[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXPLORING OUR SOLAR SYSTEM:
THE ASTEROIDS ACT AS A KEY STEP
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
September 10, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-93
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
92-326 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
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 ROBIN KELLY, Illinois
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota KATHERINE CLARK, Massachusetts
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
RANDY WEBER, Texas
CHRIS COLLINS, New York
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
------
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 P. KENNEDY III,
MO BROOKS, ALABAMA Massachusetts
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana DEREK KILMER, Washington
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida MARC VEASEY, Texas
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona JULIA BROWNLEY, California
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma FREDERICA WILSON, Florida
CHRIS COLLINS, New York EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
September 10, 2014
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...................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 13
Statement by Representative Bill Posey, Subcommittee on Space,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 13
Statement by Representative Donna F. Edwards, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 14
Written Statement............................................ 15
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 16
Written Statement............................................ 17
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 18
Written Statement............................................ 18
Witnesses:
Dr. Jim Green, Director, NASA Planetary Science Division
Oral Statement............................................... 20
Written Statement............................................ 22
Dr. Philip Christensen, Co-Chair, NRC Committee on Astrobiology
and Planetary Science (CAPS), Chair, Mars Panel, NRC Planetary
Decadal Survey, Regents Professor, Arizona State University
Oral Statement............................................... 29
Written Statement............................................ 31
Dr. Jim Bell, Professor of Earth and Space Science Exploration,
Arizona State University, and President, Board of Directors,
The Planetary Society
Oral Statement............................................... 36
Written Statement............................................ 39
Dr. Mark Sykes, CEO and Director, Planetary Science Institute
Oral Statement............................................... 51
Written Statement............................................ 53
Ms. Joanne Gabrynowicz, Professor Emerita, Director Emerita,
Journal of Space Law Editor-in-Chief Emerita, University of
Mississippi
Oral Statement............................................... 67
Written Statement............................................ 69
Discussion....................................................... 81
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Jim Green, Director, NASA Planetary Science Division......... 98
Dr. Philip Christensen, Co-Chair, NRC Committee on Astrobiology
and Planetary Science (CAPS), Chair, Mars Panel, NRC Planetary
Decadal Survey, Regents Professor, Arizona State University.... 108
Dr. Jim Bell, Professor of Earth and Space Science Exploration,
Arizona State University, and President, Board of Directors,
The Planetary Society.......................................... 115
Dr. Mark Sykes, CEO and Director, Planetary Science Institute.... 130
Ms. Joanne Gabrynowicz, Professor Emerita, Director Emerita,
Journal of Space Law Editor-in-Chief Emerita, University of
Mississippi.................................................... 136
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Letters submitted for the record by Steven M. Palazzo, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 148
EXPLORING OUR SOLAR SYSTEM:
THE ASTEROIDS ACT AS A KEY STEP
----------
WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 10, 2014
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Space
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steven
Palazzo [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Palazzo. The Subcommittee on Space will come to
order.
Good morning. Welcome to today's hearing titled ``Exploring
Our Solar System: The ASTEROIDS Act as a Key Step.'' In front
of you are packets containing the written testimony,
biographies, and Truth in Testimony disclosures for today's
witness. I recognize myself for five minutes for an opening
statement.
Good morning. I would like to thank our witnesses for being
here today to testify about future scientific exploration of
our solar system and the recently introduced ASTEROIDS Act.
Planetary science has long inspired us to imagine what it
would be like to visit another planet in our solar system. It
has shown us that there are methane lakes on Saturn's moon,
Titan, icy plumes on Jupiter's moon, Enceladus, and that humans
can maintain a robotic presence on Mars.
However, over the last few years the Administration has
consistently cut NASA's Planetary Science Division budget.
Meanwhile, NASA's Earth Science program has grown by more than
40 percent. There are 13 other agencies throughout the Federal
Government that currently fund over $2.5 billion in climate
science research, but only one agency does space exploration
and space science.
Congress has long been a supporter of planetary science,
particularly as it pertains to asteroids. After the air burst
over Chelyabinsk, Russia, that caused tens of millions of
dollars in damage and injured nearly 1,500 people, this
Committee held two hearings on NASA's near-Earth asteroid
tracking program and its efforts to fulfill the requirements of
the George E. Brown Near-Earth Object Survey Act.
Support for the detection and characterization of asteroids
is not to be confused with the President's current proposed
Asteroid Redirect Mission, or ARM. It is no secret that this
Committee has expressed significant skepticism with regards to
ARM. NASA's own experts have been critical of the plan. NASA's
own Small Bodies Assessment Group recently said ``its benefits
for advancing the knowledge of asteroids and furthering
planetary defense strategies are limited and not compelling.''
Additionally, the NASA Advisory Council has warned that ``the
ARM mission as currently defined may pose an unacceptable cost
and technical risk.'' This is not the type of review you want
to hear from the experts that NASA has chartered to provide
advice. While I am indeed interested in the opportunities
offered by near-Earth objects, I continue to be concerned that
the Administration is not heeding the warnings of these experts
for the mission that it has designed.
Today we will also be discussing the bipartisan efforts of
two members of this Committee to offer a legal framework for
the private sector to utilize celestial resources. The American
Space Technology for Exploring Resource Opportunities in Deep
Space Act, or ASTEROIDS Act, is a bipartisan bill introduced by
Congressman Posey and Congressman Kilmer. The two of them have
worked very hard to put this legislation together, and I am
interested to hear what our witnesses have to say about the
potential benefits offered by space resource utilization.
It is my sincere hope that the Administration will stop
spending time on poorly designed and executed missions such as
ARM, and look to the private sector and scientists for input on
the best way to maximize our limited resources.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Palazzo follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Space
Chairman Steven M. Palazzo
Good morning. I would like to thank our witnesses for being here
today to testify about future scientific exploration of our solar
system and the recently introduced ASTEROIDS Act.
Planetary science has long inspired us to imagine what it would be
like to visit another planet in our solar system. It has shown us that
there are methane lakes on Saturn's moon Titan, icy plumes on Jupiter's
moon Enceladus, and that humans can maintain a robotic presence on
Mars.
However, over the last few years the Administration has
consistently cut NASA's Planetary Science Division budget. Meanwhile,
NASA's Earth Science program has grown by more than 40%. There are 13
agencies throughout the federal government that currently fund over
$2.5 billion in climate science research, but only one agency does
space exploration and space science.
Congress has long been a supporter of planetary science,
particularly as it pertains to asteroids. After the air burst over
Chelyabinsk (Russia) that caused tens of millions of dollars in damage
and injured nearly 1,500 people, this committee held two hearings on
NASA's near Earth asteroid tracking programs and its efforts to fulfill
the requirements of the George E. Brown Near-Earth Object Survey Act.
Support for the detection and characterization of asteroids is not
to be confused with the President's current proposed Asteroid Redirect
Mission or ARM. It is no secret that this committee has expressed
significant skepticism with regards to ARM. NASA's own experts have
been critical the plan. NASA's own Small Bodies Assessment Group
recently said ``its benefits for advancing the knowledge of asteroids
and furthering planetary defense strategies are limited and not
compelling.'' Additionally, the NASA Advisory Council has warned that
``the ARM mission as currently defined may pose an unacceptable cost
and technical risk.''
This is not the type of review you want to hear from the experts
that NASA has chartered to provide advice. While I am indeed interested
in the opportunities offered by near-Earth objects, I continue to be
concerned that the Administration is not heeding the warnings of these
experts for the mission that it has designed.
Today we will also be discussing the bipartisan efforts of two
members of this committee to offer a legal framework for the private
sector to utilize celestial resources. The ``American Space Technology
for Exploring Resource Opportunities In Deep Space Act'' or ASTEROIDS
Act, is a bipartisan bill introduced by Congressman Posey and
Congressman Kilmer. The two of them have worked very hard to put this
legislation together and I am interested to hear what our witnesses
have to say about the potential benefits offered by space resource
utilization.
It is my sincere hope that the Administration will stop spending
time on poorly designed and executed missions such as ARM and look to
the private sector and scientists for input on the best way to maximize
our limited resources.
At this time, I yield my remaining time to Mr. Posey from Florida.
Chairman Palazzo. At this time, I yield my remaining time
to Mr. Posey from Florida.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing, which will include discussion on H.R. 5063, the
ASTEROIDS Act. I would like to thank my colleague and original
cosponsor, Congressman Derek Kilmer, for his work on this bill
and the 10 bipartisan cosponsors who we already have on this
Committee.
Mr. Chairman, this is an exciting bill, both in subject
matter and as a matter of practical legislation. Space
exploration is inspiring, and today we will discuss the
importance of a legal framework to encourage a new area of
private space exploration. Today, private companies do not have
legal certainty that if they obtain resources from an asteroid
that they can own them. The ASTEROIDS Act would provide this
certainty to American companies, and companies are empowered to
conduct their operations without harmful interference.
Asteroids can hold valuable minerals, some in impressive
quantities, as well as resources essential for continued space
exploration.
I look forward to further discussion on this topic. Again,
if you want American commercial space companies to get off the
ground, we need to create the proper legal framework for them
to do so.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Posey.
I now recognize the Ranking Member, the gentlelady from
Maryland, Ms. Edwards.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding
today's hearing on planetary science, and I hope we do focus on
the science, and I want to welcome our distinguished panel of
witnesses this morning.
The accomplishments in planetary science research and
robotic exploration of the solar system are indicative of the
exemplary work being done by NASA and its industry contractors,
academia, and the non-governmental entities that comprise the
planetary science community. The discoveries and advancements
being enabled by NASA's planetary science program are in fact
thrilling.
Just weeks from now, NASA's MAVEN spacecraft will enter
into Mars orbit for its study of the Mars atmosphere. In
October, just over a month from now, it will be ``all hands on
deck'' for our Mars orbiters and rovers when NASA will have an
unprecedented opportunity to use these assets to observe C/2013
A1--otherwise known as Comet Siding Spring--as it passes near
Mars and bathes the planet in dust from its coma and tail. It
is fortuitous that MAVEN, which will be a key observer of this
event, will have arrived just weeks before Siding Spring's
encounter with Mars. Finally, later this fall, the European-
U.S. Rosetta comet mission will make the first attempt at a
controlled landing of a robotic lander on a comet.
