[Senate Hearing 110-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2008
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:04 p.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Mikulski, Shelby, Stevens, and Alexander.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL D. GRIFFIN, Ph.D.,
ADMINISTRATOR
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI
Senator Mikulski. Good afternoon, everybody, and welcome to
the subcommittee hearing of Commerce, State, Justice. The topic
today will be the appropriations for the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA). As we have said earlier, the
subcommittee was focusing on innovation, security, and
accountability. Once again, we feel that NASA is the premier
innovation agency within the United States Government.
We know that more inventions, technology, and patents have
come out of NASA than I think is ever fully grasped or fully
appreciated by the American people, and certainly at times by
people who wear green eyeshades.
Today we are going to hear from the NASA Administrator, Dr.
Mike Griffin, about the agency budget and priorities. Since our
hearing last year, a NASA civil servant, Dr. John Mather, a
civil servant at Goddard, won the Nobel Prize, the New Horizons
Mission has given us new spectacular pictures of Jupiter on its
way to Pluto. Cassini continues to send its images from Saturn,
and good old Hubble keeps plugging away, continuing
extraordinary contributions to science even though it is
running a little low these days. We have successfully and
safely returned the Space Shuttle to flight and laid the
foundation to return to the Moon and eventually to go to Mars.
For 2008, the President's budget funds NASA at $17.3
billion, a 6.8-percent increase over the continuing resolution
level. But when we look at the President's budget over the 2007
request, it is a 3-percent increase over last year. To put
NASA's budget in perspective, a $17.3 billion budget represents
seven-tenths of 1 percent of the entire Federal budget.
As we looked at science funding we see inside the budget
request, $5.5 billion, a $300 million increase over the
continuing resolution, or a $50 million increase when compared
to the 2007 budget, the budget for science includes funding for
Hubble servicing, the continuing development of the Webb
telescope, and other missions. We are very, very pleased that
these two will be in 2008.
I do see a significant problem with future science budgets
because from 2008 to 2011 it only goes up by 1 percent, and we
will be talking about that with the Administrator.
For Earth science, the budget shows a cut in funding
starting next year, and by 2012 the budget for Earth science
will be $200 million less than in 2008.
Now, the exciting news is the National Academy of Sciences
recently released its report on the future of Earth science,
calling for new Earth science missions by NASA over the next
decade, 14 of them, and also others to be done by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and one in
conjunction. Though this year's NASA budget does not
accommodate any of these new missions, we would like to discuss
these with the Administrator, get his reaction, and try to find
a way forward.
In 1988 the aeronautics budget at NASA was $1.5 billion.
Today it is $554 million. Every commercial aircraft on-line
today uses technology developed by NASA and we need to talk
about our aeronautics program because, after all, when we look
at its name, it is the national aeronautics, as well as the
national space program.
The Space Shuttle budget is $4 billion, the same as 2007
funding. The administration's budget calls for 14 additional
flights to space, one to fix the Hubble. We just wonder how the
Shuttle is doing. We know you have been hit by, was it, ice,
hail? But our Space Shuttle returned to flight and the safety
of our astronauts remains our number one priority. So we will
be asking, how long can we keep the Shuttle going. And of
course, like the Administrator, we do not want to be in the
dark on the landing pad with a Shuttle return and not a way
forward.
When we talk about exploration, it is a $500 million
increase over the continuing resolution funding and, quite
frankly, we are disturbed about the continuing resolution
funding. If Shelby-Mikulski had passed from the way we did the
bill, we would have been in a better spot. But you know, we are
where we are. We know that NASA estimates that it is going to
cost $16 billion to build Ares and Orion by 2012. We are
concerned that there will be a 4-year delay between the
retirement of the Space Shuttle and the launch of Orion and
Ares. And look at it. The delay is not caused by Congress. As I
understand, the President's plan also reflects this. But we do
not want to delay any more than we can.
The Space Station will receive $2.2 billion, an increase of
over $300 million, and we know we need to also have a way of
resupplying it. So as we look ahead, there is no real growth in
NASA's budget and there is no margin for error or overruns, and
there is a lot of pressure on the NASA budget and on the
Administrator on how to coordinate all the pieces that often
need to move forward in what we hope is a balanced space
program.
Senator Hutchison and I will work to increase the top line
by $1 billion and to repay NASA for the cost of Columbia. We
also want to salute both Hutchison and Nelson, who are putting
NASA in the President's authorizing legislation, putting NASA
in the President's competitiveness agenda, and I will say more
about that in my questions and answers.
But no matter how we look at it, we just think that we have
too many good things for too little money and we are concerned
about that.
We intend to, as always, pledge our bipartisan support to
work with Senator Shelby, with the space Senators, to help
balance the space program. But I remember over a decade ago
President Bush's dad and then Vice President Quayle when they
were contemplating the Space Station and some other
breakthroughs on a very important Apollo anniversary invited us
to the White House for a space summit, to kind of get a
navigational chart on where we wanted to go in space and then
what would be the revenue stream that we would talk about over
multiple years.
I think it is time for another space summit so that we can
talk over both the President's agenda, the need to continue our
effort in space science and aeronautics and to make sure that
our country is number one in innovation, always ahead in
competition on new ideas and new technology, knowing that we
have got to get to the Moon, know that China is looming out
there, and at the same time continue the bold, bodacious space
exploration that is characteristic of our program.
So having said that, it is just a direction to suggest and
discuss, and as always I turn with real warmth and collegiality
to my ranking member, Senator Shelby.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dr. Griffin, thank you for joining us here today. This is
an important hearing because it gives us on the subcommittee an
opportunity to discuss the significant role of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration and its budget proposal.
NASA's proposed budget for 2008 is $17.3 billion. This is a $1
billion increase to NASA's base programs or 6.5 percent over
2007 joint resolution funding level.
This is by some yardsticks a sizable sum, considering the
funding constraints that the Federal Government faces in the
coming fiscal year. But it is not too much money, Dr. Griffin,
for what we want to do. The requested increase can be
attributed to $522 million for funding exploration systems
which will enable NASA to return to the Moon, an additional
$652 million for the exploration capabilities account, which
will allow for further construction of the International Space
Station and other space operations.
While these are significant increases, the proposed budget
also contains a reduction of $336 million to aeronautics. Dr.
Griffin, I think it is important to note that, while this
budget reflects the President's implementation of the
exploration vision, it is also grounded in NASA's 2007 request
rather than the actual funding level provided in the 2007
funding resolution. This poses many difficulties for this
subcommittee in developing its proposal for NASA funding in
2008.
There are many complex elements required to achieve the
goal of returning to the Moon. No one knows this better than
you, Dr. Griffin. First there are the preparatory missions,
such as the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and Lunar Crater
Observation and Sensing Satellite, which will launch, I
understand, in October 2008. The follow-on mission, which is
expected to launch around 2010 or 2011, has been selected since
December 2005. Yet the 2008 budget continues to be vague
regarding a time line for beginning the development work.
Delaying such preparation missions will only further delay
man's return to the Moon. I understand that the preparatory
lunar missions are moving forward and that the crew launch and
crew exploration vehicles are well into their design and
development work. Over the past year NASA has refined the Ares
vehicle to be a five-segment solid rocket booster and selected
the J-2X engine for its upper stage. This selection will make
it possible for the Orion capsule to reach the Space Station
and also be ready for a rendezvous with other vehicles for the
trip to the lunar surface.
These are but a few examples of the ongoing work needed to
make NASA's goals a reality. It is my hope, Dr. Griffin, that
the implementation of the President's vision can be
accomplished while maintaining the capabilities that NASA has
developed in other mission areas. I do not believe that we
should sacrifice missions and capabilities that will be vital
to the future of exploration while trying to obtain this goal.
I believe that we can and should find a balance here.
Much like last year's hearing, we are reminded today that
the proposed plan for returning to the Moon is contingent on
several factors. We are all keenly aware that any unexpected
bump along the path could pose significant challenges to NASA's
long-term plans. We can point to the sizable funding
requirements of flying the Space Shuttle until it retires in
2010 and the ongoing construction of the International Space
Station's heavy fiscal burdens on NASA's ability to continue
down the path laid out in the vision for exploration.
The continual strains on NASA's budget require that we all
work together as partners to ensure NASA can meet its many
objectives.
Dr. Griffin, I am very interested in you discussing how
NASA today will preserve its ongoing programs and how it will
modernize its ongoing programs and how it will modernize its
institutions and facilities which are critical to NASA's
success in the coming years. I expect that we will have an
ongoing dialogue over the course of the year about NASA's
ability to achieve the Vision for Space Exploration.
I am also excited by the opportunities that lay ahead
regarding the exploration vision at NASA. But I must point out
the fiscal realities that you face every day that have and will
continue to affect some of these efforts. NASA must show the
same resourcefulness in operating within fiscal reality on the
ground as it does in its innovation and can-do spirit for
exploring space.
Dr. Griffin, I believe that the subcommittee has made every
effort to work with you and we will continue to provide NASA
with the appropriate level of funding to ensure that roles and
missions are protected and preserved. When such significant
funds are provided, it is NASA's responsibility to have the
systems in place to ensure that these funds are spent
responsibly.
I am concerned that for the fourth year in a row NASA's
financial systems have earned the worst rating possible from
the administration. We were assured in our hearing last year
that efforts were underway to fix these problems. Yet,
according to the administration there has been little progress
since we last met. In addition, the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) has released its annual high risk report that
focuses on programs with the greatest vulnerability to fraud,
waste, and mismanagement. NASA has the unfortunate distinction,
Dr. Griffin, of having been included in the 1990 inaugural
edition for its contract management and remains on the high
risk list to this day.
