[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ENABLING MISSION SUCCESS
FROM THE GROUND UP: ADDRESSING
NASA'S URGENT INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 29, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-28
__________
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
45-205 PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma,
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon Ranking Member
AMI BERA, California MO BROOKS, Alabama
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan, BILL POSEY, Florida
Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey BRIAN BABIN, Texas
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
MELANIE A. STANSBURY, New Mexico MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
JERRY McNERNEY, California MIKE GARCIA, California
PAUL TONKO, New York STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
BILL FOSTER, Illinois YOUNG KIM, California
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
DON BEYER, Virginia JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois JAY OBERNOLTE, California
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania PETER MEIJER, Michigan
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina VACANCY
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin VACANCY
DAN KILDEE, Michigan
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
------
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
HON. DON BEYER, Virginia, Chairman
ZOE LOFGREN, California BRIAN BABIN, Texas,
AMI BERA, California Ranking Member
BRAD SHERMAN, California MO BROOKS, Alabama
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado BILL POSEY, Florida
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey YOUNG KIM, California
C O N T E N T S
July 29, 2021
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Don Beyer, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Brian Babin, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 11
Written Statement............................................ 13
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 14
Written Statement............................................ 14
Witnesses:
Mr. Robert Gibbs, Associate Administrator for the Mission Support
Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 24
Discussion....................................................... 32
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. Robert Gibbs, Associate Administrator for the Mission Support
Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration..... 50
ENABLING MISSION SUCCESS
FROM THE GROUND UP: ADDRESSING NASA'S
URGENT INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 29, 2021
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., via
Zoom, Hon. Don Beyer [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Beyer. This hearing will come to order, and,
without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess
at any time. Before I deliver my opening remarks, I wanted to
note that today the Committee is meeting virtually, and I want
to announce a couple of reminders to the Members about the
conduct of this hearing. First, please keep their video on as--
video feed on as long as you are present in the hearing. You
are responsible for your own microphones. Please keep your
microphones muted, unless you are speaking. And, finally, if
Members have documents they wish to submit for the record,
please e-mail them to the Committee Clerk, whose e-mail address
was circulated prior to the hearing. So good morning, and
welcome to today's hearing, ``Enabling Mission Success from the
Ground Up: Addressing NASA's Infrastructure Needs''. I want to
thank our NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
witness for being with us today.
This last March many of us watched in awe as fire and
smoke poured from the B-2 Test Stand at NASA's Stennis Space
Center in Mississippi. The fire and smoke was expected, and
part of NASA's hot-fire test of the engines and core stage of
the world's most powerful rocket, the Space Launch System, SLS.
It was a long-awaited milestone that was many years in the
making, and the test was essential to retiring risk and
ensuring the performance of the core stage in preparation for
upcoming SLS flights. But getting to that critical test meant
that NASA not only had to develop the SLS core stage, a
challenging effort in its own right, it had to restore the B-2
Test Stand to its design condition, buildout the stand for the
larger SLS stage, and complete the special test equipment
interfaces, and that reconstruction effort took six years.
The B-2 story is a stark reminder of what it takes for
NASA to achieve its ambitious goals of discovery, exploration,
and innovation in space and aeronautics. Whether it's landing
Perseverance on Mars, launching rockets, or testing
experimental aircraft systems, or archiving massive amounts of
Earth science data, achieving NASA's ambitious and inspiring
missions require highly specialized facilities and dedicated
physical infrastructure. For NASA, amazingly, that
infrastructure comprises over 5,000 buildings and facilities,
including those at its nine field centers, the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, and five major facilities, all located across 14
States.
However, like the B-2 Test Stand that was first used to
test the Saturn 5 rocket of the Apollo era, more than 70
percent of NASA's facilities are 50 years old. Maintaining an
increasingly aging infrastructure across such a vast physical
footprint has been an ongoing challenge, and NASA's $2.6
billion deferred maintenance backlog is the case and point.
Roads and bridges, like the Wallops Causeway Bridge that's
reaching the end of its anticipated service life--someone
taught me about this a long time ago, actually--the aging roof
at Michoud Assembly Facility in Louisiana, HVAC (heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning) and water systems, and so
much more, need attention. And on top of these and other urgent
infrastructure needs, NASA must also manage the impacts of
climate change. The buildings battered by hurricanes, flooding,
tornadoes, and the low-lying coastal facilities vulnerable to
sea level rise.
In short, NASA's foundational infrastructure is cracking,
and I fear we're reaching a tipping point. That's why it's
essential that we prioritize investments in NASA
infrastructure, especially at a time when Democrats and
Republicans across the country are coming together on a
commitment to new infrastructure--in NASA, we have repair,
recapitalization, modernization, sustainability, and as I'm
reading also even demolition, and that we do it now. Not doing
so risks our future for NASA, a future that creates jobs,
generated a 2019 economic impact of $64 billion, and that
enables some of our most precious assets, people, innovation,
and inspiration.
A 2010 National Academies report on NASA's research
facilities stated ``The institutional capabilities of the NASA
centers, including their laboratories, have always been
critical to the successful execution of NASA's flight projects.
These capabilities have taken years to develop, depend very
strongly on highly competent and experienced personnel, and the
infrastructure that supports their research.'' The report
underscored that NASA's research labs need to be on par with
top-tier universities, corporate laboratories, and other
government labs in order to sustain NASA's leadership in
science and aeronautics and attract the best talent. It's clear
that solving the mysteries of dark energy, finding evidence of
microbial life beyond Earth, and advancing core competencies in
hypersonics research will take the not only the best minds, but
world-class facilities.
So in closing, when we talk about NASA's infrastructure
needs of today, what we're really talking about is NASA's
innovation potential of tomorrow. That innovation has profound
implications for our economic growth, our workforce, and our
international standing. And, as we know from examples like the
cell phone cameras we use constantly, NASA's innovation holds
the potential promise of breakthroughs that can literally
change our lives for the better, every day. I look forward to
working with my colleagues on the Committee and in Congress to
address NASA's urgent infrastructure needs, and doing so now.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Beyer follows:]
Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing, ``Enabling
Mission Success from the Ground Up: Addressing NASA's
Infrastructure Needs''.
I want to thank our NASA witness for being with us today.
This last March, many of us watched in awe as fire and
smoke poured out from the B-2 Test Stand at NASA's Stennis
Space Center in Mississippi. The fire and smoke was expected
and part of NASA's hot-fire test of the engines and core stage
of the world's most powerful rocket, the Space Launch System.
It was a long-awaited milestone that was many years in the
making, and the test was essential to retiring risk and
ensuring the performance of the core stage in preparation for
upcoming SLS flight tests.
Getting to that critical test meant that NASA not only had
to develop the SLS core stage, a challenging effort in its own
right, it had to restore the B-2 Test Stand to its design
condition, buildout the stand for the larger SLS stage, and
complete special test equipment interfaces. That reconstruction
effort took six years.
The B-2 story is a stark reminder of what it takes for NASA
to achieve its ambitious goals of discovery, exploration, and
innovation in space and aeronautics.
Whether it's landing Perseverance on Mars, launching
rockets, testing experimental aircraft systems, or archiving
massive amounts of Earth science data, achieving NASA's
ambitious and inspiring missions require highly specialized
facilities and dedicated physical infrastructure.
For NASA, that infrastructure comprises over 5000 buildings
and facilities, including those at its nine field centers, the
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and five major facilities, all
located across 14 states.
However, like the B-2 Test Stand that was first used to
test the Saturn 5 rocket of the Apollo era, more than 70
percent of NASA's facilities are 50 years old.
Maintaining an increasingly aging infrastructure across
such a vast physical footprint has been an ongoing challenge.
NASA's $2.6 billion deferred maintenance backlog is case and
point.
Roads and bridges, like the Wallops Causeway Bridge that is
reaching the end of its anticipated service life, the aging
roof at Michoud Assembly Facility in Louisiana, HVAC and water
systems, and so much more, need attention.
And on top of these and other urgent infrastructure needs,
NASA must also manage the impacts of climate change-the
buildings battered by hurricanes, flooding, and tornadoes, and
the low lying coastal facilities vulnerable to sea level rise.
In short, NASA's foundational infrastructure is cracking,
and I fear we're reaching a tipping point.
That's why it is essential that we prioritize investments
in NASA infrastructure-for repair, recapitalization, and
modernization, and also sustainability-and that we do it now.
Not doing so risks our future for NASA, a future that
creates jobs, generated a 2019 economic impact of $64 billion,
and that enables some of our most precious assets-people,
innovation, and inspiration.
