.
Despite that, we are aggressively, Senator Hutchison,
seeking cooperation with other government agencies and with
industry for the utilization of the National Laboratory, the
U.S. Laboratory, on the International Space Station. Progress
in that arena was going quite well, actually, until we lost
Columbia. As you might anticipate, it dried up substantially at
that time. We are now undertaking a renewed effort to make full
and complete use of the Station, but it will have to await
other priorities that I spoke of.
The biggest concern that I have is that we hold to the
vision that was outlined in the months right after we lost
Columbia. And here, sir, I would like to read a quote from the
Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB).
The CAIB noted that ``the U.S. space effort has moved
forward for more than 30 years without a guiding vision.'' I
want to thank, explicitly, you, Senator Hutchison, Senator
Stevens, for bringing your leadership to bear on this issue
with our 2005 Authorization Act. It makes the law of the land
exactly the right thing.
The CAIB went on to observe, ``Because the Shuttle is now
an aging system, but still developmental in character, it is in
the Nation's interest to replace the Shuttle as soon as
possible as the primary means for transporting humans to and
from Earth orbit.'' Continuing on, quoting again, ``The
previous attempts to develop a replacement vehicle for the
aging Shuttle represent a failure of national leadership.''
Finally, the Board noted that, ``This approach can only be
successful if it is sustained over the decade, if, by the time
a decision is made to develop a new vehicle, there is a clearer
idea of how the new transportation fits into the Nation's
overall plans for space, and if the U.S. Government is willing,
at the time a development decision is made, to commit the
resources required to implement it.''
Now, you in this Congress and this President have removed
the issues of lack of strategic vision. We have made a
development decision based on an architecture. Our new crew
vehicle fits into the larger architecture of human lunar return
and later voyages to Mars. We have taken care of the major
issues. We must take care now to sustain the commitment of
resources necessary to finish the development, or we will fail
to heed the lessons that were, I hope, learned in the aftermath
of Columbia.
I want to conclude by noting that human spaceflight is a
strategic asset for our Nation. It should not again be risked
as we risked it during the 6-year gap between the end of Apollo
and the onset of Shuttle. We must have a safe and orderly
transition, both for the expert manpower that sustains this
effort and for the position of the United States as the
preeminent spacefaring nation of the world. By the time we
retire the Shuttle and resume flights with our Orion and Ares
systems, several other nations will have joined us in space
with their own capability. For the United States not to be
among them is tragic.
In our science portfolio, our request for Fiscal Year 2008
is for five and a half billion dollars. It maintains a balanced
approach to our portfolio of four basic areas: astrophysics,
planetary science, Earth science, and heliophysics. In
aeronautics, our FY08 budget puts forth a stable plan for the
next 5 years, without major increases, and certainly no
decreases, allowing us to capitalize on the strategic vision
that we developed last year at the behest of this Congress, and
which was honored by an executive order from the President. So,
we now have a new aeronautic strategic plan. I hope that you
will see, and this Congress will see, the value in this plan
that I see. I look forward to implementing it.
In closing, Chairman Nelson, I'd like to finish with a
concern that I've raised in recent speeches. I think this
concern needs a wider audience. I've reached the point where I
believe that if NASA were to disappear tomorrow, if the space
program were to disappear, if we never put another human into
space, if we never put up another Hubble, never sent another
spacecraft to another planet, Americans would be profoundly
distraught. We would feel less than ourselves. We would feel
that our best days were behind us, that our best days were
consigned to the history books.
As you know better than most, NASA's mission leverages a
broader American way of life that speaks to the best in us and
to the best for our position in the world. We need your help in
sustaining it.
We must not take for granted the leadership that we've had
simply because our predecessors did great things. We must
sustain the doing of great things, and I need your help in
that.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Griffin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Michael D. Griffin, Administrator, NASA
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear today to discuss the President's FY 2008 budget
request for NASA. The President's FY 2008 budget request for NASA is
$17.3 billion. This represents a 3.1 percent increase over the FY 2007
request for the agency, but not the enacted FY 2007 appropriation. The
FY 2008 budget request for NASA demonstrates the President's continued
commitment to our Nation's leadership in space and aeronautics
research, especially during a time when there are other competing
demands for our Nation's resources. The FY 2008 budget request reflects
a stable plan to continue investments begun in prior years, with some
slight course corrections. Overall, I believe that we are heading in
the right direction. We have made great strides this past year, and
NASA is on track and making progress in carrying out the tasks before
us.
Before I outline the FY 2008 budget request for NASA any further,
in the invitation to testify today you asked that I address current
NASA plans for the use of FY 2007 funding. On February 15, 2007, the
President signed into law a joint resolution stipulating FY 2007
funding levels for NASA and other Federal agencies. This appropriation
reduces overall funding for NASA by $545 million from the President's
FY 2007 request. The FY 2008 budget request could not possibly factor
the impact of such a funding reduction from FY 2007 appropriation for
NASA's carefully-considered multi-year programs, and thus, several
programs in the FY 2008 budget request will be impacted. The FY 2007
appropriation further directs specific reductions to human spaceflight
of $677 million--$577 million of that from Exploration Systems. This
reduction may significantly impact our ability to safely and
effectively transition from the Shuttle to the Orion Crew Exploration
Vehicle and Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle. It will have serious effects on
many people, projects, and programs this year, and for the longer term.
As I noted during last year's Congressional hearings on NASA's FY 2007
budget request, we have a carefully balanced set of priorities to
execute on behalf of our Nation. So as a result of these funding
reductions in FY 2007, NASA is carefully assessing the implications to
overall Exploration priorities and milestones, and will present
detailed impacts after a full analysis is complete. The initial NASA
Operating Plan for FY 2007, which will be finalized by March 15, will
reflect the impacts of these reductions and the requisite decisions. As
always, we are here to carry out our Nation's civil space and
aeronautics programs with the resources made available by the Congress.
All of our programs proceed in a ``go-as-we-can-afford-to-pay'' manner;
so if we receive less funding than requested, we will adjust our pace.
Our stakeholders have my commitment to continue to keep them informed
as to what I believe is the best approach to carrying out NASA's space
and aeronautics research missions with the resources provided. In this
determination, I will be guided by the NASA Authorization Acts, annual
Appropriations Acts, Presidential policy, and the decadal survey
priorities of the National Academy of Sciences. If we determine that
there is an agency objective that we will be unable to meet, I will
inform our agency's stakeholders, including this Subcommittee.
Highlights of the NASA FY 2008 Budget Request
The FY 2008 budget request for NASA is a carefully considered and
balanced request formulated over many months with the White House.
Unfortunately, the Congress had not completed action on the FY 2007
budget at the time the FY 2008 budget was being finalized, so the
impact of the final FY 2007 appropriation outcome is not accounted for
in NASA's FY 2008 budget request. The FY 2008 budget request weaves
together the Nation's priorities in space exploration, scientific
discovery, and aeronautics research that will help fuel this Nation's
future, creating new opportunities for scientific benefit, economic
growth, national security, and international cooperation.
The greatest challenge NASA faces is safely flying the Space
Shuttle to assemble the International Space Station (ISS) prior to
retiring the Shuttle in 2010, while also bringing new U.S. human
spaceflight capabilities online soon thereafter. We must understand
that, given proper goals, human spaceflight is a strategic capability
for this Nation, and we must not allow it to slip away. In January, we
remembered those whom we have lost in the exploration of space. In the
aftermath of the Columbia tragedy, President Bush addressed the NASA
workforce, saying: ``In your grief, you are responding as your friends
would have wished--with focus, professionalism, and unbroken faith in
the mission of this agency.'' We must commit ourselves to the focus of
professionalism and unbroken faith every day in order to carry out the
tasks before us.
In analyzing not only the root causes, but also the systemic
reasons behind the Columbia accident, the Columbia Accident
Investigation Board (CAIB) made critical observations that guided the
formulation of our present civil space policy. I fear that with the
passage of time and the press of other concerns, we may be losing sight
of some of these principles, so let me reiterate some of them here
today. First, the CAIB noted that, ``The U.S. civilian space effort has
moved forward for more than 30 years without a guiding vision.''
Second, ``because the Shuttle is now an aging system but still
developmental in character, it is in the Nation's interest to replace
the Shuttle as soon as possible as the primary means for transporting
humans to and from Earth orbit.'' Third, ``the previous attempts to
develop a replacement vehicle for the aging Shuttle represent a failure
of national leadership.'' And finally, the Board noted that ``this
approach can only be successful: if it is sustained over the decade; if
by the time a decision to develop a new vehicle is made there is a
clearer idea of how the new transportation system fits into the
Nation's overall plans for space; and if the U.S. Government is willing
at the time a development decision is made to commit the substantial
resources required to implement it.''
Since then, the President, the Congress and NASA have charted a new
course in U.S. civil space policy that addresses all of these points,
and the President's FY 2008 budget reaffirms that commitment with the
necessary funds for the Space Shuttle and the ISS. NASA will continue
forward at the best possible pace with the development of the Orion and
Ares I crew vehicles. However, due to the cumulative effect of Space
Shuttle Return to Flight and operations cost increases and the FY 2007
appropriation, NASA may not be able to bring these new capabilities on-
line by 2014. If we do not quickly come to grips with this issue,
America may have a prolonged gap between the end of the Shuttle program
and the beginning of Orion and Ares I operational capability, a gap
similar to the one that occurred from 1975 to 1981 when our Nation
transitioned from Apollo to the Space Shuttle.
NASA has a lot of hard work ahead of it and many major milestones
this year and next. The transition from the Space Shuttle to the Orion
and Ares launch vehicles over the next several years must be carefully
managed, and we must be focused, professional and committed to our
mission. This is NASA's greatest challenge, and I ask the
Subcommittee's help in meeting it.
In the important area of Earth Science, we recently received the
first-ever Decadal Survey for Earth Science from the National Academy
of Sciences, which NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), and the United States Geological Survey (USGS)
requested in 2003. As the first of its kind, the Survey has drawn
considerable attention, and we will observe the programmatic priorities
for Earth Science which it advocates. In addressing the Survey's Earth
Science priorities, and consistent with ensuring that NASA maintains a
balanced portfolio of science as directed by the NASA Authorization Act
of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-155), we have added funding to the Global
Precipitation Measurement (GPM) mission, the follow-on to the highly
successful Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM), to improve our
ability to keep this mission on schedule. Our plan is to launch the
first Core satellite for the GPM mission not later than 2013, followed
by the second Constellation spacecraft the following year. The FY 2008
budget request also augments funding for the Landsat Data Continuity
Mission (LDCM) and Glory missions in order to help keep those projects
on schedule. Within Planetary Sciences, funding has been identified for
Lunar Science research project beginning in FY 2008 to leverage the
many opportunities for payloads on NASA and other nations' lunar
spacecraft, such as India's Chandrayaan-1, as well as to analyze the
science data from these missions, including NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance
Orbiter. In 2008, we will launch a host of Heliophysics missions, many
with international and interagency partners, to analyze the effects of
solar flares, coronal mass ejections, and galactic cosmic rays. In
Astrophysics, the final Hubble servicing mission is currently planned
for a Space Shuttle flight in September 2008. And, as I advised the
Congress and the science community last summer, NASA has reinstated the
Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) mission.
Though we know of no technical show-stoppers in regard to the
airworthiness of the aircraft or operation of the telescope, this
program has some remaining hurdles to overcome and so remains subject
to a management review later this spring. NASA will launch or
participate in seven science missions in FY 2007, followed by 10
missions in FY 2008, resulting in many new Earth and space science
discoveries in the years ahead.
The FY 2008 budget request increases the budget profile for
Aeronautics Research over the President's FY 2007 request, aligns our
aeronautics activities with the President's recently issued Aeronautics
Research and Development Policy, and advances U.S. technical leadership
in aeronautics. NASA has made significant progress in reformulating its
approach to aeronautics research by collaborating with the broad
research community including industry, academia, and other government
agencies including the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the
Department of Defense (DOD). Through these changes, NASA will help
ensure that America continues to lead the way in aeronautics research.
