    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    			    BRIDGING THE GAP:
                          AMERICA'S WEATHER SATELLITES
                            AND WEATHER FORECASTING

    =======================================================================

                                 JOINT HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT &
                           SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               FEBRUARY 12, 2015

                                   __________

                                Serial No. 114-5

                                   __________

     Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

     [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov

                                    ___________

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    93-883PDF                    WASHINGTON : 2015

    ________________________________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                       HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
    FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.          ZOE LOFGREN, California
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
    RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas              DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    MICHAEL T. McCAUL                    FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
    STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi       SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
    MO BROOKS, Alabama                   ERIC SWALWELL, California
    RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois             ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
    BILL POSEY, Florida                  AMI BERA, California
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
    JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma            MARC A. VEASEY, TEXAS
    RANDY K. WEBER, Texas                KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
    JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan          ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
    STEVE KNIGHT, California             PAUL TONKO, New York
    BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   MARK TAKANO, California
    BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas            BILL FOSTER, Illinois
    BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
    DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
    GARY PALMER, Alabama
    BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
                                     ------

                          Subcommittee on Environment

                     HON. JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma, Chair
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR           SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
    RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas              DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    RANDY WEBER, Texas                   ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
    JOHN MOOLENAAR, Michigan             AMI BERA, California
    BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
    BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas            EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
    GARY PALMER, Alabama
    LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
                                     ------

                           Subcommittee on Oversight

                     HON. BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia, Chair
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.,         DON BEYER, Virginia
        Wisconsin                        ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
    BILL POSEY, Florida                  ZOE LOFGREN, California
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
    LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
                                C O N T E N T S

                               February 12, 2015

                                                                       Page
    Witness List.....................................................     2

    Hearing Charter..................................................     3

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Jim Bridenstine, Chairman,
      Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
      Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................    12
        Written Statement............................................    13

    Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking Minority
      Member, Subcommittee on Enviorment, Committee on Science,
      Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...........    14
        Written Statement............................................    16

    Statement by Representative Barry Loudermilk, Chairman,
      Subcommittee on Oversight, Committee on Science, Space, and
      Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................    17
        Written Statement............................................    18

    Statement by Representative Donald S. Beyer, Jr, Ranking Minority
      Member, Subcommittee on Oversight, Committee on Science, Space,
      and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..................    19
        Written Statement............................................    20

                                   Witnesses:

    Mr. David Powner, Director, Information Technology Management
      Issues, Government Accountability Office
        Oral Statement...............................................    21
        Written Statement............................................    24

    Dr. Stephen Volz, Assistant Administrator, National Environmental
      Satellite, Data, and Information Services, National Oceanic and
      Atmospheric Administration
        Oral Statement...............................................    49
        Written Statement............................................    52

    Mr. Steven Clarke, Director, Joint Agency Satellite Division,
      National Aeronautics and Space Administration
        Oral Statement...............................................    66
        Written Statement............................................    68

    Discussion.......................................................    72

                 Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    Mr. David Powner, Director, Information Technology Management
      Issues, Government Accountability Office.......................    98

    Dr. Stephen Volz, Assistant Administrator, National Environmental
      Satellite, Data, and Information Services, National Oceanic and
      Atmospheric Administration.....................................   102

    Mr. Steven Clarke, Director, Joint Agency Satellite Division,
      National Aeronautics and Space Administration..................   120

    Dr. Alexander MacDonald, President, American Meteorological
      Society; Director, Earth System Research Laboratory, National
      Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and Chief Science
      Advisor, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National
      Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.........................   128

    Mr. John Murphy, Director, Office of Science and Technology,
      National Weather Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
      Administration.................................................   137

                               BRIDGING THE GAP:.
                          AMERICA'S WEATHER SATELLITES.
                            AND WEATHER FORECASTING

                                  ----------

                          THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2015

                      House of Representatives,
                          Subcommittee on Environment &
                              Subcommittee on Oversight
                   Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                       Washington, D.C.

        The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in
    Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim
    Bridenstine [Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment]
    presiding.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Bridenstine. The Subcommittees on the Environment
    and Oversight will come to order.
        Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
    recess of the Subcommittee at any time. Is there any objection?
    No objection.
        Good morning. Welcome to the today's hearing: ``Bridging
    the Gap: America's Weather Satellites and Weather
    Forecasting.'' In front of you are packets containing the
    written testimony, biographies, and Truth in Testimony
    disclosures for today's witnesses.
        For opening statements, I will recognize myself for five
    minutes and then I will turn to the Ranking Member and the
    Chairman on Oversight and the Ranking Member on Oversight.
        Good morning, and welcome to the first Environment
    Subcommittee hearing for the 114th Congress. I want to thank
    the Full Committee Chairman, Lamar Smith, for his continued
    leadership.
        I would like to congratulate Mr. Loudermilk of Georgia for
    his assignment as the Chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee.
    Welcome, and congratulations.
        I would like to welcome back the Ranking Member, Ms.
    Bonamici of Oregon, who I look forward to working with in this
    Congress, and we have worked very well together in the past and
    looking forward to another great Congress.
        And I would like to congratulate Mr. Beyer of Virginia for
    his assignment as the Ranking Member of Oversight on this
    Subcommittee, so congratulations and welcome.
        This Committee has held numerous hearings over the years on
    NOAA's weather satellite programs. Today we continue this
    oversight by examining the status of NOAA's two primary
    satellite systems, the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) and
    the Geostationary Environmental Operational Satellite System
    (GOES). These satellites collect vital data that is fed into
    the numerical weather models that are used by meteorologists to
    make our forecasts, and where I come from in the great State of
    Oklahoma, critically important data for predicting
    thunderstorms and tornados.
        These two programs comprise the lion's share of funding for
    NESDIS, the satellite office at NOAA. In the newly released
    Fiscal Year 2016 budget request, NESDIS accounts for over $2
    billion, roughly 40 percent of the NOAA's total budget. Just
    seven years ago, in 2008, NOAA's budget for satellites was less
    than $1 billion and was roughly one-quarter of NOAA's overall
    spending. The NESDIS budget has grown dramatically over the
    last decade.
        In addition, recent reports from the GAO highlight
    continuing challenges with NOAA's satellite programs. The JPSS
    program has been plagued with increasing costs and delays,
    meaning we are probably facing a gap in satellite coverage and
    data. Estimates of the data gap range from an optimistic three
    months in some cases to possibly as much as five years,
    depending on circumstances, in the worst-case scenario outlined
    by the GAO. With a gap, our ability to predict weather would be
    dramatically degraded, putting lives and property in danger.
    This is especially important to me, as my home state is
    Oklahoma, and we are regularly ravaged by tornados.
        Likewise, the GOES program has also experienced increasing
    lifecycle costs and project delays. With the first satellite
    launch now pushed back to March 2016, it is important that the
    program adhere to its already-delayed schedule and prevent
    another gap in satellite coverage and data.
        Given the criticality of JPSS and GOES to our forecasts, it
    is imperative we ensure these programs receive the adequate
    support and oversight to avoid further delays and costs
    overruns.
        I hope we can use this hearing to determine how to keep
    these programs from slipping further and mitigate any possible
    gaps. However, the failures of these programs to stay on track
    so far highlight a recent track record for our satellite
    programs that is less than good, and that the paradigm of
    owning and operating large monolithic satellites might not be
    the way forward.
        To address this problem, we should look to augment our
    satellite systems through commercial means, just as the
    Department of Defense and NASA have done. There is a burgeoning
    commercial industry that has incredible potential to assist us
    in providing accurate information to protect American lives and
    property, disaggregate risk, and save the taxpayers' dollars.
    We need to have the most resilient space-based weather data
    architecture ever. Instead of continuing down the path of large
    government-owned satellites that are prone to cost overruns and
    delays, as we look forward into the future, we must look
    outside the box for new methods of providing essential weather
    data. For example, there are private companies such as
    PlanetIQ, Spire, GeoOptics, Tempus Global Data and HySpecIQ
    that have plans to launch constellations of GPS Radio
    Occultation and Hyperspectral Sounding satellites, two sources
    of data that can greatly enhance our forecasting ability.
    Considering options that reduce the burden on massive
    government satellite systems will allow us to more accurately
    predict weather in future architecture paradigms.
        It has become increasingly difficult to remain optimistic
    about the future of U.S. weather forecasting, which currently
    lags behind the UK, Europe, and Canada in terms of accuracy,
    when we have satellite programs that are plagued with
    increasing costs and perpetual delays. The prospect of gaps in
    satellite data are even higher. We need to look for ways to
    reduce government burdens and eliminate these types of problems
    while increasing our ability to protect American lives and
    property.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and I
    would like to recognize our Ranking Member, the gentlelady from
    Oregon, for an opening statement.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bridenstine follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Environment
                            Chairman Jim Bridenstine

        Good morning and welcome to the first Environment Subcommittee
    hearing of the 114th Congress. I want to thank the Full Committee
    Chairman, Lamar Smith, for his continued leadership. I'd like to
    congratulate Mr. Loudermilk of Georgia for his assignment as the
    Chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee. Finally, I also want to welcome
    back the ranking member, Ms. Bonamici of Oregon, with whom I have
    worked closely during my time in Congress. I look forward to working
    with you this Congress.
        This Committee has held numerous hearings over the years on NOAA's
    weather satellite programs. Today we continue this oversight by
    examining the status of NOAA's two primary satellite systems, the Joint
    Polar Satellite System (JPSS) and the Geostationary Environmental
    Operational Satellite System (GOES). These satellites collect vital
    data that is fed into numerical weather models used by meteorologists
    to make our forecasts.
        These two programs comprise the lion's share of funding for NESDIS,
    the satellite office at NOAA. In the newly released Fiscal Year 2016
    budget request, NESDIS accounts for over $2 billion dollars, roughly
    40% of the NOAA's total budget. Just seven years ago, in 2008, NOAA's
    budget for satellites was less than $1 billion and was roughly one-
    quarter of NOAA's overall spending. The NESDIS budget has grown
    dramatically over the last decade.
        In addition, recent reports from the Government Accountability
    Office highlight continuing challenges with NOAA's satellite programs.
    The JPSS program has been plagued with increasing costs and delays,
    meaning we are probably facing a gap in satellite coverage and data.
    Estimates of the data gap range from an optimistic three months, to
    possibly five years in the worst case scenario outlined by GAO. With a
    gap, our ability to predict weather would be dramatically degraded,
    putting lives and property in danger.
        This is especially important to me, as my home state of Oklahoma is
    regularly ravaged by tornadoes. Likewise, the GOES program has also
    experienced increasing life-cycle costs and project delays. With the
    first satellite launch now pushed back to March 2016, it is important
    that the program adhere to its already-delayed schedule to prevent
    another gap in satellite coverage and data.
        Given the criticality of JPSS and GOES to our forecasts, it is
    imperative we ensure these programs receive the adequate support and
    oversight to avoid further delays and costs overruns. I hope we can use
    this hearing to determine how to keep these programs from slipping
    further and mitigate any possible gaps.
        However, the failures of these programs to stay on track so far
    highlight a recent track record for our satellite programs that is
    poor, and that the paradigm of owning and operating large monolithic
    satellites is broken. To address this problem, we should look to
    augment our satellite systems through commercial means, just as the
    Department of Defense and NASA have done. There is a burgeoning
    commercial industry that has incredible potential to assist us in
    providing accurate information to protect American lives and property,
    disaggregate risk, and save the taxpayers' dollars. We need to have the
    most resilient space-based architecture possible.
        Instead of continuing down the path of large government-owned
    satellites that are prone to cost overruns and delays, we must look
    outside the box for new methods of providing essential weather data.
    For example, there are private companies such as PlanetIQ, Spire,
    GeoOptics, Tempus Global Data and HySpecIQ that have plans to launch
    constellations of GPS Radio Occultation and Hyperspectral Sounding
    satellites, two sources of data that can greatly enhance our
    forecasting ability. Considering options that reduce the burden on
    massive government satellite systems will allow us to more accurately
    predict the weather.
        It has become increasingly difficult to remain optimistic about the
    future of U.S. weather forecasting, which currently lags behind the UK,
    Europe, and Canada in terms of accuracy, when we have satellite
    programs that are plagued with increasing costs and perpetual delays.
    The prospect of gaps in satellite data is higher than ever. We need to
    look for ways to reduce government burdens and eliminate these types of
    problems while increasing our ability to protect American lives and
    property.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and yield back
    the balance of my time.

