Hearing of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee - NASA Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request and Justification
SEN. MIKULSKI: Good morning. Today the subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science will come to order.
And today the committee will hear from NASA Administrator Dr. Michael Griffin about the NASA budget request and its priorities. This is Administrator Griffin's fourth appearance before the CJS Committee, and we feel that we have a very good productive relationship with both he and his team.
There are many issues facing NASA and there's also many good news. And we go forward as we talk with NASA about its tremendous history. With so -- this year we honor important milestones in America's space program.
It's the 50th anniversary of NASA's creation. It's the 25th anniversary of when Dr. Sally Ride, became the first American woman in space. But we want to be sure that NASA is not an agency with a great history, but with a great future.
We regard this year as a year of transition. We say this is a year of transition because this time, next year, we will have a new president. But whatever we do for this year's appropriation, for fiscal '09 will be the operating budget for the president's first year for the space program.
So we've got to get it right as we have a -- as the new president comes in. So as the Chair of this year, I'm going to make sure we put the right resources in the right places in the checkbook to make sure America's space program remains number one in the world.
When I looked at the president's budget for NASA, I was disappointed. I regarded it as stagnant -- despite the advocacy both from the agency and externally. The president's budget request is $7.16 -- $7.6 billion. This is only $300 million above the 2008 omnibus level.
This 1.8 percent increase doesn't even keep up with inflation when one simply looks at rising energy cost. Science is held steady at $4.4 billion and though it does include launches -- launch plans for the decadal study, it's only five of the seventeen priorities.
A deep concern to this committee is the cuts in aeronautic research. It's cut by $65 million for a total of $447 (million). We feel that aeronautics is so crucial to the future of America's aerospace industry.
There is no official -- and again, once again, regrettably, there is no additional funding to help back NASA for the cost of returning the Shuttle to flight after the terrible accident a few years ago.
So this perpetuates a five-year -- and it also perpetuates a five-year gap between the Shuttle's retirement in 2010, and the launch of Orion and Ares in 2015. So we are worried about lost opportunities and we want to restore those opportunities and keep America's space program number one.
We continue to face challenges from other countries. We know China also on the rise with its capability and its intent. Russia is always there, again, and we don't this in -- like a war for space. But we do say who is going to be the premier space agency.
We want now, the United States to continue to lead the way, not only for national prestige and honor, also not only for national security reasons, but the fact that we believe that our values as we became the first in space, was that space belonged to the world, and does not belong to a single nation.
Anyway, coming back to where we are, I will continue to, in my fight, joining with Senators Shelby and Hutchison to fight again this year to add the $1 billion to deal with the cost that was incurred in returning to flight after the Columbia accident.
It should not be of question of whether we should or should not, it's just a question of doing it. We're also going to remember the original Augustine Commission, which says we need to have a balanced space program of human space exploration, a reliable space transportation system, and investments in science, and also investments in scientific research.
For science, the budget requested $4.4 billion -- is what the president requested. Science at NASA is guided by decadal reports prepared by the National Academy of Science. It also guides this subcommittee.
These decadals are road maps for NASA. Science at NASA is something that's so important because it saves lives, saves the planet, and creates jobs for the future. So I'm puzzled why the budget, science budget, has been flat-funded, and for this year, and for the next five years.
We need to maintain a very important commitment to earth science and the role that it plays in global warming. Missions like ICESAT and TRMM measure and monitor the world's ice sheets and rainforests.
We also need to have science that takes us into new breakthrough thinking, like a great telescope like Hubble, who's life we will extend and also the James Webb Telescope, that if we liked Hubble you're going to be crazy about the James Webb Telescope and what it will make for those advancements.
Again aeronautics, in 1998, the aeronautics budget at NASA was $1.5 billion. Today it's less than $500 million. Every commercial aircraft flying today uses technology developed by NASA. We must maintain this leadership. And we see as we travel the world how competitive aerospace is becoming.
The budget request for the space shuttle is $3 billion. It calls for 10 more flights to the space station by 2010, and one flight is reserved to service the Hubble Telescope. Retiring the Shuttle and transitioning the workforce will be major challenges for NASA.
The U.S. cannot afford to lose our science and engineering talent. And therefore we need to look at what will be our employment plan. And as always, no matter what we do, the safety of our astronauts has to be number one.
There -- the budget request for exploration is $3 billion. It's over $600 million above 2008, and we're -- this committee, chaired by both myself and my Ranking Member Shelby, are absolutely committed to the goal of returning U.S. astronauts to the moon and maintaining a presence there.
We estimate that it will cost $16 billion to build Ares and Orion.
While this is a significant investment, we're again continued to be disturbed by the gap of almost five years between the retirement in the space shuttle and the launch of the Orion, Ares.
I want to know what we can do, as we engage in our conversation, to minimize the time gap and minimize the impact on the workforce, and what is our path forward.
The space station is $2 billion, $200 million above the omnibus level. It is a national laboratory. We must keep our international commitments. We need to make sure we finish the station. And we also need to continue to have access to the Shuttle which goes to our partnership with the Russians and the COTS program.
