Transcripts For CSPAN House Appropriations Hearing On NASAs

Jose serrano id like to welcome nasa administrator, jim bryden stein, and acting associate administrator for nasa human exploration and operations ken bowersox to the subcommittee this morning. Earlier this year, nasa commemorated the 50th anniversary of the landing on the moon, which remains the single most successful and Famous Mission and nasas history. Just a week before the cjs bill was marked up in subcommittee, nasa submitted a 1. 6 million 1. 6 billion Budget Amendment that intended to advance our humans to the moon by four years. This prevented us from adequately considering the proposal this hearing will give us an opportunity to obtain more information from nasa regarding the revised plans for returning to the moon. This subcommittee would like to send the first woman astronaut into deep space, including to the surface of the moon. We want to do it in a theonsible way from perspective of safety, cost, and likelihood of mission success. As most of you know, i have been a strong supporter of nasa during my 29 years in congress and we provide nasa more than 22. 3 billion in our house bill. However, i remain extremely concerned about the additional cost to accelerate the mission by four years. Some experts have said that they the needed cost could exceed 25 billion in the next years, compared to the original schedule. A date, nasa has not provided committee with a full cost estimate despite repeated requests. At a time of huge financial of different programs all competing for funding and the , anof government gaps additional would severely impact 25 billion vital programs, not only under this subcommittee, but across all nondefense subcommittees. Another concern i have is the lack of a serious justification for such a cost, since nasa has already programmed the lunar 2028, whyssion for does it need to speed up the clock by four years . Time that is needed to carry out a Successful Program from a science and safety perspective. Two a lot of members, the motivation appears to be political, giving President Trump a moon landing at a possible second term should he be reelected. Not even nasas own leadership has enough confidence in the success and safety of advancing this timeline. Nasa acting associate administrator bowersox was a former astronaut and here with us today. The 2024 moon landing date as difficult to achieve in a house science hearing just last month, saying i wouldnt bet my oldest childs birthday present on anything like that. Additionally, nasas manager with the human landing system, lisa watson morgan, was quoted in an article about the timing saying this is all of this has to be done on the fast, on the quick, and typically in the past, nasa is quite methodical, which is good. We are going to have to have an abbreviated approach to getting to industry standards and how we will implement this, this is a big shift for the entire nasa community. We cannot sacrifice safety and cannot sacrifice other programs to appease the president. Before asking for such a substantial additional investment nasa needs to be , prepared to see what missions will be canceled and the effort to come up with an additional 25 billion. I remain concerned for four years of this mission. In the eyes of the world, we cannot be afford to fail, therefore its better to use the original schedule in order to have a successful, safe and effective for the benefit of the people and the robert t. Aderholt world. Thank you, i look forward to hearing your testimony. I would like to recognize my good friend, the Ranking Member for opening comments. I want to thank you for your leadership on the subcommittee, or willingness to have hearing throughout the year but in particular for this hearing, regardless of party labels and your kindness, we look forward to looking with you throughout this congress and we have a long way to go. So we know youre not leaving yet, but i would like to be remiss if i did not mention that this morning. I also appreciate the Ranking Member being here today, she has put a lot of hard work and expertise and the defence issues and on the space issues for her district and the state and for their country. Also, i would like to express my gratitude to to the president and Vice President were taking a real interest in nasa. They represent a very small part of the national budget, but which continues to serve ambitions. That was evident when i go into schools and everyone is very interested in it. I support the goal in 2024. I believe we owe it to the taxpayer to make sure the program we will need taxpayers support. The program suffer the kinds of delays, setbacks, the costs of returns, which have become what is known as business as usual in our states program. The Artemis Program cannot afford the returns which have in ourbusiness as usual space program. On the contrary, the artemis is supposed to be characterized by unparalleled accountability and agility. Today, i will have questions regarding whether nasa is still committed to getting to the moon by any means necessary. As an Ardent Supporter of the Space Exploration and also as fiscally conservative, im concerned that nasa could undercut its flexibility and and career unnecessary costs by forgoing opportunities to leverage existing assets and an attempt to foster a commercial space economy. Vice president pence declared in his comments, that nasa is not currently capable of landing american astronauts on the moon in five years, we need to change the organization. I couldnt agree more. The administrations ambitions ambitious but critically important 2024 moon land will be the ultimate test of nasas judgment and its accountability. Finally, the rockets and capsules and transfer vehicles and the descent must be systems which will keep our astronauts alive during the mission and bring them back to earth safely. As our nation embarks on complex new deep space endeavors but with unprecedented private sector involvement, safety must be our number one priority. Hence, nasas ability to ensure safety in the commercial program will be a bellwether and i appreciate the administrators comments noting that commercial Group Programs must proceed to contractor attention it deserves. I thank you both for being here today and its an honor to have you here before our subcommittee. Thank you, mister chairman, for holding this hearing and i will yield back. Thank you for your kind comments. We are honored this morning to have our Ranking Member with us a person i respect a lot and a i will remember for her way of dealing with people in such a friendly and professional way and bipartisan way. Miss granger . Thank you for holding this hearing and for your attention to space and your involvement. Im old enough to remember space programs, everyone sitting at their television and watching it. It was good for america and good for all of us. Welcome, mr. Ken bowersox, and welcome, mr. Bridenstine. Its important to all americans in our Space Exploration goals. In march, your agency was challenged with returning our astronauts within the next five years. I support this accelerated 2024 goals and the Artemis Program. Appropriately named after apollos twin sister sending , american astronauts including the first woman on the moon to take advantage of the technological advances in the United States. It will allow us to establish a strategic presence on the moon. Our nation is facing threats in space, specifically from china. I have had classified briefings that would shock any reasonable person and that clearly made the case that we must accelerate the artemis project. My advocacy for the Artemis Program was solidified after learning about chinas capabilities and their future plans. Unfortunately, the u. S. Has largely fallen behind in Space Research and development and will soon be outpaced by the chinese if we dont take action immediately. The only way to protect both our National Security and our economy is to dominate space and beat chinese and other near peer adversaries. Space is the next high ground , and we have to take it. The decision to accelerate our nations return to the moon and establish a sustainable presence there will require a significant investment by this and future congresses. As a result support for this , ambitious but important 2024 timeline will be accompanied by great expectations, both in terms of schedule, cost, and safety. The administration recognizes that we have a tough job ahead of us, we are committed to working with you to ensure that nasa can advance our nations exploration priorities as effectively and efficiently as possible. Im working with the chairwoman, and Ranking Members as funding for the process moves forward. I yield back. Thank you. Before i ask the administrator for his comments, people who normally would wonder whats wrong with me if i do not do a shout out here. We spend a lot of time in washington, so shout out to the nationals for pulling the upset of the century, and people thought they could not do it. It should be a lesson to all of us. Just keep trying, and you can pull it off. Andve only got the yankees, i hope they can turn it around against houston. Administrator, five minutes, we will include your full statement in the record so please go , ahead. Yes, sir. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Before i became the nasa administrator, the president had issued space policy directive one, and that direction was to go to the moon, to go sustainably, to go with the commercial partners and international partners, and to utilize the resources of the moon that we discovered back in 2009, the hundreds of millions of tons of water ice on the south pole, the water ice represents life, its air to breathe, its water to drink, its rocket propellant. Hydrogen is the same rocket feel that will power the space launch system, the same that powered the Space Shuttles. We are going to use the resources of the moon and then ultimately we are going to take all of this knowledge that we learn in this architecture and go to mars. That was all in the president forced space policy directive. When i became the nasa administrator, we put together a plan. Given our current budgets, what will take to achieve this . We came up with a plan, as you identified, that put us on the moon in 2028 if budgets remain fairly constant. The challenge we have as a nation is that the longer programs go, the more Political Risk that we have, and when we look back in history, we look back on the 1990s, it took decades in time and eventually got canceled. You look at the vision for Space Exploration. It took many years and eventually got canceled. So, the question is how do we reduce risks . Theres two types of risk, technical and Political Risk. The Political Risk is not partisan. Its just one programs go too long people start to lose confidence and then money is redirected in other places. I heard you say slow and methodical. Methodical, yes. Its all about doing things stepbystep and building on one lesson after another. What we are trying to change as a culture is that we are slow. We dont want to be slow. I think going fast makes sure we will have success. I also think that by going fast , we will put ourselves into the Ranking Member position. Well put ourselves in a position to leave the world. Weve had astronauts from 19 Different Countries on the International Space station and experiments from 103 Different Countries on the International Space station. China is moving fast. They move going to the moon. The last time they landed on the moon, it landed on the far side of the moon. They had with a small probe and that was the first time in the ministry anyone had landed on the far side of the moon. They took out a two page ad in the economists and made it clear they are the leader and the exploration and everyone should partner with them. I think thats the wrong position. We have Political Risk, its Political Risk for programs taking too long and making sure our partners are with us. Thats an important reason to move faster. We dont want to take any undue risk and put lives at stake, but the history of nasa might be a little more slow than what is necessary, and we are changing the organization, as representative aderholt said, if we cant land on the moon in five years we need to change the organization. I believe that and i will tell you why. In the 1960s, president kennedy announced, 1962 they will end on the moon before the decade is out. They had the Johnson Space member and the orbital dynamics at the time, we did not have the Johnson Space center. We did not understand the orbital dynamics of going to the moon. They did not have the launch facilities, the rocket that went to the moon, we do not have any of these capabilities that currently we have to our advantage. They had to go from scratch. They did not have the ability to restore power and smaller to store power in smaller quantities. They did not have the ability to reuse rockets and do all these cusp ofhat are on the changing how we do spaceflight. So if we cant do today within five years, when they did within eight years and really seven years back in the 1960s, i think we need to change how they do things. I heard the Ranking Member say that we need to leverage existing assets. If we want to go fast, if we want to land on the moon in 2024, which we want to do, if we want to go fast, how fast would we go . 