NASA FY 2027 Budget Estimates and Justification

Good morning. Welcome to order. We have about three subcommittees that I'm on, all meeting at this moment. Uh, and I would think, Mister Emba- Ambassador, Mister Administrator, you are an ambassador, uh, I would think that everybody would be here to see you and, and uh, give praise for what a successful Last uh few months your tenure has provided the United States of America and maybe the world. So I thank you for appearing here today. I begin by noting your recent visit to Kansas, which I'm also grateful for. Um, I've not ever missed an opportunity to highlight the value and importance of uh the best space museum in the world, the Kansas Cosmosphere, uh home to the Apollo thirteen command modul module. Uh thank you for visiting that uh Kansas Cosmosphere. That visit carried a powerful sense of continuity uh between NASA's past and its future. As you know, Apollo thirteen set the record for the furthest distance humans have traveled from Earth, and during your time in Kansas that record was surpassed by the crew of Artemis two, a remarkable moment that underscores how NASA continues to build on its legacy to push further and further into deep space. I want to commend NASA and its workforce for the successful uh Artemis-two mission. This mission represents a critical step toward returning Americans to the moon eventually to Mars and beyond. It demonstrates what is possible when NASA has the support stability and direction needed to execute. Uh, while I appreciate the bold leadership that you have brought to NASA, I have significant concerns about the FY twenty-seven budget request. I wanna make certain that I wanna make certain taxpayer dollars are spent wisely, uh, but I don't think Now is a time to necessarily scale back. We want to spend wisely and appropriately. A budget that prioritizes exploration at the expense of science, technology, and other core missions risk undermining the very foundation that makes that exploration efforts possible. In fiscal year twenty twenty-six, Congress took a balanced approach, supporting exploration while also sustaining strong investments in science, space, technology, and aeronautics. That balance matters because these elements are not in competition. They are mutually reinforcing. Exploration depends upon technology. Technology depends upon science. All of it depends upon a skilled workforce. NASA's science programs do more than expand our understanding of the universe. They deliver real-world benefits here on Earth. Earth observation satellites provide critical data that supports agriculture and ranching communities in my state of Kansas and across the nation from improving water management and irrigation planning to enhancing drought monitoring and soil moisture analysis, capabilities help produce producers make better decisions, reduce risk, and strengthen rural economies. To maintain our historic leadership in space, we must remain pragmatic about the geopolitical environment. China is moving aggressively to expand its capabilities in space, including the amb- including its ambitions to the moon. If the United States is going to remain number one in space, we must make certain NASA has the resources, flexibility, and urgency needed to move forward with purpose to maintain America's leadership. NASA's mission has always been bigger than any one program or destination. It's about looking back at our own planet to better to be better stewards of its resources looking outward to understand the origins of the universe, and looking forward to chart the future of humanity. If we get this right, we will not only lead in space, we will improve life here on Earth while inspiring the next generation to reach even further. Administrator, I appreciate your presence here, and as I told you as we were visiting

Uh thank you, Mister Chairman, and let me say at the outset how much I appreciate your comments um recently and again today about the importance of NASA continuing to invest in cutting edge science. I also look forward to continuing the long tradition of this subcommittee

Mm.

by writing bipartisan CGS bill again this year, one that provides sufficient resources for NASA to meet the expectations and ambitions of the American people. Mr. Administrator, welcome. I think all of us were proud and inspired by the success of the recent Artemis-two mission. That success is a tribute to the entire NASA workforce, their private sector partners, and the entire community that made it possible. And I am confident that I speak for all Marylanders when I say we could not be prouder, of Commander Reed Weissman, who's from Maryland, and Mission Specialist Christina Koch, who got her start at Goddard, and the rest of the Goddard team that supported the mission, including Doctor Kelzy- Kelzy Evans-Young, who led all of the space flight operations, the near space network team, and all the civil servants and contractors across the state who helped make this mission possible as well as their colleagues from around the country. And thank you, Mister Administrator, for the opportunity Senator Moran and I had to talk with the crew after they rounded the dark side of the moon and headed home. I asked Commander Weissman what he would recommend to students at the Maryland Public High School he attended, Delaney High School in Baltimore, who may be inspired to follow in his footsteps. His answer wasn't work longer hours, it was don't be afraid to fail. In other words, be bold and if you make mistakes, Don't worry, keep on going. That's the right attitude. Be ambitious. And, Mister Administrator, I appreciate the ambition behind the ignition plans you recently unveiled. And I look forward to working with you to ensure continued U S leadership in space science and exploration. But I think you well know that the fiscal year two thousand twenty-seven Trump budget proposal is anything but ambitious. It is short-sighted. It represents a staggering retreat of US leadership and ambition in space at a time when our global competitors are doubling down, especially China. It would be a disaster for the NASA mission. This budget is a rehash of the fiscal year twenty-six request that Congress roundly rejected on a bipartisan basis just months ago. It would slash funding for NASA by five point six billion, or twenty-three percent, to eighteen point eight billion. If enacted, it would require that NASA let go thousands of employees at the same time you were talking about expanding hiring. This would come on top of nearly four thousand dedicated NASA employees who were forced out by this administration last year, including more than one thousand at Goddard. And it doesn't even include some of the ambitious initiatives you unveiled in your ignition plan. Mr. Administrator, I want to focus on one important part of this budget, the disastrous proposed nearly fifty percent reduction. to the science mission directorate. Such a cut would reduce investment in NASA science to more than one billion below two thousand and seven funding levels. Below two thousand seven funding levels, to the scientists and engineers who have spent the last two decades pushing us further, a budget below two thousand seven signals a full-on retreat. I think everyone in this room knows that without space science, there is no space exploration. Without space science, there is no new planetary discovery. Without space science, there is no NASA. Mister Mister Mister I know you know this from our meetings, and I appreciate your visiting with us at Goddard Space Flight Center. And I know this budget does not reflect your best judgment about what NASA needs. If enacted, it would require the early termination of twenty-seven operating missions in the space science direction. missions that US taxpayers have already invested billions of dollars in constructing and launching and are still contributing to cutting edge science. It would also cancel twenty-six missions under development, seeding leadership in earth science, astrophysics, and heliophysics. And they come at a time we're getting ready for the September launch of the Goddard-led Nancy Grace Roman space telescope, which will investigate dark energy and the birth of galaxies and stars, improving our understanding of the universe. That program is ahead of schedule and under budget. I will point out that last year in one of the early budget requests from the Trump administration, it was proposed to be terminated, a program that we're all now anticipating with great interest. Another space science program, the Dragonfly mission led by APL in Maryland is on track to launch. in two thousand twenty six. These missions and operating missions like the James Webb Space Telescope not only provide essential information to expand human knowledge they inspire students to pursue careers in STEM, in STEM fields that will shape the future of our space program, our economy, and our national security for decades to come. And if we're going to remain a leader in space science and exploration, we need not only to inspire but to prepare the next generation of STEM leaders. But this budget proposal calls for eliminating the NASA education programs. So, in closing, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Administrator, NASA cannot be first in space and second in science. And that is why I hope this committee will once again, on a bipartisan basis, ensure that the United States continues to be a leader in space science and exploration. They go together.

I look forward to your testimony. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen. Uh, Senator Britt, I recognize you for a moment of congratulatory comments if you'd like to make them based upon the presence of Marshall Space Center.

Absolutely. Um, congratulations on a successful mission. We in Alabama were proud to be a large part of its success at Marshall Space Flight Center but just wanna say thank you for putting space front and center not just for all of us, but for our entire country and people across the globe. Um, as my colleague said, you're inspiring the next generation, um, and you're doing it in such a meaningful way. You you sat in front of us and said this is what you would do, and you're making good on it, and we are all better for it. So thank you.

