    [House Hearing, 116 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                      DISCOVERY ON THE FRONTIERS OF SPACE:
                        EXPLORING NASA'S SCIENCE MISSION

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

                                     OF THE

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 11, 2019

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 116-27

                                   __________

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

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                ______

                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
     36-565PDF             WASHINGTON : 2020

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                 HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
    ZOE LOFGREN, California              FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma,
    DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois                Ranking Member
    SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon             MO BROOKS, Alabama
    AMI BERA, California,                BILL POSEY, Florida
        Vice Chair                       RANDY WEBER, Texas
    CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             BRIAN BABIN, Texas
    LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas               ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
    HALEY STEVENS, Michigan              ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
    KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma                RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
    MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey           MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
    BRAD SHERMAN, California             TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               PETE OLSON, Texas
    JERRY McNERNEY, California           ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
    ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
    PAUL TONKO, New York                 JIM BAIRD, Indiana
    BILL FOSTER, Illinois                JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
    DON BEYER, Virginia                  JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, Puerto
    CHARLIE CRIST, Florida                   Rico
    SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                VACANCY
    KATIE HILL, California
    BEN McADAMS, Utah
    JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
                                     ------

                     Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics

                     HON. KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma, Chairwoman
    ZOE LOFGREN, California              BRIAN BABIN, Texas, Ranking Member
    AMI BERA, California                 MO BROOKS, Alabama
    ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              BILL POSEY, Florida
    DON BEYER, Virginia                  PETE OLSON, Texas
    CHARLIE CRIST, Florida               MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
    KATIE HILL, California
    JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia

                             C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                 June 11, 2019

                                                                       Page

    Hearing Charter..................................................     2

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Kendra Horn, Chairwoman, Subcommittee
      on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, Space, and
      Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................    10
        Written Statement............................................    11

    Statement by Representative Brian Babin, Ranking Member,
      Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science,
      Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...........    12
        Written Statement............................................    13

    Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman,
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................    14
        Written statement............................................    15

                                   Witnesses:

    Dr. Thomas H. Zurbuchen, Associate Administrator, Science Mission
      Directorate, NASA
        Oral Statement...............................................    17
        Written Statement............................................    20

    Dr. Chelle Gentemann, Senior Scientist, Earth and Space Research;
      Co-chair, Committee on Earth Science and Applications from
      Space, Space Studies Board, National Academies of Sciences,
      Engineering, and Medicine
        Oral Statement...............................................    28
        Written Statement............................................    30

    Dr. David Spergel, Charles A. Young Professor of Astronomy,
      Princeton University; Director, Center for Computational
      Astrophysics at the Flatiron Institute; Former Chair, Space
      Studies Board, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
      Medicine
        Oral Statement...............................................    51
        Written Statement............................................    53

    Dr. Mark Sykes, Chief Executive Officer and Director, Planetary
      Science Institute
        Oral Statement...............................................    62
        Written Statement............................................    64

    Discussion.......................................................    79

                 Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    Dr. Thomas H. Zurbuchen, Associate Administrator, Science Mission
      Directorate, NASA..............................................   102

    Dr. Chelle Gentemann, Senior Scientist, Earth and Space Research;
      Co-chair, Committee on Earth Science and Applications from
      Space, Space Studies Board, National Academies of Sciences,
      Engineering, and Medicine......................................   114

    Dr. David Spergel, Charles A. Young Professor of Astronomy,
      Princeton University; Director, Center for Computational
      Astrophysics at the Flatiron Institute; Former Chair, Space
      Studies Board, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
      Medicine.......................................................   120

    Dr. Mark Sykes, Chief Executive Officer and Director, Planetary
      Science Institute..............................................   123

                Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record

    Additional responses submitted by Dr. Thomas H. Zurbuchen,
      Associate Administrator, Science Mission Directorate, NASA.....   130

    Report submitted by Dr. Chelle Gentemann, Senior Scientist, Earth
      and Space Research; Co-chair, Committee on Earth Science and
      Applications from Space, Space Studies Board, National
      Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine...............   133

                      DISCOVERY ON THE FRONTIERS OF SPACE:

                        EXPLORING NASA'S SCIENCE MISSION

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 2019

                      House of Representatives,
                 Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics,
                   Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                       Washington, D.C.

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in
    room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Kendra
    Horn [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Horn. This hearing will come to order.
        Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
    recess at any time.
        Good morning, and welcome. I especially want to welcome our
    witnesses, and thank you very much for being here this morning.
        Before we begin our second hearing, I want to say it is
    truly an honor and a pleasure to Chair this Subcommittee and to
    note that our investments in space and aeronautics are
    catalysts for growth, discovery, innovation, and economic
    growth in America. I'm grateful for the opportunity to work
    with Ranking Member Babin and all of the Members as we consider
    the important issues before the Subcommittee.
        We began by focusing our first hearing on human space
    exploration. We have a lot to do, and today we are turning our
    attention to science. Space science has come a long way in the
    60 years since NASA's (National Aeronautics and Space
    Administration's) founding and James Van Allen's launch of
    Explorer 1, America's first science satellite, in 1958. While
    Explorer 1 provided initial glimpses into what could be
    discovered from vantage points above and beyond the surface of
    Earth, NASA's science spacecraft have gone on to study our Sun
    and every planet in the solar system, to look back into the
    early universe, and to enhance our understanding of our own
    planet.
        Today, NASA's Science Mission Directorate (SMD) represents
    a $6.9 billion investment that funds space-based and suborbital
    science missions, ground-based research, data analysis, and
    technology development. These elements support NASA's programs
    focused on planetary science, Earth science and applications,
    astrophysics, and heliophysics--the study of the Sun and its
    interactions with the Earth and the solar system.
        Through these programs, scientists are seeking answers to
    questions--to fundamental questions: What is dark energy? And
    how and why is the universe expanding, and at what rate? How
    have the many chemical and physical processes that shaped the
    solar system evolved and interacted over time? What are the
    structure, function, and biodiversity of Earth's ecosystems,
    and how and why are they changing in time and space? What are
    the origins of the Sun's activity and how can we predict
    variations in the space environment?
        In pursuing answers to these and other questions, NASA's
    scientific findings increasingly become interwoven into our
    everyday lives, from decisions to reroute aircraft due to solar
    activity and space weather, to surveying the skies for
    potentially harmful near-Earth asteroids, to using ocean color
    and temperature maps for commercial fishery forecasting, or in
    using satellite data to assess the impacts of our changing
    climate, and much more.
        Through an organized, science community-led process known
    as the decadal surveys, NASA's Science Mission Directorate has
    benefited from a systemic approach to setting priorities that
    guide NASA's planetary, heliophysics, astrophysics, and Earth
    science program over 10 years. Not only do the decadal surveys
    guide the content of NASA's science programs, they also help
    commit to the highest--help us commit to the highest priorities
    identified by the science community. The decadal surveys keep
    us honest and focused on top priorities when funding
    constraints or competing interests arise.
        However, consistently following and implementing decadal
    priorities has not always been easy. The complexity involved in
    ambitious, large-scale missions has led, in some cases, to
    significant cost and schedule growth, so we must be vigilant in
    ensuring that NASA is as innovative in program and cost
    management as it is in advancing scientific discovery. How can
    NASA and the community both encourage ambitious breakthrough
    science while minimizing unanticipated costs and delays that
    may come with pushing the edges of innovation? And must pushing
    the edges of innovation and discovery always be equated to
    large and expensive missions? Or can the use of small
    satellites and CubeSats and hosted payloads, where appropriate,
    also help us acquire scientific observations and measurements
    at a lower cost?
        It is clear we have a lot to discuss, and I look forward to
    our witnesses' testimony and perspectives on these critical
    issues.
        [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Horn follows:]

        Good morning, and welcome. I especially want to welcome our
    witnesses, thank you for being here.
        Before we begin our second hearing, I want to say it's an
    honor and a pleasure to chair this Subcommittee. Our
    investments in Space and Aeronautics are catalysts for
    discovery, innovation, and economic growth in America. I am
    grateful for the opportunity to work with Ranking Member Babin
    and all the Members as we consider the important issues before
    the Subcommittee. We began by focusing our first hearing on
    human exploration, and today we're turning our attention to
    science.
        Space science has come a long way in the sixty years since
    NASA's founding and James Van Allen's launch of Explorer 1-
    America's first science satellite-in 1958. While Explorer 1
    provided initial glimpses into what could be discovered from
    vantage points above and beyond the surface of Earth, NASA's
    science spacecraft have gone on to study our Sun and every
    planet in the solar system, to look back to into the early
    Universe, and to enhance our understanding of our own planet.
        Today, NASA's Science Mission Directorate represents a $6.9
    billion investment that funds space-based and suborbital
    science missions, ground-based research, data analysis, and
    technology development. These elements support NASA's programs
    focused on planetary science, Earth science and applications,
    astrophysics, and heliophysics-the study of the Sun and its
    interactions with Earth and the solar system.
        Through these programs, scientists are seeking answers to
    fundamental questions:
         LWhat is dark energy and, how and why is the
    Universe expanding, and at what rate?
         LHow have the many chemical and physical processes
    that shaped the solar system evolved and interacted over time?
         LWhat are the structure, function, and
    biodiversity of Earth's ecosystems, and how and why are they
    changing in time and space?
         LWhat are the origins of the Sun's activity and
    how can we predict variations in the space environment?
        In pursuing answers to these and other questions, NASA's
    scientific findings, increasingly, become interwoven into our
    everyday lives-from decisions to reroute aircraft due to solar
    activity and space weather, to surveying the skies for
    potentially harmful near-Earth asteroids, to using ocean color
    and temperature maps for commercial fishery forecasting, or in
    using satellite data to assess the impacts of our changing
    climate, and much more.
        Through an organized, science community-led process known
    as the ``decadal surveys,'' NASA's Science Mission Directorate
    has benefited from a systematic approach to setting priorities
    that guide NASA's planetary, heliophysics, astrophysics, and
    Earth-science programs over ten-year periods. Not only do the
    decadal surveys guide the content of NASA's science programs,
    they also help us commit to the highest priorities identified
    by the science community. The decadal surveys keep us honest
    and focused on top priorities when funding constraints or
    competing interests arise.
        However, consistently following and implementing decadal
    priorities has not always been easy. The complexity involved in
    ambitious, large-scale missions has led, in some cases, to
    significant cost and schedule growth, so we must be vigilant in
    ensuring that NASA is as innovative in program and cost
    management as it is in advancing scientific discovery.
        How can NASA and the community both encourage ambitious,
    breakthrough science while minimizing the unanticipated costs
    and delays that may come with pushing the edges of innovation?
    And must pushing the edges of innovation and discovery always
    be equated to large and expensive missions? Or can the use of
    small satellites and CubeSats, and hosted payloads, where
    appropriate, also help us acquire scientific observations and
    measurements at lower cost?
        It is clear we have a lot to discuss, and I look forward to
    our witnesses' testimony and perspectives on these critical
    issues.

