are very 10 important for attracting the young people's 11 interest to space. 12 The ISS international management 13 structure has already demonstrated its success. 14 It would make sense to apply this experience to 15 other big international projects. 16 7. How would you characterize the 17 Russian obligations and that of the U.S. to the 18 ISS in terms of its operational life? 19 The main tasks of Russia and the U.S. 20 at this point are as follows: 21 Maintenance of operation of the ISS 22 Russian and U.S. Segments for implementation of 96 1 the national programs of space experiments and 2 research; 3 Fulfillment of mutual obligations 4 under existing international arrangements; 5 Maintenance of ground infrastructure 6 for the ISS nominal operation; 7 Transportation and technical provision 8 of the ISS according to the agreements achieved 9 with NASA in view of the Shuttle retirement in 10 2010; 11 Participation in managing the ISS 12 program (the ISS coordination boards and 13 groups); 14 Provision of the ISS efficient 15 utilization. 16 We believe that the Unites States, as 17 the main coordinator of the project, will 18 promote stable and planned implementation of the 19 ISS program, including the transportation and 20 technical provision of the station, the required 21 conditions for the crew presence onboard, 22 improvement of the station control structure, 97 1 etc. 2 8. How does ISS and its extension past 3 2015 connect to Russia's future plans for human 4 and robotic exploration beyond low-Earth orbit? 5 By the end of the ISS life cycle 6 Roscosmos plans to develop and prepare for 7 operation the first elements of the orbital 8 assembly experimental piloted space complex 9 which will become a basis for engineering 10 development for future human missions to Mars 11 beyond 2030. 12 It is impossible to create such a 13 complex without a preliminary testing of its 14 elements in space and verification of 15 engineering solutions and technologies. 16 The ISS operation experience 17 demonstrates that the station utilization allows 18 to solve the unique tasks of extending the life 19 of both the station elements and the automatic 20 space instruments (space telescopes, etc) in 21 autonomous flight. This adds another good 22 argument in favor of the ISS program extension 98 1 till 2020 and beyond. 10:50:36 2 (Whereupon, the typewritten version of 10:50:36 3 General Perminov's comments concluded.) 10:50:36 4 GENERAL PERMINOV: Thank you very much 10:50:36 5 for your attention. 11:12:54 6 MR. McALISTER: Thank you, 11:12:54 7 Mr. Perminov. Our chairman had to step out for 11:12:56 8 a moment. So we have a couple of minutes until 11:12:59 9 our next presentation. We're making a few 11:13:02 10 adjustments on the fly. 11:13:05 11 But for now, if any of the committee 11:13:07 12 members have any questions for Mr. Perminov or 11:13:09 13 Mr. Dordain, if he is still there, now is the 11:13:13 14 time. 11:13:17 15 And we also have our head of 11:13:17 16 international relations at NASA Mike O'Brien -- 11:13:18 17 I think I saw him in the audience. So if we 11:13:19 18 have any questions for Mike, he can address 11:13:22 19 those now as well. 11:13:25 20 We are just waiting on 11:13:26 21 Representative Hall who is at Mass and Third, 11:13:29 22 I'm told, on his way. 11:13:32 99 1 So for the committee members, any 11:13:34 2 questions for -- okay. 11:13:36 3 Oh, go ahead, Chris. 11:13:40 4 MR. CHYBA: Mr. Perminov, could you 11:13:45 5 tell us a bit more about how experience using 11:13:47 6 the station in orbital construction is or is not 11:13:51 7 crucial to your plans for the orbital assembly 11:13:57 8 of the space complex? 11:13:59 9 GENERAL PERMINOV: I would like to 11:15:16 10 note that the program over developing the newer 11:15:17 11 crew transportation vehicle is linked to the 11:15:20 12 International Space Station program, and their 11:15:25 13 link is mostly financial, because we will design 11:15:28 14 the new space transportation vehicle taking into 11:15:32 15 account all our obligations out of the ISS 11:15:36 16 program. 11:15:39 17 (Discussion off the record.) 11:15:51 18 MR. McALISTER: The question is -- is 11:15:51 19 Jean-Jacques Dordain still with us, because we 11:15:55 20 have a question for him? 11:16:00 21 GOVERNOR DORDAIN: Yes. Go ahead. I 11:16:02 22 am here. 11:16:10 100 1 DR. CRAWLEY: Mr. Dordain, this is Ed 11:16:18 2 Crawley, a member of the panel. I was very 11:16:21 3 interested in your comments about the need to 11:16:24 4 consider utilization of space assets and their 11:16:26 5 development in parallel. Of course, you made 11:16:30 6 this comment with respect to the development of 11:16:33 7 the ISS. 11:16:37 8 But I wonder if you could comment a 11:16:39 9 little bit more in general about how you might 11:16:41 10 see developments going forward in such a way 11:16:46 11 that they did not rely on a long period of 11:16:50 12 development before a period of utilization. 11:16:55 13 GOVERNOR DORDAIN: What I said is -- 11:17:01 14 again, the lessons learned coming from the ISS, 11:17:05 15 yes, as I said, pushing back the utilization at 11:17:08 16 the end of something complete is a problem, and 11:17:15 17 that's been a problem to keep the attractiveness 11:17:16 18 of the Space Station to the user communities. 11:17:23 19 In my view, if we could have done -- but, again, 11:17:27 20 as I said, the scenario which has been chosen 11:17:29 21 is -- has been chosen after the Columbia 11:17:36 22 tragedy, and taking into account the resected 11:17:39 101 1 number of federal flags that are left, maybe it 11:17:43 2 was not possible to do differently. 11:17:47 3 But in an ideal case where we could 11:17:49 4 have selected an optimal sequence, in my view, 11:17:54 5 we should have chosen to -- a scenario where we 11:18:02 6 could have started utilization of the Space 11:18:06 7 Station much earlier, taking benefit of the 11:18:13 8 first laboratories which have been launched, and 11:18:15 9 that would have required separate launches 11:18:19 10 dedicated to utilization before launches 11:18:26 11 dedicated to assembly. And that was not 11:18:29 12 possible. So this is the lessons learned from 11:18:32 13 the Space Station. 11:18:34 14 Now, for any future endeavor, 11:18:35 15 including now exploration, our interest is to 11:18:38 16 make sure that we shall not spend 10 to 15 years 11:18:44 17 just to build the infrastructure and to tell the 11:18:49 18 users -- in part, you know, the scientists -- 11:18:53 19 that they have to wait for 15 years before 11:18:57 20 having a chance to use that infrastructure. 