I fully support the COTS program, which is funded at $170 million. We have a tough road ahead as we put together our bill. It will be the intention of the committee to have our bill completed before the Memorial Day recess, so that we can be called out, and be ready to fly -- to be ready to fly as the spaceship, the CJS bill.
So having laid that groundwork, we're going to turn to Administrator Griffin. But I want the record to show that Senator Richard Shelby is not here, because his duties as the ranking member of the Banking Committee has him on the floor.
He is the lead sponsor of the -- the lead ranking member on moving the bill to deal with our terrible, terrible housing and foreclosure crisis. Senator Shelby must be on the floor. But we assured him his views would be presented here.
We will submit his questions for the record. He has questions about the future of robotic missions to the moon, the NASA education program, the gap in human space way, and issues related to accountability and stewardship.
I too share those questions. Without objection we will put these in the record, and I will proceed.
So Dr. Griffin, we're going to turn to you and go with your testimony.
MR. GRIFFIN: Thank you and good morning.
Chairman Mikulski, I too regret Senator Shelby could not be here, but please be assured we will answer his questions for the record as expeditiously as possible.
I want to thank you for inviting me here today to discuss our fiscal year 2009 budget request of $17.6 billion. But rather than delving into the details of the budget request itself, I'd like to use this opportunity to explain the rationale behind the strategic choices made with America's investment in our nation's space program.
Our annual budget represents less than six-tenths of a percent of the $3.1 trillion federal budget. A small but strategic investment in our nation's leadership on the new frontier as President Kennedy characterized "our nation's first halting steps and then giant leaps beyond earth."
When strategically applied, America's investment in NASA also benefits our nation by spurring development in new innovative technologies and advancing our scientific understanding of earth, sun, solar system, and the rest of the universe in ways that we can hardly fathom today but which inspire us to learn more.
Space exploration also contributes to our national security in a very deep way by enabling us to build closer ties with other nations and societies, and by inspiring young people to study difficult subjects, mathematics, science, engineering, so that the next generation of Americans remains at the cutting edge of technical progress.
What we do is rocket plans. Conquest of air and space is one of mankind's most interdisciplinary activities. The capabilities we bring into being, help not only to build a better future for aviation and space, they benefit our entire society.
This year we celebrate the 50th anniversary of NASA's creation by the Congress with the passage of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, a strategic national response to the historic achievements of the Soviet Union in the arena that President Kennedy would label so aptly, "this new ocean."
It was this foresight in recognizing the strategic importance of space, which inspired and challenged a now aging generation of Americans, my generation, to study math, science, and engineering so that we could take part in this great enterprise. However as we celebrate NASA's 50th anniversary, I must also tell you that I'm worried.
Senator Mikulski, in absentia members of the committee, I'm concerned that our nation is now facing a silent Sputnik, a moment when many other countries are racing for a new high ground of innovation, while our own advantages, technological, economic, intellectual are showing signs of wear.
While I believe that America's greatest days lie always ahead of us, this optimism is misplaced, unless we recognize our problems, confront them and strive with concerted energy to fix them. We need your help.
We face many challenges at NASA. But I believe the greatest of these is the need to maintain a determined and unified sense of purpose as we pursue the tasks before us.
Our achievements, the things we do that awe the world do not come cheaply, quickly, or easily. Space exploration is not for the faint of heart. It is not for those who are easily distracted. It is not for those who require instant gratification.
This year all of us in the space community took a moment to recall where we were just five years ago when the Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrated over Texas and Louisiana, and to reflect upon the ultimate sacrifice our astronauts made while pursuing our nation's endeavors in space.
And we took cautious but sober pride in the progress that we've made in the short time since then. At great expense and with considerable technical difficulty, we returned the space shuttle to flight, and we are using it today to complete the assembly of the International Space Station.
In the last few months, we've installed the European Columbus Laboratory, the first of three components of the Japanese Kibo module and the Canadian Dextre, robotic arm. We have 10 more assembly and logistics missions ahead of us, plus one final shuttle servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope scheduled for later this year.
Barring unforeseen circumstances, I believe we are well- positioned to complete station assembly by 2010, and then retire the Shuttle in accordance with the thoughtful recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board.
It took a crisis, the Columbia tragedy, for our nation's leaders in the White House and Congress to recognize the truth of the damning assessment of the CAIB, quoting, "The U.S. civilian space effort has moved forward for more than 30 years without a guiding vision," end quote.
President and Congress honored the sacrifice of the Columbia crew with a new civil space policy noteworthy for the logical progression of its goals and its clarity of purpose. We must not allow that clarity to fade with the passage of time. We must not let it just slip away.
So we are honoring America's prior commitments to our international partners on the station. We've begun the necessary steps now turning into longer strides to develop a new generation of capabilities with the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle and the Ares family of rockets to replace the aging space shuttle.
We're using the market provided by the International Space Station to help bring about U.S. commercial space transportation capability with our COTS program that you mentioned.
By being good partners on the International Space Station and with an armada of earth and space science missions, through good times and in bad, it is my belief that other countries will want to join the United States in returning to the moon, exploring Mars, other planets, and moons in our solar system, and discovering what lies beyond.
