▶ 0:06:18At a critical and exciting time for nasa. Administrator, I want to first extend my congratulations to nasa for the success of the artemis two mission. It was inspiring to see the crew complete their mission from launch to splashdown.
▶ 0:06:45We know this was no small feat and involved everyone at nasa working toward a shared goal. I also want to recognize morehead state university in my district. Morehead was selected by nasa to support the tracking of artemis two.
▶ 0:07:07I'm incredibly proud of morehead state's space science program, where you can get a degree in space science. The unique opportunities that they offer to students in the hills of kentucky. We're here today to review nasa's budget request for fiscal year 27.
▶ 0:07:36The request is 18.8 billion, a 5.6 billion 23% cut from the fiscal year that we're under at the moment. In addition to the request, nasa received roughly $2 billion in the one big beautiful bill for fiscal 27.
▶ 0:08:06After the success and momentum nasa has built up over the last year, it's disappointing to see that request. Nasa has set out with ambitious goals under president trump's leadership. America is in a space race with china, not so different from where we found ourselves during the apollo era. We can learn a lot from history.
▶ 0:08:36The nation's commitment to apollo and the success of the program clearly demonstrates that this is a critical time for investment in nasa. We must build on the investments congress has already made. Administrator, you have recently laid out an ambitious plan for increasing the deep space launch cadence.
▶ 0:09:07Building a lunar base, ramping up both lunar and mars commercial missions, and returning american astronauts to the moon. The appropriations committee is supportive of these goals, but it's only through a strong discretionary budget process. In partnership with the committee, that nasa can meet these objectives.
▶ 0:09:35Let me now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mrs. mink. >> thank you, Mr. chairman, and welcome, administrator isaacman. It's been two years and ten days since nasa last appeared before this subcommittee, and a lot has happened since then. Most notably the safe launch and return of our artemis two astronauts. And I, too, want to extend a.
▶ 0:10:02Congratulations to you and to the entire nasa team, who many of whom have worked decades to make this happen. Um, those four individuals, the astronauts who went further into space than any human ever did before, did so on the shoulders of the tens of thousands of americans who made parts for the rocket or the orion capsule, who used their own hands to build these systems. And, of course, the countless scientists and support staff.
▶ 0:10:31It is a success that every american can be proud of. The success of artemis two, and the news that the nancy grace roman telescope launch remains on schedule is all the more remarkable, because it comes after nasa was left adrift in 2025 with political leaders who actively harmed nasa's missions and set the agency back years by creating a massive brain drain.
▶ 0:10:58The trump administration's failure to steward the agency in 2025 was further demonstrated by deeply flawed and incoherent budget proposals, and the lack of a fiscal year 25 spend plan, which the agency did not submit to the subcommittee until more than four months after fiscal year 25 ended. Even now, the trump administration continues to hold nasa back. Its fiscal year 26 plan was due to this committee by march 9th.
▶ 0:11:25And yet, here we sit, still waiting for it. Administrator isaacman, I want to be clear that no one up here holds you responsible for what happened before you were before you were confirmed. Um, we know that the trump administration's office of management and budget has made this mess, but you must clean it up. Unfortunately, the fiscal year 27 budget reflects more chaos and failure by omb.
▶ 0:11:54This budget proposal from the trump administration devalues education, and it devalues the kinds of advanced research in aviation and earth science that will be critical to the american economy in the years and decades to come. In short, it's a surrender of nasa's position as a driver of the american economy outside the space coast. Our science missions depend on a strong relationship between nasa, the private sector, and university partners.
▶ 0:12:23This request jeopardizes that successful scientific foundation by canceling over 50 missions and reducing or reformulating dozens more. I can assure everyone watching this hearing that house democrats will once again lead the fight to make sure that these budget proposals never become law.
▶ 0:12:43House democrats will not stand for a 46% cut to the science account, including the cancellation of more than 50 missions, some of which are vital to strengthening international partnerships and most of which drive innovation at universities all across america. And we will absolutely not accept the elimination of nasa's office of stem education, just as we did not allow this to happen in fiscal year 26.
▶ 0:13:11These accounts are too important to the long term future of our country, and we won't let the trump white house abandon these advancements. And even though it's beyond the scope of nasa, I want to also highlight my opposition to the trump administration's proposal to gut the national science foundation and their indefensible decision to fire the entire national science board.
▶ 0:13:34Beyond the budget and its attack on science, there are several additional policy areas where we would like some clarity from nasa, because the budget request is insufficient in its details. First, nasa's conflicting and confusing perspective on commercial space space stations has raised concerns among providers, potential customers, and even capital markets. Nasa's vision for space exploration after artemis five is also unclear.
▶ 0:14:04Even as we reach an inflection point for both current contractors and future potential providers. And finally, nasa's plans to convert gateway into a base on the lunar surface raise important questions about the legally allowable uses of appropriated funds. I hope, administrator, you can share some of your vision today so that we can consider your views as the fiscal year 27 appropriations process gets underway.
▶ 0:14:31The bipartisan fiscal year 26 nasa appropriations law was enacted in january with almost 400 votes in the house because it rejected the trump budget cuts and instead maintained our investments in science and education while also investing heavily in space exploration. Mr.
▶ 0:14:49Chairman, democrats are ready to work with you to reject the trump administration's budget proposal and ensure that the fiscal year 27 bill is another bipartisan legislative and policy success. Administrator, I know that you want to be a partner with us. And on that note, I appreciate also your commitment to the goddard institute for space studies or guests in new york city and the requirement that nasa restore their physical space.
▶ 0:15:16I look forward to your commitment to keep gifts, a key part of nasa's science directorate, and I look forward to seeing these great civil servants back into the lab as quickly as possible. Mr. chairman, thank you, and I yield back. >> thank you. Mr. Mr. administrator, you lifted us up in the last few weeks with the great success of artemis two.
▶ 0:15:47Congratulations from all of us. We now want to recognize our witness, administrator isaacman, for an opening statement. Without objection, your written statement will be entered in the record. The floor is yours. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Chairman rogers, ranking member meng and members of the subcommittee.
▶ 0:16:11I am honored to be in attendance before you today to provide an update on the national aeronautics and space administration and present the president's fiscal year 2027 budget request. I'm grateful to president trump for the foresight to create the artemis program during his first term for the mandate established in the national space policy, and for the resources that congress made available through the fy 2026 appropriations. And, of course, the working family tax cut act.
▶ 0:16:38Without that support, we would not be in a position to undertake the national imperative to return to the moon, to build a moon base and invest in the next giant leap. Capabilities like nuclear power and propulsion, ignite the space economy and launch great mission. Additional great missions of science and discovery. I also want to congratulate, as well, the entire nasa workforce, our contractors, our commercial and international partners, and of course, the artemis two astronauts reid, victor, christina and jeremy, who brought the world together.
▶ 0:17:07They showed us the moon again and showed humanity earth again. They did an outstanding job. And to the member of this committee and people all over the world, I just want to say at nasa, this is just the beginning. I will state simply that under the president's budget request, nasa does have the resources to deliver world changing outcomes. First, we will return nasa astronauts to the moon. We have reworked the artemis program into an achievable plan by standardizing sls, pulling in production, increasing launch cadence, and adding a mission in 2027 to buy down risk.
▶ 0:17:36We are rebuilding nasa workforce core competencies, taking an active role and ensuring accountability across the entire supply chain. We will deliver the outcomes the world has been patiently waiting for, and we will ensure the agency and industry is prepared to support repeatable, affordable missions to the moon for decades into the future. Second, we are returning the lunar surface to stay, this time to build a moon base.
▶ 0:18:00The fy 26 appropriations and the working family tax cut act already provide the resources to take a phased approach, with dozens of missions to learn and inform the next. We will experiment with mobility, power surface and orbital comms, resource manufacturing, and habitability. Eventually, the base will be nuclear powered and will help us master the skills necessary. We will, of course, bring the world along with us with orbital observation satellites.
▶ 0:18:31As the american people and really, people all over the world can watch in real time on the moon base website. On that note, we are still investing in the next giant leap capabilities. After more than $20 billion and decades of failed programs, nasa will finally, after more than a half century, launch a nuclear reactor in space and get america underway on nuclear power and propulsion.
▶ 0:18:51Now, I did not ask for $1 more than what was already appropriated, because we owe it to the taxpayers to demonstrate the practical application of this nuclear capability. We will launch sr one freedom in 2028, the first nuclear powered interplanetary spacecraft to deliver the skyfall payload to mars and usher in a new nuclear air and space, one that will power bases on the moon and mars and help us explore the outer solar system. We will also do everything we can to usher in a new space economy.
▶ 0:19:22We have already expanded private astronaut missions to the space station, and created more monetization opportunities for crew and cargo. We are prioritizing high commercial potential science and low earth orbit, and sending a strong demand signal for rovers, landers, modules, and habitats. While we cannot force an orbital or lunar economy into existence, we will do everything we can to ignite one so that by 2030, we can begin the transition from the international space station to one or more commercial space stations.
▶ 0:19:50The president's budget also supports the kind of exciting research and science mission that no other agency in the world can undertake. We are not accepting any gaps in earth science or space weather. We are flying airplanes like x-59, doing important research in aerospace materials, atc modernization, and launching flagship missions like the nancy grace roman space telescope to help us unlock the secrets of the universe and the nuclear powered octocopter dragonfly to explore saturn's moon of titan and neo surveyor for planetary
▶ 0:20:21Defense. Finally, inspiration is inherent in everything we do at nasa and every dollar congress makes available to the agency. The artemis two mission proved that as the world paused to take notice of those four brave astronauts, I would say it's missions like this astronauts flying around the moon or landing on the moon, walk airplanes flying, flying again, and imagery return from our telescopes and rovers that truly inspire the next generation.
▶ 0:20:46And through our internship and grant programs, we help take them that next step so they too, can grow up and contribute to the greatest adventure in human history. I would refer to you to my written testimony for examples where nasa has not always been the best steward of taxpayer dollars. Every canceled program, every cost overrun, and every scheduled delay comes at the expense of great science and discovery. I have no doubt there will come a day when nasa can and should do more with more. And I hope I'm still in this position to advocate for it.
▶ 0:21:15But with a national debt of 39 trillion and growing, we owe it to the american people to show we can achieve extraordinary outcomes with budget requests that already exceed every civilian space agency in the world combined. We can take this opportunity to look within, ensure our resources are focused on the true needle moving objectives outlined in the national space policy. Clear out needless bureaucracy and obstacles that impede progress and empower the best and brightest across nasa to deliver the headlines that only we are capable of making.
▶ 0:21:46If we do that, returning to the moon and building a moon base will seem pale in comparison to what we can achieve in the years ahead. Thank you. >> thank you administrator. We will now proceed under the five minute rule for questions. I'll begin by recognizing myself. Again.
▶ 0:22:12Let me offer thanks to you and the brave astronauts on a successful, spectacular success. The artemis two mission that that mission captivated the world in a way that hasn't happened for many years. What is nasa learned from that historic trip?
▶ 0:22:42>> well, thank you for the question, Mr. chairman. Uh, we got a lot of great data out of the orion spacecraft and the sls rocket itself. Uh, worth pointing out. This was absolutely a test mission. Uh, no crew have ever flown on that rocket or in that spacecraft before. In fact, even on the uncrewed mission that was launched in november of 2022, artemis one, we did not incorporate the eclipse or the life support systems in the orion spacecraft. So we gathered an awful lot of data in terms of the habitability of the vehicle itself.
