replace tom price as health and human services. live coverage 9:30 eastern on c-span3. also on wednesday the house takes up a bill requiring members of congress and staff to take antiharassment and antidiscrimination training. live coverage of congress this week on the cspan networks, online at cspan.org or with the free cspan radio app. cspan, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, cspan was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. the house subcommittee held a hearing to look at nasa's space exploration plans including the space launch system and the orion spacecraft. the project's aim to help facilitate human exploration of the moon, astroids and eventually mars and would be capable of making trips to the

international space station. there were questions about a recent report that suggested planned launch dates might be pushed back. this is an hour and 20 minutes. okay. good morning. the subcommittee on space will come to order. without objection, the chair's authorized to declare recesses of the subcommittee at any time, welcome to today's hearing titled an update on nasa exploration systems development. i now recognize myself for five minutes of an opening statement.

exploration means expanding our reach as humans. as a civilization and as a country, the ability of our nation to explore space is a strategic imperative. our ability to carry out this critical strategic endeavor will rely on a few key capabilities. the must launch space launch system in order to push beyond lower earth orbit. we must finish developing the or ryion capsule in order to operate in deep space and we must upgrade our ground infrastructure to support a rejuvenated and an expanded exploration agenda. nasa's long-term goal is laid out in the 2017 nasa transition authorization act is to extend human presence throughout the solar system. the space launch system in orion or the strategic capabilities

that will allow and enable humans and robots to accomplish this goal. sls and orion will enable u.s. astronauts to return to the moon for the first time since gene left his daughter's name in 1972. as vice president pence said in his inaugural meeting, we will return american astronauts to the moon. not only to leave behind footprints and flags, but to build the foundation that we need to send americans to mars and beyond. sls and orion are the tip of the spear that will lead that return. the commercial sector can contribute by supplying necessary services and providing augmenting capabilities, but sls and orion are irreplaceable strategic assets that are necessary for missions to the moon, mars and beyond. one of the first major laws that

president trump signed was the nasa transition authorization act of 2017. the bill which originated with this committee directed nasa to stay the course with sls and orion. it also reaffirmed congressional and presidential direction for nasa to utilize a stepping stone approach to exploration. which allows for a return to the moon. i wholeheartedly support the administration's call to return to the moon. this committee has received testimony time and again that the moon is the appropriate next destination for our space program. returning to the moon does not have to mean delaying a mission to mars. on the contrary, it is a logical step that enables exploration of the red planet and beyond. and while i'm excited by the promise of how strategic assets like sls and orion will enable america to return to the moon, this committee has a

responsibility to conduct oversight to ensure that these programs are successful. all three exploration system elements, sls, or ryion and grand systems have experienced delays and overruns. this year has certainly challenged the program. last year, misu and louisiana was hit by a tornado, in august, texas, and florida were hit by hurricanes. a couple of years ago the miss u's foundation was not reinforced requiring a rebuild. complications with friction stir well pins at miss u resulted in poor wells on the core stage all of this adds up. it appears as though the new issues with tornadoes and hurricanes and welding will cost roughly a year of delay. depending on whether the europeans deliver the service module on time for integration

on orion, the delay may be greater. congress needs to understand where the program is today, what cost, schedule and performance deliverables can the agency committee too? what is the plan going forward? how will nasa manage future issues to ensure long-term programs sustainability? we aren't out of the woods yet on this program, but we can see the edge of the forest. significant progress has been made. we're bending metal, writing software code and integrating hardware. given a program of this magnitude this is no small feat. particularly given the challenges that the program face under the last administration. in order to meet our nation's space exploration goals, it will take focus, discipline and continuity of efforts going forward. the administration in congress must not only provide leadership and direction but we must also

appropriately fund and oversee the program. similarly, nasa and the contractors have to execute, failure to do so could have dire consequences for the program and there will be no one else to blame. the administration has demonstrated its renewed support, congress consistently funds the program at healthy levels. it is time for nasa and the contractors to deliver. i'm thankful that our witnesses are here today to help us better understand where we are with the program and how we plan to move forward and i look forward to your testimony. i now recognize the ranking member, the gentleman from california, mr. baruff for an opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman and good morning to our distinguished panel. this is a great hearing and a great time for this hearing to get an update on nasa's exploration systems development activities.

nasa continues to progress but as the chairman pointed out there have been some challenges beyond our control in developing key elements needed to move humans beyond lower earth orbit and eventually send them to mars. construction of the space launch system, the orion vehicle and ground infrastructure at kennedy space center's well under way. major components for exploration mission one also known as em 1 and em 2 are undergoing fabrication and testing. for example, in august 2017, nasa completed the welding the liquid oxygen tank that is scheduled for use on the sls launch vehicle to be flown on em 1. the orion spacecraft destined was successfully powered up for the first time in august 2017 and on october 19th, 2017, nasa engineers conducted a full duration 500 second test of one of the rs 25 flight engines to be used on em 2.

nasa and industry partners have not undertaken a rocket development program of this scale for more than three decades. in addition to new hardware and infrastructure, this is also a necessitated reestablishing critical capabilities needed for u.s. leadership in deep space exploration. this is not just work. nasa and its prime contractors are doing over 1,000 suppliers spread across every state are part of this program. however, a program of this size does not happen without challenges and nasa's human space exploration program is facing several, including having to maintain manufacturing test and processing schedules as sls, orion and egs are integrated. the recovery from tornado damage at the miss u facility that the chairman mentioned resolved first time production issue for sls elements and adjust activities in response to

unpredictable appropriations funding. as the chairman pointed out, independent analysis by gao and nasa's office of inspector general have also identified concerns with nasa's ability to meet projected launch dates. for instance, in april 2017 report, gao found that despite sls, orion and egs activities making progress, schedule pressure is escalating as technical challenges continue to cause delays. gao characterized nasa's planned launch date of november 2018 as precarious. part of what i hope to get out of today's hearing is a better understanding of what that clear plan and an updated launch date for em 1 as well as the opportunity to continue examining other important issues, including the reasons for the latest delay in launching em 1 and the basis for having confidence in nasa's plan moving forward. indicators and milestones,