        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want
    to begin this morning by offering my congratulations to you,
    Mr. Bridenstine, and to our new Oversight Subcommittee
    Chairman, Mr. Loudermilk, and to our Oversight Ranking Member,
    Mr. Beyer. I would also like to extend a warm welcome to all of
    the new Subcommittee members. We are very fortunate to have the
    opportunity to serve on the Committee on Science, Space, and
    Technology and to help shape policies that are critical to the
    long-term health and prosperity of the Nation.
        This morning's hearing is a fitting way to undertake our
    work. Oversight of NOAA's weather satellites has been a
    longstanding bipartisan effort of this Committee, spanning many
    Administrations and sessions of Congress, and it is my hope
    that this hearing is just the beginning of a productive and
    bipartisan working relationship.
        Now, Mr. Chairman, I doubt that the average American spends
    much time thinking about the weather satellites managed by
    NOAA. We might, but I do know that one of the first things many
    of us do each morning is turn on the television or get on the
    internet or our favorite app to read the day's weather
    forecast, and that is because weather is important, affecting
    everything from our commute to the food on our table. In fact,
    a 2009 study from the American Meteorological Society stated
    that U.S. weather forecasts generated $31.5 billion in profits
    compared to costs of $5.1 billion.
        On this Committee, we have worked on finding ways to
    improve forecasting to protect the American people and the
    economy from the impacts of severe weather, and I am proud to
    be working the Chairman on bipartisan legislation, the Weather
    Forecasting Improvement Act, to advance NOAA's weather research
    enterprise and improve the products and services offered by the
    National Weather Service. That effort is important and ongoing.
        But meanwhile, any loss of coverage from the polar
    satellites or the geostationary satellites would have very
    serious consequences regarding the accuracy and timeliness of
    our weather forecasts and the capabilities of the Weather
    Service. Unfortunately, years of trouble and mismanagement in
    the polar satellite program mean that we will have a gap in
    coverage within the next decade, with the worst-case scenario
    being a gap lasting more than five years. In addition, there
    remains a chance that we face a gap in geostationary satellite
    coverage as well.
        I am certain that we will hear from today's witnesses about
    progress that has been made in this area, and I am pleased that
    NOAA and NASA are working to get these programs back on track.
    I applaud you for your efforts, but we are here today to
    emphasize the importance of maintaining focus on getting these
    programs where they need to be to protect American people and
    our economy. It may be possible to reduce the gap in coverage
    if there is optimal performance by our current satellites that
    enables them to greatly exceed their design lives.
    Additionally, if JPSS-1 and GOES-R launch on time, that may
    reduce the gap in coverage. It is still important that prudent
    managers have plans in place in the event of failure, and it is
    also critical that any gap mitigation strategy is well
    developed and ready to implement.
        Unfortunately, the testimony today from GAO highlights a
    number of concerns with these contingency plans, specifically
    with NOAA's plans to respond to the near-term data gap for our
    polar satellites.
        So the questions and issues for our witnesses today are
    quite simple: How can we best minimize the duration and impact
    of a gap in the polar program? How can we avoid a gap in the
    geostationary program? And are plans to fill gaps in coverage
    appropriately mature, prioritized, and ready to implement?
        The American public may not spend much time thinking about
    where their weather forecasts come from, but they will notice
    if those forecasts aren't reliable. I am looking forward to
    hearing from the witnesses from GAO, NOAA and NASA to discuss
    how their agencies' plans to address the looming gap in
    satellite coverage.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Environment
                    Minority Ranking Member Suzanne Bonamici

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to begin this morning by offering
    my congratulations to you, Mr. Bridenstine, the new Chairman of the
    Environment Subcommittee, to our new Oversight Subcommittee Chairman,
    Mr. Loudermilk (Louder-milk), and to new Oversight Ranking Member Mr.
    Beyer. I'd also like to extend a warm welcome to all of the new
    Subcommittee members. We are fortunate to have the opportunity to serve
    on the Science Committee and to help shape policies that are critical
    to the long-term health and prosperity of the nation.
        This morning's hearing is a fitting way to undertake our work.
    Oversight of NOAA's weather satellites has been a long-standing
    bipartisan effort of this Committee--spanning many Administrations and
    sessions of Congress. It's my hope that this hearing is just the
    beginning of a productive and bipartisan working relationship.
        Mr. Chairman, I doubt the average American spends much time
    thinking about the weather satellites managed by NOAA, but I do know
    one of the first things many of us do each morning is turn on the
    television or get on the internet or our favorite phone app to read the
    day's weather forecast.
        That's because weather is important, affecting everything from our
    commute to the food on our table. In fact, a 2009 study from the
    American Meteorological Society stated that U.S. weather forecasts
    generated $31.5 billion in benefits compared to costs of $5.1 billion.
        On this Committee, we have worked on finding ways to improve
    forecasting to protect the American people and the economy from the
    impacts of severe weather. I am proud to be working the Chairman on
    bipartisan legislation, the Weather Forecasting Improvement Act, to
    advance NOAA's weather research enterprise and improve the products and
    services offered by the National Weather Service. That effort is
    important and ongoing.
        But meanwhile any loss of coverage from the polar satellites or the
    geostationary satellites would have very serious consequences regarding
    the accuracy and timeliness of our weather forecasts and the
    capabilities of the Weather Service.
        Unfortunately, years of trouble and mismanagement in the polar
    satellite program mean that we will have a gap in coverage within the
    next decade, with the worst case scenario being a gap lasting more than
    five years. In addition, there remains a chance that we face a gap in
    geostationary satellite coverage as well.
        I am certain that we will hear from today's witnesses about the
    significant progress that's been made in this area, and I am pleased
    that NOAA and NASA are working to get these programs back on track. I
    applaud you for your efforts, but we are here today to emphasize the
    importance of maintaining focus on getting these programs where they
    need to be to protect American people and our economy.
        It may be possible to reduce the gap in coverage if there is ptimal
    performance by our current satellites that enables them to greatly
    exceed their design lives. Additionally, if JPSS-1 and GOES-R launch on
    time, that may reduce the gap in coverage. It's still important, that
    prudent managers have plans in the event of failure, and it's also
    critical that any gap mitigation strategy is well developed andready to
    implement.
        Unfortunately, the testimony today from GAO highlights a number of
    concerns with these contingency plans, specifically with NOAA's plans
    to respond to the near-term data gap for our polar satellites.
        The questions for our witnesses today are simple: How can we best
    minimize the duration and impact of a gap in the polar program? How can
    we avoid a gap in the geostationary program? And, are plans to fill
    gaps in coverage appropriately mature, prioritized, and ready to
    implement?
        The American public may not spend much time thinking about where
    their weather forecasts come from, but they will notice if those
    forecasts aren't reliable. I'm looking forward to hearing the witnesses
    from GAO, NOAA, and NASA discuss the agencies' plan of action to
    address the looming gap in satellite coverage.
        I'm also interested in learning how NOAA and NASA are working to
    ensure that we don't face a similar situation in the future. The
    President's fiscal year 2016 budget request includes $380 million for a
    Polar Follow-On program. How will this program make our satellite
    program more robust? Do we need to rethink or modify the model we use
    for acquiring weather data?
        Mr. Chairman, let me end by again offering my congratulations. I
    look forward to working with you and the Subcommittee on important
    issues like those we are discussing today. Thank you and I yield back
    the balance of my time.

        Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. I now
    recognize the Chair of the Oversight Committee, the gentleman
    from Georgia, for an opening statement.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chairman,
    and congratulations to you, the Ranking Members of both
    Subcommittees, and especially thank the members of the
    Oversight Subcommittee for being here today.
        And Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today.
    This is our first joint Environmental and Oversight Committee
    hearing of the 114th Congress, and I look forward to working
    with you on the oversight of environmental issues important to
    all of us.
        We are here today to hear from GAO, NOAA, and NASA
    regarding the progress of NOAA's polar orbiting and
    geostationary satellite programs, respectively JPSS and GOES-R,
    as well as how the data collected by weather satellites turns
    into weather forecasts depended on by so many in the United
    States, and quite frankly, around the entire world.
        GAO recently published a report detailing its concern that
    the NOAA polar satellite program, JPSS, is facing an
    unprecedented gap in satellite data. GAO believes that, while
    JPSS remains within its new lifecycle cost estimate and
    schedule baselines, recent rises in component costs and
    technical issues during development increase the likelihood of
    a near-term data gap. Additionally, although NOAA has recently
    reduced its estimated potential gap from fifteen to only three
    months, GAO notes that this assessment was based on incomplete
    data, such as the risks posed by space debris to satellite
    hardware. GAO estimates in its report that a data gap may occur
    earlier and last longer than NOAA anticipates.
        Perhaps even more troubling is the potential data gap
    facing NOAA's GOES-R program, the geostationary satellite
    system. Since its inception, the GOES-R program has undergone
    significant increases in cost and reductions in scope, and as
    GAO's report indicates, NOAA has yet to reverse or even halt
    this trend. The program was originally planned to launch mid-
    2012, a date that has now been pushed back to March of 2016.
    NOAA will retire one of its two operational satellites this
    year and move its backup satellite into orbit. This means we
    will face a period of up to 17 months without a backup
    satellite in orbit.
        History has shown us that backups are sometimes necessary
    to reduce risk to public safety and the economy. In 2008 and
    2012, the agency was forced to use backup satellites to cover
    problems with operational satellites, a solution we may once
    again find ourselves needing.
        When talking about the consequences of a gap in weather
    data, the first thought in the minds of many is of the
    devastating effects of extreme weather on the ground. My
    professional and personal history, however, demands that I
    discuss another type of weather with which I have quite a bit
    of experience, and that is aviation weather.
        As a private pilot, I know the importance of having
    accurate and timely weather forecasts to assess flying
    conditions. Pilots must evaluate conditions on the ground and
    in the sky throughout the entire flight process, from preflight
    planning to takeoff and landing. If a pilot does not know which
    aviation-specific weather conditions to expect, such as
    embedded thunderstorms, turbulence, and freeze levels, that
    pilot runs the risk of what we call getting behind the plane.
    That is a general aviation phrase which means that the plane is
    responding to the weather and the pilot is responding to the
    plane, and that is a situation that spells trouble for even the
    most seasoned pilots.
        From this perspective, you can see how a gap in weather
    data, and consequently less accurate forecasts, could
    negatively affect not only commercial flight safety, but also
    the $1.5 trillion in total economic activity that the aviation
    industry contributes to the national economy.
        I hope that today's hearing will shed some light on the
    complex issue and cost demands facing NOAA's weather satellite
    programs and that the Subcommittees will walk away better
    equipped to consider these issues moving forward.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Loudermilk follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Barry Loudermilk

        Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing
    today. This is our first joint Environment and Oversight Subcommittee
    hearing of the 114th Congress, and I look forward to working with you
    on the oversight of environmental issues important to us both.
        We are here today to hear from GAO, NOAA, and NASA regarding the
    progress of NOAA's polar orbiting and geostationary satellite programs,
    respectively JPSS and GOES-R, as well as how the data collected by
    weather satellites turns into weather forecasts depended on by so many
    in the United States, and quite frankly, around the world.
        GAO recently published a report detailing its concern that the NOAA
    polar satellite program, JPSS, is facing an unprecedented gap in
    satellite data. GAO believes that, while JPSS remains within its new
    lifecycle cost estimate and schedule baselines, recent rises in
    component costs and technical issues during development increase the
    likelihood of a near-term data gap. Additionally, although NOAA has
    recently reduced its estimated potential gap from 15 to only 3 months,
    GAO notes that this assessment was based on incomplete data, such as
    the risks posed by space debris to satellite hardware. GAO estimates in
    its report that a data gap may occur earlier and last longer than NOAA
    anticipates.
        Perhaps even more troubling is the potential data gap facing NOAA's
    GOES-R program, the geostationary satellite system. Since its
    inception, the GOES-R program has undergone significant increases in
    cost and reductions in scope, and as GAO's report indicates, NOAA has
    yet to reverse or even halt this trend. The program was originally
    planned to launch mid-2012, a date that has now been pushed back to
    March of 2016. NOAA will retire one of its two operational satellites
    this year and move its backup satellite into orbit. This means we will
    face a period of up to 17 months without a backup satellite in orbit.
    History has shown us that backups are sometimes necessary to reduce
    risk to public safety and the economy. In 2008 and 2012, the agency was
    forced to use backup satellites to cover problems with operational
    satellites, a solution we may once again find ourselves needing.
        When talking about the consequences of a gap in weather data, the
    first thought in the minds of many is of the devastating effects of
    extreme weather on the ground. My professional and personal history,
    however, demands that I discuss another type of weather with which I
    have quite a bit of experience: aviation weather. As a private pilot, I
    know the importance of having accurate and timely weather forecasts to
    assess flying conditions. Pilots must evaluate conditions on the ground
    and in the sky throughout the entire flight process, from takeoff to
    landing. If a pilot does not know which aviationspecific weather
    conditions to expect, such as embedded thunderstorms, turbulence, and
    freeze levels, that pilot runs the risk of ``getting behind the
    plane,'' a general aviation phrase which means that the plane is
    responding to the weather and the pilot is responding to the plane, a
    situation that spells trouble for even the most seasoned pilots.
        From this perspective, you can see how a gap in weather data, and
    consequently less-accurate forecasts, could negatively affect not only
    commercial flight safety, but also the $1.5 trillion in total economic
    activity that the aviation industry contributes to the national
    economy.
        I hope that today's hearing will shed some light on the complex
    schedule and cost demands facing NOAA's weather satellite programs and
    that the Subcommittees will walk away better equipped to consider these
    issues moving forward.

        Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Loudermilk. I now
    recognize the Ranking Member from the Subcommittee on
    Oversight, the gentleman from Virginia, for an opening
    statement.
        Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to add my
    congratulations to Chairman Bridenstine and Chairman
    Loudermilk, and we are really looking forward to working with
    you. I am thrilled to work with Ranking Member Bonamici, and
    just join myself with all the comments welcoming the various
    folks.
        I am told that historically, this Committee has been a
    haven of bipartisanship, and in the area of oversight, I really
    hope that we can work together to improve the quality of
    government services and protect taxpayer interests, and from my
    side, I am really looking forward to working with my colleagues
    on both sides of the aisle.
        You know, six years ago I had the remarkable responsibility
    to lead the transition team for President-Elect Obama at the
    Department of Commerce. Seventy-seven days, 6:00 in the morning
    until midnight. I learned to drink coffee for the first time.
    And I very quickly discovered that the number one problem in
    the Department of Commerce were the weather satellites, that
    the things we saw were the cost overruns were many multiples of
    the original idea. There were no reliable launch dates at all.
    We couldn't get the equipment to work. The satellites were
    loaded up with lots and lots of different ideas but none of
    which could work out. They had this tripartite management
    system with DoD, NASA and NOAA, and no one was in charge, so it
    was actually very encouraging to see how far we have come in
    these six years to have narrowed it to where we are.
        But we still had a rocky acquisition with the new series of
    weather satellites, and the polar orbiting satellites
    especially have been troubled. Costs have doubled. The money is
    now buying just two satellites instead of the original
    intention to acquire six, and the satellites that fly will be
    less capable because the instruments are going to be reduced
    from 13 down to just 5, and they are still years behind
    schedule.
        By comparison, the geostationary satellites seem to be
    models of efficiency, but they too have had trouble too with
    cost growth and areas of delays. As satellites that have a
    critical role in weather forecasting, losing coverage of either
    system could have serious, perhaps catastrophic effects on
    public safety. Both the Joint Polar Satellite System and the
    Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites face this
    possibility of a gap in coverage, and I hope that if we learn
    only one thing today, learning how to really address this gap,
    will help us go forward.
        At this point, the only way to avoid the gap is to be very,
    very lucky, and that is not a really good plan. You know, the
    problem is that the cost of these satellites distorts all the
    rest of NOAA's budget and limits the agency's resources for the
    many, many other important functions that they have--research
    into weather, oceans, climate science. Surely NOAA understands
    that the JPSS program represents a failure and an unsustainable
    model, so going forward, we have to find a more efficient,
    reliable means to put these instruments into orbit, and Mr.
    Chairman, I was interested in your alternatives.
        GAO has been working with this Committee on these satellite
    programs for ten years. Without their expert and committed
    assistance, the Congress and the public would know far less
    about the risks in these programs. Every GAO product and team
    has to be measured on its own terms, but this group that has
    been working on the satellites system is among our very best,
    and I think the Committee has to be very grateful for their
    service.
        For all the lessons that can be learned from the JPSS and
    GOES acquisitions, the most important immediate challenge has
    to be to complete both projects as expeditiously as possible.
    It is great that we have a pretty reliable launch date, but we
    have got to get them in orbit, checked out, and bring their
    data online as quickly as possible, and after years of truly
    worrisome reports, it appears that NOAA and NASA have good
    management teams in place and the contractors are now
    delivering as promised, and the Committee wants to be as
    helpful and supportive as we can as we reach this last stretch
    going into launch.
        At the same time, the news from GAO that NOAA is not well
    positioned on the data-gap mitigation plans in place is
    disappointing, and I hope we learn more today about we are
    going to do that.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Beyer follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Oversight
                  Minority Ranking Member Donald S. Beyer, Jr.

