tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN3 July 14, 2015 9:00pm-11:01pm EDT
have to admit to their own voters this was not a loan that might be repaid, but a gift. >> greece existed before the eurozone, right? >> right. >> and one thing i think we would agree on the panel, it was a mistake to allow greece into the eurozone in the first place, and it may be political to make a common occurrence work. and what you are hearing on the panel is replicated inside europe itself. those who think it would be better for the rest of the eu to leave the common currency despite all the consequences just referred to and those who think that the consequence s are so severe they have to be avoided and that the disagreement between france and germany over the last several months. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
i yield. >> sort of like those people who think it might have been a good idea to let puerto rico be independent, mr. brooks. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i've been pondering american history with europe while we've been listening to your testimony and q&a back and forth. and it seems after world war ii for 47 years when there was not a european community our relationship with europe was good. then we had -- the eu created seven years worth of phase in and the euro currency comes into play in roughly 1999 and now 16 years thereafter and our relationship has been good. so either way, america's relationship with europe has done well with and without the euro. so to me, the european union issue is more of a focal point for the european nations and they should be the deciders of their fate. and i'm curious about a comment that was made that the european union is better for the usa, quote/end quote.
and my question is, why? what can you share for us that would help convince me that it is in america's best interest to have a european union as opposed to not having one in as much as our relationship with europe was good in both contexts. >> i'll take a swing at it. first of all, the eu, whatever the current problems may be, is a major economic bloc in the world and a major trading partner. >> is that good for us or bad for us? >> a prosperous european and american economy one that more can send products to and americans can make money investing. >> do you have any data that europe was growing slower before the eu than after? >> in the 1990s it grew quite
well, as did we. it's had problems since 2008. we've recovered more quickly than europe. >> outside the framework of this hearing but do you have any data that backs that up? since 1945? so that would be in the neighborhood of 70 years. >> the lowering of trade barriers throughout europe clearly helped stimulate economic growth. it allowed for free trade within europe and allowed their economies to grow. the second thing the european union has been a source of stability within europe and the community was instrumental in helping the transition from communism. it's been a part of the world we didn't have to worry as much post the breakup of the soviet union.
there are other parts of the world we are concerned with. and if europe spiraled back toward rivalries, american policymakers would have to spend more time worrying about that than worrying about other problems. and europe is a strategic partner of ours for a long time. if jurp preoccupied and increasingly occupied, then when we try to deal with other strategic problems in the world we'll get even less help from europe than we do now. >> one of the important aspects of our relationship with europe is our military alliance, particularly nato, and it seems that under the european union, defense spending the collective of european nations has declined as opposed to when they were a part of the european union, making them less able to help
america than troubled spots around the globe. i mention that as a concern of mine. i want to focus my remaining time on the greek bailout impact on america. we've had now the third bailout, the first one was in 2010 and then 2012 sand now 2015 and we are hoping this one would stick when the two prior ones did not. what is the monetary exposure to the united states of these bailouts failing? >> i guess i can take a stab at that. the direct exposure to the united states to the greek bailouts comes through the imf, the 17 percent -- >> 17.9%. >> and that exposure is about 25 -- i believe $25 billion. so 17% or 16% or 17% of that. however, as we're seeing in the agreement this weekend, actually, the europeans made it explicit they are going to pay -- give greece the money so they can repay the imf.
which means that -- >> very quickly in my remaining few seconds, is the imf involved in the third bailout? >> i believe it is, yes. >> and so they will supply funds for the third bailout? >> it will not increase it because existing loans will be repaid simultaneously. >> do you know the net? >> sorry? >> do you know the net? is it going up or down. and we have the old and now the new bailout numbers and payoff of some of the old or new. is it a net up or down? >> i don't know what the request from the europeans will be, and it depends on the size of the greek privatization proceeds, et cetera. but for the next three to four years, it will be about even after which it will begin to decline quite rapidly. >> mr. chairman, my time has expired. thank you for the indulgence and the extra 45 seconds. >> so the united states will be paying for the sum of the
bailout because we are part of the international monetary fund? no, what is it. >> yeah, we are. we're 17.69% is our quota ownership of international monetary fund so whatever the assets are in the imf and their obligations to greece, since we're one of the owners, there is an impact on the united states. >> so what is your guess then -- say there is a certain amount of bailout, and how much of that is the united states going to end up paying? >> well, the range that was mentioned -- >> through this -- >> yeah. the range that was mentioned of the agreement over the weekend was 60 -- 82 to 86 billion euros, which is just over $90 billion. >> right. >> and then, however, subtracted from that will be whatever the proceeds, assuming the number of
greek government privatization proceeds from state-owned enterprises, et cetera. now how much of that will be unknown, but the target is 50. i certainly don't believe they will reach 50. but let's say it is 20. that takes you down to the mid-70s -- or $70 billion. so one-third of that would be for the imf to cover. >> and how much of that is us. one-third of that is what -- $25 billion. >> give and take. and then 16% of the 22. >> 16%. now what does that leave? that leaves us about $5 billion, just about. >> something like that. >> so isn't that wonderful that we're getting to bail out greece and our friends over in europe for $5 billion. isn't that wonderful. but we can't find any way to use
that money anyway. >> well, it is important to recognize that if the bailout deal were to work, then it is not a handout. it is a loan that gets repaid. all right. so the question is really do you think this is likely to turn greece around, finally allow it to begin to pay off the debts and lead to a restructuring of the debt and we all live happily ever after. >> excuse me -- what about the date -- excuse me, with a member of the panel here, but the banks, when you talk about we're bailing out the european banks, these people are being bailed out said the banks are actually getting the money. are these privately held banks or are these banks that are owned by the government of france and england and et cetera? >> well, in this instance, the current bailout under discussion is not private banks that own the debt. there was that issue back in 2010 where there were clearly some european banks that
benefitted from that. they were mostly private banks in france and elsewhere. but clearly, the european government entered into this process because they were afraid that otherwise they would have to bail out these banks themselves and therefore make them -- >> so we're not bailing out any private -- this money for bailing out greece does not include money that is going to privately owned banks? >> no. i mean there are -- >> is that right? the other gentleman, is that true? >> i don't think it is entirely true. it depends on what you mean by privately held banks. >> some of the money will help greek banks that have no cash on hand at present. >> it sort of makes it even worse, doesn't it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just wanted to follow up on some of your previous comments about being better for us if the eu stays together. if you could answer the question in the opposite way of talking about how we can measure
what the impact on our economy would be if the eu completely dissolved, or if it ends up that the uk ends up exiting the eu, what kind of impact would that have for us? >> purely in economic terms, i think that would be a blow to the eurozone and the eu in general. as an economic actor and lead to slower economic growth in europe which is already relatively low, but that in turn reduces economic opportunities for the united states because if the euro -- the eu is growing at a half percent a year, then there are far fewer european firms that can sell things or europeans that can buy american products. so we are better off if europe had a vigorous economy and need
for american products. >> do we have a specificity on what impact that would be. obviously you are saying there could be some loss. but i'm trying to look for a little bit more? >> i can't give you a figure, a macro economic estimate, i don't have that, of what the actual impact on the u.s. economy will be, but anything that hurts the european economy will also hurt the united states, not perhaps as much, but it has a negative effect on our economic prospects as well. >> it is difficult to put numbers on this, but the united states is now dealing with one states is now dealing with one economic bloc. so when the u.s. trades with the european union, it is one-on-one. but if the european union, it is one on 28. there 28 sets of separate bilateral agreements the u.s. has to work out with the countries. and access to one market of 506 million people and a u.s. corporation doing business in any one of those 28 countries has access to the entire market. if this breaks down or splinters in some fashion, it adds that much more level of complication
in terms of dealing with these entities. >> with regard to what prime minister cameron has before him, what do you assess he will try to renegotiate with regard to britain's commitment to the eu? >> i can take it. what he has -- it is unclear precisely what he's asking for at this moment from the eu authorities, but what he has mentioned is he would like to have britain exempt from something called the working time directive which is a european regulation that says you cannot work more than 48 hours a week. excuse me. and then there are other specific types of eu regulation or eu law that he would like the uk to be exempt from. he may seek to be exempt from