2024 is how fast we could do it. And at the end of the day, i think its important to note that that is not a guarantee, but its in the realm of what is possible. A lot of things have to go right to make that a reality, but what we are asking for is to make going past a possibility. I think these are all important things that we need to talk about and i appreciate you having this. And i look forward to answering any questions. Thank you. We will now begin the first round of history for each each member. Each member will receive five minutes. We have asked for information about the mission. We have received no response. It is hard to justify any extra spending on this effort in the current fiscal year when we do not know the course down the road. What is the additional cost associated with moving the further, canand you please break the cost down for the upcoming five years . Let me just tell you, on a personal level, and you know me, we have dealt in the past on a is not justel, this about finding the money. Where this president is known to find moneys where he needs them. If he said no wall and returned for it, you might get the democrats to agree with that, right . Maybe more than that. He is probably going to say lower pell grant, lower food stamps, lower education dollars, and that is unacceptable, and that is a problem. But i asked you a question. I did not give you time to answer it. Request for 2020 includes an additional 1. 6 billion dollars, and you know, i have been very clear with everybody i have talked to, the goal to get to the Movement Needs to be bipartisan. It has to be apolitical. If when we go to the moon we are doing so by cutting the Science Mission director out of nasa, that will create a partisan divide we do not want to have as an agency. If we try to take the money from the International Space station, that will create a parochial fight maybe with members from texas or florida, alabama, about the International Space station. Those are the two areas where nasa has money. I do not think the right approach is to cannibalize those programs to achieve the moon minding so i have been very clear with everybody i have talked to on both sides of the aisle. The goal should be additional resources, not cannibalizing one part of nasa to feed another part of nasa. That being said, when we did the Budget Amendment, the 1. 6 billion, we were operating under previous previously established budget caps and i think it is fantastic that an agreement was made between republicans and democrats to raise those budget caps that gives nasa a great chance for it i want to say we are grateful. Especiallyat work, on behalf of the Science Mission director, and that is really good for the agency. I want to take nothing away from it. , thate go forward requires additional resources. I understand the concern. Inside theing now administration with the office of management and budget and the National Space council to come up with what those out year numbers are to get a consensus within the administration about what we are willing to put forward, and once we have that, we want to give it to you as absolutely soon as possible. I would say that the budget for 2021 is due in february and certainly, we will have it without question. If we look at what the senate has already done, they actually getting money pending the full report on what the out years look like. They sent the 2020 money based on what the out years look like. That is maybe a good solution, something to consider. But i think, at the end, we want to give you those numbers. We are not ready just yet. But certainly, we still want to move forward. At the expense of being a subject to debt, you were very clear that you dont want to take money from other nasa programs because you dont want to hurt those programs. I dont want to go to the moon without taking money from people who cannot afford to survive in this society to the level they should survive in this society, and so that is a big problem that we have to get over. That is where that money is going to come from. Your fiscal year 2020 budget justification was delivered to the Famous Mission<\/a> and nasas history. Just a week before the cjs bill was marked up in subcommittee, nasa submitted a 1. 6 million 1. 6 billion Budget Amendment<\/a> that intended to advance our humans to the moon by four years. This prevented us from adequately considering the proposal this hearing will give us an opportunity to obtain more information from nasa regarding the revised plans for returning to the moon. This subcommittee would like to send the first woman astronaut into deep space, including to the surface of the moon. We want to do it in a theonsible way from perspective of safety, cost, and likelihood of mission success. As most of you know, i have been a strong supporter of nasa during my 29 years in congress and we provide nasa more than 22. 3 billion in our house bill. However, i remain extremely concerned about the additional cost to accelerate the mission by four years. Some experts have said that they the needed cost could exceed 25 billion in the next years, compared to the original schedule. A date, nasa has not provided committee with a full cost estimate despite repeated requests. At a time of huge financial of different programs all competing for funding and the , anof government gaps additional would severely impact 25 billion vital programs, not only under this subcommittee, but across all nondefense subcommittees. Another concern i have is the lack of a serious justification for such a cost, since nasa has already programmed the lunar 2028, whyssion for does it need to speed up the clock by four years . Time that is needed to carry out a Successful Program<\/a> from a science and safety perspective. Two a lot of members, the motivation appears to be political, giving President Trump<\/a> a moon landing at a possible second term should he be reelected. Not even nasas own leadership has enough confidence in the success and safety of advancing this timeline. Nasa acting associate administrator bowersox was a former astronaut and here with us today. The 2024 moon landing date as difficult to achieve in a house science hearing just last month, saying i wouldnt bet my oldest childs birthday present on anything like that. Additionally, nasas manager with the human landing system, lisa watson morgan, was quoted in an article about the timing saying this is all of this has to be done on the fast, on the quick, and typically in the past, nasa is quite methodical, which is good. We are going to have to have an abbreviated approach to getting to industry standards and how we will implement this, this is a big shift for the entire nasa community. We cannot sacrifice safety and cannot sacrifice other programs to appease the president. Before asking for such a substantial additional investment nasa needs to be , prepared to see what missions will be canceled and the effort to come up with an additional 25 billion. I remain concerned for four years of this mission. In the eyes of the world, we cannot be afford to fail, therefore its better to use the original schedule in order to have a successful, safe and effective for the benefit of the people and the robert t. Aderholt world. Thank you, i look forward to hearing your testimony. I would like to recognize my good friend, the Ranking Member<\/a> for opening comments. I want to thank you for your leadership on the subcommittee, or willingness to have hearing throughout the year but in particular for this hearing, regardless of party labels and your kindness, we look forward to looking with you throughout this congress and we have a long way to go. So we know youre not leaving yet, but i would like to be remiss if i did not mention that this morning. I also appreciate the Ranking Member<\/a> being here today, she has put a lot of hard work and expertise and the defence issues and on the space issues for her district and the state and for their country. Also, i would like to express my gratitude to to the president and Vice President<\/a> were taking a real interest in nasa. They represent a very small part of the national budget, but which continues to serve ambitions. That was evident when i go into schools and everyone is very interested in it. I support the goal in 2024. I believe we owe it to the taxpayer to make sure the program we will need taxpayers support. The program suffer the kinds of delays, setbacks, the costs of returns, which have become what is known as business as usual in our states program. The Artemis Program<\/a> cannot afford the returns which have in ourbusiness as usual space program. On the contrary, the artemis is supposed to be characterized by unparalleled accountability and agility. Today, i will have questions regarding whether nasa is still committed to getting to the moon by any means necessary. As an Ardent Supporter<\/a> of the Space Exploration<\/a> and also as fiscally conservative, im concerned that nasa could undercut its flexibility and and career unnecessary costs by forgoing opportunities to leverage existing assets and an attempt to foster a commercial space economy. Vice president pence declared in his comments, that nasa is not currently capable of landing american astronauts on the moon in five years, we need to change the organization. I couldnt agree more. The administrations ambitions ambitious but critically important 2024 moon land will be the ultimate test of nasas judgment and its accountability. Finally, the rockets and capsules and transfer vehicles and the descent must be systems which will keep our astronauts alive during the mission and bring them back to earth safely. As our nation embarks on complex new deep space endeavors but with unprecedented private sector involvement, safety must be our number one priority. Hence, nasas ability to ensure safety in the commercial program will be a bellwether and i appreciate the administrators comments noting that commercial Group Programs<\/a> must proceed to contractor attention it deserves. I thank you both for being here today and its an honor to have you here before our subcommittee. Thank you, mister chairman, for holding this hearing and i will yield back. Thank you for your kind comments. We are honored this morning to have our Ranking Member<\/a> with us a person i respect a lot and a i will remember for her way of dealing with people in such a friendly and professional way and bipartisan way. Miss granger . Thank you for holding this hearing and for your attention to space and your involvement. Im old enough to remember space programs, everyone sitting at their television and watching it. It was good for america and good for all of us. Welcome, mr. Ken bowersox, and welcome, mr. Bridenstine. Its important to all americans in our Space Exploration<\/a> goals. In march, your agency was challenged with returning our astronauts within