▶ 0:23:11Again, the performance of sls, and I'd say also, sir, we learned we can't fly that rocket every three and a half years. Uh, when we first rolled the the artemis two vehicle out to the launch pad, uh, the first window of opportunity to launch was in february. Now I, and I don't think anyone at nasa thought that we were actually going to hit that window. And that was correct. We wound up having hydrogen leaks that were comparable to artemis one. We did, however, think that we would hit the march window.
▶ 0:23:39Uh, after a second successful wet dress. And unfortunately, then we encountered a helium flow issue in the upper stage that was also very comparable to what we learned on artemis one, and that resulted us in having to put the vehicle back in the vehicle, the rocket back in the vehicle assembly building, rework the issue, and we came out to the pad and launched successfully on april 1st. There is no question for a vehicle this complicated. As sls and orion. You need muscle memory, sir. You need to launch this rocket.
▶ 0:24:07I think no less than every year to ensure success. >> on the heels of that historic artemis. Two mission. Share with us the the goals of this budget request that includes significant cuts below the fiscal 26 level. >> yes, sir.
▶ 0:24:32Uh, as I as I mentioned in my remarks, I believe our ability to achieve president trump's national space policy of returning american astronauts to the surface of the moon to pick up where apollo 17 left off and build an enduring presence to realize its scientific, economic, um, potential, uh, is, uh, is adequately addressed between the fy 26 appropriations, the significant investment that congress made through the working family tax cut act and the president's fy
▶ 0:25:0227 budget request. This gives us the resources to accelerate our sls production, pull it forward to the left, add a mission in 2027. Very apollo nine esque to buy down risk through the integrated test of the lander and the spacecraft in earth orbit and launch in, uh, in 2028 for our landing attempt, protect for a second potential landing. So maybe two at bats in in 2028 to rebuild core competencies inside nasa. So we can turn those rocket pads very quickly.
▶ 0:25:30And of course, to build the infrastructure on the moon itself so we can establish that, uh, you know, that enduring presence, sir. >> turning to, uh, nasa's operating plan, which is required by law to be submitted solely to the appropriations committee for review and approval. When does nasa anticipate sending this to us?
▶ 0:26:01>> Mr. chairman, I, uh, more than acknowledge that this is, uh, not been delivered in a timely manner. You certainly have my commitment to ensure it is on schedule going forward. I think this is somewhat of the timing of when I was confirmed, uh, when the national space policy came out and making sure everything was properly aligned. My understanding, uh, the nasa portion should be complete. It's going through the final administration checks, and I understand it should be delivered next week, sir.
▶ 0:26:28>> we can't proceed until we get the plan, so we hope that that can be forthcoming quickly. >> yes. Mr. chairman. >> we're in a new space race this time. China, given the national security imperatives, it's crucial that american astronauts are the first to land on the moon.
▶ 0:26:52How confident are you that american astronauts will be the first to return to the moon? If the proposed budget levels should be enacted? >> Mr.
▶ 0:27:07Chairman, I am confident that we have an achievable plan now to return to the moon and build the enduring infrastructure, uh, under the president's budget request for for fy 27, uh, I would say that we are incredibly advantaged in terms of the ability to construct a moon base very, very quickly.
▶ 0:27:25And now by adding an additional mission in 2027 and rebuilding core competencies so nasa can drive outcomes, play an active role in ensuring our supply chain delivers what's necessary to achieve this mission versus perhaps a bit more passive in in prior years. I do think we have the means now to ensure nasa returns to the moon before our arrival and again establish that enduring presence.
▶ 0:27:52>> I want to also ask about the new goals that you have set for nasa. These goals include increasing launch cadence, building a moon base, and rebuilding the nasa workforce. How are these investments reflected in the budget proposal? >> it's a great question, Mr. chairman. Again, I.
▶ 0:28:14I would point you to a combination of the the fy 26 appropriations and the $10 billion plus up from the working family tax credit act. Uh, I mean, that is that's a historic investment and targeted very specifically at exploration. So, uh, we would not be able to increase launch cadence or construct the moon base if it weren't for those additional investments in, in addition to the fy 27 budget request. >> thank you.
▶ 0:28:45>> thank you, Mr. chairman. >> Mr. >> uh, administrator, on february 21st, the science mission directorate received its fiscal year 26 apportionment, but then was directed by omb to pause work on ten science missions pending nasa submission of a spending plan to omb. Congress intentionally set the funding levels for five of these missions in law in the fiscal year 26 cjs appropriations act.
▶ 0:29:17I understand that this spend plan was submitted to omb and that it has been approved. Uh, can you tell us what day when that spend plan was approved? And will you confirm that funds for each of these missions are currently available for obligation? >> uh, yes, congresswoman. Uh, so just to make sure I clarify with spend planning, you're talking referring to fy 25 or 2626. Yeah. I'm sorry.
▶ 0:29:42Uh, so to be clear, every one of the programs that was in question, uh, has been apportioned and is being funded, uh, in line with the appropriations intent. I, my understanding when that was flagged and I, I did some research internally, it was kind of standard process where, uh, omb had requested, uh, what those formulation plans looked like in concert with the apportionment and that this was historic practice for, for some time now, but no funds have been withheld to any of those
▶ 0:30:13Ten programs. >> okay. I appreciate that is this is, was an additional bureaucratic roadblock that, you know, wasted time and resources for missions that are working towards very specific launch dates.
▶ 0:30:26As you know, it's further disheartening to see that each of these missions is again proposed to be canceled in this year's budget request, despite obvious bipartisan support, bipartisan support from this congress, can you assure the subcommittee that there have been no delays in the mission development as a consequence of omb unnecessary roadblocks? >> yeah.
▶ 0:30:51And, congresswoman, I, I can't I, I can't comment on, you know, the validity of the roadblocks. And my understanding is it was normal practice for omb to ask for what the plant, the the project plans were with respect to those ten, uh, science missions, I will tell you, no funds have been withheld. Uh, every, every science initiative under the fy 26 appropriations is still active right now, right? >> yeah.
▶ 0:31:17We these are laws agreed to in this bipartisan congress. And it's omb should not be it should not be standard practice for omb to get in the way of an active law.
▶ 0:31:34Um, I do want to talk about in my home state of new york, we have many excellent universities, both public and private, that are helping to keep new york and the us remain in the lead and technological advancement, even while global competition is getting more intense. Nasa science directorate is the key to successful university partnerships.
▶ 0:31:56When nasa's funding and earth science mission, built by an american company or by nasa itself and led by a principal investigator at, for example, nyu or cornell, and generating data that can be used to help farmers anticipate long term weather trends or help communities safeguard property from fires or floods.
▶ 0:32:18That's a huge investment in america's economic and scientific leadership, and I appreciate your prior public statements about the need for more flagship missions, not only in earth science, but other parts of the science directorate as well. And I think you'll have us some subcommittee strong support here. However, it's important that the divisions within the directorate maintain a balanced portfolio of missions from both smaller and completed missions.
▶ 0:32:45Uh, these mission classes allow researchers from across the country, especially students and early career researchers, to engage in mission formulation and execution, which is critical for training our next generation of nasa investigators. Um, can I ask, how does the proposed budget ensure such a balanced portfolio is maintained? >> uh, thanks for the question, congresswoman. We are, to be clear, not accepting any gaps across earth sciences. I've said many times we presently only inhabit one planet.
▶ 0:33:15We should try and know as much as we can about it. For all the reasons that you've described, I think what we are, uh, what we are trying to do is acknowledge at some point, industry around us is changing and moving very, very quickly. And just as you know, ten, 15 years ago, we did not have reusable rockets that could come back and land on ships, which has been a game changer in terms of our ability to undertake more science or build an orbital economy.
▶ 0:33:40You have multiple tech companies now printing off satellites, uh, at great speed, that give us the opportunity to do certain missions that are just naturally in terms of balance, easier if we're in earth orbit for earth observation or space weather. So we can undertake that science at lower cost and free up resources for what we know is very expensive, like missions like nancy grace roman telescope or dragonfly or habitable worlds observatory. So for sure, we want to be balanced across all the portfolios, though some may naturally just be more affordable in the years ahead.
▶ 0:34:11>> thank you. And I'm sorry to go past my time. You know, I just want to finish by forgive me extra 30s. Um, you know, nasa provided over 350 million earth science research in fiscal year 25. This budget request calls for only 164 million for heliophysics research, the budget takes us from 70 million down to just 37 million. So just as two examples, we can work together on this, I yield back. I'm sorry. >> josh carter.
▶ 0:34:43>> uh, thank you, Mr. chairman. Welcome. Thank you sir. What an exciting future ahead of you. And, uh, I for one, am looking forward to it. Uh, given nasa's long experience with stirling technology.
▶ 0:34:58And the work underway at holly, demonstrating much higher power than thought possible on linear generators, how does nasa plan to build on these initial engagements and translate them into a focused program that could meaningfully change how we think about lunar and other
▶ 0:35:30Space based applications? >> thank you. And congressman, just to clarify, I heard stirling power conversion is this with respect to nuclear power and propulsion in space. So, uh, the subject I'm extremely excited in, sir. Um, I and, uh, as a, I do believe this is a natural direction for nasa to go in and absolutely imperative for maintaining a lunar base someday where we'll master the skills to someday send astronauts to mars.
▶ 0:35:55But we're also going to need nuclear power to help us make the propellant to bring them home safely, not to mention just explore the outer solar system. What I was disappointed to find is, again, over $20 billion in programs at nasa over decades that never left the lab. The last time america put a nuclear reactor in space was 1960 something, sir. So what we're going to do is actually get underway with nuclear power and propulsion. We're going to cobble together a lot of hardware that's been sitting in the lab someday, repurpose other hardware from other programs.
▶ 0:36:25Certainly work with industry, whether it's a stirling power conversion or brayton cycle. We're going to we're going to work alongside industry to help bring this this capability to reality in space by 2028, prove that it works, show the world. And that's something I'd love to come back and talk on years ahead about how that program should be expanded. Because simply put, once we get past jupiter, we can no longer really rely on the sun if we want to do some some really exquisite studies in the outer solar system.
▶ 0:36:52And I think nuclear power and propulsion is going to be a big part of that future. Sir. Wow. >> very interesting. Uh, I represent firefly is in my district. And there goes their blue ghost mission one performed the first fully successful commercial moon landing in march of 26, and completed more than 14 days of service operations.
▶ 0:37:18This is the longest commercial operation on the moon to date. Administrator, you are you recently announced support for targeting up to 30 robotic lunar landings starting next year. This is an exciting development for both industry and nasa.
▶ 0:37:44How would you block by the the robot lunar landers from companies like firefly that successfully landed on the moon? Uh. To help drive the schedule and cost efficiencies? >> yes. Uh, so, congressman, I'm very happy that you asked this question. So what I found my, uh, I'd say like my early days at nasa, it's only been a little over four months.
▶ 0:38:12Uh, you know, we, uh, we tend to do a lot of things for a lot of, lot of people at once. And as a result, uh, when we're trying to undertake something very big and bold like we should do at nasa, we've had a tendency to jump right to the dream state, kind of think, jump right to apollo 11, forget about the mercury and the gemini and all the apollo missions before we got there, that that was a formula for success. So when people talk about what is this moon base look like, I say it's not the glass dome with the crop farm and the ferris wheel.
▶ 0:38:43It's going to be a lot of littles, just like it was in the early days of our space program. So, uh, companies like firefly and there's others intuitive machines as well. Um, we're building, uh, kind of bespoke landers and launching them infrequently. And what we want to do is help them template it and launch with frequency, lots of landers and rovers.
