[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 53 (Thursday, April 15, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2335-S2340]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
A VISION FOR NASA
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, later today, President Obama will
travel to the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. He will visit with
employees and officials there and deliver a speech on his vision for
NASA. We have begun to learn the details about some of what the
President may be announcing, but so far nothing has been suggested that
alleviates the concerns I expressed earlier this week. In fact, I am
growing more concerned. I have serious questions about the
administration's proposed vision.
For example, the President is proposing to rely on a commercial space
launch industry that is still in its infancy. Once the space shuttle is
retired, a commercial vehicle would be the only American human
spaceflight capability for the foreseeable future. Further, we are
about to complete the International Space Station and begin the period
of scientific research we have been waiting for. For the past 10 years,
we have waited for the space station to be up and running and operable.
At the same time that it is now becoming operable, we are beginning to
phase out the space shuttle program. That is the only means we have to
deliver crew and cargo to the space station. We are nowhere close to
having an alternative to the shuttle, whether government operated or
commercial operation.
Congress and the President agree we should extend the life of the
space station to at least 2020. That only makes sense because we have
invested $100 billion in this space station. Our partners are
international. We have contractual commitments to our partners who have
also made huge investments in the space station. Yet now we are looking
at stopping our shuttle at the end of this year so the alternatives
will be limited. We must be certain the space station can be supplied
and maintained with the spare parts and equipment it needs to operate
for the next 10 years. It may well be that equipment needed to ensure
the sustainability of the space station can only be delivered by the
space shuttle.
I introduced legislation last month to require NASA to conduct a
review of station components and identify anything that might be needed
to be delivered to equip it for its research mission. Of course, NASA
could do that review right now without legislation. I urge General
Bolden, the NASA Administrator, to undertake such a review,
particularly in light of the space shuttle not being extended under the
President's proposal. It is still possible we could extend the time
between the shuttle flights to deliver the necessary materials to the
station. That is an option I believe we need to preserve. It would
prolong the time we could put our own astronauts into space with our
own vehicle that we know is reliable.
That is the key. We don't have to add more into the budget. The
budget already provides for two more space shuttles this year, plus one
that would
[[Page S2336]]
be a contingency. We have this paid for in the budget. If we will only
extend these out, it will give us so many more national options that
would be in America's best interest. Without a NASA-managed alternative
for human access to space, we will be dependent on the Russian Soyuz
rockets to take American, European, Japanese, and Canadian crew members
to the space station. Today it is a cost of $56 million per passenger.
That price could go up, if we end the space shuttles this year. We
don't know what the next contract might have, especially when it is
realized that we will have no capability and are shutting down our own
capabilities at the time that we would be asking for help from the
Russians.
Of even more concern is the possibility that without a shuttle or
other alternative, any failure of the Soyuz for any period of time
could leave the space station abandoned to become an orbiting example
of space debris. What if something happened to the Russian program?
What if the commercial industry that is fledgling doesn't come up with
an alternative or, worse yet, what if they go out of business? These
are the concerns the President is not addressing in his budget for
NASA. I hope he will become more willing to look at the long-term
consequences of what he is proposing to do, if we are going to retain
our leadership position in space, in economics, and in security.
These and other concerns have been expressed by a number of other
individuals, editorial boards, and organizations over the past days.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters and
editorials expressing serious reservations about the President's plan
and its adverse impact to our Nation's future leadership in space.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[An Open Letter to President Obama, Apr. 13, 2010]
The United States entered into the challenge of space
exploration under President Eisenhower's first term, however,
it was the Soviet Union who excelled in those early years.
Under the bold vision of Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and
Nixon, and with the overwhelming approval of the American
people, we rapidly closed the gap in the final third of the
20th century, and became the world leader in space
exploration.
America's space accomplishments earned the respect and
admiration of the world. Science probes were unlocking the
secrets of the cosmos; space technology was providing
instantaneous worldwide communication; orbital sentinels were
helping man understand the vagaries of nature. Above all
else, the people around the world were inspired by the human
exploration of space and the expanding of man's frontier. It
suggested that what had been thought to be impossible was now
within reach. Students were inspired to prepare themselves to
be a part of this new age. No government program in modern
history has been so effective in motivating the young to do
``what has never been done before.''
World leadership in space was not achieved easily. In the
first half-century of the space age, our country made a
significant financial investment, thousands of Americans
dedicated themselves to the effort, and some gave their lives
to achieve the dream of a nation. In the latter part of the
first half-century of the space age, Americans and their
international partners focused primarily on exploiting the
near frontiers of space with the Space Shuttle and the
International Space Station.