the next five years. I support this accelerated 2024 goals and the Artemis Program<\/a>. Appropriately named after apollos twin sister sending , american astronauts including the first woman on the moon to take advantage of the technological advances in the United States<\/a>. It will allow us to establish a strategic presence on the moon. Our nation is facing threats in space, specifically from china. I have had classified briefings that would shock any reasonable person and that clearly made the case that we must accelerate the artemis project. My advocacy for the Artemis Program<\/a> was solidified after learning about chinas capabilities and their future plans. Unfortunately, the u. S. Has largely fallen behind in Space Research<\/a> and development and will soon be outpaced by the chinese if we dont take action immediately. The only way to protect both our National Security<\/a> and our economy is to dominate space and beat chinese and other near peer adversaries. Space is the next high ground , and we have to take it. The decision to accelerate our nations return to the moon and establish a sustainable presence there will require a significant investment by this and future congresses. As a result support for this , ambitious but important 2024 timeline will be accompanied by great expectations, both in terms of schedule, cost, and safety. The administration recognizes that we have a tough job ahead of us, we are committed to working with you to ensure that nasa can advance our nations exploration priorities as effectively and efficiently as possible. Im working with the chairwoman, and Ranking Member<\/a>s as funding for the process moves forward. I yield back. Thank you. Before i ask the administrator for his comments, people who normally would wonder whats wrong with me if i do not do a shout out here. We spend a lot of time in washington, so shout out to the nationals for pulling the upset of the century, and people thought they could not do it. It should be a lesson to all of us. Just keep trying, and you can pull it off. Andve only got the yankees, i hope they can turn it around against houston. Administrator, five minutes, we will include your full statement in the record so please go , ahead. Yes, sir. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Before i became the nasa administrator, the president had issued space policy directive one, and that direction was to go to the moon, to go sustainably, to go with the commercial partners and international partners, and to utilize the resources of the moon that we discovered back in 2009, the hundreds of millions of tons of water ice on the south pole, the water ice represents life, its air to breathe, its water to drink, its rocket propellant. Hydrogen is the same rocket feel that will power the space launch system, the same that powered the Space Shuttle<\/a>s. We are going to use the resources of the moon and then ultimately we are going to take all of this knowledge that we learn in this architecture and go to mars. That was all in the president forced space policy directive. When i became the nasa administrator, we put together a plan. Given our current budgets, what will take to achieve this . We came up with a plan, as you identified, that put us on the moon in 2028 if budgets remain fairly constant. The challenge we have as a nation is that the longer programs go, the more Political Risk<\/a> that we have, and when we look back in history, we look back on the 1990s, it took decades in time and eventually got canceled. You look at the vision for Space Exploration<\/a>. It took many years and eventually got canceled. So, the question is how do we reduce risks . Theres two types of risk, technical and Political Risk<\/a>. The Political Risk<\/a> is not partisan. Its just one programs go too long people start to lose confidence and then money is redirected in other places. I heard you say slow and methodical. Methodical, yes. Its all about doing things stepbystep and building on one lesson after another. What we are trying to change as a culture is that we are slow. We dont want to be slow. I think going fast makes sure we will have success. I also think that by going fast , we will put ourselves into the Ranking Member<\/a> position. Well put ourselves in a position to leave the world. Weve had astronauts from 19 Different Countries<\/a> on the International Space<\/a> station and experiments from 103 Different Countries<\/a> on the International Space<\/a> station. China is moving fast. They move going to the moon. The last time they landed on the moon, it landed on the far side of the moon. They had with a small probe and that was the first time in the ministry anyone had landed on the far side of the moon. They took out a two page ad in the economists and made it clear they are the leader and the exploration and everyone should partner with them. I think thats the wrong position. We have Political Risk<\/a>, its Political Risk<\/a> for programs taking too long and making sure our partners are with us. Thats an important reason to move faster. We dont want to take any undue risk and put lives at stake, but the history of nasa might be a little more slow than what is necessary, and we are changing the organization, as representative aderholt said, if we cant land on the moon in five years we need to change the organization. I believe that and i will tell you why. In the 1960s, president kennedy announced, 1962 they will end on the moon before the decade is out. They had the Johnson Space<\/a> member and the orbital dynamics at the time, we did not have the Johnson Space<\/a> center. We did not understand the orbital dynamics of going to the moon. They did not have the launch facilities, the rocket that went to the moon, we do not have any of these capabilities that currently we have to our advantage. They had to go from scratch. They did not have the ability to restore power and smaller to store power in smaller quantities. They did not have the ability to reuse rockets and do all these cusp ofhat are on the changing how we do spaceflight. So if we cant do today within five years, when they did within eight years and really seven years back in the 1960s, i think we need to change how they do things. I heard the Ranking Member<\/a> say that we need to leverage existing assets. If we want to go fast, if we want to land on the moon in 2024, which we want to do, if we want to go fast, how fast would we go . 2024 is how fast we could do it. And at the end of the day, i think its important to note that that is not a guarantee, but its in the realm of what is possible. A lot of things have to go right to make that a reality, but what we are asking for is to make going past a possibility. I think these are all important things that we need to talk about and i appreciate you having this. And i look forward to answering any questions. Thank you. We will now begin the first round of history for each each member. Each member will receive five minutes. We have asked for information about the mission. We have received no response. It is hard to justify any extra spending on this effort in the current fiscal year when we do not know the course down the road. What is the additional cost associated with moving the further, canand you please break the cost down for the upcoming five years . Let me just tell you, on a personal level, and you know me, we have dealt in the past on a is not justel, this about finding the money. Where this president is known to find moneys where he needs them. If he said no wall and returned for it, you might get the democrats to agree with that, right . Maybe more than that. He is probably going to say lower pell grant, lower food stamps, lower education dollars, and that is unacceptable, and that is a problem. But i asked you a question. I did not give you time to answer it. Request for 2020 includes an additional 1. 6 billion dollars, and you know, i have been very clear with everybody i have talked to, the goal to get to the Movement Needs<\/a> to be bipartisan. It has to be apolitical. If when we go to the moon we are doing so by cutting the Science Mission<\/a> director out of nasa, that will create a partisan divide we do not want to have as an agency. If we try to take the money from the International Space<\/a> station, that will create a parochial fight maybe with members from texas or florida, alabama, about the International Space<\/a> station. Those are the two areas where nasa has money. I do not think the right approach is to cannibalize those programs to achieve the moon minding so i have been very clear with everybody i have talked to on both sides of the aisle. The goal should be additional resources, not cannibalizing one part of nasa to feed another part of nasa. That being said, when we did the Budget Amendment<\/a>, the 1. 6 billion, we were operating under previous previously established budget caps and i think it is fantastic that an agreement was made between republicans and democrats to raise those budget caps that gives nasa a great chance for it i want to say we are grateful. Especiallyat work, on behalf of the Science Mission<\/a> director, and that is really good for the agency. I want to take nothing away from it. , thate go forward requires additional resources. I understand the concern. Inside theing now administration with the office of management and budget and the National Space<\/a> council to come up with what those out year numbers are to get a consensus within the administration about what we are willing to put forward, and once we have that, we want to give it to you as absolutely soon as possible. I would say that the budget for 2021 is due in february and certainly, we will have it without question. If we look at what the senate has already done, they actually getting money pending the full report on what the out years look like. They sent the 2020 money based on what the out years look like. That is maybe a good solution, something to consider. But i think, at the end, we want to give you those numbers. We are not ready just yet. But certainly, we still want to move forward. At the expense of being a subject to debt, you were very clear that you dont want to take money from other nasa programs because you dont want to hurt those programs. I dont want to go to the moon without taking money from people who cannot afford to survive in this society to the level they should survive in this society, and so that is a big problem that we have to get over. That is where that money is going to come from. Your fiscal year 2020 budget justification was delivered to the Committee Earlier<\/a> this year, and it is Still Available<\/a> online. In looking at the out years budget chart that was included in that budget, what part of nasas budget do you anticipate auld need to go down during 20212024 period . In order to pay for the additional costs associated with the scheduled change on the moon landing. What is the cost to other priorities to achieve this effort . So my objective is to let everybody know that cannibalizing certain parts of nasa to fund another part of nasa is not my goal. Certainly, we are going to need additional resources, and i have been clear that, you know, whether you take it from stations, whether you take it from the Science Mission<\/a> director, those are the two areas where there is money, when we do that, it creates either parochial or partisan fights, and i am trying to maintain nasas apolitical, bipartisan approach. So i would say that my goal is to not cut any of nasas budget in order to finance the moon agenda. The budget for 2021 will be delivered in february of next year. Im having a little trouble message through, so i will try one more time and then i will drop it, ok . You dont want to hurt nasa. Please understand that nasa has support from members of congress. Yes. Nasa has support from this committee. Nasa has support of the American People<\/a>, including the very people you will hurt, but would you keep that support if the people knew that, eventually, you would have to take money from their very needed situations, you know, a factory worker who needs a little extra from the