Skip to main content

tv   House Science Committee Hearing on NASA Budget  CSPAN  April 8, 2019 8:30pm-11:14pm EDT

8:30 pm
taxation. then michigan republican congressman paul mitchell in illinois congressman discussed their college transparency act. and we talk about staffing trends and congressional committees with institute senior fellow casey bergen. be sure to watch cspan "washington journal" live at seven eastern tuesday morning. join the discussion. >> in the first appearance from the mueller investigation william barr will appear before congress. watches testimony before the house appropriations subcommittee life tuesday at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3. before the senate appropriations committee life wednesday at 10:00 a.m. on c-span3. >> nasa administrator jim bryden stein was on capitol hill last week to testify on his agency's
8:31 pm
2020 budget requests. he was asked about space missions and the involvement of space launch activities. this hearing is just over two and half come to order without objection the chair is authorized to call a recess at any time. there are many hearings going on so hopefully we will gain more people as the time passes. let me welcome administrator. we have a lot to cover so i will come right to the point. you have stated that nasa's fiscal year 2020 budget request is a good one. apparently in part because president did not cut your
8:32 pm
budget as much as he is proposing to cut the rest of america's investment. we consider rather nsf researcht that persuaded in fact i find both the nasa budget request in your testimony for today's hearing to be a little bit surprising. the president budget request for fiscal year 2020 proposed the same ill advised to import nasa science initiatives that it did last year. cuts which congress is already considered and rejected in fiscal year 2019 appropriation act.
8:33 pm
the highest rank and national physics, the priority, the earth science missions, pays me know since last year end we think it doesn't make any sense to share. i have little doubt these cuts will be rejected by the congress again. yet it is in the area of human spacelike which accounts half of nasa's budget that i find your written testimony more troubling and nonresponsive. relying on the testimony i would have no idea that president -- vice president pence directed nasa to undertake a crash program to put astronauts on the moon within five years. by any means necessary to quote the vice president. what is the most justification
8:34 pm
for this crash program. to quote the vice president again is because we are in a space rate just as we were in the 60s. and the stakes are even higher. a recording from the vice president the chinese have revealed to seize the high ground. whatever that means the simple truth is, we are not on the space race to get to the moon. we won that race a half-century ago as this year's commemoration of apollo 11 makes clear. using outdated cold war rhetoric about the adversary seizing the lunar city teacher kai ground only begs the question of why if that is the vice president spear the department of defense would release more than a $500 million budget request doesn't seem to share the fear and is in tasked with surveilling it to pass.
8:35 pm
i have a rhetoric isn't the same as the incredible plan in this committee needs to see if there is any substance to the crash program. the vice president directive to nasa came just two weeks after the trip administration submitted the nasa buste budget request to congress. it is to be completed within the same five-year budget horizon that is contained in the president's fiscal year 2020 budget request. even the absence of an urgent crisis it would be the height of irresponsibility for the price president of the united states to direct nasa from the moon within the next five years without knowing what it will cost. how achievable the schedule is. and how it would impact the other programs. i expect the initiator and for
8:36 pm
you to provide us this information today before this committee. as i provided to the white house on each of those questions in advance the vice president speech. the committee can needs to know how much money will be needed in the five years to carry out the crash program. we need to know how much of any money the president proposes to add to nasa's budget over the next five years and the extent of which nasa's other programs will be cannibalized or cut from this initiative. we need to know if international partners will be part of it or simply frozen out as some of the rhetoric would seem to suggest. we need to know if international space station will have to be shut down within the next few years to free up funding for the lunar crash program. in short, we need specifics not rhetoric. because rhetoric that is not
8:37 pm
backed by a concrete plan and believable cost estimates is just hot air. and hot air might be helpful in ballooning but it won't get us to the moon or mars. icom a like many of my colleagues on this committee, strongly support nasa. and we want our nation to achieve challenge and exploration goals like you landing humans on mars. if the moon is a useful and necessary waypoint on the way to mars, then i believe congress will support a sustainable exploration program that includes the moon. but nasa has to date provided no meaningful roadmap to mars despite congressional direction to do so. and if you are not able to provide us with credible statistics at today's hearing i think a great disservice is being done to the hard-working
8:38 pm
and dedicated men and women of nasa. many programs and funding plans that are sustainable and inspiring. not a constant shifting set of directives. i assure you that this committee will do its part to ensure that nasa can continue to be inspiring and be the inspiring leader in space exploration and science and technology and aeronautics that it has been for the past exec take a hundred decades. in this hearing is just a first step. so i thank you for being here. i know you read the news clippings that we have read questioning what the plan really is for nasa. and i hope that we can get some answers. if there are members that wish to submit additional opening statements you may do so later. i now recognize him for his
8:39 pm
opening remarks police thank you, mr. chairman. our nation's space program is a source of pride. it exemplifies the aspects of our country, the pursuit of knowledge, heroes, technical excellence, perseverance and the spirit to chart into the unknown. exploration is in our dna and no other nation embraces the gift more than the united states. the trip administration has harnessed our spirit of expiration and proposed to focus our x birds on pioneer space. by maintaining consistency for major programs in the administration is ensuring that our national goals to explore the moon, mars and beyond will be achieved rather than delay. this consistency of purpose is also been demonstrated in this administration's funding request. at first glance, the president fy 2020 budget request appears a reduction from fy 19
8:40 pm
appropriation. however, that does not tell the whole story. year to year the travel ministration as proposed increase funding for nasa. only to have congress appropriate even more than requested. for context, the current request calls for more than 21 billion while the previous administration's proposed a notional nominal budget of just under 20 billion for fy 20. this administration has added over a billion dollars to nasa's budget request and that's before congress appropriate spinal funding. this is a blessing and a curse. as many watching this hearing have her before, no box, no buck rogers. you have to remember the comic strip to appreciate that. but believe me nasa is getting the box. now it is time to deliver. two programs become complacent when funding is taken for granted. congress and nasa need to work to become good stewards of the taxpayer dollars. we need to ensure the program stay on schedule and cost.
8:41 pm
congress along with the space council led by vice president pence provide oversight. last year the space council directed nasa to study efforts to apply accrued to the mission. more recently they accelerated the act expiration. the vice president challenge the nation to return after next to the moon by 2024. the current budget request that we are evaluating does not enable that goal. i look forward to nasa updating the request so the committee can reveal those details. aside from the budgetary unknowns, we have a robust proposal on how we can achieve lunar exploration by 2024. the proposal focuses on the development of technologies that enable future expiration rather than the dead and one-off
8:42 pm
technologies. the goal of once again launching american astronauts on american rocket from american soil is fully enabled by this proposal. the budget request plants the seeds for technologies that will be necessary in the future like landers, habitats and in space proportion. it also proposes exciting new programs like the mars sample return mission. science funding in this budget is nearly $680 million more than the nasa plan for with fy 20 under president obama's last request. the additional funding maintain support for the confirmation, the mars 2020 rover and the james west telescope. it also supports her science and the parities from the national academies of science and the foundation research and analysis work that forms the backbone of our space science interface. it supports the demonstration of a low boom supersonic technologies that will hopefully
8:43 pm
inform regulatory release of supersonic flight over land. it also addresses hypersonic's that are critical to our nation's national security technologies that will enable the air traffic management and allow the safe adoption of unaccrued aviation systems. importantly, the budget request is also responsible. it attempts to rein in programs the buster budget and differs the start of programs italic and demonstrate realistic cost, schedule and performance master. all too often these enabling functions are ignored. but we shortchange these obligations at our own peril. thankfully this request recognizes the role that safety, security and mission services serves to facilitate space exploration. advanced science, protect lives and sensitive information. mr. administrator thank you for your parents and i look forward to your testimony. i yield back. >> thank you mr. lucas, at this
8:44 pm
time i will introduce our witness. james frederick bryden steen was sworn in as the 13th demonstrated april 23, 2018. prior to his nomination he served as a representative for oklahoma congressional. and during his time in congress he served on the services committee and on the science space and technology committee. in many well know we are delighted to have him back before us today and we look forward to his testimony on the fiscal year 2020 nasa budget request. his history and space, he began his career in the navy flying combat missions in iraq and afghanistan. after transitioning to the u.s. navy reserve he returned to
8:45 pm
oklahoma where he became the director of the air and space museum and planetarium. he has completed a triple major at rice university which is in texas, and earned his mba at cornell. as a witness, you will have five minutes for your spoken testimony but your written testimony will be included in the record for the hearing. and when you have completed the spoken testimony we will begin questions and each member will have five minutes. >> thank you, chairwoman and ranking member lucas, it is an honor to be back in the science committee. this time represented 70000 of our country's finest employees at nasa. i understand, as a chairwoman identified that things are
8:46 pm
shifting. i will tell you that we submitted the budget request about three weeks ago now and in the budget request, there is a very new direction for our country. the president has issued space policy directive one, he says we should go back to the moon. i like to say we should go forward to the moon because the way we are going to do it under space policy directive one is unlike anything that has been done before. we're not going to the moon to the flags and footprints and not go back for another 50 years. this time we go, the president has said he wants to go sustainably and this time when we go we are going to say. he says we're going to go to the moon, we will go with international partners, build a coalition of international partners to go sustainably to the moon. we will go with commercial partners, we will utilize the resources of the moon and other words, the hundreds of millions of tons of water i.c.e. that has been discovered in the last ten
8:47 pm
years. then we will retire risk, improve technology and take all that for a mission to mars. so that is what is on the agenda here. i will tell you the first step in achieving that is continuing to advance the commercialization of low earth orbit. we have now seen commercial resupply of the international space station proved to be very successful. we are in the midst of watching commercial crew continue to show advancements which is been very exciting. i think many of you in this room saw the crew dragon dock to the international space station a few short weeks ago. eventually by the end of this year will be launching the american astronauts on american launch to the international space station for the first time since the retirement of the space shuttle in 2011. that is a very exciting thing that we are looking forward to. but that is commercial crew, we have completed commercial resupply capabilities and eventually want to get the
8:48 pm
commercialization of human habitats and lower orbit. all of this for the point, we think it's important and we know this committee has doubled down on this importance. nasa should be one customer of many customers in a robust commercial marketplace and lower earth orbit. that includes launch, habitation, and we want to have numerous suppliers that are competing on cost and innovation and low earth orbit. the reason is to drive down costs and increase access and utilize the resources given to us by this body to go to the moon sustainably. with our international partners and commercial partners. to do things that only government can do. that is what nasa should be doing. we look forward to advancing the agenda in this particular budget these agenda items are embedded in this budget.
8:49 pm
i don't want to miss under dismiss how important the rest of what nasa does is. right now we have a solar probe around the sun in fact, flying through the solar corona. helping us better understand solar flares. we have dozens of satellites orbiting the earth sensing the earth and every part of the electro magnetic spectrum the satellites are helping us understand the climate in helping us increase crop yields for a day when we can feed more of the world than ever before. at the same time, where continuing planetary missions. as a matter of fact, in the last five months we have landed in size on mars which is an exciting day for the united states of america. in this budget you'll find marc. you also find there is funding for a mars sample return. march 2020 is going to catch samples and bring samples back to earth. it is important for this country to focus on finding life in another world.