NASA continues to monitor and manage our ``uncovered capacity''
(employees not directly assigned to specific projects and programs). A
little over 18 months ago, nearly 3,000 of NASA's 19,000 employees were
designated as ``uncovered capacity.'' Today, largely with the work
defined in the Constellation program, we have greatly reduced that
problem to manageable levels. As of February 2007, we have fewer than
200 uncovered capacity employees in FY 2007 and FY 2008. More
importantly, many of our best engineers are working diligently on the
great challenges before us. Every NASA Center is now vested in our
space exploration mission. While we are proud of the progress that has
been made, significant human capital challenges remain. These include
matching available skills with the important work to be done, managing
attrition, retraining and hiring, and improving our workforce planning
for future years in FY 2009 and beyond. To address these challenges and
any potential impacts resulting from the FY 2007 funding reductions, we
have established a new intra-agency Workforce Planning Technical Team.
In addition, beginning in FY 2007, the agency revised overhead
allocations to simplify how we manage under full cost accounting. These
changes will ensure a uniform cost rate for all NASA civil servants
across the agency's government field centers. All changes are revenue-
neutral to programs and projects; none of NASA's missions gain or lose
funding as a result of this accounting change. At first glance, this
accounting change appears to reduce the Aeronautics Research budget
because so much of that work is done at our smaller research Centers.
However, in actuality, NASA's direct spending for Aeronautics Research
has increased in the FY 2008 budget runout by $205 million through FY
2011 compared to the FY 2007 budget runout.
Beyond our budget request, NASA is beginning to transition the
workforce, infrastructure, and equipment from the Space Shuttle to new
Exploration systems. Many of our most experienced people will be
considering retirement between now and 2010. We will need the means to
manage this attrition in a targeted manner to achieve better alignment
of the workforce with our mission without creating unwanted losses and
skills imbalances. One tool we may be using is the authority for the
agency to be able to re-employ selected retirees without an offset to
their annuity--thus giving them an incentive to see a project or
program to completion. To assist employees with transition to the
private sector, and ease that upheaval, another tool would authorize
NASA to continue their coverage under the Federal Employees Health
Insurance for 1 year after departure.
We will also need better tools to manage the transition of our
facilities. The agency is proposing slight changes and expansion to
existing authority to permit leasing of under-utilized facilities and
related equipment. The agency would retain the proceeds of those leases
to be deposited in a NASA capital asset account and invested in
activities to improve and sustain our facilities and infrastructure. We
plan to discuss the details of these legislative requests with Members
of Congress in the weeks and months ahead.
The remainder of my testimony outlines the FY 2008 budget request
for NASA in greater detail.
Science Mission Directorate
This past year was truly remarkable for science discovery about the
Earth, Sun, solar system, and universe. NASA was responsible for 11
percent of Science News magazine's top stories (covering all fields of
science) for 2006, which is an all-time record in the 34 years of
tracking this metric. NASA's findings ranged from new observations of
familiar phenomena like hurricanes, thunderstorms, and rainfall, to the
identification of 16 new extra-solar planets orbiting distant stars
near the center of our galaxy. As NASA continues to add observations
from long-lived assets such as the Spirit and Opportunity Mars
Exploration Rovers, it continues to successfully develop and launch the
next generation of missions and to support a vigorous scientific
community.
In 2006, NASA launched four new science missions, one technology
demonstration mission, and partnered with other Federal and
international agencies to launch three other science and technology
missions, as well as the GOES-O satellite, to bring the current total
number of operational science missions to 52. In January 2006, we
launched the New Horizons spacecraft to the planet Pluto. Scheduled to
arrive at Pluto in 2015, the spacecraft is making its closest approach
to Jupiter as we speak. With the April 2006 launch of the CloudSat and
Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observations
(CALIPSO) spacecraft, NASA added to the ``A-train'' of satellites
flying in close proximity around Earth to gain a better understanding
of key factors related to climate change. In October 2006, NASA's twin
Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatories mission (STEREO) spacecraft
were launched to help researchers construct the first-ever 3-
dimensional views of the sun. Although the two spacecraft will not
return images until later this year, initial results from STEREO have
provided us with an unprecedented look at solar activity. A few weeks
ago, we also recently launched five Time History of Events and
Macroscale Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS) microsatellites to
study the Earth's magnetosphere, and we are on track to launch the Dawn
mission to main belt of asteroids between Mars and Jupiter and the
Phoenix Mars mission later this year.
NASA's FY 2008 budget requests $5.5 billion for the agency's
Science portfolio. This represents an increase of $49.3 million (or 1
percent) over the FY 2007 request and will enable NASA to launch or
partner on 10 new missions, operate and provide ground support for more
than 50 spacecraft, and fund scientific research based on the data
returned from these missions. For FY 2008, NASA separated the Earth-Sun
System theme into two themes: Earth Science and Heliophysics, and
programmatic responsibility for studies of Near Earth Objects is
transferred to the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate
The Earth Science budget requests $1.5 billion, an increase of
$27.7 million over the FY 2007 request, to better understand the
Earth's atmosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, and biosphere
as a single connected system. This request includes additional funding
for the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) mission to improve
schedule assurance in response to the high priority placed on GPM in
the Decadal Survey. As the follow-on to the highly successful Tropical
Rainfall Measuring Mission, NASA's plans to launch GPM's first Core
satellite no later than 2013, followed by the second Constellation
spacecraft the following year. The Earth Science budget also includes
increased funding for the Landsat Data Continuity Mission and Glory in
order to help keep them on their schedules, and provides funds for the
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System
(NPOESS) Preparatory Project (NPP) to reflect instrument availability
and launch delays. Funds are requested for continued development and
implementation of the Ocean Surface Topography Mission to launch in
2008, the Aquarius mission to measure the ocean's surface salinity to
launch in 2009, and the Orbiting Carbon Observatory mission planned for
launch in 2008. NASA will continue to contribute to the President's
Climate Change Research Initiative by collecting data sets and
developing predictive capabilities that will enable advanced
assessments of the causes and consequences of global climate change.
Over the coming months, NASA will evaluate opportunities for
implementing the recommendations of the National Research Council's
Earth Science Decadal Survey and responding to challenges to the
continuity of climate measurements resulting from the Nunn-McCurdy
recertification of the NPOESS program.
The Heliophysics budget request of $1.1 billion will support 14
operational missions to understand the Sun and its effects on Earth,
the solar system, and the space environmental conditions that will be
experienced by astronauts, and to demonstrate technologies that can
improve future operational systems. During FY 2008, the Explorer
Program will launch the Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX) mission,
focused on the detection of the very edge of our solar system, and the
Coupled Ion-Neural Dynamics Investigation (CINDI) Mission of
Opportunity conducted by the University of Texas. The Solar Dynamics
Observatory (SDO) to study the Sun's magnetic field will complete
launch readiness milestones in FY 2008 and is presently scheduled for
launch in August of 2008. The Geospace Radiation Belt Storm Probes
(RBSP) mission, presently in formulation, will undergo a Preliminary
Design Review and a Non-Advocate Review in FY 2008 in preparation for
entering development in early FY 2009. RBSP will improve the
understanding of how solar storms interact with Earth's Van Allen
radiation belts. While the ST-7 and ST-8 missions are on track for
launches in 2009, the New Millennium ST-9 mission, along with follow-on
missions, is delayed.
The Planetary Science budget request of $1.4 billion will advance
scientific knowledge of the solar system, search for evidence of
extraterrestrial life, and prepare for human exploration. NASA will get
an early start on Lunar science when the Discovery Program's Moon
Mineralogy Mapper (M3) launches aboard India's Chandrayaan-1 mission in
March 2008, along with the Mini-RF, a technology demonstration payload,
supported by NASA's Exploration and Space Operations Mission
Directorates and the Department of Defense, which may glean water in
the Moon's polar regions. In addition, the budget requests $351 million
from FY 2008 to FY 2012 for new Lunar Science research, including
Missions of Opportunity, data archiving, and research. The budget
supports the Mars Exploration Program by providing for a mission every
26 months, including the Phoenix spacecraft, scheduled for launch in
2007, and the Mars Science Laboratory, with a launch scheduled for
2009. The Discovery Program's Dawn Mission is scheduled to launch later
this year, and the Mercury Surface, Space Environment, Geochemistry and
Ranging (MESSENGER) spacecraft is already on its way to Mercury. Three
Discovery mission proposals and three Missions of Opportunity were
selected in 2006 for Phase A studies, and the Discovery Program will
invite proposals for additional new missions in 2008. With the New
Horizons spacecraft continuing on its way to Pluto, the New Frontiers
Program's Juno Mission will undergo a Preliminary Design Review and a
Non-Advocate Review in FY 2008 in preparation for entering development.
The New Frontiers Program will release its third Announcement of
Opportunity (AO) in late 2008.
The Astrophysics budget requests $1.6 billion to operate NASA's
astronomical observatories, including the Hubble Space Telescope (HST),
Chandra X-Ray Observatory, and Spitzer Space Telescope, and to build
more powerful instruments to peer deeper into the cosmos. HST is
scheduled for a final servicing mission in September 2008 using the
Space Shuttle Atlantis. Along with service life extension efforts, two
new instruments will be installed during the servicing mission that are
expected to dramatically improve performance and enable further
discoveries, including enabling some science observations that have
been affected by the recent failure of the Advanced Camera for Surveys.
After the servicing mission, HST will once again have six fully
operational instruments (including a suite of cameras and spectrographs
that will have about 10 times the capability of older instruments) as
well as new hardware capable of supporting at least another 5 years of
world-class space science. The ESA Herschel and Planck missions, both
of which include contributions from NASA, will launch in FY 2008 aboard
an ESA-supplied Ariane-5. The Kepler instrument and spacecraft
integration and test will be completed in preparation for launch in
November 2008, to determine the frequency of potentially habitable
planets. The Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST) will launch
in FY 2008 to begin a five-year mission mapping the gamma-ray sky and
investigating gamma-ray bursts. The James Webb Space Telescope will
undergo Preliminary Design Review and a Non-Advocate Review in FY 2008,
in preparation for entering development. The SOFIA observatory has been
reinstated. Though we know of no technical showstoppers in regard to
the airworthiness of the aircraft or operation of the telescope, this
program has some remaining hurdles to overcome and so remains subject
to a management review later this spring chaired by the NASA Associate
Administrator. The SOFIA program baseline will be finalized at that
time.
Exploration Systems Mission Directorate
The FY 2008 budget request for the Exploration Systems Mission
Directorate (ESMD) is $3.9 billion to support continued development of
new U.S. human spaceflight capabilities and supporting technologies,
and to enable sustained and affordable human space exploration after
the Space Shuttle is retired in 2010. With this budget, ESMD will
continue to try to operate our next-generation Crew Exploration Vehicle
by 2014, while also providing research and developing technologies for
the longer-term development of a sustained human presence on the Moon.
ESMD will also continue to work with other nations and the commercial
sector to leverage its investments and identify opportunities for
specific collaboration on lunar data and lunar surface activities. New
human spaceflight development of this magnitude, such as the Orion Crew
Exploration Vehicle, occurs once in a generation. The next 5 years are
a critical period in our Nation's space flight efforts.
The Constellation program includes the Orion Crew Exploration
Vehicle; Ares I, a highly reliable crew launch vehicle; Commercial
Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) demonstrations of cargo and crew
transport to the International Space Station; Ares V, a heavy-lift
launch vehicle; spacesuits and tools required by the flight crews and;
associated ground and mission operations infrastructure to support
either lunar and/or initial low Earth orbit (LEO) missions.
For FY 2008, pending a full analysis of the FY 2007 budget impacts,
ESMD is on track to maintain its commitments for Ares I and Orion, and
to continue meeting major milestones. This year Constellation will
continue to mature and develop overall. Formulation of the
Constellation elements will continue, leading to the Preliminary Design
Review in 2008, at which time the program will be baselined. NASA will
conduct an update for the overall Constellation Systems Requirements
Review (SRR) in 2007 after the completion of all the Program Element
SRRs. ESMD recently released the Ares I Upper Stage Request for
Proposals (RFP). The RFP for the Ares I Avionics Ring is scheduled for
release in May 2007, with selection and contract award scheduled for
November 2007.
Facility, equipment, and personnel transitions from Space Shuttle
to Constellation will be the major emphasis of the FY 2009 budget
process. NASA transition activities are focused on managing the
evolution from current operations of the Space Shuttle to future
operations of Constellation and emerging commercial services, in a
safe, successful and smooth process. This joint effort between the
Space Operations Mission Directorate (SOMD) and ESMD includes the
utilization and disposition of resources, including real and personal
property, personnel, and processes, to leverage existing Shuttle and
International Space Station assets for NASA's future Exploration
activities. Formalized Transition Boards are working to achieve this
outcome. A Human Spaceflight Transition Plan was developed in 2006,
updates are in work, and metrics for the plan are being refined and
will be implemented in 2007.
