forward, not competitors. unfortunately the administration has not allowed for that cooperation. the test last week was an important milestone in the future of the space program. it was a fully commercial mission licensed by the federal aviation administration conduct of the private sector. in the future, they will serve as the tip of the spear for the nation's space exploration program. recently, some have argued that the government shouldn't be involved in space exploration at all and suggested the private sector alone is capable of leading us into the cosmos. i certainly hope that this will someday be possible but right now is based exploration requires government support. this is a worthwhile investment for the taxpayer and inspires the generation to pursue science technology engineering and math and advances the softcover and international relations and reinforces the industrial base and increases economic competitiveness and advances the national security interest.

the orion and sls the vanguard of the program are the key to advancing these interests. i look forward to hearing from mr. gerstenmaier and ms. chaplain about the challenges and opportunities facing these important programs. i now recognize the ranking member from maryland. it's been a good morning to the witnesses. i want to join the chair man in congratulating nasa, lockheed, united launch alliance and the contractor team on conducting the exploration test of the orion capsule last week and i think that it was exciting and i know that around the country and around the world there were many of us working on solution division for the first time in a long time at the u.s. space program that is very forward-looking. they are below the orbits to test and verify the design can

reduce technical risk and recover ability operations. mr. chairman, i belief that this shows americans the tangible progress is in fact being made on returning humans to exploration beyond earth's neighborhood in the goal that the committee and the congress as a whole have embraced through multiple authorization acts, and despite some of the things that share mainly doubt i would also note i think we were in this hearing room just three years ago wondering whether orion was really going to be possible or not, and i think that we have addressed that question in what is a remarkably short period of time. and so, while i look forward to looking at the challenges and to taking on some of those challenges, i don't want to lose sight of the fact that we have great capacity and that the american people can get greatly excited by that and i think then those of us who are the

policymakers to do the right thing when it comes to robustly funding our exploration program. the development of the space launch system, sls tie into the orion crew vehicle or a necessary next steps in reaching the goal for human exploration. human space exploration including the long-term goal of sending humans to the surface of mars, as stated in our bipartisan house passed nasa authorization act of 2014. and so i also thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing so we cannot attain an update on the status of the sls and orion program. and it was, indeed, just those three years ago we sat in this room and we were pressing nasa for a decision on the final design of the sls rocket with great debate within the administration and this committee and the congress. and i think today we are going to hear of the program's approval to enter into the full-scale development as some

of us had envisioned. this is indeed a significant accomplish that even in the midst of major challenges especially those related to the constrained budgets. very often the congress has been supported of sls and orion of the presidents request of the chairman has indicated. i don't know that i necessarily share the chair man's bu about where the fault lie however they've been challenged by the flat funding levels provided for the past few years. the situation at the departs significantly from the typical funding group profiles of major development programs. and that's why we've recognized the critical need to authorize a robust off-line funding level for the 2013 democratic nasa authorization bill that included healthy increases for the exploration program. national the national academy committee in fact recently released a report on human space exploration. and also recognized sending humans to the space of mars

would require a sustained increases. they said, and i quoted increasing the budget to allow increasing the human spaceflight budget by 5% per year would enable pathways with potentially viable mission rates. so mr. chairman and we we can work together to overcome the challenges and as we look over the next congress to reauthorize i look forward to working with you to ensure that this committee authorizes the appropriations that the sls and orion programs require to achieve the testing of the vehicles for the use of the earliest possible date and that we would obtain a human exploration roadmap to focus the systems in the long-term mission goals. and when i see the excitement of the test flight as it is demonstrated by the coverage in the leading media story i think that in fact it did lead the

broadcast news. i am reminded that the program does belong to the american public and that they will in fact embrace them. the congress is rapidly drawing to a close and i would encourage the colleagues in the senate to seek a quick passage of the authorization act of 2014 so that nasa and its contractors have the direction and stability needed to plan for the continued progress. and then finally i will reiterate what i've said many times before. that is we cannot have one set of goals for nasa and the human exploration programs and then not match those goals and resources that are required to connect to the work on the timely basis. it is unfair to the agency and its unfair to country does and it is a false expectation for

the public. with that, i would yield back and look forward to hearing the testimony today. >> thank you. i now recognize the tremendous tremendous before committee chairman smith. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to congratulate bill gerstenmaier and those at nasa and also ask lockheed martin and united launch alliance who are represented in the room to be on a today on a spectacular flight test last week on the vehicle. i know a lot of hard work went into making that successful. the space exploration is about inspiration. this is duration fuels the desire to push the boundaries of what is possible to reach beyond our own dot. it is a long journey. the purpose of today's hearing is simple. we wish to send a loud and clear message that space exploration is the number one priority.

last week's test flight demonstrated many firsts. we are also here to ensure that the next step of the journey are on track and would be just as successful. there is bipartisan support that nasa is stay on track with the orion vehicle into space launch including the omnibus appropriations bill that we plan to vote on tomorrow. the orion and sls are a central element for astronauts to eventually travel beyond low earth orbit. the omnibus appropriations bill made public last night is the latest example of congressional support for these programs funded well above the president's budget request the sls and orion are receiving the resources they need to ensure their success. fortune favors the bold. last week's test flight was necessary to answer the naysayers and critics who claim that america's best days on the frontier are behind us. last week's mission inserted

those critics. the program demonstrated that we could reach the moon, and orion and sls will ensure that america continues the missions as a space faring nation for decades to come. the technologies that are developed developed to simplify the greatest breakthroughs and to demonstrate american demonstrate american ingenuity. we must continue to push forward. great nations do great things for everyone today's hearing wants to ensure that on the surface of mars it is planted by an american astronaut. it may have arrived on board and the crew vehicle propelled by the space launch system. let's work together to make that happen. and mr. chairman and i would yield back. >> if there are members that wish to set additional statements yours will be added to the record at this point. before before he introduced the witnesses i would be run as if i didn't point out that we are missing one this morning. the chief financial officer.

his designee was invited to participate in today's hearing regarding the budget development and guidance. unfortunately despite the numerous invitations to secure the attendance, the administration refused to make them available. he will say senate confirmed position and is obliged to justify before the agency's oversight committees. we are aware of the demands on his schedule and for that reason, the committee was willing to allow any other employee from the office to appear. unfortunately, nasa prohibited any other representative from appearing today. this is unfortunate because mr. gerstenmaier may not be the appropriate person at nasa to explain many of the policies being advanced by the office. i look forward to his appearance before the committee in the future to answer our questions. at this time i would like to introduce the witnesses. the first witness today is

mr. bill gerstenmaier. mr. gerstenmaier started his work with nasa in 1977 as a researcher on aeronautics. could a community associated administrator for the exploration mission director at nasa headquarters in washington, d.c.. mr. gerstenmaier has received many awards for his work on space exploration, including the distinguished executive presidential ranking a award, the national space club bronze award, the space transportation leadership award and several nasa awards. he received a bachelors of science from the university and master of science degree in mechanical engineering from the university of toledo area to the second witness, there's cristina chaplain has been a u.s. government accountability office employee for 23 years and currently serves as the director of acquisition sourcing management at the gal. in this capacity she is responsible for the gal assessment of the military acquisitions and has read reviews of the space launch

system can space station and the james webb space telescope among others. prior to her position she works worked with the financial management information technology teams. she received her bachelors and international bachelor's in international relations from boston university and master's in journalism from columbia university. thank you again to the witnesses for being here today. as our witness is no spoken testimony is committed -- it's each after which members of the committee will have -- it's each to ask questions. i now recognize mr. gerstenmaier for five minutes to present his testimony. >> thank you very much for having me here. i would like to again thank you on behalf of the entire team that works on the exploration program and i would like to start my testimony with some videos and pictures that we provided earlier of the videos and images that capture the work that's been accomplished in the exploration program, and i will narrate some of the video as it is shown to if we can start the video, please.