Finally, the annual audit of NASA's financial statement by
an independent auditing firm does not bring me any comfort.
NASA's finances were disclaimed in both 2005 and 2006 due to an
inability to provide auditable financial statements as well as
material weaknesses in its financial systems regarding the
management of property and equipment. With such assessments of
NASA's accounting, the agency's $17.3 billion request should be
backed up, I believe, by solid budget practices, not shoddy,
unclear bookkeeping. I believe that NASA should be as committed
to fiscal responsibility to this subcommittee, the
Appropriations Committee, and the taxpayer as it is to your
exploration mission, which we commend you for.
I think, Dr. Griffin, NASA must be better as far as what is
going on with its books. I look forward, Dr. Griffin, to
discussing how we may find a solution that keeps all of NASA's
activities moving forward. It will be a difficult task, given
the demands for funding across all of the agencies in this
bill. The administration did not leave many crumbs on the table
after making severe cuts to, among other things, NOAA and the
proposed over $1.5 billion in reductions to State and local law
enforcement. But we are willing to work with you and the
chairman to ensure that NASA receives the funds necessary to
achieve the Nation's goals. We look forward to your testimony.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you.
Now I would like to turn to Dr. Griffin, but I also want to
acknowledge--Senator, can you stay for the hearing then? I know
you have a lot of pressures with Defense.
Senator Stevens. We have a Defense hearing at 2:30. I will
have to leave soon, but I would like to hear Dr. Griffin if
possible.
Senator Mikulski. As soon as Dr. Griffin finishes, to
accommodate you, Senator, shall we turn to you then for
questions? Okay.
Dr. Griffin. Senator, in deference to your time constraints
today, I will keep my opening remarks short, but would like to
enter my opening statement in the record along with my other
formal statement.
Senator Mikulski. We also want to note this is the third
day that you are testifying on NASA budget, two in the House
yesterday, the authorizers and the appropriators, and this is
the third.
ADMINISTRATOR GRIFFIN'S OPENING REMARKS
Dr. Griffin. Thank you.
Chairman Mikulski, Senator Shelby, members of the
subcommittee: I thank you for inviting me here today to discuss
our $17.3 billion fiscal year 2008 request. I am here today to
seek your support for that request. The fiscal year 2008 budget
request is 3.1 percent higher than that requested by the
President for fiscal year 2007 and demonstrates his commitment
to maintaining our Nation's leadership role in space
exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research.
But it supports many diverse priorities in these
disciplines and so we need to allocate our resources carefully.
In this we are guided by the NASA Authorization Act, our annual
appropriations legislation, Presidential policy, and the
decadal surveys of the national academies. But even so, we
cannot afford everything that our many constituencies would
like us to do. You will not find major strategic changes in the
fiscal year 2008 budget request as compared to that for last
year, but you will see some slight course corrections. Overall
I think we are heading in the right direction and I think we
have made great strides in the past year and we are on track
and making progress in carrying out our tasks.
We have aligned NASA's aeronautics program with the first
ever presidential policy on aeronautics research and
development (R&D). The goal of this policy is to ensure that
NASA and other agencies advance U.S. technological leadership
in aeronautics.
We currently operate an armada of over 50 Earth and space
science satellites and payloads today in orbit around the
Earth, our Sun, and other planets. The fiscal year 2008 budget
request provides the resources to launch 10 new science
missions in that year, most of which involve international
partners or other U.S. Government agencies. Our $5.5 billion
portfolio of Earth and space science accounts for almost 32
percent of the budget.
It is interesting to develop some perspective on this.
During the 1960s, the decade of Apollo, science was 17 percent
of the NASA portfolio. By the early 1990s, it had grown to 24
percent and today, as I said, it is 32 percent. In contrast,
NASA's human space flight account during the Apollo years was
63 percent of the budget and is 62 percent today. So science is
doing very well at NASA.
Now, our greatest challenge over the next few years is to
fly the Space Shuttle safely while using it to finish the
International Space Station and to do one final Hubble Space
Telescope mission, and then transitioning to our new systems,
the Orion crew exploration vehicle and the Ares 1 immediately
thereafter.
Human space flight is a strategic capability for this
Nation. We are now, as you know, facing about 4, 4\1/2\ year
gap following Space Shuttle retirement when the United States
will not have its own human space flight capability. Some in
the Earth and space science community have called for further
delays in NASA's human space flight efforts in order to allow
more money to be set aside for science missions. I do not agree
with this and, in fact, I often wonder what the community of
scientists would say if they and not the human space flight
community were facing a 4\1/2\ desert of opportunity.
If Orion is further delayed, we will be viewed by many as
ceding our Nation's leadership in human space flight at a time
when Russia and China have such capabilities and India has
declared its intention to develop them.
In 1963 President Kennedy visited Redstone Arsenal in
Huntsville and posed the following question: ``I know there are
lots of people now who say, why go any further in space. When
Columbus was halfway through his voyage the same people said,
why go on any further? What will we possibly find? What good
will it be? They want to stop now. I believe the United States
of America is committed to be first in space, and the only way
we are going to be first in space is to work as hard as we can
here and all across the country.''
I love that quote for its endorsement of the necessity to
stay the course.
So when you consider our fiscal year 2008 funding request,
I ask you to consider our Nation's interests above the
interests of any individual product, program, or constituency.
The United States is a recognized leader in space because
several successive Presidents and Congresses have worked
together in the past to make the right strategic decisions, but
this leadership is something we cannot take for granted.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I believe that our budget request today provides you with a
carefully considered, balanced set of programs for our Nation's
civil space effort, with world-class Earth and space science,
strategic capabilities in human space flight, and U.S.
technical leadership in aeronautics. We need the help of the
Congress to provide the resources to maintain that leadership.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael D. Griffin
Chairman Mikulski and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to appear today to discuss the President's Fiscal Year
2008 Budget request for NASA. The President's Fiscal Year 2008 Budget
request for NASA is $17.3 billion. This represents a 3.1 percent
increase over the fiscal year 2007 request for the agency, but not the
enacted fiscal year 2007 appropriation. The fiscal year 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 fiscal year 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 fiscal year 2008 budget request, I would like
to address the status of NASA's plans for the use of fiscal year 2007
funding. On February 15, 2007, the President signed into law a joint
resolution stipulating fiscal year 2007 funding levels for NASA and
other Federal agencies. This appropriation represents a funding level
that is $545 million below the President's fiscal year 2007 request.
The fiscal year 2008 budget request could not possibly factor the
impact of this reduced level from the fiscal year 2007 request for
NASA's carefully-considered multi-year programs, and thus, several
programs in the fiscal year 2008 budget request will be impacted. The
fiscal year 2007 appropriation further specifies funding levels in
human spaceflight of that are $677 million below the request--$577
million of that from exploration systems. This reduction from the
requested level may significantly impact our ability to safely and
effectively transition from the shuttle to the Orion Crew Exploration
Vehicle and Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle. It will have serious effects on
many people, projects, and programs this year, and for the longer term.
As I noted during last year's congressional hearings on NASA's fiscal
year 2007 budget request, we have a carefully balanced set of
priorities to execute on behalf of our Nation. So as a result of these
funding levels that are less than the fiscal year 2007 request, NASA is
carefully assessing the implications to overall exploration priorities
and milestones, and will present detailed impacts after a full analysis
is complete. The initial NASA operating plan for fiscal year 2007,
which, we are endeavoring to finalize as soon as practicable, will
reflect the impacts of less funding than planned and the requisite
decisions. As always, we are here to carry out our Nation's civil space
and aeronautics programs with the resources made available by the
Congress. All of our programs proceed in a ``go-as-we-can-afford-to-
pay'' manner; so if we receive less funding than requested, we will
adjust our pace. Our stakeholders have my commitment to continue to
keep them informed as to what I believe is the best approach to
carrying out NASA's space and aeronautics research missions with the
resources provided. In this determination, I will be guided by the NASA
authorization acts, annual appropriations acts, presidential policy,
and the decadal survey priorities of the National Academy of Sciences.
If we determine that there is an agency objective that we will be
unable to meet, I will inform our agency's stakeholders, including this
subcommittee.
Highlights of the NASA Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request
The fiscal year 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 fiscal year 2007 budget at the time the fiscal year 2008 budget was
being finalized, so the impact of the final fiscal year 2007
appropriation outcome is not accounted for in NASA's fiscal year 2008
budget request. The fiscal year 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 on-line 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 Fiscal Year 2008 Budget reaffirms that commitment
with the necessary funds for the space shuttle and the ISS. NASA will
continue forward at the best possible pace with the development of the
Orion and Ares I crew vehicles. However, due to the cumulative effect
of previously underestimated costs to retire/transition the space
shuttle and support the International Space Station, the reduction from
the fiscal year 2007 request reflected in the fiscal year 2007
continuing resolution, and the maturing design and integrated flight
tests baselined for the Constellation program, it is unlikely that NASA
will be able to bring these new exploration capabilities online by
2014. Full funding of NASA's fiscal year 2008 exploration systems
request is critical to ensuring the gap between retirement of the space
shuttle and the new U.S. human spaceflight capability does not grow
longer. If the gap in our human spaceflight capability extends even
further than already planned, I believe our Nation will be ceding
leadership in human spaceflight at a time when China and Russia have
their own indigenous capabilities and India is developing its own
capabilities. If we do not quickly come to grips with this issue,
America may have a prolonged gap between the end of the shuttle program
and the beginning of Orion and Ares I operational capability, a gap
similar to the one that occurred from 1975 to 1981 when our Nation
transitioned from Apollo to the space shuttle.