8:50 pm
i'm looking at my good friend ed who is a 2033 bumper sticker. it's a little distracting congressman but i'll continue. planetary science is important in astrophysics is important. we are focused like a laser right now on the james telescope which is a big mission and make the united states the leader in astrophysics for the next 30 years. that is how important the mission is. the budget is strong on aeronautics. we are on the brink of demonstrating a capability to fly across the united states as supersonic speeds without the sonic crack that can be so disruptive to infrastructure and people on the ground. so all of these missions are funded in this budget and we are proud of it. it is a true chairwoman that the budget was focused on a 2028 moon landing. we have now gotten other direction for the president to go in 2024 and we are moving
8:51 pm
rapidly to get you the details that you need so we can in a bipartisan way, i committed to you chairwoman and i'm committing to you now in a bipartisan way we want to be able to achieve these objectives. without audio back. >> thank you very much. at this point we will begin our first round of questions in a yield time for myself. we appreciate all that you brought to nasa. and i appreciate you being here this morning. two weeks after the ministry of release of the 2020 budget request vice president pence announced that the united states would send americans to land on the moon in 2024. four years earlier than the goal included. in the fiscal year 2020 request. what is the justification of this crash program? what will it cost and how achievable is it accelerated
8:52 pm
schedule? >> i think it is important for the nation to continue advancing our progress. and for us as leaders of this country to demonstrate a continued advancement. i think that is ultimately the objective here. i just saw ed perlmutter put up a chairwoman 2023 bumper sticker. we want to achieve a mars landing in 2033 and in order to do that we have to accelerate other parts of the program and the moon is a big piece of that. by moving up the moon landing for four years we can in fact -- you probably saw the report for that was called by this committee, we can move up the mars landing by moving up the moon landing. the moon is the proving ground. we had to be able to utilize the resources of another world. on the moon we know there's hundreds of millions of tons of water.
8:53 pm
water i.c.e. referee zentz water to breathe, drink, fuel, liquid oxygen and hydrogen are the same as a that will power is the rocket. remember when we go to mars, we are going to be there for at least two years. why, because mor earth and marse on the same side of the sun once every 26 months. we need to learn how to live and work in another world. as the best place to prove thanks capabilities and technologies. the sooner we can achieve the objective the sooner we can move on to mars. that's ultimately the objective here. >> when were you first told that the vice president was going to land astronauts on the moon and five years. were you informed before the fiscal year 2020 budget release? or did he ask for you to provide him information on the analysis regarding the crash programs and cost and feasibility prior to his speech question back. >> the vice president and i had
8:54 pm
conversations about accelerating the path to the moon. we have had conversations about what that might look like, what was feasible, how is this possible. then ahead of his announcement, yes, he told me that he was intending to make that announcement, and he wanted to make sure that that was within the realm of possibility. of course i told him that i believe it was, i talked to folks at nasa. at the end of the day, that is a new direction that we have and i believe that this is a great opportunity for this agency. i think it's a great opportunity for the country. and i think we can move out on it and achieve it. >> thank you. now, how much funding will be needed in each of the next five years to meet the vice president's 2024 directive question back. >> so that goes to an amendment to our budget request. which we are working on right now to achieve. the elements of getting to the moon in 2028 are all present. we know we need to accelerate
8:55 pm
xls, and the vehicle with the european service module, and we need to accelerate the gateway. we need to accelerate a landing capability which would include a transfer vehicle from the gateway, and all those elements are on the agenda for 2028. in order to achieve 2024 we need to take some of the elements and move them forward to achieve that objective. what we are working on right now at nasa is compiling the data necessary to come back to this committee, to come back to congress, and asked for an amendment to our budget request and attempt to win the brian of this critically important committee in the united states congress thank you.
8:56 pm
>> you think you can achieve that by april the 15th? >> i think we can get really close, yes, ma'am. >> thank you very much my time is expired. >> mr. lucas. >> madam chair before i began my official question, i like to ask to speak out of order to introduce a member of the committee. >> yes. >> the command of german. jamie butler represents a fifth district of washington state and she has done great work already on advancing stem. conserving important resources and driving progress. welcome to the committee jamie. you will find this is a fun committee, that's not always the circumstances everywhere. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you and welcome. >> well put madam chair. director, the fy 20 request for nasa $21,019,000,000 in change, so to speak. the obama's ministration last request planned to request 19.7 billion in fy 20. how does the extra 1.4 billion
8:57 pm
request the schedule for this year enable exploration. what's the difference between the two? >> the focus now is getting humans to the moon as soon as possible in 2028 was based on the budget request and the intent of course, is not to just get humans to the moon but prove we can live and work on another world. that is really what the extra resources have been applied to. >> continuing down that road, the budget request proposes delaying continued development of the exploration upper stage for the space launch system that along with advanced boosters is necessary to meet the congressional directive to develop a hundred 30-ton launch vehicle. why is nasa developing and delaying the effort on capacity? >> mr. ranking member, what we have found is the development of sls has proven to be more
8:58 pm
challenging than previously anticipated. so what we have attempted to do a nasa is focus bowing on getting the core stage of sls complete and then from there we can move for the exploration upper stage. but the key is to be able to launch american astronauts to the moon, we can do that with an sls core stage and an inner pulser stage and then we can get to the halo orbit around the moon where we would build the gateway. the key, i agree with you completely, we need an exploration upper stage. we have to get the sls upper stage or will be usable. >> so were still committed to developing the hundred 30 metric tons launch vehicle? >> yes or. >> ever going to throw things up we have to have a big capacity. >> the intent was to delay, we have no intent to cancel, or trying to get sls complete so we can get humans in the vicinity of the moon as soon as possible.
8:59 pm
>> director, two years ago congress passed a weather research act which i sponsored and featured yourself in ms. bone amici. in data from the private sector that can be integrated into the national weather service forecast will also duplication from private and public resources of data. the goal was to stimulate the private sector to protect lives and property and ensure u.s. leadership and weather forecasting. the fy 20 budget proposes to spend millions of dollars on sensors of european to conduct satellite system radio calculation observations. what a phrase, to ingest into the u.s. forecast. u.s. companies are providing gps radio calculation data to noah. this administration has been advocates for commercial space enterprise.
9:00 pm
how is nasa ensuring they are not competing with the private sector aside from the direction in the 2017 weather act, current commercial sensing policy also directs agencies to rely on maximum practical extent of u.s. commercial for filling in the needs of the military intelligence, foreign policy, homeland security, how are we balancing that product question. >> this is an critically important issue that our nation needs to be focused on and as you are aware gps under laws passed by this committee and this congress have enabled us -- for the first time in history use commercial radio data and adjusted inter data stimulation system and in the meet numerical weather model and in fact derive results that are meaningful. . . .
9:01 pm
because they certainly don't want to push private industry out of the spectrum as hard as we worked to make that possible. with my remaining moments i have the privilege of introducing another member to the committee, jennifer gonzalez represents porter rico, which has a large industry and commitment to innovation research jennifer is also a proud graduate of a stem magnet high school and told me she's excited to work on promoting stem education so you
9:02 pm
have another ally. >> thank you very much. >> thank you so much to the chair and welcome back to the science committee to the former colleague and administrator i appreciated our early efforts to work together i think for pointing that out i hope yo we n work together to support nasa and its mission and workforce and i understand you have many priorities to balance when writing the budget request. i'm disappointed to see a shift away from the role that seems to be contrary to the congressional intent and authorization to restore funding to the science mission directorate. nasa has some of the best scientists in the world when we face extreme weather patterns we should be doing everything we can to leverage information from earth observing satellites to strengthen our understanding of
9:03 pm
climate change and identify successful adaptation mitigation strategies as the cochair i'm also glad to welcome the new members who have districts that are definitely affected by ocean health. i know that the health of our national resources and the specifically marine resources are critical. warming waters have been triggering algae blooms which causes the problem to marine life and our economy as well and investment in research to predict and adapt to those challenges is important, so i'm looking at nasa's mission of the ecosystem mission that could help us understand the algae blooms and related to other environmental events for examples of it is scheduled to launch in 2022 and will improve the observations of ocean ecosystems and the atmosphere. however, administrator, despite the demonstrated the value shown in the january 2018 national
9:04 pm
academies survey thriving on our changing planet survey the budget proposes to terminate the peace mission and justifies the decision by stating existing missions from other international partner satellites are providing or will provide measurements to establish similar science. it's worth noting that the pace mission is known for having the most advanced color instrument and is there a consensus from the community but the same data products of the same quality that would have been in the mission will be delivered from other missions and giv and did u consult witgive youconsult withc researchers involved before making this decision? >> that's another important question. as of right now it is funded on
9:05 pm
congress and we are working hard to achieve its launch in 2022. it's also true that early in the development phase and when we consider all of the things that we are balancing, that was one of the casualties of alternately making decisions in a constrained budget environment. but it's also true there are other missions that nasa ha nast ouhas hadover other partners tos characterize the color of water specific missions that i can take for the record and get back to you what those instruments may be in on which satellites. >> did you consult with scientific researchers involved with making the decision to terminate the program?
9:06 pm
>> reaffirming that the administrator should set the science priorities by following the guidance provided by the national academy of sciences in january and medicines and i am concerned the proposed budget doesn't align with this principle and about the cuts to earth science. can you explain the lack of funding to initiate missions and implement the most recent earth science survey and based on your fiscal 2020 request, when can we expect a missions to be initiated and launched and when will they be funded? >> as of right now we have the highest budget in the history of the united states, and if you look at our budget compared to that of all the other nations in the world if you add up the european space agency and china and japan and russia are our our partners on the international space station collectively their gdp is higher than ours and we are about equal to spending is just all of the nations combined on earth science. i think the budget is very good
9:07 pm
in fact this particular budget request is higher than five of the budgets that were enacted under president obama which is a solid position to the income and be in comingand i know you and e talked. my commitment is and will be to do everything possible to make nasa and a political bipartisan organization. i want to drive consensus and the way we get consensus is to listen to the decade-old surveys from the national academy of sciences and to the best of my ability i have done that and my commitment is to continue doing that. >> my time is expired and i yield back. >> thank you madam chair and ranking member for holding this hearing. it certainly is good to know that our days of reliance on others for human access to space are limited and it's great to see you back as administrator.
