[Senate Hearing 114-114]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-114
U.S. HUMAN EXPLORATION GOALS AND
COMMERCIAL SPACE COMPETITIVENESS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE, SCIENCE,
AND COMPETITIVENESS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 24, 2015
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
97-531 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking
ROY BLUNT, Missouri MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
MARCO RUBIO, Florida CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
TED CRUZ, Texas RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
JERRY MORAN, Kansas EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin TOM UDALL, New Mexico
DEAN HELLER, Nevada JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
CORY GARDNER, Colorado GARY PETERS, Michigan
STEVE DAINES, Montana
David Schwietert, Staff Director
Nick Rossi, Deputy Staff Director
Rebecca Seidel, General Counsel
Jason Van Beek, Deputy General Counsel
Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
Clint Odom, Democratic General Counsel and Policy Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE, SCIENCE, AND COMPETITIVENESS \1\
TED CRUZ, Texas, Chairman GARY PETERS, Michigan, Ranking
MARCO RUBIO, Florida EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
JERRY MORAN, Kansas CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska TOM UDALL, New Mexico
CORY GARDNER, Colorado BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
STEVE DAINES, Montana
\1\ On March 3, 2015 the Committee finalized Member assignments for
its subcommittees. The list below reflects March 3, 2015 assignments.
When this hearing was held, on February 24, 2015, formal assignments
had not yet been made.
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 24, 2015................................ 1
Statement of Senator Cruz........................................ 1
Statement of Senator Nelson...................................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Statement of Senator Udall....................................... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Statement of Senator Gardner..................................... 23
Witnesses
Colonel Walt Cunningham (USMC, Ret.), Former NASA Astronaut and
Apollo 7 Pilot................................................. 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Colonel Buzz Aldrin (USAF, Ret.), Former NASA Astronaut and
Apollo 11 Pilot................................................ 9
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Michael J. Massimino, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, Columbia University, and Former NASA Astronaut.... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
John Elbon, Vice President and General Manager, Boeing Space
Exploration.................................................... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Dr. Scott Pace, Director, Space Policy Institute, Elliott School
of International Affairs, George Washington University......... 36
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Eric W. Stallmer, President, Commercial Spaceflight Federation... 43
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to:
Michael J. Massimino, Ph.D................................... 59
Response to written questions submitted to John Elbon by:
Hon. Roy Blunt............................................... 59
Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 60
Hon. Tom Udall............................................... 61
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to:
Dr. Scott Pace............................................... 63
Response to written questions submitted to Eric W. Stallmer by:
Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 64
Hon. Tom Udall............................................... 66
U.S. HUMAN EXPLORATION GOALS AND COMMERCIAL SPACE COMPETITIVENESS
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Space, Science, and
Competitiveness,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:03 p.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Cruz,
presiding.
Present: Senators Cruz [presiding], Gardner, Blunt, Udall,
Markey, Peters, and Nelson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS
Senator Cruz. Good afternoon. I would like to thank each of
the distinguished witnesses for being here.
Just over a half-century ago, President John F. Kennedy
laid down a marker in my hometown of Houston, Texas, and made a
commitment that, like the great pioneers that came before us,
we too would set sail on a new sea and send man to the Moon. We
embarked upon that endeavor as a nation because opening the
vistas of space promised high costs and hardship and enormous
reward.
Today, we find ourselves at a similar crossroad. The year
2015 is just as critical of a time for our national and
commercial space programs as was the case a half-century ago.
Future exploration is certain to present hardships, but it also
promises high rewards--new resources, frontiers, and economic
opportunities.
I am honored to serve as Chairman of this Subcommittee,
and, as the Chairman, my first priority for the space component
of the Subcommittee will be working to help refocus NASA's
energies on its core priorities of exploring space. We need to
get back to the hard sciences, to manned space exploration, and
to the innovation that has been integral to the mission of
NASA.
We need to ensure that the United States remains a leader
in space exploration in the 21st century. SLS and Orion will be
critical to our medium-and long-term ability to explore space,
whether it is the Moon, Mars, or beyond.
At the same time, I remain deeply concerned about our
current inability to reach low-Earth orbit. We are right now
entirely dependent on the Russian Soyuz system, which is
unacceptable from the perspective of space interests and also
from the perspective of our national security. Every seat that
an American astronaut occupies on the Russian Soyuz costs $70
million.
It is imperative that America has the capability to get to
the International Space Station without the assistance of the
Russians. America should have the capability to launch a rescue
mission to the Space Station should that prove necessary and
without being dependent on the Russians. America should have
the capacity to launch our critical satellites without needing
to acquire Russian RD-180 engines. The Commercial Crew Program
is critical to restoring this capability.
I am encouraged by the progress both with regard to
commercial cargo and commercial crew, but we need a continued
focus on accomplishing the stated objectives with maximum
efficiency and expedition. It is terrific to see commercial
companies innovating, and, as Chairman of this Subcommittee, I
will be an enthusiastic advocate of competition and the
enabling of the private sector to compete and to innovate.
In 2013, 81 orbital launches were conducted worldwide, 23
of which were commercial launches. Revenues from the 23
commercial orbital launches were estimated to be more than $1.9
billion. The United States accounted for six of these launches.
There is more that can be done to create long-term
predictability for the United States commercial space industry
so that launch activity will continue to grow.
There is no limit to human imagination or for the desire
for exploration. Every one of us, every little boy, every
little girl, every man and woman, has looked up at the night
sky and wondered what lies out there. That is the mystery, that
is the vision behind America's space exploration. America has
always led the way in space exploration, and we need to reclaim
that leadership.
And, with that, I recognize my friend, the Ranking Member
of the full committee, Senator Nelson.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Chairman, blossoms are breaking out all over
Washington because what you just said you and I completely
agree on.
As a matter of fact, I offered in the Armed Services
Committee the amendment to start--and it passed; it is part of
the defense authorization bill--to start the process. As a
matter of fact, we authorized $100 million. Senator McCain was
a cosponsor of that to develop an alternative to the RD-180.
Indeed, we shouldn't be relying on the Russians to ride. We
have in the past, in the two and a half years that we were down
after the loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia earlier in the
last decade. That was our only way to get up to the Space
Station. And they were a reliable partner then. But now look
at--we can't predict what Vladimir Putin is going to do now.
This was part of the speeches that I was making a decade
ago as we were trying to get this thing off the ground.
And I certainly agree with you, and I am just heartened
that you came out with such a strong statement on the
Commercial Crew, because this is going to be a way that we can
get Americans on American rockets quicker back into space since
the Space Launch System and its spacecraft, Orion, are going
down further in the decade even though we have already tested
Orion on its first test flight.
And so I am just delighted. And, as you know, you and I
have talked about this till we are both blue in the face. This
subcommittee has always not been bipartisan, it has been
nonpartisan. And the subject of the national space program is a
nonpartisan issue.
And so I am looking forward to cooperating with you, as we
tried last year--it didn't happen--on getting the authorization
act. We need to get the authorization act out of here just for
the remaining 6 months of this fiscal year, and then let's
start looking to the additional fiscal years behind.
And, with that, I will just stop my comments if I may
insert my comments that I had prepared in the record for
opening comments. And I will just end by saying thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Nelson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator from Florida
Good morning and thank you Chairman Cruz. I appreciate you calling
this hearing to discuss the importance of U.S. human space exploration
and the role of our growing commercial space industry.
In 2010, we passed the bi-partisan NASA Authorization Act. This
called on the agency to explore beyond Earth's orbit with the long-term
goal of Mars. I'm encouraged to see that NASA has made significant
progress toward these goals. NASA is developing a heavy lift rocket,
SLS, and the Orion crew capsule, which was successfully launched in
December on its first test flight.
NASA has also been working closely with SpaceX and Boeing to begin
launching astronauts to the International Space Station beginning in
2017. This partnership is not only good for the commercial space
industry but will allow NASA to focus on deep space exploration--
specifically, on the path to Mars.
To maintain this progress we need to:
continue building toward the shared vision Congress outlined
in the 2010 authorization;
provide sustained and predictable funding for the agency
over the long term; and
maintain a balanced portfolio between the complementary
science, aeronautics, technology, and exploration missions,
and continue support for a robust commercial space industry.
These are very exciting times for the future of U.S. human
spaceflight and for the entire nation.
This committee has always worked in a non-partisan manner and I
look forward to continuing that tradition in this Congress.
Thank you all for being here, and I look forward to your testimony.
Senator Cruz. Well, thank you, Senator Nelson, for the very
kind comments. I hope those are not used against you in your
next campaign.
Senator Nelson. I was going to say the same thing to you.
Yours is a little more immediate than mine.
Senator Cruz. And I want to thank each of the three
distinguished witnesses that are here. This is a wonderful way
to begin the new Congress and the jurisdiction of this
subcommittee, by focusing on the overarching goals, that NASA
should be focusing on our objectives. And I cannot think of a
more distinguished, a more experienced, a more respected panel
than the three witnesses who are with us today.
We have first Colonel Walt Cunningham, former NASA
Astronaut and Apollo 7 Pilot. We have next Dr. Buzz Aldrin, a
former NASA Astronaut and Apollo 11 Pilot. And we have Mr.
Michael Massimino, a former NASA Astronaut and Mission
Specialist for the Space Shuttle Program.
And I thank each of the three of you for taking time from
your busy schedules to join us.
We will begin with Colonel Cunningham's testimony.
STATEMENT OF COLONEL WALT CUNNINGHAM (USMC, RET.), FORMER NASA
ASTRONAUT AND APOLLO 7 PILOT
Colonel Cunningham. Thank you, sir.
I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts on where
I believe our space program has been slipping and some of the
things I believe NASA must do to maintain America's lead in
space exploration. While this is my personal opinion, it is
shared by many of my contemporaries. Some additional points are
in my written testimony that I hope you all will read.
Humans have always been driven to explore the unknown and
to open new frontiers. Opening a new frontier demands three
things: resources, technology, and, more important, the will to
do it. In 1961, America was willing to take the risk of going
to the Moon. When President Kennedy made his commitment to land
a man on the Moon, not a single American had yet been in orbit.
The success of the Apollo program was due to the collective
efforts of 400,000 members of our team--engineers, operators,
managers, and contractors. With the whole world watching, we
accepted the challenge, took the risk, and changed the way that
we all perceived our world.
We accomplished a landing on the Moon in 8 years. Today, 45
years later, the next frontier, Mars, seems decades out of
reach, primarily because we do not have a national commitment.
Our Apollo program made America preeminent in space and the
world's most technologically advanced nation. It led us to the
space shuttle, the greatest flying machine ever built by man;
the International Space Station, ISS; and the Hubble Space
Telescope. The spin-offs have infiltrated virtually all areas
of our industry.
While NASA's portion of the Federal budget peaked at 4
percent in 1965, it has been below 1 percent for the past 40
years. While NASA has accomplished many things and made manned
spaceflight much more routine, we have not challenged the next
frontier--the manned exploration of Mars. That will only be
possible if our government initiates and provides the funding
for such a program.
Over the years, NASA has been subjected to more and more
political pressure, and the agency has grown increasingly
political inside. This has left employees much less willing to
express their opinions freely and the agency less attractive to
the best and brightest of today's young professionals.
An example: After trying for years, NASA is still unable to
reduce the number of space centers that they operate around the
country in order to lower their overhead costs. Congress and
local politicians have always won out and saved the one in
their district.
A commitment to push back the space frontier with a man
landing on Mars would drive NASA's budget, while the schedule
would be controlled by the rate at which Congress funds it.
This could also empower the agency to correct many of the
deficiencies that have evolved over time.
A Mars exploration vehicle will have to be assembled in
Earth orbit. Moving out of Earth orbit would require heavy-lift
rockets, like our Space Launch System and the Orion crew
capsule. A reusable launch vehicle similar to our space shuttle
may be necessary in order to assemble an interplanetary
spacecraft. While these are all costly, they will be essential
in order to move humans out of Earth orbit.
Any Mars exploration program will have international
partners. In that partnership, NASA should take a strong
leadership role, as they did back in the Apollo program, and
not just be one more partner in an international effort.
Hopefully, it would encompass less politics and be better
structured than the ISS partnership.
ISS that we gave birth to in the 1970s is probably the most
impressive piece of space hardware ever placed in orbit. While
leading the international partnership, we transferred $3
billion to $5 billion to Russia to help resurrect their space
industry, increased our cost of the program by $15 billion to
$20 billion, and we are now totally dependent on Russia to get
American crewmen to and from the ISS.
The success of our space program has always been dependent
on private industry, and they delivered. As NASA grew less
entrepreneurial, less efficient, and more bureaucratic, they
inspired new so-called commercial space companies. While most
of these companies have been subsidized by government funding,
NASA has less control over their development, operations, and,
consequently, their results as they did in the past.
Some people suggest that private space companies should
collaborate with NASA for space missions beyond Earth orbit,
which means sharing the cost. While commercial companies will
always contract with NASA for the hardware and the technology,
the government will always be expected to pay the cost of
exploration, funded by tax dollars of course.
Space exploration is far too expensive for commercial
companies that are driven by profit and return on investment.
Space exploration does not satisfy either of these criteria.
Government agencies are not profit-driven. Government
underwriting permits our agencies to guide, develop, and manage
the technology.
Our country's return on investment is the private industry
commercialization of the technology that is developed. Since
commercial companies move much faster than government agencies,
production by private industry will shorten the timeline for a
launch to Mars.
In the absence of a Mars exploration program and limited
funding, NASA has initiated the Asteroid Redirect Mission,
possibly to the Lagrange points. Today, they justify it as a
first step in the mission to Mars. Anything it might do that
could help a Mars mission could be more officially done with
some other projects. While we work on overcoming the problem of
radiation exposure and trying to speed up travel, we should
return to the Moon to develop a crew facility for semi-
permanent living.
Many scientists today are saying, send robots to Mars,
because humans are too costly and it is too dangerous. NASA
should continue to exploit both manned and unmanned missions,
but humans will always be much faster and more efficient
because we can think and act in real time.
There are two things I believe we should focus on also:
eliminating permanently any dependence on other countries for
launch capability; two, find some way for NASA administrators
to become less subject to changes in the administration every 4
years.
The Apollo program took 8 years, it cost $110 billion--that
is in today's dollars--and the benefits to our society have
been priceless. A manned landing on Mars will probably take
twice as long and cost up to three times as much in today's
dollars. That is a fraction of what our annual Federal budget
deficits have been running, and deficits do not have a return
on investment.
The human desire to explore and settle new frontiers will
be satisfied, if not by Americans, then by others. Humans
somewhere will certainly return to the Moon and go on to Mars.
I believe that we have the resources and the technology, but do
we have the will to tackle the next frontier, Mars?
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Colonel Cunningham follows:]
Prepared Statement of Walter Cunningham, USMC, Ret., Former NASA
Astronaut and Apollo 7 Pilot
I appreciate the opportunity to share my opinion on where I believe
our space program has been slipping and some of the things I believe
NASA must do to maintain America's lead in space exploration. This is
my personal opinion but it is shared by many of my contemporaries.
Humans have always been driven to explore the unknown, to discover
new worlds, to push our boundaries and then reach out for the next new
world. The technological breakthroughs and scientific discoveries from
opening new frontiers have benefitted our society for centuries. We
have the responsibility and the opportunity to explore the next
frontier.
In the 15th and 16th centuries the frontier was in the new world
and England, Spain and Portugal were crossing the seas in search of
their country's greatness. In 1519, Ferdinand Magellan set sail on one
of the most famous voyages of exploration in history--the first voyage
around the world. He set out with five ships and 270 sailors. Three
years later, only one of the original ships returned with only 18 of
the original crewmen still alive.
In the 1960s, we set sail on another ocean; one whose farthest
shores we can never reach. This new ocean was more pristine than was
the new world before voyages of Columbus and Magellan. As exploration
of the new world was inevitable 500 years ago, so too is our
exploration of space.
Any project as complex as Apollo requires three things: resources,
technology, and--most important--the will to do it. In 1961, America
was willing to take the risk of going to the Moon. It was human risk,
and technical risk, economic risk and political risk. The Apollo
Program took initiative and leadership. When President Kennedy made his
commitment to land a man on the Moon not a single American had yet been
in orbit!
With the Apollo Program, America took the historical role of
opening the next frontier. Astronauts were at the tip of the spear and
we got the glory but the success of the Apollo program was due to the
collective efforts of 400,000 members of the team--engineers,
operators, managers and contractors. With the whole world watching, we
accepted the challenge, took the risk and changed the way we all
perceived our world.
During Apollo, the American space program was unique. Over the past
40 years, NASA has enjoyed many great accomplishments. But as the
agency evolved the management culture has changed and it has not always
been for the better.
Space is the most hostile environment into which man has ever
ventured. NASA should work to prevent mishaps but those efforts should
be balanced against the objectives they are trying to accomplish.
Spaceflight will always be expensive and manned spaceflight will always
involve risk and the chance of failure. Exploration is not about
eliminating risk; it's about managing risk!
Motivated by the Cold War and a national commitment, we
accomplished a landing on the Moon in eight years. Today, after 50
years of experience and technology development, a manned mission to the
next frontier--Mars, seems decades out of reach, primarily because we
do not have a national commitment.
Our Apollo Program made America pre-eminent in space and the
world's most technologically advanced nation. It led to such things as
the Space Shuttle--the greatest flying machine ever built by man, the
International Space Station (ISS) and the Hubble space telescope. The
technology that made this possible was funded by the American people
and it has infiltrated virtually all areas of industry.
NASA's portion of the Federal budget peaked at 4 percent in 1965.
For the past 40 years it has remained below one percent and for the
last 15 years it has been driving toward 0.4 percent of the Federal
budget.
While NASA has accomplished many things and made manned spaceflight
much more routine, we have not challenged the next frontier--the Manned
exploration of Mars. Manned exploration is the most expensive space
venture and, consequently, the most difficult for which to obtain
political support. Manned exploration of Mars will only be possible if
our government initiates and funds such a program.
While our world has been changing and space technology improving,
NASA management has been aging, layers have been added and politics
plays an ever growing role. NASA seems less capable and less interested
in pushing out the space frontier and focusing more on eliminating risk
and looking for absolute assurance that something can be done before
committing to do it. This leaves NASA less attractive to the best and
brightest of today's young professionals.
Over the years, NASA has grown increasingly political. There was a
time when personnel at all levels contributed to success by freely
expressing their completely candid opinions on design, testing,
operations and management issues. Management today seems less and less
likely to speak out because of their concerns about the political
repercussions. NASA needs to find a way to return to the environment
where people contributed to success by freely expressing what they
thought about the issue being addressed.
NASA has also been subjected to politic pressure from outside the
agency.
Examples:
NASA has tried for decades to reduce their overhead by reducing
the number of Space Centers they have around the country.
Congress and local politicians have always won out and saved
the one in their district. NASA is still burdened with the same
10 Space Centers and a half dozen other facilities. This
reduces the funds available for science and space applications.
When our military faced a similar problem with too many bases
spread around the country, it was resolved when Congress passed
the Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1990 to screen and
close facilities.
NASA should also be focused more on their science obligations
and avoid any associated political issues. Goddard Space Center
has been involved in global environmental science for many
years. For the past 20 years, instead of just sharing the
climate science data they collect, they have joined the
political argument that humans are the cause of global warming.
At the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Lima, Peru,
last December, virtually all of the data available, the
presentations and the handouts in the American Pavilion were
material furnished by NASA. NASA personnel were making the
presentations and the data shown was selected to make the case
that humans were the cause of global warming. The American
Pavilion was virtually a NASA pavilion. The space agency
compromises its scientific credibility by participating in the
politics surrounding one of the great scientific hoaxes in
history.
To get NASA back to the posture where they excelled, we should
commit once more to pushing back the space frontier with a
manned landing on Mars. Such a mission will become much more
feasible when, and if, we overcome the problem of radiation
exposure and/or shorten the time of travel.
Our Mars exploration vehicle will have to be assembled in earth
orbit. Moving out of earth orbit will require heavy-lift rockets, like
our Space Launch System, and the Orion deep space crew capsule.
Assembling an interplanetary spacecraft may require a reusable launch
vehicle similar to the space shuttle. While these are all expensive,
they will be essential if we want to move out of earth orbit.
We could also explore the possibility of moving the ISS from 51.6+
down to an orbital inclination where it could be/might be useful in
constructing an interplanetary spacecraft and/or as a departure point
for Mars.
With a national commitment for Mars exploration our space agency's
budget and activities would be driven by this strategy. The timing, of
course, would be controlled by the rate at which Congress funds the
program. If addressed in the way we addressed a manned landing on the
Moon, it would enable NASA to deal with many of the internal
deficiencies that have developed over time.
Any Mars exploration program will have international partners. If
it is our American program, we should take a strong leadership approach
in managing that program. With Apollo, the effort was clearly led by
NASA. In a Mars program we should obviously lead the way and not just
be one more partner in an international effort to go to Mars.
Hopefully, it would have less politics and a better structure then the
international program we formed around the ISS.
The ISS, that NASA first began to work on in the 1970s, is probably
the most impressive piece of space hardware ever placed in orbit. It
has had ``equal'' partners from the beginning, even though more than 70
percent of the cost has been paid by the U.S.
In 1993, after NASA had evaluated and rejected what Russia might
contribute to our ISS program, President Clinton insisted that Russia
be included as a full partner. ISS was a convenient way for America to
bail out the nearly bankrupt Russian space program. Our administration
claimed that we would lift off two years earlier, it would save us $2B
and it would keep Russian scientists from working on nuclear
development for other countries.
Reality: After transferring $3-5B to help resurrect the Russian
space industry we launched two years late. The cost to us was increased
by $15-$20 billion, due primarily to changing the orbital inclination
from 28.5+ to 51.6+ in order to accommodate the Russian launch
capability. We are now totally dependent on Russia to get an American
to and from the ISS--a program we gave birth to in the 1970s.
In the Apollo Program we were totally dependent on private
industry. And they delivered! As NASA has grown less entrepreneurial,
less efficient and more bureaucratic over the years, it has inspired
new, so-called commercial space companies. While most of these new
companies have been subsidized by Government funding NASA has less
control over their development, operations and, consequently, the
outcome.
Space exploration is far too expensive for private industry without
government capital. Commercial companies have a different perspective
on space exploration and operations. Commercial companies are driven by
profit and return on investment. Pushing back the frontier of space
does not satisfy the business case for either of these criteria.
Government space agencies are not profit driven. Our government
underwrites the exploration of space and government agencies develop
and manage the technology. Our country's return on investment is the
technology developed to open that next frontier and the
commercialization of that technology in private industry.
Some people suggest that private space companies should collaborate
with NASA for human missions beyond low Earth orbit. Collaboration
means sharing the cost. Commercial companies will contract with NASA
for the hardware and technology but the government will always be
expected to pay the cost of exploring the next frontier--funded by tax
dollars, of course.
Since commercial companies move much faster than government
agencies, production by private industry will shorten the timeline to
launch a mission to Mars.
In the absence of a Mars Exploration Program and limited funding,
NASA has initiated the Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM). Today, ARM is
characterized as a first step in the mission to Mars. This could be
fascinating for some scientists but anything it might do to support a
future Mars mission could be more efficiently done with other projects.
The Japanese landed an unmanned satellite on an asteroid and
returned with a surface sample 5 years ago. If ARM is funded, it should
be an unmanned science mission, NOT a manned mission. Limited manned
exploration funds should not be wasted on such missions.
There are manned missions we should be planning in preparation for
a manned landing on Mars. While we work on overcoming the problems of
radiation exposure and learning how to speed up travel, we should
return to the Moon where we can perfect a crew facility for semi-
permanent living. It is critical that we learn how to keep crews alive
on Mars for months or even years. Crews on the Moon are only four days
away from home as opposed to months and even years on a Mars mission.
Many scientists today are saying, ``Send robots to Mars because
humans are too costly and it's too dangerous.''
NASA should continue to mix manned and unmanned missions in order
to exploit both. Robots can assess risks to human exploration,
determine the presence of environmental, chemical, or biological
problems and help to mitigate the risks. Robots are valuable tools in
preparing for exploration but they are greatly inferior to humans in
terms of speed, grasping what has been observed and judging what to do
next. Humans are much, much faster and more efficient because we can
think and act in real time.
The Apollo program cost $110 billion in today's dollars and the
benefits to our society have been priceless. A manned landing on Mars,
after 50 years of technical progress and spaceflight experience and
perfecting a crew facility on the Moon, will probably take twice as
long and cost 2 to 3 times that amount. That is a fraction of what our
annual Federal budget deficit has been running and deficits do not have
a return.