NASA has a lot of hard work ahead of it and many major milestones
this year and next. The transition from the space shuttle to the Orion
and Ares launch vehicles over the next several years must be carefully
managed, and we must be focused, professional and committed to our
mission. This is NASA's greatest challenge, and I ask the
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 (Public Law 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 fiscal
year 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 fiscal year
2008 to leverage the many opportunities for payloads on NASA and other
nations' lunar spacecraft, such as India's Chandrayaan-1, as well as to
analyze the science data from these missions, including NASA's Lunar
Reconnaissance Orbiter. In 2008, we will launch a host of Heliophysics
missions, many with international and interagency partners, to analyze
the effects of solar flares, coronal mass ejections, and galactic
cosmic rays. In Astrophysics, the final Hubble servicing mission is
currently planned for a space shuttle flight in September 2008. And, as
I advised the Congress and the science community last summer, NASA has
reinstated the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA)
mission. Though we know of no technical showstoppers in regard to the
airworthiness of the aircraft or operation of the telescope, this
program has some remaining hurdles to overcome and so remains subject
to a management review later this spring. NASA will launch or
participate in seven science missions in fiscal year 2007, followed by
10 missions in fiscal year 2008, resulting in many new Earth and space
science discoveries in the years ahead.
The fiscal year 2008 budget request increases the budget profile
for Aeronautics Research over the President's fiscal year 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 fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year
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 fiscal year 2009 and beyond.
To address these challenges and any potential impacts resulting from
the fiscal year 2007 funding reductions, we have established a new
intra-agency Workforce Planning Technical Team.
In addition, beginning in fiscal year 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 fiscal year 2008 budget
runout by $205 million through fiscal year 2011 compared to the fiscal
year 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 to 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 underutilized facilities and
related equipment. The agency would retain the proceeds of those leases
to be deposited in a NASA capital asset account and invested in
activities to improve and sustain our facilities and infrastructure. We
plan to discuss the details of these legislative requests with members
of Congress in the weeks and months ahead.
The remainder of my testimony outlines the fiscal year 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 made its closest approach to
Jupiter in late February. 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. On February
17, 2007, we launched five Time History of Events and Macroscale
Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS) microsatellites to study the
Earth's magnetosphere, and we are on track to launch the Dawn mission
to main belt of asteroids between Mars and Jupiter and the Phoenix Mars
mission later this year.
NASA's fiscal year 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 fiscal year 2007 request and it will
enable NASA to launch or partner on 10 new missions, operate and
provide ground support for more than 50 spacecraft, and fund scientific
research based on the data returned from these missions. For fiscal
year 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 fiscal year 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 fiscal year 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 fiscal year 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 fiscal year 2008
in preparation for entering development in early fiscal year 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 fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 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 fiscal year 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 fiscal year
2008 aboard an ESA-supplied Ariane-5. Kepler instrument and spacecraft
integration and test will be completed in preparation for launch in
November 2008, to determine the frequency of potentially habitable
planets. The Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST) will launch
in fiscal year 2008 to begin a 5-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 fiscal
year 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 fiscal year 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 develop our next-generation crew
exploration vehicle, while also providing research and developing
technologies for the longer-term development of a sustained human
presence on the Moon. However, due to the cumulative effect of
previously underestimated costs to retire/transition the space shuttle
and support the International Space Station, the reduction from the
fiscal year 2007 request reflected in the fiscal year 2007 continuing
resolution, and the maturing design and integrated flight tests
baselined for the Constellation program, it is unlikely that NASA will
be able to bring these new exploration capabilities online by 2014.
ESMD will also continue to work with other nations and the commercial
sector to leverage its investments and identify opportunities for
specific collaboration on lunar data and lunar surface activities. New
human 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 fiscal year 2008, pending a full analysis of the fiscal year
2007 budget impacts, ESMD is on track to maintain its commitments for
Ares I and Orion, and to continue meeting major milestones. This year
Constellation will continue to mature and develop overall. Formulation
of the Constellation elements will continue, leading to the preliminary
design review in 2008, at which time the program will be baselined.
NASA will conduct an update for the overall Constellation Systems
Requirements Review (SRR) in 2007 after the completion of all the
Program Element SRRs--the Orion Project recently completed its SRR on
March 1, 2007. ESMD released the Ares I Upper Stage Request for
Proposals (RFP) on February 23, 2007. The RFP for the Ares I Avionics
Ring is scheduled for release in May 2007, with selection and contract
award scheduled for November 2007.
Facility, equipment, and personnel transitions from space shuttle
to Constellation will be the major emphasis of the fiscal year 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 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 fiscal year 2008 budget, funding for the
purchase of crew and cargo transportation services, either from
international partners or preferably from commercial providers, is
transferred from ESMD to SOMD. COTS demonstration funding remains in
ESMD to better exploit potential synergies with the Constellation
Program.
With activities in the Advanced Capabilities program, NASA seeks to
understand the space environment as it relates to human performance by
addressing respective recommendations from the Exploration Systems
Architecture Study that was conducted 2005. This included refocusing
biomedical research and human life-support activities through new
milestones and requirements to target the timely delivery of research
products. Accordingly, ESMD created two new programs under Advanced
Capabilities: the Human Research Program (HRP) to study and mitigate
risks to astronaut health and performance and the Exploration
Technology Development Program (ETDP) to enable future exploration
missions and reduce cost and risk. Plans for 2008 include:
--Testing of prototype ablative heat shield materials, low-impact
docking systems, and landing attenuation systems;
--testing of advanced environmental control systems on the ISS;
--developing a lightweight composite command module test article for
the Orion;
--conducting studies to assess risks of long-term radiation exposure
and continuing the use of the ISS as a testbed for studying
human health and safety in space;
--spacecraft integration and testing in preparation for the Lunar
Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) launch in October 2008;
--next-generation spacesuit capable of supporting exploration; and
--developing jointly with the U.S. Air Force the RS-68 engine that
will be used on the Ares V.
Finally, the LRO and the Lunar Crater Observatory Sensing Satellite
(LCROSS) to the Moon is planned to be launched in early fiscal year
2008. These dual-manifested spacecraft have completed critical design
review and are currently in development. The science yielded from these
missions will enable future outpost site selection and new information
about the deep craters at the lunar poles. The LRO/LCROSS missions
represent NASA's first steps in returning to the Moon.
Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate
In 2006, NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD)
conducted a significant restructuring of its aeronautics program,
allowing NASA to pursue high-quality, innovative, and integrated
research that will yield revolutionary tools, concepts, and
technologies to enable a safer, more flexible, environmentally
friendly, and efficient national air transportation system. As such,
ARMD's research will continue to play a vital role in supporting NASA's
human and robotic space activities. The reshaped Aeronautics Program
content and direction is consistent with the National Aeronautics
Research and Development Policy, signed by the President on December
20, 2006.
A primary goal across all of the programs in ARMD is to establish
strong partnerships involving NASA, other government agencies,
academia, and industry in order to enable significant advancement in
our Nation's aeronautical expertise. Because these partnerships are so
important, NASA has put many mechanisms in place to engage academia and
industry, including industry working groups and technical interchange
meetings at the program and project level, space act agreements for
cooperative partnerships, and the NASA Research Announcement (NRA)
process that provides for full and open competition for the best and
most promising research ideas. During 2006, ARMD's NRA solicitation
resulted in the selection of 138 proposals for negotiation for award
from 72 different organizations representing 29 different States plus
the District of Columbia. NASA's fiscal year 2008 budget request for
aeronautics includes $51 million for NRA awards.
In fiscal year 2008, the President's budget for NASA requests $554
million for aeronautics research. This budget reflects full cost
simplification, which significantly reduces the center overhead and
infrastructure allocated to the aeronautics programs.
NASA's Airspace Systems Program (ASP) has partnered with the Joint
Planning and Development Office (JPDO) to help develop concepts,
capabilities and technologies that will lead to significant
enhancements in the capacity, efficiency and flexibility of the
National Airspace System (NAS). Such improvements are critical to meet
the Nation's airspace and airports requirements for decades to come. In
fiscal year 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 fiscal year
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 multidisciplinary 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 fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 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 fiscal year 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 fiscal year 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 fiscal year 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
fiscal year 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 fiscal year
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 fiscal year 2008 budget request of $4.01 billion
would provide for five shuttle flights, including four ISS assembly
flights as well as the HST servicing mission. The ISS assembly flights
include the launch of major research facility modules from the European
Space Agency and Japan. The Canadian Special Purpose Dexterous
Manipulator robotic system will also be flown in 2008. These flights
are a major step towards fulfilling U.S. commitments to NASA's
international partners as specified in the ISS agreements and the
Vision for Space Exploration.
The fiscal year 2008 budget request includes $2.24 billion for ISS
activities. NASA has consulted with our international partners on the
configuration of the ISS, and is working closely with them to determine
the detailed plans for logistics required during and after assembly.
The fiscal year 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 fiscal year 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
fiscal year 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 fiscal year 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 on-line soon thereafter. There are a
number of major transition milestones set for fiscal year 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 fiscal year 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 fiscal year 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 fiscal year 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 fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 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 fiscal year 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 fiscal
year 2008 budget request for Advanced Business Systems, comprising the
Integrated Enterprise Management Program (IEMP), is $103.1 million.
Fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 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 fiscal year 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 fiscal year 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 fiscal year 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 fiscal year 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 spaceflight
capability. Without stable funding as requested in this budget, we face
the very real possibility of allowing that capability to slip away for
the foreseeable future--even as other nations continue to develop
similar capabilities.