As a result of the tragic loss of the Space Shuttle
Columbia in 2003, it was concluded that our space policy
required a new strategic vision. Extensive studies and
analysis led to this new mandate: meet our existing
commitments, return to our exploration roots, return to the
moon, and prepare to venture further outward to the asteroids
and to Mars. The program was named ``Constellation.'' In the
ensuing years, this plan was endorsed by two Presidents of
different parties and approved by both Democratic and
Republican congresses.
The Columbia Accident Board had given NASA a number of
recommendations fundamental to the Constellation architecture
which were duly incorporated. The Ares rocket family was
patterned after the Von Braun Modular concept so essential to
the success of the Saturn 1B and the Saturn 5. A number of
components in the Ares 1 rocket would become the foundation
of the very large heavy lift Ares V, thus reducing the total
development costs substantially. After the Ares 1 becomes
operational, the only major new components necessary for the
Ares V would be the larger propellant tanks to support the
heavy lift requirements.
The design and the production of the flight components and
infrastructure to implement this vision was well underway.
Detailed planning of all the major sectors of the program had
begun. Enthusiasm within NASA and throughout the country was
very high.
When President Obama recently released his budget for NASA,
he proposed a slight increase in total funding, substantial
research and technology development, an extension of the
International Space Station operation until 2020, long range
planning for a new but undefined heavy lift rocket and
significant funding for the development of commercial access
to low earth orbit.
Although some of these proposals have merit, the
accompanying decision to cancel the Constellation program,
its Ares 1 and Ares V rockets, and the Orion spacecraft, is
devastating.
America's only path to low Earth orbit and the
International Space Station will now be subject to an
agreement with Russia to purchase space on their Soyuz (at a
price of over 50 million dollars per seat with significant
increases expected in the near future) until we have the
capacity to provide transportation for ourselves. The
availability of a commercial transport to orbit as envisioned
in the President's proposal cannot be predicted with any
certainty, but is likely to take substantially longer and be
more expensive than we would hope.
It appears that we will have wasted our current $10-plus
billion investment in Constellation and, equally importantly,
we will have lost the many years required to recreate the
equivalent of what we will have discarded.
For the United States, the leading spacefaring nation for
nearly half a century, to be without carriage to low Earth
orbit and with no human exploration capability to go beyond
Earth orbit for an indeterminate time into the future,
destines our nation to become one of second or even third
rate stature. While the President's plan envisages humans
traveling away from Earth and perhaps toward Mars at some
time in the future, the lack of developed rockets and
spacecraft will assure that ability will not be available for
many years.
Without the skill and experience that actual spacecraft
operation provides, the USA is far too likely to be on a long
downhill slide to mediocrity. America must decide if it
wishes to remain a leader in space. If it does, we should
institute a program which will give us the very best chance
of achieving that goal.
Neil Armstrong,
Commander, Apollo 11.
James Lovell,
Commander, Apollo 13.
Eugene Cernan,
Commander, Apollo 17.
____
[From the Orlando Sentinel, Apr. 12, 2010]
Dear President Obama, America is faced with the near-
simultaneous ending of the Shuttle program and your recent
budget proposal to cancel the Constellation program. This is
wrong for our country for many reasons. We are very concerned
about America ceding its hard earned global leadership in
space technology to other nations. We are stunned that, in a
time of economic crisis, this move will force as many as
30,000 irreplaceable engineers and managers out of the space
industry. We see our human exploration program, one of the
most inspirational tools to promote science, technology,
engineering and math to our young people, being reduced to
mediocrity. NASA's human space program has inspired awe and
wonder in all ages by pursuing the American tradition of
exploring the unknown. We strongly urge you to drop this
misguided proposal that forces NASA out of human space
operations for the foreseeable future.
For those of us who have accepted the risk and dedicated a
portion of our lives to the exploration of outer space, this
is a terrible decision. Our experiences were made possible by
the efforts of thousands who were similarly dedicated to the
exploration of the last frontier. Success in this great
national adventure was predicated on well defined programs,
an unwavering national commitment, and an ambitious
challenge. We understand there are risks involved in human
space flight, but they are calculated risks for worthy goals,
whose benefits greatly exceed those risks.
America's greatness lies in her people: she will always
have men and women willing to ride rockets into the heavens.