A century from now, no one will care how carefully and cautiously
we may have survived the 21st century, but they would certainly
celebrate our willingness to make a commitment, to accept the risk, to
expand our universe and to change the way we perceived our world if we
commit to land a man on Mars.
We will not move our society ahead by eliminating risk. Exploration
is not about eliminating risk; it's about managing risk!
The human desire to explore and settle new frontiers will be
satisfied--if not by Americans, then by others. Humans, somewhere, will
certainly go back to the Moon and on to Mars.
I believe we have the resources and the technology for manned
exploration of Mars! Do we have the will to tackle the next frontier--
Mars?
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Colonel Cunningham.
Dr. Aldrin?
STATEMENT OF COLONEL BUZZ ALDRIN (USAF, RET.), FORMER NASA
ASTRONAUT AND APOLLO 11 PILOT
Colonel Aldrin. Senator Cruz, Senator Nelson, Senator
Markey, Senator Udall, Committee on Space, Science, and
Competitiveness, I wish to thank the Committee for the
opportunity to speak with you about the future of American
human spaceflight enterprise. This is truly an honor, and I
applaud you for raising this issue so early in this session.
America must be the world leader in human spaceflight.
There is no other policy area which so clearly demonstrates
American innovation and enterprise than human spaceflight.
American leadership is more than simply getting one step ahead
of our global competitors. American leadership is inspiring the
world by consistently doing what no other nation is capable of
doing. We demonstrated that for a brief time 45 years ago.
If we wish to retain American leadership in space, I
believe that early in the next administration the nation must
commit to developing a permanent presence on Mars. Another
Apollo-like mission to put flags and footprints on Mars does
not ensure sustained leadership, and lunar settlements will
only require a small step for the other nations to catch up.
I have a multi-decadal plan with compelling vision that
will establish world leadership for the remaining of the
century and initial landings on Mars by 2038. It is an
integrated plan that knits together return to the Moon on a
commercial and international basis, leveraging asteroid
rendezvous, and settling Mars on a carefully developed risk-
mitigation architecture.
It includes the use of a robotic cycler between Mars and
Earth that will revolutionize the economics and safety aspects
of human missions to Mars. Much analysis has been done on this
concept in partnership with the commercial sector, the
international community, and especially the academic community.
All this can be done without being a major budget-buster for
NASA.
The architectures I have developed are driven by several
technical principles, which I believe are essential to
achieving this goal. These principles are part of what I call
my ``Unified Space Vision.''
One, current programs for commercializing crew and cargo
transportation to the International Station could expand to
provide transport of crews with lifeboat rotations to two
redundant stations on either side of the Moon.
The U.S. will lead other crews from these stations for
distant controls of the assembly and checkout of habitational
structures and their life-support systems. Also, intricate
rovers will provide ice to rocket fuel resources and other
resources.
We also have a reliable, developed and test most of the
systems needed for Mars. We should participate in lunar
development but avoid getting our human spaceflight budget
captured by lunar gravity's expensive consumption of funds.
Let's establish a lunar infrastructure which barters visits to
the surface on international landers.
Number three, reduce the cost of sustaining a presence on
Mars by deploying outbound cycling spaceships that orbit
between Earth and Mars without requiring a great deal of
propulsion. Each successive mission would only have to send
astronauts, landers, and the minor provisions. The ending
provisions are reusable on the cycler--radiation protection.
The vast majority of the mass would remain in the orbit between
Earth and Mars.
Number four, focus on people to Mars to stay. Bringing
everyone home after a relatively brief stay is a cost-driver. I
envision many of the people who go to Mars to remain and
establish a permanent settlement. We have developed an inbound
cycler as a means of bringing people back for certain
contingencies. But the cost of effectively sending the entire
launch system to return everyone home on every mission can make
the entire venture prohibitively expensive.
I provided most of the detail in my written statement and
will have a much more complete version of this plan once the
study of my cycler concept is conducted by an Aldrin-Purdue
study that will be finished near the end of April.
In closing, I encourage you to think about the ability of
free markets in space to reduce the cost and power of American
ingenuity to solve the most difficult technical challenges. In
my opinion, there is no more convincing way to demonstrate
American leadership for the remainder of this century than to
commit to a permanent presence on Mars.
I thank you for your time and look forward to the
Committee's leadership.
[The prepared statement of Colonel Aldrin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Colonel Buzz Aldrin (USAF, Ret.), Former NASA
Astronaut and Apollo 11 Pilot
Senator Cruz, Members of the Senate Subcommittee on Space, Science,
and Competitiveness, I want to thank the Committee for the opportunity
to speak with you about the future of the American human spaceflight
enterprise. This is truly an honor, and I applaud you for raising this
issue so early in this session.
Some of you may wonder why an 85 year old former Astronaut is here,
testifying in Washington DC, rather than playing golf in Florida. Well,
in the first place, while I do live in Florida, I am a truly horrible
golfer. I am a much better orbital dynamicist. But more importantly, I
love my country and I believe the future of the American space program
is one of the most important issues we face as a nation. We are at an
important inflection point in our Nation's space program. Over the next
few years we must choose whether we are to go forward as a nation and
lead the extension of global civilization to a permanent presence
beyond Low Earth Orbit, or to allow American leadership in space to
erode over the next decades.
America must be the world leader in human spaceflight. There is no
other policy area which so clearly demonstrates American values of
innovation and enterprise than human spaceflight. I have dedicated the
last 50 years of my life to this proposition and I do not intend to
stop any time soon. I think there is broad agreement in the space
community and the panelists you are hearing from today on this point.
There is decidedly less agreement on how we should do this. We do
not have long to decide, and this Subcommittee will play a critical
role in setting the agenda for this decision. I hope that my testimony
today can contribute to this process. I think it will come as no
surprise to Members of the Subcommittee and my fellow panelists that I
have my own opinions.
Allow me to begin with a question: What do we mean when we talk
about American leadership? American leadership is more than simply
getting one step ahead of our global competitors. American leadership
is inspiring the world by consistently doing what no other nation is
capable of doing. We demonstrated that for a brief time 45 years ago. I
do not believe we have done it since.
I believe it begins with a bi-partisan Congressional and
Administration commitment to sustained leadership. If we wish to retain
American leadership in space, I believe that early in the next
administration, the Nation must commit to developing a permanent
presence on Mars. Another Apollo-like mission to put flags and
footprints on Mars does not ensure sustained leadership, and restarting
a failed constellation program will only require one small step for
China to catch up.
I have spent much of the time since I landed on the Moon thinking
and writing about the future of the space program. But we cannot get
there with conventional thinking. The architectures I have developed
are driven by several technical principles which I believe are
essential to achieving this goal. These principles are part of what I
call my Unified Space Vision.
(1) Development of the commercial space transportation sector to
provide crew and cargo transportation systems. Current programs
for commercializing crew and cargo transportation to the
International Space Station could lead to augmenting and
expanding that commercial capability to transport mixed crews
with lifeboat rotations to control stations in the vicinity of
the Moon.
(2) The U.S. should lead commercial and support international
development of the Moon with extensive telerobotic complex
engineering assembly of habitation structures and scientific
and commercial rovers in order to provide necessary fuel
resources and develop reliable systems for Mars. We should
participate in lunar development but avoid getting our human
spaceflight budget captured by lunar gravities expensive
consumption of funds to create, support, and sustain human
landings. Let's establish a lunar infrastructure which can be
commercially self-sustaining, relying on bartered visits to the
surface on international landers. This makes far more economic
sense for scientific and commercial activities.
(3) Reduce the cost of sustaining a presence on Mars by deploying
cycling spacecraft which perpetually orbits between Earth and
Mars only requiring a small trim propulsion. The primary cost
of getting to Mars is the fuel required to send a complex base
of habitable structures to Mars. Each successive mission would
redundantly send astronaut pioneers in Mars landers of
increasing capacity. The majority of the mass including radio
mitigation would remain in orbit between Earth and Mars.
(4) Focus on sending people to Mars to stay. The huge cost driver
for Mars missions is the cost of bringing everyone back home
after a relatively brief stay. I envision a program of
settlement that schedules most of the crews who go to Mars will
remain and establish a permanent settlement there. Naturally,
we have to develop the Inbound Cycler as a means to bring
people home who need to return for whatever reason. But the
cost of effectively sending an entire launch system to return
everyone home on every mission can make the whole venture
prohibitively expensive.
These are the basic principles. Let me turn briefly to just a few
notes from my Unified Space Vision on just how we would execute this
program and establish a permanent presence on Mars before 2040.
We can begin as soon as 2018 with the launch of an
inflatable 1st generation exploration module (XM) to a low
earth orbit station with Orion or Dragon. Then hopefully one of
these spacecraft to be launched with another inflatable XM will
be transported to the near libration point, L-1 of the Moon in
July 2019 for the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary! The purpose of
these flights is to test exploration modules and to provide
locations from which to remotely construct international lunar
bases. These lunar activities will provide the necessary
experience to later remotely construct (from Earth and then
from Phobos) a base on Mars. They also provide the basis for
extended international and commercial lunar operations,
including in situ resource utilization, as well as a capability
for future human missions to asteroids. I believe that the
development of commercially provided resources from space will
be critical to enabling human missions to Mars.
As we begin to develop our capabilities on the Moon,
sometime between 2020 and 2030, I envision a one year Orion
mission with an inflatable to an in-orbit asteroid that arrives
a few days before a complex sampling robotic spacecraft arrives
from a slow, fuel saving solar electric propulsion transit of
1.5 years. This would give 60 days for a crew including
scientists, asteroid mining and the robotic experts. This
mission would also enable us to further test human spaceflight
systems in deep space.
In 2031 an Orion with a rigid 2nd generation exploration
module will join the inflatable at LEO, L-1, and L-2, and will
then land on the Moon as a lunar habitat.
Once the lunar bases have been established, beginning in
2028 (before first humans are sent to Mars) and through 2034--
nine unoccupied 3rd generation exploration modules, will be
launched to Mars and two XM habitats sent to Phobos.
In 2031 an Orion with a rigid XM will be launched on an
``Inspiration Venus'' one year flyby of Venus mission with a
crew of two women. On return to Earth we will perform two
aerocapture maneuvers before reentry.
One of defining highlights of the mission architecture is
the use of ``cycler'' spacecraft that would travel between
Earth and Mars perpetually every synodic period. (A synodic
period is the time that the orbits of the Earth and Mars bring
the planets closest together--about every twenty six months.)
My architectures features two cyclers. The larger capacity
outbound cycler (heading from Earth to Mars) and the smaller
inbound cycler (traveling back from Mars to Earth) alternately
encounters Earth roughly every four and a half years.
The first outbound cycler will be intercepted by three
smaller landers with one crew member each. One unmanned lander
lands on Mars to demonstrate and checkout Mars landing
procedures, and two landers land on Phobos with three crew
members. The Phobos crew will remotely connect up to nine
surface modules telerobotically, using techniques developed at
the Earth-Moon libration facilities. These XM habitats are low
thrust transported and landed five years before the 1st
outbound cycler reaches Mars. Then the XMs are transported by
rovers slowly from dispersed landing locations by long delayed
control from Earth to within a few feet of each other at the
desired base location.
When the first outbound cycler crew of three is cleared to
land, the crew transfers from Phobos to the Mars surface. If
the crew is not cleared to land, then they could return to
Earth with an inflatable module and a Mars lander and storable
propulsion system, all stationed on Phobos or by intercepting
the first inbound cycler for its return to Earth.
The second outbound cycler transit to Mars carries three
landers with a total of nine crew members. One lander with
three crew members replaces the original three crew members on
Phobos. The remaining two landers land on Mars with a total of
6 crew members establishing the first permanent settlement on
Mars.
The Inbound Cycler when not used for crew return can be
intercepted to return high value cargo. The lander capacity
could be increased to six. Also a second outbound cycler can be
introduced to make transits every synodic period instead of
every other.
Every four and a half years the population of Mars will
continue to grow as recurring outbound cyclers bring additional
crews of up to 9 new inhabitants. The list of potential tasks
the surface inhabitants of 18 might accomplish is far too long
to enumerate in my remaining time, but I would just note that
Steven Squires, the Principle Investigator of the Mars
Pathfinder mission once said that a single crew could
accomplish in one week what took two rovers five years to do.
Over the coming months you will listen to a great deal of how hard
and expensive it is to go to Mars just once, let alone stay there. But,
in closing I encourage you to think about the ability of free markets
in space to reduce the cost and power of American ingenuity to solve
the most difficult technical challenges. In my opinion there is no more
convincing way to demonstrate American leadership for the remainder of
this century than to use 20 July 2019 to commit to and execute a
permanent presence on Mars.
I thank you for your time and look forward to this committee's
leadership.
Senator Cruz. Thank you very much, Dr. Aldrin.
Dr. Massimino?
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. MASSIMINO, Ph.D., PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT
OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, AND FORMER NASA
ASTRONAUT
Mr. Massimino. Chairman Cruz, Ranking Members Nelson and
Udall, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you very much for
having me here today. I have gotten to do some cool stuff in my
life, and this is right up there. I really am honored to be
here. Thank you.
I want to describe to you a few things I learned as an
astronaut, some benefits that our space program has provided
not only for our country but I think for the whole world. And
there are three of them I want to point out from my personal
experience. And then I want to tell you a story from one of my
spaceflights I think kind of wraps it up. So that is what I am
going to try to do.
The first benefit I want to tell you about is how the human
exploration program can benefit science and life on Earth. And
there are lots of examples we can use, but the one I am most
familiar with is the one I got to participate in firsthand, and
that is the Hubble Space Telescope servicing program.
Both of my shuttle flights were to the Hubble Space
Telescope. And Hubble has given us some great discoveries, so
far one Nobel Prize. And I say ``so far'' because I think there
are a lot more coming. The 25th anniversary of the telescope in
orbit is coming this spring. And it has given us a window into
the universe out there. It has found black holes, dark matter,
dark energy, inspired many people to continue studying the
universe, and it has shown us the beauty and the wonder of what
is out there.
But none of this would have been possible without human
exploration, without the shuttle program, spacewalking
astronauts, our ground control team, to be able to react to
problems and get the job done so that we can provide that great
instrument to the astronomers and scientists on the ground.
So, the human exploration program and how it can affect
science and benefits on Earth.
The second thing I want to point out is international
cooperation. When I was a new astronaut in 1996, we were
starting to work with our international partners to build the
Space Station. None of the elements had launched yet. And
sitting there listening to the briefings as a new person not
knowing really what was going on at the time, I wondered, how
are we going to make this work? How are we going to work with
all these countries of Europe, with Japan, with Canada, and
with the Russians? The U.S. was clearly about to be a leader,
but how were we going to work with everybody? Different
cultures, different languages, different ways of doing things,
different systems of measurement. How are we going to make this
all work?
And what I discovered was, when we all had a common goal,
it didn't matter what country you were from. We wanted to build
a space station, we wanted to produce this laboratory. And with
that common goal, we were able to achieve a great thing, which
is the International Space Station, which is orbiting above us
right now.
So international cooperation is a second benefit that I
discovered of the space program.
And the third is inspiration for young people. OK, I am
sitting next to two of my boyhood heroes. I watched this man
walk on the Moon when I was 6 years old, and it changed my
life. And it inspired me to become an astronaut. And not too
many younger than me can remember that, but the ones who are at
least my age and older that I trained with will point to that
episode, what Walt and Buzz did as astronauts, that inspired us
as young people.
And as an astronaut, I often wondered, what are we doing
now that is going to get this next generation of American kids
interested in studying math and science and going to space? And
it never was really clear to me until lately.
This past year, I have been teaching up at Columbia. I left
NASA; I am a Professor at Columbia. And there are some smart
kids up there, all right? And what I found was they are just as
excited as me and my colleagues were years ago about the space
program.
And it is not just NASA inspiring them, though I have had
lots of students who have gone to work for NASA, different NASA
centers, for NASA contractors. But these kids want to change
the world, and they want to be entrepreneurial. They see the
space program as a way that they can be entrepreneurial. They
see these really smart, successful entrepreneurs putting their
efforts into trying to help the economy through space, and they
see these people as role models that they want to follow.
So it is almost, I think, better than when I was a kid, in
some ways, because it is not just NASA doing big projects; it
is also this entrepreneurial spirit, where they think they can
provide economic benefits for the world, as well.
The story I want to tell you: On my second spaceflight--or
my first spaceflight, my second spacewalk, I had a chance to
look around during the spacewalk. And at Hubble we are about
100 miles higher than where the Station was--nowhere near as
far as Buzz was away from the planet. But I was able to see the
curvature of the Earth, and you can see it in its entirety. It
takes up your whole field of view, but it is really beautiful.
And my first spacewalk, I kind of stuck to my job. On my
second spacewalk, I wanted to see what it was like. And there
are really no words to describe to you how beautiful our planet
is from up there. So I will just tell you what was going
through my mind.
And the first thought was, if you were in heaven, this is
what you would see. If you could be up there in heaven, you
could look down on our planet and you would see how beautiful
it is.
And I was thinking about it, and it wasn't enough, and I
thought, no, no, there is more than that, it is more beautiful
than that; this is what heaven must look like. And, at that
moment, I felt like I was looking into paradise. That is how
beautiful our planet is. It is fragile, it is a paradise, and
we need to take care of it.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Massimino follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael J. Massimino, Ph.D., Professor,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Columbia University, and Former
NASA
Astronaut
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to appear before you to discuss the accomplishments of
America's space program during my missions and my perspective on our
Nation's current goals and priorities for the future of human
spaceflight and space exploration. Being asked to testify for this
committee is an honor, and I am privileged to share my experiences and
opinions here with you today.
I became an astronaut in 1996 and have been fortunate to fly on two
space shuttle missions: STS-109 in March of 2002 and STS-125 in May of
2009. Both of my flights were Hubble Space Telescope servicing
missions. The Hubble servicing missions are vital examples of how human
spaceflight can contribute to ground-breaking research being done by
scientists on Earth. Based upon my experience, I believe NASA's joint
focus on innovation in scientific research and its commitment to human
spaceflight continues to be a worthwhile goal for our space agency.
More than that, it is an noble endeavor for us as a nation and as
custodians of this incredible planet we call home.
NASA has made great headlines in recent years, most notably by
landing a rover on Mars, but amazing as that achievement is, putting
human beings in orbit remains the single most important element of
successful space exploration. My first mission set a team record of
spacewalking time on a single space shuttle mission. My second mission
broke that record. During each spacewalk, having an astronaut on the
scene was what saved the day. For example, on one of my spacewalks I
was required to improvise a solution no robot or rover could have
possibly done: manually pulling off a handle that was held fast onto
the telescope with a stripped fastener. This was the only way to
complete the repair of the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph, a
scientific instrument that can, among other capabilities, analyze the
atmospheres of planets in other solar systems in order to establish the
possibility of finding other places in the universe capable of
sustaining life.
The efforts of the human spaceflight program during my missions, in
partnership with NASA's on-going ground control operations and
scientific research programs, have allowed the Hubble Space Telescope
Program to increase our understanding of the universe. Our servicing
missions have enabled scientists from around the world to make major
discoveries, including dark matter, dark energy, black holes, and the
existence of planets in other solar systems. In addition to these great
scientific advances, through Hubble's iconic images we have also
brought the incredible beauty of the universe to the citizens of the
world.
NASA has also in recent years accomplished much in terms of
building and expanding international partnerships, an endeavor that I
believe should continue with our Nation's leadership. While an
astronaut from 1996 to 2014, I had the opportunity to contribute to the
planning, building, and establishment of scientific operations of the
International Space Station (ISS). Among the many achievements of the
ISS is bringing different countries together toward a common goal.
Through the ISS and its work, the United States, Russia, member
countries of the European Space Agency, Canada, and Japan work together
as partners on international space projects and research. We live in
this world together, and working in unison to study it can only help us
all. The friendships, alliances, and accomplishments of the ISS have
shown that, given common scientific and exploration goals, countries
can accomplish great things together.
As a Professor at Columbia University and the Senior Advisor for
Space Programs at the Intrepid Sea, Air, and Space Museum in New York
City, I have seen first hand how the space program can inspire students
to pursue degrees and work in STEM fields. I have seen how space travel
inspires them to dream of accomplishing great things in life. Just as I
was inspired as a small boy by my astronaut heroes in the Apollo
program, today's students are inspired by NASA's accomplishments. They
are excited about the opportunities that NASA and commercial space
companies have waiting for them when they complete their education. I
have not found any other engineering or science endeavor that can
inspire students to study in the STEM fields the way that our Nation's
space program can.
When I speak to my students about their interest in space-related
STEM careers, there is a major opportunity open to them now that was
not readily available when I was a college student over 30 years ago.
The commercial space opportunities created by partnerships with NASA
are very appealing to young people. There is still great interest in
working for NASA and its contractors, but many students see themselves
as future space entrepreneurs. Thanks to developments from NASA, many
highly successful entrepreneurs see space as the next frontier for
economic success in the private sector. I think we will continue to see
major success stories in commercial space enterprise, and they will
play a major role in inspiring young people to pursue STEM careers
while also providing economic benefits for our country.
Lastly, I would like to share a story about my experiences in space
and how it affected my perspective on the precious life we have here on
planet Earth. During a short break in my tasks during my second
spacewalk on STS-109, I had the opportunity to take in the beauty of
our Earth from 350 miles up in orbit. From that height you can see the
curvature of the planet, this bright ball of blue set against an
endless infinity of black. The first thought that went through my mind
was, ``This is the view from heaven. This is what our planet must look
like from heaven.'' But then a second thought immediately replaced that
one. I said to myself, ``No, it's even more beautiful than that. This
is what heaven must look like. Maybe this is heaven.'' I felt as if I
were looking into paradise. That is how beautiful our Earth looks like
from space. It is a fragile oasis. It keeps us alive, safe from the
chaos and dangers of space, just above our atmosphere. It is our home,
and we need to take care of it.
Thank you again for inviting me to testify here today. I have had
some great experiences in my life, and being able to provide input to
your subcommittee is a great honor for me and an opportunity I very
much appreciate.
Senator Cruz. Well, thank you very much. And thank you for
that powerful and evocative imagery, as well.
I appreciate each of you being here. I appreciate your
expert judgment.
I think all of us here agreed that America should lead the
world in space exploration. We have done so for decades. But I
would like to start by just asking the panel, how good a job
are we doing today leading the world in space exploration, and
how could we do better?
Colonel Aldrin. We are not really leading the world.
Senator Cruz. If you would hit your microphone, please.
Colonel Aldrin. We have a facility up in space, and we have
invested a lot in it. We have gone to it--put it together, gone
to it for quite a while.
And then we changed our spacecraft to move to another
program. And that program didn't come together because of
problems with the booster not being powerful enough, so we had
to go to another booster to take a spacecraft from a company
that hadn't built a spacecraft before. So it was gaining weight
and wasn't able to put itself and the lander into lunar orbit,
so we had to make the lander even bigger.
And that same rocket for Ares I was being used on Ares V.
So it just appeared as though we weren't able to get the crew
up there with the existing rocket, so we continued to develop
the Orion and sort of shelved the heavy-lift vehicle. And
without the Orion going somewhere, there is no point in
continuing the lander. So the program really fell apart.
[Phone ringing.]
Colonel Aldrin. Excuse me.
Senator Cruz. Just tell us if that is a call from the Space
Station.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Massimino. Make sure it is not collect.
Senator Cruz. You know, Colonel Cunningham, you talked
about what you perceived to be excessive politicization at NASA
and the challenges that presents.
I was curious if you could elaborate on that. And what
steps could be taken to help NASA focus on what should be its
core mission?
Colonel Cunningham. I mentioned a little bit of the
politics from outside of NASA that increasingly over the years
has grown increasingly on NASA. And it has had a lot to do with
controlling what projects they went into and what they did not.
But it also, in my opinion from the outside looking at it, it
has infected the agency itself. People inside of NASA are just
not as willing to speak their mind on things to get them done.
And some of these programs, money has been spent on them
and money has been canceled. And we tried a single stage to
orbit one time, I think a billion dollars on that. So what has
happened is NASA has changed; in my opinion, they have become a
much more risk-averse agency over the years.
For example, we all realize that, until we launch the Webb
Telescope, the Hubble Space Telescope is the greatest telescope
we have ever had. Well, we are going to have the use of the
Hubble Space Telescope for at least another 5 years, it looks
like, but that wouldn't have happened had we not had the last
servicing mission that went up there to service it.