There's little we can't do if we pursue this common vision together. However, please do not confuse my desire for international collaboration with a willingness to rely upon others for strategic capability. Today, we are dependant upon the Russian Soyuz. This dependence upon Russia for such a critical capability is not an option we would choose but it is where we are today.
In fact, we must seek an exception to the Iran, North Korea, Syria Nonproliferation Act because we have no immediate replacement for this Shuttle and no other recourse if we wish to sustain the ISS.
Since that is a fact, and I prefer to deal in facts, I'm glad that in today's world we have the option to avail ourselves of Russian crew transportation capabilities. But we did not get here by design. We got here by default.
And as Admiral Gehman observed in the CAIB report, quote, "Previous attempts to develop a replacement vehicle for the aging Shuttle represent a failure of national leadership," end quote.
That failure has had and will have costs. The most important of those costs are not measured in money or in jobs, but both of these measures have been much in the news, but rather in terms of our nation's posture and standing in the world.
I will leave it to others to assess the larger consequences of the failure of American leadership to which Admiral Gehman referred. So let me be perfectly clear. While we have made significant progress in the past five years the journey ahead is not easy.
It requires courage on the part of those who must carry it out and commitment from those in leadership who would see it succeed. To reach this point in the aftermath of Columbia has required extraordinary self-sacrifice by everyone involved. And even more will be required in the years ahead.
Transition from Shuttle to Orion, Ares, the next generation of constellation systems, while utilizing the space station with a six- person crew, sustaining it with U.S., and commercial, and foreign transportation services, is NASA's greatest management challenge.
We must not make promises we can't keep. We must carefully consider any new missions to assure that they are affordable. We must set priorities. We must focus upon the next steps, finishing the station, building a new space transportation system to replace Shuttle, and then venturing out again beyond low earth orbit.
We must keep always before us the real reasons why we explore this new frontier and the consequences of allowing our hard-earned leadership on that frontier to slip away. None of this will be finished in a single year, a single presidential administration, a session of Congress, or even in the lifetime of anyone here today.
It is a challenge for generations to come, but one which requires leadership on our part today, on behalf of those generations to come. In the immortal words of President Kennedy, "Now is the time to take longer strides."
Thank you.
SEN. MIKULSKI: Well, thank you, Dr. Griffin. And first of all, I know this was your oral testimony, which was more of a rhetorical document than a budget statement. So we will put into the record your full testimony to the committee, which I think went into very specific detail. We have the written testimony, which I know was whetted by OMB and powers that be.
And it outlines the budget aspects that we want. We too agree with your statement on page six that says, "We must not make promises we cannot keep, and carefully consider any new missions to ensure that they are affordable."
Dr. Griffin and this is not directed at you, but really your predecessor and the White House, I agree with that. And so when they embarked upon the Mars Mission for which the Congress was not critical, they never gave us any money. So we are very frustrated that we were given an assignment without the money and falling upon us to come up with the money.
So I would agree with the premise, let's not make promises we can't keep, and consider any new missions. Well, we were given a new mission. A promise was made. Just like the promise was made on the space station. We got all those international partners involved and now we wonder how in the hell are we going to get there?
So we're cranky. We're not cranky with you, but we're cranky. Because we keep feeling like we're being set up. And then it comes to us. So we note your question about leadership. But we're not in here to finger point today. We are into pinpoint our path forward. And -- but I want to set the record correct and state that a promise was made to go to Mars, but no money was given to us.
The Gehman Commission outlined and it cost NASA $2 billion plus to return to space. And return to space in a way that was safe for our astronauts, which always needs to be a national obsession. And no money-back for the replacement cost paralleling the Challenger. And then number three -- so those are -- those for us are the big issues.
We had -- we went to the space station at the request of President Bush, I, and we've sustained that, and we've had difficulty paying for it since in two administrations. Now, this one gave us a Mars Mission without the wallet. So we appreciate your observation. We presume it's not a lecture.
And number three, we're cranky because we keep given missions and no wallet, and I know you must feel the same way, which then takes us though to really the heart of what you're saying which is, a reliable space transportation system, and that goes to the transportation system to replace the Shuttle. Because without a reliable transportation device we can't do any of the things, whether it's the return to the moon, or see beyond.
Could you share with us, because everyone's deeply concerned about the gap, I'd like to go through some of the questions about the gap. I'm going to say two things, one, colleagues, both here and in the House are saying, "Well, why don't we give them more money and close the gap?"
So I'm going to ask if that's a realistic possibility if money were not the problem. Just with you know, sound engineering principles, and then number two, as you know there are some members in the House who are raising the concept of extending the life of the Shuttle -- until 2015.
So let's go with acceleration. What could we, putting money aside, because I'll come back to "show me the money." Because that's what this is. Can we accelerate or close that gap and what would be -- in a prudent way, and not just be throwing money at it. And then what you think of the idea of extending the Shuttle until 2015?
MR. GRIFFIN: Yes, of course, Senator Mikulski, and thank you.
Let me start out by saying just for the record that if anything in my oral statement came across as presuming to lecture the Congress that that was not my intent. I was -- I was calling for the leadership that I know that you know we need and have provided, but certainly not lecturing the Congress.