11:19:01 21 So we have to have a plan which, as I 11:19:04 22 said, should include much softer milestone and 11:19:06 102 1 include also a utilization program at the 11:19:15 2 very -- at the earliest stage of the development 11:19:18 3 of a lunar base. 11:19:22 4 So, now, it may be simple to be said 11:19:23 5 and maybe more difficult to be accommodated. I 11:19:29 6 think that the five partners should work 11:19:36 7 together to make sure that we are able to 11:19:37 8 associate the user communities as early as 11:19:41 9 possible in the development of a new lunar base 11:19:45 10 or whatever endeavor that we are making 11:19:49 11 together. 11:19:52 12 DR. CRAWLEY: Thank you. 11:19:56 13 MR. AUGUSTINE: I think we should not 11:19:58 14 impose anymore on your time, but on behalf of 11:20:00 15 those of us here in America, let us thank both 11:20:03 16 of you for your willingness to share your 11:20:10 17 thoughts with us. 11:20:12 18 We look forward to having an 11:20:12 19 opportunity to visit with you again as we get 11:20:14 20 further into our work. And should you have 11:20:17 21 anything additional that either of you would 11:20:20 22 like us to be aware of, we would certainly 11:20:22 103 1 welcome any contact. 11:20:25 2 So, again, thank you very much, and we 11:20:26 3 hope you have a very nice day, both of you. 11:20:28 4 GENERAL PERMINOV: Thank you. 11:20:32 5 GOVERNOR DORDAIN: Thank you very 11:20:33 6 much. And, again, we are at your disposal for 11:20:34 7 anything that you would like to get from us. At 11:20:38 8 least I am speaking as ESA, but I am sure that 11:20:42 9 Mr. Perminov will say the same. 11:20:44 10 MR. AUGUSTINE: Very good. Well, 11:20:48 11 thank you. 11:20:50 12 MR. McALISTER: Mr. Chair, a couple of 11:20:54 13 quick comments. 11:20:55 14 MR. AUGUSTINE: Sure. 11:20:56 15 MR. McALISTER: As I said, we're 11:20:58 16 moving things around a little bit on the fly. 11:20:59 17 We all know the cliche that rocket science is 11:20:59 18 hard. Well, running a meeting on rocket science 11:21:03 19 is also hard. We've hit our first glitch -- 11:21:05 20 MR. AUGUSTINE: I could note that we 11:21:08 21 get images from Mars quite well. 11:21:10 22 MR. McALISTER: Yeah. Good point. 11:21:10 104 1 MR. AUGUSTINE: But I won't. 11:21:12 2 MR. McALISTER: With respect to the 11:21:14 3 congressional hour, the leadership of the NASA 11:21:16 4 authorization committees were invited to address 11:21:19 5 the panel and/or submit information related to 11:21:22 6 the human space flight provisions of the NASA 11:21:25 7 Authorization Acts of 2004 and 2008. 11:21:29 8 Unfortunately due to the press of congressional 11:21:32 9 business, a number of the members were unable to 11:21:36 10 appear in person. 11:21:39 11 The panel would like to acknowledge 11:21:40 12 that the following members will be submitting 11:21:41 13 statements to the Committee for their 11:21:41 14 consideration: Congressman Bart Gordon, 11:21:43 15 chairman of the House Science and Technology 11:21:46 16 Committee; Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, ranking 11:21:48 17 member of the Senate Commerce, Science and 11:21:52 18 Technology Committee; and Senator David Vitter, 11:21:53 19 ranking member of the Senate Science and Space 11:21:56 20 Subcommittee. 11:22:00 21 In addition, Congressman Hall, the 11:22:02 22 ranking member of the House Science and 11:22:05 105 1 Technology Committee, has submitted a statement 11:22:07 2 that's going to be read by the Congressman Pete 11:22:09 3 Olson, the ranking member of the House Space and 11:22:11 4 Aeronautics Committee. So we welcome 11:22:13 5 Representative Hall, and we're ready for his 11:22:16 6 presentation. 11:22:18 7 And then following Representative 11:22:20 8 Hall's statement, we are expecting Senator Bill 11:22:21 9 Nelson, chairman of the Senate Science and Space 11:22:23 10 Subcommittee, to also address the panel at 11:22:24 11 approximately 11:45. 11:22:27 12 So amazingly we're kind of back on 11:22:29 13 schedule. 11:22:32 14 So Representative Olson... 11:22:33 15 CONGRESSMAN OLSON: Well, thank you 11:22:40 16 very much. It's a tremendous honor and an 11:22:42 17 opportunity to speak before you. And just to 11:22:46 18 show you, we're going to throw you another 11:22:46 19 little curve ball. Ken Monroe from 11:22:49 20 Congressman Ralph Hall's staff is going to read 11:22:50 21 his statement, and I'm going to give a very 11:22:52 22 brief statement myself. 11:22:55 106 1 But thank y'all for coming today. 11:22:57 2 Mr. Augustine and Members of the Review Panel, 11:23:00 3 thank you for the opportunity to speak today. 11:23:00 4 I was pleased when the Administration 11:23:02 5 announced the members of this panel. It's an 11:23:04 6 incredibly, incredibly successful and 11:23:07 7 well-respected panel, and we look forward to 11:23:10 8 your work. You all bring different expertise to 11:23:13 9 the task, and I look forward to working with you 11:23:17 10 during your review as well as afterwards in 11:23:20 11 response to your recommendations. 11:23:20 12 As I'm sure you're aware, your work is 11:23:21 13 being closely watched within the space 11:23:24 14 community, in the media and, particularly where 11:23:28 15 I work, on Capitol Hill. 11:23:31 16 NASA and Human Space Flight have 11:23:33 17 bipartisan support on the Hill, but 11:23:36 18 unfortunately too many of my colleagues are 11:23:37 19 unfamiliar with the challenges facing our Human 11:23:37 20 Space Flight program. Members and staff are 11:23:42 21 going to give tremendous weight to your findings 11:23:44 22 with respect to the future that NASA should be 11:23:47 107 1 taking. I know you take this responsibility 11:23:50 2 seriously, and I know you understand the 11:23:53 3 influence your review will wield. 11:23:55 4 I understand you'll be headed to 11:23:58 5 Houston, the Johnson Space Center, in late July, 11:24:01 6 and I look forward to welcoming you. The 11:24:03 7 Johnson Space Center is the lead space center, 11:24:06 8 as you know, for Constellation. The 11:24:09 9 Constellation systems and the Ares V heavy-lift 11:24:09 10 launch vehicle holds the promise of returning 11:24:14 11 America to exploring the Moon. 11:24:16 12 The Congress has endorsed that plan 11:24:18 13 since 2005, and NASA has had a remarkably stable 11:24:20 14 direction for the last several years. Our 11:24:26 15 problem has not been a lack of vision. It's 11:24:28 16 been a lack of commitment. 11:24:31 17 I'm proud to represent Texas, but my 11:24:33 18 concerns are not limited to my home state. The 11:24:36 19 United States is the global leader in aerospace. 11:24:38 20 Aerospace is one of our most successful export 11:24:41 21 markets and the driver of much of our new 11:24:46 22 technology. 11:24:49 108 1 For the past six months that I've been 11:24:50 2 in Congress, we have decried the loss of 11:24:53 3 prestigious industries that were once dominated 11:24:55 4 by American companies. I believe it's good 11:24:58 5 policy to foster the creation of good paying 11:25:01 6 jobs, and we have worked to establish 11:25:04 7 educational initiatives to promote a technical 11:25:07 8 and highly skilled workforce. Human space 11:25:09 9 flight provides all of those things. 