[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5565-5570]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 5566]]

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 5567]]

       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.

[[Page 5568]]

       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 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

[[Page 5569]]

     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.
  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

[[Page 5570]]

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.
  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.

                          ____________________