Thank you, Senator Britt. Uh, we now recognize uh Jer- Jared Isaacman, the Administrator of NASA.

Thank you, Chairman Moran, Ranking Member Van Hollen, Senator Britt, Senator Coons. I am honored to be in attendance before you today, provide an update on the National Aeronautic and Space Administration and present the President's FY twenty twenty seven budget request. I am 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 twenty six appropriations and the working family tax cut act. Without that financial support, we would not be in a position to undertake the national imperative return to the moon to build the moon base and invest in next giant leap capabilities like nuclear power and propulsion ignite the space economy and launch more missions, great missions of science and discovery. I also want to congratulate 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, showed us the moon again and showed humanity Earth again. They did an outstanding job. And to the members of this committee and people all over the world, I would just say at NASA, this is still 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 by adding emission in twenty twenty seven to buy down risk. We are rebuilding NASA workforce core competencies. We are taking an active role in ensuring accountability across the supply chain. We will deliver the outcomes the world has been patiently waiting for, and will ensure the agency and the industry is prepared to support repeatable affordable missions to the moon for decades into the future. Second, we are returning to the lunar surface to stay this time, to build the moon base. The FY twenty-six appropriations and the working family tax cut act already provide the reef's 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, this base will be nuclear powered and will help us master the skills necessary to someday in the not too distant future undertake a crewed mission to Mars. We will of course bring the world along with us with orbital observation satellites as the American people and really people all over the world will be able to watch us build the moon base in real time. on a web site. On that note, we are still investing in the next giant leap capabilities. After more than twenty billion and decades of struggling programs, NASA will finally, through more than a half century, launch a nuclear reactor in space and get America underway on nuclear power and propulsion. Now, I did not ask for one dollar more than what was already appropriated because we owe it to the taxpayers to demonstrate the practical application of this capability. We will launch SR one Freedom in twenty twenty eight, the first nuclear-powered interplanetary spacecraft to deliver the skyfall payload to Mars and usher in a new nuclear era in space one that will power bases on the moon and Mars and help us explore the outer solar system. We'll also do everything we can to usher in a new space economy. We have already expanded private astronaut missions to the space station and created more monetization opportunities for crew and cargo. We are prioritizing h- uh high commercial potential science in 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 by twenty thirty we can begin the transition from the International Space Station to one or more commercial space stations. The President's budget also supports the kind of exciting research and science missions that no other agency in the world can undertake. We are not accepting any gaps in earth science or space weather. We are flying X planes like X fifty nine, doing important important research in aerospace materials, ATC modernization, and launching flagship 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 defense. Finally, inspiration is inherent in everything we do at NASA. It's in every dollar that 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, landing on the moon, walking on the moon, X planes flying again, and the imagery returned from our telescopes and rovers, that truly inspire the next generation. And 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 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, every scheduled delay comes at the expense of science and discovery. I have no doubt that there will come a day when NASA can and should do more with more. And I hope I am still in this position to advocate for it. But with a national debt of thirty-nine trillion and growing, I think we do owe it to the American people to show we can achieve extraordinary outcomes with a budget request that already exceeds every civilian space agency in the world combined. We can take this opportunity to look within, ensure our resources are focused on the real needle-moving objectives outlined in the President's National Space Policy, clear out needless bureaucracy and obstacles that impede progress, and empower the best and brightest across NASA to deliver the headlines only we are capable of making. If we do that, returning to the moon and building a moon base will seem pale in comparison to what we're capable of achieving in the years ahead. Thank you.

Administrator, thank you. Um, let's talk about that, uh, environment, uh, uh, we face in the world, uh, that strategic environment. China, uh, continues to move aggressively to expand its capabilities in space, uh, particularly in this lunar space and their stated ambition for a sustained presence on the moon. Tell me, is this just two nations in rivalry, or what is the What's the consequence of uh us failing to perform our tasks in returning to the moon? From your perspective, where does the United States currently maintain an advantage and where are we at risk of falling behind?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I I think the consequence is quite significant if we come up short. I I say often July twentieth, nineteen sixty nine, when Neil and Buzz walked on the moon, it sent a message to the world of what America was capable of achieving. It gave everyone an opportunity to pause, everyone who would s- uh look to rival or encroach upon American interest to pause and think about what else we are capable of. I'd say the inverse holds true, sir, if after thirty-five years and a hundred billion dollars funded to return American astronauts to the moon, we come up short, it sends a message that something is broken it broken, it invites our adversaries to encroach upon uh American interest across the most important technological domains I think that's very real. There is certainly scientific and economic potential on the moon itself. Uh the limited area we're focused on is gonna be the technological proving ground to undertake missions to Mars some day there, so there is absolutely a lot on the line. Now uh where where do we stand in this uh great power competition with respect to the lunar surface? I would tell you we are advantaged for sure in the moon base. There is no doubt thanks to investments in programs like CLPS and LTV we have contractual pathways in an industry that can respond very, very quickly to the demand signal we put out to start putting landers and rovers on the moon so we can experiment and learn about what that enduring presence should look like we are advantaged with building the moon base with returning boots to the surface of the moon I will tell you before we altered the uh the Artemis program to standardize and and add emission in twenty twenty seven uh I would say it was near unachievable that we would get our boots back on the moon before the Chinese we have change that we've standardized the plan we're increasing cadence and most importantly NASA is taking an active role to drive outcomes across the supply chain so that we can to return to the moon ahead of our arrival

what is the state of our supply chain?

well it it just yesterday uh Mister Chairman I was asked you know how can uh what can we do especially with small businesses across the nation to help the supply chain to help America's moon program I say build build valves we we have a SIBR programs right now, I'd love nothing more than to uh uh get industry working on uh on some of the exquisite valves we need for our uh for our vehicles. Not to mention I would say the hyper-gall thrusters that are gonna be in immense demand. I mean you're probably talking sort of ten X almost uh order of magnitude increase in demand signal just by moon base construction alone.

Uh, let me switch to deep space exploration. Uh, I think there's broad agreement, uh, that nuclear power and propulsion are going to be essential tools in your toolbox. Um, whether that's for surface power, cargo transport, getting crews to Mars safely and quickly. Thermal nuclear propulsion offers high thrust, efficient transit for human missions. While nuclear electric propulsion and fission surface power, serve different but complementary capabilities. Should the administration be pursuing a more balanced, all of the above approach to space nuclear capabilities, rather than narrowing its focus at a time when we need every option on the table.

So, so, Mister Chairman, I promise you, you won't have an administrator that's more passionate about America's future with nuclear power and propulsion in space than myself. So what we are trying to do right now is just show it can be done. As I mentioned, we've spent over twenty billion dollars and dozens of failed programs over the years. We haven't gotten the capability out of the lab. The last time we actually put a nuclear reactor in space was in the mid-nineteen sixties. I won't, I won't try and nail the date specifically. So that's why SR one freedom, we are cobbling together a lot of hardware we already have. This is, this is very a la Nautilus, which was originally designed to be a diesel boat. It's seventy percent solution. Prove it can be done. And then I, whether it's me or another administrator, somebody should be sitting in front of you in the years ahead and advocating that nuclear power and propulsion should not be met in should not be funded in the hundreds of millions but in the billions because you're absolutely right, and they're very important. NEP is your train. That's your efficient way to move lots of mass to Mars. NTP is how you get there fast. That's your, that's your Concorde airliner. One is a little bit easier to get underway faster because it, it doesn't have some of the environmental implications and the infrastructure needed for it, but you need both, sir.

Thank you for your answer, Senator Van Hollen.

