Last updated 4/30/97 by Matt Peterson
| FY 1998 NASA Budget | 4/24/97 | 2:00 | Senate Russell Rm. 253 | Senate Sbcmte. on Science, Technology and Space (Chrm. Frist) Commerce, Science and Transportation Cmte. | Administrator Goldin accompanied by senior management TBD |
SUBJECT: Senate Science, Technology, and Space Subcommittee hearing on the FY 1998 NASA Budget Request, April 24, 1997
WITNESSES: Panel 1 -- NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin Panel 2 -- Marcia Smith/CRS, Dr. Kenneth Galloway/Vanderbilt U., Jerry Grey/AIAA
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Frist (R-TN), Ranking Member Rockefeller (D-WV)
Opening Remarks -- Panel 1
Chairman Frist discussed the NASA budget, and noted the outyear projections in the FY98 budget are better than last year but still tight. He said NASA needs to pursue a balanced program, and no program should receive funding at the expense of another. He noted the shift of resources from Human Space Flight to Science, Aeronautics and Technology has implications for NASA’s mission and goals, but did not spell those out. He said there will be a space station hearing later, and today he wanted to explore Shuttle, science programs, launch vehicles and whether industry will be able to develop them, Mission to Planet Earth including the biennial review and EOSDIS, and commercialization/privatization. He emphasized the need for sufficient mission and data analysis funds to reap the benefits of the science programs. Last, he said NASA’s is a “premier mission of government,” but not exempt from accountability.
Administrator Goldin said he is happy a life scientist is chairing NASA’s authorizing committee because life science is important at NASA. He described some of NASA’s successes over the past year -- the possible finding of an ocean on Europa, and the Mars rock and its implications. He said it is important that young people see NASA take risks, and that we learn from our failures. Regarding space station, he provided a status report and said “this station is going to be built.” He said the Shuttle, too, is an amazing system and cited the Hubble repair mission as an example. He described future initiatives including the Planet Finder, which will allow us to look out 100 light years to find Earth-like planets around other stars, and the astrobiology institute which will explore how life came to be and whether it exists elsewhere in the universe. He cited bold new goals for aeronautics and space transportation technology, including a goal of reducing the fatal aircraft accident rate by a factor of 5 in 10 years and a factor of 10 in 20 years. He discussed the goals of Mission to Planet Earth and noted advances will lead to better prediction of natural disasters (forest fires, earthquakes and other severe weather).
Mr. Goldin concluded by stating it is an exciting time to be at NASA and he thanked the Chairman for holding NASA accountable.
Issues/Questions -- Panel 1
Budget and implications -- Chairman Frist asked about the effect of a continuing constrained budget on NASA. Mr. Goldin said NASA is still a vibrant Agency, citing the new start for Origins. He added NASA will continue to downsize in an organized fashion. NASA is converting from operations and going back to its roots as a high performing R&D organization. Chrm. Frist followed up asking whether there is a point where closing a Center must be considered; Mr. Goldin said NASA chose to cut out overlap and eliminate bureaucracy and urged the Committee to measure NASA by its output, not input.
Senator Rockefeller later followed up on this theme. He said he greatly admires Mr. Goldin for his work and cutting the budget but noted there is a lot on NASA’s plate and asked for Mr. Goldin’s “private thoughts” on where we are going. Mr. Goldin discussed the overall non-defense R&D situation in the U.S., saying it is the “lifeline to the future” and NASA is 40% of this country’s non-defense R&D. NASA funds the essence of long-term research in this country. He said he is very frustrated and wonders who is worried about the U.S. in 2020. He criticized “scientific cannibalism,” and reiterated the Chairman’s statement earlier that we cannot sacrifice one program for the sake of another. Mr. Goldin said although this year’s budget outlook is better than last year’s, “it is close but I can live with it.” He said “not one nickel” should be taken out of the NASA budget. Mr. Goldin expressed concern that NASA will start to be micromanaged after we have achieved savings from increased efficiency, and he urged that Congress let NASA reinvest those savings rather than taking them to meet other, near-term needs. Chrm. Frist said there is a need to educate the public about the long-term payoffs of research. He noted he and Senator Rockefeller started a Science and Technology caucus to look at these issues of science, fiscal accountability and measurable results.
Space Station -- Chrm. Frist asked whether Russia can honor its commitments and whether NASA is too reliant on them. He also asked for a timetable for decisions concerning the Russians. Mr. Goldin explained three decision points: 1) May 14 meeting with the international partners to decide whether to baseline the Service Module in December 1998 or the Interim Control Module; 2) this fall, recertify that the Russians have done what they said they would, and; 3) in 1998, if commitments are not being met we may have to decide to completely change the relationship with the Russians. Chrm. Frist asked if money has begun to flow; Mr. Goldin said we have people watching it, who say we are days away, “but we have been here before.”
Mir -- Chrm. Frist asked what we have learned from our past involvement with the Russians. Mr. Goldin likened the Shuttle-Mir program to the Mercury and Gemini missions before Apollo, saying we have learned a tremendous amount from the Russians, even when there are problems such as Mir has experienced lately. He said there are three independent panels looking at continued U.S. presence on Mir and a decision will be made before the next mission (May 15) whether to continue sending U.S. astronauts.
X-33 Indemnification -- Chrm. Frist noted NASA is seeking indemnification for the X-33 test flights and asked Mr. Goldin to explain that situation. Mr. Goldin said the X-33 is different than previous government launch vehicle programs because Lockheed Martin is in charge and essentially will have liability for any mishaps during the test flights. This is a loophole in our indemnification policy. NASA General Counsel Ed Frankle further explained that we are trying to determine what liability insurance would be available to Lockheed Martin on the open market, and the company would be required to carry that amount, while the government would indemnify any liability beyond that level. NASA would need legislative authority to take on this responsibility. Mission to Planet Earth -- Chrm. Frist said some Members are critical of the growing budget for MTPE and asked whether annual budget caps work or are useful. Mr. Goldin said the space station cap was designed to assure people NASA would not take money from basic research to fund space station, but said it is not a proper generic tool. He stated we have not communicated the importance of MTPE to the U.S.; it is critical if we are to have sustainable development on this planet. He called it a “bread and butter” program.
Bion -- Chrm. Frist asked whether there is any danger from canceling the Bion program. Mr. Goldin said no; NASA determined that we could not simultaneously get the data we need and be humane within the Bion program. Chrm. Frist noted the death of a monkey in post-flight surgery and asked if there are similar dangers for astronauts; Mr. Goldin said the problem has “raised our eyebrows” and we try and be as conservative as possible with astronauts.
Opening Statements -- Panel 2
Ms. Smith said the continuing decline in NASA’s budget raises questions about NASA’s ability to maintain a balanced program but that Mr. Goldin is working hard to maintain balance through efficiencies. She said NASA has done a good job designing a program that fits within the budget profile, but added space enthusiasts yearn for “bigger dreams.” Regarding space station, she said it is behind schedule, over cost, and has less ability to do science. There are questions about the Russians, who have made and broken promises. There are also challenges at home, including “less than stellar” performance by the prime contractor. She asserts the station “cannot be built within the existing caps.”
Dr. Galloway discussed the role of Vanderbilt University in the space program; it is the lead institution in the Tennessee Space Grant Consortium. Universities appreciate the stability in NASA’s budget and are pleased to see new starts in the science program. He said mission and data analysis funds are very important to reap the benefits of the higher launch rate, and that account declines in FY98; he is concerned we won’t get the full value of the taxpayer’s investment. He supports MTPE and efforts to improve it. He said it is important to nurture life and microgravity sciences through the station delays with a strong ground-based research program, and urged that scientists control the station utilization budget.
Mr. Grey said NASA has done an excellent job in a tight budget environment and the budget deserves the best possible support. He applauded the reversal of decline in the aeronautics Research and Technology Base and focused aeronautics programs, but said three areas in NASA need more attention because they will determine long-range growth: space transportation technology (beyond X-33), life and microgravity sciences, and planning for future missions (HEDS enterprise). He said the money that needs to be applied to these long-range planning activities is small and should be supported within the NASA budget.
