The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 05/27/2008 Item #10C \',. Agenda Item No. 10C May 27, 2008 Page 1 of 52 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve a Resolution supporting the national strategic importance of maintaining spaceflight expertise at the Kennedy Space Center in the State of Florida and ensuring that future crew and cargo missions to the International Space Station use domestic capabilities. OBJECTIVE: To approve a Resolution (attached) of the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) of Collier County, Florida, to the Florida Congressional Delegation supporting the national strategic importance of maintaining spaceflight expertise at the Kennedy Space Center in the State of Florida and ensuring that future crew and cargo missions to the International Space Station use domestic capabilities, Once approved by the Board of County Commissioners, the Resolution will be transmitted to members of the Congressional Delegation in Washington, D.C, including Congressmen Connie Mack and Mario Diaz-Balart, and Senators Bill Nelson and Mel Martinez, the county's federal lobbyist, The Ferguson Group, and the Florida Association of Counties (FAC), CONSIDERATION: Board of County Commissioners (BCC) Vice Chairman Donna Fiala received correspondence (attached) dated April 21, 2008, from Brevard County Commission Chairman Truman Scarborough requesting support through a Resolution for continuation of the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) program administered by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) which contributes an estimated $4 billion to Florida's economy annually. Commissioner Fiala provided a copy of the correspondence to the County Manager's Office on May 6, 2008, and presented to the BCC on May 13,2008, her proposal to have the Resolution return for BCC consideration on May 27, 2008, with additional information if available requested by Commissioners prior to consideration, The correspondence provided by Commissioner Scarborough also included Brevard County Resolution 2008-053 (attached), a Washington Post news article (attached) detailing the U.S,'s $100 billion investment in the International Space Station and NASA's upcoming reliance on Russia for crew and cargo transport once the Space Shuttle is retired in 2010, and a transcript of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Space hearing on the Fiscal Year 2009 budget for NASA (attached), A former astronaut, Sen, Bill Nelson is chairman of the subcommittee that oversees NASA. An Orlando Sentinel article (attached) reported April IS, 2008 that "Washington has rejected recent campaigns to sharply increase NASA's budget. The agency revealed this month that more than 8,000 workers nationwide - including up to 6,400 at KSC - could lose their jobs after the shuttle is retired in 2010." (' Agenda Item NO.1 OC May 27. 2008 Page 2 of 52 As requested by the BCC, staff placed an inquiry to The Ferguson Group representative Amanda Wood to research if there was any additional background information regarding the issue that Commissioners should be made aware of. Ms. Wood's advisement was that there was no hidden agenda she could find, and in her assessment, the intent of Brevard County was to reach out to communities statewide to rally support for their effort. Further, she advised providing a Collier County Resolution comparable to Brevard County's in support of the KSC to the Congressional Delegation is a good idea, Keeping the jobs in the region makes good economic sense to the State of Florida, FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this executive summary. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no growth management impact associated with this executive summary. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This matter presents no legal issues. JAK RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approves a Resolution supporting the national strategic importance of maintaining spaceflight expertise at the Kennedy Space Center in the State of Florida and ensuring that future crew and cargo missions to the International Space Station use domestic capabilities, which will then be transmitted to the Florida Congressional Delegation, the County's federal lobbyist, The Ferguson Group, and the Florida Association of Counties (F AC), Prepared by Debbie Wight, Assistant to the County Manager /- Page ] of ] Agenda Item No. 10C May 27. 2008 Page 3 of 52 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number: Item Summary: 10C Meeting Date: Recommendation to approve a Resolution supporting the national strategic importance of maintaining spaceflight expertise at the Kennedy Space Center In the State of Florida and ensuring that future crew and cargo missions to the International Space Station use domestic capabilities. (Jim Mudd, County Manager) 5/27/2008 90000 AM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County Commissioners County Manager's Office 5/19/20085:11 PM (' file://C:\AgendaTest\Export\] 08-May%2027,%202008\ 1 0,%20COUNTY%20MANAGER... 5/21/2008 Agenda Item NO.1 OC May 27,2008 Page 4 of 52 RESOLUTION NO, 2008- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO THE FLORIDA CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION REGARDING THE NATIONAL STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF MAINTAINING SPACEFLIGHT EXPERTISE AT THE KENNEDY SPACE CENTER AND ENSURING THAT FUTURE CREW AND CARGO LOGISTIC MISSIONS TO THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION USE DOMESTIC CAPABILITIES, \VHEREAS, the United States has a strategic interest in maintaining the nation's preeminence in spaceflight; and WHEREAS, the spaceflight expertise at the Kennedy Space Center is a center of excellence that should he maintained after the discontinuance of Space Shuttle missions; and WHEREAS, the United States has obligations to provide crew and cargo logistic services to the International Space Station after the Shuttle is retired; and WHEREAS, until the Constellation Program reaches operational status, the United States currently plans to substantially fulfill those obligations by purchasing logistic services from Russia, notably Soyuz and Progress flights; and WHEREAS, these plans make the United States largely dependent on the Russians for a five-year period or more in obtaining access to the International Space Station; and WHEREAS, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has executed Space Act Agreements under the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) Program to foster domestic commercial capability to provide crew and cargo logistics to the International Space Station; and WHEREAS, the COTS Program provides for four different cargo and crew logistic capabilities known as Capabilities A, B, C, and D; and \VHEREAS, the United States is the world's premier space faring nation because the American aerospace industry has consistently provided solutions to national needs including those of NASA; and WHEREAS, these talents should be tasked to providing domestic solutions to America's crew and cargo logistic needs; and WHEREAS, resources to be spent on procuring Russian Soyuz and Progress logistic services would best be devoted to the development and procurement of domestic crew and cargo logistic capabilities. Page 1 of2 Agenda Item No.1 DC May 27, 2008 Page 5 of 52 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. This resolution be forwarded to the State of Florida Congressional Delegation with a request that the Delegation as a whole urges the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to immediately explore all possible domestic options - including COTS Program Capabilities A, B, C, and D - to reduce or eliminate the need to procure foreign logistic services to the International Space Station. 2. Such efforts should not be limited to cargo logistics but should aggressively target crew logistic needs including but not limited to COTS Capability D. 3. The Delegation work to obtain funding in the Fiscal Year 2009 Federal Budget for execution of these options. 4. The Delegation encourages the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to fully utilize the demonstrated excellence of the Kennedy Space Center for the integration and launch of these crew and cargo logistic operations. THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion, second and majority vote this 2ih day of May, 2008, ATTEST: DWIGHT E BROCK, Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLUER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: , Deputy Clerk TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN ~ , Page 2 of2 Agenda 1t'<i\S€tbofoc May 27, 2008 Page 6 of 52 wight_d From: wight_d Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 3: 15 PM To: henning_t; fiala_d; CoyleFred; HalasFrank; ColettaJim Cc: mudd.J; ochs_l; KlatzkowJeff; TorreJohn Subject: FW: NASA Commissioners, Below is response from Amanda Wood of The Ferguson Group regarding your request for additional background information that may assist you In deciding on May 27 whether or not to support a resolution for NASA as presented to you by Commissioner Fiala on May 13, resulting from a letter she received from Brevard County, Thanks, -Debbie From: Amanda Wood [mailto:awood@tfgnet.com] Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:48 AM To: wight_d Ce: Val Gelnovatch; James Nichols Subject: RE: NASA I've done some digging today and can't find anything to suggest that there is any sort of behind the scenes maneuvering or hidden agenda going on with this, It is simply an effort by Brevard County to keep KSC open and keep those jobs in their region, which makes good economic sense for the State, They are reaching out to communities throughout the State to rally support for their effort, It's a nice sentiment, but may not ultimately impact policy in DC, as KSC funding is always viewed in the context of the shuttle program's long term viability, In short: resolution might be a nice thing to do for your neighbors across the State, and no hidden agenda I can find, 5115/2008 Agenda Item NO.1 DC May 27, 2008 Page 7 of 52 wight d I'rom: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: wight d Wednesday, May 14, 20089;39 AM henning_t; fiala_d; CoyleFred; HalasFrank; ColettaJim mudd~; ochsJ; KlatzkowJeff; TorreJohn NASA Resolution being considered 05.13.08 Brevard County letter re NASA resolution,pdf; 05.13,08 Senate Subcommittee on Space Budget on NASApdf; 05.13.08 NASA Wary of Relying on Russia article,pdf; NASA resolution Brevard County. doc Commissioners, Attached are the documents provided with, and Including, the letter regarding the NASA resolution request to Commissioner Fiala from Brevard County, As the County Manager was directed, it will come forward on the May 27 BCC agenda for your direction, and I am forwarding Information to you in advance so you may make an informed decision since those documents were included with the request. In addition, I forwarded an inquiry to our federal lobbyist, The Ferguson Group, In Washington, DC" for their advisement and perhaps further information on what may be transpiring on this issue, I am sure you are aware that a member of our Congressional Delegation, Sen, Bill Nelson, is a former astronaut who has remained supportive of the space program. His dialogue is included in the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Space hearing 34-page doc on NASA's FY09 budget. I will forward other news articles C, Coyle may have referenced. The one attached is from the Washington Post. This is solely for your advance information, ~ Thanks, -Debbie ~ ~," L:!iJ ~ ~ ~ 05.13.08 Brevard 05,13.08 Senate 05,13,08 NASA NASA resolution County letter... Subcommittee 0... Wary of Relying.., Brevard County... r---- I BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FLORIDA'S SPACE COAST Telephone: (321) 284.6750 Fnx: (321) 264-6751 BREVAR TRUMAN G, SCARBOROUGH, JR., commQ.\m;",ElllSl~~~~'~~~Y MANAGER 400 South Street, First Floor, Sta. 1 A ?i ) Titusville, FL 32780-7698 ./, I. () E~mail: truman.scarborough@brevardcounty.us~..5/Y..1I 0, ACTION_ ~ Ap,;121, 2008 1f' lY;t- ~ ~,,.,,, M (;fM 1h1/3 1i ~~ / The Honorable Donna Fiala District 1 Commissioner Collier County 3301 E Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 ( /!to)uc~ 'i; ~/7~ S/I3~) RE: Upcoming Retirement of Space Shuttle and Suspension of US, Human Spaceflight Program Dear Donna: The Brevard County Commission requested that I contact you for Collier County County's assistance with the enclosed Resolution regarding our Nation's Space Program, The space program contributes an estimated annual $4 Billion to Florida's economy, With the Kennedy Space Center, Floridians hold a special pride in our State's and Nation's dominant role in the exploration of the Universe. However, our concern reaches beyond national pride and Florida's economy, At stake is, our national security and position as a global leader in research, When the Space Shuttle is retired in 2010, the United States will not be able to launch astronauts into space for at least five years. During this 'Gap,' only China and Russia will launch humans into space, The Shuttle's replacement - the Constellation Program -- is projected to become operational in 2015. The General Accountability Office has already identified technical problems and budget overruns which will result in delays. 