[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NEXT STEPS IN HUMAN EXPLORATION
TO MARS AND BEYOND
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
TUESDAY, MAY 21, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-30
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
81-194 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RALPH M. HALL, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
Wisconsin DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia DAN MAFFEI, New York
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SCOTT PETERS, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana DEREK KILMER, Washington
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming MARC VEASEY, Texas
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona JULIA BROWNLEY, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARK TAKANO, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota ROBIN KELLY, Illinois
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
RANDY WEBER, Texas
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Space
HON. STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi, Chair
RALPH M. HALL, Texas DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
DANA ROHRABACHER, California SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DAN MAFFEI, New York
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
MO BROOKS, Alabama DEREK KILMER, Washington
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana AMI BERA, California
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas MARC VEASEY, Texas
BILL POSEY, Florida JULIA BROWNLEY, California
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Steven M. Palazzo, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Statement by Representative Donna Edwards, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 13
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 14
Written Statement............................................ 15
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 15
Written Statement............................................ 17
Witnesses:
Dr. Louis Friedman, Co-Lead, Keck Institute for Space Studies
Asteroid Retrieval Mission Study and Executive Director
Emeritus, The Planetary Society
Oral Statement............................................... 18
Written Statement............................................ 20
Dr. Paul Spudis, Senior Staff Scientist, Lunar and Planetary
Institute
Oral Statement............................................... 27
Written Statement............................................ 29
Dr. Steven M. Squyres, Goldwin Smith Professor of Astronomy,
Cornell University
Oral Statement............................................... 35
Written Statement............................................ 37
Mr. Douglas Cooke, Owner, Cooke Concepts and Solutions
Oral Statement............................................... 45
Written Statement............................................ 47
Discussion.......................................................
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Louis Friedman, Co-Lead, Keck Institute for Space Studies
Asteroid Retrieval Mission Study and Executive Director
Emeritus, The Planetary Society................................ 82
Dr. Paul Spudis, Senior Staff Scientist, Lunar and Planetary
Institute...................................................... 88
Dr. Steven M. Squyres, Goldwin Smith Professor of Astronomy,
Cornell University............................................. 94
Mr. Douglas Cooke, Owner, Cooke Concepts and Solutions........... 103
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Report submitted by Dr. Paul Spudis.............................. 120
Article submitted by Dr. Paul Spudis............................. 144
Article submitted by Dr. Paul Spudis............................. 156
Article submitted by Dr. Paul Spudis............................. 158
Article submitted by Dr. Paul Spudis............................. 164
NEXT STEPS IN HUMAN EXPLORATION TO MARS AND BEYOND
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 21, 2013
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Science
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:02 p.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steven M.
Palazzo [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Palazzo. The Subcommittee on Space will come to
order. Good afternoon. Welcome to today's hearing titled ``Next
Steps in Human Exploration to Mars and Beyond.'' In front of
you are packets containing the written testimony, biographies,
and required truth-in-testimony disclosures for today's
witnesses.
Before I begin, I do want to take a moment to express our
thoughts and prayers on behalf of this Committee for those in
Oklahoma who have just gone through the recent tornadoes. As
Americans came to their fellow Americans in aid for Hurricane
Katrina, Super Storm Sandy, we expect nothing less from us in
our friends' time of need.
I recognize myself for five minutes for an opening
statement.
I would also like to take a moment and remember Astronaut
Sally Ride, the first American woman in space, who was honored
last night at the Kennedy Center for her tireless work
promoting the Nation's space program and her devotion to STEM
education for our Nation's children.
Over the last decade, the human exploration program at NASA
has been plagued with instability from constantly changing
requirements, budgets, and missions. We can't continue changing
our program of record every time there is a new President. This
committee is consistent and unwavering in its commitment to
human exploration, a tradition that I am confident will
continue into the future.
Congress issued steady guidance in the 2005 and 2008
Authorization Acts that directed NASA to base exploration
progress on availability of funds. In accordance with the
Authorization Act of 2010, NASA is developing the most powerful
exploration vehicle and advanced crew capsule since the Apollo
era. The SLS and Orion will take our astronauts deeper into
space than ever before. I am committed to the success of these
assets and ensuring their continued on-time development and
appropriate prioritization moving forward.
I, and many on this Committee, are frustrated that the
Administration insists on cutting its funding request for the
SLS and Orion. Reductions in these programs make me question
the Administration's sincere commitment to their success. If
nothing else comes out of this hearing, I hope it is clear to
those inside and outside the Administration that this Committee
is devoted to human exploration and we intend to ensure this
year's authorization reflects that commitment.
Numerous studies and commissions have provided Congress
with recommendations for purposes and goals for exploring
space. We don't need another study, we need action. As we move
forward in the next few months with the NASA Authorization Act,
Congress must address our path to Mars and beyond so there will
be no question as to where we are headed and how we will get
there.
As we venture further into the solar system, there must be
a plan in place for the capabilities, skills, and technologies
needed to land humans on Mars and return them safely to the
Earth. Today, we will discuss the best way to take our first
steps toward Mars and the path we should follow to get there.
The two most commonly referenced possibilities for next steps
are an asteroid mission and a lunar mission. We have a panel of
experts with us today that will be able to speak to both of
these options.
The last three NASA Authorization Acts have created a clear
legislative record supporting a return to the Moon with a
sustained human presence as a training ground for venturing
further into the solar system. There are many advantages to
returning humans to the Moon and I look forward to hearing from
our witnesses today about what we may gain from a return to the
surface of our closest celestial neighbor.
Additionally, this year the Administration proposed to
capture an asteroid and move it to a nearby orbit as technology
demonstration and exploration training opportunity. Prior to
this year, NASA has not presented Congress with any indication
such a mission would be in development. I still have many
questions about the budget profile, technical plan, schedule,
and long-term strategy as NASA has yet to even complete a
mission formulation review. I am not convinced this mission is
the right way to go and that it may actually prove a detour for
a Mars mission.
Today, we have one of the scientists who wrote the study
which became the basis of the asteroid mission, and I look
forward to hearing his thoughts.
Human exploration has always had its challenges, but the
U.S. has always risen to the occasion. This country was built
by people who dream big and do hard things. I believe the
decisions we make today will determine whether the United
States maintains its leadership in space tomorrow. In the
future, as in the past, I hope we will be able to focus mission
priorities and goals to ensure our best chance of success.
And of course, if I may, I would just like to introduce my
friends with the partners with Stennis who are here. I know
several of you all may be with the citizens for the exploration
of space. Thank you all for being here and it was great to have
a little tongue twister while you are in the audience. Just say
call it Moon. Why don't we just do that? Lunar, lunar, lunar,
okay. I got it.
I now recognize our Ranking Member, the gentlelady from
Maryland, Ms. Edwards, for an opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Palazzo follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Space Chairman Steven Palazzo
Before we begin, I would like to take a moment to recognize
Astronaut Sally Ride, the first American woman in space, who was
honored last night at the Kennedy Center for her tireless work
promoting the nation's space program and her devotion to STEM education
for our nation's children.
Over the last decade, the human exploration program at NASA has
been plagued with instability from constantly changing requirements,
budgets, and missions. We can't continue changing our program of record
every time there is a new President. This Committee is consistent and
unwavering in its commitment to human exploration, a tradition that I
am confident will continue into the future. Congress issued steady
guidance in the 2005 and 2008 Authorization Acts that directed NASA to
base exploration progress on availability of funds.
In accordance with the Authorization Act of 2010, NASA is
developing the most powerful exploration vehicle and advanced crew
capsule since the Apollo era. The SLS and Orion will take our
astronauts deeper into space than ever before. I am committed to the
success of these assets and ensuring their continued on-time
development and appropriate prioritization moving forward. I, and many
on this Committee, are frustrated that the Administration insists on
cutting its funding request for the SLS and Orion. Reductions in these
programs make me question the Administration's sincere commitment to
their success. If nothing else comes out of this hearing, I hope it is
clear to those inside and outside the Administration that this
Committee is devoted to human exploration and we intend to ensure this
year's authorization reflects that commitment.
Numerous studies and commissions have provided Congress with
recommendations for purposes and goals for exploring space. We don't
need another study, we need action.
As we move forward in the next few months with the NASA
Authorization Act, Congress must address our path to Mars and beyond so
there will be no question as to where we are headed and how we will get
there.
As we venture further into the solar system there must be a plan in
place for the capabilities, skills, and technologies needed to land
humans on Mars and return them safely to the Earth. Today we will
discuss the best way to take our first steps toward Mars and the path
we should follow to get there. The two most commonly referenced
possibilities for next steps are an asteroid mission and a lunar
mission. We have a panel of experts with us today that will be able to
speak to both of these options.
The last three NASA Authorization Acts have created a clear
legislative record supporting a return to the Moon with a sustained
human presence as a training ground for venturing further into the
solar system.
There are many advantages to returning humans to the Moon and I
look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about what we may gain
from a return to the surface of our closest celestial neighbor.
Additionally, this year the Administration proposed to capture an
asteroid and move it to a nearby orbit as a technology demonstration
and exploration training opportunity. Prior to this year, NASA had not
presented Congress with any indication such a mission would be in
development. I still have many questions about the budget profile,
technical plan, schedule, and long-term strategy as NASA has yet to
even complete a mission formulation review.
I am not convinced this mission is the right way to go and that it
may actually prove a detour for a Mars mission. Today we have one of
the scientists who wrote the study which became the basis of the
asteroid mission, and I look forward to hearing his thoughts.
Human exploration has always had its challenges, but the United
States has always risen to the occasion. This country was built by
people who dream big and do the hard things. I believe the decisions we
make today will determine whether the U.S. maintains its leadership in
space tomorrow. In the future, as in the past, I hope we will be able
to focus mission priorities and goals to ensure our best chances of
success.
Ms. Edwards. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good
afternoon and welcome to our distinguished panel of witnesses.
I really appreciate, Mr. Chairman, that you called this hearing
on Next Steps in Human Exploration to Mars and Beyond. I have
to say I don't know what the rest of Congress is doing, but
this Subcommittee and our Full Committee have been quite active
in our oversight. We have held hearings recently on near-Earth
objects, exoplanets, as well as previous hearings that we have
held on Mars and planetary science. And these issues have only
deepened my enthusiasm for what NASA does and wetted my
appetite for the places that our astronauts, our humans, might
explore in the future.
Human exploration is indeed a big part of NASA and its
inspiring mission. It is also an important catalyst for
advancing our Nation's innovation agenda and for demanding the
types of skills and educated workforce that contribute to our
Nation's economic strength. I want to ensure that others share
my enthusiasm and excitement and one day experience the thrill,
the absolute thrill, of American astronauts, of humans
traveling to and exploring a surface far beyond our Earth and
then returning safely home. That is something that the United
States of America has not done in four decades and I don't want
another four decades to pass before we explore deep space
again.