congress should use as a -- should use for measuring progress made by both the sls, orion and egs programs and by nasa in establishing a production capability. and how a return to the moon including establishing a human presence would impact the goal of sending humans to mars in the 2030s as directed in the 2017 nasa transition authorization act. in closing, mr. chairman, you've often heard me talk about growing up in the middle of the space race, growing up in california, home of much of the apollo mission and how that inspired me along with the generation of kids to think about the sciences and beyond. what we're talking about in terms of the systems that we're developing today is a reestablishment of american leadership in the space program as we start to think about going back to the moon and going beyond into deep space and that does have the ability to inspire

another generation of kids and reinvigorate our desire to explore our curiosity about the universe around us. one of those inspirational figures of the nation's human space program is actually with us today, dr. magnus has flown on the shuttle and lived on international space station. we thank you, dr. magnus for your service and appreciate you being a role model for millions of young people. i look forward to the testimony and i yield back. >> thank you. i couldn't agree more, mr. bera. i now recognize the chairman of our full committee, mr. smith. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i appreciate your comments and the ranking members comments as well. congress has supported nasa's exploration systems program for years. we have showed the support in law and with funding from one administration to the next. after all these years, after billions of dollars spent, we are facing more delays and cost overruns. recent hurricanes and tornadoes have damaged some facilities and

slowed localized progress but many of the problems are self-inflicted. it is very disappointing to hear about delays caused by pure execution when the u.s. taxpayer has invested so much in these programs. for the last eight years, congress has defended the space launch system and orion crew vehicle from attempts as cancellation and proposed budget cuts. funding for the systems development now is nearly $4 billion a year. the government accountability office reported last spring that the first launch of the sls likely will be delayed a year from late 2018 to late 2019. delays with the european service model -- module also could push this into 2020. if this is the case, the schedule for the first launch with crew is also at risk because of the time needed to upgray the mobile launch platform. the national inspector general reported this week that the development of exploration

systems is one of the most significant challenges facing nasa. the ig highlighted problems facing all components of the system, sls, orion and the ground systems. nasa and the contractors should not assume future delays and cost overruns will have no consequences. if delays continue, if costs rise and if foreseeable technical challenges arise, no one should assume the u.s. taxpayers or their representatives will tolerate this forever. alternatives to sls and orion almost certainly would involve significant taxpayer funding and lead to further delays but the more set backs for sls and orion face, the more support bills for other options. other space programs at nasa like the commercial crew program also are facing significant delays and challenges. nasa has suffered for decades from program cancellations that have delayed exploration goals. as nasa's exploration systems

progress from development to production, operations and maintenance, nasa and its contractors must bring down cost and guarantee that deadlines are met. to this end, i was glad to see nasa issue a request for information last november in order to explore ways to reduce cost. moving to firm fixed price contracting for production might be an appropriate path going forward but only if it benefits the taxpayer. congress needs to have confidence in nasa and the exploration systems contractors, which i don't believe we have now. that confidence is ebbing. if it schleps much further, nasa and its contractors will have a hard time regaining their credibility. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. now, let me introduce our witnesses. our first witness today is mr.

gerstenmaier, associate administrator of human exploration and operations director at nasa. mr. gerstenmaier began his nasa career 1977 performing air nautical research and he has managed nasa's human portfolio since 2011. he received a bachelors of science from purdue university and a matters of science in mekal engineering from the university of toledo. our second witness today is dr. sandra malnus, executive director at the american institute of air naughtics and astro gnaw ticks, aiaa. in addition to her role at aiaa, dr. magnus is a former nasa astronaut and prior to that worked as a practicing engineer in the aerospace industry. dr. magnus received a degree in physics as well as a master's degree in electrical engineering both from missouri university of science and technology. she also earned a ph.d. from the

school of material science and engineering at georgia tech and i now recognize mr. gerstenmaier for five minutes to present his testimony. >> thank you. we're living in amazing time in human space flight. nasa and our international partners have had crew members living on board the international space station for more than 17 consecutive years. most high school students today have only known a time when humans were living and working in space. we are using the space station to expose a broader community beyond the current space industry that benefits of using microgravity for use on the earth. these new companies and researchers have never seen the benefits of space to their products and processes, the space station is becoming a place for business to expand, grow and gain competitive advantage over companies not doing research in space. just as having crews in space is now accepted, business operating in space will become normal and

accepted. nasa's bought services for cargo delivery from two companies and is adding a third. the agencies in the process of acquiring services and certifying two new systems to transport crews not iss. these companies are busy manufacturing and certifying their systems. our partners in lower earth orbit are helping to build a stronger and allows us to focus our efforts on deep space exploration. which brings us to the subject of today's hearing. exploration systems development. nasa space launch system rocket, the orion deep space capsule with the european service module and ground service programs are undergoing manufacturing and certification in preparation for their first integrated flight. just think about it, there is more human space flight hardware in production today than at any time in the united states since apollo. as a nation, we're building three different crew vehicles, orion, star liner and dragon. one for deep space, and two for

lower earth orbit. getting to this point was not easy and there are still challenges ahead. however, we all need to pause and reflect on this amazing time. as we pursue human exploration further into the solar system, our exploration teams are building more than a rocket and a spacecraft for single flight. rather we are building a flexible, sustainable system that will be used for decades to come. with this approach, we can incrementally upgrade and enhance our exploration system to -- we are also building a system designed with modern manufacturing techniques for lower production costs than previous designs. the work performed in support of sls and orion has applications to other programs in aerospace. for example, hundreds of requests for information have been transferred from orion to the commercial spacecraft in development for lower earth orbit. the work on self-reaction, friction welding developed for sls will have application beyond

sls to other launch vehicles and development. it is the proper role of government to develop capabilities for use by all. hardware to support the multiple flights has been built, three orion crew modules, one structure test article, one flown during exploration flight test one and the current flight article have all been built for orion. four major test are completed marshal. the engine section is fully completed marshal. the vertical assembly building is complete. the launch pad is nearing completion. all rs 25 engines and controllers are ready for flight. 17 parachute development tests are complete, four qualification parachute tests are complete with four more open. the data from these parachute tests are helping our commercial crew partners with their tests also. the amount of work completed today for the deep space exploration systems is large and it is documented in my written testimony. further, the discoverment in

estimate is benefiting all. we need to be careful and not focus on a single launch date projection but rather take time to examine the quality, quantity and future benefit of the work completed. this deeper examination will reveal the value of the work completed to the nation. nasa is carefully reviewed the work remaining to launch including certification and while this review shows em 1 launch date of june 2020 is possible, the agency is chosen to manage to december 2019 launch. this earlier launch date is reasonable and challenges the teams to stay focused on tasks without creating undue pressure. further more, nasa is taking additional steps to reduce schedule risks for both known and unknown issues and protect for the earliest possible launch date. the cost for em 1 even with the june date remain within the 15% limit for sls and are slightly above for ground systems operations.