Issues/Questions -- Panel 2 Space Commercialization -- Chrm. Frist asked Ms. Smith about NASA’s role in commercializing space activities. Her colleague Dave Radzanowski answered by discussing the issues surrounding commercialization: how much risk is industry willing to take, where is the fine line between government oversight and industry risk, should the Shuttle launch commercial payloads? He said Shuttle safety is paramount in any transition to commercial operation. Chrm. Frist asked if we are “where we should be” in that debate. Mr. Radzanowski said the Aerospace Safety and Advisory Panel has said is no risk at this point, but future changes in Shuttle operation to more commercialization may require close attention. Mr. Smith said there are lessons for the X-33 and future industry launch vehicle; it will take some time to adjust to privately owned and operated space vehicles. She questioned if industry is really ready to step up to this.
X-33 -- Chrm. Frist asked about the weight problem on the X-33 and whether not achieving Mach 15 is significant; also, how realistic is the possibility of an industry decision in 1999 to develop a launch vehicle? Mr. Radzanowski said it is hard to determine the effect of the weight/Mach number issue but it raises concerns that at this point in the program we already have those problems. Chrm. Frist asked Dr. Grey if it is wise to have only one X-vehicle in the program; Mr. Grey answered it isn’t wise, but cost issues prohibit another vehicle. To the Chairman’s question whether industry can build the follow-on vehicle, Mr. Grey said industry will need some government support, such as anchor tenancy, to get funding.
Uncosted carryover -- Chrm. Frist asked what this is and what is an acceptable level. Mr. Radzanowski explained what uncosted carryover is, and said the acceptable level depends on the program (university grants take longer to process than R&D contracts). He added GAO has said that MTPE’s uncosted carryover may be too high.
Aeronautics -- Chrm. Frist said critics of the High Speed Research (HSR) and Advanced Subsonic Technology (AST) programs say NASA shouldn’t do research industry could do. Mr. Grey agreed with the latter part of the statement, but said HSR and AST would not be done by industry. They are investments in the future of the overall industrial capability. NASA needs to keep doing this type of focused research.
Wind Tunnels -- Chrm. Frist said AIAA was supportive of new wind tunnels and asked if Mr. Grey was concerned there are no near term plans to build new tunnels. Mr. Grey said he is concerned but understands why we are not proceeding at this time. New wind tunnels are critical to the development of next-generation aircraft. Chrm. Frist asked about the use of foreign wind tunnels; Mr. Grey said industry uses foreign tunnels but it is not an ideal situation.
University/NASA relationship -- Chrm. Frist asked Dr. Galloway if he has any advice for NASA in dealing with universities. Dr. Galloway said they are happy with the relationship and in alignment with NASA’s philosophy.
Large vs. Small Spacecraft -- Chrm. Frist asked what missions would be better served with larger spacecraft, and about the Cassini controversy. Ms. Smith answered the Cassini controversy concerns the RTGs (power source) aboard the spacecraft. She is unsure exactly what missions require larger spacecraft, and added we need to see how the smaller spacecraft do. She discussed why NASA was driven to build large spacecraft in the first place, and now the trend towards smaller spacecraft. There is inherent tension between wanting as much data as possible and wanting more involvement of the scientific community on a continuing basis.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Last spring I told this Subcommittee about the amazing year NASA had completed. I reported that NASA had requested that the Administration provide the Agency a stable budget submission for FY 1997 and that the Administration had done that. NASA’s FY 1997 budget request of $13.8 billion was the same as our budget in FY 1996. We had just completed 1995--a year of upheaval for NASA. We had made a commitment to the President to identify another $4 billion of savings in FY 1997-2000 and we delivered, bringing to $40 billion the savings in NASA’s multiyear budget NASA has identified for the American taxpayer. The 1995 Zero Base Review had consumed the energy and attention of the NASA workforce. But the Zero Base Review was only partly about finding budget savings. At its heart was a fundamental challenge to the NASA workforce to prepare the Agency for the next millennium. To sharpen NASA’s focus on cutting edge technology. To commit NASA’s Centers to becoming Centers of Excellence. To do more with less by cutting out duplication and overlaps, and ensuring that NASA’s energies are directed at those things only NASA does best. Let the private sector take over those activities that they are best equipped to do, and get NASA out of the way. The Zero Base Review was the sprint. Following that extraordinary exercise, we requested that the Administration provide us stability to catch our breath, to continue the serious implementation of new ways of doing business, and to continue to fulfill our promise to the American people--to deliver astonishing science and aeronautics missions which provide history-making discoveries. The President gave us that year.
Last year, NASA’s FY 1997 budget request was stable, but the outyears were lower than we expected. I told you then, we hoped we could do better. I am happy to report that we have. The President’s FY 1998 budget request for NASA of $13.5 billion, and the funding plan for the outyears, are proof of the President’s commitment to the Nation’s space and aeronautics program. This budget plan is a vote of confidence from the President and his Administration that NASA has done what it needed to do, technically, scientifically, and organizationally. We have reached out to our solar system and our Universe seeking answers to fundamental questions:
NASA’s goal this year is the same as it was last year--to implement a space and aeronautics program that is balanced, relevant, and stable.
NASA has made a remarkable transition in the last few years. We have turned around our budget overruns. In 1992 a General Accounting Office survey identified an average cost growth of 77% on our major programs. Today, 5 years later, we are underrunning our program cost estimates by 6%.
This turnaround has taken several years. In 1992, technical performance was rewarded while the contractor’s practice of “buying in” and NASA’s habit of adding program requirements went unaddressed. I told program managers as well as the contractor community when I became Administrator 5 years ago that these practices would be tolerated no longer. The message has obviously been received because NASA program managers are turning in terrific performances. Actually, the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction and resulted in the growth of uncosted balances between FY 1995 and FY 1997. Program managers have become extremely conservative in their obligation and cost plans for the year, biasing their numbers to cover unrealistic procurement award schedules or low probability development threats. This may be an overcorrection, but we are taking advantage of this excellent cost performance across the Agency. In the Shuttle program, we are accelerating the development and delivery of upgrades to hardware and software systems, which will enhance the Shuttle’s safety. We have proposed increases for the New Millennium program and TIMED for FY 1997 which took advantage of uncosted balances in excess of program funding requirements. One of the major contributors was the Cassini program, where we have spent far less than we anticipated of our program reserves. There is no lack of exciting work to be done if additional funds are available through increased efficiency, without going back to the taxpayers.
We also know that these large balances made us more vulnerable to budget reductions for FY 1997 and FY 1998. We are taking action to correct this problem. We are building our budgets to minimize uncosted obligations at the end of the year. We are increasing management awareness of the need for accuracy in planning by stressing personal accountability and interdependence. We are adjusting how we internally track the actual cost performance of our programs against their monthly plans by eliminating from these plans unsupported estimates about how program reserves will be expended. Finally, we are identifying program priorities midway through the year that we determine are unaffordable, and reallocating funds from programs that aren’t using them. Through all of these actions, we are demonstrating that credible, accurate obligation and cost plans are something that management rewards.
In addition to addressing cost overruns, NASA needed to streamline its workforce. In 1993, we had 24,900 civil service employees at NASA. At the end of FY 1996, we had a workforce totaling 21,000. Today, we are under 20,000. By FY 2000 we will have 17,979.
We also have made great strides in cutting the cost of spacecraft. From 1990-1994, the average cost per spacecraft launched was $590 million. For 1995-1999, it will be $190 million. Our goal beyond the year 2000 is $77 million. At the same time we are achieving reductions in average development time per spacecraft. For 1990-1994 it was 8.3 years. For 1995-1999, it will be 4.6 years. For 2000 and beyond, our goal is 3.1 years. Because we are reducing the cost and time for development, we can launch more missions. For FY 1990-1994, NASA averaged 2 flights per year. For 1995-1999 it will be 9 flights per year. For 2000 and beyond, our goal is 16 flights a year. It truly is faster, better, cheaper.