Uh, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Mr. Administrator, uh, again, thank you for joining us out at NASA Goddard and having a chance to see the Nancy Grace Roman telescope. uh that's due to launch in September, as I said in my opening comments, under budget um and ahead of schedule. That will revolutionize our understanding of the universe and is a very important tool in the search for dark matter and dark energy. The chronograph will also serve as a precursor to the next great astrophysics mission, the habitable world habitable world's observatory, that could finally answer the question, are we alone in the universe? Nancy Roman also demonstrates that flagship projects can be managed on budget, and I would like to apply those lessons to the Habitable Worlds Observatory. And you and I have discussed this in some of our meetings about trying to accelerate that work, just like you're trying to accelerate and increase the tempo of uh trips to the moon and elsewhere. I believe that if NASA works to solve the technical challenges, like the chronograph instrument, and overall satellite stability now, we can bring forward the launch date uh of habitable worlds and significantly reduce future costs. Will you work with me on this proposal? Do you agree that we can, if we put our minds to it, accelerate this effort and the launch date?

Uh, not only uh can we, uh we we will. So uh, Senator, I'd say uh first just you know and that we're not nailing down the date specifically but you may may in the near future be adjusting your marks to talk about Nancy Grace Roman launching in perhaps August instead of September so I'm all about getting after the science as quickly as we and affordably as we possibly can the um you you're absolutely right the

Well, day of the month.

chronograph that's gonna launch on Nancy Grace Roman will help bring down some risk for uh what we endeavor to accomplish with habitual worlds and to your point, I couldn't have said it better so this is This is a mission that could help us answer the question, are we are we alone? Um the the team uh within the science mission directorate is already looking at how we can get after this exciting data faster. Um we we don't we we don't wanna we we don't wanna build an empire around the program, we wanna get the mission underway and learn as quickly as we can. And I've already started to have early discussions and proposals about how we can launch you know additional missions in between to b- bring down risk very similar to the playbook. we used during the Apollo era and almost identical to what we're doing with the moon base construction, get data, learn to inform a subsequent mission, uh, you know, so that again we can get after the science quicker and in and in a more affordable way. So you certainly have my commitment that is a that is a focus area. And we already are making uh investments through FY twenty-six appropriations in tech maturation that will be used for habitable worlds.

I appreciate that. And, you know, I've heard your earlier testimony. I think you you believe in the decadal survey process, identifying as a country some of the key projects and as you know um the habitable worlds observatory was part of that. I mean do you do you agree that that's an important process for the country?

I I I think that uh we should be looking at how we can uh arrive at a consensus on flagship missions faster. I mean just you know we benefit right now with the launch industry that is uh the most uh the healthiest that we've seen in the history of America's space program uh we have industry that commercial space industry that's more advanced than ever before, the point, sir, is I think we can go out, get after the data, learn what we wanna do next, and start investing in the next mission at a faster cadence than the historical process.

Yeah, I'm I'm all in favor of trying to accelerate uh this.

Yes, sir.

Obviously that um has budget implications. Um and as I said in my statement, opening statement, I appreciate the ambition of the ignition uh plan that you unveiled recently. Uh I would note that many of the those plans including the space reactor one freedom and the skyfall payload, are not included in the fiscal year twenty-seven budget. Will these ignition plans require funding in fiscal year twenty-seven? And if so, are you planning to submit a supplemental? Or do you intend also to take some of that funding from fiscal year twenty-six? And if so, from where?

Uh, Senator, I completely appreciate the question. Let me just outright say up front that in order to fund those initiatives, we are not taking any dollars away from uh from appropriated dollars in this. This is uh NASA putting our our uh our efficiency and capital allocation hat uh to good uh putting it on and uh and executing the way I know we are capable of doing. You you take uh uh SR one freedom and the associated skyfall program, as I mentioned, this is our opportunity to do a nautilus here to put the seventy percent solution we are repurposing hardware modules uh we are taking components that have sit sat in the lab from billion decades and billions of investments bringing it together showing it works from a science perspective everything from the launch uh to the bus to the the space craft that's associated with s r one freedom uh is not coming out of uh the science mission director uh so really they're essentially in a way getting a bonus opportunity here to get a useful scientific

I appreciate that. If you could just chair share with the subcommittee the exact plans um of how you're going to make all that work within this budget. Thank you. Senator Britt.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, uh Mister Administrator, thank you again. for being here today. It certainly is incredible to watch history being made. Um and I and I was honored to be able to join the crew of Artemis two and ask some questions before they came down and their answers will certainly stay with me, um amongst many others. I'm also grateful for your efforts to increase the SLS launch cadence and accelerate the Artemis program's timeliness to ensure we beat China back to the moon. And I appreciate you standing up and making sure that we execute on that mission. to ensure that the United States continues to lead when it comes to space. Alabama and Marshall Space Flight Center and the men and women that come to work there every day are very proud to be part of that. Your revised architecture depends on sustaining a launch cadence of roughly every ten months. Can you tell the subcommittee what NASA needs in FY twenty seven to keep SLS production lines moving without gaps that would undermine the schedule that you've committed to?

Uh, thank you, Senator Britt. I couldn't agree more about the contributions from Marshall Space Flight Center, uh, and the importance for a rocket that complicated to be in a cadence, it really, at least on a, uh, on an annual level, or we or we certainly risk the opportunities of going back in the barn and having delays, and we don't want that when we are in a great power competition. So to your point, uh, ma'am, with the, uh, the Working Family Tax Cut Act certainly gave us the resources to be, uh, to be committed to this platform, through Artemis five but if we're launching at greater frequency then we're gonna use the rockets up that much faster and if we're building a moon base well we're gonna wanna send astronauts there with great frequency so we we've already been procuring uh you know long lead items for for spares so that that keeps things moving in the right direction and then we put RFI's out to industry and said give us your best options so we have two different pathways to get to the moon with frequency uh so we so we have an Artemis one hundred some days so we never give up the moon again Uh, and I haven't seen the responses yet, but I'm quite sure, uh, based on my conversations that the, uh, the suppliers that are in the SLS community are one of those options right now, and I suspect because they've asked us to alleviate perhaps some of the burdens that NASA's put on them, uh, which I have no doubt are accurate, that we'll actually be able to get that hardware at, at even lower cost.

So what you're saying is, is it does take into consideration the procurement of, uh, long lead time parts and spare parts.

And I would say though, ma'am, that it's a, I think we are largely leveraging the plus up, I mean the the ten billion from the working family tax cut act, the vast majority of it went to exploration into SLS,

Okay.

so we're largely leveraging those dollars, ma'am.

Okay, and your budget calls for commercial replacement of SLS rocket to execute missions beyond Artemis five, and SLS is currently obviously the only rocket that can launch people and heavy cargo to the moon in a single launch. SLS and Orion ha all have also proven capabilities through their Artemis two launch that we all just saw. Um so explain to me why you would prioritize or why you wouldn't prioritize increasing the production rate of an already proven system and yet go ahead and make that transition.

Um uh to be clear uh Senator Brea I'm I'm I'm not trying to make a transition, I I s- expect SLS to be one of those two pathways that the the term commercial added I uh we is uh is basically what I refer to as alleviating some of the NASA burdens we impose on the suppliers. This is what they told us. So,

Okay.

Lockheed, Boeing, ULA have come back to us and said, hey, every time NASA comes and triple checks our work, adds cost and delays hardware,

Mm-hmm.

let us do SLS in a different way and we'll be able to get it to you faster and more affordably.

Okay.

I know that's gonna be one of the options.