America's challenge is to match their bravery and acceptance
of risk with specific plans and goals worthy of their
commitment. NASA must continue at the frontiers of human
space exploration in order to develop the technology and set
the standards of excellence that will enable commercial space
ventures to eventually succeed. Canceling NASA's human space
operations, after 50 years of unparalleled achievement, makes
that objective impossible.
One of the greatest fears of any generation is not leaving
things better for the young people of the next. In the area
of human space flight, we are about to realize that fear;
your NASA budget proposal raises more questions about our
future in space than it answers.
Too many men and women have worked too hard and sacrificed
too much to achieve America's preeminence in space, only to
see that effort needlessly thrown away. We urge you to
demonstrate the vision and determination necessary to keep
our nation at the forefront of human space exploration with
ambitious goals and the proper resources to see them through.
This is not the time to abandon the promise of the space
frontier for a lack of will or an unwillingness to pay the
price.
[[Page S2337]]
Sincerely, in hopes of continued American leadership in
human space exploration.
Walter Cunningham, Apollo 7; Chris Kraft, Past Director
JSC; Jack Lousma, Skylab 3, STS-3; Vance Brand, Apollo-
Soyuz, STS-5, STS-41B, STS-35; Bob Crippen, STS-1, STS-
7, STS-41C, STS-41G, Past Director KSC; Michael D.
Griffin, Past NASA Administrator; Ed Gibson, Skylab 4;
Jim Kennedy, Past Director KSC; Alan Bean, Apollo 12,
Skylab 3; Alfred M. Worden, Apollo, 15; Scott
Carpenter, Mercury Astronaut; Glynn Lunney, Gemini-
Apollo Flight Director; Jim McDivitt, Gemini 4, Apollo
9, Apollo Spacecraft Program Manager; Gene Kranz,
Gemini-Apollo Flight Director, Past Director NASA
Mission Ops.; Joe Kerwin, Skylab 2; Fred Haise, Apollo
13, Shuttle Landing Tests; Gerald Carr, Skylab 4; Jim
Lovell, Gemini 7, Gemini 12, Apollo 8, Apollo 13; Jake
Garn, STS-51D, U.S. Senator; Charlie Duke, Apollo 16;
Bruce McCandless, STS-41B, STS-31; Frank Borman, Gemini
7, Apollo 8; Paul Weitz, Skylab 2, STS-6; George
Mueller, Past Associate Administrator For Manned Space
Flight; Harrison Schmitt, Apollo 17, U.S. Senator; Gene
Cernan, Gemini 9, Apollo 10, Apollo 17; Dick Gordon,
63, Gemini 11, Apollo 12.
____
Postpone the Space Shuttle Retirement
As the Space Shuttle program marches closer to its apparent
end, NASA's future is now in jeopardy more than perhaps at
any time in history. An underfunded Constellation program has
suffered a series of delays which will likely push the first
manned flight of Ares I with the Orion Crew Exploration
Vehicle back to 2017. The Shuttle is on track to be retired
near the end of 2010 after five more missions to the
International Space Station (ISS), leaving a gap in US
launched manned missions of at least seven years. The US,
which has funded approximately $60 billion of the $100
billion ISS price tag, will soon find itself in an
embarrassing position of buying seats on Russian vehicles to
get its astronauts to and from the ISS. Further, and
incredibly, the US is currently only funded to operate and
maintain the ISS to 2015, just five years after its projected
completion date.
NASA's plans to retire the Shuttle in 2010 are intended to
redirect money to Constellation, a program which will not
only send Orion to the ISS, but also explore beyond low earth
orbit (LEO); i.e. go to the moon, Mars, and beyond. The
Shuttle retirement, though, would yield sole access to the
ISS to Russia for the currently projected seven-year gap.
Thus, much of the public is bewildered by our government's
desire to spend so much capital on such a crowning
achievement, the ISS, and not consider it valuable enough to
preserve our own independent access to it. I believe the
American public's thirst for US leadership of manned space
exploration will ultimately support NASA's desires to explore
beyond LEO; however, Americans will be cautious in their
support by first demanding we be good stewards of their
current 60-billion-dollar investment. To do that, we need to
extend the operational life of the ISS, guarantee our access
to it by flying Shuttle through the gap, and robustly fund
science research aboard the ISS.
