Bridenstine's Written Answers Questions From Congress
Answers From Rep Bridenstine To Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Questions for the Record
Question: Mr. Bridenstine, in the documents you presented to the Committee, you stated that you believe that one of NASA’s top challenges is “Bringing together traditional space companies and new space entrepreneurs into a comprehensive NASA vision to maximize resources and efficiencies.” What role do you envision the private sector playing in helping NASA fulfill its mission? How will continued private sector involvement make NASA more efficient and allow it to fully maximize resources?
Answer: We must recognize that NASA currently has more mission than it has budget. The days when NASA’s budget represented 3 to 4 percent of the federal budget are not likely to return. Nor would we want to necessarily replicate that model, as it proved to ultimately be unsustainable. Fortunately, times have changed and great advancements have been made. The American space industry is more capable than ever before. A lot of this is due to advancements in research and technology development made by NASA decades ago that entrepreneurial Americans have taken and advanced further. Should I be confirmed, NASA will develop exploration and science architectures that leverage everything the United States has to offer. This includes the private sector. This way, we will maximize resources and ensure NASA can carry out its mission.
Question: What are your thoughts on the establishment of a Deep Space Gateway as part of the exploration architecture?
Answer: The idea of a platform beyond LEO and in cislunar space provides a lot of opportunities for the United States. These opportunities include: partnerships with both the international community and commercial industry, staging area for lunar surface and Martian missions, testing life support systems outside of the Van Allen Belt, and more. Should I be confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress to determine if the Deep Space Gateway or other Deep Space architectures enable sustainable deep space exploration.
Question: Earlier this year, the President signed into law the NASA Transition Authorization Act. This law seeks continuity in NASA’s core programs, such as the Space Launch System and Orion spacecraft. Do you intend to continue NASA’s work on SLS and Orion?
Answer: Yes, I am absolutely committed to continuing NASA’s valuable work developing SLS and Orion, which will serve as the backbone of our architecture to return humans to the Moon, on to Mars, and further into Deep Space.
Question: Representative Bridenstine, though it doesn’t receive as much public attention as NASA’s exploration missions, the agency’s Earth Science mission provides data critical for both scientific research and practical application. In fact, Indiana companies contribute to these missions by building sophisticated instruments to measure certain properties and conditions in the atmosphere. In turn, this data in part feeds into weather forecasting models to help create longer term and seasonal forecasts utilized by a variety of industries, such as agriculture and energy. I’m focused on making sure we retain the capability to perform these science missions that have a significant real-world application. Would you explain your view of NASA’s Earth Science mission and whether you intend to prioritize it in future NASA budget submissions?
Answer: I support NASA’s Earth Science mission. As a Representative from and resident of the state of Oklahoma, I have a keen appreciation for the role space plays in helping us save lives, protect property, and produce energy and food. NASA’s Earth Science mission is critical to facilitating these activities, both through the programs that NASA operates itself as well as acting as the procurement agent for NOAA’s weather satellites. If confirmed, NASA will continue to follow the guidance of the Earth Science decadal surveys and I will advocate within the Administration and with Congress to see that the agency is able to carry out the recommendations of those decadal surveys.
“Answer: Yes, I am absolutely committed to continuing NASA’s valuable work developing SLS and Orion, which will serve as the backbone of our architecture to return humans to the Moon, on to Mars, and further into Deep Space.”
We’re doomed to at least another four years of billions of dollars down this worthless rat hole. Stupid thing likely won’t even have its first flight before Trump’s first term as President is over.
Do you really think that he would have had any chance of being Administrator if he hadn’t taken the loyalty oath to the SLS/Orion? Remember, Administrators don’t make policy they just administer the policy made by the Congress and President for NASA.
Which is basically what he said: “I look forward to working with Congress to determine if the Deep Space Gateway or other Deep Space architectures enable sustainable deep space exploration.”
These Deep Space thingies will go the way of Grab-A-Rock, and for many of the same reasons.
Sad but true. More white paper studies to no where and lots of time and money evaporating into the ether. Unfortunately, not understanding this process and wasted effort tells me that few people understand the very big integrated picture and what is really needed for advancing human space habitation. And thus another 10 years is lots.
I feel that as the small but dedicated community of spaceflight supporters it is up to us to try to arrive at consensus and inform our legislators, as all other interest groups do. It’s not likely we will ever be lucky enough to have political leaders spontaneously arrive at our point of view.
As a Democrat I see no point in making this a party-line fight. The administrator doesn’t make the critical policy decisions, ironically thoose are made nowadays in the House Appropriations Subcommittee. Bridenstine obviously has close ties with Congress and that will help smooth the budget process. If we want to change policy we have to elect people to Congress who agree.
“The days when NASA’s budget represented 3 to 4 percent of the federal budget are not likely to return.”
Its rather ironic or funny or just plain sad that the 4% high occurred in 1966 and remained below 1% ever since then (even adding in NSF funding); whereas the military budget has remained well above 10% over the same time. This tells me that the US is a culture and society of and for violence and fear and greed rather than one of and for positive humanistic advancement. If I am wrong, please prove it.
Military budget is dictated by global threats outside our control. We also do the heavy lifting for the free world in this regard. We spend more on health and human services and welfare programs than the military. What does that say?