Jared Isaacman testifies on Trump’s NASA budget at House hearing

[0:00] science, space, and technology will now come to order. Good morning, everyone. [0:05] Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recesses of the [0:10] committee at any time. Welcome to today's hearing entitled, A Review of the [0:15] President's Budget Request for the National Aeronautics and Space [0:18] Administration Year 2027. I recognize myself now for five minutes for an [0:25] opening statement. Just three weeks ago, the world watched as Artemis II lifted [0:35] off from the launch pad 39B at Kennedy Space Center. Over the course of nearly [0:41] ten days, the mission carried four astronauts around the moon and back, [0:46] taking them deeper into space than any humans had ever traveled before. I was [0:53] very proud to be in Florida for this awe-inspiring launch. I was also very [0:57] honored to be in Houston to welcome the crew back home. The mission was the result [1:02] of years of planning and was almost flawless in its execution, maybe except [1:10] for the toilet. For more than two decades, this committee has advocated for continuity [1:16] of purpose, specifically to enable NASA to carry out programs of this size and this [1:22] complexity. In February, this committee unanimously reported a bipartisan NASA [1:29] reauthorization bill to the House that maintains that continuity of purpose across the [1:35] agency. I look very much forward to working with ranking member Lofgren and our [1:40] counterparts in the Senate to get a bill to the president's desk very soon. Last [1:46] month, NASA hosted an event called Ignition, where the agency made several [1:51] announcements regarding changes to the Artemis architecture and other agency [1:57] initiatives. Among these announcements was a commitment to develop a crewed base at [2:03] the moon's south pole to significantly increase the cadence of robotic lunar [2:08] missions and to conduct a nuclear demonstration mission to Mars. Several of these [2:14] initiatives represent an exciting future for our space program, but we would not [2:19] fulfill our role as authorizers if we did not gain an understanding of the purpose [2:25] and the price of such missions, as well as their impacts on other programs within the [2:30] NASA portfolio. During NASA's ignition event, the agency announced its intention to build [2:37] and install a new government module on the International Space Station. It would then [2:43] encourage commercial companies to attach to this new module. This is a significant [2:48] departure from the commercial low-Earth orbit development program that NASA has pursued to date. This [2:55] new proposal must be supported by budget, technical and policy analysis, as well as [3:01] discussions with international and commercial partners. We also must understand the [3:06] timeline over which this new approach will unfold and how that impacts NASA's [3:11] presence in low-Earth orbit. The Office of Management and Budget's proposed budget for [3:18] fiscal year 2027 requests $18.8 billion for NASA, roughly a 23% cut from amounts appropriated by Congress in [3:29] fiscal year 2026. Many of the proposed budget cuts were rejected by Congress previously, and I am [3:37] confident that they're going to be rejected again. Both the President and Congress have provided explicit [3:44] direction for NASA to undertake a range of activities, from exploration and science to aeronautics research. [3:52] We must ensure that NASA is funded at a level that allows it to pursue those missions. I simply do not [3:59] believe that this budget proposal is capable of supporting what President Trump himself has directed the [4:05] agency to accomplish over the course of his two terms, nor what Congress has directed by law. [4:13] To be clear, I'm a conservative Republican. I am a budget hawk. Our nation is nearly $39 trillion in [4:21] debt. We must address this alarming situation and soon, but we must be smart in how we do so. [4:29] Short-changing NASA is simply not smart. We face competition from China across all aspects of space [4:38] activity. China aims to send astronauts to the lunar surface before the end of the decade. If we do not [4:45] carefully address the future of NASA's activities in low-Earth orbit, the Chinese space station could [4:52] become the only human-tended platform and the only option for countries seeking to collaborate on [4:59] microgravity research. China also conducted several impressive science missions and plans for more. We must ask [5:08] whether this proposed budget maintains United States civil and commercial space dominance, or if we risk [5:15] ceding that leadership to our adversary, China. Only through Congress, our commercial space sector, and the [5:24] administration working together can we ensure continued U.S. leadership in space. I look forward to [5:31] hearing more about the administrator's plans, including what he discussed at NASA's ignition event last month. [5:38] So I want to thank you, Mr. Administrator, for appearing before us today, and we look forward to your testimony. [5:46] So now I would like to recognize the ranking member, Ms. Lofgren, from California, for her opening statement. [5:52] Well, thank you, Chairman Babin, for today's hearing and the budget request for NASA. I want to give a special welcome [5:59] to Administrator Isaacman, who, of course, we know is newly minted in his role for only four months. [6:05] I really appreciate the passion and the vigor that you're bringing to your service, and I look forward [6:11] to our discussion on NASA's future. With the thrilling Artemis II mission still fresh in our minds, [6:18] NASA gave us a taste of an inspiring, bold, and bright future for the agency. I want to congratulate you, [6:26] Administrator, and all of NASA and its industry and international partners on Artemis II's success, [6:33] which was a proud and uplifting moment for America. At least from the outside, [6:38] everything appeared to go smoothly, an outcome that rests on the grit, blood, sweat, [6:44] and likely tears of employees, thousands of employees. These workers sacrificed attending [6:50] children's birthdays, anniversaries, family vacations, to put in the demanding work required [6:57] to prepare Artemis II for its lunar journey, and the exploration ground support team deserves [7:03] a loud shout-out and our thanks. However, on day three of the mission, while Integrity's crew were [7:10] 99,900 statute miles from Earth, preparing for their lunar science observations, [7:19] the President and Russ Vogt released the fiscal year 2027 budget request. As the Chairman has noted, [7:27] and like the 2026 request, OMB once again tries to argue that NASA and the United States will continue to lead [7:34] in space and Earth science, human exploration, aeronautics, and space technology, while all but exploration [7:41] would see draconian cuts. Cuts totaling 5.6 billion or 23 percent from the fiscal year 2026 enacted level [7:51] is not wise. These reductions do not exactly send a welcome home message to the Artemis II crew [7:57] or to the NASA workforce, for that matter. The request, the 2027 request for NASA, I think was largely [8:06] locked down before you, Mr. Administrator, assumed your position, but it should come as no surprise [8:12] that we have concerns here in the Science Committee. Exploration would see disproportionate increases [8:18] under this proposal. The rest of NASA would not. Slashing space and Earth science, aeronautics, and space technology, [8:26] while our society increasingly depends on space assets and services to function, that's just not a winning strategy. [8:35] After all, the aerospace and aviation industry contributed 74 billion positive manufacturing trade balance in 2024, [8:45] yet the request would cut aeronautics by 35 percent. And attempting to zero out the Office of STEM Engagement, [8:52] which is authorized in law, by the way, when we have this golden opportunity to build on the inspiration [8:59] of Artemis II to engage students in STEM education and careers, that just doesn't make any sense. [9:05] I fully expect, as the chairman has mentioned, Congress to reject this request as we did in fiscal year 2026. [9:13] Yet, as our Democratic staff reported last week in great detail, NASA did not wait for Congress to act. [9:20] NASA took premature and misguided actions to implement the fiscal year 2026 request before Congress acted on a full year appropriation. [9:31] I hope today's discussion reaffirms the importance of respecting Congress's role in shaping the agency's direction [9:38] and abiding by the decisions that Congress makes about how appropriated funds are spent. [9:44] Now, while today's hearing is primarily on the budget proposal, that's not the only question about NASA's future. [9:53] In late March, just about a month ago, NASA unveiled an extensive array of new initiatives titled Ignition, [9:59] to include a moon base, changes to the Artemis architecture, a potential new approach for low-Earth orbit operations [10:08] following the end of ISS, a series of new science initiatives, a nuclear-powered spacecraft to Mars. [10:15] I hope to hear more about these activities, because while they sound interesting and they sound ambitious, [10:20] I'm not aware that we've yet seen the plans or cost or schedule estimates for them. [10:25] They weren't included in OMB's budget request, so I'm hoping we can be further enlightened. [10:33] They are an ambitious and exciting proposal. [10:36] Mr. Chairman, before I yield, I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record our democratic staff report. [10:45] Without objection. [10:47] I would note that all of the activities described in this report occurred before the current administrator was in his position. [10:54] It was not anything that he did. [10:56] And I would close with this, Mr. Chairman. [10:59] As you have said yourself, you are a conservative Republican from Texas. [11:04] I'm not. [11:05] But we see this the same way. [11:07] And I'm hopeful that we can work together and make sure that our country remains in the lead when it comes to