        Chairwoman Horn. The Chair now recognizes Ranking Member
    Babin for an opening statement.
        Mr. Babin. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it and
    appreciate all of you expert witnesses for your testimony.
        Year after year, NASA amazes the world with new wonders to
    behold, and the Science Mission Directorate at NASA makes that
    happen. The Hubble Space Telescope has informed our
    understanding of the age of the universe, its rate of
    expansion, and provided a breathtaking perspective of our place
    in the cosmos with its Deep Field Image.
        Other observatories like the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory,
    and the Chandra X-Ray Observatory, and the Spitzer Space
    Telescope returned stunning images of our universe's
    astronomical phenomena like supernova and neutron stars. The
    Curiosity Rover observed whirlwinds called ``dust devils'' on
    Mars and continues to search for the building blocks of life on
    the red planet. We've sent probes to every planet in our solar
    system, traveled through the rings of Saturn and landed on its
    surface with the Cassini-Huygens mission, explored Jupiter and
    its fascinating moons with the Galileo and Juno missions, and
    most recently visited Pluto with the New Horizons probe and
    revealed its heart-shaped icy surface.
        We've located, tracked, characterized, and visited
    asteroids and comets with missions like Stardust, Deep Impact,
    WISE (Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer), and Dawn. NASA
    missions like Kepler and the TESS (Transiting Exoplanet Survey
    Satellite) discovered thousands of planets around other stars,
    some of which may be habitable zones that could harbor life.
    We've sent spacecraft like the Parker Solar Probe to
    interrogate the sun and beyond the solar system into
    interstellar space with the Voyager spacecraft.
        NASA developed the next generation of weather satellites
    for NOAA that decreases the warning time for severe weather
    events like hurricanes and tornadoes and provides reliable
    forecasts for farmers and fishermen, pilots, and every
    American. These are stunning achievements.
        However, NASA has more to offer. NASA continues to develop
    the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the flagship follow-on
    to the Hubble Space Telescope that stands to fundamentally
    rewrite the textbooks. The Europa Clipper mission will explore
    Jupiter's icy ocean world that has intrigued scientists because
    of its potential to harbor life. Lucy and Psyche will explore
    unique asteroids, and OSIRIS-REx will even return a sample to
    Earth. The Mars 2020 rover will also prepare and store samples
    for a future sample return mission. We live in a very exciting
    time.
        As NASA continues to awe us with scientific discoveries, we
    should be ever mindful that the Science Mission Directorate is
    also responsible for critical national missions that go beyond
    science. Congress charged NASA to find 90 percent of 140-meter
    asteroids that could harm the Earth by 2020. NASA carries out
    this vital task through SMD's Planetary Defense Coordination
    Office. NASA also operates a fleet of heliophysics spacecraft
    that informs our understanding of space weather that impacts
    everything from the electrical grid to communications and GPS
    signals. Similarly, NASA's Joint Agency Satellite Division
    manages the development of our Nation's critical weather
    satellites that serve as the very backbone of weather
    forecasting.
        The Administration's budget request for science is very
    strong. And while it is a reduction from the Fiscal Year 2019
    appropriation, it represents the highest budget request in
    history. The request was developed before the final
    appropriation for FY 2019 was even determined. If you compare
    this request to the final budget request of the Obama
    Administration, which many on this Committee supported, this
    request is much stronger. This request represents an increase
    of $1.1 billion, or 21 percent, over President Obama's last
    budget request for discretionary spending in FY 2017. That same
    FY 2017 budget request from the previous Administration
    projected a notional FY 2020 request of $5.627 billion.
        President Trump's proposed science budget is $6.39 billion.
    That is $767 million, or 13.6 percent, more than President
    Obama planned for FY 2020. This is a solid request for science
    at NASA, but that doesn't mean that we should let our guard
    down.
        Cost overruns like those experienced by JWST, the Mars 2020
    rover, and ICESat-2 (Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite)
    come at the expense of other missions like WFIRST (Wide Field
    Infrared Survey Telescope) and PACE (Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud,
    ocean Ecosystem) and threaten the health of not just the
    Science Mission Directorate, but also the entire agency. And
    that's why strong leadership is required to instill discipline
    in program management early and often. Tough choices have to be
    made to ensure that overruns do not threaten the existing and
    future missions. The Nation's space science enterprise cannot
    afford to have another JWST or ICESat-2.
        And I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Babin follows:]

        Year after year NASA amazes the world with new wonders to
    behold, and the Science Mission Directorate at NASA makes that
    happen. The Hubble Space Telescope has informed our
    understanding of the age of the universe, its rate of
    expansion, and provided a breathtaking perspective of our place
    in the cosmos with its Deep Field Image.
        Other observatories like the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory,
    the Chandra X-ray Observatory, and the Spitzer Space Telescope
    returned stunning images of our universe's astronomical
    phenomena like supernova and neutron stars. The Curiosity Rover
    observed whirlwinds called ``dust devils'' on Mars and
    continues to search for the building blocks of life on the red
    planet. We've sent probes to every planet in our solar system,
    traveled through the rings of Saturn and landed on its surface
    with the Cassini-Huygens mission, explored Jupiter and its
    fascinating moons with the Galileo and Juno missions, and most
    recently visited Pluto with the New Horizons probe and revealed
    its heart-shaped icy surface.
        We've located, tracked, characterized, and visited
    asteroids and comets with missions like Stardust, Deep Impact,
    WISE, and Dawn. NASA missions like Kepler and the TESS
    discovered thousands of planets around other stars, some of
    which may be in habitable zones that could harbor life. We've
    sent spacecraft like the Parker Solar Probe to interrogate the
    Sun, and beyond the solar system into interstellar space with
    the Voyager spacecraft.
        NASA developed the next generation of weather satellites
    for NOAA that decreases the warning time for severe weather
    events like hurricanes and tornados, provides more reliable
    forecasts for farmers, fishermen, pilots, and every American.
    These are stunning achievements.
        However - NASA has more to offer. NASA continues to develop
    the James Webb Space Telescope, the flagship follow-on to the
    Hubble Space Telescope, that stands to fundamentally rewrite
    textbooks. The Europa Clipper mission will explore Jupiter's
    icy ocean world that has intrigued scientists because of its
    potential to harbor life. Lucy and Psyche will explore unique
    asteroids, and Osiris-Rex will even return a sample to Earth.
    The Mars 2020 rover will also prepare and store samples for a
    future sample return mission. We live in an exciting time.
        As NASA continues to awe us with scientific discoveries, we
    should be mindful that the Science Mission Directorate is also
    responsible for critical national missions that go beyond
    science. Congress charged NASA to find 90 percent of 140-meter
    asteroids that could harm Earth by 2020. NASA carries out this
    vital task through SMD's Planetary Defense Coordination Office.
    NASA also operates a fleet of heliophysics spacecraft that
    informs our understanding of space weather that impacts
    everything from the electrical grid to communications and GPS
    signals. Similarly, NASA's Joint Agency Satellite Division
    manages the development of our nation's critical weather
    satellites that serve as the backbone of weather forecasting.
        The Administration's budget request for science is strong.
    While it is a reduction from the FY19 appropriation, it
    represents the highest budget request in history. The request
    was developed before the final appropriation for FY19 was
    determined. If you compare this request to the final budget
    request from the Obama Administration, which many on this
    committee supported, this request is much stronger. This
    request represents an increase of $1.1 billion (about 21
    percent) over President Obama's last budget request for
    discretionary spending in FY17. That same FY17 budget request
    from the previous Administration projected a notional FY20
    request of $5.627 billion. President Trump's proposed science
    budget is $6.39 billion. That is $767 million, or 13.6 percent,
    more than President Obama planned for FY20. This is a solid
    request for science at NASA, but that doesn't mean we should
    let our guard down.
        Cost overruns like those experienced by JWST, the Mars 2020
    rover, and ICESat-2 come at the expense of other missions like
    WFIRST and PACE and threaten the health of not just the Science
    Mission Directorate, but also the entire agency. That's why
    strong leadership is required to instill discipline in program
    management early and often. Tough choices have to be made to
    ensure that overruns do not threaten existing and future
    missions. The nation's space science enterprise can't afford to
    have another JWST or ICESat-2.

        Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Mr. Babin.
        The Chair now recognizes the Chairwoman of the Full
    Committee, Ms. Johnson, for an opening statement.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, and good morning,
    Madam Chair, for holding this hearing on ``Discovery on the
    Frontiers of Space: Exploring NASA's Science Mission.''
        Scientific research has been part of NASA's mission since
    the agency's founding. The National Aeronautics and Space Act
    of 1958--the expansion of human knowledge, a phenomena in the
    atmosphere and space and one of the eight objectives of the
    Nation's aeronautical and space activities.
        Since the 1958 Act, NASA and the Nation have invested in
    the systematic scientific exploration of our planet, bodies in
    the solar system, the Sun, and the universe that have answered
    many questions, and generated many more. That scientific
    exploration has come with surprises. For example, who would
    have imagined that Pluto may be--may have active volcanoes
    spewing ice or that there is a mysterious force causing our
    universe to expand at an accelerating rate?
        NASA has been at the forefront of discoveries such as these
    in space and Earth science since its inception with a cadence
    of small, medium, and large missions and supporting research
    and technology that keep the public engaged, inspired, and
    learning.
        That's why it perplexes me as to why the Administration
    would even consider raiding Science to pay for a Moon program.
    Yet that may be where NASA is headed, despite the
    Administration--Administrator's assurances to the contrary. The
    1-year budget amendment that came over in May would give the
    Administrator carte blanche authority to move funds among
    NASA's accounts from this year forward if he determines that
    the transfers are necessary in support of establishment of a
    U.S. strategic presence on the Moon. Why? Because the
    Administration, it seems, may not request in the coming years
    what NASA actually needs for its crash program to get
    astronauts to the Moon by 2024.
        According to media articles, NASA officials are stating
    that hard choices lie ahead and that NASA find money for the
    Moon program from within the agency's other programs. This
    isn't a new tactic. The George W. Bush Administration, which
    initiated the last Moon program, tried the same approach.
    According to a 2006 National Academies report, the Bush
    Administration indicated its intention to cut significantly
    from Science to pay for its Moon program. The scars from those
    cuts are still felt today, especially in the life and physical
    sciences research program, which experienced reductions that
    decimated the pipeline of microgravity research and drove
    scientists to other fields.
        The talented women and men at NASA and its partner
    institutions deserve better. Those who have become acquainted
    with the NASA workforce know that they will work tirelessly in
    an effort to meet a goal. Passion can take us so far, but it
    alone can't build the rockets and the landers, the spacesuits
    and the habitats, and all of the other elements needed for a
    safe and sustainable Moon-Mars program. NASA needs a solid
    plan, sufficient resources, people, and infrastructure over
    multiple years to enable deep space human exploration. Starving
    science to fund human exploration is not the answer.
        I know our witnesses will have much to say about the
    opportunities and challenges facing NASA's space and Earth
    sciences, and I look forward to your testimony. I thank you and
    yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]

        Good morning, and thank you Madame Chair for holding this
    hearing on ``Discovery on the Frontiers of Space: Exploring
    NASA's Science Mission.''
        Scientific research has been part of the NASA mission since
    the agency's founding. The National Aeronautics and Space Act
    of 1958 includes ``The expansion of human knowledge of
    phenomena in the atmosphere and space'' as one of the eight
    objectives of the nation's aeronautical and space activities.
        Since the 1958 Act, NASA and the nation have invested in
    the systematic scientific exploration of our planet, bodies in
    the solar system, the Sun, and the Universe that have answered
    many questions, and generated even more. That scientific
    exploration has come with surprises. For example, who would
    have imagined that Pluto may have active volcanoes spewing ice?
    Or that there is a mysterious force causing our Universe to
    expand at an accelerating rate?
        NASA has been at the forefront of discoveries such as these
    in space and Earth science, since its inception, with a cadence
    of small, medium, and large missions and supporting research
    and technology that keep the public engaged, inspired, and
    learning. That's why it perplexes me as to why the
    Administration would even consider raiding Science to pay for a
    Moon program. Yet that may be where NASA is headed, despite the
    Administrator's assurances to the contrary.
        The one-year budget amendment that came over in May would
    give the Administrator carte blanche authority to move funds
    among NASA's accounts from this year forward, if he determines
    that "the transfers are necessary in support of establishment
    of a U.S. strategic presence on the Moon." Why? Because the
    Administration, it seems, may not request in the coming years
    what NASA actually needs for its crash program to get
    astronauts to the Moon by 2024. According to media articles,
    NASA officials are stating that hard choices lie ahead and that
    NASA find money for the Moon program from within the agency's
    other programs.
        This isn't a new tactic. The George W. Bush Administration,
    which initiated the last Moon program, tried the same approach.
    According to a 2006 National Academies report, the Bush
    Administration indicated its intention to cut significantly
    from Science to pay for its Moon program. The scars from those
    cuts are still felt today, especially in the life and physical
    sciences research program, which experienced reductions that
    decimated the pipeline for microgravity research and drove
    scientists to other fields.
        The talented women and men at NASA and its partner
    institutions deserve better. Those who have become acquainted
    with the NASA workforce know that they will work tirelessly in
    an effort to meet a goal. Passion can take us far, but it alone
    can't build us the rockets and landers, space suits and
    habitats, and all the other elements needed for a safe and
    sustainable Moon-Mars program.
        NASA needs a solid plan, sufficient resources, people, and
    infrastructure over multiple years to enable deep space human
    exploration. Starving Science to fund human exploration is not
    the answer. I know our witnesses will have much to say about
    the opportunities and challenges facing NASA's space and Earth
    sciences. I look forward to their testimony.
        Thank you and I yield back.

        Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        If there are any 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
    today. Our first witness is Dr. Thomas Zurbuchen. Since
    October, Dr. Zurbuchen has served as the Associate
    Administrator for NASA's Science Mission Directorate.
    Previously, Dr. Zurbuchen was a Professor of Space and
    Aerospace Engineering at the University of Michigan in Ann
    Arbor. He was also the university's founding Director of the
    Center for Entrepreneurship in the College of Engineering.
        Dr. Zurbuchen's experience includes research in solar and
    heliospheric physics--that's a mouthful--experimental space
    research, space systems, and innovation and entrepreneurship.
        During his career, Dr. Zurbuchen has been involved with
    several NASA science missions: Ulysses, the MESSENGER
    spacecraft to Mercury, and the Advanced Composition Explorer.
    He has also been part of two National Academies' standing
    committees, as well as various science and technology
    definition teams for new NASA missions.
        Dr. Zurbuchen earned his master of science and Ph.D. in
    physics from the University of Bern in Switzerland.
        Our next witness is Dr. Chelle Gentemann. Dr. Gentemann is
    a Senior Scientist at Earth and Space Research, a nonprofit
    research institute in Seattle, Washington, and an affiliate of
    the University of Washington.
        Previously, Dr. Gentemann served as a visiting scholar to
    the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Senior Principal
    Scientist at Remote Sensing Systems. Dr. Gentemann is currently
    the Co-Chair of the standing committee on Earth Science and
    Applications from Space and is on the Academies' Intelligence,
    Science, and Technology Experts Group. Her most recent research
    focuses on using cloud computing, open-source software
    development, machine learning, and algorithm development using
    remote sensing data, air-sea interactions, and upper ocean
    physical processes.
        Dr. Gentemann received her bachelor's degree in science
    from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a master of
    science in physical oceanography from the Scripps Institution
    of Oceanography, and a doctorate in meteorology and physical
    oceanography from the University of Miami. Welcome.
        Our third witness is Dr. David Spergel. Dr. Spergel is the
    Charles Young Professor of Astronomy at Princeton University.
    He is the founding Director of the Center for Computational
    Astrophysics at the Flatiron Institute. Dr. Spergel is the
    former Chair of the Space Studies Board and is currently the
    Co-Chair of the Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope, WFIRST,
    science team. Dr. Spergel's work is focused on using laboratory
    experiments and astronomical observations to probe the nature
    of dark matter and look for new physics.
        Dr. Spergel earned his bachelor's degree from Princeton
    University and his doctorate in astronomy from Harvard
    University.
        Our fourth and final witness is Dr. Mark Sykes. Dr. Sykes
    is the Chief Executive Officer and Director of Planetary--of
    the Planetary Science Institute. He has served as the Chair of
    the Division for Planetary Sciences of the American
    Astronomical Society. He is also Co-Investigator on the NASA
    Dawn mission project to the asteroid Vesta and the dwarf planet
    Ceres.
        He received his bachelor's in physics from the University
    of Oregon where he studied the first known black hole system,
    Cygnus X-1. He received a master of electronic science from
    Oregon Graduate Center and a Ph.D. in planetary sciences from
    the University of Arizona.
        Welcome to all of you. As our witnesses, you should know
    that you will each have 5 minutes for your spoken testimony,
    and your full written testimony will be included in the record
    for the hearing. When you have completed your spoken testimony,
    we will begin with questions from each Member, and each Member
    will have 5 minutes on--to question the panel.
        We will start today with Dr. Zurbuchen. Dr. Zurbuchen.

                  TESTIMONY OF DR. THOMAS H. ZURBUCHEN,

                        ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR,

                   SCIENCE MISSION DIRECTORATE, NASA

        Dr. Zurbuchen. Thanks so much. Chair Horn, Ranking Member
    Babin, and Members of the Subcommittee, I'm pleased to testify
    today. I want to thank you for your commitment to NASA and to
    NASA science.
        We'll discuss how this FY 2020 budget request enables us to
    succeed in three strategic focus areas: Advancing national
    exploration goals, maintaining a balanced science program, and
    delivering true impact through our investments. Regarding
    advancing national exploration goals, Artemis is NASA's lunar
    exploration program that will send humans to the Moon by 2024,
    develop a sustainable human presence there in 2028, and set the
    stage for human exploration of Mars, the ultimate goal of
    NASA's human exploration program.
        Robotic missions delivered by commercial landers will be
    the first Artemis elements to land on the Moon. Through NASA
    Science's CLPS (Commercial Lunar Payload Services) initiative,
    we are incentivizing speed and drawing on our commercial and
    international partners to enable science investigations and
    technology demonstrations on the Moon ahead of human return.
        We recently selected three commercial Moon landing service
    providers for the earliest missions in 2020-2021. These
    missions will acquire new science measurements and enable
    important technology demonstrations to provide data that will
    inform future exploration systems needed for astronauts. The
    amended budget request also includes $90 million for the
    purchase of a commercial service--commercial services to
    deliver a rover to the Moon.
        SMD is committed to executing a balanced and integrated
    science program that is informed by the decadal surveys of the
    National Academies. In planetary science, NASA's robust Mars
    program is providing groundbreaking science and exploration
    information. This request supports continued progress of the
    Mars 2020 rover, which will search for the evidence of life on
    the red planet and collect a cache of samples. With this
    request, NASA will start development of a Mars sample return
    mission, completing the first round-trip to another planet.
        In parallel, the cutting-edge Europa Clipper, a strategic
    mission to fly to Jupiter's moon, will be our first step in
    exploring ocean worlds and their potential habitability for
    extraterrestrial life. Competitively selected missions like
    OSIRIS-REx and the Mars lander InSight are critical ingredients
    to our program, as are the Psyche and Lucy missions to explore
    distant asteroids.
        In astrophysics, the budget supports the revised launch
    date of James Webb, the largest and most powerful space
    telescope to date. Webb will examine the first galaxies that
    formed in the atmospheres of nearby planets outside our solar
    system. After the successful planet-counting mission Kepler, we
    are now focused on TESS which will provide a rich catalog of
    worlds around nearby stars including valuable targets for Webb
    to explore in the future.
        In August 2018, our heliophysics program launched Parker
    Solar Probe. Parker has already completed two of its 24 near-
    solar passes flying to within 15 million miles of our star, the
    sun. We recently selected the IMAP (Interstellar Mapping and
    Acceleration Probe) mission that will image the outer boundary
    of the sphere of influence of our sun.
        In 2018, NASA launched two strategic missions recommended
    by the Earth-science decadal. GRACE Follow-On is measuring the
    mass of ice sheets and glaciers and tracking Earth's water
    movements across the planet, while ICESat-2 is providing
    unprecedented data on the typogography of ice--topology, of
    course, interesting word--of ice, forests, and oceans.
    ECOSTRESS (ECOsystem Spaceborne Thermal Radiometer Experiment
    on Space Station) and GEDI (Global Ecosystem Dynamics
    Investigation) are now on the ISS (International Space Station)
    measuring agricultural water use and drought conditions, as
    well as creating 3-D maps of the world's forests. The request
    funds continue progress on Landsat 9 for a launch in '21
    together with our U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) partners.
        NASA's Earth science continues using innovative
    partnerships and new approaches, including the acquisition of
    commercial data products from small satellite constellations.
    Our work has societal value to the U.S. and beyond. Our Earth
    science program teams with partners to develop and demonstrate
    applications in areas like disaster management, public health
    and resource management to provide direct benefit to our
    Nation. Heliophysics-funded research enables the predictions
    necessary to safeguard life and society on Earth and the
    outward journey of humans and robotic explorers.
        And in addition, NASA looks for near-Earth objects (NEOs)
    to assess if they pose any threat to us. We found 96 percent of
    the potentially hazardous NEOs that are over 1 kilometer in
    diameter, and one-third of those at 140 or more. The request
    funds the technology to deflect such bodies using the DART
    (Demonstration for Autonomous Rendezvous Technology) mission.
        With this request, SMD will help pave the way for the
    success of Artemis program, initiate the first round-trip
    mission to the red planet with a Mars sample return mission,
    and continue investing in the groundbreaking work of our
    scientists, engineers, and technologists to--every day to
    answer humanity's most fundamental questions and to inspire
    learners of all ages.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Zurbuchen follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Dr. Zurbuchen. Dr. Gentemann.

                  TESTIMONY OF DR. CHELLE L. GENTEMANN,

              SENIOR SCIENTIST, EARTH AND SPACE RESEARCH,

                AND CO-CHAIR, COMMITTEE ON EARTH SCIENCE

           AND APPLICATIONS FROM SPACE, SPACE STUDIES BOARD,

                     NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES,

                       ENGINEERING, AND MEDICINE

        Dr. Gentemann. Thank you. Chairwoman Horn, Ranking Minority
    Member, and Members of the Committee, I want to thank you for
    the opportunity to testify today.
        As Chairwoman Horn said, I am Co-Chair of the National
    Academies' standing Committee on Earth Science and Applications
    from Space, CESAS. However, the opinions that I express today
    should be attributed to me unless stated otherwise.
        CESAS produced the most recent 10-year roadmap or decadal
    survey to guide U.S. investments in Earth systems science for
    societal benefit. It's charged with monitoring the progress in
    the implementation of the decadal survey's recommendations. The
    decadal survey discusses in detail the benefits to the Nation
    from a robust Earth science program at NASA, NOAA (National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), and USGS. Drawing on
    their own expertise and hundreds of solicited concept proposals
    and white papers from the community, about 100 of the Nation's
    leading Earth scientists, space system engineers, and policy
    experts worked for almost 2 years to develop a consensus on
    Earth-science priorities.
        The survey made recommendations for the programs of all of
    its sponsors, but I will focus on those directed at NASA today.
    Most importantly, these are to complete the series of existing
    or previously planned observations from the 2007 survey called
    the Program of Record. To implement the designated essential
    observations, which are cost-capped medium- and large-size
    observing systems, to implement Earth System Explorer high-
    priority observations, which are cost-capped medium-size
    observing systems, to create a new program element called
    Incubator to advanced future capabilities and to continue the
    cost-capped Earth Venture line from the 2007 decadal, along
    with the addition of a new element called Continuity designed
    to facilitate development of low-cost means to sustain critical
    observations. The survey report presents a plan for an
    integrated program.
        Completing the Program of Record is important because the
    decadal survey recommendations assume and build on this
    baseline from the 2007 decadal survey. The Program of Record
    includes both PACE and CLARREO (Climate Absolute Radiance and
    Refractivity Observatory) Pathfinder. Elimination of these
    missions in the Program of Record undermines the entire decadal
    survey planning and prioritization process.
        PACE supports multiple research thrusts and is a key
    element in the survey's planned constellation of satellites
    that will give scientists and policymakers a clearer
    understanding of how to use Earth systems science for societal
    benefit.
        CLARREO Pathfinder will provide the ability to
    intercalibrate instruments in space at accuracies 5 to 10 times
    beyond current capabilities.
        Implementation of the full recommended program will require
    appropriations beyond that assumed by the decadal survey
    committee. In particular, additional funds would be needed to
    complete the full suite of designated, essential, and Earth
    System Explorer high-priority observations, as planned. These
    are foundational observations selected to ensure that the
    survey's highest priority science and application questions can
    be effectively addressed.
        Finally, I note that the decadal survey process began in
    2015. Rapid advancements in using commercial cloud computing
    and open-source software for science have outpaced planned
    activities. The survey didn't plan for the additional resources
    needed for a wholesale move of NASA data assets onto the cloud,
    support for the open-source software libraries that underpin
    the rapid scientific advancements and possible applications, or
    how to enable interdisciplinary science and commercial
    applications that will likely subsequently flourish.
        In my view, this is one example of where comparatively
    small new investments have the potential to deliver outsized
    benefits. NASA's vast data resources and robust research
    community make it well poised to be a global leader in this
    effort. Jumpstarting these activities in NASA could grow the
    public-private cloud partnership and energize the research
    community.
        As you consider NASA's reauthorization, I hope that the
    Committee sees the value of the decadal survey process and
    provides the funding to implement the decadal survey, including
    the Program of Record and both designated and Earth Explorer
    observables, as recommended.
        Thank you for your time.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Gentemann follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Dr. Gentemann. Dr. Spergel.