A 2010 National Academies report on NASA's research
facilities stated
The institutional capabilities of the NASA centers,
including their laboratories, have always been critical to the
successful execution of NASA's flight projects. These
capabilities have taken years to develop and depend very
strongly on highly competent and experienced personnel and the
infrastructure that supports their research.
The report underscored that NASA's research labs need to be
on par with top-tier universities, corporate laboratories, and
other government labs, in order to sustain NASA's leadership in
science and aeronautics and attract the best talent.
It's clear that solving the mysteries of dark energy,
finding evidence of microbial life beyond Earth, and advancing
core competencies in hypersonics research will take the not
only the best minds, but world-class facilities.
In closing, when we talk about NASA's infrastructure needs
of today, what we're really talking about is NASA's innovation
potential of tomorrow. That innovation has profound
implications for our economic growth, our workforce, and our
international standing. And, as we know from examples like the
cell phone cameras we use constantly, NASA's innovation holds
the potential promise of breakthroughs that can literally
change our lives for the better, every day.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on the
Committee and in Congress on addressing NASA's urgent
infrastructure needs, and doing so now.
Chairman Beyer. So now let me recognize my friend Dr.
Babin, from Houston, Texas, for an opening statement. Brian?
Mr. Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The purpose of today's hearing is to address NASA's complex
infrastructure issues. NASA is one of the largest property
holders in the Federal Government. They manage nine field
centers and six other facilities in 14 different States. This
includes $40 billion in assets, with an inventory of more than
5,000 buildings and structures. As our NASA witness will
testify, many of NASA's buildings and labs are relics of the
Apollo, Gemini, and Mercury era, and some even pre-date NASA to
the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics era. Indeed, 83
percent of NASA's facilities are beyond their designed life. It
costs up to three times more to repair or to replace equipment
after it has failed, rather than if the maintenance had
occurred as scheduled. In 2013, the last time this Committee
examined NASA's infrastructure, the deferred maintenance
backlog was estimated to cost $2.1 billion. Well, now it is
going to cost us $2.66 billion.
I proudly represent the Johnson Space Center (JSC), home
to NASA's historic Mission Control Center in Houston, and many
other unique national capabilities, like the Sonny Carter
Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory that trains astronauts for space
walks, the Experimental Impact Laboratory that studies the
effects of high velocity impacts into geologic materials,
Ellington Field, that houses many of NASA's critical aircraft,
and the Astral Materials Acquisition and Curation Office that
studies materials returned from space, and the White Sands test
facility that tests materials and propulsion systems. Because I
represent one of the largest NASA centers, I am certainly aware
of the challenges that NASA faces when it comes to
infrastructure. There is no greater advocate for NASA
facilities which are critical national assets.
Unfortunately, long term infrastructure and maintenance
investments take a back seat to near term program and mission
requirements. But failure to adequately maintain and manage
infrastructure could actually compromise NASA's ability to
carry out its vast array of missions, and that's why NASA
Office of the Inspector General (IG) highlighted infrastructure
in its 2020 report on top management and performance
challenges. And rather than being an afterthought, NASA must
proactively assist, and manage its infrastructure and budgets
to reflect its missions and its responsibility.
To its credit, NASA has attempted to do this through
various initiatives over the years. NASA developed an agency
facility strategy, an agency master plan, center master plans,
elevated mission support to the Directorate level, developed a
mission dependency index, and a facilities condition index,
conducted a technical capabilities assessment, as well as a
business services assessment, and is moving toward a new NASA
operating model and Mission Support Architecture Program.
That's a lot of management jargon, but hopefully it will lead
to efficient decisionmaking and research allocation.
Put simply, NASA should do what every family in this
country does, that is to manage its budget. When a family
considers new spending, they factor in the rent, the mortgage,
and upkeep. NASA's fiscal year 2022 budget request calls for an
overall increase of 6.3 percent. NASA's fiscal year 2022 budget
request for safety, security, and mission services, which funds
center maintenance and operations, is roughly three billion, a
3.8 percent increase over fiscal year 2021 enacted levels. The
fiscal year 2022 request for construction, environmental
compliance, and remediation is actually a 9 percent reduction
from fiscal year 2021 enacted levels. If NASA's facilities and
infrastructure are in need, they should be appropriately
prioritized in the agency's budget request. Administration--
Administrator Nelson indicated earlier this year that NASA has
a list of infrastructure requirements totaling over $5 billion.
But the administration has not formally requested additional
funding, to my knowledge, and that means additional
infrastructure funding hasn't been cleared by the Office of
Management and Budget, nor has it been considered in the larger
context of the Federal budget, including offsets, deficits, or
additional revenue requirements.
I think that we can all agree that NASA's infrastructure
is critical to its overall mission success, but it needs to be
incorporated and prioritized in the formal budget process, not
as an off budget wish list. Creating a budget is what every
family in this country does, and I'm confident that NASA, the
administration, and Congress can, and must, do the same. And so
with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much, and I will
yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Babin follows:]
The purpose of today's hearing is to address NASA's complex
infrastructure issues. NASA is one of the largest property
holders in the federal government. They manage nine field
centers and six other facilities in 14 different states. This
includes $40 billion in assets with an inventory of more than
5,000 buildings and structures. As our NASA witness will
testify, many of NASA's buildings and labs are relics of the
Apollo, Gemini, and Mercury era, and some even predate NASA to
the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics era. Indeed, 83
percent of NASA's facilities are beyond their design life. It
costs up to three times more to repair or replace equipment
after it has failed rather than if the maintenance had occurred
as scheduled. In 2013, the last time this Committee examined
NASA's infrastructure, the deferred maintenance backlog was
estimated to cost $2.1 billion. It is now $2.66 billion.
I proudly represent the Johnson Space Center--home to
NASA's historic Mission Control Center, and many other unique
national capabilities like the Sonny Carter Neutral Buoyancy
Laboratory that trains astronauts for spacewalks; the
Experimental Impact Laboratory that studies the effects of
high-velocity impacts into geologic materials; Ellington Field
that houses many of NASA's critical aircraft; the
Astromaterials Acquisition and Curation Office that studies
materials returned from space; and the White Sands Test
Facility that tests materials and propulsion systems. Because I
represent one of the largest NASA centers, I am certainly aware
of the challenges NASA faces when it comes to infrastructure.
There is no greater advocate for NASA facilities, which are
critical national assets.
Unfortunately, long-term infrastructure and maintenance
investments take a backseat to near-term program and mission
requirements. But failure to adequately maintain and manage
infrastructure could actually compromise NASA's ability to
carry out its vast array of missions. That's why the NASA
Office of the Inspector General highlighted infrastructure in
its 2020 report on top management and performance challenges.
Rather than being an afterthought, NASA must proactively
assess and manage its infrastructure and budgets to reflect its
missions and responsibilities. To its credit, NASA has
attempted to do this through various initiatives over the
years. NASA developed an Agency Facilities Strategy, an Agency
Master Plan, Center Master Plans, elevated mission support to
the directorate level, developed a Mission Dependency Index and
a Facilities Condition Index, conducted a Technical
Capabilities Assessment as well as a Business Services
Assessment, and is moving towards a new NASA Operating Model
and Mission Support Architecture Program. That's a lot of
management jargon, but hopefully it will lead to efficient
decision-making and resource allocation.
Put simply, NASA should do what every family in this
country does--manage its budget. When a family considers new
spending, they factor in the rent, mortgage, and upkeep. NASA's
FY22 budget request calls for an overall increase of 6.3
percent.NASA's FY22 budget request for Safety, Security, and
Mission Services, which funds Center maintenance and
operations, is roughly $3 billion, a 3.8 percent increase over
FY21 enacted levels. The FY22 request for Construction,
Environmental Compliance, and Remediation is actually a 9
percent reduction. If NASA's facilities and infrastructure are
in need, it should be appropriately prioritized in the agency's
budget request.
Administrator Nelson indicated earlier this year that NASA
has a list of infrastructure requirements totaling over $5
billion, but the Administration has not formally requested
additional funding to my knowledge. That means additional
infrastructure funding hasn't been cleared by the Office of
Management and Budget, nor has it been considered in the larger
context of the federal budget, including offsets, deficits, or
additional revenue requirements. I think we can all agree that
NASA's infrastructure is critical to its overall mission
success, but it needs to be incorporated and prioritized in the
formal budget process, not as an off-budget wish-list. Creating
a budget is what every family in this country does. I am
confident NASA, the Administration, and Congress can do the
same.