I also need your help to effectively transition key elements of our
space shuttle workforce, infrastructure, and equipment to our Nation's
exploration objectives. The provisions I referenced earlier, as well as
stable funding, will help ensure we preserve a critical and unique
industrial base capability that has allowed the United States to lead
the world in space exploration.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I
would be please to respond to any questions that you may have.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST
[Budget authority, dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal
By Mission Directorate year 2007 year 2008 year 2009 year 2010 year 2011 year 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science, Aeronautics and Exploration:
Science:
Earth Science........................ $1,469.6 $1,497.3 $1,539.7 $1,500.7 $1,411.2 $1,353.2
Heliophysics......................... $1,028.1 $1,057.2 $1,034.5 $1,107.1 $1,241.2 $1,307.5
Planetary Science.................... $1,406.1 $1,395.8 $1,676.9 $1,723.9 $1,738.3 $1,748.2
Astrophysics......................... $1,563.0 $1,565.8 $1,304.2 $1,268.9 $1,266.2 $1,393.8
------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Science.................. $5,466.8 $5,516.1 $5,555.3 $5,600.6 $5,656.9 $5,802.7
==================================================================
Exploration Systems:
Constellation Systems................ $3,232.5 $3,068.0 $3,451.2 $3,784.9 $7,666.0 $7,993.0
Advanced Capabilities................ $920.0 $855.8 $861.6 $973.0 $1,059.1 $1,083.9
------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Exploration Systems...... $4,152.5 $3,923.8 $4,312.8 $4,757.8 $8,725.2 $9,076.8
==================================================================
Aeronautics Research: Aeronautics $529.3 $554.0 $546.7 $545.3 $549.8 $554.7
Technology..............................
==================================================================
Cross-Agency Support Programs:
Education............................ $167.4 $153.7 $152.8 $152.7 $149.8 $149.6
Advanced Business Systems............ $97.4 $103.1 $69.4 $71.6 $67.6 $67.5
Innovative Partnerships Program...... $215.1 $198.1 $197.2 $199.8 $200.0 $200.0
Shared Capability Assets Pro- gram.. $22.1 $34.3 $34.2 $36.2 $37.3 $37.2
Continuing Resolution Rate \1\....... ($555.60) ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Cross-Agency Support $502.0 $489.2 $453.5 $460.4 $454.7 $454.4
Programs..........................
==================================================================
Total, Science, Aeronautics and $10,650.6 $10,483.1 $10,868.4 $11,364.2 $15,386.5 $15,888.6
Exploration.......................
==================================================================
Exploration Capabilities:
Space Operations:
Space Shuttle........................ $4,017.6 $4,007.5 $3,650.9 $3,634.4 $116.2 .........
International Space Station.......... $1,762.6 $2,238.6 $2,515.1 $2,609.2 $2,547.5 $2,600.8
Space and Flight Support............. $328.1 $545.7 $544.3 $382.0 $372.9 $377.2
Continuing Resolution Rate \1\....... ($40.9) ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Space Operations............ $6,108.3 $6,791.7 $6,710.3 $6,625.7 $3,036.6 $2.978.0
==================================================================
Inspector General............................ $33.5 $34.6 $35.5 $36.4 $37.3 $38.3
Continuing Resolution Rate \1\........... ($2.0) ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................. $16,792.3 $17,309.4 $17,612.2 $18,026.3 $18,460.4 $18,905.0
==================================================================
Year to Year Change \2\ (percent)............ .......... 3.1 1.8 2.3 2.4 2.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 2007 column represents the 2007 President's Budget in full-cost simplification and shown in the
new Theme structure.
\2\ Modification to fiscal year 2007 if current continuing resolution is extended for entire year, and assuming
$126.1 million institutional mission support transfers from Exploration Capabilities to Science, Aeronautics
and Exploration not included in totals.Totals may not add due to rounding.
Senator Mikulski. I have also read your written oral
testimony particularly, and I appreciate, in the interest of
time, pages 4, 5, and 6, which I think go to the meat of the
issues around the continuing resolution, the way forward,
flashing yellow lights about what will be done when, and
workforce impact issues, which I know are of keen impact to not
only those who are currently here, but to certainly extensive
conversations with Senator Shelby, Senator Sessions, Senator
Hutchison, and Senator Nelson, which goes to essentially where
we are in this year's appropriation.
I am going to ask you a question and if you feel
comfortable answering it, fine. If not, I understand. But my
question is, when we look at 2008 what did you ask for from the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and therefore what did
you get that we would also have to take into consideration, not
only in terms of the increase that was in the President's
budget? Because the 3 percent just kind of keeps us almost at
inflation.
Dr. Griffin. That is correct, ma'am. I am not able to delve
into discussions that go on within the Executive Office of the
President. I will say that everyone gets a full opportunity to
air their views. I've got mine. Ultimately decisions are made
and when the President signs his name to that budget it becomes
his submission, and I work for him and must support that.
Senator Mikulski. Dr. Griffin, I respect that and I respect
that confidentiality. But that is also--see, I think the
President has a vision of where he wanted to go and I think you
are in alignment with that vision. But I think that there is a
gap here with the OMB view of the vision, which is why I would
like us all to get in the room as kind of a space summit. And I
say that in the most friendly way. It worked so well with the
President's father and Vice President Quayle.
Let me move--so just know, I think we all know where we
want to go. It is how can we get there.
Dr. Griffin. I admire and am very grateful for the support
that you have given to the space program on a bipartisan basis,
regardless of who is in charge when, and I know that that will
continue.
Senator Mikulski. Sure.
Dr. Griffin. Thank you.
HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE
Senator Mikulski. Let us go to the Hubble telescope. What
is the current launch date for the Hubble servicing mission and
does your fiscal year 2008 budget fully fund the servicing
mission?
Dr. Griffin. Well, the current date is September 2008 for
the Hubble servicing mission. The fiscal year 2008 budget, of
course, does not support that because the fiscal year 2008
budget was prepared and submitted by me and determined by the
OMB before we had ascertained that we could do the Hubble
servicing mission. You were with me. We announced----
Senator Mikulski. I remember it.
Dr. Griffin [continuing]. That last October. We had been
hoping for a spring 2008 launch and what we have is a September
2008 launch, which is 4 months different, because of the
necessity to first of all be certain that we could get the
servicing mission hardware to the pad in time, and April or May
would have been very dicey. Then second of all, we wanted to
have a launch on need capability if there were a rescue
mission.
Senator Mikulski. Dr. Griffin, I know we have talked about
this.
Dr. Griffin. Right, okay. Sorry.
Senator Mikulski. Safety of the astronauts. What I hear is
that you have the financial resources----
Dr. Griffin. So I need to find $40 million in the
astrophysics budget and I will do that.
Senator Mikulski. But it is a $40 million price tag which
is not now currently in the 2008 framework; am I correct in
that?
Dr. Griffin. That is correct, ma'am.
Senator Mikulski. So we will have to work together on that.
And again, we are just identifying kind of a must-do list that
we need to go down.
EARTH OBSERVING SENSORS
Now, I found interesting your commentary on the science
budget, now 32 percent, which carries us through, of course,
2012. But at the same time, what we are concerned about is
these years into the future, one of which is 40 percent--now
let us go to Earth observing. Forty percent of the Earth
observing sensors now in orbit are going to kind of end by the
end of the decade unless they are replaced.
As you look ahead, is there money now in this year's
appropriation to make a down payment on replacing these
sensors? Do you see replacing these sensors? Where do you see
going with that?
Dr. Griffin. You, of course, ask a very good question.
Senator Mikulski. That is our bread and butter, am I
correct, apart from new ideas and new National Academy of
Sciences recommendations?
Dr. Griffin. We certainly have to keep in place the Earth
sensing, climate resource programs and the data. The continuity
of the data is crucial and we have to keep that in place. Now,
I need to take you back for just a moment to decisions made
some years ago that all of this climate research capability
would be put on the national polar-orbiting operational
environment satellite system (NPOESS) program, which is a
Department of Defense (DOD), NOAA, and NASA program. So NASA
climate research dollars were diverted to NPOESS.
Now, NPOESS breached the Nunn-McCurdy and so the climate
research sensors will not be on that. So we have asked the
National Academy of Sciences for a study; and we are doing
ourselves a study to determine, for OSTP, how we are going to
recover from the loss of climate information that was to be
provided by NPOESS and how we are going to incorporate that
into the Earth science program.
We will have those studies by some time this spring. We
will be factoring that into our planning for the 2009 request
and beyond, because we have to adapt now to a changed set of
circumstances that we did not anticipate.
Senator Mikulski. Well, I know my time has expired, but
with the indulgence of my ranking member, because he and I
thought--we had NOAA in here last week, I think, and we were
pretty robust in our questioning around the need for
accountability on NPOESS. We are very disappointed at the
enormity of the overrun, the fact that we were glad that the
McCurdy stepped in, but now we asked Admiral Lautenbacher, what
are you going to do about this and how are you going to
implement the recommendations.
But as you know, it was a three-headed thing. It was NOAA,
NASA, and the Air Force. I do not think we would ever go for
that kind of thing again. But where do you see yourselves
coming in, not only with the loss of Earth science capability,
but then also for the fiscal stewardship necessary for both
your role that when NPOESS flies you are still going to be
involved, ``you'' meaning NASA, is still going to be involved
with NPOESS.
So where do you see your fiscal stewardship? And then when
this happens in May, we do want to talk to you about climate
change, the climate crisis, because I think we all agree this
is where the American people want us to be working as well.
Can you help us out here?
Dr. Griffin. Well, we absolutely intend to discuss with you
the recommendations that come out of these two studies in
connection with how we will continue our climate research.
Senator Mikulski. That is how we are going to continue the
research. But you know, it was not only NOAA that dropped the
ball on the NPOESS. The Air Force played a big role in this and
so did NASA.