But to answer the specifics of your questions, with regard to closing the gap, at this point with 65 percent statistical confidence, we are budgeted to deliver Orion and Ares for operational capability to the space station in March of 2015.
We've been asked by your colleagues in the Senate as well as your colleagues in the House, if that could be improved. And we have answered for the record and I will give you the outlines of that answer now.
At a cost of about $2 billion total over the next several years, next couple of years, it would be possible to bring March of 2015, back into, let's say, the late fall of 2013. So we could improve the schedule by about 15 to 16 months at this point at a cost of $2 billion.
In general, as a rough guide for your planning, every $100 million extra that is put into the program improves the schedule by just about a month. So on the record that is the best we've been able to determine.
SEN. MIKULSKI: It seems like about a billion (dollars) a year.
MR. GRIFFIN: Yes, ma'am. That's correct.
SEN. MIKULSKI: Okay.
MR. GRIFFIN: Now, we can't --
SEN. MIKULSKI: Could -- but if you --
MR. GRIFFIN: -- for any amount of money we can't get back earlier than the fall of 2013.
SEN. MIKULSKI: So even if we gave using a billion as a rule of thumb per year, even if we came up with $5 billion, highly unlikely, you couldn't --
MR. GRIFFIN: That really is technically achievable date at this point.
SEN. MIKULSKI: Would be 2013.
MR. GRIFFIN: Given the water over the dam behind us, would be late 2013.
SEN. MIKULSKI: Okay.
MR. GRIFFIN: Now in answer to your second question, whether or not my opinions about extending the lifetime of the Shuttle. They are founded on -- my opinion is that we should not do that. They are founded on several different principles.
The first is that, as I believe we all now know, and as Admiral Gehman pointed out in the CAIB report, the inherent -- the Shuttle is an inherently risky design. We currently assess the per mission risk, as about one in seventy-five of having a fatal accident.
If one were to do, as some have suggested, and fly the Shuttle for an additional five years, say two missions a year, the risk would be about one in twelve that we would lose another crew.
That's a high risk. We have elected -- as a nation, we have elected -- the administration has decided and the Congress has concurred and I believe that concurrence was absolutely correct that we will complete the space station.
But it is not being done without risk. To fly the Shuttle after the space station is completed for any significant length of time, I believe, would incur a risk I would not choose to accept on behalf of our astronauts.
Now, flying the Shuttle after the 2010 retirement date has other effects. It costs around $3 billion a year. You ma'am referenced just a few moments ago that our request this year to fly the Shuttle was $3 billion.
I would rather see if my opinion were being sought, I would rather see extra money made available if that were the case to accelerate existing systems. If extra money were not made available and the $3 billion had to come out of hide, as you mentioned the return to flight costs of $2.7 billion was taken out of hide. If that were done again -- again every month, every $100 million that comes out of the new systems extended their schedule for a month.
On the back end of the program, we lose a month and a half. So if you delay constellation by a year today in order to fly the Shuttle for another year, then you delay Constellation by a year and a half on the backend. So you don't ever narrow the gap. You extend the gap if you fly the Shuttle longer.
SEN. MIKULSKI: That's an important thing. So pursuing and in trying to keep the Shuttle going beyond the current designated time is high risk?
MR. GRIFFIN: Yes, ma'am.
SEN. MIKULSKI: High expense.
MR. GRIFFIN: Yes, ma'am.
SEN. MIKULSKI: And the very goal we want to have which is not to have a gap, we create -- we once more exacerbate.
MR. GRIFFIN: Yes, ma'am.
SEN. MIKULSKI: I got it. Can you -- did Admiral Gehman, when he looked at the return-to-flight as part of the review after the accident what -- did they look at this possibility?
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, they did. And in -- around pages 209 and 210 of volume I of the CAIB report, they devoted considerable discussion to the future of the Shuttle. I happen to have a few of those quotes with me. I'm given to using them in speeches for just these purposes.
But Admiral Gehman pointed and I'll quote for the record here, quote, "Because of the risks inherent in the original design of the Space Shuttle," and I'll skip a couple of points that don't matter, "It is in the nation's interest to replace the Shuttle as soon as possible as the primary means of transporting humans to and from earth orbit."
Admiral Gehman also points out that "There is urgency in choosing the design after serious review of the concept of operations for human space flight and bringing it into operation as soon as possible. This is likely to require a significant commitment of resources over the next several years. The nation must not shy from making that commitment." End quote.
SEN. MIKULSKI: Well, of course, we'll look to the wisdom of you know, working with their authorizers and you. But based on our conversations, both in preparation for this hearing in here I really could not support the extension of the Shuttle to 2015.
What I'm going to do is working on a bipartisan basis, see what we can do to prudently, both from an engineering and technology perspective and from a fiscal perspective, accelerate, look to see if we can find the funds, to accelerate closing the gap in the plan that I -- or that I -- framework that I believe NASA already is thinking about and could do it.