That is why I am delighted to hear that NASA Administrator
Charles Bolden speak more often more recently about Mars as an
ultimate destination, at least in the next 20 years, for human
exploration. Today's hearing will examine potential interim
steps en route to that ultimate destination.
Successive NASA Authorization Acts have authorized a
steppingstone approach to human exploration. The Moon, near-
Earth asteroids, and other points are among the destinations
that can be considered to help prepare for eventual human
exploration of Mars. The Administration's recent proposal to
capture a near-Earth asteroid, bring it into translunar orbit--
lunar orbit, and to potentially send humans there is yet
another possible step, but before we look at interim steps, we
need first to understand what it takes to get to Mars.
Learning how to deal with extended space travel, protecting
ourselves from harmful radiation, and surviving on another
planet are a few challenges that come to mind for humans. Is
there a plan to get there and to address these and other
challenges? What should Congress expect to be included in a
credible and measured roadmap to achieve the goals of sending
humans to Mars? Such a guide can help us determine whether one
or more interim steps make sense and which one--how an interim
destination would move us forward along the roadmap and which
destination or destinations are most effective in enabling
progress towards a Mars goal.
We have an impressive group of witnesses here today, Mr.
Chairman, with deep expertise in these issues that we are
discussing, and so I thank you for joining us and I look
forward to your testimony and to learning from you.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I yield the
balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Edwards follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ranking Minority Member Donna Edwards
Good afternoon and welcome to our distinguished panel of witnesses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing today on ``Next
Steps in Human Exploration to Mars and Beyond.''
The hearings this Subcommittee and the Full Committee have recently
held on near Earth objects and exoplanets, as well as previous hearings
held on Mars and planetary science, have only deepened my enthusiasm
for what NASA does and wetted my appetite for the places that our
astronauts might explore.
Human exploration is indeed a big part of NASA and its inspiring
mission.
It's also an important catalyst for advancing our nation's
innovation agenda and for demanding the types of skills and educated
workforce that contribute to our nation's economic strength.
I want to ensure that others share in my excitement and one day
experience the thrill of American astronauts traveling to and exploring
a surface far beyond our Earth, and then returning safely home.
That is something that the United States of America has not done in
four decades, and I don't want another four decades to pass before we
explore deep space again.
That's why I'm delighted to hear the NASA Administrator, Charles
Bolden, speaking more often about Mars as the ultimate destination for
human space exploration.
Today's hearing will examine potential interim steps en route to
that ultimate destination.
Successive NASA Authorizations Acts have authorized a ``stepping
stone approach'' to human exploration. The Moon, near Earth asteroids,
and Lagrangian points are among the destinations that can be considered
to help prepare for eventual human exploration of Mars.
The Administration's recent proposal to capture a near Earth
asteroid, bring it into trans-lunar orbit, and to potentially send
humans there is yet another possible step. But before we look at
interim steps, we need first to understand what it takes to get to
Mars.
Learning how to deal with extended space travel, protecting
ourselves from harmful radiation, and surviving on another planet are a
few challenges that come to mind.
Is there a plan to get there and to address these and other
challenges?
What should Congress expect to be included in a credible and
measured roadmap to achieve the goal of sending humans to Mars?
Such a guide can help us determine whether one or more interim
steps makes sense, how an interim destination moves us forward along
the roadmap, and which destination or destinations are most effective
in enabling progress toward a Mars goal.
We have an impressive group of witnesses here today with deep
expertise in the issues we are discussing, so thank you for joining us
and I look forward to your testimony.
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. I now recognize
the Chairman of the Full Committee for a statement.
Mr. Smith?
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Human history is punctuated by great advancements in the
exploration of the world around us. We have long sought out the
next frontier, which may well be the exploration of our solar
system. No doubt humankind will continue to push the boundaries
of the known universe.
Not long ago, the exploration of Mars was considered
science fiction. Today, with two active Martian robotic
missions ongoing, it is no longer science fiction at all. Space
exploration goes beyond rockets and avionics; it is about hope
for the future. Human space flight represents the aspirations
and ambitions of the American people.
Few sights are more inspiring than when a rocket lifts off
a launch pad and disappears into the sky. Investments in the
Space Launch System and Orion crew capsule manifest the
ingenuity of the American people and the next steps in space
exploration.
Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin transfixed America and the
world when they landed on the Moon in 1969. The Apollo program
was proof that we are not permanently tethered to our home
planet. It was a reminder that humans will always be explorers.
As our space program prepares for the next step to Mars,
Congress must ensure that there is a strategic plan in place.
NASA should have a well-thought-out and convincing plan before
committing scarce resources. The trip to Mars will not be a
direct one. We will need to train for it before we send a crew,
much like the Apollo missions.
One option for training would be a set of lunar missions.
Congress has a long history of support for lunar landings and
exploration. To me, there is no better way for our astronauts
to learn how to live and work on another planet than to use the
Moon as a training ground. Another option presented by NASA
this year is an asteroid retrieval mission. It is difficult to
determine what advantages this may offer without a plan to
evaluate.
The Administration originally proposed a mission to an
asteroid in deep space. A recent National Research Council
report found little support for the proposal. Without a
consensus for the original plan, NASA haphazardly created a new
asteroid retrieval mission. Unfortunately, NASA did not seek
the advice of its own Small Bodies Assessment Group before
presenting the mission to Congress. If NASA had sought the
advisory group's advice, they would have heard it was
``entertaining, but not a serious proposal.'' Maybe that is why
they didn't ask.
As this Committee begins to draft the NASA Reauthorization
Act, we must be mindful of the impact it will have on the
future. The policies we put in place today will affect our
capabilities many years from now.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Lamar Smith
Human history is punctuated by great advancements in the
exploration of the world around us. We have long sought out the next
frontier, which may well be the exploration of our solar system. No
doubt humankind will continue to push the boundaries of the known
universe.
Not long ago, the exploration of Mars was considered science
fiction. Today, with two active robotic missions on-going, it's no
longer fiction. Space exploration goes beyond rockets and avionics; it
is about hope for the future. Human space flight represents the
aspirations and ambitions of the American people.Few sights are more
inspiring than when a rocket lifts off a launch pad and disappears into
the sky.
Investments in the Space Launch System and Orion crew capsule
manifest the ingenuity of the American people and the next steps in
space exploration.Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin transfixed America and
the world when they landed on the Moon in 1969. The Apollo program was
proof that we were not permanently tethered to our home planet. It was
a reminder that humans will always be explorers.
As our space program prepares for the next step to Mars, Congress
must ensure there is a strategic plan in place. NASA should have a well
thought out and convincing plan before committing scarce resources. The
trip to Mars will not be a direct one. We will need to train for it
before we send a crew, much like the Apollo missions.
One option for training would be a set of lunar missions. Congress
has a long history of support for lunar landings and exploration. To
me, there is no better way for our astronauts to learn how to live and
work on another planet than to use the moon as a training ground.
Another option presented by NASA this year is an asteroid retrieval
mission. It is difficult to determine what advantages this may offer
without a plan to evaluate.
The Administration originally proposed a mission to an asteroid in
deep space. A recent National Research Council report found little
support for the proposal. Without a consensus for the original plan,
NASA haphazardly created a new asteroid retrieval mission.
Unfortunately, NASA did not seek the advice of its own Small Bodies
Assessment Group before presenting the mission to Congress.
If NASA had sought the advisory group's advice, they would have
heard it was ``entertaining, but not a serious proposal.'' Maybe that's
why they didn't ask. As this Committee begins to draft the NASA
Reauthorization Act, we must be mindful of the impact it will have on
the future. The policies we put in place today will affect our
capabilities many years from now.
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Full Committee
for a statement. Ms. Johnson?
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much and good afternoon. I
would like to join the Chairman and Ranking Member Edwards in
welcoming our witnesses for today's hearing. It is a
distinguished group of experts and I look forward to their
testimony.
The topic of this hearing is an important one as it touches
directly on the future direction of the Nation's human
exploration program. I expect that it will be a lively
discussion and that it really should be because it just gives
us further evidence that NASA space exploration activity is
both human and robotic matter and thus worth discussing, maybe
even arguing about.
As my colleagues know, I have long been a supporter of
human exploration. It pushes technological innovation, advances
our understanding of the universe, challenges our best and
brightest, and inspires millions of our young people. It also
is a very visible symbol of our commitment to the very peaceful
commitment to our outer space. In fact, it is not an
exaggeration to say that NASA and its programs provide one of
the most positive images of the United States abroad and that
is as much as we could hope for.
Yet it is evident that despite clear policy direction and
successive NASA Authorization Acts, NASA's human exploration
program still has an air of tentativeness about it. For
example, the International Space Station, which I strongly
support, is currently the lynchpin of our human exploration and
spaceflight program. However, we still lack a clear picture of
the ways it will be used to advance the Nation's exploration
goals.
In addition, the Space Launch System and the Orion crew
vehicle are transportation systems that will be needed for
whichever path we take in our human exploration program, yet
they currently are being funded at levels significantly below
the authorized budgets and are being forced to make progress
under the funding profile that is anything but typical of
challenging development programs. If we--if they are essential
to the success of the exploration program, then their
priorities should be reflected in the resources they are given.
Finally, of course, if our Nation's exploration program is
to succeed, we need to have a clear roadmap to follow. That,
too, is lacking at present. Mr. Chairman, we can criticize
NASA, we can criticize the current or previous Administrations;
the reality is we also need to look at our own actions. I
believe that many of our colleagues see the benefits both
tangible and intangible that we have reaped from our past
investments in NASA and successive Congresses have directed
NASA to undertake an exciting and inspiring initiative and
human expiration of our solar system with Mars as an obvious
and challenging goal. That is as it should be. It is a goal
worthy of the great Nation that we are and one that will lead
to good things for our country even if its attainment winds up
taking longer than some of us would like.
Yet at the same time we appear to be unwilling to make the
investments that NASA will need to make it if it is to succeed.
And we are even failing to deliver the funding we do provide on
any kind of predictable basis. This is unfair to the hard-
working men and women of NASA and its contracted team and it is
unduly increasing risk and winds up costing us more down the
road. Yet I am afraid that we seem poised to repeat that
pattern again as we consider this year's authorization and
appropriations for NASA. We have just forced NASA to take a
significant cut to its Fiscal Year 2013 budget as a result of
sequestration, and some of the House seem prepared to extend
those cuts into Fiscal Year 2014 and beyond.
If Congress actually carries through with such shortsighted
cuts, it will make all of the earnest protestations of support
for exploration that we may hear today sound very empty indeed.
I hope that as we prepare to move forward with our NASA
reauthorization, this Committee at least will make sure that
NASA has the resources it will need to carry out the very
challenging task that this Nation has given it.