                     TESTIMONY OF DR. DAVID SPERGEL,

                 CHARLES YOUNG PROFESSOR OF ASTRONOMY,

                  PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, AND DIRECTOR,

                 CENTER FOR COMPUTATIONAL ASTROPHYSICS,

                 FLATIRON INSTITUTE, AND FORMER CHAIR,

                SPACE STUDIES BOARD, NATIONAL ACADEMIES

                 OF SCIENCES, ENGINEERING, AND MEDICINE

        Dr. Spergel. I want to thank Chairwoman Horn and the
    Committee for this opportunity to speak. I'm David Spergel, a
    Princeton Professor, Director of the Center for Computational
    Astrophysics, and the past Chair of the Space Studies Board.
    While these experiences inform my testimony, these views are my
    own.
        Many of NASA's most important activities from Mars
    exploration to studying extrasolar planets to understanding the
    cosmos are centuries-long projects, the modern version of the
    construction of the great medieval cathedrals. The decadal
    surveys provide blueprints for constructing these cathedrals,
    and NASA science has thrived by being guided by these plans.
        Monitoring our rapidly changing planet is both a great
    scientific challenge and a pressing societal need. ``Thriving
    on a Changing Planet: A Decadal Strategy for Earth Observations
    from Space'' identifies the highest priority study areas, the
    most important observables, and recommends structuring new NASA
    missions accordingly. I want to reinforce Dr. Gentemann's
    comments and urge the Committee to charge NASA to implement
    these priorities. Addressing climate change begins with
    deepening our understanding of Earth.
        The search for life is another grand challenge. Within our
    own solar system, we have learned that water is everywhere.
    Comets bring water to the Moon and to Mercury. Mars not only
    has a wet past but still has liquid water today. Outer planet
    moons such as Europa host vast oceans beneath their icy shells,
    a discovery that suggests new potential habitable destinations.
    Did any of these systems once host life? Do they host life
    today?
        To answer these questions, NASA is in the midst of a set of
    interlocking missions exploring the red planet. As outlined in
    the Planetary Decadal Survey, the Mars 2020 mission is the next
    step in this program, culminating with the return of carefully
    selected samples from Mars. NASA's also making progress in
    building the Europa Clipper. The Planetary Decadal Survey,
    however, did not identify a major investment in studying the
    lifeless Moon as one of its highest priorities. I'm concerned
    that high-priority SMD programs will be terminated to enable
    lower-priority science and accelerating the lunar program.
        Understanding the dominant component of our universe, dark
    energy, is another grand challenge. Both Europe and China are
    leading missions to study it. Fortunately, enabled by
    congressional support, NASA continues to move forward with
    WFIRST, the Astronomy Decadal's top priority dark energy
    mission. As Co-Chair of its science team, I'm happy to say that
    WFIRST is meeting its technical requirements and is on track
    for a 2025 launch and on budget.
        Now, all of these missions are enabled by technology
    developed both internally within NASA and by external advances.
    Regrettably, the Space Technology Mission Directorate is
    reducing these long-term investments for its future science
    missions and is focusing its resources toward the short-term
    goal of Moon 2024. This is eating the seed corn of future
    projects.
        New commercial advances are offering NASA new opportunities
    for innovation. The desire to build self-driving cars advances
    autonomous systems. The machine-learning revolution provides
    novel tools both for analyzing Facebook images and NASA images.
    GPUs (graphics processing units) are now pushing high-
    performance computing hardware. Open-code development is
    driving innovation across industry and academia. NASA and the
    science community needs to be open to these new innovation
    sources.
        While NASA does face immediate challenges like successfully
    completing and launching JWST, this is an incredibly exciting
    time for science. NASA satellites have discovered thousands of
    exoplanets and detected the brilliant flash from the merger of
    two neutron stars. NASA has launched a satellite that will
    literally touch the sun. NASA's exploration of our solar system
    is revealing new insights into our origins. Its satellite
    observations are deepening our understanding of the rapidly
    changing Earth. Most importantly, each of these discoveries
    raises new questions that drive science forward. These
    discoveries were enabled by an agency guided by the community
    science priorities through the decadal surveys, and I urge you
    to continue to let these surveys guide our science programs.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Spergel follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Dr. Spergel. Dr. Sykes.

