the first jpss satellite will essentially be a copy assuming mpp with grades to meet the jpss level one requirements. assuming full funding of the president's 2013 budget request for noaa it is annes it pated that jpss 1 will be ready to launch before the second quarter of fiscal year 2017. close to five years after the october launch of mpp. in addition, the gozar program continues to make progress towards launching gozar. the first satellite of the series and the first quarter of fy-2016. assuming full funding of the president's budget, the program completed its preliminary design phase and the gozar series project conducted a successful critical design review for the spacecraft and launched vehicle task headquarters to the gozar and go-ss missions which will be launched on atlas 5, 41 series launch vehicles. additionally, all flight instruments, critical design reviews are complete and all of the flight instruments are in flight hardware and fabrication and integration for a test. once again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. i appreciate the support of the committee an

first, significant progress has been made and both are in the jpss programs. it goes on remain on schedule for launching in fiscal year 2016 and nasa is working extremely well together and effectively and this has led to the completion of key program milestones and substantial demonstrable progress toward the launch date. for jpss, substantial progress has been made before i launched this committee and most notably, the successful launch of the p.p. satellite. while there's more work that needs to be done for the gozar program, jpss has come a long way. success, noaa's priority is to maintain the life and property saving weather forecasts and watches and warnings that our nation depends upon. to do this we must maintain schedule on costs so that each satellite can remain ready for launch. meeting this priority requires established and stable requirements, strong effective management with rigorous, independent checks and stable funding. we've achieved the stable requirements and we're committed to strong, effective management and we have independent checks in p

in summary, noaa and nasa continue to make progress on jpss. however, three areas deserve congressional oversight. first, how noaa and nasa operate within the 12.9 cap, how the ride share arrangement proceeds with certain sensors since significant cost savings is associated with this approach. and third, how the satellite constellation of all three orbits will be effectively managed to ensure critical weather and climate data. next, i would like to turn to the goes-r program, proceeding toward an october 14th lunch date for its first satellite. what i would like to do is highlight the cost profile, including the use of management reserves and observations on the program's schedule and launch dates. before i get into the specifics, i would like to clarify the scope of the goes-r program. originally it was four satellite program in 2006. it was to cost about $11 billion. so the program eliminated a key sensor and dropped two satellites, among other things, to keep the costs around $7.7 billion. so for about five years we had a fairly stable progr

of millions below the ramp up of the jpss. so with that backdrop, i would say that a few things. i would say that rather like the ripple on a carpet or a bedspread when you give it a good shake, some of it is still moving through the system in terms of the delays that were incurred that don't go instantly away when a funding stream is restored. we are still seeing some of that consequence. it definitely did strain the team. it strained it in terms of the professionalism and accumen and des desire to keep moving and of course creates tensions within the team, and lashlgly the team has passed that. the trust and battle rhythm of the noaa and nasa team around jpss has improved notably in the 12, 13 months i have been aboard. the final thing i would say is that the general climate of uncertainty certainly is a tension that we all have to bear. we certainly hear about it also from the contractors as perhaps you do as well. they have a battle rhythm and a certain head count running on the factory floors that are building the spacecraft and can they be assured to continue them? will the

yes, the initial target of a 30-minute time delay for jpss data has been relaxed to 80. our current performance, however, is 120, so that's still a substantial improvement over current performance and should make a notable improvement to forecasting. with respect to data centrals, that reflects in part in evolution of ground system structure from very tailored service and each provider towards more common and unifying ground station. we certainly can take on the development of tailored interfaces for noaa satellite data for the air force or navy if they wish. at this point with our budget constraints, we have let those partners know that would be on a reimbursable basis. both for current flight operations and for dwss. i'm not aware of detailed plans from them yet. >> with regards to the gao report, this controversy about whether the cap is -- whether the shortfall is -- because the gao reports state that noaa valuated the costs would be $11.3 billion after adding the agency's cost of $3.3, the program's life cycle cost estimate total $14.6, which is higher than the $11.

jpss 1 instruments are 60 to 95% complete.

when you look across the schedules associated with the jpss-one we are currently on track, and we share meetings together, key decision points are jointly chaired between our respective agencies, and our programs are fully integrated at a green tech facility outside of goddard space flight center and the teams are working extremely well and it is a very good partnership. >> if i may mr. mcinerney, i would endorse marcus's comment, because there is a 40-year long partnership between nasa and noaa and providing the nation with weather satellites. we came back to that model in essence with the unwinding of the n-pose program and if i could use the analogy since jpss moved out of the dysfunctional household of npos, we have a new team aboard and they have set fresh marks and again in the 13 months i have been around they have been con ssistently meetin the marks. we see great value and productivity in the partnership and in the taxpayer and not with a top notch acquisition within noaa when we have an outstanding one in the partner agency. >> okay. one more question, mr. chairman. has there

less impact on jpss. >> the only thing i would add to that is that with respect to the goes-r program, currently we're at a budget in this fiscal year. we're planned to be increased to $803. if we were under a continued resolution that went beyond the first quarter of the fiscal year, it would begin to have negative impacts to the cost and the schedule. specifically, the goes-r mission. so a continued resolution hurts us more in the goes-r program. >> so it could end up costing us more, assuming we continue with both efforts down the line. and if we didn't, this is a lot of money. where i come from, this sounds like a lot of money. yet when you think about what's going on in terms of very severe weather impacts, what was there $60 billion in fiscal year 2011 on dramatic events. and i guess my question maybe you can't answer. if you can get a 10% or 15% in damage, have you done an analysis of what kind of warning leads to what kind of decrease in damage on the ground? if it's a hurricane or a tornado or if it's -- whatever kind of event? >> we have not seen any rigorously evaluated eco