NASA’s Science Programs: Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request and Issues

Opening Statement By Chairman Mark Udall

Good afternoon.  I want to welcome all of our witnesses to today’s hearing.  Today’s hearing continues the Committee’s review of NASA’s FY 2009 budget request, this time focusing on NASA’s space and Earth science program.

NASA’s science program has long been one of the agency’s "crown jewels", and it has delivered outstanding results since the dawn of the Space Age 50 years ago ‐ results that have rewritten the scientific textbooks and captivated the imagination of the public both here and around the world.

I want to see that record of accomplishment and inspiration continue.  However, I’m concerned that NASA’s science program is facing an uncertain future under the funding plan offered by the Administration.

I know that Dr. Stern is going to put the best face on the outlook for NASA science in his remarks today, and he will point to a number of areas, such as funding for Research and Analysis and suborbital research, where NASA has taken steps to improve what was a bad situation.  And he undoubtedly will point to NASA’s plans to initiate a number of exciting new science missions, including JDEM, an Outer Planets mission, a Solar Probe, two of the Earth Science missions recommended by the National Academies’ Decadal Survey, and a Mars Sample Return mission.

I want to commend Dr. Stern for his efforts to address some of the stresses facing the science community from past NASA budgetary problems, and for the energy and commitment he has brought to his job.  Yet, as we will hear from a number of our witnesses today, it is not at all clear that it is going to be possible to sustain those new initiatives in an effective manner under the Administration’s assumed funding plan.

For example, the National Academies estimated that some $7 billion would be required over the next 12 years to carry out the 15 NASA Earth Science missions recommended in the Decadal Survey.  However, the Administration’s budget plan for the next five years would allocate less than $1 billion to that effort.

In the area of Mars exploration, the budget plan would cut the annual funding for the Mars program in half over the next five years, while still planning for the launch of an ambitious Mars Sample Return mission by 2018.  And even though the cost of a Mars Sample Return mission has been estimated to be in the $5 billion or higher cost range, NASA is planning to spend only $68 million on technology risk reduction activities for the mission over the next five years… an amount that seems quite low for a mission of such complexity and difficulty.

Congress will need to better understand NASA’s plans and assumptions as well as the impact on the current integrated Mars exploration program before we can feel comfortable in moving forward.

Another area of concern is the outlook for NASA’s astrophysics theme.  Not only is NASA estimating a cost for its new JDEM initiative that is lower than the cost estimate contained in the recent National Academies’ Beyond Einstein report, but in addition, essentially all of NASA’s five-year funding wedge for future astrophysics missions is already assumed to be needed to compensate for low levels of reserves in the James Webb Space Telescope project.

I could go on, but the basic situation is clear.

NASA’s challenging new science initiatives are to be built on a budget that increases by only 1 percent through FY 2011 and that assumes only inflationary increases at best in the years beyond that.

There will be little new money – instead, there will be a continuing need to transfer of funds across the science accounts to support each new initiative – an approach some might call "robbing Peter to pay Paul."

I’m very concerned that such an approach will not prove sustainable or credible.  And assurances that improved cost controls will allow all the projects to be effectively carried out will need to be validated, given that eight NASA science projects have already exceeded statutory cost and schedule growth thresholds.

Well, we have a great deal to discuss today.  I again want to thank all of our witnesses for participating in today’s hearing, and I look forward to your testimony.

Witnesses

Panel

1 - Dr. S. Alan Stern
Associate Administrator Science Mission Directorate National Aeronautics and Space Administration Science Mission Directorate National Aeronautics and Space Adm
Download the Witness Testimony

2 - Dr. Lennard A. Fisk
Chair, Space Studies Board National Research Council National Research Council
Download the Witness Testimony

3 - Dr. Berrien Moore
Executive Director of Climate Central and Chair of the Committee on Earth Studies, Space Studies Board National Research Council National Research Council
Download the Witness Testimony

4 - Dr. Steven W. Squyres
Professor of Astronomy Cornell University Cornell University
Download the Witness Testimony

5 - Dr. Jack O. Burns
Professor, Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy University of Colorado University of Colorado
Download the Witness Testimony