And I know you, you know this from talking to them, but obviously NASA and our space program have been repeatedly plagued with starts and stops and departures from from different production models, um many of which has been premature and has threatened our ability to ultimately continued um continue our our mission to have access to to the moon ahead of China so I appreciate you taking that into consideration um the FY twenty-six CJS bill included no less than a hundred and ten million dollars for nuclear thermal propulsion um I wanna associate myself with the comments from the chairman here and discuss the all of the above approach. A priority I fought for specifically in that bill was making sure that this critical work continues to be done, much of which as you know is done there at Marshall Space Flight Center. So can you tell me today whether or not you will fully implement the NTP funding that Congress directed?

Uh and we will, Senator, no question.

Thank you, excellent.

I'm very very much a fan of this capability.

Okay, thank you so much, and in my my last uh a couple couple seconds, Wanna just talk a little bit about your workforce transition, um and anything you want this committee to know and to take into consideration as we look at this budget.

Uh yes, uh ma'am, so we one of the initiatives we have underway I'd say was probably one of the biggest surprises is that seventy-five percent of NASA's workforce is in fact contractors um these these are full-time essentially employees that sit at NASA every day same you know same badges sit at the same desks but does come at uh at a at a great expense. I'm hardly proposing uh, you know, forty five thousand people transition from contractors uh to to civil servants, but I have asked the center directors to go and identify core competencies, largely how do we build rockets, test rockets, launch rockets, operate rockets. Mission control is probably my favorite example that only one person generally in mission control is actually a civil servant,

Wow.

and ensure we have the core competencies so that we can beat the Chinese back to the moon.

Thank you so much, Mister Administrator, I look forward to continuing to work with you.

Thanks, Senator Britt.

Senator Coons is recognized.

Thank you, Chairman Moran, Ranking Member Van Hollen. Thank you, Administrator. Great to be with you. Uh, congratulations on a successful mission. Uh, as I think is the case, uh, so many times over the arc of at least my life and yours as well, uh, NASA has had a few bright shining moments where it's really brought the American people together and uh demonstrated our global um leadership in technology, innovation and in space. And I couldn't agree more with what Senator Van Hollen said. cannot abandon space science and lead in space exploration. Um I just want to commend you for continuing to fund CubeSat, which is a very small program. Uh there's a ten million dollar request I think for the CubeSat launch initiative. A group of students at the University of Delaware uh have participated, have enjoyed it, have gone on to successful careers uh with both NASA and contractors. Um but I was really disappointed to see the NASA office of STEM engagement zeroed out. again this year um when um Congress fully funded it last year. So to the points that were made about the gap between this budget proposal and what I believe to be your real priorities and our needs, um I'll be working hard to make sure that EPSCo uh which is how NASA um has some touch or engagement with every state in the country, um and the space grant program continue. What's your view of the relevance and the accomplishments of that hundred of the hundred and forty-three million for EPSCoR, forgive me, and the funding of the Office of STEM Engagement, and would you support, and will you commit to, executing on the appropriations given to you in last year's uh uh appropriations bill, and if we fund it again, will you execute on it?

So uh, Senator, you can be assured uh that whatever Congress appropriates um we will follow the law and maximize you know the scientific uh value of every dollar of it. I think President's budget request is is pointing out where there are inefficiencies, uh, within, uh, within the organization at NASA.

Is this one of them?

So you

Is the STEM engagement office an inefficiency that deserved to be zeroed out?

I- in I - I - I would in fact say yes, because every one of the components that's in that office is also funded through the mission directorates. So we have internship programs, we have grant funding to universities in every one of the mission directorates. Uh, and then of course

How is EPSCo different from those grant funding programs?

How ar- how is it different from it?

Yeah, why why is EPSCo something that Congress specifically created, funded, and has sustained over many years?

I I would have to get back to you on the difference between those grants.

I'll tell you. Because states like mine, um, that have the University of Delaware and Dell State and Wilmington University, none of which are among the cluster of nationally prominent long-term engineering and science partners with NASA, it allows them to have quality capable science programs that connect with space science. And I would argue that genius is evenly distributed across the human genome and arguably across the American people and having a pathway, although very small, uh for promising young students to engage with NASA and space science at every state university is a priority worth funding even at the enormous amount of a hundred and forty-three million dollars. Um, so, sir, look, uh, and I don't mean to be combative, but, you know, yesterday in a meeting with the secretary, um, a bipartisan group, um, pushed him repeatedly on we gave four hundred million to support Ukraine, to the Department of Defense, and a year later, um, they submitted a budget request that once again zeroed out all assistance to Ukraine, and refused to give an answer to Republicans and Democrats' House and Senate on how are you going to spend it, months and months later. So, we gave you money, uh to execute on epscor and space grant and i'm very hopeful that you will, that you'll follow the law as you suggest and i don't mean to be combative, i just believe there is value in our having a modest footprint in every state in america that helps support nasa at a time when there are some who question its value i don't i think what you are doing in terms of competing with the chinese to get back into space to get back on mars is deeply admirable and very important and i look forward to supporting your work And I'm glad we have an administrator, uh, who is focused on building and sustaining the agency rather than some other cabinet officials, uh, who are not. Last question, if I could, about the Artemis accords, which I think were a very positive development. Um, the mission that just successfully completed had a Canadian astronaut. Our relations with the Canadians are deeply strained. Our relations with most of our NATO allies are deeply strained. I led a bipartisan delegation to Denmark at a time when our president was. uh in ways I find hard to comprehend, threatening to seize Greenland. Um how do you intend to use the Artemis Accords and the future of the Artemis mission to help um strengthen and bring together some of our partnerships with close and trusted allies?

Yeah, it's it's an excellent question, Senator. So um I think when President Trump created the Artemis Accords program, initially it was about bringing like-minded uh nations together for the peaceful exploration of space, but now we're actually able to put it into practice. So I, as I'd mentioned actually before, with so many launches contemplated to build the moon base, I mean literally on a near monthly cadence starting in twenty twenty seven, I could raid the pantry at every one of the NASA centers for scientific instruments and there would still be so much excess mass and volume available.

Hmm.

That's why we met with the Artemis Accord partners during the ignition event, more than half in attendance, and and challenged them to go to their universities and get students working on hardware today that in the next couple of years will very

Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator, uh, I admire both the mission and your focus, and I look forward to supporting it, but this very little program matters to my home state university and to me, and I look forward to working with you on it. Thank you, sir.

Senator Coons, thank you. Senator Van- uh, Senator Peters.

Thank you, Chairman Moran. I'm a working member of Van Hollen. Uh, Administrator Isaacman, uh, good to have you here with us today, and I wanna join my colleagues uh in extending uh uh my congratulations to the entire NASA team for an incredible uh mission that clearly captivated the the the nation, which was uh great to see uh that kind of unity. Um, Administrator, last month um I introduced uh legislation uh with Chair Moran to provide NASA with uh authority to detect track identify and monitor unmanned aircraft systems, uh on uh NASA property. This authority, I believe, and uh Chair Moran is uh is essential to help NASA identify and address the credible threats to the safety and the security of NASA facilities, personnel and assets. Without these authorities, uh we're concerned about NASA's ability to even identify uh the scope of the problem, uh much less uh actually address it. So my question for you, sir, is can you describe NASA's current experience with unmanned aircraft incursions at its facilities? and how having the authority to detect, track, identify and monitor these uh incidents uh is necessary. And additionally, uh if granted, uh what is NASA's uh capacity to actually exercise these authorities, what do we need to do to back up uh your efforts uh to make sure that these facilities are secure?