Dr. Griffin. NASA does not have money in the NPOESS
program.
Senator Mikulski. But you were all part of developing the
NPOESS and they, as they look at some of the issues here, feel
that it was also NASA that played a role, as did the Air Force,
in part of these overruns. Are you with me?
Dr. Griffin. I hear what you say and I understand you, but
I do not think that NASA had any role in the NPOESS overruns
and shortfalls.
Senator Mikulski. Well, I do not want to use my time going
down this path, but when we talked with Admiral Lautenbacher
last week, and we talked with him both publicly and I had a
conversation with him about it, because this is really a big
ticket item, as you know, about what was our way forward. He
seemed to also feel that there was a NASA role. So we need to
be able to talk about this and talk about it, so it is not only
about the climate change.
But I am going to turn to Senator Shelby and Senator
Alexander. I will come back with some more of this.
MANNED FLIGHT OF ORION VEHICLE
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Dr. Griffin, you have indicated that unless there are
additional funds provided in the next few fiscal years to NASA
that the first manned flight of Orion will not be until 2015
perhaps, instead of 2014 as called for in the recent NASA
authorization bill. The additional funds beyond those already
in the budget that would be required to have an operable
replacement for the Shuttle I understand would be $350 million
in 2009 and an additional $400 million in 2010.
In response to the funding levels provided by NASA for
2007, does NASA anticipate making any supplemental requests or
sending a budget amendment to the subcommittee in the months
ahead to try to make up this shortfall?
Dr. Griffin. We are discussing within the administration
what the way forward is, but I cannot say at this time. I
simply do not know whether we would be making an amended
request or change plans going forward.
PRECURSOR PROGRAM FOR LUNAR EXPLORATION
Senator Shelby. Senator Mikulski and a number of us that
support NASA believe you need more money for what you are
called upon to do. Lunar precursor missions. In 2005 the NASA
authorization act directed NASA to institute a robust precursor
program for lunar exploration. In December 2005, NASA awarded a
follow-on mission, the RLEP as it was called then, to a team
from the Marshall and Goddard Space Flight Centers, with
Marshall as the lead.
Last year before the subcommittee you stated that this
mission would be done in a timely way as a precursor mission,
but would not start until 2007. In your hearing with the House
Appropriations Committee early this week, it was my
understanding that you mentioned that all the information NASA
will need for a return to the Moon can be obtained from orbit.
This seems to indicate that the precursor mission will never
happen. If I am wrong, can you correct me on that?
Can you explain if the requirements have changed between
2005 and today and align that position with the direction of
NASA's authorization language for having a robust precursor
program? In other words, what is the current status of this?
Dr. Griffin. The information that we feel that we need--and
this conclusion has been reached in discussion with our NASA
advisory councils, science groups, as well as internally--the
conclusions we have reached are that the information we need
before putting people back on the Moon can be obtained with
lunar reconnaissance orbiter. The surface science and
technology that we would like to do is something we would like
to do, but it is not essential.
Because funding is very tight, we have a choice between
doing lunar surface science and technology with robotic
precursors early on. If we do that, we will delay the
development of the Ares launch vehicle and the Orion crew
vehicle by another 6 months. So if I undertake that work, I
will delay Orion and Ares even further. That is work not yet
started, and so when budgets are tight my normal first choice
is to delay work not yet started rather than to cancel work,
and my normal choice is to delay work which is nice to have but
not essential, and that is what we will be doing here.
PROPULSION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Senator Shelby. In the area of propulsion, we talked about
this before. The Vision for Space Exploration will require many
new technologies and systems to be developed in order to
maximize our investment on returning to the Moon. One of these
areas will require ongoing research and development in this
area of propulsion. Marshall Space Flight Center has expertise
in this area and has continued working on propulsion systems
from the time of the last missions to the Moon to the present.
As the work continues on the research and development on
Vision-related vehicles and systems, what do you anticipate
will be the need for propulsion research and development this
year and in the future?
Dr. Griffin. I do not need propulsion research to get back
to the Moon. I need propulsion systems development, if you
will, and that is going on at the Marshall Space Flight Center
and through its contractors, and they are doing, frankly, a
very good job. I am quite pleased with them. They will be busy
with the redevelopment of the Nation's space propulsion
capabilities for an upper stage and rocket capabilities for the
foreseeable future.
So Marshall is fully occupied helping us first replace the
Shuttle and then after that return to the Moon. I would like to
say, believe me, I would very much like to be doing advanced
research in propulsion. But as with other things in the budget,
there is a difference between must have and nice to have, and
right now what I must have is working propulsion systems, and
what would be nice to have is advanced propulsion research.
AGING NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION INFRASTRUCTURE
Senator Shelby. Dr. Griffin, a lot of the NASA facilities
have aged and deteriorated, as you well know. A lot of us
believe there is significant need for infrastructure. Do you
have any plan for that? What can we do to help you? I know we
are the money Committee to appropriate money. We have those
challenges at Marshall. You have them at Goddard, you have them
at Kennedy Center, you have them in Florida.
Dr. Griffin. Sure. Sir, most of the NASA infrastructure, as
you know, is 40 some years old and more. Even at that, it is
not as old as many other Government facilities, but that is as
it is. We are working on an agency-wide facilities plan right
now. It will be done shortly. We are working with the Office of
Management and Budget to finalize that, and it will cover the
detailed data for the fiscal year 2008 construction of
facilities, including repair, rehabilitation, renovation,
replacement on existing systems, as well as any new things that
we need.
It will describe about a little more than a $6 million
strategic initiative to address our facilities repairs and
upgrades that are needed. Now, with regard to returning to the
Moon, we are going to make every effort to use existing
facilities. We would only propose building a new facility if
something that the U.S. Government already owns just does not
make the grade. But we will discuss that, the strategic plan,
with you just as soon as we have it.
Senator Shelby. Thank you very much.
Senator Mikulski. Senator Alexander.
EDUCATION PROGRAM
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Griffin, I want to ask you about a $153 million item in
the budget that is labeled ``Education.'' I see that NASA's
education themes are: one, to contribute to the development of
science, technology, engineering, and math workforce in
disciplines needed to achieve NASA's strategic goals; and two,
to attract students and retain them in those disciplines. So it
is teachers, workers, students--and students, I guess is what
we are talking about.
Two years ago a group of us, including the chairman of this
subcommittee, asked the National Academy of Sciences and the
National Academy of Engineering, of which you are a member----
Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander [continuing]. To tell us what are the top
things we need to do in priority order to keep our brainpower
advantage in this country. They assembled a distinguished group
and gave us 20 specific items in priority order. And items A-1
and A-2 were the same things as your themes. In other words,
one, is annually recruit 10,000 science and math teachers by
awarding scholarships, et cetera; and two, is strengthening the
skills of 250,000 existing teachers through training and
education programs. So what I want to ask you is, in order to
keep our jobs in this country, keep growing them, if we wanted
quickly to recruit more math teachers and strengthen the skills
of existing math teachers and inspire students in math and
science, your $150 million is already at work toward that
objective. How effective are you at that? And specifically, how
many teachers, how many students, do you touch each year? And
do you have any measures of how much they learn or what
progress, how effective the programs are toward these goals?
And have you invited your Academy of Engineering or scientists
or other outside groups to look at this $150 million and say,
in light of these goals, which are now being incorporated into
legislation that has been introduced and is likely to pass here
by big bipartisan numbers, are we getting the biggest bang for
our buck on this $150 million in terms of new math and science
teachers and outstanding teachers, especially with summer
institutes and academies, which were highly recommended here as
some of the most effective programs for training math and
science teachers and aspiring students?
Dr. Griffin. I do not know that we are. I have a new
Assistant Administrator for Education. She has taken on the
task of trying to link our spending to measurable goals and
outcomes. When I rejoined NASA as Administrator, I too was
unhappy with the indefinite nature of our education program. We
are spending, as you see there, in round numbers around $150
million or so every year on direct education, and we are
spending another very substantial sum, in the low hundreds of
millions, on education and public outreach as a part of our
normal missions. So from all sources, NASA is spending
literally hundreds of millions on education, and it would be
nice to have it strategically oriented. I do not know that it
is right now, but we are working on it and I would be more than
pleased to provide an answer to you for the record on exactly
what we are doing or a briefing to you or your staff.
[The information follows:]
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)
NASA is continually looking for ways to support science,
technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education to compete
effectively for the imaginations and career ambitions of America's
young people. NASA also provides teachers with supplemental curricular
materials for the learning environment in communities.
NASA has developed a number of innovative programs that use NASA's
unique content, people and facilities to support educators in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics fields, and to inspire the
next generation of explorers and innovators through the Vision for
Space Exploration. Specific examples include:
Attracting students to the teaching profession
The NASA Educator Astronaut project uses the visibility and
educational opportunities created by the activities of the Educator
Astronauts to inspire greater K-12 STEM achievement, promote STEM
careers, and elevate public esteem for the teaching profession. In
selecting our Educator Astronauts, we identified hundreds of our
country's top educators. We have captured their energy through the
Network of Educator Astronaut Teachers (NEAT). Approximately 180 NEAT
members are now in communities all across America conducting workshops
(three annually) reaching about 90 educators per session. These efforts
result in strengthening STEM skills of approximately 10,000 teachers
annually. Additionally, professional development training engaging
educators, their schools and communities in NASA education activities
and informing them of NASA resources has taken place in 280 NASA
Explorer Schools (NES) 17 Science, Engineering, Mathematics, Aerospace
Academies (SEMAA), and 31 Aerospace Education Laboratories (AEL).