                      TESTIMONY OF DR. MARK SYKES,

                    EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND DIRECTOR,

                      PLANETARY SCIENCE INSTITUTE

        Dr. Sykes. Chairwoman Horn, Ranking Member Babin, Members
    of the Committee, and Chairwoman Johnson, thank you for the
    opportunity to appear before you today.
        As a former Chair of the NASA Small Bodies Assessment
    Group, I would like to begin by congratulating Dr. Zurbuchen on
    Administrator Bridenstine's recent announcement that NASA will
    be proceeding with the Near-Earth Object Camera mission,
    NEOCam. This space-based infrared survey of near-Earth
    asteroids and beyond has been a high priority for science,
    planetary defense, space resource utilization, and targets for
    human exploration for almost a decade.
        This mission would not exist but for the vision,
    leadership, and shear management skills of the NEOCam P.I.
    (Principal Investigator), Dr. Amy Mainzer. Leveraging her
    experience as P.I. of the NEOWISE mission, Dr. Mainzer has
    spent 15 years building a team and a mission that promises
    remarkable discoveries, the retirement of the congressional
    mandate to find those objects that threaten our planet, and the
    necessary groundwork for expanding the future of our species in
    space. Dr. Mainzer is a role model not just for young women who
    aspire to have careers in science for young men as well.
        I would like to--now to address the Administration's
    initiative to return to the Moon by 2020. In the President's
    proposed Fiscal Year 2020 budget amendment to NASA, the
    Administration asks for the authority, quote, ``to transfer
    funds between appropriations accounts in the event that the
    Administrator determines that the transfers are necessary in
    support of establishment of a U.S. strategic presence on the
    Moon.'' The language authorizes transfers in this fiscal year
    and in subsequent fiscal years, including funds appropriated in
    prior acts. This is a disturbing request. It appears to allow
    for the complete reorganization of the agency, including
    expunging space science if desired, without any congressional
    oversight. This must be rejected.
        On a more positive note, science provides essential support
    to human exploration. Scientists are the pathfinders literally.
    They define where we can go and what we can strive to do there.
    They determine the operational environment, the resources, and
    the hazards.
        We should establish a dedicated science support team for
    human lunar operations. This should consist of lunar experts,
    as well as heliophysicists. Their purpose is not to do
    independent research but to marshal our rich data and knowledge
    of the Moon and its environment to support human operations, to
    anticipate their needs, to participate in planning, and to
    identify what new information is needed and how best and most
    cost-effectively to obtain it in a timely fashion.
        I support the President's request to fund a lunar rover--at
    least one. It should be deployed in advance of our return to
    the Moon, particularly if there's desire to establish a long-
    term operational presence. The choice of a location at the
    South Pole is in part to access craters having permanently
    shadowed regions containing evidence for water ice. A rover is
    needed to assay any water ice and to inform us about what kind
    of resource recovery and processing would be required. In the
    meantime, we also need to study and mitigate the impact of
    human operations on the lunar environment, particularly its
    exospheric atmosphere.
        Finally, every day, discoveries are being made not just by
    operating spacecraft but by work funded by NASA research and
    data analysis programs. These programs lay the foundation and
    justification for future missions. They provide a continuing
    return on investment on these missions by generating new
    knowledge even decades after the data was taken. These are core
    programs, and I'm concerned that they are not being supported
    at the levels recommended by the Planetary Decadal Survey.
        I'm further concerned about the extent to which resources
    from these programs are being funneled to NASA center
    scientists without competition according to public statements,
    at times inconsistent, by NASA officials. The details of this
    program, including its costs and impact on resources for
    competed research programs need to be investigated and made
    public.
        I believe that the American taxpayers deserve the most bang
    for the buck from their federally funded research programs. The
    core of that is competition. Scientists compete for grants and
    contracts all the time. It is not for the faint of heart. But
    competition is further undermined when NASA--I believe alone
    among other Federal agencies--hides cost information from
    proposal review panels and directs them not to take cost into
    consideration in their assessment of proposed research. This
    started before Dr. Zurbuchen's arrival. We need to look at the
    buck and not just the bang. And the subject-matter experts on
    review panels are in the best position to provide that
    assessment to selecting officials.
        The United States has defined the forefront of solar system
    exploration for more than half a century, but we cannot take it
    for granted. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Sykes follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Dr. Sykes, and thank you to all
    of our witnesses.
        We will now begin the first round of questions, and the
    Chair recognizes herself for 5 minutes.
        Doctors Spergel, Gentemann, and Sykes, the Subcommittee
    will be working to reauthorize NASA in the coming months. What
    are your top three priorities for NASA reauthorization and why?
        Dr. Gentemann. I'll start. As I said in my statement, it's
    to complete the Program of Record, to fund the designated
    observables, essential observations, and the Earth System
    Explorer high-priority observations.
        Completing--following the decadal survey and why is because
    following the decadal survey recommendations is based on a huge
    community effort to maximize the societal benefit from Earth
    science observations, and this is the program that has been
    recommended to do so. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Horn. Thank you. Dr. Spergel?
        Dr. Spergel. My first--top priority would be to implement
    the priorities of the decadal surveys in Earth science,
    heliophysics, planetary science, and astrophysics. Another
    priority would be to assure that the STMD continues to make
    investments in science and developing technology for science.
        Chairwoman Horn. Thank you. Dr. Sykes?
        Dr. Sykes. Similarly, I think that we need to pay attention
    to the decadal recommendations of the--of having a balanced
    portfolio. Too much is often--attention is placed to the most
    expensive flagship missions which have the most cost
    volatility, and then we tend to lose the Discovery missions,
    the New Frontiers, the competed missions, which are cost-
    capped.
        So there's a recommended cadence for these smaller
    missions. I think that needs to have more attention paid to it,
    and likewise, the smallest programs, the research and data
    analysis programs, need to be adequately--perhaps better than
    adequately funded because this is the foundation of our U.S.
    solar system exploration program.
        Chairwoman Horn. Thank you. Dr. Zurbuchen, Administrator
    Bridenstine has stated publicly that he doesn't intend to
    redirect funds from other programs such as science to pay for
    the Moon initiative. However, as noted by Chairwoman Johnson,
    the Administration's budget amendment that was sent to Congress
    would, and I quote--and Dr. Sykes expressed concern about this
    as well--``authorize the National Aeronautics and Space
    Administrator to transfer funds between appropriations accounts
    in the event that the Administrator determines the transfers
    are necessary in support of establishment of the U.S. strategic
    presence on the Moon.''
        In addition to a recent article in Ars Technica, it quotes
    a NASA official as stating, ``I don't think we're going to be
    able to get the entire budget as new money. We're going to have
    to look for some efficiencies and make some cuts internal to
    the agency, and that's where it's going to be hard.''
        Dr. Zurbuchen, are you currently planning or engaged in
    planning for scenarios for current or future cuts, delays, or
    deferrals or reductions in scope to Science Mission Directorate
    programs or missions for FY 2021 and beyond to fund the Moon-
    Mars 2024 program?
        Dr. Zurbuchen. Our budget process for FY 2021 has just
    started, and I have not been directly engaged in any scenario
    planning with a massive downside to the science program.
        Chairwoman Horn. OK. Thank you. If you were to have to look
    at those cuts, what would the potential for those cuts mean for
    the science programs and the balance within the science
    programs?
        Dr. Zurbuchen. The way I have implemented every cut, also
    every upper, relative to a budget that I had before, is that I,
    and our team--and the Administrator has been very supportive in
    public as well as, you know, in our own meetings--we use the
    decadals to accommodate both uppers and cuts relative to that.
    That will mean, for example, that we actually protect the R&A
    programs with the highest priority, for example, in planetary,
    as in heliophysics. It would mean that we protect P.I.-class
    missions kind of over others and so forth.
        That of course always comes with an asterisk. For example,
    when you have a launch window of a mission next year, it is
    unreasonable through the eyes of a taxpayer to take money out
    of that mission. It's much better to launch it instead of
    spending a half-a-billion dollars after the fact because of the
    fact that you moved some money out, $50 million or something.
    So it's with that caveat that we're using the decadal guidance.
        Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Dr. Zurbuchen. I have more, but
    I'll save it for the next round. I see my time is up. Ranking
    Member.
        Mr. Babin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Dr. Zurbuchen, NASA recently awarded contracts to three
    companies as part of the commercial lunar payload services that
    will deliver landers to the Moon's surface. A condition of the
    procurement stipulates that awardees must be U.S. companies.
    One of the companies that won a contract features a design team
    from India that competed in the Google Lunar XPRIZE. A recent
    article by Quartz was titled, ``America's First Private Moon
    Lander Will Be Engineered in India.''
        While this partnership appears to comply with NASA
    solicitation, the optics obviously are not good. Can you assure
    the U.S. taxpayer that we aren't simply outsourcing space
    exploration when we have companies designing lunar landers
    right here in America?
        Dr. Zurbuchen. Thank you for that question. Of course, you
    recognize that there's three selections we made, including two
    where such questions did not come up. The one that you're
    talking about, this particular company, before we spend any
    dollars on it, has to undergo a full review of the very
    question you're asking. We already told them; we actually
    reviewed it at the beginning and we want to use the very same
    rules that we're using for launch vehicles as well that
    basically stipulate that the majority of all of the
    manufacturing and design of this particular lander has to be
    done in the U.S. We're going to go through one more review, an
    in-depth review to ensure that very fact.
        Mr. Babin. OK. Thank you. And, Dr. Sykes, we often hear
    that NASA should have a balanced science portfolio. However,
    other agencies like NOAA fund Earth-science activities. The NSF
    (National Science Foundation) funds astronomy, and NOAA and the
    Department of Defense fund heliophysics. How important is NASA
    funding to the planetary science community, and are there other
    significant sources of funding for planetary science other than
    NASA?
        Dr. Sykes. Mr. Ranking Member, yes, that's a very important
    question. The planetary science community kind of stands out
    from these other communities because planetary science in the
    modern age is the creation of NASA. Astronomy was around for
    hundreds of years and is deeply embedded in universities.
    Heliophysics has communication concerns about space weather.
    There's industry and large industries associated with the
    important areas of Earth science.
        Planetary really has NASA as its sole customer, and so NASA
    funding for our space exploration enterprise is basically the
    only market in town, and so the stability of that funding and--
    is critical for maintaining our ability to engage in that
    activity into the future.
        Mr. Babin. OK. And then, Dr. Zurbuchen, one more time, I
    represent Johnson Space Center, home of the Astromaterials
    Acquisition and Curation Office that documents, preserves, and
    prepares samples from the Moon, asteroids, comets, solar wind,
    and Mars. Is this office prepared to receive new lunar samples
    from future missions, or would additional resources be
    necessary to fully study these very important artifacts?
        Dr. Zurbuchen. We are currently actually kicking off an
    analysis of that very question. See, there are samples that
    will come back with two characteristics we have not had before.
    Our first type of sample, especially from the southern areas of
    the Moon or the polar areas of the Moon I should say, because
    the north also has them----
        Mr. Babin. Right.
        Dr. Zurbuchen [continuing]. Are cold samples, so cryo-type
    of samples that we want to bring back and hold there. Those are
    samples the likes of which we have not had before. The second
    type of sample that we're thinking about is coming back from
    areas where we want to analyze biology potential or at least
    the transition of chemistry to biology. In both cases we
    believe there's additional investments required, and we want to
    work with the Center to that. I already informed the Senate
    Director that that will occur.
        Mr. Babin. OK. And last, Dr. Sykes again, NASA plans on
    leveraging public-private partnerships to explore the Moon.
    They've also stated that they will take a more commercial
    approach. What customer other than NASA do you see on the
    horizon that would make this commercial?
        Dr. Sykes. Well, everything's commercial at the end,
    Congressman. I think that's this is a new path for developing
    new vendors for the government. We've had the innovations by
    SpaceX and other companies that have developed rockets outside
    of the normal process and given us some great products that we
    could purchase. But at the moment the only customer that I
    see--and I can be wrong--for what's being done right now under
    the, quote, commercial thing is with the government as the
    primary customer.
        Mr. Babin. OK. Thank you, and I yield back.
        Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Ranking Member Babin.
        The Chair recognizes Chairwoman Johnson for 5 minutes.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
        Dr. Spergel, in your written statement, you noted the
    impressive work of other nations in pursuing missions to study
    dark energy, one of the highest priority questions about the
    nature of the universe. Could you elaborate on your comment?
    And do you have any concerns regarding the state of the U.S.
    astrophysics or science in general as compared to other
    nations?
        Dr. Spergel. Well, there are two important missions. One is
    the European Space Agency's Euclid mission. Now, this falls in
    the category of something we've done a lot of, which is working
    together with the Europeans. We're a partner in the Euclid
    mission and are providing key components, and American
    scientists will participate in the Euclid work. And we've been
    designing the WFIRST mission to be complementary to the Euclid
    mission to carry out a science program that goes beyond Euclid
    and also complements it.
        Perhaps of more concern is the Chinese space program. The
    Chinese are building a 2-meter optical telescope that will fly
    on their space station and are flying a large camera with that.
    Like us with WFIRST, they are taking advantage of technologies
    developed by their defense industries. And in one hand I think
    it's very good to see the Chinese starting to play a role in
    fundamental science. On the other hand, I think it's concerning
    that we might end up yielding leadership in an area where--you
    know, dark energy is something that was discovered by American
    scientists, and a lot of important work is being done here--to
    China.
        And I see the Chinese universities trying to attract really
    outstanding people from the United States. I see them making
    big investments, and I think it's important that we maintain
    our leadership in science and technology, and I think that's
    why--one of the reasons why it's important that we continue to
    invest and push forward with projects like the WFIRST mission.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Any other comments from the
    other panelists?
        Dr. Sykes. Congresswoman, I think that one thing we also
    need to keep in mind is that, yes, China is coming up, and
    they're becoming involved in all areas of space exploration.
    Their Chang'e missions have been very impressive, and what
    they're planning for the future will also be. But we need to be
    a leader not because we want to stay ahead of the other guy and
    let the other guy define the directions that we go in just to
    keep ahead, but we do it because it's good for our self, it's
    good for our economy, it's good for our society to continue to
    invest in these broad range across Earth science and
    astrophysics and heliophysics and planetary science to
    understand the world that we live in and to--you know, because
    as we pull back from that, you know, as evidenced by like
    trying to cut back on science team support for missions and
    things like that to--kind of nickel-and-diming things down, not
    that I'm advocating just throwing money at things, but to
    really be making solid investments in these areas, you know,
    that we will fall behind, and other nations will push ahead.
    You know, and they're not doing it to just get ahead of us.
    They're doing it for their own purposes, and we should be
    likewise deciding what our purposes are and pursuing them
    vigorously.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Yes?