the opening clause of the eu treaty which talks about an ever closer union. which of course would be purely symbolic politics but that is important in a referendum campaign. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> so we're going to have to go pretty quickly here, and i just want to confirm this, so we're talking about, in this bailout, the greek bailout, that about $5 billion -- americans will have $5 billion coming from our pockets. would you like to again go back -- i would like to go back again to who this money is going to. the bailout -- first of all, is it accurate to say that the bankruptcy can be traced back to policies of greek government? >> in my opinion, yes. yes. >> okay, so the greek government had policies that put us in a spot where banks -- now the
banks that will be repaid now, because they have been spending this money, to keep the greeks afloat, these banks are -- you're saying they are not private banks, they are german banks, french banks? >> no. no, no, this is in 2010. today the people going to be repaid are in fact the imf itself and also the euro area and a relatively small amount of total outstanding debt. about 20% of debt is still held by private investors. so there is no direct so to speak. >> so the last bailout we saw private banks being basically being given money bailed out, and they bailed out the greeks but they give it to the private banks. are those private banks are they profit making or government
related institutions? >> they are overwhelmingly private profit making institutions. >> how much was the last bailout? >> well, the original -- the total bailout so far is about $240 billion. >> $240 billion. of that $240 billion, how much went to the private banks? >> i think that is -- i don't have the number off the top of my head, but i would say if you look at the direct exposure that these banks had to the greek debt that was restructured, which should also be known that the banks actually took, as all private debt holders did, a 50% hair cut on this debt in -- >> well, it depends on if the hair cut meant they are still making a profit or whether it means they are going to eat into the resource. if a bank or if any other private institution, at least in our society is supposed to be, if you take a risk -- you are
making your money because you are taking a risk in giving your money out. and if the federal government or if the european union simply bails out anybody who has taken a risk and makes up for it with public funds, i don't see why we're -- why are they making a profit then on this stuff? you're saying those banks didn't make a profit those years? >> well, i mean, i'm saying that they are profit-making private enterprises. i would say they definitely did not make a profit on the greek debt holdings because they were compelled to take a sizable debt restructuring, a 50% hair cut back in 2012. >> well, i'm wondering, i could see why people are skeptical, regular working people, people who own small businesses or whatever
whatever. a lot of it going and bailing out really very wealthy people who control the banking inging system. mr. meeks, you have one last -- >> well, i mean -- i'm sorry. it seems as though, from what i'm hearing, that the risk to the united states as far as us, it is minimal, if anything. it is not substantial. and the likelihood of us having to pay anything, especially with the special fund that the europeans have set up to make sure the imf is paid because the only exposure is through the imf and that seems to be backed up already by though eu in the agreement saying they are going to make sure the imf is paid so that would leave $0 that the united states -- as far as being -- is that not correct? >> yes. it is very important to emphasize the imf is the super senior creditor and this will be
a firm political commitment by the creditor to make sure the imf is paid back and the exposure to the united states is close to zero. in fact it is zero. [ inaudible ] >> you had your time already. >> and all of the money through american banks that never left our shores at all. >> and all i know is we had a financial crisis also in the united states in 2008, and we had to bail out banks to keep our economy afloat. the banks ultimately paid things back. so this is not something that is unusual as far as dealing with a current economy. they aren't doing anything differently than we had to do. we rebounded and now we have to get the reforms that are necessary and it is a vast cost because when you are looking at the eu as a whole, for us we're looking at what is in america's best interest and we have to
hope what is in europe's best interest but if you look at what is in america's best interest, it is for us to deal with europe as a whole. for example, one of the next big issues that we have to deal with in congress is going to be another trade agreement. it would be best for the united states if we were negotiating that deal and doing it with the eu as a whole because that then gives a greater market for our businesses to try to make sure that we get the best deal to create jobs here, et cetera. is that not correct. >> that is correct. >> correct. >> thank you. >> we have skeptics over here. i'm one of them. thank you all, mr. meeks. thank you to our witnesses. we have a vote so we have to run. god bless you. thank you.
iran has signed the deal now what is next? our "washington journal," we'll talk with capitol hill workers about that including daryl issa of california. a member of the foreign affairs subcommittee and north africa. later senator ben carton of maryland, the top democrat on the foreign relations committee. "washington journal" is live every morning on c-span. you can give yours thoughts by phone and on twitter. when congress is in session c-span3 brings more of the access to congress with live action of hearings, news conferences and key public affairs events. and every weekend it's american history tv. traveling to historic sites. discussions with authors and historian ianians and eyewitness
accounts. c-span3, coverage of congress and american history tv. a hearing on the challenges facing the international space station. just last month a rocket on the way to resupply it exploded over cape canaveral, florida. and there were two more unsuccessful attempts to deliver supplies to the orbiter over the past year. witnesses include officials from nasa and boeing along with a former nasa restaurant whoastronaut who flew aboard the space shuttle "columbia." this is about 45 minutes. >> the committee on space will come to order. and without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recesses of the subcommittee at any time. good morning. welcome to today's hearing
titled the international space station, addressing operational challenges. in front of you are packets containing the written testimony biographies and truth in testimony disclosures for today's witnesses. i recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. good morning. i'd like to welcome everyone to our hearing today and thank the witnesses for taking time to appear before our committee. since 2013 the iss program has experienced a number of challenges. as a can-do nation, america has always been committed to identifying challenges. addressing them to and advancing to reach out and reach our goal and destiny. we have that same commitment with the iss. during this time, astronauts have experienced water leaks in their suits three times with one incident hearing during a space
walk. on april 26th, 2013 an unmanned cargo damaged the reflector when docking with the iss. on january 14th, 2015 a false alarm of an ammonia leak caused the crew to retreat into the russian segment. an orbital sciences unmand cargo launch failed just after launch. on april 28th 2015, a separate russian cargo vehicle failed to reach the iss. on june 7th 2015 a planned reboost of the iss using a docked progress vehicle failed. but eventually was successful after trouble shooting. on june 10th 2015 a visiting soyuz vehicle unexpectedly fired its engines without being commanded. on june 28th 2015, a space-x
unmanned cargo launch failed as well. all of these incidents highlight the challenges of operating in space and they remind us nasa's contractors, engineers and astronauts must be ever diligent. these events have challenged iss operations but the fact the program was able to effectively respond to these setbacks is a testament to nas athe iss partners and the contractors. we do not know the root causes of some of the accidents yet, but once we have more information we'll be better suited to review those individual events. this hear allows us to evaluate the operational status of the iss, review efforts to assess the prospects for future operations. the iss is one of the most complex and expensive manmade
objects ever built. the american taxpayers currently invest approximately $3 billion per year in this laboratory. we must ensure that every dollar is spent effectively and efficiently. the iss offers a unique microgravity for scientists and engineers to utilize. nasa released its publication detailing the many benefits iss provides back to our lives on earth. from our advances in human health and performance, to our use of new materials to robotics and satellites, the benefits we receive from iss are many and diverse and remarkable. in addition to the benefits here on earth, the iss offers the conditions necessary to prepare and develop critical technologies for deep space and long duration human space
flight missions. successive nasa authorizations direct the administration to utilize the iss for this purpose. the human research program and advance exploration systems program at nasa are on the cutting edge of developing the systems we need to send humans ever deeper into the solar system than before. right now captain scott kelly is on day 104 of his year-long mission to study the effects of long duration human space flight. in addition to utilization efforts of nasa's research programs, the nasa authorization act of 2005 designated part of the iss as a national lab of the nasa authorization act of 2010 directed the administration to sign a cooperative agreement with a non-profit to manage it. nasa's selected the center for the advancement of science and space are cases to lead this
effort. the government accountablility office noted in a recent report that acasis had made great strides but more work needed to be done to see that measurable progress was being made in a quantifiable manner. i hope to hear from nasa they are making progress toward answering this recommendation from gao. as we keep an eye on the present operation and utilization of the iss, we must also look to the future. last year the administration announced support for the extension of the iss program from 2020 to 2024. at present, federal law limits the life of the iss to 2020. absent action from congress to extend it the administration would be required to begin closeout of the program. there are many questions about the request for this extension.
