These reports were issued by the GAO in May and June 2019. NASA Assessments of Major Projects - This report provides GAO's annual snapshot of how well NASA is planning and executing its major acquisition projects. GAO previously found that, as of February 2018, the cost and schedule performance of major projects was deteriorating, with 9 of 17 projects in development reporting cost or schedule growth. GAO also found that NASA was likely to continue to see cost and schedule growth, as new, large projects were entering the portfolio while others were taking longer to launch than planned. This deterioration in cost and schedule performance is largely due to integration and test challenges on the James Webb Space Telescope. The Space Launch System program also experienced significant cost growth due to continued production challenges. Further, additional delays are likely for the Space Launch System and its associated ground systems. Senior NASA officials stated that it is unlikely these programs will meet the launch date of June 2020, which already reflects 19 months of delays. These officials told GAO that there are 6 to 12 months of risk associated with that launch date. GAO found some subjectivity in the processes NASA uses to identify and assess critical technologies-those that are required for the project to successfully meet customer requirements-which could understate the development risk that its major projects face. The average number of critical technologies NASA reported increased slightly in 2019, but remains low compared to historical data. However, GAO found inconsistencies in how projects identify critical technologies. For example, the Lucy project determined that operating its solar array in a previously unexplored environment did not warrant identifying it as a critical technology, while the Ionospheric Connection Explorer (ICON) project did identify a technology as critical because of its use in a new environment. NASA is planning to clarify its guidance on technology readiness, among other measures. GAO will continue to monitor NASA's efforts in this area.NASA Commercial Crew Program - Both of the Commercial Crew Program's contractors, Boeing and SpaceX, have made progress on their crew transportation systems. However, neither is ready to begin carrying astronauts into space as both continue to experience delays to certification. Certification is a process that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) will use to ensure that each contractor's spacecraft, launch vehicle, and ground support systems meet its requirements for human spaceflight before any operational missions to the International Space Station (ISS) can occur. Factors contributing to schedule uncertainty include: Fluctuating schedules. As the contractors continue to build and test hardware-including SpaceX's March 2019 uncrewed test flight- their schedules for certification change frequently. As of May 2019, both contractors had delayed certification nine times, equating to more than 2 years from their original contracts (see figure). This includes several delays since GAO last reported in July 2018.

Two new reports are reproduced: NASA Commercial Crew Program - Schedule Pressure Increases as Contractors Delay Key Events, and NASA's Commercial Crew Program: Update on Development and Certification Efforts. Since the Space Shuttle was retired in 2011, the United States has been relying on Russia to transport astronauts to and from the ISS. The purpose of NASA's Commercial Crew Program is to facilitate the development of a domestic transport capability. In 2014, NASA awarded two firm-fixed-price contracts to Boeing and SpaceX with a combined total value up to $6.8 billion for the development of crew transportation systems that meet NASA requirements and initial missions to the ISS. The contractors were originally required to provide NASA all the evidence it needed to certify that their systems met its requirements by 2017.Both of the Commercial Crew Program's contractors have made progress developing their crew transportation systems, but both also have aggressive development schedules that are increasingly under pressure. The two contractors--Boeing and Space Exploration Technologies, Corp. (SpaceX) -- are developing transportation systems that must meet the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) standards for human spaceflight--a process called certification. Both Boeing and SpaceX have determined that they will not be able to meet their original 2017 certification dates and both expect certification to be delayed until 2018, as shown in the figure below. The schedule pressures are amplified by NASA's need to provide a viable crew transportation option to the International Space Station (ISS) before its current contract with Russia's space agency runs out in 2019. If NASA needs to purchase additional seats from Russia, the contracting process typically takes 3 years. Without a viable contingency option for ensuring uninterrupted access to the ISS in the event of further Commercial Crew delays, NASA risks not being able to maximize the return on its multibillion dollar investment in the space station.

