Federal News Service February 12, 2004 Thursday
HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
SUBJECT: SPACE EXPLORATION
CHAIRED BY: REPRESENTATIVE SHERWOOD BOEHLERT (R-NY)
LOCATION: 2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.
WITNESSES:
SEAN O'KEEFE, ADMINISTRATOR, NASA;
JOHN MARBURGER III, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. BOEHLERT: Thank you very much, Mr. Rohrabacher.
And like you, as I indicated in my opening statement, I want to applaud the president's vision. But I would like to add that before we get onboard, we have to determine the extent of the ticket we're willing to purchase for the journey. That's why it's so critically important that we get very precise in addressing the timetables, the dollars and the impact on science overall, and that's why I welcome Dr. Marburger here because this is critically important that we hear from the president's science adviser on how this critical component of an overall package fits in with everything else.
With that, I recognize the subcommittee chairman-ranking member on Space and Aeronautics, Mr. Lampson.
REP. NICK LAMPSON (D-TX): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, good morning. I want to join my colleagues in welcoming Dr. Marburger and Administrator O'Keefe to this morning's hearing. It is indeed a very important one. I hope it's just the first, as has been said, in a series of hearings to examine the president's proposed initiative, as well as to review the overall NASA budget request.
For me, the president's announcement of some long-term goals for the nation's human space flight program was both welcome and overdue. I've long been pushing for a commitment to a sustained exploration agenda, with a series of exciting and significant intermediate milestones on the way to Mars. I introduced legislation to that effect in the last Congress and I reintroduced it again in this Congress. I welcome the president's decision to put forth an exploration agenda, and I look forward to working with him to advance its goals.
I think space exploration brings out the best of us-in us as a people. That said, I'm going to also need to be convinced that the implementation plan laid out by NASA is in fact both credible and sustainable before I can give it my unreserved support. I found it interesting that this morning's Washington Post had an article on the meeting yesterday, the commission-Space Exploration Commission meeting where Norman Augustine, the retired chairman of Lockheed Martin, made comments that NASA doesn't have enough money or bright young stars to achieve President Bush's goal of returning astronauts to the moon and flying from there to Mars and, "it would be a grave mistake to undertake a major new space objective on the cheap," he said. "To do so, in my opinion, would be an invitation to disaster."
And in that same article there was a quote from General Lester Lyles, retired from the Air Force, about the possibility that budgets and technologies of other government agencies could even be tapped. So it would be interesting to know, Dr. Marburger, if those were certainly plans or thoughts that you have.
We will do no favor to the dedicated men and women of NASA if we fail to ask the tough questions about the president's initiative. For example, what will be the impact of the president's plan on NASA's other programs? I agree with my colleague, Mr. Gordon: I am not prepared to do damage to NASA's other programs and other important activities in order to make this new plan fit within the president's budget. Those who know me know that I am an unabashed supporter of NASA's human space flight program and of the good work done particularly at the Johnson Space Center.
Human space flight is an important part of our nation's overall space effort and it has delivered significant technological and other benefits to our citizens over the years, but it is only one of NASA's missions. I don't know how many of you saw the news about the local law enforcement officials getting help from NASA technology in identifying the suspect in the tragic abduction and murder of Carlie Brucia in Florida just recently. What you may not know is that the technology was first developed by two NASA employees, one a solar physicist and the other an atmospheric scientist, to assist them in their research activities. It's a poignant, but important example of the ways in which our investment in all areas of the space program can serve the broader needs of our society.
As you know, the House recently passed NASA workforce legislation to improve NASA's ability to attract and retain the best and the brightest. What message will we send if we now embrace an exploration plan that tells a range of dedicated NASA employees, thanks for your hard work, but we now need your budget for our new initiative? It seems to me that the president needs to propose funding adequate to do the job right or NASA regrettably will have to scale back its aspirations. My own strong preference is that the president provide the funding needed to do the job right. We in Congress will work to do it, but fundamentally I don't want to put the NASA employees in the situation of once again trying to fit 10 pounds of new tasks into a five pound budgetary pack.
Mr. Chairman, I have a great number of questions about the initiative that I hope we will address at this and subsequent hearings, but I won't list them all right now. Instead, I just will close by saying that we're being given the opportunity to construct an exciting and productive future for our nation's civil space program. We owe it to NASA and to the American taxpayers to take the time to get it right.
Thank you and I yield back my time.
REP. BOEHLERT: Thank you very much, Mr. Lampson.