So we would have a plan A, which would be to close the gap to 2013, which in and of itself would be pretty terrific. And plan B would be to stay the course, which would be the minimum threshold. So from my perspective looking at -- again, working with Senator Shelby, Senator Nelson, Senator Hutchison, those of us involved in really the authorizing and so on, our goal would do that.
I can't speak for my colleagues, but speaking for myself I would not envision the twenty -- to try to keep the Shuttle going. I think the risk is inherent and the national goals are not that which we want to accomplish, which then takes me to using the Soyuz -- could you -- in order for us to use -- but whatever it is, we are currently relying on the Soyuz.
So could you tell us where we are now, don't we have some treaty issues I mean, you and I are not State Department wants here, but don't we have kind of, anti-proliferation compliance and as a member of the intelligence committee, I can't be asking compliance -- {laughs) -- with proliferation issues. Where are we with that, and what is required and where are we, and can the committee help facilitate this?
MR. GRIFFIN: Thank you, yes, that's -- they are excellent questions there. First, we need Russian Soyuz services today at a minimum, for crew rescue capability onboard the station. The Shuttle is not a lifeboat.
So for until we have a qualified replacement system, Orion and Ares qualified for six months of flight, and therefore can serve as the lifeboat function, we will be dependent upon the Russian Soyuz system for crew rescue from station.
Secondarily, after the retirement of the Shuttle in 2010 the only mechanism in the world for crew transport to and from the space station, that we will have built, the only mechanism for crew transport will be the Russian Soyuz system.
To your point about treaty obligations, we have the INKSNA, the treaty that I mentioned and to which you referred for the control of space technology and missile technology proliferation, which prevents the purchase of certain goods and services from Russia for the space station program -- sorry I was a bit tongue-tied there.
SEN. MIKULSKI: It's okay.
MR. GRIFFIN: We are currently operating under an exemption to that treaty. It ends on December 31st of 2011. So until the end of 2011, we can purchase Progress cargo delivery services and Soyuz crew transport services.
There is about a three-year lead time for the Russians to produce new Soyuz, and so if in 2012, we wish to have crew transportation for ourselves and our partners, to whom we have treaty obligations, if in 2012 we wish to have crew transport, then by around early 2009, hopefully sooner, we need to be -- we need to have agreements in place with Russia. To accomplish that I need to furnish to the Congress within a very short period of time a request from the administration for a continued exemption to the treaty.
SEN. MIKULSKI: Well, yeah and again going back to my opening statement that this is a year of transition, and a new president doesn't take office until January 20th or 21st, and we need to have this done in this current administration, and it would be the hope of this committee, working with their colleagues on foreign relations, Senators Biden and Lugar, who are experts on the proliferation issue. We are going to move this and when do think we can expect a request from the administration?
MR. GRIFFIN: I believe Senator Mikulski, that it is imminent. We've spoken with them just yesterday. The last elements of coordination within the White House are ongoing as we speak. We are working with them to get that to the Congress as quickly as we can.
SEN. MIKULSKI: Well over the next few weeks we'll be meeting with Secretary Rice on a variety of issues. So if we get bogged down, and this committee would like to offer a way of working with you and the administration to get it unstuck and over here for review by Senators Biden and Lugar, so that we can move ahead with this, okay.
MR. GRIFFIN: Thank you very much.
SEN. MIKULSKI: Now, this though then goes to COTS. So okay, so right now we can accelerate, if we put in $2 billion, we can accelerate to 2013. We've got the Soyuz. What is the astronaut capability of the Soyuz to take people up, not the rescue vehicle mission? But how many -- what is the max number of astronauts they can take up?
MR. GRIFFIN: Well the crew capacity on a given Soyuz launch is three. And so for a crew of six, obviously to sustain a crew of six, we need two Soyuz systems flying in rotation to maintain the crew of six that we go to in April of '09.
SEN. MIKULSKI: And how much are the Russians charging us per flight. Did they talk about that yet?
MR. GRIFFIN: Through -- it's ---
SEN. MIKULSKI: Because they now have a monopoly.
MR. GRIFFIN: Yes, they do. Our current contract calls for payments for Soyuz seats and Progress flights through the end of 2011 of $780 million. Now, I can't say.
SEN. MIKULSKI: Now, and that'll go back and forth. Well, we'll go into that in more detail. Let's go to COTS, COTS -- could you outline what the budget request for COTS is. What do you think we buy for it and do you think that is sufficient, and is COTS an answer in terms of beefing up COTS to take people up there, where we have our own kind of version of a Soyuz, in other words, not before go to the moon, and so on, but really a space station vehicle, which COTS is. Can you share us those views because there is a lot floating around that COTS could be the answer to the gap?
MR. GRIFFIN: The COTS, Commercial Orbital Transportation Services, is a program that I initiated upon joining, rejoining NASA on this occasion. I did so because I believe very strongly that -- I believe two things that we need a strong government development program for Orion and Ares to guarantee that we have the capability to get to earth orbit again and to go to the moon as Admiral Gehman discussed.
But I also believe that we need to stimulate wherever possible, as a matter of government policy, we need to stimulate, provide rewards for the development of commercial capability, available for purchase by the government, but on an arms-length basis.