Thank you, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
Good afternoon. I would like to join the Chairman and Ranking
Member Edwards in welcoming our witnesses to today's hearing. It is a
distinguished group of experts, and I look forward to their testimony.
The topic of this hearing is an important one, as it touches
directly on the future direction of the nation's human exploration
program. I expect that it will be a lively discussion, and that is as
it should be, because that is just further evidence that NASA's space
exploration activities, both human and robotic, matter-and thus are
worth arguing about.
As my colleagues know, I have long been a supporter of human space
exploration. It pushes technological innovation, advances our
understanding of the universe, challenges our best and brightest, and
inspires millions of our young people. It also is a very visible symbol
of our commitment to the peaceful use of outer space. In fact, it's not
an exaggeration to say that NASA and its programs provide one of the
most positive images of America abroad that we could hope for.
Yet it is evident that despite clear policy direction in successive
NASA Authorization Acts, NASA's human exploration program still has an
air of tentativeness about it. For example, the International Space
Station, which I strongly support, is currently the linchpin of our
human spaceflight program. However, we still lack a clear picture of
the ways it will be used to advance the nation's exploration goals. In
addition, the Space Launch System and Orion crew vehicle are the
transportation systems that will be needed for whichever path we take
in our human exploration program. Yet, they currently are being funded
at levels significantly below their authorized budgets, and are being
forced to make progress under a funding profile that is anything but
typical for challenging development programs. If they are essential to
the success of the exploration program, then their priority should be
reflected in the resources they are given.
Finally, of course, if our nation's exploration program is to
succeed, we need to have a clear roadmap to follow. That too is lacking
at present.
Mr. Chairman, we can criticize NASA. We can criticize the current
or the previous Administration. The reality is we also need to look at
our own actions. I believe that many of our colleagues see the
benefits, both tangible and intangible, that we have reaped from our
past investments in NASA. And successive Congresses have directed NASA
to undertake an exciting and inspiring initiative of human exploration
of our solar system, with Mars as an obvious and challenging goal. That
is as it should be-it is a goal worthy of a great nation, and one that
will lead to good things for our country, even if its attainment winds
up taking longer than some of us would like. Yet, at the same time we
appear to be unwilling to make the investments that NASA will need for
us to make if it is to succeed. And we are even failing to deliver the
funding that we do provide on any kind of predictable basis.
That is unfair to the hardworking women and men of NASA and its
contractor team. And it unduly increases risk and winds up costing us
more down the road. Yet I'm afraid that we seem poised to repeat that
pattern again as we consider this year's authorization and
appropriation for NASA. We have just forced NASA to take a significant
cut to its Fiscal Year 2013 budget as a result of sequestration, and
some in the House seem prepared to extend those cuts into FY 14 and
beyond. If Congress actually carries through with such short-sighted
cuts, it will make all of the earnest protestations of support for
exploration that we may hear today sound very empty indeed. I hope that
as we prepare to move forward with our NASA reauthorization this
Committee, at least, will make sure that NASA has the resources it will
need to carry out the very challenging tasks that this nation given it.
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
point.
At this time I would like to introduce our panel of
witnesses. Our first witness is Dr. Louis Friedman, Co-Lead of
the Keck Institute for Space Studies Asteroid Retrieval Mission
Study and Executive Director Emeritus of the Planetary Society.
Our second witness is Dr. Paul Spudis, Senior Staff Scientist
at the Lunar and Planetary Institute. Our third witness is Dr.
Steven Squyres, the Goldwin Smith Professor of Astronomy at
Cornell University and Chair of the NASA Advisory Council. Our
final witness is Mr. Doug Cooke, an Aerospace Consultant with
Cooke Concepts and Solutions. Prior to his current position,
Mr. Cooke served as the Associate Administrator for Exploration
Systems Mission Directorate at NASA.
As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited
to five minutes each after which Members of the Committee have
five minutes each to ask questions. Your written testimony will
be included in the record of the hearing.
I now recognize our first witness, Dr. Friedman, for five
minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DR. LOUIS FRIEDMAN,
CO-LEAD, KECK INSTITUTE FOR SPACE STUDIES
ASTEROID RETRIEVAL MISSION STUDY
AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR EMERITUS,
THE PLANETARY SOCIETY
Dr. Friedman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members
of the Committee. It is an honor to be here again. The very
holding of this hearing on next steps to Mars underscores the
point that human exploration has a goal and a direction. Mars
is the only human accessible world to study the possibilities
of either indigenous past life or potential future life. The
asteroid retrieval mission about which I am talking and which
was first studied by the Keck Institute for Space Studies
creates a first step beyond the Moon, the only one that is now
capable--that we are now capable of performing and the only one
which we can afford within the current space program budget.
This mission represents an opportunity to sustain American
leadership in robotic and human space exploration with
technological innovation and engineering prowess. While other
nations dream of duplicating the American achievement of a
half-century ago, the Administration's new plan has the U.S.
looking beyond the Moon on a path that will eventually take
humans to Mars later in this century. The new initiative is not
a giant-step, Apollo-like crash program; instead, it follows a
flexible and cost-effective path using stepping stones into the
solar system. The stepping stones are literally and
figuratively provided by the near-Earth asteroids.
A robotic spacecraft using solar electric propulsion will
rendezvous with a very small asteroid in an orbit that is close
to Earth's orbit around the Sun. Redirecting that asteroid to
the desired orbit in Earth-Moon space will take several years
with the highly efficient but low continuous thrust provided by
solar electric propulsion systems. The mission will serve as a
key test, a key technological test, for higher levels of power
of solar electric propulsion that will be needed for the Moon
and Mars.
The asteroid retrieval mission can be done soon with a
launch perhaps four or five years from now. It depends of
course on finding a good target but this we can do. Hundreds of
asteroids this small have already been discovered, although
they are hard to see and generally have been ignored and while
observers focus on larger objects. Yet we know there are
millions of them and a dedicated observation program will find
enough candidates and the right combination of traits for
attractive targets for this mission. Increases in the
observation program, particularly at the Catalina Sky Survey in
Arizona and Pan-STAARS in Hawaii are expected to increase the
rate of discovery 5- to 10-fold in a few years.
The small asteroids under consideration for this mission
pose no danger to Earth. Even if one did impact, it would burn
up harmlessly in the atmosphere. In addition, the asteroid
would be put on a trajectory that does not intercept Earth even
if control of that spacecraft were lost. Nonetheless, the
asteroid is big enough to be an interesting object to explore.
Exploring asteroids is important to understand what they
are made of and how they hold together. We may someday have to
divert one. Exploring them and discovering new ones is also
important scientifically because these small bodies of the
solar system hold vital clues about the origin and history of
the planets. Protection and science are two reasons to explore
but these objects offer one more reason for exploration which
intrigues many now, and that is prospecting and the potential
for possible commercial utilization.
The feasibility of the asteroid retrieval mission caught
some in the space community by surprise. But the use of solar
electric propulsion technology, the capture of non-cooperative
objects in space, the discovery of near-Earth objects, and the
application of the clever techniques of celestial mechanics
that make up this mission are all developments that NASA has
been working--NASA and other space agencies have been working
on for years.
The asteroid and lunar orbit may be the first stepping
stone on the flexible path to Mars. Asteroids and Sun-Earth
Lagrangian points could be the next, then an asteroid further
away closer to Mars, then a Martian moon, and then Mars itself.
I believe this is the direct and only sustainable way to Mars.
This project will not just unify NASA with science,
technology, robotic, and human components, but it will unify
many others globally with a great adventure. Europe, Japan,
Russia all have asteroid mission plans and solar electric
spacecraft in operation. They could join in the mission
development. After an asteroid is in place, even private
spacecraft developers could be invited to explore and test new
prospecting ideas there and maybe create a new commercial
industry for utilization of space resources. Meanwhile, NASA
again will be leading the world into space moving on to new
accomplishments on more distant asteroids, perhaps on the
Martian Moons, and then on Mars itself.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Friedman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you, Dr. Friedman.
I now recognize our next witness, Dr. Spudis, for five
minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DR. PAUL SPUDIS,
SENIOR STAFF SCIENTIST,
LUNAR AND PLANETARY INSTITUTE
Dr. Spudis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Chairman
and Members of this Committee for this opportunity to share my
thoughts on the appropriate next steps for human exploration of
space.
The past 50 years have witnessed some enormous
accomplishments of our national space program. We have surveyed
the entire solar system and launched hundreds of spacecraft
making us more knowledgeable, prosperous, and secure. Despite
this history of accomplishment, we lack a clear long-term
direction forward and our space program is withering away.
To find a sustainable path forward, we must consider the
utility and purpose of human spaceflight. Although much can be
accomplished in space using robotics, many tasks require the
presence of people who combine high-level cognitive abilities
with intricate manual dexterity. I believe our long-term goal
should be to possess the ability to go anywhere we choose in
space to do whatever job or study we can imagine. Such
capability requires an affordable, extensible space
transportation system, one built incrementally over variable
timescales to prevent fluctuations in funding from preventing
its completion.
One can imagine two very different approaches to
spaceflight. One conducts a public spectacle, a one-off flags-
and-footprints mission to some new and exotic destination. The
other approach uses incremental yet cumulative building blocks
that enable the gradual extension of human reach beyond low-
Earth orbit. The former produces a media event while the latter
links capability with progress and creates lasting value. A
transportation system that can access the lunar surface can
also access all other points of cislunar space, the domain of
nearly all the world's satellite assets.
The experience of building International Space Station and
the servicing missions to the Hubble Space Telescope have
demonstrated that people and machines working together in space
can accomplish much more than is possible through the launch of
smaller, custom-built expendable spacecraft. Our current
template of design, launch, use, and eventual abandonment of
space-based assets can be transformed into one of building and
maintaining large, extended, and distributed space systems of
unprecedented power and capability. This capability will
produce enormous economic and societal return. It will create
new wealth, not simply consume it.
To achieve these ends, I believe that a return to the Moon
to access its--and use its material and energy resources is the
next best step for human spaceflight. The Moon is important for
three reasons: one, the Moon is close. It is easily and
constantly accessible while its proximity permits early
development before human return using robots remotely
controlled from the Earth. The Moon is interesting. It retains
a unique record of its own history and processes as well as
those of the Earth-Moon system, the Sun, and the galaxy. This
record gives us insights into the past and future of our home
planet.
But most importantly, the Moon is useful. Its material and
energy resources can break the logistical chains of the Earth.
Several recent missions have discovered and confirmed abundant
water at the lunar pole, all close to locations of near
permanent sunlight. This relationship enables our long-term
presence on the Moon where we can extract water for use as
life-support consumables, energy storage, and most
significantly, to manufacture the most powerful chemical rocket
propellant known, hydrogen and oxygen. Water, oxygen, energy,
and rocket fuel are vital enabling assets, provisions that will
not have to be launched from the surface of the Earth, the
deepest gravity well of our solar system. Harvesting these
resources from the Moon creates our first off-planet coaling
station in space.