'Gaps' never get shorter. During the 'Gap', Americans will only be able to access the International Space Station by purchasing seats and cargo space aboard a Russian spacecraft. This occurs when the International Space Station, designated a 'National Laboratory' by the United States Congress, reaches its full potential as a platform for scientific research to produce new pharmaceuticals, materials, and energy sources. Today's crew of three astronauts is only able to perform a "housekeeping" function aboard the Station. Serious scientific research will only begin with a six person crew. Adding to the problem, the Russian Soyuz would be able to rescue only three astronauts of the six astronauts, The International Space Station was developed at a direct cost of $100 billion to the American taxpayer, When the Shuttle stops flying, America will have to pay the Russians at least $2 billion to access our National Laboratory in space. These costs could increase dramatically when Russia has a monopoly on flights to the Space Station. Starting in 2011 NASA will be prohibited by law from contracting with the Russians because of nuclear nonproliferation issues concerning Iran and Syria, If these legal restrictions are not PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Agenda Item No. 1 DC May 27, 2008 Page 9 of 52 Commissioner Fiala Collier County Page 2 waived, Americans cannot access the International Space Station regardless of how much we pay the Russians. This scenario can become much worse, On February 27, 2008, Florida Senator Bill Nelson conducted a Senate hearing where the full extent of the problem was explored. I have enclosed a transcript of the proceeding together with a copy of a Washington Post front page story summarizing these complex geopolitical issues. Russia will have the ability to seek concessions from the United States on a range of issues from our relations with former Soviet Block countries to Russia's assertion of mineral rights in the Arctic. Fortunately, there are options that will allow Americans access to the International Space Station without being held hostage to Russia. Launches of course would occur from Florida's Space Coast and provide employment opportunities for the 6,400 members of the Shuttle workforce who will lose their jobs in just over two years. Please join us in a united Florida effort by passing a resolution similar to Brevard County's and forwarding your resolution to: Congressman Connie Mack Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart Before the Shuttle is retired, we want to extend a special invitation to you and your family to have a VIP viewing of a Shuttle launch. Please watch the paper for dates of future launches and give me a call. I would be pleased to take care of your arrangements at the Kennedy Space Center. Thank you again for taking the time to consider Brevard County's request. additional information, please let me know, If you need Truman G. Scarborough Chairman Brevard County Commission enc: Brevard County Resolution 08-053 Washington Post news article Transcript of Bill Nelson's Senate Hearing (' , , ' Agenda Item No.l10C ~,' i~~~~*,*~~~">>~~***J~~~*~"**~,~,*~~,~jHtH~~*~~****~'~~'~f~,',',' a~ 2170 ?g~ $ ~ ~ 'if el' "0 f' d. '~ ; !'! <' fiJ E4 0 -0 C ." ~ c ~ $ ~, ~ ~'>,'" $ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ :~ ,* ? $ ~ : BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ~ ~!:~.,.,: ReaofuWm ! .0 ~~ RESOLUTION NO, 2008-053 ~ A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BREI/4RD "l" !,., COUNTY, FLORIDA TO THE FLORIDA CONGRESSIONAJ. DELEGATION REGARDING THE ~ ~ NATIONAL STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF MAINTAINING SPACEFLIGHT EXPERTISE AT q :t,. THE KENNEDY SPACE CENTER AND ENSURING THAT FUTURE CREW AND CARGO .,b <,; LOGISTIC MISSIONS TO THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION USE DOMESTIC .,~ i'.,"'",'.,.,.:, CAP ABILITIES ..::.,~"i,p., .... H71EREAS, the United Stales ha.s a strategic interest in maintaining the na/ioll's precrniiwnce in ;-[~ spaceflight; [he spaceflight expertise at the Kennedy Space Center is a cenlcr of excellence Ihal shvuld bl' main/m'ned after the discontinuance of Space Shult/e mis'siol1.t; and the United Slates has obligations to provide :: crew and cargo logislic services to the internalional Space Station after the Shuttle is retired; and ~~ i WHEREAS, until/he Constellation Progm!n reach!:s operational siulus, the United States currently plans ' '" "b'lantially fUlfill Ihu" ubligal'un, "y po",ha"ng 'ug~I'c "n"e", w'lh flu,',"o. ',"lably Soya, and Pmg""'- ~) $ flights; and these plans make the United States largely dependent on the Russiansfhr a _five year period or marc r'n +1) $- obtaining access to the lnternational Space Stmion; and -tf,) ~. . ~ ~. '"* H7Il:.ilEAS, fhe NQtiO/wi AaonalltJcs (llId Splice Administration has executed Spaee Act Agreements ~~ "'i under the Commercial Orbital Transpurwtion Sen'lc!!:> (COTS) Program!to joster domestic commercial capability :,.. ::r. to pmvi,J!! crew and <cargo logi.I'tics to Ihc JntJ..'rnmiullll! Space Slation; ,he COTS Program provides for filllr 1!;,7- different cargo OJlJ crew log/xtic copaiJllirie,I' knV"wll as Capabilities A, B, C, and D; and lhe United States is the ~ Il'v"{d'spn:mier spac<:(vring nation hecause' tlte Amer:;;;ull aerospace Industry has cOllsislemly provided solutiuns to q~ /:atiOll(l! needs inch/ding those orA',1S,-1: and ,j ~V ~ ,-; ~~ ~ (j:' z::C '* '* C* '* 1,:',4 ,,' G'*, ,,~ ,,~ (:; );* 2", ~,;. " (~,::- 2* ,'1 TrEST 0::- l,; A //, r/;?/ . 2,.Xlj~~~-~ (4 ~-f,-c1:ERY C:t: "'...4.4- Ef ~ (4 ~~ d~ (~ WHEREAS, th".\(~ wlems should be taskeJ to providing domestic solwwlls to America's crew alld cargo logistic ~{'eds, amI resources to he spell! on procuring Russian Soyuz and Progress logistic services would best be devoled /0 th(~ developmellt and procuremenl of dOilies tic crew and cargo logls/IC capabililie~ .vow THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, does h<.'l"('bl' unfJnimuu.I'/y approve 71,at thi~- Resolutiun bt'furwarded to tlte State of f/orUJII CUlfgressi(//lIIl Dcl/!}!tJtioll wilh Ii /'i'IjIH'.W tlwl tlu: lJelegution (.IS 1./1l'11Oh' urge Ihe .-1dmim:flNuor /if tile Nurirl/lul AeronUUlics Ulld Sp/lce AdmiJlistrutivT/ /0 inJl1I/!diute(I' o:plorc ull ponihlc d<lllle.~lic Ol,(ioll'\" - including COTS Progrum CupulJilitie.\" .{, /J, C. and j) - to rf"J/fcc or dimillllt(' thl' 1l(:,'rI to I'roctl/'e[on:i[;n logisric st'rI'il"c_I III rlu' Interlmtirma! Space SItUirlll. That SlIch 11Ior(\' ,,/wlIld not he /ifllilt'd 10 elll.go iflgiSlji'.\' hilt shuuld II,~Krl'_\'vilil"(J' lur!:(~t (:I'r'H' !ogistic nt'f',}s including but 11M limited to COTS C/lp<<bili/y D. That the Delegufion encollruge tlie AdministraTOr of tile .Vu!ifJ/1II1 Aenmul/ti...1 aml!:J'puct, AdmilliMratioll tll Jil/(l' utilize the demoll,\"lruted e;o;cellel1ee of the Jicllncdy Spuce Center far the imegrulio/l find 11l1l1lcll of/lies!! crew allll l-'urgo logistic opera/iom', DO,YE, ORDERED AND AlJOPTh1J, ill r!:f:lilal din (:t'/>!arcil, "t}). ~'n(!s illL("'3(,.<~RO~AN BOAIW OF COC.VTf COMJ1JSSJU,VERS IiP..L'VA!:.D CCi./;V'fT, FLOJifD,j \.'4 2~ " ~~ to,> '1t~~~ +1:0 iiJ *~ ~-~'!'~'!'..~~lt~'~_"jr~'~'~'-~*__~r'l.~'*._~_"j'_ ~ ~W\:}"',"",'I'\;Y\!!!''i;l:~;:'''-~'\.'1'~'!''U;~'X!~"\:'\.!,:''~''\!_/W~~"Wr'~;Z)'-.:v\!'~\Y~'j'c~" .;tii .;-i~ ,,:) ~b +0 ~,:) .;~) ~,0 it> ~... +D +.'~; ~~';l i'Ol ~~"' '." +;:) ~',':', .;;,:) +~) ~;~ ';-,;'J ':'::1 :}, ,,""' ,;';'., ,i>> f,~ ':"':,i to) ~;> ;;) ~:) :') ';1:} ~i,) ~,) ~r,) ,.) Agenda Item No. 10C May 27, 2008 Page 11 of 52 Senate Commerce, Science and Transporation Subcommittee on Space Holds Hearing on Fiscal Year 2009 Budget for NASA NELSON: Good afternoon. Thank you all for coming. And, Dr. Griffin, thank you for the public service that you render, As you know, what I try to do so we can get right to the meat of this stuff, I'm not going to make an opening statement. It will be entered in the record, and we will take your lengthy testimony. It will also be entered in the record, and it's my understanding that the STS-120 crew is on their way, and when they get here, we will introduce them. But let me just welcome you and thank you for the service that you render in a very difficult time, trying to juggle innumerable balls in the air all at once. And it's a very difficult job you have, because you don't get to decide how much that you would like. You always have what we used to call in the South a governor over you. That was a device that you'd put on a car that made the car not go any faster than a certain number of miles per hour. And so it's a difficult task that you have, and thank you for what you do. Let me ask you... Senator Stevens, would you like to make any opening comments7 STEVENS: No, I'm pleased with your policy. I'd like to listen to Dr. Griffin, if we could. NELSON: OK, Well, as a courtesy to you, Senator Stevens -- you're the man around here -- why don't I just relinquish the time and let you start off the questions? STEVENS: I'd like to listen to him. He's not going to make a statement? NELSON: No. We put his statement in the record. It's a very lengthy statement, and we're going to get right to the questions. ~ Agenda Item No. 1 DC May 27, 2008 Page 12 of 52 GRIFFIN: And I'll waive a brief oral statement in response to Senator Nelson's desire to get to the questions. STEVENS: Well, my basic question would be how you're doing and what are your problems money- wise? GRIFFIN: Wow. I think we're doing well, and I think we have an adequate budget to accomplish the tasks that have been set before us. As Senator Nelson indicated, not as rapidly as most of us would like to see them accomplished, but I think we can do it, and I'll leave it at that for the moment. STEVENS: It looks to us like we're sort of dependent now upon foreign vehicles for our launches. How long is that going to cOntinue? GRIFFIN: You have just asked the question that probes at my greatest concern and my greatest regret, Yes, sir, you are correct. We are dependent for crew transport to the space station between shuttle retirement at the end of 2010 and the expiration of our INKSNA waiver -- the Iran, North Korea, Syria Nonproliferation Act waiver that we have that expires at the end of 2011. So for a year there we're actually dependent upon Russia if -- and I'll say if -- the Congress of the United States chooses to give NASA another exemption to purchase Russian crew transport services. We will be dependent upon such service until either we deploy the Orion crew exploration vehicle at the beginning of 2015 or until an independent U.s. commercial capability takes form by one or another company. If we do not have a further exemption to the INKSNA provisions, then there will not be U.S. crew on the space station after 2011, and we will have to abrogate our commitments to our international partners to provide transport to them after 2011. So in brief, sir, that is the situation as we see it. STEVENS: Mr, Chairman, you might want to introduce the crew. I think that's the crew of the STS-120 just came in, if I'm right. GRIFFIN: I would be thrilled to take a break and recognize the STS-120 crew, In fact, we can recognize them two or three times, and that will be fine. ~ Agenda Item No. 10C May 27. 2008 Page 13 of 52 NELSON: No, don't worry, We'll be getting back to you, Dr. Griffin. GRIFFIN: Somehow I thought that might be the case. NELSON: The commander, Pam Melroy; the pilot, George Zamka; mission specialist, Scott Parazinski; mission specialist, Doug Wheelock; mission specialist Stephanie Wilson; and mission specialist from our colleagues in ESA, Paolo Nespoli. Paulo is from Italy, and they launched an Italian built module called Harmony. It is now part of the space station, and it is an important connector that other payloads will be connected to. And this is the flight last fall that you remember the drama when they unfurled part of the solar array, that something wasn't working, and they had to send -- and it was Scott. They sent Scott up there, and if Scott made a slip, he could have been fried. But NASA in its usual excellence pulled it off, working a problem real time. And so we all are very proud of you all and want to welcome you to our little subcommittee here. And this is how we try to do the people's work, and this is how we try to keep alive America's hopes and dreams through its space program. So welcome to you all. You all are welcome to just sit and observe and enjoy it until you have to go, so entirely on your own schedule, Madam CER, whatever is your pleasure. Do you have a moment or two to wait, or do you all need to run off? NELSON: OK. Yes, indeed. STEVENS: Mr. Chairman, I think we can see why they sent Scott. He cannot reach them all. (LAUGHTER) Great. Great job. We all watched you very carefully. GRIFFIN: These are the people that I'm proud to lead for the duration of my assignment as administrator, and my primary goal was to make them proud to work with me. So thanks for recognizing them, Mr. Chairman. NELSON: Yes, indeed. r Senator Stevens, do you want to continue? 