So the purpose of the program was to provide some, not all, but some of the money necessary for new systems development, to reach earth orbit allowing companies to use that leverage of government funds to seek other investment and to bring to bear new capabilities.
We are focusing on initially cargo, because I would, I just want to be clear with everybody, we actually have a mechanism to get crew to the station with the Shuttle -- sorry, with the Soyuz system, but unless we can bring some new commercial capabilities on-line, we really have no cargo re-supply.
So actually of the two, the most important COTS capability to me right now, is cargo and I must be honest about that. However, the COTS is a program with four different phases to it.
SEN. MIKULSKI: (Off mike.)
MR. GRIFFIN: COTS is a program with four different phases to it, and Phase D is human transportation. And yes, we would very much like to see a capability developed from U.S. commercial suppliers, to provide crew transport to and from the space station, and I do believe that that can be a solution going forward.
I do not believe that even with their best efforts and even if more money were provided, that COTS crew transportation capability will arrive in time to be available after the Shuttle retires, or even by the end of the current contract with Russia in 2012. So I don't believe that it will be available --
SEN. MIKULSKI: So what you are saying is, there is no silver bullet or there is no magic motion available to close the gap. So --
MR. GRIFFIN: Ma'am, I do not know of one.
SEN. MIKULSKI: So extending the life of the Shuttle is not a reasonable option. COTS, which is very promising technology, its first priority is cargo, because that is what is needed to sustain the astronauts, when we get them up there, without a cargo vehicle, the cost is prohibitive. We can't use Soyuz for cargo at the cost of the Soyuz, and I think it'd be big enough for cargo.
MR. GRIFFIN: That's correct.
SEN. MIKULSKI: So we need COTS to do the sustainability of the astronauts. At the same time, sure, COTS has promise, but you want to make sure that what is firmly in place is the cargo capability, but while they are developing their technologies, of course, we would look forward to possibilities of adding a human element, but that is an add-on to the mission. Do I have it down right?
MR. GRIFFIN: Yes, ma'am.
SEN. MIKULSKI: What I am really getting to is people are fishing around. Not fishing, I should say searching. That was not a good use of the word. Genuinely searching because of the gap, and like everything else we do, we have in this government; we have regrets about, "Oh, why wasn't all this thought about".
And but we are aware we are. So what you are saying is that, right now, the only reliable transportation system after 2010 will be Soyuz. So we have to work with the Russians, get our treaty in place, et cetera.
We've got to keep COTS on track. No matter what, because that's the cargo even during the gap we can sustain our American presence and we will have an American vehicle in space. So it won't be like we are just sitting on the tarmac, am I correct?
MR. GRIFFIN: Absolutely.
SEN. MIKULSKI: But there is no magic motion to close the gap. The only prudent fiscal way to go is, accelerate Ares and Orion by two years and at the same time, keep COTS on track, so we have the cargo capability. So from the standpoint of fiscal reality and engineering sensibility, that would be the way to go.
MR. GRIFFIN: Ma'am I think you have it perfectly.
SEN. MIKULSKI: Well, the reason I took such a long time in asking these questions is there is a lot of ideas in the ethers out here, and I wanted to be able to do that.
Now, my last question on this is, what is the plan for the workforce transition, when the Shuttle is retired and I am talking about at Kennedy, it is of deep concern of course, to our two colleges from Florida which now we ask people to go into science and engineering.
There have been people who have been working at Kennedy, they've given their lives work through good times and wrenching times, and we remember the brave way they responded during Katrina, to keep everything in place, I mean, it's a wonderful talented group of people, and we don't want to leave them hanging by their thumbs.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, we don't, and I know that your colleagues from Florida are concerned, but I too am concerned. I am the administrator of this agency and that is my workforce and so I am concerned as well. Before I answer your question about what our plans are, I would like to note a positive thing for the record, if I might.
I just received word that the planned docking of the European Automated Transfer Vehicle, which is a cargo delivery vehicle to the space station in support of European obligations to the partnership, just successfully docked with the space station for the first time on its maiden flight.
This accomplishment of an automated run, even when docking is the first by any nation other than Russia and brings our European partners fully on-line as full partners in the space station, and it is a magnificent accomplishment for the partnership.
SEN. MIKULSKI: Salute our European colleagues.
MR. GRIFFIN: I think they deserve every bit of that. Now, to answer your question about our workforce, we are obligated to the Congress for a report twice a year, every six months, we must report on our transition plans to retire Shuttle and bring Ares and Orion on- line.
We submitted the first of those per requirement on Monday, and it showed among the contractor community at the Kennedy Space Center, over the years the worst case scenario of a reduction of some 6,400 or so, jobs over the years following the retirement of the Shuttle.
Now, I do, for the record, I must point out to this committee that those projections are projections which are obtained by forecasting the job reductions from retirement of the Shuttle, but they do not forecast the job increases as we bring on future lunar development program. So as we begin to get out of Shuttle on station operations we are fairly well able to forecast who we will lose.
SEN. MIKULSKI: But is that the same workforce?
MR. GRIFFIN: Well it won't be the same people. It will be a different skill mix. We will be --
SEN. MIKULSKI: Well, that's what I mean.