We are not capable of sending humans to Mars now or in the
near future in either a technical or a financial sense. We need
a cohesive intermediate goal, one with specific, scalable
activities and benefits that help assemble a permanent space
system, a system that will open the way to Mars and all the
planets. The Moon affords us this opportunity and the incentive
to create such a system, a transcontinental railroad in space.
Included with my submitted material is an architecture showing
how we can incrementally and affordably develop the system.
We went to the Moon in the 1960s to prove that it could be
done. We return to the Moon 50 years later to prove that we can
use its material and energy resources to create new
capabilities and commerce. A cislunar transportation system,
developed and powered with lunar resources, will extend our
reach into deep space and revolutionize the paradigm of
spaceflight. This effort is not ``been there, done that.'' It
is a wholly new, untried, and necessary pioneering enterprise
in space.
I thank the Committee for its attention. I welcome your
comments and thoughts and I am happy to answer any questions
you might have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Spudis follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you, Dr. Spudis.
I now recognize our next witness, Dr. Squyres.
TESIMONY OF DR. STEVEN M. SQUYRES,
GOLDWIN SMITH PROFESSOR OF ASTRONOMY,
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
Dr. Squyres. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Members
of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear
today.
The topic of this hearing is the Next Steps in Human
Exploration to Mars and beyond. My recommendations to the
Committee today are as follows: first, affirm that Mars is and
will continue to be NASA's long-term goal for human exploration
of space; second, at all future milestones on the road to Mars,
direct the Agency to focus on activities that clearly serve the
goal of landing humans on Mars, operating there, and returning
them safely to Earth; third, adopt cislunar space as the next
milestone whether ongoing studies show that it is possible to
direct a small asteroid there or not; finally, dictate no
milestones beyond cislunar space without first assuring ample
funding to achieve them. I will address each of these in turn.
The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 stated that ``a long-
term objective for human exploration of space should be the
eventual international exploration of Mars.'' I agree. In fact,
in my view Mars should be the long-term objective for human
exploration of space weather carried out internationally or by
NASA alone.
Alone among the planets, Mars is enough like Earth that we
can imagine life once taking hold there, as a vast and growing
body of scientific knowledge shows that the Martian surface
once possessed many of the essential ingredients that are
required for life. So sending human explorers to Mars to learn
whether life ever emerged there is a goal that is worthy of a
great national space agency.
The most useful milestones on the way to Mars are the ones
that, when met, help retire risks that will be faced on the way
to the Martian surface and back. In the 1960s we didn't go to
the Moon all at once. Instead, the capabilities to land humans
on the surface of the Moon and return them safely to Earth were
built up systematically over a series of Mercury, Gemini, and
early Apollo missions. I am convinced that the even more
challenging capabilities that will be necessary to achieve a
similar goal of Mars must also be built up step-wise. And at
each step along the way it will be crucial to examine all the
activities that might be conducted critically and pare them
down to the minimum necessary to assure progress towards Mars.
Many of the most important capabilities that are going to
be necessary for human missions to Mars can be developed in
cislunar space. This work can be done far enough from Earth to
progress towards a true deep space capability can be
demonstrated but close enough to Earth that a safe return in
the event of an anomaly is facilitated. Moreover, given the
performance capabilities of the Space Launch System and the
Orion crew capsule, cislunar space is the only significant
destination below low-Earth orbit that can be reached for the
foreseeable future. It is the sensible next step simply by
process of elimination. And I reach this conclusion whether
NASA's ongoing efforts to study redirection of a small asteroid
to lunar orbit bear fruit or whether they do not.
After cislunar space, the choice of the next milestone
becomes more difficult. Personally, I am not persuaded that any
physical destination like the lunar surface, an asteroid, or a
Martian Moon is truly necessary to get to Mars, function there
effectively, and return safely. Others on this panel may
disagree. But while we can debate the relevant merits of such
destinations, my most important message to this Committee today
is that I believe that no realistic step beyond cislunar space
should or can be usefully identified right now.
The fundamental barrier to making an intelligent choice
today is that NASA is being asked to do too much with too
little. This overtaxing of the Agency is chronic, it is severe,
and it is getting worse. It is manifested clearly even in
NASA's near-term plans.
To be more specific, the current development schedule for
SLS and Orion calls for a flight rate that is so low that I
believe it is a cause for serious concern. In a fiscal
environment where even next step to cislunar space cannot be
carried out at an adequate pace, I feel that for Congress to
dictate any subsequent milestones today would be unwise. Unless
NASA's funding is increased substantially, any attempt to
specify milestones beyond cislunar space today would amount to
an unfunded mandate, and if NASA is directed to do something it
is not funded to do, I predict that the result will be wasted
effort and a delay in achieving the ultimate goal of humans to
Mars.
I would like to conclude my opening remarks today on a
positive note by pointing out that the solution to the mismatch
between NASA's aspirations and its budget may be international
partnerships. This was the case for establishment of a
permanent Earth-orbiting laboratory and the International Space
Station that resulted is a magnificent example of what space
agencies can accomplish when they work together.
If no major funding increase for NASA can be found, then I
believe that the Agency should aggressively seek out
international partners for the human exploration to Mars, but
if that happens, I feel that neither Congress nor the
Administration can expect to dictate what the next milestone
after cislunar space should be unilaterally. Instead, that
milestone will have to be negotiated fairly and equitably with
those international partners.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear today.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Squyres follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you, Dr. Squyres.
I now recognize our final witness, Mr. Cooke.
TESTIMONY OF MR. DOUGLAS COOKE,
OWNER, COOKE CONCEPTS AND SOLUTIONS
Mr. Cooke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee, for the opportunity to discuss this exceedingly
important subject. I strongly believe that an enduring, long-
term strategy for human spaceflight should be developed now
with the carefully defined missions that significantly
contribute to long-term goals. This strategy does not exist
today. Once developed, national will is crucial to sustain the
strategy with budget stability; otherwise, we may watch other
space-faring nations pass us by when the United States should
have led the way.
We first need to address the questions initially without
regard for specific budget. What are the geopolitical goals
that we want to achieve with human spaceflight? What is this
country's long-term vision for future human space exploration?
And how do we collaborate with international partners to
achieve this vision? If crafted properly, an organized process
would obtain and prioritize the exploration objectives from a
spectrum of stakeholders. The strategy would then address
appropriate objectives for each destination, including those
for advanced scientific discoveries, development of critical
technologies, and preparing for Mars exploration and others. A
widespread advocacy for the strategy would occur with
stakeholder participation in the process.
There is a broad international consensus that Mars is a
human exploration destination that we should ultimately aspire
to. To develop this strategy, we should ask: what is needed to
send people safely to Mars in capabilities, technologies, human
research, et cetera? A preferred path could then be chosen
through a series of carefully selected missions and
destinations that must effectively address these exploration
goals and objectives.
Regardless of the actual sequence of missions, the current
development of the Space Launch System and Orion MPCV are
critical to success for the strategy. The strategy must be
flexible with the anticipation that it should be responsive to
discoveries, budget realities, and emerging technologies.
Asteroids are certainly very interesting objects for
scientific study. They can provide information on the formation
of our solar system, and cataloging them is important to
understand their threat to Earth. The current President budget
request included a challenge to retrieve an asteroid and move
it to near-Earth space to be investigated by astronauts. It is
a clever concept and such a mission would undoubtedly
demonstrate technologies and capabilities. However, there is
not a recognizable connection to a long-term strategy. It does
not appear to be based on consultation with stakeholders, nor
are there visible opportunities for international
participation, although I am told these are in work. It appears
to be a very complex mission with the potential for growing
more complex and more costly. As currently defined, the mission
definition does not convey a mature concept that should be
supported with significant funding without further
understanding of its value to long-term human exploration
strategy competing with other mission destinations. I believe
that robotic missions are currently a more cost-effective way
to study asteroids.
In preparing for Mars, the next generation of explorers
must learn how to survive in other hostile environments. The
Moon is an alien world with partial gravity like Mars, yet is
only a 3-day journey from Earth. Human lunar exploration will
provide opportunities to test technologies, to experience
living and working on another planetary surface, to use lunar
resources, and to identify commercial opportunities. The Moon
is a truly unique nearby destination where scientists can learn
about the history of the inner solar system over the past 4.5
billion years. We now have incredible new information derived
from recent robotic missions--LCROSS, LRO, and GRAIL--that can
help guide further lunar exploration. I believe the United
States should provide leadership in exploring the Moon as an
important step in any long-term exploration strategy.
Relevant, near-term missions to Mars may be closer than
previously thought. For instance, the mission proposed
byInspiration Mars, while I think it is very challenging, may
provide such an opportunity, more difficult but on the order of
what would be needed for a mission to one of the more
difficult-to-reach asteroids, a mission to the fascinating
Moons Phobos and Deimos are possible. Mars surface exploration
is the ultimate goal that can be reasonably envisioned today.
I propose that the following steps be taken to develop a
unified and enduring U.S. human space exploration strategy:
conduct an open process including stakeholders to develop the
strategy and exploration objectives; reestablish lunar
exploration as a valued near-term part of the strategy;
identify other near-term mission opportunities that most
effectively contribute to long-term exploration goals; identify
opportunities to combine resources and capabilities with
international partners to achieve these objectives; and
endeavor to ensure U.S. leadership in human space exploration.
Once again, I thank you for inviting me here to get my
views. I also want to thank this Committee and the Subcommittee
and your staff for a continued bipartisan support for human
spaceflight. I welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cooke follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Cooke.
A vote has been called. The Committee will recess until ten
minutes after last vote. The Committee stands at recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman Palazzo. The Subcommittee on Space will come back
to order. I want to thank again the witnesses for being here
and being available for questioning today. I also want to
remind Members that Committee rules limit questioning to five
minutes.
The Chair will at this point open the round of questions.
The Chair recognizes himself for five minutes.
Mr. Cooke, Congress has consistently affirmed that NASA
should develop an exploration architecture to go to the Moon,
Mars, and beyond on a timetable determined by available
funding. NASA receives roughly 17 billion a year and
approximately 3-1/2 billion of that is devoted to exploration
systems and support infrastructure and even more under the
previous Administration. Last month, the NASA Administrator
indicated that we cannot return to the Moon because NASA does
not have the funding to do so, arguing that NASA has no money
for a lunar lander. My question is: could NASA establish an
exploration architecture and development profile that could
accommodate a lunar architecture under the current funding
profile if schedule was not a driver?