        Dr. Gentemann. I'd also like to add that in Earth science
    there's a similar situation which is the Chinese have a very
    robust Earth-observing satellite program, which is in contrast
    to our program where we're considering reducing the Program of
    Record and not following the decadal survey guidelines to do
    the essential and high-priority observations. China is
    launching Earth-observing satellite after Earth-observing
    satellite and working with Europe to establish leadership. And
    I would like--I hope that the U.S. continues our investment in
    Earth science so that we can remain a global leader in this
    area for--and it's for our societal benefit.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you.
        Dr. Sykes. Congresswoman, if I can make one more comment, I
    don't see China as a threat. I see them as a potential partner
    in a lot of these areas, a partner for advancing what we want
    to do. And so I think it's a mistake to look at them as a
    bogeyman.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Yes?
        Dr. Zurbuchen. I think the discussion that we're having
    here is a complicated discussion because both aspects are
    relevant. So, first of all, we are the leaders, and you should
    not have somebody else in my job if you would expect something
    other than me to say I worry about remaining the leader and I
    want to be ahead, actually moving forward faster than the ones
    who come behind us.
        At the same time, I do believe one of the most important
    elements of science is the ability of nations to come together
    and work on problems that transcend boundaries or even
    political kind of boundaries that separate them from each
    other. Over a long time, it's those kind of activities that
    have brought us together as humans and have made us better
    overall. And I do hope, as we go forward and learn about these
    other countries, whatever it might be, whether it's China,
    whether it's Russia, whether it's other countries, that we get
    better at this because we sure want them to work on public
    science using the policy that we have pioneered where all data
    are out there for the entire science community to use
    worldwide.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. My time is
    expired.
        Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Chairwoman. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Brooks for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Brooks. Dr. Zurbuchen, these questions and comments
    will be primarily for you. I'm looking at your written
    testimony to this Subcommittee, and it states, quote, ``We are
    building for the long-term, and this time we're going to the
    Moon to stay,'' end quote. Later on, it says NASA, quote,
    ``looks to land humans on the Moon within five years,'' end
    quote.
        After describing the Artemis 1 and Artemis 2 missions, you
    go on to say, quote, ``Then the Artemis 3 mission will send the
    first crew to the lunar surface using commercial human landing
    services that depart from the Gateway outpost orbiting the
    Moon,'' end quote.
        So, at a minimum, we've got Artemis 1, Artemis 2, Artemis
    3, the Gateway outpost that has to be designed, built, launched
    into lunar orbit. What's the total additional amount of money
    NASA needs in order to accomplish this landing on the Moon with
    humans by 2024?
        Dr. Zurbuchen. That's a question that we're grappling with
    as we go forward and do the analysis. We already submitted for
    FY 2020, the incremental, you know, request at $1.6 billion for
    that year. The increments for 2021 and beyond will be part of
    the next budget proposal as we go forward. It's a question that
    we are currently working with, and of course my parts of that
    are the science parts, which are well-defined and I can talk
    about in much more detail.
        Mr. Brooks. Well, I'm on an authorization committee.
    Obviously, this is Space Subcommittee-related. And for us in
    Congress to be able to grapple with these things, we need some
    idea of how much cost is expected to be incurred over the next
    five years. Are you telling me that, yeah, we've got the $1.6
    billion more or less for FY 2020 but we have no idea whatsoever
    what the next four years' cost will be in order to accomplish
    this human landing by 2024?
        Dr. Zurbuchen. We're in the process of working through that
    right now and----
        Mr. Brooks. I understand you're in the process, but do you
    have any idea as to what the cost ranges may be, minimal to
    high, so far in this process, or do we literally have no idea
    what we're getting into when we talk about Artemis 1, Artemis
    2, Artemis 3, and Gateway?
        Dr. Zurbuchen. I--I'm not at this moment in time able to
    talk about all the elements of that, and especially in a
    directorate where most of the funding is incurred, which is not
    the Science Mission Directorate that I'm working on.
        Mr. Brooks Let me ask the same question but with respect to
    2028, by which time we're supposed to have a sustainable Moon
    surface operation. Do you have any idea as to how much
    additional money NASA is going to need in order for us to have
    a permanent human presence on the south pole of the Moon by
    2028, any idea?
        Dr. Zurbuchen. The budget proposal that you have in front
    of you in 2020 had----
        Mr. Brooks. I'm talking not just that one year. I get the
    one year. But it's more than one year, and we've got to budget
    and plan. Do you have any range of numbers that you can share
    with us and the American people about what we're getting into
    when we try to put this outpost on the Moon?
        Dr. Zurbuchen. At this moment in time I don't have a range
    of numbers that I can share.
        Mr. Brooks. All right. Let's talk about the Gateway outpost
    for a moment. Can you please describe what that is in a way
    that helps American taxpayers understand what they're paying
    for in terms of size or weight or rooms or how it might compare
    to the International Space Station, something that gives
    American taxpayers a reference point as to what this Gateway
    that's going to be circling the Moon on a permanent basis looks
    like?
        Dr. Zurbuchen. The Gateway also is of course funded out of
    the Human Directorate, not out of our directorate but is--the
    way I think of it is like an outpost we have as a high-altitude
    camp next to a mountain. I'm from the mountains, you know. You
    go out there, it's a small, very simple----
        Mr. Brooks. OK.
        Dr. Zurbuchen [continuing]. Place for----
        Mr. Brooks. What does small mean? When you say small, is
    that a one-room vehicle that's orbiting the Moon----
        Dr. Zurbuchen. Perhaps it's a two-room vehicle or, you
    know, small relative to the size of number of people involved.
    It is simple at this moment in time to enable the early goal of
    2024----
        Mr. Brooks. I understand the purpose of it. Let me go to my
    last question. With reference to the Gateway, you talk about
    solar electric propulsion. What is that?
        Dr. Zurbuchen. Solar electric propulsion is a way of
    accelerating objects--spacecraft around. We use it in science.
    In this case it will be used for Gateway. It basically loads
    up--we bring a gas with us such as, you know, a noble gas or,
    you know, at that--cesium or something else that basically sits
    there, and we use an electric voltage that we get from--the
    power of which we get from the sun to accelerate those
    particles out the back and therefore propel us forward.
        Mr. Brooks. Well, thank you Dr. Zurbuchen, for your answer
    to my questions as best you're able. For what it's worth, no
    other representative of NASA has been able to tell us what this
    cost might be either.
        Dr. Zurbuchen. Thanks.
        Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Mr. Brooks.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Bera for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Bera. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        So I understand Mr. Brooks' line of questioning is--you
    know, if we're thinking about multi-year and potentially multi-
    decadal missions, to have some sense of what that sequence
    looks like. When I think about it in the context of the Apollo
    mission, you know, I think there was a sense--a goal that
    didn't span one Administration but went from one Administration
    to the next and gave some certainty to NASA what that ultimate
    goal was.
        I've heard each of you talk about the importance of the
    decadal survey of--kind of an objective process that is
    scientific, not politically based and then really kind of rank
    orders it. And each of you has emphasized the importance of
    once this survey is out there, to really try to, as best as
    possible, adhere to the recommendations in the survey because,
    again, when you're talking about science and you're talking
    about doing things that you may not have done before, there has
    to be a longer-term commitment.
        Maybe, Dr. Gentemann, if you want to just describe, you
    know, briefly what the decadal survey process looks like and
    why it is so important.
        Dr. Gentemann. Thank you. The decadal survey process starts
    with the Academies issuing one or two maybe RFIs, requests for
    information, from the community to one or both of those white
    papers. Often, you know, you have a specific word limit. Those
    white papers are generated--I think for the Earth science
    decadal there were 290. Some of these were written by one or
    two authors. Others were written by hundreds. So you end up
    having the opinion, a consensus opinion of multiple communities
    within the Earth science.
        Those white papers are then given to subcommittees who
    distill them down. For the Earth science they were distilled
    to, I believe, 130 science questions that were seen as
    important by the community. Those 130 science questions were
    distilled to 35 observables. Those were then prioritized and
    ranked so that there could be--if one observable maybe
    addressed multiple scientific questions, you would prioritize
    that higher. This was a very difficult and thoughtful process,
    which is why the community stands behind it so strongly. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Bera. And, Dr. Sykes, what's the downside of not trying
    to adhere to the decadal survey recommendations?
        Dr. Sykes. Well, then it's just kind of random in terms of
    what happens. And our development becomes more constrained by
    political considerations than science considerations. So it's a
    way of coming together. The value of the decadal is it's
    supposed represent a consensus of the community. It's a process
    that could be improved. I know the Academy has its limits. If
    it was up to me--and I was involved in the first Planetary
    Decadal Survey--I would allow public comment on the committee
    reports and the steering committee report before things are
    finalized, but----
        Mr. Bera. So it's not a perfect process, but it is----
        Dr. Sykes. But it is----
        Mr. Bera [continuing]. A very good process?
        Dr. Sykes. Yes, it's a good process. We started to solicit
    white papers from the community back 20 years ago. The
    astronomers were very jealous of that because they would like
    to have the individual input. And getting that community input
    is, I think, essential.
        Mr. Bera. And it's something that, you know--that we as
    Members of Congress with oversight should pay attention to and
    help guide us in our authorizing process, as well as kind of
    the appropriations process.
        Dr. Sykes. If I could make one comment, Congressman, but
    often we're too distracted by the bright shiny objects. The
    largest projects recommended by the decadals, on the planetary
    side at least, it's the recommendation for the largest mission.
    It's not the top recommendation of the survey, and we need to
    pay attention to the little stuff, too.
        Mr. Bera. Right. So in the decadal survey are they ranking
    order of what programs and objectives we should--they don't
    always rank order the big shiny objects first, though----
        Dr. Sykes. Oh, yes.
        Mr. Bera [continuing]. They do rank order.
        Dr. Sykes. Yes. In planetary----
        Mr. Bera. So----
        Dr. Sykes [continuing]. They do. It's the recommendations
    for the largest missions, what kind of medium missions should
    be pursued----
        Mr. Bera. So this is when we're authorizing and we're
    thinking about the budget, we should sit down with the NASA
    administrators, scientists, et cetera, and make some of those
    tradeoffs, taking small programs as well as large programs into
    account.
        I'm about out of time, so I will actually yield back.
        Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Mr. Bera.
        The Chair recognizes Mr. Olson for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Olson. I thank the Chair, and a big Texas welcome to
    our four expert witnesses.
        I want to talk about going back to the Moon. I had the
    honor to spend a whole day with the most recent American to
    walk on the Moon, Captain Gene Cernan. He was back home in
    Texas 22 for a better part of a day to just drive around and
    talk to kids about getting excited about NASA and space. Our
    discussions were overshadowed by the Obama Administration's
    cancellation of the Constellation project, the one that was
    supposed to take us back to the Moon under George W. Bush. That
    was sort of shading the whole environment down there.
        But Captain Cernan was very adamant about going to the
    Moon. He said that's the best place to go to prepare for going
    to Mars. He's pointed out that we've only spent 300 hours on
    the Moon, a little over a week, 12 Americans, not a whole lot
    of presence, six places we actually landed upon. We've missed a
    lot of the whole Moon. He also said we don't know what we don't
    know about the Moon. He pointed out, for example, that about 37
    years after he walked on the Moon, we found out, hey, there's
    water on the Moon in those craters. And as you guys know, going
    to Mars or going in deep space, we have to have water for human
    beings to survive. So that's great progress.
        My question is for you, Dr. Zurbuchen. You mentioned we can
    discover things on the Moon to help us go to Mars. As I
    mentioned, Captain Cernan agrees with you. Can you go further
    in detail on this topic? How can we help us learn more about
    the Moon that gets us to Mars quickly?
        Dr. Zurbuchen. That's a really important question that
    you're asking, a question worth thinking about both from the
    science side but also from the human and technological side.
    There's a fundamental difference about being in low-Earth orbit
    and being away from Earth, and that has to do with the
    radiation environment that's out there. The radiation
    environment, of course, is much less in low-Earth orbit because
    of the fact that we have a magnetic field that kind of pulls
    away, directs away particles that are coming from deep space.
    That radiation environment, living in that environment for a
    longer duration is something that is existential to go to Mars
    but is something that we're going to learn being near the Moon
    on the surface of the Moon for a long time. We want to learn
    about resources like you talked about.
        Ultimately, what we want to learn is actually to live off
    the land, if you want, relative to the resources that are
    there, whether it's the water there, some resources that may
    actually lead to companies or kind of commerce in other ways.
    That is a positive thing. It's something that we should think
    about, that has guided us. We would not sit in the United
    States here, this country we love, if the people ahead of us
    did not think that way. So it's about learning how to do that,
    also developing the technologies to sustain life in deep space.
        Mr. Olson. And as you mentioned, too, having access to
    water out of our orbit is huge because with our current
    propulsion systems it takes 10 pounds of propellant to put up 1
    pound of water into orbit, so that means you have to have a
    huge rocket pulling all that water out of Earth going through
    our atmosphere. If it's there on the Moon, it's there for the
    taking, and I think that's something we should push. And
    getting there in five years is very, very doable if we make a
    commitment.
        Another question for you, Doctor, is about the presence in
    this budget request for science. It's a decrease from the FY
    2019 appropriations but still the highest ever proposed by an
    Administration. It's increased again. The President added an
    amendment there. He put on another $90 million. What does NASA
    plan on doing with that extra $90 million, and how does that
    differ from the existing commercial lunar payload services
    initiative?
        Dr. Zurbuchen. I'm really glad for the question because it
    relates directly to what we just discussed. What we seek to do
    ahead of a human landing is actually bring robotic mobility, so
    a rover to the south areas, the polar areas of the Moon and
    actually look for water and the state it's in just in a way, as
    Dr. Sykes talked about in his testimony. That's what the
    additional $90 million allows us today, to buy that service to
    go over and accelerate going there ahead of humans going to
    that very region.
        Mr. Olson. I have a few more questions but not much time,
    so I'll yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairwoman Horn. Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes
    Ms. Wexton for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Madam Chair, for yielding. And thank
    you to the witnesses for coming to testify today.
        I am from Virginia where we have two incredible NASA
    facilities at Langley and Wallops Island. They both play
    important roles in many of NASA's scientific missions from
    launching CubeSats designed and built by Virginia students to
    testing key components of the Europa Clipper. So we know
    firsthand how NASA science missions increase our understanding
    of our solar system, deep space, and our own planet.
        Dr. Gentemann, you wrote in your prepared testimony that
    the PACE and CLARREO Pathfinder missions proposed for
    cancellation in the Administration's FY 2020 budget request are
    considered part of the Program of Record for the decadal survey
    recommended--and recommended to be continued as a top priority.
    What would the impact be to our scientific understanding of the
    Earth and its changing climate if these two missions were
    canceled?
        Dr. Gentemann. Thank you, Ms. Wexton. So the PACE mission
    is the Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, ocean Ecosystem. It's a
    critical mission for quantifying the role of the ocean
