The subcommission come to order. I would like to welcome nasa administrator, jim bridenstine, and acting nasa associate administrator for human exploration and operations, kenneth bowersox, to the subcommittee. Earlier this year nasa commemorated the 50th anniversary of the landing on the moon, which remains the single most successful and Famous Mission in nasas history. Just a week before our cjs bill was marked up in subcommittee, nasa submitted a 1. 6 billion Budget Amendment that intended to start the effort to advance the return of humans to the moon by four years. Such little time prevented us from adequately considering the proposal. This hearing will give us an opportunity to obtain more information from nasa regarding its revised plans for returning to the moon. While all of us on this subcommittee would like to send the first woman astronaut into deep space, including to the surface of the moon, we want to do so in a responsible way, from the perspectives 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 provided nasa more than 22. 3 billion for fy 2020 in our house bill. However, i remain extremely concerned about the additional cost to accelerate the mission to the moon by four years. Some experts have said that additional Financial Resources needed to meet the administrationimposed 2024 deadline could exceed 25 billion over the next five years, compared to the original 2028 schedule. To date, nasa has not provided the committee with a full cost estimate, despite repeated requests. At a time of huge financial needs across numerous Government Programs all competing for funding within the budget caps, an additional 25 billion cost would severely impact vital programs not only under this subcommittee, but across all nondefense subcommittees. Another concern that i have is the lack of a serious justification for such a cost increase. Since nasa had already programmed the Lunar Landing mission for 2028, why does it suddenly 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. To a lot of members, the motivation appears to be just a political one, giving President Trump a moon landing in 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, who is a former astronaut and here with us today, referred to the 2024 moon landing date as difficult to achieve in a house science hearing last month, saying quote i wouldnt bet my oldest childs birthday present or anything like that. Additionally, nasas manager for the human landing system, lisa watsonmorgan, was quoted in an article about the timing of the mission saying, this is a significant deviation for nasa and the government. All of this has to be done on the fast. It has to be done on the quick. Typically, in the past, nasa is quite methodical, which is good. Were going to have to have an abbreviated approach to getting to approval for industry standards for design and construction, and how were going to go off and implement this. So this is a big paradigm shift, i would say, for the entire nasa community, too. We cannot sacrifice quality just to be quick. We cannot sacrifice safety to be fast. And we cannot sacrifice other Government Programs just to please the president. Before asking for such a substantial additional investment, nasa needs to be prepared to state unequivocally which Nasa Missions will be delayed or even cancelled in the effort to come up with an additional 25 billion. Overall, i remain extremely concerned by the proposed advancement by four years of this mission. The eyes of the world are upon us. We cannot afford to fail. Therefore, i believe that it is better to use the original nasa schedule of 2028 in order to have a successful, safe, and costeffective mission for the benefit of the American People and the world. Thank you once again, administrator bridenstine and acting associate administrator bowersox, for joining us today, and i look forward to hearing your testimony. Now, i would like to recognize at this time my good friend, the Ranking Member, mr. Aderholt, for any opening remarks that he may have. Thank you for yielding, mr. Chairman, and first of all i want to thank you for your leadership on this subcommittee, your willingness to have hearings throughout the year. But in particular for this hearing. Regardless of party labels, the house of representatives will miss your leadership, your professionalism and your kindness and we look forward to working with you of course for the rest of this congress and we have a long way to go. We know youre not leaving yet but i would be remiss if i didnt mention that this morning. Morning. I also appreciate the Ranking Member granger being here and for engagement with these issues. Issues. She put a lot of hard work and expertise in the defense issues and on the space issues both artistic and her state and for the country. Your i would like to express my gratitude to the president and the Vice President for taking a real active interest in nasa. Compared to other agency, represents a very small part of the National Budget but, which continues to serve the dreams come true the ambitions of the entire nation, especially young people. That is evident when i go into school and have a chance to talk about things related to space and everyone is there is still very interested in it as ever. Mr. Administrator, mr. Bowersox, thank you both for being here today and i strongly support the president school to land the first woman and the next minute on the moon in 2024 and in support of that goal i believe we owe it to the taxpayer into the nation to make sure the Program Remains focused. However, to make it to the moon by 2024, nasa will need sustained congressional investment and taxpayer support. The Artemis Program cannot afford to suffer the kinds of delays, the setbacks and the cost overturned which it somehow become known as business as usual in our space program. On the contrary, the artemis there is supposed to be characterized by unparallel accountability and agility. Today i will have questions regarding whether nasa is still committed to getting to the man by any means necessary. As an Ardent Supporter of deep Space Exploration and also as physically conservative on concern nasa could undercut its flexibility and incur unnecessary cost by forgoing opportunities to leverage existing assets and attempt to simultaneously foster a commercial space economy. Director brydon stank of this past march 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, not the mission. I couldnt agree more. The administrations ambitious but critically important 2024 moon plan will be the ultimate test of nasas judgment and its accountability. Finally, the rockets and the capsules and the transfer vehicles and the same landing systems must above all these systems which okeefe astronauts alive during the mission and bring the back to earth safely. As a nation and parks on complex new deep space endeavors with unprecedented private sector involvement, safety must be our number one priority. Nasas ability to ensure safety in the commercial crew program will be a bellwether and i appreciate the administrators comments noting that commercial crew program must receive the contractor attention it deserves. So again i thank you both for being here today. Its an honor for us to have you here before our subcommittee, and thank you mr. Chairman, trolling this ring today and at this time i yield back. Thank you for your kind comments. We are honored this morning to our Ranking Member with us, a a person that i respect a lot any person i will remember for a litigation with people in such a friendly and professional way, and bipartisan way. Ms. Granger. Thank you. Thank you, chairman, thank you, Ranking Member aderholt, thank