And that mission originally was going to go up a couple of
years earlier and was canceled by the then-administrator at the
time because he said it was too risky and they canceled it,
because they had lost some people on Columbia. So it is a
mental kind of thing.
Back on Apollo, we lost crew on Apollo 1. We had people
that we are just fortunate they are still alive from Apollo 13.
But you have to have the will to keep going.
Fortunately, we had another administrator that came on
after that one, and that administrator took a look at it. It
was worth the risk, and they went back and had the last
servicing mission, and we had the greatest telescope in
history.
So I don't know how to do this, because our society seems
to be moving more risk-averse. But we need to have an agency
that understands, you have to pay your money, take your
chances, and get out there and push the frontier.
Senator Cruz. When it comes to priorities in NASA, there
are a host of exploration priorities that have been discussed,
whether it is asteroid retrieval, whether it is going to the
Moon, whether it is going to Mars, whether it is going beyond.
I would welcome the views of the witnesses on this panel as
to what the top priorities of NASA should be. Which of those
projects yield the greatest benefits? What order should they be
staged in? And to what extent should the focus be on manned
exploration versus robotic exploration?
Colonel Cunningham. Well, I can't tell you what degree, and
I am not an expert and totally up on internal affairs at NASA
anymore at all. But as I watch it, I find that what NASA has
been trying to do for, oh, over the last couple of decades,
they recognize that the public at large is looking for a demand
for going to the next frontier, which happens to be--it is Mars
now.
And so they have also attempted, then, to rationalize
whatever they were working on as a step along that program.
Some of the things that they have proposed certainly will have
scientific value to scientists. Will they help us on that
program? I doubt it.
And there are other ways of doing it. For example, you
don't hear NASA really talking about returning to the Moon now.
I used to be one of those that was not wild about stopping at
the Moon in order to get back to Mars. But I began to realize
that we have to have a facility that is going to keep people
alive on Mars, and it is going to be a whole lot cheaper and
easier to develop on the Moon than the other way.
So I just think we need to get back on a program that is
going to have the Moon as an intermediate step and only as it
fits in to go to the next frontier, Mars.
Mr. Massimino. You know, it is interesting, because Buzz
was talking about going to Mars, and Walt, Moon and Mars. And I
left the astronaut office this past July, and we used to talk
about this for years. You know, where are we going next? You
know, we are going to go beyond Earth orbit; where are we going
to go?
And you can make an argument, I think, for almost any one
of them. But I think the thing that it has in common is we need
to go somewhere. And I do think that NASA does have a plan to
take us away from low Earth orbit. We are working with the
companies that have been selected to provide--we have already
got the cargo going to the Station, and now we are going to
have our astronauts flying to the Station with the commercial
crew. That is the plan. I think that seems like it is taking
the right steps and going in the right direction. But the
ability to leave the planet, to leave our orbit, is common to
all of those things.
So I have been thinking about this. What would we pick as
the destination? Which one do we pick? Because there are so
many arguments, right? Yes, you are going to get different
opinions from--you know, people changed their mind in the same
day when we talked about it, right? ``Oh, that is a good
point.''
Maybe we don't exactly know exactly where we should go. But
we know we want to go somewhere if we can get the lift
capability, the Orion capsule ready to go. We had the test back
in December, which was successful. They have a plan for another
one in a couple years. It has picked up a lot of momentum. A
lot of my friends--I was working on it when I was in the
office. A lot of my friends are still working on little
displays. People are spending money; they are building hardware
to go.
Whether that destination is to the asteroid, whether that
destination is to the Moon or Mars, I think we are probably
going to get clearer on that as we get a little bit further.
Maybe we can go all the way to Mars. Maybe the propulsion
research and technology we develop can get us there quicker;
maybe not. Maybe we can go to the Moon; maybe not. Maybe we can
go to the asteroid if that is the closest case, the one that is
least cost that is going to keep us in the budget, maybe that
is the right answer.
But I think they are taking the right steps to get away
from low Earth orbit. You can make an argument for each one of
these. Maybe the idea is that we plan on leaving, take those
steps now, and it might be clear to us where that destination
is going to be a few years from now.
Colonel Aldrin. Let me see if I can integrate these things
together.
In the 1960s and 1970s, we learned how to go and land on
the Moon and stay and do some things there. To do that again 50
years later just does not seem to be something that would be
attractive to the people involved or the people who are
supporting this.
We did not build permanent there. Other countries will
build landers. While they are doing that, we can build the
permanent structures. But those permanent structures will be
the same ones in the same base design that we will do at the
Moon.
In order to build those on the Moon, we need a fairly
redundant facility on the near side and on the far side to
robotically build those. We can design them with our concepts
of a base, and we know that Europe has a company that built
pressure vessels for the Space Station, and they can get
additional resources from South Korea and India. So they can
build the modules that will go to the Moon based on our design.
They need to be standard. And we have uneven terrain and a
gravity field. So you pick one off of a lander and put it where
you want it. Now, another lander is over here; you pick this
one up and bring it over. They won't line up. You have to level
them. You have a difference in elevation; you have to account
for that.
This is too much for the students at Purdue. It will be
done, but I am going to another resource to help the students
at Purdue in their study to do that.
But the habitats that will be based on what we want at Mars
will then be exercised at the Moon. Before we do that, we will
use the Big Island of Hawaii to make sure that the things all
come together.
We need an inflatable right away at Earth orbit L1 and L2.
We will develop a rigid, and we will put it at those two
places. Those rigids are what we construct things on, and they
are the ones that will be similar to what we are going to build
and send to Mars with a buildup so that at the time our cycling
system deposits the first people on Mars, that buildup will be
complete. So we have something that is integrated.
Now, what can we do with that inflatable and Orion? Well,
we could send it to an asteroid. And we could send a robot,
year-and-a-half mission. And a crew gets there in 4 months, 2
days before. But it has 60 days at that asteroid with a
scientist who knows about asteroids, a robotics scientist. That
is a crew and a robot at the same asteroid in place.
Now, that is with the inflatable. When we get to the rigid,
we can send Orion with the rigid on a round fly by of Venus. We
can do that in a year. It takes a whole lot longer to do it at
Mars. When we come back, we can exercise aerocapture maneuvers
that need to be done at Mars.
So we will be doing these things, and we will be landing.
Different people will be building and landing, and we will be
getting these habitats, the different habitats, nine. We will
take three of them, and we condition it, for it is the cycler.
And we get it in its cycle, and then we use three landers for
triple redundancy. Because all a lander has to do is to get on
the cycler. Cycler supplies it with everything it needs. It
gets off and lands, and the facilities are there for them to
take care of.
And each pass that that outbound, we reuse the same
facility so we don't have to build them again. And we can have
an inbound cycler that can bring people back in emergencies.
It is a plan that is build and integrated, evolving as we
go along.
Senator Cruz. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
Senator Nelson?
Senator Nelson. Mr. Chairman, I want to defer to Senator
Udall.
And I would just say, with our goal of going to Mars, going
to an asteroid, going back to the Moon, if we are going to the
Moon, then show me the money. That is the question as we are
going forward on the budgets that we are projecting. And I will
get into that a little later when I get to my questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Cruz, for calling this
important hearing.
And, Ranking Senator Bill Nelson, thank you for your
courtesies in allowing me to go forward first in questioning on
this side.
And thank you to the witnesses. You have given some very
impressive testimony. Thank you for your service today.
Scientific research and improving technology transfer and
commercialization is smart investment. There is just no doubt
about it. And it is vital to our Nation's future and for
national defense and for our economy.
In my home state of New Mexico, we know this firsthand.
NASA workers in New Mexico support crucial missions, including
communication with the International Space Station. Astronomers
at our research telescopes are making new discoveries about
black holes and planets outside our solar system. One of those
astronomy operations is called the Very Large Array, which is
in New Mexico and does a lot of that work. Researchers at our
national labs and universities are working hard to keep America
safe and to create jobs through innovative technologies like
advanced photonics.
So I look forward to working with Chairman Cruz and the
Ranking Senator Nelson on legislation before this committee,
including America COMPETES Act, the Commercial Space Launch
Act, and NASA's reauthorization.
And I also want to thank Senator Nelson as our previous
Chairman. Under his leadership, the Senate passed the
bipartisan NASA Authorization Act of 2010. Very few Senators
have been astronauts like Senator Nelson. He may be the most
passionate advocate for space exploration who has ever served
in the Congress, and I am honored to serve with him on this
committee.
Now, Dr. Massimino--and I would put the rest of my opening
statement in the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Udall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tom Udall, U.S. Senator from New Mexico
Thank you Chairman Cruz--for calling this hearing today.
Scientific research--and improving technology transfer and
commercialization--is a smart investment. It's vital to our Nation's
future--for our national defense and our economy.
In my home state of New Mexico, we know this firsthand.
NASA workers in New Mexico support crucial missions--including
communication with the International Space Station.
Astronomers at our research telescopes are making new discoveries--
about black holes and planets outside our solar system.
Researchers at our national labs and universities are working
hard--to keep America safe--and to create jobs through innovative
technologies like advanced photonics.
So I look forward to working with Chairman Cruz on legislation
before this committee--including the America COMPETES Act . . . the
Commercial Space Launch Act . . . and NASA's reauthorization.
I also want to thank Senator Nelson--our ranking member and
previous chairman. Under his leadership, the Senate passed the
bipartisan NASA Authorization Act of 2010.
Very few Senators have been astronauts like Senator Nelson. He may
be the most passionate advocate for space exploration who has ever
served in Congress. I'm honored to serve with him on this committee.
From our earliest history, humans have gazed up at the sky in
wonder. Yet once we traveled to space, we looked back at planet Earth
with the same wonder.
A NASA astronaut captured this for all of us--in a classic
photograph of our blue planet Earth. The image became known as ``The
Blue Marble.'' It is the most widely distributed photo ever. It gives
us all a sense of how unique and fragile our planet is.
That is an important perspective to keep in mind--as this committee
considers how Congress can support both space exploration and NASA
missions--and help us better understand our own planet.
In New Mexico, we are putting the finishing touches on Spaceport
America. Commercial space capabilities are growing. Suborbital
spaceflight will be a reality for more people than ever before.
This is the latest chapter--of New Mexico's history of space
exploration--which goes back to Robert Goddard's early rocket
experiments.
So these are exciting times--and challenging times. Space flight
still involves significant risk. We were sadly reminded of this by the
fatal crash of a test flight a few months ago. But commercial companies
are persevering. And still aiming for the stars.
In recent years, NASA has worked to transition from the space
shuttle program--to a new future for human space exploration.
In 2010, this committee set NASA on its current course. We passed
legislation to support:
an exploration program focused on reaching Mars;
robust use of the International Space Station;
development of a commercial space industry in Low Earth
Orbit;
balanced science programs; and
continued commitment to aeronautics research.
NASA's leadership is essential. In addition, the commercial space
industry has an important role to play--in our Nation's broader space
exploration objective--beyond expanding access to sub orbital space and
trips to and from the International Space Station.
International cooperation is also key--as we work toward a strong
and sustainable human space exploration program.
So this is an important discussion. I'm very pleased that we have
three distinguished American astronauts on our first panel. Thank you
for your service--and welcome. I look forward to your testimony. Thank
you.
Senator Udall. But Congress passed the last NASA
authorization act in 2010, as I just mentioned. This law
continues to guide NASA as a multi-mission agency, and to quote
that multi-mission from the statute, quote, ``balanced and
robust set of core commissions in science, aeronautics, and
human spaceflight and exploration.''
Could you share your thoughts on the advantages of keeping
NASA as a multi-mission agency, which encompasses not just
human spaceflight but also initiatives such as space-based
observations of the Earth?
Mr. Massimino. You know, in my time as an astronaut, there
were a lot of things going on in our country. You know, we had
military situations, we had economic effects. A lot of things
happened. And I kind of got the sense that, as a government
agency, if we had resources, that could help. Whatever that
meant, to whatever our country needed, that it was important
for us to try to contribute what we could.
So you make the example of--you mentioned Earth
observations, for example. Well, on the International Space
Station, it was a great engineering project, international. It
is amazing that this thing is up there, this great laboratory,
and we can do a lot of basic research up there. But in addition
to that, we are able to have this perch above our planet where
we can take amazing photos.
In fact, my students in my class, our project for the
semester is an astronaut assistant to help them take these
photos. And the reason is, it is not just fun photos. They can
show us natural disasters that occur. You can get a lot of
information from them. Changes in the planet, whether it be
irrigation problems or volcanoes erupting or whatever it might
be, there is a lot of science data that can come and help our
country, help our planet, by the astronauts taking photos from
the International Space Station.
That might be somewhat of a simple example, but I don't
necessarily think it is. We are using our resources to help
other agencies and improve life and increase our understanding.
So I think if there is a way that NASA can contribute to
that--and I am not a NASA guy anymore, but I always felt when I
was as an astronaut, if there was anything that I could do to
contribute that would help our country or help the world, that
we owed it to do that. It may not be our primary focus, but
guess what? We maybe can make a contribution in those areas, as
well.
Senator Udall. Just a quick question, because I only have a
few seconds left. But it seems to me there is a great potential
to develop the STEM fields, in terms----
Mr. Massimino. Absolutely.
Senator Udall.--of what we are talking about here.
Mr. Massimino. Yes.
Senator Udall. Could you just talk a little bit about that,
in terms of----
Mr. Massimino. Oh, yes, absolutely.
I think what I have found--again, a lot of this comes from
my more recent experience as a university professor--that the
kids need something to be excited about. Studying math and
science--I am not as smart as Buzz was at MIT. Buzz was a
really smart guy. I struggled up there. It was tough, OK? And I
needed inspiration to hang in there and get through.
And I think that a lot of students today need that, as
well. It is not easy studying this stuff. And if you have a
goal at the end, that, hey, if I can finish this up, maybe I
can make a contribution to whatever technology they are
interested in, that is the kind of motivation they need.
I have not found any field--I would throw the challenge out
there, if you find anything else that could inspire kids, young
people, to study those fields other than the space program. I
haven't found it. It encompasses so many different areas. It
excites them. It is something they think is really cool. It is
the future. It is making a contribution back to the planet.
They just love it.
And now, when you add this opportunity to be entrepreneurs,
I think we are really on to something. So I can't think of
anything that would excite them more.
And I see this in New York City, which, you know, doesn't
have its own NASA center up there and there is not so much of a
presence as we have in other parts of the country. There still
is great interest up there.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much. And I have seen that
with astronauts that travel to New Mexico, the excitement----
Mr. Massimino. There you go.
Senator Udall.--that is there with the young people, in
terms of all of the STEM fields.
So, sorry to excuse myself. Secretary Kerry is in Foreign
Relations. I hope to get back and ask some additional
questions. But thank you both, Senator Nelson and Senator Cruz.
Senator Cruz. Thank you very much.
Senator Gardner?
STATEMENT OF HON. CORY GARDNER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
holding this hearing today. And I will be following my
colleague from New Mexico on the way up to the Foreign
Relations Committee after the question and dialogue we have
here.
You know, I don't think there is anything, as you just
said, Mr. Massimino, that captures the human imagination like
exploration. And 28 years ago, I think it was, probably around
1983, I wrote a letter--I would have been 9 years old--I wrote
a letter to NASA. Here is the copy of the letter. I took a
picture of it because it is not on e-mail; it is a hard-copy,
typed-out letter.
And this is the response back from NASA. This is the first
paragraph that they wrote back to me in my letter to them:
``Thank you for your recent letter and your interest in wanting
to become an astronaut. We are especially happy to have the
young people of the world show an interest in our space
program. We have received hundreds of letters similar to
yours.''
Now, I doubt if they are receiving letters today; they are
receiving e-mails today. And I doubt if they are only receiving
100; they are probably receiving thousands. But this letter
talks about the need to go into mathematics, the need to go
into engineering or medicine. It talks about the importance of
our space program.
They also sent a little photograph of the crew. I think it
was the--this is Sally Ride. It was STS-7, I believe, the first
woman in space from the United States on the space shuttle
program and, obviously, first woman in space from the United
States.
But that was 28 years ago--actually, more than that now,
but it was 2011, 28 years since I wrote this letter to NASA,
2011, 1983, and I stood with my colleagues in the House of
Representatives as we watched the closing of the chapter of the
Space Shuttle Program.
So I was 9 years old, writing a letter about how I wanted
to become an astronaut. Obviously, I failed miserably at it.
But 28 years later, standing in the cloakroom of the U.S. House
of Representatives with my colleagues from around the country,
watching this program come to an end, the program that had made
me so interested in wanting to achieve more.
I mean, Horace Greeley said, ``Go west, young man.'' And we
followed that phrase in American history, and we explored, and
we fought, and we pioneered, and that is who we are.
And so I am so concerned about the testimony today, the
comments that you made, that we aren't capturing that
imagination like we once were, that we are not driving new
innovation. We are driving new innovations like we were, but
how do we really instill that notion of exploration and really
make it a reality?
And it goes to the heart, I think, of what you have talked
about today in the Orion program, and I want to kind of get to
that.
We did the test launch, we did the test launch of the
Orion, December 5, 2014. We did it atop a ULA Delta IV heavy
rocket. We tested this. And now it doesn't look like we are
planning to carry astronauts until 2021.
Can this country afford to wait until 2021? Can we wait
that long? What can we do to push this up? How do we, again,
capture that imagination that drives so many of us to imagine,
to aspire to space?
So I guess I would start, what is it that we need to do to
really drive this mission, this idea, this value of space? It
is not just reports and paperwork; it is something that we have
to do ourselves.
Colonel Cunningham. I think it would help to refocus NASA
back on what they did that did provide that inspiration.
Just to give you another thought, I was listening here
about the STEM education. I am a strong believer in that. That
is what my education was. It is what probably everybody here's
education was at this table. We work with the Astronaut
Scholarship Foundation, and we give--now we are up to 30 or 32
awards every year for this kind of education.
But if we look at the organization NASA, NASA is also
giving out many scholarships now. Now, NASA is a space agency.
I think that if they are going to be giving scholarships, if
the funds could maybe be diverted to someplace where they focus
on that.
NASA needs to be spending their time and their focus on
those things that inspire people to do these. Exploration is
what I happen to believe is the long-term look at it. But they
need to be spending their money on those things that inspire
others to make their scholarships and derive from other places.
I work with scholarships all the time. I believe in them.
But I think that the agency, it is just one more thing that
they probably have, let's just guess, maybe a couple of dozen
people that are working just focusing on that, as opposed to
doing what they did before and letting the inspiration drive
those things.
It is just another alternative I am raising about it.
Senator Gardner. Dr. Aldrin? Please.
Colonel Aldrin. I would like to tell a little story about
the months before I left NASA in 1970.
I was asked to go down to another center, where the next
program to follow Apollo was being looked at. And there were
hundreds of aerospace engineers. And let me describe what the
next system was. And this was 1970; we may have flown Apollo 12
and maybe 13. It was two-stage, fully reusable, an orbiter with
wings and wheels and a booster with wings and wheels. And it
carried the crew; it didn't carry cargo. You want cargo? Use a
reusable booster, and you put the cargo on top of that.
So I went down there to look at the assembly of people.
They had seven teams, a contractor for a booster and the
orbiter--seven of those. And some of them doubled up, of
course, here and there. And they built models. So my job was to
look at the upper stage, the orbiter--okay?--and to see what
the people could see during launch, orbit, and come down and
land.
And I happened to glance down, and I saw windows in the
booster. OK? I can explain that now, for high-speed taxi, et
cetera. But I asked the guy, what are these windows here? Oh,
when we go up as a booster on a normal mission, we have a
cockpit with two people and a booster. And I said, you what?
We have seven teams, and before they started their study,
we asked them to do a real short study, manned versus unmanned
booster. Now, if you are one of these seven teams and you know
what the client wants, and if you give him what he wants, you
are going to make more money, obviously all those reports said,
yes, you are right, we are going to put a cockpit of two in the
booster. Totally unnecessary.
By the time that started getting implemented, Bob Gilruth
said to another person, I wonder if we should have put a
cockpit in the booster. OK? It was canceled. We had to rush in
to the shuttle.
We would love to have a program like that now, but it was
because jealousies of individual centers and wanting to do
things and the companies wanting to take a bid that would get
them more money and maybe bring it back to where their states
were doing things. That was inexcusable to me.
And there are other examples like that. We have three
different spacecraft to come back, commercial spacecraft, and
one advanced one that has been looked at by the Russians,
looked at by the Air Force, and wind tunnel tests, and it
brings things back. What do we do? Finance the two capsules
with not really new technology, and we don't finance the one
that can land on a runway.
I think we are making not so good choices many times.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cruz. Thank you very much.
Senator Nelson?
Senator Nelson. First of all, I want to welcome our guests,
dear personal friends, and thank you for what you have done for
this country, each of you in your own contribution, as we have
built this amazing thing that we are discussing today, our
American space program.
The goal is to go to Mars. The goal is to get NASA beyond
low Earth orbit. And the question is, over the course of these
years, as we target the decade of the 2030s, with the budget
that we are going to have, how do we do it? How do we develop
the technologies, the techniques, the systems, the life-support
systems, the propulsion systems that will get us to a foreign
body such as Mars with a crew and return them safely?
So we may want to go back to the Moon as we develop this,
but, as I said earlier, show me the money.
Dr. Massimino, I want to ask you to comment on the plans to
capture an asteroid, bring it back into a stable lunar orbit,
and send a crew up there to land on it, that as part of the
steps as we prepare all of those things I just mentioned,
eventually to go to Mars in the decade of the 2030s.
Mr. Massimino. Thank you, sir.
I think we need to remember one thing overall, that going
to space is hard. And I think we need to remember that there
has only been one country that has put people out of Earth
orbit, and that is us. And we did it a long time ago, when we
sent Buzz and his colleagues up there. But still the United
States of America is the only country that has been able to
figure that out. It is not so easy going to space. It is even
harder to go beyond low Earth orbit to places like the Moon or
Mars.
And if we decide we are going to take an incremental
approach, which would be the asteroid mission, I think there is
definitely a lot that can be learned there. We can test this
big rocket that can take us places beyond low Earth orbit. We
can test the spacecraft that would do it.
We can test life support. Space is a very hazardous place.
There is a lot of radiation, and it gets worse as you get
further away from the planet. The radiation dose we took on
Hubble was higher than what the men and women get on Space
Station, because we were 100 miles higher. Going to the Moon is
even worse. Going beyond that is even worse. We need to
understand how we can protect our people from that, right? And
we are taking those steps with the research that we do on the
Space Station.
How are we going to keep them healthy? All the changes that
happen to the body. How are we going to keep people healthy
enough to be able to withstand the journey to Mars, be able to
land a spacecraft, and be able to work and then come home.
This is tough stuff. We may or may not be able to do that
all in one big swing. It may be too much to do it in one swing.
But I think we need to start taking those first steps.
The first step is get the big launch vehicle going, like we
have with a successful test flight and the other ones that are
planned. They are far in the future, but these are tough things
to do. And I don't know if more budget would make it quicker. I
don't know. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. Maybe it would
give you a better chance of getting there, but I don't know if
it necessarily makes you more efficient. But these are hard
things to do.
But if the asteroid mission is the right thing to do, I
think there is certainly a lot we can learn from it. I think we
can work out the spacecraft, keeping the people healthy,
understanding how to work that launch system. And it is also--
it is a destination. You are not going to land and have to
blast off again from it, like you would on the Moon or Mars,
but it is a place you can go to, and we certainly can learn a
lot from it.
Is it necessary? I don't know. It might be, because we
might need that incremental step before we can take the big
leap. But I think right now the important thing is to try to be
consistent with it. And to pull the rug out from where we are,
I think there might be a penalty there, as well.
There were a couple programs--in my career as an astronaut,
we worked on different spacecraft. I had dinner with two of my
friends last night who are now former astronauts that are here
in Washington. We talked about all the stuff that was canceled
while we were astronauts, all the stuff we trained on while we
were astronauts. And to make a big, huge direction change
sometimes isn't always the best thing.
Senator Nelson. Well, you were there in the astronaut
office when the Constellation program was canceled. It was way
behind, and it was over, way over budget. So that is what you
are talking about----
Mr. Massimino. Actually----
Senator Nelson.--what you sacrifice if you make a major
change in the human spaceflight program.