the bipartisan house passed nasa authorization act of 2015 requires the administration to provide a report to congress on efforts by the administration to utilize the iss and how to quantify benefits back to the nation for the required investment for this extension. it also requires the administration to develop a government wide utilization plan for the iss to ensure every minute the facility is in orbit we are doing what we can to get the most out of it. these reports are critical for congress to understand the issues that inform whether to extend the iss. this committee has a responsibility to ensure the american taxpayers are getting all they can from every dollar they send to the federal government. i believe this investment is worth while and that the
benefits far outweigh the cost. support for the iss and its operations and utilization is not a partisan issue. it is an american issue and i look forward to working with my friends on the other side of the aisle and my partners in the space industry to understand how we can all meet the operational challenges facing the iss program. i now recognize the ranking member the gentle lady from maryland, for an opening statement. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and good morning and welcome to our distinguished panel of witnesses. i appreciate holding this hearing now the international space station addressing operational challenges. and as i listen to the chairman, i'm reminded that the challenges that nasa faces and the agency faces in operating the international space station, i would be more concerned if we weren't able to overcome some of
those challenges. i think it's a credit to the crew and the partners that that is true. about a year ago, i and members of our committee sat in this screen room and looked on that screen and were able to communicate with those aboard the space station, including rick wiseman from maryland. i promised him crab cakes and one of those accidents the chairman referred to destroyed my crab cake delivery but rick wiseman visited with me in my office a couple of weeks ago and we made okay on that. what happens when you connect realtime with our astronauts living and working and carrying out research in they mazing laboratory that's orbiting 250 miles above us every 90 minutes is quite an inspiration. thanks to nas athe yous aboard
the iss and so many schoolchildren have had the opportunity to ask questions and learn about human space flight through similar down link events we experienced in this room. yet in the thrill of seeing and hearing those who inhabit the on-orbit laboratory we can sometimes forget how difficult, demanding and risky it is to operate the space station. sometimes we think it's just ordinary and it turns out it's rather extraordinary. human health hazards pose significant risks to the iss facility and crew. the unfortunate loss of the spax-x 7 cargo less than two weeks ago, along with the earlier losses of the russian progress and orbital etk cargo missions over the past eight months are stark reminders of the risk and challenges that's nasa and its partners have to face.
the successful management of these risks for more than 15 years is a testament to nasa and its industry and to international partners. i'm confident that space-x orbital atk in collaboration with the faa and nasa will identify and resolve the problems that led to the launch failures, the cargo resume to the iss as soon as it's safe to do so. the iss has been resupplied through its partners. mr. chairman we don't have any type to spare. the iss is a temporary facility authorized for operations as you described through 2020. given the operations cost about $3 billion in taxpayer dollars every year, the cost that's projected to increase coupled with the challenges involved in sustaining operations we need to ensure our vision is clear and our goals and objectives for using this facility are aligned with that vision.
i'm pleased at the number of iss users has grown. we've had concerns about that raised here in this committee. in addition to nasa researchers and nasa support academic researchers, the iss laboratory management has drawn new commercial users, including pharmaceutical companies to the iss. hover, while the range of iss uses is expanding the resources to support them are not. funding for the iss research represents a mere 12% of the overall iss budget. constraints on cargo transportation, as well as available power and precious crew time limit what research can be accomplished at the station. in that regard i know many of us want to understand the implications of cargo resupply operations. crew operations and the sustainability of the station. in addition, mr. chairman, there's critical work to be done on the iss and human health
research and technology development that needs to be carried out if we're going to make progress toward the long-term goal of sending humans to mars. in january 2014, the obama administration proposed to extend iss operations until at least 2024. the administration has three rationales for the extension. to complete iss research that supports long duration human missions beyond lower earth orbit to garner societal benefits. some of which we see here. and to give nasa and private partners more time to transition to commercial cargo and crew allowing nasa to focus on human exploration of deep space. today's hearing provides the opportunity to examine those rationales in the context of the cost and risk that nasa and its international partners will face in sustaining the iss for that length of time. we have a lot to discuss and i want to thank our witnesses for being here. with that, i yield back.
>> thank you, ms. edwards. i recognize the ranking member of the full committee for a statement. the gentle lady from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing on the international space station. this really san important topic, and i look forward to the testimony of our panel of witnesses, and i welcome them. it's no secret i've been a long supporter of the iss. it plays a unique role in furthering research advance in human space flight and inspiring our young people. in addition to being an incredible engineering achievement, it provides a very visible demonstration of the benefits that can be derived from peaceful international cooperation in space. failures of commercial cargo transportation missions to the iss remind us that space flight is not easy.
failures will occur, and unfortunately, these failures will have impacts on the program. we need to better understand those impacts, as well as the plans for dealing with them going forward. and we need to know whether there are any lessons learned that need to be applied to the far more challenging commercial crew transportation program. i've said before that the iss is a perishable commodity. we need to be clear on what nasa needs to accomplish with this unique laboratory while it is still operational. while the administration has proposed to extend the iss operations until 2024, maintaining the iss involves risk and significant opportunity costs. and we need to ensure the iss is being used in a way that maximizes productivity and value to the nation. in addition, if we are to ensure
the needed iss research and technology activities are carried out, it is clear. we are going to need to make the necessary investments. stagnant iss research budgets do not communicate the message that we are serious about supporting the important research and technology efforts that can only be accomplished on the iss. that is the problem that congress could and should fix. well mr. chairman, we have a lot of issues to discuss today, and i welcome our witnesses and look forward to a productive hearing. i thank you and kwleeldyield back. >> if there are members who wish to submit additional opening statements your statements will be added to the record at this point. i'd like to introduce our witnesses. bill gerstenmeyer is the associate administrator of human exploration and operations mission directorate at nasa. our second witness today is john
elbon. vice president and general manager of space exploration for the boeing company. testifying third is the honorable paul martin who has served as nasa's inspector general since 2009. our third witness miss shelby oakley acting director of sourcing for the government adowntownability office gao. and dr. james pavelsik an associate of kinesiology at the pennsylvania state universality and a retired astronaut. please limit your testimony to five minutes. your entire written statement will be made part of the record. i now recognize mr. gertenmeyer for five minutes to present his testimony. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of myself and
the men and women that work on the international space station. this is one of the most talented and dedicated international teams in the world. the iss is an amazing research facility. there are 329 research investigations in progress. these span top ics from human research into how the human bootd performs in microgravity, basic biology and biotechnology physical science, earth and space science, technology development and education. there's never been this scope of research performed on a continuous basis in space. we're also in the midst of a one-year crew expedition. it will give details information into human adaptation into the space environment with mission durations approximately equal to the mars transit thymeime. also the chance to see how the human genome changes when exposed to microgravity. 83 countries from around the
world have used the iss for research. private companies have used the iss. this week in boston, there was an iss users conference. this is an exciting time as many new researchers are beginning to see the advantages of space-based research. the growth of nan-nasa research is exciting and shows a generic interest in using the unique properties of space to investigate research opportunities typically only done on the earth. space provides a unique window into a process affected by gravity. many mimic conditions involving the elderly. using animal models unique insight and potential new treatments for the elderly can be developed based on space station research. operating under frontier space is not easy.