What this means to me is that we are getting real value
from our investments, our current investments, in planetary
science, and in fact, I would point out that the authorization
bill that was approved unanimously out of this Subcommittee,
and out of this Congress, balances those investments with other
investments that we are making in the other important missions
of NASA. Because a strong planetary science program is
important not only to advancing our scientific understanding of
the solar system but also to detecting potentially hazardous
near-Earth objects, providing scientific insights relevant to
the long-term goal of sending humans to Mars and to training of
our future scientists and engineers, and I can't underscore
enough the importance of NASA's programs including planetary
science to inspiring the next generation. NASA's science
missions provide concrete connections between learning science,
technology, engineering, and math in the classroom and exciting
projects in space, perhaps even ones that students dream to be
a part of one day.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses
on the many developments taking place in planetary science. I
also look forward to working with you on ensuring that Congress
provides the resources NASA needs for all of its mission areas,
including planetary science, to enable a robust and innovative
21st century U.S. space program going forward.
And while my understanding is that the purpose of this
hearing is to examine planetary science, as well I note that
the majority has asked for discussion on H.R. 5063, the
ASTEROIDS Act. The issues raised by the Act on resource
utilization and property rights are important and interesting
areas that I hope the Subcommittee will continue to explore
more substantively in the next Congress.
Before I close, I also want to acknowledge the presence of
our former chairman, Bart Gordon, with us here today and say
hello to him and thank him for his continued public service
even outside of Congress, and I want to take a moment to
remember a key figure in NASA's planetary sciences, Dr. Noel
Hinners, who passed away just this last Friday. Dr. Hinners was
a Chief Scientist of NASA, Director of the Goddard Space Flight
Center out in Prince George's County, where I live. He directed
also the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum, and was
Vice President of Flight Systems at Lockheed Martin where he
was responsible for Lockheed's work on planetary science
missions. NASA's planetary science program wouldn't be what it
is today without the contributions of leaders such as Dr.
Hinners, and our thoughts and prayers are with his family
during this difficult time.
I want to say in closing that we have a lot of issues to
explore, and they aren't just about the United States. They
implicate our partners internationally, so as we move forward,
let's think about our responsibility not just to U.S.-based
companies, and we are concerned about those, but also to
connecting our concerns with our international partners so that
we can truly move forward in a 21st century manner for our
space program, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Edwards follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Space
Ranking Minority Member Donna F. Edwards
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's hearing on planetary
science, and welcome to our distinguished panel of witnesses.
The accomplishments in planetary science research and robotic
exploration of the solar system are indicative of the exemplary work
being done by NASA and its industry contractors, academia, and the non-
governmental entities that comprise the planetary science community.
The discoveries and advancements being enabled by NASA's planetary
science program are thrilling.
Just weeks from now, NASA's MAVEN spacecraft will enter into Mars
orbit for its study of the Mars atmosphere. And in October, just over a
month from now, it will be ``all hands on deck'' for our Mars orbiters
and rovers when NASA will have an unprecedented opportunity to use
these assets to observe C/2013 A1--otherwise known as Comet Siding
Spring--as it passes near Mars and bathes the planet in dust from its
coma and tail. It is fortuitous that MAVEN, which will be a key
observer of this event, will have arrived just weeks before Siding
Spring's encounter with Mars. Finally, later this fall, the European-
U.S. Rosetta comet mission will make the first attempt at a controlled
landing of a robotic lander on a comet.
What this means to me is that we are getting real value from our
investments in planetary science. Because a strong planetary science
program is important not only to advancing our scientific understanding
of the solar system, but also to detecting potentially hazardous
nearEarth objects, providing scientific insights relevant to the long-
term goal of sending humans to Mars, and to the training of our future
scientists and engineers.
And I can't underscore enough the importance of NASA's programs,
including planetary science, to inspiring the next generation. NASA's
science missions provide concrete connections between learning science,
technology, engineering, and math in the classroom and exciting
projects in space, perhaps even ones that students dream to be a part
of one day.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on the
many developments taking place in planetary science. I also look
forward to working with you on ensuring that Congress provides the
resources NASA needs for all of its mission areas, including planetary
science, to enable a robust and innovative 21st century U.S. space
program going forward.
And while my understanding is that the purpose of this hearing is
to examine planetary science, I also note that the Majority has asked
for discussion on H.R. 5063, the ASTEROIDS Act. The issues raised by
the Act on resource utilization and property rights are important and
interesting areas that I hope the Subcommittee will continue to explore
more substantively in the next Congress.
Before I close, I want to remember a key figure in NASA and
planetary sciences, Dr. Noel Hinners, who passed away last Friday. Dr.
Hinners was a chief scientist of NASA, director of the Goddard Space
Flight Center, director of the Smithonsian's National Air and Space
Museum, and vice president of flight systems at Lockheed Martin where
he was responsible for Lockheed's work on NASA planetary science
missions.
NASA's planetary science program wouldn't be what it is today
without the contributions of leaders such as Dr. Hinners, and our
thoughts are with his family during this difficult time.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you, Ms. Edwards.
I now recognize the chairman of the full Committee, Mr.
Smith, for his opening statement.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Planetary science teaches us about how our solar system
works and provides clues about how it was formed. Planetary
missions search for scientific evidence that microbial life
could potentially exist on planets within our solar system.
They also map the locations of minerals and potential water
sources on asteroids, comets, moons, and planets that could be
extracted for use here on Earth.
One such mission called New Horizons is a robotic mission
scheduled to reach Pluto next year. It will provide the first
close-up images and measurements ever made of that dwarf
planet. A mission to Europa could search for microbial life in
the salty waters that lie underneath that moon's icy crust.
The President's budget requests have made it clear that
this Administration does not consider planetary science a
priority. Over the past two years, the Obama Administration has
significantly cut funding for NASA's Planetary Science
Division.
In June, the House passed the bipartisan NASA Authorization
Act of 2014 by a vote of 401 to 2. In May, the House passed the
Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill H.R. 4660 by a
bipartisan vote of 321 to 87. The bill provides $170 million
more to the Planetary Science Division than the President's
budget request for Fiscal Year 2015. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations also approved a bill that would provide $23
million above the President's request.
Congress has made it clear, on a bipartisan and bicameral
basis, that we value the planetary science community and the
important work that they do. Planetary science missions help
lay the groundwork for manned missions. If the Administration
does not support planetary science, how can they claim to have
serious interest in human space exploration? I hope that the
Administration is paying attention to today's discussion.
Planetary research also has significant commercial
interest. We now know that asteroids contain rare minerals that
are in short supply here on Earth. Several U.S. companies hope
to someday develop business models that leverage the findings
of planetary science to identify and extract these resources.
The legal framework to establish property rights to these
resources has yet to be established. H.R. 5063, the American
Space Technology for Exploring Resource Opportunities in Deep
Space Act--ASTEROIDS Act--introduced by Representatives Bill
Posey of Florida and Derek Kilmer of Washington, is the first
bill to address important issues about the relatively new
commercial intent to obtain resources from space. It discusses
property rights for companies that find rare minerals and other
materials in asteroids. It also directs the President to
minimize barriers to growth of the industry.
And Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses today about their perspectives, especially on the
ASTEROIDS Act, and the groundbreaking work that is being
conducted in planetary science.
I thank you, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Full Committee Chairman Lamar S. Smith
Thank you, Chairman Palazzo, for holding this hearing. Planetary
science teaches us about how our Solar System works and provides clues
about how it was formed.
Planetary missions search for scientific evidence that microbial
life could potentially exist on planets within our solar system. They
also map the locations of minerals and potential water sources on
asteroids, comets, moons, and planets that could be extracted for use
here on Earth.
One such mission called New Horizons is a robotic mission scheduled
to reach Pluto next year. It will provide the first close-up images and
measurements ever made of the dwarf planet. A mission to Europa could
search for microbial life in the salty waters that lie underneath that
moon's icy crust.
The President's budget requests have made it clear that this
Administration does not consider planetary science a priority. Over the
past two years, the Obama Administration has significantly cut funding
for NASA's Planetary Science Division.
In June, the House passed the bipartisan NASA Authorization Act of
2014 by a vote of 401 to 2. In May, the House passed the Commerce-
Justice-Science appropriations bill (H.R. 4660) by a bipartisan vote of
321 to 87. The bill provides $170 million more to the Planetary Science
Division than the President's budget request for FY15.The Senate
Committee on Appropriations also approved a bill that would provide $23
million above the President's request.
Congress has made it clear, on a bipartisan and bicameral basis,
that we value the planetary science community and the important work
they do.
Planetary science missions help lay the ground work for manned
missions. If the Administration does not support planetary science, how
can they claim to have serious interest in human space exploration? I
hope that the Administration is paying attention to today's discussion.
Planetary research also has significant commercial interest. We now
know that asteroids contain water and rare minerals that are in short
supply on Earth. Several U.S. companies hope to someday develop
business models that leverage the findings of planetary science to
identify and extract these resources.
The legal framework to establish property rights to these resources
has yet to be established. H.R. 5063, the ``American Space Technology
for Exploring Resource Opportunities in Deep Space Act'' (ASTEROIDS
Act), introduced by Representatives Bill Posey of Florida and Derek
Kilmer of Washington is the first bill to address important issues
about the relatively new commercial intent toobtain resources from
space.
It discusses property rights for companies that find rare minerals
and other materials in asteroids. It also directs the President to
minimize barriers to growth of the industry.
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel of witnesses
today about their perspectives on the ASTEROIDS Act and the
groundbreaking work that's being conducted in planetary science.
Thank you.
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
I now recognize the Ranking Member of the full Committee,
Ms. Johnson, for her opening remarks.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, and good morning. I want
to join Chairman Palazzo and Ranking Member Edwards in
welcoming our witnesses to this morning's hearing.
Hearings such as today's provide a clear reminder of the
amazing advantages--advances that are possible when this Nation
makes a sustained commitment to investing in research and
development. It is not an overstatement to say that the
planetary science missions that will be discussed today would
have been considered the stuff of science fiction not too many
years ago.
As I speak, a spacecraft is circling the planet Saturn and
imaging its moons, and a robotic rover is preparing to climb a
mountain on Mars and even attempt to image a comet that will be
visible to the Martian sky. A spacecraft is on its way to
Pluto, and we are discovering and tracking asteroids that could
potentially threaten the Earth.
Just this past weekend, in conjunction with the comments
that are made by both the chairman and Mr. Posey, I visited
Brownsville, Texas, and the University of Texas at
Brownsville's astronomy program and the site for the new SpaceX
launching station.