Senator, I appreciate the question. The answer is there are quite literally hundreds of incursions around our senator our centers every single year. greatly concerning when we had Artemis two on the launch pad uh it wasn't just a you know a a multi-billion dollar rocket with uh with four brave astronauts on board, I looked at it as America's space program. And uh so I'm I'm certainly very concerned, I will say we we've had the opportunity we continue to collaborate closely uh with other government agencies to help protect the airspace when those major launches come underway. Uh would we prefer at NASA to have the ability to interdict ourselves in that, uh, absolutely. And, uh, I would say that we already possess, uh, a pretty strong footprint at every one of our centers, especially those at our launch complexes, which are national security, which is national security infrastructure, to defend the perimeter. We have a, we have a police force. We have a SWAT team. We have helicopters that quite literally escort our astronauts, uh, to the launch pad. Uh, it would certainly make sense to me to have the ability, as the UAV threat continues to increase, uh, to um to address the matter directly.

Right. So having these authorities is uh will be very helpful to you. We'll try to work on them uh as quickly as possible.

Sure.

Thank you. Uh, Administrator, the uh the deep space network consists, uh, as you know, of critical telecommunications infrastructure that allows over forty missions uh to track, uh, send commands to, and receive scientific data from uh far away space aircraft. Uh, this network I know played a critical role in facilitating communications uh with Artemis two and will continue to be essential to the Artemis program, uh going forward. However, uh we have known for years that the DSN uh network is oversubscribed uh and also under-resourced. NASA's FY twenty-seven budget request includes a thirteen percent decrease in funding for the space communications and navigation uh program that supports, uh DSN. So given the importance of this uh deep space network to scientific research and uh uh and it's already unfortunately limited capacity i'm concerned that further decreases in funding is gonna impact a much needed uh in enhancements so uh administrator do you agree that it's important to properly resource the deep space network for future nasa missions and will you commit to working with this committee to make sure that that actually happens

oh uh senator i will certainly uh agree with you the deep space network is incredibly important and would welcome uh the collaboration uh with this committee on how uh and how we can address it I will tell you we are already taking actions to increase capacity um I do think our approach to deep space network from decades past is very different than what we're capable of doing now, so we have RFIs out to industry and we do think we can more efficiently increase the capacity on the network. Uh Artemis two as you rightly fully pointed out did make use of deep space network, but we also showcased optical communications, it's how we got some of that amazing imagery back. uh to showcase to the world we're looking now what optical communications we can put in Artemis three and then subsequent Artemis missions as well I do think based on at least the research I've done from various ground stations and conversations I've had that we probably are in this golden or platinum age of space-based and ground-based communication and can increase the capacity and do so in a more efficient way

So are you open to taking a look at that resource cut to see if uh that uh is warranted and have a further discussion would you commit to at least doing that?

Oh, of course. And, uh, Senator, I'm saying I absolutely welcome the dialogue and conversation. I'm just saying that we think we can expand the capacity of deep space network, uh, and actually spend less in doing so, that there are efficiencies with what's available in industry today relative to decades past.

OK, very good. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You're welcome.

Uh, Senator Capito is in route, but let me call on Senator Van Hollen for a second round of questions. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Administrator, this would be a very different hearing if I believed that the budget requests from the administration reflected your best judgment. Um To me, this is just a carbon copy of what OMB submitted last year, and I really think it's a a disgrace, uh, to the NASA mission. I agree with Senator Coons on the programs he raised. As you know, the almost fifty percent cuts to space science are just short-sighted and unacceptable, and I hope this committee will do as it did last year and just start from scratch on on those elements. Um we have yet to receive the fiscal year twenty twenty six uh NASA spending plan. Is that related to your efforts uh to trying to fit in your new initiatives, reactor one, freedom and skyfall and when can we expect to get to this twenty six spend plan?

Uh Senator I certainly acknowledge that we are not timely right now with uh with respect to the spend plan i do think that's a combination of the timing of when i was confirmed in the role to release the national space policy and then our response to it which is ignition mine uh we have completed our portion of it it's going through the final administration review i think you'll it's due i i believe we are submitting it next week sir

I appreciate that. It, look, it's it's the way we are able to monitor compliance with what the committee set forward and we provided some important guardrails um this time to make sure committee's intent was was adhered to. Um, just picking up on the missions, the the the SR one and skyfall, um and as I said, I support picking up that tempo, um on how how will NASA though ensure that the scientific payload development integration and mission assurance capacity at centers, like Goddard, will scale up for the cadence. In other words, we're gonna have additional missions, um you'll have additional services provided. Are you focused also on making sure that we have, you know, smart and well thought out scientific missions components as part of that?

Uh, so, Senator, a lot certainly a lot there to to discuss. How am I generally thinking, uh, really across all of our centers, uh, and I'm thinking about center specialization. In fact, uh, I had a great trip with Senator Capito to see the IV and V center in West Virginia, and had great appreciation for the extreme focus there on their mission. Not only serves NASA very well, but a lot of other government agencies where they can apply that expertise. I think about Goddard in a very similar way on that is, this is whether it's the science center of excellence or our near-earth center of excellence because they have earth science and heliophysics there as well and then perhaps you know JPL is our robotics and deep space center of excellence, because they have a lot of great expertise there. I think that helps us focus the mission, I think it gives us opportunity when you do build center of excellence because when when we look at some of the science missions uh that are contemplated in the president's budget request, there's a lot in there that's in formulation right now where we're saying we don't have gaps in the capabilities and there's probably better ways to do earth observation, or space weather leveraging commercial industry that are printing off satellites and we can incorporate instruments in the future. But then there's also a lot of you know missions that are you know uh long past original design life but to your point sir in the beginning Are they still providing useful science? Yes, they are. Is there a way that we can consolidate some of those operations for missions that are past design life but continuing to produce good science into a single center of excellence where would be a good place for that I think Goddard Space Flight Center would be a good place for it so that's generally as they think about all the centers how do we get from a lot of broad focus to specialization areas, no one can do it better, it serves NASA well but again also creates good reimbursable opportunities because other agencies are gonna care about space weather and earth observation, for example.

I appreciate that. And, uh, look, I'm looking at, um, for example, the science and payload side of of the CLPS and moonfall. Um, so not just the delivery of services, but fully leveraging scientific expertise for these missions.

And I agree with that as well, s- uh, Senator. So, uh, I talk a lot about driving outcomes now and, uh, because it's great to put all those presentations and slides together at ignition, but how do you how do you deliver, like we have to do more than talk, and for a very long time across all of NASA, we we've talked a really good game but then we kind of sit and wait for uh our vendors and partners to deliver outcomes and as a result, we tend to be late and it tends to cost more, so how do you change that? You start embedding subject matter experts across the supply chain with the vendors to drive outcomes. I have no doubt we are gonna take experts from Goddard Space Flight Center and JPL and insert them with the industry that we are counting on to help us build this moon base because I don't wanna sit and watch on TV as a lander tips over. I want s- you know, a high batting average here, high probability of success, and I think the way you do that is you leverage a lot of the NASA expertise, incorporate in the supply chain, again, drive the outcomes that we're looking for.

I ap- I appreciate that, Mister Minister, and and finally, uh, on the issue of workforce, um, as you mentioned in your testimony, you're talking about bringing a lot more employees into the NASA official family on the government side. At the same time, in many parts of the NASA organization, we're still dealing with the harmful impact of a lot of the the layoffs and people who left uh if you could just provide a a briefing uh to our staff here on the subcommittee have your team do so and uh just where all these workforce challenges stand, it would be it could you could you agree to do that, have your team do that.

We we'd be happy to speak to our workforce initiatives to you and your staff any time you like.

Thank you.

Administrator, on the topic of uh of centers, uh you've emphasized the importance of uh strengthening America's aerospace workforce and deepening the partnerships that with industry and academia to support NASA's growing mission set. That suggests to me that maybe there's a Center of Excellence in Aerospace Engineering. Would you speak how NASA could leverage such a center to accelerate innovation, workforce development, and mission readiness?