in the past nine months three independent cargo planes were lost on the way to the iss. this shows the difficulty of working and operating in space. they have different designs heritages, manufacturing, different build processes and utilize different ascent trajectories. the failure of these three systems shows the difficulty of launching and operating in space. we often think iss is only 250 miles away and the journey is easy. this is not true. we're operating them at the edge of our engineering capability and if only we provide more insight and oversight we can limit the cargo delivery. the demands expose us to the same level of risk no matter how much insight we add. but the insight can give us insight and help us understand the designs to make sure we can end up with better designs.
the right level of insight can reduce and find design errors. however, too much insight can distract the teams from work og and improving design. even after these three failures the basic iss operations were not impacted. this is a tribute to the teams that manage the is spp they are implementing the hard lessons from the "columbia" tragedy that, where the iss had to operate without the shuttle for several years. management processes and logistics resupply techniques learned are proving their worth. several of the agency performance goals associated with research and cargo flights will not be met. the iss program is reducing consumable margins to favor research. this will not be enough to recover the research impactss. the delay in the soyuz required the iss to operate with three
cry crew for three weeks longer. the impact of the loss had real implications to students nrd researchers who lost cargo only to lose the replacement and return to flight hardware again on the spax-ce-x flight. the loss of the docking adapter can be adopted without affecting the program but will result in a dollar loss to iss. issa a issa is a phenomenal resource. it can serve for private entrep nears, help nasa prepare and benefits directly people on the earth. congressional support through at least 2024 would be a positive sign to the international partners and future users of iss. operating under frontier is not easy and we need not think that
they are too routine or easy. they are not. the iss team has done a great job of managing a technically demanding vurmts. they'll continue to look for ways to improve. iss teams need to be given flexiblity to manage and others need to understand dissimilar redundancy and how it can be used to provide robustness. the benefits will take longer to realize but it will exceed the expectations of all involved. i'd also like to thank the committee for their support for human space flight. i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> yes, sir, thank you, mr. gefrtenmaier. i now recognize mr. elbon to present his testimony. >> chairman babin, ranking member edwards and members of the subcommittee. on behalf of the boeing company thank you for the opportunity to testify to provide an update on
boeing's role in the international space station. as one of your constituents, congrat oolgss congratulations on your selection to lead this committee. boeing is proud to have supported nasa in the design, integration and assembly of iss. as nas'sanasa's prime -- we continue in the iss sustainment role today. on november 2nd the world will celebrate 15 years of continuous presence in space human presence in space. with international crews living and working aboard the iss. at a time when many decry a gap in america's space program as we transition from space shuttle to commercial transportation, we who know hiiss know we are milwaukeeing ingmaking advancements in space every day. it's been recognized as the
largest scientific and engineering project in history. and the world's largest endeavor in space to date. ongoing improvements are making iss even better. the station brought together hardware and software from 16 countries and 37 states and more than 10,000 suppliers in our country. about the size of an american football field the iss is larger than a six-bedroom house and has the internal pressurized volume of a 747. iss is an engineering marvel a beacon for international cooperation and shining example of what can be achieved through strong leadership and unity of purpose. as nasa's contractor, boeing is responsible for maintaining the station and ensuring the full availability of the unique research lab for nasa, and other countries and private laboratories. we continue to work with nasa to
reduce the cost sustaining the space station. over the past ten years we've reduced the cost by more than 30%. these savings have enabled nasa to fund the nasa docking system, the critical components supporting the increase in the number of vehicles visiting the station. these help keep iss operating at efficiency and strong into the future. with nasa we completed a technical assessment of the usable life of major hardware components. the station will be operable through at least 2028. long-term viability of the station is an important factor in continuing to attract researchers who invest considerable time in preparing their experiments for operation in space. the continuing reliability of iss and improvements plead to further enhance research capabilities are a boon.
our work on iss enables many benefits to improve the quality of life here on earth. iss continues to be used for developing multiple technologies to export -- to support deep space exploration. nasa is developing highly reliable life support systems to address needs for future exploration habitation systems. the iss is a test bed for learning how the body reacts to weightlessness and allows us to develop countermeasures now. we're learning self-sustainment measures. such as growing food and sustaining water. research has led to numerous improvements on earth from the medical field to earth observe agss to providing clean water, to how we diagnose and streettreat
patients in remote areas. i've had an opportunity to work with countries that are not engaged in iss or do not have a space program. in every one of these conversations, these leadersprogram. with an all expression, they express a strong desire to be involved in space and more specifically the international space station. they see the value to provide stem education to create high-tech nothings and provide a significant source of national pride. the fresh perspectives from leaders outside the partnership recognize the value of on iss serves as a strong reminder of u.s. leaders and to all with the care in global resource. we must never take what we have from iss for granded. we just continue to make it value for research. thank you, and i look forward to
your questions. >> thank you. i now recognize mr. martin for five minutes to present his testimony. >> thank you for allowing us to be a part of the discussion about nasa's challenges on the international space statement. a timely top nick the light of the loss of three cargo flights over the last months. and today's hearing in the past two years including reviews that examine nasa's plans to extend of ragtss until 2014 24 and the contracts to fight cargo and crew to station. we have five more reviews related to the topic under way. including an examination of the cargo resupply failure, nasa's behavioral risk and charges to corporation in space.
our audit last september of nasa's plans to extend iss shows that they have no obstacles. however, we found nasa must address a series of technical challenges including shares power. and as well as a limited ability to transsport large parts to station. while nasa officials estimate a bunt between $3 billion or $4 billion through 2024, we anticipate the cost will be higher. much of the increase is attribute an about to higher transport kothss. second, most of the international partners have yet to commitment to station the operations beyond 2020 and a decision by one or not to the to
participate could drive up costs for nasa. the number one operational risk for the iss program is ensuring the ability to deliver supplies to astronauts. flights are now on hold pending the outcome of accident investigations and approvals from the faa and nasa. the failed cargo flights have affected nasa in at least three ways. number one, by reducing available crude time due to delay in the return of the crew compliment. two, increasing costs to replace the lost research and delaying the return of experiments. the only company capable of bringing car go back to earth.