9:08 pm
can you provide an overview on what preparations are being made at the space center to support the first launch on the exploration mission one next year as we prepare to receive and process the rocket and spacecraft what activities are taking place to ensure the smooth stacking integration rollout will have in? >> the key of course those are underdeveloped and getting very close to being ready. the first he had some delays with as i've already explained and that is why we are so focused in order to achieve getting it to kennedy as that's possible we've made some significant changes and how they are actually developing it we found and we didn't notic know t the time, we found the engine section is on the critical path
9:09 pm
and the rest was dependent on that section being complete before it could be integrated and that was based on a property plant and equipment limitation that we had so what d have so we have now purchased new equipment we can do that in the portals onto while they are continuing to work on the engine sections of it is accelerating the path and of course once that is complete we will do testing on the entire integrated vehicle through which we call a green run we are making determinations right now alternately how much we need to do based on the scheduled start attempting to achieve and i want to be clear we are going to be safe and we will not do anything that brings
9:10 pm
him to safetundue safety that ie things testing that are nice to have lethal look at movin movint of a leader test at the end of the day we want to get the rocket to the kennedy space center and make sure that the launchpad is ready to go and all of those are not in the critical path right now. we are in good shape for those activities and everybody is extremely excited about getting the first launch by 2020 and that's what we are working on right now getting it by the end of 2020. >> thank you for your direct answer and i appreciate your comments last week about the preparation for the second mobile launcher. these will allow both astronauts and the payloads and lunar lander's and so forth. although the fiscal year budget
9:11 pm
process proposes diverting to work untithework until several e appears that the based on the vice president president's chare accelerate the return and the immediate development and your comments seem to jive and so how will they continue the development this year? >> this is an important issue and you are hitting the nail on the head. under the law we are required to build the second mobile launcher and wha what we do is follow the walllaw, so we are right now in order to build the second of launcher required by law we are continuing to develop the exploration and a limited way like i told ranking member lucas in a limited way we need to continue the development so that we can follow the law and build
9:12 pm
the second mobile launcher. my commitment is to follow the ball and people continued that, but it's true right now if we are going to accelerate the 2024, we have to make decisions with the level of investment is going to be and make a modification to achieve that agenda. we look forward in the coming weeks to working with omb and the administration coming with you with a plan to achieve that and that's like the chairwoman said, i keep going back to my old days, like the chairwoman said, we want to get back to you as soon as possible hopefully by april 15. >> thank you very much, and i yield back. >> thank you madam chair. good morning, administrator. i want to start by saying i have a statement device with that for
9:13 pm
the record that should be over there. i want to start off by talking i think you made a good point about this isn't a partisan issue and it shouldn't be that there are some important unanswered questions about how we are going to achieve the things proposed and some clarity. in the congressional justification for the request it states that nas nasa o'brien spacecraft space launch systems are the backbone for space exploration from which private companies could one day provide equivalent commercial. i think the conversation with the appropriate balance of the government and commercial is critical but that the senate committee hearing, you mentioned you were considering the use of commercial vehicles to launch so in your prepared statement for today's hearing, you also said nasa is assessing alternative architectures that could include the use of commercial launch
9:14 pm
vehicles but at the same time in march 26 in a press release, you recorded as saying while some of these alternative equals good work, none were capable of achieving our goals of orbit around the moon within our timeline and on budget. the results of this two-week study reaffirmed our commitment so i guess given the conflicting statements, can you tell me what the final decision was? >> absolutely. the answer to the two-week study is complete and w we looked at l the commercial options and we took nothing off the table. what is the realm of possibility and how do we achieve a 2020 launch within the orion crew vehicle and service module we looked at the delta four heavy. i don't want to take up all your time that we looke but we lookea four heavy. it doesn't have the throw weight. it gets even heavier and it still can't make it to earth
9:15 pm
orbit so the challenge is you only have one launchpad on each coast and if you launch from the west coast to launch south which means you change orbit once you're there. a lot of times cryogenically aloft it doesn't work. what about launching a delta four and a falcon heavy, and what if we were to put a crew dragon on top of a falcon and do automatic rendezvous docking which is the only capability we have right now in the country is to do automatic rendezvous docking with overriding the challenge is it doesn't have the funds to throw the orion around the moon so that doesn't work. so then we looked up way out of the box, what if we were to consider putting a falcon heavy within the orion service module or crew vehicle and european service module and i cps from you la, and i know that sounds crazy but again, we are looking at all options. and in fact it works. it requires a lot of modification to the infrastructure, to the
9:16 pm
launchpad. it takes a lot of modifications to the cryogenic and refueling on the pad. it takes a lot of time and there is a lot of cost and risk and it wouldn't work for accelerating a 2020 launch of a vehicle that's what it did demonstrate is if you have a little bit of extra time, 2023 maybe 2024, a lov off that uncertainty could be retired and -- >> because i have a few more questions i want to get to, can you boil it down to the final decision? because i appreciate you looking at all those things that can you boil down to the final decision we are still on track with? >> absolutely. it's the best and only option and there are options in the future that need to be considered. when we land on the moon in 2024 is because the all of the above strategy. >> there's a couple more questions and i'm going to boil
9:17 pm
them down quickly. focusing on the accelerated moon landing and how we are going to get their moving it up even another five years from where we were, there are with these announcements and moving it up, what is the need for the demonstration, the lunar demonstration programs event this proposed timeline how are those programs going to be impacted? >> they are important. we have to commercial payroll service is underway where we are going to purchase the access with a small payload, 10 pounds or less. can you deliver to the south polsouthpole of them as we can characterize and understand what is the value of the specific territory, so those missions are underway right now and critically important to helping us understand when we land humans on the surface of the moon where we want to place
9:18 pm
them. >> my time is expired that we will be submitting more questions for the record. thank you. >> yes ma'am. >> thank you very much. i apologize i didn't hear you. good morning. my first question would be the budget request calls for the elimination of the office of education. i believe we need to be encouraging hands-on stem education which nasa has supported in the past. can you elaborate on how they will continue to support education while zooming in on the education account? >> they do this all the time for the mirror to the various mission directed to through the various centers across the
9:19 pm
agency and we do it when we partner with universities with critically important projects and programs for the agency and our exploration mission and planetary science missions. we have a broad kind of agenda that is funded in a whole lot of different ways. the specific office of education is a small piece of everything we do. i can get a small example of the public weeks ago ago i was at a robotics event and there were thousands of kids there. nasa sponsors it to the tune of about $4 million annually because if you look at the people that are building our robots that are currently on mars, they were participants in the first robotics when they were coming up through school, so that's an amazing program that has paid dividends for nasa and for the country so what we like to do is focus on areas where we know we are getting a return for the cm for the country and began given the constraints of the budget we've
9:20 pm
decided to focus on those areas. >> i have one more question. iin your testimony you talk a bt importance of the lunar gateway to continue man-made missions belong donned the orbit i think it's important to recognize the hard work being done at the center which is just north of my district in ohio. my team had a chance to tour the facility working on the development of the power propulsion at nasa and found the work fascinating. can you talk about the importance of work being done at research centers around the country? >> the power propulsion elements when we talk about gateway some people think of it is like a space station in orbit around the moon. it's a very different. it's a reusable command and service module that it's going to enable our astronauts and robots and landers and brokers it's going to enable more access to more parts of the moon than ever before and the reason that's possible is because of
9:21 pm
the power and propulsion eleme element. act fast values greater than we have ever been able to achieve before with solar electric propulsion for this very high specific impulse and that means it is going to last a long time. the goal was for the gateway to remain in orbit around the moon free period of 15 years to go from that gear halo orbit all the way to the l1 and l2 which enables all of our capabilities to get two more parts of the moon than ever before so the power propulsion element is critical. >> thank you very much. i yield back my time. >> mr. perlmutter. >> mr. bridenstine, thanks for being before the committee today. it's good to see you. initially when i came in, i was disappointed in the report that came back on the pathway to mars, because they basically said well, given the constraints that nasa faces in budget and
9:22 pm
all this stuff, we don't think we can get there for a long time is more or less what they said, which really was disappointing to me and quite frankly, i was very encouraged by your initial comments to the chairwoman about the desire to get to mars by 2033, and i don't mean to be a one trick pony on this, but i think it derives a lot of other conversations. and so, it's a responsibility of the congress to provide you all with resources and the pressure that people from the white house, not you, but nasa to accelerate returning to the moon, you know, being able to survive on the moon for extended periods of time quite frankly for me, i'm okay with that because i think it accelerates
9:23 pm
the effort to get to mars which i think is the underlying driving force here. for inspiration as well as for nasa to expand and continue to expand its capabilities and imagination. so, i really don't have too many questions. my responsibility is continuing to talk to this committee and others about this goal. something that's interesting and thianddesist orders outside of e context of this committee is when vice president mike pence says we are in a space race or we have competition, there is an element of national security that is attached to that somewhat. it's not just a civil side of the budget that is implicated in that. so, i'm going to be turning over every stone to provide the
9:24 pm
resources so that the technical, the science, all that stuff to get this done and i will hav inn open-ended statement about that and you can respond. >> i will tell you congressman, your leadership on this has been amazing. in fact when i came over here i said i'm going to see my friend and i need to get a bumper sticker that says 2033 on it. i didn't have one in my office, i don't know why. but when i walk into an office just down the hall and i stole one from somebody that works at nasa, so just know that your efforts have been felt and seen and heard and we are grateful and we are doing everything we can to accelerate the agenda because you are right mars is a horizon goal. the moon is a tool we need to get to mars.
9:25 pm
the glorious it is a three-day journey home. we have seen what happens when there's failure on the way to the moon with apollo 13, people can make it home safely. if that were to happen on the way home from mars it would be a bad day for the country and we don't want that to happen so the moon is the tool to get to mars and we are doing everything we can fix th to accelerate. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you very much. mr. gonzales. >> thank you madam chair and mr. ranking member for holding this hearing today in big thank you to you mr. bridenstine for your work to the country and with nasa. i have the distinct honor of representing north east north central ohio and we are home to the nasa research center as you know. quintessential research center for achieving the vision and mission having visited the center recently, saw firsthand just how incredible the scientists are, the engineers
9:26 pm
and technicians working over 3,000 strong just absolutely amazing work. as you may know, midwest has suffered from the loss of manufacturing jobs over the last decade look no further than the recent closing in lordstown at the gm plant. it's my belief that in recent years certainly with the glenn research center nasa has underutilized the commercial aerospace resources and human capital of ohio and nearby states. what can you do or think about to enjoy the midwest capabilities and capacities are recognized in the procurement and development of goods and services obtained by nasa? >> that's another important question. we are working everyday to make sure we are taking advantage of all of our centers and all the talent we have, and we always consider the talent internal to our agent before we go outside the agency and what you know very well, we have a lot of
9:27 pm
talent. the power propulsion element as we discussed is a critical piece of the architecture, but the aeronautics capabilities are second to none. we are talking about windtunnel technologies, about the ability to test engines to increase fuel efficiency, in fact to improve the environmental standards of aircraft all of these things are being done in a very meaningful and positive way, and they have implications for the country when we talk about exports and how important our manufacturing is around the world. we are able to maintain those cutting-edge capabilities and the propulsion sector of the aviation market because of the efforts people in other research centers throughout nasa. >> shifting gears in your testimony you highlight the importance of aeronautics in the leadership in the global industry as russia and china
9:28 pm
continue to make investments in their domestic aerospace sector, i think it's more critical than ever nasa continue to lead on the fundamental research that will help the u.s. sector remain competitive especially in commercial aircraft and cargo systems. can you talk about how important the aeronautics research nasa conducts to the aviation economy and how they can better position itself to ensure the u.s. as a leader in aviation research so kind of take a strategic lines if you can. >> but we have to think about is what is the future of aviation look like and how does the united states of america remain preeminent in that space for our own economy and for exports. that is the role nasa plays. there are some very leading-edge investments that might be too high risk for a for-profit company to invest in but we can come alongside and support them in that effort, and we've done that. i don't know if you look at engines these days on aircraft
9:29 pm
and the pilot i look at the engines and i'm like they keep getting bigger and bigger and the plant now the engines are flat on the bottom because they will hit the ground, that kind of thing. what is driving that, or the reduction dear capabilities provided by nasa with partnerships with our commercial industry is ultimately so we can increase fuel efficiency and reduce noise and have better environmental standards without losing any kind of power or thrust. so there's bigger turbo fans that ar are a result we want to keep doing that and it's also important to note a couple other things that are important we want to be able to fly from new york to la in a matter of two hours and six hours best technos being developed right now so that at the end o of the day faa can give us a determination that it's perfectly okay to fly a supersonic over the united
9:30 pm
states. to have it delivered to your front door with a john in a matter of minutes, that capability is on the horizon and eventually the idea that we are going to be able to fly humans across the city and avoid traffic we need to be thinking about that today. there's billions of dollars of investment going into these activities all around the world. the united states of america needs to be in the lead. >> thank you for your time and i yield back. >> thank you very much, doctor foster. >> thank you madam chair and thank you administrator. a quick question on the 2024 launch date. who made the decision to change it? >> that was a decision by the president of the unitepresidents announced by the vice president. >> fascinating.