NASA determined several years ago that we must transition from larger to smaller spacecraft. Galileo is an extraordinary program. It is providing us unprecedented information about Jupiter and its moons, changing the way we think about the largest planet in our solar system. But the development of Galileo was expensive. Development of the Galileo spacecraft started in 1981, when the approach to space missions was “a one time shot, “ in which a mission was designed to achieve a maximum number of scientific objectives because it was deemed to be a single flight opportunity. It is no wonder Galileo’s total life cycle cost, from development through mission operations, is $2 billion dollars.
Today, NASA has revolutionized the way we build spacecraft. We have created a group of small planetary missions. Between FY 1996-2001, NASA expects to launch 11 of these small missions which, combined, will cost less than the single Galileo mission. NASA is thrilled with Galileo and the science it is returning, but the days of bigger and bigger spacecraft are over.
NASA remains unwavering in our commitment to improving Shuttle safety. It has been our highest priority. In 1991, the probability of catastrophic loss on ascent for the Shuttle was one in 78. Today it is one in 248. NASA has achieved a 50% reduction in the number of in-flight anomalies per flight since FY 1993, from 14.3 to 6.8. The Agency also has reduced the number of monthly mishaps during Shuttle processing at the Kennedy Space Center almost 50%, from 0.9 in FY 1993 to 0.5 in FY 1996. At the same time, the Agency has worked diligently to reduce Shuttle operating costs. In FY 1993, it had been $4.1 billion dollars. Today it is $3.1 billion. The number of people required to operate the Shuttle--contractors and civil servants--has been reduced nearly 22% since FY 1993. At the same time, we have made the process more efficient. Since FY 1993, the amount of overtime has been reduced 37%. This means our teams on the line are not overworked and susceptible to making mistakes, and that we are meeting our budgetary commitments.
Today, NASA is focusing on programs that make the most sense. We are not rushing off to initiate a program every time a new discovery is made. Before NASA commits to a program, it must show real promise for answering important questions about the Universe, planet Earth, or aeronautics. The technology we are developing is cutting edge and is linked directly to accomplishment of our scientific goals. NASA’s measurements of success are profoundly different than in the past--by our output, by the science achieved, not by the level of dollars going in. As you can see, by all measures, NASA has achieved great success.
Witness NASA’s outputs for 1996. It was an amazing year. The scientific discoveries, the missions, were astounding.
Last August, I had the opportunity to introduce a finding at a NASA press conference which forever changed the way people view themselves and the Universe. The cause for all of this excitement was a rock, a meteorite from Mars which suggests that primitive life may have formed there more than 3 billion years ago.
NASA’s reaction to this announcement is one of careful fascination. The implications are profound, but the inferences are not conclusive. Much more work needs to be done to confirm, or refute, the conclusions of this team of researchers. While the potential for life on early Mars adds emphasis to our current planning for the scientific exploration of Mars, an important first step is to focus more work on the Martian meteorites.
A logical next step is to confirm what we have here on Earth. Other scientific teams must attempt to replicate the findings of the McKay team to ensure the validity of its findings. McKay and other scientists must look to other avenues of inquiry, such as evidence of sub-cellular structures, to augment and expand the areas of analysis. And we need to continue to identify more meteorites from Mars, and to examine the other eleven we already have, for any light they may be able to shed on this area of scientific inquiry.
In this regard, NASA and the National Science Foundation (NSF) are jointly funding the Ancient Mars Meteorite Research Program. NASA and NSF released research announcements for this program last November and we received proposals in late January 1997. We will conduct a coordinated peer review and selection process shortly; we anticipate announcing awards in mid-May. This joint program will allow the broader scientific community to investigate whether the preliminary conclusion reached by the McKay team is valid, to see if other meteorites offer similar opportunities for understanding life, and to open this area of inquiry to new methods and ideas. We expect that in a year or two a clear scientific consensus will have emerged on the intriguing question of whether we have found evidence of life beyond Earth.
As this research continues, we also are launching a number of missions to help address these questions about past life on Mars. Two historic missions to Mars were launched in 1996. The Mars Pathfinder and the Mars Global Surveyor will reach the Red Planet in 1997. Both of these are part of the 11 small planetary missions, the ones with quicker development time and much smaller life cycle costs.
Galileo made a lot of history of its own this year. When Galileo’s probe made its way into the violent atmosphere of Jupiter, we learned new information on the extent of its water, clouds, and chemical composition. One of Galileo’s most exciting reports last year was that Europa, a moon of Jupiter, may have once had, or perhaps still has "warm ice" or even liquid water beneath its icy crust. On Ganymede, Jupiter’s largest moon, Galileo recorded three-dimensional images of giant, icy fissures and evidence of a magnetic field. Galileo’s data gathered from the moon Io found it had changed substantially since the volcanically-active moon had been observed 17 years ago by the Voyager spacecraft. The new data we have gathered from Galileo’s mission to Jupiter means that astronomy books all over the world will be rewritten.
The Hubble Space Telescope had an impressive year in 1996. It studied the surface of Pluto and the birth of stars. Hubble took a cosmic movie of the Crab Nebula. It found the Nebula even more dynamic than previously understood. Hubble surveyed the "homes" of quasars and found they live in a remarkable variety of galaxies often violently colliding. These discoveries set the stage for an even more exciting quest to find answers to questions about the Universe and Life which are as old as human thought. The study of Origins follows the 10- to 15-billion-year-long chain of events from the birth of the universe at the Big Bang, through the formation of chemical elements, galaxies, stars and planets, through the mixing of chemicals and energy that cradled life on earth, to the earliest self-replicating organisms and today’s profusion of life.
Human Space Flight activities hit the record books in 1996. Astronaut Shannon Lucid set a new American record for continuous space flight during her 181-day stay on the Russian space station Mir. Astronaut Lucid conducted vital microgravity and life sciences research as well as providing a model for international cooperation in space. Our continuing program of joint activities with the Russians is setting a foundation for the International Space Station. The Space Shuttle successfully completed seven missions, including 3 visits to the Mir, two Spacelab missions, deployment of the Tethered Satellite System, and the fourth Spacehab mission. NASA and the United Space Alliance (USA) signed the Space Flight Operations Contract, making USA the single Space Shuttle prime contractor. This was the first step in the consolidation of multiple ground and flight operations contractors into a single contract.
As part of the Mission to Planet Earth, the NASA Scatterometer was launched aboard the Japanese ADEOS satellite in 1996. It is providing new data on wind velocities over the oceans, allowing researchers to study the interaction of the oceans with the atmosphere on a global scale.
In 1996, NASA successfully flight tested a new collision avoidance radar system intended to help helicopter pilots fly more safely when operating close to the ground or in poor weather conditions. This sensor, designed to detect obstacles in an aircraft’s flight path and provide a cockpit display to help avoid them, has potential uses for all types of aircraft.
Lockheed Martin was chosen to build the X-33. It is a one-half scale prototype of the Reusable Launch Vehicle. The X-33 will be used to demonstrate advanced technologies that should dramatically increase reliability and lower the costs of putting payloads into space.
We can all agree 1996 will go down in history as a year of record-breaking discoveries. I predict 1997 will also be spectacular. No one knows what discoveries we have in store, but that is the serendipitous nature of exploration.
Next, I would like to address NASA’s FY 1998 budget request. If the FY 1993 NASA budget were projected through FY 1998, NASA would have planned for a FY 1998 budget of $20.8 billion. The actual budget request for 1998 from the President is $13.5 billion. That’s a world of difference. But we are making it work. I will now discuss the plans of NASA’s Enterprises and how the FY 1998 budget request supports NASA’s continuing efforts to deliver better programs for less.
HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT
We are now into our fourth year of development since President Clinton asked NASA, in the spring of 1993, to redesign the Space Station. Since then, the International Space Station (ISS) Program has moved steadily and aggressively forward, overcoming many challenges to develop this unprecedented international orbital research facility, the doorway to the future of human space exploration.