exploration mission 2 orion cost and schedule are not adversely impacted by the em 1 schedule and as discussed earlier the work completedly sls, orion shows outstanding progress. i welcome your questions and thank you for this opportunity to discuss the amazing work accomplished by the men and women of nasa and their contractor partner teams. thank you. >> thank you, mr. gerstenmaier. and now i recognize dr. magnus for five minutes for her testimony. >> chairman babbin, ranking member, bera and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to address you today. the development system of the space launch system in the orion crew vehicle are major milestones for our nation's program and i would not understate their poerns. i would like to address the larger view and comment on its progress. the idea of what is possible in space has been in transition over the last decade when talking with the public, i use a model to describe the ecosystem.

i refer you to the figure on the tv monitors and have you imagine a bubble or a balloon centered on the earth slowly expanding. that expanding surface represents the outward expansion of human activity since the apollo era. it has been scanned only to lower orbit in that initial phase and it's remained there. during this period, the government was the driving force behind the expansion of human activity in space and this is led to an accumulation of experience, technology, and management operations in this environment. now private industry has become interested in engaging in this open space and that development phase as on the figure. as commercial activities mature, it creates stability in a foundation upon which the surface of the bubble, the initial phase can expand yet further beyond lower earth orbit. for the foreseeable future, expansion beyond will continue to be driven primarily by government derived goals and investments. because of the increased

engagement by investment, nasa and the goflt are now free to develop beyond space. at the core of implementing this model are two key questions. what are the technologists, knowledge and experience that the government wants to have available for broad dissemination to industry 50 years from now and two, what are the capabilities and services that the government and private industry each driven by their own mote yiflz are interesting in developing that can potentially sustain viable space based businesses after leveraging government investment? a core concept and underscored by these questions is the fact there's a need for government investment and activity at the leading edge of exploration, during that initial phase and the fact that industry will sooner or later reap the benefit of that government investment to create new establishments in the development phase and i might comment the normalization phase we're not ready for yet in the human space flight but you see that happening over the last decades in the satellite

industry where there are independent economic spheres active. the government is a customer, however the government still does its own thing for its own purposes. so if you can add that sort of with the twist to human space flight we're just not ready for that phase yet. and this is the dynamic that's unfolding in human space flight as i mentioned. the model i discussed is a powerful one and if it's employed streggicly -- if employed strategically that brings me to the important point and this is one you've heard many times and i don't think that you disagree, so the united states needs a comprehensive national space strategy. it is imperative that we commit as a nation with the purpose for the long-term. it is the nature of the space business that it takes time, patience and constant purpose to make advancement. the establishment of the national space council provides that opportunity. a kmieted long-term strategy is necessary but it's not enough to ensure the success of the space program. to be effective, sufficient resources need to be allocated to implement the plan. this is something that's

challenged nasa in the past and continues today. when i joined the agency in 1996, nasa received approximately .07 of a penny. it received .05 of a penny. this despite the fact that the number and breadth and complexity of programs has increased. it's constrained by limited control on the expense side of its budget as well and has limited freedom to adjust overhead. and in some cases the management of task assignments around the agency. to execute a long-term strategic u.s. space program effectively and successfully, nasa must be given the ability to make decisions and take actions in these areas. equally important to the adequate resources is the stability and insurance of those resources, developing space hardware is complex and challenging as you've heard today. a program with a multi-year phase budget can absorb

initial expensive programs. the current budgeting process and lack of a stable budgetary environment prohibits this comprehensive approach to be used. the transition that is occurring in how humans engage in space has been a goal for decades. our nation was built upon exploration, expansion and economic development from the arrival of the first immigrants and settlers to the westward z-pangs. we have faced the challenges, forged new paths and over come all obstacles. the next frontier i'm confident we can do that again. thank you for the opportunity to address this body and thank you for your continued support of our nation's space program. i look forward to answering any questions you may have. >> thank you very much, dr. magnus. i now recognize and i appreciate your -- the witnesses testimony. the chair recognizes himself for five minutes for questions. and i want to thank you both. i was running a little bit late this morning, didn't have a chance to see you before the hearing started.

so any way, great to have you here. we appreciate you. one of the primary purposes of the nasa transition authorization act 2017 was continuity of purpose and expressing the importance of staying the course on program development so as not to delay american space exploration any longer. can each of you discuss the importance of continuity of purpose and how you balance that against good program management and discipline? we'll start with you, mr. gerstenmaier. >> i think it's really important we have a common vision of what we're doing as we move forward so we can build the hardware and systems that can support that vision and we've done that with sls and orion. we've built a system that is really allows us to move human presence into the solar system so the orion capsule has applications for around the moon, can support activities on the moon and lunar activities. it can support development

beyond earth/moon system. the rocket is designed to be a heavy lift launch capability. it can support the human missions around the moon, also be absolutely critical and needed for mars class mission and it also can serve a very strong role for the science activity such as the europa mission to go out to the outer planets. it can reduce the transit time by 50%. we're trying to build pieces of key infrastructure that enables this figs and allows us to fit within this architecture and framework we've been given. but keeping a purpose or general direction we're moving forward is extremely important to us starting and stopping is very difficult in our industry. >> okay. dr. magnus? >> i'd like to echo that. starting and stopping in our industry is really not healthy. we saw that at the end of the shuttle program when we lost a lot of our corporate knowledge and we'll see some of that when we start launching again. the continuity piece is important. as a nation we have a little bit

sometimes of a short attention span and we end up hurting ourselves. it was already mentioned earlier, there was a lost programs we seen nasa cancel over the years. if you look back in the apollo era, that's really what you need in the space flight. you need a ten year, 15 year, 20 year program and you need to be able to stick to it. i think it's really exciting that the committee's interested in this topic. i think the oversight's important to sort of keep people focused. i think that's an important key as well. it takes the whole community, but you have to be able to stick to the program and you have to be able to fund it appropriately so that the intelligent decisions can be made to do the tradeoffs with the expenses. >> excellent. thank you very much. how will a delay in the first launch of an uncrewed space launch system until no earlier than december of 2019 impact the schedule launch date of a crew