In August 2006, NASA signed Space Act Agreements with Space
Exploration Technologies Corporation, of El Segundo, California, and
Rocketplane-Kistler, of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to develop and
demonstrate Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) that
could open new markets and pave the way for commercial providers to
launch and deliver crew and cargo to the ISS. The Space Act Agreements
establish milestones and identify objective criteria to assess their
progress throughout Phase 1 of the demonstrations. In the FY 2008
budget, funding for the purchase of crew and cargo transportation
services, either from international partners or preferably from
commercial providers, is transferred from ESMD to SOMD. COTS
demonstration funding remains in ESMD to better exploit potential
synergies with the Constellation Program.
With activities in the Advanced Capabilities program, NASA seeks to
understand the space environment as it relates to human performance by
addressing respective recommendations from the Exploration Systems
Architecture Study that was conducted in 2005. This included refocusing
biomedical research and human life-support activities through new
milestones and requirements to target the timely delivery of research
products. Accordingly, ESMD created two new programs under Advanced
Capabilities: the Human Research Program (HRP) to study and mitigate
risks to astronaut health and performance and the Exploration
Technology Development Program (ETDP) to enable future Exploration
missions and reduce cost and risk. Plans for 2008 include:
Testing of prototype ablative heat shield materials, low-
impact docking systems, and landing attenuation systems;
Testing of advanced environmental control systems on the
ISS;
Developing a lightweight composite command module test
article for the Orion;
Conducting studies to assess risks of long-term radiation
exposure and continuing the use of the ISS as a testbed for
studying human health and safety in space;
Spacecraft integration and testing in preparation for the
Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) launch in October 2008;
Next-generation spacesuit capable of supporting exploration;
and
Developing jointly with the USAF the RS-68 engine that will
be used on the Ares V.
Finally, the LRO and the Lunar CRater Observatory Sensing Satellite
(LCROSS) to the Moon is planned to be launched in early FY 2008. These
dual-manifested spacecraft have completed Critical Design Review and
are currently in development. The science yielded from these missions
will enable future outpost site selection and new information about the
deep craters at the lunar poles. The LRO/LCROSS missions represent
NASA's first steps in returning to the Moon.
Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate
In 2006, NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD)
conducted a significant restructuring of its aeronautics program,
allowing NASA to pursue high-quality, innovative, and integrated
research that will yield revolutionary tools, concepts, and
technologies to enable a safer, more flexible, environmentally
friendly, and efficient national air transportation system. As such,
ARMD's research will continue to play a vital role in supporting NASA's
human and robotic space activities. The reshaped Aeronautics Program
content and direction is consistent with the National Aeronautics
Research and Development Policy, signed by the President on December
20, 2006.
A primary goal across all of the programs in ARMD is to establish
strong partnerships involving NASA, other government agencies,
academia, and industry in order to enable significant advancement in
our Nation's aeronautical expertise. Because these partnerships are so
important, NASA has put many mechanisms in place to engage academia and
industry, including industry working groups and technical interchange
meetings at the program and project level, Space Act agreements for
cooperative partnerships, and the NASA Research Announcement (NRA)
process that provides for full and open competition for the best and
most promising research ideas. During 2006, ARMD's NRA solicitation
resulted in the selection of 135 proposals for negotiation for award
from 72 different organizations representing 29 different states plus
the District of Columbia. NASA's FY 2008 budget request for Aeronautics
includes $51 million for NRA awards.
In FY 2008, the President's budget for NASA requests $554 million
for Aeronautics Research. This budget reflects full cost
simplification, which significantly reduces the Center overhead and
infrastructure allocated to Aeronautics programs.
NASA's Airspace Systems Program (ASP) has partnered with the Joint
Planning and Development Office (JPDO) to help develop concepts,
capabilities and technologies that will lead to significant
enhancements in the capacity, efficiency and flexibility of the
National Airspace System (NAS). Such improvements are critical to meet
the Nation's airspace and airports requirements for decades to come. In
FY 2008, NASA's budget request would provide $98.1 million for ASP to
conduct further research in operational concepts and human-in-the-loop
simulation modeling that supports advancements in automated separation
assurance capabilities. In addition, ASP will pursue enhanced
development of airport surface movement trajectory models to provide a
basis for optimized use of super density airports, integrated airport
clusters, and terminals where demand for runways is high. Last year,
ASP took an important step toward this goal by completing development
of a system-wide operational concept that provides a detailed
description of future NAS capacity enhancements while assessing the
benefits of such system improvements. Key to the analysis of the
operational concepts was program-developed tools such as the Airspace
Concepts Evaluation System and the Future Air Traffic Management
Concepts Evaluation Tool, both of which have successfully transitioned
from NASA to the Federal Aviation Administration and the JPDO.
NASA's Fundamental Aeronautics Program (FAP) conducts research in
the engineering and scientific disciplines that enable the design of
vehicles that fly through any atmosphere at any speed. The FY 2008
budget request, amounting to $293.4 million, will enable significant
advances in the Hypersonics, Supersonics, Subsonic Fixed Wing, and
Subsonic Rotary Wing projects that make up the FAP. These projects
focus on creating innovative solutions for the technical challenges of
the future: increasing performance (range, speed, payload, fuel
efficiency) while meeting stringent noise and emissions constraints;
alleviating environmental and congestion problems of the Next
Generation Air Transportation System (NGATS) through the use of new
aircraft and rotorcraft concepts; and facilitating access to space and
re-entry into planetary atmospheres. A wide variety of cross-cutting
research topics are being pursued across the speed regimes with
emphasis on physics-based multi-disciplinary analysis and design,
aerothermodynamics, materials and structures, propulsion, aero-servo-
elasticity, thermal protection systems, advanced control methods, and
computational and experimental techniques. A number of key activities
are planned for FY 2007 and 2008 including the launch of a suborbital
rocket to conduct flight experiments in hypersonic boundary layer
transition and re-entry shapes, the flight test of scale models of the
X-48B Blended Wing-Body concept to assess this advanced unconventional
airframe configuration for its potential to decrease aircraft noise
while also improving performance, the evaluation of radical new
concepts for variable-speed rotor technologies that can result in
highly improved performance, and the evaluation of actively-controlled
inlets for supersonic transports.
The FY 2008 budget request for NASA's Aviation Safety Program
(AvSP) is $74.1 million. The four projects within the Program
(Integrated Intelligent Flight Deck, Integrated Resilient Aircraft
Control, Aircraft Aging and Durability, and Integrated Vehicle Health
Management) will develop cutting-edge tools, methods, and technologies
with close coordination among them to improve the intrinsic safety
attributes of current and future aircraft that will operate in the
NGATS. In FY 2008, the Program will complete a study of human-
automation technology that will improve safety during approach and
landing operations by allowing for active operator assistance that
maintains appropriate levels of workload and will be conducted to
evaluate neural networks for direct adaptive control that will maximize
adaptation to simulated in-flight failures while minimizing adverse
interactions. At the same time, onboard sensor technology will be
developed and validated to achieve significant improvement in measuring
atmospheric water content that will improve the ability to detect the
onset of potential icing hazards. Challenges related to aircraft aging
and durability will also be addressed by developing models capable of
simulating the initiation and propagation of minute cracks in metallic
materials.
Finally, NASA's Aeronautics Test Program (ATP) will continue to
safeguard the strategic availability of a critical suite of aeronautics
test facilities that are deemed necessary to meet agency and national
aeronautics needs. The FY 2008 budget request for ATP is $88.4 million,
which will enable strategic utilization, operations, maintenance and
investment decisions for major wind tunnel/ground test facilities at
Ames Research Center, Glenn Research Center and Langley Research Center
and for the Western Aeronautical Test Range support aircraft and test
bed aircraft at Dryden Flight Research Center. In FY 2006, NASA
implemented procedures to ensure affordable and competitive pricing of
its aeronautics facilities for use by other parties, including industry
and university researchers. In FY 2008, ATP plans to continue ensuring
competitive prices for ATP facilities, reducing a backlog of
maintenance issues and investing in advanced technologies such as
installing consistent angle of attack instrumentation at the research
Centers.
Space Operations Mission Directorate
This was an extraordinary year for the Space Shuttle and
International Space Station (ISS) Programs. NASA celebrated
Independence Day 2006 by launching Space Shuttle Discovery on the STS-
121 mission. The second of two test flights (the first was STS-114 in
July/August 2005), STS-121 helped validate the improvements made to the
Space Shuttle system since the loss of Columbia on February 1, 2003.
The mission also marked the return of a complement of three crewmembers
to the ISS. The Space Shuttle Atlantis (STS-115), which launched on
September 9, marked a return to sustained Space Shuttle operations and
placed NASA on track to completing assembly of the ISS by 2010. STS-115
delivered the critical P3/P4 truss to the ISS, which will provide a
quarter of the power services needed to operate the completed research
facility. The last flight in December 2006, STS-116, was devoted
primarily to deactivating the electrical power systems on the U.S.
segment of the ISS and making a series of electrical and coolant
connections between the P3/P4 truss segment and the rest of the
Station. To do this, flight controllers at the mission control centers
in Houston and Moscow uplinked over 17,900 commands to the ISS during
the mission--all without a single unplanned or command error. STS-116
crewmember Robert Curbeam also set a record for the most spacewalks
ever conducted by an astronaut on a single Space Shuttle mission, with
four excursions totaling over 25 hours.
Operational activities onboard the ISS have continued into 2007,
with a series of spacewalks that reconfigured the thermal system on the
Station and prepared us for future assembly tasks. The Station is now
able to provide additional power to the Space Shuttle, allowing two
extra docked days, and we have connected permanent systems in place of
temporary ones. The sequence of three complex spacewalks within 9 days
also demonstrated capabilities we will need later this year to fully
install Node 2 following its delivery on STS-120.
These mission achievements reflect the NASA team's dedication to
safely and successfully flying out the Space Shuttle program and
meeting our Nation's commitments to our international partners. The
program's successes also led to the decision in October 2006 to move
forward with plans for a final servicing mission to the Hubble Space
Telescope (HST). Following an extensive review by the relevant NASA
offices of all safety and technical issues associated with conducting
such a mission, it became clear that an HST servicing mission could be
carried out effectively and safely. While there is an inherent risk in
all spaceflight activities, the desire to preserve a truly
international asset like the HST makes doing this mission the right
course of action.
The Space Shuttle FY 2008 budget request of $4,007 million would
provide for five Shuttle flights, including four ISS assembly flights
as well as the HST servicing mission. The ISS assembly flights include
the launch of major research facility modules from the European Space
Agency and Japan. The Canadian Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator
robotic system will also be flown in 2008. These flights are a major
step toward fulfilling U.S. commitments to NASA's international
partners as specified in the ISS agreements and the Vision for Space
Exploration.
The FY 2008 budget request includes $2,239 million for ISS
activities. NASA has consulted with our international partners on the
configuration of the ISS, and is working closely with them to determine
the detailed plans for logistics required during and after assembly.
The FY 2008 budget request provides the necessary resources to purchase
Soyuz crew transport and rescue for U.S. astronauts as well as Progress
vehicle logistics support for the ISS from the Russian Space Agency.
As the Shuttle approaches its retirement, the ISS Program intends
to use alternative cargo and crew transportation services from
commercial industry. Once a capability is demonstrated in Phase 1 of
the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) Space Act
Agreements, NASA plans to purchase cargo delivery services
competitively in Phase 2 and will decide whether to pursue crew
demonstrations. In the FY 2008 budget, funding for the purchase of crew
and cargo transportation services, either from international partners
or preferably from commercial providers, is transferred from the
Exploration Systems Mission Directorate to the Space Operations Mission
Directorate. One item of significance in the FY 2008 budget runout,
especially in the out-years, is that it allows for increases to our
previously estimated costs for purchasing commercial cargo and crew
services to support the ISS, assuming these commercial services are
successfully demonstrated and are cost-effective. Should costs for
those services be greater than what is presently budgeted, NASA has
accepted a management challenge to scale back on our space operations
costs and will curtail some of our robotic lunar exploration or long-
term exploration technology development in the out-years. COTS
demonstration funding remains in ESMD to better exploit potential
synergies with the Constellation Program.