Mr. Massimino. Yes. And that was a big one, but there are
other ones too, like our cockpit avionics upgrade on the space
shuttle. They started doing the wiring on that in one of the
space shuttles. We had spent a lot of time designing that
upgrade, for example, and then that got cut. And the story we
had was that it was going to cost almost as much to pull it out
as it was to finish the job.
There were other options for spacecraft, rescue spacecraft,
from the Space Station that we were developing. They did tests
out in the desert, dropped them out of airplanes, landing
tests. A lot of cockpit design work was done. Again, these
projects were cut.
So I think there is a penalty to pulling everything back.
And, you know, whether, again, if we go with the asteroid or we
go to the Moon or Mars, I think it is important to keep the
momentum going of getting the spaceship ready, getting the
rocket ready, keeping your options open until you are really
sure which one you want to go to. Because you might find that
you might not pick the right one right off the bat.
Maybe we can go to Mars in one swoop, but maybe we can't.
And the asteroid mission is a great way to test our systems out
and get the knowledge. Because we want to be successful when we
go to Mars. That is a huge leap. That is a really long journey.
And that is not even--compared to the Moon, it is a long way.
This man went a long distance from our planet. That is a heck
of a lot further.
We want to make sure we get it right when we do that. And
if that asteroid mission or something we do with the Moon is
going to help us get there, that is great.
Colonel Cunningham. Can I add a thought to the question
that had to do with budget? It is always going to be expensive
for what they are talking about trying to do.
I mentioned that for 40 years the NASA budget has been less
than 1 percent of the Federal budget. For the last 15 years, it
has been driving down to 0.4 percent of the Federal budget.
Unless the country, which really is Congress here, decides to
put more money in it, this is just talk that we are going
through here. The budget has got to go up for NASA.
And that is another reason why I feel very strongly that
NASA has to be operating more efficiently and not doing some of
the things which would be marginal as opposed to it. You have
to focus it on what has to be done.
NASA's budget is way too low to do the things that we
talked about doing here this afternoon.
Colonel Aldrin. Absolutely.
And I would like to point out that I have this study being
done at Purdue, due the end of April. I have assembled 25 other
academic institutions that deal with exploration. Academic
institutions are supposed to be unbiased. They are supposed to
teach the general background. So if we can come up with a
number of questions--some of them are yes/no/maybe. Some of
them are ``tell me shortly.''
How do we get the public behind what it is we are trying to
do? Well, they are going to know what I am trying to do,
briefly, because I am going to show them and I am going to give
them my assumptions that I have had to make.
What is the strategy to get the public behind us? And what
kind of strategy do we need to fund something in 2040? Do we
step-increase to make up for things, and then do we have a
ramp-up, not just cost of living but a ramp-up? Because
expenditures are going to be greater. They did during the
Apollo program.
Now, another question: Do we have a relationship with
China? It is very significant if we are going to deal with
leadership. I don't want to get into a lot of that, but I think
if we don't, if we really do, or in between, we shouldn't do
things differently at the Moon. We still should build things
there so we can build somewhere else. But we don't have to land
there. China needs the things we can build. We have to exert
leadership by working with them in low Earth orbit.
Next July is the 40th anniversary of Apollo-Soyuz. 1975 was
pretty contentious, in the cold war, much worse than our
relations with China today. Why did we refuse them to come to
our space station? It doesn't make any sense to me. We should
be doing that sort of thing together, building on, sharing what
it is we are doing. They have a lot of things to do with the
Moon. We can help them in their permanence, because it helps us
with our permanence at Mars.
Now, if I ask them about asteroid--you can fly it the way
it is, you can cancel it, or you can do something smart in
between. Now, if you understand what that smart is in between
by sending a robot there to an asteroid, then send a crew to
it, and on board the crew you have an asteroid scientist, a
robotic, and they can stay there 60 days, the combined mission
is better than a robot or better than a crew mission.
Don't these people talk to themselves in Washington? Why do
I have to come up and say, if you combine the mission, it is a
whole lot better?
And you can do it where an asteroid is, like the National
Research Council said we should do. But maybe that is not
essential. I happen to think it is, where you can fly Orion
with a long-duration support system. That is what we are going
to do when we go to L1 or L2. We are going to take an Orion up
there, and there is going to be a system that lets us stay for
much longer. We are going to be rotating commercial crews up
and down, not just to the Space Station, but commercials are
going to go to the vicinity of the Moon.
We are going to do these things, and we are going to build.
But we don't have to put all the money in building those
habitats, because the foreigners are going to want them, and we
are going to want them there, and we are going to want them at
Mars. The foreigners have to land. OK? We are going to develop
a very sophisticated landing system, and we are going to be
landing so many people at Mars that we can take them along on
the first landing. OK? Take us along as visitors on your
landings.
Let's not go broke by doing things back at the Moon, but
let's astutely learn to do things there that do make sense.
And I think if you ask industry or if you ask government,
you are going to get a biased answer. But if you ask academia--
I am looking forward to this poll on significant questions
coming back from 25 different academic institutions.
Senator Cruz. Well, thank you very much.
And I want to ask one additional question, which is: Each
of the three of you are learned scientists and national heroes.
And if I have understood your testimony here today correctly,
each of you has discussed as a major objective, a grand goal
for NASA, going to Mars.
I would ask each of you to take a moment to address the
American people and, in your judgment, explain the benefits to
America and to the world of going to Mars and what will be
required to accomplish that objective.
Colonel Cunningham. Well, I would start by saying the
technology that is required to get us to Mars, such things as
radiation or finding new velocities and the like to do that,
that will create the kind of spin-off--we have benefited for 40
years from solving the problems that we had to go to the Moon.
Some of those were started before, but some of it was totally
unexpected. You didn't know what was going to come up, but you
solved the problem, and now it is almost like a cancer in all
areas of our industry, and we are benefiting from it.
The most important thing that has to be done is they have
to be willing to pay the money. I am not optimistic about us
being able to put the kind of funds out there that out to,
because we are busy spending money in the government for all
kinds of things for which there is no return and for all kinds
of things which do not really inspire people. So I just happen
to believe it is a good use of money.
Colonel Aldrin. Rarely does a time come along in the
advancement of humankind on this planet Earth that we gain the
potential of really demonstrating to ourselves and to the rest
of the people the fullest of the challenges.
We can put together what is necessary to send people to
Mars in an efficient way. And we can do it by stepping up, by
using some things at the Moon, but not getting bogged down with
a lot of investments that are involved in landing humans,
building the rockets to land them, and then storing them. We
don't need to do that anymore. We can observe how other people
store people there, take care of them, but where we want to do
that is at Mars. And we need to invest in the things to get to
Mars.
If we invest in an ascent stage to go along with the people
that are going there, it is going to cost more money. Going
there with the ascent stage interferes with just the lander. By
building that ascent stage and the return capability, it is
taking longer to do that in time.
The cost per person on the surface of Mars is less if they
stay there. If we start bringing people back--okay, the biggest
thing to me is all of this thing comes along on Earth, with
humanity being able to advance, to do all the wondrous things.
And it is going to cost billions and billions of dollars. And
we are going to select some human beings to do that, and we are
going to train them, and we are going to send them there.
Now, I have gone and come back from a place. Let me ask
you, what do you think you are going to do with those people
that go there and bring them back to continue to pay off the
investment of their being the first, the pioneers, the building
up of a growing settlement? They can do far more by keeping
Mars occupied, helping the new people that come in. You bring
them back and they can visit different places, but if you
broadcast from Mars, you can reach everybody in the world,
because they are going to be listening in, and you can give
them the stories of what you have been doing right there while
you are there.
There is no doubt in my mind that the value that we have
invested in people from whatever the country is and we have put
them there on Mars, that is where they need to stay. And they
need to know and understand that this is their opportunity to
serve humanity.
Mr. Massimino. Thank you, sir.
So, benefits for our American people, what we could get out
of this, what can we imagine we would get if we were to do this
grand exploration.
I think eventually we are going to have to get off of this
planet or learn how to do it for our own survival. Learning
what else is out there is great, would help our understanding
of where we are in the universe, but also just to have another
place where we could live as another place where we could
survive would be a good thing for us to have. And so Mars might
be that place. So if we decide to go there, it is giving us
another option.
And if we would decide to go and do this, can you imagine
what would be needed, what would be developed in order to get
us there? If you look back to what we did when we developed the
Apollo program and also the shuttle program, all the new
technology and the spin-offs, and the benefits that came not
just for the space program but in other industries were
tremendous. Now we are going to make a giant leap; we are going
to go all the way to Mars. Can you imagine what would come out
of that?
I think it is also probably going to have some type of
international flavor to it--maybe, maybe not. I think the
United States would be the leaders of that, I would hope, but I
think that we would also maybe be doing it with some of our
friends. So I think it would be a great thing for our
international cooperation with other countries around the
world, providing that benefit for us.
And then I get back to the inspiration. And the inspiration
is not just because it is a nice thing to do for kids. It is
because that is where our future is. We are going to depend on
these people to take care of our planet and build our economy
and keep our country strong for many, many years.
They may not all go and become astronauts. Hopefully more
people will have that option and keep them interested in the
space program, but they may not all go on to do that or even
work for NASA or be involved in it. But I do think that
exploration, particularly something like you are describing,
going to Mars, would inspire them to stay in school and get
their education, and maybe they will find something along the
way that they like even better than space. Maybe it will be
better for us for certain students to go into medicine or study
what they can study in the classroom other than going to space.
But I certainly think it is going to keep their interest, and I
think that is kind of an intangible benefit that we would get
from it, as well.
But I really see it as an investment in our future, to
inspire young kids, and also, I think, to help our country, our
economy for many years to come. I think it would be a glorious
thing to do.
Senator Cruz. Thank you very much.
Senator Nelson, do you have any additional questions?
Well, then I want to thank each of the three of you for
coming and joining us. This has been a very productive panel.
And we will conclude this panel and immediately move on to
the second panel that will start momentarily.
Colonel Aldrin. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Cruz. Thank you very much.
[Recess.]
Senator Cruz. OK. The hearing will come to order.
Now I want to move on to the second panel, and we are
fortunate to have three very experienced witnesses: Mr. John
Elbon, Vice President and General Manager of Boeing Space
Exploration; Dr. Scott Pace, Director of the Space Policy
Institute, the Elliott School of International Affairs at
George Washington University; and Mr. Eric Stallmer, President
of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation.
And we will start with Mr. Elbon.
STATEMENT OF JOHN ELBON, VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER,
BOEING SPACE EXPLORATION
Mr. Elbon. Thank you.
Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Nelson--always good to see
you, sir--members of the Committee, thank you for this
opportunity to provide Boeing's perspective on U.S. human space
exploration goals and commercial space competitiveness.
I want to applaud you both for your opening comments. That
spirit of cooperation is heartwarming and absolutely essential
to our path forward. Thank you very much for that.
America's economic growth and competitiveness depend on our
capacity to innovate, to reach beyond today's possibilities,
stretch farther and faster than our competitors around the
world. Our future depends on developing the next-generation
technologies, but more important are the next-generation minds.
Just as seafaring ships explored and returned to home
shores, bringing unforeseen discoveries, so too will space-
faring nations reap the benefits of our investment in
exploration. Robots are great at helping us scratch the
surface, but humans are ultimately needed to truly explore.
The success that U.S. space missions have achieved and the
recognition that these innovations have gained have made the
United States the most attractive global partner for other
nations seeking to advance their own space aspirations. This
plays a significant role in the United States' soft diplomacy
efforts to increase U.S. influence in global affairs and in
strengthening our alliances.
The International Space Station has been orbiting Earth for
more than 16 years. Astronauts have been continuously living
aboard the ISS for 14 years, and we have been learning valuable
lessons about living and working in space in preparation for
sending humans beyond low-Earth orbit.
The ISS is a model for space cooperation, currently
counting 15 nations among the international partnership.
Because of the ISS, space is an area where international
cooperation remains constant and serves as a bridge for other
diplomatic discussions.
As a leader and major supporter of the ISS, the United
States is in a position to supply a vision for space global
exploration. With the ISS, we have demonstrated an ability to
build long-term, crewed space habitats effectively. The ISS
crews are testing technologies required for deep space and
working to understand the effect of extended space travel on
the human body.
What we have found from the development and operation of
ISS is that large space programs do best when three conditions
are met: first, industry involvement with wide-ranging
expertise; second, long-term, stable government investment;
and, third, international cooperation.
With NASA's Space Launch System capability, we can apply
the lessons learned in building and operating the ISS to new
endeavors in deep space. We must rally a shared commitment to
NASA's vision for the ISS, commercial crew, and super-heavy-
lift Space Launch System rocket, or we risk losing an important
investment in the irreplaceable brain trust of decades.
NASA has the foundation for sending humans farther into the
solar system than ever before, through the NASA Authorization
Act of 2012, which this very committee passed. We must continue
down that path in support of the building blocks that are so
important to future success.
First, we have invested years of brain power and billions
of dollars in the International Space Station as a testbed for
preparing for the next leap.
Second, we have a commercial space program that ensures
U.S.-launched crew and cargo transport to ISS. The Boeing CST-
100 spacecraft combines proven design in spaceflight technology
with modern innovation for a reliable and sustainable crew and
cargo transportation system. Use of commercial transportation
to sustain ISS lowers costs and leaves room in NASA's budget to
develop the capabilities for exploration beyond low-Earth
orbit, SLS and Orion.
And, third, SLS provides unprecedented payload capability
that can enable human and science deep space missions not
previously achievable. And last December's flawless launch of
the Orion crew capsule returned a great deal of data, which is
a huge step toward Mars.
Finally, the world's space agencies agree that Mars is our
ultimate destination. NASA has the programs in place to move
down the path toward Mars, starting with the International
Space Station as a testbed, commercial crew transportation
systems to transport crew and cargo to the ISS, and Orion and
the SLS for super-heavy-lift and crew transportation beyond
low-Earth orbit.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify here today,
and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Elbon follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Elbon, Vice President and General Manager,
Boeing Space Exploration
Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the Committee,
thank you for this opportunity to provide Boeing's perspective on U.S.
Human Space Exploration Goals and Commercial Space Competitiveness. I
am John Elbon, Vice President and General Manager, Boeing Space
Exploration
Mr. Chairman, America's economic growth and competitiveness depend
on our capacity to innovate, to reach beyond today's possibilities and
stretch farther, faster than our competitors around the world. Our
future depends on developing the next generation technologies--but more
important are the next generation minds. We need to inspire scientists,
engineers, researchers and technologists everywhere by offering the
opportunity to be part of something that transcends known boundaries.
America needs to reinvigorate that Apollo era passion that changed the
world, launching new industries and opening new doors into the
universe. From everyday conveniences like scratch-resistant lenses to
world-changing satellite-enabled communications, our lives are better
today because of cutting edge NASA research innovations--borne of our
drive to explore. Just as seafaring ships explored and returned to home
shores, bringing unforeseen discoveries--so, too, will ``spacefaring''
nations reap the benefits of our investment in exploration. Robots are
great at helping us scratch the surface of new knowledge. Humans
ultimately are needed to truly explore--and to pioneer.
NASA research has certainly met the goal of advancing science and
technology innovation. This research has energized a strong U.S.
economy, providing growth, security and resiliency. The success that
U.S. space missions have achieved, and the recognition that these
innovations have gained, have made the United States the most
attractive global partner for other nations seeking to advance their
own space aspirations. This plays a significant role in the United
States' soft diplomacy efforts to increase U.S. influence in global
affairs and in strengthening our alliances.
The international community has aligned with Mars as the ultimate
destination, and NASA has in place the programs needed to lead us
toward that goal. It starts with the International Space Station as a
national laboratory and testbed for future exploration. For affordable
crew and cargo resupply to the ISS, NASA has contracted with commercial
partners, freeing up funds for NASA to focus on the difficult task of
deep space exploration with Orion and Space Launch System as the
initial capabilities for deep human space exploration capabilities.
NASA's extraordinary teams have been breaking new ground for
decades, returning with innovations that range from medical advances to
commercial wonders, using the International Space Station as a unique
on-orbit laboratory. The International Space Station has been orbiting
Earth for more than 16 years. Astronauts have been continuously living
aboard the ISS for 14 years. During an average 6-month period on the
station, as many as 200 investigations operate, with between 70 and 100
of them being new studies.
I'd like to spend a minute or two highlighting some of the real
science we are seeing from the International Space Station.
Duchenne (du-shens) Muscular Dystrophy: Duchenne Muscular
Dystrophy is a recessive form of muscular dystrophy that
affects over 1 in 3,000 boys (over 50,000 young males in the
U.S. today). Average life expectancy is 25 years.
Research has been conducted on the ISS to identify a treatment
or cure for Duchennes Muscular Dystrophy that could lead to
identification of a cure due to the unique capabilities of the
ISS. The ISS enabled researchers to crystallize an improved
complex structure and an associated water molecule not
previously known.
Bone loss: The FDA approved AMGEN's drug Denosumab in 2010--
used for treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis and
subsequently for treatment of bone metastases. Both were
developed in partnership with the ISS sciences team.
New Treatment through Ultrasound: ISS astronauts were trained
to use portable ultrasound to diagnose issues like broken bones
and collapsed lungs that might happen on orbit where medical
facilities are limited. This same method is now being used to
train third-world doctors and care providers to treat patients
where modern technology is not available. This training has
translated to treatment of more than 40-thousand patients in
underserved countries, like Brazil, due to diagnosis through
portable ultrasound.
Closed-Loop Water Recycling on ISS: A closed-loop water
recycling system is used on the International Space Station.
Not only does this include drinking water, but it includes
recycling sweat, urine and even exhaled water molecules.
Similar to how we reuse our waste water on board the ISS,
schools in third world countries are utilizing this technology
where fresh water is scarce. A school in Morocco's capitol
became the first public facility in May of 2014 to use this
type of recycling system that reuses urine and waste water.
The system relies on a set of organic and ceramic membranes
with holes just one ten-thousandth of a millimeter in diameter,
which is 700 times thinner than a strand of human hair. These
tiny pores can filter out unwanted compounds in water,
including nitrate--a problematic pollutant that comes from
agriculture fertilizers.
Targeted method of chemotherapy drug delivery; clinical breast
cancer trials now in development: This treatment has the
potential to change the landscape for how we address cancer--a
devastating illness that has touched many of our lives.
Patients who suffer through invasive cancer treatment can
endure ravaging side effects, including nausea, immune
suppression, hair loss and even organ failure, in hopes of
eradicating cancerous tissues in the body. If treatments target
a patient's cancerous tissues, it could provide clinicians with
an alternative to lessen the delivery of toxic levels of
chemotherapy or radiation.
Aboard the ISS, a particular series of research investigations
is making further advancements in cancer therapy. A process
investigated aboard the space station known as
microencapsulation is able to more effectively produce tiny,
liquid-filled, biodegradable micro-balloons containing specific
combinations of concentrated anti-tumor drugs. Using
specialized needles, doctors can deliver these micro-balloons,
or microcapsules, to specific treatment sites within a cancer
patient. This kind of targeted therapy may soon revolutionize
cancer treatment delivery.
Imagine the quality of life from such therapies for patients.
Remarkably, research that began in space may soon result in
such options here on Earth.
The ISS is also a model for international space cooperation,
currently counting 15 nations among the international team. The ISS and
shared launch systems helped the United States bridge the diplomatic
divide with Russia after the fall of the Soviet government and
continues to facilitate the development of an integrated, global
definition of science and technology policy.
Because of the ISS, space is an area where international
cooperation remains constant and serves as a bridge for other
diplomatic discussions. As the leader and major supporter of the ISS
program positions, the United States is in position to supply a vision
for global space exploration.
With the ISS, we have also demonstrated the ability to build and
sustain long term crewed habitats effectively in space. The crews
aboard ISS are testing technologies today that are required for deep
space exploration, providing better information about the effects of
extended space travel on the human body. In fact, next month astronaut
Scott Kelly and cosmonaut Mikhail Kornienko will fly to the ISS and
spend one year on-orbit as part of a study that will help us to
understand the effects of long-duration, off-planet exposure to our
astronauts in preparation for even longer spaceflights to Mars.
NASA has further enabled this path forward by turning over to
private industry the routine business of crew and cargo transport for
the ISS while NASA concentrates on the development of deep space
systems. Two contracts were awarded last September to U.S. companies to
provide crewed transportation to and from the ISS starting in 2017. In
addition, commercial companies submitted proposals in December of last
year for the follow-on commercial cargo contract, which will be awarded
this summer.
Boeing is proud once again to partner with NASA to provide crewed
services to the ISS. With a heritage dating back from Mercury, Gemini,
and Apollo to our more recent history on the Space Shuttle, we have a
commercial space program in work that promises to not only secure
affordable crew and cargo transport to ISS, but to build an even more
robust--unparalleled--aerospace capability for America. The Boeing CST
100 spacecraft combines proven design and spaceflight technology with
modern innovation for a reliable and sustainable crew and cargo
transportation system.
By leveraging these commercial contracts to support the ISS, NASA
is focusing investment in the Orion and Space Launch System, which are
critical elements in the future exploration architecture. The December
flight test of the Orion crew capsule was flawless, and returned a
great deal of data--a huge first step toward Mars. The next test flight
for Orion will be on top of the Space Launch System (SLS) for
Exploration Mission 1. The SLS provides unprecedented payload
capability that can enable human and science deep space missions not
previously achievable. We are building the hardware, testing the
hardware and production tooling, and installing ground operations for a
rocket that will deliver nine times the thrust of the largest private
rocket. It is designed to transport the mass and volume necessary to
affordably build such an outpost, while safely launching crew deeper
into space.
A whole new generation of engineers are building. . .side by side
with experienced space veterans . . . this next generation rocket.
But you can't build the world's biggest, fastest, most capable
rocket with only existing technology. We're also applying innovative
approaches to the business, the technology, and the people.
We are relying on the very best of Boeing and NASA engineers
to execute parallel rocket configuration/design with design and
installation of the manufacturing facilities. We tapped into
the vast resources across the Boeing enterprise to create the
most experienced design team.
By partnering in new ways between engineering and
manufacturing we reduced the manufacturing facility footprint
and workforce required in assembly & operations. We are using
fewer, larger tools to build the rocket by making them multi-
use. That cuts down on facility footprint, tooling cost, and
workforce required for production. But that also means
efficient low rate production (which aligns with NASA funding).
Using an affordability-driven engineering approach,
engineers started with existing hardware and capability to
leverage as much as possible current taxpayer investment in
space programs. They then innovated to incorporate that
hardware to the greatest degree possible, consistently making
engineering trades to optimize capability while managing cost
and schedule commitments.
This rocket opens doors we've never seriously considered in the
past. For the first time in 40 years, the Orion and Space Launch System
(SLS) projects will allow astronauts to leave low Earth orbit and
completely escape Earth's gravitational field--ultimately opening the
door to landing humans on Mars.
Last year, a congressionally mandated report from the National
Research Council recommended that the United States pursue a
disciplined ``pathway'' approach that encompassed executing a specific
sequence of intermediate accomplishments and destinations leading to
the ``horizon goal'' of putting humans on Mars. The success of this
approach requires a steadfast commitment, international collaboration
and a consistent budget that aligns with our Nation's human exploration
goals.
We cannot abdicate our place in human spaceflight to other
countries that ARE willing to step up, to set aside differences, and
align around a path forward. All the right building blocks are in
place, right now, for success. NASA's industry team is leveraging
decades of knowledge, hardware, and infrastructure so we can save money
and begin with a proven, reliable baseline. NASA is laying the
foundation for taking the next important step--human exploration beyond
the Moon and to Mars. It is that vision that awakens the explorer in
all of us.
Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the Committee,
thank you again for the opportunity to testify here today and I look
forward to answering your questions.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Elbon.
Dr. Pace?
STATEMENT OF DR. SCOTT PACE, DIRECTOR, SPACE POLICY INSTITUTE,
ELLIOTT SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, GEORGE WASHINGTON
UNIVERSITY
Dr. Pace. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Nelson, members of
this Committee. It is an honor to follow the previous panel,
and thank you for this opportunity to discuss the important
topic of the future of human spaceflight.
While space touches every aspect of modern life, I would
like to focus on human space exploration, as that topic is the
one whose future is most in doubt today.
This is unfortunate, as human space activities are among
the most interdisciplinary of enterprises, requiring skills
from every field of technical endeavor. Their successful
accomplishment requires a degree of system engineering skill
found only in the most complex and demanding programs. The
ability and willingness of a nation to lead such endeavors
conveys much about the nature and intentions of that society.