>> again, the program is made up of three major components, the ground system operations down in florida which is preparing the launch site and these are the images that you are seeing here on the screen. again the purpose of the video is to show you how much work is actually being accomplished behind the scenes. you can see the launch of the efta won but you don't get a chance to see the work that is occurring at the various field centers into areas making these have been. this is the d-delta roman mac for images of shoving it down at the kennedy space center. this is the fabrication and manufacturing of the orion council that was launched on the test flight. again, you get to see that the commission, the folks at the various centers working to make all this activity have been. it's not only in florida but it's also in houston where the control center team up to monitor the capsule and send some commands to the capsule. there is a team in florida but also monitored the launch comes at a gut to participate in that activity and participate in the

orion council activity. again, you can see the capsule coming together. as some of the hardware came from the marshall space flight center it was manufactured in the interface between the delta rocket and the orion capsule came from the marshall space flight center. so again, i would say this is an entire nasa team coming together to make this happen. this is some work that, again come in florida preparing for the cup so and also cap so and also down at the assembly facility where the sls will be put together. i think you were there for the vertical assembly center that got together. they would manufacture the large external tanks into that activity is occurring. there are several sections already to be tested next month. let's move forward. also the test was a substantial amount that occurred to make sure the parachute systems would work. we were preparing for the future activities to look at the redirect commission and now you can see some of the work is

actually transported to capsule out to the launch pad to be integrated into rockets. the important message is that there's a tremendous amount of work going on that's being a composed enough on schedule. this challenges in challenge is in the work and it's not easy work. they are working we are working very hard to make these things occur. the next video that is getting chewed up now is the video in the test flight. many of you either got to see it in person or you got to see it on television. again i will describe some of the activities that occurred. again to the point is that the test flight didn't come about just as a happenstance. there's lots of appropriations before. we did many drug tests in the system and recovery activities. we have done the board system

testing to verify and make sure that when we took this test we were ready to do the test so we didn't have all the questions answered. there were still significant risks risks and there were still things that we couldn't test in any other environment other than the test flight, but this test flight confirmed that those other pieces at least first book for 12 and we understand the data and things look very good good from an overall standpoint. again, a lot of the folks got to witness this and it's exciting to see people show up in florida to be there. as you talked about in some of your opening remarks, the encouragement of the science technology engineering and math students is really strong to interact with the students down in florida was really exciting. for me to see their enthusiasm to move forward. this is the actual launch activity that was unique to orion that was added by the united launch alliance specifically for this flight. that did not exist before this flight on the delta launch. again, the launch went extremely

well. the vehicle gave a great ride to space and injected the capsule exactly exactly what it needed to be. it did all activities to accelerate a vehicle to the right entry conditions. all of that worked work extremely well and went really, really flawlessly. in terms of kind of the first results from the test, nothing major was really learned. one of the video processing unit had to be recycled. it was most likely caused by a radiation event, so we got to understand the radiation environment the capsule will play through. it isn't very good shape. as we returned we removed some plugs from the heat shield until a foreign and yesterday a capsule about ready to get on the truck to head towards florida for more detailed valuation valuation at all the data has come off the capsule. the images are pretty impressive when you look you see the horizon. i think what was more important is when you see the window where the crew will make that kind for

the human spaceflight space flight and the robotic spaceflight even stronger. this is the capsule again successfully floating in the water that we expected to see five airbags deployed in the situation. we see two of them. there's something that didn't work in the system and we know that it is the pressure that came out of the system and we will understand what occurred. but again overall just a tremendous testimony to the work that the program has put together. and i look forward to your questions as we move forward in this activity. so, thank you. >> thank you. i now recognize these orion to present her testimony. >> mr. chairman, ranking member edwards, chairman smith and members of the subcommittee, before i begin i would like to congratulate nasa on the successful test that has helped design the technology to the orion and this important event. as you know we recently reviewed the cost estimates for the systems being discussed today.

we performed an in-depth review of the space launch system and we have been covering the orion program for an annual assessment of the major programs. in kind of thing does work at the time we reviewed the sls the program is approaching a critical milestone that makes formal commitment to the congress in the form of the cost and schedule baselines. it represents the point at which the program begins full-scale efforts to fabricate the system at which technical or funding problems can have widespread effects. the sls was generally doing a good job as maturing the design, keeping the requirements stable and putting the high priority on quality. the program was also acting in a managed cost. however it did take longer than recommended to defend the highest contract which can create some conditions for cost growth. the programs still face and hair and technical design and engineering risks as all the space programs do.

but it's actively managing them in a transparent fashion. however, the programs still face the resource gap and the agencies funding plans for sls was insufficient to match the requirements to the resources for the december, 2017 flight test and a high confidence level. the agency's options were largely limited to increasing the program funding committee leading the schedule or accepting the reduced confidence level for the initial flight test. the program to delete at prudent speculator the risk associated with the sufficient funding through 2017 with 90% likely to occur. further, it indicated the insufficient budget that could push the december 2017 launch date out of six months and have some 400 million to the overall cost of the development. after the report was issued when nasa established former baselines, nasa committed to the 2,018th of that it could have more confidence in meeting the

state. in our opinion this is a good step as nasa still have a confidence. 30% that it could need to be earlier date. going forward, be it short and long-term concerns of the human space exploration programs. in the short-term for the programs are entering the most risky phases of development. they are still technical hurdles to overcome, particularly with the spacecraft, which is addressing challenges with the parish of system in the heat shield among others. there's also still considerable development and testing ahead for orion in terms of the human support systems. meanwhile, sls is continuing to pursue the earlier launch date of december the 2017. while the urgency is understandable, the schedule for the achieving of the earlier date mostly with respect to the core stage is aggressive and there is little room to address problems. moreover it doesn't appear that the ground system can achieve the earlier date. in the long term, we have concerns about the cost

estimating for the human space exploration programs. nasa's produced estimates for sls sls in the ground system are the first flight test and for orion through the second flight test. there would still be significant development ahead for sls after the first flight, and significant operations in the sustainment costs for all three programs. moreover, there's still uncertainty about the missions that would be undertaken after the second test. without having the mission formally, nasa is limited in its ability to plan for the future and is at risk for making choices today that wouldn't make sense later. affordability for the long haul is a real issue and one of the subcommittee has already had, but to garner the long-term commitment for the congress and the taxpayers but it's needed to make the program a success we need a transparent estimates and other resources that will be needed to achieve the nation's goal for the human space exploration. thank you and this concludes my statement and i'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

>> i think this is further testimony and remind the other members of the committee rules limit five minutes. the chair with a this point of another round of questions into the chair recognizes himself for five minutes. >> mr. gerstenmaier, and there is an testimony provided by the gal, ms. >> and states that gal found that nasa's proposing levels have affected the sls program. >> the sls ability to match requirements to resources since its conception. the gal also reported that the sls program is tracking a $400 million shortfall in funding as its most significant risk. nasa officials testified multiple times before this committee that the president's budget request with sufficient to keep the sls and orion on budget and on schedule. i realize this is a tough question for you to answer because you have to defend the president's budget request, but congress is ultimately responsible for funding this program and ensuring taxpayer dollars are are efficiently

spent. but given that nasa has populated the initial launch of sls due to funding pressure, what funding level would keep the 2017 date on track? >> again, i would say the recent review we did in the programmatic review that cristina talked about we committed to a joint confidence level of 70% in the november of 2018 launch and that's consistent with the budgets that we've submitted through the the administration said it is a consistent plan. we have been trying to work for an earlier schedule and that is based on the risk mitigation or the extra funding that we received in congress so we tried to keep both of the plans in place as we take the funds that we have been given and that use those in an effective manner to hold the earliest date that we could potentially hold moving forward. we need to be aware of the concerns that were brought up and make sure we do not overly pressured the schedule that do

not end up wasting the funds or the resources. so the current planning we were holding december the 2017 i would say that we've now moved off that date and it would be somewhere in the 2018 timeframe now in the current planning. and that is just based on the reality of the problems that have come along in the program and some uncertainty so we will move a little bit into probably with our planning dates and into i would say maybe the june kind of timeframe of 2018 and that is still ahead of the commitment consistent with the budget level in november of 2018, consistent with the president's budget request. so we get different funding bubbles and it seems we're making progress within one of the marketable phases that we go into the manufacturing of hardware and we will see how that goes the next couple of months but again i think we have been able to balance the budget

needs that we have overall to develop a program that is effectively as we can for the nation and for the congress. >> is steve 11, gal noted that the sls and orion programs do not have integrated schedules for the development launch. how has nasa currently managed the programs so they would launch not just on time but at the same time? there are still different dates in the final launches. and orion is to be determined you could say because they are about to go into the process where they will get their resources into and schedules and they set a launch date. at this time it doesn't look like they could make 2017 and 2018 a challenge of itself so we look forward to seeing what that date is. it's important to plan for a single date as early as you can so that you can align the tasks

appropriately to meet that date you don't necessarily have to spend resources trying to meet other people or other systems so we have to see what happens after this next soviet to see how they shake out. >> mr. gerstenmaier we all recognize that the resources for the orion and sls programs have been constrained. and i think that we can acknowledge as well at the flat budgets are not optimum for carrying out major development programs. but i'm impressed with how much progress has been made on these programs given these constraints trade and as you know the committee has had the goal of having sls and orion operational

and you've indicated that you indicated that you also indicated the slipping based on the budget constraint. we are going to be authorizing nasa again, welcome reauthorizing next year. so i want to understand what the additional progress could be made on the sls and the orion program if we were to authorize additional resources and whether or not the impact on the exploration program, whether there would be an impact if there were inflationary increases as were recommended by the national academies report. at the 5% increase, and what a sustained increase of this magnitude the magnitude be sufficient to accelerate the progress that you describe described for the projected launch date or whether the media not to reduce the risk of those dates being pushed even further to the right? i guess i'm just trying to figure out what would get us back to a 2017 target.