9:31 pm
were technical people consulted and budgetary people consulted? yes. and what's the question asked what it would do to the budget at the time that the command was given? >> the determination was made that we would need to make an amendment to the budget request and we are working on that right now. >> and on a zero-sum basis or will you be allowed to increase or will you have other programs? >> that will not be successful if we are cutting other programs because we have had bipartisan support. >> so you will be asking for an increase and was it specified who would be taxed to do that? >> if you are going to increase the budget normally you have to tax somebody to pay for it or specified. >> that would be a determination by somebody other than the nasa administrator. >> you are talking about a program based on chemical rockets that would be completely
9:32 pm
understandable on ground for everything we are proposing and there have been for decades come conceptual designs to get into low earth orbit for much less. for example, these are things that electromagnetic launch systems, air breathing systems, all this sort of stuff. and it seems like you are spending a negligible amount of stuff that has a chance to reduce the cost of getting into the low earth orbit. is this something that bothers you then have you considered moving the needle so that we have a chance 50 or 100 years from now with having space be affordable to people which i think it's pretty clearly not going to happen if we just keep using chemical rockets again and again. >> that's an important question. you are absolutely right chemical rockets are expensive. we are making great advancements right now on the usability which is driving down costs --
9:33 pm
>> that isn't a major effect. when this was still conceptual and haven't been prove hasn't bi asked the question if you reuse the booster lets say it all works, you reduce the capacity to low earth orbit because you have to retain fuel to land the booster and take stuff apart. how much money do you actually y save come and the answer from the engineer at the time was 17%. that isn't transformative we need a factor of ten, not whatever number you get from the usability of the first stage so you have to spend money on the transformative technologies and i don't see that anywhere in your budget. how do you view that trade-off? >> i think it depends on the definition of what the transformative technologies are. >> something for a factor of ten.
9:34 pm
>> if there is a factor of ten reduction in cost, i am all for it and i would love to hear your ideas i know you are a physicist and i am all ears. >> it relies on fundamental research you have to give long-term mass production. these are things where they are good ideas on how to spend the money but if you concentrate more on this go to the moon with the same technology from 50 years ago in the next five years, the money that is spent there isn't being spent on something that could make it accessible for large numbers 2030 or 50 years from now so i would urge you to rethink the trajectory. and in a similar way, space nuclear power is something that you are working on and the decision you have to make is whether you will use the weapons grade material. so i understand that for a nuclear space propulsion you have settled on the non- weapons
9:35 pm
usable and -- >> that's what we currently use. >> on the other hand it appears you are not heading in the in tt direction at least initially for the space power reactions. these are things that would be used for potentially on satellites, potentially on lunar and mars spaces. a future where every spacefaring nation has a big inventory of weapons grade material to surface the reactors that they are using all over the moon and all over mars is not a very safe space environment. i've spent some time looking into it. there will be some small performance compromises and going with low enriched non- weapons grade material, but i urge you to look hard at keeping alive the prospect of having an international collaboration to develop workable non- weapons grade-based materials that the whole world will use. >> i will look at those options.
9:36 pm
>> thank you i appreciate it. >> hello. good to see you. good to see you. you probably have the funnest job in the room and it is exciting with going on in space right now only is it exciting, but it's necessary and noble the work being done. nasa is part of our heritage and what's going on is necessary this renewed space race is essential not only from the exploratory side of science but from the national security standpoint when we see china and all they are doing to take the high ground. it is just essential of course that we continue to lead in that front. my question has to do with you
9:37 pm
inherited and if you talk to the government accountability office gao, they have nasa on the higher risk for waste and have actually downgraded them. this is what you walked into. i'm wondering what we're doing because as we prioritized how important it is to spend certain levels it's also important we prioritized efficiency. can you speak to what nasa is doing to create efficiencies and especially in the sense of being more efficient than china in winning the space race? >> absolutely. you're absolutely right the high-risk list has nasa and yes we have been downgraded. so, the reason we are there is because we have not been good at maintaining schedules and we haven't been at maintaining
9:38 pm
cost. now there's a number of reasons for that and i think people on this committee are well aware what we do is unique and it's unlike anything else any other agency does we build things that have never existed before and we have to invent things to make our products work, things that are quite frankly astonishing and stunning. i am not making any kind of excuse. we need to be better at making determinations as to the cost of what we are going to build into the schedule. part of that requires us to ultimately not be so aggressive and what we say we can achieve. we need to make sure we have origin built into our schedules and cost as a matter of fact. nasa is very ambitious as an agency and is kind of a good thing everybody wants to work
9:39 pm
harder to achieve amazing and astonishing things that do at this or they sometimes you need to be more thick, and that's part of what we are trying to get fit. when we have scheduled delays whether it is the commercial crew whatever the case may be, it puts us at risk and encourages questions that we don't like to answer. >> i think is a space company landing the first commercial company. can you speak to ways that they are partnering and also for example is nasa doing that kind
9:40 pm
of thing when it comes to contracting to take the burden of research off of some of these things? >> sometimes the companies have an incentive to overstate what they can achieve as well because they are trying to win contracts so we have to be careful in other words we need to be good at not only managing our programs but we have to be smart and i would argue that it could be said as we have turned more to commercial industry to provide stability colleagues lost the intellectual capital necessary to be a smart buyer. on the one hand yes we can outsource some of those challenges and on the other hand we stopped to mee meet the scheduling and cost if we can't rely on somebody else to tell us what that is because sometimes they are not right either and then we are held accountable so we have to be careful how we go
9:41 pm
about that in the future. but you mentioned we are partnering with that company and they will be landing something on the moon for $95 million worth of investment which is a radical change in cost for anything that's ever landed on the moon previously nasa is a partner with them and we are also providing our deep space network to support them with communications which is unique to us so we are a partner with them and proud of that and we have our own program for the payload services where we have already signed up nine companies that we have assessed were able to deliver small payloads to the surface of the moon and we are looking forward to and in fact we've already put out the first task order and we look forward to seeing what industry will be willing to provide from a domestic perspective.
9:42 pm
all of these things are critical capabilities and in some cases they help us with the high risk and other cases that could put us in more risk but we have to be more careful about how we go about telling you and others about our schedule. as much as we want to tell everybody we are going to get there yesterday we have to be careful about that. >> thank you very much. thank you madam chair and administrator for your time and testimony to the committee today. nasa enjoys a incredible reputation with the american people and i'm excited to hear more about the exciting plans for the future of the program it's been an interesting and informative dialogue today. utah my home state has a heritage of supporting human space exploration as well from the building of the voters that boosted the space shuttles launches from 1981 through 2011
9:43 pm
to the updated versions being produced for the space launch system to take us back to the moon and beyond a as we've beenn discussing today. i also believe we must ensure our priority is our informed by the scientific community and our goals which certainly must be ambitious also granted in the abilitand theability to delivere technology and safely complete the mission so my question for you is first of all i guess i'm a little perplexed but after nasa prepared a budget request, the administration announced the acceleration of the plan to send humans to the moon again by 2024 rather than the previous goal that i support and while i think that objective is laudable, i am concerned that given what appears to be a lack of planning that they still have questions
9:44 pm
to answer to achieve that mission on such a short timeframe. i'm also pleased to hear your ongoing commitment. how would the budget speedup the development and readinesspeed us in light of its full in the accelerated mission schedule? >> it currently has us focused on the quarter stag core stage e challenge has been. we are using the resources that we have and we have in fact integrated the oxygen tank in a way so the engine section is no longer in the critical path and we can continue assembling the rest of the rocket for a delivery by the end of this ye year. all of that is progress in the right direction.
9:45 pm
you have a question i had about. >> has this accelerated schedule the answer we have discussed this and we got questions about it with the entire family and put it all out there and said we have a new to to get there in 2024 the independent technical authority is. they don't get their assessment from their manager. it doesn't come from the program
9:46 pm
is completely independent if they need to throw a red flag and say this isn't safe, they have a job to do that and we want those technical authorities to stay in place whether it is engineering or technology or human factors, medicine. all of those are in place and strong and we are going to keep them. we are not going to take any undue risk, but i would like to say when john f. kennedy announced we were going to the moon in congress as a matter of fact in 1961, that was only weeks after alan shepard passed. it is a very short hop and in a matter of weeks he was announcing we are going to go by the end of the decade. that was a moment that was transformative and captured the imagination of the american people. it wasn't without challenges that we achieved it and now its accomplishment but everybody still talks about. my children watch the videos and
9:47 pm
i'm sure your family's house while. all these things are important. in my view this is a great opportunity for the agency and for the country and i think we need to capitalize on it. >> let's make sure we do this safely. and i yield back. >> i think the chair and welcome to the former membe members of s committee, a former naval aviator and university graduate. i am compelled to make some comment on the decision of going to the moon in five years. we all know the attitude from apollo 13, failure is not an option. but i would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
9:48 pm
that phrase may now be failure is the only option. i would remind my colleagues the young president john fitzgerald kennedy told the american people at the university, and this is a quote, i realize that this is in some measure an act of faith and vision. we choose to go to them and he saithe moon hesaid that on sept. neil armstrong said one small step for man and a giant leap for mankind six years and 311 days after that inspiring speech we can go back if we make the commitment and five years. we have to go back first.