We have gained much from our collaboration with Russia in preparation for ISS assembly and operations and from continuous presence of American astronauts onboard Mir. We have flown five successful Space Shuttle/Mir docking missions, and one rendezvous mission. We have just recently completed the first year of continuous U.S. presence in space, through the Phase 1 Program, with U.S. astronauts living and working aboard Mir. We have successfully performed joint U.S. and Russian operations on the ground and in orbit and demonstrated that scientific research will benefit greatly from the ISS. On-orbit experiments such as those to be flown on the International Space Station have already provided new insights that may help support ground-based research in the search for treatments for cancer, AIDS, influenza viruses, and other diseases.
With regard to the Mir, I know that recent press reports have raised some concern about the viability of Mir and the safety and health of the crew. Let me say as strongly as I can that no one is more concerned about the safety and well-being of our astronauts than NASA. And I believe our Russian colleagues share that concern. We have flight surgeons monitoring the Mir missions, just as we do Shuttle missions, and their responsibility is to protect the health and safety of the crew members. Our Phase 1 Program Manager, Frank Culbertson, is conducting his own internal review of the Mir status and the question of maintaining our presence there. In addition, an independent assessment is being conducted by a group led by Tom Stafford. Make no mistake. Mir has been experiencing mechanical problems; it is an aging spacecraft. Those problems are being addressed and repaired as they occur, and the crew has the ability to come home early if necessary. But there is no emergency. We will keep the Congress informed as our analyses progress and assure you that we will not compromise the safety of our astronauts.
While the foundation being provided through Shuttle-Mir cooperation in developing on-orbit assembly and operations capabilities for the ISS remains an unequivocal success, Russia’s challenges in providing hardware contributions as a international partner have been a continuing cause for concern. This is addressed later in the testimony.
Our other international partners -- Canada, Europe and Japan -- have proven their commitment to this international venture for humankind, investing nearly $6 billion to date for design and development of their hardware contributions. The European Space Agency (ESA) has entered into the largest single contract in ESA history for development of the Columbus Orbital Facility (COF). ESA has confirmed its commitment to a three-component ISS contribution: the COF, the COF utilization plan and the Ariane Automated Transfer Vehicle. The Japanese program is solid and on track with its contributions of the Japanese Experiment Module (JEM), the JEM Exposed Facility, and the JEM Experimental Logistics Module. Canada is also making good progress, with Canadian government approval of funding for the Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator (SPDM) having been secured. The SPDM will augment the robotics system already being provided by Canada with additional capabilities to carry out on-orbit maintenance and operation of the Space Station. The Canadian decision to fund the SPDM, in spite of constrained budgets, underscores its commitment to this program. Relative to non-partner international involvement, the Italian Space Agency remains on schedule for delivery of the first Mini-Pressurized Logistics Module to the Kennedy Space Center in 1998. There are now a total of 15 countries participating in the International Space Station Program, and interest is expanding. NASA and the Brazilian Space Agency have agreed to conduct feasibility studies to explore mutual interests relative to Station.
The largest international, scientific research facility in history is rapidly becoming a reality. The ISS Program has now passed the 59% milestone completion mark, having built over 162,000 pounds of U.S flight hardware. As testing of more design units is completed, we are seeing production runs of hardware and software increase. The final quarter of calendar year 1996 marked the largest increase in the amount of flight hardware built since the Program’s inception, over 30,000 pounds. Design and fabrication of flight elements for the first six American flights are almost complete. Qualification testing is well underway across the program and flight hardware is being assembled and checked out. Integrated test and verification planning is progressing well and steps are being taken to provide even more integrated testing at the Kennedy Space Center. The NASA/industry team has worked long hours and demonstrated a true commitment to the American people in delivering the International Space Station. I am proud to say that I have no doubt that, had we chosen to, we would have launched the FGB and first US Node later this year. The delay we have announced is not the result of technical development problems or manufacturing difficulties.
The Space Station Program continues to demonstrate a high level of performance, completing approximately 97% of scheduled work at approximately 103% of budgeted cost. Given the breadth and complexity of the ISS Program, and taking into account the experiences of other major Government development programs, we are convinced that we have demonstrated strong performance. Change request activity is subsiding, with most major cost drivers definitized. Nevertheless, the performance of the ISS prime contractor has not improved as well as planned, which is negatively impacting the program’s total performance. While the differences seen between development targets and the prime contractor’s actual level of performance are to be expected in a program of this complexity, the continued cost growth and performance problems have strained near-term reserves. Recovery plans will mitigate our cost and schedule variances, but these variances will continue to require the use of reserves.
ISS program management has been innovative and creative in addressing and resolving many of the challenges, but significant issues remain. We are now in a critical phase where a considerable amount of hardware is being assembled and tested, and software is being developed, integrated and checked out. Peak manufacturing and testing activity is occurring through FY 1997 and FY 1998. During this timeframe, the potential for unforeseen challenges to our cost and schedule targets will remain high. The program had adequate reserves built into the total development estimate to address these anticipated challenges. However, delays in delivery of Russian contributions have required us to develop and maintain contingency capabilities that are diverting these resources.
The Russians are facing tremendous economic challenges and are experiencing serious difficulties in meeting their commitments. Russia has missed a number of development milestones for its contributions to the International Space Station due to funding shortfalls. Delivery of the Service Module (SM) has been delayed from April to December 1998. The funding issue was addressed at the February 1997, meeting between Vice President Gore and Russian Prime Minister Chernomyrdin, and by Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin in March. Russian leaders have committed that adequate funds will be provided in 1997 to keep Russian elements on track.
We continue to believe it is important that Russia remain a partner in the International Space Station; however, we must not be overly dependent on them, or any of our other partners. This is a partnership based on mutual benefits. We receive the benefits of a mature and experienced space program. And it is important to remember that before the Russians joined the partnership, the cost of the space station was $2 billion more and would have started a year later, even with the current change in the first element launch.
We are continuing to closely follow developments in Russia with respect to funding for the Service Module. A NASA team, led by General Thomas Stafford, recently completed a visit to Moscow where its members gained further insight into the Russian funding status. The team received assurances of the Russian government’s commitment to participation as planned in the ISS. The team was advised that the first increments of ISS funds would be in cash, not government loans or guarantees, and would be dispersed to the Russian Space Agency in two installments, one in April, and one in May. It now appears that some of the funding will, in fact, be in loans that will be guaranteed by the Russian government. The disbursement schedule for the remainder of 1997, intended to keep the Service Module on its new schedule for launch in December 1998, is to be determined by the end of May.
I am cautiously optimistic that the Service Module work will move forward. In fact, today, in Moscow, our people are participating in a General Design Review of the Service Module. This is an important milestone, which had been delayed earlier due to lack of progress in funding and is now being held. This review will give us still greater insight into what we can anticipate in the Service Module delivery schedule.
As the Committee is aware, NASA has been reviewing a number of options to mitigate the impact of the Service Module slip. In order to allow the Agency to work around the current delay of this key Russian module, we are rescheduling the launch of the first element, the Functional Cargo Block, to no later than October 1998. To launch hardware to orbit simply to maintain our baseline schedule exposes the flight hardware to unnecessary risks. This is because FGB on-orbit avionics and fuel reserves would be stretched to support any additional Service Module delays. As designed, the FGB cannot adequately provide control functions for the assembly sequence to continue beyond the arrival of the U.S. Node. Going beyond that point requires the arrival of the Service Module, which will provide critical capabilities for the control and stability of the Station prior to arrival of the U.S. Laboratory Module. The Service Module also provides crew habitation and life support systems for early human occupation of the Station.
Faced with the potential for further delay of the Service Module, we have initiated a contingency plan to ensure that we can continue the ISS assembly process. We are now pursuing two hardware options to address the delay in the Service Module. First, we will modify the FGB to enhance its attitude control capabilities and make it refuelable. Second, we will pursue the development of an existing, proven system built by the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, as an interim control module, or ICM. The ICM will provide command, attitude control, and reboost functions. The FGB modification and the ICM addition would provide control capability even if the Service Module were delayed even a year longer than planned--up to December 1999.