space. [11:15] And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. [11:16] I'd like to thank the ranking member. [11:18] And now let me introduce our witness today. [11:21] Our witness today, of course, is our four-month longevity, doing a great job, I think, so far. [11:29] And is Mr. Jared Isaacman, our new NASA Administrator. [11:34] I want to thank you for joining us today, sir. [11:37] And I'd like to recognize you now for a five-minute opening statement. [11:41] Thank you, Chairman Babin, Ranking Member Lofgren, and members of the committee. [11:48] I am honored to speak before you today to provide an update on the state of the National Aeronautic and Space Administration [11:54] and to present the President's budget request for fiscal year 2027. [11:58] Now, on July 29, 1958, NASA was created to undertake and achieve the near impossible. [12:04] And on July 20, 1969, when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon, that's exactly what we did. [12:11] In the decades since, American ingenuity was on display. [12:14] As the shuttle program took flight, the International Space Station was constructed, [12:18] and telescopes, probes, and Martian rovers were launched to help unlock the secrets of the universe. [12:24] The last two decades are a different story. [12:27] The GAO's 2025 assessment of major NASA projects identified roughly $15 billion in cost overrun since 2009. [12:35] Just as an example, Dragonfly was initially proposed six years ago at $850 million for development. [12:43] We are optimistic it will launch in 2028 at a cost of $3.4 billion. [12:48] Our flagship X-plane, the X-59, was conceived eight years ago as a $468 million program with a first flight expected in January of 2022. [12:57] The program to date is close to $800 million, and first flight occurred in late 2025, only recently resuming operations. [13:05] The future enhancements of the SLS rocket, referred to as Block 1B, which is a performance upgrade to co-manifest cargo that industry is already capable of supporting at lower cost, [13:15] required the Mobile Launcher 2 and the Exploration Upper Stage. [13:20] ML2 was awarded in 2019 on a $383 million contract for delivery in March of 2023. [13:27] The ML2 program cost was on track to $1.8 billion, with years more to go. [13:32] Similarly, EUS, the Exploration Upper Stage, began with a contract value of $962 million. [13:38] It has grown to over $2 billion, and the Inspector General assessed SLS Block 1B would likely reach $5.7 billion. [13:45] Of course, we are absolutely riding a high at this moment. [13:49] The nation and the world paused as four brave astronauts on Artemis II flew around the moon. [13:54] NASA made the headlines we were supposed to make. [13:56] We showed the world the moon again, and we showed humanity Earth again. [14:00] I want to congratulate the crew of Artemis II, the NASA workforce, our contractors and partners, [14:06] for delivering this moment, and for all that will inevitably come next. [14:10] As President Trump so correctly said when speaking to the crew from space, [14:14] today you have made history and made all of America really proud. [14:17] You really are modern-day pioneers. [14:20] The pioneering spirit championed by the President has breathed new life in our country's effort to master the stars. [14:26] But for all the Artemis II mission has accomplished, how we arrived at it was far from perfect, [14:31] and the decisions of previous administrations that led to these deficiencies deserve some careful reflection. [14:37] Almost the entirety of the SLS program has repurposed decades-old space shuttle hardware. [14:42] I certainly understand why the shuttle program was ending, [14:45] and it was very important at the time to look after the industrial base. [14:48] I will also say that was at a time when we did not have a geopolitical competitor challenging America in the high ground of space, [14:55] but perpetuating the past does not help us realize a better future. [14:59] Even after over $100 billion of taxpayer funding to date and the most recent and successful Artemis II mission, [15:05] we would not have launched again until late 2028 with the aim of putting astronauts on the moon under the previous plan, [15:12] a plan with no hope of achieving this national imperative. [15:15] You do not fly rockets like this every three-plus years and expect success. [15:19] Further, you do not make each vehicle a work of art by materially changing the configuration. [15:25] You also do not build a base in orbit above the moon when the scientists, the engineers, [15:29] the astronauts, and certainly the space-loving community want to be on the surface of the moon, [15:34] which is already very hard to achieve. [15:36] So like many, I want to see more missions of science and discovery. [15:39] Under the previous administration, NASA, with the support of Congress, [15:43] rightfully canceled the Mars sample return mission that was conceived to cost up to $4 billion, [15:48] and in just a few years ballooned to over $10 billion, [15:51] with $2 billion in taxpayer funds that have already been spent. [15:54] This is not good capital allocation or execution, [15:57] and adding dozens of other in formulation or life-extended science missions alongside it [16:01] does not necessarily make things better. [16:03] American exceptionalism is being challenged in the high ground of space. [16:07] To win, we cannot establish programs that are designed to be too big to fail, [16:11] but at the same time too costly to succeed. [16:14] Nor should it be throwing more money at the problem, but rather fixing the problems [16:18] and concentrating resources on the mission and delivering outcomes. [16:23] The President's fiscal year 27 budget alongside the resources in the Working Family Tax Cut Act [16:28] focused the agency on these priorities. [16:31] Return to the moon, increase launch cadence, and land American astronauts on the surface by 2028, [16:36] consistent with the directive laid out in Executive Order 14369, [16:41] ensuring American space superiority, which was issued by President Trump last December. [16:45] In parallel, build with industry a moon base. [16:49] This includes landers, rovers, power and communication, tech demonstrations, [16:53] so we can master the skills needed for future crewed missions to Mars, [16:57] alongside all the scientific payloads those systems can carry. [17:01] Ignite the orbital and lunar economy. [17:03] Work alongside industry to expand commercial astronaut payload [17:06] and monetization opportunities on the space station, [17:09] send demand signals for landers and rovers in support of a moon base, [17:12] and transition to one or multiple commercial space stations by 2030. [17:16] We have already awarded private astronaut missions five, six, and seven in that regard. [17:21] The budget supports the Nancy Grace Roman Telescope that will launch at the end of 2026, [17:26] with a hundred times the field of view of a Hubble, a thousand times the scan rate. [17:30] We will launch Dragonfly, the nuclear-powered octocopter, to Saturn's moon of Titan in 2028, [17:35] along with a nuclear power and propulsion demonstration that includes a scientific payload, [17:40] bringing billions in taxpayer investments from decades of failed programs into real capability in space, [17:46] and by 2030 deliver fission surface power to the moon. [17:49] We do presently inhabit just one planet, and understanding Earth science is paramount, [17:54] and it's paramount for agriculture, industry, and natural disaster response. [17:58] We do value this science and intend to work with industry to get after this data more affordably. [18:02] The President's budget supports investments in aeronautics that will advance civil, commercial, [18:07] and national security aviation, especially next-generation air transportation systems for safer air traffic control. [18:14] We are rebuilding core competencies at NASA, moving the work of thousands of contractors to civil servants, [18:19] freeing up hundreds of millions in resources in support of NASA objectives, [18:23] and inherent in everything we do at NASA is inspiration. [18:26] It does not come necessarily from pamphlets or flyers, but from missions like Artemis, [18:31] landing astronauts on the moon, X-planes, and breathtaking images from space telescopes and rovers, [18:36] moments that inspire children to dress up as astronauts for Halloween, [18:40] and grow up to contribute to humankind's greatest adventure. [18:43] I have communicated to the NASA workforce across every center I have visited, in town halls and in letters, [18:48] if we can concentrate the resources entrusted to us on the needle-moving objectives, [18:52] why we exist as an agency, while clearing away needless bureaucracy, obstacles, [18:57] and policies that impede progress, and unleash the brilliant minds at NASA, [19:01] then returning to the moon and building a lunar base will be pale in comparison to what we can achieve in the years ahead. [19:06] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [19:07] You're welcome. Thank you. [19:09] I'd like to recognize myself for five minutes for questions. [19:13] Administrator Isaacman, first, very quickly, if you don't mind, [19:18] when will NASA submit its fiscal year 26 spin plan to the committee? [19:23] Mr. Chairman, my understanding is NASA did wrap up that process in early April, [19:29] and it's with review in the administration. [19:31] I'm hopeful it's presented shortly, sir. [19:34] Okay. It's impossible to fully assess this budget request without knowing, you know, [19:40] how much each program, project, and activity are going to be what that we received last year, [19:47] particularly given the disparity between the President's budget request [19:51] and the newly proposed ignition activities. [19:53] Okay. We just witnessed an amazing Artemis II mission. [19:58] I can't, it's hard for me to even describe how proud I was of our agency, our country, [20:07] and what, and these, these astronauts and the entire team. [20:13] Yet the administration is once again proposing transitioning away from SLS and Orion, [20:19] even without alternative operational systems at this