▶ 0:39:02Just like I said, testing, power, communication, mobility, navigation, uh, and help us understand what does and doesn't work on the moon because we haven't been there in a while and use that to inform the subsequent phases. I have no doubt in the years ahead, as we look to land on the moon, on robotic missions, on a near monthly cadence, companies like firefly and again, intuitive machines and, uh, astrobotic and others, they're going to be extremely busy. Sir. >> uh, one more question.
▶ 0:39:29I read somewhere in this material that the chinese are trying to claim the south pole. If I understand it, that is a location. We have seen that. We think there could be water. >> yes, sir. >> uh, we can't let those people do that. >> no, sir. So, uh, there's no there's no question. We are absolutely in a in a space race right now. You think of the moon.
▶ 0:39:57The surface area is about the size of africa, where we want to be and where the chinese want to be. That's like a little bigger than the size of washington, dc. It has water ice there, which we're going to want to interact with. And again, master the skills to make propellant there on the moon when we're days away from home instead of when we're nine months away on mars. And we're going to have to do the same thing. So it's the perfect proving ground for us that the downside is we have a competitor. That's a good thing, because it'll motivate us to put our resources where they need to be in focus.
▶ 0:40:25We just don't want to lose, sir. >> when we build our what we're building on the moon, can we build it at that location? >> that's where we're going to be, sir. You can count on it. Good deal. >> chairman. You. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. >> miss dean. >> thank you, chairman rogers, ranking member meng. And thank you, administrator isaacman, for your testimony today. Uh, I have to say, I join everybody in this room, regardless of anybody's politics.
▶ 0:40:52I join you, uh, in congratulating nasa and the partners for the spirit lifting artemis two mission. Uh, it's something this this country beams about. Uh, and it's so important that we continue it. So please take that back to all of your partners.
▶ 0:41:11Uh, I want to follow up a little bit on something that some of my colleagues, you said to some of my colleagues in the house science committee last week, uh, when you were asked about a staff report detailing nasa's illegal implementation of the fy 26 president's budget request. Uh, nasa's decision to defund programs based on the president's budget request before congress passed its, uh, fy 26 funding bill.
▶ 0:41:39You responded that it is a long standing norm at nasa to adjust prioritization of resources based on the lowest of the house, senate or presidential budget request. Is that happening? I'm building on what uh, congresswoman meng, ranking member, said. Is that happening in response to the fy 27 budget? >> uh, so, congresswoman, no, that is not happening.
▶ 0:42:04And to maybe expand upon what I said, uh, what, uh, what the, uh, the associate administrator for each mission directorate do in the, in the face of a continuing resolution is start adjusting prioritization again based on the lowest of the marks aeronautics, specifically adjusted prioritization based on the lowest of the house marks, which I believe is approximately 200 million less than where the appropriations came in at. And they made the determination that this was not one of the highest priority development initiatives.
▶ 0:42:33This is respect to the powertrain drive, ma'am. >> so are you saying they have slowed or stopped work on some of those projects? >> not under fy 26 or we're doing to be very clear, we're under fy 26 appropriations. We've not made any adjustments based on the 27, uh, president's budget request. My understanding is last year, under a continuing resolution, that was the long standing practice to take the lowest of the marks. And they, in fact, went based on the house mark on it.
▶ 0:43:01>> of course, that shouldn't have been the practice, because I'll remind you of what, you know, uh, congress under article one, section eight has the power of the purse. And it is your role to implement the fy 26 as approved by congress. We can confirm that. Understood. Right. >> you understood under as I'm administrator, we will always follow the law, ma'am. >> terrific. Uh, I wanted to hold up one of these posters just to continue to celebrate. Uh, turning to science. The core of nasa's mission.
▶ 0:43:29Just magnificent. Uh, what came back to us? Nasa science is providing the scientific foundation for artemis. The landing site for artemis four will be chosen using data from the lunar reconnaissance orbiter. We understand the challenging radiation environment facing our astronauts because of the heliophysics missions measured it.
▶ 0:43:53I was disappointed to see, just like last year, another massive cut to the science mission directorate, the president's budget request cuts $3.4 billion, nearly 50% of its budget, more than 50 missions, as we've talked about, are simply omitted from budget documents sent to congress. Yes or no? Are these omitted programs? Excuse me? Canceled? >> they are not canceled? >> no. Why are they omitted?
▶ 0:44:24>> I think the belief, and I certainly agree with this position, is that a lot of these missions that are in formulation right now have coverage from existing assets. So we are not accepting gaps on that, ma'am, and that we can reformulate a better approach leveraging commercial industry for earth observation and. >> space landing. That's changing what actually has happened. You're omitting, uh, as I said, uh, 50 missions in terms of this, who made the decision to omit the 50 missions?
▶ 0:44:53I'm sorry you had to make a decision that they would have been pulled out. >> and I, I believe the president's budget request reflects that these missions, either in formulation or those that have been, uh, long past their original design life could be achieved. So we're not forgoing the necessity of earth observation or space weather, just that we can do it at lower cost. >> and the president decided that then omb president or did nasa consult the advisory committees?
▶ 0:45:22>> this formulation process was, uh, I and again, I came in very late in the in this process, I would assume would follow standard practice, which includes the, uh, you know, the, um, discussions with the leadership from our various mission directorates. >> I'm new to this committee, just this congress, uh, just as you are new to your position, but it's my understanding that in the past missions proposed for terminations were still included in the budget request, because we know that cancellation is not cost neutral. We all know that.
▶ 0:45:52And I know this administration is really worried about waste. Uh, so I don't understand, uh, the movement of moving missions out, uh, without consulting with congress or the technical committees. So who did it? >> well, I mean, to be clear, ma'am, we haven't canceled anything yet. Every every mission is still, uh, is still active right now. We are proposing that there are a lot of missions in formulation right now that could be done better, faster, and at lower cost for the taxpayers.
▶ 0:46:23>> yes, but that hasn't been reviewed with us. So I think that is a mistake. And I know my time's going to run out. Or am I over? I'm out. Okay. It went through. I apologize for going over. I didn't realize, chairman. Thank you very much, administrator. >> Mr. clyde. >> thank you, chairman, for this hearing today. And and thank you, administrator isaacman, for your testimony before the committee.
▶ 0:46:49Uh, especially just two weeks after the crew of artemis two safely splashed down. Uh, there's going to be a chorus here of congratulations. And and I'm not, uh, going to miss that opportunity either. So congratulations again. Uh, for a tremendously successful mission around the moon, uh, the first crewed flight beyond low earth orbit in more than 50 years.
▶ 0:47:11Uh, I want to commend you and everyone at nasa for this resounding least successful mission, one that inspired a new generation of scientists and engineers and united the entire country behind a common goal. And that doesn't happen very often.
▶ 0:47:25I want to thank president trump also for issuing executive order number 143, six nine titled ensuring american space superiority, which sets america's space policy to extend the reach of human discovery, secure the nation's economic and security interests, unleash commercial development, and lay the foundation for a new space age. I also want to commend you on the budget that you are presenting today.
▶ 0:47:50The fy 27 nasa budget proposes a reduction of more than $5.5 billion from fy 26, refocusing nasa's mission on space exploration and terminating the lower priority programs within the science mission directorate. Administrator. Isaacson.
▶ 0:48:09Administrator isaacman, sorry, can you tell me how this budget prioritizes nasa's most important missions, reduces redundancies, and ensures that critical programs remain on time and on budget, all while saving taxpayers an amazing more than $5 billion. Thank you. >> thank you. Thank you for the question, congressman. I also thank all the members for the acknowledgment of artemis two. I'm. I was very fortunate to be there at that time. Uh, that all belongs to the workforce, the contractors, all the partners who have come together.
▶ 0:48:40And, uh, it is just the beginning, as I mentioned. So I do think it's important when we talk about achieving the national space policy to look at it, uh, in concert with the working family tax cut act, that was a $10 billion historic investment in nasa, not to mention the fy 26 appropriations. Thank you very much. Uh, along with the fy 27 budget request, is giving us the resources to do the national imperative. We're standardizing the sls launch architecture. We're increasing cadence. We are taking an active role.
▶ 0:49:09I can't emphasize this enough. We will not sit on our hands and just wait for the vendors to deliver the hardware. That's not what they did in the 1960s. It's not what we're doing now. We're embedding nasa subject matter experts across the supply chain to drive outcomes, not excuses anymore. To get the hardware, we need to launch this moon rocket with cadence, we are rebuilding our core competencies inside nasa. Increase our expertise. Because I have to tell you, throughout nasa's entire history, from mercury all the way through the shuttle, sir, we used to launch rockets every three and a half months on average. Not every three and a half years.
▶ 0:49:39We need to get that muscle memory back. And in parallel, sir, we have the resources to build the moon base to get infrastructure in the desired zone on the moon, the south pole, so we can get there, start working with the water ice and master the skills someday for a mission to mars. And we have the resources under fy 26 appropriation and decades of struggling programs to get america underway on nuclear power and propulsion in space. And as I mentioned, sir, to we're going to continue to work on igniting the orbital economy. We're going to stimulate the lunar economy with lots of landers and rovers.
▶ 0:50:09And we're still launching extraordinary missions of science and discovery flagship missions that no one else in the world is capable of undertaking. >> well, thank you. As a navy supply officer, uh, I believe on I believe in on track and on budget or under budget, if you can possibly do that. Um, so great to hear that, you know, in march 2020 four, 60 minutes, uh, detailed a significant question surrounding the artemis program and its continued ballooning cost and schedule overruns.
▶ 0:50:37In this report, nasa's inspector general stated, and I quote, significant reductions in cost and better planning. The current trajectory of the artemis program is not sustainable. In response, nasa's associate administrator in charge of the artemis program said that nasa disagreed with the inspector general's characterization of the current situation and stated that nasa has taken a, quote, affordable path for the artemis missions.
▶ 0:51:01So my question to you is, do you agree with the inspector general's characterization that the current artemis cost trajectory is unsustainable? And if you do, or if you don't, can you elaborate? >> I think the inspector general provides, uh, is an incredibly valuable tool at nasa, and I value the relationship with them because I think they're exposing other parts of the agency that are mismanaged. And, um, the artemis program, uh, is absolutely correct.
▶ 0:51:31What we are setting out to achieve there. Returning astronauts to the moon. And to use that as an opportunity to set up for, uh, for subsequent missions to mars and beyond. Uh, but there, there certainly was mismanagement along the way. Uh, I mean, you've got a mobile launcher that we recently we stopped on and we're standardizing to increase launch cadence that was becoming a work of art from 300 and some odd million to 1.8 billion. Um, you know, we were building a new upper stage that was entirely unproven.
▶ 0:51:57Instead of leveraging, uh, hardware that was already had flight heritage. So the ingredients were, were fine. How we were putting them together was not making the right meal. We are on a better track to that now, sir. And there's no question by standardizing it, stop making it a work of art. Launch with cadence. And I say, especially, sir, putting the subject matter experts, the brilliant minds at nasa into the supply chain and demanding outcomes, uh, is critical.
▶ 0:52:23If we are to sit on our hands right now, we would watch the chinese get to the moon before us. We were taking a different approach right now, which I have no doubt will bring down cost increase capabilities. When we get back to the moon. We can do so to stay. Sir. >> thank you. Great to see an aggressive approach. And with that, I yield back. Mr. chairman. >> Mr. iv. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Uh, Mr. administrator, welcome. And I'm going to join the chorus of congratulations. With respect to artemis.
▶ 0:52:52Uh, and I appreciate the fact that you recognized, um, the men and women at nasa and in the some of the contractors who've done the work there over the years that really brought it to fruition because it really was pretty, pretty extraordinary and a great moment for the united states. I also want to commend you, the nancy grace roman telescope, uh, announcement, I guess it was a week and a half ago at nasa goddard, which is in my district. We were all very excited about that too.