11:25:13 10 Y'all know this. And I hope that 11:25:15 11 these points will be reiterated in your 11:25:18 12 findings. 11:25:22 13 Most of us who follow the space 11:25:23 14 program know the impending problems. But there 11:25:26 15 are other members of mine on Capitol Hill who 11:25:29 16 will soon be asking why we don't have our own 11:25:31 17 independent access to the Space Station that's 11:25:34 18 been primarily funded by the American taxpayer. 11:25:36 19 The American public will ask why are we paying 11:25:41 20 the Russians as much as $50 million to take our 11:25:41 21 astronauts to the Space Station. Others will 11:25:45 22 ask why we didn't accelerate the development of 11:25:48 109 1 Constellation to narrow the gap following the 11:25:50 2 retirement of the space shuttle. 11:25:50 3 And as we all know, the gap will be 11:25:54 4 very damaging to our aerospace workforce. The 11:25:57 5 job losses are real, and they are jobs we're not 11:26:00 6 going to easily get back. As our economy 11:26:04 7 struggles to rebound, this kind of job loss will 11:26:07 8 not be ignored. It should not happen under any 11:26:11 9 circumstance, but I'm just reiterating the 11:26:14 10 context of the work you're undertaking. 11:26:15 11 NASA and our Human Space Flight 11:26:18 12 program, as we all know, we're at one of the 11:26:22 13 crossroads. 11:26:23 14 In 1962 before I was born, John F. 11:26:25 15 Kennedy stood on the football stadium at my 11:26:29 16 alma mater, Rice University, and we were at one 11:26:32 17 of those crossroads there and he gave us 11:26:34 18 direction, that we'd go back to the Moon -- or 11:26:36 19 we'd go to the Moon by the end of the decade. 11:26:39 20 We faced another time in the late 11:26:42 21 '60s, early '70s when we were trying to figure 11:26:44 22 out what we were going to do after the Apollo 11:26:46 110 1 missions, and President Nixon put us on a course 11:26:51 2 to develop the space shuttle, which led to the 11:26:53 3 Space Station. 11:26:54 4 And now we're at another such time. 11:26:55 5 No entity in this whole debate is going to have 11:26:58 6 a bigger say than this commission. 11:27:03 7 I wish this panel the best, and I look 11:27:05 8 forward to working with you. If there's 11:27:08 9 anything I can do to help, please let me know, 11:27:10 10 because we must maintain our preeminence as the 11:27:12 11 leader in human space flight. 11:27:15 12 And I thank you, again, for the 11:27:18 13 opportunity to speak with you and, again, wish 11:27:19 14 you well and look forward to seeing you down in 11:27:22 15 Houston. Thank you. 11:27:24 16 MR. AUGUSTINE: Well, thank you very 11:27:26 17 much and thanks for your leadership on this 11:27:27 18 whole topic and I've appreciated the chances 11:27:29 19 we've had to speak in the past about this. So 11:27:32 20 we will be doing our best. 11:27:35 21 CONGRESSMAN OLSON: Yes, sir. Balls 11:27:39 22 and strikes. We'll take care of the politics. 11:27:41 111 1 MR. AUGUSTINE: Okay. Thank you. 11:27:43 2 Very good. 11:27:45 3 MR. MONROE: Mr. Hall regrets that he 11:27:50 4 was not able to be here today, but I do have a 11:27:52 5 statement that I'll read. And we would like the 11:27:53 6 opportunity to submit more information for the 11:27:54 7 record. 8 (Whereupon, Mr. Monroe presented 9 Congressman Hall's comments as follows: 10 CONGRESSMAN HALL: I want to thank the 11 members of this committee for the important work 12 you are doing on behalf of the nation. I also 13 want to thank you for the opportunity to share 14 my views on the human space flight-related 15 policies of the NASA Authorization Acts of 2005 16 and 2008. The views expressed here are 17 primarily mine, but I know they are shared by a 18 number of my colleagues. 19 I think it is important to note that 20 the first authorization act of 2005, Public Law 21 109-155, was the product of a Republican-led 22 Congress and the second authorization act of 112 1 2008, Public Law 110-422, was the product of a 2 Democratically-led Congress. Yet, in both cases 3 the intent was the same, to enable NASA to 4 succeed on its current path toward completion of 5 the International Space Station, utilize the 6 station to carry out world-class research, 7 retire the space shuttle after completing its 8 remaining flights without the constraint of a 9 predetermined date and develop a new launch 10 system capable of taking humans beyond low Earth 11 orbit -- a feat the shuttle cannot do -- for the 12 first time since the 1970s. 13 In both of our authorizations we 14 allocated more money than the Administration 15 requested because, in our opinion, NASA was 16 being asked to do too much with too little. I 17 am concerned that we cannot continue to be a 18 preeminent space-faring nation without adequate 19 Administration support and appropriate funding. 20 One of the most important issues 21 facing NASA -- and, indeed, our nation -- is the 22 impending retirement of the space shuttle and 113 1 the subsequent five-year gap in independent U.S. 2 access to the $100 billion International Space 3 Station. 4 With the NASA Authorization Act of 5 2005, Congress endorsed the development of the 6 new spacecraft and launch vehicles -- and I 7 stress "launch vehicles" plural -- with the goal 8 of launching the new system, quote, as close to 9 2010 as possible, unquote. 10 In the NASA Authorization Act of 2008, 11 Congress established the new system as a 12 priority by stating, quote, developing the 13 United States human space flight capabilities to 14 allow independent American access to the 15 International Space Station and to explore 16 beyond low Earth orbit is a strategically 17 important national imperative, emphasis added, 18 and all prudent steps should, thus, be taken to 19 bring the Orion crew exploration vehicle and 20 Ares I crew launch vehicle to full operational 21 capability as soon as possible and to ensure the 22 effective development of a U.S. heavy-lift 114 1 launch capabilities for missions beyond low 2 Earth orbit, unquote. As a result, the act 3 sought to accelerate the development of the new 4 system by authorizing an additional $1 billion 5 in FY 2009. 6 Looking longer term, we are very 7 concerned that the current budget request has 8 eliminated funding for the Ares V heavy-lift 9 launcher, and the Altair lunar lander, without 10 which America is unable to explore beyond low 11 Earth orbit. 