present time. [20:24] The President tasked NASA with returning to the moon by 2028. [20:28] If HLS and SLS and Orion commercial alternatives continue to be delayed, [20:34] what are you going to be doing to ensure that you meet the President's direction? [20:40] And you said recently that you'd probably be out of a job if you don't deliver, [20:44] and I don't want to see that happen, Mr. Administrator. [20:47] We went too long without a permanent administrator. [20:50] So if you can. [20:52] Sure, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I agree with you completely. [20:56] If we're going to go through the trouble of building a moon base, [20:58] we better be able to send astronauts there with great frequency on it. [21:01] So we have not canceled or done anything with, you know, with the SLS program other than to standardize it [21:09] so we can increase launch cadence so that amazing rocket that we all just witnessed launch just weeks ago, [21:15] we can see with greater frequency. [21:17] So trying to, as I mentioned in my remarks, not turn each one into a work of art [21:21] because it's hard enough to do it at the current rate, standardize, launch faster, [21:26] we're adding a mission with SLS in 2027 to demonstrate the interoperability of the Orion spacecraft with the landers. [21:33] So in 2028 we can protect for potentially two additional SLS launches for crewed astronauts to the surface of the moon before our arrival. [21:41] We also put a demand signal out to industry for two different pathways so we can assure crewed access to the moon base that we are building. [21:49] I have no doubt from my interactions with industry, the SLS players are all coming together and that will likely be one of the pathways, [21:55] almost assuredly Orion, as it is the only crewed vehicle that we have right now that can bring astronauts back from the moon. [22:01] Okay, I certainly hope you'll finish the second mobile launch platform as well that is nearing completion [22:07] and ensure that SLS has an upper stage to meet the 130 ton to orbit requirement directed by statute. [22:15] And I look forward to hearing your backup plans to ensure that we meet the President's direction. [22:20] Next, earlier this year you announced a new workforce directive to increase NASA's internal expertise by converting thousands of technical, [22:29] engineering, and operational roles from contractor positions to civil servant positions. [22:35] I've seen firsthand how NASA, JSC, civil servants play such an important role in providing institutional knowledge and core capabilities. [22:43] I've also seen how a robust contractor workforce, the envy of the world, quite frankly, [22:50] can provide NASA with agile and cost-effective solutions to evolving NASA needs. [22:56] As you implement this new workforce directive, how are you planning to balance those priorities [23:02] and ensure that you don't swing the pendulum too far in one direction? [23:06] Mr. Chairman, I completely agree with you on that assessment. [23:09] It takes the contributions of the civil servant workforce, our contractors, our commercial and international partners [23:14] to undertake the endeavors that we are pursuing right now, like putting American astronauts back on the moon so we can stay. [23:21] That said, I will say in my first month or so when I made it a point to visit every one of the seven [23:26] of NASA's centers, hear from the workforce directly, host town halls, establish inboxes, receive feedback, [23:32] I was surprised that greater than 40,000 of NASA's workforce is essentially full-time contractors. [23:38] They don't support anyone else. [23:39] They work exclusively for NASA. [23:41] This is at an expense of over $4 billion a year to some various staffing-related agencies, [23:47] and I'll tell you, sir, they're not doing that for free. [23:50] Some of these roles absolutely are best served as contractors. [23:53] They're outside of our core competencies, and we rely on them heavily, [23:56] and we're grateful for that service. [23:58] But some examples, sir, are mission control in Houston. [24:01] I do think a core competency for NASA is to be able to build rockets, launch rockets, [24:05] and support rockets when they're underway in space at mission control and some engineering support staff, [24:10] and that we should look for opportunities to bring them into civil service, and they welcome that. [24:15] Now, I'm not making the picks here, Mr. Chairman. [24:18] I'll tell you, I've delegated this down to the center directors. [24:21] So those at JSC, KSC, Marshall Space Flight Center, those are the center directors, [24:25] the local leadership that are determining what is our core competency that we need at NASA [24:29] to ensure that we win in the high ground of space, and these are the personnel that they are identifying, sir. [24:35] Okay. I'm out of time. [24:37] I have a couple more questions, and perhaps maybe later. [24:41] But I'd like to go to the ranking member for her questions. [24:47] We will alternate between majority and minority here. [24:50] So, Ms. Lofgren, if you're recognized. [24:53] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your testimony, administrator, [24:59] as well as the energy that you're bringing here to the agency, which is admired and appreciated. [25:07] I want to draw your attention to an email that we've put up on the screen. [25:12] The Democratic staff of the committee obtained it, and it was put in our report that I sent you earlier. [25:20] It's an email from the project manager of NASA's Electrified Powertrain Flight Demonstration Project, or EPFD, [25:29] to the EPFD project team that was sent May 30th, 2025, obviously before you were here. [25:37] You may want to, I think you've read it before, but I want to read the first three sentences of the email for the record, [25:43] because I think they tell the whole story. [25:46] On the very same day that NASA's full fiscal year 2026 budget proposal was released, the project manager writes to her staff, [25:57] Dear EPFD family, I'm the bearer of sad news. [26:01] The president's budget and OMB have zeroed out EPFD for fiscal year 26 and beyond. [26:08] The agency has requested an orderly shutdown of the project by September 30th. [26:13] Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to put this email into the record. [26:19] Mr. Isaacsman, this email is really smoking-gun evidence that NASA implemented the fiscal year [26:25] presidential budget request last year without congressional approval. [26:29] Now, it wasn't just EPFD. [26:32] It was not just the Aramontics Research Mission Directorate where EPFD was located. [26:37] It happened all across NASA. [26:39] Now, the timeline matters here. [26:41] As I said earlier, you weren't in charge. [26:43] You didn't make this decision. [26:44] And I won't ask you to defend the decisions of your predecessors or discuss them. [26:52] But I want to make sure that as you move forward in this agency that you will adhere to the law, what Congress has enacted. [27:03] Doing – adhering to the proposal is not what the law requires. [27:10] The law requires that NASA adhere to what Congress passes. [27:16] And I think there was damage done to the agency last year that even though Congress acted to fully fund the agency, the damage was done. [27:28] So can you tell us how you're going – I know it's an awkward position as administrator. [27:34] You're part of the team, the Trump team. [27:36] And I understand that. [27:37] I respect that. [27:38] But how are we going to have confidence that you will adhere to what Congress passes, not what Russ Vogt says? [27:45] Well, Congresswoman, I appreciate the question. [27:48] Thank you for showing me the email. [27:50] And also, I did have an opportunity to review the report as well. [27:53] First, let me just say from the get-go, of course, we will always follow the law at NASA. [27:57] And even if certain matters took place prior to when I was confirmed, I believe in extreme ownership. [28:03] I did go and research the various positions that were taken in your report so that I could have a greater understanding of it. [28:11] And what I could share with you, ma'am, with respect to this situation specifically, perhaps the project manager used some incorrect wording in the first sentence or two, [28:20] is that it has been a longstanding practice at NASA to always adjust – and what I would refer to as just a prioritization of resources based on the lowest of either the House, the Senate, or the PBR mark. [28:34] The head of the Aeronautics Research Directorate made the call on this one that, based on a prioritization of resources, did not feel this was a program that should continue going forward. [28:44] Of course, after FY26 appropriations, it was resumed. [28:48] But I'll tell you, even having conversations, they did decide to revise in some respects, based on the merits of this project relative to others in aeronautics, if this is something we should invest in long term. [28:58] And I do think, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, there are times where NASA's capital allocation execution has not been great and hasn't served those that are – hasn't served the taxpayers well or the outcomes that we're trying to achieve within the agency. [29:11] Well, I just – as the chairman has indicated, we are unified here on both sides of the aisle in supporting the agency. [29:19] But we expect a collaboration on these issues and not action that is outside of what Congress is authorizing and funding through the appropriations process. [29:32] Let me just ask one other thing. [29:34] The professional staff on our side of the aisle has been asking your staff which missions or projects in the budget proposal would be canceled. [29:48] And we have – we've been told that your staff – your professional staff can't tell us that. [29:54] We need to know what that is because we need to understand a list of the new missions or projects that the budget request would cancel in order for us to do a full and professional analysis of that. [30:08] So can we get that from your staff, please? [30:10] So, ma'am, absolutely. [30:11] We're happy to