3 Agenda Item No, 10C May 27, 2008 Page 14 of 52 STEVENS: I'd like to ask one last question. NELSON: Oh, absolutely. STEVENS: How do you plan to pay for these foreign services, if we authorize you to use them? GRIFFIN: We do have money set aside in the budget to purchase crew transport services from Russia. Whether it's enough money or not, of course, depends on the outcome of negotiations that can't begin yet. Let me back up. Our current contracts expires -- and is well understood -- at the end of 2011, of course, as I just said. The Russian development history and production history for Soyuz is such that, if we wish to fly at the beginning of 2012, we need to have a new contract in place by the spring of 20009. They have a three-year production lead time for Soyuz systems. So over the course of approximately the next year, if we wish to avail ourselves of Russian crew transportation services, as opposed to de-crewing or taking U.S. crew off the station, if we wish to procure Russian transportation services, the administration would have to formulate or finish the formulation of a request to Congress for a further exemption. And then we would have to negotiate a new contract with the Russians by roughly April of '09. STEVENS: Could we build our transportation in that timeframe, if we gave you the money? GRIFFIN: No, sir. Senator Nelson has asked me that question previously for the record, and I have responded, and the answer Is no different today. There are always uncertainties, but with the best analysis we have, returning to that earlier answer, the technical limit at this point on deployment of a new system would be September or October of 2013, and to achieve that would require an additional $2 billion over F.Y. '09, '10, and a little bit of F.Y. '11. At the present pace, if everything goes as we expect it to go, neither better nor worse, we will deliver new capability in March of 2015, about 18 months after that. So the technical limit is fall of 2013. Our expected delivery date today is the spring of 2015. STEVENS: You've been very generous, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much, 4 .=- , Agenda Item No. 1 DC May 27, 2008 Page 15 of 52 NELSON: Well, you are certainly welcome. And you all can turn off the lights. We don't need any timing on it. And, Senator Stevens, thank you for asking that question, because naturally that's of an enormous concern to me with the Kennedy Space Center, because if there is a five-year gap from the time that we are launching humans into space -- putting on my parochial hat for Florida -- it affects a huge number of layoffs. Putting on my NASA hat, we become entirely reliant on Russian vehicles, and who knows what the geopolitics of the year 2013, '14, '15 is going to be about Russia -- number one, that they produce the Soyuz craft for us to get to the space station, or number two, what they're going to cost us. And that's something of an uncertainty that we have. My colleague, who has replaced Senator Hutchison as the ranking member of the committee, Senator Vitter of Louisiana -- and Senator Vitter has really jumped into this with a whole bunch of gusto, and we are all very appreciative. Senator Vitter? STEVENS: Before we go, would you... NELSON: Yes, sir? STEVENS: ... permit me to put my statement in the record? NELSON: Absolutely. Without objection. vmER: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, And I'm very excited to join the subcommittee. And I'm very excited to be the ranking member. I'm very interested in the mission of NASA as a very important part of our national vision for the future. Also, there are, of course, significant facilities in my part of the world related to NASA -- Michoud in the New Orleans area, which has a very proud past and I think an even more promising future, both tied to the shuttle and beyond. And, Doctor, I certainly appreciate your personai recognition of the asset that Michaud constitutes and how it should be utilized in the future. And also Stennis, right across the line in Mississippi, is a very important asset, and probably about a third of their workforce happens to live in Louisiana. So I take a great speCific interest in that as well. ,~ 5 Agenda Item No. 10C May 27, 2008 Page 16 of 52 Along with the chairman and along with many other folks, I'm very concerned about this gap from a lot of different perspectives, not just a parochial one, but from the perspective of the future of NASA. And I guess one of my biggest concerns is that I think we are very good at calculating the cost of additional action like the $2 billion you're talking about -- and that's real; I'm not trivializing that -- but I think we're not very good at calculating the costs of inaction, because there is real cost. It's tougher to calculate. It's tougher to put a number on, but that doesn't mean it's any less real -- the cost of inaction. There is enormous cost in terms of loss of workforce and skills, and you just don't turn off a switch and then turn on a switch two years later and the lights come on and nothing's been interrupted. Those are people with skills. They leave, many of them. They just don't hang around and wait. They can't be immediately or easily or cheaply replaced in terms of those critical skills. I think there is also real cost in terms of this dependence on Russia for transportation, and not just cost of national prestige or any of that, but I'm talking about dollar cost. And I wanted to try to explore with you some of those costs, which again are not as easy to calculate as the $2 billion, but I think are nevertheless very real. What has NASA done to sort of put pencil to paper and understand the costs of the gap in terms of loss of workforce and skills and how we regain that on the other end of the gap? And is that cost really built into the budget in terms of the training and the skills development we're going to need, if there is this same gap as that plays out on the other end of it? GRIFFIN: Well, let me take the last part first. Our budget in terms of bringing on board the people who are needed through and at the end of the gap does contain the necessary funds for the people we will need. What I think, of course, you appreciate is that people will be coming off the shuttle program and will be coming on to the new Constellation program, our Ares and Orion systems to start, that I mentioned a few moments ago, And while our budget in constant dollars remains approximately Axed, and therefore the number of our people remains approximately Axed, they won't necessarily be in the same physical places, and they won't be the same people doing the same things. And since we are ceasing for several years -- we will have a hiatus in human space flight operations as opposed to design and development -- the kinds of people involved are very different in terms of their skills. And so, as you correctly point out, the operational skills will atrophy during those years. They will atrophy. And we will undoubtedly have startup problems as we begin to try to operate the new systems. I appreciate your point about the cost of inaction. Opportunity cost is aiways harder to calculate than direct cost, but it is nonetheless real to an economist. It matters. 6 Agenda Item No. 10C May 27, 2008 Page 17 of 52 We owe the Congress, and will deliver to the Congress, a series of reports. The first of those is due on March 24th, and every six months thereafter, we are obliged to provide to the Congress an assessment of workforce impacts from shuttle retirement and Constellation buildup at all of the different centers. We will do that. That will be available from this date within less than a month. Preliminary figures that I could give you today are very uncertain, as will be the figures I give you in a month. And they will be updated every six months. But in your area of the world, Senator Vitter, in Michoud we expect that the NASA employment -- now, this is not the total government employment, but the NASA employment -- will drop from about 1,900 today to under 600 -- somewhere down around 500 -- for a time before coming back up. At the Kennedy Space Center specifically, we will see, after the shuttle retires, a net reduction in contractor force of at least several thousand. And that will not 'come back up, at least in terms of launch processing because of the fact that our new systems will require, and should require, fewer people to operate than the shuttle, which is an expensive system. We are, after all, retiring the shuttle. Our goal is to work as carefully as possible to preserve the skills that we need. We are dealing with that every day. And our goal also will be very specifically to move some new roles and missions to the Kennedy Space Center to replace the specific shuttle operations tasks, which will go away and not come back. We do not by any means have all the answers to these problems today. I want you to know from my heart that I take this seriously. The displacement of lives, the displacement of skills, as we wind down the shuttle program and start a new program matters to me, and it matters to my team, and we are working at it. We don't have all the answers today. VffiER: To follow up specifically on this atrophy of skills, you say the money is there at the other end of the gap for the people, but do you think it fully takes into account the increased cost per head, if you will, that may be involved because of the atrophy of skills and the retraining required? GRIFFIN: I take your point. I think so, but I can't know that now. And that symptom will be manifested in our ability to sustain the schedule we want to sustain. If it takes longer to get our people back up to speed than we anticipate, then we will not be able to hold our schedule, and that's how that symptom will show. Let me be clear. We have a program today which is heavily focused on shuttle operations. We are, of course, not designing and building the shuttle anymore. As we reach and pass 2010, we will be out of the operations business for a while and into the design, development, test and evaluation side of our business. We will be developing new systems. ~ 7 Agenda Item No. we May 27, 2008 Page 18 of 52 We will be spending in total the same amount of money nationwide on our workforce, but it will be different = people in different places. And then as we close in on 2015 and begin to develop routine operations again, we will shift out of design, development, test and evaluation and back into operations. So at different portions of this product Iifecycle, we will need different kinds of people in different kinds of places. VffiER: The other cost of inaction specifically that I'm concerned about is what we end up paying to the Russians. Buying transportation from them isn't like buying a plane ticket in a free market, where you have plenty of customers going to that airline. It's a very unique negotiation. GRIFFIN: Yes, sir. VffiER: We're the only customer in sight that has the attributes that we have vis-a-vis what we're trying to buy from them. So it is a one-of-a-kind negotiation. It's not buying something off a shelf with a clear price fixed by the market. And I'm afraid some of our inaction, whether it's in trying to accelerate the next generation program or perhaps putting more money into COTS, dramatically increases their bargaining power, dramatically increases the price we end up paying for that next contract. And we've seen, I believe, major increases in that price we've gotten from them over several years already, GRIFFIN: . We have. VTITER: How do you analyze that? And is there any effort within NASA to try to estimate? I realize it's impossible to predict, because it's a very unique negotiation, but to try to estimate what impact on that price our own additional expenditures could have, either in terms of accelerating our program or putting more money into COTS, et cetera. GRIFFIN: We do have an estimate for what we expect the cost of Russian Soyuz seats, if you will, to be after the current contract runs out. I'd rather not discuss that estimate here. I'd be happy to do that with you in private. But based on our history with the Russian program, we do have such an estimate, I do not have an estimate for how that estimate might change as a result of more timely investment in our own capabilities, whether in COTS or in accelerating our own Orion and Ares program. I don't have a sensitivity estimate for you that you ask about. 