12 The NASA Authorization Act of 2008 13 also recognized the space shuttle's critical 14 role in completing and utilizing the 15 International Space Station and added one 16 additional mission, if it could be done safely, 17 to deliver the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer. 18 As authorizers, we are concerned that 19 NASA may be unable to complete the remaining 20 shuttle missions, including the AMS flight, 21 before the end of 2010. Unless the 22 Administration and the Congress provide funds 115 1 commensurate with extension, the Agency could be 2 forced to take resources away from the 3 development of the Orion and Ares, adding delays 4 that could further jeopardize the 2015 5 availability and contribute to further losses of 6 our highly skilled aerospace workforce. 7 I, along with many of my colleagues, 8 am not in favor of excessive government 9 spending. But in this time of economic turmoil 10 and growing international technological 11 competitiveness, many of us are in agreement 12 that America's space program is well-established 13 on a path that, if sustained, will ensure our 14 role as the world leader in space exploration 15 and exploitation for decades to come. By 16 pursuing human space flight, we challenge our 17 industry and inspire America to dream big and 18 succeed. That is what leadership is all about. 19 Other countries recognize the 20 strategic importance of the soft power we gained 21 in the world through our audacious leadership in 22 human space flight. The political and 116 1 technological stature of America has been earned 2 through our space program has now sought -- is 3 now sought by other nations eager to demonstrate 4 their hard-won capabilities to the world. 5 The International Space Station in 6 orbit today is a remarkable achievement, 7 bringing together the scientific and engineering 8 talents and resources of many nations. That 9 achievement would not have been possible without 10 American leadership. But such leadership is 11 built on trust that we will keep our commitments 12 to our international partners. If we continue 13 to underfund our space program, we risk losing 14 the international trust and credibility that is 15 vital for long-term success. 16 Today nearly 70 percent of the world's 17 population was not alive to see Neil Armstrong 18 walk on the Moon. Their opinions will be shaped 19 by what happens in the future, not what has 20 happened in the past. 21 We should not be in a race with China 22 or any other country. We are the preeminent 117 1 leader in space. But leadership is temporary. 2 We should ensure that we take the necessary 3 actions to remain the leader in human space 4 flight. 5 I want to thank the committee, once 6 again, for this opportunity to share our 7 minority views. 10:50:36 8 (Whereupon, the presentation of 10:50:36 9 Congressman Hall's comments concluded.) 10:50:36 10 MR. MUNROE: Thank you. 11:33:44 11 MR. AUGUSTINE: Thank you very much 11:33:44 12 for reading that, and please express our 11:33:45 13 appreciation for the letter itself. 11:33:49 14 MR. MONROE: Will do. Thank you. 11:33:52 15 MR. AUGUSTINE: Good. Is Senator 11:33:53 16 Nelson here yet, do we know? 11:33:58 17 MR. McALISTER: I don't think so. He 11:34:02 18 is on his way. 11:34:04 19 MR. AUGUSTINE: Let's see. We were 11:34:06 20 getting a letter from Senator Kay Bailey 11:34:07 21 Hutchison. Has that shown up? 11:34:12 22 MR. McALISTER: No. They're going to 11:34:16 118 1 be submitting those sometime this week. 11:34:18 2 (Discussion off the record.) 11:34:27 3 MR. AUGUSTINE: Well, somehow we're 11:34:27 4 ahead of schedule here. I think what we can... 11:34:29 5 (Discussion off the record.) 11:34:33 6 MR. AUGUSTINE: We can start the 11:34:33 7 public comment session early, and then we'll -- 11:34:38 8 when Senator Nelson gets here, we'll break and 11:34:42 9 hear his remarks. 11:34:47 10 MR. McALISTER: Mr. Chairman, I've got 11:34:49 11 some public comment information that we can go 11:34:49 12 to and show on the screen before we pull 11:34:53 13 everybody up. 11:35:00 14 MR. AUGUSTINE: Why don't you just 11:35:00 15 handle the public comment session here yourself. 11:34:57 16 MR. McALISTER: Okay. 11:34:49 17 MR. AUGUSTINE: Let's ask everyone to 11:35:00 18 hold their comments to three minutes out of 11:35:03 19 fairness to others who would like to comment. 11:35:07 20 We have microphones, I think, in both aisles. 11:35:07 21 (Discussion off the record.) 11:35:13 22 MR. McALISTER: I just wanted 11:35:13 119 1 acknowledge some of the comments that we 11:35:15 2 received via the website. We went live on the 11:35:16 3 website on June 1st, and as of June 15th, we had 11:35:21 4 almost 300 comments telling us what to do and 11:35:25 5 how to do our work. So it was very much 11:35:27 6 appreciated, and that was a very -- it was an 11:35:29 7 excellence response, and all of those comments 11:35:30 8 and suggestions are getting read. 11:35:32 9 Again, the website location is 11:35:34 10 http://hsf.nasa.gov. You don't need the www. 11:35:38 11 Anyway, you can see the pie chart 11:35:44 12 there. That's the breakdown of the comments 11:35:46 13 grouped by subject matter. 11:35:50 14 Constellation received about 11:35:52 15 10 percent of the comments. The comments were 11:35:54 16 mixed as to keeping the projects and some 11:35:56 17 suggesting canceling them. Most that were for 11:35:59 18 keeping them asked that it be used to fill the 11:36:03 19 gap between the shuttle and the next vehicle. 11:36:04 20 And those that were recommending canceling these 11:36:06 21 projects mostly discussed the cost and potential 11:36:09 22 unreliability. 11:36:11 120 1 Shuttle. The shuttle comments were 11:36:13 2 overwhelmingly in favor of continuing the 11:36:17 3 shuttle. The reasons fell into three groups 11:36:19 4 primarily -- keeping ahead of the world in space 11:36:23 5 travel, concern that we would lose the drive or 11:36:26 6 ability to return to space and lack of 11:36:29 7 competence in follow-on programs. 11:36:31 8 Budget Concerns, another frequent 11:36:34 9 topic. Most of the comments showed an interest 11:36:36 10 in increasing the budget for human space flight 11:36:36 11 or a concern in the recent cut in the NASA 11:36:39 12 budget that was announced on the House side 11:36:43 13 recently. We got a lot of -- we got a spike in 11:36:46 14 comments right after that was done. 11:36:48 15 The Moon comments stressed the need to 11:36:49 16 reach the Moon again. Most of the comments on 11:36:53 17 the Moon were in favor of that. Also mentioning 11:36:54 18 the need for a base of some sort to allow for 11:36:55 19 either mining or solar power collection. 11:36:59 20 Mars. Most of the comments related to 11:37:01 21 Mars stressed the need to skip the Moon, go 11:37:03 22 straight to Mars or to have at least Mars as the 11:37:07 121 1 ultimate goal for human exploration. 