We are living in a wonderful time of scientific
exploration, and I look forward to hearing more about NASA's
planetary science program this morning, but we also need to
hear about what problems need to be addressed to ensure that
this record of achievement can continue.
And with that, I want to welcome you again and look forward
to your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Full Committeee
Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
Good morning. I want to join Chairman Palazzo and Ranking Member
Edwards in welcoming our witnesses to this morning's hearing.
Hearings such as today's provide a clear reminder of the amazing
advances that are possible when this nation makes a sustained
commitment to investing in research and development. It is not an
overstatement to say that the planetary science missions that will be
discussed today would have been considered the stuff of science fiction
not too many years ago.
As I speak, a spacecraft is circling the planet Saturn and imaging
its moons, and a robotic rover is preparing to climb a mountain on Mars
and even attempt to image a comet that will be visible in the Martian
sky. A spacecraft is on its way to Pluto, and we are discovering and
tracking asteroids that could potentially threaten the Earth.
We are living in a wonderful time of scientific exploration, and I
look forward to hearing more about NASA's planetary science program
this morning. But we also need to hear about what problems need to be
addressed to ensure that this record of achievement can continue.
With that, I again want to welcome our witnesses, and I look
forward to hearing your testimony.
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 witnesses. Our
first witness, Dr. Jim Green, has served in numerous capacities
within NASA throughout his career and has served as NASA's
Director of Planetary Science since 2006. Dr. Green, an expert
in space physics, has written more than 100 articles in
referred journals, primarily on the subject of Earth's and
Jupiter's magnetospheres. He has also authored over 50 articles
on the technical aspects of networks and data systems. Dr.
Green received his Ph.D. in physics from the University of
Iowa.
Our second witness, Dr. Philip Christensen, is Co-Chair of
the National Research Council's Committee on Astrobiology and
Planetary Sciences and Regents Professor at Arizona State
University. His work in developing, building, and operating
infrared cameras and spectrometers has been invaluable in
studying the surface of Mars as equipment designed by Dr.
Christensen has mapped the surface composition, search for
habitable environments and helped to select the sites for
future Mars landers and rovers. He served on the NRC Planetary
Science Decadal Survey as the Chair of the Mars Panel. Dr.
Christensen is a fellow of the American Geophysical Union and
the Geological Society of America, and is the Co-Chair of the
National Research Council's Committee on Astrobiology and
Planetary Science. Dr. Christensen earned a B.S. in geology and
an M.S. and Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics from the
University of California-Los Angeles.
Our third witness today is Dr. Jim Bell. Dr. Bell is a
Professor in the School of Earth and Space Exploration at
Arizona State University, an Adjunct Professor of Astronomy at
Cornell University, and President of The Planetary Society. His
career has focused on robotic space exploration, and he has
been involved in a number of NASA space exploration missions
including serving as the Lead Scientist in charge of the
Panoramic Camera Color Imaging System on the Mars rovers Spirit
and Opportunity, and as the Deputy Principal Investigator of
the Mass Cam Camera System on the Curiosity Mars rover. Dr.
Bell is a markedly active and prolific planetary scientist,
having authored or co-authored nearly 200 research papers in
peer-reviewed scientific journals. His research is frequently
featured in publications such as Sky and Telescope and
Scientific American. Dr. Bell received his B.S. in planetary
science and aeronautics from the California Institute of
Technology and obtained his M.S. in geology and geophysics and
his Ph.D. in planetary geosciences from the University of
Hawaii.
Our fourth witness is Dr. Mark Sykes, CEO and Director of
the Planetary Science Institute. Dr. Sykes is Co-Investigator
of the NASA Dawn Mission to Vesta and Ceres, and has chaired
many NASA review panels and advisory groups. Dr. Sykes received
his B.A. in physics from the University of Oregon and a master
of electronic science degree from the Oregon Graduate Center.
He then went on to obtain a Ph.D. in planetary sciences and a
juris doctorate from the University of Arizona.
Our final witness, Professor Joanne Gabrynowicz, is
Professor Emerita at the University of Mississippi and was the
Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Space Law. She currently
serves on the National Geospatial Advisory Committee, the NASA
Advisory Committee's Planetary Protection Subcommittee, and the
U.S. Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's Advisory Committee on commercial remote
sensing. She is also the Director of the International
Institute of Space Law and the Chair of its publications
committee. She received her B.A. at Hunter College and her J.D.
from Yeshiva University.
Thanks again to our witnesses for being here today. As our
witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited to five
minutes each after which the Members of the Committee will have
five minutes each to ask questions.
I ask unanimous consent at this time to enter into the
record a letter from Planetary Resources. Without objection.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Chairman Palazzo. I now recognize Dr. Green for five
minutes to present his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. JIM GREEN, DIRECTOR,
NASA PLANETARY SCIENCE DIVISION
Dr. Green. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I
would like thank you so much for the opportunity to appear
today and discuss briefly the status of NASA's Planetary
Science Program.
NASA'S planetary science missions continue to explore our
solar system in unrivaled scope and depth. NASA's spacecraft
have visited every planet as well as a variety of small bodies
that have much to tell us about the solar system's formation
and evolution.
We are seeking answers to fundamental science questions
that guide NASA's exploration of the solar system. These
questions are: how did our solar system form and evolve? Is
there life beyond Earth? And what are the hazards to life on
Earth from our solar system objects?
With an exploration strategy based on progressing from fly-
bys to orbiting to landing to roving and, finally, to return
samples from planetary bodies, NASA advances the scientific
understanding of our solar system in extraordinary ways while
pushing the limits of spacecraft and robotic engineering,
design and operations.
Briefly, beginning in our inner solar system, NASA's
Messenger spacecraft has been orbiting the planet Mercury now
for more than two years. Mercury's surface has been shaped by
impact and volcanic processes. We also find that Mercury
harbors abundant volatiles in permanently shadowed craters. At
the moon, the LADEE mission successfully studied the very
tenuous lunar atmosphere and dust environment until its planned
impact on April 17th. With LADEE, we also successfully tested
high-speed optical communication back to Earth. This technology
will be a critical element in our future Mars missions and
beyond.
At Mars, the Curiosity rover has landed in an ancient river
bed. It has determined the age of the surrounding Martian
rocks. It has found evidence that the planet could have
sustained microbial life and taken the first readings of
radiation on the Martian surface.
Launched in November last year, the MAVEN spacecraft will
arrive at Mars on September 21st and will explore the red
planet's upper atmosphere, ionosphere, and their interaction
with the sun and solar wind. MAVEN will also be in time to
study a comet that will fly very close to Mars on October 19th.
From the furthest reaches of our solar system, comet Siding
Spring has traveled for more than a million years, and for the
first time since it was formed will come close to Mars, flying
into the inner solar system. Siding Spring will pass within
130,000 kilometers of Mars blanketing it with cometary
material. Many of NASA's space missions and ground-based assets
will be studying this once-in-a-lifetime event.
Future NASA missions to Mars include a new Mars rover
planned for launch in 2020. For the first time, NASA scientists
and university scientists will use Mars 2020 Rover experiments
to carefully select a collection of rock and soil samples that
will be characterized and stored for potential return to Earth.
The Mars 2020 rover will also help advance our knowledge of how
human explorers could use natural resources available on the
red planet.
Asteroids are important objects within our solar system,
deserving intense study. After successfully orbiting the huge
asteroid Vesta, in March next year Dawn will successfully get
into orbit around Ceres, the largest object in the main
asteroid belt.
We are also developing a robotic asteroid rendezvous and
sample return mission called OSIRIS-REx. The first U.S. mission
of its kind, OSIRIS-REx is on track for launch in 2016.
With recent Congressional support, NASA's enhanced funding
for the near-Earth object survey and characterization
activities necessary to protect our planet and also support
human exploration and technology has made steady progress. In
just over 15 years, we have found over 11,000 near-Earth
objects. We are making great progress but we have a lot yet to
do.
After nine years of travel, in July 2012, the New Horizon
spacecraft will make its historic flyby of the dwarf planet
Pluto and its moons. It will then venture into deep space and
into the Kuiper Belt.
In summary, our future missions will continue along this
path of exploration, discovery and innovation, allowing our
scientists to answer questions I posed earlier.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today and
your continued strong support for NASA's Planetary Science
Program. I look forward to responding to any questions you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Green follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you, Dr. Green.
I now recognize Dr. Christensen for five minutes to present
his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. PHILIP CHRISTENSEN,
CO-CHAIR, NRC COMMITTEE ON ASTROBIOLOGY
AND PLANETARY SCIENCE (CAPS),
CHAIR, MARS PANEL, NRC PLANETARY DECADAL SURVEY,
REGENTS PROFESSOR, ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Christensen. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the
opportunity to speak with you today.
Three themes are going to run through my testimony today.
The first is that planetary science has excellent opportunities
for continuing the exploration of our solar system, and these
opportunities have been clearly defined in the recent National
Research Council's Planetary Science Decadal Survey. Second,
the significant reductions in the level of funding from NASA's
Planetary Science Division from the previous decade have
dramatically slowed the pace of new missions and future
discoveries. And third, the lack of year-to-year stability in
funding is having a serious impact on our ability to develop a
long-term plan for planetary exploration.
The NASA Planetary Science program has made a remarkable
series of discoveries over the past several decades and is
poised to continue to make major discoveries based on the plans
outlined in the Decadal Survey. That report represented the
consensus of the U.S. planetary science community and clearly
defined a program centered around a suite of missions of
differing sizes to explore the highest-priority objects in our
solar system. The survey emphasized balance, both the
importance of a balanced suite of small, medium and large
missions, and also the importance of a balance of destinations.
In the three years following the release of the Decadal
Survey, the key recommendations and priorities remain
essentially unchanged and they continue to have the strong
support of the planetary science community.
The primary challenge that the planetary program has faced
in implemented the survey's recommendations have been the
significant reduction in funding that occurred almost
immediately after the report was completed. In Fiscal Year
2013, planetary funding was reduced by over 20 percent from
previous years and has remained close to that level since then.
Congress has worked extremely hard to increase the budget in
each of the past two years but the funding remains well below
what is needed to implement the Decadal Survey recommendations.
Equally important, year-to-year uncertainties in funding
have made long-term planning extremely difficult. Planetary
missions require many years to implement and operate, and
without stable funding, these new missions either cannot be
started or their development is stretched out with the
inevitable increase in mission cost.