8 Agenda Item NO.1 OC May 27, 2008 Page 19 of 52 vmER: Wouldn't it be reasonable to develop that to understand the cost benefit of spending in terms of acceleration of our program or acceleration of COTS, if there is some saving in terms of the bill from the Russians? GRIFFIN: I think it would. I'd be happy to develop that. Again, it's not something I'd like to discuss publicly. VffiER: No, I don't suggest we should publish it, for obvious reasons, because we have this negotiation with the Russians. But I do suggest we should develop it on our side. GRIFFIN: Sure. Of course, at one extreme, if the administration seeks, and if we are granted an exemption to INKSNA -- and Senator Nelson rightly points out that we don't know what the political environment will be after 2012, but let us assume that it continues stably today -- by the time we are done paying for Russian services at one extreme, we will have expended the $2 billion I spoke of that would have been necessary to close the gap. Now, we can't go back and re-do that decision, because water has moved under the bridge. But between the existing contract and our anticipated expenditures in the future, we will spend in the neighborhood of $2 billion Russian hardware. VffiER: Well, again, I'd like to specifically request that sort of analysis... GRIFFIN: We will develop it for you. VffiER: .., confidential on our side, because -- I don't necessarily predict this, but -- it's possible for me to imagine certain investments, either in accelerating the timeline of our next systems or in COTS, that pay for themselves or almost pay for themselves in terms of savings to the Russia ns. GRIFFIN: Yes, sir. I understand, and we will develop that for you. One option might be to accelerate the award of the de-phase of COTS. COTS de-phase, which is the... VffiER: Right. (' 9 Agenda Item NO.1 OC May 27, 2008 Page 20 of 52 GRIFFIN: ... human space flight capability. If we believe that the present agreements are going well, that's always an option. VffiER: Right. GRIFFIN: So, yes, sir. I understand. We'll get back to you for the record on that. VTITER: Thank you. That's all I have right now, Mr. Chairman. NELSON: Well, chime in anytime. We'll just keep this going as a conversation here. All right. Well, let me pick up right there -- COTS-D, which is developing a new vehicle that would have human capability. The company, SpaceX, which you've already awarded a contract to to develop a cargo carrier, just bid to also develop a human carrier. And the extra money that you had left over, because the second bidder on the original COTS contract left the scene and so you had extra money, but you did not give it on a COTS-D. But now you're raising the possibility of a COTS-D, which is the human carrier to SpaceX? GRIFFIN: Well, let me clarify, sir, if I might. We don't have contracts. We have technically -- and I need to be careful about this -- Space Act Agreements, whereby we now have two purveyors, SpaceX and Orbital, whereby they can qualify for NASA payments by reaching certain milestones in their development process. And once there is developed capability, we may well -- we hope to -- put out RFTs for actual contracts. But these are other transactional authority in government procurement language, and I need to be very careful on that on". NELSON: And these are for cargo. GRIFFIN: And the milestones that we are seeking -- the A milestone is for unpressurized cargo, the B milestone is for pressurized cargo, the C milestone is for -- equally important -- the return of cargo from the station -- processed experiments and such things, and finally, the D milestone is for the delivery and return of crew. SpaceX has bid on all four milestones -- A, B, C and D -- and we, of course, do desire to recognize and award the easier milestones first. I think that's obvious. 10 Agenda Item NO.1 DC May 27, 2008 Page 21 of 52 Orbital, the recent winner of a COTS agreement, has proposed on only the first two milestones. All of those are valuable things to us. I was mentioning the point, in response to Senator Vitter's question, that it is possible, if we are willing to take a iittle more risk -- and this may be a time to take more risk -- it is possible to recognize progress and make an earlier award of phase D. That is something that could be considered, which I was offering as an answer to the senator's question, without trying to be overly specific about when and under what conditions we couid do it. NELSON: Especially since your policy goal is to keep U.S. astronauts on the space station after you shut down the space shuttle. GRIFFIN: Yes, sir. NELSON: Ergo, you have to have human capability to launch into space. GRIFFIN: Yes, sir. NELSON: And without the new vehicle, Orion and Ares, coming on line until 2015, unless we can accelerate that, therefore for five years you've got to rely on a Russian vehicle -- number one, of which you do not know what it costs; and number two, you do not know with absolute certainty that it is available. GRIFFIN: That is correct, sir. NELSON: Weil, then, wouldn't it be wise for us to be planning for, number one, accelerating Ares and Orion and/or trying to get an additional human capability? GRIFFIN: I will review with my folks the possibility of accelerating COTS within the funding that we already have available for it. With regard to our Ares and Orion program, our government vehicles, the president's budget contains the funding to deliver that capability in the spring of 2015, Now, things may go better than we expect. Sometimes that happens, Or they :- 11 Agenda Item No. 1 GC May 27, 2008 Page 22 of 52 could go worse. But that's our nominal planning date right now at 65 percent budgetary confidence estimate. NELSON: Well, let me just throw you another. GRIFFIN: That's what the president's budget contains. NELSON: I understand. OK. Now, I want to give you another realistic political monkey wrench. GRIFFIN: OK. Thank you. NELSON: That is very realistic, because current law prevents NASA from purchasing flights because of ongoing Russian support to the Iranian nuclear and missile programs. So here we have a gap coming up, regardless of Russia saying, "Well, I'm not going to supply you the vehicle," or Russia saying, "I'm going to gouge you by making it so prohibitively expensive," but now we've got another situation. Because of current law that says that we can't do ongoing contracts with the Russians, if they are supporting the Iranian missile and nuclear program, which in fact they are, what we've got to do is do this kabuki dance that we've done in the past, which is get a waiver of that. Have you had conversations with the White House and OMB about that issue? GRIFFIN: Yes, sir. I'm, of course, aware of the issue, and that's why I qualified my earlier statements by saying, "If the administration seeks and we are granted a waiver of INKSNA law, then we would be able to purchase seats," So I am aware of that. We have initiated within the administration the discussions of which you speak with various staff offices in the White House, and we at NASA hope to bring that to a successful conclusion in the near future. We realize that the Congress needs an ample amount of time to consider our request. I don't have such a formal request available for you today. NELSON: Have you had a discussion with Secretary Rice or her deputy? GRIFFIN: 12 Agenda Item NO.1 oe May 27, 2008 Page 23 of 52 I have not personally. I would say that I know for certain that our folks, who work interagency and intergovernmental affairs, are working with the Department of State on this matter. NELSON: Well, at the end of the day, it's going to be us in the Congress that are going to have to bring about this waiver. GRIFFIN: Yes, sir. NELSON: And in order for us to consider this in a deliberate manner, we're going to have receive a request from the White House... ... by when -- March the 14th of this year? Of 2008. Do you think we can have that request from the White House for a waiver? GRIFFIN: I can't commit to that date, because it's not within my authority to do so, but I will do everything I can to get you such a request at the earliest possible time. NELSON: That's only about three weeks away. GRIFFIN: I know that, sir. NELSON: I want to go back to another line of questioning that Senator Vitter had mentioned. You stated that Michoud workforce was going to go from 1,900 down to 600. GRIFFIN: Or thereabouts. I wouldn't want anyone to... NELSON: You said KSc... GRIFFIN: ... decision to that. NELSON: ,.. in 2011 was going to be a several thousand reduction. Then you made another ("" statement that we're trying to bring in additional work. Was that several thousand reduction 13 Agenda Item No. 10C May 27, 2008 Page 24 of 52 for the Kennedy Space Center net, or was that gross -- before you brought in the additional work? GRIFFIN: The reductions I speak of in all cases are before we have any consideration of what new work might exist there. For example, the COTS operations, if they are successful, are not factored in. Again, we will never -- hope we will never -- use as many people to process our new launch vehicles as we used to process the shuttle. So if we are to avoid a permanent downturn in the contractor workforce at the Kennedy Space Center, we would need to assign some new roles and missions to the Kennedy Space Center so that they can do other things at that location besides process shuttles. It is my hope to do that. Now, the budget to support those new roles and missions, of course, doesn't materialize until after the shuttle is retired. NELSON: And one of those roles that is already in the works, according to the contract that you let on Orion, was the assembling of Orion there... GRIFFIN: Correct. NELSON: ... in the big high bay. GRIFFIN: Correct. And I hope to find other similar tasks as we develop new hardware systems to return to the moon. As you know, Senator Nelson, better than anyone, we will need a number of new hardware systems as we mount our campaign to return to the moon. But here is our issue with regard to employment in Kennedy Space Center. During Apollo we developed all of those systems in parallel, and the nation simply supplied the money to do that. In Constellation we are developing them in series, in sequence, in order to fit the confines of a basically fiat budget, adjusted for infiation. So we have to develop first one thing and then the next thing and then the next thing after that. So as these systems come online, I am very much hoping that we can do with later systems as we are doing with Orion, that we will assemble them at Kennedy Space Center. That is my goal. That would be my hope. But we can't know how that will come out for a number of years, because the budget to do those new systems is done serially rather than in parallel. 14 Agenda Item NO.1 OC May 27, 2008 Page 25 of 52 NELSON: And because of that, of which I am grateful for that, is I try to look out for this finest launch team in the world, and it has an excellent corporate memory that you would not like to lose, and I'm grateful for that, but the key word is "serially." GRIFFIN: Yes, sir. NELSON: So the moon program comes on down the line. That doesn't help us in 2011, when you're shutting down, to use your words, several thousand. GRIFFIN: It does not. I've been calling attention to this matter for three years now. We have reached the point where there is nothing that will, to use your words, fill in the gap. We are retiring the shuttle -- by the time it's retired -- after 30 years of service. We are retiring the shuttle. We are moving on to new systems. We are not immediately replacing the shuttle with those new systems. And when we do, it is a policy goal to have the new system use fewer people. So we have a gap that will open up in the contractor workforce at the Kennedy Space Center and that will not be filled. NELSON: Are the other centers going to share some of the pain? For example, what's going to be the reduction at Johnson? GRIFFIN: I don't have with me at the moment. NELSON: How about at Marshall? GRIFFIN: I don't have any of that. I really don't. NELSON: Well, last November in our hearing, I had asked for your projections of all the workforce levels at all of the NASA centers. That was last November. When do you think that this committee will receive that information? GRIFFIN: Absolutely by March 24th, which is the legislatively mandated date for the workforce report that we owe you center by center and with updates every six months thereafter. I'm not r-. 