11:37:10 2 Other Destinations. There was a 11:37:13 3 grab-bag of other destinations. Most of those 11:37:16 4 were sort of beyond Mars type destinations. 11:37:18 5 And then a number of science-related 11:37:22 6 comments ranging from not wanting to explore 11:37:24 7 space at all and focusing on Earth and Earth 11:37:27 8 research to -- using space exploration to 11:37:36 9 increase our technology here. Also concern that 11:37:36 10 space exploration would just be used as 11:37:39 11 political gain and not for actual science. So 11:37:39 12 there was a number of questions along those 11:37:43 13 lines. 11:37:44 14 And I pulled out some examples. These 11:37:45 15 were just mine that I thought were 11:37:47 16 representative of some of the comments. 11:37:49 17 Sending a man to the Moon again and on 11:37:50 18 to Mars has the value of growth of ideas and 11:37:50 19 enhances the spirit of the people. We have 11:37:53 20 failed as a people if we let the space program 11:37:56 21 go on without the human being stepping his foot 11:37:58 22 on another planet. With a U.S.-based commercial 11:38:00 122 1 manned launch industry now maturing, 11:38:04 2 Constellation would be the last man launcher 11:38:06 3 built by NASA. I hope the committee will 11:38:09 4 examine a new role for NASA as an enabling 11:38:13 5 industry for American space flight 11:38:15 6 entrepreneurs, launching men and materials to 11:38:17 7 LEO aboard commercial spacecraft, so it can 11:38:19 8 concentrate its resources on taking mankind back 11:38:22 9 to the Moon and beyond. 11:38:23 10 A comment from a NASA employee: I'm 11:38:26 11 an engineer working for NASA at KSC on 11:38:27 12 Constellation. I wanted to express my desire to 11:38:31 13 see specific recommendations and plans -- 11:38:32 14 specific recommendations and plans for this 11:38:34 15 study. I fear we may see the same old general 11:38:36 16 open-ended inspirational message, which has left 11:38:41 17 our agency adrift for far too long. We need to 11:38:41 18 have a firm idea about what our goals are and 11:38:45 19 how to achieve them. We need specifics. 11:38:47 20 And then the last one. I had to throw 11:38:49 21 this one out. 11:38:51 22 I just wanted to send a thank you note 11:38:51 123 1 to all of those on the panel. I trust you will 11:38:56 2 make the right decisions with regards to a fair 11:38:58 3 balance between human and robotic space flight 11:39:00 4 without making human space flight -- taking 11:39:00 5 human space flight from us completely. 11:39:04 6 So I definitely wanted to end on a 11:39:06 7 thank you to us. 11:39:09 8 And then just one other thought on the 11:39:10 9 website. We are encouraging a lot of 11:39:14 10 participation. We want you to visit the 11:39:17 11 website. We're also twittering on the website, 11:39:19 12 and as of June 15th, we had 721 followers, 11:39:22 13 which, I'm told, is a very good number. So keep 11:39:26 14 following us. 11:39:30 15 I think we have -- we are also 11:39:31 16 twittering some messages realtime from the 11:39:33 17 committee meeting. So when you get back to your 11:39:37 18 computer, check those. 11:39:41 19 Okay. Status on Senator Nelson? 11:39:42 20 MR. AUGUSTINE: Why don't we begin the 11:39:46 21 public comments. 11:39:48 22 Do you have a list of people who would 11:39:49 124 1 like to speak, or should we just ask folks to 11:39:51 2 come up? 11:39:53 3 MR. McALISTER: Right. Again, per my 11:39:55 4 comments this morning, please come up to one of 11:39:58 5 the two standing mics. We have one on both 11:39:59 6 sides. Please limit your comments to no more 11:40:01 7 than three minutes, and the preference is for 11:40:04 8 comments and not for questions. 11:40:07 9 Norman, go ahead and call them out as 11:40:07 10 you see them. 11:40:12 11 MR. AUGUSTINE: Let's see. Sir, we'll 11:40:12 12 begin on this side. Could you identify 11:40:16 13 yourself, please. 11:40:17 14 MR. CITIZEN: My is Greg Citizen. 11:40:18 15 And, first of all, thank you for doing this 11:40:21 16 important work. 11:40:23 17 My concern with going back to the Moon 11:40:23 18 is that we -- there is a lot of interest in the 11:40:26 19 vehicles and in technology but there's still not 11:40:29 20 a very clear idea, I think, in public about what 11:40:32 21 we're really going to do when we get there. 11:40:35 22 And especially given the idea of the 11:40:39 125 1 Moon as a stepping stone to future places, I 11:40:40 2 don't have a good sense that we have a real plan 11:40:43 3 in place, at least not publicly discussed, that 11:40:46 4 really addresses things like what are we going 11:40:48 5 to do, how are we going to develop things that 11:40:51 6 are going to make the Moon a good stepping 11:40:53 7 stone, what kinds of -- for example, 11:40:55 8 manufacturing on the Moon seems to be an 11:40:57 9 important part of using that as a stepping 11:41:00 10 stone, being able to produce things on the Moon. 11= :41:03 11 That doesn't seem to be coming up a lot. 11:41:06 12 So I would ask the committee to, 11:41:09 13 please, bear in mind also not just the 11:41:10 14 technologies that get us to the Moon but also 11:41:12 15 what are we going to do once we get there. 11:41:15 16 Because that's going to be a very important 11:41:18 17 role, I think, of anything in terms of trying to 11:41:21 18 sell this program and then trying to keep 11:41:22 19 forward momentum going. 11:41:24 20 Apollo petered our very quickly, in 11:41:27 21 part, because people got very used -- once we 11:41:28 22 got past the anticipation of getting to the 11:41:30 126 1 Moon, we got very used to seeing astronauts 11:41:33 2 against a gray background doing the 11:41:36 3 moment-to-moment work, and I think we need a 11:41:39 4 very good vision of what we're going to do on 11:41:42 5 the Moon if we're going to sustain that. 11:41:44 6 Thank you. 11:41:47 7 MR. AUGUSTINE: Thank you very much. 11:41:47 8 Sir... 11:41:47 9 MR. FITCH: Good morning. My name is 11:41:56 10 Osa Fitch, and I'm a private citizen of the 11:41:57 11 United States. 11:42:00 12 I would like to thank the committee 11:42:01 13 for this opportunity to provide input into your 11:42:03 14 view of the plans for U.S. Human Space Flight. 11:42:05 15 As an American taxpayer with a technical 11:42:07 16 background in aerospace, I care about the United 11:42:07 17 States' Human Space Flight programs on many, 11:42:13 18 many fronts. 11:42:13 19 I'd like to make two major points to 11:42:16 20 the committee. 11:42:18 21 First is that the vision for space 11:42:19 22 exploration, I believe, is fundamentally sound, 11:42:22 127 1 and as an underlying mission and rationale for 11:42:25 2 NASA's involvement in human space flight, I'd 11:42:30 3 like to see that continue. 