9:49 pm
the moon should be the place we train for going to mars. a few examples, the gravity is one sixth. mars is one third. i talked to neil armstrong before he passed on and they tried to walk on the moon. they admit they learn how to hop to get around. my point is we had a great tool but it's not actually working. it's the atmosphere of gravity. we have a rocket being built right now, the sls. it's going forward and it may be ready in the next couple of years. it came out of nowhere to go fly but way ahead of the curve on that one we have the crew vehicle. the committee said the orion
9:50 pm
capsule and the destruction of the constellation prize, we saved that capsule to take human beings, americans back to the moon, to mars and beyond. it's been mentioned we have to have bigger rockets to go to mars, faster rockets. right now the moon is about two days with current rockets into jim can tell you mars is probably three months, four months, six months, 780. that means people have to have food, water supplies. that could be one big heavy rocket, have to have big propulsion system for example has what's called an going to drathen todraw a blank on it bus basically it keeps accelerating from a forget what it's called but it gets faster and faster not the speed of sound but the
9:51 pm
speed of light maybe get there e in three weeks as opposed to three months. also, the radiation between earth and mars we've never had that with humans we have to learn how to get through that and keep humans alive. so, my question to you, administrator bridenstine do you think going to the moon helps us get to mars? >> without a question. i would argue you cannot get there unless you use the moon as a tool to get there. what i'm talking about is the need to learn to live and work on another world. you don't want to try for the first time when it's going to take seven. ththe earth and moon are not gog to be on the same side of the sons of the moon is a proving ground we have to learn to live and work in another world we've proven going back to apollo 13, we have proven you can come home safely when something goes wrong during a moon mission. if we were to do that on the way
9:52 pm
to mars, it would be devastating. >> the plasma rocket basically goes faster and faster. one question about china. as apollo 11 was a plaque on the moon that said we came in peace for all mankind. i guarantee if china put a plaque on the moon would say something like we came to make the moon hours. look no further than right here south china sea. china is torn apart to make basins out of them. can we change the attitude as opposed to what they've done here worship the ramp this up and go to the moon asap? >> you're asking me? >> i think we should go asap but it's also true as you've identified when you talk about a plasma rocket, the idea is you've got two things, you've got the back end of the rocket and how fast the mass is going. what franklin diaz is doing is
9:53 pm
accelerating subatomic particles, electrons as you mentioned close to the speed of light so when you talk about it being small car that means the acceleration has to be that fast which is why that would be a capability. i know earlier congressman foster was talking about nuclear capabilities. that would be nuclear electric propulsion which would be a game changer getting to mars in a matter of weeks rather than mom this with the transformational and enable us to do more and protect human life so we are making investments into 5100% of transformational.
9:54 pm
>> they should leave the formation of an international satellite observing architecture capable of monitoring global climate change and its consequences. congresswoman also brought up the 2018 earth science the cable survey which prioritized the measurements taken from two missions, the first sh she mentioned and the pathfinder mission, both of those are widely regarded as crucial in helping to plan mitigation and adaptation policies. we've already mentioned that's been curtailed in the president's budget. i think it is worth reminding those were cut in the last two budgets from the administration they exist today not because of the administration but because congress insisted on keeping the programs going. >> and we are moving rapidly to get those programs online. >> as you've mentioned they are being curtailed because of the changes you are putting in
9:55 pm
place. you mentioned there was a budgetary pressure to terminate those missions in your earlier comments. was there any scientific basis for terminating the missions? >> there in the plus. the pathfinder as the demonstrator to be on the international space station is ultimately a radiation budget instrument that we have others in orbit right now that are measuring the radiation budget of the earth in other words energy comes in from the side as an optical part of the electromagnetic spectrum and other parts of the spectrum and then when that energy dissipates is an infrared so we are measuring the total radiation budget of the earth and we can monitor climate change. we are doing that not just with the pathfinder which is a technology demonstrator but missions already on orbit. >> if i can ask you to submit to the committee a specific list of those that are going to provide
9:56 pm
the information we are losing and i guess i would also like to know, you mentioned you had some consensus from the scientific committee. can you provide that specifically who has confirmed cutting commissions will not interfere in our ability to understand how the climate is changing and what we need to do to adapt >> i can provide you with that. >> it seems the budget that you are proposing has a sense that exploration should be the primary mission rather than understanding the one planet and universe that had the capability to accommodate human life. there is cutting in the program for alps near programs. under these scenarios if i'm following the math, nasa isn't going to be initiating any new missions over the five-year budget horizon which leaves the possibility of the gap with no
9:57 pm
real priority missions underway and would cut earth science in 2020. given all that and this is just a yes or no question do you personally believe that this global warming is real and happening? >> absolutely. carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas wee bit more into the atmosphere than ever before and it is in fact causing the climate to change. and by the way, we are studyingg everyday in fact we are launching here in amman the orbital carbon observatory three which was cut in the last budget request but not this budget request. >> do you believe we currently have the tools to meet the recommendation that they should leave the formation of an international satellite observing architecture capable of monitoring its consequences? >> i absolutely do. >> to be clear, congressman,
9:58 pm
this budget request is higher than five of the budgets under president obama for earth science specifically. >> but we are cutting the programs that we will find out when we see these at ocean coming back. what do you think are the chances i have a fear that we may have a century left at this point and it's habitable particularly on the temperatures and melting permafrost. what do you think are the chances if we run into a situation in the next century where it isn't as habitable as we would like it to be we have the ability to escape earth and live on another planet? >> i don't have any way of answering that. >> what you say that it's greater than 1%? you said it's greater than 1%. >> you're talking about moving it to another planet? im not banking on that. >> how do you justify over
9:59 pm
prioritizing at the expense of understanding the planet we have? >> i think what exploration does is it inspires the nation. we go back to the apollo era and look at everything that came. i hear about paying an care aboo but we are talking about communication architecture so many people listening right now probably listen to satellite radio or get their broadband as many of my constituents from oklahoma they get their intranet from space. all of those communication architectures were born from an idea that we should go to the moon back in the 1960s. >> i think that i'm out of time but i just want to made sure we have future generations. >> thank you very much. mr. bridenstine, we appreciate you being here. space exploration is exciting in its own right and then finding
10:00 pm
the tons of frozen water on the moon certainly adds to its intrigue as far as a stepping stone for going to mars. i think it's interesting frozen water could not only furnish water but it can furnish fuel and hydrogen and oxygen, so very interesting. .. association is hosting a conference on. sonics. can you give us any more detail about nasa's plan to invest in the hypersonic technology. >> this is part of our portfolio an important part.
10:01 pm
what we do as an agency, we have to get to the atmosphere to go to space and hypersonic's are piece of that. in fact we have a lot of facilities and capabilities that are resident within nasa and other agencies used for the capabilities o as well in developing hypersonic. so we are partner with other agencies at the same time. it's an important part of what we do. >> thank you. can you describe to the committee how nasa's partnership with purdue on cutting-edge research. it may impact agriculture and i have an interest in that as we well. >> go ahead. >> how this committee could be helpful in helping those partnerships grow?
10:02 pm
>> great question. number one, universities help us reach more the country with the goodness that nasa delivers. i would say, just so you're aware, purdue the center director in houston is a purdue graduate in the associate administrator of the human exploration and operation mission directorate here in washington, d.c. is a purdue graduate. and forget about the 24 astronauts, they are littered throughout nasa. you should be proud of this new university that is in your district. going back to the eyepiece. this goes back to the question as well about what nasa does and why earth science is so important. climate change is a big piece of what we do. we are the only agency that does it and we do more of it than any other nation in the world by far. it is a good thing. what we are learning now is from
10:03 pm
the earth science capabilities that have been delivered for purposes that were focused on agriculture, were actually not applying that capability to do a number of things including increasing crop fields. while reducing water uses. we've got a partnership going back to the university question you asked, sir, partnership with the university of california cooperative extension and whether demonstrating is that with our remote sensing from space of the agriculture communities in california, we are increasing crop yields while reducing water usage by 25%. which means that water is now available for rivers and reservoirs in other areas. were potentially in fact saving species that are at risk. at the same time, were feeding more of the community than we otherwise would've said. crop yields are going up 25%, water usage is down about 25%, and at the same time, or preserving the nitrates in the soil. normally when you overwater,
10:04 pm
those nitrates erode away. there's two problems, number one the plants don't have it by the crop fields are high. in the water the humans drink which cost millions and millions of dollars to clean. the goodness that is coming from the earth science of budget from nasa has a lot of application. were just scraping the surface with these cooperative extensions of the university of california. the goal is to expand this. in fact, nationwide and worldwide. in 2017 nasa was able to predict a severe drought in uganda in 2017. because of that we were able to mitigate a disaster with millions of dollars of the american taxpayer dollars. but it prevented the natural disaster that would've cost dozens of millions of dollars. we not only save lives we saved american taxpayer dollars because of this capability that we had resident and the earth science division of this science directory. >> thank you very much i'm glad
10:05 pm
to hear that. i yield back. >> thank you very much. mr. combe. >> thank you manager. i would like to ask a couple questions. i was concerned when we use russia for lunch as many years ago and apparently that is worked and we haven't lost anybody yet. when are we going to have our own flights and when we do what will the russia program be will be secondary auctio option or wt customer. >> that's a great question. something we really need to start communicating and is an important issue. this year we believe we will have two commercial crew
10:06 pm
providers that enable us to launch our astronauts from american soil to the international space station. the goal here is not to replace our partnership with russia. the international space station has proven to be an amazing capability, a channel of communication in the as you are aware we have all kinds of disputes but since the 1990s we've been able to collaborate on the international space station and even before that if you go back to the shuttle program and even before that if you go to apollo. the height of the cold war. we as a nation have been able to cooperate in space. they've amazing capabilities. we can take advantage of that. we've amazing capabilities that they can take advantage of for science and expiration and discovery. we want to make sure that when we do have our own capability, that they can launch on a rockets and we can launch on their rockets. the partnership continues and it's more of a partnership rather than us purchasing seats from them. as a customer there be more of a partnership. they know the exchange of funds
10:07 pm
by letter partnership for access to lower orbit. >> once we get our pockets going, we will not be using the russian so much ? >> it'll be a partnership. a partnership rather than -- >> you feel confident -- i don't think they've lost anybody in space you have a ? >> not since we have been depend on them for access to the international space station. we had one rocket that we launched back in october, but because of their design, they were able to eject the crew module and everybody came home safely. >> going to the moon and going to the mars, is that what every other country has as their line, first moon and then mars ? >> i will tell you, were unique in that we have the capability to deliver this opportunity. i will tell you that every country -- the head of every agency that i've met with is very excited about going to the moon and the looking forward to partnering with us. this is american leadership at
10:08 pm
its finest. there's just a lot of excitement all around the world to partner with us. >> what is china done? did they go around once ? >> they have had a number of lenders on the surface of the moon. they have changed e4 on the side of the moon. >> no people ? >> they've never had people in the moon. >> china wants to do the obviously. >> video. >> is there a man to go to mars after or do they have a plan b on that ? >> i don't know that they will plan on that to go to mars at this point. >> okay. you are talking about supersonic. >> yes. >> boom and boeing are looking on to this as private read what's nasa's role in this ? >> is a great question. we prove capability and technology. we retire risk and our goal is always to commercialize, to license, to give other people the capability of advancing their technologies or using our
10:09 pm
technologies to their benefit. the intent being and enables the united states of america to be a relator and a high technological field of airspace. and then increase exports. that is the role that we play. we do not want to compete with private sector, with partner with private sector. so they can achieve more in the international community. >> is a concorde coming back? >> it is not a concorde but it created a very loud boom. and that is why it cannot fly over the united states. it only flew over the ocean. we're trying to do something entirely different where we can have a supersonic aircraft fly over the united states and the boom would be insignificant. >> i thought i read somewhere that the concorde british, french they were going to do's flights again over the ocean? >> i don't know about the concorde but i know there's a lot of countries interested in supersonic flight again.