Well, of course, the the first A in in NASA is one that, uh, I think is of great importance to me and and one I've been a a student of since the early days of the agency that have like quite literally wowed the country and the world, with our explains. Uh, we have one flagship X plane right now and it's it's starting to fly a lot more, which is great, which is X fifty nine. I think that our X plane portfolio is um is uh inadequate at this time period right now. I and again this is this is not a we need more dollars to do so, it is uh it uh allocating our dollars more efficiently, but I'd love nothing more than to see us build out our X plane portfolio uh and I would also love to see the associated investments in materials that are gonna be necessary for airframes that are gonna certainly in the years ahead be flying faster and higher than we've seen ever before. Uh, so, the, this is an area that we already have, uh, within, I mean, aeronautics is obviously an area that we do invest in quite heavily inside NASA, but in terms of being more efficient, more effective, it's certainly one of my focus areas for improvement, sir.

Uh, thank you. Um, let me ask you, um, about F y twenty-six, the appropriation bill that you're now working under. I wanna give you a chance to critique our work. Uh, what where did we miss the mark? Uh, what should we if we look forward in going forward to F y twenty-seven, what would you like us to learn from you about what did or didn't happen in F y twenty-six?

Uh, Senator, w- I will certainly not uh critique the appropriators uh in in any respect uh with uh with respect to fy twenty-six appropriations in fact with uh with respect to my opening commentary we would not be in a position now to have an achievable path back to the surface of the moon and build a moon base without the fy twenty-six appropriations and the working family tax cut act so i do think you've given us the resources do so now of course there are there are certain things that we've discussed publicly that we think are very wise like our approach to pivot from a a base orbiting above the moon to actually being on the surface of the moon, I think that's incredibly important. I think the standardization of SLS, uh, not turning them into works of art, but being able to increase, uh, but standardization to increase launch cadence so we can launch that beautiful moon rocket on a more annual basis instead of three and a half years, is vitally important. But with respect to the, the dollars and cents you've made available to us, we wouldn't be able to beat our great rival, uh, back to the moon with, without the resources you've already made available. So we're grateful.

I didn't mean to give you a chance to compliment us, but well, uh, I'm actually willing to take compliments, but the question I would would reiterate, and you can tell me this uh at a different time if if that makes more sense, but I would guess that our work will begin with the FY twenty-six as a as a starting point a baseline. Uh, and I just wanna make sure that if we if we were at the wrong starting point, we don't end up in the wrong place. So if if you see something that we under-emphasized uh or over-emphasized, I'm happy to hear it without being offended.

If uh, Senator, uh, Mis- uh, Mister Chairman, thank you, if I had any one uh request, and I think working with Congress has been uh, it's been exceptional right now. You're giving us the opportunity again to get back in gear, launch with cadence, get astronauts back to the moon and build the base, is just the flexibility with respect to, to the programs. Again, we're not talking lots of flexibility, the difference between do we want a base orbiting above the moon to look down on the Chinese or do we want a base on the surface of the moon ahead of the Chinese, And, um, I would say that, uh, I'm, I often study the difference between the, uh, you know, some of the bills in the nineteen sixties when we had to beat the Russians there versus today. They're a lot longer today and a lot more specific than they, uh, they were in the nineteen sixties, but the, the flexibility to be able to react in an environment that's, uh, certainly a very fast-moving ballgame against, uh, a very motivated, um, uh, competitor, uh, I think is important.

I will not take those sentences as eight. as a major rebuke of the committee's work. Administrator NASA's Earth Observing Satellites, uh, their provide data, critical data to support American agriculture, bringing this hearing back home to Kansas. Water Management, I administer these things in in my opening statement, Data Response, National Security. The Landsat program has been a cornerstone of that capability for decades, delivering consistent long-term imagery that farmers, ranchers resource managers across Kansas and the country rely on every day. Given the importance of continuity of these data sets, how is NASA working to ensure sustained investment investment in land set and avoid gaps in coverage?

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate uh the the bipartisan support for earth observation capabilities. As I say often, we presently only inhabit one planet, we should know as much as we can about it for specific reasons like agriculture and natural disasters and wildfires. Landsat program has been fantastic over the years. We have operational, as you know, Landsat eight and nine. Uh, Landsat ten i- is being built out to launch in the early, early twenty thirties, so we have continuity of that program. We're also procuring two additional instruments, uh, that would otherwise be on, on Landsat satellites to partner with commercial industry and as so long as we have the the support of USGS in this, to transition after, this is, you know, we have a lot of runway into like mid or late twenty thirties, uh to commercial industry where we can incorporate that instrumentation, get after the same observation data far more affordably, again more efficiently, freeze up resources to do what industry can't do, which is great missions like Nancy Grace Roman and Dragonfly, sir.

Thank you. I um would join Senator Van Hollen in the desire to see the spend plan. Look forward to seeing it. Uh d- I reserve the right to critique your spend plan once I see it.

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Um Thank you for your answers, Senator Kennedy.

Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman. I I I really just came by to say, uh say congratulations. Well done. And, uh, you and your team did it with class. You did it with humility. The whole world was watching. You didn't go running around from every, you know, every cable TV station going, " Look at me, look at me, I did this, I did this." You p- you - you - you pointed to your team and I - I uh We need more like you in government. Um, we got too many buttheads. Um, um, so I just wan- manually came by to say thank you. Two, two, two things. I know you're familiar with Stennis and Michu. I know you're taking a hard analytical critical look at our space program to the extent you can tell me what role do you see in the future for Stennis and Michu? Lot of talented people there.

Uh, Senator Kennedy, thank you very much, and no doubt this was, I mean, a collective achievement across the entire NASA workforce, our contractors. I mean, this is really the best and brightest come together for years to undertake this mission, and it is hard. I mean there's a reason we haven't been back to the moon in fifty-three years. That is challenging. Send those astronauts safely farther into space than ever before. I think it's a proud moment. It was absolutely a collective effort, but I don't know the last time four people were able to make such a difference in the world as what we witnessed with Artemis two, and so we are just getting started. Uh, with respect to the two centers, uh, that you, you referenced, Tennis, I mentioned before that we are trying to get to, you know, good center specialization. It makes it easier for the work we do at NASA and not to mention reimbursable work for others. CENICE is our propulsion center of excellence, there's no doubt. They're uh, they're the experts for testing our current uh, engines and they're also uh, probably the most forward leaning of any center to go where the puck, uh to to move where the puck was going, which was working with commercial industry as they develop uh their next generation engines which are being tested there. I also point out sir the center director from CENICE is the one who's leading the overall agency workforce initiative right now. retiring in nine months said nothing more than I wanna leave the agency in a much better place than I found it from a workforce perspective with uh with respect to MAF I mean historic contributions going back to the landing craft uh during world war two Apollo era shuttle SLS now so we put out a a demand signal uh to to industry we wanna increase the production of SLS we wanna launch with cadence again not every three years make it every year um and uh and they're responding incredibly well to it and we just we just put out an RFI to industry, because we we funded through our uh through the working family tax cut act, through Artemis five. But if we're building a moon base there, then we're probably gonna wanna go there with frequency. We said we wanna go to the moon every six months, two different pathways, so we never give up the moon. I have no doubt that those that are working at MAF are gonna continue making hardware in support of that effort, sir. And I'd refer to them the Advanced Manufacturing Center of Excellence, sir.