It is my argument that international space cooperation,
space commerce, and international space security discussions
could be used to reinforce each other in ways that would
advance U.S. interests and the sustainability and security of
all space activities. At present, however, these activities are
largely conducted on their individual merits and are not part
of an integrated national strategy.
International space cooperation is not an end in itself but
a means of advancing national interests. Those interests can be
for security, commerce, science, international influence, or
any combination thereof. A human space exploration effort
driven by geopolitical interests and objectives would provide
and does provide the historic model and rationale, I believe,
for the United States.
The next steps beyond low Earth orbit will require
international partners for practical and political reasons.
Therefore, it makes sense to ask what our partners would like
to do and what they are capable of doing in the future. The
answer is: the Moon, with Mars and other destinations in the
distance. A U.S. commitment now to lead a multinational program
to explore the Moon would be a symbolic and practical first
step as well as a means of creating a broad international
framework for space cooperation.
At the same time, the geopolitical benefits of improving
relations with growing space powers through greater U.S.
engagement could support more ambition space exploration
efforts than science alone might justify.
On the commercial side, providing cargo delivery, for
example, to the lunar surface would be an attractive post-ISS
market for U.S. industry. The volume and duration of that
market would be enormously more attractive to industry than the
ISS alone could ever be.
The Moon is not just a physical destination but also a
means of answering questions, creating capabilities, training
organizations, and forging new relationships that serve the
interests of the United States and its allies.
Through authorization and appropriation bills, the Congress
should provide clear direction for NASA on an exploration
mission for the 2018-2025 timeframe, as SLS, Orion, and other
exploration systems currently under development begin
operation.
The Congress should, in my view, direct NASA to develop
mission concepts for an international return to the Moon with
private-sector partners, in anticipation of a new
administration in 2017.
The United States is crucially reliant on space systems,
and the future sustainability and governance of space
activities are key strategic interests for us. If we are to
have an effective American space strategy, we need to align our
policies, programs, and budget priorities with enduring
national interests, for that will be the way they will be
sustainable.
This means looking beyond individual missions and seeking
to determine what future humanity might have beyond the Earth
and what values will be part of that future. I would like those
values to include the things we value today: democracy, human
rights, rule of law, free markets. The rules on a frontier are
made by the people who show up, not by the people who stay
behind. And if those values are to be on a human future in
space, then we need to be there to ensure them.
I close with a quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes. Quoting,
``I find the great thing in the world is not so much where we
stand as in what direction we are moving. We must sail
sometimes with the wind, sometimes against it. But we must sail
and not drift nor lie at anchor.''
We need the confidence to choose what course offers the
greatest advantage to our Nation and our values. And for that,
I commend this hearing today.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pace follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Scott Pace, Director, Space Policy Institute,
Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University
Thank you, Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the
Committee, for providing an opportunity to discuss the important topic
of the future of human spaceflight and the strategic national interests
served by international leadership in such endeavors. My testimony
today is based on previous writings and presentations, most notably, my
2014 Durand Lectureship in Public Services sponsored by the American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
American Space Strategy Adrift
I would like to talk to you today about American space strategy and
the choices before us. Space activities today play critical roles in
U.S. national security, economic growth, and scientific achievements.
Satellite communications link the world. The Global Positioning System
(GPS) is an integral part of several critical infrastructures, and
enables functions ranging from survey and construction, to farming,
finance, and air traffic management--not to mention critical support to
U.S. military forces worldwide. Less well understood is that the GPS
time signal provides a global time base for encrypted communications--
including point-of-sale transactions. Without GPS, much of today's
economy would come to a halt. We have rovers on the surface of Mars,
and a probe that has left the solar system. The International Space
Station represents a unique collaborative partnership between the
United States, Europe, Canada, Japan, and Russia. New national
entrants, some of them potential adversaries, may pose risks to the
long-term sustainability and security of space activities as a result
of increasing orbital debris and the proliferation of space
capabilities.
While space touches every aspect of modern life, I would like to
focus on human space exploration, as that topic is the one whose future
is most in doubt today. This is unfortunate, as human space activities
are among the most interdisciplinary of enterprises, requiring skills
from every field of technical endeavor. Their successful accomplishment
requires a degree of systems engineering skill found only in the most
complex and demanding programs. The ability and willingness of a nation
to lead such endeavors conveys much about the nature and intentions of
that society. Thus, human spaceflight continues to possess enormous
symbolic value, leading directly to important political, economic, and
scientific consequences, both domestically and internationally. Human
spaceflight is therefore a matter of considerable interest to
policymakers, and should be.
It is my argument that international space cooperation, space
commerce, and international space security discussions could be used to
reinforce each other in ways that would advance U.S. interests in the
sustainability and security of all space activities. At present,
however, these activities are largely conducted on their individual
merits and not as part of an integrated national strategy. I will
return to this point later.
The International Space Exploration Coordination Group (ISECG) is a
coordination mechanism among the major space agencies created in
response to the Bush Administration's Vision for Space Exploration. The
ISECG has been able to combine previously separate ``Moon First'' or
``Asteroid First'' approaches for going to Mars into a single scenario
where cislunar space is the next step for human explorations beyond low
Earth orbit. This is a major accomplishment, in that it has been the
inconstancy of U.S. policy choices that have made attaining an
international consensus so difficult in recent years.
The central elements of the current U.S. approach toward human
spaceflight are found in the President's 2010 National Space Policy,
which says that the NASA Administrator shall ``set far-reaching
exploration milestones. By 2025, begin crewed missions beyond the moon,
including sending humans to an asteroid.'' This declaration came as a
surprise to domestic and international space communities, following as
it did upon the heels of two prior Congressional Authorizations Acts in
2005 and 2008 in which a human return to the Moon was specifically set
forth as the next focus of U.S. space exploration. The international
space community in particular, which had been shifting attention to the
Moon as the completion of the International Space Station (ISS) drew
near, felt blindsided. Countries in Asia, such as Japan, India, China,
and South Korea, saw the Moon as a challenging but feasible destination
for robotic exploration and a practical focus for human space
exploration, a goal offering missions in which they could reasonably
expect to play a part. The lack of U.S. support during the present
Administration for a program to return to the Moon made it difficult
for advocates of human space exploration in the United States, Europe,
Japan, India, and elsewhere to gain funding for any efforts beyond the
ISS.
While the United States continues to be officially uninterested in
leading a human return to the Moon, the Moon is the next logical target
for all of our potential international partners. Russia has made
several presentations at various international conferences endorsing
human missions to the Moon. China has not made an official decision to
send humans to the Moon, but is proceeding with a steadily advancing
robotic program that is putting in place the technical pieces necessary
to conduct more ambitious missions when they so choose. They have
landed a nuclear-powered rover on the Moon, unveiled designs for a
Saturn 5-class heavy-lift launch vehicle, and are building a space
station that will be open to international participation. Growing space
powers such as the Republic of Korea and India have their own unmanned
lunar ambitions, and even the private sector is looking to the
exploitation of lunar as well as asteroid resources.
Europe is more cautious about human missions to deep space. They
would almost certainly join in a U.S.-led effort, but would not lead
one without us. Unfortunately, there is no real U.S. plan or intent for
human space exploration beyond the International Space Station, as
there is no longer any real funding or any defined architecture for
such endeavors. There is, however, a clear policy to create new U.S.
providers of cargo and crew services to low Earth orbit to replace
government capabilities. Using the ISS as an early market, the hope is
that these new providers can provide lower cost services to meet
government needs, be able also to compete for non-government payloads,
stimulate new demand with lower prices, and thus contribute to U.S.
economic growth. Cargo capability has been demonstrated, while crew
capabilities are a work in progress. In addition, cost reductions are
not yet evident in out-year projections of ISS funding needs.
There are risks in the current U.S. approach to human spaceflight.
The United States finds itself reliant on the economic success of
private service providers, and, through the intergovernmental
agreements pertaining to the International Space Station our partners
must now share this reliance. The companies themselves are also at
risk. Should there be a ``bad day'' on the Station, this would be not
only a disaster for NASA, but would also put an end to the near-term
market for the so-called ``commercial crew and cargo'' companies. It
would be very difficult to restart a U.S. human spaceflight effort
without the pull of either the ISS partnership or the follow-on goal of
a lunar return, and it is unlikely that private firms would, or even
could, recreate a human spaceflight capacity without U.S. government
demand and support.
Even assuming no accidents with the ISS, it will likely be
impossible to operate the facility beyond 2028 due to life limitations
on crucial station elements, obsolescence, and a lack of replacement
parts. Political commitments may fade even earlier, as there is not yet
a consensus among the partners to operate the facility beyond 2020.\1\
Without commitments from the partners, it will continue to be difficult
to induce scientific investigators to invest years of their career in
carrying out an experiment which might fly once, if at all, before the
facility is closed. And despite the promise of space tourism, it is
also unlikely that the market will be large enough and stable enough by
2020 to replace the demand for human spaceflight now generated by the
ISS partnership and NASA in particular.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The White House and NASA announced on January 8, 2014 that the
United States would extend its participation in the ISS until at least
2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human space exploration and U.S. human spaceflight for the next
decade will continue to be driven by U.S. space policy as reflected in
the NASA budget. That budget is itself a political choice--it is a
reflection of what we value as a society. NASA's budget has been
declining in constant dollar terms for decades. If NASA today had the
same budget in constant dollars that it did in 1992, it would be $24
billion. To the question of affordability, it should be understood
that--in constant dollars--the Administration's stimulus program was
greater than NASA's budget from 1958 to 2008. To emphasize: the United
States sent humans to the Moon, built and operated a Space Shuttle
fleet for 30 years, completed the initial robotic exploration of the
solar system, built and operated several space telescopes, and
contributed its share of the International Space Station for less than
the cost of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
That being said, fiscal limits are real and harsh. The performance
requirements for getting humans safely to other worlds remain constant
and demanding. As budgets are pushed down, schedules slip and risks
increase. We cannot, however, focus solely on cost, as funds spent on
any space activity have to compete successfully against other budgetary
demands. If we are to sustain discretionary expenditures for civil
space exploration, we must develop a clearer rationale linking such
efforts to national interests that can be supported in a bipartisan
manner over many years. In the absence of any larger strategic context
for a human spaceflight program, ambitious mission concepts are
insufficient to justify the required levels of effort.
Budget Volatility
There is a line from the movie ``The Right Stuff'' in which the
actor playing Gordon Cooper says: ``You boys know what makes this bird
go up? FUNDING makes this bird go up.'' I would go further and say:
``What creates funding? Bipartisan support creates funding.''
Bipartisan agreement was reached in the aftermath of the tragic
loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia that the United States should
continue to explore beyond Earth orbit, returning to the Moon and then
voyaging to Mars. President Bush called the Vision for Space
Exploration ``a journey, not a race'' and one that would not be done by
the United States in competition with other nations, but in partnership
with them. The Congress passed two successive NASA authorization bills
in FY 2005 and FY 2008 with strong bipartisan majorities endorsing this
direction.
The Obama Administration decision to overturn that consensus led to
the protracted battle over the FY 2010 NASA Authorization Act. The
future of human spaceflight and the role of U.S. leadership were at the
center of the debate between Congress and the White House. The result
of this conflict was budget volatility as well as policy uncertainty,
two factors that have burdened the U.S. human spaceflight effort for
several years now. In addition to the flawed policy direction of
focusing on an asteroid mission in the near term and an unknown path to
Mars in the long term, the Administration's unstable budget requests
for NASA have created immense challenges for the Agency's managers,
scientists, and engineers. As an illustration of budget volatility, see
Figure 1 below. It shows enacted budgets for NASA as well as the five-
year budget request for FY 2010-20016. The FY 2010 budget had a
``pause'' in human spaceflight in the out-years while the Augustine
Committee was working. The FY 2010 budget top-line returned but
internal Agency priorities were greatly different, leading to the
conflicts with Congress. FY 2011 saw a dramatic drop and flattening of
the NASA budget request, creating more uncertainty for planning. The
situation worsened in FY 2012, FY 2013, and FY 2014--leading to the wry
comment at NASA that ``flat is the new up.'' This year, the FY 2016
request shows a significant increase, but without changes in policy
priorities to know if this change will be stable going forward.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 1--NASA Enacted Budgets and Presidential Budget Requests FY
2010-16
Global Space Competition
The uncertainty and drift attending human spaceflight efforts today
have consequences beyond our borders. Working in a school of
international affairs, it is easy to see the importance of cross-
national ``functional'' issues such as security, trade, development,
and technology to U.S. foreign policy. Of particular importance are
debates over areas beyond traditional definitions of sovereignty, such
as the high seas, international air space, the Polar Regions, space,
and cyberspace. These are today's frontiers, and are thus areas of
potential conflict and cooperation among state and non-state entities
that impact U.S. interests. As with past frontiers, it is those who
show up, not those who stay home, who create the rules and establish
the norms in new areas of human activity.
In a world in which space capabilities are increasingly global, no
one state will be in a position to impose rules unilaterally for the
exploration and development of space. Similarly, the diversity of
competing national interests in space make it unlikely that a single
international space authority or even a new space treaty will emerge
anytime soon. Thus, the task for the United States, if it wishes to
influence how space is developed and utilized, is to create attractive
projects and frameworks in which other nations choose to align
themselves, and their space activities with us, as opposed to others.
Just as the United States shaped the postwar world with a range of
international institutions, so we should look to the creation of new
arrangements to advance our interests, values and freedoms in space.
There is nothing inevitable about U.S. leadership in space unless
we make it so. I attended the International Astronautical Congress in
Beijing in 2013. As might be expected, U.S., Russian, and Indian
attendance was light. Nonetheless, the Chinese did a good job hosting
the conference with welcoming remarks from Li Yuanchao, Vice President
of the People's Republic of China, and a display of their three-man
Shenzhou 10 capsule. There were also displays of Brazilian, Ukrainian,
and South African cooperation with China, and one could easily see what
a global space community might look like without the United States. It
was in effect a picture of a post-American space world, with a full
range of manned and unmanned space activities, but without American
leadership or even, in many cases, an American presence.
China is planning to deploy its own space station in less than a
decade, about the same time that the International Space Station may be
ending. If China is able to offer pragmatic opportunities for space
cooperation on its own space station or as part of efforts to send
humans to the Moon, and the United States cannot, then other countries
will likely find it attractive to forge closer relationships with
China. Such a shift in international space influence away from the
United States and toward China will, no doubt, impact a wide range of
U.S. national security and foreign policy interests, both in space and
in other arenas.
The United States retains several advantages in space, however. We
have decades of experience and close relationships with almost every
spacefaring nation on a wide range of projects. The entrepreneurial
energy of the private U.S. space community, both large and small, is a
source of admiration by and occasional puzzlement to the international
space community. At the same time, a proud history and a nascent
private industry cannot alone substitute for national and international
leadership in space, and likely cannot survive, much less thrive
without it. Both international cooperation and private sector
initiative are necessary aspects of any effective American strategy in
space, but are not by themselves sufficient. A focused national
strategy is also needed to provide a coherent context for both
cooperative agreements and private ventures.
Choosing a Direction
It is crucial to remember that international space cooperation is
not an end in itself, but a means of advancing national interests.
Those interests can be for security, commerce, science, international
influence, or any combination thereof. A human space exploration effort
driven by geopolitical interests and objectives provides the historic
model and rationale for the United States. The United States undertook
the Apollo program in the 1960s to beat the Soviet Union to the Moon as
part of a global competition for Cold War prestige. The Apollo-Soyuz
program symbolized a brief period of detente in the 1970s. The Space
Station program was established in the 1980s, in part, to bring the
developing space capabilities of Europe and Japan closer to the United
States and to strengthen anti-Soviet alliances. Russia was invited to
join a restructured International Space Station in the 1990s to
symbolize a new post-Cold War, post-Soviet relationship with Russia.
The next steps beyond low Earth orbit will require international
partners for practical and political reasons. Therefore, it makes sense
to ask what our partners would like to do, and what they are capable of
doing in the future. The answer is the Moon--with Mars and other
destinations in the distance. A U.S. commitment now, to lead a
multinational program to explore the Moon would be a symbolic and
practical first step as well as a means of creating a broader
international framework for space cooperation. At the same time, the
geopolitical benefits of improving relations with growing space powers
through greater U.S. engagement could support more ambitious space
exploration efforts than science alone might justify. Providing
commercial cargo delivery to the lunar surface would be an attractive
post-ISS market for U.S. industry; the volume and duration of that
market would be enormously more attractive to industry than that for
the ISS could ever be. The Moon is not just a destination, but also a
means of answering questions, creating capabilities, training
organizations, and forging new relationships to serve the interests of
the United States and its allies.
The United States is crucially reliant on space systems, and the
future sustainability and governance of space activities are key
strategic interests for us. U.S. human space exploration today is
``capability driven,'' with ambitious goals in the distance that are
not well connected to other national interests, notably in
international relations and commerce. If we are to have an effective
American space strategy, we need to align our policies, programs, and
budget priorities with enduring national interests. This means looking
beyond individual missions and seeking to determine what future
humanity might have beyond the Earth, and what values will be part of
that future. I would like those values to include the things we value
today--democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and free markets.
I will close with a quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. ``I find
the great thing in this world is not so much where we stand, as in what
direction we are moving--we must sail sometimes with the wind and
sometimes against it--but we must sail, and not drift, nor lie at
anchor.'' We need the confidence to choose what course offers the
greatest advantage to our Nation and our values.
Thank you.
______
Comments on the President's FY 2016 Budge Request for NASA \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Adapted from The Hay Bulletin, Issue 34, The John Hay
Initiative, February 12, 2015, p. 7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The President's FY 2016 budget request contains a 7 percent ($74
billion) increase over the FY 2015 Omnibus spending level, with NASA
receiving $18.5 billion--a nearly $500 million increase above the FY15
Omnibus and nearly $1 billion above the President's budget request last
year.
The proposed increase to NASA's budget largely benefits two of the
Obama Administration's top priorities: Earth Science (+175M) and
Commercial Crew development subsidies (+438M). These increases come at
the expense of Exploration systems under development, including the
super heavy lift Space Launch System (SLS) and the exploration crew
spacecraft, Orion, which completed a successful inaugural test flight
in December 2014.
The proposed cuts to SLS and Orion almost directly correspond with
the budget's nearly half billion jump in funding for the Commercial
Crew program. In September 2014, NASA announced the selection of Boeing
and SpaceX to continue development of spacecraft for crew launches to
the International Space Station by 2017-2018. Congress has repeatedly
sought to constrain spending for this program and to narrow the number
of program participants. SLS and Orion are the systems that will enable
human exploration of space beyond low-Earth orbit. Of particular
concern are potential reductions to the funding of SLS core stages that
would further delay the program and increase total costs.
Overall, space technology budgets fare well in this year's request:
the budget again proposes a $128+ increase to the Space Technology
mission directorate and the Advanced Exploration Systems account, which
funds exploration systems like habitat and landers, receives an
increase of $48 million. While modest, funding for AES is important to
ensure that systems are developed which leverage NASA's SLS and Orion
capabilities enabling a return to the surface of the Moon.
For the third year, the budget continues to propose funding for an
Asteroid Redirect Mission, which has been widely panned by the
Congress, the scientific community, and NASA's international partners.
The administration is again proposing to divert funding in the Advanced
Exploration Systems and Space Technology accounts to pay for this
mission.
The budget also continues efforts by the administration to cut
programs favored by Congressional stakeholders, like Planetary Science
and Aeronautics. Both programs are cut by approximately $80+ million
relative to the recently enacted FY 2015 Omnibus.
Although the President's budget violates sequestration budget caps
and makes unrealistic assumptions about new revenue to allow for
increases in discretionary spending, the topline increase for NASA is
welcome and should be encouraged within the allocation provided by the
House and Senate budget resolutions. Republicans and Democrats in
Congress both approved funding for NASA that was well above the
President's request last year and should be encouraged to prioritize
investments in the space program. For example, the Congress should
enforce balance in the science portfolio to ensure that programs like
Planetary Science and Earth Science receive funding consistent with
their scientific merit.
The appropriations process should prioritize investments in NASA's
Exploration program by fully funding SLS, Orion and Advanced
Exploration Systems, while restricting spending on the Asteroid
Redirect Mission. A heavy-lift capability of 130 mT (e.g., Saturn V
class) is highly beneficial for a human return to the Moon and a
necessity for eventual human missions to Mars. Lacking such a
capability would mean doing multiple orbital assembly flights at
substantial additional cost and risk. The upper stage necessary to
reach the 130 mT capability continues to be underfunded.
As a possible offset to the administration's proposed increase for
Commercial Crew, Congress could direct NASA to adopt a ``leader-
follower'' approach with the final level of funding provided for the
program. Under this approach, NASA would provide full funding to the
primary crew award winner to ensure the development of domestic access
to ISS by 2017, while the second crew system would come online later,
pending the availability of resources and the progress made by the
``leader'' and an evaluation of the market for these services.
Through authorization and appropriations bills, Congress should
provide clear direction for NASA on an exploration mission for the
2018-2025 time-frame as SLS, Orion, and other exploration systems
currently under development begin operations. The Congress should
direct NASA to focus on the mission concepts for an international
return to Moon, with private sector partners, in anticipation of a new
Administration in 2017.
______
Scott Pace
Dr. Scott Pace is the Director of the Space Policy Institute and a
Professor of the Practice of International Affairs at George Washington
University's Elliott School of International Affairs. His research
interests include civil, commercial, and national security space
policy, and the management of technical innovation. From 2005-2008, he
served as the Associate Administrator for Program Analysis and
Evaluation at NASA.
Prior to NASA, Dr. Pace was the Assistant Director for Space and
Aeronautics in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP). From 1993-2000, Dr. Pace worked for the RAND Corporation's
Science and Technology Policy Institute (STPI). From 1990 to 1993, Dr.
Pace served as the Deputy Director and Acting Director of the Office of
Space Commerce, in the Office of the Deputy Secretary of the Department
of Commerce. He received a Bachelor of Science degree in Physics from
Harvey Mudd College in 1980; Masters degrees in Aeronautics &
Astronautics and Technology & Policy from the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology in 1982; and a Doctorate in Policy Analysis from the RAND
Graduate School in 1989.
Dr. Pace received the NASA Outstanding Leadership Medal in 2008,
the U.S. Department of State's Group Superior Honor Award, GPS
Interagency Team, in 2005, and the NASA Group Achievement Award,
Columbia Accident Rapid Reaction Team, in 2004. He has been a member of
the U.S. Delegation to the World Radiocommunication Conferences in
1997, 2000, 2003, and 2007. He was also a member of the U.S. Delegation
to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Telecommunications Working
Group, 1997-2000. He is a past member of the Earth Studies Committee,
Space Studies Board, National Research Council and the Commercial
Activities Subcommittee, NASA Advisory Council. Dr. Pace is a former
member of the Board of Trustees, Universities Space Research
Association, a Corresponding Member of the International Academy of
Astronautics, and a member of the Board of Governors of the National
Space Society.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Dr. Pace. And I would note that in
an afternoon where we are listening to learned scientists, as a
lawyer, I appreciate your throwing a Supreme Court justice in
there.
Mr. Stallmer?
STATEMENT OF ERIC W. STALLMER, PRESIDENT, COMMERCIAL
SPACEFLIGHT FEDERATION
Mr. Stallmer. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Nelson, and
members of the Subcommittee and staff. I want to thank you for
holding this hearing and for providing me the opportunity to
testify as President of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation.
CSF is an industry association of leading businesses and
organizations working to make commercial spaceflight a reality.
NASA and the commercial sector are partners in America's great
national enterprise in space. Since the dawn of the space
program, cooperation between the government and the private
sector has been critical to our tremendous accomplishments in
space.
This cooperation continues to enable us to achieve great
things, but the relationship has evolved over time. The
relationship that once defined the United States' nascent space
program have given way to a more modern and innovative
approaches to procure a wide variety of necessary capabilities
and services.
My written testimony provides detailed examples of these
successful commercial partnerships, but I would like to quickly
highlight a few of these areas where this new alliance has
helped move our Nation's space exploration goals forward and
areas where we can help with it in the future.
The pioneering COTS and CRS programs have led to affordable
and robust domestic cargo access to the International Space
Station, increasing its utilization for scientific research,
technology, and development. A variation of this model is being
applied in the Commercial Crew Program, which is developing
safe, reliable, and also domestic access to and from low Earth
orbit for our astronauts.