100 percent sure I recall, but I think that was the answer I gave you last November when I5 Agenda Item NO.1 OC May 27, 2008 Page 26 of 52 we talked about it, that we were working on this report and that we'd have it for you in March. Broadly speaking, I don't think we're going to have significant overall employment reductions at Marshall or Johnson. NELSON: How about Goddard? GRIFFIN: Goddard is primarily not in the manned space flight business, and so we are not looking at any reductions at Goddard. NELSON: Glenn? GRIFFIN: Again, I think Glenn will remain healthy. NELSON: JPL? GRIFFIN: JPL will remain healthy. NELSON: So the ones that are getting it in the neck are, first, KSC and number two, Michaud. GRIFFIN: That is where our contractor workforce problems are the most severe. Yes, sir. NELSON: Well, the way to get around this is to get additional money so that we can accelerate Orion and Ares from 2015 to 2013, and therefore it's only a three-year gap, but we went through this drill last year, having gotten them $1 billion extra, which was merely to repay you for the money that you had to spend on the recovery from the Columbia disaster. There was a lot of shoe leather and a lot of sweat to get that in the Senate, and then we couldn't get the support out of the White House to keep that number in the negotiations with the House. So we lost the $1 billion. But we did get at least the president's requested level. GRIFFIN: Yes, sir. 16 Agenda Item No.1 oe May 27, 2008 Page 27 of 52 NELSON: But that doesn't help us with the instant problem that Senator Vitter and I have. GRIFFIN: That's correct, sir, because for the next few years, after the retirement of the shuttle, NASA's human space flight budget is spent primarily on the deveiopment of new systems. And since that was not and is not being and was not planned to be primarily in parallel with the shuttle, we go again, as I said earlier, from a situation where today our program is largely about space flight operations. Then for several years our program will largely be consumed with design, development, test and evaluation, the development of new systems, and then we will transition back to operations. So we are doing these things serially, rather than in parallel. NELSON: I am a Florida native, and my home county is Brevard County. And we don't want to go through what we went through after the shutdown of Apollo. There were about 25,000 employees in the height of the Apollo moon program, and within a short period of time, that employment went down to something less than 10,000 -- massive economic disiocation -- and dinks and danks to keep it going with a Skylab and then Apollo-Soyuz. ~ And then there was a six-year gap from Apollo-Soyuz in 1975 to 1981, the first flight of the space shuttle. And those were rough times for folks back home. Nobody wants to see that kind of economic and professional dislocation occur again. And so we have talked about this privately for some period of time, and we've talked about additional items that we could bring in. And so I would like for you to be thinking about that. Now to pick up on the previous thing that we're talking about of being totally dependent on the Russians, if we did have an additional capability American-wise to get humans up there, that's certainly going to help the space launch business down at Kennedy Space Center. And it's c1eariy going to lessen our dependence on the Russians. And yet we're not to the point at which we're even thinking about the capability of developing that human capability. GRIFFIN: On COTS, you mean. NELSON: On COTS. r ] 7 Agenda Item NO.1 OC May 27, 2008 Page 28 of 52 GRIFFIN: Well, sir, I have thought about it. Let me give you the other side. And if wishes were free, I would have already done that. Let me give you the other side of the coin, if I might. Our COTS agreements are predicated upon the demonstration of progress by those who hold the agreements, and in exchange for progress and reaching certain milestones, they qualify for certain payments. I could, as you are indicating that I should, bet on the come and assume that we're going to have progress. And maybe this is a time to do just that, because of the exigency in which we find ourselves. But in the customary stewardship of government funds that I believe that you all here on the Hill expect of me, I don't normally wish to put government funds in any way at risk without a reasonable certainty that I will get a product back. Now, when I say those words, I sound as if I'm down somehow down on Space -- I'm not -- or down on COTS -- I'm not. I'm the originator of the COTS program. It was... NELSON: Indeed, you are, and you should be congratulated for that. How much do you think COTS-D would cost? GRIFFIN: I don't have that in my head right now. I just don't. NELSON: I think you'll find it to be somewhere around $300 million to move to start to develop that capability, so... GRIFFIN: Well, of course, we don't have to put all that up at once. NELSON: That's correct. So is it worth risking that as opposed to risking $2 billion later down the road on the Russians, that we don't even know that that's going to work for those five years? GRIFFIN: I completely understand the question. We have not analytically fleshed out our options for accelerating COTS-D within the budget that we have. We have not done that, and I will do it, and I will get back to you on what our options might be to do so. NELSON: And in the meantime, you have awarded another COTS contract for cargo that was about $170 million, ]8 Agenda Item NO.1 oe May 27, 2008 Page 29 of 52 GRIFFIN: That's correct, sir. We need that, too. NELSON: Tell us why we need that. GRIFFIN: Again, the COTS agreements are for the development of commercial transportation capability, which does not today exist. The government has never put up money to sponsor such development. We have done that now. It is very difficult. We cannot guarantee the success of any given provider. If we had had more money available or thought that lesser amounts of money to anyone potential provider would be a sufficient incentive, we would have had three or more contracts. I would like to have as many commercial purveyors of this capability as I could get. What we were able to budget, starting a few years ago, we set aside in our budget $500 million for these COTS agreements, as you well know. And we had hoped to have two providers, and so we had an earlier provider, who was not able to make his milestones. We didn't spend the money, but they didn't make the milestones, so we still had the money available. We did a recompete and selected a different second provider. I didn't want to get to a place where I was funding only one provider, NELSON: All right. I'm not going to beat a dead horse. You got the message. GRIFFIN: I understand your question. NELSON: And you got the message of what all we're at risk here. And oh, by the way, on top of that is this Iranian nuclear issue. GRIFFIN: I don't know how to phrase this in such a way as to convince you that I totally understand the concern and the problem, and I share it. I share the concern. I understand the problem. NELSON: Speaking of the award that you just made on COTS, for what lift cargo weight are we talking about there, as compared to SpaceX? Give us a comparison of the two. ,,--. 19 " Agenda Item No. 10C May 27, 2008 Page 30 of 52 GRIFFIN: They're in the same payload class -- many thousands of pounds when at the end of the development cycle -- thousands of pounds, not tens of thousands of pounds. They're in the same general class. NELSON: Tens of thousands of pounds... GRIFFIN: Not tens of thousands. NELSON: Not. Just thousands of pounds. GRIFFIN: Thousands of pounds. NELSON: Both of them. GRIFFIN: Yes. NELSON: Even with the SpaceX new rocket that they're going to launch from Complex 20 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Base? GRIFFIN: Well, Falcon 9, when developed, has a substantial payload capacity -- over 10,000 pounds. But that's not the first development. They have yet to develop the Falcon 1. NELSON: Yes, but that's out at Kwajalein. Once they develop it, they're going to strap them together when they launch from the Cape, aren't they? GRIFFIN: The Falcon 9 design is a design of clustered engines. Yes, sir. NELSON: And its payload is how many pounds? GRIFFIN: I'll give it to you for the record. It's over... 20 Agenda Item No.1 oe May 27, 2008 Page 31 of 52 NELSON: But you just said somewhere.. GRIFFIN: Over 10,000. NELSON: Over 10,000 pounds. GRIFFIN: Yes. NELSON: My question, then, to get back to it, is compare the two. If that's over 10,000 pounds, what's the payload capacity of the other one? GRIFFIN: I'm sorry. I'll get that for you. It's in... NELSON: Does anybody in that front row back there know? GRIFFIN: I don't. NELSON: You all just issued a contract to them, and you don't know what the payload capacity is? GRIFFIN: No, sir. We know what it is. We have it. I just don't have it in my head. I'm sorry. NELSON: OK. Yes, please. vmER: This is related, if I could follow up. First of all, Doctor, I'd echo a thought you yourself mentioned, which is analyzing COTS-D and analyzing that investment, particularly given all these circumstances, I would completely encourage you to do that carefully. GRIFFIN: And I have committed to doing that. ~ I 21 Agenda Item NO.1 OC May 27, 2008 Page 32 of 52 VffiER: Great. A few minutes ago you said if dreams were free, but they're not. Maybe in a very limited circumstance, some of them are at least at the initial stage. And by that I mean isn't there an option that you have to enter into certain unfounded Space Act Agreements, if a commercial entity is willing to take up a project on the risk that they'll develop a good product, and we'll buy it? And as I understand it, some major entities like Boeing are willing to look at that -- for instance, for a manned capsule that could fit on a lot of these other transportation rockets. GRIFFIN: Absolutely. We have a number of unfunded Space Act Agreements existing today and stand ready to do more of them. VffiER: So you're already actively exploring those. GRIFFIN: Absolutely. And have been for the last couple of years. VffiER: Great. Also, coming back to the Russian negotiation, let's say for the sake of discussion that the administration submits a request to Congress for this waiver. We give it. It's early 2009, and so you're negotiating with the Russians. At that point what would the duration of the next contract with the Russians likely be? What would the term likely be? Do you know? GRIFFIN: That's a subject for negotiation, but in my own view we would want to end that dependence with the deployment of our own capability -- the Orion and Ares combination. Now -- and I need to be clear on this -- let us say we make our schedules with our present funding and fly with human crew the first Ares and Orion flight to the station in March of 2015. For the sake of argument, let's say that. That vehicle is not at that point necessarily qualified for six months' duration on orbit to serve as a crew rescue vehicle. I think it's a good time to point out to everyone we've been focusing on the transportation up and back. But another service that the Russian Soyuz provides today and will provide through at least 2015 is that of crew rescue. Now, this was an obligation that the United States initially signed up for for ourselves and our partners. So until and unless we have a system -- whether commercial or government -- and until and unless we have a system up there qualified for ~" Agenda Item No. 10C May 27, 2008 Page 33 of 52 six months' flight between crew rotations, we cannot say that we have crew rescue capability, and we still will still be dependent upon the Russians. So speaking as an engineer, if our first flight of Ares-Orion is in March of 2015, then it would be the end of that fiscal year. We would be into fiscal 2016 before we would know that we had a system qualified for crew rescue, as well as transportation up and down. So we're looking at a substantial period of dependency upon Russia in the space station partnership. VffiER: Well, the point I was driving to is that the term of that next phase is open for discussion and negotiation. GRIFFIN: Yes, sir. VffiER: And therefore clearly, if we would do something in addition with either accelerating the NASA program or funding COTS-D or accelerating COTS -- any of that -- that can clearly have an impact on that Russian contract. GRIFFIN: Absolutely. VffiER: And so again, just to restate the obvious, I'd really like for you all to develop a comparison of those costs and benefits, costs and savings, because it certainly seems like there could be substantial savings in terms of payments to the Russians for certain actions we take. GRIFFIN: Yes, sir. I agree. VffiER: Thank you. NELSON: By the way, in our last conversation about the difference between the two COTS contracts, is there not another difference in that SpaceX has the capability of bringing down cargo in their contract, and the most recent contract does not have that capability of bringing down cargo? ~ I 23 Agenda Item No. 10e May 27, 2008 Page 34 of 52 GRIFFIN: That's correct, sir. The recent agreement that we concluded with Orbital includes up-cargo, pressurized and unpressurized, only. And their proposal did not offer down-cargo or human transportation. NELSON: And if you have an international space station, you want to bring down experiments, as well as take them up. . GRIFFIN: We do. NELSON: I would just add as a backdrop to this whole discussion with regard to Russia that they're just getting ready to have an election in Russia, and it's not exactly the kind of election that we're accustomed to here, because the president is inserting his own person as the new president in order to comply with the constitution. But it's an open secret that he is going to be the prime minister, and therefore the real power will continue in the hands of Vladimir Putin. And we know also that Russia has been buying up all the