because they use its a a research platform to study human travel and lorn term habitation in space it's important part to send humans below earth's orbit. utilization for the iss for research has limited over the years. but for example until a seventh astronaut is brought aboard nasa will not be in a position to maximize crew time. on board crew will reconfigure the iss to accommodate the commercial vehicles nasa hopes will transport astronauts. so that point, nasa gave $6.8 billion to boeing to complete space flights for crew. but the program faces unstable
funding, the need to provide timely requirements and guidance to contractors and coordination issues with other agencies. given its appearance, the oig issued a follow up to review the status of the program. that concludes my prepared remarks, thank you sir. >> thank you, mr. martin. and i now recognize miss oakley for five minutes. >> good morning, members of the sub committee. thank you for inviting me here today to discuss geo's work. as you know, the united states has spent tens of billions of dollars to own and operation the space station over the decades. the u.s. could spend more given
the potential extension of operations to 2024. todayly discuss three areas. nasa's budget for ss. second challenges that could affect increased use of iss and finally steps steps that nasa and cassis can address. nasa continues to make a significant investment in iss each year. the investment is expected to increase over the next four years mainly because they will begin to found commercial fights. transportation costs will be 54% of the budget. unlike transportation costs, costs to operate and conduct research are expected to remain stable until 2028. the fundings are crew safety and
transportation transportation. maintaining the fascileity and research. it can affect the funding for research. furthermore. the result of the planned extension is unknown. nasa has challenges that could affect the use of iss for science. including limited problem for search and increased demand for crew time facilities. recent mishaps of cargo vehicles have had a direct impact to increase research on iss. for example, launch failures and delays have already resulted in the loss of case sponsored research and costs almost $500,000. and let's not forget your crab
cakes, miss edwards. furthermore, additional increases are likely. for cassis, absorbing the increases has continued to be challenging and limited progress raising additional funds for science from external sources. in 2015, cassis has seen an increase of commitments from external donors. specifically in 2014 it received commitments of over $12 million. cassis faces challenges with competition for crew time and a heavy demand for key fas tillties, which limits the type of experiences they can bring to iss. crew time is allocated at or over 100%. to address the challenge nasa and cassis are dependant on commercial crew drivers
developing the capabilities in 2017. nasa will be able to add a crew member to iss who will devote his ore her time to research. and however, many tech kalg challenges and nasa's an ability to fund the program could delay these efforts. finally. >> if nasa and cassis can navigate the challenges scientific research can take many years. in the short term, it is especial that cassis continues to make progress with research and its goal of use of iss. we warted to april that nasa and cassis could define, report and assess such progress. for example, assigning measurable targets and goals.
nasa and cassis concurred and agreed to take action in response. in conclusion, the connotation of iss to 2024 ensuing the capabilities are used for scientific gains is critical. and it could help support nasa and cassis in a goal of developing sustained markets in earth's orbit. this concludes my prepared remarks. i'm happy to take my questions you may have. >> thank you miss oakley. i would now like to recognize dr. pawelczyk. >> thank you for the opportunity to discuss the status of research using the national space station.
it's the only thing of its find and it's absolutely essential for nasa. you asked fur specific questions and i would like to address each. you asked about opportunities and challenges. well the augustine commissioning has three stressors that future astronauts will face. prolonged expo sur to solar and gal lactic radiation. and confinement in close austere quarters. all are present in the iss environment. martian of ragtss add more stressors. a dusty, dim environment in a field that is a little more than a third of our own. unless we improve our century centrifuge, we risk years in a
gravitational field less than earth's. two challenges dominate the landscape. limited crew time and limited access to the iss. we can reasonably anticipate the competition for time will be worse as depanth for maintenance is for review. better coordination between the two entities is needed. you asked about critical areas of research. the life and physical sciences, the survey completed in 2011 at congress's request summer sized 65 research tasks and two research plans. one with a goal of rebuilding a research prize and the other with a goal of a human mission to mars.
more about the goals in just a moment. you asked about priorities. well prioritizing is not a new concept. we have worked on the problem for close to 15 years. and the key concept isn't scientific. it's program attic and it's like this. should fundamental research or translational research take years over the program. the answer to that question has to be provided by government. once the priorities are sequenced, can we priorityize the research? absolutely. the lps survey provided a detailed scheme and used eight unique criteria to do so. and cassis receives 50% allocation followed by human
research and what resources remain devoted to. biology, the physical sciences. you asked about the implications for extension. and criteria that congress should consider. well, i think one of the first tests that congress should imply should be an answered with a yes or no question. is nasa in a program through 2024? and the answer is an unqualified yes, exclamation point. absolutely. the transformation has been nothing short of remarkable in the life and physical sciences. provided seven examples of that in my written testimony. but there are gaps that will be one year or longer.
there are four areas i would like to see the report go further. first, the extension to 2024 wouldn't provide time to mitigate 13 human health risks. i'm not prepared to except that conclusion. there are too many degrees of freedom to establish the risk criteria. they need a thorough task allal sis of future operations. second, it didn't address power down and we may need power return for a tsk. third, the igm emphasized the average crew time. it's a good metric but i'm not sure it goes far enough. i think we need to work on the efficiency and evaluate and improve the time we have. and finally, the research time was con trained with the crew. we need that seventh member.
my recommendations priorityize the goals. review the essential and the 7th crew member, and the responsibility is research. and finally to extend die owe logical portion of a mammalian life cycle. given the sources, i am very optimist thak nasa can deliver of decade of research. i sincerely thank you for the opportunity to appear. >> thank you. i think witnesses -- all the witnesses for your testimony, members are reminded that that to limit questions to five minutes. the chair recognizes himself for five minutes. this question will be -- the
space mission had a new commercial crew docking mechanism, water filtration device and a new space suit on board. you can explain the loss of these items on the iss programs and how do you plan to mitigate the impacts? >> we will start with the international docking adapter that is scheduled for the crew. it was lost. we wanted to have two units on orbit before we began the commercial crew flights. we will still be able to support that schedule. we will take the parts from a third unit that is being assembled adds assembled as a spare of backup. the next docking adapter is expected to go in several months and one docking adapter will be
sufficient. i think we can accommodate that. and the cost now has to be manufacture a third unit. and we think before the japanese transfer vehicle flies in august, we should be an able to get a transfer bed through the outstanding work of the boeing company to help us expedite that work. and we have been trending down on the toxic organic compounds and we are still monitoring it carefully. should be okay from that standpoint. the loss of the space cute we will probably reconfigure one of the space suits we planned to return. and we will do a repair and we will use it. and we have also put a contract change in place to work with the
orbital science and look to carry up space cutes in the fump for us. we have mitigated all of the concerns you have. there are impacts. >> thank you. >> i will just add to what he said. the most significant involvement with boeing is the adapter. the second is in florida. third unit the parts are available at the supplyiers in houston and we have a plan to replace the one ha is lost. and we are working with nasa to understand the water filtration system issue and get the components ready to launch on the next resupply videos coming up. >> thank you.