▶ 0:53:20And look forward to the next steps there. Uh, I do want to say, and this is maybe a bit of a theme here. Um, there's, I appreciate the vision and the energy you're bringing to nasa and especially the, the approach to try and find ways to reduce costs and move even faster with the mission.
▶ 0:53:40I am concerned though about, um, the pbr, I don't know that it actually gives you the resources you need to accomplish the mission that you've got. And it's an extremely tall order. And along the lines of what the chairman said, it's especially important given the national security implications, um, that are connected with what's happening with nasa and where we're going to be going in the immediate future.
▶ 0:54:05And so I know miss dean asked you questions about the statement at the before the committee, and I appreciate your your explanation about it. Um, I do want to say that if there are issues with respect to working out, um, the arrangements here with the pbr, um, I think the pbr is way too low.
▶ 0:54:28And I'll say in the last congress, I appreciate the fact I'm new to the committee as well, but, um, you know, we reached some good agreements here on this committee, uh, the subcommittee and the full committee. Overall, I think we moved a lot of bills, including this one in particular. The president signed it. And so when we reached those agreements about what the commitments are going to be as far as resource to particular programs, I think it's important, um, the nasa stay on track with the commitments that were arranged and agreed to here.
▶ 0:54:58And if you have concerns, I know there's sort of a lot of history with administrator administrations like yours, uh, reaching out to the four corners and discussing moving money around potentially. Uh, I gotta say, and this isn't your fault, but a lot of things you might be hearing about this stem from last year and what omb did with respect to some money unilaterally, despite what the appropriations bills might have said one way or the other. So there's some sensitivity about that.
▶ 0:55:24I think, uh, I also want to just ask about this, the rebuilding the nasa workforce issue. Um, and we had a chance to talk a little bit about this, uh, previously, but my concerns there, just like science overall, I think there's been a lot of cuts to a lot of talent and expertise, uh, that the administration's made and nasa in particular, nasa goddard, especially in particular, from my perspective, uh, we had, um,
▶ 0:55:54Dr. uh, you know, cut, I think we lost about 1200 employees at nasa goddard alone. And then, uh, 2300 at combined when you include contractors there too. But I want to make sure that, um, that's in line with the vision that you've got, you've been laying out different approaches to how you might bring people back to nasa, curious about how you think it might work under the pbr.
▶ 0:56:20Uh, and as I'm saying right now, you know, we, we're, we, if there's a need for additional resources and I think there will be, um, you know, let us know how we can help with that. But I did want to get your comments on that front. >> yes, sir. And I try and hit a couple things there just for everyone's. I'm, I'm here, uh, I'm here for the mission.
▶ 0:56:44And, uh, and I know I, it's going to take, uh, alignment from all involved in order to undertake and achieve the near-impossible that we set out to do at nasa. And I will always follow the law. And I'm happy to make myself available to every member of congress, if that's helpful. I don't believe in surprises, and I'm happy to. >> be careful what you wish for there. >> but so.
▶ 0:57:04And and I am happy to defend too, if there are circumstances where I think resources are not being applied correctly and coming at the coming at the expense of the science that we all care about, I'll be the first put up my hand and have that conversation. There'll be no mysteries about it because I, I want you to know, um, now with respect, sir, to the workforce initiative, you think you characterized it correctly before? Uh, I do want us to be able to, uh, solve for some of the inefficiencies at nasa. We talk about science missions.
▶ 0:57:34Probably one of the the greatest scientific discoveries could be had in human history. If we can retrieve samples from mars. And that was a program that started at 2 billion, went to 4 billion was on track to go over 10 billion was canceled actually by the prior administration. I mentioned this because you'll find there's a history of programs that have gone over budget behind schedule. And when those dollars are gone, that comes at the expense of the science we all want. And part of that is the workforce initiative, sir.
▶ 0:58:00So when I, uh, this was a surprise for me and I went around and talked to every center and I set up an inbox to get thousands of responses back from the workforce to find that over 75% of the nasa workforce is contractors. Uh, these are not part time subject matter experts that help nasa and others. They show up to work every day, sit behind a desk with badges that look the same and generally are being supplied by 3 or 4 contractors, 4.6 billion a year. And they're not doing it for free, sir. Uh, they're, they're doing it because they charge a premium.
▶ 0:58:28Their value prop is workforce flexibility. And what I'm trying to figure out how to build rockets faster, launch rockets faster with greater frequency, do the engineering support for those rockets and then control them on orbit at mission control. Those should be core competencies at nasa. So bringing them in-house improves operational efficiency. Uh, and it saves money, sir. So I can do more science missions so I can put more astronauts in space. And then the other part of the workforce initiative is bringing in subject matter experts from industry. Uh, nasa is not the only game in town.
▶ 0:58:57We got companies that can land rockets on ships, bring them in for turn based appointments, one, two, three years to grow the young talent inside nasa and vice versa, provide opportunities for them to go to industry and learn as well. >> and if I could just briefly, Mr. chairman, the point about young talent, 2000 internships at nasa offers every year. Apparently you're bringing in about 1%, the top 1%. I'd hope you take a look at bringing in more potentially than that.
▶ 0:59:22And also, um, with respect to the number of internships, I think, uh, marilyn got one gets one for the entire state, 35 for texas, 43 for alabama, 17 for ohio, 49 for california. I hope you'll give us an additional look on that front. But thank you so much for what you're doing. And I appreciate the, uh, the energy that you brought and your availability. >> thank you, sir, and I will look into that one. That seems seems low, sir. >> thank you, Mr. chair. I yield back. >> Mr. alfred. Thank you.
▶ 0:59:53>> uh, thank you, Mr. chairman. Uh, thank you, administrator, for being here. Nasa's work continues, I think, really to inspire the nation. I remember sitting as a kid on my grandparent's sculpted carpet in front of a big magnavox tv. They told me not to sit that close, but I wanted to reach out and touch neil armstrong as he was walking on the moon.
▶ 1:00:20Nasa is inspiring a new generation of young people, explorers, innovators. I had the honor of standing right behind you as artemis launched into space a couple of weeks ago. And, um, and until you have actually been there, as you know, it's hard to describe that feeling as we review the fy 2011 budget request.
▶ 1:00:48I'm particularly interested in how nasa plans to balance ambitious exploration goals with a need for disciplined program management and fiscal responsibility for the us taxpayer. I do have a general question I want to start out with, though, Mr. administrator, because I represent a very rural district in missouri, south of kansas city, over the lake of the ozarks, 24 beautiful counties, a lot of farmers.
▶ 1:01:16And when I go out and speak to folks and yes, I still do town hall stops, they want to know, why are we spending taxpayer money to go back to the moon and on to mars. So I want my constituents to hear from you directly to help me answer that question. I, I know the answer to that question, but can you tell the good folks of missouri's fourth congressional district why we are doing this? >> yeah. Thank you.
▶ 1:01:44Congressman, I appreciate the question. It was great to be at the launch with you and for the memories you had as a child, I can tell you we're back in the business of sending rockets to the moon, and it's only a matter of time before you get to witness that again. And I'm looking forward to seeing it myself and for my children to see it. Maybe that goes to part of the answer, sir. Uh, you know, the 1960s, we, uh, we did the near impossible. I mean, in a time we knew so little to send neil and buzz to the surface of the moon and bring them back safely.
▶ 1:02:13Uh, it sent a message to the world of what we are capable of doing as a nation. Um, and, uh, and I think that we, I mean, there's just the sheer amount of technology that we learned from that, uh, you know, not to mention the inspiration. I can't tell you how many engineers, scientists, rocket scientists, astronauts, pilots right now, uh, chose those career paths that are so important for our own national security because of moments just like that.
▶ 1:02:38Now, when the president gave his inspiring, uh, vision to return astronauts to the moon, pick up where apollo 17 left off, he said, don't go just back for the flags and footprints this time. Build the base, stay this time and learn. Learn about its scientific potential, its economic potential. We may very well have a lunar economy someday. 3d printing ai satellites from regolith mining helium three. That economic potential is not something we want to find out the hard way by coming in second place.
▶ 1:03:05Not to mention, it is the technological proving ground for us to someday undertake an even more ambitious and inspiring mission to mars. Um, I would say that for all that, we stand to learn everything from a scientific perspective and of course, the inspiration it has for the next generation to grow up and take us farther, it is a price worth paying. Now, there is a difference. In the 1960s, nasa was 4.5% of the discretionary budget were a quarter percent.
▶ 1:03:32Now, and you have some of the wealthiest individuals in the world that are contributing their resources well in excess of what's under contract today to give a capability that's vitally important for national security. And I would say, arguably for all of humankind. So, uh, the price that we're paying is a lot less, but what we stand to gain is so much more. >> what do you see as the biggest challenge right now for the program. >> that we have a very real competitor, sir.
▶ 1:03:57I, uh, in hindsight, of course, we thought we were in a space race in the 1960s, and it turns out we had all the schedule margin in the world because no one's been back since apollo 17. I can promise you, sir. And every member of this committee, that is not the case this time. Uh, it will come down to months. Uh, the chinese program is very sophisticated. They're drawing on our playbook, uh, from the 1960s, for sure. And what you just saw artemis two pull off, you're going to see the chinese do in the not too distant future. >> we have a new space race.
▶ 1:04:25If they win. What's at stake? >> I would say, uh, when in using the example I gave before on july 20th, 1969, when you pull off the near impossible, it sends a message to the world of what else is america capable of doing. And it gives everybody a bit of pause before they encroach on american interests across any of the most important technological domains. Well, I'll tell you, the inverse holds true as well, sir.
▶ 1:04:4935 years of promising the american people we will return to the moon, $100 billion spent in that endeavor to come up short. It says something is broken. And I think that shockwave will be felt around the world. Uh, if we come up short. >> thank you, sir, I yield back. >> Mr. borelli. >> I think we need new microphones, Mr. chairman, but I appreciate you holding hearing. Uh, Mr.
▶ 1:05:18Administrator, thanks so much for being here. I join with representative alford. I was, um, a young man watching those grainy images of neil armstrong and my mom and dad's living room and feeling this extraordinary sense of pride and accomplishment. I'm such a nerd. I probably could name the seven mercury astronauts. That's how much I care about this. But, um, so congratulations to artemis two, congratulations to nasa and all the folks who made this happen.
▶ 1:05:48It is extraordinary moment in our history. But I do want to come back. And I'll just say in general terms, I think you've heard from a lot of the members about the science mission directorate, and if you can do all these things and cut costs and do it in a more efficient way, I think we would like to know that. But we are very, very concerned about the potential impact of being delayed, scaled back or canceled.
▶ 1:06:09So I don't want to ask you again, because you've been asked each way, but just to reemphasize how important we think this is, I do want to though note and sort of just broad terms, reading this morning about national science foundation's nonpartisan national science board being eliminated, or members being told that they're no longer needed.
▶ 1:06:30Um, and, you know, also concerns about, uh, potential funding for the office of stem engagement. Um, it feels to me at the moment.
▶ 1:06:43And you just talked about this, a need for innovation, bright minds to be engaged, to be excited to be joining in this mission, that in many ways, the administration seems to want to undercut the this drive to having young people engage in science and whether it's stem or whether it's, uh, the, um, the other programs I mentioned, um, I'm really concerned about it.
▶ 1:07:10So, so help me feel less anxious about the administration's efforts to undermine science broadly, uh, because this does end up being an important part of what nasa is trying to do. >> well, uh, congressman, I appreciate the question. And I just want to say this administration absolutely values what we can accomplish in space.