you seem to have indicated that it's not just resources, but you know, even his orion acknowledges that the 2018 date are at risk as well because of the uncertainty around the budget constrains. >> again i think one thing that could be very helpful is to get some stability and understanding of what the budget is. it's difficult for the programs to plan for what could be a congressional budget versus the administration budget. they get some agreement between the administration and congress, so we know what to plan for in terms of the budget that would be helpful overall. as well as the absolute level. in terms of the technical work, again, i think that we have probably moved off of the december 2017 when i look at the work so i don't think funding will pull us back to that date. ..

>> so there's not a need to all these programs synced up. i think we need to be careful and think about that if we put that extra constraint in where we have decent all these programs up and match all the schedules i think the put another burden and that can make and inefficiency. so again i think again from a technical standpoint we are

probablprobably in 2018 summer s in the first part with the funding levels we have seen. we have made the commitment to november 2018, ground ops is in june 2018 with her commitment and we're in the process of doing the all right evaluation to pick a date for orion. >> some have criticized the orion and sls program as rocket and spacecraft without a mission. we set a long-term goal of the house passed nasa operation act and we need a roadmap from nasa the best way to get there. it seems to me that now is the time for that. what will those have in reaching that goal? when will we have a strategy for getting there? >> i think both sls and orion play key role in the strategy described. sls is the heavy lift launch vehicle is, we need that kind of ability to launch that much mass to go to a mars class mission.

paul ryan will have to return at lockheed switch which is a flight test from lunar return velocities which most capsules have not. so those two components already critical to our mars strategy. those others that need to be headed, the habitation module and wheezing space station today to buy down risk on the human performance and how will systems work. it was talked about the life-support system of orion. it's been tested on space station today. we are getting a chance to see how the operations were onboard the space station. so we can use all these pieces to continue to transpose towards mars by federal thinkers question that these two pieces fit squarely in any plan for mars activity. >> we should set aside the criticism? >> yes. >> thank you. >> i now recognize mr. bridenstine from oklahoma. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for your leadership on this very important committee. thank you to our witnesses

providing testimony today. it's an honor to be with you, and certainly hear your testimony. gene start in was the last man -- last man to walk on the moon. he took off december 17, 1972. three years before i was born. he was a naval aviator, a naval officer. he was an aeronautical engineer an electrical engineer, a fighter pilot, a test pilot and an astronaut. he and so many others that accomplished that feat never went back to the moon. and i think that it is a tragedy, and certainly something that this committee should be aware of a. it hasn't happened in my lifetime. my parents remember exactly where they were the first time it happened with neil armstrong and buzz aldrin. this committee before i got

here, and certainly congress as a whole, commission a report that cost three caused $3.2 million. they spent 18 months. it was a group of individuals led by governor mitch daniels come and they came up with a report that is called pathways to exploration. and one thing that i thought was telling in this report is a talk about a horizon goal. what is a horizon goal for nasa? their goal according to them, nasa's horizon goal of to be mars. and, of course, the are stepping stones, pathways to get to land a human on mars and bring humans home from our spirit and interestingly it says the current program to develop launch vehicles for spacecraft for flight beyond leo cannot provide the flight frequency required to maintain competence and safety. let me read that again.

cannot provide the flight frequency required to maintain competence and safety. i took a trip down to houston but i visited the johnson space center. i've talked to them about sls. of course, everybody was looking forward to the first launch, was going to be december of 2017. now we are here in 2018. but was interesting was the follow-on launch at the going to be, it was going to be human launch in 2021. my initial reaction as a navy pilot, remember, gene cernan and these guys inspired a guy like me. even though i have been born yet i read about these folks. they became heroes of mine and inspired a guy like me to join the united states navy to become a pilot. it was aspirational. this was the kind of benefit this as for the united states of america. they said 2017 would be the first launch, 2018 could be what it slips two. ultimately, we're going to launch a manned orion mission in

2021. it would appear that would have to slip as well. my initial reaction is we're going to go for years without a launch. then we'll put men in a vehicle and women in the vehicle and send them into space. my question for you, mr. gerstenmaier, sorry. my name is bridenstine so i live with the same problem. my question for you is do you agree with this assessment that the current programs to develop a launch vehicles for spacecraft for flight beyond leo cannot provide a flight frequency required to maintain competence and safety? do you agree with that? >> we are looking very closely at those concerns. first of all i would say the fact that em-1 has moved into 18 doesn't mean that em-2 has moved also. we will continue to look at ways of holding that. we're to look at building a

system that we ca can fly repeatedly applied for reasonable costs, and we still answers to gao on those activities. our goal is once we've flight crew in 21 we would like to fly roughly a flight rate of about once per year. we are off analyzing that once for your flight rate to see if we could achieve that within our budgets. and we think does not provide enough frequency of light that answers the safety concerns. we are off analyzing both of those activities right now. so our intent would be to take this period between the first flight of orion two deep space on the sls and in the second flight with crew and then follow that with roughly one flight per year after that. >> do you agree that the horizon goal of the united states out to be landing humans on mars of? >> yes. and the way we see it as messy as we see three phases. will be called the earth relied

region which is space station which we use today to test out systems like i describe. we understand how the human body performs in microgravity. we will do a one year expedition next with crew members to see if humans can tolerate the kind of derision in microgravity to go to mars. then we see the next region of space, the proving ground of region of space. that's around them. that's where we are now days away from return. we can test the systems, we can see deep space radiation. we can to rendezvous without communications to the ground. we can verify and validate the concept that will be needed to take us eventually to mars. the last phase is are the independent or the mars ready phase, that's this horizon could be described. but we think we have at a micro level an orderly process beginning in low-earth orbit and didn't eventually moving on to the mars class mission. >> country if you entertain me for just a few seconds here of like to ask one last question, which is the report here that we commission, $3.2 million, 18

months, a lot of experts indicate that given our flat funding for the human spaceflight directorate that we are not going to account that mission of getting to mars. given we are with flat funding do you agree with that assessment? >> we are going to need some funding level about flat funding spent would you be willing to come back and provide us what kind of funding level is necessary in order to accomplish the objective? >> we can provide that and we can take that for the record and describe it to you. it's going to be a function of the timeframe, and the timeframe is driven not only by the funding requirement but it's also have we gained enough experience that we are bogged down in a technical risk. are we ready to take that next step. they are several components but it's one just a budget discussion but there's also the technical speed and the assurance of what we can learn during this very moving forward spent that obviously would

require more flight frequency than what we're currently getting? >> potentially, yes. >> the gentleman's time has expired. we may have a second round of questions if the member would like. at this time i recognize ms. bonamici for five minutes, or six or seven. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and thank you so much to the witnesses for being here today. it's really pretty exciting time for the u.s. space program. i know that my colleagues and i all watched the orion test launch with great interest. i also want to join my colleagues and congratulate nasa, lockheed martin, united launch alliance, everyone who participated in this test flight. i heard from some of my constituents who really applauded this, saw this as a big step in our leadership in space. that comes as welcome news as we are trying to inspire and spark interest in the next generation of young scientists.

in our previous space subcommittee hearing we talked about the challenge of communicating the importance of nasa's work and a mission to our constituencies who support the mission with their hard earned tax dollars but as mr. bridenstine the same of a lot of people who were inspired looking back to the apollo mission and the moon landing. but that public outreach is important and i notice that you give us a publication here that has come it takes a country that talks all the places across the country where the parts and pieces were supplied and purchase. that shows a broad range of states and this is untrue that participated in the. i can think is important to convince our constituents of the importance economically as well. i want to make sure mr. bridenstine saw the congressman on board picture in this publication, too. you have some of our congressmen pictured in there. also i know that the budget

challenges and the lack of certainty is there very important. and mr. gerstenmaier, you talked about the need for stability, and get a certain something we talk about here on a regular basis, that that certainty in decision-making and long-term thinking is so important, especially more so for nasa than perhaps many of the other decisions that we make here. and also we know about the importance of safety. acknowledging as we all know the space exploration involves risk. there are safety concerns. and i know that nasa does a lot to address those. so, mr. gerstenmaier, summit said that having the orion with the necessary life-support equipment on the first crew mission will cause the spacecraft to be overweight. so should we be concerned about that? what options does nasa have to mitigate this possibility?