The Space Shuttle Program's highest priority is to safely complete
the mission manifest by the end of FY 2010, using as few flights as
possible. Working through formalized Transition Control Board
processes, the Space Shuttle Program will also play a key role in
coordinating the smooth transition of Space Shuttle assets and
capabilities to the next generation of Exploration systems without
compromising the safety of ongoing flight operations. The greatest
challenge NASA faces is safely flying the Space Shuttle to assemble the
ISS prior to retiring the Shuttle in 2010, while also bringing new U.S.
human spaceflight capabilities online soon thereafter. There are a
number of major transition milestones set for FY 2008, including the
transition of one of the four high bays in the Vehicle Assembly
Building and Launch Pad 39B to the Constellation Systems Program. Space
Shuttle Atlantis may also be retired in FY 2008 after the HST SM-4
mission and its systems and parts would be used to support the
remaining Space Shuttle Orbiters, Discovery and Endeavour, during the
program's last 2 years of operations. The FY 2008 budget request
reflects the current assessment of costs to retire the Space Shuttle.
Over the next year, NASA will develop additional detail and refine our
cost estimates for the transition.
The FY 2008 budget also provides for the procurement of two
additional Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) satellites
to replenish the constellation. NASA projects that the availability of
aging TDRSS satellites to support overall user demand will be reduced
by 2009 and depleted by 2015. In order to continue to support all
users, NASA must begin the procurement process immediately, with
planned launches in FY 2012 and FY 2013. By replenishing the
satellites, NASA will be able to meet overall user demand through 2016.
The Space Operations Mission Directorate has partnered with non-NASA
users to provide a proportionate investment in the replacement
capabilities.
Cross-Agency Support Programs
The FY 2008 Budget Request for activities within the Cross-Agency
Support Programs (CASP)--Education, Advanced Business Systems,
Innovative Partnerships Programs, and Shared Capabilities Assets
Program--is $498.2 million. Within this amount, $34.3 million is for
the Shared Capability Assets Program (SCAP), which is designed to
ensure that critical capabilities and assets (e.g., arc jets, wind
tunnels, super computing facilities, rocket propulsion testing, etc.)
required agency-wide are available to missions when needed. The FY 2008
budget request for Advanced Business Systems, comprising the Integrated
Enterprise Management Program (IEMP), is $103.1 million. FY 2007 and FY
2008 funding will support IEMP in implementing capabilities that
improve NASA's tracking and accountability of its property, plant, and
equipment; integrate human capital information, providing employees and
management with new, secure tools for accessing personnel data, and
planning and budgeting NASA's workforce; and, provide more relevant and
accurate financial information in support to NASA's programs and
projects. This funding also supports ongoing operations and maintenance
of NASA's financial system and other agency-wide business systems.
For NASA's Education activities, the FY 2008 budget request totals
$153.7 million and sustains our ongoing commitment to excellence in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) to ensure that
our agency is equipped with the right workforce to implement the Vision
for Space Exploration. NASA will continue the tradition of investing in
education and supporting educators who play a key role in preparing,
inspiring, exciting, encouraging, and nurturing the youth who will
manage and lead the laboratories and research centers of tomorrow. NASA
Education is committed to three primary objectives to help improve the
state of STEM education in our country: strengthen the Nation's and
NASA's future workforce; attract and retain students in the STEM
discipline and; engage the American people in NASA's missions through
partnerships and alliances.
The Innovative Partnerships Programs (IPP) provides leveraged
technology investments, dual-use technology-related partnerships, and
technology solutions for NASA. The FY 2008 budget request for IPP
activities is $198.1 million. The IPP implements NASA's Small Business
Innovative Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer
(STTR) Programs that provide the high-technology small business sector
with an opportunity to develop technology for NASA. Recently, NASA has
made some changes to the management structure of these two programs to
better enable technology infusion and to increase the efficiency of the
operations. IPP also manages the Centennial Challenges Program. NASA
has already benefited from the introduction of new sources of
innovation and technology development even though the Program is
relatively new and no prizes have yet been awarded. In addition,
ongoing and future prize challenges will continue to inspire brilliant
young minds.
Conclusion
NASA has many challenges ahead of us, but we are on track and
making progress in managing these challenges. The FY 2008 budget
request demonstrates commitment to our Nation's leadership in space and
aeronautics research, and while we may face a significant funding
reduction for FY 2007, we will carry on, though not at the pace we had
previously hoped.
I ask your help to ensure this Nation maintains a human space
flight capability. Without stable funding as requested in this budget,
we face the very real possibility of allowing that capability to slip
away for the foreseeable future--even as other nations continue to
develop similar capabilities.
I also need your help to effectively transition key elements of our
Space Shuttle workforce, infrastructure, and equipment to our Nation's
exploration objectives. The provisions I referenced earlier, as well as
stable funding, will help ensure we preserve a critical and unique
industrial base capability that has allowed the United States to lead
the world in space exploration.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I
would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Dr. Griffin.
Senator Stevens, if you need to leave, go ahead.
Senator Stevens. You're very kind.
As I listened to you, I think you're right, in your last
statement. But, you know, we have never made it available to
the public to express their support, in terms of space bonds.
Have you ever explored the concept of some space bonds so that
we could purchase them and leave them to our grandchildren or
something to collect, at a very low rate of interest? I think
everyone in the country would contribute to keeping us in
space. But the ability to get all the needed money out of the
budget is almost impossible.
Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir, I understand. We've not looked at
space bonds. I don't think that's within our authorization.
That would be a prerogative of the Congress.
Senator Stevens. What would you think about it?
Dr. Griffin. I think, as you think, sir. I think most
Americans would be willing to buy such things to contribute to
the space program. I mean, Americans have bought government
bonds for many other important initiatives. I believe many
would do so for this one.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
Senator Hutchison. Let's work on it. That's great.
Let me say thank you for always shooting straight.
Sometimes I don't like the message, but you always shoot
straight.
Dr. Griffin. I'm sorry, Senator.
Senator Hutchison. But I know that when you say you're
going to do something, you do it, also. Let me ask you a couple
of things.
We had a very important meeting, Senator Nelson and I, with
you and the appropriations staff, because I was alarmed at what
the Appropriations Committee did, without our acquiescence, in
cutting back on certain programs and adding certain programs in
NASA without ever having a hearing, without ever consulting us.
And we were very concerned. However, the appropriations staff
person made it very clear that you had the ability to transfer
according to need, and that you would have the flexibility to
cover the priorities that you saw.
I wanted to ask you if you are seeing that in actuality? Do
you feel that you are able to cover some of those costs for the
Crew Exploration Vehicle, continuation of its early--not
production, but the early research and development? And do you
feel comfortable that you have the flexibility that was
described?
Dr. Griffin. Senator, no, I don't think we have a lot of
flexibility. The programmatic instruction in the FY07 bill is
very clear. We have a $545-million, in round numbers, cut for
all of NASA. That cut is administered in particular ways that
result in taking about $675 million out of human spaceflight in
order to produce increases in other areas or smaller reductions
in other areas. So, no, I cannot sit here and say that I feel
that I've been granted much flexibility by the Congress in
apportioning that money.
Senator Hutchison. Well, was that your impression in the
meeting, that you would not have that flexibility? Or were you
hearing what I thought he was saying, and suggesting language
that would give you that flexibility?
Dr. Griffin. I was in that meeting with you. I was not
certain what really could be inferred from it. But a careful
reading of the law tells us that I do not, in fact--we have
taken a nearly $700-million cut in human spaceflight in order
to address a $545-million cut across the agency. And the
language is most specific. And I do not feel that I have much
flexibility. I think my assistant just made the point that we
do have a certain amount of flex on the institutional side to
address the needs of full-cost accounting. So, with regard to
our accounting system, we do have flexibility. Of course, that
is very helpful, because we have changed our accounting
approach this year. But I do not have programmatic flexibility.
Senator Hutchison. So, have you had to slow down the Crew
Exploration Vehicle buildup?
Dr. Griffin. Yes, Senator. We will be slowing the
development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle.
Senator Hutchison. Well, I'm very disappointed to hear
that, because it was my impression that the appropriations
staff person was saying that you would have the flexibility to
continue the priorities, which have been human spaceflight, and
that continuation----
Senator Nelson.--Senator Hutchison, let me interrupt here
to ask a question. Wasn't that administrative flexibility about
$200 million, Dr. Griffin?
Dr. Griffin. I need to distinguish between accounting
flexibility and programmatic flexibility. I do not have the
flexibility to move money from one area to another. For
example, I do not have the flexibility to minimize the delays
to the Crew Exploration Vehicle, other than by taking other
human spaceflight money. And I don't have extra money in the
Shuttle and Station accounts, as you well know----
Senator Hutchison. Right.
Dr. Griffin.--so, I do not have that flexibility.
Senator Nelson.--Excuse me for interrupting, but wasn't
there one program that you told us, for example, in the
development of the heat shield, that you could take out of
exploration and put into aeronautics?
Dr. Griffin. Although we were always planning to do this--
we can, and will, use our Aeronautics Research Mission
Directorate to help with the development of the reentry heat
shield for the Crew Exploration Vehicle. It was always planned
that they would do that. I mean, the Aeronautics Research
Mission Directorate is where that work would be done, and
specifically at the Ames Research Center, is the headquarters
for that. The question is, who pays for it? In years where
aeronautics received less funding, we would have had the
Exploration Systems Mission Directorate pay for it. In this
year, we would contemplate having the Aeronautics Research
Mission Directorate help pay for it. That is helpful. That is
helpful. So, there's no change in the work. It's always been
aeronautics work, and it was always planned to be done. The
aeronautics account can help pay for that, yes.
Senator Hutchison. So, that's----
Dr. Griffin. That is a help.
Senator Hutchison. But you're still going to have a
slowdown?
Dr. Griffin. As I said a moment ago, the net result of the
decrease will be a 4- to 6-month delay, as best we can tell, in
delivery of the Orion Crew Vehicle.
Senator Hutchison. I would like to ask you if you would
give me the detail of how much you would need in
transferability to continue the Crew Exploration Vehicle--I
don't know--is the research or engineering----
Dr. Griffin. Right, it's----
Senator Hutchison.--or planning or development stage--how
much would you need transferred back in order to fulfill the
timeline, if you were able to start in a month or so, and have
the rest of this fiscal year?
Dr. Griffin. I'll have to take that question for the
record, but we'll get you the information on the money needed
to remain on schedule, where we were before. It would be
approximately the amount which was reduced this year, because
most of the reduction came from that account. But we will get
you that information.
[The information referred to follows:]
Based on the technical baseline and flight tests planned for the
Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) and the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle
(CLV) and the current projected budget available for Constellation
Systems, NASA's estimate for the CEV Initial Operational Capability
(IOC) is September 2015, with a schedule variance around this IOC date
of approximately 4 months based on NASA's cost estimates. This CEV IOC
date may be moved up if we delete other activities in the exploration
budget to shore up funding for the CEV and CLV. Further, this projected
IOC date is based on the NASA Exploration Systems budget resources not
eroding below the current five-year runout or being re-directed to
other activities. Initial Operational Capability (IOC) for the Orion
and Ares I launch vehicle is defined here as the major milestone when
test pilot astronauts fly the CEV for the first time to the
International Space Station to conduct full-up testing of the new
spacecraft. This is not planned to he a crew rotation flight. The
second major milestone is Full Operational Capability (FOC) when the
CEV and CLV will be capable of transporting crew to the International
Space Station, remaining at the Station for up to 180 days, and safely
returning a crew to Earth. This FOC is projected to occur approximately
one year following IOC of the CEV and CLV.
In order to meet a CEV IOC of 2014, NASA would require additional
funds in the out-years to meet that IOC schedule with a 65 percent cost
confidence level in our budgeting. The ideal time phasing of such funds
would he approximately $350 million in FY 2009 and an additional $400
million in FY 2010, though funding from FY 2008 may be obligated in FY
2008 and FY 2009 to the CEV and CLV development. The schedule variance
around the IOC date is approximately 4 months, based on NASA's cost
estimates.
Senator Hutchison. All right, thank you very much.
Senator Nelson. May I interject right there? Now, let me
get the math. $700 million minus $200 million that you have in
flexibility administration, so that's $500 million. So, $500
million, you're in deficit for the Fiscal Year. But the Fiscal
Year started October the 1st. This is now the end of February.