In spite of these stresses, there have been some major
positive advances. In my view, the three key areas of progress
and caution are the following. First, the highest-priority
Decadal Survey recommendation to begin the campaign to return
samples from Mars has been initiated with the approval of Mars
2020 rover. This first element will focus on collecting the
samples. The follow-on missions will retrieve those samples and
bring them back to Earth. In order for the sample return
campaign to be successful and to remain true to the priorities
laid out in the Decadal Survey, it is essential that this Rover
remain focused on collecting and caching a suite of high-
quality samples. Looking to the future, NASA also needs to
start now to begin developing the technologies that will allow
us to bring those samples back to Earth.
Europa was the second-highest-priority flagship
recommendation in the Decadal Survey, and this mission has
received support from Congress and NASA through the plans to
request proposals for instruments to be carried on a future
mission to explore Europa. This is a major step towards
exploring that planet but it is only the beginning. The mission
will require significant new funding to be implemented. In
order to maintain a balance within the planetary science
community, it is essential that the outer solar system remain a
key part of NASA's portfolio. While the continued support for
Europa from Congress is very encouraging, the commitment to
start this mission needs to be made in earnest.
And finally, the reduction in planetary funding has led to
a delay in starting the next New Frontiers and Discovery
missions. The next new Discovery mission is being initiated but
there are no plans to work on the next New Frontiers missions.
These small- and medium-sized missions are key elements of the
overall strategy for a balance of mission sizes.
With regard to human exploration, the robotic program at
Mars, the Mars science program can and should play a major role
in the long-term goal of sending humans to Mars. Much of the
information that will be required to safely land and return
humans from the surface is being obtained by the Robotic
Science program. The properties of the surface, the nature of
the atmosphere, the location of water, these are all areas of
intense investigation by the ongoing Mars Science program.
In summary, planetary science and exploration have
virtually unlimited opportunities. These opportunities have
been very thoughtfully outlined. NASA is ready to explore the
amazing places of Mars and Europa and we look forward to the
opportunities to complete that exploration.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Christensen follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you, Dr. Christensen.
I now recognize Dr. Bell for five minutes to present his
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. JIM BELL,
PROFESSOR OF EARTH AND SPACE SCIENCE EXPLORATION,
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY,
AND PRESIDENT, BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
THE PLANETARY SOCIETY
Dr. Bell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee
for the opportunity to appear today to discuss the future of
one of our Nation's crown jewels, which is NASA's Planetary
Science and Solar System Exploration program. I am a Professor
in the School of Earth and Space Exploration at Arizona State
University, and I also serve as President of the Planetary
Society, the world's largest public space advocacy
organization, and today I am representing about 45,000 members
of the Society. We are a nonprofit, independent organization of
private citizens dedicated to advancing space science and
exploration. The Planetary Society believes strongly that
planetary exploration is a crucial program in a balanced NASA
and that this exploration should follow the path recently
defined by the National Academy of Science's Decadal Survey of
Planetary Sciences.
I am also a professional planetary scientist so I brought
some pictures. We can't talk about the beauty of our solar
system without showing some examples. So let us put the next
slide up, please.
[Slide.]
Our members, the members of the Planetary Society, respond
to planetary exploration for many of the same reasons much of
the public does. It is bold and daring like Curiosity here
having landed on Mars in 2012. It tackles some of the most
fundamental questions that humans have been asking for
millennia: where did we come from, are we alone, how common is
life, and can it take hold on other places besides Earth.
Next slide, please.
[Slide.]
As described in more detail in my written testimony, for
the past 50 years, planetary science has made tremendous
progress toward answering these questions, but like the tracks
in the Curiosity rover here, we have only scratched the
surface. Recent planetary science missions reveal a solar
system filled with worlds begging for further exploration.
Recent discoveries that you have heard about include water ice
on the moon's poles, evidence from an early warm and wet
climate on Mars, liquid water oceans under the surface of
Jupiter's moon Europa shown in the next slide here, this
gorgeous mosaic from the Galileo mission, and liquid
hydrocarbon lakes on Saturn's moon Titan, shown in the next
slide, one of those lakes showing here glinting in the sunlight
from the Cassini mission view.
At the same time, astronomers have discovered hundreds of
new planets orbiting other stars, allowing scientists to study
how other planetary systems formed, what they are like and how
they teach us about our own home. The Planetary Society is
proud to support them and in many cases partner with NASA in
these endeavors.
Among the requests in your invitation letter, you asked me
to address concerns that we have about funding levels for
NASA's Planetary Science program as well as to provide feedback
on H.R. 5063. Next slide, please.
[Slide.]
Regarding NASA funding, NASA's Planetary Exploration
program seems healthy today because of all the exciting
missions and discoveries currently underway but it is important
to note that today's successes were enabled by strong and
consistent funding from the previous decade. It is the funding
trajectory looking forward that is concerning, and that is
where we believe there is a crisis for planetary exploration.
The consistent stream of publicly exciting, scientifically
compelling missions that we have all come to expect of NASA is
coming to an end, largely because of proposed cuts to Planetary
Science.
Now, to be clear, Congress has helped to restore some of
that funding, and we thank you very much for that, but the
long-term outlook for planetary science still remains at risk,
and this chart that I just had up there shows that NASA had an
average of about six new missions per year in the previous
decade at a launch rate of about one per year, and that record
of launches and missions is what has led to this golden age of
planetary exploration that we are in. Over that time period,
NASA's Planetary Science Division budget averaged about $1.5
billion per year, or less than ten percent of NASA's total
annual funding. But since 2013, proposed planetary budgets have
been cut below that historic average, and the average number of
missions in the pipeline has plummeted in half, and indeed,
only four launches are planned to occur before 2020, so the
result is a de facto policy of withdrawal from some of the most
exciting and scientifically compelling work that NASA does. We
believe that there should be more of these missions, not fewer.
Next slide.
[Slide.]
Regarding the ASTEROIDS Act, the issue of resources on
asteroids is particularly compelling from the scientific
perspective. Lots of interesting questions about the history of
Earth's water, how do large impacts like from large asteroids
like Eros seen here influence the development of life on our
home planet, which asteroids represent impact hazards, and the
issue is also compelling as we begin to imagine a future when
humanity is moving outward beyond our home world. The Planetary
Society recognizes that an agreed-upon policy regarding
property rights for resources mined from asteroids will
eventually be important for commercial investment. Since this
is an area of current controversy among specialists, we advise
careful thought and deliberation before moving forward in this
area, and we embrace H.R. 5063's call to develop the frameworks
necessary to attract commercial investment.
In closing, over the past half-century--next slide,
please--discoveries in planetary science point to a rich and
diverse solar system and provide tantalizing clues as to
whether life exists elsewhere. The public, like the young
people shown here who watched and rooted for Curiosity's daring
landing on Mars in August 2012 in Times Square, is clamoring
for planetary exploration. Students and teachers are inspired
to learn and share more about science and engineering and to
search for deeper understanding of the worlds around us.
NASA's Planetary Science program has a clear plan in the
Decadal Survey, has the people in place to continue the
journey, and the question is whether we made a priority and
given the resources to meet the challenge. We strongly believe
it should.
On behalf of the members of the Planetary Society, I would
like to again thank the Committee and the Congress in general
for their solid support of America's planetary science
exploration program over the past several years. I would also
like to thank you personally for the opportunity to address you
all today and to share my own thoughts on the importance of
NASA's planetary exploration program for the Nation and for the
world.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Bell follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you, Dr. Bell.
I now recognize Dr. Sykes for five minutes to present his
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. MARK SYKES,
CEO AND DIRECTOR,
PLANETARY SCIENCE INSTITUTE
Dr. Sykes. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today, and I would also like to express my deep appreciation
for your continued support of solar system exploration and the
support of Congress in these kind of recent turbulent times. It
is much appreciated by the community.
I am going to focus on two topics in my remarks, the
funding level for planetary missions and the asteroid retrieval
mission. I am concerned that our planetary mission aspirations
and goals seem disconnected from available resources at all
levels and that priorities can only be inferred after the fact.
For instance, it is very good news that after the latest
review, all planetary missions and their extended phase that
were reviewed will continue. This is not an unexpected outcome.
However, the Administration's Fiscal Year 2015 NASA budget
proposal did not include funds sufficient to cover this
possibility. It is $35 million short. These funds are requested
in a separate Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative. What
is the plan if we are in C.R. all year or this initiative is
not passed?
On the larger scale, we would all like to see the
recommendations of the NRC Planetary Decadal Survey
implemented. These call for the restoration of a competed
Discovery mission proposals every 24 month as it had in its
first decade instead of the recent once or twice a decade. The
Decadal Survey also calls for another round of competitive New
Frontier proposals this decade.
If one adds to this the Administration's Mars 2020 flagship
initiative, the desire among many to have flagship mission to
Europa, the continuing missions, the foundational research and
data analysis programs and technology development programs, it
is simply not possible to do everything with the planetary
budget of $1.3 billion a year or even if we go to two
flagships, $1.5 billion a year. If our competed mission
programs are not restored, the United States, as has just been
mentioned, will have few assets operating in the solar system
by the end of this decade and beyond. I am concerned about
ongoing budget pressures on our continuing missions and losing
our skills and capabilities or maintained and grown by our
research programs, which has suffered a collapse in selection
rates in recent years.
We need to have a transparently rational basis for a
planetary budget that embraces in part a longer-term vision
than the year-to-year chaos to which it has been subjected in
recent years. I would suggest that this have two components: a
predictable baseline program and a flagship program. A long-
term baseline planetary program should be built on competed
missions, competed research and technology programs consistent
with the Decadal recommendations. This budget should be very
predictable from one year to the next.
Flagships are a great value as well, but because of the
large expense and cost volatility expected from ambitious
projects, the cost of mission studies, instrument development,
mission operations and science should be in a separate flagship
program line. The mission target makes no difference.
I would like to go on to the asteroid retrieval mission,
and I apologize for being a little negative perhaps on this.
