Congress, NASA

Bolden and House appropriators spar on various issues

NASA administrator Charles Bolden appeared before the Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS) subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee in a hearing about NASA’s fiscal year 2015 budget request Tuesday morning—and into the afternoon as well, as the hearing, which started at 9:30 am, didn’t wrap up until about 1 pm. The first part of the hearing, lasting more than an hour, went into a report on NASA security issues, but that still left more than two hours to go into various budgetary and other policy issues, with the debate between committee members and Bolden getting heated at times. Some of the key issues discussed:

Commercial Crew: As in past hearings and other appearances, Bolden emphasized the need for the commercial crew program to be fully funded—$848 million—in the administration’s 2015 budget request in order to keep the program on schedule to begin flights in 2017. “If we don’t get the finding that we requested, we’re going to slip again,” he said, referring to earlier slips in the program that Bolden blamed on Congress not fully funding the program.

On that last point, subcommittee chairman Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) took issue. “I think you’ve misled people,” Wolf said. “Congress has provided a lot of funding for commercial crew, particularly once you take into account the larger fiscal situation. There’s never been a year that it was zero,” he said. “The appropriation has been at or above the authorized level in all the years but one.”

“I’m not sure where the [committee] staff says that you’ve given us more than we’ve asked. That’s just inaccurate.” Bolden responded, who appeared to take Wolf’s criticism personally. “Every time I come here, my integrity is impugned,” he said. “I am tired of having my integrity impugned by members of the committee and the staff.”

The squabble between Wolf and Bolden appeared to be based on a misunderstanding: Wolf was referring to figures in the NASA authorization act of 2010, which authorized $312 million for commercial crew in 2011 and $500 million in 2012 and 2013; Bolden was referring to the figures in the administration’s budget request, which have been much higher in recent years and not fully funded by Congress, but were on or close to the authorized amounts in 2011 and 2013 (pre-sequester), but fell about $100 million short in 2012.

A little later in the hearing, Bolden expressed his regrets for the outburst. “Mr. Chairman, I apologize for losing my temper,” he said. “I get hot sometimes and I think I misunderstood you.”

Later in the hearing, Bolden said he couldn’t go into details about the ongoing competition for commercial crew because of the procurement “blackout” that will last under contracts are awarded in August. While three companies currently have funded commercial crew awards—Boeing, Sierra Nevada, and SpaceX—he professed ignorance as to who would be competing.

“I don’t know who the providers are, I don’t know what platform they’re planning to use,” he said. “Sierra Nevada, I hope, is one. Sierra Nevada, to my knowledge, is not using Russian engines.” When Rep. John Culberson said that both Sierra Nevada and Boeing are using the Atlas V, powered by a Russian-built RD-180 engine, Bolden responded, “I didn’t know that.”

Relations with Russia: The current state of Russian relations, particularly in light of a memo last week breaking off cooperation between NASA and the Russian government with the exception of ISS, also came up in the hearing. Bolden said that, despite the new policy, relations with Roscosmos are doing well. Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) asked about contingency plans for the ISS in the event relations worsen. “The contingency for what you’re addressing is maintaining the relationship,” Bolden responded, blaming the “alarmist” media in both the US and Russia for misreporting that the ban covered all NASA cooperation with Russia. “When [Roscosmos director Oleg] Ostapenko and I talked [last week], he was very comforted that our relationship had not been broken, had not changed.”

Indeed, later in the hearing, Bolden suggested that there was a growing number of exceptions to the policy suspending cooperation NASA cooperation with the Russian government. “On a case-by-case basis, we get an activity excepted from any prohibition of cooperation,” he said, through the use of an interagency review process. In addition to the original exception for ISS operations, Bolden said there are now exceptions covering NASA participating in the COSPAR conference being held in Moscow in August, as well as a Russian-provided instrument on NASA’s Mars Curiosity rover, with exceptions for three other activities currently under consideration. “They are lesser types of projects, or projects in the making, that haven’t started yet,” he said of the unnamed projects. It wasn’t clear, from those comments, exactly what was blocked from cooperation now.

SOFIA: Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), whose district is adjacent to includes part of NASA’s Ames Research Center, questioned Bolden about the decision to cut funding for the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) airborne observatory, a program run out of Ames. [A spokesman for Rep. Honda noted Wednesday that part of Ames/Moffett Federal Airfield is just inside the boundaries of his district.] “What specific scientific and technical review and analysis was performed during the FY15 budget formulation process to support the proposal to cancel SOFIA?”