launch sls? nasa's internal date is managing to as well as a date it has formally committed to. do either of these dates now change? >> again, in terms of our exploration mission to our first crewed mission, so far the schedule delays even if the exploration mission one went all the way to june it doesn't impact where we are with em 2. there's a constraint that the mobile launch platform in florida, that's the facility that rocket launches off of, it needs to be modified between the first flight and the second flight to allow for the exploration upper stage and there's a 33 month amount of time needed for that upgrade of that mobile launcher. so that's what keeps em 1 and em 2 tied together but right now the slips that we've seen with em 1 don't impact where we can launch the first crewed flight at this point. but we need to be very careful of that. we need to watch for that and

potentially discuss whether it's advantageous to us to have another mobile launcher available to avoid that tie between em 1 and 2. but that's the current time. >> thank you. dr. magnus, you have anything to add to that? okay. how will a slip in the first launch of the uncrewed space launch system impact the cost of the program? >> again, it's surprising to some that the overall cost hasn't really changed that much because what we've -- especially for em 1. what we've done is building much more than just one single flight. so as work is completed on the first launch and the first flight, when that work is completed that work can be set off to decide and the teams can go off and start working on the next elements. we have today multiple pieces of hardware in flow for the multiple missions across the sequence. >> okay. i got six seconds. how will a delay in the first uncrewed launch of the space launch system impact a potential launch of sls for the europa

mission? >> there's really no impact there. we can support pretty much whatever the science mission director needs for that mission and we'll figure out whether it occurs after if the first flight or after the second flight to meet their needs. >> okay. i have several more questions but we'll go on to the gentleman from california, mr. bera. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think dr. magnus, in your opening statement, you talked about the importance of having a tragedyic vision over the long period and we saw that when president kennedy challenged us in the 1960s to put a man on the moon. my colleague from colorado probably does have a sticker that says, mars by 2033. so we ought -- we ought to commit to putting a woman on mars by 2033. it does -- it does give the public a sense of what we're

working towards and in that perspective as we're thinking about sls and orion, the lunar mission, et cetera, it gives us the chance to think about it in the context, if we're going to the moon, how does that help us then think about how we're going to go and take that next step? so in that context, as we're thinking about em 1, in the context of going to deeper space, how -- you know, i'm sensing that as we do the em 1 mission we're learning a lot. we're reestablishing supply chains, reestablishing a workforce and a talent base that will make em 2 easier, is that correct? >> yes. definitely as we -- first em 1 flight is to test the vehicles and the systems and the hardware to make sure they're really operating to the levels that they need to be when we put crew on board. and i think as you see this move

outward, we go to the moon where we can return if something gets wrong. we can be back from hour, hour and a half. i think you can see that natural progression in taking more risk, learning to operate in a more challenging environment and as you operate in that more challenging environment you need the systems that can support operating in that environment. it's a natural stepping stone and movement as we use the moon as a proven ground, the training ground to development. where we can build concepts, processes and procedures and hardware that eventually allow us to do the mars class missions in the future. >> and as we move on to em 2 and send a crew up, are we also now conceptually thinking about em 3? >> yes. if we're really building continually to challenge what we can do, the big advantage of the space launch system is we cannot only carry crew but we can carry a substantial cargo with us -- with the crew so we can carry

potential a habitation piece with us on em 3 and a crew that will be there that can go in that habitation module and begin a crew intended presence around the moon which is starting to break that tie back to the home planet and getting us ready to move to deep space. you can see that natural progression of where each mission builds on the past mission and we take stronger challenges, we push the team more, we gain the experience and what we learn from those earlier missions it feeds directly into the next mission so each mission builds on each other. >> dr. magnus, the slide you presented, you also showed the private commercial sector following behind, so could you describe how you see the private and international community following behind as the government starts to push further and further, how the private sector and international community can continue to support that? >> yes. that goes back to the idea of a national comprehensive strategy because what you would want to

do from a national viewpoint is figure out what are the technologies and capabilities you want to invest in so that those knowledge and those pieces of technology are available for everyone and what are the things that are a little bit more mature that you could encourage companies or companies might be interested in developing, from a national viewpoint as well when you think about the international piece, what are those technologies and capabilities that as a country we want to take the lead in? do we want to be the transport experts? canada has decided to focus on robotics, for example. understanding the concepts of those priorities, you can then establish how you want to bring the international partners in and how do you want the companies establish, you know, the leverage that they need to build into their businesses. you have to start with that big picture view that has to be more governmentwide and nationally focused. >> and, let me make sure i'm thinking about this correctly, when we've thought about a return to the moon, you know, i

can visualize a day where nasa's focused on the science mission, they may look at the various launch vehicles that are available in the commercial market as opposed to having to build their own launch vehicles, we'll contract with company x to be the launch vehicle, they'll look at various lunar landing commercial vehicles, we'll contract with this lunar landing vehicle that will take our science project. is that the right way to think about this potentially? >> yeah. if you think about, you know, you have a toolbox to build a house. you don't have just one tool and you find the right tool for the job. and using the satellite businesses as a model, there are economic activities going on where the government purchases services and there are government activities as well. you need a mix and it has to be driven by what is the strategic view for the country and what capabilities do you want to create and make sure you have going forward. you have to think about it from

that big picture. there's a place for all of it in the right strategy. >> great. thank you. i'm out of time. i yield back. >> okay. thank you. now i'd like to recognize the gentleman from alabama, mr. brooks. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the production of the core stage element is currently driving the space launch system program schedule. the program is combining welding techniques and materials specifically the thickness of the metal that have not been used before. while establishing new production techniques is laudable the program is faced numerous setbacks as it is developing these processes and correcting defects. how confident is the program in its contractors will gain enough knowledge to avoid these setbacks and delays for future flight hardware? >> we've met the challenges of the self-reacting friction welding of the thicker materials. we understand now how to do that. we'll still probably continue to refine the welding technique as