So, there is 7 months left of the Fiscal Year. So, 7/12ths of
$500 million is something around $300 million. Is that a
ballpark of what you would need juiced up for this fiscal year?
Dr. Griffin. Well, I think we're mixing apples and oranges
here, because, again, the institutional flexibility is mostly
involved with the spreading of agency overhead, OK, among our
accounts. Every business has direct costs and overhead. So,
when we talk about flexibility, we do have the flexibility to
apportion the overhead correctly, in accordance with our
accounting roles. We don't have the flexibility to move direct
funding. With all due respect, Senator Hutchison asked for an
answer, on the record, that gives the right amount of money,
and I can't do that in my head, so I'd rather provide that to
you offline.
Senator Nelson. We're trying to help you.
Dr. Griffin. I know, Senator. Let me try to get at it
another way. Increases were provided to facilities and
aeronautics. Small decreases were taken in our science
account--much less than the percentage of the cut we had. In
order to allow the rest of that to happen, we had to take
nearly $700 million out of human spaceflight. Almost all of
that came from the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle, which is now
in development. Senator, you were asking about research or
whatever. It's in the development stage. We've selected a
contractor. They're busy working away, as are the folks at the
NASA field centers. So, in truth, there isn't enough transfer
authority to make up that much money, because that amount of
money was bigger than the cut we took.
Senator Hutchison. But you do have the offset of what is
being done within aeronautics.
Dr. Griffin. There is some work that can be done on the
heat shield, and is being done in the Aeronautics Research
Mission Directorate, but it isn't $200 million worth of work,
by any stretch of the imagination.
Senator Hutchison. Well, that's why I would like to have
the accurate----
Dr. Griffin. Yes.
Senator Hutchison.--number, because maybe----
Dr. Griffin. Exactly.
Senator Hutchison.--we would have another way to restore
some of that----
Dr. Griffin. Exactly.
Senator Hutchison.--through a supplemental.
Dr. Griffin. I will get you that. I certainly know that
you're trying to help. And I'm trying to help you. But, you
know, the bottom line is that we're down over half a billion
dollars, and most of that came from the Shuttle replacement
vehicles.
I would emphasize, I know that all of you know this, but,
for the record, I want to make the point that many have said,
``I'm not worried about the Moon right now.'' And I would say
to them, ``Well, I'm not worried about the Moon right now,
either. I'm worried about replacing the Shuttle.'' The budget
cuts we have taken largely come out of replacing the Shuttle.
And I will get you the exact figures.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you. And I have another question,
but, since Senator Dorgan has not yet questioned, I will defer.
Senator Nelson. Before I turn to Senator Dorgan, are your
figures calculating that you're going to be reimbursed for the
money that you spent on hurricane repairs?
Dr. Griffin. We have asked for transfer authority. As I
think you know, we took money out of the Shuttle and Station
accounts to pay for the Hurricane Katrina repairs. We've asked
for transfer authority to be able to pay that back from the
Hurricane Katrina supplemental that we did receive. That money
is not involved, either way, with the exploration account. So,
that was money that came out of Shuttle and Station. We'd like
to put it back in Shuttle and Station.
Senator Nelson. And how much money is that?
Dr. Griffin. I will have to get you that for the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
Total Katrina requirements are currently estimated at $432.4
million, made up of $384.8 million in direct Katrina-related
requirements and $47.6 million in Shuttle/ISS payback needs.
MAF--$181.0 million
SSC--$197.2 million
NSSC--$3.2 million
Other--$3.4 million
Shuttle/ISS Payback--$47.6 million
The $384.8 million in total direct Katrina requirements includes
all Center recovery and operations activities and all high priority
catastrophic loss mitigation projects, approved as of November 1, 2006.
The $47.6 million in Shuttle/ISS payback needs reflects a reduction
from NASA's earlier figure of $54 million, a result of the September
2006 reprogramming to the ISS program of $6.4 million in Shuttle/ISS
funds loaned for Katrina needs, which had not yet been spent.
NASA currently has funding availability of $432.4 million to meet
Katrina-related requirements:
$384.8 million in supplemental funding from P.L. 109-148
($349.8 million) and Pub. L. 109-234 ($35.0 million)
$47.6 million loaned from Shuttle/ISS programs (already
obligated)
NASA is seeking to transfer up to $48 million from the $384.8
million in emergency supplemental funds to pay back the remaining
Shuttle/ISS loan. The ISS program has content requirements in excess of
budget availability in FY 2007 due to budget reductions over the past
several years and impacts of the Columbia accident. This has resulted
in a negative ISS reserve posture (more requirements and threats than
available funding) for FY 2007, which ISS is closely monitoring. These
negative reserves are currently booked in Operations and the program
may have to consider potential content reductions in order to execute
the next Fiscal Year. Payback to ISS for Katrina would go to ISS
Operations to help implement the current program requirements and
reduce the risk of potential content deletions, which could prevent the
program from meeting its International Partner commitments and
supporting the Vision for Space Exploration. The Space Shuttle Program
(SSP) requires the payback of funds to mitigate both schedule and
operational risk in FY 2007. The SSP is also projecting more
requirements and threats than available funding, which reduces its
programmatic ability to deal with unexpected requirements. Proposed
language is as follows: ``Up to $48,000,000 of amounts made available
to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in Public Law 109-
148 and Public Law 109-234 for emergency hurricane and other natural
disaster-related expenses may be used to reimburse hurricane-related
costs incurred by NASA in Fiscal Year 2005.''
If $47.6 million were transferred from the supplemental funds to
repay the remaining Shuttle/ISS loan, the total available funding
remaining for Katrina would be $384.8 million. the same amount as
appropriated in the emergency supplemental measures. The full amount of
$384.8 million would still be available for Katrina needs; no content
would be affected by the transfer. NASA is able to fund all Katrina
recovery and operations activities as well as all high priority
catastrophic loss mitigation projects and still repay remaining
borrowed Shuttle/ISS funds if transfer authority is provided by
Congress.
Senator Nelson. But whatever that is, it's some tens of
millions.
Dr. Griffin. Oh, many tens of millions, yes.
Senator Nelson. Well, then, that's newfound money, isn't
it? That would go into the Shuttle account.
Dr. Griffin. Correct.
Senator Nelson. Well, then, that's like additional money
that you wouldn't absolutely have. What we'd like you to come
up with is a figure that is realistic that we could go out and
try to find for you, so you can keep on the schedule of 2014 or
earlier for Orion/Ares.
Dr. Griffin. We will do that.
Senator Hutchison. Exactly.
Senator Nelson. Senator Dorgan?
STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Dr. Griffin, thank you for being here. You don't lift off
from North Dakota. I don't have a large population of employees
up in my part of the country, but I'm interested in NASA, and I
especially am interested in the last comment you made, because
I share that sentiment. I think when a society stops exploring,
it stops progressing. I just think it's very important for us
to continue to explore, and space exploration is very important
in that exploration.
I especially became interested, in the last decade, in the
concept of Mission to Planet Earth, which NASA was very
interested in, and that is developing the massive--or the
substantial amount of information that you collect and create,
and using it for beneficial purposes here on Earth. And so,
that is one of the things that's piqued my interest, as well.
Let me ask about the budget request, just for a moment.
And, if I might, the $545 million that you're losing is from
the President's 2007 request.
Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir.
Senator Dorgan. Our funding, though, in the continuing
resolution, is a continuation of the 2006 level, isn't it?
Dr. Griffin. That's correct.
Senator Dorgan. And so, you will not replace the $545
million that was requested in 2007, because we're not going to
have another opportunity on that. We passed a CR at the 2006
level, and the Chairman is right that we're 5 months into the
fiscal Year. Seven months remain, but the $545 million comes
off of the 2007 request, rather than the CR, which embodies the
2006-level extension. So, you will have lost all of the $545
million for the fiscal year and not recapture that. I think
that's your concern.
Dr. Griffin. That was part of the point I was making.
Senator Dorgan. What I don't understand is, your loss of
$545 million from the 2007 request, how that relates to the
$677 million that you were directed in reductions to human
spaceflight. Can you explain that to me? Because I don't
understand that.
Dr. Griffin. I can best illustrate by saying what I
normally would have done if given a reduction in planned
spending because of a continuing resolution. I would have
normally apportioned it approximately in accord with the way
money is spent within the agency. Roughly 60 percent of our
money is spent on human spaceflight, so I would have taken a
cut of 60 percent of $545 million and applied it to human
spaceflight. Thirty-two percent of our money goes to science; I
would have cut science by 32 percent, and done so in a pro rata
fashion. I was not provided that flexibility. Other portfolios
within NASA were either increased or were cut only slightly,
and the human spaceflight account was decremented quite
severely to make up for that. So, the cuts were not applied in
a pro rata fashion according to how we spend the money within
the agency.
Senator Hutchison. That language was changed, in the
continuing resolution, from the Senate-passed bill and the
authorization that came out of this Committee.
Senator Dorgan. Let me ask, with respect to the Orion Crew
Exploration Vehicle, can you tell me the timeline and the
estimated costs of that project?
Dr. Griffin. The estimated cost of the project is in the
$10-billion, 9-point-something--and it was intended to deliver
human flight-quality hardware not later than 2014. In fact, we
were aiming for 2014.
Senator Dorgan. And you indicated, today, you've slipped
that 6 months?
Dr. Griffin. With this cut, we will slip 4 to 6 months, on
an--if nothing else changed, apples-to-apples basis, we'd slip
4 to 6 months.
Senator Dorgan. And how many Shuttle flights will occur
between now and that period of time?
Dr. Griffin. Well, the Shuttle will be retired in 2010. We
have about 13-14 flights to go.
Senator Dorgan. Can I ask you about the Earth science
portion of your work?
Dr. Griffin. You are the Senator, and I am the witness. You
can ask about anything.
[Laughter.]
Senator Dorgan. All right, then, let me start each question
with, ``How do you justify''--no, I won't do that.
Let me ask you about the science portion of your budget. As
I indicated, there are many Members of Congress that don't
offer a home in their home state to the dedicated people in
your agency, but we're very interested in the opportunity that
your science programs offer the rest of the country. Give me
your assessment of that. I know that some of the priorities
have changed in recent years in NASA, but give me your sense of
the Earth science programs.
Dr. Griffin. Well, the science program, as a whole, is an
extraordinary American accomplishment. It is just
extraordinary. It is also cooperative, internationally. It's
one of the best things we do to advance international
cooperation. Something like two-thirds of our missions have an
international component, and we are not always the leader;
sometimes we are the follower, supplying instruments on another
country's spacecraft. So, overall, our science program is just
extraordinary.
Now, with regard to Earth science, we have--and, as I
mentioned in my opening remarks, we have four major portfolios.
We have astrophysics, as exemplified by the Hubble Space
Telescope; planetary science--I think you're familiar with the
Mars Rovers; heliophysics on space science--you might not be
familiar with particular missions there, but you might recall
that, just a few months ago, we launched the STEREO mission,
which will study the sun from opposing angles around it, and be
able to get stereoscopic views of it, and help us understand
coronal mass ejections, which are our key to space weather and
to electrical interference with Earth; and then, finally, we
have Earth science. So, we have four portfolios. The Earth
science portfolio occupies, in Fiscal Year 2008, 27 percent of
the budget, so just slightly over one-fourth. The Earth science
portfolio is the section of NASA which is responsible for
returning all of the information on climate research, which you
have seen much ballyhooed in the media lately on global
warming. That is NASA work that has produced that data, and
we're quite proud of it.
The Earth science program had fallen on, I would say,
difficult days, a few years ago. Almost the first thing that I
did when I returned to the agency--as I think you know, I've
been with NASA before in my career--almost the first thing I
did when I returned was to remove a planned increase for the
robotic Mars program and put that money back into Earth science
to bring the Earth science portfolio up to the levels that it
should enjoy, consistent with our other science mission
portfolios. So, today it's healthy. We have also a very
recently released Decadal Survey for Earth Sciences. We will
use that to reshape our planning portfolio in the next few
years. We have a recently released report from the IPCC on
their thoroughly scientific assessment of global warming, which
I think will help to inform the debate.
So, I'm actually pretty pleased with, and pretty proud of,
the program. And, you know, I think it's in good shape.
Senator Dorgan. Well, I want NASA to succeed. And as I
indicated to you, I feel very strongly that our country needs
to continue to explore and find the edges of exploration and
science.