>> again, the flight test we just flew, the next light of orion will be significantly lighter. we have done a major redesign of some of the structure to actually lower the weight of orion. that was an easy to make those changes but they have done the. we've also are starting as a disk read earlier testing some of the life-support systems onboard space stations will know how much they will action the way and some of the systems are in place pics i think we have a sound approach to address the concerns that you raise. will we know what it -- we will know what it takes so not to exceed the weight of? of. >> thank you. i want to follow up on this edwards question that we can to focus on the sls and orion when we think of exploration program but i want to talk more about the ground infrastructure at the space center which is also undergoing some significant development to support the sls and orion launches. i know there's been work on the mobile launcher, a tower, the

vehicle is in rebuilding from the launch pad 39 39 b. under w. what is the ground infrastructure work stand voted to the progress being made on sls and orion? are the in sync so that they would be ready at the same time? >> again i think you so into the a lot of activity that's going on down in florida. network is in progress. when we completed the review for ground systems, and shows 70% confidence level for that equipment to be ready in florida to support the launch in i think june 2018. so it's on schedule to move forward. it has challenges that need to be worked as well. it again i would stress i don't see all these activities have to lineup. even if sls is ready a little early and the ground system isn't fully there, is still the right thing to do to move the rocket down to florida and begin checking out interfaces is how it will fit with the launch tower to see how it will fit with the launch pad. that still fits from an overall

schedule standpoint. so there's not a disconnect in the scheduled even though everything doesn't arrive at precisely the same time, it's perfectly appropriate to have one arrive before the other. >> i will squeeze one more question in. demonstrated by the house passed nasa authorization of 2014 there's a strong sentiment for nasa to have a policy on termination liability that maximizes the use of appropriated funds to make progress in meeting those established technical goals and scheduled milestones. how is nasa current heading potential termination liability for sls and orion? >> it's actually not a nasa policy. we believe it's part of the anti-defamation act with determination liabilities required by all agencies to be handled in a similar manner to which the agency does. that's where we are. so it's not unique to nasa and unique to what we've done in the past. >> thank you very much, and i yield back. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> now recognize mr. rohrabacher from california. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing. it's vitally important we have a responsible oversight of the various nasa projects, the responsibility of this subcommittee. many of us were very skeptical about this sls commitment when it was made. you said there would be funding problems. i had no idea that funding problems would come on so quickly. and you noted that you said the funding levels now are interesting. interesting? they are not interesting. they are insufficient. insufficient to reach your goal. and why are the insufficient? because we didn't have enough money for this project to begin with. am i correct in assuming that there are large commitments of finances that will be necessary

to develop other technologies that are yet to be developed for this spacecraft, the sls, to move forward on its mission to mars? we don't even know if those expensive technology development projects will succeed. to say we have the cart before the horse is an understatement. and there is an expense to this, and i hope my colleagues on this subcommittee understand that with a $10 billion, that's a minimum expenditure we're talking about, in developing this monstrous rocket project that won't have a real mission until we are ready to go to mars could be two decades, or three decades from now, depending on if we can actually ever get over the technological hurdles that we haven't gotten over yet, that by doing that we have committed ourselves not to do a bunch of other things. not to identify all the

near-earth objects that could be hitting the earth and murdering millions of people from some of jet hitting the earth, much less setting up a system for how we can deflect a near-earth object. we will not have it because we will have a big, huge rocket that we can be so proud of that won't even have the nation for two decades. we are not going to be building ways to deflect those rockets. we will not be building away and technology to build in a way, mr. chairman, to clear space debris. space debris is going to end up strangling humankind involvement in space in order to improve the condition of human beings which is a good investment to make, not indefinite, huge rocket is have a mission for 20 years. we basically have canceled just even recently we canceled the solar cell project. we're not going to have a refueling system in space that could, incredibly increase our abilities to do things in space.

and basically we could be perfecting our ways of repairing satellites. all of these things are going to be defunded because we are spending billions of dollars on a rocket that may not flight to mars two decades from now. as i say, it's a saying of the cart is before the work is an understatement. we are already having budget crisis fights about it right now. so what you're telling us today is that things aren't going to work out with the budget we've got. it's not just interesting. it's insufficient to achieve the goal. and even if we do then pump more money into the sls project, we have pumped it into a project that is providing a rocket that will be useless to us for two decades. as compared to all those other things that could be done in space. mr. chairman, we need to be curious. we need to be responsible. we should not be blaming the

people at nasa and our professionals in executive branch. we made a wrong decision when we went down this road, and i think that, unfortunately, the american people and the people of the world are going to pay for it, not just out of their pockets with money, but out of things we could've been doing in space that could have been so beneficial to the human race. with that, and i guess you've got 30 seconds to answer that, but go right ahead. please feel free. my feelings won't be hurt. >> my only comment would be we don't have very, we have, i can think of any real major technical challenges in terms of sls development. >> how about radiation challenge with going to mars? >> that -- >> have we met that? >> we have not met yet speak with a whole bunch of those -- i'm not talking about the challenges of developing the sls.

i'm talking about the challenges of once we have it and we spend those billions of dollars, what is going to be able to go to a nation which is supposedly what it's for. we go given how we will land on one of those moons of mars yet, do we? we don't have exact system set up for how much that is going to cost to develop and i will be put on the rocket. we have a list of these technological achievements that are necessary for this rocket to have been useful in any way. we are not even halfway there. >> the only other thing i would add is we're doing some activity in the area you've described on board space station. we have refueling demonstration package on the board outside space station where we have actually robotically serviced the outside of the satellite and transferred some propeller back and forth. we are looking at cryogenic surfacing on station but there's a package on port -- >> those are the good things. >> we have solar electric propulsion as part of the astroid redirector mission and we are also looking at techniques where we could use a

tracker to deflect some astroid. >> they are wonderful but let me note all of those projects were finance and budget before the sls became part of our budget. all of those things that you said we are now testing, they were done in a research and develop a stage long before we started taking all of our money out to put in one big rocket. we don't even know, do we come whether we'll have the money to finish all those projects that you just talked about in development? because this is that now, now $10 billion, and all the experience we've had it's likely to go up to double that by the time we have finished with this rocket. i say finish, that's just when the rocket is ready to take off for the first time. this was a rotten decision on the part of this committee. it's not your fault. you are good soldiers and you're doing your very best with what the members of congress are giving you. we have given you an undoable task. and thank you very much for your hard work.

>> i know recognize mr. posey. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm glad that didn't stop apollo. we are all excited about the orion launch, mr. gerstenmaier, everything we're seeing more public awareness. sl is no and that's something we all look forward to. can you take a moment following up on ms. bonamici's comments to discuss the importance of another special aspect of the sla program, and that's the exploration ground system. i'm sure many folks are not up to speed on the importance of the ground systems aspects of the sls. >> the ground system schemes play a critical role in the space launch system. they are working on the mobile launch platform to interface with the rocket to provide propellants to that to refill the rocket and they will launch off of it. they're working on a launch pad, significant amount of work has gone into the pet.

we have looked for to trying to lower operation costs so that many activities on the launch pad, it's a clea clean-cut which should help lower launch costs are also have the firing room at kennedy space the. that's going place with a lot of software developers activity. we've also made a launch pad a multipurpose launch pad so cannot really support a sls but it can support of the rockets so the fiber cables that run after that launch pad can support multiple rocket launching off of the pad which is a good thing. so there's a gym is not a work going on at the kennedy space center but the recovery activities that occurred for the eft-eft-1 flight of those were n the other kids center for the works it worked with the navy and anchorage to pick up with the capsule. so again the ground support activities and as you so in a video are absolutely critical to what we're doing with heavy lift launch vehicle and the orion processing and manufacture. >> thank you. following up a little bit, could you explain to think about the president's budget request calling for funding, increases

for exploration ground system in the years 2016-2019? and what happens if the funding targets are not met? >> again, we need the funding levels would've requested to make the schedules that we have put forward, or they were will be slippages and activities as i described. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> i never recognize mr. brooks. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as you can discern from the comments, representative donna edwards and dana rohrabacher, the mission for sls and orion is certainly a concern for this committee, for congress as a whole. mr. gerstenmaier, seems you are uniquely situated as the associate minister for human exploration operations to answer some of these questions about sls missions.