we go into future pieces but the basic understanding is in place now and we know how to do the welding. as i said in my opening remarks, that's also important to the industry as a whole. nasa paved the way by now allowing others to use those same techniques in the larger thickness of materials. >> if you could, what steps does the program and contractor have in place to avoid mistakes such as welding tool changes that shutdown production? >> we're again carefully monitoring all that activity. we're looking at ways we can do inspection. we knew fairly soon and immediately that there was a problem with our welding when it occurred, so the good news was we had tools and techniques in place to find the defects to prevent that from extending into the flight hardware. that was good. the bad thing we didn't know we fully didn't understand, we had done smaller samples. we had done smaller welding tests but we had not done of any of the magnitude or scale of which we're trying to do with

the full vehicle. we just need to be prepared as we build schedules going forward to know ta these first time things that we have never done before of a magnitude has never been done before may need extra time that first time through and not be overoptimistic in our schedule. we'll build in some time to go ahead and do those kind of things to make sure we don't have that same kind of problem moving forward. we've identified those areas in the future where we see these first time items. we will put in place processes and procedures to prevent what occurred in the past. >> the core stage element again which is currently driving the sls program schedule still has to complete a major integrated test fire which is called the green test run. the green test run will have the core stage integrated with its four main engines, the tanks will be filled with cryogenic fuel for the first time and the core stage will be fired for about 500 seconds. the engines have been tested individually but not all together which creates a different heat, acoustic and

vibration environment and this will be the first for the core stage. what areas cause the most concern during this test, cryogenic fuel piping, leaks, material stresses, et cetera? >> the teams are really analyzing that test in all its detail to make sure that we are really prepared for that test and one thing we learned out of this last schedule problem is we'll have a dedicated person and a team that will look at that test to make sure we have accommodated and taken into account everything that might occur during that test. when the rocket is designed to come off the launch pad and typically fly, it's not designed to stay in one location for the entire firing so there could be some heat that builds back into the systems. we've been analyzing that in wind tunnels. we've been looking to make sure we're prepared for that. we've done extensive work on the test stand to look at modeling and testing of how we do the fluid flows. we looked at procedures that we've bring in, tankers and the

most efficient manner we protected for slips and schedules but we see that test coming up after the core stage gets z-lifred to as one of the keel tests and one of the key risks. we will be fully prepared for that test when it occurs. what potential damage are you testing for that might occur during a ano, ma'amle test of this nature such as insulation damage, internal harnesses, boxes coming look, what are you looking for? >> all those things you've described. our biggest concern is thermal and potential thermal damage to the bottom of the vehicle and had a needs to be repaired. we'll have procedures in place to go do those repairs. we'll have alternat techniques to fix things if they occur during that testing. we're actively working that area and we will have detailed test plans and detailed mitigation for anything that can arise. >> thank you, mr. gerstenmaier and mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you. next, the gentleman from

virginia, mr. meyer. >> thank you, mr. chairman very much and thank you for being with us today. if i can be parochial in just a minute, and nasa's up to the international space station with supplies living and working in space and two of my wonderful staff members are going to watch the launch. i'm really proud of the role virginia plays in supporting nasa and the iss. aside from cape canaveral it's the only launch in the u.s. that supports the station. and just last month an emerging launch small launch start-up announced that its three initial launches will occur at wallop next year. virginia's put nearly $200 million of taxpayer money into the space support.

it's been a unique partnership. so mr. gerstenmaier, as we look at a future space operations can you discuss how wallops can contribute to nasa's planning and operations? >> we see them playing a key role for cargo delivery to the space station. i think it's also interesting to see how the team is using that cargo vehicle in creative ways. as you see it completes its cargo delivery mission then that vehicle can come off the space station and into another mission for its own uses afterwards. we've looked at full scale come bugs experiments where we actually set a large fire inside prior to reentry to understand what fire detection should be like and what fire suppression should be. so it's pretty exciting to see the orbital team look at creative ways of looking their vehicles with a post mission after the cargo mission is done and creative ways in bringing other folks in.

i think we'll continue to see a large number of launches out of virginia supporting that activity and growing in that area. also notice the control center's been upgraded. some of the other things we've been done in the times between the flight. nasa's investment in the launch site as well is what the state of virginia's done. >> thank you very much. dr. magnus, in your testimony, you said and you wrote and i quote, the united states needs a comprehensive national space strategy, aa kpd by a continuous lang term commitment for its execution. do we not have that already? and where are the holes in that? >> i think some of it -- some of the holes came out during the national space meeting. we have -- nasa has a comprehensive strategy for how they want to continue doing exploration, that initial phase of the bubble and they've been working with the private sector and the development stage, that middle stage, but there's a lot of work faa is still working on

with respect to the licensing. there's discussion about the on orbit piece, discussion about laws, tax incentives. there's all kinds of other pieces when you think about what you have to do to develop a healthy economy or a stable economy or help one get off the ground. it's not just about the rockets and the habitats, there's legal frame works, there's regulations, things like this. and then you also have to fold in the piece of what do we want from our international cooperation, what do we want to encourage in our private industry, how do we want to help the innovation succeed, how do we want to make sure the government has its mission and stays focuses? there's all these pieces. they're out there but it's not clear to me they've all been brought together comprehensive. >> mr. gerstenmaier, as you know, one of the ongoing debates that we hear on our space subcommittee is should dependence do we go directly to mars or go to the moon first and use that as a launching part for

mars? i notice in your testimony you talked about such a program would quote, lead the return of humans to the moon, so is it already decided that we go to the moon first? >> again, i think as i described earlier, this stepping stone approach where we use the moon as a training ground to move further out is a good approach and i think that's consistent with the authorization language we've received and the direction from congress and the administration, so it's a stepping stone approach of where we use the moon to learn the things, learn skills, learn things that we need to help us advance. ultimately we're moving human presence into the solar system with the ultimate goal towards mars. >> dr. magnus, i just want to quote from your written testimony. the current budgeting process including the regular use of continuing resolutions, threat of government shutdowns, lack of a stable budgetary environment, prohibits this kind of comprehensive trade space to be used. i just want to say amen. thank you for putting that in writing. the entire federal workforce,

the government contracting community, the military, everyone agrees with you. so mr. chairman i yield back. >> yes, sir. thank you. i now recognize the gentleman from florida, mr. posey. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you for calling this informative meeting and i want to thank the witnesses, both of you. it's always a pleasure to hear from you and gain your insight. mr. gerstenmaier, would you say that reaching mars is the top priority of nasa right now? >> again, the way i describe it is moving human presence in the solar system but it's -- it's one of the stepping stone approaches as we move human presence into the solar system. >> but i mean as a priority basis, how would you prioritize things? >> again, i think we need to be careful and i don't pick destinations. i talk more about building a capability or the expanding bubble that sandy described where we move out into the solar