Mr. Cooke. There are a couple of factors that I would like
to bring up. One, the existing profile is a flat profile as I
understand it still with no inflation, which is problematic. So
I think the situation would be improved if there were even
inflation. And I think we were seeing that back when I was at
NASA. I think NASA can definitely put together architectures
that fit a funding profile. We have done it--we have always
done it.
I guess a question I would have is if an asteroid retrieval
mission is going to cost $2 plus billion according to the Keck
study, where is that money coming from? Is that new money? If
it is not new money, it is coming from somewhere, and so is it
coming out of existing human spaceflight programs? Is it coming
out of technology? And if $2 billion--plus billion is
available, could it be better spent? Could it be better spent
on an upper stage for SLS that brings it to full capability or
could we partner with internationals to develop--collaborate
and develop a lander for the Moon?
If we have a long-term exploration plan, as I was making a
plea for, you understand--you can understand how those things
fit into it and what is the best expenditure of funds. So I
don't know specifically what the plans are and where the money
is coming from for the asteroid retrieval mission, but it seems
that an alternative would be to do--would be to put that money
toward lunar exploration.
Chairman Palazzo. Do you believe it is necessary to develop
a lander in parallel with the development of SLS and Orion or
could the lander be developed at a later date?
Mr. Cooke. I believe that in everything we do we phase our
spending, and in fact even in the SLS program as we initially
laid it out in 2011, things were phased. We chose the
components that we did. We knew we had to get the core stage
built, which was new. We--everything--every choice that we made
in terms of the engines and boosters and that sort of thing
were phased in order to fit under the funding profile. So we--
that is something that is always done is you phase your
developments to fit under that line. So certainly, as some of
the costs come off of development on a rocket or efficiencies
are found in space station operations, for instance, money like
that could then be phased into development of a lander. It
doesn't have to be at the same exact time. We don't--I mean we
phased money and spending to develop as we could.
So driving towards your point, you can phase your
developments within a funding line to achieve long-term what
you are looking to do.
Chairman Palazzo. Now, Exploration Systems Architecture
Study has considerable international input. The witnesses
before us today agree that international cooperation will be
necessary for any mission. Understanding that you no longer
work for NASA, do you know whether international input was
sought for the asteroid retrieval mission?
Mr. Cooke. I am not aware that it was. In fact, one of the
concerns I have is that it seems like the process is reversed
on this asteroid retrieval mission where the mission is
announced and then you go figure out the rationale and how to
partner on it. And so I am not aware or have seen evidence that
there was international consultation going into the
announcement.
Chairman Palazzo. And my last question for Mr. Cooke, the
cancellation of the Constellation Program was a huge blow to
our Nation's exploration program and created a significant
uncertainty for our industry partners. How can Congress ensure
that the SLS and Orion are not political footballs in the next
Administration and are part of a stable, long-term plan for
exploration?
Mr. Cooke. In my written testimony I made the point and I
made it briefly in my oral today that we have looked at various
scenarios and what steps could be taken in destinations and
missions in achieving Mars landings down the road. The SLS and
Orion are critical components no matter what that path ends up
being. If we are going to travel beyond Earth orbit, you need
that capacity in a launch vehicle and you need a deep space
crew vehicle with the systems designed for those kind of
missions that are totally different than what is needed--they
are a step well beyond what is needed for to and from Earth
orbit I will point out as well.
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you. I now recognize Ms. Edwards
for five minutes.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you very much to our witnesses. I really
appreciate your patience today.
I want to start with Dr. Friedman. Dr. Friedman, many of us
have had questions about the scientific capability that we gain
in terms of asteroid retrieval mission and how that then
contributes to going to Mars. And so I wonder if you could very
quickly give us a sense of what the science is that is so
different than what we would get from Moon--from, you know, a
lunar landing and mission if that were the interim step that
was chosen?
Dr. Friedman. Yes, thank you for the question. First of
all, it is important to understand that of course the mission--
the asteroid retrieval mission wasn't selected for--or its
rationale is not for science. If it was, then we have a robotic
sample returns and we do missions to asteroids for science
purposes. This is part of the human spaceflight program and its
primary rationale is a step for humans to take in space.
Having said that, of course, the aspect of what humans
could do on an asteroid to delve into the surface to bring
back--to conduct experiments related to future resource
utilization, to perhaps drill a little bit to do experiments
related to asteroid science would contribute greatly not only
to the knowledge about asteroids themselves and their
relationship to solar system studies but also to what the
structure and composition and strength of an asteroid is and
the diversity of them so that we can--someday, we might have to
deflect one for purposes of planetary protection.
So there will be a lot of human-related science experiments
on such an asteroid retrieval mission, but it is important to
understand that the real reason for doing it is the human
capability of being able to go beyond the Moon, to be able to
go on longer flight time missions, to be able to take larger
systems with them for longer life support as a first step
beyond the Moon and then to more subsequent larger steps after
that.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you. So I am trying to appreciate then
the critical technologies that are necessary with whatever the
interim step it is that we choose, whether it is an asteroid
retrieval or it is a lunar landing and lunar mission. And so I
wonder if each of you very quickly could outline what those
critical technologies are so that when we are trying to figure
out how do we make the investment in next step to Mars that we
are investing in all the right critical technologies whatever
the chosen interim destination? And so if we could just kind of
go down the line, that would be great.
Dr. Friedman. Well, I think the fundamental one is related
to life sciences and life support for human spaceflight. Once
you are outside of the Earth's radiation environment and into
deep space, both the length of the system and microgravity and
the radiation exposure are key questions. I think that is the
dominant one for long duration human spaceflight.
The other big technology that unfortunately is going to
have to wait for more robotic missions to Mars is the entry,
descent, and landing on Mars. That is huge. That is an unsolved
problem. It is not going to be--you can't learn it on the Moon,
you can't learn it on an asteroid; you can only learn that on
Mars itself. And I think what we are doing in the robotic
missions for exploration of Mars is the other key technology.
Solar electric propulsion technology is a long duration flight,
but that we do know how to do.
Ms. Edwards. So could I hear from the other witnesses
whether or not it is a lunar mission or an asteroid retrieval?
Dr. Spudis. Well, one of the key things that you want to
develop to go to Mars, in fact, to do any kind of planetary
exploration is the ability to solve some of your logistical
problems, and that means learning how to use the materials and
energy that space have to offer rather than bringing everything
we need with us from the Earth. And I contend that the Moon is
an ideal place to do this because it is close enough that we
can begin to start doing this robotically with teleoperated
machines that could basically pave the way for human arrival
later.
Now, survival on a planetary surface--all planetary
surfaces are hostile. There is no second Eden. There is no
second Earth. They are all required--require us to protect the
crew from radiation, from the environment, and to create our
own life-support consumables. That can be done on the Moon and
that can be done--in fact, a lot of the key technologies we
would use there we would use on a trip to Mars eventually
anyway.
The other main technological area is learning how to
effectively explore planetary surfaces, and that includes using
both humans and machines synergistically so that each one
builds on the value--on the benefits of the other. That is
another experiment that can be done on the Moon because it is a
little planet of great complexity. So that is the way I look at
it.
Ms. Edwards. Thanks. And could we hear very quickly from
Dr. Squyres and Mr. Cooke?
Dr. Squyres. Yeah, just very briefly I agree with Dr.
Friedman that the two most challenging technologies required to
send humans successfully to Mars and bring them back are, first
of all, deep space, life-support, and habitation; and second,
entry, descent, and landing to the Martian surface and assent.
I will point out that to me the connection between
particularly the asteroid retrieval mission, which involves
proximity operations with a rock that would fit comfortably
into this hearing room, I see no obvious connection between
that and any of the technologies or capabilities that are
required for Martian exploration.
Mr. Cooke. I would agree with most of everything that has
been said. I would add that the Moon is unique in that it is a
planetary surface that has partial gravity like Mars. It has a
dust environment that you have to learn to deal with. You can
develop surface operational techniques in a partial G
environment in space suits learning those techniques and how to
explore and how to get the most out of the missions. So it--and
we--in 2006 we had a conference that laid out objectives for
the Moon and there are many things that you could do there that
would contribute to long-term human exploration.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Palazzo. I now recognize Chairman Smith for five
minutes.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I, too, want to thank our witnesses today. They have
just been excellent in what they have said in their responses
to the questions that have already been addressed to them.
Several more questions though I would like to ask, and the
first one, Mr. Cooke, is addressed to you. This is asking you
to speculate a little bit, but I have really not heard anyone
answer the question as to why some NASA officials would ignore
their own experts--that is those on the Small Bodies Assessment
Group--and sort of forge ahead haphazardly with this asteroid
retrieval mission. Do you have any idea why they would have
chosen to do that?
Mr. Cooke. Well, I don't have any direct information. I am
concerned that it was announced without a process that I
outlined earlier.
Chairman Smith. Yeah.
Mr. Cooke. I think that a healthy process gets inputs from
your stakeholders and--in terms of objectives and long-term
goals and that helps you defined what missions are. I don't see
that that has happened here and I don't know exactly--I have no
first-hand information--
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Mr. Cooke. --as to how that occurred.
Chairman Smith. Other than just a bad judgment call or
something like that?
Mr. Cooke. Well, I mean to me it would seem that if we are
going to go after an asteroid, it would have--it would be a--
there would be science objectives and it has been said publicly
that this is not a science-driven mission. And so I don't see
the stakeholder objectives having driven a mission that
should--you would think of benefit to science.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Cooke.
Dr. Spudis, there are already two asteroid--robotic
asteroid retrieval missions by NASA and by Japan who actually,
as you know, retrieved an asteroid in 2010 I think. Is there
any more to be gained by an astronaut actually being on an
asteroid? And we are talking about an asteroid literally the
diameter of the table you all are sitting on, 7 to 10 meters.
And why can't those robotic missions achieve the same goals as
an asteroid would? A while ago Dr. Friedman said, well, an
astronaut could drill down into the asteroid, but a robot can
do that, too. But is there any value added to having an
astronaut land on a 7 to 10 foot diameter asteroid over a
couple of robotic----
Dr. Spudis. There might be but it is not clear to me at
this stage that there is. One thing that keeps getting
overlooked in terms of asteroids is that right now we have
roughly 45,000 near-Earth asteroids right here on Earth in the
terrestrial meteorite collection.
Chairman Smith. Um-hum.
Dr. Squyres. And in fact the largest one is a meteorite
named Hoba, which is three meters across and 60 tons. It has
been--it was found by a farmer digging in a field in Africa and
can't be moved because it is too heavy. So we actually have an
NEO right here on the Earth right now for study. It is a nickel
metal meteorite.
Fundamentally, meteorites are fairly homogenous. That is
one of the interesting things about them. Most of the
meteorites are chondrites, which mean they are debris left over
from the accretion of the solar system and they have the same
chemical composition. They have been heated, they are not
heated to varying degrees, and they are--one of the reasons we
use them as standards in planetary science is because we can
compare planetary compositions to meteorites because they don't
vary very much.