it is one thing for us to test whether sls and orion components work. it is another thing to actually get sls and orion a substantive, a real mission, such as going to the moon or mars, capturing and astroid, space station resupply if that's what's necessary, or whatever. in your opinion, what should sls first real mission be? >> i think the sls and orion's first mission will be to this proving ground of space that i described around the moon. we call it into the cindy of the moon. that's a very necessary step for us to move forward as we push human presence into the solar system. so it's a place for us to hone skills to understand techniques, to prepare much of the early flights did in merger in gemini, to prepare for the apollo activities. disliked around them and will help us prepare to get ready to go to these mars missions decades later.

but the first flights will be end of the cindy of the moon, the rocket is capable of doing that. orion is capable of doing that without any additions. we can learn the skills, bring our level of expertise up to what the risk has been appropriate to take bolder steps beyond the inner space spend you are saying around the moon. does that include landing on the moon or simply going around the moon? >> in our budget we don't have funding for landing on the moon. we just have into the city of the moon. we use potential of the gravity of the moon to help with the doing trajectory designed as we would look for mars. we have an international community that's very interesting potentially doing lunar activities and maybe we can partner with the international community if they choose to develop the land. but in a concept we don't have funding in our plans for a lander to the moon. >> as we do around the mound what should be the second nation of sls? >> again, i think is going to

take more than one mission of round of the moon to build these skills that we need speed is okay, after all the around the moon missions, what should be the second nation for sls? >> then we're ready to start heading towards mars. whether we go to astroid as an intermediate destination or we go all the way to the vicinity of mars and go potential to a moon of mars, those are things yet to be decided. >> can you give a timetable sequencing of what you believe is appropriate for nasa at sls with respect to the missions you just enumerated? >> again, we kind of think of them in broad terms, so the decade of the '20s to '30s, that's this proving ground region i described to you where we learned these capabilities between 2020-2030, and beyond 2030 we are ready to go to these other activities to in astroid potentially, and potentially all the way to the moons of mars or to mars in that timeframe. >> so for clarity for the next decade or two, you were talking

about circling the men. and then roughly two decades, thereabouts -- circling the moon. roughly 2030 or talk about then we can think about going to mars. is that your testimony? >> we need to come its not just circling the moon. we are actually doing activities around the mound with the intent that we're building the skills, understanding the hardware, understanding the techniques, understand the environment that we are operating in that prepares us to go to distances as far as mars with a reasonable risk assessment. >> is additional funding needed to speed up the platform you have just expressed? >> additional funding can help with that spent how much additional funding would be required by way of example to speed up the mars part of the mission scope do so in the 2020s, somewhere around 2030? >> again, i think i would like

to take that question for the record. it's more than just funding. it's not only fun thing but it's also how long it takes us to actually get proficient at these skills to go take that next step. to give you a real answer i need to spend time with our teams looking at how long we think those activities take, and then back in to the funded discussion. >> i hope you can understand this subcommittee's concerns when it took us less than a decade not only to go around the moon but to land on the moon under apollo come and with what i am hearing to testify to come it's going to be 10 to 20 years to just go around the moon, not actual land on the moon. so those kind of timing issues are of concern. mr. chairman, if i could ask ms. chaplain the question, is that okay? >> that's okay. >> thank you. >> proceed. >> at this past year's hearing on the presence fy '2015 budget request for nasa, administrator bolden indicated that providing more funding for sls would not

be helpful for completing the first version of sls by 2017. however, your testimony states that the quote top risk and quote for me its deadline for eft-1 in december 2017 is insufficient funding. would you please explain this discrepancy and what additional funding make meeting the 2017 test flight possible or at least more likely? >> so the cost was great benefit in our report comes from nasa's own documents, and was also raised by understanding review board. there was indeed a very high risk that there was not enough money to help meet the 2017 date. that said, as mr. gerstenmaier has already testified, just putting in money now won't help you get there any quicker. there's a lot of sequential activity that are needed to get some of the critical path items done for sls, like the core

stage. the money at this point will be helping out with reserve and possibly doing testing and some other activities that couldn't be done earlier and putting them forward. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, richard christian meier and ms. chaplain. >> i now recognize mr. schweikert. >> thank you, mr. chairman. part of this will be all a bit of a follow-up on both what dana and congressman brooks were -- ms. chaplain can help me get my head a bit from your report, and i'm assuming much of woven in your report was actually taken from the documents from nasa and others come and then we start to look at timelines. and this, i will let you do this as a personal opinion because you've been doing this for a while. how sure are we financially? >> and i will go to

mr. gerstenmaier and ask how sure are we technologically. but if i came technologically. but i came to you and said here is the robustness of what we're trying to do, i'm looking at a number of tables that have all these moving pieces, and they can do instead here's where we are over the next 20 years. here's what we are seeing congresses appetite for funding. what's an honest number of shortfall? >> i think there's praised numbers to pay attention to hear, first short-term numbers laid out in the documents for sls and orion. for sls they ranged anywhere from 40,900,000,000 but pushing of the day and doing other things. those numbers have been reduced. there's still a funding risk for orion that's considerably high. >> i'm after something for the robustness, is at just the right

itself or is that also ground control, personnel costs? every step you need to make this work instead of just this individual silo. has not been actually looked at through the totality of the system? >> right. so the problem we identified in a different report on cost estimate, cost estimate is we really don't know the total number now of how much it's going to cost to do everything we are looking for them to do. and second, we don't know really what the pathway is. and the pathway has a big effect on numbers, like mr. gerstenmaier mentioned the landing system. very costly. there's no money to do it right now but if you want to move things out you have to pay for landing system. how much is that? so it's very, very important to kind of lay out a roadmap now and see all the different pieces that you need. we d don't know that and we dont have cost estimates beyond the

first -- >> ms. chaplain can you understand sort of come when we are looking at cbo tightened numbers, here's our best guess, his are optimistic and is when we are in trouble. sort of the variants. we understand for every step of technology, every additional incremental piece of timeout, the variance gross. because it's a known. but we are trying come in a number of discussions, to get some idea about the exposure is. are we about to cannibalize everything else? mr. gerstenmaier, technologically if i came to you and said the goals in the timeline over the next 10 years, 20 years, where do we have things where we don't actually have the technology yet but we are working on it? >> i would say that the biggest technology areas we need to work on our we need to work on radiation for the human being

and look at radiation shielding. we can only shield so much, but i think again that same manual risk but there also be some risk associated with radiation will have to do with on humans. the other big thing is where going to mars. the entry descent and landing to the surface of mars is a big technology lead. today we have landed rovers on the order of one metric ton to the surface of mars. for human class nation will have to land about 20 times that come at least 20 metric tons. would've exactly how to do that. we did some tests in hawaii to go look at some inflatable reentry heat shields but w we're working on that technology. going back to the other questions about, mr. brooks, why we were not sprinted to the moon like we did before. really building systems of our modern manufacturing, so the equipment we are putting in down at stennis is going to allow us to have a system that can be reproduced and so multiple times for minimum cost. we are spending extra time i

would say to prepare a system that is affordable in the long term. gao wants more details on the. we need to provide the information to them that we are looking for that we're not just building a single system that sprints good destination. we're building destinations that allow system sustained presence beyond low-earth orbit. >> mr. chairman, as you that a number of conversations with staff and the rest of us, we still think there's so much variability exposure and costs come and we all know what about is to hit us with the entitlement crisis over the next decade, cost wise, what's going to happen in the future federal government spending. summer here will have to have a much more robust and much more brutally honest, what we have cash for and what we don't. without i yield back. >> -- with that i yield back. >> at this time we will go to our second round of questions.

mr. gerstenmaier, wended nasa first began tracking the $400 million risk identified i gao? >> probably back identified back in 2013, 2014 timeframe. i would say if you ask my teams that they would say that that $400 million risk, because of the appropriations we received in 2014 and the pending bill we saw last night, that $400 million risk will be retired. >> well, you said 2013. i mean, we had administrator bolden sitting where you were telling us that if we threw another 300 million at sls and orion we would even notice it. i mean, it wasn't needed at that time. so you recognize this risk. if you would have come to us, say a year ago or when you first started tracking it because it

feels like we're just find out about this risk, is 400 million just since the gao's report has come out, and you were telling me nasa's known about this for much longer period than that? >> it was in an early report that gao picked up. it's one of many risks. we carry tactical race, programmatic risk and budget this. it was to meet a specific launch date. and again we have moved to the launch date which gives us some margin as well, and then we actually know what the budgets are now in 2014 but we will do with the budget is when it gets approved in 15. those are moved at uncertainty and that lowers the level of the risk. as we identify those we carry those and bring this forward as soon as we can. >> are you going to be matching your expenditure of funds based on congress' budget, or the president's request which has been quite lower than what congress has been appropriating for the past several years?