▶ 1:07:30As I mentioned in my opening remarks, president trump created the artemis program during his first term, created the space force, the artemis accords that we now have 63 nations around the world that have signed on for our like minded views of what peaceful exploration of science and discovery should look like in the in across the last great frontier, not to mention the national space policy that gives the mandate to return to the moon and build the base. What I would say, sir, with respect to inspiration is inherent in every dollar we receive from congress.
▶ 1:07:58I mean, you know, I've heard it across the dais today that artemis two, I was sitting there with with my, my, my, my child or my grandson and, and heard it in the previous committee as well. That causes people to pause and take notice. And I guarantee you after artemis two, you're going to have more children dressing up as astronauts for halloween, sir. >> well, I hope that's true.
▶ 1:08:17I, I absolutely, but do you disagree that stem engagement is a core component then of that how if we're not attracting folks to the sciences and engineering and math, how do we end up expecting people to be scientists working on these programs at 10 or 15 years? >> sir, I would just say it is inherent in everything we do at nasa. The inspiration for sure. But every one of the mission directorates has internship programs. Uh, every one of the mission directorates has grant dollars that go out.
▶ 1:08:45So in within the president's budget request, we can inspire the next generation. Through our exciting missions of science and discovery, we can provide internships to give them pathways into nasa, and we can get them hands on with hardware through our various grant programs.
▶ 1:09:01In fact, the moon base alone, uh, with dozens of landings over the next 3 or 4 years, I've told this in, you know, publicly many times we could raid the pantry at every nasa center for scientific instruments, and there would be so much excess mass and volume available, uh, that we wouldn't know what to do with it. We're going to have kids in university right now building scientific instruments. Then the next two years we'll be on the surface of the moon, sir. >> okay, I appreciate that. And we're going to hold you all to it.
▶ 1:09:28Um, uh, with my last minute, um, the project proposes pausing the lunar gateway program, which was scheduled to receive about 2.6 billion under the one big, beautiful bill, although I know we don't refer to it that way anymore. Um, but are you planning to reallocate the funding and the pause? And can you talk a little bit about what you see the future of that? >> yes, sir.
▶ 1:09:51So, uh, there will still be, uh, you know, orbital capabilities, uh, you know, as a component of what that gateway program was meant to be, you're going to need orbital communication relay, you're going to need orbital observation, but we believe the bulk of those resources, sir, should be putting infrastructure on the moon itself and not above it. We don't want our astronauts looking down on the chinese when we could be on the surface ahead of them.
▶ 1:10:16>> but the idea of orbiting landers that would be be there on an ongoing basis, that is now out of the project, as I understand it. >> and it may very well be there in the future. In fact, I can see a lot of merit to it, but I think the immediate priority is getting that infrastructure on the surface of the moon itself and not above it, sir. >> okay. Thank you, Mr. chairman. I yield back. >> Mr. strong. >> thank you, chairman rogers and ranking member for holding this important hearing. I concur with the ranking member. Uh, it is a fact.
▶ 1:10:44There is wide bipartisan support for nasa. I go a little further, and there's a lot of support from the president of the united states. And that's proven in where the space program is. Uh, it's good to see you again, administrator isaacman, and I thank you for being here today. Just 17 days ago, the world watched as four astronauts returned to earth, completing the first crewed deep space mission in more than 50 years. Every american should be proud of this incredible accomplishment.
▶ 1:11:12I have the honor of representing marshall space flight center in huntsville, alabama. You look at the second to none workforce at marshall and the unmatched expertise in north alabama, and I proudly say the road to the golden age of space exploration runs right through the rocket city. Since the first lunar mission, north alabama has played a starring role powering our nation's space program and diligently working to make human spaceflight possible. We are the propulsion capital of the world.
▶ 1:11:41The legacy lives on today. As we saw the artemis two crew fly aboard america's rocket, the space launch system, the only human rated, flight tested and proven rocket for deep space human exploration that has allowed orion to travel more than 685,000 miles. Administrator isaacman, in your testimony, you emphasized the importance of focusing nasa's resources on mission outcomes.
▶ 1:12:10That includes an increase in cadence, which I totally agree with. I agree with that approach. We all share the goal of not just returning to the moon, but sustaining a long term presence there. Mr. administrator, nasa's budget request suggested a transition away from sls after artist artist five can you help this committee understand how nasa's plan to build and have it sustain a long term lunar presence after artemis five? Given that the.
▶ 1:12:38That the sls is currently the only proven rocket capable of meeting all the needs of deep space human missions? >> well, thank you, congressman. I also want to say that, uh, the road that I took to be here today also went through huntsville when I went to space camp, and I want to say 12 or 13 years old. So I have an incredible appreciation of space and space and rocket center, but also what the good work that's done at marshall space flight center. Uh, you're absolutely right, sir.
▶ 1:13:06If we're going to go through the trouble of building a moon base, we better send our astronauts there with pretty great frequency. So, uh, as of now, we, you know, the plan is as it's funded through the working family tax cut act to use sls through artemis five. And I have no doubt components of that are going to continue on. Beyond that, we put out an rfi to industry for no less than two different pathways to launch american astronauts to the moon every six months. I have no doubt sls is going to come in at one of them.
▶ 1:13:34My guess is it's going to come in at a lot lower cost, because we're going to be able to alleviate those contractors from a lot of the the burdens that nasa has probably put on them. And that's the feedback we've received from them. So we're going to wind up probably having sls is one of those vehicles at lower cost, so we can launch it with greater frequency. And I have no doubt we're going to probably see a combination of another vehicle that's most likely going to use orion.
▶ 1:13:58Because to your point, sir, it's the only vehicle that's crew rated that can bring astronauts back from those kind of velocities coming back from the moon. >> thank you. What measures is nasa taking to ensure there's no gap in our deep space launch capability? And what does this strategy involve? Keeping the sls fully operational until a fully tested and proven alternative becomes available. >> I couldn't agree with you more. That's exactly why we put out rfis now, because we know, uh, well, one, we have a national space policy that says go to the moon and build a base.
▶ 1:14:26So again, if we're going to the moon and we're building a base, we're going to want to send nasa astronauts there, american astronauts there with great frequency on that. We put an rfp out to industry and said, tell us, tell us what we don't know, what are the options that are available. So we can go every six months instead of every every three years, which is the cadence we've been, uh, we've been on up till now.
▶ 1:14:45Now, I haven't seen the responses back, but just from my conversations with industry, I have no doubt you're going to see sls in there, and you're going to probably see other proposals that make use of components of sls, like the orion spacecraft. And what they've been telling us is we can do this at lower cost. So you can launch with more frequency. If nasa just eliminates some of the bureaucracy and the impediments that we put on those vendors. And I have no doubt that's going to be reflected in the price point, sir. >> thank you.
▶ 1:15:11Nasa and congress has consistently emphasized that the artemis mission success depends on strong execution, a stable workforce, and maintaining the schedule. We've seen that model work in action. Artemis one and two were successful thanks to collaboration of small business contractors and civil servants who delivered on america's national security and civil space priorities. And they did it safely.
▶ 1:15:36Small businesses have played a key role, supporting the expertise of civil servants to deliver on nasa's mission for over 50 years, and we must continue building those relationships and that ecosystem. As nasa explores new approaches to its workforce strategy. Uh, as you have suggested, such as bringing some contractor roles in-house, the agency must not lose its expertise, innovation, and flexibility that small businesses provide. Mr.
▶ 1:16:05Administrator, how does nasa plan to balance its workforce strategy between civil servants and contractors, especially as it relates to efforts to bring contractor roles in-house? >> yes. Yes, sir. Um, and this is it's a fantastic question, as I mentioned, was one of the biggest surprises I found when I, when I arrived at nasa. There is no question, sir.
▶ 1:16:25Going back to the beginning of america's space program, nasa civil servants have relied on a strong, very technical, competent group of contractors, uh, vendors, even international partners to help us undertake and achieve the near-impossible. Somehow, though, over the years, sir, and I don't I think this may go back a few, you know, few decades. There was an impression of these artificial civil servant caps at certain centers. And as a result, we wound up outsourcing. This is not necessarily a small businesses, sir, but generally big public companies, a lot of contractors at great expense.
▶ 1:16:56So much so that now 75% of the workforce, about 4.6 billion a year, is going to about 3 or 4 companies to supply a workforce to nasa indefinitely. And the only thing american taxpayers are actually paying that premium for, which is about 1.5 billion a year, is workforce flexibility. And here we think to beat the chinese, we might need to bring in expertise on building rockets, launching rockets.
▶ 1:17:17And when those astronauts, uh, call back to and say, houston, that mission control that they're talking to is actually nasa employees and not contractors like it is today. So we're just trying to right the balance, the small businesses that provide subject matter expertise and consultants were that's not the focus of this, sir, but the big companies that are charging a lot to the taxpayers for perpetual staffing, we do want to right that ship, sir. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I yield back. >> Mr. mervyn ervin. >> thank you. Thank you, chairman.
▶ 1:17:46Thank you, ranking member. Uh, administrator. Uh, isaacman, I want to thank you very much for joining us today. I want to echo the importance of the nasa stem engagement program that my colleagues have made engaging young children after they have been inspired by the likes of the arminius missions, is important to ensuring that we have young adults who want to go to go to schools like purdue university, the cradle of astronauts on the onward to the moon, mars and beyond.
▶ 1:18:12In 2024, I was honored to announce that the challenger learning center of northwest indiana received 963,000. Through the appropriations process, I was proud to support the request, which will have a lasting impact on engagement in stem and encouraging them to consider careers in science and space. Our children are the next generation of astronauts, scientists, mission specialists who will help return humans to the moon, land a human on mars and achieve new heights currently unfathomable.
▶ 1:18:42In addition to challenger learning center indiana, purdue university, indiana's purdue university faculty and laboratories play a major role in developing the science that goes into the nasa missions. The university's research in biology and lunar gravity will contribute to the sustainment of human life at moon base. My first line of questioning for you today regards nasa's commercial lunar payload service.
▶ 1:19:07Does nasa's 20 fiscal year 27 budget request provide sufficient resources to support the accelerated schedule for returning to the moon? Specifically, the scientific scientific exploration, space technology payload side of clips? And then second, does nasa's view clips and does nasa's view clips and the planned shift to the medium and larger landers as a critical tool for maintaining U.S. leadership in the race to establish permanent lunar presence?
▶ 1:19:37>> thank you for the question, congressman. You know, I, I do talk a lot about america's ability to return to the moon and putting our astronauts on the surface before our great rival comes down to months, not years. With respect to building the moon base. We have a huge edge here, sir, and it's thanks to programs like clips and ltv and the investments that have been made in prior years that give us the ability now to ramp up that supply chain, to get more landers on the moon at a cadence nearly monthly starting in 2027. So we are absolutely relying on the clips program.
▶ 1:20:06I would just ask, when you look at the investments being made into it, to look beyond just the fy 27 budget request, because, uh, to the prior question, we plan to make good use of the resources that we're going into the orbital outpost above the moon and putting that infrastructure on the moon itself. So we're, we're able to make significant investments in the clips program to build the moon base. Virtually the entirety of phase one leverages clips, clips 2.0, and our ltv contracts are.
▶ 1:20:35>> as the world marveled at the armadas two slingshot around the moon, nasa leadership released a budget that by and large cut program agency wide and nasa science, taking the largest cuts as nasa moves to the ignite its armaments program and accelerate returns to the moon. Other programs that aren't as flashy are being canceled altogether. Small science missions not considered to be the flagships just don't seem to be the priority of nasa and its budget.