Chairman Beyer. Ranking Member Babin, thank you very much
for your comments. I greatly appreciate them. And now let me
rank--let me recognize the Chairwoman of the Full Committee,
Chairwoman Johnson from Texas.
Chairwoman Johnson. Well thank you very much, and I want
to thank you, Chairman Beyer, for holding this hearing today on
a very timely topic of NASA's urgent infrastructure needs. The
Subcommittee held a hearing back in 2013 on NASA's aging
infrastructure. We heard then about the risks to NASA's ability
to successfully and safely achieve its ambitious missions with
infrastructure that was largely dated back to the Apollo era,
and was more than 40 years old. On this date in 1958, NASA was
established. We knew then, as we know now, that infrastructure
has to be kept to--up to date. More than 50 years old, many of
the concerns from 2013 still ring true today. For example, what
was $2.2 billion deferred maintenance back in 2013 has grown to
be more than $2.6 billion, so NASA is falling behind, not
catching up.
NASA's infrastructure needs span the spectrum. They
include the mundane, but the critical, and often forgotten,
utility and access systems across nine centers, and other
research and test facilities. They also include the specialized
and unique R&D facilities that no other entity has, including
wind tunnels for subsonic and hypersonic aircraft, gigantic
clean rooms, and vacuum chambers for highly sensitive
interplanetary spacecraft, one of the most powerful
supercomputers on the planet, neutral buoyancy tools, and
countless others. Managing this vast infrastructure is made
more challenging by climate change, with some of NASA's
critical facilities located in coastal, low-lying regions
vulnerable to sea level rise and the increasing frequency and
severity of extreme weather. In my home State of Texas,
Houston's Johnson Space Center saw significant flooding in 2017
from Hurricane Harvey. It's clear that NASA's infrastructure
challenges need attention now if NASA is to continue to lead
and succeed in achieving its inspiring and ambitious missions.
That's why I'm working hard to have Congress address NASA
infrastructure as part of a larger investment in the Federal
R&D infrastructure.
While the path forward in Congress may not yet be totally
clear, my commitment to addressing our R&D infrastructure needs
is steadfast. Science, research, and innovation are our future.
Without necessary core capabilities, such as facilities and
infrastructure, we run the risk of constraining that future.
That's not the vision I want for NASA. As I close, I want to
thank our witness, Mr. Robert Gibbs, for appearing before us
today, and I look forward to his testimony. Thank you, and I
yield back.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
Good morning.
I want to thank Chairman Beyer for holding this hearing
today on the very timely topic of NASA's urgent infrastructure
needs.
This Subcommittee held a hearing back in 2013 on NASA's
aging infrastructure. We heard then about the risks to NASA's
ability to successfully and safely achieve its ambitious
missions with infrastructure that largely dated back to the
Apollo era and was more than 40 years old. Now, that
infrastructure is more than 50 years old and many of the
concerns from 2013 still ring true today. For example, what was
$2.2 billion deferred maintenance backlog in 2013 has grown to
more than $2.6 billion, so NASA is falling behind, not catching
up.
NASA's infrastructure needs span the spectrum. They include
the mundane-but critical, and often forgotten-utility and
access systems across nine Centers and other research and test
facilities. They also include the specialized and unique R&D
facilities that no other entity has, including wind tunnels for
subsonic to hypersonic aircraft, gigantic clean rooms and
vacuum chambers for highly sensitive interplanetary spacecraft,
one of the most powerful supercomputers on the planet, neutral
buoyancy pools, and countless others.
Managing this vast infrastructure is made more challenging
by climate change, with some of NASA's critical facilities
located in coastal, low-lying regions vulnerable to sea level
rise and the increasing frequency and severity of extreme
weather. In my home state of Texas, Houston's Johnson Space
Center saw significant flooding in 2017 from Hurricane Harvey.
It's clear that NASA's infrastructure challenges need
attention now if NASA is to continue to lead and succeed in
achieving its inspiring and ambitious missions. That's why I am
working hard to have Congress address NASA infrastructure as
part of a larger investment in Federal R&D infrastructure.
While the path forward in Congress may not yet be totally
clear, my commitment to addressing our R&D infrastructure needs
is steadfast. Science, research, and innovation are our future.
Without the necessary core capabilities, such as facilities and
infrastructure, we run the risk of constraining that future.
That's not the vision I want for NASA.
As I close, I want to thank our witness, Mr. Robert Gibbs,
for appearing before us today, and I look forward to his
testimony.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Beyer. Madam Chair, thank you very much for your
opening statement. At this time I'd like to introduce our
witness. Mr. Robert Gibbs is the Associate Administrator for
the Mission Support Directorate at NASA Headquarters in
Washington, which provides institutional support to enable
successful accounts of NASA mission objectives. Mr. Gibbs first
joined NASA as the Assistant Administrator for the Office of
Human Capital Management, and NASA's Chief Human Capital
Officer in May 2017. From 2013 to 2017 he served as the Chief
Human Capital Officer at the Department of Energy (DOE). And
prior to becoming a member of the Senior Executive Service, Mr.
Gibbs completed the nuclear training pipeline and served at sea
with the U.S. Navy, completing numerous strategic deterrent
patrols; and ashore at nuclear repair facilities. He's a
retired Naval officer. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in Business
Management from the University of Washington, and he's a Doctor
of Jurisprudence from Northern Virginia's George Mason
University.
So welcome, Mr. Gibbs. As you know, you have five minutes
for your spoken testimony, and your written testimony, however
long it is, will be included the record for the hearing. And
when you've completed your spoken testimony, we'll begin with
the questions. Each Member will have five minutes to question
our one-person panel. So, Mr. Gibbs, you're center stage, and
you are now recognized.
TESTIMONY OF MR. ROBERT GIBBS,
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR
FOR THE MISSION SUPPORT DIRECTORATE,
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Chairman Beyer, Ranking Member
Babin, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear today to discuss NASA's infrastructure.
We look forward to working with you to change the trajectory of
NASA's infrastructure health and ensure the agency's continued
prominence as a national illustration of leadership in space,
exploration, technical, and aeronautic innovation. I'd like to
begin by offering a backdrop for this conversation to
contextualize the challenges NASA faces. When NASA was founded
in 1958, public investment enabled a national vision to lead
the world in space exploration and scientific discovery. Apollo
era infrastructure provided a modern foundation from which we
launched into space and the first humans, Americans, stepped
onto the surface of the moon. Over the last 60 years NASA has
continued to inspire the world, explore the universe, to learn
to live and work in space, advance science, and develop
technologies that improve life for everyone.
Today America has a rapidly expanding space industry,
including increased commercial and international participation.
NASA's role remains crucial in enabling commercial growth
investing in science and engineering for responsible space
activity for the global community of space faring nations. Our
current missions are no less inspirational, to return humans to
the Moon, establish a permanent lunar presence, and extend
humanity to Mars, expand our understanding of climate science,
and the human impacts on--to make engineering breakthroughs,
and drive economic expansion. However, a majority of our
facilities and assets are relics of the Apollo era. We are now
in a state of marked obsolescence and degradation.
Chairman Beyer. Mr. Gibbs your sound keeps coming in and
out. It's almost cycling. If some of the NASA technical folks
could help us?
Mr. Gibbs. I mean, is this any better? Maybe I just need
to lean forward a bit.
Mr. Perlmutter. Let's see. Just keep talking for a second.
Mr. Gibbs. How about this? I'll try two mikes. Is two
mikes better?
Staff. Sir, it's----
Chairman Beyer. Yes----
Staff [continuing]. As if----
Chairman Beyer [continuing]. Please.
Staff [continuing]. There's an automatic--it's as if
there's an automatic gain control, and it's taking the volume
up and down, so they may want to check that.
Mr. Gibbs. I'm looking at our tech guys, and we'll
hopefully get this straightened out. If you can hear me, I'll
continue.
Chairman Beyer. Yes, please. Continue.
Mr. Gibbs. As I was saying, this leads us to one
inescapable point. NASA's infrastructure represents the single
greatest threat to mission success. Approximately 82 percent of
our facilities are beyond their designed life. Our annual
maintenance requirements are increasing every year, and
exceeding our resources. Maintenance of 5,000 plus buildings
and structures has been consistently underfunded due to
competing priorities resulting in the deferred maintenance of
2.6 billion referenced earlier. Historically, recent NASA
budget requests constitute the absolutely essential
requirements that ensure mission success, but NASA continues to
carry a significant threat of infrastructure failure.