Some insist we need to retire the Shuttle as soon as
possible for safety concerns. I disagree. For sure, the
Shuttle fleet is aging, as indicated by the fact that
Endeavour, our newest Shuttle, first flew in 1992. Still, it
is my personal belief that every Shuttle mission continues to
be safer than the previous one. While components on board the
Shuttle are aging, the redundancy designed into the system is
remarkable. Every day we get better at understanding the
hazards associated with the mission, as indicated by our
inspection techniques, repair procedures, external tank foam
improvements, etc. NASA mission management teams give me
great confidence that we are getting better at this business
each and every mission. If we are comfortable with flying the
currently remaining five missions (and I am quite certain we
are), then I argue we should not be afraid to continue to fly
the Shuttle through the gap.
Others argue that commercial alternatives exist to ferry
our astronauts to and from the ISS. Not quite yet. Our
commercial industry is indeed getting closer to attaining the
ability to send unmanned spacecraft to the ISS as resupply
ships. Ultimately, these companies may produce spacecraft
safe enough for human travel to LEO. However, I would not bet
the future of the ISS on commercial access for crewmembers
happening much sooner, if at all, than Orion is capable of
flying to the ISS in 2017. Thus, this option cannot be
considered a viable ``gap filler'' at this point.
So, our choice is to accept a seven-year gap (or more) of
no dedicated US access to the ISS or continue to fund the
Shuttle through this gap. It will cost three billion dollars
per year to maintain the Shuttle infrastructure and support
at least two resupply/crew rotation missions per year. Thus,
we need approximately an additional 20 billion dollars to
fill the entire gap with Shuttle flights. An extra 20 billion
dollars is a substantial amount of money. However, in the
context of today's trillion-dollar annual deficit and 800-
billion-dollar stimulus package, an extra 20 billion dollars
spread over seven years is a bargain for what the Space
Shuttle brings to our country. Not until Orion or a
commercial alternative is indeed ready and capable of
transporting our astronauts to and from the ISS, should we
consider retiring the Space Shuttle. I believe our best
approach to convince the public to ultimately support our
exploration beyond LEO is to first deliver significant
scientific payback with the ISS, and guaranteeing this
payback requires we maintain our own, uninterrupted, access
to it. The future of NASA and our manned exploration of space
must include flying the Shuttle through the gap, whatever
that gap may be.
Lee Archambault.
____
[From the Washington Times, Apr. 13, 2010]
Losing it in Space
Pity poor NASA. Rather than reaching toward the stars,
America's premier scientific organization has settled its
sights on studying shrimp schools beneath the Antarctic ice
cap and sticky accelerators on Toyotas. Such is the scope of
hope and change in President Obama's universe.
In his 2011 budget, the president zeroed out NASA's
Constellation project, the package of launch and landing
vehicles that were to replace the aging space shuttle fleet
to carry Americans into space. As a candidate, Mr. Obama said
he ``endorses the goal of sending human missions to the moon
by 2020, as a precursor in an orderly progression to missions
to more distant destinations, including Mars.'' The O Force
changed its mind. Killing the Constellation project means
billions wasted while space-flight hardware collects dust.
``Yes we can'' has become ``mission impossible.''
This is not a cost-cutting move. The agency is budgeted to
receive $19 billion next year, and Mr. Obama wants to throw
an additional $6 billion at it over five years. The hitch is
he wants to shift its mission toward climate research and
airplane design. Anxious to stay relevant, NASA agreed to
research the cause of Toyota's sudden-acceleration problem.
NASA administrator Charles Bolden said Thursday that
federal money is budgeted for fostering the growth of the
commercial space industry, including the development of space
taxis. But if the results of the president's stimulus are any
indication, command economic policy is an inefficient
generator of jobs.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Texas Republican, has argued
that the most practical move would be to keep funding the
space shuttle program until a replacement vehicle is ready.
That way, the nation would maintain the continuity of space
travel and avoid further erosion of its faltering space
program.
As NASA's wings are clipped, our competitors soar. The U.S.
space agency even had to sign a $340 million deal with Russia
on April 6 to transport astronauts to the International Space
Station through 2014. By then, China intends to conduct an
ambitious schedule of flights with its Shenzhou spacecraft.
It doesn't take much imagination to envision the day when
NASA must pay its Asian competitor large sums for American
astronauts to ride into orbit as passengers. Thanks to Mr.
Obama, the United States will be dependent on Russia and
China for space travel.