Finally, private companies are working on building a
variety of capabilities to help explore destinations beyond low
Earth orbit, of which NASA should leverage this support in its
future exploration efforts. Further expansion of the commercial
spaceflight industry will create a self-reinforcing ecosystem
that will make space ours, and it will enhance and strengthen
our leadership in space.
For the past 6 months, I have made it my priority to
personally visit all of our member companies all over this
great country of ours, from Midland to Mohave, from Seattle and
the Florida space coast, and here is what I have seen: U.S.
suborbital companies are leading the development of reusable
vehicles, creating versatile platforms to service diverse
markets for research, space tourism, education, and other
applications. Orbital providers are increasing access to space
for a wide variety of customers, including small-sat, national
security payloads, and geostationary communications satellites.
This is a positive trend for the United States. After
decades of decline, we are finally recapturing market share in
the commercial launch sector. In order to support the growth in
the launch activities, states, I should say, states have been
competitively investing in commercial space supports to ensure
their state economies have a key role in this 21st century
business.
Finally, within our grasp in space are nearly limitless
resources of great commercial value here on Earth. These
resources can also be used to help us press onward as explorers
deep into the cosmos. Several companies are working to unlock
these resources.
As you can see from this growing commercial ecosystem, it
is not a surprise that we are experiencing private sector
investment unlike anything we have seen in history. But to
continue this progress, we need thoughtful commercial
procurement policies and regulatory certainty. Congress must
set policies that encourage growth and innovation in the
industry and maintain the U.S. space sector's competitive
advantage.
As you prepare to reauthorize the Commercial Space Launch
Act, you can help provide critical updates: extending the
regulatory learning period that helps our industry innovate
rapidly toward ever safer vehicles in practice; solidifying
launch indemnification, which is critical to the
competitiveness of our launch industry in the global
marketplace; and addressing the questions of how to handle
government astronauts in commercial vehicles and so forth.
These and other important issues are addressed in my
written testimony. Codifying these policies increase our global
competitiveness, promote industry growth, and strengthen our
Nation's industrial space base and keep the United States at
the forefront of space technology.
The commercial space sector is and will continue to be a
valuable partner in America's ever more ambitious missions to
expand our reach in space. I have three young children who
regularly ask me, ``Daddy, when can we go to space?'' And I am
confident, from working in this industry, that the answer is,
``Very soon.''
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stallmer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Eric W. Stallmer, President,
Commercial Spaceflight Federation
Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Udall, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing and for providing me
the opportunity to testify as President of the Commercial Spaceflight
Federation. The Commercial Spaceflight Federation (CSF) is the industry
association of leading businesses and organizations working to make
commercial spaceflight a reality. Our mission is to promote the
development of commercial spaceflight, pursue ever higher levels of
safety, and share best practices and expertise throughout the industry.
I hope to provide three main take-aways from my testimony today
providing insight on the sector's past, it's present, and how lessons
learned from these eras can be applied to the future for the growth of
America's space program.
First, NASA and the commercial sector are partners in America's
``great national enterprise'' in space. Since the dawn of the space
program, the partnership between government and the private sector has
been a testament to our accomplishments in space. The partnerships
early in the U.S. space program were different than the partnerships we
see and encourage today, but this is owed to the evolution of our
Nation's space program and the continued evolvement from both parties.
Later in my testimony, I will discuss successful commercial
partnerships and how these can be applied to our Nation's space
exploration goals moving forward.
Second, further expansion beyond the government will create an
ecosystem that will make space ours, and will enhance and strengthen
U.S. leadership in space. Many of CSF's member companies are working to
push Earth's economic sphere outward from Low-Earth orbit and beyond.
Suborbital platforms will provide an avenue for space tourism and
research that could not be conceived otherwise. Orbital vehicles will
increase utilization of the International Space Station (ISS) for
industry and research institutions in addition to increasing
destinations in low-Earth orbit (LEO). Beyond LEO activities span the
spectrum from mining celestial bodies for resources valuable to Earth
to habitats on the Moon. All of these activities and more are creating
a market in space that will continue to grow.
Finally, policies must be in place to encourage growth and
innovation in the industry and keep the U.S. space sector competitive.
Tools such as contracts using Other Transaction Authority (OTA) can
continue this trending growth. The Commercial Space Launch Amendments
Act (CSLA) and export control are other policy areas ripe for reform
that will shape the advancement for the industry. Later in my
testimony, I will discuss how Congress and industry can work together
on these important policies to encourage progress and not hinder it.
Public-Private Partnerships
The Federal Government and the commercial space sector have worked
together in various capacities since the beginning of America's space
exploration program. From Mercury through Apollo, NASA's success in the
space race was not without the help of commercial companies such as
Bell, North American Aviation, and what was then known as the Grumman
Aircraft Engineering Corporation. This era saw collaboration with
industry in which NASA engineers would design the systems and
competitively bid out portions of the project. While this proved to be
a successful method for developing specially-designed systems, it has
become clear that there are a wide variety of necessary capabilities
and services that do not fit that template.
Since the 1990s, a new wave of public-private partnerships has
emerged to complement traditional contracting methods. ``Commercial
Procurement'' now allows the government to assume the role of customer
while still being involved in the development of the system. However,
the government is no longer the sole customer and its role changes from
top-down control to promoting and stimulating the development of
commercially-owned capabilities. By spreading costs across multiple
users, prices can be reduced, saving the government money while also
increasing space's economic return. This approach allows NASA and the
commercial sector to become true partners in America's ``great national
enterprise'' in space. The public and the private sector together will
collectively advance our Nation's reach into the cosmos.
Suborbital
The NASA-commercial partnership starts in the shallow waters of
space, in the suborbital realm. Initiatives such as NASA's Flight
Opportunities Program (FOP) use commercial reusable vehicles for
technology development that will allow and enable future missions to
new destinations, keeping the U.S. at the forefront of exploration
technology. In addition to robustly testing new technologies, these
platforms offer brief access to the space environment for scientific
data collection. Many researchers see them as stepping stones to using
the International Space Station (ISS), increasing its utilization and
raising its commercial success. Made In Space, a company based out of
Silicon Valley, used FOP to test its 3D printers operation in
microgravity for a fraction of the price of an orbital mission. After
testing and building confidence on Earth, the company sent one of its
printers to the ISS where it is currently operating. To date, the
company has printed 14 objects from a calibration coupon to a ratchet.
This perfectly exemplifies the success of a public-private partnership
developing technology for future exploration, where astronauts could
create a spare parts to support ambitious new missions.
Low-Earth Orbit
The ISS has been described as the crown jewel of the United States
space exploration enterprise; it's a platform to perform a wide variety
of experiments focused on life and physical sciences, human research,
exploration research, and technology development. Almost a decade ago,
in the NASA Authorization Act of 2005, Congress codified a new
agreement between NASA and the U.S. commercial space industry to better
achieve the Nation's space exploration goals together. Congress
designated the U.S. segment of the International Space Station a
national laboratory, no longer the sole domain of NASA, but rather a
shared resource to be utilized by both the Federal Government and
private industry. An excellent example of the ISS being used in this
fashion is the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (``BEAM''), which
will be launched and attached to the ISS later this year. Bigelow
Aerospace has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in bringing
expandable habitat technology to fruition, and, in partnership with
NASA, the ISS will be utilized as a platform to demonstrate this vital
new technology. Additionally, in anticipation of the Space Shuttle's
retirement, Congress directed NASA to partner with the commercial space
industry to develop cargo transportation capabilities to the
International Space Station.
To that end, NASA created the Commercial Orbital Transportation
Services (COTS) Program to stimulate efforts within the private sector
to develop safe, reliable, and cost-effective transportation
capabilities to the ISS and LEO. COTS competitively funded two
commercial companies--SpaceX and Orbital ATK--through cost-sharing,
milestone-based, Space Act Agreements to help develop these
capabilities. The program tied payments to the successful completion of
contractually agreed upon milestones, and incentivized companies to
contribute a significant amount of their own funds towards development.
Following up on the success of the COTS program, NASA entered into a
separate set of FAR-based, firm-fixed-price contracts with the
companies to supply a series of cargo missions to the ISS through at
least 2016. As of last month, 8 resupply missions have successfully
been completed, with 12 more to come.
The pioneering COTS and CRS partnership has benefited American
human spaceflight efforts in several ways, including:
1. Providing timely critical supplies to ISS crew members;
2. Increasing the utilization of the ISS for research experiments
and technology development;
3. Developing affordable, fixed-cost domestic access to the ISS; and
providing
4. Dissimilar redundancy to assure continued critical access through
the life of the program.
A variation of this model is being applied in the Commercial Crew
Program (CCP), which is enabling American companies to develop reliable
and cost-effective human access to LEO, and will return human launch
capabilities back to U.S. soil. NASA is currently paying more than $70
million per seat for rides to the ISS for our astronauts on Russian
Soyuz vehicles, and the price increases every year. Commercial Crew
will allow NASA to purchase cost-effective domestic flights for their
astronauts while eliminating dependence on the Soyuz. These
transportation systems will also allow NASA to expand the ISS' crew
size to its planned seven persons, roughly doubling U.S. crew time for
utilization. This will allow much more scientific research and
technology development activities to be conducted on our national lab.
Additionally, with the private sector providing more economical
transportation to LEO, NASA's budgetary resources will be freed up to
pursue additional avenues for the further exploration of space.
Beyond Low-Earth Orbit
As the commercial space industry has taken a larger partnership
role in exploring LEO, it has enabled NASA to focus on extending human
presence beyond LEO. NASA has continually stated that the United
States' long-term human exploration goal is to send humans to Mars,
with precursor missions along the way to prepare for trips to the Red
Planet. To that end, NASA is building a new heavy lift rocket, the SLS,
and Orion crew capsule, to take astronauts beyond LEO in the early
2020s. The development of a heavy lift launch vehicle and crew capsule
are important pieces of the United States beyond LEO human exploration
plans, but other complementary pieces are needed as well. I'd like to
reference NASA Office of Inspector General's 2014 Report on NASA's Top
Management and Performance Challenges on this matter. The November 2014
report states:
``even after the SLS and Orion are fully developed and ready to
transport crew, NASA will continue to face significant
challenges concerning the long-term sustainability of its human
exploration program. For example, unless NASA begins a program
to develop landers and surface systems, NASA astronauts will be
limited to orbital missions. In the current budget environment,
however, it appears unlikely that NASA will obtain significant
funding to begin development of this additional exploration
hardware anytime soon, effectively delaying such developments
into the 2020s. Given the time and money necessary to develop
landers and associated systems, it is unlikely that NASA would
be able to conduct any manned surface exploration missions
until the late 2030s at the earliest.''
I highlight this not because I believe it is a problem for our
beyond LEO exploration goals, but rather because I believe it is an
opportunity that should be leveraged. While the audit correctly
surmises that there is unlikely to be enough resources in the near- or
mid-term for NASA to develop a lander and surface systems through
traditional approaches, it fails to recognize the significant
contributions that the commercial space industry is making in these
areas. Private companies like Moon Express, Bigelow Aerospace, Masten
Space Systems, and Golden Spike are all building capabilities to
explore and commercially develop the Moon. These companies, and others,
are interested in the Moon because it offers the potential to support
near-term opportunities for economic growth. To NASA's credit, it has
begun exploring public-private partnerships for beyond LEO exploration
via the Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) program which is supporting
initiatives such as Lunar Cargo Transportation and Landing by Soft
Touchdown (CATALYST). In the FY 2015 appropriations bill, Congress
included language that strongly reaffirmed the importance of the
private sector contributing landers, habitats, and propulsion systems
to beyond LEO human spaceflight through public-private partnerships as
is occurring via the AES program. Hardware developed by AES will serve
a critical role in ensuring that NASA can utilize the transportation
capacities of SLS and Orion to conduct surface missions to the Moon and
eventually Mars. We believe that including the commercial space
industry as an early partner in reaching U.S. human exploration goals
beyond LEO is a logical extension of the successful COTS and CRS
partnership model proven in LEO, and can help alleviate budgetary
constraints and compliment the Agency's investment in its
transportation systems.
Commercial companies are also exploring other destinations beyond
LEO, like asteroids. For example, Planetary Resources is working to
identify, track, analyze, and eventually interact with near-Earth
asteroids. While these companies and others work to supplement NASA
programs for exploration, even more importantly, they are working to
create a sustainable ecosystem in space. NASA continues to play an
invaluable role in creating early markets for and in the support of
American entrepreneurial companies at the edge of competitive
technology areas such as spaceflight but much more can be done to
incubate markets in space.
To conclude, Congress can further support the growth of the
commercial space industry by promoting a true partnership between the
Government and private sector. Government investment in leading edge
launch technologies will remain essential, but it is vital to the
industry that taxpayer dollars not compete with private investment. The
industry acknowledges that decisions regarding when to exit Government
funded programs and when to rely on commercial capabilities are
difficult ones. In light of this, the commercial space launch industry
would like to maintain an ongoing dialogue with Congress and with the
leading U.S. Government R&D agencies on the most effective way for
government investment to ensure U.S. leadership without competing with
commercial operators.
Commercial Space as a Business
This economic model is not a new one. When one looks through the
20/20 lens of history, you will find that a flourishing commercial
industry enables the long-term well-being of a nation's strategic
goals. In the eighteenth and nineteenth century, Great Britain was the
leader of the open seas. It was home to the largest mercantile marine
afloat, more than half a million tons of shipping, and a Royal Navy
that fielded a force larger than the fleets of Spain and France
combined.\1\ This was by design, not accident. By thoughtfully passing
maritime laws that encouraged the growth of its commercial shipping
industry, the British built the crucial foundations of a sustainable
maritime power: a thriving shipbuilding industry and the maintenance of
a pool of experienced seamen. As Alfred Mahan more succinctly put it, a
thriving commercial shipping industry is the force that naturally
produces a healthy navy.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sugden, John (2011). Nelson: A Dream of Glory. Pimlico.
\2\ Cropsey, Seth, & Milikh, Arthur. Mahan's Naval Strategy: China
Learned It. Will America Forget it? World Affairs (March/April 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1980s President Reagan and leaders in Congress shared a
similar vision for American commercial leadership in space. Mr.
Chairman, it will probably not surprise you that the first commercial
launch in the United States was conducted in Texas, from Matagorda
Island in 1982. Two years later, in 1984, the Reagan Administration
created the Office of Commercial Space Transportation and then Congress
enacted the Commercial Space Launch Act to centralize the function of
licensing and promoting the new commercial space launch industry. Since
its establishment, the commercial spaceflight industry has grown
tremendously to include a diverse range of companies and applications.
The commercial space sector is an emerging high-tech industry that has
continued to make significant progress in the past few years in terms
of growth in revenue, employees, and capability. Orbital companies such
as SpaceX, Sierra Nevada Corporation, Blue Origin, and Boeing have
begun testing their crew vehicles that will fill the gap in U.S. human
spaceflight capability to LEO. SpaceX has already docked a version of
its Dragon capsule to the ISS several times under NASA's CRS program.
Additionally, reusable technology will have the potential to further
disrupt the launch industry to bring even more business to U.S. soil.
U.S. suborbital companies are leading the development of reusable
manned vehicles. Virgin Galactic is working on the second version of
its SpaceShipTwo vehicle and XCOR Aerospace has begun assembling its
Lynx suborbital vehicle and is conducting tests on its propulsion
system. Blue Origin has also successfully conducted a test of its
pusher escape system for its orbital and suborbital crew capsule. Late
last year, the StratEx team broke Felix Baumgartner's record skydive
through technology development and advancements that will be
incorporated into World View's future commercial balloon platform.
These and other suborbital platforms are gearing up to offer flights to
private individuals and researchers, and their scientific, industrial
and educational payloads to altitudes that were previously unachievable
for the everyday consumer. Each month brings new accomplishments for
these companies, and each stride forward builds the robust market for
research, space tourism, education, and other applications.
Going beyond public-private partnerships with NASA, the commercial
launch industry's activities continue to grow rapidly. In Fiscal Year
2013, Federal Aviation Administration's Office of Commercial Space
Transportation (AST) licensed and permitted 18 commercial launches, a
six-fold increase over the previous year. To support this growth,
states have been competitively investing in commercial spaceports to
ensure their state economies have a key role in this 21st century
business. States who have developed or are developing commercial
spaceports include, Alaska, Texas, New Mexico, Florida, Virginia,
Colorado and California. These facilities provide competing venues to
test equipment, launch orbital and suborbital missions, and train crew
and spaceflight participants in the types of environments they will
experience in space. Companies around the country are also supplying
spacecraft parts and subsystems, ranging from screws and fasteners to
environmental control systems, engines and spacesuits.
These and other entrepreneurial activities in the commercial space
sector are reinvigorating our space industrial base. Domestic launch
competition is lowering the cost and increasing the reliability of our
access to space, vital for launches needed for national security.
Additionally, the private sector is working towards replacing
international dependence for national security, evidenced in the work
being done by Blue Origin and United Launch Alliance in their BE-4
engine, a replacement for the Russian RD-180 engine.
While strengthening our Nation's industrial base, the commercial
sector is creating new cost-effective applications for exploring space
and creating a better life for people on Earth. The commercial space
industry is creating new opportunities for humanitarian applications in
addition to commercial business. Planet Labs' fleet of small satellites
will be providing daily images of Earth that can be used to evaluate
project sites, monitor crops, as well as observe forest fires for early
detection and warning. Other companies such as OneWeb and SpaceX are
planning to provide broadband Internet access to even the most rural
parts of the world through the deployment of affordable small satellite
constellations.
Other companies are looking to use space for resource utilization
to further space exploration and to better life here on Earth. While
the price tags on platinum metal groups remain high, they are used to
manufacture 1 of 4 goods we use every day, from electronics to medical
devices. The major sources of these metals are concentrated overseas in
regions of Africa and Russia. One company aimed at mining asteroids has
the potential to increase our access to the resource. Planetary
Resources is currently developing a platform to detect and mine
platinum-rich asteroids. Just one of these asteroids contains more
platinum than has been mined in the entire history of humankind. This
technology will also play a critical role in detecting near-Earth
asteroids in the future for science and the safety of our planet.
The industry is also providing new opportunities in research,
science, and resource utilization. Little is known about the
mesosphere, often called the ``ignorosphere,'' which lies above the
maximum altitude for aircraft and balloons and below the minimum
altitude for orbital spacecraft. New suborbital reusable platforms that
will come online in the next few years will provide access for in-situ
data for this portion of our atmosphere, allowing us to increase our
understanding of phenomena such as red sprites and noctilucent clouds
that occur in that realm.
Finally, the commercial space industry itself is creating thousands
of high-tech jobs in the U.S. In addition, the sector is creating a
renewed interest in STEM careers. The industry is exciting the next
generation and allowing them to personally participate in the Nation's
journey into space. With new commercial space platforms, students can
build and fly their experiments into space on suborbital platforms,
build and launch their own satellites, and even use flight hardware
already in space for classroom projects. Inspiring the next generation
is inspiring our future problem-solvers and the entrepreneurs that will
shape our lives in the coming years. As Jeff Bezos, the founder of
Amazon and Blue Origin, so eloquently put it:
``Millions of people were inspired by the Apollo Program. I was
five years old when I watched Apollo 11 unfold on television,
and without any doubt it was a big contributor to my passions
for science, engineering, and exploration.''
In order to continue this trend of technological advancement, we
must provide the best possible environment for the burgeoning
commercial space sector.
Policy
Other Transaction Authority
Policies that have shown success in the past should continue to be
used to encourage growth and success in the future. The COTS model,
which enjoyed bipartisan support under NASA Administrator Mike Griffin,
is representative of the successful public-private partnership that
uses mechanisms to encourage private sector innovation while still
satisfying the strict requirements of government procurement. The
program used milestone-based Space Act Agreements through its Other
Transaction Authority (OTA) rather than the traditional Federal
Acquisition Regulations (FAR) to keep costs low and performance high.
Traditional, cost-plus FAR contracts can, in some instances, focus too
much on needless bureaucracy and take attention away from performance
and safety. Conversely, firm fixed price agreements allow the
objectives of the contractor and the agency to be aligned in an
affordable fashion, shifting the burden of cost overruns onto the
private sector. With these performance based payments, the contractor
is highly incentivized to be efficient and keep costs low in its
development. Additionally, the agency is restricted from changing the
direction mid-program, which tends to cause delays and increase the
program's lifetime as well as the cost to the taxpayer.
At the same time, we support Congressional transparency measures
regarding Space Act Agreements (SAAs). Creating a database of SAAs
(with proprietary information redacted) that companies and the public
can access allows for both NASA officials and private sector entities
to learn from past agreements and improve the future use of SAAs.
For these reasons and reflections of past success, I urge Congress
to encourage the continued use of OTAs to allow commercial companies to
create future partnerships and products that will enhance government
capabilities, safety, and affordability.
Federal Regulations
Policies in Federal regulations must also be taken into account to
continue the trend of innovation and growth from the commercial space
sector. Congress has been very cognizant of the needs for these
policies dating back to 1984 when the Commercial Space Launch Act
authorized the Secretary of Transportation to license and promote
commercial launch activities. Since its inception, the office's mandate
was to promote the commercial space industry and ensure the safety of
the uninvolved public. It has been years since its last full
reauthorization and consequently, CSF believes that the regulatory
processes to ensure a favorable and safe development of industry need
to be revisited. I will talk about a few of those regulatory issues
next.
Congress approved the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act in
2004, instituting a human spaceflight regulatory ``learning period'' to
allow for both industry and FAA AST to learn, quickly and jointly, how
to best promote safety. The stated learning period gave the Federal
Aviation Administration's Office of Commercial Space Transportation
(AST) freedom to regulate with the stipulation that all regulations for
the safety of passengers must be based on an event that led to serious
injury or that had the potential of serious injury. In addition,
commercial human spaceflight operators use an informed consent regime
that requires them to inform spaceflight participants of the inherent
risks of spaceflight and the specific safety record of the vehicle type
for their flight. Participants are also informed that the government
has not certified the vehicle as safe, and must sign a consent form
before flight.
The initial learning period put in place was 8 years from the
enactment of the CSLAA of 2004, expiring in December 2012. Congress
expected that commercial operations would immediately follow the
flights of SpaceShipOne, and this eight-year period would be filled
with commercial launches that would help develop a knowledge base from
which FAA could regulate intelligently. However, because of the due
diligence of the companies in designing and building the safest
possible vehicles, and their efforts to raise private investment, there
were no commercial human spaceflights in that eight-year period.
Recognizing the important purpose served by the learning period, in
2012 the FAA Modernization and Reform Act extended it to October 1,
2015 (the duration of the broader FAA reauthorization). The importance
of the learning period is to create a regulatory regime based on data
from actual flights, rather than speculative analysis based on other
vehicles or technologies. Initial test flights of crewed suborbital
vehicles began in 2013 and regular operational flights are expected in
the next couple of years. Additional time and data are required to
determine appropriate regulations for the industry and we ask that the
original eight-year learning period be restored to allow for innovation
to grow and for safety to improve in the long term.
The Commercial Space Launch Act separates space transportation
service customers and their liability responsibilities. For example,
customers who purchase a launch for their payload, or who sponsor the
launch of a spaceflight participant, are required to be protected by
the obligatory third-party damage insurance policy and are required to
execute a mutual waiver of claims against all other parties. These
customers are also indemnified from excess claims by the Federal
Government. However, spaceflight participants are explicitly excluded
from this regime.
The launch of a human spaceflight vehicle that carries only one
participant could in fact be entirely funded by that person, and
therefore the participant could be exposed to third-party claims. It is
not logical for the law to put spaceflight participants at greater
financial risk for partaking in human spaceflight activity, as many of
them could be researchers, employees of the customer, or winners of a
promotional contest and would not otherwise have substantial resources
to pay excess claims should they arise. The spaceflight participant
should be protected by insurance and, if needed, government risk-
sharing from third party claims that may arise due to their flight.
Moreover, the participants should be included in the mutual waiver of
claims that protects all other parties in the launch from each other.
For these reasons, CSF believes that the spaceflight participant should
be included in all parts of the liability regime.
In 1988, Congress put in place a ``risk sharing regime'' to prepare
for any damage caused to uninvolved third parties from FAA-licensed
commercial space activities. This regime requires commercial space
operators to take on stringent financial responsibilities by purchasing
insurance or demonstrating available financial resources to cover any
third-party damages up to the Maximum Probable Loss (MPL), calculated
by the FAA pursuant to Federal regulation. In exchange, in the event of
an extremely unlikely event of an accident that causes damage above the
MPL, the Federal Government agreed to seek an expedited appropriation
to cover damage above the insured amount. This ``risk-sharing'' regime
has never been activated since its enactment in 1988. However, it is a
necessity for U.S. launch companies to more effectively compete with
foreign launch companies whose own governments provide even stronger
protections. CSF strongly urges Congress to permanently extend the
risk-sharing regime.