>> this is the dilemma we have. so the reality is in the program plan some of variance between those two situations you just described. >> if you would come to us for, say additional funding, a year or two years ago, would you been able to mitigate the risk or buy down the technical risk, or would be having the same conversation that the test is going to slip to the right regardless of the amount of funding that we may be able to appropriate to the program? >> that's a very difficult question to answer. and the other thing that's hard for me is i look at human spaceflight, the total, which is sls, orion, also commercial crew, commercial cargo and international space station. i.c. human spaceflight as with the combination of all those activities. we are using space station today

to buy got a lot of risk for mars plan to look at it balancing across all of those programs. i can't optimally fund any one of those programs. i effectively balanced across those in the risk and i try to we the budget and the technical risk associate with those programs to give what we think is the best approach to deliver hardware for the lowest costs for the congress and the taxpayers. >> i now recognize ms. edwards. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you again for a second round of questions. i want to go back to something i raised earlier, and it is regarding the recommendations by the national academies that a 5% inflationary increase in the budget. and although i understand that for the specific purpose of looking at 2017 slippage to 2018, but that's not what we're talking about but i want to know about the program. and would it be useful for both

the administration to recommend and congress to incorporate this margin that the national academies has recommended? so that we have over a period of time, that we are not looking at the questions that are being raised today. you know, give us some guidance. okay, flip a coin. yes, ms. chaplain. >> i would just add that that's not the first time a recommendation like that has been made. it was made at the tail end of the constellation program by the augustine commission. i think they recommended about 3 billion additional a year, which was very significant. and that was their view of what was needed over a number of different paths you would take, not just the constellation that the they mention a path similar to what is being done here.

>> and that would provide a lot more stability than what we are seeing now, wouldn't it speak to was yes. and the other thing to remember, programs like this have spikes in terms of their funding needs. so the constellation program itself when the recommendation was made, about 3 billion a year, in their budget they went up to as much as 7 billion a year in terms of their needs. that are spliced into which are developing and when activities come up. up. >> i want to ask really briefly, you know in the department of defense large-scale programs, they don't go through this. they set out kind of a goal. it crosses congress. they know there's a difference in these kind of develop large-scale development programs. why is it that we are funding, you know, a scientific program that has a lot of uncertainty year by year, in some cases a

few months by a few months? do we actually end up wasting way more money over the long-term by doing that than just setting up a goal of making sure that we fund this program and the most robust way possible across, across congresses so that the goal is achieved? why isn't there modeling for these large-scale science programs the same way that kind of modeling for defense programs cracks and has gao ever analyze that and what the impact would be to the success of the program? >> we've never analyzed nasa funding compared to dod funding, but we do know when funding stretched out the problem you are describing do occur. it's not like all a duty systems don't experience some kind of instability it's rare when congress is trying to give more money than what they're asking for. sometimes it's the reverse case

where congress gives a little us. but with programs with a lot of schedule pressure anybody recognizing -- >> and experimentation? >> yet. programs were everybody recognizes the date is important to deliver. that tends to be more support funding once and it tends to be more stable. >> transport do you have a comment about that? >> i think again the discussion, there's some understanding as to build in budgets would be helpful, at least matching inflation would be helpful. again i think the problem is we deal as you described very succinct way that was essentially a year budget, sometimes months, we throw in furloughs and other things just tto make him into the real impacts to of. when we stood unethically for two weeks when the good new in the work on orion during that time, and how do you plan for that in a programmatic sense is actually difficult. it's a tribute to my teams that we take this environment which is very dynamic and figure out a

way to make any significant progress as we can, not waste funds, not just in an inappropriate manner, but it's difficult for the teams to do that but they have done a fairly good job as we've seen for this activity. it could be eased if we got more certainty. >> mr. chairman, i really, i am on a mission that we have to think differently about the way that we do these large-scale programs. we faced it with james webb. we're looking at here with sls/orion. this is just really not smart, and at the end of the day the technology expire. the technology changeover period of 10 or 20 years is worth stretching things out, and it's like starting all over again. and i just think it is about the dumbest way to do science. with that i yield. >> ms. edwards, i think there's several people who agree with you. i now recognize mr. bridenstine. >> thank you, mr. chairman come and ms. edwards. i do agree with you.

your comments are certainly well recognized on both sides of the aisle, so thank you for that and we would like to work with you on how we can remedy that. just had a quick question about the international implications of our direction for human spaceflight. the report that ms. edwards referenced from the national academies indicated that if we were to do this astroid redirector nation, we would be not an ally but with the international community, most of which is focused on getting to the moon. namely the lunar surface and then on to mars. and if this misalignment, according to the report, again headed by governor mitch daniels, indicated the misalignment could actually result in us spending a whole lot of money on dead-end technologies rather than actually a publishing the objective of getting to the moon. mr. gerstenmaier, could you address that?

>> i would say a global exploration roadmap is the plan that the international partner community has agreed to along with nasa as the president framework of how we want to head forward. i think in that roadmap, mars is the horizon destination and we describe. the international as the report describes, have a stronger interest in the moon. the astroid redirect mission places this astroid into the city of the men, which is consistent with what the international partners would want to do. the sls rocket, the orion capsule fit very well in this letter activity and the coup de grace i described in the party can have a desire to do other activities. we can very easily work with a partners to support the activity. the astroid redirect mission takes into the long-term goals will want to do. for a mars class mission when it solar a lot poll showed -- propulsion. we're going to move essentially a 50 metric ton asteroid through space. that could be the same cargo we

are delivering to mars. so that space tug we're building for the astroid redirect mission is a piece of the tug that would be used with the human class mission to mars. so if it's in the other architecture moving forward. so it's not a diversion. it's not from our overall goal. so we look at each piece we are developing within human human spaceflight. relook outfits in terms of international partner needs. relook outfits and i are rising goal of mars needs come and we on the project that we can continue to keep moving forward in that direction but we don't want to spend resources on items that are one-of-a-kind use -- >> and do you know offhand, specify which technologies they are talking about that would be dead-end technology as we pursue this path to? >> i think we didn't have a chance to discuss with the committee significant how we're going to use this cargo capability for mars but i think if we would've a chance to describe it with them they would not have seen that as a dead-end capability.

and so i think we need to have more dialogue with the committee. we ran out of time towards the end. they can get a chance to see some of our latest thinking of how all these pieces fit together towards the ultimate mars horizon goal. but i can't judge what their answer would've been. >> last question to we're down to about a minute and after we notice that the act, notice went out recent associated with the sls program. can you explain why given the fact that we're spending more money than expected and everybody seems to be telling us things were ahead of schedule and w we're spending more than what was anticipated, why did these notices go out? >> one reason was again, they're issued by the contractors based on the activity and direction we give them. there's a natural change in the development lifecycle of dsl us. we are essentially wrapping down on the heavy design phase where there's a lot of engineering, a lot of drawing development analysis kind of activities.

that now is terminating naturally. now we're getting ready to go manufacture so they will be buying long lead items, large aluminum forgings. the work occurs down by new orleans. actually do manufacturing, so we are shifting from design to manufacturing, entering that shipped there is a natural ramp down of skills that the overall workforce will, but it will come up in other areas and it will show up in materials. it will not show up in personnel. this is a piece of that activity that is supporting this natural progression from design to manufacturing. >> roger that, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. bridenstine. two stories below us is a house armed services committee room and mr. bridenstine and i also serve on the senate committee. and we that test my presented to us that the number one threat to america's national security is our national debt. i'm going to have to say that the number one threat to american maintaining its leadership in space is also

going to be our national debt. and many members on both sides of the aisle recognize that we have to address the pending fiscal problem that will be facing our nation, and hopefully we can overcome that. once again, mr. gerstenmaier, congratulations to you and your entire team at nasa, to lockheed martin and ula for a very successful outstanding test flickr and want to thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony, and the members for the question but that members may have additional questions for you. we'll ask you to respond to those in writing. the record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments and written questions from members. the witnesses are excused, and this hearing is adjourned. thank you. [inaudible conversations]