make time available to review everything that's within NASA's plan. [30:15] And I just make my commitment here. [30:17] I am here at NASA for the mission. [30:19] So, if there is a program that is underperforming, not meeting expectations, or not in the best resources, I can assure you and promise you that I will over-communicate and make the case for why those resources should be spent on something else that better serves NASA's mission. [30:33] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [30:34] My time is expired. [30:36] Yes, ma'am. [30:37] Thank you very much. [30:38] And now I'd like to recognize Representative Baird from Indiana. [30:40] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Administrator, for being here. [30:51] We appreciate you sharing the technology and the desires and the budget requests that are necessary. [30:59] You know, I think, I really think that we learn a lot from the missions that we go to Mars or the moon or whatever, because there's side benefits and we learn about metals and all the kinds of technology that plays into the private sector. [31:18] So, we appreciate, we appreciate you being here. [31:22] Sure. [31:25] So, I guess my first question deals with, sorry about that. [31:41] So, in your testimony, you noted that understanding earth sciences is paramount, yet the physical 27 budget for the science directed that was submitted to Congress is over 50% smaller than the funding Congress enacted in 26. [31:57] So, can you help me and the committee understand where we expect to cut the savings or cut the cost and the savings, where they will come from within the science directed? [32:09] Yes, Congressman. [32:10] So, we'd be happy to review and set up a session with you or your team to go mission by mission. [32:15] What I would say, generally speaking, most of the cuts related to missions that were in formulation, and that is because we believe that we are at a time now where industry is maturing capabilities. [32:26] I mean, you have constellation providers that are printing off satellites these days that can incorporate new instruments that there, in the future, may be a better, more affordable way to get after the data so that NASA can apply resources to initiatives like Nancy Grace Roman Telescope or Dragonfly that no one else in the world is capable of doing. [32:44] So, you have in formulation missions, and then you have those that have been up for a very long time that have moved past their, or in some cases, moved past their general useful life. [32:53] What I can assure you, sir, there are no gaps in our Earth science capabilities. [32:57] I mean, I can rattle off, you know, 10 missions, GRACE, ICESat, Landsat. [33:01] You have multiple Landsats plus additional Landsats that are coming, NISAR, PACE. [33:06] We are continuing to maintain a robust portfolio of Earth science satellites up there to avoid a gap, but we are acknowledging that at some point in the year, in the future, there is probably a more efficient transition to commercial satellites for Earth observations and space weather, sir. [33:22] So, that leads me to my next question, which is, with the increased commercialization of space activities, what role do you believe NASA should play regarding the collection and the dissemination of Earth science information by the commercial providers? [33:38] So, how do you fit in, and how do you see that responsibility? [33:42] That's a great question, Congressman, and one that often comes up, I would say, on the broader NASA mission, which is there is always a place for NASA in this. [33:49] We should constantly be recalibrating our mission to doing the near impossible, what others are incapable of doing, and freeing up what we've already mastered to industry, where competitive dynamics can improve the quality and capability of the service and ideally make it available at lower cost. [34:05] And I would say, sir, we've just witnessed this on full display. [34:09] You know, when you think about it, sir, six years ago, if we wanted to put an American astronaut in space, we had to book it through Russia. [34:16] And now we've already got NASA crew 12 up there. [34:19] We just saw three American astronauts and Canadian astronauts go around the moon. [34:22] Amazing things happen in a very short period of time when NASA's at its best. [34:26] We will apply those skills to commercial providers, and we are talking to multiple through RFIs we've issued to ensure they have the capabilities to provide continuity of this earth science data, where applicable, so we can free up resources to do more of what I just described. [34:41] I can certainly appreciate that not having to pin on the adversaries for some of the needs that we have. [34:48] I'm going to change to one more question. [34:50] I got about 53 seconds. [34:51] But, you know, in your testimony, you mentioned that we'll be moving thousands of contractors to civil servant roles. [34:57] So how many how many new civil servant positions do you expect to hire? [35:01] Well, sir, we have two different workforce initiatives underway right now. [35:07] One is we we do have I mean, we have approximately 14,500 civil servants. [35:12] We have 40 to 45,000 full time contractors. [35:16] You wouldn't notice the difference of them. [35:18] They sit side by side with everybody else at all of our centers, and we are paying a premium for workforce flexibility. [35:26] And we intend to exercise that flexibility at certain centers with certain core companies to competencies to move them over for civil servant. [35:33] The overall workforce size is unchanged in this. [35:36] We gain some operational efficiencies. [35:38] We rebuild core competencies, and we save some money along the way. [35:41] Separate from that, sir, we have our pipeline. [35:44] How do we bring in new talent? [35:45] We have over we bring on over 2,000 approximately interns a year. [35:49] We take the top 1%. [35:50] And then we're working with OPM on an industry exchange program to grow and elevate our talents. [35:55] So the next generation of engineers, pioneers, scientists grow up within the organization and contribute. [36:00] Thank you very much. [36:01] And my time's out. [36:02] So I yield back. [36:03] The gentleman yields back. [36:07] Now I'd like to recognize Representative Bonamici from Oregon. [36:12] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. [36:14] Thank you so much, Administrator, for being here today. [36:17] Happy Earth Day. [36:18] And also congratulations on the successful and incredibly inspiring Artemis II mission. [36:24] I'm gonna follow up on Dr. Babin's question, or Dr. Baird's question, sorry, about the Earth Science Program. [36:31] Because what NASA does in space is amazing, but also significant work on the Earth as well. [36:37] The Earth Science Programs deliver a lot of foundational data that, you know, communities, farmers, emergency managers rely on to make decisions. [36:45] Decisions about wildfire risk, drought, extreme heat. [36:49] And the NASA's Landstat Program, it's been around since 1972. [36:53] It's been a lifeline, actually, in my home state of Oregon, as the state combats increasingly frequent and intense wildfire seasons, for example. [37:02] But the fiscal year 27 budget proposes to fund one final government satellite for Landsat. [37:08] And then it signals a transition to a commercial model, but provides a little detail about how that transition would occur. [37:15] So I'm gonna ask you, Administrator Isaacman, can you guarantee with this proposed phase transition to commercial? [37:25] I just want to note that, you know, gaps in climate or land use data sets or barriers to access could compromise modeling and hire and hinder response efforts. [37:35] So can you guarantee that a commercialization strategy will prevent any gaps in data and public access? [37:42] And also, what is NASA's contingency plan if private capabilities are delayed or if they fail to meet the standards the public depend on for extreme weather and wildfire response? [37:53] Great question, Congresswoman. Thank you. [37:55] I would say, guaranteed, NASA, we often undertake incredibly challenging endeavors. [38:00] I would say I have extremely high confidence in our ability to deliver on this. [38:05] And let me explain, ma'am. [38:06] We currently have several Landsats that are still up there now, and they are doing great work. [38:11] Landsat 10, which I believe, forgive me, is somewhere in the early 2030s is when we intend to launch that program right now. [38:18] So you have existing satellites, plus you have the new Landsat 10 program. [38:22] So we're talking now many, many years into the future when we should be giving consideration to that transition. [38:28] And that's taking place now at a time when industry capabilities are maturing extremely fast. [38:34] As I pointed out, six years ago, our only way into space was via the Russians. [38:37] Now we're on NASA Crew-12. [38:39] Artemis is launching. [38:40] There's constellations of communication and observation satellites, not just Starlink. [38:46] You have Blue Origin, Planet, Black Sky. [38:48] And all of them have reached out to us and said, give us this mandate, and we can incorporate these tools. [38:53] Now we're proceeding carefully at it. [38:55] We've put RFIs out to gather the data. [38:57] But I'm quite confident by the time Landsat 10 or anywhere close to it is terminating that we have the capabilities from commercial providers. [39:04] I appreciate your confidence. [39:06] We've spoken a lot on this committee over the years about public-private partnerships. [39:11] I just want to emphasize the importance of public access to data, how critical that is. [39:15] I also want to follow up on the point that the ranking member Lofgren made about the proposal to eliminate NASA's Office of STEM Engagement, [39:25] also serve on the Education Workforce Committee. [39:28] And this office has served as a pipeline, really, for the next generation of scientists and engineers for decades. [39:34] And I want to explain that this, to me, raises serious concerns about support for America's future scientific workforce. [39:41] And we saw how the