NASA has had a substantial number of critical
infrastructure requirements for repair, modernization,
recapitalization, new capability across the centers. These
requirements represent executable infrastructure actions that
NASA has assessed would go far to off-
set these mounting risks and possible delays to schedule,
hardware, continuing operations, and personal safety. If you
could please display slide one?
[Slide one follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
I want to provide some examples of the Artemis era
investments we need to maintain our technical capabilities that
enable these groundbreaking achievements. A hypersonic wind
tunnel at Langley Research Center would enable future
investments in high-speed travel and more efficient air travel.
A new robotics lab at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in
California would propel NASA forward in the uncrewed
exploration of Mars and other planets. We recently opened a
Health and Human Performance Lab at Johnson Space Center in
Texas, which provides NASA the collaborative research
environment to understand impacts, and the potential of space
travel. Could you please show slide two?
[Slide two follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[
Horizontal infrastructure is just as vital to NASA's
operation as the specialized crane at Kennedy that assembles
the space launch system. When a water main ruptures, like the
one did at Johnson Space Center in 2020, mission activity
halts. Timelines are delayed, and repairs are costly. Other
examples include the degradation of the Wallops Flight Facility
Causeway bridge in Virginia, which is the only access to the
launch complex that supplies the International Space Station,
and necessary site-wide infrastructure improvements to enable
increased launch tempo required by NASA, DOD (Department of
Defense), and commercial partners at the spaceport at Kennedy
Space Center (KSC)--you'd show slide three?
[Slide three follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In closing, a greater investment is needed to modernize
and build the capabilities of the future, something our
commercial and international partners, our employees, and our
stakeholders demand. Investing in NASA capability leads
directly to scientific innovation, more efficient, more
effective space travel, and development of the next generation
of scientists, engineers, and astronauts. Funding NASA's
infrastructure will accelerate 21st century advancements in
climate science, avionics, propulsion, green technologies,
miniaturization, and so much more. Given NASA's role as an--
proven role as an economic driver, innovation catalyst, and
jobs creator, an investment in NASA's infrastructure and next
generation capabilities is an investment in American jobs and
expanding the commercial markets. Thank you, Chairman Beyer,
Ranking Member Babin, and the Members of the Committee and the
Subcommittee, for giving me this time. I'm happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gibbs follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Beyer. Mr. Gibbs, thank you very much. It's
fascinating to look at your map, and realize that--more than 5
billion in NASA investments in Virginia, which I represent, and
Alabama, with Mr. Brooks, Florida, with Mr. Posey, over 4
billion in Colorado, with Mr. Perlmutter, and over 16 billion
in California. Poor New Jersey is left out. Let me begin.
Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Babin talked about, you know, how families
plan their budget, and how we shouldn't be, you know, doing
emergency off the books funding for something like this. I
notice that your 2.6 billion number, that's roughly 7 percent
of the 39 billion in asset value of NASA. Are we in a different
period now? Why is there a crisis at this time, looking back at
budgets over the last five, 10, 15, 20 years? Have--has NASA
structurally failed to ask for the right amount of money to
keep up this infrastructure on an ongoing basis?
Mr. Gibbs. So I think I----
Chairman Beyer. You see where I'm going with this? OK.
Mr. Gibbs. Yeah. Yes, sir, I do. I do see where you're
going with this, and I think it's a very fair question. You
know, for 10 of the last 12 years we--our budget that we have
received has been less than what we have asked for. You know,
with an aging infrastructure, as we have at NASA, this becomes
a--sort of a circular problem, right? You can't invest to
maintain your aging infrastructure, it gets older, you need
more money to invest, you have less dollars, and it goes around
like that. I do think that we are at a critical point right now
with infrastructure. I'm concerned. It's what keeps me up at
night. My portfolio has a lot more than infrastructure in it,
and I will tell you, I am concerned.
Chairman Beyer. Great. Thank you. When we had Senator
Administrator Nelson here in May, he suggested a number like
5.4 billion in infrastructure needs. What's the gap--the
doubling between the 2.6 that we typically use for NASA and
Senator Nelson's 5.4?
Mr. Gibbs. So deferred maintenance and the $5.4 billion
investment portfolio are slightly different things. If we were
to receive those additional funds, it would retire a majority,
or a substantial majority, of the deferred maintenance. But the
5.4 is looking at--across the entire complex of NASA, driven by
the mission. You know, what are the things that we need to
invest in to make our mission successful not only today, but
going forward? What is the facility, the infrastructure, all
the investments we need to make?
It falls into categories like modernization. Where do we
need to build new capability? We talked a little bit about the
hypersonics tunnel. I think that is a new capability that
should be a national capability, and work for the Department of
Defense. We talked about recapitalization, modernization, and
repair, so it's bringing all of these facilities back up to
acceptable standards. I think that's the way I would address
that, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Beyer. Thank you. Yeah, Mr. Gibbs, the 2010
National Research Council report I had mentioned raised
significant concerns about the research laboratories. Are we
yet at the point where the infrastructure is an impediment to
scientific progress and discovery?
Mr. Gibbs. I think we're able to continue with scientific
discovery, but that point where infrastructure is going to
start limiting mission is around the corner. I think it's in
the very near future for us, is how I'd answer that, sir.
Chairman Beyer. OK. One small point. You--in your written
testimony you talked about mitigating systemic arc flash issues
in electrical systems. Are these--is this a new problem, or is
this--are the arc flashes something we've been dealing with for
a long time?
Mr. Gibbs. It's a problem that has existed for a period of
time. I mean, when you're talking about arc flash, you're
talking about electrical explosions, when you have a low
impedance to ground on energized equipment. It has gotten worse
as our electrical infrastructure has aged. You know, now it
requires--you can't work on energized gear. You have to de-
energize systems, sometimes laboratories, or structures, or
parts of our centers, in order to work on this gear. So it is a
personnel safety issue. It has an unpredictable failure rate,
or failure mode, so we have to be, you know, putting personnel
safety first. It requires us to take additional steps, and
those steps are required more often right now.
Chairman Beyer. I seem to recall six and a half years ago
we had an arc flash in the Metro tunnel here in Washington, DC.
that killed someone. One last question. I was fascinated that
there were 134 cleanup projects-- service or groundwater
installations, hazardous wastes. How are we doing in our
responsibility to those 134 communities?
Mr. Gibbs. You know, we put public safety and protecting
the environment as one of our greatest priorities. The budget
that we have in '23--'22 is enough to maintain our fiscal
responsibilities, our statutory responsibilities, in these
facilities. You know, we talked a little bit about the Wallops
bridge. There has been an issue--Wallops and Chincoteague--in
the water supply, and I think we've done a very good job of
installing water filtration equipment, providing the town with
clean drinking water, monthly sampling, which is showing no
results of any contaminant, and doing all of these things, and
digging new wells, as a way to sort of ensure that we hold up
our end of the environmental questions that face the agency.
Chairman Beyer. Mr. Gibbs, thank you very much. Let me now
recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Babin, for his questions.
Mr. Babin. There it is. OK. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman and Mr. Gibbs. Thank you for being here. We appreciate
you. And my question, as I mentioned in my opening statement,
there at JSC in Houston is home to the Astral Materials
Acquisition and Curation Office. As NASA plans to develop the
Mars Sample Return Mission, there's an ongoing debate over
where the returned samples will be processed and housed. At a
hearing earlier this year, NASA scientists indicated that they
had not decided as of yet on that location. From an
infrastructure perspective, does it make sense to build a new
capability somewhere else, rather than utilizing existing
facilities, particularly when NASA already has an
infrastructure backlog?
Mr. Gibbs. So, to answer your question directly, JSC,
Johnson Space Center, is the center that owns the Mars sample
curation, right? The sample return program. I don't think we
have come through where that facility is going to be located
yet.
Mr. Babin. OK. Well, is NASA planning to use the existing
infrastructure at JSC to support this mission? Or where--what
are some of the thoughts there among those who are making this
decision?
Mr. Gibbs. Sir, I'd have to take that for the record and
talk with my science colleagues. I do know at this point we
haven't made a decision as an agency.
Mr. Babin. OK. Well, NASA released a request for proposals
for space suits this week. The Johnson Space Center maintains
the Nation's space suit and the extra-vehicular activity (EVA)
expertise. How much funding does JSC receive for infrastructure
from the Human Exploration Mission Directorate to fund space
suit and EVA facilities?
Mr. Gibbs. I apologize that I'll have to take that for the
record. I do not control the HEO (Human Exploration and
Operations) Program budget for space suits that is--that--
developed and maintained at Johnson.