>> coming up tomorrow morning on "washington journal," gregory of "usa today" talks about president obama's use of presidential memoranda. the form of executive action. michael calhoun of the center for responsible lending will discuss peggy lynn and regulation of the industry. >> this weekend, actor seth rogen talked about the relationship between politics and humor. yesterday, sony pictures canceled his movie, the editor, which he participated in a fictional plot to kill north korean leader kim jong-un. army this month seth rogen appeared at harvard university where he talked about how politics influences his movie. >> i would never make a joke that i think would get a laugh that has a political view that i

don't personal belief in because i might get asked about that one day i don't want to look stupid. so it's like i do think that a lot of people who try to be a g., who feel they are unfairly targeted by the political correctness crowd forget that they have to be funny as well as a g. and political. and i think that if you really look at the people who complained about that and the people who don't, they did people are complaining about it are hilarious, and most of the people who are truly hilarious who are incredibly edgy never complain about it at all. i mean, i think every time you make a joke that you know internet is like slightly, i mean controversial, it's almost like a group of people who have to react negatively to some jokes in order for the joke to be valid and you know that group of people say that thing and that's almost the point of the

joke is making is that there's a group of people who think the thing that you think is not necessarily what they should be thinking, you know? and they will say their thing and sometimes they will say something though that offends more than just those people by accident. and i do think, i do see commute is apologizing sometimes and i've never done something that i felt like i've had to apologize for but i have seen people make jokes and those like yes, maybe she's apologized. i don't think that's a loss or r some admission to its in addition they made a joke that made went two for. i think, we screen our movies a lot and a lot of early screening of our movies, there are jokes that go too far and are probably in that case. and by the time they reach mass consumption we filter those out. we may be realized we didn't even realize it and just wait will play in the room for we were wrong about that, like, and we tried to be sensitive towards that personally. but i personally don't feel

like, you know, like there some political correct squad that is trying to prevent me from doing my job in the best way that i can. >> you can see that entire event hosted by harvard university from earlier this month. tomorrow night at 9:3 9:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> this weekend on q&a, -- spent what is your problem of ted kennedy? >> like i said, wit where the ia for this book came from was a convention when they were showing the tribute video of him because he had passed away. and portraying him as a women's right champion when he left a young woman to drown in his car. it did not come back for nine

hours and try to save his own behind, she would have probably survived. and you can't do an entire video at a convention claiming to be preaching inviting about the war on women and glorify someone like that while not include that part of his life in the video about his women's rights record. >> sunday night at eight eastern and pacific on c-span today. to mark 10 years of q&a we are in one program from each are starting december 22 at 7 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> the supreme court earlier this month heard arguments in the case extended the scope of free speech on social media sites. at the nicholas that pennsylvania was sentenced to 44 months in prison after making threats against his wife and an fbi agent on his facebook page. the oral argued in this case are just over one hour. >> your argument nexus point in case 13-983, anthony elonis

versus united states. mr. elwood. >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court. the first amendment permits restriction on the content of speech for a few well-defined, their limited classes of communication clearly supported by history and tradition, cody what this court has called true threats. the government has failed to justify -- >> i'm not sure that the court did either the law or the english language much of a good service when it said true threat. it could mean so me think that it could mean that you really intend to carry it out, you really intend to intimidate the person, or that no one can possibly believe it. so i don't -- >> that's true. >> we can't fault you for siding with the supreme court has said, but it's a most unhelpful phrase. >> and also doesn't help that it was announced in a per curiam decision to didn't have the benefit of merits briefing or argument. but if you look at the

tradition, threatening speech was not punishable at common law. and until the late 20th century, american threat statutes required or were interpreted to require proof of a subjective intent to place the listener in fear, and because of that -- >> that was an assault at common law, wasn't it? if you threaten someone with violence and don't actually apply violence come it's still an assault, isn't it? >> i think i sold a somewhat different because the salt can also be an attempted battery. but it's my understanding there is law that to the question that the salt, when it involved placing someone in fear did require a specific intent. >> how does one prove what's in someone else's mind? this case, the standard was would a reasonable person think that the words would put someone in fear, and reasonable people can make that judgment.

but how would the government prove whether this threat in the mind of the threaten her was genuine? ..

you could find for example -- i thought your whole point was that it doesn't tell you enough about what the defendant wants. >> but if you can see that he visited the website when she said i'm afraid of this guy you could say he knew at the time. >> all he has to do is say it's therapeutic or it art. >> dot is all we are asking for. he doesn't have a right to

continue on. that is what would be viewed. >> can you tell me -- coming a little bit off of justice ginsburg's question if you could enter the circumstances of how and what was said if that's the case, isn't the jury acting like a reasonable person looking at the circumstances saying didn't he intended this or didn't he. i don't know the difference between the standard view is, and the one instruction you want. >> the government put it in this

case because under the construction that was giving it doesn't matter what the defendant thinks. what matters is whether a reasonable person would foresee. >> how is that different if you know a reasonable person is going to read it this way aren't they going to assume that is what is intended? a >> it holds him to a reasonable standard regardless of whether he actually was aware of that and it holds him to have a reasonable person would have known. >> it is along the same lines getting back to the chief justice asked you i'm trying to figure out what the level of intent is. it might want to place this person and fear. that's why i'm doing what i'm doing. as it stepped down from that.

whatever you want to call it, i know that i am going to place this person and fear. if you know that you are placing someone in fear that is enough to satisfy. >> does does it take you to step down more but not give to the government but the other is a probability that he will place the person in fear which is what i take it will usually mean when we talk about worthlessness -- recklessness. >> the court said that recklessness wasn't enough in the mens rea that would apply here. the court applied to the supreme court decided that it satisfies

knowledge but it's spelled out and was beyond recklessness to try to distinguish it. >> what would be wrong with the recklessness standards. it seems that recklessness standard has a kind of buffer zone around it it gets you up from the government wants. so who is the person that we should be worried is going to be convicted under restlessness. >> many of the speakers are teenagers who are usually shooting of their mouths or making ill time in the comment. for example there is now pending couple of texas teenagers in a videogame chat room and one called the other one crazy apparently for something that he's he said about a videogame and the other one responded yes i'm crazy i'm going to shoot at

the kindergarten and each one of their hearts. that was sarcasm but there was a woman in canada watching and she reported him to the authorities and he was arrested and held for four and a half months before he was out and he's still facing trial. texas is one of the states with a subjective intent requirement is that there's a good chance he will be acquitted if you're talking about with a reasonable person would view that as -- >> it's not just a reasonable person as i understand the government submission in the context of the statement you don't take what's on the internet and the abstract and say this person wants to do something horrible. are you familiar with the context or the fact that this was a couple of teenagers in a chat room playing a game. >> that is true everyone has a different view of what context matters and i don't know if you can say in advance a priori.

the fact of the matter is they investigated based on the school and that is a bootstrapping polity because if you reacted. presumably the law enforcement would react in any case but it's prosecuted, you can be -- they can use that as a sign that we took this from a reasonable person would take this seriously. it has to do with what the person does, what he does and he has to do this or he's not guilty. he has to communicate a sure threat. what is a true threat

>> you've seen the instruction that is similar to those embodied in the law. what you do is communicate a truth threat to inflict the life of the individual. there is a second question i find it more difficult and it has nothing to do with this but the state of mind and that is what i want to note to know to the view about because i saw nothing in the government to be convicted through negligence but rather what they say that seems to it seems to me this is in the criminal of law you have to know but you have to know that you are transmitting in commerce a true threat as i just defined it and if you don't know that, you

are home free. that i would say is a model code and that is the brown commission, that is every sort of statement of criminal law but i don't know many that contradict that and so why isn't that the end of this case blacks >> it is different because these seem to be suggesting that he knows that he reasonable person would be placed. >> i ask the government the same but what they are saying is the way that i said it. they would say perhaps something else. >> my understanding of the position -- >> is getting a position for the moment. what do you think the position >> you go into a bank and you have to know that you have a

threat etc.. one of the elements of the crime is to communicate a true threat. so you have to know -- >> i wouldn't have asked if i didn't want your view. >> i am trying hard to give it to you. [laughter] >> the government's view is he has to know that a reasonable threat. i would think that would be a big improvement. i wouldn't see that as a bad thing at all. >> that would cover the situation much somebody transmits the warning that al qaeda is going to assassinate a certain person. that is technically covered by this statute, isn't it?