        I want to associate myself with the comments from my colleague,
    Ranking Member Bonamici, in welcoming everyone. I am told that
    historically, this Committee has been a haven of bipartisanship. In the
    area of oversight, I hope that we can work together to improve the
    quality of government services and protect taxpayer interests. I am
    looking forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the
    aisle.
        NOAA has had a rocky acquisition with the new series of weather
    satellites. The Polar Orbiting satellites have been particularly
    troubled. The costs have doubled. More money is buying just two
    satellites instead of the original intention to acquire six satellites.
    The satellites that fly will be less capable, with instruments reduced
    from 13 to just 5. Finally, the satellites are years behind schedule.
    By comparison, the Geostationary satellites are models of efficiency,
    but they have had trouble too with cost growth in some areas and
    delays.
        As satellites that have a critical role in weather forecasting,
    losing coverage of either system could have serious, perhaps
    catastrophic effects on public safety. Both the Joint Polar Satellite
    System (JPSS) and the Geostationary Operational Environmental
    Satellites (GOES) face a possibility of a gap in coverage--with the
    risks on JPSS being so high that a gap appears to be almost
    unavoidable. At this point, the only way to avoid such a gap is to be
    very, very lucky. Luck is not a plan, and bad luck is as probable as
    good luck.
        The cost of these satellites distorts NOAA's budget, and limits the
    agency's resources for weather forecasting and important research into
    weather, oceans and climate science. Surely NOAA understands that the
    JPSS program represents a failure and an unsustainable model. Going
    forward the agency has to find a more efficient, more reliable means to
    put its instruments on orbit.
        GAO has been working with this Committee on these satellite
    programs for ten years. Without their expert and committed assistance,
    the Congress and the public would know far less about the risks in
    these programs. Every GAO product, and team, has to be measured on its
    own terms. The group that has worked on the satellites system is among
    the best this Committee has ever worked with and we are very grateful
    for your help.
        For all the lessons that can be learned from the JPSS and GOES
    acquisitions, the most important immediate challenge has to be to
    complete both projects as expeditiously as possible. We must get
    working satellites on orbit, checked out, and bring their data on-line
    as quickly as possible.
        After years of truly worrisome reports, it appears that NOAA and
    NASA have good management teams in place and the contractors are now
    delivering as promised. The Committee wants to be helpful and
    supportive as we reach the last stretch going into launch.
        At the same time, the news from GAO that NOAA is not well
    positioned with data-gap mitigation plans in place is disappointing.
    This is an issue I want to hear more about and I hope we can leave this
    hearing with a clear commitment to preparing for what to do should the
    worst happen.

        Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Beyer.
        If there are other Members who wish to submit additional
    opening statements, your statements will be added to the record
    at this point.
        At this time I would like to introduce our witnesses. Our
    first witness today is Mr. David Powner, Director of
    Information Technology Management Issues at the GAO. Our second
    witness is Dr. Stephen Volz, Assistant Administrator of the
    National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service--
    NESDIS--at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration--NOAA. Our third witness today is Mr. Steven
    Clarke, Director of the Joint Agency Satellite Division at the
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration. We will also be
    joined for questioning by Dr. Alexander MacDonald, Director of
    the Earth System Research Laboratory at NOAA, Chief Science
    Advisor for NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research,
    and this year's President of the American Meteorological
    Society. Finally, we are joined for questioning by Mr. John
    Murphy, Director of the Office of Science and Technology at the
    National Weather Service for NOAA. Thank you, gentlemen, for
    all being here.
        Pursuant to the Committee rules, all witnesses will be
    sworn in before they testify, so if you would please stand up
    and raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear or affirm that
    the testimony that you are about to give will be the truth, the
    whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? You may
    be seated. Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered
    in the affirmative. Thank you.
        In order to allow for discussion, please limit your
    testimony to five minutes for your opening statements. Your
    entire written statement will be made part of the record.
        I now recognize Mr. Powner for five minutes to present his
    testimony.

                TESTIMONY OF MR. DAVID POWNER, DIRECTOR,

               INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT ISSUES,

                    GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

        Mr. Powner. Chairmen Bridenstine, Loudermilk, Ranking
    Members Bonamici, Beyer, and Members of the Subcommittees, two
    years ago, GAO added potential gaps in weather satellite
    coverage in consultation with this Committee as a high-risk
    area demanding immediate attention from NOAA management.
        Gaps in weather satellite coverage are likely and could
    affect lives and our economy. This morning I will provide a
    brief update on these gaps, contingency plans to address the
    gaps, and an update on the JPSS and GOES satellite
    acquisitions.
        Starting with JPSS, an $11.3 billion acquisition that is to
    result in two polar orbiting satellites expected to be launched
    in March 2017 and December 2021. There has been significant
    progress on both the flight and ground components, and the
    program is expecting to meet its cost and schedule targets.
    However, since July 2013, cost estimates have gone up two
    percent, or over $220 million. The ATMS and CriS instruments
    have had the most significant increases. Although this doesn't
    sound like much, if this cost growth continued annually, the
    program would surpass its cost baseline by 2018 and end up
    costing $2 billion more through 2025.
        The launch date of March 2017 looks good, but a key
    instrument to watch is ATMS. Its delivery slipped 12 months to
    March 2015 as we reported last month but we have now learned
    that there is another three month slip to June. Schedule
    reserves continue to dwindle, and oversight of this June
    delivery is very important to make sure that the March 2017
    launch date holds.
        A key risk to the current operational satellites to note is
    space debris. NASA recently updated its assessment of orbital
    debris, which concluded an increased likelihood at the altitude
    where the JPSS satellites operate. The current operational
    satellite that was originally intended as a demonstration
    satellite was not built with the appropriate shielding to
    protect against small debris the way the first JPSS satellite
    is currently being constructed.
        The likely gap in satellite coverage is 11 months. The
    current operational satellite is expected to last through
    October 2016, and with the March 2017 planned launch date and
    the six month checkout, NOAA could very well be facing a gap in
    coverage from October 2016 through September 2017, as shown on
    the one-page summary in my written statement. Any issues with
    space debris or delays in the JPSS launch or the checkout
    period would result in a larger gap.
        Multiple alternatives exist to prevent or reduce the impact
    of the gap. The best alternatives according to experts include
    extending the use of legacy satellites like POES and obtaining
    data from European mid-morning satellites, obtaining additional
    observations from commercial aircraft and radio occultation,
    enhancing forecast models, and increasingly high-performance
    computing capacity.
        NOAA has improved its satellite gap contingency plans by,
    among other things, adding more alternatives, which now total
    21 mitigation projects. However, there are three things we
    would like to see more done.
        NOAA needs to, one, update its polar satellite gap
    assessment to include changes in the current satellite's
    expected lifespan; two, revise its contingency plan to include
    an assessment of alternatives based on cost, and three,
    prioritize the mitigation projects in its plan.
        Moving now to GOES, a $10.8 billion acquisition that will
    result in four geostationary satellites with the first expected
    to be launched in March 2016. The GOES program continues to
    make excellent progress as all six satellite--as all six
    instruments have completed testing and the program is well into
    the integration and testing phases. The program is currently
    operating within its $10.8 billion lifecycle cost estimate but
    we saw a slight increases in both the ground system and two
    instruments but we think overall the program is on solid cost
    footing.
        We have more doubts whether GOES will meet its scheduled
    launch date because we are seeing delays in key testing dates
    and also because the spacecraft integration testing has moved
    to 24 hours a day, seven days a week testing schedule.
    Maintaining this March 2016 launch date is crucial because an
    operational GOES satellite is expected to reach the end of its
    useful life by April of this year, and GOES-R is expected to
    have a 6-month checkout period. Therefore, there may be no
    backup from April 2015 through September 2016. GOES's latest
    contingency plan released in February of 2014 overall looks
    very good but we would like to see more focus on preventing
    additional launch delays.
        In summary, on the JPSS, we have more concerns about cost
    and schedule, while on GOES we are more concerned about the
    launch date. Both programs are likely to face gaps, and
    improvements to contingency plans need to continue.
        This concludes my statement.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Powner follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Powner.
        I now recognize Dr. Volz for five minutes to present his
    testimony.

                     TESTIMONY OF DR. STEPHEN VOLZ,

                        ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,

                   NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE,

                    DATA, AND INFORMATION SERVICES,

            NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

        Dr. Volz. Good morning, Chairmen Bridenstine and
    Loudermilk, Ranking Members Bonamici and Beyer, and Members of
    the Committee, I am pleased to be here today along with my
    colleagues from NOAA, John Murphy and Sandy MacDonald. All of
    us share a desire to ensure that the JPSS and GOES-R series
    programs are successful and support the Nation's weather
    enterprise.
        We appreciate that Congress is supportive of NOAA's
    programs in the Fiscal Year 2015 appropriations bill. With
    these resources, NOAA will continue to provide environmental
    intelligence that is timely, accurate, actionable, reliable
    space-based information that citizens, communities and
    businesses need to stay safe and to operate efficiently.
        Funding stability is essential for NOAA to maintain our
    operational readiness and to continue our progress in our
    critical research programs. For the NOAA satellite portfolio,
    we will provide continuous satellite data for current
    operations while maintaining essential satellite development to
    ensure the continuity of service to our customers and users
    into the future.
        Every day, decisions are made by citizens and individuals
    and businesses based on the weather forecast, and we understand
    and appreciate it is our responsibility to operate the
    satellites that provide those data that go into the weather
    forecast. Our current operational geostationary and polar
    orbiting satellites provide on a 24-7 basis the space-based
    weather data required to support the weather enterprise of both
    the National Weather Service and the private weather industry.
    Research like in Sandy MacDonald's organization and in academia
    use these satellite data to develop products that can help the
    weather forecasters in John Murphy's organization produce those
    improved forecasts. And just yesterday, working together, NOAA,
    NASA and the Air Force launched the Deep Space Climate
    Observatory, or DSCOVR satellite on a SpaceX rocket from Cape
    Canaveral and it is now on its way to its observation point a
    million miles away from the Earth.
        DSCOVR is a NOAA-operated follow-on to NASA's Advanced
    Composition Explorer, or ACE satellite, and as our buoy in
    space for geomagnetic storm warnings, the DSCOVR satellite will
    provide critical in situ data of these approaching solar storms
    in NOAA's Space Weather Prediction Center, or SWPC, and SWPC
    and the NWS provides the alerts, forecasts and warnings to
    commercial users, customers such as the aviation industry,
    telecommunications, operators of the electrical grid system,
    all of whom could be significantly affected by such events.
        Turning to the GOES-R series and JPSS satellites that are
    the focus of this meeting, I am pleased to report that these
    programs are making excellent progress towards their launch
    dates. About this time next year, we will be preparing GOES-R
    at Cape Canaveral for its launch in March of 2016. GOES-R, the
    first in a series of four satellites with significant enhanced
    capabilities over the current GOES satellites, will continue
    NOAA's satellite provisions of 24/7 constant monitoring of the
    Atlantic Ocean, the continental United States, Hawaii,
    California and the Pacific Ocean for weather. Through ongoing
    work at the GOES-R proving ground, we are providing simulated
    GOES-R data to users now so that they will be ready for the
    real data flow immediately after launch and instrument
    commission in 2016.
        NOAA announced recently that GOES-R satellite will be
    placed into operational service immediately following its
    initial onboard checkout period, again to ensure these
    measurements are made available to the Federal and public users
    immediately.
        Moving to JPSS, by March 2017 the second satellite in the
    JPSS program, JPSS-1, will be launched. The launch of JPSS-1
    will continue the numerical--the gains in numerical weather
    prediction modeling that we have benefited from since the Suomi
    NPP satellite was launched four years ago. The high-resolution
    sounders on Suomi NPP, ATMS and CriS, have provided immediate
    benefits to the quality of the NWS weather prediction models
    and ultimately the weather forecasts we all depend on.
        In addition, the VIIRS imager on Suomi NPP has brought much
    improved observations of sea ice in the Alaskan and Arctic
    waters. The NWS and the U.S. Coast Guard are using blended
    products from VIIRS and commercially purchased synthetic
    aperture radar data to better map the ice and warn boats to
    avoid water where sea ice hazards exist.
        The joint NASA-NOAA JPSS team has completed the procurement
    activities for the JPSS-2 instruments to accelerate the launch
    date for that mission. NESDIS is also advancing the development
    of the ground system for the COSMIC-2 radio occultation
    mission. This mission, which will be launched in 2016 in
    partnership with the U.S. Air Force and the National Space
    Organization of Taiwan, will provide thousands of critical
    radio occultation sightings per day and making a significant
    contribution to the NWS weather models.
        In their reports, Mr. Powner and his staff have provided a
    number of observations along with specific recommendations from
    their most recent reviews of the GOES-R and JPSS programs. We
    value the dialog with the GAO as well as with other independent
    reviewers. As I have noted from my years with NASA, preparing
    for review is more benefit sometimes than actually the review
    itself. We concur with their assessments about the importance
    of these missions and need to stay vigilant and focused on
    mission success as indicated in the recommendations, and we
    folded those recommendations into our implementation plans
    moving forward.
        In conclusion, these important programs, GOES-R and JPSS,
    have benefited from the best experience of NOAA, NASA and our
    aerospace partners and are making strong and consistent
    progress towards launch. Data from the satellites will support
    the complex process of developing the weather forecast in a
    three to seven seven day period. We believe these satellite
    programs have potential for success and to be able to provide
    the information needed for decision-making.
        Thank you, and I look forward to answering questions.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Volz follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you for your testimony, Dr.
    Volz.
        Mr. Clarke, you are recognized for five minutes.