The space program is a great symbol of the American spirit
of achievement. The day this nation cedes the conquest of
space to others is the day we admit that we have forfeited
our competitive exceptionalism. Earth-centric activities like
the study of the Antarctic shrimp ecosystem and automobile
anomalies should be left to others. A less-costly NASA should
be relieved of extraneous responsibilities and allowed to
retain its core mission--one that no other agency can
accomplish--the exploration of space.
On behalf of all Americans, Floridians should make certain
the president gets the message loud and clear when he hosts a
conference about the agency's future on Thursday in the
Sunshine State: Let NASA be NASA.
____
[From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 14, 2010]
Feud Over NASA Threatens America's Edge in Space
(By Andy Pasztor)
After dominating space for a half century, the U.S. is
mired in a political fight that threatens its leadership role
and ambitions for manned exploration.
President Barack Obama travels Thursday to the Kennedy
Space Center to try to salvage his plans to re-energize the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, but experts
say U.S. manned space travel will likely be grounded for
years longer than previously expected.
The Florida summit comes amid an escalating battle between
the White House and Congress over the fastest and least
expensive way to revitalize the space program. Mr. Obama has
been pushing ambitious plans for start-up companies to ferry
astronauts into space on private rockets. Congress,
meanwhile, is bent on defending NASA's traditional rocket and
spacecraft programs, which the Obama administration wants to
kill.
The White House believes NASA's current projects are too
expensive and will take too long to deliver. Mr. Obama is
betting that private enterprise can fill the gap--carrying
astronauts and cargo to the space station--until a resurgent
NASA can deliver more advanced space vehicles.
But lawmakers, industry officials and scientists say they
fear that for the first time
[[Page S2338]]
since the glory days of the Apollo moon landings, the U.S.
will end up without a clear plan, destination and timetable
for sending astronauts deeper into the solar system.
At stake is more than national pride. Losing the lead in
space has national-security and industrial consequences. Such
industries as shipping, airlines and oil exploration depend
on orbiting satellites to gather and send essential data. TV
signals, cell phones, ATMs, some credit card machines and
many Internet connections rely on space technology. Recent
estimates peg global civilian and military spending on space
and space-related technologies at more than $260 billion
annually.
At the same time, the Pentagon views space as a frontier
where foes will try to undermine U.S. security.
The importance of space has drawn the European Union and
more countries into the race. Russia, China, India and Brazil
all have, or are determined to create, robust space programs.
By 2016, China aims to develop and test a heavy-lift booster
capable of blasting five tons of cargo into orbit--a
timetable far more ambitious than anything on NASA's drawing
board.
With retirement of the space shuttle in a few months, the
U.S. was already facing the prospect of hitching rides for up
to five years on Russian spacecraft to reach the
international space station.
Some experts say the current political fight could leave
the U.S. with no way to blast astronauts deeper into space
until close to 2020. Initial optimistic hopes of returning
U.S. astronauts to the moon by the end of the decade could be
delayed another ten years or more, these experts say.
Neil Armstrong, the first astronaut to walk on the moon,
Apollo 13 commander Jim Lovell and Gene Cernan--the last
human to walk on the moon--warned in an open letter this week
that the president's plan ``destines our nation to become one
of second- or even third-rate stature.'' Buzz Aldrin, another
icon of U.S. space travel, has supported the president's
plan.
Burt Rutan, the aerospace engineer who was the first person
to send a privately built and designed craft into space,
warned that NASA could be crippled within a few years,
allowing international rivals to take the lead.
The retirement of the space shuttle program initiated a
chance to chart a new course for the U.S. space program, said
experts, but instead triggered conflict that is as much
political as technological.
Congress wants to save NASA's existing exploration program,
called Constellation, which was expected to produce 25,000
jobs and more than $60 billion in contractor revenue over its
lifetime.
As originally conceived, Constellation was a $100 billion
project to take astronauts into orbit, and later to deploy
next-generation rockets and landers to explore the moon and,
eventually, pave the way for manned exploration of Mars.
The White House believes the Constellation program will
take too long and that a fresh approach is required.
Lawmakers say they are skeptical of the president's plan to
entrust core functions of the space program to untested
start-up companies.
NASA chief Charles Bolden, a former astronaut, said Mr.
Obama's visit to Florida would persuade doubters that ``he is
dedicated to exploration and human space flight'' and
``committed to a vibrant future'' for NASA.
The president also plans to provide details on a few
concessions, such as retaining a small portion of the
Constellation program, as well as announcing that workers who
lose their jobs when the space shuttle retires will be
eligible for retraining and other benefits, according to
people familiar with the matter.