I'm particularly pleased that you mentioned the successful effort on the part of this committee to pass the NASA Restructuring Act, because that will enact Administrator O'Keefe and others associated with that very important agency to retain the existing stars on the horizon and to attract the new ones to that lexicon, so I'm very pleased with that.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. BOEHLERT: Thank you very much. And I think it's very evident from what has been said to date that all of us are looking at this not in isolation, not as just one piece to the overall budget, but I see the big picture and how this impacts on every other piece, so that we can make rational judgments and develop responsible policy.
Speaking about responsible policy, Mr. Lampson.
REP. LAMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And speaking of what you were saying, I think you led right into what I wanted to ask. I have a couple of questions. Obviously there are many things that we want clarification on. Let me try to focus on two of them in my very short five minutes here.
Mr. O'Keefe, NASA's budget charts indicate that there won't be U.S. funding for the International Space Station beyond 2016. We need to know what you intend to do with the U.S. portion of the space station beyond that time. When you responded to Mr. Gordon's written question on that topic, you said then, "NASA will continue the operation and maintenance of the ISS, consistent with the U.S. space exploration goals." However, that statement is contradicted by the budget plan that accompanies the president's initiative. So which is it? Is NASA going to continue to fund the U.S. participation in the space station after 2016? If so, about how much will it cost and for how long? And if not, what did you mean by Mr. Gordon's question-in your response to Mr. Gordon's question?
And then let me say one other thing before you answer that. Your response to Mr. Gordon also stated, any final decision about the U.S. government's role in the ISS once this research is complete will not need to be made until the middle of the next decade. Are you seriously saying that the U.S. can wait until the middle of the next decade to let its international partners in the space station program know what the U.S. intends to do? That sounds pretty unbelievable to me and I want to know if that's really what you're saying.
MR. O'KEEFE: Yes, sir. I appreciate that and thank you for the question. First of all, the objective of the next dozen years, between now, 2004, and 2016, is the targeted span that we're looking at it to really refocus all the research effort that the U.S. modules will be conducting, focused on human physiology and long-duration space flight consequence. So all of the other priorities that were outlined in the remap effort, you may recall, a year and a half ago that we went through of looking at what science prioritization. The answer now is there is one priority. We're focusing on life sciences, we're focusing on what the challenge is of understanding the research necessary to inform long-duration space flight.
REP. LAMPSON: Is there an expectation then that we can end that by 2016?
MR. O'KEEFE: Yes, sir. That's the expectation, is that that research will take us through the middle of next decade of 10 to 12 years to achieve that. If it doesn't, we'll have to continue that activity beyond that point.
REP. LAMPSON: Okay. At what point do we have to notify our international partners of what we're going to do, because it impacts them as well.
MR. O'KEEFE: Yes, sir. Absolutely. And we discussed with our international partners on a regular basis. They're meeting and convening today, will continue to do so on a regular basis, and we'll constantly update them as we move through this. They do not feel as though there's an abandonment that's occurring here. Their view is that as we step through this, we've got to determine what the components and modules look like, what the laboratory segments look like, when they deploy, and how long we want to all deploy them-or operate them.
REP. LAMPSON: In 2016 if this ends, is there a plan then to bring it back?
MR. O'KEEFE: No, sir. Again, there's no presumption here that upon the completion of our research endeavor to examine the human physiology effects on long-duration space flight that we turn off the lights on station. Our partners intend to continue operating, but we may too.
REP. LAMPSON: So we may give it --
MR. O'KEEFE: We may too.
REP. LAMPSON: So our part --
MR. O'KEEFE: And we may too. So as a consequence, it is designed through the next decade to continue on, and there is no presumption here of turning off the lights on station by the middle of the next decade.
REP. LAMPSON: Okay. Okay, I'll go to the budget. Well, let me go to my next one because I'll run out of time.
MR. O'KEEFE: Yes, sir. The budget only goes through 2009. The budget only goes through 2009. So the longer term projection is we're trying to give you visibility over what the research plan is. We're trying to lay out goals to the research community to say within the next 10 to 12 years we have to conquer these particular challenges of long-duration space flight.
REP. LAMPSON: Doesn't that end on your chart in 2017?
MR. O'KEEFE: Yes, sir. That is the specific cost and the activities related to long-duration space flight, human physiology, life sciences research.
How that may be adapted beyond that point to build a capacity on what station can still afford is something that we've got an opportunity to examine.
REP. LAMPSON: We may have some more questions on that.
MR. O'KEEFE: Yes, sir.
REP. LAMPSON: But right now, let me switch quickly to the issue of the Russian Soyuz. It's clear that we will have some dependence on the Russians for Soyuz crew transfers to and from the space station after 2010, when the shuttle fleet is abandoned. It's also clear that we'll need to acquire Soyuz vehicles for the space station, starting in 2006, which is less than two years from now. We know that it takes about 18 months or so, 16 or 18 months to build a Soyuz. I wanted to make a comment about outsourcing our jobs and talent to Russia, but I won't.