The NASA Advisory Council finds that this is not a substitute
for a human mission to an asteroid in its native orbit and the
NRC Committee on Human Spaceflight finds the retrieval part of
ARM to be a dead-end element. The NASA Small Bodies Assessment
Groups most recent findings state that ARM science and
planetary defense benefits are not compelling and that
significant uncertainties in our knowledge of the ARM targets--
small asteroids or boulders on asteroids--contribute
significantly to schedule and cost risk and the risk of mission
failure. ARM is poorly conceived and poorly designed. It lacks
fundamental knowledge of its target objects and strategically
does not advance human exploration, does not advance science,
does not advance planetary defense and does not advance
understanding of the in situ resource utilization of near-Earth
asteroids. In addition, the cost figure of less than $1.25
billion given at the most recent SBAG meeting strains
credulity. The OSIRIS-REx mission, which has been mentioned
previously, is returning 60 grams to 2 kilogram of near-Earth
asteroid material to the surface of the Earth for a cost of
$1.05 billion, which includes the launch vehicle and $60
million in headquarters-held reserves. We do not know what is
in the ARM number but it is hard to believe that for an
additional $200 million ARM is going to return 500 metric tons
of asteroid material to retrograde lunar orbit using new
technology not yet developed and tested on targets not
identified and fully characterized to satisfy level I
requirements not yet specified with an unknown level of risk
acceptability. We can always find some benefit for whatever we
do in space--it is what we do--but ARM sets an awfully low bar
for rationalizing a major space initiative with a likely
multibillion-dollar price tag.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Sykes follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you, Dr. Sykes.
I now recognize Professor Gabrynowicz for five minutes to
present her testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MS. JOANNE GABRYNOWICZ,
PROFESSOR EMERITA, DIRECTOR EMERITA,
JOURNAL OF SPACE LAW EDITOR-IN-CHIEF EMERITA,
UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI
Ms. Gabrynowicz. Thank you. I would like to thank the
Committee for the opportunity to address the ASTEROIDS Act. You
have provided four specific questions, and I am delighted to
respond. The entire text of my testimony has been submitted for
the record.
Current law: Current law is an amalgam of laws that address
existing commercial activities. United States law regulates
launches and reentry; the technology, financing, and behavior
of various payloads; as well as related activities,
intellectual property, for example. Laws were passed for
specific space-related applications as their technologies
matured and were available for commercialization:
communications satellites, launch vehicles, remote sensing and,
GPS. To the extent that a private asteroid mission uses any of
these applications, the law that governs the application will
also govern that part of an asteroid mission that uses them.
There is one federal court case regarding an asteroid
claim. The plaintiff alleged ownership of an asteroid based on
a registration claim made by him on an online registry. He
asserted that the United States infringed his property rights
and sought compensation for parking and storage fees as well as
special damages. The case was dismissed by the District Court
and lost on appeal. The court held that the plaintiff appellant
did not present a claim for which the District Court may
provide relief.
Potential impacts of this kind of legislation on treaties:
The potential legal impact of this kind of legislation is
likely to be modest. The potential political impact is likely
to be sizable. Opinio juris--legal opinion--is crucial to
developing the meaning of treaties. There will be disagreement
regarding the meaning of this kind of legislation and some of
its terms will be challenged at law and in politics. This is
because there is no legal clarity regarding some of the issues
that the bill addresses. The treaty regime seems to allow
private-sector entities to extract resources if those
activities are consistent with international law and United
States obligations. However, the ownership status of the
extracted resources is unclear.
Space is a global commons. Unlike other global commons,
there is no agreement as to whether title to extracted
resources passes to the extracting entity. In the absence of an
agreement, legal opinion is divided. No claims have ever been
made in space. Therefore, the status of an intentionally
asserted superior right based on a first claim is a question of
first impression. The use of first-in-time claims were raised
early as they apply to geosynchronous orbital slots.
Some nations champion a slot allocation system based on
first come, first served. Others advocated using equity
principles. These two positions continue to compete in a
complicated and highly politicized legal regime. The
competition has produced results such as distinguishing between
access and appropriation as well as creating different
categories of orbital allotments and assignments. Attempts may
be made to apply these kinds of distinctions to asteroids.
There is need to clearly identify which federal agencies
will be relevant to an asteroid industry and the specific
responsibility of each agency. A private-sector asteroid
industry is an unprecedented enterprise. It raises novel issues
requiring a wide range of expertise. An interagency structure
ought to be considered like the ones that formally govern GPS
and commercial remote sensing. These feature a formal agreement
among the lead agency and other agencies to work in
coordination. Each agency has a particular expertise relevant
to some specific aspect of the industry.
One of the greatest challenges is establishing the uniform
licensing and regulation of activities on orbit and at the
asteroid. At this time, no agency has a specific Congressional
grant of on-orbit authority. Contemporary space issues such as
orbital debris, space traffic management, planetary
contamination, and satellite servicing have already caused some
agencies to take regulatory action or make internal procedural
requirements that go beyond licensing and operating satellites.
These administrative actions demonstrate attempts at a nascent
on-orbit authority. There needs to be a specific coordinated
grant of on-orbit authority to agencies best suited to
regulated an industry of this nature.
In conclusion, the bill addresses some unprecedented
issues. If made into law, it should be expected that there will
be both legal and political challenges to some of its terms.
International space law contains many gaps and ambiguities. It
is logical and appropriate to attempt to resolve those
ambiguities in favor of U.S. national interest. At the same
time, the final results must be consistent with international
law and the obligations of the United States.
I thank the Committee for giving me this opportunity, and
thank you for your work to further develop space law.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gabrynowicz follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you, Professor Gabrynowicz, and I
want to thank all the witnesses for their testimony, reminding
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.
Dr. Green, NASA's 2014 Planetary Mission Senior Review
Panel recommended continuing all seven missions that were up
for review. However, the President's Fiscal Year 2015 budget
request only included funding for the extension of the Cassini
mission and the Mars Curiosity rover. The President's
Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative would provide an
additional $35 million for mission extensions but is unlikely
to pass Congress. Where will the money come from to pay for the
extensions of the other five missions, and at what point does
extending older missions threaten the creation of new missions?
Dr. Green. Well, that is a very good question, and of
course, my understanding is that Congress will pass a
Continuing Resolution, and it is within that Continuing
Resolution that we have the framework to be able to continue
our missions as we have in FY14. Congress, of course, goes
through the appropriation for the overall budget of planetary
and we will execute that and we will see at that time what the
budget level is and the prioritization that we will have to do
to be able to maintain our mission fleet and bring in the
quality data that is currently coming in.
Chairman Palazzo. So I guess as a follow-up to my second
part of the question, at what point does extending older
missions actually threaten the creation of new missions? Can
you kind of elaborate a little more directly on that?
Dr. Bell. Of course. The very first recommendation of the
Planetary Senior Review, which often gets overlooked, is that
the seven missions that were reviewed were absolutely
incredibly important. In other words, they provide outstanding
value for the funding that we currently have that manages those
missions. We don't have to launch them. They are on orbit. They
are doing outstanding science, tackling some new questions that
relate to the Planetary Decadal and are making excellent
progress. So in the opinion of the community and certainly in
the opinion of the senior review as represented by the
community, these missions, we must find a way to continue on
their operations.
Of course, funding that as appropriated will allow us then
to determine the schedule of our next new opportunities and we
are currently working on the Discovery Announcement of
Opportunity as directed by Congress. We are happy to state that
we anticipate getting the release of that announcement of
opportunity in early October.
Chairman Palazzo. Professor Gabrynowicz, the ASTEROIDS Act
mentions the phrase ``first in time.'' When describing property
rights for resources extracted from an asteroid, would you
please provide a definition of ``first in time'' and give a
context for its use?
Ms. Gabrynowicz. Thank you, Congressman. Actually I can't
because there is no definition in space law for ``first-in-
time.'' I haven't researched that specific question but I would
look to other law, property law, for example. In the United
States, the history of claims has been, if you are the first to
claim land and you stay there and you work the land and you
produce value from the land, then your claim is perfected. We
see that in things like the Homestead Act and the Oklahoma Land
Rush, and that is where my understanding of that comes from.
But at international space law, that is a term of art that
doesn't exist.
Chairman Palazzo. Does the ASTEROIDS Act have an impact on
international treaties that the United States is party to?
Ms. Gabrynowicz. Yes. The United States was a leader in
developing the Outer Space Treaty, and the four core treaties.
The United States is bound by the terms of those treaties, and
something like the proposed legislation will catalyze a debate
as to whether it is--whether its terms are consistent with the
Outer Space Treaty and other relevant treaties, and the United
States will definitely be a part of that process.
Chairman Palazzo. In Section 51203 of the bill, subsections
B and C talk about freedom from harmful interference and the
need to avoid harmful interference when conducting resource
extraction on an asteroid. Would you define the term ``harmful
interference'' and provide the Committee again a better
understanding of the context?
Ms. Gabrynowicz. The term ``harmful interference'' can be
found in Article 9 of the Outer Space Treaty. When negotiated,
that was intended to refer to things like contamination,
environmental degradation, one country conducting experiments
that precluded the ability of other countries to conduct
experiments. It did not have any application to commercial
entities or private-sector entities regarding claims. At that
time it was only as it referred to nation-states and their
national space programs.
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you. I now recognize Ms. Edwards.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you--thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses.
I want to get a couple clarifications. I think it was Dr.
Bell, when you talked about the up-and-down resourcing of
planetary science, and I think that we share that concern and
the authorization that passed in this Committee we established
an authorization level that was actually consistent with what
the appropriation was, and I noted on your chart, though--and
maybe we could clarify this later--that it doesn't seem to
reflect the actual dollars that were appropriated. And so for
fiscal year 2014, for example, the actual appropriation was
$1.345 billion, and I recognize that that is not what it had
been at its peak but it is one higher than what the President's
request was, but also reflects the notion that this Committee,
I think, is trying to get back to some more consistent funding
levels and a balanced mission approach to planetary science.
And so maybe we could talk offline about your numbers and our
numbers too.
Dr. Bell. Absolutely. I would be happy to do that.
Ms. Edwards. And then Dr. Green, if you could, on the
continuing --on the issue of the Continuing Resolution, I just
want to hear some clarity as to whether you believe that
postponing new starts would have any impact on planned
planetary missions that have required launch dates that are due
to planetary alignments.
Dr. Green. You know, our current plan is indeed to release
the next Discovery announcement. This keeps it on track for the
community to be able to complete their development of their
proposals and submit them by about the December-January time
frame. We then go through an evaluation period with
announcement later in that fiscal year. Our plan then is of
course to keep our new missions on track to the best of our
ability and as the budget will allow. Throughout this
particular fiscal year, there is no need for a large influx of
money for the Discovery program because we are primarily going
through receiving proposals and going through the appropriate--
--
Ms. Edwards. For the next Fiscal Year or the current fiscal
year?