11:42:32 4 Second, NASA's Constellation, program 11:42:33 5 as currently structured, is really on the path 11:42:35 6 to failure, I believe, and it will not achieve 11:42:35 7 the vision for space exploration and it's likely 11:42:39 8 to continue to fail until it is fundamentally 11:42:42 9 restructured. 11:42:44 10 Regarding the VSE, any United States 11:42:45 11 government Human Space Flight program needs to 11:42:48 12 be shaped such that it inspires all Americans 11:42:49 13 and it does not compete with commercial 11:42:52 14 enterprises. The VSE, with its focus on moving 11:42:57 15 beyond low Earth orbit operations, meets this 11:42:58 16 need in both of these areas. I support this 11:43:00 17 vision, and I believe that all Americans support 11:43:03 18 this vision if it can be executed in a cost 11:43:05 19 effective manner. 11:43:09 20 Human space flight also inspires 11:43:10 21 people all over the world. 11:43:13 22 Regarding NASA's Constellation 11:43:15 128 1 program, that are two basic problems that I 11:43:17 2 believe need to be addressed. 11:43:20 3 One, the system requirements have been 11:43:21 4 set in a manner that does not account for any of 11:43:22 5 the real-world constraints based by a 11:43:24 6 government-run Human Space Flight program. 11:43:27 7 The largest issue facing the country 11:43:28 8 at this point in history is the current economic 11:43:31 9 crisis. Any government-run Human Space Flight 11:43:32 10 program must operate in an environment of fixed 11:43:35 11 or declining real budgets. Picking arbitrary 11:43:36 12 mission requirements and then assuming that the 11:43:41 13 budget will be made available to develop 11:43:42 14 arbitrary systems to meet those requirements 11:43:45 15 is -- in a monolithic architecture is 11:43:47 16 unrealistic in the economic and financial 11:43:51 17 environment we face today. 11:43:53 18 Two, the Ares launcher development 11:43:55 19 program has basically run off the rails. It is 11:43:56 20 developing two all new and unaffordable launch 11:43:58 21 systems. The Ares I program, even if 11:44:02 22 successful, fundamentally duplicates existing 11:44:02 129 1 launcher capability without adding anything new 11:44:07 2 of value, but it does so at great cost to the 11:44:10 3 taxpayer and that cost is growing daily. 11:44:11 4 The technical limitations of the 11:44:14 5 Ares I launcher have had significant negative 11:44:16 6 impact on the other areas of the Constellation 11:44:20 7 program, particularly on the Orion spacecraft, 11:44:20 8 forcing multiple redesigns and the elimination 11:44:25 9 of many important spacecraft systems, including 11:44:27 10 safety features and reusability features. 11:44:29 11 The Ares V has grown into a rocket 11:44:32 12 with little commonality with Ares I and almost 11:44:35 13 no commonality at all with the existing space 11:44:36 14 shuttle system, including infrastructure. 11:44:38 15 Because Ares I and Ares V are two 11:44:41 16 different launchers, the flight rate for each 11:44:41 17 will be lower than if a single launcher were 11:44:43 18 used for both missions, driving up costs. 11:44:46 19 Because of the enormous size of the Ares V 11:44:49 20 launcher, its flight rate will be very low, 11:44:49 21 driving up costs for it yet even further. 11:44:53 22 MR. AUGUSTINE: Could I ask you to 11:44:56 130 1 wrap up, please. 11:44:57 2 MR. FISH: I'm wrapping up right now, 11:44:57 3 sir. 11:44:57 4 Okay. I'd like to make two points as 11:44:59 5 possible solutions. 11:45:02 6 One, switch to a capabilities-based 11:45:03 7 approach and leverage systems that already 11:45:05 8 exist, do it with minimum development to get to 11:45:07 9 an architecture that can be scaled and grown 11:45:11 10 over time. 11:45:12 11 You're going to hear several 11:45:14 12 presentations today, I believe, including EELV, 11:45:14 13 Direct, space shuttle side-mounted options. Any 11:45:15 14 of these may take that approach. I urge you to 11:45:19 15 give strong considerations to those. 11:45:22 16 Second, focus on cost as an 11:45:24 17 independent variable. We've got to understand 11:45:27 18 that we've got a fixed budget, take what we 11:45:28 19 have, put it together in a different way to 11:45:31 20 achieve a vision that can be grown over time. 11:45:33 21 I will go ahead and wrap it up here, 11:45:37 22 sir. Thank you very much. 11:45:39 131 1 MR. AUGUSTINE: Thank you very much. 11:45:40 2 Sir... 11:45:41 3 MR. FINGERHUT: Hi, my name is Henry 11:45:41 4 Fingerhut. I'm a student at Georgetown 11:45:43 5 University and an intern with the NASA Academy 11:45:43 6 program. 11:45:46 7 I guess I had more of, I guess, an 11:45:47 8 open-ended -- or, I guess, more nebulous per se 11:45:49 9 question, but given -- or a comment. But given 11:45:52 10 the trend of, I guess, tenuously bound projects 11:45:55 11 that NASA has taken up since the Apollo program 11:46:00 12 and the remarks of Director Dordain of ESA about 11:46:00 13 the importance of continuity when rationale for 11:46:06 14 a current project is still valid, I just think 11:46:09 15 it's important to, I guess, more critically 11:46:13 16 question whether Constellation fosters -- or to 11:46:14 17 what extent Constellation fosters a compelling 11:46:18 18 public image of our continuity or overall 11:46:22 19 direction for the agency. 11:46:23 20 I know Representative Olson mentioned 11:46:25 21 that the problem is not a lack of vision but a 11:46:27 22 lack of commitment. But it's important, I 11:46:30 132 1 think, to look into how that commitment is made 11:46:32 2 such that the vision isn't compromised. 11:46:36 3 And finally I just wanted to mention 11:46:41 4 that I think we should look at -- we should be 11:46:43 5 looking into the extent to which we can look 11:46:43 6 beyond Constellation to ensure that it doesn't 11:46:47 7 become just another in a series of, I guess, 11:46:49 8 more incremental discontinuous missions, 11:46:51 9 especially, for example, through the end of our 11:46:54 10 careers as the next generation of engineers and 11:46:56 11 scientists. 11:46:56 12 So I guess that's really more broad 11:47:03 13 based than a lot of the other questions, but I 11:47:03 14 think it's still important to keep in the back 11:47:05 15 of one's mind as they make these decisions. 11:47:07 16 MR. AUGUSTINE: We appreciate your 11:47:09 17 comments. 