               TESTIMONY OF MR. STEVEN CLARKE, DIRECTOR,

                    JOINT AGENCY SATELLITE DIVISION,

             NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

        Mr. Clarke. Chairmen, Ranking Members and other Members of
    the Subcommittees, good morning, and thank you for the
    opportunity to appear today to provide you information
    regarding NASA's role in and commitment to NOAA's Joint Polar
    Satellite System (JPSS) and Geostationary Operational
    Environmental Satellite-R (GOES-R) series programs.
        JPSS and GOES-R programs are critical to the nation's
    weather forecasting system, environmental monitoring and
    research activities. NASA and NOAA have been partners for more
    than 40 years in developing the nation's polar and
    geosynchronous weather satellites.
        Following the restructure of the National Polar-orbiting
    Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) program in
    2010, NASA and NOAA returned to the successful partnership for
    JPSS. A NASA program office for JPSS was created and is staffed
    with a complement of NASA's civil servants and contractors.
    NOAA and NASA established joint agency-level program management
    councils to oversee JPSS and GOES-R and have integrated their
    decision-making processes to efficiently and effectively manage
    this cooperative activity.
        The NASA and NOAA teams have continually demonstrated a
    strong working relationship over the last four years, and as
    Dr. Volz mentioned, I am very pleased and proud the NASA and
    NOAA team in partnership with the U.S. Air Force and SpaceX in
    launching the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR), which
    will maintain the Nation's real-time solar wind monitoring
    capabilities. These measurements are critical to the accuracy
    and lead time of space weather alerts and forecasts. Once it
    reaches its destination at the first Sun-Earth Lagrangian point
    L-1, DSCOVR will help provide timely and accurate warnings of
    space weather events like the geomagnetic storms caused by
    changes in solar wind, which have the potential to disrupt
    nearly every major public infrastructure system, including
    power grids, telecommunications, aviation and the Global
    Positioning System (GPS).
        Additionally, in the past four years of our partnership,
    NASA and NOAA have successfully launched the Suomi National
    Polar-orbiting Partnership (NPP) mission and the Total Solar
    Irridiance Calibration Transfer Experiment (TCTE) payload.
    Suomi NPP celebrated its three-year on-orbit anniversary this
    past October, providing operational data to NOAA for use in
    weather forecasting. The satellite was developed to extend the
    record of key observations from the NASA Earth Observing System
    series of satellites and to demonstrate spaceflight and ground
    data-processing technologies for the next generation of
    operational polar-orbiting meteorological satellites.
        The JPSS-1 mission is on track towards the planned second-
    quarter Fiscal Year 2017 launch. The spacecraft Integration
    Readiness Review was completed in December and both the Clouds
    and Earth Radiant Energy System (CERES) and the Ozone Mapping
    and Profiler Suite-Nadir (OMPS-N) instruments have been fully
    integrated with the spacecraft. The Visible Infrared Imaging
    Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) and Cross-track Infrared Sounder
    (CrIS) instruments have completed environmental testing and are
    ready for installation onto the JPSS spacecraft.
        The GOES-R series program of four geosynchronous satellites
    continues to make progress toward launching GOES-R, the first
    satellite of the series, in the second quarter of Fiscal Year
    2016, and manufacturing GOES-S, the second satellite of the
    series, with a planned launch date in the third quarter of
    Fiscal Year 2017. Last year, the GOES-R Series Program
    successfully completed the GOES-R spacecraft Mission Operations
    Review and System Integration Review, allowing the spacecraft
    to enter the assembly, integration and test phase.
        NASA and NOAA are committed to the JPSS and GOES-R
    programs, and ensuring the success of these programs is
    essential to both agencies and the Nation. The NASA and NOAA
    teams have established strong working relationships and are
    striving to ensure that weather and environmental monitoring
    requirements are met on the most efficient schedule without
    reducing system capabilities. I am confident the NASA/NOAA
    partnership will successfully develop and deliver the next-
    generation polar and geosynchronous weather satellites to our
    Nation.
        Mr. Chairmen and Ranking Members, I appreciate the
    continued support of these Subcommittees and the Congress, and
    would be pleased to respond to any questions you or the other
    Members of the Subcommittees may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Clarke follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Clarke.
        Members are reminded that the Committee rules limit
    questioning to five minutes. I will now recognize myself for
    five minutes of questioning.
        Dr. Volz, I have heard some of my colleagues suggest that
    NASA should be in charge of procuring satellites and NOAA
    should be in charge of operating weather satellites. Clearly,
    you have a background that include both NASA and NOAA. What are
    your thoughts on this?
        Dr. Volz. Mr. Bridenstine, I think specifically NASA and
    NOAA are working together and in a very productive relationship
    now. NASA is the development agency for us. They do the
    satellite systems engineering, the mission systems engineering,
    the project management of all of our large satellite systems,
    but in a close partnership relationship with NOAA. So with NOAA
    being responsible for the program--overall program from the
    initiation to the requirements to the decisions based on what
    performance the satellites are expected and need to provide to
    the implementation of the data products, the analysis, the user
    community supporting the mission weather projects and all that.
    So it is--to separate those, the beginning-to-end
    responsibility of NOAA as the eventual provider of the weather
    predictions, the weather forecasts from the actual
    implementation would be generally a very--would be a poor
    choice to make.
        The partnership now does recognize the skills of both
    agencies, NASA as a very strong research and development
    organization with systems engineering and mission development
    experience and NOAA as the weather service, the weather
    provider, the agency that knows the requirements and has the
    community outreach and engagement to provide the weather
    products into the future.
        So such a partnership--a change in the partnership would be
    to--would adversely affect the performance, I think, of our
    agency, of NOAA's ability to meets its requirements and deliver
    the services to the Nation.
        Chairman Bridenstine. Is it safe to say that if NOAA is
    responsible for generating the requirements, they should also
    be in charge of the budget and maybe not NASA? NASA can do the
    actual technical innovation but NOAA would be responsible for
    the budget?
        Dr. Volz. That is fair to say, sir, but when you actually
    are implementing a satellite program, it is not a question of
    just setting a set of requirements, handing it over and coming
    back when the satellite is delivered. The development, as we
    have seen in these programs, of satellites takes many years and
    innumerable trades that are made during the design, development
    and testing phase which may affect the ultimate performance of
    the satellite. So it is not a simple question of just setting
    something and waiting for the delivery. There is an iterative
    process which involves active engagement between the user
    community that will use the eventual product coming out of it
    and the implementers, so that is why the partnership as it is
    written where NASA is at the table with NOAA through all of
    those major decision points in the development of the satellite
    is really critical, and yes, the budget should be on the side
    of the organization that is responsible for the requirements
    but the management and the execution requires a very close
    coordination throughout the development process of the system
    as well.
        Chairman Bridenstine. Got it. Thank you.
        Mr. Powner, you mentioned in your testimony that yesterday
    the GAO released its 2015 High Risk Report. JPSS was included
    on that report as was GOES. In 2013, when you were before this
    Committee, you suggested that the likelihood of a satellite
    data gap was ten out of ten. Do you stand by that assessment
    today?
        Mr. Powner. I still say there is a very high probability of
    the gap if you go with the best data, and the best data is NPP
    lasts until October 2016 and you don't launch until March 17
    and you have a six month checkout. Now, there have been a lot
    of discussions about NPP lasting longer, but if you look at
    NOAA's budget submission for Fiscal Year 2016, they are still
    showing a one-year gap based on that data.
        So we go with the best data that the experts out there have
    to say, so I still think it is prudent to go with expected life
    and not bet that it is going to last longer than what the
    experts are telling us. Now, if there is new news, that would
    be good to know, but I think you need to plan accordingly or
    you are kind of playing with fire.
        Chairman Bridenstine. I am down to one minute to go.
        Dr. Volz, do you have a comment on that?
        Dr. Volz. Yes. I think the point that Mr. Powner made, that
    the plans show the mission life design life as the endpoint of
    a satellite is an appropriate way to manage a program. You
    manage a program assuming a design life, and you should be
    prepared for a gap whether it occurs at any point. We could
    lose a satellite at any point because of orbital debris or
    other points. You should have contingencies in place to make
    sure that you can handle such a loss of any asset in space, a
    functionally redundant or a reliable system overall.
        Now, the actual performance of Suomi NPP, which we update
    every year based on performance, shows that our expectation is
    it will last much longer than 2016. That doesn't mean we
    shouldn't prepare for mitigations for potential gap but we
    don't expect that to happen but that doesn't mean we don't plan
    for it.
        Chairman Bridenstine. Got it. Okay. So I have got 15
    seconds. Suomi NPP, you just mentioned, obviously was not built
    for an operational capacity but a test capacity yet it is
    operating right now as an operational satellite. If we knew it
    had operational capabilities, why was it not originally
    designed to be an operational satellite?
        Dr. Volz. Suomi NPP was initially intended to be a test bed
    development demonstration project, was actually called an
    NPOESS preparatory project before--that was the NPP--and was
    intended to give an on-orbit performance demonstration of the
    key NPOESS, which would have been the NPOESS instruments, those
    five instruments that are on there now. During the redefinition
    of the NPOESS program, as Mr. Beyer referenced, in 2007 and
    2008, Suomi NPP was already in development, the instruments
    were being built, and it was determined it would be necessary
    as an operational--to be used operationally even though it was
    a research satellite. That doesn't mean that all the efforts
    didn't go into making the instruments as accurate and careful
    as we could, the spacecraft built to NASA standards as a very
    high-quality instrument and spacecraft, but it was not intended
    from its initial inception to be in operation. It was supposed
    to be a demonstration. It is--we have many examples where
    research satellites are being used for operational purposes
    such as the AIRS instrument on MODIS. It is used operationally
    but it wasn't designed to be an operational asset to begin
    with.
        Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you, Dr. Volz. I now recognize
    the Ranking Member, Ms. Bonamici, for five minutes.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you for your testimony and for defining your
    acronyms, which in the interest of time, I am not going to do.
        So I wanted to really zero in on who is responsible for
    what. As I understand it, NOAA's mitigation activities really
    fall into two categories: preventing or limiting a gap, and
    reducing a gap if or when one does occur. So Dr. Volz, Dr.
    MacDonald, Mr. Murphy, could you really talk about who at NOAA
    is responsible for coordinating and managing mitigation
    activities?
        Dr. Volz. I will take that first and then I will turn it
    over to my colleagues.
        The preparation for and the activities around preventing a
    gap and mitigating the impact of a gap is a NOAA
    responsibility. On a regular basis, we report directly up to
    the Deputy Under Secretary for Operations on a monthly basis.
    John can talk about the more frequent meetings on the NWS side
    of the house. So we have--it is a NOAA responsibility but there
    are elements that are accomplished within the NESDIS
    organization, my organization, some within Sandy MacDonald's
    organization, some within John's as well, but we all
    integratedly in an integrated fashion report up the chain on a
    regular basis on how all of these different activities are
    progressing.
        So I am responsible on the NESDIS side for extending
    satellite life, preparing the ground systems for the next
    generation, making sure JPSS-1 stays on schedule and is
    delivered on schedule, and I can let John Murphy talk about the
    NWS side.
        Ms. Bonamici. That would be terrific, and I want to save
    time for another couple questions.
        Mr. Murphy. Thank you, ma'am. I just want to thank the
    Congress actually for Sandy supplemental funds that really
    enabled us to accelerate a lot of development activity that
    answered the call for mitigation efforts so things like
    aircraft data, we are now receiving additional aircraft data as
    a result of those funds. They are flowing into our system. They
    are being processed. So that is one example.
        Getting back to, you know, the responsibility, since the
    very beginning of discussions of the mitigation activities, the
    individual line offices--I am the representative for the
    Weather Service but I have been meeting with my colleagues in
    the other line offices in NOAA on a weekly basis to discuss the
    various projects within the line offices and how they
    complement and work together with each other and execute, and
    as Dr. Volz said, we report to our AAs on a monthly basis and
    up to the Director of Operations on a quarterly basis and
    report to the Hill as well on a quarterly basis.
        Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. I am going to let Dr. MacDonald
    take a stab at this.
        Dr. MacDonald. Just quickly. The Sandy supplemental allowed
    us to work on both the assimilation and the models really
    effectively, so there are some improvements that we are going
    to see in the relatively near future that I think will really
    help with the gap.
        Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. And one of the things that Mr.
    Powner said in his testimony was, one of the approaches is
    increasing high-performance computing capacity, and it is my
    understanding that a lot of the work in that area was from the
    Sandy supplemental. Are there still needs in increasing high-
    performance computing capacity that can help mitigate any gap?
    Dr. Volz?
        Dr. Volz. I would turn that one over to John from the
    computing side or from Sandy.
        Mr. Murphy. I will take the first stab and let Sandy back
    me since he has really got the expertise here, but there is
    always a need for more computing power. Right now we got a real
    shot in the arm and a big leap in our operational
    supercomputing and now there is a need to keep balance between
    the research computing and the operational computing, and so
    with all the supercomputing we have right now, we are going
    from 700 teraflops to 500 petaflops, and I know that doesn't
    mean anything to anybody other than it is a huge jump in
    capability, and when you look at that five, that five has to be
    split between the primary system and the backup system if you
    have true operational computing so that you never have a down
    time, so that all went on----
        Ms. Bonamici. I don't mean to cut you off but I wanted to
    get another question in. I just wanted to get some input on
    that.
        So a constituent of mine in Oregon recently contacted my
    office and brought to my attention that there is a gap in radar
    coverage along the Oregon coast. So as Dr. Volz noted in his
    testimony, radar coverage and satellite data combine to make
    nowcasting of severe weather events possible. So I am concerned
    about the hole in radar coverage but it is particularly
    worrisome when considered alongside a gap in satellite
    coverage. So any gap in GOES coverage, especially an extended
    one, could have serious consequences for the safety of my
    constituents and the health of the economy.
        So can you please describe what risk factors are most
    likely to cause a delay in GOES, and is this gap in radar
    coverage something that we can address?