10:10 pm
>> let me ask about the space suits that were not -- >> yes or. >> for women. you had one that could fit a woman, you didn't have to. i know it's saturday night live but still you have suits for dogs and monkeys and other woman >> so we did have two spacesuits for two women in the challenges each spacesuit -- think of it as a spacecraft. it goes outside the international space station and they are designed not just for the person but for the specific mission. in our astronaut and mclean made a determination that in the interest of crew success she thought it would be better to change the space walk person rather than to change and modify the spacesuit. we as nasa, we had an option to modify the spacesuit. we made that should i say she made the call that it was better to not modify which would take
10:11 pm
hours and inject risk, she made a determination that would be better to change a crew rather than the sioux. and just so you know, we are making sure that in the future both genders will be accommodated under percent. >> let me close by saying, i've been very impressed with the presentation and comfortable about you being at nasa and think for doing this. i think we do need to get as quickly as we can to the moon and et cetera, but just keep in your mind the whole time you're being told to speeded up, the o-rings. >> yes or. >> i think it was quite a bit of suspicion that politics said get that flying regardless of the o-rings. >> absolutely. >> thank you very much. mr. weber. >> thank you, madam. welcome back. >> thank you.
10:12 pm
>> we welcome you back to texas to spend money lots of time. that's where great president jfk chose to go to the moon. not because it's easy but because it's hard. refresh my memory, and if you don't mind me calling you. how long did it take us to get to the moon at that point? >> he made the announcement congress in 1961, he made the announcement at rice university in 1962 and we had boots on the moon in july 20, 1969. >> i know there is people back then that use the phrase, hot air, a lot of people thought it was hot air. but in reality we actually got the job done. it was seven years give or take, right, would you characterize that -- i know your little bit of a student of history, that was before you were born 75 ? >> yes. i'm the first nasa administrator that was not alive when the have people on there.
10:13 pm
would you characterize that as uncharted character worr territ? >> a little bit. >> absolutely. is it fair to say that we have less power back then we do now? >> a little bit. >> did we have less funding back then than we do now ? >> actually, no. we had more funding. >> is a right ? percentagewise were really good and funny ? >> $240 is about 40 billion annually was nasa's budget and so today it would be, about 20 billion. >> you could say that was a sign of how important -- what a priority was for us ? >> it was high-priority. >> absolutely, do we have less technology back then ? >> a lot less. >> someone say we have less believe in faith that we can do it right now. >> i guess you can make the
10:14 pm
argument. >> i know you were on the earth at the point but i can tell you there was a lot -- people thought we'd never get it done. in your being a student of history and being so involved in nasa and i so appreciate you. on behalf of the 70000 employees, thank you for being here and what you're doing. have you seen any other president announced for national space objectives? >> not in this way, not anywhere near this level of commitment with these really very impressive goals. >> right. absolutely. so based on what we were talking about, less technology, less computing power, and a lot of people did not know if we were able to make it. you have confidence that we can hit that five years? >> i believe it can be done. >> i would agree with you. what we have right now in nasa. what a fine organization, if it is our priority. if we double down to get it done, were gonna get it done. and i would argue that most of us on the science committee
10:15 pm
believe will get it done too so i thank you for that confidence. i want to say a couple of things about it. you talked about -- there's a lot of good things that come at a nasa in the discussion between you and congresswoman horn you talk about a realm of possibility. i love that phrase. there's so many things that are within aroma possibility in nasa is leading the way on that. don't you agree ? >> absolute great. >> is listening to talk. >> i was looking at the cells of an engine of not too long ago and i noticed that it flattens out at the bottom. the reason it was flattening out is because the cells keep getting bigger and bigger. the question is i didn't know why. but i learned that is because of technology the nasa developed that in conjunction with our commercial partners to improve the fuel efficiency and environmental, you know, i guess
10:16 pm
mitigation efforts of our industry so that we can improve experts for the united states of america. >> absolutely. was glad to hear your exchange about the climate change thing. america ought to be in the leadership. we ought to be developing the technology and nasa can lead the way. >> and we have, yes. >> you better. glad to hear that. we are looking at one space directive of for right now. just one. >> that's right. >> and i will say is visionary and madam chair if i could be so bold to say that you love hearing about stem, this is going to help our stem program because it is visionary. i will say it's invigorating. ma'am, we do need stem to get there. thank you for pointing that out. it's invigorating. you're going to see americans get behind this. i believe as much as they did in 1961 in 1962.
10:17 pm
i hope are going to see bipartisanship out of this. i think were going to see america get behind this, use and stem as a chairwoman so appropriately pointed out. i would argue this is about american exceptionalism. you said america needs to lead the way. that's exactly what's going to happen. it's going to be american exceptionalism, is going to help stem and help inspire the stem and i can't go much further because amount of time. do you see any reason why we shouldn't go forward this ? >> i think we absolutely need to. >> thank you very much. mr. buyer. >> administrator, welcome. thank you. >> i was disappointed to see that the president's budget request for 2020 has some of the same cuts to nasa science, education, or science programs than a disaster. even after congress basically stood many of them up. eliminating nasa's key stem programs seem shortsighted.
10:18 pm
we need to continue to investigate both our investigation and climate research. i am very excited about off to the moon and off to mars. it is a really exciting stuff. but the trade-off that i'm concerned with is eliminating the highest ranked priority of the survey which is w first. the white field telescope. when he is here couple years ago, i asked him, nasa's constancy of purpose, what should be and without hesitation he said science. in the most fundamental essential science is what we have right now is trying to figure out about dark energy, about what's happening in the origin of the universe with a inferred stuff, extra finance and initially jw, james webb that you are committed to going
10:19 pm
to plan together and complement each other. why does it make any sense to take w first out of our budget ? how can we -- this will jeopardize the project in the long run and diminish what we can get from james webb and it's a wonderful question. >> i would answer it the james webb space telescope is our biggest flagship mission in the astro physics division of the science-fiction directive. and we have to be committed to it. by the time this is over march of 2021 we will launch it. we will be $9 billion into the program. the challenges -- this goes back to an earlier question about maintaining schedule and maintaining cost. when i first came in, the program was being pushed back in the cost was increasing. they did come back to the committee to get authorization to go forward with this mission given the cost increase in the
10:20 pm
schedule delay. all of that being said, when we have a flagship mission like that, that goes well beyond what we ever envision, it ends up impacting other missions within the astrophysics division. so i think as we go forward, what we have to consider and what i'm hoping to work with you on, is a balanced portfolio. we certainly want to do flagship mission but when we have a flagship mission like this goes over, and then were on the brink of starting another mission the only way would be to cannibalize smaller missions and media missions and when we do the activity we put a lot more risk on the entire astrophysics division. we have to get smarter i think in the future of creating a more balanced portfolio and you're absolutely right, the w first is to work with james webb, it's important we get james webb into space. ultimately to the extent that we ever have w first available to
10:21 pm
us they need to work in conjunction with james webb. and w first would not be as useful. >> please count on us to continue to press on w first in the years to come from the science committee. >> i'm sure using the chart that shows the percentage of our federal budget of gdp in the nasa budget was were going to the moon. >> yes. >> you talk about the $40 billion in today's numbers, 2014. >> asked. >> realistically, how do you expect to be able to do this when our nasa budgets a fraction of what it was before? >> is a great question. to start we are making assessments right now if we are going to land in 2024 which were going to do, the question is how will we achieve that ? and how will we get a budget amendment. number two, it's also true that we are more capabilities right
10:22 pm
now -- i think congressman weber hit on a lot of these, we have the miniaturization of electronics. we have reusable launch vehicles. we have commercial launch vehicles. we have a lot of the hardware that exists right now that didn't exist in 1961 in 1962 when president kennedy made his famous speeches. all of those capabilities collude to say that we have an opportunity here should we choose to accept it to note k get to the moon in 2024. that kind of vision is in front of us if we want to go after. i think we can achieve it given what is available right now and don't get me wrong, it's not going to be without additional resources. but the key in order to get that, of course, is bipartisan consensus and i understand that and i'm working on that. >> madam chair i yell back. >> thank you very much madam chair. good to see you mr. ministry.
10:23 pm
i appreciate all the good work you are doing. i probably represent the johnson space center in houston which menaces the lunar gateway program in development of the next generation spaces. i understand that nasa is undergoing a study to evaluate the cost of returning to the moon as we been speaking this morning. jsc stands ready to execute the vice president's very exciting vision to return to the moon as soon as possible. i wanted to ask you a few questions. how much will it cost to complete the lunar gateway as proposed in the fy 20 budget request? >> so there's a number of issues. when we go to the moon in 2024, in order to achieve that we have to accelerate the gateway process.
10:24 pm
we need a power and propulsion element and we need a habitation module. we need to be able to stage forward if you will lindy capabilities so we will want humans in 2024 they have the tools necessary to get to the surface of the moon. so all of those are in flux and it's important for me in the coming weeks to come back with you what the cost will look like. >> okay. i got you. what impact will ask the liberating expirations have on the moon in the international space station ? >> it shouldn't have any impact on the international space station. low earth orbit is still key to our mission and it should have no impact. >> okay. great. how much will it cost for accelerate leader lander development? our current spacesuits were developed in the late 1970s. nasa challenges with spacesuits after losing suits in the challenger and columbia cargo accidents. we only have a handful left in inventory. over the last several years, astronauts have even almost
10:25 pm
drowned in the spaces. the current spacesuits used on nasa issued a report to congress that laid out a plan for future spacesuits development. will that plan be accelerated now that we are accelerating exploration of the moon's surface customer. >> sir, in order to get to the moon surface we have to have new species. >> is a no-brainer. >> yes. >> okay. what you expect that will cost and will they maintain the role in space and development ? >> the astronaut office at jsc will be involved in their role is not going to change. certainly the cost is something i'll have to get back to on. >> okay. as i said earlier, the american public is excited by the ministrations enthusiasm for space exploration and i certainly look forward to helping achieve all of these very, very exciting goals.
10:26 pm
i think it got a little time left. last month the chairwoman and ranking member sent a letter to the commissioners of the fcc expressing concern about his proposed radio frequency spectrum option. based on feedback from the scientific community the letter highlighted need for internation sheet consultation among scientific agencies in the consideration of unintended consequences on areas such as weather forecasting before the auction could move forward. can you explain to the committee what nasa's role is during interagency consultation process and concerns that you have about last month auctions customer. >> great question. so nasa works with the in tia which is the government arbiter of spectrum issues. in tia represents nasa to the rest of the government. when it comes to spectrum options and that kind of thing.
10:27 pm
and i will say the 24 gigahertz spectrum that is being auctioned and could have an impact on nasa's missions. when we talk about the 23 gigahertz range. that enables us water vapor in the atmosphere and enables us to characterize energy in the atmosphere. why is that important ? that some were able to make predictions. i say we, nasa is not refundable for the operational capabilities but we are responsible for developing the satellites for noah that operates him operationally. in that part of the electromagnetic spectrum is necessary to make predictions and where hurricane is going to make landfall, so that has a big impact. if you can't make that prediction accurately then you end up not vacuuming the right people or you evacuate people who don't need to evacuate. which is a problem.