▶ 1:21:00So to that end, can you explain the agency's cuts to nasa's budget at a strategic level? >> uh, I really appreciate the question because I would like to explain what our approach here is in this. Uh, again, first, it's no gaps. So we're not giving up any earth observation or space weather capabilities whatsoever. We're looking at two categories specifically. And I would point out, even under the president's budget request for science, for our science mission directorate, it's greater than every other civil space agency science budget in the world combined.
▶ 1:21:30And the approach is legacy missions that are decades beyond its original design life. How can we still get after that data? Because the taxpayers invested a lot to have those capabilities on orbit, do so in a consolidated, efficient way to continue to get good science out of it, as opposed to funding it exactly the same as it was 20 some odd years ago, uh, you know, adjusted for inflation. And then two, we're formulating missions for, you know, that are meant to launch in the 2030s the same way we did in decades past.
▶ 1:21:57Instead of making use of commercial industry now that are printing off satellites for earth observation already and adding the instrumentation to them for earth observation, whether it's for climate purposes or agriculture. So we believe we can get at that data more affordably in the future so we can free up resources for what industry is not capable of doing, like missions like dragonfly or habitable worlds observatory.
▶ 1:22:22>> so nasa's nancy grace roman space telescope, slated to launch october 26th, uh, will serve critical role in the characterization and threat assessment of near-earth objects contributing to national and international planetary defense objectives. Uh, my question to you is, can you articulate the importance of that for our national? You know, what you can is how important that is in the space race. >> absolutely, sir. And I think just to clarify.
▶ 1:22:49So nancy grace roman is called the, uh, the evolution of hubble space telescope. It's, it's absolutely extraordinary. It's a, you know, a hundred times the field of view of hubble a thousand times the scan rate. That's more pursuing the secrets of the universe. You may refer to the neo surveyor satellite. That's our planetary defense satellite we're looking to launch in 2028. And how important is it? It's. It's everything, sir. I mean, we definitely don't want to go the way of the dinosaurs.
▶ 1:23:13And, uh, it is it is basically basically our planetary defense strategy right now, at least inside the, the realm that nasa has oversight over relies heavily on terrestrial telescopes to pick up on things of interest. And what we want is to be able to point neo surveyor at it and give us a double click alongside some of our other assets. It also naturally does its own scanning as well.
▶ 1:23:34But I think this is an area that of great importance, obviously, to the nation and the world, because you know what, uh, what doorbell cameras caught a couple weeks ago, if I recall, was in perhaps illinois. That happens every single day. And fortunately, they're small enough size, uh, meteorites that they burn up in the atmosphere. But we know whether it's a cadence of every century or not, you're going to have, you know, you're going to have bigger objects that are going to enter. And we want to get ahead of that as often as we possibly can. Thank you. Sir.
▶ 1:24:04>> I yield back. >> Mr. klein. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. >> thank you. Administrator. Uh, congratulations on the success behind the artemis two mission. First and foremost, uh, it was a true demonstration behind the power of government and industry working together to achieve a common goal of returning to the moon. Space exploration and human space flight.
▶ 1:24:28A key component to that success, I believe, is due to our thriving commercial industry, which we've cultivated by operating under the principles that government should rely on commercial sources, with the exception being when no private sources available. The work is inherent, quote, inherently governmental, quote, uh, legally required or is necessary for national or homeland security interests.
▶ 1:24:48My office is hearing that nasa is issuing job opportunity announcements in house for work that's already contracted privately as part of nasa's new workforce directive. Uh, how can these functions be appropriately designated as inherently governmental when it's already being done privately? And why does government need to duplicate this work and grow the federal workforce? >> so thank you for the question, congressman.
▶ 1:25:13I point out that what we're talking about here is not, uh, industry capabilities in terms of software or hardware. I mean, this is simply put, these are staffing agencies and they are supplying a workforce to nasa that have worked there for years and will continue to work there indefinitely. And as taxpayers, we are paying a premium to have the flexibility, right, right up until we try and exercise it. Then they then they don't like us exercising that premium. Sir.
▶ 1:25:39Uh, to give you examples, I think there are areas of core competency that are slowing us down. Mission control right now. Again, when astronauts say houston over the radio, maybe one person in mission control is actually a nasa employee. Uh, the exploration ground systems, those that I need to depend on to build up the rocket and launch with cadence or to beat the chinese back to the moon. It's entirely outsourced.
▶ 1:26:01And they talk to a different set of companies that we outsource the engineering work for that rocket to and another state and don't share schematics, which was a problem we were trying to solve in the weeks leading up to launch of this rocket. So, sir, I'm not trying to take the 45,000 contractors or so and make them all civil servants, but there are certain core competencies. People made decisions in years past outsourced to temp agencies. I think it's I think it's honestly it's wasteful use of taxpayer resources, and it's coming at the expense of us being able to beat the chinese back to the moon.
▶ 1:26:32>> well, when you say wasting taxpayer resources, is nasa terminating contracts for convenience and allowing them to expire or running parallel federal and contractor contractor work streams? And if so, who bears the termination costs? >> so, uh, the way I would answer that, sir, is I am, uh, I am not picking the contracts that we are going after, nor am I picking the personnel. The general guidance, I said, is, uh, to the to the bright minds at nasa.
▶ 1:26:55In fact, this is being led by the former stennis director from from mississippi and said, what are the core competencies you need to ensure american leadership in space long after I'm gone and this administration changes over. What do you need by center? And there's pilots at each. The best example, mission control. And they're being extremely thoughtful, sir, about the timing of the contracts themselves, which again, inherently have flexibility built into them. That's the whole reason we're paying, I think, about 1 billion to 1 billion and a half a year in premiums is for workforce flexibility.
▶ 1:27:24So the contracts inherently do provide that. Um, they just don't like us exercising it, sir. >> so you don't agree that there are termination costs to those contracts to ending those contracts? >> I, I honestly couldn't tell you, sir, that we're actually terminating some of them. We might just be exercising the flexibility rights that are within them to add or reduce the workforce and move them to civil servants. >> all right. I understand you feel the mars sample return mission, as formulated originally, was rightly, rightfully canceled due to exorbitant costs and mismanagement.
▶ 1:27:54Uh, however, this committee provided $110 million in taxpayer dollars in our final fy 26 bill to go towards mars. Future missions that would buy down risk on some of the technology needed for a future msr, with the chinese planning to return their own samples by the early 2030s, this may be another flashpoint in great power competition. Uh, do you plan to take a look at the industry studies proposed to nasa in 2024 and reformulate a new mission to go and retrieve the martian samples?
▶ 1:28:23>> uh, congressman, I, I think going and getting those samples would be absolutely, uh, extraordinary. I do think it would contribute to the greatest discovery in human history. And I am very disappointed that the chinese have a plan to go and do so on that. That stated the previous program again, was canceled under the other administration went from 2 billion to over 10 billion. So I don't fault anyone, uh, when I'm my job here is to is absolutely the mission, sir.
▶ 1:28:51And, uh, I think in years past, we tried to formulate these grand projects with various international partners and make a good press release out of it. And the result was we actually never got after what we were intending to do. And we lost a lot of money along the way. If we were given the mandate to go get those samples and resources, do it, we would formulate it the right way with industry partners. >> encourage you to utilize a commercial approach using firm price fix price contracting to prioritize cheaper, faster and more efficient solutions to the complex mission. I yield back, sir.
▶ 1:29:21>> well, welcome to the subcommittee, the newest member of this august group, Mr. sharif. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Uh, administrator, thank you for being with us. Uh, I am the new the new member. This is my second subcommittee hearing. And, uh, when you're down dais, you're often on cleanup in terms of questions. Uh, and so I don't want to rehash material that my colleagues may have asked you.
▶ 1:29:48I do want to note that, uh, I represent a part of indiana, as does, uh, my colleague from the chicagoland portion. Uh, I'm a graduate of purdue university. I studied agribusiness in grad school, not rocket science, but, uh, it's an extraordinary university. Uh, neil armstrong and about two dozen astronauts, uh, came out of purdue.
▶ 1:30:13Uh, my home state is also, uh, a deeply, uh, invested in some programs at nasa. We've got l3 harris, we've got redwire continuing that legacy of advanced aerospace engineering administrator in this new era of competition, domestic manufacturing is going to be critical to ensuring that we've got the capabilities necessary to compete, uh, with our
▶ 1:30:44Adversaries. Uh, china, principally, in your view, what investments are required to bolster critical components of the space supply chain, advanced manufacturing, and ensure that states like my indiana benefit from these public investments, sir? >> uh, thank you very much for the question. Congressman. I would tell you right off the bat, we need valves.
▶ 1:31:09Uh, if I could wave a magic wand right now with respect to the supply chain and have more than one option to free up the bottlenecks when it comes to rocket production, lander production for, uh, for our uncrewed, the landers we were talking about before valves, uh, you know, unfortunately, in this respect, nasa is not always a great customer because we need exquisite valves, uh, to a certain spec, and we might only need a handful of them.
▶ 1:31:37And it doesn't always make the best business case for some of these companies. So you're we're not always the highest priority. And the valves we get often can be late and fail to meet our qualification standards. So we're actually taking this point. Uh, sir, and we're, we're, uh, we're looking to use some of the cyber authority. We have to try and stimulate small businesses to work on, uh, on some of the problems we have in the supply chain.
▶ 1:31:59And if I were to go off the top of my head right now, we need valves, and we need hypergolic thrusters, uh, in order to meet our, our anticipated requirements for not just putting astronauts on the moon, but also building the moon base. >> I appreciate that we've, uh, very much talked about getting to the moon. And the moon is a leapfrog to ultimately getting to mars.
▶ 1:32:18But, you know, there's, there are multiple missions that have and continue in low earth orbit up at the es, uh, that we're funding today and that we would continue to fund in this, this, uh, this next budget that we're wrestling with. Um, can you speak to some of the, uh, the commercial missions going on? And that will continue in the, in the next budget year on the es and what their, their uses will be on the moon.
▶ 1:32:44Uh, in the end use cases that nasa needs toward these commercial development for the next few years. >> yes, sir. I have a great example for you, which is the actual spacesuits our astronauts will wear when they're walking on the moon. So we can do a lot of testing here on earth. Uh, we can put our astronauts in the suits pressurized in a vacuum chamber to learn about the integrity of the suit. But if we want to know how they perform, you know, in reduced gravity, one of the best places we can do is put them in space in it.
▶ 1:33:12So we intend, by the end of 2027 to get, uh, at least two or let me just say at least one will take, uh, of the spacesuits that we intend to put our astronauts into the moon to the international space station. And it shows that our presence in low earth orbit is a great proving ground again, for some of the technology that's going to be needed for the efforts that we, uh, we want to undertake on the moon itself. >> I appreciate it. That's very helpful. Um, administrator, I was very much looking forward to going down for the launch.
▶ 1:33:39I was signed up on the first one and it was scrubbed. I was signed up on the second one. It was scrubbed. I was speaking at a lincoln day dinner on, on the 1st of april. And so I missed that one. Uh, but, but it speaks to the, the abundance of caution with which the program operates.
▶ 1:33:55And as, as we compete with china, much as we did, uh, with the russians the last time around, it just seems to me and I, I don't know if you'll agree or not, but it seems to me that we will always be challenged to compete with an adversary that may not take the same abundance of caution approach in protecting our astronauts and the human life that that that puts themselves at peril, uh, as we undertake these missions.