In fact, in 2005, NASA's budget plan now includes a multi-year funding stream for ISS cargo, crew services that NASA concedes may include payments for Soyuz services. Yet as we have discussed in the past, the Iran Nonproliferation Act prohibits such payments to Russia in the absence of a presidential certification on non-proliferation, and that has not been forthcoming. And the State Department has made it clear in writing and written testimony to this committee that payments to U.S. companies purchasing Soyuz vehicles or services from Russian companies, quote, "would raise questions under section 6 of the Iran Nonproliferation Act and would likely be viewed as an evasion of the law."
Similarly, the State Department has made it clear to the committee that having our other international partners purchase Soyuz vehicles or services from the Russians in exchange for compensation from the United States would also, quote, "raise legal questions under section 6 and would likely be viewed by me as an evasion of the law. So here we are. Your administration is saying that you can't acquire Soyuzes from the Russians without violating the INA, and yet your approach to the space station is critically dependent on a continuing supply of Soyuz vehicles. Do you plan to seek a legislative repeal of modification of the INA to permit you to acquire Soyuzes? If so, when will you notify Congress of that intent, and if not, what specifically is your plan.
REP. BOEHLERT: That's a very important question. The gentleman's time has expired, but we're allowing additional time because he's hit the heart of a very important issue.
Mr. O'Keefe.
MR. O'KEEFE: Yes, sir, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We are not seeking exemptions of the law at this time. We are negotiating with all of our international partners on what our continuing challenges to operate station will entail. Right now the only means to achieve access to station is by the Soyuz craft. There is clearly a intent on the part of all of our partners to expand the crew size aboard the International Space Station once shuttle returns to flight, and we continue to build out the capacity of International Space Station. So all of that would require a modification to our current agreements, which expire in '06, among all of us as partners, all 16 nations, and we're enjoining in that question now, beginning today. All the partners are in town, and they'll be continuing activities through the end of March, early April, with the heads of agencies to discuss exactly these points. Our intent at this moment, this time, is not to seek either an amendment to or repeal of the Iran Nonproliferation Act.
REP. LAMPSON: Okay. And there's really not a plan yet. Thank you for your indulgence.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. BOEHLERT: Mr. Lampson.
REP. LAMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm still concerned about the Iran Non-Proliferation Act and knowing that --
(Off mike discussion.)
REP. BOEHLERT: We're alternating back and forth. Come on. If you have a question, you have an opportunity. All right, sit down. Do it. It's up to you.
REP. ROHRABACHER: I'm sorry. I've got a plane in Dulles that I'm going to run out for. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First and foremost, how will the shuttle delays that you just mentioned affect the rising costs for your budgets for Fiscal Year '05 through '09?
MR. O'KEEFE(?): I can't make an assessment right now, but I don't think this is going to be a cost driver. It's more technical driver on the two, the external tank as well as the imaging boom, neither of which appear to be cost drivers. They're more just technical development questions. So I don't anticipate a big cost differential here.
REP. ROHRABACHER: The different time will cost money, will it not?
MR. O'KEEFE: Sure, by definition, but we are not talking about-single digit months, not years.
REP. ROHRABACHER: Number one. Number two, let me just note for the record that, as far as I am concerned and I think a large number of people are concerned because we are on budget constraint, we're worried about science programs being cut. Anything that can be done commercially that will make it cheaper to achieve our goals in space, specially those concerning the station should be done because that leaves more money available for science projects and other projects. And also, that includes the servicing of the space station which there are private sector alternatives that have been offered. And if they're cheaper, they should be done.
And finally, I guess we've talked about the pursuing of commercial interests. So that's just about it.
MR. O'KEEFE: Thank you, sir. Yes, sir.
REP. BOEHLERT: Well, have a great flight, Mr. Rohrabacher, the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Space and Aeronautics.
Mr. Lampson.
REP. LAMPSON: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Just a quick statement about the INA that I still concern myself with. Mr. Rohrabacher made the comment earlier on his first time around about the exception for imminent danger that we can indeed deal with the Russians under those circumstances. There presently is not an imminent danger and the concern is we only have Soyuz.
They are going to be built, I think, two under construction and soon we will not have anything there and even though we are involved with discussion with our ISS partners, current law tells us we can't do it with the Russians. And there is pending legislation that would allow us to solve that problem, give the president the flexibility necessary, massive flexibility necessary, to do these negotiations. It just doesn't make sense that we're not looking at those opportunities and it seems to me that we're going forward without a good plan, with a major initiative here. And I yield my time to Mr. Gordon.