you for holding the steering and also for your attention to space and your involvement. Im old enough, i remember space programs, everyone sitting at the television, black and White Television and watching it. It was good for america and it was good for all of us. Welcome administrator bridenstine and welcome mr. Bowersox. Thank you for your stewardship the National Aeronautics and space administration. Its important to all americans and our nation Space Exploration goals. In march your agency was challenged with returning astronauts to the surface of the moon within the next five years. I strongly support this accelerated 2024 goal and Artemis Program, probably named after apollo twin sister. Sending american astronauts include first woman to the south pole of the moon which showcase the Global Leadership and technological advances of the United States will also enhance our National Security allowing us to establish strategic presence on the moon. Our nation is facing a serious threats in space specifically from china. I have classified briefings that would shock any reasonable person and a clergy made the case we must accelerate the Artemis Program. Its my advocacy for Artemis Program to solidify their money about chinas capabilities and the 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 the chinese and other near peer adversaries. Space i believe is the next high ground and we have to take it. The decision to accelerate our nations return 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, we recognize you have a tough job ahead of you and committed to working with you to ensure that nasa can advance our nations expiration priorities effectively and a sufficient as possible about four to working the chairwoman, and Ranking Member on funding for nasa programs as if appropriate process. I yield back. Thank you. Before i ask the administrator for his comments, people who know me would want whats wrong with the if i dont give a shout out here. We spent a lot of time in a city of washington, its like a second to all of us, so shadow to the nationals for pulling out the upset of the century. People thought they couldnt do it, should be a lesson to all of us. Just keep trying and you can pull it off. I can only get the yankees to turnaround against houston. Anyway, mr. Administrator, five minutes. Well include your full statement, in the record, so please go ahead. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Before i became the nascent administrator, the president had issued space policy directive one, and that direction was to go to the moon, to go sustainably, to go with commercial partners and International Partners, 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 support. Its air to breathe. Its water to drink. Its in fact, rocket propellant. Hydrogen is the same rocket fuel that will power the space launch system, the same rocket overpowered the space shuttles. Were 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 at the moon and go to mars. That was all in the president s first space policy directive. When i became the nasa administrator we put together a plan. Given our current budget what will it take to achieve this . We came up with a plan as you identified that put us on the moon in 2028, if budgets remained fairly constant. The challenge that we have as a nation is that the longer programs go, the more Political Risk that we have. And when you look back in history, we look back to the th9 90s, the space expiration initiative. It took decades in time and eventually got canceled. We look at the vision for space expiration in the early 2000, gena took many, many years and it eventually got canceled. And so the question is how do we reduce risk . Theres two types, tactical risk and Political Risk. The Political Risk, its not partisan. Its just when programs go too long, people start losing confidence and then money gets redirected to other places. One of the reasons to go fast, and i heard you very clearly say slow and methodical. Methodical yes. Mass is all about doing things step by step by step in building on one lesson after another. What we try to change as a culture is that we are sloping we dont want to be slow. I think going fast, makes sure well have successes. I also think that by going fast we put ourselves in a position to lead the world. Right now with International Partners, 15 of them are with us on the International Space station. Weve had astronauts from 19 Different Countries on the International Space station, and weve had experienced from 103 Different Countries on the International Space station. The china is moving fast and theyre going to the moon. The last time they landed on the monkey landed on the far side of the moon. I was in the beginning of this year. They landed with a small probe, and it was the first time in Human History anyone had landed on the far side of the moon. It took out a twopage ad in the economist magazine and a very clear that they are the world leader in Space Exploration and ever in the world should partner with them. I think thats the wrong position. We have Political Risk that we need to deal with. Its Political Risk for him programs taking too long, from which you political standpoint, making sure our partner with us and not within. Those are Important Reasons to move faster. But we do not want to take any undue risk. We do not want to put into life at stake but i can tell you the history of nasa might be a little more slow than what is necessary, and we are changing the organization, as Ranking Member aderholt said. If we cant land on the moon within five years, we need to change the organization. And i believe that with all my heart, and ill tell you why. Because in the 1960s president kennedy announced, 1962 at Rice University announced we would land on the moon before the decade without. At the time we didnt have the Johnson Space center. We didnt understand the orbital dynamics of going to the moon. We didnt have the lodge facilities. We didnt have rocket they could get to the moon. We didnt have any of these capabilities that currently we now have to our advantage. They had to go from scratch. They didnt have the miniaturization of electronics or the ability to store power in smaller quantities. They didnt have the ability to reuse rockets and do all of these other things that are on the cusp of change and we do space flight. So if we cant do today within five years when they did it within eight years and 27 years back in the 60s, i think we do need to change how we do things. It is important we go faster. I heard the Ranking Member say we need to leverage existing Asset Recovery go fast, if you want to land on the moon in 2024 which would want to do, and fats, they said if we wanted to go fast, how fast can we do it . 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. What we are asking for in the budget request is to give us an option to make going fast a possibility. So i think these are all important things that we need to talk about today, and chairman, appreciate you having to suing, Ranking Member aderholt i appreciate your comments as well try and look for to answering any questions. Thank you. We will now begin the first round of questions with each member will receive five minutes. The Appropriations Committee has repeatedly asked for information regarding the additional costs of moving the moon mission up by four years. To date we receive no response. Its hard to justify any extra spending on this effort in the current fiscal year when we dont know the cost down the road. What is the additional costs associate with moving up the schedule for the next moon landing by four years from 2028 that 2024 . Can you break t