▶ 1:34:24And if you agree with that, that observation, that presence, that, that premise. >> yeah. So, congressman, I, uh, I agree that I would generally agree that nasa has room to recalibrate our risk posture. Uh, that does not mean you take, uh, in any way needless risk with the lives of our astronauts, which would be entirely unacceptable.
▶ 1:34:46Uh, but there is certainly approaches that we can take, and I think many in the community would agree, uh, you know, to, um, you know, that, that, that probably need to be done. What I would say with respect to the artemis schedule slips is a product of, uh, of, of muscle memory. Last time we launched that rocket was november of 2022, which spent multiple times, uh, you know, going in and out of the assembly building, which made sense because it was the first time it was ever going to fly.
▶ 1:35:14But if we want to get into a position where we can increase astronaut safety and make our objective of returning to the moon more achievable, you need to launch that rocket with cadence. It's why we're rebuilding our core competencies, accelerating the production line, making good use of the resources and the working family tax cut act and achieve the president's national space imperative. >> I appreciate that very much, Mr. chairman, I yield back. >> gentleman yields. That concludes, uh, the first round of questions.
▶ 1:35:44Uh, I don't know the administrator's schedule or availability for a second round of questions. I sense from our members that there is a desire for another round as the administrator available for a short break. >> uh, Mr. chairman, I'm I'm always here for the tough questions. Anytime, sir. I'm. I'm on your time. Happy to stay. >> yeah. Thank you.
▶ 1:36:12Uh, we will limit the time to three minutes. Uh, and, uh, I will yield to myself. Administrator, let me turn you to, uh, artemis three.
▶ 1:36:33Nasa recently announced changes to its architecture in order to test the human landing systems ability to dock with the orion capsule. The budget request for the human landing system is roughly 2.8 billion.
▶ 1:36:49Given this very large investment, how confident are you that artemis three will remain on schedule and successfully complete the mission? How does your budget request reflect the changes in the artemis architect architecture? >> I appreciate the question, Mr. chairman. I I'm also very grateful because you're you're absolutely correct.
▶ 1:37:17You know, the taxpayers are making a very big investment to both spacex and blue origin's human landing system capability. Uh, I will also appreciate that both those companies are investing well in excess of that as well for a capability that is so important to nasa. But honestly, national security, american competitiveness, because it's that capability that allows us not just to get back to the moon, but really build the moon base or put lots of mass efficiently and affordably on the surface, not to mention every other application that comes from a rocket that you don't have to throw away.
▶ 1:37:46So we're very grateful for that. I would say I've received responses from both, uh, vendors, both spacex and blue origin, to meet our needs for a late 2027 rendezvous, docking and test the interoperability out of both landers in advance of a landing attempt in 2028.
▶ 1:38:11>> for almost 30 years, the international space station has been a means of extending american diplomacy in space. The station is now nearing the end of its life cycle. Could you speak to nasa's plans to ensure that there is no gap in an american presence in low earth orbit?
▶ 1:38:37How does your budget proposal support that goal? >> yes, sir. Well, maybe I can, uh, separate just what's our plan and then speak to the budget, uh, portion of it. So, um, I think maintaining a presence in low earth orbit is extremely important for the united states and international partners. There's only two space stations that are up there right now, the international space station and the chinese one.
▶ 1:39:00I think we'd like to make sure that that always remains balanced, uh, not just for the great collaboration with our international partners, but again, it's a, it's a technological proving ground. We're going to test the suits we're going to wear on the moon, on the iss as well. Uh, we are trying to be extremely thoughtful in our transition plan to avoid a gap. As it stands right now, the game plan is for nasa to transition to one or more commercial space stations, where nasa will be one customer of many. Which makes sense from an affordability perspective.
▶ 1:39:28Again, if you're traveling from point a to b, you would much rather pay theild an entire houe to stay there. That gets a little the economics get challenged a little bit. If it turns out we are the only one and have to rent every single one of the rooms in the hotel. So we want to make sure that that that we possibly can. So we put in rfp out to industry and we're getting the responses back.
▶ 1:39:58And I intend to meet with every one of them in the weeks ahead. And we've preserved the original pathway and we've provided some alternatives. And I want to just ensure whichever one we go down has the highest chance of success. Because to be honest, it's not an industry. Nasa is not a good history. In the last few decades of understanding the market size or meeting budgets or schedules. Well, and I don't think we want to get this wrong and find out only the chinese have a space station. With respect to the budget, sir, we are doing everything we can to stimulate an orbital economy so that prophecy is fulfilled and we are one customer of many.
▶ 1:40:28That's why we added additional private astronaut missions to the space station. We might even buy seats on that because it is directionally correct to get more nasa astronauts in space and work closer with, uh, commercial industry, we are giving industry the opportunity to monetize further payload and commercial astronaut seats so we can't force the economy into existence. But as I mentioned, we'll do everything we can to ignite one, sir.
▶ 1:40:46>> china's space station was launched in 21, making it an attractive option for countries looking to partner and conduct science in space. Will you commit that nasa will not deorbit the international space station until an alternative is ready to launch? >> Mr.
▶ 1:41:13Chairman, I we have a we have an executive order right now to transition the space station to commercial industry by 2030. I want to do everything I can with the resources and the expertise we have at nasa to ensure that there is a commercial alternative available. By that time. I don't want to see a gap in low-earth orbit, sir. >> yes, ma'am. >> uh, Mr. administrator, I wanted to piggyback on what Mr.
▶ 1:41:41Morelli had talked about earlier about the office of stem engagement. It plays such a critical role, as, you know, in building a future stem workforce in new york. Just in fiscal year 2025, the office invested 2.5 million and over 300,000 people participated in its programs.
▶ 1:41:59Um, I know that the administration proposes eliminating this office, and if you zero out the office, uh, how does a kid in new york public school get from watching the launch to actually working the mission without that financial bridge that nasa has provided for for decades? And how does nasa plan to make up for the loss and potential future workforce talent? >> thank you very much for the question, congresswoman.
▶ 1:42:27I want to emphasize, and I understand because it's a it's a department and it's labeled stem. It's naturally getting a lot of attention on this. I just can't can't emphasize enough that the functions performed in that department also exist across our mission directorate. So the ability to issue, uh, internships is across all of our mission directorates. And grant making is also across all of our, our mission directorates.
▶ 1:42:49I think the idea under the president's budget request is some of this is duplicative, uh, and doesn't acknowledge the, the inherent nature of every dollar given to us is it moves in the direction of stem. >> um, I just want to make sure that we as a country are building upon the energy and success of missions like artemis two. We have to have a sustained effort to reach our kids and keep them excited about science and math from elementary school on.
▶ 1:43:15So, um, I would like to continue working with the committee on that. And then lastly, um, back to what I talked about a little bit about the proposed budget cuts. Uh, we can all agree that these partnerships are essential to ensuring that nasa maintains us space and technological leadership, but concerned that the cuts would force many of those partnerships to end ending, ending, vital, cutting edge, world changing research and permanently devastating our domestic research pipeline.
▶ 1:43:47What specific mechanisms will you put in place to ensure that the vital intellectual capital in new york and across the country isn't lost if these federal partnerships expire? >> and and apologies, ma'am, can you which which programs were.
▶ 1:44:05>> when we were talking about the the cuts to, um, how america's colleges and universities maybe, um, cut where nasa provided over 350 million in earth science research in 25 um, but this budget requests, for example, calls for just 164 million. And it's across different parts of the portfolio.
▶ 1:44:29>> and I guess I would just say to that, ma'am, that there are still, uh, hundreds of millions of dollars that will be going to universities across the nation, uh, as components of our grant program. And I would say that it's still greater than every other, uh, commercial or civil space agency's budget, whether it's on a science mission directorate level or grant making to local universities combined. >> all right. Thank you, I yield back. >> judge carter. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:44:57I I'm going to go off a little bit. I, uh, I was a teenager when sputnik went over, probably an early teenager, uh, all the neighbors in the neighborhood came to our backyard because we had a vacant lot behind us so we could get a better view of where this thing was going to come across.
▶ 1:45:23So I had about 30 or 40 people in, in my backyard, kids, adults, all watching the sputnik go across. I remember we were in the middle of the cold war at that time. I've been living with the cold war. We fought the korean war. We had an enemy. We worried about what was said.
▶ 1:45:46Some of the world war two veterans were afraid that this was going to be another world war three, and some of those guys cried, I hope my child doesn't have to go do that. It was a sad part for the adults in many ways. For the kids, it was great. When are we going to do that? Look at that. That's really cool. And all it did was go beep, beep, beep, beep.
▶ 1:46:15People wondered, do they have weapons on that thing? Are they going to attack us? This is the way people were thinking about it. Fear drove our first space race, there's no doubt about it. People were worried. Our president took the position that it was a was a a new area.
▶ 1:46:42We can have a frontier to make it work. And we did it. But I just wanted to people talk about how do we get people together? People will get together if you quit attacking each other. And that's my comment about this whole thing. I think you've got great ideas utilizing great things that are current to us now, which we didn't have before, and the private industry.
▶ 1:47:12And yet maintaining nasa's long range mission as a as a governmental issue. I think it's a good plan. But at the time of the first one was we didn't know if we'd ever get anything in space. So we've come a long way from when that first putt, little beep, beep, beep went across and all the kids thought it was great and all the parents were scared.
▶ 1:47:43I just want to bring that up. I'm old enough to remember that, and it was a big deal in my life, so I wanted to share that with my colleagues. You unite together and we all unite together. There was no parties screaming at each other. We got together and we made it work. If we do that this time, the chinese don't have a chance. Yes, sir. My comment. Thank you. >> the gentleman. Yield.
▶ 1:48:12Yes, sir. What? Sputnik. What shocked the world, sir? Uh, because no one expected russia, a backward nation, to have that kind of expertise. It's. I was working at a radio station in franklin, north carolina.
▶ 1:48:32I quit my job, made my way back to kentucky and enrolled in physics at the university of kentucky. Motivated by the experience that I expected to take place in my life, which it did. Uh, so I enrolled in physics, but they wanted me to study math.
▶ 1:49:01I wanted to shoot rockets. >> maybe. >> anyway. >> Mr. chairman, do you mind if I make a comment on that one? Because I see this, uh, I'm a student of history. I've studied that time period, uh, quite a bit. And, uh, just say again, we are absolutely in another space race right now. We have a lot of distractions that go on our lives.
▶ 1:49:24But I, I take this responsibility very, very seriously right now for the whole world to pause and take notice. As american astronauts and one canadian space agency astronaut and artemis two went around the world, if you want to talk about a sputnik moments or when when people pause to see chinese astronauts step foot off that lander on the moon, they are going to take notice. And I will tell you, up until a few months ago, the odds were in their favor for it to happen before america returns.
▶ 1:49:53We have a far more achievable plan now because we're standardizing. We're concentrating our resources back on the objective. For a long time now, we looked in every direction other than where we were supposed to be going, because we did not have a competitor, and we absolutely have one now. And they're very good and they have no baggage, sir. None whatsoever. They're just like we were in the 60s. They're starting with a very clear objective and they're moving very, very quickly. We have a path to do this right now, but it is going to be extremely close.
▶ 1:50:22And I can't emphasize that enough, because I think the people have been waiting very long time for this moment. We have an opportunity to mandate the resources to do it. Uh, but any distractions, anything that gets us off track right now. And, and that risk is real. And I think the shock wave will be felt around the world if we come up short. >> thank you. Our in this environment, our tour is oversight and budgetary, but we're also your big cheerleader.
▶ 1:50:54Thank you sir, and we want you to succeed. Uh, and I think that's bipartisan. >> yes, sir. >> Mr. iv. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. And thank you, administrator, for sticking around for a second round. Uh, I did want to follow up with respect to the personnel aspect.