system and we bring the commercial sector, the economy with us as we move, so i'm looking for a much longer strategic vision than a particular single destination and i see this as a continuum of gaining the skills that we need to have as we move further into the solar system. >> i really appreciated you hearing the words stepping stone in reference to the moon just a few moments ago in answer that question. and i think that congress is expressed everything you do in space to be a stepping stone to mars so that ought to be a goal and you know and i know if everything's a priority, nothing's a priority. and so i'd really like to hear it acknowledged that reaching mars is a top priority and everything that we do is, in fact, a stepping stone to reaching that goal for a number of reasons. you're familiar with buzz aldren's program, he's my

constituent and i hear about that plan frequently. would you just take a moment to share with me why the plan that you're pursuing is superior to the plan he suggests with the cyclars? >> i think in a world we often like to contrast things and show how they're different and we try to pick one or the other. if you look at the approach that we've laid out where we have potentially some kind of crew tended platform around the vicinity of the moon and we use that as a staging ground to go to mars, that's very -- that has very similar aspects to many of the cyclar concepts. we're using the moon potentially and the moon as the staging position to go to mars rather than returning back to the earth. so it's -- there's pieces of what he describes in our plan. maybe not as much as he would like. he would like to have the pure plan the way he describes it

with a large cyclar in place. we look to the community to get good ideas from everyone. we look to academia, we look from aur apollo astronauts and commercial industry. we want to take all those great ideas and put them together and build the strategic plan we've been describing here to keep us moving forward. i don't see it as one or the other. there's advantages and disadvantages of both. but probably the hybrid between the two must the best solution. >> it's a pretty good answer and i assume funding approvals play a big part in that. >> definitely. we're constrained by the financial environment, we're giving, you know, the adequate resources to do what we need to go do but we need to reflect that in our planning that we don't try to build a program that requires more funding than is reasonably available and that's a concern. >> dr. magnus you care to weigh

in? >> i would just like to comment that we have to quit talking about either the moon or mars because as bill mentioned it's an and if you think about the model i will presented. if we're really thinking carefully about how we're moving that -- >> i think everyone here in this room understands we want to go to mars for a number of reasons as a launching area, potential fuel there, as one time there was quite a bit of opposition to it and people who were opposed to it said been there done that have pretty much acknowledged that to go further that's the smartest way to do it. >> right. and we can do it in a way as we bring industry behind us, they can, you know, expand that development phase out to the moon, the government continues to go to mars and leading that charge if you will. there's a smart way to do this where you pass through the moon, you do the things you need to do there to continue to build your operational capability to go to mars.

the government keeps expanding to mars and you bring that economic system behind you so it's stable and provides the additional capability to continue that outward thrusts. there's a way to do this. >> thank you, doctor. mr. chairman i see my time is up. thank you. >> thank you. gentleman from colorado, mr. pearl motor. >> thanks, dr. babbin and i'll put up my problem for one second. and to be parochial in three days or four days from van denburg air force base we will launch the jpss, that satellite was built in colorado which was also built in colorado. so each of us from an economic point of view but also from a point of view of pride has a stake in our space program, period. and all of us up here are pretty much on the same page when it

comes to getting us to mars. i don't care how we get there, just get there, by 2033 if not a lot earlier. and so my job whether it's a stepping stone to the moon or we use the hyperloop or we somehow, somebody comes up with beaming us over to mars, i just want our astronauts on mars. orion and sls are the main vehicle we have to do this now. and mr. gerstenmaier, you've heard me talk about this and obviously our job up here is to get you will the funding so you can have that constancy of purpose on a 16 year project and we don't have that yet and it's our responsibility to do that, but for me i'm a results oriented guy, okay. i don't know what the best engineering and the best science and exactly how to do that.

that's your responsibility, dr. magnus. that's your responsibility, mr. gerstenmaier. me i got to try to find you the resources so that you can do that. but others up here are more sort of accountant types and, you know, want to make sure we hit our bench marks in the milestones as do you. you're engineers. that's how you guys operate. so the anxiety that some feel that we're already missing kind of a milestone early in the 16 year journey is something i think we all have to take seriously, but our responsibility as members of congress are to provide you the resources, to get this done and for you -- let me just ask a couple just basic questions. in developing this program how do you see us adding international partners? has there been any discussions with other countries about

partnering with us in a major project like this? mr. gerstenmaier? >> there's been quite a bit of work discussed with overall framework. there's a global exploration road map that will be published next january and that's provides a framework of moving forward and of which is consistent with everything we're building. they see sls and orion, they see what we're doing with the space station. the activities around the moon where we talk about potentially crew tended activity in the vicinity of the moon, the international partners are extremely interested in that as well as commercial industry so we're working with both commercial industry and international partners as was described earlier, i think this is really a team activity where nasa does a piece, we have the space launch system that can take 45 metrics tons to the vicinity of the moon but then we can use commercial launch vehicles to take five or ten metric tons of cargo routinely to the vicinity of the moon. sls doesn't have to be every flight to the moon. the rockets you talked about from colorado, the united launch

alliance stuff, what's being done by falcon, those can all be used as part of this architecture -- >> and we better not forget sierra, nevada or i'll be in big trouble. >> all that fits together as part of this interactive framework and i've seen tremendous interest from all partners and see how they can participate and how they can be part of this endeavor. >> dr. magnus, in your position with the association, what are you seeing in terms of the willingness by the priet sector as well as when you're doing outreach to other countries, how do you see us building the team that will help us, you know, get to mars? >> there's a huge amount of interest in the private sector in the united states to participate in this project any way, shape or form. there are a lot of small companies that are engaging in space that never existed before.

