NASA’s International Space Station Program: Status and Issues

Opening Statement By Chairman Mark Udall

Good morning.  I’d like to welcome our witnesses to today’s hearing.  We welcome your participation and look forward to your testimony.

Today’s hearing continues the Subcommittee’s oversight of NASA’s major programs by focusing on the International Space Station program.

While it is a program that has had a long, and at times controversial and frustrating development path, I am impressed with the progress that has been made in assembling and operating this incredibly complex international space-based science and technology facility.

The NASA witness, Mr. William Gerstenmaier, will describe some of the recent accomplishments of the ISS program in his testimony, and he and his team – and all of the international partners too – can take justifiable pride in what they are achieving.

An important component of that success is the way that the ISS is truly becoming the International Space Station, with American, Japanese, European, Canadian, and Russian astronauts, engineers, and program managers working together to overcome challenges on a continuing basis.

Yet, if we are to justify the significant resources that have been expended on the ISS program, we need to be confident that it is going to be used in as productive a manner as possible once it is assembled.

To that end, I am encouraged by news of emerging research and commercial collaborations with NASA, and I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses from the research and commercial sectors about their plans for utilizing the Station.

And, equally importantly, their views on what it will take to make the ISS a productive venue for research and commercial activities.

I also want to hear NASA tell us what it intends to do to make the ISS a productive facility – not just for research and commercial activities, but also to carry out the ISS research and technology activities that NASA has said will be needed to prepare for future exploration.

In this hearing, instead of dwelling on past problems, I want to focus on where we go from here.

However, as NASA talks about providing research opportunities on the ISS, we cannot forget that the funding cuts NASA has made to its microgravity research programs in recent years – whether willingly or not – have largely decimated that research community.

Thus, I think the onus has to be on NASA to prove that it means what it says by taking meaningful steps both to make the ISS a productive venue for research and to start to rebuild that research community.

Yet, it won’t be possible to have a productive ISS unless the facility can be sustained after the Shuttle is retired.

I am going to want to hear from NASA about how it plans to ensure the viability and productivity of the ISS after the Shuttle is retired, what it considers the major risks ahead, and how it plans to manage those risks.  It is no secret that we are currently living with the adverse impacts of the Administration’s shortsighted decision four years ago to accept a four-year gap in U.S. crew launch capabilities after the Shuttle is retired.  I hope we learn from that experience and not let the future of the ISS be determined by equally shortsighted measures.  If we are to realize a meaningful return on the nation’s investment in the ISS, we need to ensure that the ISS’s post-Shuttle logistics resupply needs are adequately funded.

It is also clear that it is time for the Administration to commit to flying the two "contingency" Shuttle flights that will deliver critical spares and logistics to the Station before the Shuttle is retired.  Based on all of the information provided to the Committee to date, it is clear those flights are not optional if NASA is to minimize the risks facing the ISS after 2010.

And finally, we need to ensure that any decision on the service life of this international facility is based on sound policy considerations and thorough consultations with our international partners – and not simply be a date based on the current Administration’s desire to make it conform to their own underfunded budget plan for NASA.

Well, we have a great number of issues to consider today, and we have a very good panel of witnesses to help us address them.

Witnesses

Panel 1

1 - Dr. Edward P. Knipling
Administrator Agricultural Research Service Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service Department of Agriculture
Download the Witness Testimony

3 - Dr. Cheryl Nickerson
Associate Professor of Life Sciences Arizona State University Arizona State University
Download the Witness Testimony

4 - Mr. Thomas Pickens
President and Chief Executive Officer Spacehab, Inc Spacehab, Inc
Download the Witness Testimony

2 - Dr. Louis Stodieck
Director, BioServe Space Technologies Research Professor in Aerospace Engineering Sciences, University of Colorado Research Professor in Aerospace Engineering S
Download the Witness Testimony

Panel 2

1 - Mr. William Gerstenmaier
Associate Administrator Space Operations Mission Directorate National Aeronautics and Space Administration Space Operations Mission Directorate National Aeronau
Download the Witness Testimony

2 - Ms. Cristina T. Chaplain
Director Acquisition and Sourcing Management Government Accountability Office Acquisition and Sourcing Management Government Accountability Office
Download the Witness Testimony

3 - Dr. Jeffrey Sutton
Director National Space Biomedical Research Institute National Space Biomedical Research Institute
Download the Witness Testimony