10:28 pm
and all of those have impact. when it comes to hurricane sandy for example. the united states of america believed it was going to be headed out to sea in the european model got it right. it was at the european model is the data. there better data from the systems. we want to make sure we get this right. his life and property and important to recognize when it comes to weather forecasting in general, you have just noah but i consultations with them, were talking about going to 1978, levels of data. in other words, instead of a seven day were untrue weather forecast is a two or three day weather forecast. again, i'm not saying that they sold our spectrum. that did not happen. but there is a risk depending on the power and the position of the cell towers and it could bleed over into our spectrum and that is a risk in the assessment of nasa in conjunction with noah haskin determine that there is a
10:29 pm
high probability that we are going to lose a lot of data. >> a lot of challenges there. i want to thank you for your hard work and insight inexperience and i'm looking forward to helping achieve the goals that you've laid out force today and a good steward of the taxpayers fund. >> esther. >> i yield back. >> thank you very much ms. stevens. >> thank you. minister bridenstine, march 27 our house speaker in partnership with fabulous chairwoman had a reception commemorating the 50th anniversary of landing on the moon in celebration with women's history month. it was held on the capital include included the shining stars, the women and mathematicians of state programs. were you invited to that receptor customer.
10:30 pm
>> i am not 100% sure. >> i take it you did not attend christian work. >> i did not attend. >> my colleague asked about the spacesuits and i'm not sure you're aware that christina hammond coke who is a residen resident -- excuse me -- is originally from michigan will represent was intended to go on that. >> but she does live in galveston. >> that is true. but michigan was really quite excited to have missed coke go on the trip and she's not that she was not able to. is it correct that no woman has ever been to the moon, sir ? >> that is correct. >> this was a part of three spacewalks that were supposed to have taken place and i was wondering if you could extrapolate on those missions and what the intentions of those missions were because the 29th has come and gone and who were on the mission and what is expected to take place?
10:31 pm
>> you talking about the spacewalk on the 29th ? >> yes. >> it was christina coke and it was nick haig and they were replacing batteries on the international space station. >> did it take place customer. >> it did. >> the walk ? >> yes. >> the budget proposal that were discussing provides no funding for the office of student engagement which includes the minority university research and education program. the national space grant and on. these have been long-standing initiatives and just wondering i was previously asking why the administration and the rationale for these programs and what you intend to do to support the stem? >> great question. we support education initiatives for young people to the mission directorates at the agency. earlier i was talking about one
10:32 pm
that i attended not too long ago which was a first robotics mission -- competition that i participated in. we supported with engineers, scientists and we encourage young people to get involved in the stem field and we do all of those things -- by the way, the programs that you identified are currently funded and we are using those programs -- the part of the presidents stem initiative for stem education. we are continuing to advances very important initiatives. it is also true that we want direct resources for the good of the most impact for the agencies in the country and the budget requests we made a determination that some of the other missions for the activity are better in fact, if you talk to the folks
10:33 pm
that are building robots for mars they participated in first robotics. that shows a direct return in the folks that are doing first robotics now are interested in building robots for mars or pluto or whatever we may be going next. there's a lot of different opportunities there. >> well, you're obviously asked significant leader and were so grateful for your service and your leadership of nasa. i know it was not easy during the shutdown but 95% of your workforce either not working or working without pay. and like to invite you to exercise your leadership and join the chairwoman and i on occasion to sit down with stem education groups, black girls who code is certainly very significant. later today and going to meet with a group called tech lady mafia that has done a lot for women in the scientist. we continue to encourage you to reconsider slashing those programs and also would like to encourage you to support women in stem and get the first women
10:34 pm
on the moon for us, sir. >> thank you. i will say in the speech the vice president gave his very clear that the next man in the first woman on the moon will both be americans. and we look forward to that day. i commit to you now that if you invite me to it an event i'd be happy to come. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. ms. gonzalez: >> in the first puerto rican on the island of this committee. i'm really excited to serve along my colleagues on the sciences space committee. i look forward to represent a lot of the community and puerto rico. 42% of our economy runs on pharmaceutical and effexor and electrical devices.
10:35 pm
we do have observatory which was the biggest radio telescoping in the world for 50 years. second now just to china. mainly been funded by the national science foundation and nasa the program of grants. so having said that, my question will be, first, i do notice that this budget in terms of the science area is 677 million more than to the one in fiscal year 2017. but i do have the concern that some of the programs, specifically the research in the area for space grants are supposed to be finished. so my first question will be specifically on that regard. how do we know that the program
10:36 pm
works with more than 150 network affiliates between colleges, universities, museums, and others could be restructured in their education activities and potentially counseling the national space grant college and fellow programs. i do know they need to, nice, but i would love for you to elaborate on those programs. >> sure. nasa is committed to stem education and very committed to achieving that a better outcome to the united states of america when it comes to producing the next generation scientist technologist, mathematicians, we found a lot of success in doing that. we've made a determination through the budget request that we can make the most impact in that way, and as far as the
10:37 pm
siebel, i will say we are planning to spend about four and a half million dollars with aris evo this year and ramping up by 2022 about $5 million annually with aris evo. as the capability we think is important and we utilize. >> and really glad to hear that. as you're aware there are a lot of accomplishment for the 50 or 60 years. i'm on the many sides -- and scientists warned before the research. in the center. my second question will be, puerto rico was devastated by both hurricanes. everybody knows that. did nasa receive all the allocated funds for the recovery of all the nasa facilities in the nation including tornadoes customer. >> i will have to get back to you on that. i'm not 100% sure.
10:38 pm
if i ticket for the record on make sure i get your correct answer. >> thank you. as you may be aware, stem technology and research is something that i will be pushing forward. so anyway that we can help out and even work to establish more opportunities for kids in college to participate in those programs i'd be more than happy to work with. having said that you back the bonds of my time. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, madam chair and thank you administrator for join and is here today. i know a lot of my colleagues have talked about the zeroing out of the same engagement in the president's proposed budget into echo those concerns. in particular i want to talk about the space grant program. i represent virginia and in virginia the program is able to
10:39 pm
leverage the funds that he gets from nasa to give high school students hands-on experience at langley research center. to work on real-life problems alongside nasa scientists. i am sure you're familiar with this program. >> think yes. >> in a very fortunate because i got firsthand experience because my nephew was a participant a couple summers ago and he is now an engineering student at virginia tech and because of his experience he's joined the design build flight team and are competing nationally. >> that's awesome. >> really does have an impact on the students. >> it does. >> you said in your response to ms. stevens question that you felt nasa believed that you can make just as much as an impact in other areas with other programs, is a ? >> so as far as a university goes, we do a lot of missions with a lot of universities in the universities are grouped very good at engaging young folks in the programs that they are developing. we do a lot of the activity even
10:40 pm
outside the space grant program. but certainly i understand your point. >> and so, your liaising mostly now with the universities and you don't have an equivalent program for high schoolers to the space grant program at this time ? >> not equivalent to the spacecraft, but we do activities with high schools all the time when it relates to the robotics competition is a high school competition. nasa spends about four and half million dollars annually investing in the program and we provide scientists and engineers as mentors for the high school students. we do these kinds of activities within the mission directorates. >> but they would necessarily be a weeklong structure program at nasa langley or some like that questioning. >> in some cases, we have activities similar to that. the first robotics competition is multiple days long. but it is not the space grant
10:41 pm
program. >> very good. switching gears, we often talk about satellites in earth science, but there are other new opportunities for the development of long duration, high-altitude robotic aircraft a flight into the stratosphere encompass a broad range of goals at a much lower cost. one example of that is a solar powered aircraft which is developed by a roof scientist. are you familiar with that aircraft customer. >> unfamiliar with the world but not the aircraft itself. >> are you familiar with the solar powered aircraft that would fly into the stratosphere and perform a bunch of functions. >> yes. >> i am encouraged by the fact that it can serve as a platform to support a bunch of missions. like monitoring sea level rise, understanding drought conditions on crops, looking at flooding and severe storms. they can do all that at a lower
10:42 pm
cost than many of the satellite technologies that are out there now. so can you talk about how the mission directorates plans to use these long-duration robotic aircraft capabilities to support your science mission objectives questioning. >> we in fact do currently operate unmanned aerial vehicles for the purpose of science. we also use crude vehicles within aviation. as far as that specific aircraft, i would be thrilled if you give me a chance to specifically understand what it does and how were a, using it or even habitability to use in the future. >> i tell you for an example, it solar powered so it does not require -- it is a have to come down for refueling and you can just park it and put in a circular pattern and with the right telecommute enter
10:43 pm
communications payload it could go a long way to help restore telecommunications to the island of puerto rico. >> osher. >> after the stores. there are many different possibilities but also for science. >> a spam. >> is nasa exploring earth science capability with unmanned aircraft? >> absolutely. the answer is yes. as far as specific missions are not sure. i know we do all kinds of missions with crude aircraft as far as what we do specifically for science with concrete aircraft off to get back to you. >> are you back. >> thank you very much. mr. brooks. >> thank you, madam chairman mrh debris and space is a key challenge with min to mars in international space station. in a number of different space endeavors. i noticed your public was
10:44 pm
concerning india's testing of a satellite weapon. what can nasa do to try to minimize the amount of space debris, either sponsoring or advocating treaties, is there cleanup mechanisms, what can we do to reduce the danger of astronauts, to astronauts from space. >> nasa has a role to play in the president space polities under a policy directive three. we develop technology, capabilities will ultimately the commerce department would be responsible for space situational awareness and space traffic management. nasa has a role to play in technology development and capability development. i would also say we have a very different role to play. which is a role -- we are a tool
10:45 pm
of national power. we are a tool of soft power. i think it's important for people around the world to understand, intentionally creating orbital debris that increases the risk to astronauts is not compatible with human spaceflight. and so, if nasa can play a role there encouraging people not to engage in these kinds of activities that's an area i think we can benefit the world. >> was there any prior notice from india to the united states concerning their planned antisatellite test and subsequent creation of this potentially dangerous space debris ? >> if there was, i was not aware of it. >> has there been any communications with india, either as military or space agency subsequent to the test questioning. >> i sent a letter to the indian
10:46 pm
space research organization indicating that the activities were not compatible with human spaceflight. >> now we have various argumen agreements with indiana where we cooperate on space endeavors, do we not questioning. >> with you. >> is there any risk to those cooperative efforts because of india's increase in the quantity of space debris? >> say that one more time. >> sure. we had cooperative agreements. it's not something were real happy about because it puts our space assets in astronauts are risk. is there any potential reduction of cooperative agreements with india as a result of the increasing space debris that is dangerous to our space efforts? >> the cooperative engagement, no. i'll tell you why. i think it would be -- we don't want to do anything asymmetric. if the train to go to the moon and it's a book of her interest for them to achieve the objective we want to continue to partner with them on the effort.
10:47 pm
we have not changed any of our cooperative agreements based on the incident. >> entirely different subject. where does the united states stand among nations when it comes to astronautics technology and what policies do we need to ensure our country status as a leader in aeronautics aviation customer. >> what technology is doing a strike to back where does the united states stand among nations when it comes to aeronautics technology. i give you two questions back to back. >> aeronautics, we as an agency are the lead in a lot of different ways. there's a number of big things. as a demonstrator we want to prove that we can fly across the united states supersonic without creating something that can be destructive to infrastructure and people on the ground. that capability once it's achieved will be transformative for human spaceflight within the atmosphere. when we talk about the x57
10:48 pm
program, were talking about an electric aircraft capable of carrying humans and crew. if you judge on the cost of 60% of fuel, then that could be transformative and enable airplanes to fly against productively for profit and regions of the country that are underserved because the costs are too high. driving down costs increases access aviation capabilities. that the x57 program within aeronautics mission directed. urban air mobility and integrating unmanned systems is a critical capability that we transformative and it's necessary for us to be the world leader in that endeavor. just for competitive reasons around the world. >> the kitchen. i appreciate your answers. >> thank you very much. mr. lamb. >> welcome back mr. bernstein.