Mr. Babin. OK. Well, I want to hear your opinion, then. If
NASA outsources space suits and EVA capabilities, will JSC's
budget to maintain the facilities be covered through the Safety
Security Admission Service Account to offset any funding
shortfalls caused by the acquisition strategy?
Mr. Gibbs. So at this point I have no intention of
lowering the budget of Johnson, if that answers your question.
Mr. Babin. OK. Were additional costs to maintain the
critical infrastructure necessary to enable EVAs, and space
suit development and training, considered in any cost-benefit
analysis of acquisition or purchase to determine the best value
for the taxpayer?
Mr. Gibbs. Again, I apologize, but I'd have to take that
for the record and talk with our procurement folks. My gut
tells me yes. We go through a very in-depth analysis as we work
through all procurement opportunities. But I don't----
Mr. Babin. OK.
Mr. Gibbs [continuing]. Know that for a fact.
Mr. Babin. OK. How does NASA ensure that such a cost-
benefit analysis is an apples-to-apples comparison? I can
envision a scenario where a service contract would be cheaper
at face value, but when--when the necessary NASA facility and
infrastructure costs are accounted for, though--the overall
taxpayer cost is larger if facilities are not decommissioned.
Mr. Gibbs. Yeah. I will tell you--I'll answer that very
generically, that--I will tell you, as we go through these
propositions, we spend a lot of time to ensure that we have
accuracy in our data. When we're looking at procurement
opportunities, we look at total life cycle costs. All in, what
do they cost us to procure this activity or this service?
Additionally, what we have are folks from across the agency
with multiple stakeholders sitting in with us as we go through
these procurement and other decisions to ensure that all the
folks that are impacted by these decisions get that voice
heard. And we have a pretty strong group, honestly, that do
this--that does this work at the agency.
Mr. Babin. OK. The NASA IG semi-annual report to Congress
recently highlighted the fact that a recommendation from 2013
has still not been implemented by NASA. The recommendation
states, ``Ensure life cycle and milestone reviews, incorporate
programmatic and technical risks, and are conducted with the
Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations
Mission Directorate, and other senior agency officials.'' Why
hasn't NASA implemented this recommendation?
Mr. Gibbs. I'd have to take that for the record, sir.
Mr. Babin. OK. Well, can you ensure that NASA provides a
response to these questions for the record, if you don't mind?
We would greatly appreciate that, seeing the answers to these.
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, sir. Happy to do so. Thank you for your
questions.
Mr. Babin. OK. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Babin, very much. And I
recognize the Chair of the Full Committee, if our Chairwoman is
still here. If she was here, but if she is not, then let me
recognize Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren. Not Chair of this Committee,
but Chair of lots of other things. So, Ms. Lofgren, the floor
is yours.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thanks
for holding this hearing. Obviously we have infrastructure
needs throughout this agency, and no matter where those
infrastructure needs, it matters to all of us because it's the
science mission that drives our decisionmaking. But I do want
to mention the Ames Research Center. It's not in my district,
but it is in the county I represent, and it is the second
oldest NASA center. It's my perception that the infrastructure
needs has sometimes fallen off the priorities, and a sense that
one of the biggest barriers to funding is the lack of strong
advocates at the top of the agency.
Now, that could be that, you know, other centers are
dominated by specific programs, for example Earth science or
aeronautics. Ames is a blend of smaller programs across all the
divisions, and so that kind of advocacy is diffused. I'm
wondering what kind of evaluation we are going to use so that a
program like Ames doesn't get lost in the dust, if you will,
what kind of objective evaluation is going to be used. And, Mr.
Gibbs, I thank you so much for your advocacy. You know, it's
possible, we hope not, that not every priority will be funded.
If there's not 100 percent funding, how are you going to
prioritize what gets funded?
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate your question.
First, on the concept of--I--how do we make all these things
work, right, across the agency? We have a lot of competing
priorities, a lot of competing needs, and in a limited resource
environment, it's tough. I'll just tell you, frankly, this is a
tough problem to solve. We have an agency master planning
process which we have stood up in the last year which involves
representatives from all of the mission directorates that come
in and say, here are our requirements. It involves all of the
centers saying, here are our capabilities. And then we take a
look at those things and say, OK, across our infrastructure
portfolio, how do we put these things in buckets?
Fundamentally, what are the things we absolutely know we need
today and tomorrow to complete our mission? So those--that's
one bucket we can set aside. What are the things that we know
we don't need, that should be on our demo list? Let's put that
aside. Now let's really focus on those things in the middle
that could possibly be out grants, using enhanced use lease
(EUL) authority, where, you know, it's things we could just
maintain at a very minimal funding level, so that way we can
continue to stretch our dollars to the greatest extent
possible.
I will tell you that I think Ames has pretty good
representation within the agency, and its importance to the
overall agency mission, I think, goes without question, if
that----
Ms. Lofgren. Well, I appreciate that. And so many of the
scientists there, you know, some live in my district, and I'll
tell you, it's tough, because, you know, Ames is located in the
middle of Silicon Valley. You've got kids walking out of
college that are earning two or three times what those
scientists are earning, and they stay there because of their
commitment to the mission, and I really respect that, and I
appreciate what they are doing, and we need to make sure that
their service and sacrifice is honored in every way possible.
I'm wondering, Mr. Gibbs, would it be possible to share
that document that you've just described so the Committee can
understand the thinking of the agency as you sort through the
very challenging decisions you need to make?
Mr. Gibbs. Yeah. We're very happy to work with the
Committee and get you the information you need.
Ms. Lofgren. I would love to see that. Mr. Chairman, thank
you so much for holding this hearing. I think it's essential,
and, you know, as we know, it's already--the national--pardon
me. The National Research Council has already deemed NASA's
infrastructure needs to be, you know, trailing NSF (National
Science Foundation) and other facilities, DOE, university
facilities. We really can't permit that to continue, and I
appreciate your leadership, and that of the Chair and the
Ranking Member, to make sure that that changes. And, with that,
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Beyer. Thank you very much, Ms. Lofgren. I now
recognize the Chairman from Cape Canaveral--or the Member from
Cape Canaveral, Mr. Posey.
Mr. Posey. Thank you very much, Chairman Beyer, for
holding this hearing addressing NASA's urgent infrastructure
needs. Great to have you here, Mr. Gibbs, and great to see NASA
making great strides that it has made in regards to its
operation. I remember when the legislature appropriated a few
million dollars for a life sciences lab, it took I think
something like 3 years for NASA to get it together and come up
with a lease to offer them. Wow, what a paradigm swing we've
seen since those days, which I most notably observed through
the leadership of Bob Cabana at KSC, and I'm sure Janet Pepco
will do just as great a job.
Between the civil and commercial space launches at Kennedy
Space Center, it puts a tremendous strain on its existing
infrastructure, as you mentioned. This is sometimes maybe a
good thing that we're doing so well, but we should work to
address the needs that would meet a higher launch cadence at
Kennedy Space Center. This means increasing high-flying
capacity, and adding wider roads to accommodate the
transportation of the next generation vehicles, as you well
know.
The State of Florida has been forward leaning on
addressing the infrastructure challenges with some funding, and
after the cancellation of the Shuttle Program the Kennedy Space
Center pivoted to supporting not only space flights, but also
the commercial sector array. KSC repurposed critical national
capabilities like the vehicle assembly building, and the
crawler transporter, and made other underutilized facilities,
like the orbiter processing facilities and launch pads,
available for commercial users. My question is, as the
commercial space sector grows, how can NASA best leverage the
unique partnership it has with Space Florida to maintain its
infrastructure that is key not only to NASA, but to the State
of Florida?
Mr. Gibbs. Yeah, I--thank you, sir, for your question. I
think that's a great partnership. You know, the Indian River
Bridge, we worked with the State of Florida, Space Florida, the
Florida Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Department
of Transportation and their INFRA (Infrastructure For
Rebuilding America) grant Program to be able to recapitalize
the bridge. Right now NASA is paying to relocate all of the
utilities at the Indian River Bridge. Construction will begin
later this fall, with completion by 2025. So that's a great
example of Florida working with NASA to achieve that joint sort
of program of expanding the space industry.
I will also tell you that we are going to have to make
additional infrastructure investments at KSC to support this
increased launch tempo. 2021 is going to see the most launches
NASA has ever done, and that pace is expected to continue
through '24 or '25. We have to make commensurate investments in
infrastructure to be able to support commercial, DOD, and
NASA's launches in the future.