Those involved in talks over the future of the U.S. space
program say the most likely outcome is a compromise that may
satisfy politicians but probably won't provide enough funding
for either program to get off the ground quickly. ``That just
drags out the pain and slows everything down for a long
time,'' said Brewster Shaw, head of Boeing Co.'s space-
exploration division.
Mr. Obama, who often recounts watching NASA launches as a
youngster perched on his grandfather's shoulders, says he
hopes to lead the agency through a historic shift.
To chart a new course, he selected Mr. Bolden and Lori
Garver, a former NASA policy official and proponent of
commercial space travel, as advisers. Ms. Garver, now the No.
2 official at NASA, headed the administration's transition
team for the agency.
One of the first things Ms. Garver said she did was to
``look under the hood'' of the Constellation program. She
didn't like what she found. The program was years behind
schedule and over budget, and she said she had doubts about
its long-term viability.
Ms. Garver also played a big role in naming a presidential
panel to assess NASA. Led by former Lockheed Martin Corp.
Chairman Norman Augustine, the panel released a report in
October that was critical of the agency. The study concluded
that without a substantial infusion of new money and ideas,
Constellation would wither and NASA would become increasingly
irrelevant.
A small group of administration officials, including White
House science chief John Holdren and his chief of staff Jim
Kohlenberger, set out to begin dismantling the Constellation
project.
``The fact that we poured $9 billion into an un-executable
program really isn't an excuse to pour another $50 billion
into it and still not have an executable program,'' Mr.
Kohlenberger later said of the project. The money would be
better used, he and his colleagues concluded, on commercial
space transportation.
The White House aides envisioned a bevy of space taxis--
designed, built and operated by private enterprise--that
could take astronauts to and from the space station. This
earth-to-orbit job would rely on young companies and
relatively untested technologies.
Space Exploration Technologies Inc., started by 38-year-old
PayPal founder Elon Musk, for example, only had about 40
employees in 2004. Its largest rocket is still waiting for
its first test flight, but SpaceX has a good chance of ending
up as a key part of NASA's plans to transport both astronauts
and cargo to the space station. Another entrant is Orbital
Sciences Corp, a midsize NASA supplier that hopes to parlay
its commercial efforts into securing a prime contract for
manned programs.
Big contractors such as Lockheed Martin Corp. and Boeing
Co. would also play a role but wouldn't be as intensely
involved.
Supporters say the president's approach would create
thousands of high-tech jobs and game-changing technologies.
It would also free up NASA to deal with more difficult,
longer-term projects, such as developing powerful boosters
and in-orbit refueling systems making it possible to reach
distant planets.
But the administration failed to persuade lawmakers and
didn't make it easy for its staff. Mr. Bolden said he didn't
get final numbers from the White House about the impact of
Constellation's proposed demise until hours before the budget
was released in February. Only then, he said, did ``we really
know what the budget was going to be.''
Hours after announcing that NASA was betting on a group of
entrepreneurs to deliver pioneering technologies, Mr. Bolden
said he felt more comfortable with the agency's traditional
contractors. ``I would be lying,'' he acknowledged in an
interview, ``if I said I don't have some greater comfort with
a Boeing'' than a fledgling company.
Ms. Garver was also slow to disclose the proposed project
cancellations to NASA's biggest suppliers, such as Boeing,
Lockheed Martin and Alliant Techsystems Inc.
Even the Florida summit sparked friction. White House aides
initially encouraged lawmakers to organize the event, but
then decided to do it themselves. Aides to Mr. Obama then
promised to reserve tickets for any members of Congress who
wanted to attend, according to legislators and staffers. But
invitations were later limited, according to a White House
email this week that blamed Democratic Congressional leaders
and apologized for ``any misunderstanding.''
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will highlight a number of quotes from these
documents. Let me start with a letter by three of our Nation's renowned
astronauts, true American heroes: Neil Armstrong, the first man to set
foot on the Moon, commander of Apollo 11; James Lovell, commander of
Apollo 13; and Eugene Cernan, commander of Apollo 17.
In an open letter to the President, these space pioneers state that
although some of the President's proposals have merit, ``the decision
to cancel the Constellation program, its Ares 1 and Ares V rockets and
the Orion spacecraft, is devastating.''
They say:
America's only path to low Earth orbit and the
International Space Station will now be subject to an
agreement with Russia to purchase space on their Soyuz (at a
price of over 50 million dollars per seat with significant
increases expected in the near future) until we have the
capacity to provide transportation for ourselves. The
availability of a commercial transport to orbit as envisioned
in the President's proposal cannot be predicted with any
certainty, but is likely to take substantially longer and be
more expensive than we would hope.