MR. GRIFFIN: The Shuttle workforce in terms of Shuttle operations will be a much smaller operational workforce for Ares and Orion. That was the goal of retiring the Shuttle.
When we put new work down at Kennedy Space Center it will, in some respects, require different kinds of skills, so we have the option -- companies have the option of retraining people. But many people will be moving to take other jobs and new people will be moving in to take new jobs.
SEN. MIKULSKI: Well, Dr. Griffin, and this is a conversation I really want to have Senator Shelby participate in, and also our space authorizing team, Senators Nelson, we know that Senator Landrieu is deeply concerned about the Michele (ph) issue where I think we estimated there could be a 1,000 or 1,000 more there.
So it's not only I mean, really and what do we anticipate, and what is it really going to take. Are we working at retirements, and therefore a steady glide path, are we working at retraining, because we'll have to give you money to do retraining as we are doing that, and we've got to look at, how we are all moving in the same way, just as you have your engineering plans and you have your critical path.
We need to have the same critical path for our social, I hate to use the term social engineering, but our social plan, which is who is going to leave, who is going to stay, but needs to do the job they are doing. Who is going to be retrained, what are we bringing on, and then how is this going to be paid, and what is it then you would need from us with the workforce issues, because we need people as well as our technology.
So I'd like to -- we'll schedule that after we do our -- complete our hearings. Moving on though, I want to go now to science. NASA's budget, sure is a flat science budget this year, and also for the next five years. Some are winners like, earth science and planetary science; others seem to not do as well, astrophysics and heliophysics, are where we are in the budget enough to meet our existing obligations to science and continue the development of new ones.
In other words, we have things underway, whether it's Hubble, I worry about ISAT. In a way everybody is excited about of course, it's the mission to our own planet earth. The world, you know, I've been meeting with people you know, Senator Boxer has too, in her global warming initiatives.
Every scientist or environmental minister is crazy about NASA. And they are also about the National Science foundation and about NOAA, because, because of our size, our scope and our talent, we've become the indispensable nations in terms of the science that we do for our planet. And therefore anything that we are going to do to solve the problems of our planet has to be rested on that.
So we worry about that, and do we have enough to do what we are doing, could you comment on it? Because we see you and NOAA then working with NSF in this, we save lives and we are saving the planet. And what an incredible word with public diplomacy, where you and I are sitting here talking about treaties with the Russians on making sure they don't proliferate, but we are also, those school kids in Australia or South Africa or Southeast Asia are looking at the same Hubble as the South Baltimore gets.
You know, the Danish environmental minister is looking at the Hubble stuff, the way they are looking at the NOAA stuff over in India. So you know, we know that Secretary Rice thinks she is the diplomat, but so is NASA -- (laughs) -- and we view Hubble as one of our technological diplomats. So my point is this that, you know, where are we in terms of what we continue to do in these new missions.
MR. GRIFFIN: Well, Senator although you didn't ask, I could not agree with you more, about the value of our space program as an instrument of positive American image in diplomacy in the world and truthfully, over 60 percent of our science missions are done on a collaborative basis with other nations.
Sometimes we supply an instrument, sometimes we supply the major part of the space craft, but either way, the collaborations that we do work and they work for the United States and for everyone in the world. Now, our science budget, I need to say a couple of things.
First of all, our science budget as a fraction of our portfolio is around 32 percent this year, and it is at historically high levels. So science is well-funded at NASA. It is not growing as much as we would like until 2011, when we retire the Shuttle. Science resumes its growth at the top line starting in 2011.
As you noted yourself, in these current years, our entire NASA top line growth is only 1.8 percent, and so for science to be slightly less than that, is not a major difference between the agency top line and the science portfolio top line.
We are budgeted. We are budgeted to meet the commitments that we have made. Everything from Hubble and James Webb, down to Mars Science Lab, and other things in other divisions of our science portfolio, we are budgeted to meet the commitments we've made to you.
Certainly, it is always possible, just as in our human space life program, more money will buy more product, and there are always more new and interesting and fascinating science missions to do. But we have a rich plate of missions, and I believe that we are adequately funded to execute the ones we have said, we will execute. Earth science did receive an increase this year.
I think in respect to the new earth science decadal that is something we wanted to do. I was one of the people calling for a decadal three years ago, and now we have one and we are pleased with it. And we have revamped our earth science portfolio to respect that decadal. But at the same time, astrophysicists and planetary scientists and heliophysicists also have decadal surveys and we try to honor those missions as well.
SEN. MIKULSKI: Well, first of all that is heartening to hear, and know that we have a, just a great passion about this. And I know you are so busy, and you know, when we do these things, you know, there are things I want to talk about both science and education.
Let me come back to, I think a very poignant moment, but the national academy or science this goes to what they tell us they are going to -- they are concerned about. According to the national academy, 40 percent of the earth observing sensors that are now in orbit will cease to function by the end of the decade, unless they are replaced, okay.
And my question is, well, what does that mean, and what is NASA's plan to replace those sensors and satellites, in other words, do we have the money to even continue to do the pretty spectacular work we are already doing.