Providing pre- and in-service teacher training
NES provide intensive teacher training, the Aerospace Education
Support Project (AESP) provides on site professional development to
teachers in classrooms across the country. NES assist middle schools
with improving teaching and learning in STEM education through
significant structural (professional development, stipends, grants) and
curricular support based on NASA resources. In 2006, 5,339 teachers
received intensive training as part of the NES project. Additionally
the AESP conducted sessions across the Nation, reaching 13,938
educators.
--Research Academy provides leading-edge research opportunities for
faculty and students from Minority Institutions (MI) that
compliment NASA's research programs and make original
contributions to NASA in astrobiology, biotechnology,
information technology, and nanotechnology. Faculty and
students from MI collaborate with the scientists at NASA's Ames
Research Center, industry, academia and nonprofit organizations
on research that helps prepare the next generation of explorers
for NASA missions.
--In addition to in-service workshops based on our missions, NASA is
committed to the pre-service training of our future educators.
Through the National Pre-Service Teacher Conference, Pre-
Service Teacher Institutes and Online Professional Development,
NASA recruits STEM teachers to develop the confidence and
skills to effectively teach mathematics and science using
cutting-edge technology and educational materials. Such efforts
have led to 200 STEM-enhanced teachers instructing an average
of 25 students per classroom times 3 years, impacting a
projected total of 15,000 students.
--NASA's Digital Learning Network (DLN) fosters the effective use of
interactive instructional technologies through the delivery of
NASA educational content for the benefit of its students and
educators. It also contributes to the professional development
of internal and external educators through the delivery of
face-to-face and distance learning-based events. Over 74,000
students, teachers and other participants were engaged in a DLN
event last year.
Developing and distributing curricular support materials
Curriculum Improvement Partnership Award, a three-year
undergraduate curriculum improvement program for minority institutions
(MI), including Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic
Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges and Universities, and other MI,
emphasizes improvements that are directly related to the NASA mission
by infusing innovative learning experiences in STEM into the
curriculum. NASA's Educator Resource Centers (ERC) conducted educator
Resource Center Network 362 workshops in fiscal year 2006, helping
23,819 teachers learn about and use NASA's educational resources.
Personnel at ERCs located throughout the United States work with
teachers to find out what they need and to share NASA's expertise. The
ERCs provide educators with demonstrations of educational technologies
such as NASA educational Web sites and NASA Television. ERCs provide
in-service and pre-service training utilizing NASA instructional
products. Educators also have the opportunity to preview, copy and
receive NASA instructional products.
Through an innovative partnership, NASA is collaborating with
OfficeMax to provide educators with a convenient way to access NASA
materials in the most economical, productive and efficient way. If
educators require a document or material that is large quantity (number
of pages), and doesn't have the resources to print them, OfficeMax will
print materials and make them available at any of their nearly 1,000
stores across the country, including Puerto Rico and the Virgin
Islands.
Supporting informal learning
The Museum Alliance provides near real-time access to NASA
information from missions such as Cassini, Hubble and Mars, as well as
Earth science resources, for use in museums and science centers across
the country.
In collaboration with the American Museum of Natural History,
dozens of activities and curricular support materials and lessons were
adapted for use by the after school community.
Other examples of the unique innovative projects that NASA makes
available to support students across our Nation and to inspire more
students to pursue higher levels of study in STEM courses include:
--The Science Engineering Mathematics and Aerospace Academy Program
(SEMAA) reaches K-12 minority students that are traditionally
underrepresented in careers involving STEM. Students meet
during school, after school or on Saturday mornings and during
the summer to engage in hands-on, interactive learning sessions
that are specifically designed for each grade level.
Between the International Space Station, the space shuttle,
sounding rockets and high altitude balloons, NASA's Education
Flight Projects provide hands-on experiences to inspire and
motivate students to pursue studies and careers in STEM through
participation in NASA research applications. NASA is using its
unique assets like the C-9 to allow students to study
microgravity; we are launching student experiments more than 25
miles above the Earth on sounding rockets; and our astronauts
make phone calls from 240 miles above Earth's atmosphere to
students to involve them in current research aboard the
International Space Station. All these opportunities take
advantage of our flight hardware projects provide real, hands-
on experiences to inspire the minds, imaginations, and career
ambitions of America's young people.
--Teacher training for Worlds Beyond Our Own captures the excitement
and discovery surrounding planetary exploration. NASA and the
Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory developed workshops
and materials to assist educators in capturing the excitement
surrounding NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto that launched
in January 2006. New Horizons is the fastest spacecraft ever
launched from Earth, on board one of America's most powerful
rockets, and will be traveling the farthest distance of any
NASA spacecraft to begin its primary mission. Students will
grow up with this project. Today's elementary school students
will be in college when this spacecraft encounters Pluto.
--Museums and Science Centers are developing activities and materials
to inspire, educate, and engage students, educators and the
general public. They are also hosting professional development
opportunities for formal and informal education professionals
across the Nation. For example, in 2005 NASA and the Children's
Museum of History, Natural History, Science and Technology in
Utica, NY unveiled two new exhibits at the museum. The exhibits
``Why We Explore'' and ``Space Station Imagination'' provided
an overview of the history and future of space exploration.
Astronaut Ed Lu, a veteran Space Station astronaut, who spent
six months aboard the International Space Station, hosted the
unveiling.
--NASA's Great Moonbuggy Competition allows high school and college
students' to race into the future and cross the surface of the
moon without leaving the Earth. Teams from the United States
and Puerto Rico design human-powered vehicles to compete in
NASA's annual Great Moonbuggy Race. The race was inspired by
the lunar rover vehicles astronauts drove on the moon during
three Apollo missions. This year's event, opened to the media
and public, was held April 13-14 at the U.S. Space & Rocket
Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
In fiscal year 2005, through a variety of venues (distance
learning, videoconferencing, events, competitions, face-to-face, Space
Shuttle and ISS downlinks, workshops, and other activities NASA has
reached more than 2.9 million students, (776,000 K-12; 50,000 higher
education; 2,151,380 distance learning students) and 855,000 teachers.
(Please note: the number of teachers represents not a number of the
individuals that participated but a number of participation
opportunities that were taken, many of which were taken multiple times
by the same individuals.)
Educators who participated in NASA workshops and events provided
feedback via the NASA Education Evaluation Information System (NEEIS)
regarding the effectiveness and relevance of our efforts. With a 5.0
Liken scale in which ``5'' is the highest value, the average of the
teacher participant ratings of NASA's workshops and resources was 4.67.
NASA's resources (teacher training programs, supplemental
curricular materials, etc.) are aligned to national standards and
complement other agencies efforts. Interagency forums, e.g. the
National Science and Technology Council enable all STEM education
focused agencies and departments to share information and best
practices to promote complementary activities.
Additionally, NASA uses objective and verifiable performance
metrics, regular management insight and review processes, and defined
tools to assess its performance at all levels--portfolio, outcome, and
the individual program/project/product/activity.
The Agency is working with other agencies, e.g., National Science
Foundation to examine their evaluation techniques to determine
applicability and best practices for assessing NASA's education
portfolio, strategic outcomes, and projects.
In fiscal year 2006, the National Research Council (NRC) Board on
Science Education began work under a contract with NASA to conduct an
evaluation of NASA's precollege education program. An expert panel was
convened and the first committee meeting was held Nov. 15-17, 2006. A
second meeting held on January 18-19, 2007. Three additional committee
meetings will be held prior to the submission of the NRC's report,
scheduled for November 2007. The NRC does not release preliminary
results prior to submission of their report.
In addition to the NRC evaluation, other independent assessments,
evaluations and program reviews of projects such as NES, AESP,
EarthKam, and SEMAA are conducted annually by Paragon Tec Inc. (NES),
Western Michigan University (AESP), Education Development Center for
Child and Technology (EarthKam), and Benson Penick and Associates
(SEMAA).
Senator Alexander. Well, no, I would be--you can provide it
to me, because I am very interested in it and would like to
work with you. My son went to the space camp in Huntsville and
that's an attractive way to inspire students. But if I may
suggest, one outside group that may be useful to your assistant
and to you as you measure the $150 million might be the
Augustine Group in the National Academies, because they spent a
summer looking over a great many programs, looking at their
effectiveness. That would be one source of input.
For example, the legislation that we have would increase
the number of summer institutes at national labs. Well, I can
think of no more inspiring place for math and science teachers
in Tennessee to go for a 2-week session than an academy in
Huntsville, to learn new techniques for teaching math and
science and to inspire them to do a better job.
You have so many degrees that you have enough degrees for
the whole room here, so I know I am preaching to the choir. But
just as an example, we are talking about very measurable
numbers here. Governor Hunt of North Carolina, former Governor,
told us that the University of North Carolina College of
Education graduated three physics teachers last year for the
entire State of North Carolina. I am sure the number in
Tennessee is not much more. But just in our own region with
that one activity in Huntsville, we could probably quadruple or
double or even by a factor of more the number of teachers
through summer institutes, academies, a variety of ways.
So I would look forward to working with you on that and
following it over time, and I am delighted that you are there
and that it is a priority of yours.
Dr. Griffin. I would be interested in working with you on
it and I am certain that if legislation is passed increasing
the number of summer academies and institutes that we would be
happy to be part of that. We would be thrilled.
MATH AND SCIENCE INSTITUTIONS
Senator Alexander. Madam Chairman, and I am also suggesting
that since they have recommended this as the single most
important thing we could do to keep our competitive edge, ahead
of research, ahead of the R&D tax credit, ahead of everything
else, we might take some of that $150 million you have now got
and have some summer institutes for math and science teachers
and students.