11:47:11 18 MR. FINGERHUT: Thank you. 11:47:11 19 MR. AUGUSTINE: Sir... 11:47:12 20 MR. LANFORD: Hi, my name is Ephraim 11:47:12 21 Lanford. I just wanted to voice a slight 11:47:13 22 concern about the committee's, I guess, 11:47:15 133 1 authority and perhaps charter to explore the 11:47:19 2 implications and possibilities of international 11:47:25 3 leadership. So if there are -- if the committee 11:47:27 4 thinks that there are ways to use the space 11:47:33 5 program to draw attention to or reveal or 11:47:37 6 distribute benefits of international cooperation 11:47:40 7 in broad areas like global markets, weapons 11:47:44 8 non-proliferation, perhaps human rights in maybe 11:47:50 9 a particular country that some are considering 11:47:53 10 inviting to the ISS or to global aspects of more 11:47:56 11 specific questions that are kind of more 11:48:01 12 traditional, such as education and inspiration 11:48:03 13 or industrial base, then I hope that the 11:48:06 14 committee will -- I mean, you know, this is my 11:48:10 15 opinion -- but not be abash to seek the, I 11:48:14 16 guess, input or guidelines that it needs at a 11:48:21 17 high level to consider questions of high level 11:48:24 18 policy and diplomacy to explore all of these 11:48:30 19 issues to the fullest. Thank you. 11:48:35 20 MR. AUGUSTINE: Thank you. 11:48:37 21 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Good morning. I 11:48:39 22 also want to thank you, gentlemen and ladies, 11:48:41 134 1 for the -- serving on the panel. 11:48:43 2 I started my act in my career in the 11:48:45 3 early '60s for the infamous Sputnik and have 11:48:48 4 been involved in the industry now for 45 years, 11:48:54 5 thereabouts, and I think one thing that I've 11:48:59 6 heard several times here regarding the extension 11:49:01 7 of the Constellation to Mars -- it's certainly 11:49:05 8 my opinion -- and I believe it's the Earth to 11:49:08 9 Mars that is really going to have the 11:49:12 10 technological breakthrough. Of course, most of 11:49:17 11 us have been to Mars -- or not personally but -- 11:49:19 12 the Mars episode -- I'm sorry -- to the Moon, 11:49:23 13 and I think it's the Mars that's going to get us 11:49:24 14 the real, real big next step in technology. 11:49:27 15 Thank you. 11:49:31 16 MR. AUGUSTINE: Thank you very much. 11:49:31 17 DR. CRAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, I wonder 11:49:36 18 if I might make a request. 11:49:37 19 The committee is sincerely interested 11:49:39 20 in very broad base of input from the national 11:49:42 21 community and particularly from the youth. As 11:49:46 22 we've already heard several references today, 11:49:48 135 1 one of the principal political incentives in 11:49:51 2 creating a broad-based human exploration program 11:49:56 3 is inspiration of youth. It's continually 11:50:00 4 referenced, in fact, even interestingly in the 11:50:03 5 comments today by our Russia colleague. 11:50:04 6 So I would especially invite the youth 11:50:08 7 of America to comment via all of the appropriate 11:50:11 8 mechanisms that only they know how to do, like 11:50:14 9 twittering back and blogging. There are several 11:50:15 10 blogs going on. And we'd really like to hear 11:50:19 11 from the youth of America what would inspire 11:50:22 12 them and how they would like to get engaged. 11:50:26 13 MR. AUGUSTINE: I think that's a great 11:50:29 14 requests, and we hope that those who are 11= :50:32 15 watching on television will heed that request. 11:50:34 16 While we have a moment here -- 11:50:39 17 MR. McALISTER: Norm, a quick update. 11:50:41 18 Representative Nelson is here. I'm sorry. 11:50:46 19 Senator Nelson. 11:50:49 20 (Discussion off the record.) 11:51:31 21 MR. AUGUSTINE: Here means here in 11:51:31 22 Washington or here on Earth? 11:51:34 136 1 (Discussion off the record.) 11:51:34 2 MR. AUGUSTINE: You know, we're going 11:52:41 3 through comments from the folks from 11:52:42 4 Capitol Hill that have an interest in this 11:52:44 5 program -- a particular interest in it. 11:52:47 6 Senator Nelson, of course, has a long 11:52:49 7 and personal involvement in the program and has 11:52:52 8 been truly one of the great supporters of NASA 11:52:57 9 and the space program. 11:53:01 10 We're awful glad you're here, and we 11:53:03 11 welcome your thoughts. 11:53:06 12 SENATOR NELSON: Thank you, 11:53:07 13 Mr. Chairman. And I'm going to move over here 11:53:08 14 where I can actually see you all instead of 11:53:10 15 looking at the side of your head. 11:53:13 16 I want you to understand the 11:53:16 17 extraordinarily significant position that this 11:53:20 18 panel brings itself to the table. Because, in 11:53:23 19 essence, what you decide is going to be the 11:53:30 20 significant influence for the White House and, 11:53:38 21 therefore, also for the Congress in where the 11:53:45 22 space program is going. 11:53:51 137 1 And so I know you all know that, but I 11:53:52 2 want you to hear from somebody that lives it 11:53:55 3 every day that, if you decide that X is going to 11:53:59 4 be the case, the White House is a lot more 11:54:06 5 likely to embrace X, and whether or not I or 11:54:18 6 others disagree with X, it makes it much more 11:54:21 7 difficult for us to be able to round up the 11:54:24 8 votes in this kind of financial environment 11:54:27 9 other than what you say is X. 11:54:33 10 So you come to the table with 11:54:38 11 extraordinary influence. And I know you all 11:54:41 12 take the seriousness of this very much, but I 11:54:47 13 wanted you to understand when we're dealing with 11:54:51 14 a budget that is out of whack as bad as it is -- 11:54:53 15 and I've just come from the finance committee 11:54:58 16 trying to figure out what we're going to pass in 11:55:01 17 the way of health reform, and, of course, costs 11:55:04 18 are a major consideration. 11:55:08 19 And so a lot of what -- I wish it 11:55:12 20 weren't this way, but a lot of where we're going 11:55:18 21 with regard to our space program -- which 10, 11:55:21 22 15, 20, 25 years down the line we may not have 11:55:24 138 1 wished we had made in the prism of financial 11:55:30 2 restraints, but that's the reality that we're 11:55:35 3 dealing with now. 11:55:39 4 So for your consideration, I think 11:55:42 5 that you ought to seriously understand that from 11:55:47 6 this Senator's perspective and what the Office 11:55:50 7 of Management and Budget have laid out for the 11:55:56 8 President's plan in the out-years of '011, '12, 11:55:58 9 '13 and '14 are entirely deficient for where 11:56:06 10 we're going. 11:56:13 11 Now, part of your charter is that you 11:56:14 12 are to lay out options, and you're also to be 11:56:16 13 mindful of the fiscal restraints. NASA simply 11:56:21 14 can't do the job that it's been given with the 11:56:28 15 President's goal of being on the Moon by 2020 if 11:56:33 16 you take the OMB numbers. 11:56:37 17 I have clashed swords with Dr. Orzag, 11:56:42 18 who I have a great deal of respect. I have sat 11:56:47 19 in prayer sessions with Dr. Holgren. And I just 11:56:52 20 want you to know that if you come out with those 11:57:01 21 numbers, there's no way that NASA can be on the 11:57:05 22 Moon by 2020. 