Mr. Posey. You know, I understand that KSC submitted a
construction of facility request for Fiscal Year 2022 of 63.8
million, but only 33.3 million was approved for inclusion in
the President's budget request, a request to build a new Hybrid
platform of 22-1/2 million, and the RL-10 engine shell down at
eight million to support the SLS. Block 1-B were both rejected,
unfortunately. Do you know why the infrastructure projects
associated with SLS Block 1-B were not supported?
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, sir. I--so that is a Human Exploration
Operations Program funded line item. That's what they're
funding. But I will tell you, again, it's the same symptom of
limited resources. You have to measure those resources across
the agency in order to meet requirements. Now, I think those
were not necessarily declined. I think they were deferred to
later progress, but I'd have to check with our HEO Program
folks to make sure I'm giving you the accurate information.
Mr. Posey. OK. Do you know if there's other plans to
address the shortfall?
Mr. Gibbs. I do not. I do not.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see my time is about
to expire. I yield back. Thank you for--again for this hearing.
Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Posey, very much. I now
recognize the past and future Governor of Florida, Member
Charlie Crist.
Mr. Crist. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Mr.
Gibbs, thank you for being with us this morning. As you know,
NASA's enhanced use lease authority allows the agency to lease
underutilized property to private entities, academic
institutions, and State and local governments, while also
allowing NASA to keep the proceeds to cover maintenance costs
and other activities. It's my understanding that NASA has used
this authority with great success at Kennedy Space Center to
help transform the facility into a robust, multi-user spaceport
to include SpaceX, Blue Origin, and others. It's this type of
innovation that gave the Space Coast its new nickname of the
Comeback Coast, following the shuttle's retirement and
resulting layoffs in 2011. However, you note in your testimony
that NASA's enhanced use lease authority expires at the end of
the calendar year. What is the impact to NASA if this
authorization is allowed to lapse, and what would happen to
those leases?
Mr. Gibbs. So the impact would be significant. Enhanced
use lease authority allows us to charge a fair market value for
facilities and infrastructure that we--is underutilized in the
NASA portfolio. Being able to take these proceeds in and apply
it to infrastructure, apply it to needs, apply it to other
areas of critical sort of needing some dollars, an infusion of
dollars, to maintain or get it back to adequate levels is
incredibly important. Additionally, those partnerships, those
relationships that the EULs, enhanced use lease authorities,
actually form are just as important, you know, as we go
forward.
Now, the impact to the folks that currently have EULs,
it's probably fairly minimal, as I would assume that they would
be allowed to continue through the period of the agreement. The
issue becomes that we have 15 new EULs we're looking to enact
in fiscal year 2022, and I couldn't do any of those, and a lot
of those relate to Space Coast activity not only here, but in
the State of Virginia as well. So I think, you know, EULs are
going to be critical for our success kind of going forward.
Mr. Crist. Thank you. Administrator Nelson previously has
testified that NASA has identified a set of infrastructure
needs totaling about $5.4 billion. It's no secret that Kennedy
Space Senator's--Center is located right on the Atlantic Coast
of Florida, which makes it vulnerable to climate change. Do any
of the infrastructure needs the administrator referenced
address the need for climate adaptations at Kennedy?
Mr. Gibbs. They do. I will tell you that, you know,
working with the impacts of climate and climate change are
incredibly important. Kennedy is a great example of something
that we're working on to solve. We've built a 17-foot dune,
barrier dune, between the waterways and the launch pads that we
used recycled soil from the Air Force, when they were doing
dredging operations. The dune is 17 feet tall, it's 200 foot at
the base, 100 foot at the height, and then it's, you know,
planted with native grass and plants. You know, those sorts of
efforts to ensure that we can continue to conduct our mission
are incredibly important.
So yes, you know, we do look at, you know, the coastline
restoration efforts not only there, but at Wallops. You know,
we look at earthquake hardening at the Jet Propulsion
Laboratories in California as part of this program as well. So
there is quite a bit.
Mr. Crist. OK. Thank you, sir. Beyond the 5.4 billion
Administrator Nelson referenced, does NASA have a plan of
action to protect Kennedy's assets from the impacts of climate
change? And if so, what's included in that plan, and what does
NASA need from Congress to carry it out?
Mr. Gibbs. Well, I appreciate the question. You know, so--
at this point in time, we plan these things into our
infrastructure budgets. It's about an every 3 year cycle for
shoreline replenishment, and other things that go on to support
Kennedy, but that's about as much of an answer as I can give
you.
Mr. Crist. Fine. Well, NASA's Fiscal Year 2022 budget
request notes that, due to COVID-19 closures at NASA centers,
most ongoing facility construction projects were halted, and
that ``in the absence of supplementary funds, planned
construction projects may be deferred.'' Can you discuss which
construction projects at Kennedy were significantly impacted by
COVID closures, and what impacts will that have on NASA
missions carried out at Kennedy, including the launching of the
Artemis missions?
Mr. Gibbs. So I'll take the complete answer for the
record, but I'll give you sort of--the overall picture is there
are a lot of requests for equitable adjustments that went on
because of COVID, but that isn't telling you the entire story.
The whole story really is that we have to delay, defer, and
descope projects on a regular basis because our construction
funds are lower than requested. The reality is I've had to
delay, defer, descope 47 projects over the last two budget
cycles because I just didn't have the resources.
Mr. Crist. Thank you very much----
Mr. Gibbs. Hopefully that answers your question.
Mr. Crist. Appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Beyer. Thank you very much. I believe we'll now
move to Mr.--no--get this right. No, Ms.--Member Kim from
California. You are now recognized. Madam--Young Kim? It is
your turn to proceed.
Mr. Perlmutter. I don't think she heard you. There you go.
Chairman Beyer. OK. Congresswoman Kim? If you can hear us,
it is now your turn to ask questions of Mr. Gibbs. And if
you're having a--technical problems, we can move on to Mr.
Gonzalez, and come back to you, if that would be OK.
Staff. Just sent a signal----
Chairman Beyer. There we go.
Staff. --Mrs. Kim to unmute.
Chairman Beyer. Mrs. Kim, I think that--think we had you
there for a minute. You seem unmuted at the moment. Please
proceed.
Mrs. Kim. Am I up? OK. Sorry about that. All right. Well,
I want to thank you, Chairman Meyer, for yielding, and I want
to thank you, Mr. Gibbs, for testifying before the Subcommittee
today. NASA currently has a maintenance backlog of over $2.66
billion, so how is it that funding broken down by NASA's
condition-based maintenance approach and its prioritized risk
assessment process? And do all these projects fall under the
same priority, or are some more necessary than others? Can you
provide the Committee with a prioritized list of the $2.66
billion maintenance backlog?
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, we can provide you with that list.
Understand it's not a static sort of thing. If there's
additional resources that we're applying, needs change, and the
rest of it, but we'd be happy to provide information to show
you how we establish our priorities, and what those priorities
are, if that helps.
Mrs. Kim. Sure. You know, understanding that maintenance
is a priority, why was----
Mr. Gibbs. Yeah.
Mrs. Kim [continuing]. This not included in the
President's fiscal year 2022 budget request?
Mr. Gibbs. Again, you know, it's one of those things where
if you have limited resources, you have to apply those
resources to first support the mission, ensure safety, ensure
health, and all of those things, and then you have to do the
best you can with the resources you have. Unfortunately,
maintenance generally is one of the things that gets deferred
on a regular basis, if you're funded less than, you know, what
you would've requested. And this isn't something that happened
overnight, right? I think we talked in 2013 of a $2.2 billion
deferred backlog, and it occurred--and it happened long before
that.
You know, part of this--and this may not be the best
answer, but I think it's really part of our reality, is that
maintenance, and construction, and these things, it's not, you
know, the glamorous stuff that you see. It's not rocket
launches, and launch pads, and landing on Mars, and doing all
of the really cool, really important science that we do, and
aeronautics, and all the rest of it. Some of this is, you know,
you're--you can't see it. It's the infrastructure behind the
scenes that, you know, you don't invest in if you have a new
lab, but, you know, you have to remember that these labs and
launch pads are so--are supported by this horizontal
infrastructure, most of which is pre-World War II, or in that
era. So it becomes a very difficult problem. I hope I----
Mrs. Kim. Well, how is----
Mr. Gibbs [continuing]. Answered your question.
Mrs. Kim. Mr. Gibbs--so how is the deferred maintenance
backlog affecting our ability to meet timeline goals for the
Space Launch System and Orion Programs?