        Dr. Volz. From the GOES satellite point of view, I agree
    with Mr. Powner that the largest single risk for the successful
    launch of GOES in March of 2016 is the compressed schedule we
    have right now. All systems, all instruments have been
    integrated to the spacecraft. The spacecraft subsystems are all
    together and we are now entering what we call the acceptance
    test and launch operations phase, which is very compressed. It
    is a very aggressive schedule, but the team is working hard and
    is focused on that. So I think that is the largest risk on the
    flight side of the house.
        We have the amount of reserves that are expected and
    recommended by NASA guidelines, and we follow the NASA
    standards because they were the ones who built the spacecraft
    for us, but we think that is definitely the largest watch item.
        Do I think it is a significant risk? I would say no, not in
    the absolute value. I don't think it is going to--it is so
    large that I am worried about the March 16 launch date but it
    is our largest risk and is something the team is focusing their
    efforts and activities on.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, and I yield back. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you. I would like to recognize
    Mr. Loudermilk, Chairman of the Oversight Committee, for five
    minutes.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
    all the witnesses who have come today. This is enlightening,
    and I know we have got to find ways to go forward that are much
    better.
        Most of what we have talked about today is the possibility
    of gaps in extreme weather forecasting and the effects it has
    had on public safety which is our greatest concern, but there
    is another side of this as well, and that is the effect it
    could have on the U.S. economy.
        In 1997, I personally experienced that when the Hughes
    satellite, I believe a communications satellite, spun out of
    control. Being in the IT services business, we ended up
    spending almost a month helping industries and businesses
    reposition their satellite dishes to a backup satellite. I saw
    that that gap in service cost these industries millions of
    dollars in down time, in lost productivity. Retailers were not
    able to connect back to their systems.
        This is for anyone on the panel, have we done any estimates
    on what a gap in this data would do to U.S. economy?
        Mr. Powner. I think one of the best examples if you look
    back at Superstorm Sandy when there was a post-evaluation of
    that and you took the polar data out of that forecast, it
    showed--and that forecast was right on. The location, the
    intensity and the timing forecast was spot on, and it helped
    move a lot of people to safe areas and save lives. If you take
    the polar data out of that forecast, it shows that storm dying
    100 miles out at sea, so that is the importance of the polar
    data in terms of predicting severe storms.
        Dr. Volz. And I think I would add to that, as Mr. Powner
    just said, it is the community's reaction to the weather
    forecast that we provide that allows them to mitigate what
    might be great big cost increases. For example, the recent
    snowstorm in New York, the responses in the community--the
    immediate responders can make choices and decisions which can
    lessen the impact of the storm's effect on all of us.
        So the loss of a complete asset, a complete satellite
    system, would be very significant, devastating, but the
    responsibility of our organization is to make sure that loss of
    any particular element doesn't cause that kind of impact, and
    that is the benefit of generating a resilient system which is
    single-fault tolerant, as we say. You can lose any asset and
    still provide the bulk of the return and the needs that we
    have, and that is the objective of building a more robust
    global--I mean geo and low-earth orbit system is that we are
    fault-tolerant. It is not preventing all of them but we are
    tolerant to failures in any single system so that we don't have
    those impacts hitting.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Besides the extreme weather, you know,
    basically what we were talking about here was Sandy and other
    issues, there is weather that we don't consider extreme that
    can have serious consequences on different industries, such as
    the construction industry. In modern construction, there is a
    lot of forecasting done because we have just-in-time delivery
    of materials. You have of course aviation, maritime
    transportation as well as state and local governments who are
    preparing like in Atlanta we experienced snowstorms a couple of
    years ago. What type of impact would we see in the gap on non-
    extreme weather forecasting?
        Mr. Murphy. I am unaware of actually a study that has done
    exactly what you are asking, but as Representative Bonamici
    said earlier, I think it was, you know, the benefit is $31.5
    billion, and there is impacts to not only aviation but to many
    different societal benefit areas of society, and as you lose
    confidence in those forecasts, you are less likely to make
    decisions that reap the benefits. So it is sort of a how bad
    does it get before you can really quantify the impact.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you. I have one minute left.
        From what we are hearing that Europe and other nations are
    leading us in their models of weather forecasting, and as I
    think back, the United States of America has always been the
    leader in space exploration, in satellites, in technology. Is
    it possible in the next several years that our U.S. forecasting
    system could be restored to compete with the European model?
        Mr. Murphy. We are closing the gap. It is very close. You
    know, we are talking about--the way the world measures the
    performances on a 500-millibar root mean error doesn't mean
    anything to us on the surface of the Earth, but that is the
    standard, and we are--you know, what separates us is a few
    percent, and so we are very close.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Where would you rank us as compared to
    other countries?
        Mr. Murphy. I just looked at the statistics the day before
    yesterday, and we were number three, not to argue with anybody
    who said we were number four earlier, but it is that close that
    it changes pretty routinely given a weather scenario.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you. I would like to recognize
    the Ranking Member on the Oversight Committee, Mr. Beyer.
        Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would like to start with Dr. Volz with a--and others with
    a small, then a larger question.
        On NPP, the prediction now is the end of 2016. NASA said,
    ``There is an increased likelihood of a collision with space
    debris at the altitudes at which the JPSS satellites fly.''
    They also talked about NOAA having a rosy view of how long the
    NPP will last. It is just debris that we are concerned about
    with the end of NPP?
        And then the larger question, especially that Chairman
    Bridenstine talked earlier about the many different commercial
    companies getting into launching satellites, what are we going
    to do about space debris in the larger picture?
        Dr. Volz. Well, related specifically to NPP, I think we are
    dealing with a communications here and the way that we analyze
    the expected life, and as Mr. Powner and the GAO have done is
    they used the design life in their analyses, which is
    appropriate because that is the way we set up the initial
    system. Now, as the expected on-orbit life is much longer
    typically than the design life, once you get into orbit and you
    see you don't have infant mortalities, the term we call for
    satellites that die earlier because of something that was built
    in. Once you get past that, the design life is routinely much
    longer. So I would not say they expected the lifetime of Suomi
    NPP will end in 2016. Our analyses show that it is likely to go
    well past 2020. That doesn't mean it is going to be relied--
    that we should count on that and then sit back and wait and we
    don't have to launch anything because we have got ten years or
    five years. But we do use very careful analysis on on-orbit
    performance of our satellites and our measurements and the
    instruments to do accurate and continuous updates on the
    performance of those satellites.
        Regarding the orbital debris, it is a common problem. All
    satellites in orbit are dealing with the increase in orbital
    debris. Every time you have a collision, you create more
    debris. It is something we watch. It is something we monitor.
    Our spacecraft are monitored daily and operate. We have
    maneuverable satellites so we move them out of the way when we
    see orbital debris projections, conjunction analysis, we say,
    and we have done that in increasing frequency over the last few
    years as the debris clouds have increased but it is still a
    very--it is a very diffuse cloud, and we move maybe a dozen
    times a year to get out of projected debris. We have not been
    impacted by it--pardon the pun--but we are aware of it, we are
    monitoring it, and we take active steps to prevent it. Now, as
    far as orbital debris, removing the debris from space, I
    don't--I would yield to my NASA colleague here, who probably
    will not like that but----
        Mr. Clarke. Can I defer back?
        Mr. Beyer. Well, let me move on to Dr. MacDonald then.
        Mr. Clarke. Okay.
        Mr. Beyer. The data validation, in the literature here that
    you gave us, you said it took two years to validate the data
    from NPP, and when you look at the charts on the overlap and
    the potential gaps, some of that, as I read, is six months to
    validate the data from some of these new satellites. Why does
    it take that long when we have so much data validation in the
    past?
        Dr. MacDonald. Actually, I think that we can go faster,
    partly because we do have a lot of experience with these
    sensors like ATMS and CRiS and so on, so we have--with our
    Joint Center and with our OAR research colleagues, we think we
    can do better.
        Mr. Beyer. Dr. Volz, the Chairman in his opening statement
    talked about turning to commercial space operations. Does NOAA
    have any concerns about the use of commercial data to fulfill
    the requirements of its polar satellite program?
        Dr. Volz. Regarding the question of commercial space,
    commercial sources of space data and satellite data, we think
    that is probably a very capable and open field into the future.
    We have our backbone system that has been built, I mean, using
    for many, many years, but the capabilities of the commercial
    side over the past few years and looking forward in the future
    are likely to be very significant and are definitely worth
    evaluating and using.
        What we do from the NOAA--what we need to assure from the
    NOAA side is the data that we get meets certain quality
    standards, they are accurate, reliable, traceable, and can be
    validated so that when we use these data in our numerical
    weather models, we get outputs which we trust. We can't just
    take the data because you can get bad outputs which could be
    even worse than no input, than no output. So it is the
    essential nature of us as NOAA and the NWS, NESDIS needs to
    make sure that the data that we get are accurate and can be
    used in the modeling, and we think--and I think looking to the
    future, we will be using--we will be evaluating and there is a
    good probability we will be using some commercial data as long
    as it meets our quality criteria and is consistent with our
    collaboration approaches of open data to be used with our
    partners.
        Mr. Beyer. And Mr. Clarke, I was initially disappointed
    that the climate sensors were eliminated from the satellites,
    you know, the perfect being the enemy of the good enough, but
    now I read that the Radiation Budget Instrument (RBI) and the
    Ozone Mapping and Profiler Suites are going to be on the JPSS-
    2. Can you talk about the current status of these instruments
    and do you anticipate they will be ready in time to fly with
    JPSS-2?
        Mr. Clarke. Yes, Mr. Beyer. Those instruments are being
    developed now. They are in the assembly and initial part of
    testing, and so those instruments are on schedule to support
    the JPSS-2 spacecraft. Keep in mind, I think I mentioned in my
    opening remarks too, CERES is kind of the precursor to RBI, and
    so those instruments are all set and ready to go and they are
    installed on JPSS-1. So this is really a continuation from
    JPSS-1 to build continuity between 1 and 2.
        Dr. Volz. And if I could comment too, it is another example
    where the research bases of NASA and the operational bases of
    NOAA work well together. We provide the platform, JPSS-1 and J-
    2, and we are--all the operational instruments that we need for
    the weather forecasting are built into it, but the platform was
    also designed in Suomi NPP to accommodate the Radiation Budget
    Instrument, and NASA as the research and development agency
    took the responsibility of that one. They build that, they meet
    our specifications, and together we fly on the same platform
    for a much more efficient approach to making the measurements.
        Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
    I recognize the gentleman from Colorado for five minutes----
        Mr. Perlmutter. She was here first and has a higher rank.
        Chairman Bridenstine. The gentlelady from Maryland is
    recognized for five minutes.
        Ms. Edwards. Thank you. I have waited six years on this
    Committee to hear that, and I want to thank our witnesses and
    obviously our Chairpersons and Ranking Members.
        You know, I remember when I first came on to the Committee
    that it was in the throes, I guess the summer of--I don't
    know--2008, and it was at a time when there was great
    consternation about the satellite programs, the management of
    those, the relationship between NASA and NOAA and DoD, and I
    think that we have come--we heard from GAO at that time and I
    think we have come a long way since then, and so I really
    wanted to be able to salute NASA and NOAA for, you know, after
    some period of time in fits and starts figuring out the working
    relationship using the best capabilities of NASA and NOAA to
    make sure that we could try to get this program back on track.
        As the GAO has indicated, you know, we still have some
    challenges obviously and possibilities for gaps in coverage,
    and so that remains a concern for the Committee in addition to
    the predicted cost. I think we started out with the idea that
    we were going to have six satellites. Now we are at two. And so
    this has been a really difficult thing.
        I want to also acknowledge that today in our audience are a
    group of students from the University of Maryland in College
    Park, which is the home to NOAA's Center for Weather and
    Climate Prediction. The home for NOAA is actually in Suitland,
    Maryland, right down the street from my office. I spent a lot
    of time there. I think I did go to observe the NPP launch, and
    thankfully, rather than just being an experimental platform, it
    is usable and operational, because I think that helps in the
    consideration of this discussion.
        I guess the question I have actually has to do with the
    gaps in coverage, and I understand, you know, the imprecision
    with which one can predict whether there is going to be a gap
    or not, but I wonder, Dr. Volz, if you could respond to the
    idea that--of what NOAA's current gap assessment is, and it is
    also my understanding that NOAA is estimating a longer life
    expectancy for NPP than before because of its strong
    performance to date and, you know, so what is your anticipation
    of the operational period for NPP and what activities are being
    undertaken to ensure NPP's longevity?
        Dr. Volz. So thank you, ma'am, for the question. The NPP
    satellite, as I mentioned earlier, is monitored on a regular
    basis and we update its performance projections every year. The
    most recent one shows that we are still operating all primary
    systems on NPP. All the instruments are functioning well and
    within specification, some changes, as we note, as you normally
    do with instruments but the projection is the satellite,
    barring something we haven't seen, is likely to survive and
    work past 2020.
        As far as the steps we are taking to make sure that that
    satellite continues to work, we are very carefully looking at
    all operations that might have life-limiting features on it,
    which is whether is an instrument operation mode that may burn
    out degrade the performance over time faster, but with the
    focus then on making sure that ensuring that the satellite is
    operating effectively for a long time.
        Ms. Edwards. And so in hearing that, I mean, if I look at
    the various scenarios, and I understand the chart that we have
    has been updated since then, but that would mean that we are
    falling more in the range of, you know, a scenario one than we
    are in a scenario three where there would potentially be a much
    wider gap in coverage if we are making some predictions that
    NPP has greater lifespan and capacity than we might have
    thought originally. Is that right?
        Dr. Volz. I believe that is true. Mr. Powner can comment. I