We are currently evaluating options to address further potential perturbations to the program which could result from Russian schedule delays. These evaluations include assessing the possibility of advancing life support systems from the U.S. Habitation Module to the U.S. Laboratory Module to enable earlier human presence. In addition, we are evaluating options to provide a longer term propulsion capability to guard against further delay or non-delivery of the Russian Service Module. We are continuing the technical evaluations, assessing the schedule implications, and completing the cost estimates necessary to support a decision if necessary on these issues, in consultation with our international partners, the research community, and the Congress.
NASA and its partners have agreed to baseline a revised assembly sequence at a Space Station Control Board meeting in mid-May. Baselining the Service Module launch for December 1998 remains NASA’s preferred approach. To support this, we will be looking at several factors: first, whether Russian contractors are receiving promised funding in April and May 1997; second, the completion of a Service Module General Designer’s Review, and; third, satisfactory progress by Service Module subcontractors to support a December 1998 launch. A significant delay in these events would necessitate the baselining of the ICM for launch in December 1998. NASA intends to preserve the ICM risk mitigation capability in either case.
The costs associated with NASA’s contingency efforts to offset the Service Module delay are being minimized wherever feasible, but NASA will certainly require resources outside the planned program to undertake these changes and minimize delays. NASA will submit a revision to the FY 1997 Operating Plan to reallocate $200 million within NASA’s budget. I want to be clear that to the extent we use uncosted Shuttle funds for this purpose, it will have no effect on Shuttle safety. The reallocated funding will be the source of funds to address specific U.S. program requirements resulting from delays on the part of Russia in meeting its commitments to the ISS program and uncertainties about future Russian performance. NASA is also seeking continuation of the U.S./Russian Cooperation and Program Assurance budget line in FY 1998, with a placeholder amount of $100 million within the President’s total request of $13.5 billion. The exact amount and source of the funding for FY 1998 would be determined in the July/August 1997 timeframe, after a careful review of any potential additional hardware requirements needed to offset possible further Russian delays on the Service Module and its other programmatic commitments. We will keep the Committee apprised of our deliberations in this regard.
NASA is meeting its commitments to the Congress and the American people in building the ISS. The ISS program continues to identify ways to maximize program efficiencies and leverage investments to enhance the capabilities of the Space Station. Ongoing discussions with the International Partners have resulted in some U.S. hardware development being performed by the International Partners to offset Shuttle launch cost for International Partner hardware. After delivery, the United States will own and utilize this hardware. Examples of this hardware include: Nodes 2 and 3, which ESA has agreed in principle to provide, and the Centrifuge Accommodation Module, Centrifuge Rotor and Glovebox which we are currently negotiating with Japan.
NASA, the Administration and the Congress recognized the risks and challenges involved in undertaking a partnership on the International Space Station with the Russian Federation, but agreed that the risks were outweighed by the tremendous benefits. We have already learned much from the Shuttle/Mir Program. The International Space Station remains a much more capable and robust laboratory facility than it would be without the Russian contributions -- we will gain incredible scientific capabilities; we will develop cutting-edge technology. As I have said earlier, the American taxpayer has gained by the Russian involvement, and would stand to lose a great deal if Russia does not continue as part of the program. The Russian funding shortfalls have presented challenges. Now, in conjunction with our international partners, we have developed the necessary plans to move ahead, while still providing the opportunity for the Russians to participate in the program. With the support of this Committee and the Congress, we can enhance program stability and adapt to the realities that have come with Russia’s involvement.
The International Space Station is an initiative of significant size and complexity, offering enormous returns. It is a demonstration of America’s leadership in the development of peaceful cooperative ventures entering the 21st century. Humankind’s thirst to expand its knowledge and desire to explore the unknown are essential elements to our continued growth as a Nation and as a world community. The Space Station is our opportunity to prove America’s commitment to lead the way.
The Life and Microgravity Science and Applications (LMSA) program leads the Nation’s efforts in space biological, physical and chemical research and aerospace medicine. We support technology development and use the space environment to advance knowledge, to improve the quality of life on Earth, and to strengthen the foundations for the continued exploration and development of space. The LMSA program supports ground-based research and definition studies upon which flight experiments are based. Major initiatives underway include continued cooperation with the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. The FY 1998 budget request for the LMSA program is $214.2 million.
The FY 1998 budget request for the Space Shuttle program supports two major activities: Safety and Performance Upgrades ($483.4 million) and Space Shuttle Operations ($2,494.4 million). Safety and Performance Upgrades funding supports the modifications and improvements to the flight elements and ground facilities, including expansion of safety and operating margins, enhancement of Space Shuttle capabilities to meet customer requirements, replacement of obsolete systems, and upgrades required to meet environmental regulations. We are continuing the program of selected upgrades to increase reliability and maintainability of the Shuttle systems, and continuing studies to assess the feasibility of implementing more state-of-the-art technologies into the system. The upgrades allow us to support our customer’s requirements through 2012. Upgrade examples include updating the launch processing system, implementing Global Positioning System, Orbiter avionics improvements, and orbital debris modifications.
Shuttle Operations funding supports hardware production, ground processing, launch and landing, mission operations, flight crew operations, training, logistics, and sustaining engineering to maintain and operate the Shuttle fleet of four vehicles. The transition of operations to the Space Flight Operations Contract will continue through FY 1998. The Shuttle manifest includes eight flights in FY 1997 and six flights in FY 1998. Highlights of the FY 1997 flights include: a Wake Shield experiment, which was successfully flown in November 1996; the successful second servicing visit to the Hubble Space Telescope replacing two current science instruments with "second generation" instruments and refurbishing some telescope support system components; three more resupply flights to the Russian Space Station Mir; a development flight test of components that will be part of the Japanese Experiment module on the International Space Station, and; the Microgravity Science Laboratory mission (MSL), which was designed to study protein crystal growth, combustion, and material science experiments. A problem with one of three Shuttle fuel cells forced curtailment of this mission. The fuel cell has been removed from the orbiter, returned to the vendor and is undergoing numerous tests and analyses to discover the root cause of the problem. We plan to refly MSL, and to continue its important scientific research, in July of this year. Six flights are planned for FY 1998, including the last Spacelab (NEUROLAB), deployment of the Advanced X-Ray Astrophysics Facility (AXAF) and two flights to the Mir Space Station. A mission including a Microgravity payload package of experiments in the Orbiter cargo bay and a SPARTAN X-ray astronomy experiment using a retrievable free flyer also is manifested. We will also be ready for the assembly of the International Space Station to begin during this timeframe.
The FY 1998 budget request for Payload and Utilization Operations ($227.4 million) supports the processing and flight of Space Shuttle payloads and payload carriers for space experiments; retention of core science and technology capabilities supporting a variety of programs and the Human Space Flight Centers, and advanced research programs activities. Funding also is included to continue support of the X-38 vehicle, which is an in-house technology demonstration program for a prototype vehicle which has multiple applications and evolutionary options. Primarily, it is a pathfinder for the Crew Return Vehicle (CRV) for the International Space Station.
Discussions are underway with the European Space Agency exploring the commonality of design between the CRV and European Crew Transfer Vehicle and on the ability to launch the CRV on the European’s Ariane expendable launch vehicle. The Japanese Space Agency has expressed interest in participating in the X-38 and CRV programs and we are jointly looking at the possibility their providing launch capability on their H-2 expendable launch vehicle.
An agreement has been reached with DOD to collaborate on the X-38 to validate technologies which may be required for the Air Military Space Plane. Design and test capabilities which the Air Force could contribute to the X-38 have been identified. The Air Force has agreed to perform a 6-degree-of-freedom flight simulation of the X-38, miscellaneous additional design reviews and evaluations, as well as developing an experiment to fly as a payload on the X-38. Additional areas for potential collaboration are being discussed.