federal government to help feed his family, and now, nasa is going to go to the moon four years earlier and starts taking money from them. I do not need an answer for that. Just think abouthat as we go forward. My time has been used up. Of course. Thank you. Regarding the comments you made about production work after your , i wasn midaugust wondering how you think things are currently going for the ne throughpecially o three . We have had some very challenging conversations with boeing. And of course, you have seen that in real time, maybe in the public. I would also tell you that they have responded in a very positive way to the challenges we have had with development. Number one, we have now started, or in fact, weve completed the integration of the engine section. So the engine section, which was the hold up, kind of got delayed so we started to integrate the rest of the rocket in the horizontal, which enabled us to integrate the rocket while the engine section was still under development. Previously, if you do the vertical stack, everything has to wait on the engine section paid we changed that. We started integrating the horizontal, and boeing did great things in order to make that happen. The engine section is now complete. The engine section is now integrated into the rocket itself. By the way, we are very satisfied with how fast things are moving now. And at this point, the engines themselves are being integrated into the engine section and as soon as that is complete, there will be probably a month or two, maybe a little bit longer, of testing, but i think, by the end of this year, we will be moving the rocket out of the facility, moving it to the space center for testing, for what we call a green run test. Respondedhas in fact very, very well, and we are very pleased with where the sls is right now. We are confident it will be delivered on time . The new time, yes. And of course as you , mentioned, i heard the work is progressing more quickly. On the second core maybe 40 faster . Yes. So what we learned on the first sls is paying dividends on the second sls, so things are moving a lot faster. Do you want to address that . I will say that its true. We are moving faster on the second core. But were finding the challenges, right . Theyre still on the rockets and even on the second core, we may find a new challenge. Overall, its positive. Does the same to you that the work is indeed faster than core member one . Number one . Absolutely, without question. I understand there is a growing confidence for contractors for sls to be able to produce two rockets a year, starting in 2024. And they believe they could deliver a block 1b in 2024. What do you think . You think it can be done . So it depends what boeing is willing to invest, quite frankly. We dont have currently the appropriations necessary to achieve that. If we were to do that, we may need some more infrastructure that currently does not exist. And so, i dont know if you want to address that. Well, what i would say is we havent seen the performance yet that would indicate that we are core weed the second would need for a moon landing in 2024. We are open to considering those types of options. We are looking for that but we just have not seen it yet. Sir. Clear, i am confident that given our current rate of production, we will have three slss available and the , third one would be for artemis three, that takes us to the moon in 2024. I think that is fully within the realm of possibility but a lot of things have to go right to make that happen. Adding an additional sls into the mix could im not confident that could happen. Understanding the complexity all right. Understanding the complexityof integrating the sls as both of you do, do you have any reason to believe the Broad Agency Announcement<\/a> for the landing system presents a viable opportunity to engage the prime contractors and forge the necessary agreements in order to sls into then proposals before the response deadline that is november 1 of this year . Again, this would be a question for boeing specifically. They would need to look at the sls and come up with an sls derivative that would be made available for the offerors for the systems and then to find out what would require investment from boeing to do that. The goal would be that those offerors would select boeing as launchrovider of that service, but it would be a launch service, so i think it is in the realm of what is possible, if boeing wanted to make those investments. Do you want to comment on that . I just concur with the administrator. Ok. All right. Thank you. Thank you, mister chairman. Thank you. Let me recognize our Ranking Member<\/a>, miss granger. Thank you. Administrator bridenstine, could you produce distinctly there are three questions. One is why should we accelerate this at the cost it is . What is the primary importance of that change and whether its worth that very large investment . And then focus on on the the nationalf security paid what does it mean to taxpayers . National security. What does it mean to taxpayers . Talk to us about that. How does that benefit our taxpayers . Its huge. This goes to what the chairman was talking about earlier about the trade offs. We look back at apollo, and we just celebrated 50 years of apollo. Everybody in america loved it. We saw 500,000 people on the National Mall<\/a>, celebrating 50 years of apollo, and i know all of us, we have seen 500,000 people on the National Mall<\/a> before. Weve never seen 500,000 people happy people celebrating something good. [laughter] that was a very great day for nasa, a great day for america, and its 50 years later. The inspiration that came from that moment in time was transformational for our nation, and transformational for people know went into the , stem fields that would not they will tell you where they were when Neil Armstrong<\/a> and buzz aldrin walked on the moon, and i am sure that people of this age on this committee can probably tell you where they were on that day as well. Thats that thing is, and this is why we need to go faster, and the first nasa administrator from that day to this day that was not alive when that happened. I think thats a big challenge. The reality is, i dont have that memory. And we have to make sure that we dont have another generation that goes by that doesnt have that memory. When it happens, we need to make sure that it is the United States<\/a> of america leading a coalition of nations that makes it happen. Going to your question about what is the value to the taxpayer, all of that is tremendously valuable to the taxpayer. It was a piece of winning the cold war. Im not going to say it was the preponderance of it, but a piece of it. All that being said, some people watching this, i know this is on tv, some people watching are going to watch on dish network or direct tv, maybe they have internet broadband from space. I come from rural oklahoma. If you dont have broadband from space, you dont have broadband. Navigation, gps technology, the way we do disaster relief, National Security<\/a> and defence, all these capabilities are born i should say, a lot of these capabilities are born from a Little Agency<\/a> called nasa. Predict weather, weather satellites are purchased by nasa and the Program Management<\/a> of the satellites is nasa. How we understand the climate is done by nasa. How we produce food, preserving nitrate in the soil, all these technologies come from nasa. The way we produce energy and do it cleanly without Greenhouse Gas<\/a> emissions, methane leaks, those things, we can detect from space instantaneously and help Oil Companies<\/a> prevent getting fined from the epa. This is transforming how the world moves forward and these technologies have elevated the human condition for all of humanity. If you ask Neil Armstrong<\/a> and buzz aldrin, why are you going to the moon, they would have said any of that because they dont know, but now we know. We are less than a half of a percent of the federal budget and you look at what weve been able to deliver by creating technologies and capabilities that get commercialized, elevate the human condition. I think the return on investment is outstanding. Thank you. You are not scoring any points by reminding people that you are younger than some of us. Mr. Cartwright . Rep. Cartwright thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you, administrators bridenstine and bowersox for being here. I dont think it is any secret that as a member of the nasa and planetary caucuses, i share your enthusiasm for nasa and i believe in your mission and support your people. Im willing to bet that everybody on the subcommittee feels the same way. Thank you, sir. Rep. Cartwright we are appropriators and we have to deal with the dollars and cents and we have to evaluate budget requests and i appreciate your comments about not cannibalizing one part of nasa for another, but the fiscal year 2020 budget requested an overall reduction including aion, reduction in the science budget of 600 million and a complete zeroing out of the office of stem engagement. You submitted that, didnt you . Yes. That was in the budget. Rep. Cartwright we have to drill down on this stuff. The subcommittee rejected those cuts, just as we did in fiscal year 2018 and 2019. We increased nasas funding by 18 million dollars, to fully funded the Lunar Landing<\/a> program and robustly funded scientific discovery and stem education. If youre detecting a pattern there, you are right. Look, the 2020 budget request did not adequately fund artemis, because a mere two months later, 1. 6 billiond this dollars supplemental request for increased funding. What im trying to do is grapple with the true cost of the program and whether nasa has a firm grasp on it, how much money you need for artemis and when you will need it. The first question is, at what point did you realize that the fiscal year 2020 budget request was insufficient to fund the Artemis Program<\/a> . I would say, for that budget request, there wasnt an Artemis Program<\/a> at the time. We put together a budget to land on the moon at the earliest possible date without any changes to the budget, or with changes to the budget based on inflation. We were able to say that it was stretchrip that 90 it was not a stretch that we could land on the moon in 2028 rep. Cartwright i dont mean to interrupt you but when did you realize that the 2020 budget was going to be insufficient for the Artemis Program<\/a> . Mr. Bridenstine after the 2020 came out, there are a lot of people that said that was too long. The challenges when these programs last a decade. Theres a risk. Rep. Cartwright im with you. It was after the acceleration of the program. Before submitting the budget, you did not know about that . Mr. Bridenstine we had not planned to accelerate at that point. Rep. Cartwright you described the 1. 6 billion supplementary request as a down payment. Here is what we are grappling with. What is the total cost of the whole program . You go to buy a car and there is a car salesman, what do you ask him . How much is the car . When he comes up to you and says, its only going to be to in the first year, but then 2000 youre asking how much the car is. He says, what do you mean . Year, how much do i have to pay for this car . And he says, oh, no, those are the out years. Thats not acceptable. You need to know the total costs. You have said, i think in response to the chairmans question, you dont have those figures. Mr. Bridenstine we are working through with the office of management and budget and the Space Council<\/a> for a consensus for what the total cost will be and we will summit that in february. Rep. Cartwright february of this coming year . Mr. Bridenstine itll be part of the budget in february. Yes, sir. Rep. Cartwright do you know, sitting there today, how much extra the whole project is going to cost because of accelerating it . Mr. Bridenstine theres a lot of different options that would be available. Some of the options increase the probability of success, some of them decrease the probability of success. Based on the range of options, this is what we looking at and working with the office of management and budget, attempting to come to a resolution on, for example, i be in believe it would the interest of success to start off with at least three different human landing systems that we could then downselect to two. That gives us a higher probability of success. If the Budget Constraints<\/a> put us in a position where we get only have one, we put ourselves in a position where a contractor could have Pricing Power<\/a> that could get us in a position where andave cost overruns delays. That more money early reduces costs. If we go inexpensive early, the likelihood is that costs go up over time. These are all different trades that we are looking at for the out years, we are anxiously anticipating delivering in february. Rep. Cartwright Science Committee<\/a> chairwoman johnson raised an issue regarding the specific appropriations language billion with the 1. 