    think the point of those scenarios is not ``we think, this is
    going to fail here,'' but if it were to fail, what would the
    gap be, and I think that is the point of preparing for a gap is
    not that we are trying to project a failure of any individual
    asset, but if an asset fails at a particular time, what is the
    impact on the overall constellation, and that is the planning
    challenge that we have in front of us to make sure that under
    these different scenarios, which are single fault--one thing
    can take out a satellite or a launch that JPSS-1, a launch
    failure could take out a satellite--what is our response to
    that and how do we mitigate the impact if that were to occur.
    It doesn't mean we expect it but it means we have to prepare
    for it.
        Ms. Edwards. Thanks, and just in closing, I just want to
    share with the Chairman and Ranking Members, it is my
    understanding that in the President's budget proposal, there is
    an absolute recognition that we are actually now, with respect
    to these satellites, really not focused on the development of
    climate sensors but really focused on weather, and I think that
    that also represents a change in strategy and direction over
    the last several years, and with that, I yield.
        Chairman Bridenstine. The gentlelady yields back. Without
    objection, I would like to recognize the gentleman from
    Colorado.
        Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Bonamici. Thank you for letting me participate today. This is
    my first of the Science hearings. I sit on the Energy and the
    Space Committees. I am not on this Committee, but this is of
    great interest to me.
        Like Representative Edwards, I sat on the Rules Committee
    at the time we were going through the NPOESS saga, and you
    know, from 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, there was a real question
    how NASA and NOAA were going to work with the Defense
    Department and how we were going to go forward, and that slowed
    things down. There is no ifs, ands or buts about it. That is
    history. We have got to focus on the future. And I appreciate
    the GAO for identifying and focusing on this subject because
    one of my quirks is my favorite channel is the Weather Channel,
    and that is pretty sick actually.
        But Mr. Loudermilk hit on a point that is so important in
    discussing this subject. There is a public safety aspect to
    this and there is an economic aspect to the services you all
    provide, and the potential for a gap here, I think may have
    come from the Bush Administration, the Obama Administration and
    Congress but we have got to deal with that. We cannot allow for
    gaps to grow or we need to shrink these things.
        And so I would start with you, Mr. Powner. What is the best
    way as you have analyzed this to deal with this gap and to
    shrink it if possible?
        Mr. Powner. Well, hopefully NPP does last longer, and we
    are all hopeful that is the case. What is in your control is
    the March 17th launch date of J-1. That cannot slip. So we have
    ATMS as the long pole in the tent and it keeps slipping, and
    the more that slips, the March 17 launch date will be in
    jeopardy, and I am not here saying the sky is falling, but the
    other thing on the October 2016 date--and I keep hearing other
    dates that it is going to last longer. I would like to see it
    in writing. There was a NASA assessment that it was going to
    last three to five years. There is supposed to be a gap
    assessment from 2014. It hasn't been released yet. The budget
    still says one year. So if it is 2020, let us put it in writing
    and say that is where we think it is at.
        We have been at this for a long time, Congressman
    Perlmutter, and the way some sensors were constructed on NPP
    concerns us, and I think that is why the NASA engineers had the
    three- to five-year time frame, VIIRS in particular. VIIRS was
    the--that was a very difficult sensor during the NPOESS days,
    and there were a lot of shortcuts taken when they constructed
    VIIRS and put it on NPP. We know that. I visited Raytheon
    multiple times out in California, and I hear from their
    engineers about that.
        So there are still concerns about that, and I am not here
    to, you know, say that it is not going to be 2020, but we need
    to be aware of the facts, and then when we mitigate the gap, we
    went out and talked to experts including Dr. MacDonald sitting
    on this panel, and there we identified 40 mitigation
    alternatives. NOAA's plans have 21 mitigation alternatives.
    There are four areas that you actually improve the forecast
    much greater than others. We would like to see a prioritization
    on those mitigation activities so that we are addressing the
    most important things as part of the contingency plans.
        Mr. Perlmutter. All right. So I guess--I appreciate that,
    and I would ask that we take those mitigation factors and
    really, you know, exercise them, use them to the best of our
    advantage.
        I think part of where I am coming from is, you know, there
    was a leadership issue back in the NPOESS days, and I would say
    to my friends on the Republican side of the aisle--and we take
    responsibility too--we are coming into a better economy and I
    would want us to assist you all in budgetary ways so that you
    can accelerate this so we are--so that we do meet that first
    launch date, that we can accelerate JPSS-2, that we are moving
    forward. We--things got stalled, then we had a bad economy, and
    we have got to get back on track because the potential loss of
    life and the potential to the economy by missing some of these
    things is too big.
        And so Dr. MacDonald, since we are both Coloradans, I want
    to give you an opportunity to say whatever it is you want to
    say, and I will turn the floor over to you.
        Dr. MacDonald. My comment would be as Mr. Powner just said,
    we are really working hard on many, many ways of improving
    things, a lot of it because of the Sandy supplemental funding,
    so I think there has been a positive that has come out of this,
    and we are excited to see some improvements from those efforts.
        Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank
    you for the opportunity to sit today.
        Chairman Bridenstine. You bet. The gentleman yields back.
    We will go into a second round of questions, and you identified
    ATMS as the critical path for JPSS, and my question is, ATMS is
    on NPP, correct? Did the requirements change between NPP and
    JPSS for ATMS?
        Dr. Volz. No, sir. The requirements did not change. As Mr.
    Powner--as we said, Suomi NPP was built as a preparatory
    program under one set of--there was a--one set of contractual
    arrangements with the vendors. The requirements that NOAA has
    have not changed. The implementation has--some of the--you
    often find problems in the development of an instrument, the
    repeat of processes, et cetera, which may led to a slight
    change in the implementation and that has led to significant
    challenges in the ATMS development.
        Chairman Bridenstine. Okay. I want to talk about some of
    the mitigation efforts. The GAO report indicated that one of
    the best ways that we can mitigate the gap, especially as it
    relates to the polar satellites, would be GPS-RO, radio
    occultation from GPS satellites.
        My question is, how significant is GPS-RO to the numerical
    weather models that help us forecast weather? Dr. Volz, I will
    let you answer that question.
        Dr. Volz. I will turn that over to John.
        Mr. Murphy. Without a doubt, it is in the top 10. All the
    studies around the world show that depending on which one you
    look at, it is number four, five or six. So it is very
    significant. Radio occultation falls right behind the microwave
    and IR sounders.
        Chairman Bridenstine. And correct me if I am wrong, but the
    COSMIC-2 program, which is a joint program between the United
    States and Taiwan, is fully funded for the first six satellites
    of the COSMIC-2 program. Is that correct?
        Dr. Volz. That is correct.
        Chairman Bridenstine. And how many radio occultations per
    day would we get from a COSMIC-2 program?
        Dr. Volz. The COSMIC-2 in whole is 12 satellites, two sets
    of six, and from a combined set of those 12 you end up on the
    order of 10,000 occultations a day.
        Chairman Bridenstine. And the first six, though, are set to
    launch by when?
        Dr. Volz. Next spring, 2016.
        Chairman Bridenstine. And how many would we get from those
    first six?
        Dr. Volz. About half of that.
        Chairman Bridenstine. So 5,000 radio occultations per day?
        Dr. Volz. Correct.
        Chairman Bridenstine. And then as far as what the private
    sector could provide or augment, is there a limitation on how
    many radio occultations per day would--at what point do you get
    diminishing marginal returns from every additional radio
    occultation?
        Dr. Volz. It is a unique measurement type which that
    saturation point is really high. We have looked at studies
    which go 50,000, 100,000 a day, and there is a rollover but it
    is not significant. So certainly we are potentially scratching
    the surface of the value you can get from radio occultations
    with the 10,000 per day.
        Chairman Bridenstine. The Europeans are at 128,000 and they
    haven't reached saturation. So let us say the private sector
    commercial satellites, if they were being launched right now,
    and of course we have got the challenges with testing and
    validation and calibration and all those things that go into
    feeding the numerical weather models, if they were able to
    provide that capability, that would in essence help us augment
    the data going into the numerical weather models, for example,
    to predict thunderstorms in my State of Oklahoma. Is that
    correct?
        Dr. Volz. That is correct, sir.
        Chairman Bridenstine. Right now we don't have an identified
    limitation on the number of radio occultations. When you said
    it was in the top 10, if you had, say, maybe 100,000 or a
    couple hundred thousand radio occultations, would that move it
    up to maybe number two or number three, or is that a stretch?
        Mr. Murphy. Yes, I think it would come up. That is an
    interesting aspect that the more you get in--I think we know
    that 5,000 or 10,000, you get a big improvement and it just
    goes right on, 20,000 or 30,000, so it would help.
        Chairman Bridenstine. So is it safe to say that if there is
    a gap, that the GAO report is indicating might be more likely
    than some others might suggest? If the gap does occur and the
    private sector has the capacity to launch satellites into space
    that could produce 40,000 or 50,000, is NOAA open to the idea--
    if those data could be validated and calibrated and fed into
    the numerical weather model, would NOAA be open to the idea of
    maybe purchasing that data from the private sector?
        Dr. Volz. We have been in active communication with a
    number of the vendors who are proposing to launch and fly these
    satellites for us, and yes, we have been in agreement that
    these data could be useful and we would be open to using them
    as soon as--as long as they meet, as we talked about, the
    criteria for reliability, dependability and accuracy. So I have
    had meetings with all of those companies you mentioned up
    front, and actually we have a planned workshop at the end of
    April this year to sit down and show how we do our requirements
    and how they can match their developmental processes to work
    well with us.
        Chairman Bridenstine. And real quick, I am almost out of
    time, Dr. MacDonald, this might be a question for you. When you
    talk about hyperspectral and now that is not going to be
    available on the GOES satellites, how does that impact the
    weather data models for our Nation?
        Dr. MacDonald. I think hyperspectral is another sensor that
    has a lot of potential and we are trying to study that with
    various techniques.
        Chairman Bridenstine. We currently have hyperspectral on
    NPSS, right? Or no, we don't. Do we have hyperspectral in space
    right now?
        Dr. MacDonald. Yeah, we have interferometers that give us
    indication of what you can get from a polar orbiter but there
    is also a geostationary issue that we are trying to learn
    about.
        Dr. Volz. That sensor was originally on GOES. It was called
    HESS, and it was dropped.
        Chairman Bridenstine. Okay. And is there--I am out of time,
    so I am going to turn it over to the Ranking Member for five
    minutes, but thank you for your testimony.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        We had some good conversations about how potential gap
    would affect safety, the economy. I want to talk about how it
    would affect research.
        Dr. MacDonald, can you talk about the importance of
    satellite data to NOAA's research, comment on the impact that a
    gap in polar data would have on weather and climate research
    efforts, and then Mr. Clarke, can you talk about the use of
    polar satellite data by NASA scientists and what would a lack
    of continuity--what effect would that have on NASA research?
        Dr. MacDonald. Thank you, Representative Bonamici. It
    does--we really do depend on the polar orbiters and the
    satellite sensors. It is our whole Earth look, and with time,
    we used to--when I started my career, we had little models over
    little areas and now we can do the whole Earth. So these
    sensors you have already heard so much about, the
    interferometers, the microwave. They really are the future, and
    I think forecasts are going to improve because of it.
        So we use one. That is a difficult thing. One area that is
    important is that we use these for also records of how the--
    what is happening in climate, so we have lots of in situ
    sensors and lots of satellites. We try and make up by using
    continuity from those.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. Mr. Clarke.
        Mr. Clarke. Yes. Thank you. The NASA Earth research
    community, certainly we collaborate with NOAA and other
    agencies to be able to obtain data from all types of sources.
    NASA has plenty of Earth-observing assets on orbit gathering,
    that kind of information, but it is always good to have
    additional data to help correlate. So there would be some
    impact of not getting that data, but we do have other assets to
    rely on, and if we wanted to get into more detail, I could take
    the question for the record and then talk with my Earth science
    colleagues in NASA and provide you more detail.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. I would appreciate that.
        Dr. Volz, Mr. Powner talked--expressed some concern,
    frankly, about the testing schedule for GOES-R. There is some
    concern that compressing the test schedule increases risks of
    further delays, there would be little time to resolve any
    issues that arise. So how long can the GOES program operate on
    a 24/7 testing schedule, and is there some risk of delaying the
    launch by operating at sort of an intensive schedule and what
    are the alternatives, I guess.
        Dr. Volz. I believe the current plan for the GOES-R is to
    continue the three-shift operation through maybe the end of
    March, early April this year at which point we will be getting
    into the system-level testing, thermal vacuum testing where you
    are working around the clock anyway. There is no definitive
    point that at this point it becomes dangerous to go on with
    three shifts. We have a very capable contractor with Lockheed
    Martin, who has a lot of resources, so there is no--and like I
    said, no point where that would be an issue. But I think the
    launch schedule, however, is still of critical concern, and
    having--it is a single-point flow for these, and if problems
    arise, we will have to deal with it with the reserves that we
    have. We do still have a number of several weeks of unscheduled
    reserve, which for the purposes of that, which is typical that
    you see for a project at this point in development schedule.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And finally, I was curious about
    the difference between the number of mitigation alternatives.
    Mr. Powner talked about approximately 40 and NOAA talked about
    a little more than 20. So what explains the difference, and how
    are you coordinating to determine which mitigation alternatives
    rise to the top in terms of priority?
        Dr. Volz. That is a good question, and I don't have a list
    of 40 or 20 or the average of those in front of me, and I would
    be happy to sit down with Mr. Powner and with my team
    afterwards to reconcile so we don't have that--I don't think we
    are disagreeing on the things that we need to do but in terms
    of how we numerate I think is maybe confusing, and I don't have
    an answer for you. I would be happy to work with him to clear
    that up.
        Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. I appreciate that. And I yield back
    the balance of my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you so much. I yield five
    minutes to the Chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee, Mr.
    Loudermilk.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        We have talked a lot about lessons learned and going
    forward, and our focus has been on getting this launch on