SPACE SCIENCE
The highlight of the FY 1998 budget request of $2,043.8 million for Space Science is the Origins program. The Origins Program was designed to answer questions about the Universe. For the first time in the history of humankind, we have the technology, or we will soon, for answering many of the questions about the beginning of the Universe and our solar system. Origins is going to look at many facets of the Universe, from its creation to the formation of chemical elements, galaxies, stars, and planets. Through this unique program, we will be unraveling the mysteries of the events and their sequence that led from the creation of the Universe to life on Earth.
The FY 1998 budget request for Space Science includes increases for several Origins-related programs. These include:
The Space Science program is moving forward on a number of scientific and flight programs, building on scientific successes of the recent past and preparing for the launch of significant missions which were started a few years ago and are nearing the end of their development. Cassini will be launched in October 1997. In 2004 it will begin exploring Saturn and surrounding objects, including Saturn’s moon Titan. This mission should give us unprecedented knowledge about Saturn and its moons.
On July 4, 1997, America will be returning to Mars when the Mars Pathfinder lands a single vehicle with a microrover and several instruments on the surface. The microrover will be providing ground truth on the surface, while the Pathfinder explores Mars from orbit, using instruments to study geology, surface morphology, geochemistry, the magnetic and mechanical properties of the soil, and a variety of atmospheric investigations. In September 1997, the Mars Global Surveyor will reach Mars and begin its orbits. Approximately every two hours, it will circle the planet, gathering information about Mars that it will relay to Earth. During each orbit the spacecraft will be over a different part of Mars, filling in the blanks in our knowledge about the Red Planet. Together, these missions should give us the most in-depth information we have ever had about Mars.
Galileo will continue its mission of studying Jupiter and its system. A Galileo Europa Flyby occurred on February 20 and another is scheduled for November 1997. During the February flyby, Galileo captured spectacular images of chunky ice rafts and relatively smooth, crater-free patches on Europa which suggest a younger, thinner icy surface than previously believed. We were intrigued by these blocks of ice, similar to those seen on Earth’s polar seas during springtime thaws. These features lend credence to the idea of hidden, subsurface ocean, and that some motion caused Europa’s crustal plates to break up. Scientists hope to find answers to some of the questions surrounding Europa and its possible oceans as Galileo continues its journey through the Jovian system. Galileo will also have two flybys of Ganymede in April and May.
This budget request includes funding to continue the robust program spacecraft development activities underway in the Discovery, Explorer, New Millennium and Mars Surveyor programs. The program management philosophy underlying these programs, which emphasizes limited science objectives, short development times and strict adherence to cost caps, exemplifies the acceptance of the “faster, better, cheaper” philosophy by NASA and the scientific community. The FY 1998 budget request also provides for continued stability in the Space Science Research and Analysis (R&A), Suborbital Program, and Mission Operations and Data Analysis (MO&DA) accounts.
MISSION TO PLANET EARTH
We are requesting $1,417.3 million in FY 1998 for Mission to Planet Earth, a basic research program seeking an understanding of how the Earth system works and changes, both naturally and in response to human activity. This effort has huge potential to improve the quality of life on Earth, from the basic scientific research and also from strengthening the American economy by developing new science and technologies that are essential to a broad community of civil, commercial and national security users. The comprehensive, long-term focus on understanding and eventually predicting changes in the Earth system is only possible with today’s air and space-based observation and information processing technologies. Understanding the interactions of the oceans, atmosphere, continents, ice caps and biomass will be a revolutionary advance in Earth science. While much of our funding is looking toward the long-term goal, a significant portion of this funding is focused on producing near term results. In the near term, we are in he business of improving weather prediction on seasonal to interannual time scales, and increasing the efficiency of producing and using water, food, timber, rangeland, and other natural resources. Our scientists produce research results which reduce the threats that unexpected environmental changes pose to America and other nations of the world. This aspect of the program has become increasingly more important given that the seven largest economic losses from natural catastrophes have occurred in the last seven years. Mission to Planet Earth also conducts basic science and technology research that benefits the American remote sensing industry. An Integrated Program Incorporating New Science & Technology: The Earth Observing System (EOS), the centerpiece of Mission to Planet Earth, is a program of multiple spacecraft and instruments (AM, PM, CHEM series spacecraft and multiple small missions) designed to provide a sustained 15 year data set on 24 key measurements needed to understand global climate change. The first EOS satellite launches begin in 1998. The EOS implementation strategy has undergone a profound transition in the past few years. The size of the initial satellites to establish the system has been greatly reduced. Future missions will be increasingly responsive to technology advances, evolving scientific understanding, and commercial opportunities. In addition, to ensure the ability to stimulate new scientific discovery and respond to science questions on shorter term time scales, a parallel series of small, rapid-development Earth System Science Pathfinder (ESSP) missions has been incorporated into the program within the available funding. Two ESSP missions were selected last month. The first selection, The Vegetation Canopy Lidar Mission (VCL) seeks to provide the first global inventory of the vertical structure of forests. The second selection, Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), is a satellite-to-satellite microwave tracking system between two spacecraft to measure the Earth’s gravity field and its time variability over at least two years. One alternate was chosen if either of the above missions does not stay within cost guidelines—the Chemistry and Circulation Occultation Spectroscopy Mission (CCOSM), which would attempt to better understand when and where pollutants are released from the surface and mixed into the lower atmosphere, the distribution of Tropospheric ozone, and atmospheric circulation control and seasonal change. VCL will be ready for launch in 2000 and GRACE will follow in 2001.
Data from MTPE missions, both current and future, are captured, processed into useful data products, and broadly distributed by the EOS Data and Information System (EOSDIS). EOSDIS will ensure that data from these diverse missions remains available in active archives for use by current and future scientists. We are currently experiencing some schedule problems in the EOSDIS Core System (ECS), the data processing and active archiving system which comprises approximately one-third of the EOSDIS. We are working aggressively to ensure no adverse impact to the near-term launches while working with Hughes, the implementing contractor, to resolve the issue. In the longer term, following the recommendation of the National Research Council, MTPE is exploring the creation of a federation of Earth Science Information Partners in academia, industry and government to broaden the participation in the creation and distribution of EOSDIS information products. The intellectual capital for these missions, and the key to generating new knowledge from them, is vested in an active program of research and analysis. MTPE’s science research program funds over 1700 researchers from nearly every state. These researchers develop Earth system models from MTPE data, conduct laboratory experiments, run aircraft campaigns, develop new instruments, and thus expand the frontier of our understanding of our home planet. In 1996, MTPE published its first Science Research Plan which lays out an integrated strategy of satellite, aircraft and surface-based observations and research to address five key questions. The Plan also outlines some twenty related areas of research which round out the MTPE contribution to Earth System Science. The research program is also the basis for generation of applications pilot programs which enable universities, commercial firms, and State and local governments to turn scientific understanding into economically valuable products and services.