captivation of young people and what that meant to watch the launch and the return of the astronauts, [39:51] children and future scientists around the world watching this and how inspiring it was for them. [39:56] So to me, it makes no sense to destroy a program that really would foster future science talent. [40:02] So how does closing the door to aspiring scientists help NASA sustain a skilled workforce and lead the world in discovery? [40:09] Congresswoman, I would just say that inspiration and, as a result, STEM engagement is inherent in really everything we do. [40:17] To your own point, ma'am, when Artemis II launched a human space exploration initiative, the world paused and took notice. [40:23] And I do believe, you know, thanks to the good work from Reed, Victor, Christina, and Jeremy on that, [40:28] there will be more kids dressing up as astronauts for Halloween. [40:31] And it's not just in human exploration. [40:33] It's missions like Dragonfly and the Nancy Grace Roman Telescope. [40:36] So I think it is NASA focusing on and achieving our near impossible mission that sends that powerful message of inspiration across the world that does inspire that next generation of pioneers. [40:46] I appreciate that. [40:47] I also think it would send a strong message of support and inspire to maintain the office of STEM engagement. [40:56] NASA's mission really does depend on world-class data and a strong, prepared workforce to carry the mission forward. [41:03] So in my opinion, this budget would weaken both of those and extreme weather as it worsens and NASA's scientific achievements dominate headlines. [41:12] This is the wrong time to eliminate the programs that have this demonstrated success. [41:16] So thank you for being here. [41:17] I yield back. [41:21] Yields back. [41:22] And now I'd like to recognize the representative from Florida, Mr. Webster. [41:27] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [41:29] Mr. Eidigson, the International Telecommunications Union World Radio Communication Conference is going to be in Shanghai next year. [41:41] One of the agenda items pertains to the lunar communication frequencies. [41:48] And can you speak to any plans to promote the adoption of the Lunanet, [41:55] which is a NASA-led communication and positioning navigation and timing service for the lunar region at the conference? [42:03] Yes, sir, Congressman. [42:06] What I would tell you is I am certainly tracking the conference in Shanghai. [42:10] I understand there's going to be a delegation there that's representing United States' interests. [42:14] That said, I fully expect that we will be focused at NASA on actually implementing lunar communications on the surface of the moon while they're there talking about it. [42:23] And I expect not only to be doing that through existing lunar net pathways, but working with American industry and our international partners on phase one of the moon-based construction [42:33] to test out a variety of surface and actually on-orbit communication methods to prepare for that enduring presence we're going to build on the surface of the moon. [42:43] Does holding the conference in Shanghai concern you, impose any kind of risk to the United States or NASA and their leadership team or interest in establishing lunar communication standards? [42:58] Well, sir, I would say it would only concern me, Congressman, if we were waiting for the outcome from that conference to make our determination. [43:06] Instead, we will be focusing on landing landers and rovers on the surface of the moon and already beginning experimentation for what does and doesn't work in that unique environment. [43:17] So we are pressing ahead, sir. [43:19] We have our mandate to get our astronauts back to the moon and to build the moon base so we can stay. [43:25] How will initiatives announced during the NASA ignition event, including moon base, serve as additional tools to further strengthen your position in efforts to promote U.S. norms and standards in space? [43:43] That's a great question, sir. [43:44] And I think we've intentionally designed the moon base architecture to experiment with what does and doesn't work in the lunar environment, [43:54] which is the whole phase one, to inform subsequent phase two and phase three build out. [43:59] What we're doing, Congressman, is we're actually drawing on the playbook that worked really well for NASA in the 1960s when we had Mercury before Gemini and Gemini before Apollo [44:08] and a lot more Apollo missions before we landed. [44:11] This is the unknown, and we haven't been there in a long time, and we should experiment. [44:15] So undertaking that effort to do lots of landings, lots of rovers, not with the expectation that everything's going to work great [44:22] or to build the glass dome with the crops and ferris wheel in it, but get things on the surface of the moon [44:27] and start learning about mobility, power, communication, surface improvement, and use that to inform subsequent endeavors. [44:33] I think this is the correct pathway to ensure we have a sustainable presence on the moon. [44:38] How is NASA leveraging the Artemis program and Artemis Accords as tools, kind of a soft power, to position the United States as a leader in space? [44:53] That reflects our values. [44:57] I really appreciate that question, Congressman. [44:59] So we invited all of the Artemis Accords signatories to the ignition event which we hosted just a week or so before the Artemis 2 mission itself launched. [45:09] More than half of the Artemis Accords signatories were able to attend all of the international space agencies, [45:15] and we told them with the sheer quantity of landers and rovers that we are going to put on the moon in the years ahead, [45:21] we could raid the pantry at every NASA center for flight instruments, tech demonstrations, and scientific material, [45:27] and we would have so much extra mass and volume capacity. [45:30] So we challenged American industry, American university, and our international partners and said, [45:35] put your teams to work on instruments and payloads and we will incorporate them and land them on the moon. [45:40] So I have no doubt right now you have students in American universities and at our international partners in the Artemis Accords [45:46] that are working on hardware today that will be on the surface of the moon in the years ahead. [45:50] They're all very excited to be on the moon, sir. [45:52] Thank you very much. [45:53] If you have no other questions, yield back. [45:56] Gentleman yields. [45:59] Now I'd like to recognize Representative Ross from North Carolina. [46:05] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. [46:07] Good morning, and thank you, Chairman Babin and Ranking Member Lofgren for convening this very important hearing at this important time. [46:18] And I also thank you, Administrator Isaacman, for appearing before the committee to talk about the President's budget requests for NASA. [46:25] As we've talked about earlier this month, we all watched history being made as astronaut Christina Koch became the first woman to fly around the moon. [46:36] The Artemis 2 mission has ushered NASA and the American people into an exciting new era, leading the globe in discovery on the moon and deeper in space. [46:48] It undoubtedly inspired countless future astronauts and scientists to picture themselves exploring the possibility of space. [46:57] I'm proud to represent North Carolina's second congressional district, home to world-renowned institutions of higher education, like North Carolina State University, that are shaping the next generation of scientists, engineers, and astronauts like Christina. [47:15] Christina, in fact, is a proud alum of NC State and began her NASA journey in 2001 as an undergraduate student. [47:25] With the support of an NC space grant and an undergraduate research scholarship, she was able to intern at the NASA Academy at the Goddard Space Flight Center and take an important step toward her future as a member of the NASA. [47:43] Based on the President's budget request for fiscal year 2027, however, as we've heard from my colleague from Oregon, the Office of STEM Engagement, the same office that supports space grants like the one Christina received, would receive no funding, cutting off young scientists from life-changing opportunities that these programs provide. [48:12] Ending these grants at a time when this nation just witnessed the wonders of space will thwart the education and dreams of the next generation of scientists who could propel us to new heights and horizons. [48:30] Ending these grants, the great students, administrator Isaac, NASA's Office of STEM Engagement, particularly the National Space Grant College and Fellowship Project, or Space Grant, has enabled the education and careers of countless scientists, engineers, and astronauts. [48:50] And you've stated that a dedicated STEM engagement program is unnecessary because if we can execute our mission and get the inspiration, the STEM education will take care of itself. [49:03] I beg to differ. [49:05] I would argue that we have seen these programs bridge the gap between inspiration and opportunity, particularly in North Carolina and with one of our Artemis astronauts. [49:20] What do you say to young students who are thrilled about Artemis II and ask about participating in a space grant internship program like Christina Cook did or to the next human exploration rover student who would want to pursue this kind of activity? [49:44] They will be zeroed out. [49:45] They will be zeroed out. [49:46] Their future will be zeroed out. [49:50] I appreciate the question, Congresswoman, and certainly very proud of Christina and her accomplishments on the Artemis II mission, which was outright historic, and great appreciation for the schools in North Carolina. [50:06] In fact, I myself spent time at Duke for flight physiology before going to space. [50:11] I would just say, ma'am, that the OSTEM budget does not encompass all of the grants or internships. [50:18] In fact, through other divisions within NASA, our Pathway internship programs, for example, we issue hundreds of internships every year