there are established companies who are taking novemberive approach approaches. i have no doubt that we did do it. internationally i think they look to us our look to us to pr vision and the energy and the drive. not necessarily to be the dictators and direct everybody there's a lot of enthusiasm to have the united states -- we all want to take a part of it, let's figure out how we can do that. >> at the bottom of it, it says, we can do this. thank you opinion i yield back many. >> i recognize the gentleman from florida, dr. dunn. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. it's always a lot of fun to come here and listen to the interesting and intel gint people you bring to these hearings. i have 1,000 questions and five

minutes. we spoke earlier, you know my background as a surgeon, i'm going to ask a lot of questions about life sciences if i can. what are the special risks -- or are there special risks in deep space missions that differ from long duration, low orbit earth missions? >> probably the biggest risk that occurs is the risk to radiati radiation, and exposure to humans in deep space. we're shielded by some of the radiation in deep space that shielding is gone. we're going to have to look at techniques we can do. it's not an insurmountable problem, but it's a problem we need to address that we can't -- >> you're already opening up new avenues of research for the

extended deep space missions? >> yes. >> that's exciting. some of that can translate to earth, too? >> any resting things we lrned from the kelly astronaut twin experiment? >> it's exciting looking at how the genome changes. >> micro gravity, not radiation? >> yes. >> they can differentiate between micro gravity and radiation changes. why they upregulate, down regulate. that's a fascinating research subject. i would have to bring some of the researchers here that are much better verse than myself. >> this is how i any science and medicine really advances. the new questioning, it calls

into question your basic theory. that basic theory changes, and dmou you're going to develop a brand new way and solve a problem or do something in the future. this is an exciting phase. >> we look forward to hearing from that side of your shot as well. >> there's interesting design modifications for deep space. what are you doing with that other ian capsule to make it more habitable. >> the radiation environment, we look at some potential shielding, when we took orion on the exploration test. we'll fly a mock up of a human torso inside the capsule, and embedded in the human torso will be radiation monitors to simulate the various monitors inside the human. we'll look at the inside of the human to see if that provides some protection for our crews.

i think there will be some type of storm shelter design into our future deep space vehicles. >> we talked about dna, are we going to put animal experiments on the -- on manned mars missions? >> we presently don't have any -- i don't believe we have animal missions. we just have the instrumentation and the hardware, but we -- >> we could look at that. >> it would be interesting. >> we don't have the life support system there, we would have to put some kind of life support system to accommodate. we're doing significant animal research on board space station, we have all the basic animal models. >> dr. magnus, you have kind of a personal relationship with radiation in space. can you comment on this? >> no. i found -- i was on the space station for 4 1/2 months, i felt like the exercise protocols we

had were sufficient. i came back with no bone mass -- >> no loss of bone density? >> no. >> i think we have that licked. bill is right, radiation is the key issue, and we're still learning a lot about what can happen in a radiation environment. the ability to do some work around the moon will inform us a little bit more about what we don't know. and as bill mentioned, give us new lines of inquiry to make sure we have our bases covered before we go to mars. >> you have an excited and engaged committee higher, keep us in your thoughts and keep us informed. i thank you very much, i yield back, mr. chairman. >> i now recognize the gentleman from california, mr. rohrbacher. >> i apologize for having the -- a jump between various events that you're committed to. but i will go back and look at the testimony we've had so far.

i'm on the foreign affairs committee as well as the science committee. and i am very interested now what our next major step into space as to what we see it as an international goal and not just an american goal. when we talk about going to the moon and establishing a long term presence on the moon in the space station, we have people from other countries and other countries that are partnering with us. are we planning anything like that for our moon presence? >> yes, we are. the service module that provides life support gases for the orion capsule come from the european space agency. this is their contribution in a

real way to the first steps in exploration. >> and do we have -- does the administration have any plans on this, that we need to know about? >> i don't know that we've -- we've got some -- we had the 45 day report action that came out of the space council. we continue to work on that, and see and refine details, i think there's been a general agreement that international support is a good thing for deep space and will continue to build off of what we've done with the space station, and look for ways we can continue that same partnership as we move out toward the moon and mars. >> i would hope so. i -- when i first got here, we've both been around a long time, and i remember that my vote was actually very

instrumental in the space station. i'm pleased with how that turned out and how my vote made a positive difference. i would hope we have a plan that is a little more detailed in terms of the moon and what we're planning to do there. now that we've made that decision. up until now, we've had a great zeal of debate as to whether we're going to go right on to mars and how -- you know, and now we've reached a consensus, that the moon is the step to mars. but i need to, i would hope we get a little more details exactly what we're planning to have when the more than -- what type of cooperation, if it's an international effort. what type of cooperation we can expect and how much money it

will cost us to accomplish the specific goals that we have in our mars mission. next, but in a moon mission now. >> we have an exploration report that's due to congress in december, and in that report, we'll start to show you some of the specifics of the kind of questions and agreements, and how we'll do some of these things internationally in that report when you see it in december. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. rohrbacher. now, i'd like to recognize the gentleman from louisiana. mr. higgins? >> thank you mr. chairman, i appreciate your appearance before this committee today, we're all united in our enthusiasm for moving this program forward, we all have many questions and very little time. i represent louisiana, the

facility in new orleans has developed a friction stir welding process. can you explain that please for the committee? >> there's a large facility there, the largest in the world that essentially welds the tanks, the hydrogen tank and oxygen tank for the space launch system. there's a spinning rod and self-reacting, instead of having a tool behind it that holds the two plates together, the pin itself goes through, and it actually spins at high rpm and melts and fuses the two pieces of aluminum sheet together. it's different than fusion welding when you uzan arc or a tool to weld. it just molds and puts those two pieces of structure together. >> this is the latest welding technique on a plan, am i correct that allows you to use

new thinner layers of steal that allows them to be sufficient and strong, stronger than in the past, and yet lighter, is that correct? >> yeah, it provides a superior weld performance in the fact that the defects are less, and the fact that there's no no heat disorganization. allows the parts to be put together in a much stronger manner. >> let me jump forward to manned presence on the moon as we have discussed earlier, a stepping stone to mars. have lunar landing sites been discussed and determined? >> from a robotics standpoint, i think what we're interested in now, if you look at the apollo missions, most of them were he

can equatorial. the north and south pole of the moon could be very important. if we don't have to carry all our resources with us, as we move into the solar system, if we can get water from the moon, that would be very interesting to us. we see some permanently shadowed regions in the north and south pole. if it makes sense with humans in those areas, as soon as we can understand how that water is held that can be important to market and how we use that, and move into the shoulder system. >> as far as extended exploration, and extended periods of time on the moon's surface. one of the major challenges is developing has been tant -- protected areas where the astronauts could stay last month, the japan aerospace