It appears that we will have wasted our current $10-plus
billion investment in Constellation and, equally importantly,
we will have lost the many years required to recreate the
equivalent of what we will have discarded.
For The United States, the leading space faring nation for
nearly half a century, to be without carriage to low Earth
orbit and with no human exploration capability to go beyond
Earth orbit for an indeterminate time into the future,
destines our nation to become one of second or even third
rate stature. While the President's plan envisages humans
traveling away from Earth and perhaps toward Mars at some
time in the future, the lack of developed rockets and
spacecraft will assure that ability will not be available for
many years.
Without the skill and experience that actual spacecraft
operation provides, the USA is far too likely to be on a long
downhill slide to mediocrity. America must decide if it
wishes to remain a leader in space. If it does, we should
institute a program which will give us the very best chance
of achieving that goal.
That is all from the letter signed by Neil Armstrong, James Lovell,
and Eugene Cernan.
[[Page S2339]]
In another letter to President Obama, 27 space experts, including
astronauts, former NASA Administrators, and program managers make the
following points:
America is faced with the near-simultaneous ending of the
Shuttle program and your recent budget proposal to cancel the
Constellation program. This is wrong for our country for many
reasons. We are very concerned about America ceding its hard
earned global leadership in space technology to other
nations. We are stunned that, in a time of economic crisis,
this move will force as many as 30,000 irreplaceable
engineers and managers out of the space industry. We see our
human exploration program, one of the most inspirational
tools to promote science, technology, engineering and math to
our young people, being reduced to mediocrity. NASA's human
space program has inspired awe and wonder in all ages by
pursuing the American tradition of exploring the unknown. We
strongly urge you to drop this misguided proposal that forces
NASA out of human space operations for the foreseeable
future.
For those of us who have accepted the risk and dedicated a
portion of our lives to the exploration of outer space, this
is a terrible decision. . . .
America's greatness lies in her people: she will always
have men and women willing to ride rockets into the heavens.
America's challenge is to match their bravery and acceptance
of risk with specific plans and goals worthy of their
commitment. NASA must continue at the frontiers of human
space exploration in order to develop the technology and set
the standards of excellence that will enable commercial space
ventures to eventually succeed. Canceling NASA's human space
operations, after 50 years of unparalleled achievement, makes
that objective impossible.
One of the greatest fears of any generation is not leaving
things better for the young people of the next. In the area
of human space flight, we are about to realize that fear;
your NASA budget proposal raises more questions about our
future in space than it answers.
That is all from the letter that was signed by 27 people who have
dedicated their lives to America's space exploration.
In an open letter by astronaut Lee Archambault, who was a pilot of
Atlantis in 2007 and Discovery in 2009, he says:
As the Space Shuttle program marches closer to its apparent
end, NASA's future is now in jeopardy more than perhaps at
any time in history. . . .
The Shuttle retirement . . . would yield sole access to the
International Space Station to Russia for the currently
projected seven year [U.S. human spaceflight] gap. . . .
Others argue that commercial alternatives exist to ferry
our astronauts to and from the International Space Station.
Not quite yet. Our commercial industry is indeed getting
closer to attaining the ability to send unmanned spacecraft
to the International Space Station as resupply ships.
Ultimately, these companies may produce spacecraft safe
enough for human travel to low Earth orbit. However, I would
not bet the future of the International Space Station on
commercial access for crewmembers happening much sooner, if
at all, than Orion is capable of flying to the International
Space Station in 2017. Thus, this option cannot be considered
a viable ``gap filler'' at this point. . . .
Not until Orion or a commercial alternative is indeed ready
and capable of transporting our astronauts to and from the
International Space Station, should we consider retiring the
Space Shuttle. . . . The future of NASA and our manned
exploration of space must include flying the Shuttle through
the gap, whatever that gap may be.
Finally, this week, in an editorial from the Washington Times
entitled ``Losing It in Space,'' the editorial from the Washington
Times says:
Pity poor NASA. Rather than reaching toward the stars,
America's premier scientific organization has settled its
sights on studying shrimp schools beneath the Antarctic ice
cap and sticky accelerators on Toyotas. Such is the scope of
hope and change in President Obama's universe.