nasa's aerospace, as nasa assesses life extension, it should review the extension for continued iss use and clearly articulate them that the cause and safety risk are balanced. given that human space flight is risky, that risk needs to be weighed. what are nasa's objectives for extending the operations through 2024? >> again on the human research front, there are many medical investin investigations that we are looking at. we need to understand those and have the risks mitigated before we are able to commit to longer endeavors in space. we have detailed investigations and the current one-year --
>> thank you. and mr. martin, what insight does nasa have into the mishap, in space x. looking back at the apollo one accident and the "columbia" accident, do you think there is review from the program? >> thank you. i understanding is under the faa, since the faa granted the license to the contractors they are leading the accident investigations. i believe with the orbital mishap, they have a second one on going. there isn't the same kind of independent accident. i think that's -- we are
currently conducts a review and the concerns we have about the indianapolis of an accident investigation board. and the license for the faa, that's the way it's intended to be. >> okay thank you. and that completes my questions. i now recognize the ranking remember, miss edwards. >> thank you, and thank you to the witnesses again. mr. martin's report of september 2014 found that nasa's estimate for the budget, $3 billion to $4 billion through 2024 is overly optimistic. that was reiterated in your testimony. so i'm just really curious, if you could talk to us about the basis of your estimates for projecting crew and cargo transportation costs to support
iss. for example, there have been three cargo mishaps in eight months. was that factors into your projections for cost? because it seems that alone would begin to shoot those costs up if those accidents might happen over the course of operations over a next -- to 2024. so it would be helpful to know what your basis for those estimated costs are. and respond to the challenges that mr. martin has laid out. in his september 2014 report. >> we have been looking and mansion cost management and cost control. we have consolidated some contracts into smaller contracts and also using competition to
attempt to drive down the costs. we are in a black out period of a cargo resupplier isy services. we believe that competition will help us get the costs down. we are actively working and the teams have acquisition strategies. we have consolidation plans and we believe we can hold the costs down and provide evidence of what we have seen and done. >> mr. martin, since your 2014 report it will be your assessment that nasa's assessment are overly optimistic. and in your analysis, would you factor in three mishaps,
failures in a year in terms of looking at the cost? >> i'm not exactly sure whether they factored any accidents in. over the life of the program the iss has showed 8% increase annually. and from 2011 to 2013 there was a 26% cost increase. so moving forward, as we go out and nasa considering extending the life to 2024, it's expected that 59% of the expenses will be for cargo and crew. >> we look at nasa's rationale for discoveries that benefit
society. and sustain commercial use of space. just curious as to whether any of you believe what nasa's top priority should be. that is a big list and it's hard to figure out what should be first versus fourth. >> thank you very if question. it's a great one and it's extremely important for the sub committee to take on. the discovery of science. what are the big science questions we want to have answered. we may not recognize the utility of those for years. a piece of research equipment that we flow on a mission in 1998 was largely used in last year's nobel prize awards. that is years.
and there is translation, the idea of what do we need to do in orderer to go further? you mention the commercialization aspect. it's not our job to sequence the priorities. it's the job of government either the executive branch or the legislative branch. but i believe you have been pretty clear, you said mars is very important. but it's not an either/or. it's an and. nasa will maintain. so you think you told us that mars is the answer. weapon you look at the research that remains to be done the risks in red, most of them, half of them, are associated with the extended duration on mars, a three years duration. i don't know of an another research platform that is going
to provide us the capability to answer the questions. the iss is our choice for that and i believe that is how it should be used. >> now i want to recognize mr. brooks. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in light of the launch failures, is nasa -- the production of vehicles that serve the space station. >> is part of the accident investigation with the space x event that occurred, we have verdict of the commercial crew program. they are actively involved in -- so we are actively involved in
transitions the information directly into the crew program. >> thank you. and i appreciate that response. and an effort on behalf of nasa. in my experience, nasa has insight and expertise. and i would encourage nasa to show the leadership that you indicate they are showing in the management skill they are doing to assist with commercial crew. so they can be more successful than they have been most recently. this question is with respect to mr. elbin. the loss of the vehicle two weeks ago has been described as a big loss. part of that loss was a replacement space suit for the international space station. what are the implyications for the program for the loss of the suit? wenchts will probably take one of the suits on orbit and
refurbish it and we will develop a capability to transport suits to be able to help with the activity. >> do you have anything to add? >> the space suits are not in the middle of the contracts. we do however help nasa with analysis to make sure what needs to be done and we make sure that the space station continues to operate with the capabilities there. >> what was the cost of the lost space suit? >> i don't have a specific cost. we have 13 space suits available to us. this is from the shuttle program. we will not replace that suit. it will continue to be lost. we have sufficient suits that remain to operate properly for the 2024 time frame.
>> well the items that nasa had on the launches who is absorbing the cost of the last items. is that the commercial crew or nasa? >> for the nasa items, the losses are bourn by nasa. and the cargo loss estimated at $110 million or so. the researchers are responsible for their hard work. they bear the loss from the research hardware that was lost. >> is there going to be future effort by nasa as much as hiring prift contractors to require the prift contractors to reimburse nasa for materials lost because the contractors were unsuccessful in launching their vehicles? >> our contracts today have a final milestone payment have a
successful delivery to orbit. they will not receive. and we are looking at having insurance provided for the lost cargo in the future. we e haven't made a decision if that is cost effective or not but we are taking a look at that to see if it's better to have insurance or if the users bear the risk of loss. >> the moneys that will be withheld as payment to the private entity spacecraft providers, is that enough to offset the losses that nasa incurred? >> it off sets a portion but not the entire amount. >> so american taxpayers can rest assured that at least we will have some recoupment of the loss that the american taxpayers have suffered as a consequence of the providers' fail yut to
provide the represented craft. >> yes. >> that is all, mr. chairman. >> yes, sir, thank you. and now recognize miss johnson. sorry. >> thank you. as a child growing up in southern california in the aerospace industry in the '60s and early '70s, it was remarkable what we could accomplish. and when we think of the international space it's really, truly an engineering marvel. something over time, the witnesses have noted 15 years of uninterrupted humans living in space. remarkable. when we think about this and
where we want to go we have to continue to think big as a nation. we have no not be afraid thinking and addressing the issues. particularly as we dream about human space travel to mars. we don't know how we are going to get there. but that should not daunt us and stop us from making the investments that allow us to continue to implementally dream big. begin that is what we have done. we have not been afraid to explore and ask those questions. and certainly, this body has a responsibility to continue to push for the next generation of discovery. that said, as we increase and move to the coordinated roll between what the public and partnership with the commercialization of space -- you know, the last few months have been a bit concerning. we have been fortunate that the
accidents did not have human beings on there and only cargo. but as we look at the human space travel and taking humans to the stas station and beyond, it is a bit worrisome. my question, mr. martin you touched on -- in light of the recent accidents and the investigation, of the accidents, could you elaborate and expand on nasa's rolle on. if if the commercial ent days are invest gnchts and i think bill will go in a lot better detail. the faa gives the license and under the contract the contractor is in review.
unlike a past challenger, where nasa could convene. my sense is that nasa is a remember, an advisory member of orbitals and they aren't leading that activity. and perhaps bill can go deeper on that. >> the nasa team is participating directly along with the ntsb space excellent board. and the way they disposition the place program, they have to agree this item is closed. so it's by con senn ses. the engineering teams and actually represented by the government and the government can't say whether we accept or not the explanation. it's a fairly e effective way to have good insight in.
and it contributes to the conclusions. so we have the best from the faa. >> do you feel. >> so far it's been extremely transimportant. it was the same with the ore and that is a direct evidence of where the transparency is and how it's implemented. >> thank you, now i would like to recognize the gentleman from florida, mr. posey. >> thank you we know that planning for the iss beand now
we are less than two years out from the administration's proposed expension to 2023 does nas have and private parer in ships and and the does nasa send to plooefl. >> at this point, we are looking to see if we can leave the orbit to commercial companies. we are allowing them to do investigations to see if they can get a market return. and it makes sense to do that. and we believe the agency's roll is to push furth and we will move our and to make bigger moexs. at this point, we are enjoin and we will use the remaining
lifetime of station to let the private sector understand the ben it ins of verge see if it helps them a fundamental respornlg sound point. >> that is great to hear. >> most capitals are opt niced to get crew and cargo back and forth. who role they will play once the international spags station reaches the end of its live. >> again the commercial crew program. the companies have an interest beyond the nasa need. they are building the capsules and will be able to operate and the they can use this transfempl and outside of the government.
so this will efficiently i law and from the sfeanl. >> that's great. the space shuttle and x-37, both examples of reusable spacecraft that lands on a renway. has nasa ral eded off it's geared towards deep spice activity. and it will make it difficult to interthe earth's of the mos fear. but winged vehicles are nice and have many advantages. >> thank you mr. chairman. i field back. >> thank you, and i would like
to now recognize a gentleman from virginia. mr. meyer? >> thank you. on one hand we had three unfortunate losses that we preermsly mentioned. and the commercial space skmi getting ready to go. and adding great company. and and. >> compared to train and and and all the transtor nation pmgs and are we looking at the relative two or three that have come up in the right perspective compared to the last 150 years? >> that is an interesting question. again, i think the positive thing is in both -- in all three cases, there has been no loss of life.