pipelines that feed gas and oil to Europe, and so he is going to be in a very significant position to yank a bunch of chains of a bunch of people. And I just don't think that that's a good position for the United States to be in, where he's got a major chain to yank. Now, speaking of that, we've got a station. We've spent tens of billions of dollars. We want to do scientific research on it. What are NASA's plans for the station beyond the year 2016? GRIFFIN: The administration does not currently have plans in place for the utilization of the station after 2016. We've taken no action to preclude such operations, but we don't have specific plans for them as yet. NELSON: Well, one of the reasons for having the space station was not only scientific research and spending lots of American taxpayer money, as well as other nations' moneys, but it was also to encourage private sector partners to make investment in research projects. And so if they don't know that there's going to be a space station after 2016, how are we going to give them assurance, if we don't make plans for the space station past that year? GRIFFIN: I understand, sir. I will say again certainly -- well, this is a personal opinion. I do not believe that the Congress which is sitting at that time or an administration which is in place at that 24 Agenda Item No. 10e May 27, 2008 Page 35 of 52 time would shut down a perfectly good space station. I just don't believe that. It doesn't seem to me to be a realistic possibility. But this is 2008, and what we are doing is planning for the next five years at most, and most of my emphasis is on the next couple of years. We are not at the moment planning for 2016 and thereafter. NELSON: So you don't think there are any steps that we need to take now in order to operate beyond 2016? GRIFFIN: There's nothing that we need to do in a budgetary sense this year that affects what we do in 2016. Now, as the next year or so approaches and we start to work up where our current budget horizon, of course -- the president's submission -- goes from fiscal '09 to fiscal '13, as we go to the next budgetary submission and the one after that, we do begin to have items which we will need to pay attention to in order to continue sustaining the station, But this year, that's not an issue. NELSON: Well, no doubt you're clear that you want the station to operate beyond 2016. "- GRIFFIN: I do. And, of course, I will not be the administrator at that time, and there will be several changes of congressional sessions and several administrations beyond now and then. The point I was making earlier, sir, was that if the space station, after having been the result of tens of billions of dollars worth of development, is still working fine in 2016, I personally consider it unlikely that this Congress or any administration would shut it down. NELSON: Well, I do, too. I agree with you, assuming we have access... GRIFFIN: There is that. NELSON: ... to the international space station. But assuming all of that, let me ask you this. Don't we have to plan ahead of time for recertification to extend the service life? And what would that recertification entail, and when should we start it? GRIFFIN: I don't know that I would call it recertification. We certainly in the next few years will have a chance -- as we are doing now -- to observe how the individual components and pieces ~ 25 Agenda Item NO.1 oe May 27, 2008 Page 36 of 52 on the space station are wearing out and how they break and why they break and what equipment needs to be put up and what equipment is longer than expected, So we will have an opportunity to accumulate maintenance datal if you will, on the station. And that will influence -- without question -- what we decide to do and how we decide to do it in the out years to sustain the facility, When it is completed, you will have here, sir, a facility that weighs almost 900,000 pounds- - just shy of a million pounds -- on orbit. NELSON: And the recertifying that... GRIFFIN: It will need care. NELSON: And for the extension of its life, it's going to cost some money. So as we get around to budgeting for that, we've got to put that in there. GRIFFIN: And as we get further out in our out years, we will have to include some budgeting for maintenance of the station beyond 2016, but we don't need to do that today. NELSON: All right. Let me come back to this year's budget. The budget reserves for the station and the shuttle leave such a small margin that any unforeseen circumstance would alter the ability to meet the shuttle manifest and complete the station. So how do you account for the slim margins and the potential program risk? GRIFFIN: I believe you've almost answered your own question. The margins are quite slim. We don't have reserves in station and shuttle accounts, and the successful completion of the task requires us to execute as we plan. If something goes badly wrong, if we have another hurricane at the Cape or something of that ilk that causes us a lot of additional expenditure, we will have to seek the permission of the Congress to reprogram money from other accounts in order to finish this job. If we had another Hurricane Katrina at Michoud or another hurricane as came through a few years ago at the Cape and tore up the vertical assembly building, those things do happen. And if they happen, we will have to take money from somewhere else. NELSON: Not even to speak of a continuing resolution. y .0 Agenda Item NO.1 OC May 27, 2008 Page 37 of 52 GRIFFIN: If we have another continuing resolution, there will be programmatic impacts. We lost last year, as you know, about $675 million from the manned space flight program because of the continuing resolution. Now, that came out of exploration, rather than the shuttle and station accounts. If that happens again, we will have more delay in the exploration program. NELSON: I had occasion recently to go to the floor and kind of get it off my chest about the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, of trying to find 25 percent of the cargo bay on one of the remaining shuttle flights so that we can get that up there. You have indicated several times that NASA has all the space manifested. It's a major scientific experiment put together by 20 countries. I'm going to see it in two weeks. It is virtually complete, sitting on the ground, ready to launch -- 20 countries, SO universities probably inviting a couple of Nobel prizes because of its pushing the frontiers of knowledge -- to be attached to the station, which the purpose of the space station, and Kay Bailey Hutchison's designation of it as a national laboratory, is for the purpose of scientific research. ,r Now, I am still trying to figure out how we can accommodate this and what you can take off in the way of smaller payloads that are not scientific experiments, but are supplies that you can put in smaller packets so that if COTS -- either one of those -- works out, that you could get it up economically with another vehicle, an expendable, that otherwise you can't get without a big booster, since this thing weighs about 15,000 pounds. So wouldn't it make sense what I've laid out -- to take some of the station's supplies and hardware, put it over on an ELV, particularly since you're developing some, and fly the AMS and let it start doing the science that it's supposed to do? GRIFFIN: Sir, we've looked at that over and over again. The payloads that are manifested on the shuttle from now until its retirement are either crucial for station assembly, or they are crucial for maintenance of the station during the gap. Now, with the expenditure of enough money, anything can be flown on anything. But these payloads are uniquely configured for the shuttle -- as is, I admit, the AMS, In our judgment the cruciality of sustaining the space station appropriately, with the tens of billions of dollars that we have invested in that, outweighs the desire to fly the AMS. ".--. " It's not that I don't wish to fly the AMS, it's that I have to put the space station at risk to do it. And I don't have other good means to get the hardware up to the station that I need to have there, I do not have the authority to add another shuttle flight to the manifest. So I'm out of options. 27 Agenda Item NO.1 oe May 27, 2008 Page 38 of 52 NELSON: Well, I think you have." GRIFFIN: I'm out of options. NELSON: I don't think you are out of options, and this is what I want to suggest. You have some very smart people that work for you throughout this NASA network we know as the NASA family. And what some of these smart people have suggested is that unpressurized logistic flights for ORUs -- what does that stand for? GRIFFIN: Orbit replaceable units. NELSON: OK. Orbit replacement units that could be launched after the AMS could be launched in 25 percent of the cargo bay. You take those off, and this is how those orbital replacement units could be launched on STS-129 in August of 2009 with two express logistics carriers -- now, these are unpressurized logistic flights -- on STS- 131 in February of 2010 an integrated cargo carrier vertical light deployable and a docking cargo module, and then the third one would be on STS-133 in July of 2010 with two express logistics carriers. Any of those flights can be reconfigured to include AMS and still carry a number of ORUs. And the displaced ORUs could be launched on the ELVs. Now, this is coming from your people. So would you look into that? GRIFFIN: Of course, and we will get you a detailed answer. I think some of my folks may be stepping a bit out of line. When you talk about 25 percent of the cargo bay, you're talking about by volume. And yes, the AMS uses 25 percent of a cargo bay by volume. But it uses almost half of a cargo bay by weight. So in order to displace a number of small components, I have to actually displace more than -- I can't displace 25 percent by volume of ORUs and replace it with the AMS, because I actually have to account for the weight, as well as the volume, and that's going to eat into another one. So the manifesting challenges for what is on the space shuttle today are not trivial, and everything that's on there is on there as a result of a very severe winnowing process. 28 . ,; . Agenda Item No.1 OC May 27, 2008 Page 39 of 52 But I understand your question, I will not be cavalier with it. I will take it for the record, and we will give you a detailed answer as to how we might manifest these other things, if it is possible, on other flights. But we have looked at that. NELSON: Well, I'm sure you have, but again, this is coming from your very smart people. Let that ingenuity bubble up. Let that creativity bubble up. Now, I want to give you two examples. And this isn't my thinking -- this is folks that are these creative geniuses. One flight would be reconfigured to include the AMS and an ICCVLD, which is the Integrated Cargo Carrier Vertical Light Deployable. This will allow the space shuttle to launch 8,800 pounds of ORUs plus the ICCVLD to the space station on the same flight as the AMS. That's one example. The second example is reconfigure one of the existing flights to include AMS and an Express Logistics Carrier. The ELC would have to be loaded only with ORUs that do not require power in the shuttle. Now, if you'll take that as creativity and see if it's possible. GRIFFIN: .~ I, of course, will do that. I would remind you that everything is easy for those peopie that don't have to do it. We have explored these questions throughout NASA over and over again, and we have not been able to converge it, but I will try again. NELSON: My rejoinder to you is you lead the agency that is capable of miracles. It happened on Apollo 13, and it happened to a degree just last October when that crew that we just announced went up there and figured out how to get that solar array unfurled. And my hat's off to the ingenuity in NASA. GRIFFIN: I'll give you the best answer I can get. NELSON: Well, I want you to do that without -- you're a good administrator, because you're hardheaded, and that's a good quality, and I appreciate that. And I just hope that you will look at this. Senator Vitter? All right. I need to ask you about earth sciences. I know that you have had a difficult time sometimes with NOAA and also with the Department of Defense on NPOESS with the significant cost and schedule overruns, And then the Nunn-McCurdy review came in '06, ! and the sensor ended up being delayed by another eight months. 