With the rapid growth in the number of state spaceports, which are
owned and operated by state governments much like regional commercial
airports, it is also important that the Commercial Space Launch Act be
updated to extend the scope of property insurance coverage expressly to
the property of State and local governments associated with licensed
spaceports. This change would provide much needed clarity to the
insurance coverage for state spaceports and encourage more investment
in space launch infrastructure throughout the U.S.
Commercial launch operators are highly focused on developing
concepts of operation that offer maximum operational flexibility to
launch when needed, as well as to maximize affordability. In order to
accomplish this, it is essential to avoid parallel coordination and
approvals among multiple agencies wherever possible. In addition, there
is a compelling need to streamline the regulatory process and utilize
commercial practices to the greatest extent possible. Finally,
commercial launch providers must have the opportunity to avoid the
dictated use of mandatory range services, and be provided the
opportunity to self-perform or subcontract to the most efficient
provider that is able to meet the requirements. These attributes are
what will ultimately draw commercial customers to establish launch
operations at existing launch ranges.
Export Control Reform
We commend Congressional authorization to modernize the United
States Munitions List (USML) and the Administration's prompt use of
that authority. Placing items deemed `dual-use' on the Commerce Control
List (CCL) will allow them to be more appropriately regulated.
Commercial communications satellites will especially benefit from being
regulated under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) due to
their broad civilian applications. With this reform, the American
commercial satellite industry will become more competitive in the
international market, grow our Nation's space industrial base, and
bring high-tech jobs back to the US. However, the devastating impact
that ITAR restrictions had on the well-established commercial satellite
industry over the past fifteen years is a demonstration of the damage
that overly broad ITAR regulation could do to the commercial human
spaceflight industry. As I stated previously, this industry, much like
the satellite industry, has the potential to greatly contribute to our
space industrial base, a major asset to our national security.
The U.S. is currently a leader in commercial spaceflight and to
continue this leadership, we must take a look at adapting our export
control environment with the evolution of commercial technologies.
Companies that wish to operate their vehicles from allied countries are
running into a major hurdle due to the ``presumption of denial'' policy
for MTCR Category I items. The Missile Technology Export Committee, a
Department of State agency that presides over the export of MTCR
equities, has stated that their primary concern is ensuring appropriate
safeguards are put in place to protect missile technology, regardless
if an item is controlled on the ITAR or the EAR. Because of this
position, we believe the MTCR ``presumption of denial'' policy is an
issue that must be addressed in addition to those pertaining to ECR
ITAR revisions. The MTCR Guidelines state that their purpose is to
limit the risk of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) by controlling transfers that could make a contribution to
delivery systems of those weapons. The Guidelines are ``not designed to
impede national space programs or international cooperation in such
programs. . .'' Since the MTCR has been established, space programs
have expanded beyond the governmental domain into the commercial
domain, and the regime is now currently impeding international
collaboration for a strong global space economy. The difficulties
incurred to offer U.S. commercial spaceflight services abroad, will
birth foreign domestic competitors which could ultimately replace
America's leadership in the commercial space sector and hurt U.S.
national security interests.
For this reason, I urge Congress to encourage the Administration to
perform continued regular reviews to reform USML categories and other
proliferation measures to adapt to the quickly changing environment of
commercial technology today in order to enhance both national security
and the domestic economy.
Conclusion
When I took over as President of the CSF six months ago, I made it
a priority to personally visit our member companies all over this great
nation, from Midland to Mojave, to Seattle and the Florida Cape. I am
energized and beyond enthused about what I have seen. The Commercial
Space Industry is alive and well and the United States is leading the
way. We are experiencing a level of private sector investment unlike
anything we have seen in history, and its because these investors see
that the expansion of the economic sphere into space is real and very
close.
As you debate legislation this year, I would implore you to think
of the commercial space industry as a valuable and tremendous partner
that will continue to help the United States achieve its ever-more-
ambitious missions in space, and codify the competitive policies that
will maintain the domestic commercial space industry's global
leadership for years to come.
I have three young children that constantly ask ``when can we go to
space?'' I am very confident from working in this industry that the
answer is, ``very soon.''
Senator Cruz. Thank you very much.
And I am going to begin by deferring to Senator Nelson for
the opening questions.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Stallmer, my congratulations to your commercial
spaceflight sector, because they are being very successful
Mr. Stallmer. Thank you very much, sir.
Senator Nelson. Indeed, now with the competition proceeding
for the commercial crew, we are seeing a lot of innovation
coming out, and it is going to be exciting, and this will all
be coming more and more into the focus of the American public
over the course of the next couple of years.
I wanted to ask you, how important do you think extending
the ISS beyond its existing termination date in law, which is
2020, how important is that?
Mr. Stallmer. It is certainly an important step forward. It
is our gem of a national laboratory. The amount of research
that has taken place on the ISS is incomparable. I was talking
to my colleague Mr. Elbon today of some of the things in his
testimony. On the scientific and medical research that is being
conducted up there, the practical applications here on Earth
are just incalculable.
The other great aspect of the International Space Station,
as it is today, is the partnership that it has with the
commercial sector on the experiments that we are doing.
I was tremendously inspired recently by a trip out to the
West Coast, a company called Made in Space, who, through
several NASA programs, through the Flight Opportunities
Program, was able to build and test 3D printers, first on the
suborbital level and then these 3D printers are up in space
right now on the International Space Station.
And it came to a point where the astronauts on the
International Space Station needed a five-eighths inch ratchet,
didn't have it. And they were able to, on the ground from Ames,
California, send up the image of this ratchet, and they were
able to print it right there on the Space Station. Fantastic.
That is the kind of technology, that is the kind of
innovation that we are seeing through these partnerships
through the International Space Station, but the commercial-
public partnerships. So I am very inspired by that.
Senator Nelson. Dr. Pace, how could we encourage our
international partners to help us continue the Space Station
beyond 2020?
Dr. Pace. Thank you.
I think, first of all, the U.S. has already taken the first
really important step, which is to have itself propose to lead
the effort to go to 2024 and to work with the other partners to
make that possible. So I think it was very important for the
U.S. to move first on that. We are, I think, the indispensable
nation in that regard.
The second thing I think we can do is we can help our
partners show how to improve utilization on the Station, in
part by some of the innovative things that the commercial
industry is able to do.
At my university last week, we had a workshop--when the
Federal Government was closed by snow, our university was
open--for a company called NanoRacks, which is putting small
CubeSat-size payloads aboard the Space Station. And what was
very interesting about it is there has been this creation of,
as Mr. Stallmer put it, kind of an ecosystem around the reality
of the government facility--stable, available. Then a whole
bunch of other commercial people had been able to build around
it, so that a small education establishment was able to go from
signing a contract to deploying a small satellite in the space
of less than 9 months. That is an absolutely amazing turnaround
time, but it was made possible by the private-sector
innovations working with a stable essentially government
facility.
When the Antares vehicle was lost at Wallops, the company
was able to work quickly to re-manifest virtually all of those
payloads and is able to find ride-share opportunities for some
other satellites.
So the innovation that has gone on with the private sector
is aiding and supporting the conduct of research and
utilization aboard the Station, which I believe, in turn, will
help our partners see benefits from continuing to 2024.
I would also have to say that that continuation is not
guaranteed. Our partners are under great pressure within
Europe, Canada, Japan, and we all know the volatility in
Russia. So it is by no means an assured thing; it is very
fragile. And we need to be looking at what is going to come
beyond Space Station in order to assure people that they can
continue on Space Station today.
Senator Nelson. And, Mr. Elbon, you are right in the middle
of it. We are counting on you to be one of those means of
transportation for crew to get us up there. You have a proven
workhorse that launches a lot of cargo into orbit. And so are
you very positive about this whole commercial sector maturing
as we are going forth?
Mr. Elbon. I am.
I will put it in this light: Boeing is going through its
100th-year anniversary as a company. And during that, kind of,
reflection of that 100 years, you can see the aviation industry
grow from just a starting, beginning industry to the incredible
industry that it is today. And I think commercial space is at
that same pivot point now. The effort that is being done to
have NASA serve as the foundational customer for that growth is
similar to the way the government participated in airmail in
the early days of aviation.
And so I think that, as we develop vehicles to meet those
needs, that capability will grow as we go forward.
Senator Cruz. Thank you very much.
I would now like to shift to asking each of you, what do
you see right now as the greatest impediments to the continued
development and expansion of our commercial crew and commercial
cargo capacity?
Mr. Elbon. I would say that having the market develop is
important. Commercial industries follow the market. So
extending ISS, continuing the research on ISS, which by itself
is a great thing independent of commercial crew, provides that
kind of a foundation and a starting point going forward.
It is important that we maintain the industry in such a way
that it is safe and reliable and don't let public opinion erode
because we have accidents that could have been avoided, for
example. So we need to keep it as a robust industry moving
forward.
Things like the CSLA legislation that helped with the cost
of insurance for launches are important, that we maintain that
going forward.
We need to develop working relationships with regulatory
agencies like the FAA, similar to the way we do that in
commercial airplanes. It is a really good partnership today,
and keeping that going, I think, is important.
So those are, kind of, things to stimulate the growth of
the commercial sector, I believe.
Senator Cruz. Dr. Pace?
Dr. Pace. Sir, two things: market demand and a predictable
environment for investment.
Right now, that demand is predominantly driven by
government. To the extent that we can see nongovernmental
demand come for a lot of these activities, things beyond the
Space Station, then it will be more sustainable.
But that begs the question of, what comes, really, after
the Space Station? Although we are talking about extending to
2025, in aerospace terms, that it just right around the corner.
And I think one of the things that I worry about, which
contributes both to the fragility of our political relations
with other countries as well as the fragility in the commercial
industry, is, if you are not planning today as to what you are
going to be doing next, what you are really doing is planning
to go out of business.
And so we need to have, I think, very thoughtful
discussions and decisions very soon as to not only ISS
extension but also, post-ISS, what does that look like, whether
in LEO or beyond, because without that, there won't really be
that investment environment, nor will there be the
international partner environment.
So that uncertainty, I think, is the greatest thing we
could address.
Senator Cruz. And, Mr. Stallmer, you mentioned in your
testimony also some suggested reforms in reauthorization of the
Commercial Space Launch Act. I would welcome your elaborating a
bit on those reforms.
Mr. Stallmer. Certainly. Thank you, Senator.
I think regulatory uncertainty is a major barrier that the
launch industry could face. With indemnification, it is
critical for our global competitiveness. Right now, China,
France, Japan all indemnify far more than the U.S. So that is
critical right now.
Extending the learning period. The learning period
currently is 8 years. If we want to foster this economy, this
space economy that we have right now and the launch industry,
we really need to extend that and continue to work together as
partners, right now with the FAA. Because nothing is more
paramount to the commercial companies than safety, to
developing a safe product. If you don't have a safe product,
you are not going to have a commercial product, a commercial
business to that extent.
So the regulatory uncertainty is critical, but also the
funding, knowing for Commercial Crew. Like yourself, I find it
completely unacceptable that we have to depend on the Russians
to launch U.S. astronauts to the International Space Station.
So any sort of disruption in the Commercial Crew Program, I
think, would be a tremendous setback.
I know how much it pained the NASA administrator to have to
extend those flights on to 2018 for contingency purposes. But I
think if we continue with the prudent budgetary measures
through the Commercial Crew program, I think that is one of the
best ways we can move forward, and especially with the
Commercial Space Launch Act.
Senator Cruz. You mentioned concerns about safety. And,
obviously, there is an element of risk that is inherent in
space exploration. The safest option would be never to go into
space.
And so what is the right way for regulation to balance
those safety concerns with the desire to continue expanding our
capability and exploring new frontiers?
Mr. Stallmer. You have to test and learn. You have to test
and learn. And we found that out the hard way this past October
with an experimental test flight. But, as Americans, I think we
are going to continue to push the envelope. This is what we
want to do, and we have mentioned our westward expansion goals
and the manifest destiny of the United States.
Safety will always be an issue. As my colleague, my
predecessor once told me--you know, I went down to the Orion
launch. He goes, you have to remember that 10,000 things can go
wrong and only 1 thing can go right. And that is something you
always have to keep in mind.
But it is the redundancy of safety, of testing, evaluating,
learning from the testing that you are doing and the data that
you collect to move forward. And I think the commercial
spaceflight industry is doing that in spades.
Senator Cruz. Let me ask the panel a different question.
What is the shortest time-frame we can reasonably no longer be
dependent on the Russian Soyuz and also the RD-180? And what
would be required to accelerate that timeframe to the soonest
date possible?
Mr. Elbon. So I will address that from the perspective of
launching commercial crew.
We are on a path with CST-100 to be able to launch crew in
2017. That path is paced now by the internal work that we are
doing with our suppliers, with our integration and test, going
through the certification process that will allow us to certify
that vehicle based on the lessons that we have learned on
shuttle, on station, so that it is certified and ready to fly.
Our program at the moment is not being paced by dollars, so
if the question was hinting at could we apply more money to go
faster, at this point we need to apply the level of funding
that we proposed in our contract, and we will be able to
achieve that on the pace we are on.
Relative to the RD-180, there has been a lot of discussion
about the RD-180 today. I would say this. The Atlas V is an
incredibly dependable launch vehicle as a system. It has had 53
successful launches, and, in fact, that is the reason we
selected it as our launch vehicle to get going.
It would seem that over time it would make sense to work to
transition away from dependence on the Russians. I would hope
that we don't do that in a very abrupt way that would cause us
to impact our national security as a country and also our
commercial launch industry. So I am hopeful that that is a
thoughtful process and that we work through that in a way that
addresses the geopolitical concerns that are out there but also
the technical concerns of being able to keep launching that
vehicle.
Senator Cruz. So how would you define a thoughtful process?
Because there is always the risk geopolitically----
Mr. Elbon. Right.
Senator Cruz.--that particularly if things escalate with
Mr. Putin, that he decides to use access to space as a weapon.
And were he to cutoff access to either the Soyuz or the RD-180,
that would impose significant hardships on the United States.
So how would you propose we deal with that potential
threat?
Mr. Elbon. Well, certainly, we have an inventory of
existing engines that are available to use. And there are more
engines on order that are coming. And so, you know, keeping
that pipeline open as long as is reasonable is good.
I don't have insight into exactly where it is going, but
ULA has announced that they are working with another company,
maybe other companies, for a replacement engine for the RD-180.
And so, you know, working through that in a way that
doesn't just declare, ``OK, that is enough, no more,'' but
using the assets that we have and keeping those assets and that
pipeline open as long as we can to facilitate a transition.
Senator Cruz. Dr. Pace, Mr. Stallmer, do you have thoughts
on these questions?
Dr. Pace. I think the question depends on when you think
the immediate risks are.
If you thought there was a risk tomorrow or even today,
then the answer is, you know, we have the inventory, you know,
we have.
Beyond that inventory, your next bet is you have a very
expensive option but a very doable option, which is manifesting
on the Delta.
Looking beyond that, the answer ultimately, of course, is
to have a U.S. source. And the proposals, I think, that have
been put forward for building a replacement engine, a LOX/
kerosene, LOX/methane engine, the numbers that I have heard
have been on the order of, like, 3 to 4 years that it would
take to do that. Perhaps that could be accelerated a little bit
on money, but I think there probably are some parts that you
can't accelerate, and you are talking 3 to 4 years.
So if you think that the crisis with Russia is not going to
go away and is going to be with us for some time to come, then
the answer, in my view, is to begin development of that engine
and to do so now. If it turns out that everything works out
great or we have other options come up, that is fine. But if we
don't have that option, then we will find our negotiating
leverage much reduced.
Mr. Stallmer. Senator, I would add that, as Mr. Elbon was
saying, one of our companies, a company called Blue Origin,
founded by Mr. Bezos, they are working right now on developing
a new engine, I think, to help alleviate the RD-180 problem,
the BE-4 engine.
I have been to that facility in Seattle. It is tremendously
impressive what they are doing out there. As well as traveling
to the SpaceX facility and what SpaceX is doing with their
engine technology and as well as with the commercial crew
vehicle.
I think they would like to be on line and get us off our
Russian dependence as soon as possible, but, unfortunately, I
think that date is no sooner than 2017.
Senator Cruz. Well, thank you very much, gentlemen. I
appreciate the testimony you have given. I appreciate your
being here today. This was, I think, a very productive hearing.
I would note for each of you the question of regulatory
uncertainty. It was a question I believe all three of you
raised. That is a significant concern of mine. And in moving
forward with reauthorization of the Commercial Space Launch
Act, regulatory reform is going to be a component that we are
going to look at.
And so I would welcome from each of the witnesses your
specific ideas on reforms that would provide greater certainty,
accelerate the development of either commercial crew or
commercial cargo, and expand the commercial capacities we have.
I will also note that the hearing record will remain open
for 2 weeks. During that time, Senators are asked to submit any
questions for the record. And, upon receipt, the witnesses are
requested to submit their written answers to the Committee as
soon as possible.
And, with that, I want to thank each of you for being here,
I want to thank our witnesses on the first panel, and the
hearing is concluded.
[Whereupon, at 4 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to
Michael J. Massimino, Ph.D.
Question 1. Mr. Massimino, your testimony notes the importance for
NASA of continuing to build and expand its international partnerships.
You note that the International Space Station, for example, helps bring
nations together around a common goal of scientific inquiry and space
exploration. Yet today, the United States obviously has significant
challenges when it comes to our overall relationship with Russia, a key
partner for the International Space Station. What is the best way to
ensure continued cooperation on space issues when our relationship with
some international partners may make this more and more difficult?
Answer. If a common goal is shared by the U.S. and an international
partner then the people working toward that goal will work together.
Political differences can melt away when a common science or
exploration goal is shared by two countries. I have seen this to be the
case at the working levels at NASA where astronauts, cosmonauts,
instructors, scientists, engineers, and program managers can work very
effectively together. Stressing the science, engineering, and
exploration goals that are shared can lead to a better working
relationship not only in space, but I think in other areas as well
because we get to know and understand each other better by working
together.
Question 2. More generally, how can U.S. space policy help support
our Nation's broader diplomacy goals?
Answer. Having a clear shared goal in space exploration, as the ISS
program has shown for example, can give two countries something they
can clearly agree on. It gets rid of distractions and lets us focus and
work together. I think international space projects can be great
building blocks upon which other agreements and common goals can be
identified in areas outside of space exploration.
Question 3. Mr. Massimino, I would like to ask if you could respond
to criticism from fellow astronaut Walter Cunningham about NASA's role
in climate research. Mr. Cunningham's written testimony states that
NASA compromises its scientific credibility by, quote: ``participating
in the politics surrounding one of the great scientific hoaxes in
history.'' Do you share this view of NASA participating in a great
scientific hoax?
Answer. No I do not. I think we don't have all the answers but I
think it is an area worth looking into further. It is a large enough
concern to many scientists who study our climate and to explorers who
interact with it that it deserves attention. There may be differences
of opinion and conflicting evidence, but there is enough of a concern
and the outcome could be devastating. We owe it to future generations
to take it seriously and determine what we can do to protect our planet
for our children.
Question 4. Do you see value in having NASA continue to gather
climate-related data from space-based observations of the Earth?
Answer. Yes I do. I think if we consider this to be an issue of
national importance then I think any agency of our government with the
ability to help should help. NASA has experts and assets that can help
to better understand this problem, and determine the extent and reality
of it as well as what can be done if action is warranted.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roy Blunt to
John Elbon
Question 1. Former NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver has made
multiple public statements that the Space Launch System is ``wasteful
and old technology,'' and that it and Orion should be cancelled. One of
her quotes was, ``Would you really go to Mars with technology that's 50
years old? That's not what innovation and our space exploration should
be all about.'' This statement is concerning coming from a former NASA
deputy administrator. Can you comment on her statement? Are we spending
tax dollars on outdated technology?
Answer. The referenced statements by former NASA Deputy
Administrator Lori Garver are both misguided and inaccurate.
The claim that SLS and Orion technologies are outdated is a great
misrepresentation. These systems are being developed to transport
astronauts further into the solar system than ever before imagined. It
is incomprehensible that the NASA and contractor teams, with a well-
known reputation to ensure astronaut safety, would compromise this core
value by not fielding the most technically advanced systems.
While these systems have ties and resemble heritage systems, the
employed technologies are state of the art. Where applicable, heritage
system designs are being updated with advanced design practices,
materials, manufacturing processes, computer controls. These programs
represent the cutting edge in human space transportation.
Question 2. Ms. Garver also said SLS and Orion are jobs programs in
Congressional members' states and districts--specifically Texas,
Florida, Colorado and Alabama. Can you discuss the number of companies
and suppliers involved in SLS and Orion, and how many states play a
role?
Answer. The SLS and Orion programs have more than 2,000 suppliers
in 48 states. This supplier network was developed through competitive
procurements and each supplier bringing unique technical capabilities
at the component level. The attention to detail at this level in turn
enables a highly reliable human space transportation capability.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
John Elbon
Question. Commercial human space travel is only just beginning to
become a reality. Many of the issues faced by the commercial human
spaceflight industry seem analogous to those faced by the early
commercial aviation industry. Drawing on Boeing's nearly 100 years of
experience in commercial aviation, what steps can the Federal
Government take to help rapidly mature a safe and viable commercial
human spaceflight industry?
Answer. Boeing has a long-standing relationship with the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) for the regulation of aircraft safety
regulations. This relationship has provided the necessary regulatory
frame work to ensure the level of public safety is maintained to
sustain the industry's viability. Given the human space transportation
commercial services market is a fledgling market with a high profile
and public awareness, ensuring passenger safety will be a critical
factor governing market growth and success.
The current approach initially tasks NASA to establish and verify
safety requirements for the initial commercial crew demonstration
flights with a transition of these responsibilities to the FAA for the
follow-on crew transport services. FAA regulation is essential to
ensuring new commercial entrants to the market will be held to the same
requirements and standards as those developed for the NASA missions.
There should be a joint NASA/FAA team established to ensure a
seamless transition of knowledge between these two government agencies
until a mutually agreeable regulatory structure is in place. It will be
necessary to ensure NASA safety protocols are maintained and enforced
during the transition of NASA sanctioned demonstration flights, and the
following commercial services flights that FAA will be responsible to
regulate.
The Commercial Space Launch Act currently delays the FAA's
involvement beyond the initial NASA commercial transportation service
missions. Delaying this regulatory window opens the door to individual
company judgment regarding safety and unnecessarily jeopardizes this
industry at the most critical juncture. FAA regulatory involvement will
protect the fledgling commercial space transportation market which
could be irreparably damaged by a single flight incident.
Continued involvement of the Federal Government is needed to ensure
commercial human spaceflight will rapidly mature into a safe and viable
industry. Government investments and contracts through NASA to develop
human transportation capabilities have been solely responsible to drive
the current progress to realize a commercial space transportation
market.
The market for these human transportation services is currently
limited to two flights per year to the International Space Station
(ISS) through 2024. This relatively short window of opportunity appears
insufficient to establish additional market opportunities to sustain
such capabilities after the retirement of the ISS. It is envisioned
that after the initial human transportation capability becomes
operational, additional commercial investment for in-space capabilities
will significantly increase. Bigelow Aerospace, for example, has been
developing in-space habitation modules, but has paced their investment/
development on the availability of commercial transportation services.
An extension of the ISS operations through at least 2028 would provide
a larger window of opportunity to sustain these fledgling capabilities
and allow commercial ventures to mature to the point where they could
sustain a commercial transportation capability post ISS.
There are also yet to be identified opportunities for commercial
crew and cargo transportation services to support NASA's deep space
human exploration efforts. It would be in the best interest of the
government to fund studies to develop a detailed deep space exploration
roadmap. This road map could be used to identify potential
opportunities for commercial services in support of the baseline SLS/
Orion missions. These market opportunities are contingent upon the
completion of the SLS and Orion system developments and an operational
flight rate of at least one flight per year.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to
John Elbon
Question 1. Mr. Elbon, I am keenly interested in ways that Congress
can encourage smarter Federal procurement policies. Last year, I
partnered with Sen. Moran to help pass the Federal I.T. Acquisition
Reform Act (``FITARA,'' PL 113-291), which could lead to billions of
dollars in taxpayer savings through greater use of ``agile'' or
incremental approaches to procurement. Do you agree with Mr. Stallmer
that NASA should have the ability to choose from different ``tools'' in
its procurement ``toolkit,'' such as using Other Transaction Authority
where appropriate?