Let me, finally, ask you one very delicate question. Well,
you know that NASA was the subject of a 24/7 discussion about
one instance, a very difficult circumstance with an astronaut,
a former astronaut. And, frankly, watching all of that on
television, it's pretty depressing to watch the 24/7 news cycle
these days--a lot like blackbirds on a telephone wire, one
flies on; they all fly on, one flies off, they all fly off. And
in this circumstance, there was a lot of publicity about a
former NASA astronaut. I watched that, and one of the things
that I admired is other NASA astronauts came and spoke publicly
and said, ``We worry about the human being here.'' But having
mentioned that, is there anything in that circumstance, or
anything with respect to what you saw and heard, that required
or urged you to think about any changes in screenings or any
other aspect of training and seeking astronauts?
Dr. Griffin. Well, sir, that is exactly what we are looking
at. The allegations against Captain Nowak are, of course, very
serious. It's a legal matter. It's in the legal system. I just
will not address those allegations. But clearly she is in major
trouble, and clearly we failed, as an institution, to recognize
that she was very troubled. So, as I speak to you, we are
looking, with two separate groups, at exactly that issue, as
well as the issue of prescreening and to continue screening.
The two groups are drawn, first of all, from across the
Federal Government from other high-performance, high-stress
organizations in the military services, from the aeromedical or
other medical specialists, and then also a second group from
inside NASA to look at how we support our astronauts. When
results from those studies become available, you will have
them.
Senator Dorgan. All right. I should hasten to say, I don't
mean to suggest that was not a news story. It clearly was a
news story, and clearly the charges are serious. But it was
very high profile, simply because it was an astronaut who had
recently flown on a mission.
I thank you for the response. I hope you'll share what you
have learned, with the Committee, when you learn it.
Dr. Griffin. We absolutely will. I would like to close that
particular question by noting that I have known and worked with
our astronauts for the better part of 30 years, in one capacity
or another, and they are, of course, highly selected and highly
filtered, and extremely capable, and extremely conscientious,
and I don't think one incident should ever be allowed to paint
a picture for an entire group of people, for any group, and
certainly not for our astronauts.
Senator Dorgan. Well, I've met many of them, and they are
an unbelievable group of American men and women, courageous.
And we certainly wouldn't want to disparage astronauts in the
sight of one who's flown here, as well, the Chairman of our
Subcommittee.
Let me thank you, Dr. Griffin. And I'm anxious to work with
you and the folks in NASA to see that you succeed in your
missions.
Dr. Griffin. Thank you, Senator Dorgan.
Senator Nelson. Senator Dorgan, since you are a member of
the Appropriations Committee, one of the things that maybe you,
Senator Mikulski, and Senator Hutchison could all explore is
language that would give additional flexibility, coming up on
this vehicle that we're going to consider in a couple of weeks
on moving money from one account to another.
Dr. Griffin--Senator Hutchison, you want to continue on?
Senator Hutchison. Yes.
Senator Nelson. I've got a bunch of questions, and I don't
want to hold you up.
Senator Hutchison. OK. Let me ask one.
Senator Nelson. You go ahead.
Senator Hutchison. All right, thank you. I just have one,
and that is the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) that we have
discussed, that Dr. Sam Ting is working on, both in
Switzerland, and other countries, and would like to have the
spectrometer go on the Space Station, because it is his
contention, as we had heard from him in this very Committee
last year, that he thinks the study of cosmic rays and the dark
matter could have a potential impact on our future energy
sources. And the Department of Energy has, since that hearing
that we had, validated his contention that it would have a
strong scientific basis. My question is, since it is not on the
list of priority pieces of equipment that would be in the last
of the Shuttles, which I think you've already designated, is
there any other way that that piece of equipment could be taken
to the Space Station, perhaps through other agencies or private
funding? And do you think it would be worth pursuing that for
the scientific work that could be done once the Space Station
is completed?
Dr. Griffin. I'm certainly not able to comment on private
funding sources or what other agencies can do. I need to stay
in my running lane. Yes, of course, the Alpha Magnetic
Spectrometer can be put in space by other means than the
Shuttle. We've analyzed that problem fairly carefully, and, if
it were put on an Atlas or Delta EELV, Air Force Expendable
Vehicle, it would take us about $350 million, we estimate, to
buy that launch and to outfit it with the necessary automated
docking mechanisms. The automated docking mechanisms would be
very similar to what the European ATV or the Japanese HTV will
use when they dock with the Station. So, certainly it can be
done, but it's the $350 million. Just as Shuttle flights,
following Columbia, are now a nonrenewable resource--I have a
very limited number of Shuttle flights available to finish
building the Station, and so, I just simply can't add a Shuttle
flight--so, also, I don't have $350 million to put that payload
into space by alternate means.
Senator Hutchison. Is it totally foreclosed that that would
be able to go up on a Shuttle when you are taking something
else in this group that you have in the schedule?
Dr. Griffin. The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer weighs many
tons, and we have looked carefully, believe me. The Alpha
Magnetic Spectrometer flight is one of the many examples of
collateral damage to the Nation's space program which followed
the loss of Columbia. It is very visible. I know it is very
visible to you. But there have been many other things we lost
as a result of that accident. We are still digging out of that
hole, leaving entirely aside, of course, the tragedy of losing
seven crew members. The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer is one of
those losses. We have looked very carefully to see whether it
could be co-manifested with any other piece of Space Station
hardware, and to go up in that fashion. But, as you know, the
pieces of Space Station hardware that we have are, themselves,
large and voluminous. We just can't fit the AMS in with the
Space Station hardware. Other than the Hubble flight, which
needs the whole cargo bay--the Hubble servicing mission,
sorry--needs every bit of payload we can get to get to the
right altitude--we have no other Shuttle missions available
that don't take up Space Station hardware. So, all of our
missions are devoted either to servicing the Hubble or to
building the Space Station, and all of the ones devoted to
building the Space Station have too much hardware in the cargo
bay to put the AMS in. So, we just can't get there from here.
Senator Hutchison. And there's no outside source that would
probably consider the $350 million able to be recovered from
the science?
Dr. Griffin. I'm not aware of one. Of course, I'm an
engineer and not a scientist. I know that Dr. Ting has much
broader connections in the science community than I will ever
have. And I am told that the science is good science. I'm
simply not casting any aspersions on it at all. But if no other
science agency or entity has stepped up to say that they want
to fund it, then I would assume that they don't think that it
is capable of being funded.
The AMS was approved--I know you know this, but, for the
record, before we lost Columbia, the entire logistical support
of the Space Station was to be by means of the Shuttle. So,
there were many Shuttle flights that would go up for crew
rotation or to bring consumables, which had a lot of extra
payload capacity. So, in that sense, transport aboard the Space
Shuttle was a free good. It was a free thing that we could
offer to worthy payloads. The AMS was one of those. In the
post-Columbia world, transportation aboard the Shuttle is not a
free good. It is an extraordinarily limited resource. If we are
to finish the Space Station in the manner that you spoke of in
your opening remarks, every Shuttle flight that I have left has
got to be used for the Station. Then, last year's legislation,
2006 legislation, made one exception to that, in law--was the
Hubble servicing mission, directing us to spend $293 million to
continue with that mission, if it were possible to fly it. As
you know, I spent a lot of personal time--not just agency time,
but personal time--involved in the study of whether or not the
Hubble servicing mission was technically possible, given the
new rules under which we fly Shuttles. We came to the
conclusion that it was, and that is the only non-Space Station
exception, at this point.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Griffin. Thank you, Senator. And I'm very sorry, but
that is the answer.
Senator Nelson. And according to your answer on AMS, the
same would be true of the Deep Space Climate Observatory?
Dr. Griffin. You've caught me at a loss. I don't know what
the Deep Space Climate Observatory is; but, if it was intended
to go up on a Shuttle, it isn't now.
Senator Nelson. It was. It was engineered to go in the
payload bay. In fact, it is a completed spacecraft.
Dr. Griffin. Oh, I believe you're talking about what used
to be called Triana.
Senator Nelson. That's correct.
Dr. Griffin. I'm sorry. I disconnected on the acronym.
Excuse me. Yes, sir, if we were to fly DSCOVR, it would have to
go on an expendable vehicle. There would have to be some
reengineering done to it, because expendable vehicle loads are
substantially greater than the Shuttle, as you, of course,
know. So, it was designed for Shuttle launch. So, the entire
loads environment would be different. So, there would be money
to spent there. Then, we would have to buy the expendable
vehicle. So, I think, there again, you're talking about at
least a couple of hundred, maybe several hundred million
dollars to fly that particular spacecraft.
Senator Nelson. Picking up on Senator Hutchison's comment
about private entrepreneurs offering a ride, one thing that you
are looking at is the ability to send crew or cargo to the
Station during the gap.
Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir.
Senator Nelson. Instead of relying just on the Russian
Soyuz or the European ATV, which, itself, hasn't flown. You
have this COTS contract, the Commercial Orbital Transportation
System. Talk to us about that.
Dr. Griffin. I'm happy to, Senator. That particular effort
is my initiative, so, if it fails, you'll know where to look.
The genesis of that effort lies with the observation that,
over the decades of space development--in contrast to aviation,
where we had a strong public-private synergy, a lot of private
money in aviation during the hundred years of its development
to its present state, and a lot of public money--in space, we
have pretty much only had public money and public programs,
civil or defense, but all funded by the American taxpayer.
We've had relatively little private space development.
I believe that that fact is responsible for a slower growth
of space capability than we witnessed in the development of
aviation. Many private concerns have said that, if the
government would provide a certain amount of seed money, that
they could attract other private capital, and that they would
be able to develop basic space infrastructure--transportation
to and from low Earth orbit, if the government would provide
seed capital, they could provide such capability at costs much
lower than the government could provide.
I don't think any amongst us would believe the proposition
that the government is the most efficient provider of goods and
services. So, if such commercial space capability could be
brought into being, I think that most of us believe it would be
more efficient than the government, and, therefore, a good
deal.
In my tenure, another of those things that I started very
early, we set aside some money--about half a billion dollars
over the 5-year runout--we set aside some money to be used as
seed money--not enough money for the development of this
commercial capability, but seed money--to help the winning
companies attract other capital. We labeled it the Commercial
Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program, as you duly
noted.
Over the course of the last year or so, we conducted a
competition among all parties for two funded Space Act
Agreements. Space Act Agreements fall under the category of
other transactional authority, like the DOD has in many areas
for special transactions that are not what you would classify
as conventional prime contracts or service contracts. They're
other transactional authority that is granted to NASA in its
founding legislation. It was determined by our Office of
General Counsel that the Space Act Agreement was an appropriate
mechanism to conduct this particular piece of business. We held
competitions. We found two winners. We have awarded the money
to the two winners. They are now busily about their business of
seeking private capital to augment the government capital and
moving down the road to advance the capability.
We certainly hope that both will succeed, but this is not
something over which the government has control. By the very
nature of an attempt to bring about commercial space
capability, we must severely restrict our oversight. In fact,
this whole question of the development of commercial space
capability comes down to an attempt to answer the question, is
the American aerospace industrial base capable of developing
spaceflight hardware without the close oversight of the U.S.
Government? We have conducted the experiment to know that, with
the close oversight of the U.S. Government, such capability is
possible. The question is, can it be done on an arms'-length
basis? I believe the answer to that is yes, and that is what
we're doing with the COTS contracts. If one or both are
successful, in a few years we will be able to transition from
Space Act Agreements to routine purchases of commercial service
to low Earth orbit, and that is our hope.
Senator Nelson. And then, you would have to have the
government oversight, because it's going to interface with a
government facility, the Space Station.
Dr. Griffin. Well, of course. We try to do that through
appropriate interface requirements. We have published visiting-
vehicle requirements for any vehicle which would wish to dock
at the Station. We have certain standards on human rating that
we would apply. But those are known in advance to the companies
developing the capability. It's not something to be imposed on
them by surprise at the last moment. I mean, the government has
standards on commercial aviation, as you well know, Senator.
So, commercial airplanes are developed with those standards in
mind. That's exactly what we're doing in the space arena.
Senator Nelson. If successful, would that be a source of a
ride for DSCOVR or for AMS?