Partnerships Make It Possible: The challenges of Earth System Science, sustainable development, and protection of people, property and the environment from natural disasters require collaborative efforts among a broad range of national and international players. NASA participates with 12 other agencies in research coordinated by the US Global Change Research Program. MTPE has extensive collaborations with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on seasonal-to-interannual climate prediction, and MTPE develops the NOAA-operated operational environmental satellites. NOAA, NASA and the Department of Defense are collaborating on a convergence of the civilian and military weather systems. MTPE collaborates with the US Geological Survey on a range of land surface, solid Earth and hydrology research. NASA, NOAA and USGS collaborate in the Landsat 7 program, and NASA, DoD and USGS are working together on a third flight of the Shuttle Radar Laboratory modified to yield digital terrain data on most of the Earth’s surface. Internationally, MTPE participates in the World Climate Research Program, the International Geosphere/Biosphere Program, and the ozone assessments of the World Meteorological Organization. Most of MTPE’s satellite missions have international participation, ranging from simple data sharing agreements to joint missions involving provision of instruments and spacecraft. International direct contributions to MTPE missions total $4 billion, while cooperative agreements on data exchange provide access to US researchers to $4.7 billion in other foreign programs. In total, our international partners’ contributions exceed NASA’s investment, and we are working aggressively to improve the integration of our joint efforts as their contributions increase. MTPE includes a growing web of commercial partnerships, ensuring a broader distribution and use of MTPE science results while stimulating the US commercial remote sensing industry as a byproduct of MTPE activity. The worldwide market for remote sensing products was estimated at approximately $1 billion in 1995, and may grow to $10-$15 billion in the next 10 to 20 years. In 1997, a commercial firm is planning to launch a satellite instrument to measure global ocean “color” (phytoplankton concentration) to satisfy both MTPE research needs and to sell data to commercial fishing concerns. Also in 1997, two satellites built by industry in partnership with NASA, (Lewis and Clark) will demonstrate hyperspectral and high resolution land imaging technologies and will test the market for such data. A new and growing industry of “value-added” data processing companies is taking data from MTPE satellites and combining them with other data to produce information products for sale to timber companies, State and local governments and others with a need for geographic data. Many of these NASA/industry partnerships are implemented through the Earth Observation Commercial Applications Program (EOCAP) managed by NASA’s Stennis Space Center. Mission to Planet Earth released its Commercial Strategy last month, which is designed to foster these partnerships. Other creative partnerships also further the application of MTPE data to practical problems. MTPE is assisting the City of Scottsdale, Arizona, to apply remote sensing data to a broad range of needs such as flood management, urban planning, and environmental compliance; we are also working on final definition of a pilot program that develops local government applications of satellite imagery in Cayuga County, New York. NASA and several partner agencies are planning a series of regional workshops in partnership with regional authorities and local universities to look at hydrology in the Southeast, and perhaps fisheries in the Northwest, and agriculture in the Midwest. Staying on the Cutting Edge of Science & Technology: MTPE has adopted an evolutionary approach to fulfilling its mission and goals. During 1995, NASA conducted a comprehensive review of the entire MTPE enterprise. The goal was to enable: a focus on near-term science and associated applications; explicit provision for new technology infusion; reduction in life-cycle cost of the EOS program; provision of new science opportunities through smaller, quicker and less expensive missions (the genesis of ESSP); and closer participation with other Federal agencies (especially NOAA), commercial firms and international partners. The result of this review is an EOS which is lower in life-cycle cost, more flexible in implementation, and of greater utility to the science and commercial communities. Our basic approach has been endorsed by the National Research Council (NRC) through its Board on Sustainable Development.
Out of this review came planning for MTPE involvement in the New Millennium Program which conducts the development and flight demonstration of advanced, smaller instruments which will significantly reduce the cost of later phases of the EOS program. We are beginning a companion Instrument Incubator program to encourage the development of advanced instruments that may not require a flight demonstration, and a program to extend these advanced technology gains for polar-orbiting spacecraft to existing geostationary spacecraft programs. Additionally, we have recently initiated a study to examine the benefits of using a Principal Investigator-mode of implementation for EOS-Chem-1, the first in the CHEM series of EOS missions to study atmospheric chemistry. In this management mode, the Principal Investigator who has designed the scientific instrument, is empowered to make design tradeoffs among the spacecraft, instrument, and ground system capabilities to get a more optimum implementation approach. This mode shows promise for yielding additional cost savings across the space and ground aspects of our missions. We continue to refine this plan and seek the advice of the NRC and other external groups as we progress. In 1997, NASA will conduct the first Biennial Review of MTPE. The Biennial Review will examine all aspects of MTPE with a view toward incorporating new scientific understanding, technology development, commercial opportunities and expanded collaborations with national and international operational and research satellite systems. The product of the Biennial Review will be reviewed by a panel of independent external experts from the commercial, technology, and scientific communities, and will be the basis for MTPE’s FY 1999 budget request development.
AERONAUTICS AND SPACE TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY
In 1996, NASA combined its Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology programs, creating a strategic alliance between them to develop, in partnership with industry, advanced technologies in aeronautics and space transportation, and to facilitate the transfer and commercialization of these technologies. It is not NASA’s job to build operational vehicles, either for aviation or space transportation. It is NASA’s job to reduce the technology risk enough so that industry can produce vehicles for use by both the government and commercial sectors. To this end, NASA conducts enabling, risk reducing research, along with some focused technology demonstrations. The application of this research supports NASA mission requirements while improving U.S. economic competitiveness. The Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology budget request for FY 1998 is $1,469.5 million.
As we combined these two programs, we worked with our partners in government, industry and academia to develop a strategic framework to guide our research over the next two decades. I challenged this community to develop revolutionary goals for the future; goals for pioneering, high-risk, innovative concepts and technologies to break old paradigms and create new markets for U.S. industry. They met this challenge, and on March 20 I unveiled three technology ”pillars” that will shape this Enterprise in the decades to come: Global Civil Aviation, which focuses on issues of safety, affordability of air travel, and environmental compatibility for subsonic aircraft; Revolutionary Technology Leaps, which tackles these challenges for a new generation of both subsonic and supersonic aircraft, and; Access to Space, which will incorporate aeronautics technologies and operational efficiencies with revolutionary new space propulsion, control and structural technologies for launch vehicles to reduce the cost of launching payloads to Low Earth Orbit and geosynchronous orbit. Each pillar has 10- and 20-year goals that will stretch the boundaries of our knowledge and capabilities.
In Aeronautics, NASA’s work goes well beyond vehicle technologies as we focus on the long-term safety, efficiency, and environmental compatibility of aircraft and the system in which they operate. Developing technologies that cannot be utilized in the system or that do not add value is not a good use of taxpayer dollars. NASA works closely with the FAA, DOD and U.S. industry to ensure NASA develops the high-payoff, critical technologies that can be used in future vehicles and systems.
The High Speed Research (HSR) program addresses precompetitive, high-risk, make-or-break environmental and economic “barrier issues” that currently prevent any manufacturer from making a commitment to build a High Speed Civil Transport (HSCT). Industry trade studies indicate that a substantial market exists for an HSCT that would travel at more than twice the speed of sound, provided that stringent noise and emissions standards can be met and that ticket prices will be roughly equivalent to those on subsonic aircraft. Successful U.S. leadership in this next-century market could mean $200 billion in sales and 140,000 high-quality jobs in the U.S. NASA is working on the technologies that should make U.S. leadership possible in this next arena of global competition. The FY 1998 budget request for the High Speed Research program is $245 million.
Regardless of the success of a future HSCT, subsonic aircraft and the system in which all aircraft operate will remain the foundation for air travel in the next century. The Advanced Subsonic Technology (AST) program provides a focused technology base to ensure continued U.S. leadership in aircraft manufacture, aviation system safety, capacity and efficiency, and protection of the environment. This work will help assure that the anticipated tripling of demand for air travel over the next 20 years will not be unnecessarily constrained. NASA’s safety research includes both aircraft and air traffic system work to assure the greatest possible safety gains throughout the system. The AST program also focuses on reducing the environmental impact (both noise and engine emissions) of the growing fleet. Further, NASA is developing technologies that could lower both the manufacturing and operating cost of new aircraft, resulting in better U.S. competitiveness and ultimately lowering airfares to the traveling public. The FY 1998 budget request for AST is $211.1 million.
NASA’s High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) program is part of the multi-agency effort to boost supercomputer speeds one thousand-fold to at least one trillion arithmetic operations per second -- one teraflop -- and communications capabilities one hundred-fold. Throughout government, we have applications and requirements for these capabilities. For NASA, teraflop capability should allow us to begin to model the complete physics of an aircraft and develop a 100-year ocean-atmospheric model for climate change. Clearly, to get to the full fidelity of these models, we may need speeds of a thousand to a million times faster than a teraflop--and we will continue to work in this arena. We also will embed this capability in future spacecraft and remote exploration vehicles, greatly expanding the scientific return. The DOE recently demonstrated teraflop capability; however, this demonstration is at the theoretical peak performance which is relevant for only 4 or 5 percent of potential applications. For the majority of applications, we are at about 10 percent of our goal and significant progress needs to be made. HPCC efforts are funded in the Aeronautics, Space Science, Mission to Planet Earth and Education programs. NASA is also contributing $10 million to the Administration’s Next Generation Internet initiative. The total FY 1998 NASA budget request for HPCC is $73.8 million.