we proverdicted the public. the launch tight. we did the right things. i think the important thing is not get so fixated on the prap. and how can we learn? and a new energy, the more we fly, there will be small problems. they have app septemberible in this case. the immediate packs from not sef stating. and the we don't understand the engineers behind the failures. just as the aviation industry has suffered a lot of fail yut throughout its history the reason for success today and the safety we got in the aircraft industry is a result of lessons learned and the lessons to build better and safer aircraft. we need to do the same thing and take the learnings from these events internalize it and not be afraid of it.
and change the way we build al new transportation system. >> i see it as a painful and learning process. we will learn from cargo and apply the lessons to crew. >> thank you for your positive and optimistic attitude. i very much appreciate. while you have the microcell phone, the saferty advisory panel identified a micromealor ride. >> we have shielding on board our space station, and spacecraft, we cannot proverdict for all debris. we had a product launch that occurred last weekend. new debris shields on the vehicle. sop we are continues to impress
the prowe train for evacuation and drills of a station station. so we're and we look at the risk scenario, protected with a fielding levels you can so you custfied during 200, the priorities that the physical sciences were particularly hard hit. do you have anything for the work force? and man's mission to mars? >> thank you for the question. you are absolutely right.
those functions were a very hard hit. we saw an 80% rekrimabout. and you look at the numbers, hundreds for solicitation right now. there is active hundreding that is funding and brings search up to the station. and you are seeing, the more interesting thing about it, you are seeing maybe some of the youngest scientists that have really schooled in the spirit saying this is something i would like to take an opportunity. and check out. the i ss research conference last week -- great things will happen as a result. >> thank you for your enthusiasm. >> you can yield back.
>> thank you. i would like to welcome in a gentleman from oklahoma. >> thank you mr. chairman. and to you to the panelists coming in. and i appreciate your long and distinguished career at nasa. and negotiating on the mir program in the '90s and that is where i want to start today. when you think about right now given the recent accidents that we have gone through. we are seeing how important the spacecraft. given how relationship has changed between the united states and russia and we have even heard that russians have talked about pulling out of the international spate station. what is your judgment of how
this relation can go forward. s -- >> the civil space side, the relationship with the united states and the russians is very strong. we exchange data back and forth and we pass commends through the iss. we use their assets for transportation. we are mutually dependant and the relationship is strong despite the tensions between the two governments. the challenge of ugs space flight transcends the uptoughness of the outside world.
we have been actively getting ready to go to a crew on the 23rd of this month with the russians, sharing data with us and helping us understand our needs. so the relationship is extremely strong. >> how confident are you they will continue to the partnership beyond 2020? >> again, i think they are working through the government approval process. i think it's the end of this year when the federal space program is approved. there will be an extension through at least 2024? >> okay, mr. melvin, we have heard the ig has a report indicating the operations of the iss are going to become more difficult of the ability to take replacement art pos the international space station. recently, boeing had a report that dealt with some of the issues. can you share with us the boeing position? they were suggesting that beyond
2020 things get difficult. can you share with us how you are dealing with the issues? >> sure. thanks for the question. the study that we did looked at things like the structural integrity and the l.s on board. the ability to sur sooif a meteorite penetration and through 2028 it's feasible to the hardware that is on orbit. the other thing, about what the logistics to replace a fail of orbit computers, et cetera, and to supply the crew. and based on the logistics model that nasa laid out and the cargo services too, that kind of volume and up mass is sufficient to support the logistics supply. so we think through 2028 is completely doable. >> thank you.
thank you for that testimony. mr. gerstenmier, what comes next after the iss? we could lose partners -- we don't when we might lose partners. we have to think about what comes next. and i would like to just follow up with that. can nasa provide a report to congress on its plans for a road map? or a time line for certifying and testing post iss -- a post iss station in leo? and i understand this question was about commercial and things like that, and that is an interest as well. but it would have to be tested and certifying and nasa would have to be involved. is that correct? >> the way we need to think about this is the next private space station may not be -- i don't think it will be as big as
the space station we have today. it could be as small as -- there is discussion of using the crew transpor nation modules where they can do individual investigation, and using a cargo vehicle. so i think when we think about the private sector thinking over, we don't are to -- they can learn what research really benefits them. if it's in the pharmaceutical area. they can build a capability to do that. so i think the rooift sector can do that on their own. and again i think nasa's roll is to move the human presence furth interthere may be a happenation for cargo. but i think nasa's next focus is the ability in the vicinity of
the moon. >> roger that. i yield back. >> thank you. and now i want to recognize the gentleman from colorado. >> thanks there chairman. and thank you to the panelist. good to see you. some guys you are here after we had successes and some days after we had disaimportantment. but appreciate the fact that we just keep moving forward. and it's not easy. these are -- this is a risky business that you all are in. and we recognize that. we don't want to have many disappointments. we want to have mostly successes. and i was -- i became more comfortable and understanding, the kind of oversight that goes with the contractor-led investigation process. that in fact you are very involved and there has to be a sign off. and you have everybody looking
over everybody's shoulder and it is a sensible way to aproemp it. and my questions are for you really on what a research is doing on the space station that will help us as we move forward to sending our astronauts to mars? and for you, so we have the researcher and the futurist if you will sitting next to the one who has to figure out how do you pay for it and what is the return? how do you see the space station advancing our way to go to mars and i would like to ask you, miss oakley what do you see in terms of the cost and the benefits from an accountant's point of view. i will turn it over to you two.
>> there are really three issues we are dealing with here. they are the biological changes that we see in the continued reduced gravity environment. bone and must. >> rebecca: the are some of the largest. and we understand to the large extend we start to look at interactions of things like effects in the brain accelerated -- >> is it why you have one kelly on the space station and one kelly on the ground? >> it is. it's a unique experiment. because they are genetically identical. the changes in space talk about what is the variation cause of the space environment. and the behavior issues. right now, the iss works in concert with the ground. when we plan to go to interplanetary operations, the crew members will be working
from the ground. it's a matter of distance. so how people function independent of the planet will be different how we operate on the iss today. >> thank you. >> the bottom line is nasa does need a robust science program on the international space station to be able to achieve the longer term exploration goals. however, nasa has to be able to pay for it and the congress las to be able to pay for it. and that relies on a commercial participation to be able to do some of the things that nasa has to have funding for the longer exploration goals too. and like he was referring to being able to do some of the research that is going to be required to support the human exploration flights is going to be essential and getting them to pay for it is especialsentialessential.
because going to mars is expensive. >> are you up to date on the accounting on the numbers -- >> on the international space station program? i haven't looked specifically at the accounting asoesh yitsociated with that. whatly say is i haven't seen any costs of extending the program beyond 2020. and i think ha is going to be key for improving the funding and everybody getting a very good understanding what it's going to take to do the extension, to do the science that is required and to do it safely. >> thank you. just one more question and to mr. martin. you know, we've had incidents now where there have been failures. we had some schools in colorado that had experiments on both the orbital launch and most
recently, the space -- same school. they did the twice and they lost both. so do we account for the cargo that is lost? is there any compensation to the people or the schools or whatever? >> there is not. i think the two flights or space x and the orbital failures last $650,000 on the experiodmentexperiments. and the school children, and nasa, it's gone. the taxpayers are paying for that. >> thank you for being here today. and i yield e back. >> thank you, sir. and i would like to recognize a gentleman from california mr. knight. >> thank you. just a couple questions. as a police officer who does investigations on accidents we have seen a big change in our accident investigation over the last 50 years.