Dr. Griffin. I don't know, but I'm initially doubtful,
because both--well, possibly for DSCOVR, which is of lower
mass. AMS weighs many tons, and I'm skeptical that that
particular payload could be carried up. We are talking about a
couple of tons of cargo for this commercial space capability at
the entry level, a few tons of cargo. We're talking about being
able to provide crew rotations for a few people. We're not
talking about the kind of mass that the AMS has.
Senator Nelson. But possibly DSCOVR.
Dr. Griffin. Possibly.
Senator Nelson. And it would be a lot cheaper than the $350
million you're talking about to get on an Atlas or a Delta.
Dr. Griffin. Well, certainly, sir, because if the developed
commercial capability was not cheaper than what the government
could do, then we wouldn't purchase it. We won't spend more
money than is necessary to buy a government capability.
Senator Nelson. Let's go back to the gap, which you now say
is going to be early Fiscal Year 2015.
Dr. Griffin. As we project, today, yes, sir.
Senator Nelson. So, between October 1, 2014, and sometime
in the first part of calendar year 2015 is what you're
projecting.
Dr. Griffin. That is what I'm projecting.
Senator Nelson. What do you think is going to be the impact
upon the work force, both civil servants and contractors?
Dr. Griffin. I am worried about it. From the end of Fiscal
Year 2010 until early in Fiscal Year 2015, from the end of one
Shuttle period to the onset of the Orion and Ares period, our
human spaceflight expertise will be depleted, to a certain
extent. In fact, if we kept all the same people onboard that we
have today on Shuttle, we would obviously save no money,
because, in the end, all the money goes to pay people to do
things we want them to do. Even when we buy hardware, we are
paying other people in other places to make that hardware.
Now, there would be fewer people involved in the Orion and
Ares launch systems anyway, because we intend them to cost
less, and we certainly want to divert some of that talent to
other enterprises. But when you don't fly for 4 or more years,
people become stale; the very good people often move into other
enterprises where there is more action; facilities degrade.
It's not a good thing. This Nation went through a period like
that between the end of Apollo and the onset of Shuttle, and it
was very damaging. I expect it will be damaging again, which is
why, with you, I have devoted a considerable amount of personal
energy to minimizing that gap. The funding that we have today
supports flying in early 2015. That is about the best that I
can offer you.
Senator Nelson. Theoretically, that would be 4 years;
October 2010 until October, November, or December of 2014,
because that's Fiscal Year 2015.
Dr. Griffin. Sometime in early 2015 would be 4-plus years.
Senator Nelson. What are the strategic implications of this
4-year-plus gap in our Nation's ability to send humans into
space?
Dr. Griffin. Assuming that commercial capability does not
materialize, and that we have only government capability, then
it would be at least 4 years. Personally--I mean, we--that
calls for a conclusion of the witness, because we can only
really assess the strategic impact by looking back on it, not
looking forward to it. But, as I look forward to it, my
conclusion is that, first of all, the United States will be, as
a Nation, in a position of purchasing crew and cargo services
from other governments--Russia, Europe, Japan--because our
existing barter arrangements for the Space Station did not ever
contemplate the lack of availability of the Shuttle. So, we are
purchasing extra services, which they are not obligated to
provide. I will tell you that I find it unseemly for the United
States to be in a position where we must do such a thing.
Now, we have reached the point where that is the state of
affairs, and so, my finding it unseemly does not alter that
fact. But it is a fact. I don't like it. I think it is an
improper position for the world's leading spacefaring nation to
be in. Moreover, to be in such a position greatly reduces any
bargaining power we might have in what is a very limited
marketplace, so we should not expect the cost of purchasing
such services to be cheap. The money then spent on purchasing
such services goes to the aerospace industries of other
nations, rather than our own.
That can't cheer anyone up.
Senator Nelson. No. Why did NASA, to begin with, decide
that there was going to be a gap until 2014?
Dr. Griffin. Sir, we have a budget. It is a very good
budget in any sense that one can assess it in the suite of
domestic nondefense discretionary programs in the Nation. The
President's request for NASA is incredibly generous. But the
money only goes so far, and, as you know we have many legacy
commitments on Shuttle and Station, which none of us want to
see abrogated, between now and Fiscal Year 2010, that leaves a
very limited amount of development money to nurture the new
systems. The way that development programs work is, for a fixed
amount of money, the normal development program profile would
require more money, earlier rather than later. The early years
for Orion and Ares are exactly the years when we have less
money. And so, given the fact that we have a generous budget,
but given the fact that we have legacy commitments between now
and the end of 2010, we simply do not have the money available
to provide an early capability for Orion and Ares.
Senator Nelson. Why don't you, in addition to the figures
that you're already going to supply to the Committee, supply us
with the figures that you think would get us back onto a track
to have it fly in human flight? Because you're going to do
several unmanned flights prior.
Dr. Griffin. We will do a couple of unmanned test flights
prior to putting people onboard, yes, sir.
Senator Nelson. So, human flight being the target of 2014,
2013, and 2012.
Dr. Griffin. So, you want funding requirements to provide
first human launch in--IOC, we're calling it, Initial
Operational Capability--you want funding requirements for IOC
in 2012, 2013, and 2014.
Senator Nelson. Since you just announced to us that it's
going to be early Fiscal Year 2015.
Dr. Griffin. At best, at this point. Yes, sir, we will get
you those funding requirements.
[The information referred to follows:]
Assessment of Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle Schedule
Based on the technical baseline and flight tests planned for the
Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle and the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle and
the current projected budget available for Constellation Systems,
NASA's estimate for the CEV Initial Operational Capability (IOC) is
March 2015, with a schedule variance around this IOC date of
approximately 4 months based on NASA's cost estimates. This CEV IOC
date assumes that NASA's proposal to terminate certain Exploration
Systems projects in FY 2007 and the outyears (approximately $630
million between FY 2007-2011) will be approved, so that we may shore up
funding for the CEV and CLV. Further, this projected IOC date is based
on the NASA Exploration Systems budget resources not eroding below the
current 5-year runout or being re-directed to other activities. Initial
Operational Capability (IOC) for the Orion and Ares I launch vehicle is
defined here as the major milestone when test pilot astronauts fly the
CEV for the first time to the International Space Station to conduct
full-up testing of the new spacecraft. This is not planned to be a crew
rotation flight. The second major milestone is Full Operational
Capability (FOC) when the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle and Ares I
Crew Launch Vehicle will transport crew to the International Space
Station, remain at the Station for up to 180 days, and then safely
return a crew to Earth. This FOC is projected to occur approximately 1
year following IOC of the Orion and Ares I.
NASA was asked to examine how much in budget resources would be
necessary to meet earlier CEV IOC milestone dates, and the following is
NASA's estimate of three scenarios based on the assumptions noted
herein.
CEV IOC in 2012--Because of earlier decisions in response to
funding limitations, a CEV IOC milestone is no longer technically
achievable in 2012. In 2005, in an effort to preserve a 2012 IOC, NASA
was considering a Block-1 version of the Crew Launch Vehicle, which
utilized the standard 4-segment Shuttle Reusable Solid Rocket Booster
(RSRB) and a modified, air-start version of the Space Shuttle Main
Engine on the second stage. The use of the Block-1 CLV would have
preserved the 2012 IOC, but at a higher overall life-cycle cost for the
Constellation Program. NASA planned a later upgrade to a Block-2 CLV,
with a 5-segment RSRB and J-2X upper stage engine, both of which are
essential elements for the lunar Cargo Lift Vehicle (CaLV), but which
could not be available for use in 2012. The use of these common
elements across the architecture minimizes life-cycle cost. By late
2005, because of funding reductions to the Constellation Program to
support the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station, it
became clear that funds to support development of CEV and CLV by 2012
would not be available. Thus, in order to minimize life-cycle cost, in
early 2006 NASA chose to proceed directly to the J-2X upper stage and
5-segment RSRB, which again are common to both the CLV and CaLV. In
order to develop and test these components of the CLV, the earliest
technically achievable CEV IOC milestone is June 2013.
CEV IOC in 2013--In order to meet a CEV IOC of September 2013, NASA
would require additional funding in Fiscal Years 2008-2010 to meet that
IOC schedule with a 65 percent cost confidence level in our budgeting.
The ideal time-phasing of such funds would be approximately $400
million in FY 2008 and an additional $1.6 billion in FY 2009-2010. The
schedule variance around the September 2013 IOC date is approximately 4
months, based on NASA's cost estimates.
CEV IOC in 2014--In order to meet a CEV IOC of September 2014, NASA
would require additional funds in Fiscal Years 2008-2010 to meet that
IOC schedule with a 65 percent cost confidence level in our budgeting.
The ideal time-phasing of such funds would be approximately $350
million in FY 2009 and an additional $400 million in FY 2010, though
funding from FY 2008 may be obligated in FY 2008-2009 to the CEV and
CLV development. The schedule variance around the September 2014 IOC
date is approximately 4 months, based on NASA's cost estimates.
Senator Nelson. OK. Is the Administration's FY 2008 budget
request sufficient to support full implementation of the
missions recommended by the National Academy's decadal survey
in Earth science?
Dr. Griffin. On what time-scale, sir? I want to be very
clear with the addition of Earth sciences to this practice, we
now obtain, from the National Academy of Sciences, decadal
surveys in all of our four portfolios. I'm very pleased about
that. I was one of the people requesting such a decadal from
the Earth science community. Now, we never have had enough
money to do all of the missions in any of the decadals. So,
practically speaking, we have missions in the flow in any of
those areas to address the top two or three or four missions.
We absolutely will prioritize our money in Earth science to
address the decadal survey priorities in Earth science, but we
will never have enough money to address all of the priorities
for Earth science.
Senator Nelson. Is it correct that in order to meet their
recommendations, it was basically about $2 billion annually?
Dr. Griffin. I don't know. I would have to get back to you
on that.
[The information referred to follows:]
According to the Decadal Survey, the authors believed that the
program they recommended could be substantially accomplished for a
total NASA Earth science annual budget of $2 billion in constant FY
2007 dollars. We are using the detailed cost and programmatic expertise
available to NASA to examine whether all of the technical challenges
and implementation costs associated with their recommended program were
captured in this figure.
From Earth Science and Applications from Space: National
Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond: ``The overall cost to
implement the recommended NASA program ( $7 billion over twelve years
for the 15 missions) is estimated to exceed currently projected program
resources.'' The report also states that ``The committee sees the need
for a rapid growth in the NASA Earth Science budget from approximately
$1.5 billion per year to $2 billion per year beginning in 2008 and
ending no later than 2010.''
NASA is embarking on an aggressive series of concept studies, to
look carefully at the notional missions that were endorsed, especially
the early, highest-priority ones from the Decadal Survey. The
objectives of these studies are to understand the technological
challenges inherent in getting the measurements that were identified by
the Decadal Survey, and the full costs of these missions including the
launch vehicle and especially also the science and the validation. We
expect that in 6 months, we will have relatively accurate estimates of
the full costs of those missions.
Dr. Griffin. I think there was a strong feeling among those
of us who looked at it, that the projected cost of those
missions in the decadal was substantially underestimated, a
not-uncommon practice, by the way. When we get a decadal
survey, we pay great attention to the priority order. Frankly,
the National Academies of Sciences is not the best body to
estimate what the cost of those missions is likely to be, and,
in fact, the track record of history would indicate that they
are among the least qualified bodies to estimate what the cost
of those missions would be.
Senator Nelson. In other words, you're saying that they
underestimate the cost.
Dr. Griffin. Correct.
So, we respect their priorities. We do not necessarily
believe the funding estimates they provide.
Senator Nelson. But the White House's budget goes the other
way, because they are estimating this to be at $2 billion for
each year, and the President's budget requests 1\1/2\ billion
dollars.
Dr. Griffin. That's correct, sir. Each of the other
scientific portfolios which we have would also request more
money for their portfolio than is available. Again, science--I
must remind the Committee, science today is funded at a
historic high within NASA. It is 32 percent of our overall
funding for FY 2008, the President is requesting five and a
half billion dollars. That is a historic high in both
categories. Earth science is getting 27 percent of--more than
one-fourth--of a science mission directorate with four major
portfolios. So, unless the Nation chooses to allocate
substantially more money to NASA, and substantially more money
to science, Earth science is getting its share and a little bit
more.
Senator Nelson. All right. Let's talk about another
program, NPOESS. This was polar orbiting satellites that are
run by NOAA and the Air Force with NASA's participation. What
are we going to do to recover the client measurement
capabilities lost from NPOESS due to Nunn-McCurdy?