Now, one of the key assumptions of a human doing field
science either on the Moon or on the Earth or anywhere else is
categorizing the diversity in understanding the processes that
he is uncovering by sampling, and that is applicable on the
Moon, it is applicable on Mars, it is applicable on the Earth;
it is not necessarily applicable to a homogenous rock or a
homogenous rubble pile.
So the answer to your question is I think we would learn
something. No space mission is valueless. But in terms of what
we would actually learn in comparison to a robotic sample
return, I don't think we would learn that much more.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you.
And Dr. Squyres, last question, as far as our efforts if we
were to embark upon this asteroid retrieval mission is there
any reason to believe that our looking for a nonhazardous 7-
meter-diameter small asteroid is going to help us in our
efforts to try to detect larger and more dangerous asteroids
that, if they were to impact Earth, could do us a lot of damage
or is there a better more direct way to try to detect those
types of asteroids?
Dr. Squyres. The kind of search techniques that one would
use to find a target for the asteroid retrieval mission will
inevitably turn up many, many other objects, some of which will
have characteristics that will make them considerably more
hazardous to Earth than the target that could actually be
deflected and placed--redirected into orbit around the Moon. So
I believe that the--one of the truly valuable components of the
asteroid retrieval mission is the search for a target because
not only will it conceivably come up with a target that you can
actually redirect but it is inevitably going to find a whole
bunch of other rocks that, on ensemble, maybe much important--
much more important both as scientific targets and as objects
for future study. But as a threat itself, I think the object
you are going to find, as Dr. Friedman has pointed out, is not
something that we need to worry about.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Palazzo. I now recognize Mr. Posey for five
minutes. Sir?
Mr. Posey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
You know, so much of what we gain from space every day is
unappreciated by the general public. We all know that. And I
just think about the tragedy yesterday, without the weather
satellites, the early warning that we had, how horrible that
could have been if it had been more spontaneous how much more
horrible it had been--it could have been.
I think it is unfortunate that we don't really have any
space plans right now that inspire the general public. For
better or worse, the public that I am familiar with is
absolutely totally under-excited about the prospect of going to
an asteroid, and I think we need to have a more robust program.
I think I agree with three out of four of you to make it a
national priority.
And, you know, funding is always the issue and funding is
the issue because the NASA budget, as small as it is in
comparison to other budgets, is still the biggest pinata. It is
the one they go at for totally nonrelated programs because all
the Members of the body are not sold on the necessity of it as
a matter of return on investment, as a matter of national
defense, as a matter of survival for our species ultimately.
And my question to the four of you would be how you think
we could better move this space message down the field among
our colleagues in the general public? If the general public was
more excited about it, Members of Congress would be more
excited about it and we wouldn't be really limited to
underfunding even the smallest possible missions. So we can
start with you, Mr. Friedman, and go on down the line until we
run out of time.
Dr. Friedman. Yes, thank you. That is a key question and it
is one that I have worked on my whole career as Executive
Director of the Planetary Society until I retired from that
position. Public interest is key. It is actually the thing more
than science, as I tried to say, more than any other aspect
that has gotten me so interested in this asteroid retrieval
mission because even in the last Administration with a full and
dedicated commitment to building a lunar program and going back
to the Moon, the lunar landing, we forget, slipped all the way
out to 2028 and that is if the funding had been maintained,
which it wasn't going to be maintained. Where would it have
been by now in the 2030s?
The joy of the asteroid retrieval mission I think has got
me so excited is is we actually begin the process in just a
couple of years from now. We are going to be looking for the
asteroids this year. We are going to be launching the mission
to the asteroid in three or four years from now. We are going
to be towing it in an exciting venture that people will be
excited about, something never been done in the history of the
space program before. We will be engaging the public and human
spaceflight, prepping the target in the way we did with Gemini
and Mercury before we went to Apollo. And we will be achieving
human missions to the destination in a much-sooner timescale
rather than having to wait two or three decades. I want to get
to Mars quickly. I made that clear. But this is the only way I
think that we can engage the public and maybe drive up the
money that goes with that.
Dr. Spudis. It is an interesting question because the
premise sort of assumes that, unless you have an exciting
activity, that people won't support something, and yet our
society is filled with valuable, critical things that we all
agree are needed that people don't get excited about. And so I
think really your challenge is to show the public that they are
getting value from the money spent. And that is why I believe
that building an extensible, reusable system, a space-faring
system that allows us to do all the things we want to do at
various spots in space is the way to go. And one way to do that
is to go back to the Moon and learn to use those resources.
That is the way I advocate. There may be other solutions.
But fundamentally, I think the key thing we need to do to
become a space-faring people is to develop that system. The
things that we get from that, the benefits from that will be
self-evident. I mean right now you mentioned the weather
satellites. There is communications. We depend on space assets
for many aspects of our modern technical civilization, so what
we really seek is public support, not necessarily excitement.
Dr. Squyres. I think that the best way to maintain public
support is with an unwavering focus on Mars as the destination.
The night that the Curiosity rover landed on Mars, thousands of
people turned out in Times Square in New York City at 2:00 in
the morning just so they could watch it on the big screen. It
has captured the public imagination. It has captured public
interest. And so I think the best way to maintain that interest
is to maintain an unwavering focus on Mars as the ultimate
destination and show how each milestone along the way is
connected to reaching that destination.
Mr. Cooke. I would agree with that. And the Mars program
has done an incredible job of making people aware of what is
happening and getting them excited about it, and it is a model,
I think, for what we do. I think a key aspect of this is having
a plan that people recognize. We don't have one right now, a
long-term plan on how to get to Mars. I think we need one with
defined steps that are exciting, that we know will make a--will
have achievements that contribute to the ultimate goal. And if
we have a wide range of stakeholders including the science
community and including the public and including media,
including academia and private industry as a part of the--of
defining that set of objectives and goals, then you build in
advocacy from those groups that also are part of the plan.
Mr. Posey. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Palazzo. I now recognize Mr. Rohrabacher for five
minutes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Holy cow. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
I have been--I would just like to ask a fundamental
question here because we have been talking about mission to
Mars, okay, mission to Mars and different approaches to mission
to Mars and what--I would like to ask the panel whether or not
they think a mission to Mars is worth the cost or not. I mean
if we do a mission to Mars--and correct me if I am wrong--we
will have to defund most of the--I mean if we are going to do
it now, start now and go directly into a mission to Mars, we
are going to have to defund, you know, asteroid detection and
then deflection. I mean we might as well forget that. I mean
that is expensive. Debris cleanup which unless we don't--unless
we clean up the debris, of course, we may end up having our own
use of near space being cut off from the future satellites
because debris is knocking our satellites out of the air, no
more GPS communication satellites, et cetera. Or how about
space astronomy, which we know there is some very important
projects moving forward with various telescopes that could give
us a really in-depth view of the universe.
You know, reading the--I mean unless we think that the
tooth fairy is going to leave all the money under the pillow in
order to accomplish a mission to Mars, is it really worthwhile,
the vast expense and the canceling of programs like this in
order for us to take off and start heading on a Mars mission
now? I will just go right down the line. That is fine.
Dr. Friedman. Well, thank you, Congressman. You and I have
been Mars supporters for a long time but I think you are quite
right in asking exactly that question. Certainly, I haven't
heard any of us advocate canceling programs in order to go to
Mars right now. I tried to make clear in my statement that we
not only don't have the money to do it but I don't think we
have the complete technical knowledge or the scientific
understanding. What we are building up with the robotic mission
to Mars, what we are building up with taking humans into more
complex endeavors in space, but as--and technical steps has to
be done. We go to Mars when we can afford it. I think that is
one of the things that----
Mr. Rohrabacher. And we can't afford it now. Next? Thank
you for that answer.
Dr. Spudis. There--you can sort of imagine two ways that
you might go to Mars. And one way you could go to Mars is like
we went to the Moon with Apollo. We design a spacecraft, we
develop an architecture, we launch everything that we take--we
need for the voyage from the surface of the Earth, an
enormously difficult and mind-bogglingly expensive thing to do
considering how much it costs to launch stuff and you need at
least one million pounds in LEO to go to Mars with chemical
propulsion. The other way that you might go to Mars is to have
it be a logical extension of an expanding space-faring system,
so you build it with building blocks. You start with small
pieces that basically access the various spots in cislunar and
then go to Mars when you have that system in place ready to
support a Mars mission.
Mr. Rohrabacher. But that is not just saying that we are
now going to start--this is our project, we are starting going
to Mars and that is how we are doing it.
Dr. Spudis. No, it is----
Mr. Rohrabacher. And you said you build it into your
existing projects.
Dr. Spudis. Yeah, it is one of the destinations that you
plan to----
Mr. Rohrabacher. So I take it your answer to my question is
now, we should not start on a way to Mars right now as a
project on its own?
Dr. Spudis. Yes, sir.
Dr. Squyres. Despite the fact that I have spent my entire
career devoting my efforts to robotic exploration of the
surface of Mars, I am personally a strong supporter of the
eventual human exploration of Mars. Two reasons: first, humans
are far more capable explorers then robots are. What our
magnificent state-of-the-art Opportunity rovers accomplished in
9-1/2 years on Mars, Paul Spudis, who is an experienced
geologist, could have done in a good week.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yeah, I think we all agree that eventually
human beings are going to go to Mars and we are--because we are
on this Committee, we love that vision and hopefully it may be
in our lifetime maybe, but eventually isn't the question. The
question is should we start right now a program at NASA that is
engaged in spending significant sums of money that specifically
as a Mars--manmade Mars mission?
Dr. Squyres. My answer is yes in the following sense----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Dr. Squyres. --that the next logical step, I believe, on
the road to Mars is to reestablish our capability to operate in
orbit around another object, specifically the Moon----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Um-hum.
Dr. Squyres. --and that is the next logical space--next
logical place for human spaceflight, and I think we should
embark on that as soon as possible.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. And that was as part of a Mars
overall--
Dr. Squyres. To eventually get us to Mars, yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I think we can do some of these things
without necessarily having the Mars in the background but, as
we just heard, building it into a program. What about yourself?
Mr. Cooke. I would submit that we are already on that path
in certain ways. It is not necessarily a well-defined path but,
for instance, everything that we learned from Mars robotic
missions is applicable to our knowledge base that contributes
to what we need to know to go to Mars. I would say also that
the work that is being done on International Space Station
right now in terms of understanding human frailties and how to
address those, many of those in fact that human research
program is aimed at what you need to know about people and
their ability to survive in order to go on long missions like
to Mars.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Mr. Cooke. So I would say we are already on that path that
needs to be more coordinated and to understand the intermediate
steps better. And another part----
Mr. Rohrabacher. And would you then suggested that we
should be channeling the money out from this asteroid detection
and perhaps a debris cleanup and--or defund the--for example,
the astronomy projects we heard about? You would then be
supportive of channeling that money into a direct program that
is going to Mars?