Dr. Griffin. Well, much of the money that we are spending
today is set aside for member preferences on how the education
dollars are to be spent, and if it could be spent more
strategically I would be, for one, I would be much in support
of that.
Senator Mikulski. Dr. Griffin, now you know why Senator
Shelby and I were so excited that Senator Alexander joined the
subcommittee. We worked with he and Senator Domenici and
Senator Bingaman last year to literally put into a legislative
framework the rising above the gathering storm, and he came on
this particular subcommittee because of his passion really to
implement the triad of increased research, increased
opportunities in education to get people excited about science,
and number three, a more innovation-friendly government.
Who is your new assistant for education?
Dr. Griffin. Her name escapes me right now.
Senator Mikulski. Mary, do you want to?
Dr. Griffin. Oh, thanks. Dr. Joyce Winterton. I am sorry.
She just recently came on board and I met her only once.
Senator Mikulski. No, I know you've got a lot on your mind.
This is like sitting for your oral exams for your doctorate. We
go from one topic--no, we understand.
Dr. Griffin. No, that was easy. This is much tougher.
Senator Mikulski. What we would like to suggest is that the
new Administrator meet with Senator Alexander, because you are
right, in previous years education has been gushy and where
there is a vacuum members step in. So now I think we would like
to make wise and prudent use of that $150 million and we can
see the benefits. Certainly the NASA relationship with the
Maryland Science Center has been a cornucopia of running
opportunities both for teachers and for students.
But we would like to really make good use of this because,
again, NASA is where it is at. It is--what I said to the
President about being in the innovation-competition agenda,
competitiveness agenda. It is NASA through its technology,
through Hubble, to its space exploration program, that really
excites people about science. And we have got all these young
little geniuses out there who want to participate in October
Sky, while we, of course, do our appropriations.
SPACE SHUTTLE RETIREMENT
So moving on, though, to like some nuts and bolts again,
Shuttle retirement. What I am concerned about is what happens
if the Space Station is not finished by 2010 and you are ready
to retire the Shuttle? Do we anticipate that the Shuttle really
will be done by--excuse me, the Space Station, that the Space
Station will be done by 2010? And do you really believe that it
will, but do you have a contingency plan? What is the
consequences of the contingency plan?
Dr. Griffin. We have dealt with that in a couple of ways.
First of all, I do believe that the assembly schedule
accommodates ample margin to finish the assembly of the Space
Station with the Space Shuttle by 2010. It was planned that
way. When I came back to NASA, we did not have a plan that
accommodated a reasonable schedule reserve to finish the Space
Station by 2010, nor did we have the budget for it. So we
tightened our belt on the human space flight side of the house
and we deferred, as many have regretted and as I regret, we
deferred some of the utilization of the Space Station in the
next few years in order to focus on assembling it.
So our average flight rate over the years, including time
out for two losses due to accidents, has been 4\1/2\ flights
per year. We are on that pace now again. We are doing well, and
if we continue that pace we will finish with ample margin. So I
do believe we can do that.
Now, the consequences----
Senator Mikulski. Do you envision any scenario that would
keep the Shuttle going after 2010?
Dr. Griffin. I do not. In fact, at some point years ahead
of your last flight you have to buy your last tank, your last
solid rocket boosters. We've done that. So we do not envision a
scenario in which we would continue to fly past 2010. Now, the
last couple of flights have been arranged so that they are the
least crucial flights, and so if it were necessary to drop a
flight or two we would still have the assembly complete. Some
of our logistics would not be delivered and we would have to
find some other means of commercial transport to put those up.
In fact, that is what we plan to rely on between 2010 and when
the crew exploration vehicle (CEV) comes along, is commercial
transportation to the Space Station to deliver our supplies and
other cargo.
ORION CREW RETURN VEHICLE/ARES LAUNCH VEHICLE
Senator Mikulski. We could have a robust conversation just
on that. But I would like to give you the opportunity, because
I know Senator Shelby as our other colleagues are very keenly
interested in, of course, the Orion crew return vehicle and the
Ares launch vehicle. That is the bread and butter. I mean, that
is the--without that, space exploration will really just
sputter.
The Orion of course, the safety of our astronauts, the crew
return vehicle, and of course the launch vehicle. In your fall
testimony, which was the part that I was reading, you talk
about how, based on everything I know, due to the cumulative
effect of reductions in the exploration system to pay for the
Space Shuttle return, previously underestimated costs to fly
the Shuttle until 2010, and the reduction in fiscal year 2007,
you were concerned about, number one, the schedule that you now
had, and number two, you also comment that you are not sure
about what will be the workforce implications of all of this.
What I would like to do today with Senator Shelby and I
here, do you want to elaborate on that, so we just kind of get
it all out into the air? Right now we have just identified
Hubble costs $40 million. That is a chunk of money. Let us
really talk about what it is going to take and what you would
like to see in order that we meet--we understand, we do want
Orion. We do want Ares, and we want it in as well-paced a way
as you would, and I think the mission calls for.
So do you want to elaborate on your testimony, because I
think this is the nuts and bolts of what colleagues are asking
and what we are asking. So tell us how you see this and for you
to elaborate on your testimony, and particularly also the work
force implications, because some of our colleagues are
apprehensive.
Dr. Griffin. Yes, Madam Chairman. Would you like me to sort
of walk you through how we got where we got?
Senator Mikulski. No, we know how we got where we are.
Dr. Griffin. You know how we got there, okay. So you want
to know what we need to go forward.
Senator Mikulski. Yes. We know how--it is kind of that
same, we are where we are. So we know where we got, but we have
got to get going. So let us talk about the got to get going.
Dr. Griffin. Yes, Madam Chairman. I just wanted to make
sure I understood what you wanted me to talk about. Accepting
the intent of the Congress on the fiscal year 2007 continuing
resolution, Senator Nelson and Senator Hutchison asked me what
it would take to get back into 2014 with the CEV and the Ares
and Orion. I said, after we studied it carefully, to replace
the money that was not appropriated in 2007 would require $350
million in fiscal year 2009 and $400 million in fiscal year
2010, as close as we can estimate it. That would get us back to
September 2014. I was also asked what it would take to get back
into 2013 and, considering that again as carefully as we can,
we believe that it is about $100 million a month. So that
should just be the way that you should think about it. Every
month that you want to pull the schedule in is $100 million.
The best we could do at this point would be to bring it
back to June 2013. So June 2013 is where we are on a technical
schedule.
Senator Mikulski. Technical. But as it stands now, based on
the 2014, knowing earlier is always nice to hear, but we would
be concerned about two things. Number one, what now as we look
at 2008 in order to meet responsibilities, meet our
responsibilities in 2008, and also what you need to do in terms
of the fiscal mechanisms, not to be sure that we do not get
into the overrun problem.
Dr. Griffin. Of course, now----
Senator Mikulski. What do you need in 2008 to, say, meet a
2014?
Dr. Griffin. I do not need anything additional in 2008.
Senator Mikulski. But for us to stay the course?
Dr. Griffin. For us to stay the course. If you wished to
pull the schedule in and stay the course and be in 2014, we
would need money in 2009 and 2010. Of course, you know better
than anyone that fiscal year 2009 preparation starts next
month. So fiscal year 2009 is already upon us. But I do not
need additional funds in fiscal year 2008. But I would need to
know that funding would be coming along in fiscal years 2009
and 2010.
Senator Mikulski. But your point, though, is that in 2008,
that if there is any shrinkage in 2008--and, of course, we are
looking forward to what our allocation is going to be. This is
why we are looking--you know, we are so glad the budget is
going to be on the floor, that we know what our allocation is,
because we presume that some time in May we will need
additional conversations. We will know what our allocation is,
we will know the direction.
But to be clear, if we stay the course in 2008 as
recommended here, you will be moving while you are looking at
2009. And that is also if something unforeseen does not happen.
Dr. Griffin. That is exactly correct, Senator. If I get the
President's budget in 2008 and if the funding I mentioned in
2009 and 2010 were to be supplied, if you chose to do that,
then we would be back on track. I will say for the record, our
technical planning on these systems is very conservative. We
are budgeting with new levels of conservatism. I have spoken of
65 percent confidence level budgeting. Paul has heard me and
Art has heard me on this. So I strongly believe, that we can
avoid future technical surprises in this. We are not developing
new technology here. We are striving to restore lost
capability. So this is not the time to develop new technology.
INDEPENDENT PROGRAM ANALYSIS ORGANIZATION
Senator Mikulski. Well, first of all, I know that many are
talking about even if we could accelerate it another year. I
want to be sure that there are mechanisms in place to make sure
that Orion and Ares are properly managed. And I know you share
that.
Do you have an independent oversight mechanism to verify
cost, design, and technical feasibility?
Dr. Griffin. Yes, we do. We have an entire independent
program analysis organization that, in fact, does just such
cost analyses, that is independent of the programs.
Senator Mikulski. I am sorry; who does that?
Dr. Griffin. Again, it is our independent program analysis
organization.
Senator Mikulski. So you have an internal red team?
Dr. Griffin. Yes, Madam Chair.
Senator Mikulski. Is that kind of that in a nutshell?
Dr. Griffin. We do. They are located at Langley or they are
headquartered at Langley. They are independent of the programs
and their estimates in fact have been quite reliable. It was
they who brought to me the correct information regarding the
underfunding of the James Webb Space Telescope a couple of
years ago. So I have found them to be very good.
Senator Mikulski. We just needed to know what it was.
I just--I do not know if Senator Shelby has more questions,
but when Shelby--when Senator Shelby moved the bill last year,
I think, Senator, you had $3.7 billion in there for this, which
of course is very close to the President's budget. Had we been
able to move our bill, I think we would be in good shape.