6 supplemental request, and i want to follow up with you. The language in the supplemental request would allow nasa to transfer funds from other agency accounts to pay for artemis . Mr. Bridenstine that is not the intent. The intent is to have as much flexibility as possible. There are some things that go fast and some things that were things where we find what we dont know. There are unknown unknowns we need to be prepared for. The flexibility causes that. Ive heard people have concern they were going to take money from the Science Mission<\/a> director, that is not my intent. Rep. Cartwright she said the language would give you Carte Blanche<\/a> authority to move funds among nasas accounts from this year forward if you determine that transfers are necessary in support of the establishment of the u. S. Strategic presence on the moon. You are saying that is not so. Mr. Bridenstine this has to be bipartisan and if we put ourselves in a position where one side of the aisle is not happy with what we are trying to achieve, we will not be successful. We want to make sure this is apolitical and bipartisan as much as possible and i think cannibalizing the Science Mission<\/a> director and to achieving the objectives of human exploration, which i dont think theyre exclusive each other that narrative gets promoted a lot but i think they work hand in hand. Its within the realm of we dont have any desire to do that. We want to make sure we have support of both sides of the aisle. Rep. Cartwright so no cannibalism in the february figures. Mr. Bridenstine agree on that. Thank you for being here today. Under nasa, the American Space<\/a> program has been a symbol of world leadership and national pride. At this point in our history, we must use our investment wisely and work even harder to advance sound policy if we expect to maintain American Leadership<\/a> in the space domain. To help nasa centers around the country engage with commercial industry and become that are stewards of their underutilized infrastructure, we have introduced in the nasa relief authorization act. This will will reauthorize the agreement authority for ten years and is supported by representatives from both sides of both parties and across the country. You elaborate can on the ways nasa centers have used the agreement to reduce improve nasats and facility conditions . Mr. Bridenstine absolutely. I think they are really good examples of infrastructure that would include buildings where a private Company Wants<\/a> to use a building that nasa is not using currently. Part of the way they have access to the building is to make it usable and improve it. After a period of time, nasa has the right to that again, and they could continue their lease. These are all good things where nasa can partner with the private sector. We have similar kind of agreements for launch facilities and, of course, test facilities. There is lots of opportunity to improve nasa facilities by partnering with the private sector. Did you have anything to add to that . Mr. Bowersox you have hit a couple of those. The launch pads in the cape. There are a lot of production facilities and operations facilities at the cape. At just about every center where we have got spare capacity, we fromrying to find users outside nasa to come in and take advantage of those facilities, so its been very helpful to us. Not reauthorizing, what would happen . Mr. Bridenstine itll be bad for nasa, will be bad for our partners, so please reauthorize it. Rep. Palazzo please, to my colleagues, if you have not signed on to it, we would appreciate it if you would take a hard look at it. Another question is, im proud to represent our space center where nasa has tested every rocket since the apollo program. As you know, it is scheduled to shoot to ship this december for the green run test. We are encouraged by the year as we sls this near the completion. Given the rationale for sls undergoing the green run test to the plan to connect conduct another green run test, do you believe the lunar lander should also provide a similar green run test as part of a development program, and if not, what is the rationale for not putting the landers through the same thorough and rigorous testing as the core stage in the sls . Mr. Bridenstine ill start. Then ken, because he is an astronaut that has had the experience of riding on these kind of vehicles. I think its important that we recognize that what the commercial providers provide couldve already been tested. We are not saying how to land on the moon, were asking them to propose how they would do it. If to go from the gateway, that space station within orbit around the moon, to the surface of the moon and back to the gateway, if to do that, we are using hardware that has been tested significantly a transfer vehicle, a descent module, whencent he talked about propulsion there could be solutions that have a lot of history, that we wouldnt give to green run tests. There could be brandnew designs that it may be necessary. I dont want to prejudge what nasa will require but, certainly, depending on the solutions that we get presented, we will have thoughts on it. Ken . Is bowersox all i will say that we will carefully look at all the test plans we get back from the human launch system providers once the proposals are all in. To talk a whole lot more in detail would not be good right now because we are in blackout. Depending on the type of engine have, they may have that for different engines. Companies have done it in other places around the country. They will be thoroughly tested before they get to the moon. Rep. Palazzo thank you for your responses, i yield back. Rep. Case thank you. The overall purpose of the hearing is to discuss whether the longterm considerations have been thought through when we got the sudden and unexpected supplemental appropriation. Its one thing to deal with it, another thing to deal with the implications of it. You have commented in response to the chairs question that you would be submitting with fy 21 longterm outyear projection for this particular proposal. So does that submission include an updated full life cycle mission cost, assuming a 24 mission . Mr. Bridenstine yes. Does it include youre proposing to outsource a lot of this work, youre going to have a lot of partners in this on fixed contract situations. That is your intent, right . Mr. Bridenstine yes. Rep. Case thats going to take a lot of internal supervision, because thats a lot of money running wild out there and, if not adequately overseen, it could easily get away from you budgetary wise as well as i would expect quality wise. Do you anticipate that in your recalculation of an accelerated issue, you would beef up oversight capabilities inside of nasa . Mr. Bridenstine i think we have pretty good oversight capabilities already. What we are doing is applying the lessons of the past. If you look at how we resupply the International Space<\/a> station right now, we do it with commercial resupply. What that means this, nasa does not purchase, own, or operate the hardware, we buy service from a robust commercial marketplace. The marketplace was in fact developed by nasa, with our investments, where we invest our money, our commercial providers invest their money, we start off with three different providers, we down selected to two. They are competing against each other on costs and innovation, which does drive down costs. It makes sure we are continuing to innovate to drive down costs, but the goal is to create a competitive environment. Because we did commercial resupply that way, the cost savings have been significant. And, we are on the cusp of having success with the commercial crew as well. The interesting thing, when we do programs in this fashion, their contractors dont come back to nasa and ask for more money all the time. In fact, they both want to be first. So, what we do provide our engineers are embedded with their engineers. Our finance folks are working with their finance folks. Our development and the fixed price that you makes jim before, that you mentioned before, that has milestone payments associated with that. We are controlling the process all along the way. The goal here is to have as much as possible, we want nasa to be a customer of services. Especially for low earth orbit. And ultimately not just a customer, but have providers that compete against each other. That is how we are doing the low earth orbit activities, but we need to go to the moon. To get to the moon on schedule, we will need to use the sls rocket and that is going to be a Great Program<\/a> going forward. For a long period of time. It is a mix. Rep. Case i got it. Thats a concern for me, that you be able to watch the big accelerated contracts and, number two, do you anticipate that a corollary of your proposal to accelerate would also be an acceleration of a mars mission . Is that sequential . In other words, is that a big picture long term consideration that this committee should know about . Because if it may not only be about the moon you are asking about an accelerated program for, i dont we would want to be surprised on that one. We want to know what the big picture, longterm plan is for the overall deep Space Exploration<\/a>. Mr. Bridenstine you are hitting the nail on the head, which is , the sooner we get to the moon with an architecture that is sustainable, we need to learn how to live and work on another world, that is what enables us to go to mars. When we go to mars, we have to be there for a long period of time. We have to use the moon as a proving ground. If we delay the moon program, by definition, we are delaying the mars program. If we accelerate the moon program, we are by definition accelerating the mars program. Thats a great question, a great point. Rep. Case i hope we get that information in the context of fy 21 as well. Mr. Bridenstine yes, sir, we will have strong mars content in the budget request. Thank you. Thank you, administrator bridenstine and associate administrator bowersox for being here today. You testified about what nasa is doing to increase opportunities for women in stem careers at the agency. I want to circle back to something specific you said in your comments about space suits and the thencanceled all female spacewalk. You said, each of the spacesuits are like little spaceship. Each one is designed specifically not just for the astronaut but for the mission. The challenge as we only have a certain number of spacesuits. You also stated publicly at a hearing that nasa is looking at a space suit architecture that is flexible. With artemis, i want to ask a few questions. Do we know how many years nasa needed to research and developed space suits that Neil Armstrong<\/a> and buzz aldrin used . Mr. Bridenstine that is a great question. I dont know but i would be happy to get that back to you. The question, how long did it take to develop the original spacewalking spacesuits . Well look that up. Rep. Meng what lessons did they learn from the canceled all female spacewalk that might help with the next generation of space it . Spacesuit . Mr. Bridenstine i think we had already learned the lesson and that made it transparent that spacesuits are very difficult because they are so large. And we need