Mr. Cooke. I would not stop all these programs. It is a
matter of priorities and we----
Mr. Rohrabacher. That is right. It is a matter of
priorities.
Mr. Cooke. And we need to establish in light of a well-
thought-out, long-duration human spaceflight plan that is
coordinated with robotic missions and coordinated with these
other things to establish what steps can be taken when. It is
not all or nothing in my opinion.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for
having this hearing and I believe that the last gentleman was
right. We have to establish our priorities, and if we try to
prioritize something that today has not come, we are doing a
big disservice to the young people who are depending on the
technologies that we can put in place right now and utilize if
we end up not having the astronomy or the debris cleanup that
we need to utilize space simply because we have mission
unaccomplishable in mind in terms of Mars. Thank you very much,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Palazzo. I now recognize Mr. Schweikert for five
minutes.
Mr. Schweikert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And in some ways
the extension of where Dana was going, all right, let's deal
with sort of the reality of our world up here. I mean we have
a, you know, government that is being consumed by mandatory
spending, you know, our entitlement state. You know, it is
just--it is math. It is not political. It is the reality of
where we are at.
So I come to the four of you gentlemen. You are all
brilliant. You all have your expertise, but if you listen to
each other, you all have very different visions. If I came to
you and said help us build a box of decision-making with the
resources we actually have, I am not asking you what you think
it should be; first, what would you do to analyze saying this
is what resources, this is our timeline, how would you build
that decision-making model? Start on my left, and it is more do
I need to put all of you in a room and the last man standing
wins? Do--is it--I, you know, what is the appropriate process
here?
Dr. Friedman. Well, if we use that approach, I am at a big
disadvantage so I would rather not--I will try some other one.
The mission to the asteroid, which I have been speaking about,
doesn't replace missions to the Moon or mission to Mars. It is
part of a step of technology development and capability in
space. The mission--the only mission it replaces is the one
that was going to empty space, lunar orbit.
Mr. Schweikert. Let me sort of rephrase my box on the
question.
Dr. Friedman. Okay.
Mr. Schweikert. Do we actually have both, in your opinion,
a structure between those of us and Congress, those who are the
expertise in space and NASA and the exploration world--I am
sorry; we have a lot of echo coming--to say here is what we
have resources for, here is what is rational within that, here
is where we are going technology on the curve, here is how we
lay it out.
Dr. Friedman. Without taking into account sequestration,
which I don't understand, I think you have the existing program
right now could take these first steps and accomplish the SLS
Orion asteroid retrieval, humans taking a first step beyond the
Moon in the existing program.
Mr. Schweikert. Doctor?
Dr. Spudis. In order to figure out how to get where you are
going, you have to know where you are going to begin with. And
I look at as--I looked on it as your job as part of the
national leadership to sort of set the long-term strategic
direction. How we get there is a way--is an implementation
decision. In the way you--you should oversee that but I don't
think Congress should necessarily define it. What you should do
is ask for specific technical advice and then weigh the options
and then make your decisions on that basis.
I--you know, I wish I could say there is some magic bullet
that I can give you guys that would tell you instantly that
this is the path we need to follow and there you would be. We
all have different views on how to get there. We all want to do
that. But my basic observation is that if you craft a program
with small incremental steps that all work together,
eventually, you can build any kind of capability you want under
any kind of budgetary environment because effectively you are
building it with small steps. You are not trying to take big
chunks out of it.
Dr. Squyres. Two messages, sir. The first one is that I
believe that all four of us would agree that the logical next
step is lunar orbit. It is going there to reestablish the
capability to operate in deep space and to do the kinds of
tasks that are going to be necessary for any of the pathways
that we are talking about. So all of us, I believe, agree on
the next step: orbit the Moon. Okay.
Beyond that, my plea to you, my heartfelt plea is please do
not dictate--please do not mandate another step for NASA beyond
lunar orbit unless there is ample funding to pay for it. As I
remarked in my opening comments, that would amount to an
unfunded mandate, and that is the bane of government agencies.
What that would result in, I believe, would be dilution,
dispersion of efforts, wasted effort, and eventually is going
to take longer to get to where we want to go.
Mr. Cooke. Once again, I think that we need to have a well-
established, long-term plan that is derived by stakeholders,
and we all understand what it is so we know what steps we can
take and we need to look at the near-term budget run-out and
figure out what is the best expenditure of those funds in
making our way down that path and come up with a preferred path
but understand what constraints you have and try to work within
those bounds.
Also as a part of this we need to understand what exit
criteria we have for programs. That is something we don't do
most often because we have a program, we want to keep funding
it. But there is a time when you get to a point of diminishing
returns in a program and then you say, well, we want to make
these next steps so you free up those funds to go to those next
steps. So there is--there can be logical paths.
Mr. Schweikert. So also the willingness to cancel something
once it has either lived its life or----
Mr. Cooke. Right.
Mr. Schweikert. --not going anywhere.
Mr. Cooke. So that we can invest in what comes next.
Mr. Schweikert. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Chairman Palazzo. All right. Thank you. At this time, we
are going to go into a second round of questions if there is no
objections. None being heard.
My first question is are--and since we have been talking
about an asteroid retrieval mission, we have also been talking
about how we are going to get back to Mars and the Moon seems
to be, I guess, the majority consensus of--would be a good
first step in that direction. My question is are you aware of
any other countries that are trying to get to the Moon right
now? And if so, what countries could they be and what are their
expectations? What is driving their lunar mission? And that is
for everyone and we will start with Dr. Friedman.
Dr. Friedman. Well, Russia has two lunar missions they are
planning in this decade but they are both robotic and they,
other than that, vaguely talk about humans going to the--
having--reinvigorating their manned program with a future lunar
destination but no active program going on in that. I believe
no country has a human program to the Moon. There is talk about
Russia, there is talk about China, but they don't have any
human program and they are a long way off from doing that.
Dr. Spudis. Well, as a matter of fact, there is a--a lot of
the new discoveries about the poles of the Moon have been
discovered by a fleet of international lunar orbiters in the
past five years. I was involved in the Indian Chandrayaan-1
mission. We flew a payload on that mission to map the poles of
the Moon with radar. The Japanese had an enormous satellite
that orbited the Moon and mapped it, the Kaguya. China sent two
spacecraft to the Moon. Orbiters are getting ready to send a
lander this year, I believe. ESA has sent spacecraft, European
Space Agency. There is a lot of international interest in the
Moon.
In terms of human missions, there was a great deal of
interest and support in the European Community for our lunar
effort before it was canceled. A lot of them were very upset by
that. I have a lot of colleagues in ESA and European countries
who really didn't understand why the Moon was just discarded
without any thought or any debate. And yet they are still
interested in the Moon. They see the value of going there. They
still want to go there with people.
The other big player is China and they clearly have a
vigorous lunar program. They have a vigorous manned program.
Clearly, that is on their strategic horizon. I don't know what
their ultimate goals are. I suspect at this stage it is largely
to show they can do it like we did it 50 years ago, but if--
they can see the value of going back to the Moon just like
anyone else here can.
Dr. Squyres. I think Dr. Spudis has done an admirable job
of summarizing the robotic missions to the Moon taking place
lately, basically everybody is doing it. There is enormous
interest on the part of all major national space agencies, and
I have nothing further to add with respect--I have no
particular insights regarding the plans of other space agencies
for human exploration of the Moon.
Mr. Cooke. There have been discussions since about 2006
with 13 other space agencies with NASA in developing lunar
objectives and participating in that. And in fact, about a year
ago, I was on a committee where Russians came in and proposed
that the U.S. join with them in leading lunar exploration--
human lunar exploration. I think there is very widespread
support and interest in lunar exploration and I believe a lot
of our international partners are looking for us to be leading
them.
Chairman Palazzo. I definitely agree there are
international partners looking to us for space leadership, and
hopefully, in the days and years and decades to come, we will
be able to provide it.
Now, for example, if one of these countries does achieve
human lunar mission, and say perhaps it is China and they
create some kind of infrastructure on the Moon, and the United
States or international partners have no participation in this,
do you see any concerns that, you know, them having
infrastructure and the United States and NASA not having any
infrastructure could be--is that a warranted question? And we
can just go down the line if anybody wants to volunteer.
Dr. Friedman. The United States and the Soviet Union spent
nearly $300 billion of today's kind of money translated to the
past on missions to the Moon. As soon as they got there, they
quit. As soon as the United States got there, they quit. There
has been very little drive either in the science community or
technical community to spend anywhere near those kinds of sums
of money. I do not believe the Chinese will find any more gold
on the Moon than the United States or the Soviet Union did.
Dr. Spudis. Well, we didn't know at that time that there
was gold on the Moon and the gold is at the poles and it is in
the form of water, which is the most useful commodity you can
have to create capability and spaceflight. Now, I don't think
it is something that--having the Chinese going to the Moon is
something we should worry about but it might be something to
worry about if we are not there as well, because fundamentally,
if you are on the frontier and you are the only one doing
something, then it is your worldview, your political economic
system, your values that determine the values on the frontier.
If we are not there, whose values will be determining that?
Dr. Squyres. If we all agree that our long-term focus is
Mars and getting humans to Mars in a logical stepwise fashion
is the goal of our human spaceflight program, I see no
particular concerns one way or the other with the Chinese going
to the Moon. I don't think that measurably affects our ability
to do what we really want to do, which is send humans to
explore Mars.
Mr. Cooke. So one point on this is that great nations have
always explored, and if China is going to the Moon and we are
not--and we are muddling around somehow, we are not going to be
leading. And so I think there is a point in all of that. I
think the United States should aspire to be leaders in space
exploration.
Chairman Palazzo. Well, thank you. And since this is going
to be our last round of questions, I am going to take a little
liberty with time and I encourage my Members to do the same.
This question is for Mr. Cooke and Dr. Friedman. The Keck
study proposed to the use of advanced hall thrusters for the
mission concept as opposed to other forms of solar-electric
propulsion. What advantages would hall thrusters offer that
other types of thrusters such as VASIMR do not? Dr. Friedman or
Mr. Cooke?
Dr. Friedman. Well, this is a little bit out of my
expertise so I am going to have to relay what others have told
me, and that is that the--both the efficiency and the
availability, the hall thrusters having been used in space and
now being developed and usually scaled up to this kind of a
mission, VASIMR is certainly the kind of thing we should look
to in the future when we get to the surface of other worlds and
certainly on Mars missions. But I think for the fact that we
want to do this mission in just three or four years, hall
thrusters are here now and they are available, and so they are
efficient enough. They can be scaled to the right power level
now.