explanation agency discovered a large and stable -- allowed it to go beneath the surface, the areas where the ceiling had collapsed. does this change the paradigm of what you and your team might be considering regarding human has been taking? >> it's definitely something to be considered. if you can take advantage of the radiation shielding royed by the lunar regulath. and you can have a structure to go into, that could be interesting, i think that's something we need to keep looking at and see how it fits. >> this could be explored robotically, correct? >> yes. >> we talked about having an orbiting capability around the moon, could you do that and then

you could use astronauts on board this, command rovers to drive into these potential lava tubes. prior to committing humans to go to -- >> one more thing regarding these underground carve earns and tubes. on earth, because of the low gravity of the moon, it's been stated by reputable scientists, these tubes could be as language as 2 or 3 miles in diameter, does your study concur with that? >> i'm not familiar with those studies, and i'd have to go research that or ask someone. >> thank you for your response. if that information becomes availab available, during the course of your studies, thank you for your continued research. could you provide that to this committee? >> yes, we will. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> that call votes -- there's several of us that had questions, we're going to take a

minute a piece. i want to go quickly, the recent slip in the uncrude launch of the space launch system seems to be the result of many factors, hurricanes, tornados, welding issues, what impact will a delay in delivery of the orion service module by the europeans have on the december 2019 data. what tools does nasa have to ensure the european service module does not lead to further delays? >> we're working extensively with the european space agency. we know there's high pressure helium valves manufactured in the united states we've sent some of our people to the plant to help with that activity to help mitigate that concern. we have a nasa design for a valve, which we may manufacture and provide for that application.

lockheed martin has gotten state department approval to send some of their technicians to europe to assist with some of the manufacturing of the european service module. we're doing everything we can. the current service module delivery date is supposed to be april of next year, we're likely to see that schedule slip a little bit, maybe to may or june, and then we're looking at what we can do to help with that downstream, we might do a simulator on top of the sos when it goes to florida to do a model testing, instead of having the orion and european service module on top. we're well aware of that, that's probably one of our key risk areas. we're doing everything we can, it's really just this first time manufacturing that's causing us problems. >> that's a great concern. thank you very much. now the gentleman from california, dr. baer. >> thank you. one of the exciting parts of this, i'm looking at propulsion

systems, one we have talked about is soem ar electric propulsion opinion could either one of you talk about the importance of why solar electric proportion is important. particularly as we want to go into deeper space? >> i can start and sandy can help, i think the big advantage is that in terms of efficiency and the amount of propellant that needs to be there to move things, it's very efficient to move large masses throughout the solar system, and so you can move -- if we have this crew tended facility around the moon, it can be in one orbit, then we can use electric propulsion to move it to a different orbit. we can go to equitorial. if the crew is not on the vehicle it can move. >> if allows us to move slowly through the solar system. >> i would add in the context of

our discussions that are more strategic, it will be technology that's available for everyone to use. it's one of those feeders, if you will, that will allow our economy to advance and other companies to take advantage of that kind of capability. >> i might add, we awarded study contracts to typical communication satellite manufactures, to see if they would have interest in using the next generation of electric proportion busters. we may be enabling the commercial communications satellite industry to get a jump over other foreign competitors by advancing the state of the art and electric propulsion and power generation beyond where they are today. they gained directly from what we're trying to do, and then we get a capability we can use around the moon for our needs. this is a win win for us. >> now, i think mr. rohrbacher

from california has one question. >> you just mentioned commercial activities, and i had asked before, what we thought about international cooperation. is there any part of the plans for this extended moon presence we're talking about now, that would include the private sector? and we know now, you know, 20, 30 years ago, we didn't have these private companies, like spacex and all the others making their contribution. do we expect there to be a private involvement and commercial involvement in a way that will help bring down the cost as well? >> we currently have next step broad area announcements, where we're working with five companies to look at co has been taking around the moon. they're very interested in what they can do with us, they may have application for that in low

earth orbit is a follow on to the international space station. we're very much involved with them. sos meets a unique niche. it can carry crew to the moon. we will use new vehicles that are coming online, the falcon 9, falcon 9 heavy, new glenn. all those capabilities, united launch alliances, all those will be used. i think what's interesting. we look to this whole suite of launch capabilities, how do we build a plan that involves all of them, we do the best of international, the best of commercial, we put it together into a plan to allow us to move forward. >> that's terrific. thank you for that answer. >> i hope maybe bigelow may have play in that as well. >> he is one involved, yes.

>> i want to thank the witnesses for this interest iing hearing d your testimony, the record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments. from the members. with this, the hearing is adjourned.

here's a look at tax reform efforts in congress this week. the senate budget committee is expected to meet early this week, to combine the senate

finance committee tax bill, and the provision for oil drilling in the national wildlife refuge. a simple majority needed for passage. if it's approved, negotiators will beginning work on a compromise bill between the house and senate versions. once they come to an agreement, the new version goes back to the house and senate for final votes and on to president trump for his signature. they hope that will happen before christmas. >> tonight on the communicators, the newest member of the federal communications commission joins us to discuss net neutrality, the justice department's effort to sue at&t over its plan to buy time warner. mr. karr is interviews by john hendle. >> do you have faith in the independence of doj, antitrust authorities. and how you see that overall. given that it is a pretty big

situation to be unfolding now. >> the fcc has a limited role to play in mergers, which is to say, when a transaction comes before us, we take a look, is there a transaction specific harm? and if there is, we try to find a narrowly tailored remedy for that harm. that addresses the harm we identified, we can move forward with the public interest determination. >> one thing you saw the fcc do over the last couple years is view mergers as a christmas tree, where you could hang whatever aagain ga you wanted on it. that's not my approach, and it's not the abrooch that i think lawfully under the communications act the fcc should take. >> watch the communicators tonight on c-span2 at 8:00. >> our live coverage includes the senate banking committee tomorrow considering jerome powell to be the next federal

reserve chair. also tomorrow, the senate budget committee reviews its tax reform bill. see that live at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. the senate health committee considers the nomination of alex azar, president trump's pick to replace tom price. live coverage at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3. the house takes up a bill to take anti-harassment and anti-discrimination training. live coverage of congress this week on the c-span networks, online on c-span.org or with the free c-span radio app. >> state department officials and experts studying africa testified before a house subcommittee on the current political situation in the congo. heavy violence and political unrest. the government in the congo has been accused of halting preparations for free and fair elections since 2016.