Bolden said the plans to mothball SOFIA are still a “proposal,” and that a joint task force of NASA and the German space agency DLR were still reviewing options, with a report from them due by the end of this month. “We have not made the final determination that SOFIA will be put into mothballs,” he said. “We are still looking for ways to save SOFIA.”

“Your response is appreciated, but not sufficient in my mind,” Honda responded. Bolden said later that, if science from SOFIA was sufficiently compelling, “my guess is that there will be people standing in line to add their funds to maintaining SOFIA.”

Planetary Science: As in recent years, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), whose district includes JPL, questioned the level of funding for planetary science in NASA’s budget, including extended mission funding as well as the Mars 2020 flagship mission. “I’m concerned about the profile for this mission,” he said of Mars 2020, “which is backloaded, as well as repeated disquieting rumors I’ve been hearing regarding slipping the launch date to 2022.”

Bolden said Mars 2020 was on schedule. “Hopefully everyone will tell you that the 2015 budget does support Mars 2020 in 2020,” he said. As for extended mission funding, in particular missions like Opportunity and Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, Bolden offered partial support for such funding. “I think extended missions are great until they start to jeopardize the ability to fly new missions,” he said. “The totality of our extended missions today is keeping us from being able to do some of the exciting things that we would really like to do.”

Asteroid Redirect Mission: Rep. Wolf raised questions about the support there was for NASA’s Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM). “The mission does not seem to have captured the imaginations among Congress or the American public,” he said, adding that he understood House authorizers, in their new draft bill, would prohibit spending on the mission.

Later in the hearing, Culberson brought up criticism of ARM brought up last year by Steve Squyres, the planetary scientist who chairs the NASA Advisory Council. “The asteroid retrieval mission, as Chairman Wolf has said, is just not generating–”

Bolden interrupted. “Mr. Culberson, quite the contrary,” he said, saying that Squyres’s comments are from last year. “I think if you brought Steve Squyres in here today, he would say something different to you.”

SLS/Orion: Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL) pressed Bolden on funding for the Space Launch System (SLS) heavy-lift rocket and Orion spacecraft, which in the FY15 budget request is below the levels in the FY14 final appropriations bill. “There is some concern that OMB and OSTP may be out of step with most Americans about the fact that Americans want the United States to lead the world in human exploration of space beyond low Earth orbit,” he said. He asked Bolden if it would make sense downselect to a single commercial crew provider, thus requiring less money, and using that funds instead for SLS and Orion to keep them on schedule.

Bolden’s answer was succinct: “No, sir.” He again emphasized that commercial crew required full funding to be on schedule for 2017, while SLS and Orion are being managed to be ready together in 2017. “My advice to this committee, and all committees, has been to allow me the flexibility to spend as necessary such that SLS and Orion get to the finish line together. If I had finished SLS in 2013, I would have parked it in a barn somewhere because I have no crew vehicle to put on it.”

Before asking for that flexibility, he had another, more general plea for appropriators. “We’ve got to start talking to each other and understanding why you pay me to do what you pay me to do.” At the end of today’s hearing, there was plenty of talking, but perhaps not as much understanding.

13 comments to Bolden and House appropriators spar on various issues

  • amightywind

    Didn’t know Sierra Nevada depends on an Atlas V and the RD-180? Common knowledge for even the most casual space enthusiast. Makes you wonder what skill set qualifies you for NASA Administrator.

    “I think if you brought Steve Squyres in here today, he would say something different to you.”

    Another honest opinion of an accomplished person at NASA, tainted.

    He asked Bolden if it would make sense downselect to a single commercial crew provider, thus requiring less money, and using that funds instead for SLS and Orion to keep them on schedule.

    An obvious question we all have.

    has been to allow me the flexibility to spend as necessary such that SLS and Orion get to the finish line together

    A revealing statement. The strategy is disingenuous. Bolden knows that when Orion flies the nation has its spaceship back and we need no longer rely on the mercenaries.

    • Coastal Ron

      amightywind said:

      Makes you wonder what skill set qualifies you for NASA Administrator.

      The ability to sit and listen to pandering politicians without laughing out loud… ;-)

      An obvious question we all have.