In January 2004, President Bush announced a new space policy directed at human and robotic exploration of space. In June 2004, the President's Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy issued a report recommending among other things that NASA ask the National Research Council (NRC) to reevaluate space science priorities to take advantage of the exploration vision. Congress also directed the NRC to conduct a thorough review of the science NASA is proposing to undertake within the initiative. In February 2005, the NRC released Science in NASA's Vision for Space Exploration, the first report of the two studies undertaken to carry out these requests. The second report focuses on NASA's plan for the ISS. This report provides broad advice on programmatic issues that NASA is likely to face as it attempts to develop an updated ISS utilization plan. It also presents an assessment of potentially important research and testbed activities that may have to be performed on the ISS to help ensure success of some exploration objectives.

This excellent report was issued by NASA's Office of Inspector General in May 2019. Scientists believe that Europa, one of Jupiter's 79 known moons, may have a large liquid ocean below its icy surface suitable to sustain life. The National Research Council (NRC)-which publishes a decadal survey of recommended priorities that NASA uses to help plan its science exploration missions-determined in 2011 that an orbiter mission to Europa should be NASA's second highest priority large-scale planetary science mission after the Mars 2020 mission.Congress has taken a strong interest in the project and since fiscal year (FY) 2013 has appropriated about $2.04 billion to NASA for a Europa mission-$1.26 billion more than the Agency requested. The former Chairman of the House subcommittee that funds the Agency, a long-time advocate for NASA and the Europa mission in particular, was largely responsible for these substantial appropriations. Congress also directed NASA to plan two separate missions- a flyby orbiter known as Europa Clipper and a Lander mission to place scientific instruments on the moon's surface. In FYs 2017 and 2018, Congress directed NASA to use the Space Launch System (SLS), the Agency's heavy-lift rocket currently under development, as the launch vehicle for both missions and specified launch dates of no later than 2022 for the orbiter and 2024 for the Lander. In February 2019, Congress delayed those launch dates by a year to 2023 and 2025, respectively. NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) has overall project management responsibilities for both missions.In this audit, we examined NASA's management of the Europa mission relative to achieving technical objectives, meeting milestones, controlling costs, and addressing congressional requirements. To complete this work, we reviewed documents, reports, schedule projections, budget allocations, costs, and risks related to the Clipper and Lander projects, as well as NASA and JPL policies, congressional mandates, and NRC reports. We also compared the Europa mission with other JPL projects and interviewed Clipper and Lander personnel, other NASA officials, and members of the scientific community.This compilation includes a reproduction of the 2019 Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community.1. Introduction * Background * 2. NASA Faces Steep Challenges in Developing Europa Clipper's Science Instruments, Addressing Workforce Gaps, Choosing a Launch Vehicle, and Overcoming Funding Risks * Instrument and Workforce Challenges Pose Cost and Schedule Risks * SLS Unlikely to Be Available for a 2023 Launch * Launch Vehicle Choice and Risks Remain Unresolved * Clipper Joint Cost and Schedule Confidence Level Unreliable for Informing Management Decisions * Sustained Funding Needed to Avoid Clipper Launch Delay or Impact to Other Projects * 3. Congressional Directive to Launch a Europa Lander by 2025 Not Feasible * Workforce and Schedule Risks Render Lander Launch in 2025 Not Feasible * SLS Block 1B Delivery for 2025 Lander Launch Unlikely * Lander Mission Inconsistent with Strategic Priorities Recommended by the NRC * Funding Availability * 4. Conclusion * 5. Recommendations, Management's Response, and Our Evaluation