Answer. Yes, we believe NASA should have flexibility to select a
procurement approach which aligns with the specific resources and needs
for each procurement. However, there are advantages to a FAR-based
contracting approach for large scale development programs which ensure
proper insight and oversight of how government funds are spent. The
FAR-based procurement also allows the government to impose requirements
to ensure the delivered products meet the intended purposes. For this
reason we believe that OTA's be limited to procurements for $50 million
dollars or less.
Question 2. Would you like to share any additional thoughts on
potential improvements to NASA procurement policies?
Answer. We have been investigating hybrid type contracts as a means
to reduce overall costs while ensuring risk exposure is not sacrificed.
This would allow contractors to perform low-risk work at minimal
margins or on a fixed price basis, and the higher risk elements at
higher margins or traditional cost plus contracting. Through this type
of contracting, we believe we could offer the U.S. taxpayer savings
while not exposing the programs to undue risk exposure.
A specific risk we currently face in the commercial crew contract
is ensuring our designs and procedures meet NASA requirements under a
fixed price contract environment. The aerospace culture is founded in
cost plus contracting, where requirements were allowed to remain fluid
with the associated risk covered through the contracting arrangement.
Both Boeing and NASA are working to ensure requirements are managed in
a manner which will allow development expediency without sacrificing
safety.
Question 3. Mr. Elbon, your testimony highlights some of the
science coming from the International Space Station, particularly
related to medical research. Could you share your thoughts on some
notable technology transfer and commercialization successes that came
from our Nation's space program?
Answer. NASA has a long history of technology spinoffs and has a
dedicated website of the many successes. An example of a well-known
technology transfer/commercialization is cordless power tools. These
were developed by NASA for the astronauts to construct the
International Space Station, and have since become part of our everyday
life. Other significant contributions to our medical industry include
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), and ultra-precise human-robotic brain
surgery. The International Space Station allows researchers to analyze
medical specimen reactions to the microgravity environment, which
provides unique insight of viruses and vaccines. For instance, when the
Duchene's Muscular Dystrophy crystal was analyzed in microgravity, the
fundamental structure became much more organized and led researchers to
discover a previously undetected water molecule in the structure. This
observation led researchers to develop an inhibitor, something that was
not possible without the ISS. With the ISS as a National Laboratory,
space is now delivering intentional science and technology returns
along with the traditional unintentional spinoff returns that have
drawn much of the attention.
An often overlooked technology transfer from the space program is
the human inspiration and talent generation created by our space
endeavors. At Boeing we are constantly reminded by our new hires of
their strong desire to work on the space exploration programs and how
NASA inspired them to undertake a curriculum in Science, Technology,
Engineering and Math (STEM). Another observation within Boeing is the
number of leaders within the corporation which originated from the
space exploration programs. We believe the great challenges associated
with these programs inspire these people to push themselves to new
heights.
In general the NASA mission continues to push the limits of
capabilities and technologies to meet the ever increasing mission
challenges. These challenges are the driving force to challenge our
best and brightest to create new and unique solutions, and will
continue to be a solid return on investment--both scientifically and
also by opening up new commercial markets.
Question 4. What are the best technology transfer lessons from NASA
that we could apply to other Federal agencies?
Answer. Perhaps not a lesson learned, but the ISS offers an
opportunity to other Federal agencies to leverage the significant U.S.
investment in the ISS National Laboratory. NASA has established
Memorandums of Understanding to conduct microgravity research on the
ISS with both the National Institute of Health and the Department of
Agriculture. Initial discussions were held to identify potential
scientific research of interest, but both agencies are without specific
funding to undertake such research given the current workload and no
additional funding for such research. This research would be possible
if a small percentage of these budgets were directed to ISS research
projects. This research represents potentially game changing
technologies/capabilities, but there is a limited window of opportunity
to conduct such research before the ISS is retired.
Question 5. Mr. Elbon, your testimony notes that the International
Space Station is a model for international space cooperation. This
helped bridge the diplomatic divide with Russia after the collapse of
the Soviet Union. You also note that an American astronaut and Russian
cosmonaut will fly to the space station next month. This joint mission
will take place despite the obvious challenges when it comes to our
overall relationship with Russia. What is the best way to ensure
continued cooperation on space issues when our overall relationship
with some international partners may make this increasingly difficult?
Answer. The best way to ensure continued cooperation on space
issues is to engage their participation in a deep space exploration
program based on the fundamental elements of the International Space
Station, Space Launch System and Orion capsule. The relationships and
working arrangements developed through the International Space Station
Program have endured Administrations, sessions of Congress, and the up
and downs of international relationships. These should be leveraged,
adapted, and re-energized in support of a deep space exploration
mission with a goal of sending humans to the Martian surface. This
undertaking is beyond the financial capability of a single entity, but
is realistic within a construct of the International Space Station
agreements and arrangements. The U.S. has been the leader in space
exploration, and the rest of the space faring nations look to the U.S.
for direction and leadership.
Question 6. How can U.S. space policy continue to help support our
Nation's broader diplomacy goals?
Answer. A significant lesson learned through the International
Space Station program is the joint space mission has always transcended
the international relationship status. At times the joint space
activities have been the guiding principal to resolve diplomatic
differences. It appears, with the high profile status of the space
program and the prestige of participation, each country involved is
unwilling or unable to take action which might damage one or both. With
the ISS retirement currently scheduled for 2024, now is the time to
engage this team on an even more challenging and inspiring mission with
a goal to expand this community.
Question 7. Mr. Elbon, the Obama Administration is in the process
of reforming our Nation's export control system. Your testimony
discusses how smart reforms can not only improve national security, but
also increase American exports and job growth. Could you discuss how to
strike the right balance to ensure that we protect our national
security while not inappropriately stifling the development of the U.S.
space industry?
Answer. Since technology is advancing at great velocity, our
classification of these technologies may, understandably, be behind.
It's prudent for industry and government to partner in a re-examination
of our domestic space products. The goal of the re-examination is to
ensure we aren't bundling domestic civil space technologies suitable
for export with technologies we must protect for our national defense.
If we can segregate sensitive and non-sensitive technologies with
more fidelity and precision, we can expand our ability to export
additional space technologies without compromising our vital defense
capabilities. This would not only provide additional jobs and economic
benefits, but also increase the domestic space industry base, which
will ultimately enhance our Nation's civil and defense-related space
capabilities.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
Dr. Scott Pace
Question 1. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty requires that the United
States ``authorize and supervise'' the operations of U.S. companies on
celestial bodies. Commercial companies are now considering activities
on the Moon and other celestial bodies, such as asteroids. What level
of government oversight is appropriate for regulating the operations of
U.S. companies on celestial bodies and what agency would you suggest is
best suited to perform that oversight?
Answer. In my view, the United States needs to create a stable,
predictable and transparent domestic licensing process for new in-space
operations in order to create a supportive investment environment and
to fulfill U.S. obligations under existing international law. The
United States has done so in the past in areas such as communications
satellites, space launch, and remote sensing. While it is undesirable
to create law and regulation for purely hypothetical activities, the
rapid rate of change in private sector space activities makes it
important that the law not lag far behind market realities.
Among the activities that should be addressed are in-orbit
servicing, privately owned space facilities (manned and unmanned) in
orbit or on the Moon and other celestial bodies, and the utilization
and extraction of in-space resources for commercial purposes. There are
numerous legal questions to be addressed in developing appropriate
regulations. For example, if resources are intended for return from
space, would the FAA require a payload review before launch (regardless
of whether the launch was a U.S. vehicle or the U.S. was a launching
state) since the return is now under their jurisdiction? What if the
return is by parachute or means other than a ``vehicle.'' Do we need a
new or clearer definition of vehicle? Further, if a satellite that is
licensed by another agency is to be deorbited (e.g., a NOAA licensed
remote sensing satellite) under rules established in law by NOAA/DOC,
would that be a ``payload'' that is covered under FAA regulations per
the Commercial Space Launch Act (CSLA)?
I believe it is premature to extend DOT/FAA's current jurisdiction
into space activities that are not clearly related to transportation
and transport vehicles. Instead, I would suggest a multi-step process:
1. Commission a study to provide appropriate recommendations for
alternative assignments of regulatory responsibility to Federal
departments and agencies, to include DOT/FAA as one option.
2. If there is a congressional finding that it is appropriate and
within the authority Congress given to a particular department
or agency, then regulations could be developed through the
normal Administrative Procedures Act (APA).
3. If new authorities were needed either for a new private sector
U.S. activity or for the regulation of that activity by a
particular department or agency, then congressional legislation
would be developed. After passage of legislation, the normal
APA process would be used.
4. Formal rule adopted by the designated department or agency (e.g.,
DOT/FAA, Commerce, or State).
Question 2. How would you suggest that the United States address
its treaty obligations when regulating or establishing property rights
for companies seeking to extract natural resources from celestial
bodies?
Answer. Under international law (i.e., the 1967 Outer Space Treaty)
the United States is responsible for providing on-going supervision and
authorization for the space activities of persons subject to U.S.
jurisdiction or control (e.g., U.S. companies). However, the United
States lacks a defined licensing regime for in-space operations (e.g.,
satellite servicing, private space platforms, resource extraction,
etc.). This potentially leaves the United States vulnerable to foreign
charges that the U.S. is not fulfilling its obligations with respect to
emerging private commercial activities and could encourage arguments
for creating a binding international treaty that might try to constrain
U.S. space activities.
The United States, as a launching state or state of registry, can
be held internationally liable for third party damage for activities in
outer space if found to be at fault in its activities. Presently, the
United States has not imposed any insurance requirement on commercial
companies involved in these in-orbit activities. Some companies do
carry that type of insurance.
It would be helpful for the Congress to briefly and clearly
recognize that the United States will meet its commitments under
international law, but through appropriate national law and regulation
of private space activities. It would not be necessary to define
specific regulations as that would need to be the subject of separate
hearings, legislation, and rule-making. Possible text:
``The United States will continue to meet its commitments under
existing international law for the authorization and continuing
supervision of all private sector space activities under its
control or jurisdiction, including in-space operations, through
appropriate domestic law and regulation.''
There are many different types and characteristics of property
rights that could apply to the utilization and extraction of in-space
resources. Some property rights (e.g., claiming ownership in fee simple
of in-situ resources) are likely incompatible with U.S. commitments
under the Outer Space Treaty (i.e., the rejection of claims of
sovereignty) while ``functional'' property rights (e.g., use of
geostationary orbital slots) are consistent with U.S. treaty
commitments. The most important consideration for supporting commercial
development of space resources is that there be a stable and
predictable long-term investment environment, subject to the rule of
law. In this regard, international acceptance and recognition is
crucial. A system of limited property rights in space, recognized by
some if not necessarily all spacefaring states, can and should be
developed through U.S. international leadership. A first step could be
an internal U.S. process for accepting claims to space resources
without prejudice to the final international recognition of those
claims. A claims registry, open to U.S. and foreign non-governmental
entities, could be authorized by the Congress and initially housed at
an existing department or agency (e.g., the Department of State). Such
a registry should require evidence of actual activities in space or on
a celestial body to support a claim.
Lastly, there continues to be a misunderstanding, domestically and
internationally, that space is a global commons for purposes of
international law. Some legal experts argue that the use of the term
``common heritage of all mankind'' in the Outer Space Treaty means that
the United States accepts space as a global commons; with its space
activities subject to international input and possible constraint. This
is not accepted by the United States, as can be confirmed by the State
Department's Office of the Legal Advisor. Today, the high seas and the
air above the high seas may be considered a global commons, with
certain exceptions, but not Antarctica (which is governed by a separate
treaty), ``cyberspace'' or outer space. With regard to areas like space
that lie beyond the traditional bounds of national sovereignty,
international law does not preclude States from creating agreements to
address specific issues of mutual interest (e.g., resource
utilization). Thus the use of the term ``global commons'' with respect
to space creates misleading expectations. It would be helpful for the
Congress to clarify this point. Possible text:
``The United States does not currently recognize outer space as
``global commons'' for purposes of international law.''
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
Eric W. Stallmer
Question 1. The health of the commercial space industry depends on
incentives to invest in space operations, both in low-Earth orbit and
possibly beyond. Similarly, Federal agencies must consider the impact
on investment planning of rules, regulations, and procedures. The
Administration has proposed continuing International Space Station
(ISS) operations through at least 2024. Current law permits extension
through at least 2020. How would extending ISS beyond 2020 impact
investment decisions within the commercial space industry?
Answer. As a general rule, bringing more certainty and uniformity
to U.S. government space policy is a big positive for incentivizing
greater investment in the commercial space industry. For example, the
extensions of the ISS to 2024 is the current Administration's policy,
but is not codified into law. With a new administration to be elected
next year, if the extension is not codified into law, then the new
administration could reverse the current policy; this creates
unnecessary ambiguity and doubt that could slow or reverse recent ISS
investments. By codifying the extension, Congress would send a signal
investors, and potential investors, that regardless of the election
results, they continue to plan their investments through at least 2024.
With that said, codifying the extension of the ISS to 2024 is only
one of the factors that investors will weigh when deciding whether or
not to invest in the commercial space industry. If investors are going
to invest in an orbital laboratory, rather than a terrestrial one, then
they will want to know that there will be a continuity in orbital
facilities--meaning no space station gap. So in concert with codifying
an extension of the ISS to 2024, NASA, Congress, and the White House
need to begin working with the private sector to ensure that a new
facility is developed in time to avoid a space station gap in LEO.
NASA's Advanced Exploration Systems (``AES'') program has been entering
into partnerships with the private sector to support new technologies
such as next-generation habitats that will allow the U.S. to maintain a
presence in LEO past ISS retirement. Congress should address this in
their next NASA Authorization.
Finally, in addition to codifying policy uniformity and orbital
facility continuity, Congress should increase support for programs that
drive demand for ISS research experiments and technology development,
like NASA's Flight Opportunities Program. The expense of the flights
and the long lead-time required for orbital launches can present a big
barrier to the maturation of new technologies, a barrier known as ``The
Valley of Death'', where most new technologies end up on a shelf due to
lack of available funding. The Flight Opportunities program provides a
cheaper and more efficient path through the ``Valley'' by increasing
timely access to affordable commercial available microgravity and high-
altitude atmospheric environments. Many researchers see commercially
available microgravity and high-altitude platforms as a stepping-stone
to using the ISS, increasing its utilization and raising its commercial
success. For example, Made In Space, a company based out of Silicon
Valley, used Flight Opportunities to test its 3D printers operation in
microgravity for a fraction of the price of an orbital mission. After
testing and building confidence on commercial reusable platforms, the
company sent one of its printers to the ISS where it is currently
operating.
Question 2. How have restrictions on property rights to data and
inventions developed on the ISS affected the attractiveness of the ISS
as a commercial research platform? What, if any, amendments to the
policies governing property rights on ISS would you suggest?
Answer. I agree with NASA's OIG September 2014 ISS report, which
found that the current ``Patent License and Data Rights Obligations''
provision was deterring commercial stakeholders from conducting
research on the ISS. Congress, NASA, and the commercial space industry
should work together closely to expeditiously fix this issue and revise
the current law.
Question 3. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty requires that the United
States ``authorize and supervise'' the operations of U.S. companies on
celestial bodies. How would you suggest that the United States address
its treaty obligations when regulating or establishing property rights
for companies seeking to extract natural resources from celestial
bodies?
Answer. Through a ``mission review''. Below is our proposed
language for a mission review:
(1) Independent of or in conjunction with a payload review,
the appropriate agency or agencies shall conduct and grant a
mission review of the planned activities related to the payload
to affirm that all planned activities are in compliance with
United States' obligations under the Treaty on Principles
Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use
of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies.
(2) The President shall, as needed, identify the appropriate
agency or agencies to conduct mission reviews of the planned
payload activities as specified above. Such agency or agencies
shall be authorized to require updates to the mission review if
there is a material change in the planned payload activities.
(3) The appropriate agency or agencies shall not review
planned payload activities that are otherwise subject to
regulation by other Federal agencies.
Question 4. Commercial space launch providers face a patchwork of
regulations and regulatory oversight when obtaining launch site permits
and launch licenses. What challenges do commercial launch providers
operating on Federal property face? How do these challenges differ from
those faced when launching from non-Federal sites?
Answer. I won't get into the weeds about the challenges, but I will
outline the attributes that characterize a commercially friendly and
operationally flexible launch range. (1) Regulatory Confidence that
enables a consistent and efficient regulatory environment; (2)
Operational Efficiency which enables autonomous safety systems that
reduce turn times between launches and minimize the range assets
required to support a mission; (3) Schedule Assurance which minimizes
schedule impacts caused by other launch operators, unanticipated site
downtime, and range infrastructure outages associated with mandatory
use of Federal range assets and; (4) Investment Confidence through
streamlined real estate processes that allow for long term, exclusive
use of real property, cost transparency which provides the ability to
plan/budget/dispute charges for services, and the ability to operate in
commercial enterprise zones or other tax advantaged areas.
Question 5. NASA is formulating a mission to capture an asteroid--
or a boulder on an asteroid--and place it in a stable orbit near the
Moon. This undertaking, along with follow-on missions to study the
asteroid or boulder, would demonstrate many of the technologies needed
for a crewed journey to Mars. How could commercial space companies take
advantage of an asteroid or boulder that has been placed in a stable
orbit near the Moon?
Answer. Responding more specifically, having an asteroid or boulder
parked relatively close to the Earth, in cis-lunar space, could provide
companies like Planetary Resources a testbed to mature technologies and
operations necessary for future deep space resource utilization
missions.
More generally, commercial space companies can help enable NASA to
undertake future beyond LEO missions, like studying an asteroid or
boulder that has been placed in a stable orbit near the Moon. For
example, NASA has invested billions of dollars for vital next-
generation deep space exploration transportation systems such as SLS
and Orion; however, as the NASA Inspector General recently pointed out
in its 2014 Report on NASA's Top Management and Performance Challenges,
work must begin immediately on habitats, landers, and other systems or
NASA will ``face significant challenges concerning the long-term
sustainability of its human exploration program.'' The best, and
potentially only fiscally viable option to ensure that these new
systems are developed in parallel with SLS and Orion is to leverage
private sector investment. NASA's AES program recognizes that private
sector partnerships create opportunities for utilizing the SLS and
Orion transportation system to achieve our human exploration goals.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to
Eric W. Stallmer
Question 1. Mr. Stallmer, your testimony makes a strong case for
updating the Commercial Space Launch Act (CSLA). I would like to ask a
few basic questions about CSLA for the benefit of the hearing record.
As you know, the CSLA's indemnification protection will expire if
Congress does not act to either update or extend it. What impact would
that have on the U.S. commercial space industry?
Answer. Other nations presently indemnify their launch customers
against any damages, usually at no cost to the launch company. If the
U.S. government does not provide indemnification, industry will have to
try and buy more insurance, and insurance costs may go up because the
insurance company does not have the government as a backstop. The
bottom line is the U.S. launch prices will become less competitive in
the international market, and American jobs and prosperity will suffer.
Question 2. How would this affect the cost of launches for U.S.-
based companies?
Answer. Cost likely rise for the reasons outlined above.
Question 3. Would this make U.S.-based launches less competitive
than foreign launches?
Answer. Without Federal indemnification it makes it harder for U.S.
commercial space launch companies to effectively compete with the
Chinese, French, and Russian launch companies due to their strong
domestic indemnification regimes which are much stronger than that of
the United States.
Question 4. Mr. Stallmer, New Mexico plans to be a leader in
suborbital space launch. Commercial spaceflights such as those from
Spaceport America could dramatically expand access to space for
researchers and help develop new technologies. Could you expand on the
comments in your testimony on the role for suborbital spaceflights in
our Nation's overall space program? How could NASA better support
suborbital spaceflight through initiatives such as the Flight
Opportunities Program?
Answer. CSF has long promoted the many benefits that accrue from
NASA's Flight Opportunities Program. It enables access to suborbital
and high-altitude atmospheric research platforms critical to the
workforce development of our next generation of space scientists and
engineers--our future Alan Sterns. It enables access to relevant
environment testing to mature compelling space technologies and
research at a small fraction of the costs required for orbital
flights--keeping promising technologies from being shelved. Further,
many researchers see access to these platforms as a stepping-stone to
using the ISS; resulting in an increase in commercial usage of LEO, as
well as maturing technologies needed for future human missions beyond
LEO.
NASA could better support suborbital spaceflight by increasing the
Flight Opportunities program from a $15 million program to a $30
million a year program. NASA should expand the Flight Opportunities
program to enable agency wide and government wide access. For example,
NASA's Science Mission Directorate could fly technology maturation
flights to reduce programmatic risks to future science missions. In
addition, NASA's Science Mission Directorate could more effectively
develop and train their scientific workforce by flying research
missions through the Flight Opportunities program, as highlighted by
the National Academy of Sciences. ``Small-scale experiments in
suborbital research often serve as precursors to larger orbital
missions and are important for training scientists and engineers to
work on larger missions and for supporting the research base.''--
National Academy of Sciences, Revitalizing NASA's Suborbital Program,
2010.
Question 5. Mr. Stallmer, your written testimony notes that NASA
can get better value for its procurement dollars through continued use
of ``Other Transaction Authority'' rather than the traditional Federal
Acquisition Rules (FAR). I am keenly interested in ways that Congress
can encourage smarter Federal procurement policies. Last year, I
partnered with Sen. Moran to help pass the Federal I.T. Acquisition
Reform Act (``FITARA,'' PL 113-291), which could lead to billions of
dollars in taxpayer savings through greater use of ``agile'' or
incremental approaches to procurement. Could you expand on how the
Commercial Spaceflight Federation thinks NASA can appropriately use
Other Transaction Authority to get better procurement outcomes?
Answer. If the private sector can competitively provide a service
that NASA is looking to acquire, then NASA should use OTAs to do so.
For example, NASA should utilize OTAs to help acquire capabilities
required for beyond LEO missions. Private companies like Moon Express,
Bigelow Aerospace, Masten Space Systems, and Golden Spike are all
building capabilities to explore and commercially develop the Moon.
These companies, and others, are interested in the Moon because it
offers the potential to support near-term opportunities for economic
growth. To NASA's credit, it has begun exploring public-private
partnerships for beyond LEO exploration via the Advanced Exploration
Systems (AES) program, but this should be expanded. Hardware developed
by AES will serve a critical role in ensuring that NASA can utilize the
transportation capacities of SLS and Orion to conduct surface missions
to the Moon and eventually Mars. Including the commercial space
industry as an early partner in reaching U.S. human exploration goals
beyond LEO is a logical extensions of the successful COTS and CRS
partnership model proven in LEO, and can help alleviate budgetary
constraints and compliment the Agency's investment in its
transportation systems.
Question 6. NASA's commercial space program has a successful track
record of providing launch services using fixed-price development
agreements and contracts. How can NASA continue to encourage greater
competition and thus lower costs for launch services without
compromising safety?
Answer. To this point, NASA appears to be doing all the right
things. I would only briefly highlight one possible concern. NASA and
Congress should avoid prematurely selecting launch vehicles for future
missions, unless that vehicle is the only one capable of meeting the
mission's requirements. There should be competition for NASA science
mission launches amongst U.S. commercial launch providers to ensure the
best deal for the American taxpayer. Further, NASA owned launch
vehicles should be fully reimbursed by the appropriate mission
directorate for their launch cost.
Question 7. Mr. Stallmer, the Obama Administration is in the
process of reforming our Nation's export control system. Your testimony
discusses how smart reforms can not only improve national security, but
also increase American exports and job growth. Could you expand further
on how to strike the right balance to ensure that we protect our
national security while not inappropriately stifling the development of
the commercial space industry?
Answer. As noted by the COMSTAC, a cornerstone of the Department of
Defense's general concern regarding the transition of spacecraft to the
EAR is the potential inability of the national security community to
track and grant approvals for EAR-controlled spacecraft. The adoption
of orbital and suborbital human spaceflight systems' Export Control
Classification Numbers will require the Department of Commerce to issue
export licenses for all destinations. Further, piloted, unarmed,
commercial suborbital spacecraft with thrust levels less than that of a
SCUD A missile should be transferred to the CCL if such spacecraft have
received a license or permit from the Office of Commercial Space
Transportation.
[all]