      And the obvious answer, which Bolden stated, is “No”. Not sure why you are so against the private sector and so in love with government-run operations. No real conservative would be.

      A revealing statement. The strategy is disingenuous. Bolden knows that when Orion flies the nation has its spaceship back and we need no longer rely on the mercenaries.

      The Orion/MPCV is too limited and too expensive to use for LEO transport – anyone with basic math skills should be able to understand that.

      And since the presently-overweight Orion/MCPV is not scheduled to fly with real humans until 2021 at the earliest, depending on the SLS/Orion combo to somehow replace Putin’s Soyuz is foolhardy and fiscally irresponsible.

  • Dark Blue Nine

    Idiots on both sides of the dais.

  • Andrew French

    It is becoming more and more clear why the agency is in the shape it’s in. The Administrator doesn’t know what a prime competitor (one he inappropriately says he “hopes wins”) launches on? He doesn’t understand the difference between a budget “authorization” and a budget “request”? And then he characterizes the cancellation of SOFIA as “just a proposal”. He has never been able to explain a single budget request. Either he doesn’t support them or he doesn’t understand them. Not sure which is worse. But both have allowed the disfunctioning Congrss to prevail.

    • Jeff Foust

      The Administrator doesn’t know what a prime competitor (one he inappropriately says he “hopes wins”) launches on?

      To clarify, Bolden did not say that he hopes SNC wins the ongoing commercial crew competition, but rather that he hopes that they submitted a proposal.

    • James

      Bolden was an astronaut, living the life of celebrity and sycophantic admiration, and prior was military. People followed him because the org chart said they had to. Same now.
      Not much of a leader.

      • Malmesbury

        Marine Corp General. Yes, that is a position typically held by useless celebrities.

        Sigh. There is a difference between speech making and leadership. The belief that the former indicates anything about the later always strikes me as weird.

  • Andrew Swallow

    Russian engines are used by the Atlas V and the Antares launch vehicles. If Bolden had named them then Congress could have disqualified the CST-100, Dreamchaser and Cygnus. Leaving the SpaceX Dragon as monopoly transport to the ISS (although Blue Origin may return).

    By ‘forgetting’ Bolden kept the companies in the running for Commercial Crew and Commercial Resupply Services 2.

    • Coastal Ron

      Andrew Swallow said:

      Russian engines are used by the Atlas V and the Antares launch vehicles. If Bolden had named them then Congress could have disqualified the CST-100, Dreamchaser and Cygnus.

      Not sure how that would have disqualified them.

      Let’s all remember though that Boeing has said in the past that they could fly CST-100 on a Falcon 9, and Sierra Nevada has no doubt considered a Falcon 9 too (and maybe Ariane 5). We won’t know what launcher they bid until August or so.

      • Andrew Swallow

        We do know which launcher each company bid in CCiCap and CPC. Changing the launch vehicle will obviously add time and cost. One of the aims of the down select is to save time and money – doing the opposite is close to volunteering to be the one cut.

  • James

    Bolden said later that, if science from SOFIA was sufficiently compelling, “my guess is that there will be people standing in line to add their funds to maintaining SOFIA.”

    Well, there is no doubt JWST is ‘compelling science’ and when JWST had funding issues, where were all the people standing in line to add funds to save it? No where to be found.
    In the end, the US funded it.

  • Malmesbury

    I’m not sure I understand why SNC and Boeing are “mercenaries”. That could even be considered a bit libellous.

    Incidently Boeing seem to be going for the model of NASA astronauts flying CST-100, rather than the taxi model.

    Are FedEx “mercenaries” when their aircraft are used to deliver supplies for the US military?

    Orion at this point may never work. It needs to loose 25% of it’s all up weight. Interestingly, Dreamchaser, CST-100 and DragonRider are all well inside their weight reserves. The version of Orion flying this year *can’t* carry people. Arguably it is less capable than Dragon.

    I know it is upsetting – Bolden refusing to down select to SpaceX, so the haters in Congress can terminate commercial crew and open the gap to 2021… So annoying, eh?

  • vulture4

    Bolden should know his rockets better, but I’m just happy he stood up to the committee.

    To quote Mark Twain: “Suppose I were a member of Congress. And suppose I were an idiot. But, I repeat myself.”

Leave a Reply to Coastal Ron Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>