    schedule. But my question, Dr. Volz, is, have we started
    planning, has NOAA started planning on the next generation of
    weather satellites?
        Dr. Volz. Yes, sir, we have, and it takes a long time to
    bring a new system online, which is part of the reason we are
    having difficulties over the past with both the GOES and the
    JPSS programs. Both programs were significant steps up in
    technology from the legacy missions that preceded those, so we
    recognize that you don't start five years before; you start ten
    and twelve years before. And part of our planning right now is
    doing the architecture studies and the analyses of what
    measurements we need in the 2030 time frame, what the
    capabilities are now and projected to be in the next few years,
    and we have been doing those for the last year and we expect to
    do those in the coming year, for the next two or three years so
    that in about two to three years we can lay out a plan which
    specifically identifies the next generation including, as we
    mentioned earlier, the changes in the--the landscape of
    commercial sources, launch vehicles and data-processing
    capabilities, which are all part of the next generation. We are
    starting the analysis now.
        Mr. Loudermilk. What changes, if any, have you made to
    avoid the issues that we have faced with the cost overruns,
    gaps, future delays? What kind of changes have you made?
        Dr. Volz. I think one of the major elements from my
    perspective is a rationalization of the requirements and the
    capabilities, and a critical part of doing the architecture up
    front is not to start with a shopping list of too many
    requirements and then figure out how much it costs but to do
    that in an iterative real-time process, look at the
    requirements, look at the implementation costs.
        The other part, which was mentioned in Mr. Bridenstine's
    first question about the relationship between the partners
    doing the implementation is absolutely critical, so the NPOESS
    history was, it was--there was a difficult relationship between
    the three agencies, which almost guaranteed you would have a
    problem between requirements and application and
    implementation, and making sure that you have the right sharing
    of responsibilities and very clear delineation of
    responsibilities is essential as you go forward with the
    planning and going forward.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you. I want to shift back to our
    current subject that we are on, and it is the launch of this
    satellite. We have mentioned mitigation alternatives. Has NOAA
    done a cost-benefit analysis to determine which ones are likely
    to be most effective and worthy of investment?
        Dr. Volz. We are investing in the ones that we think are
    the highest probability. I can't point to a specific cost-
    benefit analysis by individual elements but the ones we are
    extending the lifetime of Suomi NPP, enhancing the data process
    and capabilities with the supercomputing capabilities and
    advocating and moving forward with the radio occultation
    measurements are examples of places where we think there is the
    most return on investment and the capability, availability of
    the technical capability to go forward.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Mr. Powner, do you have any thoughts on
    this?
        Mr. Powner. Yeah, this is at the heart of some of our
    recommendations. Not only do you want to focus on the priority
    mitigation activities but you want to focus on the cost, so
    there was a huge discussion here about use of commercial data.
    Commercial data could really help augment our forecast today
    but what is the cost? So you have to factor in costs on all
    these mitigation activities. It is, what is the benefit and
    what is the cost and then you weigh those two, and that is what
    you end up pursuing. We would like to see more of that going
    forward.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you. One last question. Does NOAA
    have any statutory limitations which would allow you to procure
    weather data from private space-based observing systems?
        Dr. Volz. I don't know of any, sir, but I have been with
    NOAA for three months, so I can imagine there are people behind
    me who are saying don't answer that question until you are
    clear, so I will be happy to take that. I don't believe there
    are but I will take that for the record and get back to you.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. I would appreciate it. I yield back.
        Chairman Bridenstine. I would like to thank the gentleman,
    and I would like to recognize the Ranking Member of the
    Subcommittee on Oversight, Mr. Beyer.
        Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Volz, when this hearing started at 10 o'clock, my
    biggest concern was about the gap in the weather prediction
    from three months to eighteen months, but listening to the
    testimony, it seems that NOAA's expectation of the NPP
    satellite could well go to 2020 and beyond. Is there any reason
    not to follow up on Mr. Powner's suggestion that NOAA actually
    put these expectations in writing? And does that then change
    the mitigation plans that we would otherwise make?
        Dr. Volz. To the first question, no, I think if we
    haven't--I have seen a draft report on the updated prediction
    and reliability of Suomi NPP, and I don't see any reason why
    that shouldn't be public. I think we will--and I wrote a note
    down when Mr. Powner was saying that that says let us get this
    written down and get it released. I think it to everybody's
    interest to see that.
        As far as the second, I don't think it is going to change
    our approach. Knowing or believing that the satellite will last
    longer than the worst-case scenario doesn't mean the worst-case
    scenario might still occur, and we need to do the mitigation
    activities in any case so that we have a resilient system that
    is accommodatable to major failures which can occur outside of
    our best estimates.
        Mr. Beyer. And Dr. Volz, the President's budget request
    includes $380 million for a polar follow-on program in order to
    achieve robustness in the polar weather constellation. Can you
    please describe the kinds of activities that you would take on
    as part of this polar follow-on request and how they would
    actually improve robustness?
        Dr. Volz. Yes, sir. Thank you. The polar follow-on is--the
    current program of record, which is JPSS, is two satellites, as
    we have identified, one launching in 2017 and the next
    scheduled to launch in 2021 which, by the way, was accelerated
    per additional funding to bring that in a few months so it is a
    quicker return. But a robust program requires that you have
    redundant or a capable system up there in case of a single-
    point failure. The polar follow-on establishes the baseline to
    deliver the next two, JPPS-3 and JPPS-4, along the same lines
    using the same vendors, the same demonstrated and proven
    instruments and approaches so that we can have that ready as
    soon as--in the event of a JPSS-2 failure on launch, just like
    we talked about J-1. So the same logic applies in the
    extension.
        What it also does by starting it in 2017 or 2016, as
    requested in the President's budget, it allows us to buy those
    instruments now from the instrument vendors and most of our
    funds go to the industry because the U.S. industry builds these
    instruments for us, allows those instruments to get under
    contract while we have the production line, the expertise and
    the intelligence of the community there to build those
    instruments effectively and efficiently. Having those JPSS-3
    instruments built and ready during the late part of this decade
    is a natural mitigation for if I have a problem with a JPPS-2
    instrument so I can switch and plug in and I can switch out,
    and that also accelerates or provides more reliable delivery of
    the J-2 satellite. So having this suite allows you then to
    ensure that you have the regular cadence of missions available
    when you do.
        Mr. Beyer. And Mr. Clarke, you had kindly deferred when Dr.
    Volz had tossed you the space debris question. Please tell me
    that someone at NASA is thinking big picture about vacuuming up
    the space debris and what is going to look like in the years to
    come.
        Mr. Clarke. Well, I would have to take that for the record
    for the future plans. That may be discussed in other areas
    within NASA that I am not privy to, but I can take that for the
    record.
        I will tell you, though, that for all of our spacecraft
    that are in development now, we do look at those on a case-by-
    case basis based on the updated probability in these orbital
    debris models. We also look at the probability and where these
    spacecraft are going, and implement changes if we need to
    protect in certain areas on these spacecraft during
    development. So NASA is just as concerned with on-orbit debris
    and so we continue to look at it.
        Mr. Beyer. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you so much. I would like to
    recognize, without objection, the gentlelady from Maryland, Ms.
    Edwards.
        Ms. Edwards. You are so kind, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very
    much.
        I wanted to get back to the ATMS issues, and I wanted to
    hear from Mr. Clarke, because there were some comments about
    ATMS being on a critical path, and I am wondering what your,
    you know, take is on the status of ATMS, and I am a little bit
    curious that if ATMS is integrated in NPP and we are not--maybe
    we have seen some of the problems that we are, you know,
    experiencing with JPSS development, but if that is true, is it
    an integration problem with JPSS rather than an instrument
    problem? And give us an idea of the kinds of things that you
    are concerned about there.
        Mr. Clarke. Well, ATMS is a complex instrument just like
    the rest of the instruments that are part of that suite, and
    the one that is operating on NPP is doing well, but again,
    these are complex instruments. They don't--I don't want to--how
    do I put--they don't come off a production line like many end
    items. They are not stamped copies, so to speak. They are very
    detailed, intricate instruments, and the ATMS that we are
    working on now was manufactured in the early part of that
    NPOESS phase and then turned over as part of the hardware
    afterwards, and so we have found issues with that particular
    when we started going through testing, and due to the
    complexity, we are working through those challenges. It is not
    unlike other development programs where we have had very
    complex instruments and we have had to go in and resolve
    issues.
        The benefit of this, particularly the JPSS program, with
    these instruments, we have been able to work through how to
    integrate those instruments and when, and to preserve the
    schedule for JPSS, and that is what we have done. We have
    worked with our contractors and with NOAA and looked at
    mitigation options of how to keep that on track, the overall
    spacecraft project, which we have done, while we are working
    through the ATMS issues, and we feel like we are beginning to
    get a handle on the issues with ATMS, and I feel confident we
    are going to resolve those problems. But it is not unlike other
    programs where we may have one particular area experience a
    challenge or an issue, and we will work through it and find
    ways to continue to stay on track with the schedule like we are
    doing now.
        Ms. Edwards. Thank you very much, because I didn't want us
    to leave here just thinking while you have got, you know, ATMS,
    NPP, just plop it up and, you know, set it into JPSS and so
    what is the problem, and so I appreciate your comments, and
    with that, I yield the balance of my time.
        Chairman Bridenstine. The gentlelady yields back. We will
    go into a final--or actually the gentleman from Colorado is
    back. You are recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Perlmutter. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
        Just as a beginning to this, a prelude, you mentioned, Dr.
    Volz, about a suite, you know, sort of assembly, production. I
    think, Mr. Clarke, you talked about production lines. Some of
    these things are very intricate but some things can be built
    sort of not in an assembly-line mode but certainly you can
    prepare and you can have teams of contractors in place.
        So first question I have for you, Dr. Volz, is, if by some
    circumstances the Congress were to appropriate more money to
    try to accelerate and to have an assembly line of one, two,
    three and four, can NOAA absorb that. Can NOAA deal with that?
    Can we acceleration the production schedule and the launch
    schedule?
        Dr. Volz. Okay. That is a very good question, and I think
    the nature of block buys, is often the term used. If you buy a
    bunch of them at once, do you get some efficiencies and
    economies and a better-performing system? And in fact, that is
    the reason for the polar follow-on proposal in the Fiscal Year
    2016 budget, which allows us to buy the third and fourth
    variations of these instruments as contract options with the
    same vendors so they can do exactly that. They can optimize the
    development schedule so the subsystems are integrated and
    brought forward on a regular and reliable place.
        Now, the question of accelerating is a different challenge
    because some of these things are process-intensive and it
    takes, you know, a few weeks for this, a few weeks for that, so
    adding more money----
        Mr. Perlmutter. And I appreciate that. I am just a lawyer.
    You guys are the scientists, you are the engineers, you are the
    technicians. But I guess I come from a spot where, you know,
    President Kennedy said we are going to be on the moon, you
    know, nine, ten years from now, and everybody going wow, how in
    the heck are we going to do it. You guys all figured it out. So
    I don't doubt that if we want to send somebody to Mars we can
    get going on it. If we want to get these satellites built, you
    can do it. We need to provide you with the resources obviously,
    and you know, I am going to be pushing for that kind of thing.
        Mr. Powner, are the teams in place? I mean, because of the
    upheaval and kind of the delays here and there between NPOESS
    and JPSS and to a degree GOES. Are the teams in place if we
    wanted to move this thing forward? Do we have the vendors? Do
    we have--you know, somebody mentioned Lockheed or Ball or
    whomever. Do we have those vendors in place?
        Mr. Powner. Yeah, we currently have vendors in place. We
    have a very solid team on the government side. I think the
    collaboration between NASA and NOAA far better than we have
    ever seen, nothing like we had on NPOESS.
        I do think you have raised a really key question, though,
    about building clones down the road when you start looking at
    J-3 and J-4. There is a fundamental question about how much do
    we advance the sensors and improve versus just building a clone
    and continuing the status quo, and I think that is a tough
    call, especially when you start looking at continuity of
    operations, but that is why this follow-on program is so
    important.
        Mr. Perlmutter. Dr. MacDonald, do you have anything to add,
    since you are from Colorado?
        Dr. MacDonald. No, but thank you for asking.
        Mr. Perlmutter. I yield back, Mr. Chair. Thank you very
    much.
        Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you. Anybody from Oklahoma, by
    the way?
        Mr. Clarke. Does my spouse's family count?
        Chairman Bridenstine. You are my preferred testifier.
        Mr. Clarke. Thank you, and she thanks you.
        Chairman Bridenstine. So we will go into a final round here
    without objection, and I will recognize myself for five
    minutes.
        I was just reading your testimony, Dr. Volz, and you
    indicate that currently NOAA purchases data from the commercial
    sector such as ground-based lightning data and space-based
    synthetic aperture radar data. Is this true, and in what
    quantities and how much do we spend on that as an organization,
    if you know offhand?
        Dr. Volz. I don't know the dollar value. We can get that to
    you, and I am happy to do that.
        As far as how it is used, the synthetic aperture radar data
    is a key element of our ice mapping and Arctic forecast
    measurements that are done with our National Ice Center
    combined with VIIRS Day/Night Band imagery. The local lightning
    data is used by the National Weather Service. I don't know
    again the cost for that but it is a regular input, and John
    Murphy may want to address that in more specific detail.
        Chairman Bridenstine. And just as an example, if we were to
    have a model where we were to purchase data from the private
    sector whether it is GPS-RO or hyperspectral, would these
    models be good ways to go that we are already doing it? Could
    we not do it in other space-related activities?
        Dr. Volz. I think as far as the actual getting under
    contract, they would work fine. The distinction that I would
    make between these particular examples and some of the GPS-RO
    and our global modeling examples is, when we take data and use
    it as part of our global numerical weather prediction models,
    we are also--we are ingesting along with data from European