Dr. Green. For the upcoming fiscal year.
Ms. Edwards. Okay.
Dr. Green. Because we will be going through the proposal
evaluation and then selection.
Ms. Edwards. And so if a Continuing Resolution goes through
December, you still are on track at least through the beginning
of the year----
Dr. Green. Correct.
Ms. Edwards. --with the missions that are afoot and then
you would wait to see what the actual appropriation is beyond
the Continuing Resolution?
Dr. Green. Indeed.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you very much.
I want to go to the questions that Professor Gabrynowicz
mentioned, and do you believe, given the things that you have
outlined, the gaps that you have outlined in terms of our
confluence of international law and domestic law and policy and
relationships that it is premature to proceed with the
ASTEROIDS Act at this point?
Ms. Gabrynowicz. My professional opinion is the ASTEROIDS
Act as written is very, very vague and uses terms of art in
novel contexts that I have not seen before. So without some
groundwork, and by that I mean political, it could be
premature.
Ms. Edwards. And have--are these, the discussions on the
international context, are those ongoing right now in terms of
the implications of international law and treaties at this
point?
Ms. Gabrynowicz. Well, yes, there is the U.N. Committee on
the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space that continues to meet every
year. There is a counterpart in Geneva, the name of which is
escaping me right now, but the discussion of international
treaties and space law is an ongoing activity at the United
Nations and elsewhere.
Ms. Edwards. But given the status, we could easily, this
Committee, could postpone our consideration understanding the
importance but to some additional more in-depth explorations in
the next Congress?
Ms. Gabrynowicz. Well, with all due respect, I don't know
the activities that brought it to the Committee today, so I
don't know what is going on behind it. I don't know the
urgencies or not. Strictly reading the text and based on legal
knowledge, it definitely needs work.
Ms. Edwards. So we need to fill in some holes. Thank you
very much, and thank you to the witnesses.
Chairman Palazzo. I now recognize Mr. Brooks.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is for Dr. Green. What is the planetary science
community's position on using the Space Launch System for
planetary science missions?
Dr. Green. I am really happy to tell you that as our Europa
mission is in its preformulation activity, we have indeed
connected with human exploration and understand the status of
the development of the SLS. The SLS can potentially provide us
an enormous opportunity to rapidly reach an outer planet's
target, and it may fit well for the very first time with our
Europa initiative that will be launched in the 2020s. So it is
understudy right now. There is no firm commitments but I am
happy to say that it does look promising.
Mr. Brooks. Dr. Sykes, what is the consensus in the
planetary science community on whether there is a scientific
value expected from the NASA Asteroid Redirect Mission?
Dr. Sykes. Well, I would say it is not a unanimous opinion
but there is--it is not something that brings back the most
bang for the buck, if you will, that there are higher
priorities such as you want to characterize the near-Earth
asteroid population to have a survey of that population from
space in order to better understand what the real components
are rather than an expensive mission to one small target that
is not characteristic of the size of objects that represent a
danger to Earth or the population of the asteroid--near-Earth
asteroid population as a whole. So there is--the science
support is weak.
Mr. Brooks. Ms. Gabrynowicz, early on you state that ``no
one agency houses all that will be needed'' to appropriately
oversee private-sector asteroid resource recovery, going on to
claim that the system as it stands ``will produce unnecessary
risk that is counterproductive to industry.'' Could you please
expand upon what this risk might look like?
Ms. Gabrynowicz. Well, yes. The activities of asteroid
mining have never been dealt with before, and at the same time,
there are other activities like space situational awareness,
space traffic management that are equally evolving and have
aspects that are relevant to asteroid activities. So different
agencies have different responsibilities regarding those other
activities and there needs to be a coordinated discussion so
information can go from one agency to the other, and when
another activity or an event emerges which is a case of first
impression, the agencies can discuss how to deal with that, and
we have two very good models. One is the interagency MOU that
is used for commercial remote sensing and also the interagency
direction given by Congress for the governance of GPS. So I
would suggest looking at those models and proceeding. That way
a company will know who is responsible for what. Without it, a
question will arise and only then do you start to look around
to see who may know how to handle it, and that is
unpredictable.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you. This is for the entire panel.
Whoever wishes to answer it, go ahead, and this is a GOP SST
staff question. ``Congress has been clear in its support for
NASA's planetary science missions and continues to propose
funding at higher levels than the President's budget request.
Why do you think the Administration continues to cut NASA's
planetary science division?'' Whoever would like to address it
in the time I have left?
Dr. Sykes. Well, I would just say that it has other
priorities. I think it ranks other activities within the agency
higher and that is how it chooses to allocate the resources. We
might not agree with that--Congress certainly doesn't agree
with that--but it is the hand that we are dealt with.
Mr. Brooks. Any specific programs that you believe the
Administration is placing as a higher priority rather than
planetary science?
Dr. Sykes. I don't know. Everything?
Mr. Brooks. That is pretty broad. Anyone else want to add
to that? Hearing no additional response, Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
Chairman Palazzo. At this time I recognize Mr. Kilmer.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
entire panel. I appreciate the comments about NASA's planetary
science programs and your thoughts on ASTEROIDS Act. I want to
also thank Representative Posey for the partnership on the
ASTEROIDS Act.
And I guess I want to ask about two things, one, value, and
second, principle. Those were the two things that got me
interested in the ASTEROIDS Act. So I guess my first question
to the panel is, what is there in an asteroid that would be
worth the effort and expense of going to go get it?
Dr. Bell. So a variety of answers to that question. Some
are purely scientific because we want to know how planets form
and asteroids are the building blocks of planets. We know from
telescopic surveys and missions that have gone on that there is
a variety of kinds of objects out there--rocky, metallic, et
cetera. So there are pure exploration goals associated with
that.
And then there is a whole side of this business that cares
about resources and the kinds of resources that future human
explorers and settlers will need to live off the land, if you
will, and asteroids are a potentially fruitful supply of those
resources. You know, many people talk about metals and many
asteroids based on the meteorites in our collection, which are
from asteroids, have precious metals on them. But to me, I
think maybe the most precious resource is probably water, H20,
because we need the water to live, of course, the O to breathe.
The H can be an important part of rocket fuel. And so perhaps
in the near term--and of course, we are talking decades still
for all this to happen--but perhaps the water inventory and
water extraction efforts would be the most compelling.
Dr. Sykes. I would like to add to that. I fully agree. In
fact, we had a lot of interest in humans to Mars. Humans to
Mars is a very expensive proposition, you know, by the
estimates that have been made, and I think that the only way
that we are going to expand beyond low-Earth orbit in any kind
of significant way for human activity is to find a way of
living off the land, finding a way of reducing the amount of
material we have to haul up the gravity well of the Earth at
great expense, and asteroid resources, particularly water, I
think offers that possibility. But just saying it doesn't make
it so and there is a lot of homework that we need to do in
order to determine whether that offers a cost-effective way of
buying down the cost of expanding human exploration enabling
our going to Mars.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you. The other thing I wanted to ask
about, you know, my background was working in economic
development and I worked with businesses professionally, and
there was two things that drove my interest in this. One, we
just talked about, the potential value of doing it, and the
second is the sense that for businesses to make an investment,
there needs to be some sense of certainty. My observation is,
what business wants from government more than anything else is
an environment of trust and predictability. So I would like to
get some sense from you of, is there value in setting some
rules of the road as private enterprise contemplates pursuing
any of these valuable aspects of visiting mines--or mining
asteroids for this purpose, and I guess relatedly, if a company
fails in that endeavor, is there any risk to government or
impact to NASA? Is there any downside?
Dr. Sykes. I would say that having that legal certainty,
that when you go out there and acquire material at an asteroid,
you are a private company, that you own it is very important,
and at some point that framework needs to be created to give
them, give private corporations that certainty so that if they
make that investment and actually go out and do it, bring stuff
back, somebody doesn't, you know, say thank you and take it
away from them. So that is important.
In terms of risk to NASA, I guess I don't see--don't see
that.
Mr. Kilmer. Okay. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Palazzo. I now recognize Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. There has been a lot
of exacting questions asked. I will ask maybe some practical
ones.
I guess the first question would be, how far away are the
asteroids we are talking about and how long would it take to
actually reach a target asteroid, not in inches or feet or half
a mile, but just give a good guess.
Dr. Sykes. Congressman, asteroids are the easiest things to
get to in the solar system. We swim in a cloud of near-Earth
objects.
Mr. Hall. Does that mean they are easy, they are closer to
us, or----
Dr. Sykes. They are closer to us. They are dynamically
easier to get to. It takes less fuel to get to them--not all of
them--I am talking about a portion of the population. And I
think there is a little chart in my statement that shows how
many you can get to with less energy than getting to the
surface of the moon and you can do it with turnaround times
of--you get there on time scales of, you know, weeks, days,
depending on how close it gets. So they offer a great variety
of opportunity of access-easy access.
Dr. Bell. I guess I would only add that that is true for a
relatively random subset of them, and you know, we may have to
go farther to get certain kinds of asteroids. The more water-
rich ones may be concentrated out of the main belt Mars and
Jupiter. So, you know, the answer is, it varies. Some are
close, some are further away.
Dr. Sykes. Absolutely. There is thousands, tens of
thousands that we know about, and it is a fraction of them, and
their orbits are random within a range but we already know a
large number that are easy to get to, and as we conduct space-
based surveys to find these objects, you know, surveys designed
to find these objects like the WISE mission that recently
greatly expanded our knowledge of this class of objects, there
are going to be even more targets, which is totally
predictable.
Dr. Bell. And I think it is fair to say that no matter
which ones we want to go to, we are going to need the sort of
infrastructure capability to get out into deep space, whether
it is government or a private company. It is not going to be
the low-Earth orbit, medium-Earth orbit kind of activity. This
is deep-space activity.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Brooks questioned what value you would put on
that and why spend the money and are there specific goals. Even
the chairman mentioned the question of harmful interference by
either your testimony or our analysis of it, who is going to
have to pay for it. We know who is going to have to pay for it.
But let me just ask another question. Is there any reason
to think asteroid mining is not technically feasible? What is
the danger in it? Why would it not be? We have talked about why
it should be and what it is going to cost and how far away it
is.