or number any communication containing any threat or any threat to injure a person contained the threat, the threat of al qaeda. i'm not sure that would be viewed as a threat because it is understating one's intention to cause fiscal harm. >> it's what the intention is. that statement eliminates the intention, doesn't it? >> the question is whether it is your statement versus warning somebody of the intent to cause harm. >> i thought that your position took account of the difference that you had to intend to place somebody in fear.

once you eliminate that you could accept justice breyer. >> one of the things that is wrong with that, i'm not the only one that says that it is the standard, justice marshall said it and that is because you are basing its were basing it not only on what he knew, but on the reasonable person would have known. >> the jury can convict if it is instructed that the defendant communicated the threat and would be the intent. >> yes, that's correct. >> what you accept anything less than that? >> the closest thing is -- >> but that's the way that i

read this. >> i disagree. it is a reasonable person. >> about they make the statement and they said these words and the reasonable person viewing those words would view it as a threat. >> that's why it seems you cannot accept anything less than the instruction we first agreed upon. >> government isn't accepting the idea that if they did a reasonable person would be placed in fear he would be guilty. my understanding is a reasonable person would view those as a threat he is guilty. i want to point out something that says it requires him to be

convicted so long as it be good for those based on facts they couldn't have known so they are admitting that he could be convicted of the fact that he didn't know but he reasonably could have known. >> it isn't for the defendant to have the purpose of causing fear , to have the knowledge that it would cost. which of the two is it? the >> and answering justice kennedy i thought that the intent to do with main purpose it is what is necessary. >> it is one of the reasons that we hate this but the subjective intent includes both the purpose and knowledge but it is a virtual certainty that something is going to happen and you do it anyway. >> it will cause fear and an

average recipient or the particular recipient clicks recipient lacks >> we are asking for a particular recipient but even a reasonable person would be a step up from my understanding government is offering. >> what was in his head they knew that they would be put in fear. what he said is how he saw people reacting to it. the statements about things at the time. >> could the government received on this evidence would there be enough to the jury. if i could make out one thing in particular --

>> i understood that to be your view but if i understood correctly, when you have this disaffected divorced husband who wants to place his former wife in fear he doesn't call her up but a friend of his who knows about his malicious intent .-full-stop the former wife and says you know, you're former husband has threatened to kill you. why wouldn't that meet all the requirements that you insist upon? the only thing missing is it isn't his purpose to cause fear in her but then you open the door to the situation like that

which it doesn't seem to me should be covered. >> i thought it was the idea that he was causing a series of events that resulted in his life being told he wants to kill her. >> i'm prosecuting his friend calls the warmer wife and says your former former threats husband has threatened to kill you. >> it's not his purpose to put her in fear but it certainly puts her in fear and any reasonable person would. >> it is not a statement of his. >> he doesn't have the purpose of putting her in fear so you're back to the purpose which you keep the dying and i don't see how you can get to where you want to be without putting the purpose in there. >> it is our position that it is

a big step up from a reasonable person standard to at least have it based on his understanding that when i see this this up with that person -- >> is better but not good enough. >> i just want wanted to point out that there are a plethora of suggestions of fraud crimes and drug crimes to be put in the same way that you do in all of those other cases through the circumstances surrounding it and the statements. >> let me give you a concrete example this is one of the communications in the case for what your client was convicted. this is on exhibit six on 335 of the joint appendix. i am checking out and make a name for myself. in the a 10-mile radius to initiate the most heinous school shooting ever imagined and have no fear. like a kindergarten meant and

that is one individual who likes this. at the bottom he put just kidding, just kidding and at the top he put aspiring rap artist. what is the jury to do with that? you have to get into the mind of this obsessed disturbed individual to figure out whether he knew that this would cause a panic on the part of the school officials and parents that found out about this? >> the congress wanted to say it's okay. it's all going to turn on this inquiry. >> at the time there is the

benedict case that you have the fortune criminal procedure and both of them say that you have to prove a threat statute and show the intent to cause fear and they don't say anything about doing it under the reasonable. >> i guess it would be a jury question of whether he knew a reasonable person would take this communication as a threat. he put at the bottom just kidding, just kidding and convinced the jury that of course he knew that. we have many difficult factual questions that the knowledge. is this more difficult than -- >> that's right. these are things that prosecutors face every day. they always put somebody in court saying i didn't mean it.

i thought that it was going to work. >> you really have me confused at this point. your previous statement relied upon the case in the saying that requires the intent to cause fear. i didn't understand that your physician. i thought that your position is that you didn't need the intent to cause fear. a reasonable product of this is to cause fear. fear will ensue. >> the two things that count as a specific intent under the kind of old code standard purpose to do something in the knowledge that there's something that virtually certain to happen.

>> when we look at the statute, we never played this kind of a heightened intent. as i understand, all the government has to show is you said something that would cause a reasonable person to punch you in the face. that's what we asked. so why shouldn't this be basically the same as that >> it is a very different tradition. there was a case that required it whereas here it's pretty clear that essentially whittled down to a very small category speech where you heard them from nose to nose and it would result there's no time for anything but a law enforcement response before he lands the punch.

we were talking about true threats and there's options other than just immediately cutting the percentage because it involves a broad category of speech you have with the speaker's intent was. any sort of speech that uses the language or the violent rhetoric could potentially be the risk. in the night of the right they are over the old motto. but a reasonable person for c. that could be viewed by the police officers? i wouldn't want to bet a felony conviction against it.

>> i think that when you are doing it as a category any language that uses forceful rhetoric can be penalized. >> to my mind it doesn't eliminate a whole lot of valuable speech. i would like to -- there's a woman in a family planning clinic with the phrase turn or burn baby that is a statement of the doctrine that she is going to help, maybe it is but with that i would like to preserve my time. >> thank you, counsel. >> this court is made clear it

is getting at an important point that caused fear and disruption to the society and for that reason the congress enacted a statute that depends upon the mens rea component and active component. the component has to know and understand that the individual is saying. congress reasonably presumed that they knew the words come at a meeting of the word word is that they speak of the accountable consequences of those words. >> the main thing is that? >> there's a minimum penalty here. there is a felony and i think the congress was quite clear that he didn't prescribe any

intent or purpose to threaten the petitioner until standing at the podium today appeared to argue for. it's not a threat if someone can say i didn't mean it, sorry that wasn't my purpose or intent. i knew the words i was speaking had the language that they did. i can take it that a reasonable person would have interpreted that way and they would even cut out recklessness even if the speaker was consciously aware that it was likely to cause fear. >> that is exactly the point. i'm with you down to forget the purpose. there has to be a true threat. but now the question is knowledge and that is the general requirement where there is just a general normal rule of knowledge and you have to know those portions that make up the act of mens rea. one of them is a true threat.

so what do you have to know when i read a brief you first said he has to know and understand the meaning and must intentionally speak them. shoving with a defendant does but he transmitted the communications and he pretended its context. when i first read that i thought that has to mean that it is a true threat. why did i think that? suppose that someone comes from and says i do come i know, i promise. does he know the meaning of the words unless he knows -- someone that has never seen marriages here's the bride say i do.

as a has the person understood the meaning and the context of those words that he doesn't know and then go through a lot of legal proceedings. unless he understands like the words i do. >> they can know the meaning of the words without necessarily drawing the same conclusion to the recipient of the communication or the reasonable person would. >> it's not enough for you to say h. ruprecht is when you intend to put another person so you know that your words will cause a reasonable person to feel fear. you are quarreling with that.

you want something broad. it will it holds people for the ordinary meaning of the words that they say in context. >> but is it a reasonable person and examples that were given. >> the context that was used and the jury instruction in the case is an appropriate one and it's more protective of the defendant perhaps than a reasonable listener approach. it's a reasonable speaker approach. whether he would foresee that a person doing the communication is addressed would interpret it as a true threat. >> but there again we are talking about what with the subculture is that you are looking at. it is the internet exchange.

is it for the reasonable teenager thinks, how would it be understood by the recipient clicks to disconnect the speaker chooses their audience and they can communicate in a completely private manner on a facebook page. they can make certain aspects of the communication private or the speaker can open it up more widely. i don't think that the court requires them to decide the full dimension to what the context is because it was quite clear what the context was. >> that you are asking for the standard that would apply across the board. so, if the teenager has a lot of friends on his facebook page, then you are going to evaluate it by a different standard all over the different age groups that is a different standard and if he only has a few friends that have access to the statements? ..