Mr. Gibbs. Well, right now it's not. It's not impacting
our ability to achieve those goals. But I will tell you, as you
don't do maintenance, infrastructure systems equipment decays.
It--you have an issue with it becoming obsolete, so you have to
do certain maintenance. And if you don't do that maintenance,
the bill you pay at the other end--I think you heard earlier
someone was saying three times. That is a good, strong industry
number. It's about three times if it fails on--with an
unplanned issue, as opposed to doing that deferred maintenance.
But, again, it's environment that we have to operate in, and
have been operating in for a long period of time.
Mrs. Kim. Sure. You know, let me ask one last question.
How can NASA better engage with the private sector and other
agencies to better utilize, on a reimbursable basis, NASA test
stands, and wind tunnels, and other unique facilities?
Mr. Gibbs. You know, I think using the Space Act
Agreements and the enhanced use lease authority, which we
discussed earlier, are two great vehicles. But I will tell you,
working with others, industry, academia, other Federal
agencies, which we do on a regular basis today, is absolutely
crucial to our success going forward. It has to be part of our
program.
Mrs. Kim. Well, with that, thank you so much. I will yield
back my time.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, ma'am.
Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Ms. Kim, very much. Let me now
introduce the Congressman from the great State of Colorado, Mr.
Perlmutter.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thanks, Mr. Chair, and you can see my
bumper sticker in the background there, Mr. Gibbs. You know
where I'm coming from. I want to get us to Mars by 2033. And so
I guess I hear you, and I apologize, as a Member of Congress,
that, you know, to do the plumbing, and to do the road work,
and do the basic things for any, you know, facility, you guys
are kind of put to the back of the bus. And, personally, I want
to be an advocate for you as we go through this infrastructure
package, and the reconciliation. And so I would like that list
of deferred maintenance projects that you have.
I know Ambassador Beyer, with Charlie Crist, and I think
Brian Babin still on here, and Don Norcross, all of us to be
advocates for you as we go through this infrastructure moment,
because you're definitely infrastructure, in my opinion. And I
don't want to be a Pollyanna about it, you know, because you've
had to deal with these shortfalls, you know, year in, year out,
but I'd like to, at this moment, given what we're trying to do,
to plus you up a lot.
So give me an idea--one, I--Ms. Kim asked for that list.
I'd like that list of needs. Second, my question would be sort
of--the Artemis Program, the Moon, Mars, what are your top two
or three infrastructure needs for you to be able to support the
Artemis Program?
Mr. Gibbs. That's a great question. Let's talk a little
bit about that $5.4 billion infrastructure list we keep talking
about or around. What I will tell you is it'll put jobs in
almost every State, and I will execute that 5.5--$5.4 billion
investment in 5 years. We have a lot of stuff already in the
box, ready to go, to start investing in this infrastructure.
We've spent a lot of time on this. We started with a much
larger list, and then cut it down, and said, OK, what are our
real needs to support those things? What are the opportunities
that we can exploit going forward? What are the things that we
can do so our house is in order so, we ever get this
opportunity, you know, we would be ready for it? So I think
that's one incredibly important thing.
I will tell you, and I'll be happy to provide the list,
the Artemis related is about $608 million in that bucket, ready
to go to support Artemis going forward. I don't have the--all
of the projects and programs specifically laid out of all 5.4
billion, but I'll be happy to take that for the record and
provide you that information.
Mr. Perlmutter. I'd like it. So I have--I represent the
Federal Center in Colorado. I have the National Renewable
Energy Lab (NREL), we have, you know, sort of the Lockheed
Waterton plant south, so there's a big NASA presence, or a
number of NASA projects. On the Federal Center I have a
laboratory, it's a USGS (United States Geological Survey)
laboratory, so not something you have to worry about, but of
the same vintage of many of your facilities, and literally the
roof is ready to fall in. It was a World War II era laboratory,
couple hundred scientists and engineers, and we've got to get a
new facility for it, because over the years it just has, one,
outgrown itself, it's aged, and when I'm looking at some of the
statistics here, 83 percent of your infrastructure is beyond
design life. More than 70 percent is at least 50 years old, and
approximately half of your facilities were built at or before
the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo Programs. Is that true?
Mr. Gibbs. Yes. Yes, it is true, and, honestly,
Congressman, I--having come from the Department of Energy I'm
very familiar with NREL, I'm very familiar with WAPA (Western
Area Power Administration), out--just outside of Denver as
well, the Western Area Power Administration, for the
investments. I will tell you, the infrastructure of NASA is
significantly degraded when you compare it to that of the DOE.
I can tell you that from having been in both agencies and
seeing those things. So yes, that is true.
We have some unbelievably difficult challenges to face. We
have facilities in California that don't have heat and air
conditioning. Our Advanced Material Structure Lab at Langley
went without air conditioning for a period this summer while
they were doing critical work. You know, there--this just goes
on and on across. Now, we do have an opportunity at this
moment--if there is investment, we can work on the other side
of it, and replace these facilities with state-of-the-art
facilities that'll support not only NASA, but the Nation's
interests going forward. So hopefully we're going to have an
opportunity to do those things.
Mr. Perlmutter. Well, I--will be an advocate for you, and
I think the other Members of our Committee, Democrats and
Republicans, will advocate, and I'm saying to my colleagues
this is the moment for us to advocate for something like this.
It's squarely within the infrastructure package, in my opinion.
Thank you, Mr. Gibbs, for your testimony.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, sir. I have been told by my folks
that this--the $5.4 billion list has been provided to the
Committee staff, so you do have it.
Mr. Perlmutter. Well, that's--but also make sure that we
get it, and our----
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, sir.
Mr. Perlmutter [continuing]. Staff, and the Committee
staff, is great. I would ask them to provide it to us so that
we can start pounding away at some of our colleagues to make
sure all of it, or at least a chunk of it, is in this package
as it winds its way through the House and the Senate.
Mr. Gibbs. Will do, sir----
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you.
Chairman Beyer. And thank you, Mr. Perlmutter. We'll make
sure that we get it out to every Member of the Committee. And
now let me recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, who is also
an expert on space traffic and orbital debris, Mr. Norcross.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you very much, Chairman, appreciate
it. Mr. Gibbs, great to have you here. When we read, and I've
mentioned it quite often, NASA has been one of those
organizations that we all look up to, that was always on the
cutting edge, and, you know, it gave us real hope for the
future, and you've done great things. I look at the assets, 14
States, 43 billion in assets, 5,000 buildings, it's a massive
infrastructure. But what I hear today is rather distressing,
and--certainly focusing on the infrastructure needs. And you
talk about limited resources. Have you ever had adequate
resources to run the organization? Has there ever been a time
in your career?
Mr. Gibbs. Not since I've been in the job, but I will tell
you, in 2012, the Mission Support Directorate comprised about
17 percent of the overall agency budget. Here in 2021, 2022,
I'm around 12 percent. And this is coming at a time when the
agency's budget, if you use it as a proxy for requirements, is
going up. So I have an increasing requirements portfolio, and a
decreasing resources portfolio, in which to supply mission
support, which mission success is built on. It's a challenging
proposition.
Mr. Norcross. Now--exactly where I'm headed toward, that--
you know, we hear about deferred maintenance, and you have a
list, and there's certain degrees of lists that you have. You
know, is it urgent, does it have to be done? And, when you
think about the risk, is it a strategy when the likelihood of
an assets failure may have severe consequences? This is a
decision that is made--yearly basis when--where your resources
go, the money goes.
Mr. Gibbs. Yeah.
Mr. Norcross. And that's what I want to talk about, is the
culture of what is going on. One of the easiest things, and
this is across business spectrums, whether you have a refinery
or an office building, is deferred maintenance, not
preventative maintenance. And that's where I want to really
focus on, on how important that is, that each time you defer
maintenance, you are making a choice to increase risk. We've
seen example after example what has happened across this
country when that risk is taken on. Sometimes you win, but
sometimes you lose, and in your business, when you lose,
people's lives are on the line.
So let's talk about that. When you put together a budget,
when is it that you say, we have to fix things, or we can't do
this? It seems that NASA's always, we'll get it done no matter
what, and that's the risk I'm going to ask you about. How are
you dealing with that, and at what point do you say no?
Mr. Gibbs. So I've got to tell you, that's a--that is a
great point, and it's one of those subtle points of culture.