Dr. Bell. In terms of the activity of doing the mining? Is
that what you are talking about? So it is a very challenging
environment. There is almost no gravity on these bodies, and so
most of mining technology on the Earth that we are used to
involves gravity in some way, and at least being able to walk
around and move equipment around, you are talking about very
challenging environments, very small bodies where gravity it
1,000, 10,000 times less than what it is on the Earth. So I
think there are some technical hurdles that need to be dealt
with and how we operate, how do people even move around. Can we
land on these objects? Do we actually docket with them? You
know, very, very, very big challenges that need to get tackled.
Mr. Hall. Well, this Committee several years ago, maybe
seven, eight or ten years ago had a hearing on the dangers
involved and where the asteroids were. Somebody there even
asked if they dropped something in the middle of America, could
you split it and have half of it hit New York and another half
hit Los Angeles. They couldn't answer that question either.
I guess--and we held hearings on asteroids about the one
that exploded over Russia. If the asteroid mining industry
develops, will the resulting technologies help us to understand
and interact with asteroids better and perhaps protect against
an asteroid threat?
Dr. Sykes. Congressman, I would say that yes, but we would
need to be developing--we need to do a lot of homework before
we do the asteroid mining because asteroids are characterized
by their diversity. They are going to have a variety of
internal makeup, surface properties and compositions. How do we
work at the surface of an asteroid? There is a lot of homework
that needs to be done, basic research that really is best done,
I think, by us as a country.
Mr. Hall. I have just one more second and I just----
Dr. Sykes. Oh, sorry.
Mr. Hall. What recommendations--I will ask you this in a
letter to you later--that you would make to provide rules and a
level playing field and let the market operate form there? And
I thank the witnesses for coming today, getting ready to come
up here, arriving here and giving some testimony. I hope we use
it wisely.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman. I thank you.
Chairman Palazzo. I now recognize Ms. Bonamici.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Chairman Palazzo and
Ranking Member Edwards, and thank you to this impressive panel
of witnesses. We are always fortunate, particularly in this
Committee and in this Subcommittee, to have experts like you
help us inform our decisions.
One of the common themes that we hear about in this
Subcommittee, especially when we are talking about planetary
science and human space exploration, is the role that NASA has
had in sparking imagination, especially in the next generation,
and when we discussed missions before, we consider what NASA
can do that will most effectively inspire the public so they
can turn their interest to science and restore our sense of
pride in our leadership role in space, and we have had some
discussions already this morning about funding and budget
levels, and it is my understanding that NASA's recent budget
request for planetary science is low enough to force a
withdrawal from the European Space Agency-led Mars mission in
2018 and focus instead on a U.S.-led mission in 2020.
So I want to ask Dr. Green, what might be the difference
between a U.S. participation and a European-led mission and
leading our own mission and would that negatively impact the
collaborations that we have had with the European Space Agency
or other international partners?
Dr. Green. We work very well with our international
partners, and ESA in particular. In fact, as was earlier
mentioned, the Rosetta mission has three U.S. experiments on it
and a significant portion of another with more than 40 U.S.
scientists that analyzing that fabulous data that is coming in
that is really inspirational in terms of trying to understand
what these cometary bodies are and how they interact with the
inner part of the solar system.
As we move in other areas, ESA has a major desire to go to
Mars. Their next Mars mission is an orbiter. It is in 2016. It
is going to look for trace gases, and NASA actually has a part
of that, a very small part of that in terms of providing some
electrical equipment that allows that orbiter to communicate
with our surface assets, whether they are ESA assets or NASA
assets. And then in 2018, we have also--although we have scaled
back our interaction on 2018, we still have part of a major
experimental that we worked with the Germans on in 2018 rover.
What has happened mostly in our interactions is really the
scale of those interactions. In the missions I mentioned, we
were actually a minor partner. This is how we have worked the
best. One agency leads the effort for which the other is a
minor partner and participates and follows that lead.
Ms. Bonamici. And I am sorry to cut you off. I want to
allow time for another question but I am glad to see that there
is still some role in those missions.
Dr. Green. And we have worked very hard to keep our role.
Ms. Bonamici. I appreciate that.
And I want to ask Dr. Sykes a question. I see you went to
the University of Oregon.
Dr. Sykes. Go, Ducks!
Ms. Bonamici. I did as well. Go, Ducks. Thank you. So
another issue that we talk about here and related to the point
that I raised about inspiring the public again, I try to
explain to our constituents why this is a priority, oftentimes
I find that the public does not understand all the technologies
that have been developed through the space program that have
civilian uses. There are lists of them. You know. I think our
constituents don't understand that GPS, memory foam, solar
cells, radial tires, and the list goes on and on,
communications, smoke detectors, water filters that they would
not have those products to the extent that they do now without
space exploration. So we are always trying to educate our
constituency about why this is important.
But I wonder, with federal investment in NASA lagging
oftentimes when there are tight budgets, some have suggested
that the private sector could end up developing technologies
that NASA could adopt, and so, analogous but different from
asteroid mining. So are there good examples to date of private-
sector technologies being adopted by NASA for planetary science
research or other purposes? Is there anything we can do to spur
innovation in the private sector?
Dr. Sykes. Well, I think the private sector is kicking off
pretty with SpaceX and Virgin Galactic and XCOR developing
systems, some of which--some of the SpaceX launch vehicles that
will I am sure ultimately be used for solar system exploration
missions at a reduced cost, and so I think that we are
benefitting from that right now and it is opening up new
activities in space through tourism. PSI is working with XCOR
on the Atsa Suborbital Observatory human-tended telescopes up
on--up into space to make observations, and I think that will
be pretty exciting.
Ms. Bonamici. Terrific, and I see my time is expired. I
yield back. Thank you very much.
Chairman Palazzo. I now recognize Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
would like to compliment you and Ranking Member Edwards for
your commitment to America's space program and keeping us the
number one space-faring power in the world, so thank you very
much.
Dr. Sykes, I was actually taken by your opening statement
that you felt it necessary to apologize for being somewhat
negative about a program. Now, let me just note, that
attitude--and all I can say is, I commend you for then moving
forward with being negative in expressing yourself on a
program. What our problem has been in trying to set priorities
has been that people on the witness stands have refused to tell
us what is negative about specific programs. Over the years, I
think I rarely have ever heard anybody say no, this is not
worth the money and we should cancel that part and we should
finance this. If we are going to have a successful space
program, we need people to be very frank about what they
believe not to be worth the money, and hopefully they won't
need to apologize about pointing out that this program isn't
worth as much as some other program. But again, rarely do we
ever get that, and I always--they are willing to express what
they really want the money for but never what they don't want
money to be spent for.
Now, with this, let me note that in your testimony, you
were very negative about asteroid retrieval. Let me just note
that that was not a condemnation, however, to the ASTEROIDS Act
nor was it in any way pooh-poohing or trying to throw cold
water on the idea of asteroid mining and commercial activity
dealing with asteroids. So that is a very important point to
note here that you could have something that is a NASA program
that deals with asteroids that may not be worth the money but
certainly trying to encourage private investors in the initial
steps that are going to be necessary for them to be involved is
a very positive thing. So we do need--I think this could be the
very first step that we will see 10, 20 years from now and then
way beyond, maybe 50 years from now, we might see this as the
first step towards something that was really valuable to
humankind in that we have private sector people bringing
minerals back to the Earth that we need for different types of
industrialization.
And let me go to Mr. Green. One of the reasons why I just
stressed that people won't say what they don't think is
worthwhile is we have certain projects that I have strenuously
said we need to reconsider and of course people know that the
space--the SLS program is draining about a billion dollars a
year out of the budget now. Could you tell me if--and I heard
your answer earlier and it was kind of a little nebulous, but
are there any planetary or space science missions that are at
this point--that the SLS would be a prerequisite to them other
than sending a manned mission to Mars?
Dr. Green. Yes, I will be happy to answer that. We have
started interacting with human exploration which is developing
the Space Launch System and we are finding that it has an
opportunity to open up the outer part of our solar system, and
what I mean by that is, because of its large-velocity injection
from the Earth, it therefore enables a rapid transit from the
Earth to objects such as Europa or other outer planets'
objects. This is incredibly enabling for us.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So there is no other rockets right now,
that this multibillion-dollar effort, huge expenditure is
necessary or we will not be able to send a mission by Europa?
By the way, I said I eliminated the manned part of it.
Dr. Green. Currently, if you compare what our conventional
rocket capability is today, we would have to do a number of
gravity assists on the inner part of our solar system that will
eventually then give the velocity necessary for a spacecraft to
go to the outer solar system. This might take 6 or seven years.
With the Space Launch System as currently being designed, we
can cut that more than in half, and we can get to the outer
solar system much quicker.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I will have to admit that cutting the time
in half does not necessarily justify the cutting of major
space--other space-related programs to me. I mean, cutting
things timewise in half is--I mean, it is interesting for me to
hear that but I know that there are lots of endeavors, and if
what you are complaining about mainly today is this declining
amount of money that is going into space and what we see in
this Administration a commitment to this mega project as well
as to Earth science, to focus on Earth science rather than
planetary science when we have got lots of other Federal
Government agencies and departments focusing on Earth science
but NASA is the only one that focuses on space science. So I
think that we have got to, number one, be very frank about what
we think is not worthwhile and we have got to make sure that
the money that we spend is spent wisely and maybe not just to
cut the time frame in half at the expense of doing totally
other programs.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Palazzo. I now recognize Mr. Posey.
Mr. Posey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
thank all of the witnesses for your excellent testimony here
this morning, very informative and very inspiring, and we
greatly appreciate it.
Professor Gabrynowicz, just a couple comments in your
written testimony and just one quotation: ``Given the
ambiguities in existing space law, international space law
contains many gaps and ambiguities.''
Ms. Gabrynowicz. Correct.
Mr. Posey. So, I mean, there is a lot of ambiguity already
out there.
Ms. Gabrynowicz. Correct.
Mr. Posey. You know, there will always be questions no
matter what Congress does or doesn't pass right now.
Ms. Gabrynowicz. Correct
Mr. Posey. And referring to this legislation, as you did,
you know, in a way that you said it is logical and appropriate
to attempt to resolve these ambiguities in favor of the U.S.
national interest, I am deeply grateful to see that in print,
and I am glad that we agree on that for certain.
Ms. Gabrynowicz. But we may not always agree as to what is
in the national interest.