independent of STEM, independent of the OSTEM office. [50:30] And we also put out hundreds of millions of dollars in grants outside of OSTEM as well. [50:34] So I agree with you that we do need to bridge the gap at times from just the pure inspiration the missions provide to get students hands-on at times. [50:42] The grant program does that, and certainly our internship program do it. [50:45] It's just not exclusive to OSTEM. [50:47] Well, I would say that we are at a point where STEM education is more important than it's ever been. [50:55] And we are in a global race to have the best and the brightest in this country have more opportunities. [51:05] So I urge you to reconsider this. [51:09] And I yield back. [51:10] Thank you. [51:12] Yields back. [51:13] I'd like to recognize Representative Salinas. [51:19] I'm sorry. [51:21] I'm going to the wrong end of the room. [51:23] Representative Begich from Alaska. [51:25] Thank you. [51:26] Thank you, Mr. Chair. [51:29] Mr. Isaacman, as we examine NASA's budget request, our national launch infrastructure is facing significant bottlenecks. [51:39] Demand from commercial providers, national security payloads, and NASA's own science and exploration missions [51:44] have outpaced capacity at our traditional sites on the east and west coasts. [51:48] Given that reality, I want to highlight the proven capabilities of the Pacific Spaceport Complex in Alaska. [51:54] Located in the high north, PSCA is positioned to deliver efficient launches into polar and sun-synchronous orbits. [52:01] Additionally, it has minimal population overflight and has year-round operational potential. [52:06] It already supports both liquid and solid-fueled vehicles and has demonstrated the ability to accommodate small-to-medium-class launches. [52:13] In your view, how does NASA assess the strategic value of expanding operations at Alaska's underutilized high-latitude spaceport [52:22] to relieve congestion at Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg? [52:25] Well, Congressman, I completely agree with you that we need to make the absolute most of every one of our launch complexes [52:33] that are out there, including yours in Alaska right now. [52:37] And to be quite honest, I think if we look at the trajectory of the commercial space industry [52:42] and what's going to be necessary for the future orbital economy, science discovery, commercial applications, [52:47] and national security, we may even need additional launch complexes in the future. [52:51] I know we are certainly doing our part at NASA when we engage with industry that are looking for launch complexes [52:57] to point them in directions where we know there's capacity. [53:01] I want to mention the outstanding work also being done at the University of Alaska system, [53:06] particularly the University of Alaska in Fairbanks and in Anchorage, in partnership with NASA. [53:11] Their geophysical institute, poker flats, research range, and funded projects have delivered great research in areas [53:18] including space weather, physics, earth observation, and workforce development [53:22] that all directly support NASA's science and exploration goals. [53:26] My question is, do you believe NASA should leverage space-grant affiliated universities such as the University of Alaska [53:33] to enable cost-effective science in space? [53:36] I do, Congressman. In fact, it's been a priority of mine as I take seriously every single dollar that Congress affords NASA, [53:44] and I want to maximize the scientific exploration and discovery value of every cent of it. [53:48] So we've taken very close look at every dollar that leaves the agency. [53:52] So whether that's from small business, tech development initiatives, to grants to university, [53:58] with the idea of optimizing the process for speed, I don't like things taking any longer than I need to, [54:03] and making sure those dollars go in line with agencies' most pressing objectives. [54:08] An example up in Alaska for sure would be some of our suborbital research that goes to Aurora. [54:13] We've seen some absolutely spectacular pictures, I think, over the last couple years as the sun's been angry with us. [54:20] And I know Alaska contributes greatly to that scientific study, [54:23] and I think it's a good example of where our grant dollars should be going. [54:26] So just one last question. [54:30] Just yesterday, NASA canceled their space port operations and center services solicitation. [54:36] Nana Regional Corporation, which is an Alaska native corporation, expected to receive that contract, [54:42] yet was notified two weeks before that the solicitation was canceled. [54:46] And I understand the workforce directive to restore NASA's core competencies. [54:51] This decision has impacted an important relationship and creates some concern for contractors. [54:57] And my question is, will you commit to having your team meet with my office [55:01] to discuss the cancellation letter received by Nana and discuss how best NASA can work together with Nana and other contractors going forward? [55:09] Yes, Congressman. [55:11] And I would say, I mean, if that took place yesterday, it might not have made its way to my desk yet. [55:17] So I can't even say if that was directly related to the workforce initiative. [55:21] Though broadly, you know, even though it's the center directors that largely make the determinations of which core competencies should be rebuilt, [55:28] generally speaking, I have said building rockets, launching rockets, and operations of those rockets are good areas that maybe NASA should be extremely good at in that regard. [55:37] I can't say, though, that that is what's applicable to the Alaska complex, though. [55:42] Fully agree with your comment regarding core competencies. [55:45] Organizations can pick one, maybe two core competencies, and the rest are not, by definition, core. [55:51] So I appreciate that. [55:53] Look forward to the discussion and appreciate your service in this role. [55:56] Thank you very much. [55:57] And I yield back. [55:58] I'd like to recognize Representative Salinas from Oregon now. [56:05] Thank you, Chair Babin and Ranking Member Lofgren, and thank you, Administrator Isaacson, Isaacman, for being here today. [56:12] Like my colleagues have already said, Artemis II was an incredible success, and I congratulate you and your partners who made this happen. [56:19] However, I do share some of these concerns about the proposed budget and some of the shifting priorities at the agency. [56:24] In a recent interview with Science Magazine, you stated, and this is in quotes, we should do probably do everything we possibly can to understand our home planet, which I wholeheartedly agree with. [56:36] But then you went on to say that for NASA to assemble scientists and put out papers on politically charged issues, whether or not this is an impending climate catastrophe is not helpful to the broader NASA mission. [56:48] So what are politically charged science issues, and who would decide on them? [56:55] Congresswoman, I think as that conversation transpired, the point I was trying to make is it is absolutely an obligation of NASA to understand the only planet that we inhabit. [57:09] And we have a lot of satellites that are capable of doing that right now, and we're ensuring continuity to continue to gather that data. [57:16] And then I believe we should make that data available publicly and let the academic institutions across the nation and their scientists and subject matter experts put out the reports on those positions, [57:28] as opposed to, for every administration changing, assembling a team of scientists that take their particular political view on something like climate change. [57:37] Gathering the data, no question vitally important, making it available publicly also very important. [57:44] Thank you. [57:45] So have you or would you get involved or issue direction on the types of papers that our NASA scientists can actually publish? [57:52] I have not taken any position directive written or otherwise on what papers we should or shouldn't publish. [57:58] That was my feelings that I expressed during an interview a couple months ago to the publication. [58:05] Thank you. [58:06] The scientific community has consistently recommended through the highly respected decadal survey process that NASA pursue a balanced mission portfolio that includes large strategic science missions, also known as flagships. [58:18] Flagships are the most complex, ambitious scientific endeavors the agency pursues with transformative capabilities that advance the highest priority scientific questions. [58:27] The administration's budget request abandons meaningful pursuit of future science flagships after the Roman Space Telescope launches this fall across any space or earth science discipline. [58:39] That is a bleak vision of US space science and it is in direct contradiction of the National Academy's decadal surveys of NASA's authorizing statutes. [58:47] You yourself said at your first Senate commerce confirmation hearing that the agency could and should have multiple flagship science missions at once. [58:57] Why now is the Trump administration abandoning flagship science missions? [59:01] How will you maintain a balanced mission portfolio without them? [59:05] And have you consulted with the National Academies on this topic? [59:08] Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. [59:10] I'm going to have to challenge myself to be as concise as I can because I love the subject and I wholeheartedly believe we need more flagship science missions. [59:21] In fact, as much as I would say it's good to be balanced, the reality is now as commercial industry evolves and we have more standard bus architecture that's more affordable, more constellations, [59:30] we actually probably can undertake a lot more affordable low of the lower end of the spectrum science missions freeing up resources to do more flagship. [59:41] I'm fully in support of that. [59:43] The decadal process is extremely useful. [59:46] I would love to recalibrate the timeframes down because I actually think taking advantage of a very mature launch market right