    ecosystem and the global carbon cycle. When it's launched, it
    will give us unprecedented insight into the Earth's ocean and
    atmosphere, and collecting data on these systems is critical to
    understanding their effects on climate and Earth's
    habitability.
        The instruments on PACE will allow for more detailed
    understanding of carbon uptake by the various phytoplankton
    species, and this is sort of the crux of it. This data will
    allow scientists and policymakers to be in a stronger position
    when prioritizing climate change mitigation strategies.
        The CLARREO Pathfinder mission is designed to demonstrate
    in-space satellite intercalibration, and I've been involved in
    satellite calibration for over 20 years, and having this
    capability is just incredibly exciting to me as a scientist.
    It's essential to provide accurate well-characterized data. And
    it will provide the ability to intercalibrate instruments in
    space at accuracies 5 to 10 times beyond current capabilities.
        These are both part of the assumed baseline Program of
    Record, and the Program--the decadal survey, all of these
    observations from these missions are interwoven into what sort
    of societal benefits we can expect by following this
    recommended guideline and including new missions so that it's
    all built on each other. Thank you.
        Ms. Wexton. Thank you very much. So I served in the State
    legislature in Virginia before I came to Congress, and one of
    the things that we have--it's kind of unique in Virginia is we
    have a 1-term Governor. And, as a result, we've got 4 years
    when one thing might be a priority for that Governor, and then
    another Governor comes in 4 years later and changes the
    priorities. So it had been cybersecurity, and now it's high-
    tech manufacturing or whatever it may be.
        So seeing this decadal survey that is peer-reviewed and,
    you know, scientifically based is very encouraging to me rather
    than have, you know, the politics or the--you know, what a
    current administration may want to be focusing on be the focus.
        But, Dr. Sykes, you testified that there were some
    shortcomings in the way that this program is administered and
    the issues with transparency and competition. Can you elaborate
    on that a little bit more?
        Dr. Sykes. Well, yes, I believe competition is key,
    particularly in our research data analysis programs that we
    need to make sure where the money is going, to what parties,
    and so there's some open questions about that.
        One of the main things which has come up over the last, you
    know, 6 years or so has been the hiding of costs of proposals
    from reviewers. I mean, this was something that, for the
    decades that I've been in the community and serving on panels
    and stuff, was a regular thing of being asked, well, is this
    good--is this a cost-effective proposal or, gee, this proposal
    is 3 times as much as 3 lower-ranked proposals. But what's the
    value of those 3 proposals taken together? That's not something
    a program officer can really answer.
        I had an interesting--and I don't want to waste your time--
    experience where a proposer--top-ranked proposal wanted all the
    money of the program.
        Ms. Wexton. Imagine that.
        Dr. Sykes. So we dealt with that. But--so making this
    information available, being transparent about costs, and also
    in terms of compliance with the decadal, just being open about
    what budgets are actually being spent. As you see in my
    testimony, there are some pretty interesting variations in
    terms of--in the planetary side what was considered research
    and analysis programs from 1 month to the next.
        Ms. Wexton. OK. Thank you very much, and I yield back.
        Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Ms. Wexton.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Posey for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Posey. Thank you, Madam Chair. When you talk to people
    who aren't familiar with history and you mention the importance
    of our space program to the survival of our species, you get
    some chuckles and you even get some harassment. A lot of that
    diminished somewhat when we had that relatively small asteroid
    implode over Russia 1,000 miles from the nearest living person
    and injured 1,000 to 1,500 people. It did wake up some people
    to the possibilities.
        The Planetary Science Division of the Space Mission
    Directorate is responsible for the Planetary Defense
    Coordination Office, which searches for, characterizes,
    catalogs near-Earth objects that could collide with the Earth.
    NASA established the Planetary Defense Coordination Office in
    2016 in response to the NASA Inspector General's report. And
    the Trump Administration is calling for significant increase in
    near-Earth orbit funding.
        Congress asked NASA to identify 90 percent of all hazardous
    near-Earth objects by 2020. NASA recently provided us a report
    that indicated they're not able to reach the goal in that time
    period but that the National Science Foundation's Large
    Synoptic Survey Telescope, coupled with a space-based infrared
    mission, could accelerate the survey.
        Mr. Zurbuchen, I just wonder if you could tell me if NASA
    is now ready to go and what the time element may be.
        Dr. Zurbuchen. Thanks for the question. We're committed of
    course that--to achieve that goal. We're not going to make it
    by 2020. I should have started a few years before. Sorry, but--
    no, I mean, look, I mean, we are--what we're focusing on are
    two things. First of all, we want to use any and all assets
    that are available, whether it's from the National Science
    Foundation or from our own missions to look at the data that
    are there and include it into the very database that you're
    talking about.
        For example, the TESS mission that's out there in
    astrophysics is one of those sources that we're piping into
    that very analysis. The second one is through the increase by
    close to a factor of three of that particular budget line
    together with our team were enabled to actually do the very
    mission that you're talking about. In fact, we've started to
    invest in the technology, the sensor technology to detect those
    very cold objects. And it's our expectation to go forward with
    that mission in the next few years as a budget wedge becomes
    available in that line.
        Mr. Posey. OK. Mr. Sykes, did you want to comment on that?
    You had the largest grin when we were talking about survival of
    the species.
        Dr. Sykes. Well, we do have the technology, and with the
    moving forward of the NEOCam mission, that provides the space-
    based infrared component. The limit to Earth-based
    observatories--and I'm a telescope jockey myself--is that you
    can only observe at night. And when you can only observe at
    night, that means that you can't see much interior to the
    Earth's orbit toward the sun. And we can be hit by stuff from
    there, too. The NEOCam mission is placed at Earth-sun L1 in
    between the sun and the Earth, closer to the Earth, and it's
    scanning tens of degrees closer to the sun, so it captures well
    inside the orbit of Venus, all the objects that are moving in
    there.
        And there's an interesting thing--I'm sorry, please cut me
    off, but----
        Mr. Posey. Yes, go ahead.
        Dr. Sykes [continuing]. That, you know, for instance, those
    Chelyabinsk-sized 20-meter type objects that exploded in the
    atmosphere over Russia. Well, about 5 times as many of those
    objects are hitting us--based on detecting flashes in the
    atmosphere and infrasound--than are predicted by the asteroid
    population models from ground-based observatories.
        Why is that? Well, there is a possible answer is that you
    could have a breakup of interior--asteroid interior to the
    orbit of the Earth, and we're getting fragments from that. But
    you wouldn't pick that up in a ground-based telescope, but you
    would with NEOCam. So there's all kinds of--having this
    combination of these ground-based sources in combination with
    NEOCam is really going to put this to rest not by 2020 but, you
    know, probably within 5 years of its launch.
        Mr. Posey. The longest silence I've ever heard in this
    Committee is when the President's Chief Scientist, the NASA
    Administrator, and the Secretary of the Air Force were asked in
    one of our Committee hearings if a relatively small asteroid,
    the one that detonated over Russia, were headed for the Big
    Apple and we had a week's notice, which we wouldn't have, what
    would we do? And that's the longest silence we ever heard in
    this Committee.
        Thank you. Thank you, witnesses.
        Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Mr. Posey.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Perlmutter for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you. And, Dr. Sykes, never apologize
    for your enthusiasm. We appreciate it. We've had some
    tremendous panels lately, and I just want to thank all of you
    for being here.
        So I'm going to start with a couple softballs, and then
    we'll work it up from there. So, Dr. Zurbuchen, I understand
    you visited my alma mater last week----
        Dr. Zurbuchen. That's right.
        Mr. Perlmutter [continuing]. University of Colorado at
    Boulder, so I'm just curious what you were talking about, what
    kinds of science matters were generally discussed, and also how
    is NASA getting along with its university partners?
        And then, Dr. Spergel, I'll let you kind of follow up from
    an academic institution point of view.
        Dr. Zurbuchen. We at NASA think of the university partners
    as just that, they're partners. They're part of our mission
    without whom we cannot be successful. I therefore personally
    visit universities on a regular basis all around the country,
    and I was in Colorado talking about a variety of both missions
    that are ongoing there but also of ideas that are there that
    would make us better as we go forward.
        The University of Colorado is among universities unique in
    the sense that it's the only university I'm aware of where
    during a Saturday football game, in the middle, the ad comes on
    and talks about NASA, so I love those games.
        Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you. Dr. Spergel, how do you see the
    partnership or the relationship with NASA working between the
    institutions and the agency?
        Dr. Spergel. Thank you. Generally working well in that I
    see it working in sort of two different forms, both of which I
    think are important. For the scientific missions, we often have
    situations where some of the leadership of the missions sit at
    the universities. For example, in the IMAP project that was
    just selected, my colleague Dr. McComas at Princeton is leading
    IMAPs and working together with NASA centers. When I worked on
    the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, we worked very
    closely with our Goddard colleagues.
        And I think universities bring some flexibility, some
    innovation, perhaps most importantly really smart, eager, young
    students. And they bring a lot to projects.
        And, on the other hand, I think what NASA centers do well
    is continuity. There are long-term capabilities that sit at the
    centers, and I think we can get a balance between the two.
        To go--to echo something that Dr. Sykes talked about,
    another important role the university plays is in the research
    community. And it's the universities that train and develop
    graduate students. And one of the things that happens that we
    have to be very careful about when mission overruns, there's
    always a temptation to cut the research budget and research
    analysis budget in order to make sure that those projects go.
    When those things are cut, that eliminates, you know, graduate
    student careers----
        Mr. Perlmutter. Right.
        Dr. Sykes [continuing]. Because a lot of the funding goes
    to students. And I think educating the undergraduates and
    educating the graduate students is a really important role that
    the universities play in the whole scientific enterprise.
        Mr. Perlmutter. A couple weeks ago we had a young woman who
    was a computer scientist who was the one who knit together all
    the pictures of the blackhole at the center of our galaxy. And
    she was, you know, brilliant and excited and enthusiastic, and
    she jazzed all of us up. So it's important to have that energy,
    that enthusiasm, and that, you know, new look at things.
        So let's talk about space weather for a second. You know,
    we had a bill last cycle--it's coming back--to try to, you
    know, provide some more information about, you know, whatever
    kinds of flares, radiation, et cetera, are coming to us from
    the Sun. So can you talk a little bit, Dr. Zurbuchen, about,
    you know, what we're doing with the heliosphere and those kind
    of things?
        Dr. Zurbuchen. The space environment of the Earth, just
    like the Earth itself, is a system that has both magnetic
    forces and plasma streams that interact with us as a
    technological society. The decadal of heliophysics that is
    driving our investments talks--has a key element, a whole
    chapter dedicated to space weather. That chapter 7 basically
    tells us we should, from NASA, provide and support to our
    operational agencies and, for example, look at L1 monitors as a
    continuing kind of capability. That's something we're working
    on right now with NOAA.
        It also said that we should focus on research-to-operations
    work and also in reverse, look at how the operational data will
    help us drive more research. We started programs in both of
    those areas and are working with NOAA to do that. It also
    talked about investments in knitting together to create more
    strength and capability. It's something that we're working on
    and focused on.
        Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, and I yield back to the Chair.
        Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Mr. Perlmutter.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Waltz for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank you so
    much, witnesses, for coming today.
        So my questions today focus on the Commercial Lunar Payload
    Services, CLPS, the CLPS program, which is of course within
    NASA's Science Mission Directorate and provides commercial
    lunar landers for S&T payloads and has been described by NASA
    as the first major step to return astronauts to the Moon. So
    I'm a supporter of the program and in fact submitted an
    appropriations request to fully fund CLPS in FY 2020.
        Bottom line, the 21st century space race is on. The Moon
    will be a critical part of it. On May 31, NASA awarded
    contracts to three companies under CLPS, and one of these
    companies, Beyond Orbit Inc., has elected to locate its lunar
    lander assembly facility in my district in Volusia County, Port
    Orange, Florida, which is fantastic, something we're very
    excited about. My district is just north of the Cape. And we're
    looking at at least 50 employees coming to our communities.
        So my questions, and forgive me, Dr. Zurbuchen----
        Dr. Zurbuchen. Yes.
        Mr. Waltz. So a condition, and I know there's been some
    questions on this already, but just to clarify, a condition of
    the CLPS procurement stipulates that the awardees have to be
    U.S. companies. So, again, can you assure Florida's taxpayers
    that NASA will not outsource its space exploration and will
    continue to focus on American companies, as it has throughout
    its history?
        Dr. Zurbuchen. Absolutely. We will use the very same
    processes that we're using for launch capabilities in which we
    assure that the majority of all design manufacturing is right
    here for it to be falling under any contract that we would
    support from NASA. We actually have initiated a review of that,
    an audit of that right now before we put money into that
    particular company. We'll do so with others.
        I, for now, actually think that it's a strength of the
    United States to attract companies that might have been
    invented elsewhere and come here and hire Americans and give
    them jobs and create economic activity right here on our soil.
        Mr. Waltz. No, I completely agree, and obviously there is
    an IP issue here, there's a national security issue, there's a
    number of issues wrapped around that on top of ensuring
    taxpayers receive that return on investment. So thank you for
    that.
        You've also said, Dr. Z, and I agree with my colleagues,
    that the landers contracted through CLPS will, quote, ``bring
    us closer to solving the many scientific mysteries of our Moon,
    our solar system, and beyond, and what we learn will not only
    change our view of the universe but also prepare our human
    missions to the Moon and eventually Mars.'' Can you elaborate
    on those thoughts and explain how these lunar payloads and the
    broader science mission is preparing NASA for human missions to
    the Moon and again, then, the follow-on to Mars?
        Dr. Zurbuchen. If one looks at lunar science, what's really
    exciting about this is the Moon that we investigated during the
    Apollo program with the probes that we brought back, today is a
    very different science discipline than then. For example, even
    in the last few years, kind of a decade or so, again, the
    prevalence of water in--both on the inside of grains but also
    in--observed remotely from the Moon, it's basically reshaped
    our view of that--of our celestial companion.
        So we have those kind of questions that actually were
    mentioned in the decadal in the planetary decadal that we can
    now do because we actually don't have to buy a whole billion-
    dollar spacecraft but we have a chance of doing through this
    new methodology. There's other questions that relate to the
    absolute age of the solar system, questions that are out there
    that actually have sharpened our understanding of activity,
    geologic activity in this planet that otherwise we did not
    think about before. It's those kind of questions we want to go
    up after, driven by principal investigators through a
    competitive process and taking advantage of that capability.
        Mr. Waltz. Well, you have a supporter here, presuming we
    need to spend those moneys smartly and efficiently.
        I have Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in my district.
    If you could submit for the record how the Mission Directorate
    partners with STEM institutions like Embry-Riddle for research
    and development, I'd be very appreciative. Thank you, and I
    yield.
        Dr. Zurbuchen. Will do so.
        Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Mr. Waltz.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Beyer for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Beyer. Thank you. And, Chairwoman Horn, I really want
    to thank you for holding this hearing.
        You know, we hear so much about the Administration's
    plans--constantly changing plans--to send humans to Moon or to
    Mars. It's actually great to hear about NASA's key science
    programs.
        Dr. Spergel, in your testimony you stated that, quote,
    ``Understanding the nature of dark energy is one of the most
    compelling problems in physics, and that Europe and China are
    leading the way on this.'' Without WFIRST, would we be behind
    other nations in studying dark energy?
        Dr. Spergel. Yes, we would. I mean, now, we are partners
    with the Europeans on Euclid, but they are the leading--they're
    leading that study where we're partners there.
        I mean, one of the--WFIRST, you know, is a mission that I
    think we want to do because of the compelling science it does.
        Mr. Beyer. So tell me why--in layman's terms, why is dark
    energy compelling?
        Dr. Spergel. It's 75 percent of the universe, and we don't
    know what it is, so it's most of what's out there. It's driving
    the expansion of the universe. It will determine the universe's
    fate, whether it expands forever, whether it's torn apart by a
    big rip, whether that--it turns around and collapses. It will
    be governed by the nature of dark energy.
        Mr. Beyer. Will our research into dark energy also give us
    insight into dark matter?
        Dr. Spergel. Perhaps. We--we're in the embarrassing
    situation of not knowing what makes up 95 percent of the
    universe. We know there's dark energy; we know there's dark
    matter. One of the things--actually working right now with an
    undergraduate with--my assignment for the train ride on the way
    back is to send him some detailed notes is, does dark energy
    interact with dark matter?
        Dark matter clusters gravitationally. It behaves
    differently from the dark energy. It clusters in our galaxy so,
    you know, in this room we think there's lots of dark matter
    streaming through us. But, again, we don't know what it is.
        There are a number of different ways that NASA missions are
    going after studying dark matter. The Compton Gamma Ray
    Observatory is looking for dark matter annihilation. We are
    mapping the large-scale distribution of the dark matter right
    now with Hubble. We will be able to do that with much more
    power with WFIRST. It can image more than 100 times the area in
    each image as the Hubble does.
        Mr. Beyer. Let me jump on a WFIRST question because----
        Dr. Spergel. Yes.
        Mr. Beyer [continuing]. The President zeroed it out in his
    last couple budgets. We've put it back. You know, we like to
    say here it's the most important issue in the decadal survey
    that's been ignored by this Administration. But in casual
    conversations, you know, the cocktail-party conversations with
    NASA scientists, they say the other side of that is that by
    turning over $510 million or some billions of dollars to the
    outside government contractors, we're squeezing out the other
    essential science that needs to be done within NASA.
        Dr. Spergel. Well, I think it's important that NASA
    maintain a balanced program, right? So you don't--we don't want
    to see WFIRST funded at the expense of severe cuts in the
    research program. This is why--and I think the--I would applaud
    the budget that's been--you know, come out of the
    Appropriations Committee here in the House this year that
    provide support in astrophysics both for research and analysis
    and for the WFIRST mission. And that goes beyond what was
    requested by the President's budget.
        Mr. Beyer. Yes, thank you. Dr. Z, there's an article
    published 4 days ago in Scientific American that stated--and
    let me quote again--``The White House is considering whether to
    require scientists from NOAA, NASA, or other agencies to
    participate in the review, and the review being the program run
    through the National Security Council portrayed as a
    `correction' to the National Climate Assessment according to
    sources involved in the planning.'' The article notes that Dr.
    Gavin Schmidt, a scientist at Goddard Institute for Space
    Studies was identified by the White House as a possible
    participant.
        Are NASA scientists going to be required to debate the
    credibility of the National Climate Assessment? And how does
    NASA feel about its scientists being dragged into the climate
    skeptics at the White House?
        Dr. Zurbuchen. And so, just like you, I've read the article
    in the press. I have personally not been engaged in any of the
    detailed discussions on that very issue. I would have to take
    additional information that you might want to know about this
    for the record.
        Generally speaking, I believe that the science that we're
    doing, whether it's in this question or any other question, has
    the same kind of rules and that is it's perfectly fine to ask
    questions. We want to use the scientific method to answer those
    questions. And I have every belief that, no matter what the
    discussion is, that our scientists, whether at universities or
    within the government, would know how to handle this and other
    questions.
        Mr. Beyer. Yes. And I certainly heartily agree that it's
    perfectly right to ask the questions, but you do have the
    concern when they say that being part of this could actually
    damage their careers, you know, by giving them the taint that
    they're part of something that is anti-scientific.
        Dr. Zurbuchen. I just want to say that it will be a shame
    if the science community would turn on people who are asked to
    serve their government in whatever form to help in a discussion
    and do what scientists do. And if somebody said we can no
    longer talk to you, it would be a shame if the science
    community behaved that way.
        Mr. Beyer. All right. Great. Thank you very much. Madam
    Chair, I yield back.
        Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Mr. Beyer. And thank you,
    witnesses.
        The Ranking Member and I have a couple of additional
    questions, and then we will wrap this up. There were just a
    couple of things that we haven't quite touched on yet, and I
    want to say thank you to all of you. You've been very engaging
    and have been very helpful witnesses.
        So, Dr. Spergel, I wanted to ask you about life and
    physical sciences. Right now, we know at--you're the former
    Chair of the Space Studies Board, and so you've looked across
    NASA's activities. And given that this science helps us
    understand how microgravity, how space environments impact
    human physiology and physical systems and then this research is
    helping inform our space exploration, that right now, this is
    under the Human Space Exploration Operations Mission
    Directorate, which is absolutely understandable.
        What I'd like to hear is your views on how effective this
    placement of life and physical sciences is under the human
    exploration mission and in enabling our scientific progress and
    if you foresee any need for any potential changes moving
    forward in the placement.
        Dr. Spergel. There's very good science going on in life and
    physical sciences. That said, I'm sometimes concerned that the
    Earth--the Exploration Directorate does not have the culture of
    scientific review that SMD has. I think one of the real
    strengths of the SMD is whether you're looking at big mission
    proposals or a small research grant, everything is evaluated by
    peer review and most everything is competed, and I think that's
    very important.
        I think for physical and life sciences it's not--doesn't
    matter so much whether it sits in exploration or sits in SMD. I
    think the argument for sitting in SMD is it's doing science.
    The argument for sitting in exploration is that it informs
    particularly the life science aspects of the exploration
    mission. I think what is important is that it operate under the
    principles of competition and peer review.
        Chairwoman Horn. Thank you very much. And I want to turn
    our attention now--several of you have addressed the issue of
    graduate students filling the pipeline and so, Dr. Z, the GAO
    (Government Accountability Office) and the NASA Inspector
    General have both identified challenges with workforce
    shortages related to our science missions. And clearly, that is
    an issue moving forward as we delve into this.
        So I'd like to hear what are NASA's biggest challenges to
    sufficiently staff NASA science missions and your insight in
    the most efficient or effective ways to address those?
        Dr. Zurbuchen. The IG report that you're referring to is
    specifically focused on Europa Clipper, and this has been with
    me for the year, so it was no surprise whatsoever. I'm focused
    on it. The issue there is that we're right now finishing off
    the Mars 2020 lander, and frankly, the top talent is working on
    that pushing it over the finish line.
        I visited the group last week and actually had a review of
    that work yesterday. The good news is we're on track and we're
    making a lot of progress. The bad news is some of the people
    that we were going to put on the next mission were working,
    finishing off Mars 2020. That has to be the highest priority.
        So we will take the recommendations, as provided by the IG,
    look at the schedule of what we're doing and going back. What I
    don't want to do is increase necessarily the Center size. What
    I want to do is think about how we distribute the work and how
    we in fact space strategic-scale missions relative to each
    other to make sure that we don't step on each other's feet.
        The other thing that I've talked to the Director about is
    really focusing on mentorship of that next-generation leader
    that is out there. I strongly believe that the most important
    predictor for our leadership 10, 20 years from now is the
    talent that we're attracting and growing right now in our
    organizations. So I've focused on that as a second priority.
        Chairwoman Horn. Thank you. Would any of the other
    witnesses like to comment on that last question?
        Dr. Sykes. Well, I believe what Dr. Zurbuchen was referring
    to is operational personnel, but when it comes to the science
    team, that's another issue because the Mars scientists are not
    the people that are working on the Europa mission. And there
    seems to be some kind of consistent over the years scaling down
    of science team population and support and relying more on some
    of the research programs to try to pick up the slack for
    analyzing the data. And of course research programs can't do
    that in real time, which is what missions, you know, need. So
    that's another issue.
        And as far as the young people are concerned, it's--I think
    we--it doesn't help young people to be pushed in the profession
    if there's no--you know, early career if there's no midcareer,
    so we need to be looking at that as well.
        Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Dr. Sykes.
        Dr. Spergel, did you have----
        Dr. Spergel. Yes, I just want to comment that I--one piece
    of this problem is the changing enforcement of our immigration
    laws, that we attract outstanding scientists from throughout
    the world to study here, and many of the best want to stay
    here. And I think it's important that we remain open to these
    outstanding scientists who want to remain here.
        Chairwoman Horn. Thank you. Dr. Gentemann?
        Dr. Gentemann. I'd also like to emphasize I think we're at
    a--the--attracting new talent, we're right at the cusp of this
    very exciting time in science where how science is being done
    is being reorganized. Within cloud computing and within open-
    source software, suddenly the types of questions that you can
    ask are completely different because you've sort of put aside a
    lot of the data wrangling and you can handle the information
    that you have very differently.
        And being able to attract very exciting cutting-edge young
    scientists means that we also have to evolve as scientists in
    how we do science so that we can attract them and let them know
    that, you know, interdisciplinary science and open-source
    software will help them build their careers. And I think it's a
    very exciting time for science, and I think that we have a good
    chance of attracting these young technologically capable
    people. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Horn. Thank you very much. Mr. Babin?
        Mr. Babin. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a couple of
    questions.
        Dr. Zurbuchen, NASA is increasingly leveraging novel ways
    to acquire science data such as data buys, hosted payloads,
    ride shares, and CubeSats. Can you speak to the progress that
    NASA has made on this front?
        Dr. Zurbuchen. I really appreciate that question. We look
    at commercial opportunities like that as opportunities to get
    more science per dollar. That's the motivator for us. Instead
    of building a whole spacecraft, we can take data that a
    commercial entity might acquire for other market needs and
    make----
        Mr. Babin. Right.
        Dr. Zurbuchen [continuing]. That data available to the
    public. We have at this moment in time--besides the commercial
    lunar initiative we already talked about--a handful of other
    programs in play in which we're experimenting and learning
    about that, the most important of which in my opinion is the
    one focused on the data of our planet. We're in the middle of a
    year-long trial period. Frankly, what we're trying to learn is
    how to price in the market what we should pay for data. And
    that's a really important thing because on the one hand we want
    to spend--of course support our own U.S. companies. On the
    other hand, we also are deeply aware that we're spending
    taxpayers' money. So we're trying to figure out how to find
    that right price point. That's exactly what we're learning
    right now. There's other experiments just like it.
        Mr. Babin. OK. Well said. Also, the budget request proposes
    launching the Europa Clipper on a commercial launch vehicle
    despite appropriations laws that require the mission to be
    launched on an SLS (Space Launch System) to decrease the
    transit time and maximize the science conducted around Europa.
    How will the mission science be impacted by this particular
    decision?
        Dr. Zurbuchen. If we launch on a commercial launch vehicle
    that could currently be available, it would add between 3 to 5
    years or so of transit time depending on how we go there. That
    would have, of course, cost relative to the overall science
    team because we don't want to fire every scientist and then
    somehow hope we can hire them back.
        Mr. Babin. Right.
        Dr. Zurbuchen. We need to keep essential teams there. It
    would of course require some resilience, and depending on where
    we fly by--for example, there's orbits where we would fly by
    Venus. Venus is a hot planet, so we have to do a different
    thermal design as we fly by there, so it's important to us to
    figure out which way we're going to go as we go forward. Of
    course, we will follow the law.
        Mr. Babin. You bet. You know what, I've got one more I want
    to ask if you don't mind.
        Chairwoman Horn. Of course.
        Mr. Babin. Dr. Sykes, sometimes missions are delivered
    under cost. In order to incentivize cost-effective development
    of principle investigator-led missions, and this is to you as
    well, Dr. Zurbuchen, should NASA explore the possibility of
    allowing the principal investigator to use funding saved on
    development for research and analysis activities? If both of
    you gentlemen would like to answer that.
        Dr. Sykes. Well, I think that in the context of the cost-
    capped missions that we don't want people to be busting the
    budget by borrowing from, you know, Peter to pay Paul here.
        Mr. Babin. Exactly.
        Dr. Sykes. And I think that--and we don't do accounting
    across, you know, many years, you know, on these missions, so I
    don't know if that would be workable. So I----
        Mr. Babin. OK. Dr. Zurbuchen?
        Dr. Zurbuchen. So, generally speaking, even though we have
    not made it a policy, what we have done to incentivize people
    under running their budget is by enhancing in some ways
    sometimes one-to-one their research programs. So many of the
    researchers frankly, what motivates them for a given mission, a
    P.I.-class mission, is that they want to do science, the
    mission is a path to the goal. The goal is to science. And so
    what we're trying to do is encourage them by basically not
    ripping away the money that they save the government and all of
    us but reinvesting that into a team because obviously we don't
    even have--we don't have just the good scientists. We already
    checked that. We also have a good leader, so we want to invest
    in those people.
        Mr. Babin. Well, thank you. Thank you very much. And with
    that, I yield back.
        Chairwoman Horn. Thank you very much, Mr. Babin.
        Before we bring this hearing to a close, I want to
    sincerely thank all four of you for being incredibly good
    witnesses. The--your insights, the clarity, the way you
    answered questions, and the reminder of the importance of the
    work that NASA Science Mission Directorate does and the
    importance of balancing the needs of science and being
    responsible stewards of our taxpayer dollars, as well as I
    think, Dr. Spergel, the reminder of the known unknowns and the
    unknown unknowns that are out there. So thank you all for being
    with our Committee today.
        The record will remain open for 2 weeks for additional
    statements from Members and for any additional questions the
    Committee may ask of the witnesses.
        The witnesses are excused, and the hearing is now
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                   Appendix I

                                  ----------

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
    Responses by Dr. Thomas H. Zurbuchen

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Responses by Dr. Chelle Gentemann

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Responses by Dr. David Spergel

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Responses by Dr. Mark Sykes

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  Appendix II

                                  ----------

                       Additional Material for the Record

    Additional responses submitted by Dr. Thomas H. Zurbuchen

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Report submitted by Dr. Chelle Gentemann

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]