volz? >> i don't know of any commercial assets that are providing equivalent data and observations to the nature of what we provide that support our weather services. so there may be specific measurements that might be available but in general there are no commercial assets of equivalent or capable nature. >> there's no commercial backup that would be available. noaa's data that comes from g.o.e.s. and other satellites, that's publicly available to anyone who wants it? or is that -- >> correct. >> so it's a public asset? >> correct, sir. >> that's available to anyone around the world? >> correct. just as other nations' assets and measurements are available to us. it's a global cooperation sharing agreement on observations for climate. >> that would be a critical asset for the common good? >> yes, sir, entirely so. >> if we think about commercialization then and this data -- if we were to shift from a public expenditure for the common good to more commercialization of this data, is there a r

volz to you but also to mr. powner, shouldn't we try to be doing something with these satellites so you can get them done in a way that's timely, that's well tested? am i making a mistake here? >> no. i think you have a perfect example between g.o.e.s. and jpss. if you are building a series or fleet, it does make sense to define the requirements once and do the implementation once. that's where we are now and how we set it up with the g.o.e.s. program. you still have problems, that's why we're here. we are still discussing the issues with the g.o.e.s. program but we hope to overcome them. with the jpss program, we did not have that same construct. we were building them one at a time and there were definitely significant inefficiencies in doing it that way. whether it's an intentional change in a major subcontract like the spacecraft from ball aerospace to ltk or to the production lines changing and the capabilities that the subcontractors change out and you can't control it. so by going with the one at a time ap

volz. you were right on the five-minute mark, which is what we expect in our noaa is and former nasa folks. so thank you for that. mr. panner, you are recognized for five minutes. >> chairman bryden stein, lauder milk, ranking member beyer and members of the subcommittees. at that time we suppressed concerns about the goz march 2016 launch date and potential gaps in satellite coverage. the goz launch date has been delayed again. i will display three graphics which highlight key launch dates and expected life spans of these satellites, many of which have been recently extended. in the first graphic, it has the three that are currently in space. the first bar is goz 13, which covers the eastern half of the united states, the next is goz 15, which covers the western half. the middle is goz 14, on orbit spare. tph when asked what was this based on we were given a document supporting the extension. key question is why noaa did not disclose this sooner. i'll add in noaa's 2016 budget submission,

volz.ou were right on the five-minute mark which is what we expect from our noaa and former nasa folks. so thank you for that. mr. powner, you are recognized for five minutes. >> chairman bridenstine, loudermilk, ranking member beyer, and members of the subcommittee, earlier this year we testified on the g.o.e.s. and jpss satellite acquisitions. at that time we expressed concern about the g.o.e.s. march date and potential gaps in satellite coverage. the g.o.e.s. launch date has been delayed again. i will provide updates on both acquisitions by displaying three graphics which highlight key launch dates, many of which have been recently extended. on first graphic it displays the three g.o.e.s. satellites currently in space. first bar is g.o.e.s. 13 which covers the earn half of the united states, the third bar is g.o.e.s. 15, which covers the western half. the middle bar is g.o.e.s. 14 which is your on orbit spare. noaa's policy is to have an on orbit spare if something goes wrong with one of

volz, do you have a response? >> i agree entirely that the outyear execution is -- needs to be addressed. what we have focused our activities on the last five years as we came to the assessment of risk on both polar and geostationary satellites is that we did no the have a robust configuration on orbit. our first and overriding priority was to get to a situation where we had, we were tolerant and had a single fault. we could suck for a loss of a satellite asset and not disable the weather system. and that has dictated the aggressive approach to building the gozar satellites in our aggressive schedule. as we went through what could be a mission-ending failure. the same with the jpss. so that's been our primary motivation. once geet to the fault tolerant situation on orbit, exactly as mr. was mentioned, we need to have the assets available to have the flexibility of those choices. until we have that, we cannot do anything to make it better or worse. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i want to thank the ra

volz, do you have a response? >> i agree entirely that the outyear execution is -- needs to be addressed. what we have focused our activities on the last five years as we came to the assessment of risk on both polar and geostationary satellites is that we did no the have a robust configuration on orbit. our first and overriding priority was to get to a situation where we had, we were tolerant and had a single fault. we could suck for a loss of a satellite asset and not disable the weather system. and that has dictated the aggressive approach to building the gozar satellites in our aggressive schedule. as we went through what could be a mission-ending failure. the same with the jpss. so that's been our primary motivation. once we get to the fault tolerant situation on orbit, exactly as mr. was mentioned, we need to have the assets available to have the flexibility of those choices. until we have that, we cannot do anything to make it better or worse. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i want to thank the