I I just read a piece, I don't know how much You can tell me, but I just read a piece this weekend on the plane or Monday or something. I think it was in The Economist, but they were talking about the uh satellite technology in China and how it's being used to help Iran. Um, we're ahead in terms of satellite technology. Uh, but but they're catching up. You got any thoughts on that? And the national

I think what I I would say uh on the subject center, and of course you you you certainly know who to speak to when you get deeper into the national security area on this is just that I'm not sure we can refer to the Chinese space program as a near peer uh and I think they're a lot closer to their peer and uh and I certainly see it on the on what I would call the peaceful exploration of space the civil side except they draw no distinction continue to merge those departments. They recently just responded and merged their moon base with their, uh, their human space flight program. Uh, they're moving incredibly fast. I think anything that we know from six months ago is so dated, I mean, they will have gone two generations past that already. It's, uh, it's a lot to keep up with. That's why I think it's so important that we've implemented change of late, standardize our approach, rebuild core competencies, rebuild muscle memory, because for decades when we didn't have a geopolitical competitor, that could rival us in the high ground of space, it was one thing to try and make everyone happy. But if we continue to do that right now, no one's gonna be happy, because we're gonna see the technonauts on the moon before us.

Thank you, Mr. Administrator. Again, well played. Well done to you and your team.

Thank you, Senator Kennedy. Um, Senator Shaheen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My, uh, right on time. Senator Kennedy followed me. at the last appropriations hearing and now I'm following him, so good timing. Um. Thank you, Mister Isaacman, um for your willingness to continue to serve the country as Administrator of NASA. Um, NASA's budget request for science is abysmal, I think. Um, for heliophysics the administration is asking for a four hundred and fifty-five million dollar cut That's less than half of what Congress provided in the twenty-six budget. Helio-physics research is really important, um and equally important. New Hampshire is proud to be home to the world-class helio-physics research that's done at the University of New Hampshire in Dartmouth College. Um UNH leads the helio swarm mission that will provide groundbreaking insights into the processes that drive space weather. And that's very valuable research. So uh explain how we can fulfill the priorities of the decadal survey for heliophysics, and ensure that heliophysics remains a strategic priority within NASA NASA in both the near term and the future, given this budget request.

Uh, thank you for the the question, Senator. I'm a huge fan of heliophysics, Parker Solar Probe, fastest man-made object. Similar to my commentary that we only inhabit one planet, we should know a lot about it. Well, we have a pretty critical dependency on our star, and we should also know as much as we can about it. I think the president's budget request is that with respect to space weather, heliophysics, and a lot of earth observation, we can take advantage of an in of multiple players in industry right now. They're just printing off satellites, work with them to incorporate some of the sensors that we're most interested in and get after the data more efficiently. I understand when you look at it from a budget reduction request that this jumps off the page but I'd also point out that before there were reusable rockets, we would have looked at and said shouldn't every launch be a half a billion dollars and now that's dropped I I would say almost ninety percent in cost for a comparable mission we think we can do something uh similar with respect to earth observation and space weather.

Who do we think is gonna pick up that mantle to to do that work and how do we guarantee that the private sector is gonna get what we actually need and what's gonna happen to the research that's been done.

So it's a great question, but first is, and I I mentioned this in my opening remarks, is not accepting any gaps. So uh as we look at some of the missions that are in formulation, we still have earth observation, we still have space weather satellites up there to provide the data. We put RFIs out constantly for who can uh step up to this challenge, and I would tell you with respect to anything with you know commercial constellations of observation and data gathering satellites, eight companies, I mean uh Planet, Black Sky, SpaceX, Blue Origin just launched uh, I'm sorry, Amazon, Leo just launched additional communication satellites this very morning. Everybody is interested in doing this and and it it makes a lot of sense economically, because they can provide calm relay, observation for DOW or the agriculture industry, and potentially take on space weather as well.

I'm not convinced. Um Congress has been committed to the science missions at NASA, um but Can you talk about what NASA's doing to provide continuity and certainty for small businesses who are key players in the supply chain? Um, we have a number of small businesses in New Hampshire who do work for NASA. Um, and as I look at the cuts that are being made to science, it's not clear to me how we get that information, um, because many of those businesses are not gonna be able to do that work.

S um, Senator, I I can't necessarily comment about small businesses in New Hampshire and and and uh if there's any impact at all as it relates to how we're thinking through the budget request other than to say that I'm very interested through the SIBER dollars to actually put resources in the hands of small businesses to solve many of the supply chain issues we're faced with today.

Um I wasn't really asking you to comment specifically on New Hampshire but small businesses across the country and how you continue to convince them of work for cutting the funding that allows them to do the work for NASA. Are you expecting them to put forward funding on their own for what you are trying to do?

Yeah, I I think um, Senator, the with respect to the budget request, when when we look at reductions in different programs, the the assumption a lot of it is well does this necessarily translate into into jobs? And and I would say that we if you look at our history in some of the GAO audits, the Inspector General audits, we quite honestly throw away billions of dollars over the years on on failed programs. What we're talking about is just better capital allocation. Can we get the resources and the right hands to get after the science and discovery that we want faster and more affordably and have less examples of programs where two billion dollars for example from Mars sample return is gone? Um you know and we we probably it's in my per- written uh testimony but there's there's a lot of other examples on big dollars where we We threw away taxpayer resources because programs were unsuccessful.

Um, well, as a former governor I can tell you that I've worked hard to eliminate, um, programs that were not successful. But, as I said, I'm not convinced that the private sector's gonna be able to do the helio f- helio, um, physics research. And, um, I I would like, Mister Chairman, if you would allow me to ask one more question. Um, because you're also proposing to eliminate NASA's office of STEM engagement, which is effectively all of the education programs. In New Hampshire, NASA programs like Space Grant, NextGen STEM, EPSCoR, they've really helped to inspire and prepare young people to go into space. So how do how do we continue to inspire and provide students with the understanding about stem subjects that we're gonna need in order to get the workforce for the future.

Thank you, Senator, and if uh if I may, I I wanted to just hit on that heliophysics point that um I agree with you, not everything is gonna be done through through the private sector. And I'm I'm I very much like to I say I'm a make nuance great again guy, I don't take generally the binary positions on these things. There are gonna be examples where we can do space weather and metaphysics with commercial constellation providers. And there are gonna be areas where NASA must do it ourselves to undertake missions like Parker solar probe, that I wouldn't expect anyone in industry to be, to be capable of undertaking themselves. Similarly, when we talk about the office system engagement, the first thing I'd say to, uh, ev- every member of the committee is, every dollar you give us there is, uh, inspiration is inherent in it. Whether it's an X plane or a rocket's being launched, I can't tell you how many people ma'am have said, I sat there with my children to watch Artemis two and now they're really interested in STEM. And that's true. We do owe more than that, and that's why throughout all of our mission directorates, independent of the STEM office, we have grant programs and we have internship programs to take it from the spark that Artemis two provides to the internship when they're out of school or potentially the hardware they're working on through grant dollars.

Well, thank you. I I think Congress is committed to a number of these programs, so I'm looking forward to working in a bipartisan way to put back some of the money that um the administration is talking about cutting. Thank you, Mister Chairman.