It's the other side of the coin of engagement, right? We have
the best workforce in the Federal Government, we're the best
place to work in the Federal Government, all those things are
true, because our folks are engaged and our leaders care about
their people. The other side of that is we're going to get
stuff done. We're going to work to nearly kill ourselves to get
things done, and I think that sort of A student mentality
sometimes can have unforeseen repercussions, and that is, well,
they made it--they made due with X dollars, we can give them a
little bit less, and they'll make due with that too. So I think
that has sometimes come into the thinking of a lot of folks.
I will tell you, though, when it comes to safety, you
know, that is a line I will not cross. I will shut down a
facility, I will shut down a system, if I'm endangering
personnel safety. If we get to that point, I won't hesitate,
and then we'll figure out how to recover the programs and
projects, but personnel safety is paramount, and I won't put
anyone at risk with the infrastructure----
Mr. Norcross. Now----
Mr. Gibbs [continuing]. Budget we have. Yes, sir.
Mr. Norcross [continuing]. If you know that risk, and
that's----
Mr. Gibbs. Yeah.
Mr. Norcross [continuing]. The point we're making here----
Mr. Gibbs. Yeah.
Mr. Norcross [continuing]. Is, without preventative
maintenance, and that--because the arc flash that our Chairman
brought up----
Mr. Gibbs. Yeah.
Mr. Norcross [continuing]. You know, is stunning to me.
There had been--the energized gear risk has been in place for
over a decade. That--this is nothing new. I saw the transformer
that was on fire. That's nothing new. These are things that
maintenance, and preventative maintenance, can figure out
before it happens.
Mr. Gibbs. Right.
Mr. Norcross. We have great advocates here, and I count
myself as one of them. Even though you have nothing in New
Jersey, we care a lot about you because of what you do for our
country. But this culture----
Mr. Perlmutter. That was mean.
Mr. Norcross [continuing]. That culture has to change. You
just have to put that maintenance up there in certain degrees
as a risk to life and limb, and if you don't know the risks,
you don't know when it's going on. So, Mr. Chairman, and
certainly to my colleague Mr. Perlmutter, we are there to help
you, but we can't always get it done, and then live with the
consequences later on. With that, I yield back.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Beyer. Mr. Norcross, thank you very much. And Mr.
Gibbs, you may not realize this, but when Mr. Norcross, who is
an accomplished electrician, talks to you about arc flashes, he
knows what he's talking about.
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, sir.
Chairman Beyer. We're blessed to have people with a wide
range of great skillsets. Representative Gonzalez has been with
us for most of this hearing. Representative Gonzalez, if you're
here, we'd love to recognize you for questioning.
Mr. Perlmutter. I think Representative Gonzalez is in the
Financial Services hearing, because I can----
Chairman Beyer. OK.
Mr. Perlmutter [continuing]. See him on my TV.
Chairman Beyer. OK. In the meantime, our dear friend----
Mr. Perlmutter. I do see----
Chairman Beyer. --Mr. Weber----
Mr. Perlmutter. --Mr. Weber----
Chairman Beyer [continuing]. Of Texas has just arrived.
Mr. Weber, if you're ready from your car to talk to Mr. Gibbs,
we would like to recognize you.
Mr. Weber. Well, yeah, thank you, I'm ready. And actually,
it's not my car, it belongs to the bank and me. You know how
that goes.
Chairman Beyer. Yeah.
Mr. Weber. Beyer's laughing because he loves selling those
cars. But anyway, thank you. Mr. Gibbs, I've read that over 83
percent of NASA's infrastructure is beyond its design life,
with more than 70 percent of facilities, as of 2017, being 50
years old. Fiscal year 2022 congressional justification
document explains that immediate repairs compile a growing
share of the maintenance budgets, with unscheduled maintenance
costs up to three times more than scheduled. So my question is
how long has this problem been going--and it's continued to--
how long has it been continuing, and how do we ensure we don't
end up with a similar situation, or worse, in 10 years?
Mr. Gibbs. That's a great question. I would tell you that
our opportunity--if the opportunity is presented for additional
resources, where we can build new and retire the old, if we can
put more dollars into our demolition account, if I can find
ways to get rid of some of this deferred maintenance by demoing
it and building new, that is one way for us to attack this
problem. I think it's absolutely critical, as we go forward,
that we continue to invest in those facilities and get--really
to shrink our footprint so the portfolio is manageable in the
future, getting to your future conversation.
You know, I don't think we're in a place where NASA has to
own each--own of everything or 5,000 pieces of infrastructure.
We need to work very closely with our mission directorates and
develop a sustainable portfolio that supports our missions
today, and going forward. So there's a lot there. Hopefully I
answered your question.
Mr. Weber. Well thank you, and I appreciate that. And you
talked about, you know, a smaller footprint--and I'm not able
to see the clock there, Mr. Chairman, so I'll--I've got another
question. Mr. Gibbs--so, with that in mind, do you believe the
existing established structure within NASA for prioritizing
infrastructure repairs and upgrades, and the dispensing of
funds, is the best, or are you able to extrapolate--if you're
going to reduce your footprint, are you able to identify ways
you can do that, and then kind of categorize that those will
be, if you will, at the back of the--end of the line?
Mr. Gibbs. Yeah. The short answer there is yes. You know,
when we built the agency master planning process, the one we're
using now at the agency level, we worked with industry heavily
to see how did you do it? We went out and saw people that owned
scientific, and laboratory, and high science sort of
portfolios, and inventory of infrastructure, and asked them
the--for their advice, they--how would you manage this? We then
took that and overlaid it into a NASA process which involved
our mission directorates, who determined the future--the
current and future missions of the agency, and our centers to
really understand what's the condition of the things that we're
dealing with today? I think that process is going to lead us to
a pretty good place. And, like I said, we're well underway in
that.
Mr. Weber. Yeah. Well--how much--do I have any time left,
Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Beyer. You--Mr. Weber, you still have 2 minutes
left.
Mr. Weber. Good, good, good. I should've started a timer.
So, Mr. Gibbs, who lays out that plan? How do we coordinate
that? And I know this is a tricky question, political question
in some regard, with the changing of the guard every so often,
every, say 2 years in Congress, or 4 years in the White House,
how do we maintain that continuity?
Mr. Gibbs. I think through the publication of the agency
master plan, which will be published in fiscal year 2022. We
work very hard on all of the things that we're working on. And
one thing doesn't change--while the missions may change, and we
have to be able to adapt to those missions changes as the
administration's priorities change, the thing that doesn't
change is a really in depth knowledge and understanding of our
infrastructure as it exists today. That's the backbone. That
really tells us what our capabilities are, and allows us to do
measurement of what we need, and what we don't need, depending
on the mission. So I think there's--I think we--we're in a
pretty good place, sir.
Mr. Weber. And as the commercialization of space
continues, and NASA becomes a customer, if you will, are you
able--is that going to necessitate, for lack of a better term,
on an ongoing basis changing that plan as we see working with--
I mean companies, and as we see this new commercialization
process gaining foothold, or speed, or however you choose to
look at it? Or gaining warp speed, maybe. So does that----
Mr. Gibbs. That--yeah, that's a great question. You know,
I would say--you know, it's really interesting, when you talk
about the commercialization of space, you know, even if we're
buying services from private companies or from private
industry, whether it be launch or anything else, they still
generally end up relying on NASA backbone and infrastructure,
like the spaceport at Kennedy. So while the service may be
cheaper on the front end, I'm going to have those commercial
companies come to me and say, hey, we need greater electricity.
We'll need to dispose of waste. Launch services, greater pad
availability, and all of these things. So from an
infrastructure perspective, it all comes right back around, and
we still have to continue to invest in our infrastructure to
support commercial space.
Mr. Weber. Well, that's good to hear, that there's a plan
in place that'll ensure we can do that. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Weber, very much. I
believe, unless Mr. Gonzalez is abandoning his other Committee
hearing, that we have heard from all of our Members to--with
Mr. Gibbs today, so thank you, Mr. Gibbs, very much. Really
appreciate your coming and testifying with a great knowledge of
what NASA needs. And I can promise we will all, Democrat and
Republican, do our best to make sure that NASA has the dollars
in the years to come to close that infrastructure gap.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
Committee. Thank you for your time.
Chairman Beyer. Yeah. Thank you. So, before we bring the
hearing to a close, thank you. The record will remain open for
two weeks for additional statements from Members, and for any
additional questions the Committee may ask of the witness. I'll
make sure that we get the--distribution to the Full Committee
of the $5.4 billion, both urgent and looking forward,
infrastructure needs. And with that, Mr. Gibbs, you are excused
to go back to your other job, and the hearing is now adjourned.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the Subcommittee was
adjourned.]
Appendix
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Mr. Robert Gibbs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]