spacesuits the history of nasa as build a space and then try to downscale it. Its a lot harder than upscaling it for larger people. We have to go from the 1 to the 99 in size. And i think that we have already been investing in making that possible, not just for space flight but walking on the surface of the moon. We are very committed to it. The spacewalk that you are referencing obviously highlighted why we have been committed to it. Mr. Bowersox i was going to say that on the way, i got to check the tv at nasa headquarters and i saw the two women on orbit now s to goparing spacesuit outside. We hope to see that very soon. Neededts at that time even more work than what we are doing for this particular e. V. A. Mr. Bridenstine we are doing the all woman spacewalk here in a number of days. Meng what challenges and maybe key milestones much be mad must be met with the 2020 timeline to bring astronauts to the moon, research, testing, deployment . Mr. Bridenstine the rocket, the biggest most powerful rocket ever built that will take our astronauts to the moon is going to come out of the facility here by the end of the year, then will be green run tested. S are complete. They will be testing soon at the Glen Research<\/a> center in ohio. Thats positive. The challenges we have, we have to start with the human landing system. You cant land on the moon if you dont have a landing system. Thats one of the reasons that we did the amended budget request. We are underway with the development of gateway which is a small space station that will be in orbit around the moon for 15 years. Think of it as a reusable apollo module just like except it doesnt get thrown out at the end of the mission. It will be used over and over again by over the course of 15 years and probably longer. The spacesuits are a big piece of the architecture as well. The sls rocket comedy orion crew rocket, though orion crew modules, the European Service<\/a> module and the gateway and the human landing system and the spacesuits. At the same time, theyre doing commercial crew which will be launched in low orbit. Congresswoman, we have as an agency more underdevelopment now and these are big programs. So were working really high really hard right now to make this a reality. We are confident. We are where we are especially when it comes to commercial crew, we are confident. Sls, we are confident. Some outstanding issues in just because we are so early in the development process. Ken, did you want to add to that . Mr. Bowersox the only thing i would emphasize is that our biggest technical challenge is getting the land ready for 2024, that is the most challenging part of what we got to develop. We are excited to take on that challenge. Rep. Meng thank you, i yield back. Thank you. We are really glad to have you here this morning. I know how hard you work at your job and also mr. Bowersox thank you very much for your service to our country. If we could just step back a second from the budget request. I wanted to ask you about the timetable, the change in timetable, and how the accelerated date of 2024 was chosen. And then if you could provide for the record if you havent already done it, the original timeline and the Budget Proposal<\/a> for that, and then the accelerated timeline and the Budget Proposal<\/a> for that. I think it would be very helpful to us. Its a significant change and one of my questions for the American People<\/a> is that we support you in your efforts to land on the moon and mars. I go back to a report that norm augustine did many years ago. He said unmanned flight could provide us with a great deal of space resultsand whether its commodities or whatever, than human spaceflight. When you add humans into the mix, its much more expensive. Im wondering whether you have read the report and whether you believe that to be outdated and my primary question is, how is the date of 2024 chosen as a start . Mr. Bridenstine great questions. Anres two things with the with the 2024 date, and a number of things have changed. Number one, when we came out 2024, it is not anything in the budget changing significantly with inflation. People in congress and members of the administration, 10 years, historically, things get cut. That has been the history of nasa going back to the Space Exploration<\/a> in the 1990s and the Space Exploration<\/a> and early 2000s. How are we going to retire as much risk as possible to ensure success . The answer is to go faster. If youre going to go faster, then the next question was where do we get the money . Science, station. My response was, neither. Well get new money because those will create political or parochial divides between members of congress that we dont want to create. We got an additional inropriation for 1. 6 dollars. 1. 6 billion dollars. That accelerated the timeline. But its not just the risk of these programs, its also the other changes with china landing on the far side of the moon and theyre going to be landing on the moon with humans on the moon in 2030. Twopage spread saying they are the world leader in Space Exploration<\/a> and all the countries should partner with them. The question is, do we want to lead the world in space and i think the appropriate decision was to maintain leadership and keep our partnerships. Rep. Kaptur as you look forward, i will ask you for the chart 2028 versus 2024 and the , appropriate dollars that are necessary in both scenarios. Could you pinpoint a few of the most difficult technologies our technologies or system that require concerted effort to achieve the objectives . A achieving those, has nasa deep experience with working on Energy Technologies<\/a> with the department of energy, lets say, and some of their labs. Could you discuss about the ways in which other parts of the government might achieve your objective if its not directly in your budget, lets say. Mr. Bridenstine this goes to your first question about robotic science versus human exploration. In fact, we do partner with the department of energy on a lot of our robotic nations because they use Nuclear Power<\/a>. What we call radio isotopes thermal generation, what powers our spacecrafts when we go to pluto. Solar energy is not just that robust and pluto, so when we go into deep space, we have to have different ways of getting propulsion. Nuclear is the only way we can do deep state exploration. We work with the department of energy. When we send humans to mars, it will be in the best interest to use not radioisotope, but in fact Nuclear Thermal Propulsion<\/a> which would be an absolute game changer for how we do deep Space Exploration<\/a>. Something for the Armed Services<\/a> committee, that the department of defense would have a Significant Interest<\/a> in that capability for propulsion as well so i believe there would be some bleed over there from the capability perspective. When it comes to communications technology, theres a lot there. When we talk about super heavy lift and the sls rocket, i think that theres a lot of applications for National Security<\/a> capabilities as well. Theres a lot of crossover. These are things we think about. It is one of the reasons why the National Space<\/a> council was established so we can cross agency. We can think cross agency. Mr. Bowersox just about everything we do in human space plate spaceflight crosses over to what is being done in the dod. I was assigned to nasa as a military astronaut. Theres a lot of crossover. The intent of nasa is peaceful use of outer space and being able to use these technologies to build relationships with partners around the world. If you look at future exploration capabilities, the areas that we can probably cooperate the most is areas of Nuclear Propulsion<\/a> and Nuclear Power<\/a> for the surface. Rep. Kaptur would you classify those, for the record, i could ask a listing of the most difficult technologies and systems that you face in achieving success in this project. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. You, for being here today. We appreciate your presence and your service to our country. As a floridian, Space Exploration<\/a> both interests and excites me. It is part of our states culture and our economy. I have companies and constituents in my district who to buildng diligently orion, sls. Canaps most importantly, it inspire our nation and help motivate future scientists. As you both are aware, supporting the goal of sending the first woman and next man to the surface of the moon is a priority for all of us as long as it is done safely and efficiently. Failure is not an option when we endeavor of this magnitude, because if we do fail it could threaten our ability to return to the moon again. So we have to get it right. Im sure we all agree. I want to help nasa meet its goal of 2024, but i need to see a schedule and cost estimate to understand how best to do that. With that, you previously indicated that a full schedule for artemis is being deferred until a new associate administrator for human exploration is in place, but it seems to me that nasa should be started to put that schedule together now so it can be provided to new leadership when they take over to hit the ground running. Can you discuss what work, if any, nasa has been doing so far to put together a schedule with respect to artemis, particularly artemis three. Mr. Bridenstine i think regarding having new associate administrator for human exploration and operations, what i wanted to make sure we did not do is set a schedule and set a schedule for launching rockets and commercial crew until a new associate administrator has had an opportunity to assess. Accountability matters. If i set the schedule, and they come in later, it might not be a good dynamic. This morning, we announced that we will have a new associate administrator, who i have known for many years. He testified before the committee when i was in the house of representatives, on the Armed Services<\/a> committee, Strategic Forces<\/a> subcommittee, Science Committee<\/a> and subcommittee on space, who worked very efficiently on it. That being said, our goal is to get you all of those things that you need in february. In february, we will do the budget submit for 2021 and we will do a run out for all the out years in that 2021 budget submit. It is also true that if you look at what the senate has already passed in their committee, that they actually sent the 2020 numbers pending that submission in february of 2021. I think that could be a solution for how to go about making sure that we are all in agreement on how to move forward and at the same time not moving forward on how to be agreement on how to move forward. Sega think that would be available by february of next year . Mr. Bridenstine yes. This coming february. Rep. Crist that would include the elements for article three . Mr. Bridenstine yes. Rep. Crist to the schedule and budget, what other actions related to artemis are impacted by the leadership that was announced this morning . Mr. Bridenstine the big thing is that we have Great Program<\/a> managers for every element of what is required to go to the moon and eventually on to mars. Ken bowersox has been the acting associate administrator andy has done an administrator and he has done an amazing job. Of course, having an astronaut who was an engineer who worked in the private sector and, by the way, a navy astronaut. When ithis conversation was in the house. Ken has done a wonderful job. Im looking forward to getting doug on board to achieve all of the great things that we have established. Rep. Crist thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Administrator, part of the issue that i keep coming back to is the importance of knowing the full cost. We are appropriators. I wont be here after next year. Always say we are concerned about our children but im also concerned what i leave other appropriators once i leave. If we find programs over 1 billion with buying into the 2024 date, we dont know what it will cost down the line. As you try toyou gather support on both sides of the aisle, to understand that unless we know what this is going to cost at the end, it would be irresponsible