i would expect we have seen a big change in investigations over a space problems over the last 60 years. it hasn't been easy going to space in the 1960s. it isn't easy today. you can give me an idea of how an investigation will go today and move through the process and making sure we are going through and hitting the points and making sure we are hitting and becoming safer as we move through the investigation and making sure we can go quicker. and do more of this. >> and kind of our under pinning, we don't jump to conclusions or assume. we do a methodical process where we gather the data and we have to make sure the time sensitive information is up to date. if you have a camera that is
running -- and a time is on that. you have to make sure that the time is identical to the camera from the spacecraft. is the timing of an event occurred on the spacecraft. the radio delay time to get down is important. the first thing is to gather the data and you are start through the methodical process. we brainstorm. there are now tools available to build it for us. they they ask questions and lay out all the potential failures that could occur and which have to occur with maybe another event and the team meticulously goes through and crosses off each one of the events as it moves forward. and here in the case of space x, because they are an integrated team that i do all the work in house. they immediately went to testing certain components. even though they showed up on
the fault, they side, why don't we dojust go ahead and build a fault rig. they are actually off in the laboratory that may contribute as a parallel activity to this is more methodical process i laid out. so we can use analysis and software analysis in a much faster time than we did before. >> and i agree. i talked to spacex several times since the incident. virgin and spaceship company after spaceship 2 went down and they were, they were jumping on it quickly and they were learning things very fast. and it seems to me that the investigation process with private companies being involved, it seems like it is going a little bit faster. and that is a good thing. we want to make it safer. and i know everyone wants to make it as safe as they possibly can and that's the truth.
space flight still is in its infancy. and we are still learning and we will be for hundreds of years yet. and the faster we can get through some of these investigations the faster we can move and progress. doctor, i just had one question for you because i think that there was some good conversation there that we've got an astronaut working today and we've got one on the ground. and i think that we'll get some good information there on what effects are on the body when we actually send people to mars on such a long prolonged space flight. can you give us an idea of what we're going to look at in the next 35 years or maybe shorter as administrator baldwin things of when we are going to go to mars and the effects on the body, not just radiation but the time and space? >> so, mr. knight i apologize. i forgot my crystal ball this morning, but i'll do the best i
can. >> you're a kinisiologist. you should know this. >> i have mentioned a couple of those risks that we're seeing in the realm. if i had talked to you ten years ago, i would have told you that i expected to see about 50% bone loss from a human being. we thought that's essentially what gravity confers. we've seen with some of the glemtation strategies for counter measures on the iss that we're looking probably a lot better than that. i'm not willing to say that we have bone completely mitigated at this point. but some of the loading strategies are considerably better. we've also seen some newly emergent risks and that's always the problem. one particular with vision of astronauts. and that's been active -- is actively being worked on by nasa. there's been a number of ground-based research protocols. this is a great example of how nasa quickly identified a problem, immediately engaged the
scientific community to try to effect solution. >> very good. thank you, mr. chair. i yield back. >> yes, sir. i'd like to recognize the gentleman from ohio, mr. johnson. >> well, thank you, folks. i'm a big fan of space exploration, big buck rodgers fans, star trek, all of those kinds of things growing up with them as a kid. i say that jokingly, but i can tell you that sitting -- sitting in my living room floor between the summer of my ninth and tenth grade year and watching neil armstrong and buzz aldrin land on the most of moon captivated me as it did the rest of the world and i'm not -- i've never gotten over that. so i have tremendous respect for what you folks do and the discoveries that we're making through our space exploration process. mr. gerse nn meyer one question
for you to start off with. the iss has not yet been extended by congress. however, the administration has proposed to extend to 2024. how many of our international partners have agreed to extension and what steps is nasa taking to build a coalition of our international partners for an extension? >> the canadian space agency has agreed to extend the 2024. so we have one partner on board that's the canadian space agents who do a lot of our robotic activities and have a lot of the robotic equipment on board. splosht are sproshtthey could do this possibly by the end of year or 2016. and the european space agency,
they're, again working through their overall budget process. they've committed to support us on the orion capsule, as you know, the teams in ohio are working with them on the european service module that sits underneath the orion capsule. they're not committed to station yet. they will do that in 2017 formally, but they're getting all the member states and all the member countries to approve. they see tremendous benefit. it's working through their big governmental process on the iss side. i think all partners are working on station extension until 2024 in a variant time frame. >> how significant are the partner the russians? we're pretty dependent upon them for getting there and back, right? >> yes. we're dependant on them for crew transportation. we use them for attitude -- excuse me, altitude adjustments of space station. they provide the propellant that
reboost station. they're dependent upon us for solar ray -- or power generation. they also use us for commands and other activities. so we're kind of mutually dependent back and forth. >> are you having any discussions? i'm sure you've heard the testimony of the -- of the potential incoming new chairman of the joint chiefs who has stated that the russians are our biggest security risks, security threat. i mean, we're kind of in a dichotomy with the russians here. are you guys concerned about that? and what's your backup plan? >> again i would say that first of all, from a civil space strpt, as i described earlier, we have a very strong relationship with the russians and will continue to do that. i think we need to, again, look at what happens if the russians pull out in certain key areas. if we're working hard on the
commercial crew program, we want to end our solar alliance on the crew transportation program as soon as we can and funding for that is critical to get it in place so we can have a u.s. capability to augment the russians in the december 2017 or so time frame. so i think we're moving out on crew transportation. the other areas that i described where we're dependent, we have work arounds and we can put systems in place to recoup that if we have to. but at the end i think it's advantageous to us. if we can cooperate, there is real advantages to it. that's the right way to go forward. these endeavors require us to be not so naive that if a problem occurs we can't continue on without a certain partner. >> okay. i guess we've had some failures with the -- with the commercial avenue. i certainly -- and i'm sure that
you are, but i hope there's a lot of discussion going on because if we continue to experience similar failures that -- like we had with the commercial cargo program, and the russians were to back out, our options become smaller. and fewer. okay. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you. now i'd like to recognize the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher rohrabacher. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i remember when the space station was first approved, only one by one vote in this committee, one vote. i'm glad i voted for it. don't disappoint me now. does anyone here know the level
of co2 that is in the atmosphere of the space station? do you have an internal atmosphere. what -- what element do we put co2 in? there's a lot of talk about co2 in the planet now. what does co2 do in the space station? >> i believe it's -- we've been holding it low because of the question because of the potential hype problems. i think we're running about 3 millimeters of mercury of partial pressure of co2 on board station. >> how does that compare to the co2 that we have in our atmosphere here? >> it's slightly higher than the atmosphere we have in the room here. and we've typically allowed prior to the intercranial pressure problems associated with the vision. we allowed it to go up on the order of six or so millimeters per mercury. and that's dramatically higher than the environment here.
so it's slightly higher co2 levels on board station than we see here. >> have there been any health related problems of this increased levels of co2 that as though naughts breathe in during their time the space station has compared to what they would breathe in here? >> we're not sure, but we think it could contribute to the intercranial pressure problem. higher elevated levels of co2, you can get headaches. you can have some other physiological problems. and, again, we try to control that as low as we can. we are a russian device that removes carbon dioxide. we have a u.s. device that removes casho dioxide. then we have a next generation of system that will fly of the orion capsule that is also on board station and we can use that to remove co2. >> because we are exhaling