Mr. Cooke. I believe that hall thrusters probably have the
most experience in terms of electric propulsion. I actually
used to fund VASIMR when I was at Johnson Space Center and it
certainly is very interesting technology and uses more readily
accessible fuels than the xenon that is required for electric
propulsion. The question I have is have we by default somehow
made a decision that electric propulsion is exactly the right
way to get to Mars? There is also nuclear thermal propulsion,
there is nuclear electric, there is--we do need high-efficiency
propulsion but I think we are using electric propulsion in this
case because it is most readily available and it is in the form
of hall thrusters. But I am not sure that the decision--or
discussions have been made--or had--or the arguments made to
that that is absolutely the right propulsion technique for
Mars--eventual Mars--human Mars exploration.
Chairman Palazzo. I now recognize Ms. Edwards.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
allowing us to go on a bit because I think this is really the
core of what it is that we have got to come to some agreement
about over these next several weeks. I think it has been a
shame that NASA as an agency and the industry has not had the
kind of concerted direction both from the Congress and from
various Administrations that really is appropriate to the task
that is in front of the Agency.
I share Dr. Squyres' concerns about, you know, aligning the
budget and the workforce to the work that we are charged with
doing. I think it has been quite unfortunate that the Agency
has been put in a position of having a lot of ideas thrust into
its basket and none of the money that is required to perform at
the--in the kind of way that we need it to.
And so Dr. Squyres, I know that you talked about the
importance of human exploration and how that can serve the task
of galvanizing the collective spirit of all of us that then
will allow for the match of the money with that spirit and
excitement and so I appreciate that. And so I want to explore
what is going on with SLS and Orion because, Dr. Squyres, as
you indicated in your statement that no human-rated launch
system in NASA's history will fly as infrequently as that
projected for SLS and Orion and the effect of such a low launch
rate, as you stated, would make it difficult to maintain
program momentum and to keep flight teams sharp and mission-
ready.
And Mr. Cooke, you indicated in your statement that SLS and
Orion are essential to any human spaceflight strategy. So I
wonder if you can comment about how funding to date, which has
been lower than what has been authorized, has impacted your
position on this and if SLS and Orion are critical regardless
of the interim strategy. Aren't we putting NASA behind the 8
ball by not adequately funding SLS and Orion?
Dr. Squyres. I am deeply worried about this as I noted in
my written testimony. If you look at the current plans for SLS
and Orion, they call for an Orion flight, no crew on board, in
2014 launched not on SLS but on a Delta IV Heavy to go far from
the Earth, come back, and reenter and validate that part of the
system. Next, we hope in 2017 would be another flight again
with no crew on board. And then finally, the first flight with
an actual crew on board would be eight years from now in 2021
at the earliest to probably orbit the Moon, which is I think,
as I said, a logical next step, and then a flight right after
that that is maybe something like every two years or so as we
can afford to do it. If you look back at every human-rated
flight system that we have ever had over NASA's history, none
has flown so infrequently and I am deeply concerned about this.
You can quibble all you want about whether SLS is the right
design, whether Orion is the right design, but those decisions
have been made. What I now see is a program that is not funded
at an adequate level to allow that system to be proven out in--
at a logical pace. And that is why I beg of you as a committee
not to pile more objectives on NASA beyond what they are
already trying to do because they don't even have enough money
to do what they are trying to do now.
Ms. Edwards. So if we came to a conclusion that Mars is the
next ultimate destination and we need a launch vehicle,
wouldn't it make sense given that we know that is what we need
to make those investments that we have to make to keep us on a
pathway but to do it in a way that ensures that, you know,
forget the eight-year path, that there are some number of
events, of activities that ensured safety and mission teams
that were able to provide the kind of support that they need
and to be mission-ready? It would seem to me that we would need
to really--if that is our goal, that we would really need to
frontload what we are doing so that we could stay on a pathway
that would result in any kind of success over the next decade.
Dr. Squyres. I think there are two elements. I think the
first element is, as you say, to more adequately fund SLS and
Orion so that they can be developed and proven out on a pace
that really supports, I think, a safe pathway towards
developing these cislunar orbit capabilities that we have
talked about as the next step. And the other is that, in
parallel with that, begin to sensibly and aggressively pursue
international partnerships that may provide other pieces of the
puzzle.
I stress, however, that if we intend to involve
international partners in a deep, meaningful way in this
adventure to Mars, we need to recognize that those
international partners should have a seat at the table when it
comes to the negotiating what the steps beyond lunar orbit
ought to be.
Ms. Edwards. Mr. Cooke?
Mr. Cooke. I think you are definitely on the right path.
Once again, those--the capability, for instance, for SLS with
its capacity, it is not only just lifting mass but it is also
volume of payloads and diameters that you need for the kind of
human spaceflight elements that we are going to launch down the
road and a deep space crew vehicle is--has capabilities that
are incredibly important as well. The flight rate is dependent
and is driven totally by funding at this point. They are going
through the development, which is a cost, but then you--then
the recurring units that you get to when you actually start
flying missions, of course, they are expensive. So the flight
rate in itself is driven by funding.
And I will go back to a point I made earlier, the fact that
they definitely need more funding. I also believe that starting
with inflation because the effect of flatlined budget with no
inflation increase means that your buying power is decreasing
and it is compounding interest. So as you work down the years,
your buying power goes--is actually going down. You are able to
afford less and you are flying less. And so the inflation
aspect of the funding is a first step in that discussion.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Palazzo. I now recognize Mr. Posey.
Mr. Posey. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In the last two decades we have had two dozen or more
programs to nowhere, programs that were started under one
Administration or one Congress and canceled or funding stopped
by the next or another, and I think one of the biggest fears
that we all have is that we will have more of those, that
whatever direction we ultimately agree to go in tomorrow that
the next day or the next Congress or the next Administration
might decide to cease and pivot into another direction, which
Constellation, for example, was a waste of $9 billion.
Congressman Culberson has proposed the REAL Space Act that
basically would set up a board of directors comprised of
astronauts, eminent scientists, and such, and that board would
appoint an administrator for a term of ten years. I don't know
if it is a rolling ten years, how they will do it, but try and
give some sustainability, some continuity to our space assets
and their aspirations in our programs.
And I realize, you know, nobody in the near future is going
to figure out how to make chicken salad out of chicken manure,
but I wonder how you feel Culberson's plan would work in
reality, if you think that would be part of the answer that
might help us sustain our programs. And we can start with Mr.
Friedman.
Dr. Friedman. Well, I am not sure that that is a magic
bullet, but certainly we all want stability in the program, and
anything that the Congress can do to add to that, which of
course means would they really be giving up their year-by-year
funding authority on programs?
I think the key to sustainability really relates also to
your first question, which is that public interest. We--if the
program is exciting and bringing back results while it is
undergoing, not some distant future but something that we can
do in the current decade, the next decade and making--setting
distance records and speed records and new accomplishment for
human spaceflight, learning new things in other worlds, that
will--that is the only way we can sustain the space program,
and to me, that is going to be the key to have a publicly
exciting, interesting program.
Mr. Posey. Thank you.
Dr. Spudis. Yeah, I would certainly agree with that in the
sense that regular milestones on short timescales are critical.
You need to craft a program that provides paybacks that can be
seen under reasonable lengths of time, five years, four years,
something like that. If you don't have the program structured
that way, you are trying to bite off too big of a chunk. I need
a giant 50-ton lunar lander and I have got to have it by this
date. You are not going to go anywhere. You are going to
consign yourself to future programs to nowhere.
So what I have tried to do is to look at this from a
systems point of view. How can I craft a program where I use
small pieces? Each one is not particularly expensive in itself
but can be operated together as a complex system. And I think
that can be done. And one of the values of going to the Moon is
that it is close enough to where you can do that. You can
actually use robotic systems to create bigger, complex systems
out of small pieces so that gives you the ability to start
returning regular progress on very short timescales, and I
think that is the key to long-term sustainability.
Dr. Squyres. I am not personally familiar enough with Mr.
Culberson's proposed plan to comment on whether it is the key
to maintaining programs----
Mr. Posey. No, not the key. No program is perfect but just,
you know, your initial thoughts.
Dr. Squyres. Well, I agree with the previous two speakers
that establishing and maintaining stability in this program is
critically important. And while the money that gets wasted is a
big problem, I think another very big problem has to do with
squandering our most precious resource. The most precious thing
that NASA has is not SLS, it is not Orion, it is not the
Curiosity rover. It is the NASA workforce and the knowledge
base that they possess. And what I see when I see NASA changing
direction on timescales of a few years is I see demoralization
of that workforce and I see erosion of that workforce. And I am
constantly discouraged when I see immensely talented young
engineers and young scientists who currently work for NASA
deciding that the best place for them to pursue their goals in
space is someplace else. And if we cannot maintain a continuity
of vision and a continuity of purpose within the Agency, we are
going to lose that workforce, we are going to lose that
capability, and NASA will no longer be able to do what it
currently can do.
Mr. Posey. Well, they did that after Apollo and they are
doing it after Shuttle, and I don't think anybody at NASA
actually laid a hand on the vehicles but all the people that
did are looking for jobs now. They are out of work and they are
not going to come back when you call them to come back. It is a
tremendous loss of talent and personnel.
Mr. Cooke. I have read that plan that you mentioned and I
think it has merit and it should--it merits discussion. I go
back to the fact, though, that you need a stable, strategic
plan on human spaceflight as well, and then that sort of a
structure could then be one you would have confidence perhaps
and to manage it. So I think that is important.
And I will use an example of where stability has made a
huge difference in a program and it was space station. In the
late '80s and early '90s, there--the funding was up and down,
very much like what is going through on SLS and MPCV Orion. And
we went through a redesign. I was in the middle of all that. I
led the engineering under Brian O'Connor and then Bill
Shepherd, but we came out of that with an approach and we got
stable funding for a number of years. And whereas the program
before Space Station Freedom was redesigning and renegotiating
contracts every year, we had stable funding that we were able
to plan against and actually make progress. And I think without
that stability in funding that we got back then--it was $2.1
billion a year I believe--we might not have made it. And the
space station is a credit to everyone who ever worked on it
because it is an incredible feat. But the stability--that is an
example of where stability turned a program around in my view.
Mr. Posey. And that was sustained by at one time one vote
in the House.
Mr. Cooke. Yes, it was. And it was right at that time, it
was, yeah.
Mr. Posey. Thank you.
Chairman Palazzo. I want to thank the witnesses for their
valuable testimony and the Members for their questions. The
Members of the Committee may have additional questions for you
and we will ask you to respond to those in writing. The record
will remain open for two weeks for additional comments and
written questions from Members.
The witnesses are excused and this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:28 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Louis Friedman
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Paul Spudis
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Steven M. Squyres
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Mr. Douglas Cooke
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Report submitted by Dr. Paul Spudis
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]