The Research and Technology (R&T) Base has been reorganized into six systems-oriented, customer-driven programs that serve the needs of the full range of aeronautical vehicle classes. A new emphasis on flight research has been added within the R&T Base, to “build a little, test a little, fly a little,” in order to advance technologies. The new organization is reflected in the FY 1998 budget request of $418.3 million. The R&T Base continues to serve as the vital foundation of expertise and facilities that meets a wide range of challenges and provides revolutionary new aerospace concepts. The new organization allows the R&T Base to remain focused on long-term technology needs while being more flexible and responsive to customers.
NASA’s Advanced Space Transportation Technology program is focused on developing and demonstrating pre-competitive next-generation technology to enable the commercial launch industry to provide truly affordable and reliable access to space. This in turn should enable the U.S. to recapture leadership in worldwide commercial space transportation in the early decades of the next century. The consequences of today’s high launch costs are unacceptable -- it is choking off the scientific, commercial and national security potential of this Nation’s space program.
The Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) technology program, comprised of the X-33 large-scale Advanced Technology Demonstrator and the X-34 Small Reusable Demonstrator, is a partnership between NASA and industry aimed at radical improvements in launch system cost and performance. We are focusing on six parameters: reusability, operability, reliability, safety during abort, mass fraction, and affordability. It is the goal of this program to reduce launch costs to $1,000 per pound of payload.
NASA is playing a unique role in the X-33 program, which is based on industry-led cooperative agreements. As a result of industry’s leadership of the program, the Government is not playing the traditional role of overseeing and directing the work of the industry contractors. Instead, Government participants are acting as partners and subcontractors, performing only those tasks which offer the most effective means to accomplish the program’s goals. The Government participants report costs and manpower to the industry team leader (Lockheed-Martin Skunkworks) as would any other subcontractor. Most NASA Centers have negotiated roles in the X-33 program. The industry-led cooperative arrangement allows a much leaner management structure, lower program overhead costs, and increased management efficiency.
The Advanced Space Transportation Program (ASTP) focuses on a broader spectrum of technological advances than RLV, with the potential to reduce launch costs well below RLV goals. The RLV is not the end of this process; it is only the beginning. We must continue to push technology to make space transportation as easy, reliable and affordable as it can be, to allow the fullest utilization of the space environment for research and commerce. The ASTP aims at a cost-to-orbit measured in hundreds, not thousands, of dollars per pound. Major near-term efforts include the Low-Cost Booster Technology project and Advanced Reusable Transportation Technologies project.
SUPPORTING ACTIVITIES
NASA’s request for Space Communications continues the critical services essential to the success of every NASA flight mission, from interplanetary spacecraft to the Space Shuttle to aeronautical flight test. The FY 1998 budget request for these activities is $646.5 million. Funding for components of the basic NASA infrastructure and institutional facilities is included in the Construction of Facilities budget. The FY 1998 budget request for these activities is $159.4 million.
NASA’s civil service workforce is at its lowest level since the early 1960’s. The overwhelming success of two buyouts conducted in the past two years, and an aggressive constraint on hiring, has allowed NASA to achieve unprecedented reductions in the civil service workforce, and meet the Administration’s streamlining targets earlier than planned. NASA is committed to continuing its downsizing efforts, to reach an FTE level just below 18,000 by FY 1999. The FY 1998 budget request for Research and Program Management, which includes the salaries, travel and supporting infrastructure for NASA’s civil servants is $2,070.3 million.
The FY 1998 budget includes several initiatives to improve the planning and budgeting for the acquisition of flight projects. The President’s budget request includes a request for advance appropriations for several of NASA’s programs. These programs include development of the International Space Station, development and launch of the Space Infrared Telescope Facility (SIRTF), development of the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA), the X-33 experimental launch vehicle, and development and launch of the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite Replenishment spacecraft. The incremental budget authority required in FY 1998 for these projects is included in NASA’s budget request. The Administration is requesting approval of language which would appropriate fixed amounts in future years to complete development of the projects.
One of the Zero Base Review recommendations was to manage NASA’s programs on a “full cost” basis, including direct and overhead costs. Although there is no other way in the private sector, the NASA financial and program managers have been working hard to make this management philosophy a reality within NASA. NASA traditionally has considered funding for its programs separately from funding for the civil service workforce and institutional support. Under full cost management, the total cost of any activity -- including direct, indirect service pools, and agency overhead costs -- will be captured together. Management on a “full cost” basis will improve NASA’s decision process by motivating managers to operate more efficiently and allowing a more compete analysis of the true cost of project activities. Implementation of full cost management is integral to the management changes that we have instituted over the past year. The designation of Lead Centers for program activities, and the movement of program management authority and responsibility out of Headquarters to the field centers will be completed with the implementation of full cost budgeting and management in NASA. We will work closely with the Congress as we implement our plan to accomplish this.
CONCLUSION
Since 1918, NASA has been a terrific investment for the country. We do very real things to make life better for all Americans. Whether the concern is the environment, health care, the economy, or our children’s education, NASA is making a unique contribution. One way we do that is by preserving U.S. leadership in cutting-edge science and technology. Our past work has led to tremendous breakthroughs in such diverse areas as mobile communications, air transportation, biomedical research, information systems, and new industrial tools. These types of new technologies mean a stronger America, but not without the workforce of the future to support the new technologies. NASA nurtures America’s students to give them better opportunities for the future; our education programs reach more than 3 million people each year, from elementary students to post-graduates. NASA is an investment we must continue to make, so future advances can keep our country strong and benefit our citizens.
Some will say the NASA budget request for FY 1998 is not enough. I do not agree with that. When I look at the President’s budget submission, I see a vote of confidence from the President. The President’s request indicates that he recognizes what it takes for NASA to do its job.
This is an extraordinary time for civilization and this Nation. For the first time, we have achieved the level of understanding and technical capability that allows us to grasp the full meaning of our origins, our history, and our context in the Universe. For as long as humans have been able to think, we have been explorers, inventors, and dreamers, pondering how the Universe came to be as it is, how the richness of life on this planet developed, and whether life on Earth is unique in the cosmos. In the past, these questions were answered by speculation and myth. Now they can be addressed with the scientific soundness of evidence and quantitative analysis.
We are nearly ready to begin construction of the International Space Station, ushering in a new era of living and working beyond the confines of Earth’s gravity. We eagerly await the discoveries and inventions we cannot yet imagine that will be made possible by this orbital research facility.
We also stand at a new threshold in the understanding of our planet, as Mission to Planet Earth already is providing groundbreaking new information on the systems at work on Earth. We are working toward a future where we understand Earth’s systems and the influence and impact of the human race on them; the benefits for humankind will be diverse and far-reaching.
In Aeronautics, thanks to NASA research the early part of the next century may see the advent of the first affordable supersonic transport aircraft, with its attendant benefits for the global community and the US economy. Air travel on the whole will become even safer, less harmful to the environment, and more convenient.
NASA technology will enable a whole new generation of launch vehicles that will make access to space affordable and reliable, allowing the proliferation of new uses for the space environment, many of which we cannot yet imagine.
NASA is ready to deliver on this vision for the future. We will continue to work closely with the Congress over the coming months as we implement our programs for the benefit of the American people. We believe they will see the value of the work NASA is doing and the work we did to get here.
Webmaster:Matt Peterson, Office of Legislative Affairs
E-mail comments or suggestions to:matt.peterson@hq.nasa.gov
A service of NASA's Office of
Legislative Affairs, Jeff Lawrence, Associate Administrator.