MR. GRIFFIN: Right. We are in a difficult period right now with regard to -- if you look at the sensor level on the earth sciences for climate research and environmental monitoring.
SEN. MIKULSKI: Accountability issue -- okay.
MR. GRIFFIN: We are in a difficult period, because as you know, the DoD, NOAA, and NASA NPOESS program encountered, being executed by the air force, encountered some sever cost problems. And so the mission, the NPOESS spacecraft has been de-scoped. This has been the subject of other hearings before other committees of this Congress.
SEN. MIKULSKI: I know.
MR. GRIFFIN: And so the climate research sensors that were originally planned to go on NPOESS will not fly on NPOESS. Now, we've known this for over a year. We have been scrambling to try, to find ways to re-manifest those climate research sensors on other missions and we are doing that.
But the recovery plan from the NPOESS de-scope of climate research sensors, the recovery plan can't happen instantaneously. Moreover NASA was not budgeted for these additional climate research censored flight opportunities, because that budget went to NPOESS.
So we do, in the White House and NASA, we do recognize this by all means, we recognize the seriousness of the concern about replacing the climate research sensors on orbit today, that was the originally intended, one of the originally intended purposes of NPOESS and we are having to find other ways to do it. And we are working out plans, as aggressively as we are able.
SEN. MIKULSKI: Well, the committee and its staff would like to have an ongoing conversation with you about this. First of all we are very concerned about NPOESS.
MR. GRIFFIN: Yes, ma'am.
SEN. MIKULSKI: And we have -- well, we have raised it, and it has been an enormous challenge. And of course, our overall satellite capabilities are a growing concern. But let me go to our accountability issue and then we'll conclude shortly.
The Congress is going to have a commemorative ceremony noting the melancholy event that occurred 40 years ago tomorrow, with the assassination of Dr. King, and both the House and Senate will gather for just a moment of reflection, and really renew to our commitment to end violence in the world.
NASA has informed us the 12 science missions -- of the 12 science missions that are under development, four are over-budget and eight are behind schedule. And we'd like to talk with you about that in more detail as we look at this, but one maintaining the schedule, but also where those four missions are over-budget.
We are not going to go into that, because again I am going to join my colleagues, but there are other issues related I know that my -- I know Senator Shelby wanted also ask about aeronautics and about education. And these are two -- well, the aeronautics is part of the NASA, key part of the NASA mission and education.
So we'll follow-up with aeronautics as we talk about it when we come together, education of course continues to be such a major role at NASA. And I just want to tell you a story before we conclude about what your NASA Goddard people did that was so spectacular.
We in Baltimore are the home to the National Federation of the Blind. It is their global headquarters. And some years ago, a wonderful Ph.D. by the name of Dr. Zebrowski (ph) who just passed away, wanted to move the blind into the future in the new economy. Over 40 percent of all blind people live below poverty level, because they don't have access to education that often takes them into the new careers.
So they did that, and one of the things they wanted to do was make sure was see if blind kids could have access to information about astronomy. With a modest grant of $50,000 from Goddard, working with the national federation of the blind, the Goddard genius club in the Smithsonian Institute, we have now produced a text book for blind kids, for middle school and high school, on astronomy. It's called, "Touching The Invisible Sky." And when we see this book and I would -- have you seen it.
MR. GRIFFIN: I have seen it ma'am it's incredible.
SEN. MIKULSKI: It is incredible, the text is in Braille, but the pictures of the Hubble and other cosmic photographs are in these raised images that is having a profound impact and when went to Dr. Zebrowski's memorial service and told the gathering of over 600 people about this book, and presented a copy on behalf of all of us to their library, but it will be widely disseminated.
The audience' response was overwhelming, and the response afterwards as people came up, parents were talking about, they don't know if their kids will be astronomers, but they know that they could go into science, they could go into technology, if you are blind you can hear very well, if there is jobs and everything from national security to other things.
So, you know, this is really about changing lives, transforming lives, and so on. And NASA is doing such great work, you know, if we take the time for a modest $50,000 and transform opportunities for blind children, and once again it will happen, not only for our kids here in our own country, but this will go to South Baltimore and South Africa, and so on.
I mean, I think this is what we are all about. So we want to go to the moon, and we want t get out there in the Mars, and return our astronauts safely and we want to kind of see what we can do to help you. So I think we've covered our testimony today. I was, kind of doing double Dutch here. And we'll continue our conversations with you. We hope to have our bill ready. We view the President's request as the minimum threshold.
We are going to see what other ways given our allocation we can add to this, to accelerate our capabilities of closing the gap, as well as improving our science and aeronautics capability, and see what we can do.
I also will pursue adding that amendment for another billion dollars, as emergency funding. So if -- since there are no further questions, and do not think that because my other colleagues are here, they are not interested. Many are chairing their own hearings in their accelerated schedule. And others are involved in the mortgage and foreclosure.
So since there are no further questions and Senators may submit questions for the committee's official record, this stands -- the committee stands in recess until April 10th when we will testimony from the Attorney General. Thank you very much.
(Sounds gavel.)
MR. GRIFFIN: Thank you, Senator Mikulski.
Source