10:49 pm
i know it's been a long morning so we won't keep her too long. you have a lot of questions about the cuts to the same office. and from what i can tell you you suggested that someone at nasa or some group of people with the administration have made a decision that you can more effectively reach out and encourage young people to the director that is been to the same office. you have the right chris right. >> that is correct. >> who made that decision ? >> we go through an entire process is an agency in a bubbles up from the bottom and then we get the different parts and different agencies make their cases and all the parts make their cases and then we have to make decisions. >> who made the case that the 110 million for the office of stem was not worth spending the share ? who made that case ? >> ultimately the budget request
10:50 pm
is nasa's budget request. >> in my state of pennsylvania there is a pennsylvania space grant consortium, with the money they were getting from nasa space grant they were giving $4000 scholarships to students who were either juniors or seniors at any accredited pennsylvania college or university. if they were enrolled in science, technology engineering or math. it was specifically encouraged that women underrepresented minorities and persons with disability apply. all three of the groups are people that nasa would benefit from having more of, right ? >> yes. >> that's an issue we would have across the government. >> absolutely. >> too any of the activities give out $4000 scholarships to students in college customer. >> not that i know of. >> okay. if your budget as you presented it goes into effect, there won't
10:51 pm
be more students like this in my state getting the $4000 scholarships from nasa as they currently exist, right ? >> that's correct. but i want to make sure that you understand that we will follow the law. and we are following the law. currently the programs are the law. we will continue during that. >> but i'm talking about in future cases as a result of the budget that you're requesting that program would no longer exist ? >> correct. >> you agree that there's a difference between giving $74000 in tuition and learning your scientist to a first robotics competition, right ? is a real difference in the life of the recipient between those two things. >> the reality is that is not a cheap endeavor. so nasa provides direct financial resources out of the science mission to the tune of about four and half million dollars for those activities. it enables children, high schoolers, young folks, enables them to participate in ways they otherwise could not have participated. >> i commend you for that.
10:52 pm
i met with the first teams in my district and it's an exciting program. the four and a half million pails and compared country comparison to the 110. it seems to me it may be penny wise and pound foolish to eliminate $100 million out of a $21 billion budget. do you think that 110 million is it going to be the difference between whether we get to mars in the moon or not? >> no. absolutely do not. >> kids are hanging on by thread in college. especially the savanna. pennsylvania is an expensive place to go to college. our state colleges are extremely stressed. $4000 could be the difference between staying and dropped out. especially for someone who comes from a background where the family is not wealthy, which is a lot of people. so i really would encourage you
10:53 pm
to think this winter and another request has been made. congress will do what it's going to do but this means a lot to people in my stay in future years i hope it gets a little more respect and thought from this administration. >> i understand. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you very much. mr. sherman. >> thank you. okay. i know others have had a similar line of questions about us the last and orion. you said the sls, orion and the ground systems are the backbones of the exposure program starting at the moon and beyond. >> yes. >> my question concerning the budget. which seem to contradict your statement. after years of delay, in part due to emphasis request. in continuing resolutions sls,
10:54 pm
orion and the respective ground systems that have made significant strikes. strides which will bring unprecedented expiration capacity to the nation and the rest of the world. the engines are ready, capsules are being tested, boosters are ready, packed in infrastructure and completion. there should be a role music there. the trip administration delivers a budget that aims to halt and slows this progress. is there a rocket and crew capsule that exist with the same or greater capacity as sls in orion? >> no, sir, as you correctly said in the beginning and i still believe 100% that is the backbone of our ability to get to the moon. it's a backbone of our space expiration capabilities. what we did in the budget request is we delayed for a period of time to expiration of
10:55 pm
a proceed specifically because we been having challenges at the core stage. where to get the core stage complete and we can fly the core stage with an interim cryogenic pollution stage and we can take that impact to the moon. we continue to the moon with humans. the expiration of her stage is absolutely important for the future. but given where we are right now with sls we wanted to focus on all the resources specifically on the core stage. >> but you seem also to be seeking money for arrival approach that may not yield a launch orlando. what money -- what alternatives to sls in the ren orion are you seeking funding for? >> right now we did a two week study on commercial alternatives to the sls. what we found is that none of
10:56 pm
those commercials alternatives are going to help us save on costs or improve the schedule. >> is a two week study customer. >> we did a two week study. i learned a number of weeks ago that the sls was going to be delayed again. i made a determination that we need to find an alternative approach. we looked at all of the commercial options, heavy lift rockets, going to the moon is extremely hard. it's a long distance and the math that we need to send is a lot. and so the sls and orion crew capsule are the tools by which to achieve the objective. commercial solutions in the future could be viable. in fact, they will be necessary. but at this point, sls in orion are the best approaches to stand schedule. >> so contrary to my understanding of the budget request, and it may not be reading it as keen as yours. your full speed ahead on sls and
10:57 pm
orion but the upper stage of sls you are the so-called eus, you're going slow on only for technical and non- budgetary reasons ? >> we made a determination that we need to focus on the core stage. until the core stage is complete the exploration upper stage ultimately does not have any value because it is our core stage to be effective. >> but why not go in parallel? you developing capsules in parallel with rocket engines, suits in parallel with capsules. why is focusing on the first stage causing efforts on the second stage? >> were making determinations based on the country of the budget. >> so how much does a slow down the process? if you get the first stage right
10:58 pm
and then you wake up and say now we have to do the second stage ? what delays are we talking about? >> it's very possible next year you see the exploration upper stage in the budget request. it's very possible that we have an agenda to get to the moon in 2024 and in the coming days you might see that as part of the architecture to accelerate the moon mission with an amendment to the budget request. >> so we may see amendment to the budget request regarding the first and second stage ? >> it is possible. yes, sir. >> i yield back. >> thank you very much. i now recognize myself. >> think about interpreting. >> mr. bridenstine, nasa's
10:59 pm
forces experience aging in the last period. according to the report 1993, 34% of nasa employees were under 35 years old. if 50% were older than 54. by 2018 these numbers afloat. just 15% of nasa's workforce is under 35 years old while 35% are older than 54. we are seeing this play out in my district. do you have any concerns about the eight gene of the nasa workforce and what you plan to do about it? >> yes, ma'am. one 100%. we have a bow wave of retirements that are on the horizon. we are working very hard to make sure when that happens that we have people who can fill in and take the roles at every level of leadership in the nasa organization. in order to achieve that, we are working with universities, missions and other capabilities to make sure when people graduate from college, they not only have the academic capabilities but they also have hands-on experience in actually developing missions for nasa. that is one way that we are working to make sure that we are filling in for the retirements. were also working there internship programs and, in fact, middle career programs to get folks focused on maybe
11:00 pm
joining nasa. >> thank you. i guess it relates to mr. lance question of how the reduction in scholarship might be impacting us. >> yes, again. we work with universities and a whole host of ways to the mission directorates and we intend to keep doing that. they are a key piece of how we're going to fill this retirement wave that we see coming. >> do you have reproductions laid out in terms of how the impact is going to look in his way we could be involved in the process or informed in the prospect? . . . mpg is in my district who told me about the impact that should don't have on morale and on people seeking outside employment when we have massive
11:01 pm
aerospace industry in our district outside of the government. are you concerned that losing and not attracting the personnel because of the decrease in salaries and competition from the private sector and instability in the government pay? >> we are dealing with it every day especially in a lot of our centers in expensive areas it is a very expensive place to live out in the san francisco bay area and where a lot of talent is, so it's a good place for us to be. we can take advantage of all that talent. at the same time, and please make the government paycheck which is not competitive with the area in which they live. the folks that work at nasa do it because they love it and it is unique in the world and everybody knows it and they want to be part of it, but certainly we are working through some significant challenges when it
11:02 pm
comes to how we compensate our work force. >> i would be interested in working with folks on different compensation mechanisms. lastly if nasa can't land on the moon by 2024, we need to change the organization, not the mission so what does this mean to you and do you see this as a threat to breaking apart or reorganizing the way that it's needed in the executive branch? >> i know what he's talking about, the fact that there has been the sense that it's been a long time since they've flown humans into space. a space shuttle was in 2011 and the gap wasn't supposed to be this long so the question is their complacency. what he said as we are fighting complacency so he wants to get us moving faster. i think there is a big difference going back to the structure there's a big
11:03 pm
difference between operations which is what we have on the international space station right now, commercial crew and operations on the international space station. there's a part and then there is development, the brand-new things, the rocket to get to the moon, the gateway lunar lander's all those capabilities don't yet exist and soon well. that's very different from operations, so what we are working on now is a plan where we would actually have a mission or after it focused on development and on operation. we don't call it the development because it isn't a mission. we call it the moon to mars directorate, so we are working through right now the process by which we could have got online in short order to help us achieve a faster lunar landing. >> i can appreciate that since my grandfather was an engineer on the apollo series. >> thank you very much and before we close, i want to think
11:04 pm
our witness very much for your long steadfast this morning. you can now be dismissed and i want them remaining committee members i understand. i dismissed you a little too early. go right ahead. >> mr. swanson is recognized. >> i almost got away. >> you did. it's nice to actually occupy your office, so thank you for keeping us warm for me. i represent the district starts just more than heads up to jacksonville epicenter there's
11:05 pm
obviously space is in our dna and we are so excited and thrilled with the growth of commercial space in particular, but also just the kind of resurgence of what's going on. i just asked secretary wilson and house armed services in talking about the future of space from the military side, so administrator, as you know, the space center in florida is the site of a world capable incredible launching astronauts into deep space just an incredible capability. do you know, i am trying to think the best way to phrase this question. can you talk to me about the vice president's directive to get to the moon, and apologies
11:06 pm
if you've already gone over this, but it's critical i think to growth in florida and where we are going with it and particularly how you plan to do it within the timeline. >> giving your budget requests and the perceived disconnect. >> going back to february of 2017, the president signed the space policy directive one and in the directive he said we are going to go to the moon and go sustainably in other words when we go we are actually going to stay. it doesn't mean we'll have a permanent presence but what it means is we will have permanent access with humans but also landers and robots and rovers, but we are going to go sustainably and with commercial partners and international partners and retired the risk capabilities and take a bath to mars. so that is the foundation of what the vice president announced last week. we put together a plan to
11:07 pm
achieve that objective given the budget constraints and came up with a 2028 landing days on the surface of the moon. the president and vice president determined that they wanted to go faster than that, so they gave us an objective to meet a deadline of 2024, which of course we are probably going to need different resources than we had previously anticipated, but i will tell you the agency is exceptionally excited about this opportunity i would imagine john f. kennedy wears you over there is a lot of excited folks right now, and i think at the same time not just a level of excitement, but people know we can achieve it and so the goal here is to go to the moon and go quickly but also
11:08 pm
11:09 pm
11:10 pm
11:11 pm
11:12 pm
11:13 pm
♪ v. only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

9 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on