now, [59:52] AI tools, we can actually gather the data and formulate positions on what should be subsequent missions a lot faster than the current process. [59:59] It is itself. [1:00:00] So my feeling on this with respect to the budget is as we evaluate in formulation missions that can be extremely costly. [1:00:09] I mean, we spent $200 million last year on an in formulation mission that was canceled by the previous administration. [1:00:15] So I don't always think those are the best use of dollars. [1:00:18] We could free up resources to undertake more decadal recommended flagship missions. [1:00:23] And that is something I would like to be driving in that direction as much as possible. [1:00:27] And there is another one coming after Nancy Grace. [1:00:29] Of course, Dragonfly is very much a flagship mission set to launch in 28. [1:00:33] Thank you. [1:00:34] I'm almost out of time. [1:00:35] I yield back. [1:00:37] Yields back. [1:00:38] And now I'd like to recognize Representative Van Epps from Tennessee. [1:00:41] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:00:43] And thank you, Mr. Isaacman, for being here today. [1:00:46] President Trump has launched America into a golden age of deep space dominance. [1:00:50] Earlier this month, NASA's Artemis II is incredibly successful. [1:00:55] Artemis III is slated to test our operational capabilities before the Artemis IV lunar landing mission in 2028. [1:01:02] It's certainly an exciting time for Americans looking to the stars. [1:01:05] We are building a moon base, moving beyond exploration to establishing a sustained lunar presence. [1:01:09] We are transitioning to commercial space stations, fostering a vibrant space economy in low Earth orbit. [1:01:15] We're developing advanced nuclear propulsion technologies, propelling us to Mars. [1:01:20] As you stated, sir, the American pioneer spirit is alive and well, and the President's FY27 budget request reinforces these objectives while responsibly stewarding taxpayer dollars. [1:01:30] A lunar base in commercial space stations opens a new world of possibilities for industry, including the collection of resources essential for American growth. [1:01:39] Metals such as nickel and cobalt, which are critical for battery manufacturing, a growing industry in Tennessee's 7th District, in an area this committee has highlighted as a major resource gap. [1:01:49] The moon holds helium-3, a rare form of helium that has application for space exploration and quantum technologies, another area this committee has led on. [1:01:59] Mr. Isaacman, how does this budget request reinforce NASA's goal of a flourishing commercial ecosystem, particularly related to collecting resources critical to American supply chains? [1:02:13] Thank you for the question, Congressman. [1:02:16] So I would say that you have to look at this budget and couple it with the President Trump's Working Family Tax Cut Act signature legislation, [1:02:24] which gave the $10 billion plus-up to NASA to be able to return astronauts to the moon and to build the moon base itself. [1:02:31] That's where we're drawing on substantial resources, of which moon base objectives for sure is tech demonstrations so we can master the skills someday necessary to go to Mars. [1:02:40] It's certainly economic as well with in-situ resource manufacturing that we'd be able to do those demonstrations and ideally unlock a lunar economy to fund hopefully lots of moon bases someday. [1:02:51] And then, of course, it's scientific as well. [1:02:54] As I mentioned, we could raid the pantry of every NASA center and we wouldn't have enough. [1:02:58] We would have so much excess mass and volume for scientific instruments that we welcome the contributions from many. [1:03:03] And to your point, sir, on resources and rare minerals, we also have other tools available to us that I think are exciting. [1:03:12] For example, the America Competes Act allows NASA to put competitions out, binary outcomes, you either did it or you didn't, [1:03:19] and receive awards for doing extraordinary things. [1:03:22] And one area in particular that I'm looking at on that would be demonstrations of asteroid mining capabilities to bring resources back to Earth, [1:03:30] of which if it's achieved by industry, it would certainly justify a nice award. [1:03:35] Thank you. [1:03:37] AI has been another priority for this committee. [1:03:40] Numerous technology leaders have noted that energy is the primary bottleneck for terrestrial AI infrastructure. [1:03:46] Last month, SpaceX filed with the FCC for authorization to launch up to one million satellites to operate as an orbital data center system. [1:03:54] Other orbital compute projects like StarCloud and Google's Project Suncatcher aim to contribute to these endeavors. [1:04:00] How does NASA plan to facilitate an orbital economy that can help realize aspirational solutions to challenging problems we face at home, such as energy constraints? [1:04:09] I appreciate the question, Congressman. [1:04:11] I think it's actually vitally important for America's interest and leadership to lead the world in AI. [1:04:18] And now I naturally understand why a lot of the big tech companies that realize the terrestrial bottlenecks to building out data centers have looked to space as an application where you can take advantage of our fusion reactor that's up there. [1:04:31] And I fully support it. [1:04:33] I have to say that I've, you know, pounded the table for a long time on how imperative it is for us to unlock a true orbital economy to fund the future we all want to see in space someday, [1:04:45] because I don't think we'll have, you know, dozens of commercial space stations, space hotels and outposts if it's perpetually funded by taxpayers. [1:04:52] So in that respect, I wish industry the best in that pursuit. [1:04:56] And we will do everything we can at NASA to help subject matter expertise on materials. [1:05:00] We have test facilities across the nation. [1:05:02] So when their satellites get up there, they stay intact and do not come apart in ways that could damage other satellites or potentially deny access to low Earth orbit. [1:05:11] We have test facilities, subject matter expertise, and we will do all we can, not to mention tracking capabilities to enable industry in this important pursuit. [1:05:18] Thank you, sir. [1:05:19] Thank you for your leadership. [1:05:20] Thank you, sir. [1:05:21] Mr. Chairman, I yield back. [1:05:22] Yes, sir. [1:05:23] Thank you very much. [1:05:24] I'd like to recognize Ms. Gillen from New York. [1:05:30] Thank you, Chairman. [1:05:31] Thank you, Ranking Member, for holding this important hearing. [1:05:33] And thank you, Administrator, for coming and visiting with us today. [1:05:37] So like millions of Americans and the members of this committee, we were so proud watching the entire NASA team on the successful completion of the Artemis II mission. [1:05:46] And I congratulate you and congratulate all of NASA. [1:05:50] So I represent a district on the South Shore of Long Island in New York, and it has been the proud-to-power America's space program. [1:05:58] The original lunar module, EGLE, was built on Long Island, and we are home to Brookhaven National Laboratory and leading universities like Hofstra, Stony Brook, Malloy, and Adelphi. [1:06:08] That is part of the reason why I passed an amendment to the Bipartisan NASA Reauthorization Act during this committee's markup to expand research and technology consortia like the successful lunar surface innovation consortium. [1:06:23] So Ambassador, or Administrator, rather, you have laid out ambitious plans to expand NASA's capabilities. [1:06:29] Would you be willing to work with my office to find ways that we can strengthen the research and technology consortia regions like we have on Long Island? [1:06:38] Thank you, Congresswoman. [1:06:40] I absolutely would welcome those conversations. [1:06:43] I think it takes the contributions of the best and brightest from across the nation, even the world, to help us succeed in the undertakings that we have underway right now, like returning to the moon and building a moon base. [1:06:54] And I absolutely have a great appreciation for the history of Long Island and Grumman. [1:06:58] In fact, when I'm often asked the question about, you know, do you need a NASA anymore when you have some of these industry players, I point back to we never went alone. [1:07:06] And Grumman, in fact, built the the lunar module at the time and also, I think, arguably the greatest fighter aircraft in history. [1:07:12] So thank you. I appreciate that. [1:07:14] So as you may know, the NASA Authorization Act of 2022 directed NASA to research and develop new technologies to reduce aircraft noise. [1:07:24] This is something that I hear about quite a bit. [1:07:27] My district on Nassau County faces unacceptable levels of noise pollution from JFK Airport and LaGuardia Airport, which are two of the busiest airports in the country. [1:07:38] So I'm wondering if you could give us an update on how the progress is being made in that in those studies, provide us maybe with a report, [1:07:47] and if you will commit to continuing NASA's cleaner, quieter airplanes research, because it would be much appreciated by folks in my district. [1:07:56] Yes, ma'am. So I just I'd say broadly in aeronautics that, you know, somebody with a decades of business background myself, [1:08:04] I am I do try and scrutinize a lot of the investment that we put into, you know, co-industry development efforts and question at times, [1:08:12] is this something that NASA should be funding because it's a, you know, it's radical evolution of airframe and propulsion design? [1:08:19] Or is this something that industry should be doing because for competitive forces, this helps them sell a quieter or more efficient engine? [1:08:26] And I think there's there's examples of both that I've found some that we absolutely should be putting more resource into. [1:08:32] And some that I don't necessarily agree with because I don't necessarily know funds that the future and airframe and propulsion design that we should look at. [1:08:40] But with respect to, say, if X-59 