Strengthening NASA’s Technology Development Programs
Opening Statement By Chairwoman Gabrielle Giffords
Good morning. I want to welcome each of our witnesses to today’s hearing. We look forward to your testimony. Today is a very busy day on the Hill, and I will be brief in my opening remarks so that we have as much time as possible for discussion.
However, I think it’s important to note right at the outset that, based on their written testimony, all three of our witnesses agree on the importance of a vital and robust technology development program at NASA, and the need to revitalize NASA’s existing technology development activities.
And I think it is fair to say that all three would likely agree that NASA has been under-investing in technology development in recent years.
Given that two of our witnesses represent distinguished committees of the National Academies, and the third is one of the most senior officials at NASA, I think those views warrant our close attention.
Yet, to some extent, our witnesses are “preaching to the choir” today.
This Subcommittee has been concerned for some time about the state of NASA’s long-term technology programs, and we highlighted the need for action in last year’s NASA Authorization Act.
To quote Finding #10 from that Act:
“NASA should make a sustained commitment to a robust long-term technology development activity. Such investments represent critically important ‘seed corn’ on which NASA’s ability to carry out challenging and productive missions in the future will depend.”
I would also note that the summary report of the Augustine panel that has been reviewing NASA’s human space flight plans also acknowledged the importance of technology development:
“The Committee strongly believes it is time for NASA to reassume its crucial role of developing new technologies for space.”
That is a sentiment of the Augustine panel with which I heartily concur.
NASA’s technology development activities are critical not just to NASA’s future, but to the quality of life of our citizens and our nation’s competitiveness.
Discussions of technology development can wind up sounding pretty “wonky”, so let me be clear why I think NASA’s efforts are so important and need to be supported.
Here’s a picture of a standard commercial aircraft that I think makes my point.
As you look at it, you will see that almost all of its major systems and technologies came from research undertaken or funded by NASA.
Here is an aircraft that probably many Members of Congress get in several times a week, and yet I bet very few of them—or members of the public at large—recognize that NASA R&D made that plane possible.
And this picture is just one illustration of the impact of NASA’s research on our society and our economy.
I have no doubt that each of NASA’s other enterprises could provide similar examples—and I hope they will—it’s a story that needs telling and re-telling.
So I don’t think any of the Members here today need to be convinced that NASA should pursue a vigorous program of technology development.
Rather, we want to explore what it will take to get such a revitalized program in place at the agency.
In that regard, I want to state my strong belief that we don’t revitalize technology development at NASA by “robbing Peter to pay Paul”.
That is, carving out funding from an already underfunded Constellation program so that the long-term technology program can be augmented would be penny-wise and pound-foolish—you don’t fix one underfunded program by taking funding from another underfunded program and expect anything good to result.
In addition, I suspect that there may not be a “one-size-fits-all” organizational structure for technology development at NASA, but I want to hear from our witnesses on that topic, as I know that each of them have been thinking a lot about that issue.
But it’s not just a question of either money or how the organizational deck chairs are arranged—NASA has to be smart and opportunistic in seeking out ways to get its technologies out to the private sector and to other potential government users.
That’s probably a topic for a hearing in its own right, but perhaps our witnesses here today will have some thoughts on what NASA might do.
Well, I look forward to an interesting and informative discussion today. However, in that discussion, I would ask my colleagues to refrain from asking our NASA witness about NASA’s response to the report of the Augustine panel, which is scheduled to be released today.
He is not going to be able to comment on the report at this point, and we will have other opportunities to get NASA’s perspectives on it in the coming weeks. With that, I again want to welcome our witnesses, and I’d now like to turn to Mr. Olson for any opening remarks he might care to make.
Witnesses
Panel
0 - Dr. Robert D. Braun
Co-Chair of the Committee to Review the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board National Research Council Aeronautics and S
Download the Witness Testimony
0 - Dr. Raymond S. Colladay
Vice Chair of the Committee on the Rationale and Goals of the U.S. Civil Space Program Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, National Research Council Aerona
Download the Witness Testimony
0 - Mr. Christopher Scolese
Associate Administrator National Aeronautics and Space Administration National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Download the Witness Testimony