Dr. Griffin. Well, we will be relying on the NPP, the
NPOESS Preparatory Project. We have the Landsat Data Continuity
Mission, which will fly. Frankly, we are going to have to look
at other missions in the future to make up for the descoping of
NPOESS following the Nunn-McCurdy breach. So, we have some
scrambling to do, to make up for the loss of climate research
from NPOESS.
Senator Nelson. Can you fly some of those instruments on
other satellites?
Dr. Griffin. Well, of course, the instruments, sir, don't
exist, so, can we fly instruments that would accomplish what
those instruments would have accomplished on other satellites?
Yes. But, of course, that represents a funding requirement that
we don't have.
Senator Nelson. All right. Let me ask you something that
you can easily answer. And I'll state, preparatory to my
question to you, thank you for what you've done in the agency
in stopping this muzzling of scientists. Can you give assurance
to the Committee that the actions that you have taken, and the
policies that you've implemented to make sure there's free flow
of communication of scientific information from the NASA
scientists, that those policies and procedures are in place?
Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir, I can. I think people have, on many
occasions, stated that the technical and scientific
communication policy that we have outlined for the agency--
people have stated that they believe it should be a model. I'm
quite proud of it. We place no restrictions on what people say.
In fact, looking back in the past, I'm not able to find cases
where we did. But, leaving aside the interpretation of history
by disputing parties, I can assure you that we are absolutely
not, and will not, restrict the ability of anybody working at
NASA to express their technical opinion.
Senator Nelson. I want to thank you, personally, for what
you've done to try to straighten that out.
Let's go back to the Space Station. Yesterday, the Space
Station Independent Safety Task Force released a report with
the following recommendation: ``The International Space Station
program should place the highest priority on options to
decrease the risk of micrometeoroid and orbital debris.'' Tell
us about this, given the fact that, much to the chagrin of a
lot of folks, the Chinese have just put a bunch of debris up
there with their ASAT test.
Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir. Well, certainly, we agree with the
recommendation. That was a very good committee, and, in
general, we are in consonance with their recommendations. With
regard to debris, let me put some numbers on it. This is a
nice, round number, but it's approximately right. Each day,
there is about a 1-in-100,000 chance that the International
Space Station will be fatally damaged by a piece of orbital
debris. You will appreciate that that's not a large risk, but
it is substantial; and, of course, it adds up over time. We do
fly specific orientations of the Station intended to minimize
such concerns. We have, in the past, done collision-avoidance
maneuvers when a particular piece of debris catalogued on radar
tracking posed a threat. So, we do pay attention to orbital
debris, quite carefully.
The Chinese ASAT test temporarily just about doubled that
risk. So, a daily risk of 1-in-100,000 went, for--we can argue
about the time period--let me just say, a couple of weeks. So,
for a few weeks, the Chinese ASAT test approximately doubled
that risk. Now, we, at NASA, have, I will say with some pride,
the best orbital-debris analysts in the world. It happens to be
a subject I know more than a passing amount about. I have asked
them about all that. Our current debris risk from the Chinese
ASAT test has now, at this point, receded into the background.
The longer-term effects of the Chinese ASAT test are now
indistinguishable from the 1-in-100,000 background level that
we have. At this point, I cannot sit here and say, technically,
that that is a concern anymore. The period of concern has
abated. Certainly, any addition to the orbital-debris
environment by any nation for any reason is not to be
countenanced. It's something we don't want to do. There has
been for 20, and more, years, considerable activity through
multinational bodies, including the United Nations, seeking to
control and mitigate debris. We want that to continue. We, at
NASA, are a major part of such discussions. But currently, the
specific test to which you refer, the threat from that test has
receded.
Senator Nelson. Well, the Chinese are going to hear that,
and they're going to say, ``Well, see? We haven't appreciably
added to the problem.'' But, in fact, with all that debris, as
a result of the Chinese ASAT collision with an old Chinese
weather satellite, as it descends how does that, over time, how
does that lessen the doubling of that probability of a strike?
Dr. Griffin. Because the debris is greatly dispersed
throughout low orbital space. The debris is most threatening to
the Station or a Shuttle or an EVA astronaut when it is
concentrated immediately after the test. If we get through that
initial more dangerous period, and it has time to disperse, as
it naturally does, then it becomes statistically much less of a
threat. I don't want my remarks to be interpreted as a ho-hum,
that it's OK to create debris. In fact, I specifically said
that we don't want to create debris, and we, at NASA, are part
of multinational coordinating bodies to prevent exactly that.
But with regard to the specific test that you cite, I have to
tell the technical truth, as best we can tell, the immediate
post-tests effects of debris--we got by those effects, and the
situation has now receded to the point where the Chinese debris
has retreated into the background with the other debris.
Senator Nelson. Isn't it true, with those additional
thousands of pieces of debris in orbit, that fuel will have to
be expended in order to have some way of maneuvering out of the
way of some of those pieces that you're tracking?
Dr. Griffin. That could happen. We have done it before, for
other pieces of debris, and it could happen again.
Senator Nelson. And that could happen on all the weather
satellites and other surveillance satellites that are up in
orbit, owned by many nations.
Dr. Griffin. Certainly. Absolutely, sir. That is a primary
reason why we seek to mitigate the critic--to mitigate the
creation of any additional debris.
Senator Nelson. Do you know, from your present tracking of
the debris, when that maneuvering might have to occur?
Dr. Griffin. We don't project any immediate need to do so.
But our ability to project out more than, you know, weeks and
months at a time is severely limited. It is not knowable in
advance, which is why we continue to track--because we wish to
avoid an unpleasant surprise.
Senator Nelson. NASA's outside auditors have been unable to
certify NASA's financial statements. And you now have this new
accounting system, and there are continuing reports of problems
at the field centers with the new accounting system. What are
you proposing to try to straighten this out?
Dr. Griffin. I would want to distinguish between our new
accounting rules, which have been welcomed by everybody, and
the problems with our audit and finance, which is looked upon
favorably by nobody. We are still, overall, red from our
auditors. We have made strides. We have hugely improved the
issue we once had of funds balance with the Treasury. We've
hugely improved our auditing of environmental funds and
environmental cleanup and all of that. It has been said that we
are now in a green, yellow, and red scale, we've moved out of
red, we're in yellow, and we're headed for green in those
areas. So, that's good news.
We've made great strides in creating a single agency-wide
accounting system with all ten centers, plus headquarters,
operating on the same rules of the road. That is software
development work in process by the contractor, but it is going
well.
Where we are still deficient is in property management. In
the old days, there was far less accounting for the disposition
of property than one would prefer. It is nearly impossible to
go back and historically fix that. So, our effort is being put
on correctly cataloguing and locating, knowing the disposition
of all property which is coming into the agency, and which will
come into the agency.
Our own Audit and Finance Committee on our Advisory Council
recently quizzed our auditors on exactly those same points. I
think, what might only be characterized as a fulsome
discussion, and they agreed that we have a good ways to go.
We're looking at 2009 as being a point by which time you would
be able to look at it and see considerable improvement.
Senator Nelson. Do you think that NASA will pass its audits
this year?
Dr. Griffin. No.
Senator Nelson. So, it's 2009.
Dr. Griffin. FY 2009 is what we're shooting for, best case.
Senator Nelson. Back to the question of the gap, because
this is obviously going to be the news item that comes out of
this hearing today. I want to point out to those that are
listening that the Administrator has said early Fiscal Year
2015, which could be at the end of calendar year 2014.
Dr. Griffin. December 2014 would be the very best case
we're looking at right now.
Senator Nelson. Of 2014.
Dr. Griffin. Correct, which is early Fiscal Year 2015. That
would be the very best we're looking at. When money is
extracted from the program, either there needs to be less
content or the dates will slip.
Senator Nelson. I have another question, though.
Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir.
Senator Nelson. And that is that you are going to pick up
some efficiencies by virtue of the fact that your selection of
the contractor for the CEV is going to have some savings and
efficiencies by doing a number of the assemblies of the new CEV
there at the Kennedy Space Center. That should lessen some of
the impact on that work force there.
Dr. Griffin. Yes, Lockheed Martin, the winning contractor
for the Orion CEV, did, as part of their proposal, that
proposal was made, subject to the assumption that they would be
doing assembly in Florida. As I think you know, we, just within
the last few weeks, turned what we call the O&C building, the
Operations and Checkout building on Kennedy Space Center, which
was used for Shuttle processing--we just recently turned that
over to Orion processing, that was a real milestone for us.
We're building a new vehicle for the first time now in decades.
That certainly will help the workforce around the Kennedy Space
Center, as it was designed to do.
There are, however, no increased efficiencies in that move
which are going to help with the calendar slippage, because the
Lockheed bid was provided, subject to the assumption--they had
already factored into their bid the fact of assembly in
Florida, so there's no additional efficiency to be obtained
over that which they provided in their winning bid.
Senator Nelson. But there are jobs that will be provided
that otherwise wouldn't have had the selection of that
particular contractor not been made.
Dr. Griffin. Absolutely.
Senator Nelson. OK. Now, the President's Council on
Integrity and Efficiency has just sent you a report on the
conduct of the NASA inspector general. When will you brief this
Committee on the results of that investigation and your
proposed corrective actions?
Dr. Griffin. When the investigation is complete, sir. There
is a very formal process through which we must work, in which I
must work. We are at the stage of that process where they have
provided to me the assessment of the Integrity Committee. I am
now required to assess that report and to propose corrective
actions. Those corrective actions go back to the White House
and to the chairman of the Integrity Committee, and they are
then forwarded to that Integrity Committee for their assessment
and comment. When that process is complete, a redacted--meaning
personal information has been extracted--a redacted version of
the report can be made available to the Congress.
Senator Nelson. It seems that that language that sets up
the process you just described is a little vague. And this
Committee is quite interested in receiving that report, and
receiving it in a timely fashion.
Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir.
Senator Nelson. Although this is not something that's in
your hands, because you've just stated the process, you have 60
or 90 days with which to review this thing before you send it
back, under the present procedures. This Committee isn't going
to wait around very long, because of information that we have
received ex parte about the subject of this investigation. I
would encourage you to move with deliberate speed so that we
can see, and the people's representatives on this Committee can
do our own examination, by receiving that report. If that thing
gets drug out, we're going to have to do our own investigation.
Dr. Griffin. I understand, sir. I have, actually, 30 days,
with the possibility of a 30-day extension. I am trying to, and
fully intend to, return my proposed corrective actions within
the 30-day period. Then, they will, as I say, go back to the
White House for appropriate disposition under the executive
order dealing with the Integrity Committee.
I do not have it within my power to decide to release the
report to you. I do have it within my power to expedite my
handling of the report. And I am doing that.
Senator Nelson. And we thank you for that, Dr. Griffin.
It's been a rather detailed and extensive hearing, and we
appreciate your expertise.
The meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:12 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel K. Inouye, U.S. Senator from Hawaii
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's missions are
vital and important to our understanding of the Universe and to
improving our existence on Earth.
NASA's dilemma is deciding which exciting projects to tackle first.
The agency must maintain its strong legacy in science, aeronautics,
education, and human spaceflight while preparing for the future through
recapitalizing the human spaceflight program with new vehicles, and
longer flights.
Whether we are talking about the International Space Station or the
Moon, the biggest challenge is getting there and returning home safely.
I look forward to hearing more about the planning and development
activities that NASA is undertaking to ensure a smooth transition from
the Space Shuttle to the Orion and Ares, along with associated cargo
systems.
We also must keep the commitments we have made to our international
partners, particularly Japan and Europe. The international community is
relying on the United States to honor its commitments to the Space
Station program. Those commitments are not only for assembly but also
for utilization. We cannot achieve our plans for exploration of the
Solar System if we go it alone, and our performance today will impact
our ability to recruit partners for the future.
Ultimately, the Nation and this Congress choose to invest in a
space program not because we dream of far off planets but because we
want to leave Earth a better place to live. Beyond the spin-off
technology that the space program has developed, NASA satellites help
us understand the Earth's changing climate and its impact on humans.
While the agency restored some funding to Earth science in the
President's FY 2008 budget request, I am dismayed that the request
significantly cuts NASA's investment in the interagency Climate Change
Science Program.
I look forward to examining these issues today along with the
Subcommittee's new Chair, Senator Bill Nelson, who knows first hand of
NASA's importance to U.S. technological leadership and competitiveness.