specifically, our quiet supersonic demonstrator, we've taken great action to get it in gear. [1:08:49] As I mentioned in my opening remarks, that's a program that's nearly double its original cost estimates, [1:08:54] and had flown once when I was confirmed into this position and wasn't planning to fly again for some time as it went through maintenance, [1:09:01] which was kind of concerning as a pilot right after its first flight. [1:09:06] And now it's flying all the time. [1:09:08] In fact, it was flying throughout almost the entire Artemis II operation, which I was really pleased with. [1:09:13] So we are accelerating the timelines to get to the data that you're looking for, [1:09:17] which is get through the envelope expansion phase, start flying over cities, measuring, you know, the sound from the sonic boom, [1:09:24] and using that to inform future faster airframe and quieter airframe designs. [1:09:30] So that's on track right now. [1:09:31] Well, that's great to hear. [1:09:32] And you mentioned throughout your testimony that about the private-public partnership and working with people in the private sector. [1:09:40] So I have spoken to many airlines. [1:09:43] I'm on the aviation subcommittee as well. [1:09:45] I speak to many airline industry professionals and talk about the ways we can incentivize them to develop the technology to quiet down our skies. [1:09:53] And wondering if there is some outreach and connection between what you're doing over at NASA with the aviation sector to try to work together [1:10:00] and take advantage of different opportunities to share research. [1:10:04] Yes, ma'am. [1:10:05] So we are, I mean, I can tell you this as the big A, the first A in NASA, this is an area that I have a great appreciation for. [1:10:13] And believe me, I want nothing more than to see the aeronautics division inside NASA back to its, [1:10:18] it's what I would call its glory days of decades past doing like almost the unimaginable. [1:10:23] Because I think in between rocket launches, a cool X-Plane is a great way not only to learn but also inspire the next generation. [1:10:29] And I've been challenging industry. [1:10:31] Please don't give us the proposals on how to squeak out 3% more fuel efficiency out of your 30-year-old engine. [1:10:36] You should just do that as a good business. [1:10:38] Bring us, you know, the crazy designs. [1:10:40] Talk to us about the engine that's going to ensure America is two generations ahead of our rivals across the Pacific, [1:10:46] whether that's in fuel efficiency, performance, noise, airframe design just the same. [1:10:51] And we've got an RFI out actually right now out of our aeronautics division specifically challenging industry to bring us those kind of proposals so we can team up. [1:10:59] Excellent. Thank you. My time is expired, so I yield back. Thank you, Chairman. [1:11:03] Yields back, and now I'd like to represent, recognize the representative from Florida, Mr. Herodopoulos. [1:11:12] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:11:13] Mr. Administrator, thank you very much for taking the time. We're really grateful for your service. [1:11:17] A lot on your plate before you got this job, and you're doing a heck of a job in this job. [1:11:22] And I was honored to stand with you as you watched the Artemis II take off from Kennedy Space Center, and there you were at the landing as well. [1:11:29] And just a tremendous success for NASA, and it really is a testament to the entire team at NASA for making this happen. [1:11:35] And I think the leadership shown by our chairman as well and others, and we could not be more thrilled of what's happening in space right now. [1:11:41] But as you know, we face a major challenge from China. [1:11:44] And specifically, you put out some very bold idea, which is appreciated. [1:11:48] The energy that I sense in talking to so many folks at Kennedy Space Center, where I represent, is not only contagious, but is growing. [1:11:55] And it's just a thrill. [1:11:57] Could you walk me through some of the changes as we get ready for Artemis III, and some of those actions, and the standardization of the SLS rocket, [1:12:05] and why you think this is the best path forward for us to win this new space race against the Communist Chinese? [1:12:11] Well, I absolutely appreciate the question, Congressman. [1:12:15] And I do want to talk about that competition for a second. [1:12:19] This is not necessarily like the 1960s, where it turns out, in hindsight, we had an almost unlimited schedule margin. [1:12:25] No one's been back to the moon since Apollo 17, when American footprints last set foot on the moon. [1:12:30] This is different now. [1:12:32] I say it often that the difference between winning and losing will be measured in months, not years. [1:12:38] And that should create a sense of urgency. [1:12:40] And that should cause us to rethink some of our historic approaches to get extremely focused. [1:12:47] You know, prior to having a geopolitical rival, I don't blame us for spreading thin at times and trying to, you know, work with everybody, [1:12:54] and try and, you know, bring goodwill around the world under our mission. [1:12:58] But when you do have a competition, you do not want to lose. [1:13:01] So I would say, yes, we have outlined some ambitious and bold programs. [1:13:06] That's what we should do at NASA. [1:13:08] But most importantly, sir, I would say we've outlined achievable plans. [1:13:11] So Artemis 1 flew uncrewed November 2022, didn't fly again until April 1st of 2026. [1:13:19] That is not a good cadence for that rocket. [1:13:21] That is a very complicated rocket, five prime contractors. [1:13:24] I don't know how many subcontractors in it on decades old designed hardware that people aren't as familiar with. [1:13:30] You need muscle memory to do that. [1:13:32] So our proposal coming out of it is let's get back in the business of launching moon rockets with frequency. [1:13:37] Let's standardize. [1:13:38] Why would we launch this two times and then do a dramatic departure to the upper stage of a completely unproven piece of hardware that's, I think, 4 billion or so over budget? [1:13:47] Why don't we work with the OEM that was making it, that acknowledged there was some shortcomings here, and pick something from one of their JVs that's in production that's got decades of flight heritage. [1:13:56] Put that on top of the rocket. [1:13:58] Standardize the launcher. [1:14:00] Launch again in 27. [1:14:02] So we're borrowing from the playbook that worked for us in the 1960s, not jumping right from Artemis 2 around the moon, waiting three and a half years to land on it. [1:14:09] Launch again. [1:14:10] Rebuild muscle memory in 2027. [1:14:12] Test the interoperability of the Orion spacecraft and the landers in low Earth orbit, where if something goes wrong, you're not all the way out there 250,000 miles away. [1:14:21] You're just a couple hours from being in the water. [1:14:23] Learn from that and then get incredibly good. [1:14:26] Rebuild core competency so we can turn that launch pad, not in years, but months. [1:14:30] So you have two at bats in 2028 to make sure we get to the landing before our arrival does. [1:14:35] And in parallel, sir, we want to be on the moon, not above the moon, looking down on the Chinese. [1:14:40] Gateway was an interesting concept in 2017 when we weren't faced with a Chinese rival that could potentially beat us back to the moon. [1:14:48] Now we want infrastructure on the surface. [1:14:50] We want American standards on the moon for power, for communication, for mobility and logistics, for crewed rovers, uncrewed rovers, surface improvements and habitation. [1:15:01] And I think working to get that infrastructure on the moon in parallel so when our astronauts land in 2028, they can get in their rover and drive around their moon base is the ultimate priority. [1:15:10] And just for my quick question as well, it's not as sexy as going to the moon, but infrastructure is very important. [1:15:16] It's the wherewithal so we can do this not only from Kennedy Space Center but other places as well. [1:15:22] Are you open to the idea, as our previous questioner from the other side talked about, these public-private partnerships are so important. [1:15:29] And we know we have so many infrastructure needs. [1:15:32] If you just visit, of course, those locations, are you open to the idea of the private sector making those investments with NASA if that serves our purpose as well? [1:15:40] Absolutely, Congressman. I think that people often ask, you know, what's different from the 1960s moon rays versus the present? [1:15:50] And there's certainly a lot of differences, but one of which is that the taxpayers don't have to foot the entire bill. [1:15:55] I mean, you're talking almost four and a half percent of the discretionary budget during the Apollo era. [1:16:00] Now we're at a lot less. [1:16:01] But you have some of the wealthiest individuals and companies in the world contributing their resources to a capability essential for American leadership in space and frankly, [1:16:11] for all of humankind. And if they want to come and invest in launch infrastructure that can help enable a capability critical for national security, [1:16:20] I welcome it because honestly, sir, if this trajectory continues, we're going to need to make use of, you know, [1:16:25] every inch of the land at Kennedy Space Center, Vandenberg, up in Alaska, Wallops, and who knows, in the years ahead, [1:16:31] we might even need an entirely new set of launch complexes out there. [1:16:34] Well, thank you. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back, and thanks for your pragmatic leadership. [1:16:38] Thank you, sir. [1:16:39] The gentleman yields, they have called votes, and there are two votes from what I understand. [1:16:46] So we're going to stand in recess, subject to the call of the chair, Mr. Administrator. [1:16:51] I hope you can stick around until those two votes are done. [1:16:55] I'll be here, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. [1:16:57] Great. Adjourn. Recess, rather. [1:17:01] Thank you. [1:17:02] Bye. [1:17:03] Chao. [1:17:16] X-Men.