29 Agenda Item NO.1 OC May 27,2008 Page 40 of 52 How is this delay going to affect NASA's launch schedule for the replacement, which is an NPP, before the next NPOESS? And what are the cost implications associated with the delay? GRIFFIN: The sensor of which you speak is the VIIRS sensor, currentiy scheduled for delivery I think at the end of March next year. We are now to a point where, if that sensor slips any further, we are a day for day slip on the launch. So that sensor is the critical path for NPP, and the VIIRS sensor, of course, is the number one priority sensor aboard NPOESS itself. NPP is the NPOESS preparatory program. So the VIIRS sensor is critical, is on critical path for everything that we're doing on NPP and NPOESS. I will get for you for the record the consequential damages of the launch delay. Again, I don't have those in my head. I'm sorry. But there will be a substantial cost increase to the NPP program if the VIIRS instrument doesn't show up. Now, I don't even remotely want to be seen to be making excuses, but the VIIRS instrument is not a NASA development. We are a customer for it. We are waiting for it to show up, but it is not an instrument over whose development we have had any influence in the past. NELSON: How about NASA's Glory climate-monitoring satellite? It seems like it might be heading toward a similar fate of NPOESS with cost overruns and delays. GRIFFIN: It is. There is an instrument on the Glory spacecraft that possibly not coincidentally is being supplied by the same vendor, and that instrument is late and has caused substantial consequential damages to the Glory schedule. About 90 percent of the Glory cost overrun is due to this instrument or its consequential damages. NELSON: And that's Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems, How is NASA improving the oversight of this contractor? GRIFFIN: Well, our oversight of them has been careful and consistent. Their response has been less so. I met with the chief executive officer of Raytheon two weeks ago, and they have pledged to remedy the disparities between their promises and deployments. We continue to work with them, At this point I really don't have other positive options to offer you. The progress has been slower than planned. The instruments are late. And that does have ripple effects. '- - 30 ,. . Agenda Item NO.1 oe May 27, 2008 Page 41 of 52 NELSON: And so since it's rippled far over budget, there's no way of getting this program back on cost and on schedule, GRIFFIN: At this point, no. The best we can do is to contain the damage and make as much progress towards launch date as we can. NELSON: Do you want to share with the committee about the next generation air transportation system? What R&D projects does NASA currently have under way that will support this? GRIFFIN: Yes, sir. Quite a few. NGATS is, of course, is the centerpiece of FAA development of a new air traffic management system, and NASA is a partner on that. We are conducting research on statistical air traffic management to improve the traffic density that we can safely fly. We are conducting research on higher efficiency engines, lower noise, lower emission engines, aircraft configurations that are more efficient. We're doing a host of activities in support of the FAA and in collaboration with the FAA on NGATS, and we are meeting our budgetary commitments to the FAA for it. NELSON: Is this to take existing technology and apply it, or are you focused more on basic research? GRIFFIN: For NASA we focus more on basic research. We are not in our aeronautics program primarily in the business of taking existing technology and applying it. NELSON: Has NASA completed an MOU with the joint program office that outlines the agency's role in this next generation effort? GRIFFIN: I don't know that we have. I can check on that for you. We certainly have a good reiationship with the FAA and the JPDO, but whether the MOU is signed or not I don't know. NELSON: Whatever that arrangement is, is it reflected in the 2009 budget that you have? GRIFFIN: The 2009 budget and the out years budget for aeronautics fully supports are commitments r to the FAA on NGATS. That has been a priority for me. 31 Agenda Item No. 10e May 27, 2008 Page 42 of 52 NELSON: We'll ask for the record questions about the U,S. National Wind Tunnel facilities, and we will also ask questions about the American COMPETES program. GRIFFIN: OK. And I will answer as expeditiously as possible. NELSON: OK. I don't want any misunderstanding in the term that I used earlier -- hardheaded -- because I use that, and I explained, as an attribute of admirable quality that you as an administrator have and have to have. So I just want to make sure that that was not in any way meant by me as a derisive term -- rather an admirable term -- and what I am trying to get out is that this agency has so much creativity. If there's a chance of solving this problem with the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, it's well worth it for us to look at different things. GRIFFIN: Well, sir, I took no offense, and I do agree. I think there seems to be among your staff that I don't want to fly the AMS. In fact, that's false. I do want to fly the AMS. I yield to none in my belief that the United States should keep its international commitments, commitments made to international partners. I've said that on the record multiple times, and I mean it. We have looked carefully and in detail at options to fly the AMS within the existing manifests, and I have not found them. If people have clever ideas and they have not put them forth, then we will investigate again, and we will listen to those clever ideas and let them put those ideas forth. I would like to find an option to fly AMS. Far from stiff-arming it, I would like to do it. But I will not do it in such a way that would cause, in my judgment, harm to the station. NELSON: Well, I certainly understand that. But at the same time, I've got to remind everybody what's the purpose of the space station. And what's the purpose of the expenditure of billions and tens of billions of American taxpayers' dollars? And that was not only to have a facility where we could iearn in the adaptation of humans to space, but that we would have a scientific facility for experimentation. And this is just one project. But to move that over to an expendable, it's going to be delayed five to seven years at considerable additional cost. GRIFFIN: And we don't recommend that. NELSON: /'"~ '- 32 " ,. Agenda Item NO.1 oe May 27, 2008 Page 43 of 52 And that's what I'm trying to find a solution. This has nothing to do with the State of Florida. In some minimal amount, it may with regard to the 50 universities that are involved in this thing, and there may be -- as a matter of fact, I think there is one university in Florida that's involved -- but that's beside the point. This is an experiment that's ready on the ground to analyze these cosmic rays and to see what's out there and what's the origin and so forth. So thank you very much. Senator Vitter, anything further? VffiER: Thank you very much, Dr. Griffin. GRIFFIN: Thank you both. And I will do everything in my power to answer your questions about remanifesting cargo to fly AMS. We will look at it and give you the most honest answer that we can give. I will spend time on it personally. NELSON: Thank you, Dr. Griffin. And the meeting is adjourned. GRIFFIN: Thank you, sir. CQ Transcriptions, Feb. 27, 2008 List of Panel Members and Witnesses PANEL MEMBERS: SEN. BILL NELSON, D-FLA. CHAIRMAN SEN. JOHN KERRY, D-MASS. SEN. BYRON L. DORGAN SEN. MARK PRYOR, D-ARK. SEN. DANIEL K. INOUYE, D-HAWAII EX OFFICIO SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, R-TEXAS RANKING MEMBER SEN. JOHN E. SUNUNU, R-N.H. SEN. TED STEVENS, R-ALASKA EX OFFICIO WITNESSES: NASA ADMINISTRATOR MICHAEL D. GRIFFIN Source: CQ Transcriptions All materials herein are protected byUnited States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior (' , . 33 Agenda Item NO.1 oe May 27, 2008 Page 44 of 52 written permission of CQ Transcriptions. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content. @ 2008 Congressional Quarterly Inc. All Rights Reserved. 34 , /"' { \...... Agenda Item No. 10e May 27, 2008 Page 45 of 52 NASA Wary of Relying on Russia Moscow Soon to Be Lone Carrier of Astronauts to Space Station By Marc Kaufman Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, March 7, 2008; A01 Tomorrow night, a European spacecraft is scheduled to blast off from French Guiana on its maiden voyage to the international space station, giving NASA and the world a new way to reach the orbiting laboratory . For NASA. however, the launch of the Jules Verne Automated Transfer Vehicle (A TV) also highlights a stark reality: In 2 1/2 years, just as the station gets fully assembled, the United States will no longer have any spacecraft of its own capable of carrying astronauts and cargo to the station, in which roughly $100 billion is being invested. The three space shuttles will be retired by then, because of their high cost and questionable safety, and NASA will have nothing ready to replace them until 2015 at the earliest. For five years or more, the United States will be dependent on the technology of others to reach the station, which American taxpayers largely paid for. To complicate things further, the only nation now capable of flying humans to the station is Russia, giving it a strong (" 'Jargaining position to decide what it wants to charge for the flights at a time when U.S.- Russian relations are becoming increasingly testy. In addition, some fear the price will be paid not only in billions of dollars but also in lost American prestige and lost leverage on the Russians when it comes to issues such as aiding Iran with its nuclear program. NASA Administrator Michael Griffin calls the situation his "greatest regret and greatest concern." For most of the five-year gap, he said, "we will be largely dependent on the Russians, and that is terrible place for the United States to be. I'm worried, and many others are worried." . Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), chairman of the subcommittee that oversees NASA, went further. "This is a very serious betrayal of American interests," he said. "This will be the first time since Sputnik when the United States will not have a significant space superiority. I remain dumbfounded that we've allowed this serious threat to our national security to develop." The White House, Congress and the space community have known for years that the gap was looming, but there were always other priorities. Those most involved with the issue say that its seriousness will become more glaring this summer, when negotiations with Russia begin and Congress is likely to debate whether to grant a waiver to the law that prohibits certain kinds of commerce with nations that support the Iranian or North Korean f'uclear program. \.. Agenda Item NO.1 OC May 27, 2008 Griffin has testified that while the waiver is essential, it is "unseemly, simply unseeml~~f~J'i'b52 , United States -- the world's leading power and leading space power"- to be reduced to purchasing services like this. It affects, in my view, how we are seen in the world, and not for the better." NASA's budget calls for spending $2.6 billion for transportation to the space station between fiscal 2009 and 2013. As it stands now, much of that would go to the Russians. With that prospect ahead, Griffin told Nelson's committee last week that he is working with the fledgling private rocket company SpaceX to speed its efforts to build a private spacecraft that can take over some of the work of ferrying astronauts into space. Both Nelson and Sen. David Vitter (R- La,) had recommended that NASA formally push ahead with that effort. But SpaceX, whiie eager to do the work, has not successfully orbited even a cargo spacecraft, let alone one designed to the much higher standards needed for human flight. Nonetheless, SpaceX founder Elan Musk said in a telephone interview that his company might have a manned spacecraft capability by the end of 2011 if NASA exercises its option under a 2006 agreement to provide cargo service. With that go-ahead, SpaceX would put its manned rocket program into high gear, he said. "Is there a risk that we won't succeed? Yes, there is," said Musk, co-founder of the PavPal online payment system. "But if the United States doesn't provide any competition to the Russians, then they have a monopoly on crew transport to the station and they can dictate their terms. Do taxpayers really want all that money to go to Russia, rather than to an American company with American workers?" In his testimony, Griffin said he is inclined to exercise the human spaceflight option, but he aiso said he very much doubts that SpaceX will have a spacecraft ready for astronauts by 2012. The gap in American capability to reach the space station is the result of factors including the 2003 breakup of the space shuttle Columbia, the subsequent decision to retire the three remaining shuttles by September 2010 and the lack of additio[1al funds to quickly build a replacement. NASA has let contracts to design and test a new-generation rocket and crew capsule, but it has had to go slowly because of the high cost of operating the shuttles, which are the only spacecraft abie to carry large components to the still-incomplete space station. Griffin has testified that the replacement spacecraft could be ready in 2013 rather than 2015 if the agency had an additional $2 billion, but the administration has not asked for the funding. Last year, the White House opposed a bill passed by the Senate to give NASA an additional $1 billion to make up for some of the costs incurred after Columbia