11:57:09 139 1 There's no way that with those numbers 11:57:13 2 that are coming -- and there's nothing magic 11:57:16 3 about those numbers. Those numbers were from a 11:57:20 4 group of folks who -- trying to come out with a 11:57:23 5 President's political document -- in addition to 11:57:28 6 it being an economic document -- about showing 11:57:31 7 how over the next five years that you get the 11:57:34 8 budget deficient down to 3 percent of the Gross 11:57:39 9 National Product. 11:57:43 10 But the President starts out crippled 11:57:44 11 because he's inheriting what he thought was a 11:57:48 12 $1.7 trillion deficient in the current year but, 11:57:52 13 in fact, it's going to be closer to 11:57:56 14 1.9 trillion. So understand the context in 11:58:02 15 which that is. 11:58:05 16 If you adopted those out-year numbers 11:58:07 17 of the President's budget -- which I'm trying to 11:58:09 18 tell you is really not the President's budget. 11:58:12 19 Therefore, that's all of the more reason your 11:58:17 20 panel is important. Because the President is 11:58:20 21 looking to you to really come up with where we 11:58:23 22 should go in our space program. 11:58:28 140 1 But if you adopted those numbers, we 11:58:31 2 would have a four- or five-year gap with no 11:58:35 3 American human-rated launch system, and that 11:58:40 4 would expand to six, seven, possibly eight 11:58:46 5 years. And I don't think anybody wants us to 11:58:50 6 continue in the circumstance where we are -- the 11:58:53 7 only way to get to the International Space 11:58:57 8 Station, which we built and paid for to the tune 11:59:00 9 of $100 billion -- that we want to continue to 11:59:03 10 stay in a multiyear period dependent upon the 11:59:07 11 Russians. 11:59:16 12 It's my hope that our foreign 11:59:17 13 relations with the Russians are going to get 11:59:19 14 better, but who knows what the geopolitics is 11:59:21 15 going to be later on in this coming decade. So 11:59:28 16 I ask you to consider that. 11:59:31 17 I also ask you to consider that the 11:59:32 18 last several years of budgets haven't been 11:59:35 19 realistic. NASA was asked to do too much with 11:59:39 20 too little, and that has led us to the point 11:59:42 21 that we are now -- with a space shuttle that's 11:59:48 22 going to shut down but without the new rocket 11:59:52 141 1 having been developed in time to pick up where 11:59:55 2 the space shuttle leaves off and a series of 11:59:58 3 budget documents over the last several years 12:00:04 4 that, in fact, were unrealistic because they 12:00:07 5 only went out to 2015 and played like the 12:00:10 6 International Space Station was going to go away 12:00:14 7 in 2015. 12:00:17 8 Well, if it's taken this long to build 12:00:18 9 it and it is really a wonderful tool in foreign 12:00:21 10 relations in the fact that it truly is 12:00:29 11 international and if we've spent $100 billion, I 12:00:31 12 don't think we want to shut it down in 2015. 12:00:36 13 And, therefore, I think you ought to consider in 12:00:39 14 your deliberations the continuation of that. 12:00:43 15 Now, you all had specifically asked me 12:00:46 16 to make a comment -- and then I will sit down 12:00:49 17 within my prescribed time -- about where we are 12:00:52 18 with regard to the NASA authorization bill. 12:01:02 19 We authorized NASA's funding for the 12:01:04 20 next several years in a 2008 NASA authorization 12:01:07 21 bill, and the policy of that authorization bill 12:01:14 22 is exactly what I've just said. The funding was 12:01:19 142 1 not what I've just said, but the authorization 12:01:25 2 for funding is what I have just said, that the 12:01:29 3 policy was to reduce the gap in human space 12:01:34 4 flight capability and also, because of that, to 12:01:39 5 mitigate the impact of having to lay off a 12:01:45 6 dedicated workforce of highly skilled workers. 12:01:49 7 And so you will see that the 12:01:54 8 authorization for the current year, 2009, when 12:01:57 9 you add the $400 million that we got in in the 12:02:01 10 stimulus for exploration, it actually brought it 12:02:06 11 up to the funding -- the appropriations, it 12:02:11 12 actually brought it up close to what the 12:02:14 13 authorization was, which was $3.9 billion for 12:02:18 14 exploration in the current year, whereas what we 12:02:22 15 authorized for space operations, which was well 12:02:30 16 above the President's request -- I'll round 12:02:34 17 it -- 6 billion -- what was appropriated was 12:02:38 18 about $250 million less than that, and yet you 12:02:44 19 still have to -- have to launch the space 12:02:48 20 shuttle. So appropriations just simply didn't 12:02:51 21 match what was authorized. 12:02:58 22 We got some help through the omnibus 12:03:01 143 1 appropriations and the stimulus bill of getting 12:03:07 2 additional money in, but other than that, the 12:03:12 3 projections for the future in the President's 12:03:16 4 budget are unrealistic. 12:03:20 5 Just a couple of other comments on the 12:03:23 6 authorization bill. We said science and 12:03:27 7 exploration should not be in competition with 12:03:33 8 each other, they're compatible. 12:03:36 9 We clearly nailed down the policy that 12:03:40 10 we ought to be prepared to operate the Space 12:03:42 11 Station until 2020 and that we had to put it in 12:03:48 12 because back then NASA was operating like they 12:03:57 13 had two additional missions. They had some 12:04:00 14 term -- oh, they called them contingent. 12:04:08 15 And as we would bring the 12:04:12 16 administrator in front of us -- well, why do you 12:04:17 17 call it a contingent. Well, I can tell you 12:04:20 18 Dr. Griffin didn't want to call it contingent. 12:04:23 19 He was being -- calling it contingent simply 12:04:25 20 because the Office of Management and Budget was 12:04:28 21 telling him that he had to. And so we said, 12:04:31 22 well, why is it contingent. And basically it 12:04:34 144 1 came out in the hearings that that was just a 12:04:37 2 name. 12:04:39 3 So you're looking at a full complement 12:04:40 4 of space shuttle missions to fully assemble and 12:04:45 5 to equip the International Space Station. 12:04:51 6 And then we did one more thing in the 12:04:55 7 authorization bill. We authorized an additional 12:04:58 8 flight. And that was there were a bunch of 12:05:02 9 scientific instruments that were going to be 12:05:05 10 left on the ground that were configured to fly 12:05:08 11 in the cargo bay of the space shuttle but NASA 12:05:11 12 wasn't planning for it. It wasn't NASA. It was 12:05:15 13 OMB wasn't planning for it. 12:05:20 14 And to the credit of the new 12:05:22 15 President, this is one of the commitments that 12:05:25 16 he made in the course of the campaign, and he 12:05:27 17 has fulfilled that commitment by adding the 12:05:31 18 additional flight. So that from now on, there 12:05:35 19 are eight flights remaining of the space 12:05:40 20 shuttle. 12:05:42