for us to take the first step. Certainly for me, and this is certainly not about me, i dont want to leave these folks to have to figure out how to pay the other 25 billion. We need to hear that from you. Dontt hear it and we see it. Now you spoke about february. February may seem early in the year but these folks behind me are already working on numbers for what the budget will look like. We need to know earlier, much earlier. Know,ministrator, as you , thepace Advisory Panel<\/a> agency on ways to improve that performance. They march 2019 announcement of the2024 landing goal, has Advisory Panel<\/a> weighed in on any astronaut safety risk associated with specifically the new sped up timeline . I have to tell you, it is a serious concern that i have heard from some people by speeding it up, we risk safety issues and run into safety issues. Mr. Bridenstine there is a concern that i hear and i have heard, and the concern is schedule pressure and sometimes i think that the schedule pressure is something were concerned about and historically challenging thing that nasa has to deal with. The last thing we want to do is put any undue schedule pressure on anybody. That being said, its important for us to have schedules and its important to us to create milestones and achieve those milestones. A lot people talk about schedule pressure. I want to make sure people dont feel pressure from a schedule perspective but at the same time i want to make sure we are working every day to achieve milestones. We have folks who have been working these issues for many years. That being said, i think probably they have been focused on commercial cruise because thats the closest alligator to the canoe right now and i think that we are getting to a good position on commercial crew which is in the first part of next year, we are going to launch american astronauts on american rockets from american soil for the First Time Since<\/a> the retirement of the Space Shuttle<\/a> and that is going to be a great development. Mr. Administrator, i saw the moon landing on a small black and white tv set and it was very exciting. I want to ask you a question out of left field. I seem to remember as part of the conversation on the things that we had learned or were able to create as part of that whole mission. One that i remember is something s having somecesuit abilities to forward on people with disabilities. Do you know what im talking about at all . Mr. Bridenstine i am not familiar with that. Its something we can definitely look into. Are you familiar with it . Our goal, and one of the reasons we are doing doing low earth orbit specifically commercially is because we want to see everybody able to see themselves flying into space. When we go to space commercially , maybe it is industry. What we are using the International Space<\/a> station for right now, two lines of effort that have transformational capabilities, one is pharmaceuticals, there are treatments we can create in space. Right now, we are proving on the International Space<\/a> station that we can create human tissue using adult stem cells. What that means is we can get to humanwhen we can print organs in 3d in the way that you can do it in the gravity well of earth because they go flat. Math amounts of capital. Ofhink we are 37 years away massive amounts of capital flowing into commercial space industry for human habitation in low earth orbit. We want to see a day where they can see themselves as being an astronaut. Having more people have more access to space is really good for the american economy. It helps the balance of payments , the exports, trade deficits. Its not this industrialized by those materials. His fiberoptics, technologies that would improve the way we do communications terrestrially, and other Material Sciences<\/a> that can only be done in a macron in a microgravity environment. The goal is to have everybody know that we want space to be for everybody. We are making those investments to make that a reality. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to talk about commercial space launch vehicles. What commercial launch vehicles exist today that are in development that can or will be and getlaunch the hls to the moon to accomplish the u. S. Boots. Roots on the moon by 2024 . If we arestine taking humans, the only rocket that is available to take humans by 2024 is the sls rocket and the oryan crew capsule. The orion crew capsule. Theres no other way to accelerate that program other than sls and orion. That is to carry humans to the gateway. When we get to the gateway, we need a landing system. The only rocket i can think of now that would exist would be the falcon 9 heavy. There are other rockets in development. There would be the vulcan, the ula product. One would be the starship, a space x product. Another would be the blue glenn, a blue origin. There is a chance the Northrop Grumman<\/a> omega would be able to help as well. How many of those are currently flying . Mr. Bridenstine the falcon nine heavy is the only one. Deriveduld be an sls commercial solution. Onare not shutting the door that opportunity. Certainly, that is an option. How many of these rockets will have a test equivalent to 2020 . Een run test by mr. Bridenstine i would say sls and falcon 9 heavy. It is probably something that any responsible provider with provider would do but that would be up to them but its a typical type of test to preparing a rocket into space. If you put american astronauts on these vehicles, it is not just up to them. What is the contingency plan if some of these rockets are not available by 20 24 . Mr. Bridenstine i think i think right now, we have a falcon nine heavy thats currently available and theres a number of others that are getting close. Notf the commercial is available, what is the contingency plan . Fore have the potential multiple commercial options. We think we would have those options. If we didnt have any of those four vehicles flying, then we would look at whats available. I think, mr. Ranking member, that would put us in a position 2024 verynding in difficult. If we dont have the additional rockets, then we are not going to be able to achieve the goal. We are confident we will have those rockets. Its a Pretty Simple<\/a> fact that the smaller the capability to take cargo to moon orbit, the more launches you will need, correct . Mr. Bridenstine yes. Rep. Aderholt i also want to focus in on the former minister for exploration. He did an oped on the 13th on the hill and in that oped he said that nasas 2024 approach will require eight new developments, eight launches and 17 Mission Critical<\/a> operations to achieve this goal. Quote unquote. Are you familiar with that oped that they wrote last month and would you agree with that assessment . Mr. Bridenstine i do think i have not read the oped and i would love to read it before commenting on it, but i would be happy to take that for the record and give you my feedback. Aderholt how many commercial launch vehicles will it take let me go back one second. I know you hadnt read the article but would you agree with his assessment. Mr. Bridenstine can you say it one more time . Rep. Aderholt the approach will require eight new developments, eight new launches and 17 mutual 17 Mission Critical<\/a> operations to achieve this goal. Mr. Bridenstine i think thats a fair assessment. Rep. Aderholt how many commercial vehicles will it take to launch the human landing system including having the gateway in a Critical Path<\/a> . Mr. Bridenstine that is open and we are not telling the commercial providers how they need to do their landing system. Some providers would indicate maybe they could do it with just one vehicle. Others might indicate they might need three. The baa, Broad Agency Announcement<\/a>, is out and because of that i dont know how much we can comment on those activities because of the blackout. Rep. Aderholt basically its open right now . Mr. Bridenstine we are not specifying how any of the commercial providers for the human landing system ought to how their system ought to be developed. Were waiting to have them tell and we their approach is will assess their approach. Nasas 2004 study says that after a launch plan requires more than six to eight launch vehicles, the likelihood of loss goes up dramatically. Does that concern you . Mr. Bridenstine i guess the point is there more launches and the more one of them could have a problem. That certainly is an issue and i would say that we would need the overall architecture and see what creates more and less risk and how we are building the architecture and for what reasons. Having a gateway and orbit around the moon is important for a lot of reasons and open architectures can have their own landing systems to develop and work with the gateway. The way we are building the architecture is strategic in nature. It enables us to get to the moon. It enables our commercial partners to have the opportunity to get to the moon themselves. International partners have the opportunity to get to the moon. Are trying to achieve any cost and risk associated with that and we have the right architecture at this point. I would say that when we use different types of rockets, we have dissimilar redundancies so it reduces risk because of one fails, we continue moving forward. The challenge in the 1980s after the challenger accident is everyone was entitled was relying on shuttles. When that went away, the dod had no access to space. Rep. Aderholt this study i referred to this 2004 study, it seemed to have established benefits of using sls for a Landing Mission<\/a> from a mission reliability standpoint. If thats the case, should nasa be working on completing the sls number four since it may be needed to help with the moon mission . Certainly, wee are in fact, we did a letter contract and signed it this morning for additional sls and exploration of the stage. These are underway right now and certainly we have a strong interest in seeing the fourth one be successful. Did the letter go out . Mr. Bowersox i think the announcement went out this morning. The signature was a little bit earlier, i believe. Thank you. China is ahead of us in space and i think we know this. People who are supportive of this request say that if we dont move now, china who own china will own space. And who owns space owns the earth and our technology in it. Knowing that situation, how would the 2024 timeline for the project be affected if the funding is not provided in 2020 . Mr. Bridenstine so, i think of it as a range of probabilities and there is no definitive, can we get there early if we dont have the money. Its a range of probabilities. Senateook at what the mark was, it was not the entire budget request. Because of that, it reduces the probability of success to land within five years. I think it cant be ruled out either. It is achievable. It is just that the level of risk goes up. Im not talking about risk to life, i am talking about risk to schedule. As we move forward, i think you need to think about what puts us in the best probability of success. I think that is what we are asking for. Weve been talking a lot about the importance of commercial partners which obviously will play a key role in getting nasa back to the moon and beyond, right . Mr. Bridenstine thats right. The 2020 budget request and also the 1. 6 in dollars also the 1. 