broke apart -- a step similar to one taken after the Challenger disaster in 1986. "What we have here is an agency that has been given a lot to do but has been starved for funds," Nelson said. "I think the gap is largely due to the administration's refusal to give NASA the funds it needs. And now we'll be forced to give billions to the Russians because we didn't spend millions before. It's the worst of all worlds." Griffin, a strong advocate for manned spaceflight and a loyal member of the administration, said that past Congresses and administrations let the manned space program atrophy and that it took President Bush's 2004 "vision" for human travel to the moon and Mars to rejuvenate the program. ~ '-. I '--.j Agenda Item No. 10e May 27, 2008 Still, many see Bush as having limited interest in space. Not only have NASA budgets feffi%iTi'e'2f light, 'but Bush never visited the Johnson Space Center in Houston during his six years as governor of Texas, and as president he visited once, for a memorial service for the lost Columbia astronauts. The European spacecraft scheduled for launch tomorrow night is the first of six cargo-carrying flights by Arianespace, a public-private company, in exchange for NASA ferrying a large European lab to the station on the shuttle. Chairman and chief executive Jean-Yves Le Gall said in an interview last week that the company would like to playa larger role in supplying the space station, but it is waiting for its first successful launch before pressing its case. The European Union is scheduled to decide in November whether to enter the field of human spaceflight, potentially joining the club that so far includes only the United States. Russia and China. Le Gall acknowledged that the A TV -- which is the size of a London double-decker bus -- is now more expensive to build and operate than its Russian competitors, but he said that may change if Russia becomes the sole carrier. Nonetheless, the Europeans face a number of obstacles in selling their space transport services to NASA, including buy-American provisions that favor homegrown companies such as SpaceX. "We believe we can be an important part of the solution for the space station and counterbalance to the Russians, if we are given a chance," Le Gall said. Despite the broad concern over NASA's future dependence on Russia, Griffin said the agency's experience with its most important space station partner has been good. The Russians helped astronauts stranded on the space station after the Columbia breakup, and they have continued to r provide crew and cargo transport services -- currently as part of a $780 million, multiyear contract. Griffin also said a new deal with the Russians has to be signed by early next year. The Russians, he said, need a three-year lead time to build a sufficient quantity of their expendable, but very dependable, Soyuz and Progress spacecraft. It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Monev & Finance. ('.. \ Page 1 of2 Agenda Item No. oe May 27, 2 08 Page 48 0 52 wight_d From: wight_d Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 9:41 AM To: henning_t: fiala_d; CoyleFred; HalasFrank; ColettaJim Cc: muddj; Dchs_l; KlatzkowJeff: TorreJohn Subject: NASA opposes KSC hearing April 29, 2006 NASA opposes KSC hearing Nelson says agency doesn't want Brevard meeting to 'stir up' people BY JAMES DEAN FLORiDA TOD!! r US. Sen. Bill Nelson wants the subcommittee overseeing NASA to have a hearing this summer in Brevard County about the future of Kennedy Space Center, but NASA opposes the idea. Nelson said Monday. 'Tm sad to tell you, NASA has asked me not to have a meeting, because they don't want to stir up the people," Nelson said during a Brevard County Commission workshop on space issues ") tried to explain to them our people are stirred up," Nelson said, referring to the possibility of more than 6,400 job losses resulting from the shuttle's 2010 retirement His comments came during a meeting that also featured appearances by U,S. Reps. Dave Weldon and Tom Feeney, and a brief video address from U.S, Sen. Mel Martinez, They said they were working against budget odds to narrow the projected five-year gap in manned space flight from KSC And they stressed the need to frame that gap as an issue of national security importance, not just one that affects local jobs, in order to achieve any change in policy or funding "We cannot advocate successfully outside of our community that this is primarily a jobs program," said Feeney, who returned recently from a space summit in China He said that country and others are chipping away at leadership in space, and in math and science education, that the United States once took for granted Weldon stressed the security and financial risks of relying on Russian launch vehicles to access the International Space Station, and the threat to astronauts' safety if Russian rockets should be unable to reach the station. "It's not just a space issue. It's not Just a Space Coast issue. This is really an American issue, in my opinion," he said. Weldon said Brevard would weather the shuttle transition better than it did the Apollo program's end, 5/14/2008 ~~. '\----~ but existing plans weren't good enough for Brevard or the country. Page 2 of2 f\genda Item No.1 OC May 27, 2008 Page 49 of 52 Nelson painted a more dire picture. saying a continuation of existing poliCies would leave KSC "on life support." Nelson wants the subcommittee he chairs to hold a hearing in Brevard to allow community members to testify about the local impact of the job losses, according to a spokesman. Asked for a response, NASA spokesman Michael Cabbage said, "If any congressional committee schedules a hearing involving NASA, we will be there to support it and answer any questions." Among other priorities discussed at the workshop, participants stressed the need to encourage incentives for commercial space operators and to educate presidential candidates who will soon be setting policy. County commissioners also heard from several labor union representatives, who said skilled technological labor would be difficult to replace jf it is allowed to leave Brevard during the post-shuttle gap. The commission will consider establishing a coalition to help make the case for KSC to various elected officials and interest groups. "The capacity to have different messages for different audiences is what I saw here today," County Commission Chairman Truman Scarborough said. "Sometimes we may need the wrench, sometimes we may need the screwdriver." The meeting ended on a positive note, with news that state lawmakers are close to approving several space-related initiatives promoted by Brevard representati....es. If appropriations hold up in a final budget vote this week, they would provide $1.5 million for space work~force transition programs, and $15 million to reconfigure a launch pad for commercial use. Contact Dean at 242-3617 or jd~an@fIQLidatqJ;i!!y..c:om.. 5/14/2008 c\ Agenda~il!ffi ~&f1k May 27, 2008 Page 50 of 52 wight_d From: wighCd Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 9:45 AM To: henning_t; fiala_d; CoyleFred; HalasFrank; eolettaJim Cc: mudd.J; ochs_l; KlatzkowJeff; TorreJohn Subject: Texan's campaign champions NASA OrlandoSentinel.com Texan's campaign champions NASA, gives slim hope for Kennedy Space Center jobs Mark K. Matthews Washington Bureau April 15, 2008 WASHINGTON A Texas congressman trying to keep his job could bc the best hope for Kcnnedy Space Centcr workers trying to keep theirs. But it's a slim hope at best. Meet U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson, a Democrat defending a Houston-area seat once held by fonner Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Like DeLay, Lampson is an avid NASA supporter with strong ties to nearby Jolmson Space Center. Unlike DeLay -- nicknamed "The Hammer" for the way he kept fellow Republicans in line -- Lampson has to work hard for votes in a district that gave President Bush 64 percent ofthc vote in 2004, according to Congressional Quarterly, Winning support from Johnson employees is cruciai to his re-election chances. To do that, he has become NASA's biggest booster among House Democrats and might be able to use his campaign as levcrage to persuade party leaders to support manned spaceflight. If successful, the effort could mean more NASA dollars and a greater focus on developing the space shuttle's successor. Both would benefit KSC. But it's an uphill fight. Washington has rejected recent campaigns to sharply increase NASA's budget. The agency revealed this month that more than 8,000 workers nationwide -- including up to 6,400 at KSC -- could lose their jobs after the shuttle is retired in 2010. 5!l4/2008 AgendallOOi9 N6lf we May 27, 2008 Page 51 of 52 "Democratic leaders like and value Lampson. They understand that his is not a slam-dunk seat," said Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington. "They want to give him his due," he said, though that's not likely to include substantial funding for NASA because ofrecession concerns and war expenses. "But they will come up with a creative way to support [the space agency]." For instance, Ornstein said, Lampson's race likely will prompt party leaders to ask Democratic critics of manned spaceflight to remain quiet. At the very least, Congress likely won't reduce the $17.6 billion NASA budget for 2009 proposed by the White House. But Lampson wants more, including an extra $3 billion for NASA next year. The money would help reduce a four- to five-year gap between the shuttle's retirement in 2010 and the planned first mission ofits replacement -- the Constellation program -- in 2015. Closing that gap is especially important to KSC because its primary role is preparing spacecraft for launch, which puts its jobs in greatest jeopardy. "You're gambling here," Lampson said. If NASA and Congress don't take steps to retain skilled shuttle workers, years of irreplaceable space experience will be lost, he said. "We need to convince people it's an investment," he added -- not only for workers but also for new technologies. Eventually, Lampson wants to boost NASA funding to $30 billion. ~ Getting more money, however, will require support from a broad coalition in the House and Senate. So Lampson has joined with a small group of NASA supporters to lobby leaders and appropriators. He has brought together NASA Administrator Michael Griffm and the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of fiscally conservative Democrats. He also led 18 other House members to KSC on March 11 to watch a shuttle laLlDc11. "He is always looking for creative ways of informing others -- Congress and the public -- on the benefits of space exploration and the need to invest in it," said Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., House Science and Technology Committee chairman. Just $2 billion could close the launch gap to three years, he argues. He has teamed with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, to press for the money. "You can't get anything done unless someone steps up to the plate. I think that's what Nick is trying to do," said u.S. Rep. John Shimkus, R-lll.. who said the Lampson-led trip to KSC convinced him of NASA's need for more money. Lampson and his allies argue that until a shuttle replacement is flying, the U.S. will have to rely on Russia to ferry its astronauts to the international space station. At best, they contend, this riskll the United States losing its lead in space technology; at worst, it could allow blackmail by Russia. c NASA funding remains a tough sell in a budget squeezed by a shaky economy, the war in Iraq and a huge deficit. "Of course they [NASA] told us that they weren't getting enough money," said U.S. Rep. Mazie Hirano, 5/14/2008 AgendaR~8fN6o~ec May 27, 2008 Page 52 of 52 D- Hawaii, who joined Lampson at KSC. She, however, was unimpressed, saying that NASA's "efforts should go to efforts that could bear the most fruit," such as unmanned spaceflight. "Most members of Congress don't consider [manned spaceflight] a critical issue. They see it as a pork issue," said Roger Launius, curator at the National Air and Space Museum. He called Lampson the go-to NASA guy among House Democrats but was skeptical that he could wring more money from Congress. "They want to help Lampson, but there are other ways to do it," Launius said. Republicans have targeted Lampson, in part, for symbolic reasons. First elected in 1996, he lost his seat in 2004 after a redistricting orchestrated by DeLay. Lampson rebOlUlded two years later to take DeLay's seat after the GOP leader resigned amid an ethics scandal. This fall, Lampson will face Pete Olson, a Republican former Senate aide. The Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan election handicapper, recently ranked the race as a tossup. Ifhe survives the election, Lampson said, he will attempt to become chairman of the House subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, which has direct oversight of NASA. Mark K. Matthews can be reached at mmatthews@orlandosentinel.com or 202-824-8222 /-- ( i "'--. 5/14/2008