Senator Shandry. Senator Coons asked a sem very similar question and the Administrator answered uh uh as well. Um, Senator Malkowski.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Administrator uh Isaacman. Um, uh when you and I had an opportunity to to visit some weeks ago, months ago now, um uh we were talking about those rocket lunches that perhaps most Americans are not familiar with, but we in Alaska absolutely are, and this is uh the the uh rocket facility there or the space facility there in Kodiak with Alaska Aerospace uh cooperation uh corporation and what they do in on conjunction with the University of Alaska Fairbanks Poker Flats research range it offers and I think you agreed with me it offers NASA something that no other state can no other region can and that's the high latitude launch access um uh instrumental ranges over both land and water, additional capacity, lower costs. Um you i have indicated, well actually maybe not you directly to me, but I have have seen NASA's expressed interest in a northern launch capability at a Liktok point, up on the north slope, uh overlooking the Arctic Ocean, that could directly support growing demand for polar orbit access. Um I think we recognize that polar and the high latitude orbits are increasingly critical and certainly interesting from a national security perspective. So uh the question to you this morning is whether or not uh NASA has conducted any kind of an assessment a formal assessment of investing in Alaska's launch infrastructure to leverage these very unique, uh high latitude uh capabilities.

Uh thank you for the the question. Uh, Senator, I I would have to get back to you on any studies specific to infrastructure investments in Alaska. I can tell you uh our IG posts about it uh with some frequency. We do about a f- I I think a five billion dollar infrastructure backlog. Uh, so we have a we have a lot of Apollo era hardware and infrastructure that we need to invest in. That said, ma'am, I would tell you that if you if you a- if I had a crystal ball, I will say every one of the launch uh complexes in this country is gonna be maxed out in the next decade. Um, and we are, as industry comes to us and looks for opportunity, because we're actually discussing like almost unthinkable things at the end of the shuttle era of building more launch complexes. So we talked to industry about you need to look at opportunities, whether it's at Wallops or in Alaska specifically, and and get after that scarce real estate now because in in the next, you know, again ten years it's gonna be gone as well. Like we are in a new, whole new era here, ma'am.

And I, I don't disagree with you at all, Administrator, I would just um just reinforce and remind that all real estate is not equal. Um, uh, you can put it in some places where you're gonna have opposition from from those on the land or opposition from those on the sea you have two unique opportunities, uh, with poker flats as well as as the Kodiak space facility. Um, and and it is this very unique opportunity again to direct to, um, multi uh latitude capabilities. Not everybody can do that. And they will never, ever, ever be able to do that because of where they sit on the globe. So we are unique. I know you know that. Um let me ask more specifically about uh poker flats. Can you ask me? I'm just asking. I'm just asking. Um it's the world's largest land-based rocket research range. I'm just asking. Now in looking at the budget, it seeks to uh cut nearly sixty percent of the budget for the sounding rocket uh pro project. which provides operational support for for ranges like poker flats. Now I also see in the in the in the fine print there that NASA has not yet finalized the FY twenty-seven sounding rocket missile mission manifest. So the question this morning is whether or not NASA is proposing to cut support for scientific research ranges including p poker flats and this uh this manifest that you're working on um Uh, when do you understand that it might be completed and can we, can we uh have access to that so that we understand the potential implications for for ranges like poker flats?

Of of course, Senator, and and to your point, uh, that is a great range for sounding rockets, suborbital rockets, uh, for high latitude to study the Aurora. And I would say though that uh studying the Aurora is somewhat cyclical. Uh, so we have a boom and bust period and for the last you know, period of time, we've been in solar max, which has created lots of opportunities for analysis. We, we are gonna, there, there will be a, a downward trend there, and I think that's probably why our science mission director had wanted some time to look at the manifest to see where are the best opportunities to launch knowing that cadence probably will go down as the sun is less angry with us and then certainly will come back again during, during the next cycle.

But you, you will share with us the, the outcome of that manifest, is that correct?

Yeah, yes, Senator, I, we would be happy to have the science mission director brief, uh, you and your staff, um, on exactly what we're after and when are the good times and, and, and less optimal times for that, that analysis, that study.

Okay. Well, and I, I've, I've had opportunity to go out to, uh, to poker flats there and understanding, yes, great deal of, of focus on Aurora, but also, um, uh, just studying the entire Arctic atmosphere, the, the ionosphere, um and the like.

Yes.

Last question I'll ask of you is uh related to distributed active archive centers. Um it it appears from the budget that NASA is conducting an independent review of its plan to transition these these DACs to science enabling teams. Um University of Alaska Fairbanks is home to NASA's DAC for Synthetic Apparat aperture radar, the SAR. through the Alaska satellite facility, um and the SAR data that they collect can produce imagery through the clouds through the rain and fog and smoke. And it's it's just been super helpful as we are trying to understand what's happening on the globe. Um once this independent review is complete, uh again can you share with our office and brief us on any changes that could impact uh ASF?

Uh yes Senator, you certainly have my commitment.

Great, great, thank you. Thank you for that and uh appreciate the opportunity to to pose these questions to you and congratulations again on the success of Artemis.

Thank you, Senator.

Poker flats. Just got an invitation to poker flats. Uh, Uh, Administrator, Codeia. and Codeic. Codeia. Administrator, just a couple more things and then we'll conclude our hearing. Uh, NASA's port- aeronautic port- aeronautics portfolio has played a critical role in maintaining US leadership in aviation innovation, particularly in areas such as advanced compo- uh compos- excuse me, composite materials that improve performance, reduce cost, strengthen domestic indust- industrial base. Uh, how is NASA prioritizing those aeronautics programs with the greatest potential to transition from research into real-world a- commercial applications?

So thank you for the question, Senator. Um, we are taking a close look of, I c- I would almost call it a full review of the entire aeronautics portfolio from the X planes that fly to the materials to the infrastructure that does the testing, to ensure that we are prioritizing kind of the cutting edge research, um, you know, in uh what I would, I'm generally trying to steer towards, you know, radical airframe uh and propulsion design for next generation high and fast flying aircraft, whether that for civil or or national security reasons. I think that's what the the taxpayers wanna fund the aeronautics portfolio to do. So I would say we've gotten very broad over the years and we're uh in a lot of ways, almost subsidizing commercial industries, airframe and propulsion design on on very mature technology instead of on uh, you know, the low uh technical readiness uh investments that I think we are we are meant to be pioneering at NASA, so we are doing a review on that now, sir.

Uh, let me ask you a Kansas-specific question. Clyde Tombaugh.

I would have brought it up too, Senator.

Uh, so, nineteen thirty, the discoverer of Pluto, a Kansan from Burdette, uh, which I have represented since I was a state senator, population two hundred and twenty eight, a graduate of the University of Kansas, uh, tell me about NASA's, um, interest in Pluto.

Uh, Senator, I am uh very much in the camp of uh make Pluto a planet again. Uh, and uh I would say we are doing some papers right now on uh, I think uh a position that we would love to escalate through um, through the scientific community to uh, uh revisit this discussion and ensure that Clyde uh, Thombal gets the uh, the credit he received once and rightfully deserves to receive again.

for your answer. Uh, since you were so kind in the way you answered that question, would you agree with the Nast- NASA astronauts that Kansas hosts the best space museum in the world?

I, I would certainly agree, uh, I would never disagree with the NASA astronauts, especially since I know that that comment came from the Artemis two crew that just went farther away from this world than any humans before. But I certainly enjoyed that visit and seeing hardware in person, like with my eye, that I, I mean, I haven't even seen in books, like the Volga airlock that, um, uh, that allowed the, the first human spacewalk ever. Uh, I mean, there is certainly some absolutely exceptionally rare and historically significant hardware at the, uh, Cosmosphere, sir.

Thank you. Your astronauts were much more succinct in their answer.

I'm sure.

Um.

And that's very amazing.

Anything you'd like to add to your testimony? Anything that you'd like to cover that we didn't?

Uh, grateful to testify before you today, Mr. Chairman.

Your very kind. Uh, with no further senators to ask further questions, uh, senators may submit additional questions for the subcommittee's official hearing record. We request you, Mister Administrator, that you respond within thirty days. The subcommittee now stands in recess, subject to the call of the chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.