    satellites, the Japanese satellites and our other partners. We
    have a longstanding relationship with all of our partners who
    share these models that we all share each other's data, and
    that makes all of our models better and makes all of our
    predictions more accurate, and it is the best environment for
    this collaborative engagement.
        If we were to purchase data, we would bring that into that
    environment so we want to make sure that the data are readily
    transferrable and usable by all of our partners, and that is
    one of the key elements, that it is free and open data as far
    as our numerical weather predictions, and I don't think for
    local data around an airport or something like that, that is
    not an issue for that because we don't share that. It is not of
    interest to our international partners.
        Chairman Bridenstine. Okay. So the SAR--but the SAR data
    would not be local, right?
        Dr. Volz. SAR data is an agreement with Canada, the
    Canadian government and their satellite data system there, and
    it is for--it is a mutual benefit. Both Canada and the United
    States are using those data, and we share the outputs both in
    Alaska and the Arctic, and I believe in the Great Lakes region
    as well, again, on a collaborative basis with--it still is
    local but it is local across a particular boundary with a
    specific agreement.
        Chairman Bridenstine. And the lightning data is what you
    would suggest is probably more localized data----
        Dr. Volz. Yes.
        Chairman Bridenstine. --that our international partners are
    not interested in?
        Dr. Volz. Correct, sir, and John, if you want to add?
        Mr. Murphy. Just add that we procure mesonet data,
    lightning data, aircraft data. We are in the process of
    exploring other data sources, data buys, and as Dr. Volz said,
    typically the providers don't want to share their data openly
    but it is a local--more of a local effect.
        Chairman Bridenstine. Got it. I saw in the President's
    budget request there is $380 million for the JPSS follow-on,
    and I want to be really clear, I support JPSS, I support GOES.
    I come from Oklahoma. We have thunderstorms and tornados where,
    you know, in May of 2013 we had 24 of the folks from my state
    get killed, $2 billion worth of damage. It was a big, big deal,
    and of course, that is why I took such an interest in this to
    begin with. So I don't want to see anything happen to JPSS or
    the GOES programs that feed our numerical weather models. I
    want to be really clear about that.
        But I think we need to move to a day where we have a
    different kind of space-based architecture that is resilient,
    that is disaggregated. I know we have been talking about NPP.
    It was launched as a test satellite, and I know it came from
    the NPOESS program, but it is not shielded, and because of
    that, it is susceptible to the space debris that we have had
    conversations about here. But if we were to disaggregate and
    move to a different kind of space-based model where we took
    advantage of commercial technologies that could be launched, I
    think we could move to a day--and we have done it in the
    Department of Defense as it relates to communications. We have
    done it in the Department of Defense as it relates to imagery
    and other kinds of remote sensing. If we could go that
    direction on the weather side of things, I think we would have
    more resilience, we would mitigate data gaps, and we could move
    to a day where we move from JPSS-2 to JPSS-3.
        Maybe we are not having a hearing about a gap that is
    coming and instead we are saying okay, we have got everything
    we need, how do we focus NOAA on doing the things that the
    private sector cannot do, and I think that is the direction
    ultimately where we can go, and the private sector, of course,
    my opinion is, you will get greater innovation, lower cost,
    more competition, all these kind of benefits that we have seen
    NASA take advantage of as well.
        So I guess my ultimate question is, when you think about
    that $380 million from the President's budget request, is there
    any openness to maybe using a portion of that money to create a
    pilot approach where we could purchase from the private sector
    data for NOAA rather than focusing on, you know, buying
    another--and again, JPSS-3, if it is necessary, I am all for
    it, but I want to be clear, if there is an opportunity to take
    a portion of that money and use it to purchase data from the
    private sector, is that something that you are open to?
        Dr. Volz. Well, sir, I think you identified the--the
    targeted funds in the polar follow-on are really essential to
    getting the instruments under contract, and I think of the 380,
    approximately 80-plus percent of that is going directly to our
    commercial space industry, which is building these instruments.
        I do agree with you entirely in the principle that we need
    to be--we need to have a constellation which has both
    backbones, government-supplied solutions, and complemented by
    other alternative approaches, and in the future as the
    capabilities get stronger is likely to be more--is going to be
    more prevalent.
        I think we have to be very careful of the risks to the
    user, the end user, which is if we get commercial approach
    which doesn't work out, we cannot let that compromise our
    ability to provide the weather forecast, and I know you are
    very sensitive to that as well.
        So as far as the $380 million in the polar follow-on, that
    is very carefully targeted to making sure we have that backbone
    system capable through the end of the next decade so that we
    have the opportunity to try these alternative flexible
    approaches without jeopardizing our critical basic performance
    that the Nation expects.
        Chairman Bridenstine. I am out of time. I would like to
    recognize the gentleman from Virginia for five minutes.
        Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Volz, in the notes that we had, it said that three
    offices within NOAA have primary responsibility for
    implementing the mitigation plan--NESDIS, OAR and the National
    Weather Service--but the NOAA office appears to be in charge of
    the mitigation activities. Is this accurate? Is there someone
    who should be the central decider and implementer----
        Dr. Volz. As I said----
        Mr. Beyer. --coordinator?
        Dr. Volz. As I mentioned earlier on in the presentation
    here, there are many tasks, whether it is 21 or 40, in terms of
    the mitigation. There are a number of different tasks which
    have different disciplinary requirements, whether it is the
    Weather Service, Oceans Research or NES for satellite
    management and development, and those tasks are developed down
    to those different line offices. We each--we coordinate across
    the organization, and yes, there is a single person in charge,
    and that is the Under Secretary for Operations that we report
    to on a regular basis, and we report to the Secretary as well
    on a --the Under Secretary as well.
        So it is coordinated and reported up through the chain of
    command but the individual activities are delegated down to
    their Centers of Excellence where the expertise is.
        Mr. Beyer. That sounds great.
        Mr. Murphy, if the NPP satellite was lost tomorrow, hit
    with debris, what would be the status of your gap mitigation
    plans now?
        Mr. Murphy. As I said earlier, the aircraft data is
    flowing. We have several other projects that are not matured
    yet. We have improved data assimilation, which will be
    completed first quarter of 2016, and we have some improved
    modeling capabilities that are also coming in early in 2016. So
    really, all we have completed thus far as far as gap mitigation
    has been the studies to demonstrate the impact and the aircraft
    data which was--it is not--none of the mitigation steps that I
    have seen anywhere completely mitigate the loss of the
    satellite.
        I would remind you that we do have legacy satellites up
    there, the earlier NOAA satellites and the earlier science
    missions at this time, so it wouldn't be like we would lose all
    the satellites if it went out right now.
        Dr. Volz. Yeah, and if I could comment on that too, I am
    glad John mentioned it. The POES satellites that were launched
    and are still flying, two of them in that same orbit, have been
    and still are operating. Now, they are older and they could
    fail as well, but if you had a--if the Suomi NPP went down,
    those would still be there.
        What you will lose is that leap forward that I mentioned
    before, that Suomi NPP is much more capable than previous ones,
    but the backbone, we have infrared sounding and we have
    microwave radiometry out of those satellites, which would still
    be part and are used by the models and predictions.
        Mr. Beyer. Mr. Powner, do you a reaction to this?
        Mr. Powner. Yeah, I think clearly what we heard on the
    mitigation activities, there were four areas, and one was--four
    primary areas that are the priorities, and one is extending the
    life of the existing POES satellites along with using the
    midmorning European satellites, and that actually came from
    folks sitting at this table, so we had them prioritize what the
    improvements in the forecast would be, that radio occultation,
    commercial aircraft, the high computing capacity as well as the
    improvements in the models. Those are the priority areas.
        Mr. Beyer. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
    time.
        Mr. Perlmutter. Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman Bridenstine. Yes.
        Mr. Perlmutter. Rumor has it, Mr. Powner, you are from
    Colorado?
        Mr. Powner. Yes, I am.
        Mr. Perlmutter. All right. I am so glad I asked you
    questions. I yield back.
        Chairman Bridenstine. All right. I would like to recognize
    the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Babin, for five minutes.
        Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Volz, in April of 2013, NOAA removed funding for three
    years of operations at the end of JPSS missions to keep the
    lifecycle cost of the program around $11 billion, two-part
    question. Even though JPSS-2 will be operational through 2028,
    operations, I see, are only funded through 2025. Is this a
    gimmick to hide the true cost of the program?
        Dr. Volz. I can't speak to that specifically, sir. I will
    definitely go back and check and see what the funding--how the
    fundings are distributed. We certainly will operate the
    satellite as long as it is functioning and operating
    effectively.
        Mr. Babin. Okay. Are you anticipating no funding for a
    fully operational satellite program or are you anticipating
    that we will find more money after the satellite is airborne?
        Dr. Volz. You are talking about post-2025, sir?
        Mr. Babin. Yes.
        Dr. Volz. Well, the polar follow-on proposal that we have,
    which is to build the J-3 and J-4 instruments, includes in it
    the operational--in the long run. It is outside of this budget
    cycle particularly. It includes the operation and maintenance
    costs for these polar satellite constellation to the 2038 is
    the expected lifetime of those satellites as well. Whatever
    satellites are in orbit, we will be operating within those
    budgets as defined in our program.
        Mr. Babin. Okay. Thank you. And then one other question for
    Mr. Clarke. Where did the space debris come from that has led
    to the degradation of our polar orbiting satellites?
        Dr. Volz. Well, sir, I can't comment in detail since I am
    not very--I don't have a lot of insight into it, but I do know
    the latest model using data from the last ten years, shuttle
    data particularly, that helped update those models. As far as--
    that is probably the level of detail I know. I can take that
    for the record and go back and get some more information for
    you if you would like.
        Mr. Babin. Okay. And then Mr. Powner, how important is
    improving NOAA's supercomputing capabilities to mitigating a
    data gap?
        Mr. Powner. It is clearly one of the top priorities.
        I would also like to address the space debris that you just
    mentioned. Clearly, there has been an increase in space debris
    but there has also been some unfortunate incidents that
    contributed to the space debris. In 2009, there was an iridium
    satellite that hit a Kosmos satellite that increased the space
    debris and then also unfortunately in 2007, there was a Chinese
    military operation where they shot a satellite as part of their
    military ops, and that contributed to space debris. So those
    events in 2007 and 2009 clearly contributed to the space debris
    issue.
        Mr. Babin. Absolutely. Thank you.
        Dr. Alexander MacDonald and Mr. Murphy, where does our
    supercomputing capacity rank relative to the rest of the world?
        Dr. MacDonald. I think that in--if we talk about our
    operational computing, it has been behind for quite some time.
    However, it was recently announced that we are going to get a
    major upgrade to our operational computing. I think it is
    actually five petaflops this fall, and I think that puts us on
    a par with the others, and I want to say that that is a big
    part of the mitigation, that is, we think with that additional
    computing, it is going to help us a lot in our predictions and
    help for the gap.
        Mr. Babin. Okay. One other thing. Should NOAA be placing a
    higher priority on this?
        Dr. Volz. It has been a top priority. So, I have problems
    with all this discussion of priorities about these mitigation
    efforts because every mitigation step that I know has been a
    top priority for us.
        Mr. Babin. Okay. Thank you.
        One thing else. I am sorry. Do you feel budgetary pressures
    elsewhere in NOAA's budget prevent you from having access to
    the best resources?
        Dr. Volz. I am not sure if that is directed to all of us,
    sir. I don't believe we have pressures that limit us from doing
    the right thing and making the right choices.
        Mr. Babin. Okay. Thank you. That is all. I yield back the
    rest of my time.
        Chairman Bridenstine. Okay. We are coming to the end here,
    and Dr. Babin, your question about the operations piece of this
    where we are funding a technology that is, JPSS-2 specifically,
    which will last through 2028, and the operations side of it is
    only funded through 2025 in order to hold the cost of the
    program down to $11.3 billion. That is something that we will
    need to have addressed as we are at the end of this hearing.
    Maybe we can get that for the record.
        And then also lastly, before we close out, I would just
    like to--Dr. Volz, I asked the question. I just want to get it
    on the record. If you are open, whether it comes from the $380
    million for JPSS-3 or some other place, are you open to a pilot
    approach where NOAA would fund a certain amount of money to buy
    private satellite data, whether it is JPSS or GPS-RO or
    hyperspectral, to purchase it from the private sector for the
    purposes of resiliency and disaggregation?
        Dr. Volz. I think we are open to buying appropriate data
    with the quality and the validation capabilities that meet our
    needs, and using that as an input into our numerical weather
    models, and we are happy to work with vendors to define a
    process by which we can validate the quality of their data sets
    and the reliability of them.
        Chairman Bridenstine. Could NOAA be an anchor tenant for
    that project?
        Dr. Volz. I am not sure that I would call it an anchor
    tenant because the question is, do we invest in their
    development costs on the premise that the outcome will be
    something we can use, and that is a higher-risk approach than I
    would prefer to take from the NOAA side.
        I am not in the--I don't think it should be appropriate for
    us to develop a commercial capability that we might use in the
    future. I am happy to look at their data. I am happy to work
    with them on the way that they are developing their approaches
    in an open forum, and if it meets criteria, I am happy to buy
    it and use it.
        Chairman Bridenstine. Would you have had that same position
    on the NPOESS program had you been at NOAA back when that
    started?
        Dr. Volz. Oh, boy. I am not going to answer that one, sir.
    I am sorry.
        Chairman Bridenstine. Well, I appreciate your testimony. I
    thank the witnesses for their testimony and the Members for
    their great questions.
        The record will remain open for two weeks for additional
    comments and written questions from Members. The witnesses are
    excused and this hearing is adjourned. Thank you so much.
        [Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the Subcommittees were
    adjourned.]
                                   Appendix I

                                  ----------

                          Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
    Responses by Mr. David Powner
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Responses by Dr. Stephen Volz
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Responses by Mr. Steven Clarke
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Responses by Dr. Alexander MacDonald
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Responses by Mr. John Murphy
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]