This official NASA document provides an interesting review of NASA's experience working with the Russians and lessons on astronaut safety assurance of the Soyuz spacecraft. This report on Soyuz history was conceived as a possible analogy relevant to domestic commercial spaceflight vehicles. The question of how to human-rate new spacecraft has been asked many times throughout the history of human spaceflight. The U. S., Russia, and, now China have each separately and successfully addressed this question. NASA's operational experience with human-rating primarily resides with Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Space Shuttle, and the International Space Station (ISS). NASA's latest developmental experience includes Constellation, but also encompasses X38, X33, and the Orbital Space Plane. If domestic commercial crew vehicles are used to transport astronauts to and from space, the Soyuz vehicle would be another relevant example of the methods that could be used to human-rate a spacecraft and how to work with commercial spacecraft providers. As known from history, the first U.S. astronaut to orbit on a Soyuz spacecraft was Thomas P. Stafford on July 17, 1975, during the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP) mission. Norman E. Thagard was the first U.S. astronaut to launch on a Soyuz launch vehicle, Soyuz TM-21, on March 14, 1995, on a flight to the Russian Mir Space Station. This flight was associated with the U.S./Russian - Shuttle/Mir Program. The first Soyuz launched to ISS included astronaut William M. Shepherd, Soyuz TM-31, on October 31, 2000. Prior to this, NASA studied Soyuz as an assured crew return vehicle (ACRV) for Space Station Freedom (SSF) to be launched on the Space Shuttle. Presently, in preparation for Space Shuttle retirement, all U.S. astronauts are being transported to and from ISS in the Russian Soyuz spacecraft, which is launched on the Soyuz launch vehicle. In the case of Soyuz, NASA's normal assurance practices have had to be adapted. For a variety of external reasons, NASA has taken a "trust but verify" approach to Soyuz and international cargo vehicles. The verify approach was to perform joint safety assurance assessments of the critical spacecraft systems. For Soyuz, NASA's primary assurance was (and continues to be) its long and successful flight history. The other key measure relied on diverse teams of NASA's best technical experts working very closely with their foreign counterparts to understand the essential design, verification, and operational features of Soyuz. Those experts used their personal experiences and NASA's corporate knowledge (in the form of agency, program, center, and other standards) to jointly and independently assess a wide range of topics.

Spaceflight fascinates and inspires many Americans, but in a time of constrained federal budgets, it must compete with a multitude of other national priorities. As the 114th Congress conducts oversight and considers authorization and appropriations legislation for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), an overarching question will be how NASA should move forward within budget constraints. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-267) set a new direction for NASA's human spaceflight programs. For access to low Earth orbit, including the International Space Station (ISS), it confirmed NASA's plans to develop a commercial space transportation capability for both cargo and astronauts. The first commercial cargo flight for ISS resupply was conducted in May 2012. Pending the planned availability of commercial crew transportation in 2017, NASA is paying Russia to carry U.S. astronauts to and from the ISS on Soyuz spacecraft. Issues for Congress include the cost, schedule, and safety of future commercial crew services, as well as the need for alternatives if commercial providers do not succeed. For human exploration beyond Earth orbit, the 2010 NASA authorization act mandated development of the Orion Multipurpose Crew Vehicle and the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket to launch Orion into space. A test flight of Orion, on an existing rocket and without a crew, took place in December 2014. The first test flight of Orion on the SLS, again without a crew, is planned for FY2018. The first test flight with a crew is planned for FY2021-FY2022. Issues include NASA's ability to meet that schedule, the feasibility of accelerating the schedule, the payload mass capability of the SLS in the near and long term, and how Orion and the SLS should be used when operational. NASA plans to send humans to an asteroid by 2025 and to Mars in the 2030s, but some in Congress would prefer to focus on returning humans to the Moon. Orion and the SLS could also be used as a backup option for access to the ISS, but that option raises additional questions about cost and schedule. U.S. use of the ISS is currently authorized through FY2020. NASA has announced that it plans to extend ISS operations through at least 2024. In addition to crew access concerns and issues related to service life extension, Congress is likely to examine the utilization of the ISS for research, both through traditional NASA mechanisms and via the independently managed ISS national laboratory process. Many in Congress are concerned that the needs of the human spaceflight program may reduce the resources available for NASA's other activities, including science, aeronautics research, and education. Funding for Earth science satellites is particularly contentious, because of their use for climate change research. Proposed cuts in funding for planetary science have encountered opposition in both Congress and the scientific community. The explosion of a small asteroid over Chelyabinsk, Russia, in 2013 may have increased congressional interest in the science and potential threat of near-Earth asteroids and comets. The Administration's proposals to reorganize federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education programs would affect numerous NASA education activities, especially those outside the Office of Education.