The editorial goes on to say:
In his 2011 budget, the president zeroed out NASA's
Constellation project, the package of launch and landing
vehicles that were to replace the aging space shuttle fleet
to carry Americans into space. . . .
This is not a cost-cutting move. The agency is budgeted to
receive $19 billion next year, and Mr. Obama wants to throw
an additional $6 billion at it over [the next] five years.
The hitch is he wants to shift its mission toward climate
research and airplane design. Anxious to stay relevant, NASA
agreed to research the cause of Toyota's sudden-acceleration
problem.
NASA administrator Charles Bolden said Thursday that
federal money is budgeted for fostering the growth of the
commercial space industry, including the development of space
taxis. But if the results of the president's stimulus are any
indication, command economic policy is an inefficient
generator of jobs.
It goes on to say:
As NASA's wings are clipped, our competitors soar. The U.S.
space agency even had to sign a $340 million deal with Russia
on April 6 to transport astronauts to the International Space
Station through 2014. By then, China intends to conduct an
ambitious schedule of flights with its Shenzhou spacecraft.
It doesn't take much imagination to envision the day when
NASA must pay its Asian competitor large sums for American
astronauts to ride into orbit as passengers. Thanks to Mr.
Obama, the United States will be dependent on Russia and
China for space travel.
The editorial goes on:
The space program is a great symbol of the American spirit
of achievement. The day this nation cedes the conquest of
space to others is the day we admit that we have forfeited
our competitive exceptionalism. Earth-centric activities like
the study of the Antarctic shrimp ecosystem and automobile
anomalies should be left to others. A less-costly NASA should
be relieved of extraneous responsibilities and allowed to
retain its core mission--one that no other agency can
accomplish--the exploration of space.
On behalf of all Americans, Floridians should make certain
the president gets the message loud and clear when he hosts a
conference about the agency's future on Thursday--
Today--
in the Sunshine State. Let NASA be NASA.
That is the editorial from the Washington Times earlier this week.
Let me remind my colleagues that the Augustine Committee, which the
Obama administration asked to review the Nation's human space flight
activities, used a subtitle for its report which proposed a set of
options for a space program ``worthy of a great nation.'' The items I
have submitted for the Record reflect the thoughts and feelings of many
of those who gave us a space program that was worthy of greatness. I
believe their words represent a challenge that Congress and the
President must meet.
In a few hours, President Obama will share the details of his latest
vision for our Nation's future space program. I still remain hopeful
the President will come away from this visit today with a deeper
understanding of what is at stake in our Nation's history of space
exploration. I renew my offer to work with the President and my
congressional colleagues to come up with a plan that makes sense for
America.
The principles necessary to bridge the gap between the President and
Congress have been set forward by the bipartisan legislation I have
introduced and has also been introduced on the House side. All that is
needed to align these principles with the President's goals and
existing budget realities is a willingness to take the same risks that
have been hallmarks of our Nation's commitment to space exploration.
Some people would say we have to cut the budget somewhere. Why not
here? The answer is, this does not cut the budget. The President's
proposal does not cut the budget. It increases the budget. It turns the
money over to private companies that are as yet unproven to try to do
something we have already made a $10 billion investment in and cut it
off. When it is cut off, we will lose all that has been gained. The
engineering, the science, the research that has gone into the space
station will be lost. Those people will go into other areas. We will
not be able to recreate it. But yet we have not cut the budget a
penny. What we have done is squander the capability for America to
continue to be the leader of the world in innovation, in creativity,
and most certainly in taking the risk to explore the heavens, which has
produced so many results in our country.
It has produced results for national defense capabilities. We are
using satellites to put bombs into windows from miles out so we will
not have collateral damage and hurt innocent people. We learned that by
exploring the heavens. We now have Velcro. We have MRIs. We have health
benefits that we could never have had without the research we did to go
into space.
Now we have a $100 billion investment in a space station that will
specialize with NIH and other agencies in doing research that cannot be
done on the ground because of the microgravity conditions. Yet we are
stopping the capability, at the end of this year, for Americans to go
into space under our own auspices. This is not sound policy for our
country. I am urging the President to listen to people such as Neil
Armstrong and Eugene Cernan and Jim Lovell and former administrators
who have knowledge that is beyond mine or his about what we can do for
the future.
[[Page S2340]]
We need to rethink the position that is being announced today and
remember that America's greatness is dependent on our creativity and
our entrepreneurial spirit. Stopping midtrack and turning everything
over to private companies that are in their fledgling stage is not the
answer.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
____________________