▶ 1:51:15The human capital, I think, is, um, probably the greatest asset that nasa has and will continue to, to be able to work from and the nasa force, uh, concept. And I think it's a great idea two year term. Um, and apparently there was so much interest that, you know, I guess you only gave him four days to apply and it overwhelmed the site. Is that is that correct?
▶ 1:51:41>> I, I owe you updates on that, sir, but I understand there was a lot of interest, which is exactly what we wanted. >> that's exactly what we wanted. And I did want to ask you this, the two year piece, this sort of similar to the question about the internships, and you're only taking 1% because I think we're going to need the talent pipeline to to be open. You can't take everybody. And obviously it's going to be an elite and selective opportunity. But, um, are you going to be able to hire these folks long term?
▶ 1:52:08You get somebody that's there for two years and they're doing great work. Will they be able to stay for a longer term? The other question I had was, uh, the salaries issue, if they're coming from the private sector, um, and some of them may be coming straight from, you know, the, the university system, I don't know. But, um, is there going to be some kind of comparability with respect to the salaries that they're going to get in the private sector? >> yeah. So thank you for the question.
▶ 1:52:36I, I asked the same honestly, I asked the same question about great that we were taking the top 1%. That's awesome. Because that's a lot of applications from interns coming in. Could we take 2%? And my understanding is the limiting factor there is actually having the mentors, the experienced talent that can make time available to help grow them. And that's, that's where the nasa forest program comes in. Nasa is not the only game in town, and we certainly acknowledge the amazing contributions that are coming from industry.
▶ 1:53:03And you have some of the best that are coming from coms and reusable rockets and eco systems from industry, heck, the nuclear power industry, uh, you know, working on micro reactors. And they want to serve their country. They want to come in and make a difference and help grow some of our talent and then go back to industry. And I don't think they're, they're economically motivated, sir, at least not from my conversations. They want to come help make a difference. Now, I did check on this point. We do have the ability to convert them to full time if need be.
▶ 1:53:31We also have the flexibility of one two, and I believe up to three year, uh, appointments are available in this. Uh, so, so, um, so we have flexibility to bring them in and help grow the talent and, um, and we can convert them over to full time. I do think in terms of economics, it really comes down to it, this leverages in any hiring authority goes back to the inception of nasa. I think it allows us to essentially pay up to the same levels as the president, though I don't think we I think we rarely exercise that. >> fair enough. And then one other question, if I might, Mr.
▶ 1:54:00Chairman, this goes to the continuity, uh, at goddard in particular, um, a lot of the people who were there, uh, over the past two years have been really, um, been sort of battered by some of the things that have been going on with respect to cuts that have been made by this administration and the previous administration to the federal government employees. Overall, after roman and dragonfly, uh, I think a lot of people there are looking to try and figure out, is there going to be something left for me to do here?
▶ 1:54:29And there are also people who are looking to, uh, join a constellation like goddard and they're looking at it and saying, if I come to goddard, will, will there be some work for me to do there too? Because as you pointed out, many of them are there essentially for patriotic reasons.
▶ 1:54:46They want to do public service, but it's a long term commitment or a longer term commitment that they're looking for and the training, uh, for them by more experienced, uh, scientists with the institutional knowledge, uh, is something of great interest to them. So what's the, what's the plan for goddard on that front?
▶ 1:55:06>> well, I, so if I can hit on a couple subjects and, um, I think some of our science centers and this honestly does go back to the prior administration, uh, we have some of the best minds at nasa and, uh, we actually denied for a period of time the prior administration to do reimbursable work for other government agencies where we could apply our expertise to be helpful. And that's, that's dollars that help supplement the budget.
▶ 1:55:28And I point this out because hundreds of employees that were at jpl in years past actually were, were laid off when we could have been leaning a little bit more into reimbursable work there to make good use of the expertise in between flagship missions, which, you know, there will be naturally gaps at times. So I will say we're trying to take measures again with the idea of absolutely making the most of every dollar available, uh, to nasa to ensure continuity at these centers, bridge gaps in between missions. Now, what comes next or not? It's habitable worlds observatory.
▶ 1:56:00This is one I'm I'm extremely excited about. We've made investments through the fy 26 appropriations and tech maturation. But what does this mission do? This mission tries to at least endeavors to answer the question, are we alone? Which is like really at the heart of what we do at nasa now, it'll take a long time to make that capability. Uh, the prior program, you know, could be over $10 billion and not launch until the 2040s. I'm challenging the team, and I'm very excited to work with our science mission directorate to rework it, to do it in phases, just like the moon base.
▶ 1:56:28What can we launch in 2030? What can we launch in 2035 that progressively gets us to that capability, not build an empire out of something that will always be vulnerable in the years ahead, but again, in a logical, almost iterative way across a couple missions get us closer to the capability to answer that important question. >> I thank you, sir, and thank you, Mr. chairman, for your indulgence, uh, and giving me the extra time. >> Mr. strong. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:56:52Uh, administrator isaacman, nuclear thermal propulsion is widely recognized as a critical component for future space exploration. Nuclear thermal propulsion has the potential to reduce travel times for deep space missions, increase payload capability, and provide mission flexibility.
▶ 1:57:11Nasa has conducted over 100 tests on nuclear thermal propulsion related systems, producing some of the most complete data on flight like reactor systems in more than 50 years. Nuclear thermal propulsion is proven to be faster and can lift more. Additionally, congress and the white house have supported nasa's pursuit of demonstrations of space nuclear systems. Uh, Mr.
▶ 1:57:37Isaacman, how will nuclear thermal propulsion fit into future artemis missions, especially given that it is a capability widely regarded as critical for future deep space missions? >> thank you. Congressman, I promise you, you will you will not find an administrator that is a greater champion of nuclear power and propulsion than me.
▶ 1:58:00In fact, I hope so because of the work we're doing right now over the next couple of years, that there is an administrator sitting in front of you ten years from now and asking for money that's measured in billions towards nuclear power and propulsion, because it absolutely is the logical evolution of what we should be doing at nasa. Because to your point, sir, it gets the astronauts to mars faster, less time in that harsh radiation environment. It allows us to venture out even farther than mars. Uh, so it's, it's inevitable.
▶ 1:58:26What we're trying to do sure is, uh, is demonstrate nuclear power and propulsion in a practical way as quickly as we can to get it out of the lab, because we have, as taxpayers spend over $20 billion on these programs. We haven't launched a nuclear reactor in space since the 1960s. Nuclear thermal propulsion is great, but the downside is the exhaust of it is radioactive itself. Now, in the 1960s, we just tested it out in the desert. It's a different environment now. The goal get underway with a 70% solution, a la the the nautilus.
▶ 1:58:57Most people don't know this. Our first nuclear powered submarine was designed to be a diesel boat. It was a 70% solution, but we proved it worked. And the next thing you know, we gave birth to the nuclear navy. We want to launch sr one freedom in 2028, show you it can be done. And then I'd love to come back here and say, we need a whole lot more money for containment centers to test nuclear thermal propulsion and build some really big nuclear powered spaceships. Sir. >> I think you and your, uh, your team for being here today, it's an honor to be a part of this. The tough questions somehow come. But let me tell you something.
▶ 1:59:27We'll always be first. Mr. chairman, I thank you and for your service. Also, uh, we always get a budget, but that's nothing but the starting point. And without your commitment, we never could have reached where we are today. And I thank you for your commitment. I yield back. >> Mr. dean. >> thank you, chairman. Thank you, ranking member, and thank you again for staying on a little longer to talk with us. I have to say this was a pretty inspiring budget hearing, which is a strange paradoxical phrase.
▶ 1:59:56>> uh, but just hearing people reminisce, I keep thinking back to I was a little girl, suburban philadelphia, youngest of seven kids. And I remember my parents just huddling us all around the tv, uh, to watch july 20th, I guess it was july 20th, 1969. I can almost feel the. Of the carpet in our living room as we just sat there astonished by what we were watching inspired. So this last friday, I want to tell you and make an invitation to you.
▶ 2:00:25I had the chance to visit, uh, pennsylvania's only challenger learning center, as you know, inspired by the horrific 40 years ago tragedy and inspired by the families who remained, they wanted to make sure we were pushing forward, uh, following that tragedy. Uh, these kids, fifth graders, it was so fun to be with them. And they were on the mission. Some were astronauts, some were communicators. Uh, some were engineers building rovers and other robots.
▶ 2:00:53Uh, so my ask is, we'd love to have you come there it is montgomery county community college. It's a beautiful facility, and we're very proud. It's the only one in pennsylvania. Uh, and I ask that also to say, I hope you'll rethink and reverse the decision to eliminate the office of stem engagement. It is so critically important for all the reasons everybody just spoke about. We want these kids engaged.
▶ 2:01:20We were able to get some community project funding to this center, and what they're doing with that is making sure that kids, uh, in school districts that really don't have great resources, literally, who don't have transportation money to bring the children to the center in my district, that they will have those resources. So it's really neat that this is going to reach many, many more children.
▶ 2:01:45So I ask you to really consider that and reverse the elimination of the office of stem engagement. Uh, and the other question I wanted to ask you was, um, of some of the missions canceled, uh, is the mission the rosalind franklin rover, uh, led by our partners at the european space agency, space agency. And I ask this with my other hat on, I serve as well on the foreign affairs committee.
▶ 2:02:11And I think it is so important that we partner with our european space agency partners, uh, for the rover launch 2028, uh, to look for life on mars. You've talked about it yourself, but I don't see the rosalind franklin rover project anywhere in this fy 27 budget. What's the status? >> and thank you, ma'am. And if I can, I'll hit a couple of those. One, uh, I will absolutely come and visit the challenger center.
▶ 2:02:40I'm actually from pennsylvania, so, uh, if I can. The condition is if I can bring my daughters because I've been trying to get them down to space camp in huntsville, and I've been unsuccessful up until now. So maybe a local visit. >> you bring your daughters, I'll bring a grandchild or two. >> so, um, and just so you're aware, I've actually met with the leadership of, uh, of the challenger center many times. We're being very helpful at nasa. We're providing them diagrams of our spacecraft so they can build simulators for their kids. And personally, I intend to be involved to help, uh, to help fund their endeavor as well.
▶ 2:03:09Um, because I believe in it. Uh, there's, there's no question. I also want to clarify. We haven't, we haven't closed anything with our stem office. We haven't terminated any science missions. This is part of our budget proposal request. We have a strategy for every one of these. Uh, like I said, in formulation missions, transitioning to commercial and future, all with the aim of getting after the science faster. And with respect to your question on rosalind franklin, uh, you don't see it in there because we paid for the launch vehicle as part of fy 26 appropriations.
▶ 2:03:34That rover will be one of three nuclear powered missions that will launch into deep space in 2028. >> so no, no peril for that project. No peril. And we're continuing to partner with our european partners. >> we are, uh, we say it all the time. We undertake the near-impossible. We never go alone. >> well, again, thanks to all your partners for allowing us to remember and to dream. Thanks. >> thanks, ma'am.
▶ 2:04:07>> I want to thank the administrator for, uh, all the information that you've shared with us. But more importantly, I think, is the enthusiasm that you have for this mission. And that's worth its weight in gold. Thank you for being here today. Thank you for the work you're doing.
▶ 2:04:31Stay in touch with this committee, and we'll be helpful as best we can. So thank you, sir, for being here. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Thank you, ranking member. >> appreciate it. >> without objection, members may have seven days to submit additional questions. For the record. Subcommittee stands adjourned.