I know with the continuing resolution--and it has given
heartburn to many of us, even the idea that we had to do one--
there was $400 million, so it was not a total loss. But it was
enough of a loss for you to lose time, but you do not want to
lose ground; is this right? And if we get back to where we are,
I think we will have a way forward.
Dr. Griffin. That is correct, Madam Chairman. I would again
emphasize we will soon be making decisions with our contractor
based on what money we can expect when. So if it is your
intention----
Senator Mikulski. You know, when you talk about 2009 and
2010, I do not dispute this. I am glad to hear. Also there is
the red teaming, which means--but we are not the only ones that
need to hear this. And I know you are starting next month. This
is why I would like for us to be in the room and say, we have
got to talk about a couple of years here, how we can retire the
Shuttle with honor and say goodbye, not be sitting on the
launch pad for a prolonged period of time, but do it in a well-
paced way, as well as to meet important scientific objectives
that have been identified by both your team and the national
academies.
AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE
Senator Shelby. Thank you. Madam Chairman, I think we do
need some type of summit with Dr. Griffin and others where we
can just talk about what we really need, where you really want
to go, and so forth, and see how we can help.
Dr. Griffin, ACI. I was surprised to see that NASA was not
included as part of the American competitiveness initiative,
ACI. The goals for the education component of NASA's budget are
to strengthen the Nation's future workforce, attract and retain
students in science and engineering, and to engage Americans in
NASA's mission. Coupled with the high public visibility and
recognition that you enjoy, it seems that NASA would be a
natural fit for such an initiative.
It is troubling why NASA was not included in this
initiative. It seems like it is a pretty good fit.
Dr. Griffin. Well, yes, sir. In fact, much of what we do
fits very naturally within the goals of the ACI. There may be
some semantics involved here, but I think in a way that is a
reason why NASA was not specifically included. We are already
doing many of those things.
The ACI was also intended to provide additional budget for
agencies which had not been receiving it, and from the
administration's point of view NASA is already above the
average level for domestic non-defense discretionary agencies.
Senator Shelby. You have got a lot of brainpower, I think,
that we could use.
Dr. Griffin. Well, I hope we do.
Senator Mikulski. I would agree.
Dr. Griffin. Well, we support your view that we at NASA do
many things that are closely related to the goals of the ACI
and we intend to keep doing those things.
CHINESE ASAT TEST
Senator Shelby. China. I know that last summer you were in
China to talk about their space program and so forth.
Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. As we are all aware, China recently
conducted a test that destroyed a weather satellite in an orbit
about 500 miles above the Earth. This test had to have created
some space debris that eventually will fall or could fall to
the Earth. But it would first have to pass through space
occupied by the International Space Station and other valuable
NASA assets. That is what I have been told.
I do not want you to touch on any classified information
here, but what risk to NASA's assets was created by this test
and could you relate that here, or would you rather defer that?
Dr. Griffin. No, I can discuss that here, Senator. For the
first few weeks after the Chinese ASAT test, the risk to the
Space Station approximately doubled. Now, I would state
correctly for the record that the average daily risk to the
Space Shuttle from orbital debris is about 1 in 100,000. So the
risk doubled from about 1 in 100,000 to 1 in 50,000.
After a few weeks, the debris had spread out and retreated
into what the analysts refer to as the background. So after a
few weeks that debris posed no measurable additional risk over
the existing background that was already there. Nonetheless, of
course, we deplore such tests because we now understand in a
way that we did not some decades ago how dangerous that debris
can be, and in fact China is part of international coordinating
bodies whose goal is to mitigate such debris. So we do regret
that test, but at this point it does not pose an additional
threat to any space assets that we have.
STATUS OF THE EXPLORATION ACTIVITIES
Senator Shelby. Dr. Griffin, for the record, could you give
us a status of the exploration activities such as the
Constellation program are progressing, would you specifically
focus on crew exploration vehicle, the crew launch vehicle, and
the launch operation aspects of the program? Could you do that?
Dr. Griffin. Yes, Senator. The crew exploration vehicle--
when I sat here with you a year ago we were in the middle of
source selection. We said that we would select a winning
contractor by Labor Day of that year, and we did. That winning
contractor is Lockheed. We have spent the last few months
working with them to scrub the design and definitize the
requirements. That has gone quite well. They are on track and
they are on target.
We with Senator Mikulski already discussed the impact of
various delays, including the need to find additional money for
the Space Shuttle last year and the continuing resolution this
year. The accumulated effect of delays is to put us into 2015,
which none of us want to be in, and both of you have expressed
your desire to help with that and I appreciate it.
But the technical work on the CEV is on target. The Ares
launch vehicle, which, as I think you know, is being developed
under the leadership of a team at the Marshall Space Flight
Center, is equally on target. They are doing just a great job.
They have released the RFP, the request for proposals. Industry
is now bidding on the upper stage development work for that
vehicle. The first stage uses an existing development, the
Shuttle solid rocket booster, which the project office for that
exists at Marshall Space Flight Center. So we will be combining
a second stage with an old first stage, and that will be the
new crew vehicle.
The instrument unit for that will be procured in an RFP
this October. So by the time the new fiscal year starts, we
will have all the elements of Shuttle replacement under
contract and in work. I am very pleased. We have teams at
Marshall Space Flight Center and Johnson Space Center on that.
I am very pleased.
Launch pad work has already started on Complex 39B to
transition that from a Shuttle pad to a new Orion and Ares pad.
Now, Senator Mikulski, as you and I have discussed, we will
preserve the launch on need capability during the Hubble Space
Telescope servicing mission. So we will not make modifications
to Complex 39B which would interfere with the Shuttle launch,
but we have started those modifications in non-interfering
ways.
The team is excited. They are energized. This is affecting
our educational posture because I spent 13 years as an adjunct
professor. If I ever again have a life to call my own, I will
go back to doing it. But my academic friends are telling me
that their college students are excited and they are energized
because they see a space program being reborn out there that
they can join when they graduate from college, and they look
ahead and they say, well, when I am 45 we will be going to
Mars, and that is true. If we keep going with what we are
doing, that is true. So work is going very well.
Senator Shelby. Dr. Griffin, I do not believe you will be
an adjunct professor unless you want to by choice. You will be
a chaired professor somewhere.
Madam Chairman, thank you.
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES REPORT ON EARTH SCIENCE
Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mister--thank you, Senator
Shelby.
I just have one last question before we go. I know there
are votes. I want those college kids when they are 45 knowing
that we are on Mars, but I do not want them sitting at a kayak
at Goddard because the bay has risen that far because of global
warming.
Which takes us to the National Academy of Sciences report
on Earth science. Dr. Griffin, as you know, they have
recommended a robust agenda of 17 different projects to study
climate and atmospheric and oceans issues along with NOAA, to
really also focus on those things that would have societal
benefit.
Do you want to tell us your reaction to this and how you
would see--I know it is not in 2008, but how you would see
incorporating this? And also, one of the things it calls for is
a memorandum of agreement with NOAA to really maximize and
leverage the respective work that both agencies are doing. Do
you want to comment on that?
Dr. Griffin. Yes, Madam Chairman, I would like to. I think
the NASA-NOAA relationship is as good or better than it has
ever been. Admiral Lautenbacher and I and our staffs talk
frequently. We, as I said in an answer to one of your earlier
questions, we recognize the need to replan our Earth science
and observation and climatology work together, given the
restructuring of NPOESS, and we will be doing that over this
summer and we will be keeping you and your staffs informed as
to how that is going.
We have a National Research Council study which is due to
us to help with this issue, as well as a study that we are
preparing for OSTP. We will factor in the results of the new
decadal, which I would remind you, we asked for that decadal.
So we now have their priorities for the work which should be
done within Earth science, and in fact we used the midterm
report on that to increase money to the global precipitation
measurement mission, the GPM, which we will be doing in
conjunction with the Japanese. So we are paying attention.
Senator Mikulski. I want to be very clear that the
recommendations of the National Academy on Earth science for
the climate crisis does not mean in any way to imply that you,
meaning NASA and the Earth sciences have not already been
looking at it.
Dr. Griffin. Right.
Senator Mikulski. This is the look ahead. That is why they
call it the decadal. That is like we are in the decathlon.
Dr. Griffin. So we will be restructuring our Earth science
portfolio, or we will be making certain that our Earth sciences
portfolio over the budget planning horizon starting with the
fiscal year 2009 budget does reflect the input of the decadal,
and we will share that with you.
Senator Mikulski. Well, I am really excited to hear about
that and, as both Senator Shelby and I have said, we have got a
long road ahead. I think we are very clear that in 2008--
ordinarily phrases like ``stay the course'' do not usually mean
something, but we understand how--what we need to be doing in
2008. But we also want to look ahead to the longer issue, the
NASA trend lines, as well as ensuring that we do have a
reliable space transportation system as promptly as the Nation
can afford to do it, as well as keeping other important
projects.
I think we have really gone through quite a bit of our
questions. Senator Shelby, do you have a last one?
RANKING MEMBER SHELBY CLOSING REMARKS
Senator Shelby. I just have one brief comment since we have
Dr. Griffin here again.
Dr. Griffin, we want to work with you, both of us. I work
now as the ranking Republican, former chairman. Senator
Mikulski was the former ranking Democrat, now chairman. But I
do not believe that NASA has two bigger supporters than the two
of us here on this subcommittee. We are going to continue to
work with you to make NASA what it wants to be.
Dr. Griffin. Thank you, Senator. I know that you have been
my biggest supporters and I very much appreciate it.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Mikulski. This subcommittee is recessed. We will
return on April 12, when we will take testimony from the
Attorney General.
[Whereupon, at 3:18 p.m., Thursday, March 15, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]