6 billion dollars of supplemental requests and they do speak a lot about how they plan to leverage and the commercial partnership with launch vehicles and developers, Companies Like<\/a> that. I want you to go into some more detail on that. Would you describe how these partnerships are helping nasa reduce costs and accelerate developments in the Artemis Program<\/a>. Mr. Bridenstine nasa is doing a lot of things, i think rightly, that are accelerating the process. The tradition is, youre aware of this, that if we have a program we want to develop, we spent six months, maybe a year, developing a request for information. Then the industry spends six months to a year developing the information thats requested and we spent six months to a year reviewing that information and put out proposals, then they spend six months to respond to those proposals and over the course of three to four years we find another contract. That doesnt include when all the contractors protest the decisions that nasa made which costs taxpayers a lots of money and creates all kinds of problems for the country which is not good. All that being said, what we are trying to do is move faster. The way to do that is where it makes sense, as you mentioned, partnerships with industries where we put forth american taxpayer dollars and they put their own private investments and collaboratively we figure out a solution. We are willing to do that because we expect that they will one day get customers who are not nasa. Those could be international partners, and we want to be in agreement with them on who those are. Not Just International<\/a> partners. It could be commercial and other people that want to go to the moon for different reasons. Maybe its technology that can developed in the microgravity of the moon. Tourism, for goodness sake. There are people willing to go to the moon for vacation. I dont think it would be much i dont think it would be much for a vacation but some people do. As long as there are people willing to invest money in the capability and have customers that are not nasa it drags down our costs and increases access for everybody. Nasa doesnt always want to be the purchaser operator of all of he hardware. That being said, there are times where its in our interest to be the purchaser, owner and perator of our hardware. As a commercial opportunity for the future. So there are different ways of doing different things. But the goal that i think is important is that we we open apeture chure of of what is legally possible and stay within the confines of kind of the legal requirements that weve been given. Dont go outside of that but ultimately, take advantage of what has been provided in the to the public and private ships. Knowing that the vital part that the contractors are going to be playing, are you satisfied that nasa and its personnel ive been doing the work of overseeing the oversight work to make sure that the private contractors are doing what theyre supposed to be doing . I think at this point, we are in good shape. As programs move forward and we might need to reconsider the number of personnel that we have involved in this program. I think right now are ok and if ur budget to go up and we have under developments then we could need more support. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Nasa has a solicitation of providing a human landing system that will be used with landing stronauts in the moon in 2024. But tea sls with this upper stage could launch the system from a single mission. Nasa does not appear to be ffered on its own sls vehicles to launch the hls and the solicitation to come up with their own sls commercial cargo vehicle solution. My question is, has there been any discussion with nasa to offer the sls as a government to large the lander system . So i havent had any discussions regarding that with industry or or folks that might van interest in that. But i do think this goes back to wrights ative cart question regarding the new approaches and certainly we thought it would be appropriate for sls. If there is a commercially viable option for sls that is an opportunity that any human landing system provider or offer could tap into without an tap into, but that would be an agreement between them and boeing for that activity or i dont know whoever. Theres a lot of prime contractors involved in that program. Ive got to be really careful because we do have that b. A. A. On the street. We dont want to say what the right answer is. We want to leave it to the h. L. S. Providers to make that determination. With that b. Afrlt a. You might not be able to answer that question. Assembling the system in or bith negatively affect the schedule . And we dont want to say if we want to leave it to the hls providers to make that determination. With baa you might not be able to answer the question. With these missions and will never really effect . Again, all have to look theyre capable of doing and determinations in the process and we are in blackout. And i want to talk about details and were doing it with smaller rockets and they had advantages and disadvantages no one at the advantages of bringing those small pieces is we tend to do better with smaller programs as we work through the management and production of those different items. Breaking them into chunks could be very helpful. One thing you mentioned and is interesting in government furnished equipment. Certainly, any offer for a system has that option to requests government so you want to send too nasa to provide this and in the baa it is perfectly perfectly appropriate to do that. And what that means is we have a look at it and say you have an extra sls thats available and are we willing and this is the other challenge to pony up the cost with the original hls player. Right now were not appropriated for that activity. Thats a lot of money. So i would say doing the g. F. E. Approach on that im not no, and will s or have to offer it, but it does look awfully challenging to accommodate that. From an appropriation perspective thats part of it. Thank you and i really appreciate your oral testimony here today. I yield back. What is the status of the parachute test and the commercial crew program . Great question, my goodness. So we have two different commercial crew providers. Rapidly ight now is is it rating of the mark three parachute which is the most recent design. The goal here is were trying to. Eet a factor of 60 and materials and were trying to meet the factor of safety which is numbers that go into that calculation. Were confident and the margin of safety and were looking for in that market is consistent and repeatable performance at that 1. 6 level. So were going to be looking at he margins for that parachute. Space x has said they can get as many as 10 drop tests done on the three wood would be impressive. If thats possible would be very positive and if we look at how that matches and if it matches with the drop test if those parachuted points dont match the mark to then we will have to do have additional tests. These are things that we are going to be analyzing in the upcoming days with space acts, hey have aderholt Jim Bridenstine<\/a> the shared because were putting something on these rockets and can afford that information through some of our stronauts. On the boeing side with the atlas 5 rocket and the star liner, a lot of the similar challenges with parachute that come from the asymmetry issue from deployment is affecting them as well. But again, nasa is making sure that what we learn in each of these programs is wildly shared because were putting humans on these rockets. And we cannot afford some of that pro pietary information to put them in jeopardy. Nasa, of course, has a reputation for overseing projects that are sometimes overbudget and behind schedule. My question to you, what has changed and low you helping to overcome the difficulties of that that youve seen in the past . Yeah, so the big thing is i think the number one thing that we have to do as an agency is is go forward with realism. A lot of times a contractor will tell us what they can achieve and we accept it and they advertise it to the public. And this is true for every contractor. Im not single out any one. And they get publicized. It is not based on realism and a cost to schedule and we need realistic assessments and that and know that these programs there is a big difference and that there is a big difference between development and operations. When the Space Shuttle<\/a> thats an operations capability and we knew that we knew that we knew that we had the shuttle. Ut we had shuttle. And were doing now a commercial crew and sls is that theyre development for brands and as we go through the development of testing and that we have to make adjustments so its a lot harder when youre not in development and now being said i think we need to get better and i could see how can has some thoughts. I think a big part of it is the initial estimates that we give people. We tend to try to be a little ambitious, maybe a little optimistic in the cost estimates an schedule estimates, and maybe we need to start off being a ittle more i wouldnt say pessimistic but optimistic in our process and maybe we need to start off being a little bit more pessimistic. So that we set out in schedules so that we can meet. What type of issues continues to slow you down. What authority do you need to stay on budget . And stay on schedule . So theres theres a very delicate balance among the contractors involved in this process. And and quite frankly, we need all of them. And we need all of them to be successful. A lot of times what happens is theres contractor on contractor violence that ultimately undercut what were trying to achieve on a rapid schedule. Heres what we know. China is not going to slow down. And that means we as a country come together and figure out what the architecture is and be committed to that process and move forward as quickly as possible. Sometimes contractors are constantly undercutting each other, and thats not good for the agency and, not good for our country. When you make a plan to move forward need so we need to move forward. I think that is one thing and as far as the companies. Ill take that for the record and i guarantee you will come up with a big in that time. Thank you mister chairman thank you, mr. Chairman for the additional time. That brings us to the end of the hearing gentlemen. Ithstanding whatever questions we had and the comments made. We support the work you do. We appreciate the work you do. We can differ on one issue or try to work it out. Butagain, as i look up by an last year in congress, im proud of the fact that i was able to deal with issues that ordinarily people would think i was stereotypically not capable of dealing with and supporting it as other things. And at the same time looking out or the guy and the woman who re are paying rent for the apartment and having trouble paying their mortgage. So, all of those folks that are writing on twitter newspaper clippings while were sitting here saying that i just killed the mission, i dont have that kind of power. I didnt kill the mission. I just asked some questions that need to be ask before we move forward are not. So i thank you for your work and if you want a list of people that you want to send to space all that you know that im capable of doing that. Send all the houston astros. [laughter] but anyway, i sincerely thank you for coming in today for participating and i thank you for your input and making sure we have this hearing. Thank you so much. Thank you, chairman. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions Copyright National<\/a> cable satellite corp. 2019] cspan hosts a conversation next week with some of the republican candidates mounting primary challenges to President Trump<\/a> along with your questions. Thats live friday night starting at 8 00 eastern on cspan. Google and red did officials testified before two house energy, and sub Commerce Committee<\/a> regarding consumer protections. They repost third party material. Heres the twohour portion. You can watch the entire hearing at cspan. Org. The committee will now the committee will come to order. The chair recognizes the consult for an opening statement. Online content moderation has enabled the internet experience we know today whether its looking up restaurant reviews on yelp, catching up on s. N. L. On youtube or checking in on a friend on social media. These are experiences that we come to rely on. And the platform has","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia803104.us.archive.org\/35\/items\/CSPAN_20191021_055500_House_Appropriations_Hearing_on_NASAs_Moon_Landing_Budget\/CSPAN_20191021_055500_House_Appropriations_Hearing_on_NASAs_Moon_Landing_Budget.thumbs\/CSPAN_20191021_055500_House_Appropriations_Hearing_on_NASAs_Moon_Landing_Budget_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240716T12:35:10+00:00"}