Mr. Posey. Well, that is what is always debatable. I mean,
you know, there will always be some people who would like to
study this or anything else to death until the Russians, the
Chinese or somebody else takes the lead on this as they have on
some of the other things, and so my question was, if you agreed
that this is a good starting point, you know, or in other
words, you know, do you think it is time to conduct a full-
scale regulatory framework upfront or do you think we should
proceed with a draft regulatory framework that has the
flexibility to allow the industry and technology to develop
further before we start putting all the regulatory framework in
cast iron, which some people want to do?
Ms. Gabrynowicz. I guess I would frame it differently,
Congressman. I would frame it as follows. It needs to be
recognized that what we are talking about is resource
extraction, which is a very volatile and contentious issue at
the international level. Therefore, it can be expected that
there will be a great deal of political and legal discussion
catalyzed by this. The language of the proposed bill will be
analyzed in terms of current law and it will be years before
there is any agreement on that. That will create the
environment in which this activity needs to go forward, and I
think it is appropriate to understand that.
Mr. Posey. Well, if we wait years before we address the
issue, the business just goes somewhere else, you know, and I
guarantee you, the Russians and the Chinese will not give the
rest of the world the thoughtful consideration that some people
expect before we do anything.
Dr. Green, there is concern in the science community about
the inventory of plutonium-238, the fuel which powers long-
distance robotic spacecraft. How much plutonium-238 is on hand
right now?
Dr. Green. Currently, the Department of Energy has
allocated about 35 kilograms of plutonium. Seventeen kilograms
of that is currently within specifications for us to use almost
immediately, providing we have the manufacturing capability to
put it in the appropriate form.
Mr. Posey. Okay. How many missions will that supply?
Dr. Green. The missions are varied, depending upon the
amount of power they have. For instance, the next nuclear
mission that is currently being considered is indeed we are
baselining radioisotope power for the Mars 2020 rover and that
will need 4 kilograms. So we have adequate supply for that.
Mr. Posey. Okay. How many upcoming planetary science
missions will require the use of plutonium-238?
Dr. Green. Another one that we are considering, although it
has also not been decided, is the potential Europa mission.
That one again is in pre-phase A and undergoing intense study.
I think it is also important to note that our program as
delineated in the Planetary Decadal in the New Frontiers area
has a number of targets that probably could not be accomplished
without radioisotope power capability, and our intent would be
at that solicitation to be able to facilitate that.
Mr. Posey. Okay. What is the purpose for requesting
proposals for Discovery-class missions that were not reliant on
the use of radioisotope power systems reflective of the concern
about the supply of plutonium-238?
Dr. Green. No, they were not. Our concern was the assurance
by Department of Energy that they could develop the pellets of
plutonium necessary to fuel our radioisotope power systems, and
that is based on a production line that has not been fully
maintained. We of course are now working closely with
Department of Energy to turn that around, and we anticipate
them getting back into production of these pellets that will
allow our missions to move forward in the next several years.
Mr. Posey. Thank you. Last year NASA canceled its program
to design an advanced Stirling radioisotope generator that
would use far less plutonium-238 per mission. Was that--what
was the reasoning behind that, especially if there was concern
about the amount of plutonium-238 available for long-distance
science missions?
Dr. Green. Yes, I think it is important to recognize that
what we canceled was the actual flight version of the Stirling
capability. We currently have pulled that technology back into
house. In other words, instead of having it manufactured, we
are continuing to test that capability within the NASA centers,
but we are anticipating that as we may need it, we will bring
that technology back into the future.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see my time has
expired. Thank you.
Chairman Palazzo. I now recognize Mr. Schweikert.
Mr. Schweikert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to Professors
Christensen and Bell, it is nice to see ASU so well represented
here. You know, it is--we often--I often talk to my associates
here who are from back East who haven't seen the scale of what
ASU has become, particularly in this last decade, and they
don't understand, I believe we are now the largest university
in the country and our hard sciences have done exceptional
things.
Mr. Chairman and to the committee, this is sort of a one-
off question but I think it actually really does move towards
the underlying legislation, which I, you know, fully support
the concept but, you know, we have seen throughout humankind,
you know, ownership always is necessary for moving investment,
but how do you do that in a world where there may be other
treaty obligations, perception out there that these resources
are sort of controlled either by the communal scientific
community owned by sort of, shall we say, the collective of the
populations of Earth with us moving forward on a piece of
legislation like the ability to own those resources and
therefore move forward and doing the investments. When you
participate in international organizations, how is this
discussion moving forward? Is there at least now a communal
understanding that private ownership or individual ownership of
those resources will be required to make particularly private
investments? Anyone willing to delve into this with me? I am
glad I created so much excitement. Professor Bell?
Dr. Bell. Well, I think it comes back to, maybe it was Mr.
Kilmer and others who pointed out that companies need some
assurance in order to make that investment. So if this is going
to go forward, this problem has to be tackled. It is not clear,
you know, from what we have heard from today, it is not clear
that there is a straightforward solution but it is going to
take time and it is going to have to be consistent with our
international treaty obligations. So I don't think it is going
to happen quickly.
Ms. Gabrynowicz. One thought that comes to mind is if we
are going to talk about advancing an industry, that it be an
industry and perhaps not individual companies. One thing in the
language of the proposed bill when they use the term ``harmful
interference'', it is referring to Company A or Company B. If
Company A does something, then they are protected by this
legislation from Company B's harmful interference. Harmful
interference has never been used that way in the treaties. That
is a completely novel application of that term of art, and it
gives rise to the thought that maybe we are not talking about
an industry here but we may be talking about the interest of
individual companies, and if that is the case, then that is not
going to get us what we want either.
Mr. Schweikert. To that point, forgive me, because in my
reading through it, I actually took it as being even a little
more complicated because for any of us to predict what this
industry, what this is going to look like a decade, two decades
from now, it may be cooperative ventures. It may be public-
private. It may be a series of multinationals. Who knows? And
so how do you design conceptually the framework in a fashion
where we don't demonstrate a certain current arrogance that we
know what the future is going to be? And that is sometimes
very, very tricky to do.
Is there--and Professor Bell, particularly to you,
unintended consequences, and the basic word ``unintended''
means we don't know, but can you think of any sort of cascade
out there as we move forward on trying to build the framework
for this discussion that may sneak up on us?
Dr. Bell. Well, I can't think of any technical one. I think
the cascading effects are likely to be, as was pointed out,
political and, you know, perhaps related to treaty obligations.
I think, you know, another way forward, you know, historians
would tell us to look to the past and we could look at, you
know, analogs for development of the airline industry or
development of the telecommunications industry and what we are
seeing right now in commercial space is a lot of government
seeding of these companies to help them with, you know, getting
their footing, helping them to get some of the technologies
under their belt that would help them attract investors. And so
that is all moving out forward, and it is, you know, your guys'
job to figure out the politics behind it.
Mr. Schweikert. And I know I am over time, and I would also
ask you to add to that history the creation of the World Wide
Web, which ultimately had very little government touch and
actually may be our most successful in a century of reaching,
touching and changing our lives.
With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Chairman Palazzo. Did you want him to answer any questions?
I mean, even though we are short--I mean, you are out of time
but we are coming close to the--okay.
At this time, for the purpose of being fair and inclusive
to all our witnesses, we are going to open up a last round of
questions, or question, and I will recognize Ms. Edwards.
Ms. Edwards. I just want to thank the chairman. We want to
make sure that none of our witnesses, Dr. Christensen, gets to
escape without answering a question, and so mine is for you,
and it was prepared for earlier but in your prepared notes, you
indicate that a sample caching system is a major new
development of the Mars 2020 rover mission and should remain
the focus of the mission, but in really simple terms what we
know is that caching involves the rover carefully collecting a
suite of high-quality samples to be returned to Earth by future
missions. Are you concerned that the caching system is not a
priority for Mars 2020, and then related to that, if you could
give us an indication of the ways in which the planetary
science is actually an enabler for human exploration missions
because we like to see that there is some synergy between what
we are doing in what I describe as the multi-mission focus of
NASA, how is that planetary science related to the human
exploration missions?
Dr. Christensen. Sure. I think it is very important to
remember the Decadal Survey spent two years looking at
priorities across planetary science, and Mars came to the top
of that not because of another Mars mission or another rover
but because of those samples coming back to Earth, and there is
a lot of pressure on actually fulfilling that series of
missions. The first rover, its main goal is to collect that
cache, and the concern is that if that is not kept at the
highest possible priority, then the entire campaign is
threatened, and then the whole rationale for making that
mission the highest priority comes into question. So it is more
of a cautionary note. It will be difficult. It is a complex
system to create. We just need to make sure that NASA stays
focused on that goal.
Ms. Edwards. You don't--I mean, it is not your view,
though, that talking about human exploration missions or even
investing in those is a distraction from those commitments?
Dr. Christensen. I don't believe so. I think within the
planetary science community, we have this very high priority,
and that is to get samples back robotically from Mars. To tie
to the humans, I think it is essential that robotic science
program and the human programs are connected. We all wish there
was a better connection between them. Everything we are
learning is going to inform us so we can safely send humans to
Mars. So we think of the science part as the precursor, the
very beginning of eventually getting humans to Mars. They are
closely tied.
Ms. Edwards. And do you think our budget, our budget
considerations, I mean, where I mentioned now we are at $1.345
billion for planetary science is reflective of that commitment?
Dr. Christensen. On the planetary side, we are concerned.
In the previous decade, we could have fulfilled the goals and
recommendations in the Decadal Survey. So planetary science
doesn't need a vast amount of new money. It needs to be
restored to where it had been for almost a decade. The scope of
planetary exploration or robotic and human is so different that
there is the threat that human exploration can take money from
the planetary science side, but I think most of us believe that
there is actually a very reasonable divide between those two,
and planetary will continue forward successfully.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you.
And Dr. Green, do you share that?
Dr. Green. I do. I am also looking closely at Mars 2020 as
we develop it further to ensure that it is Decadal compliant. I
believe the Planetary Decadal is a fabulous document. You know,
it is a consensus within the community and it is really part of
my drive to make planetary science successful is to follow the
Decadal to the best of our ability.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield.
Chairman Palazzo. I now recognize Mr. Posey.
Mr. Posey. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to
make it again abundantly clear that the letter that you entered
into the record at the beginning of this meeting makes it very
clear that we have Americans ready actually waiting right now
to pursue asteroids as we speak, not in two or three years when
Congress finishes studying it together and then moves forward
to the gridlock that won't do anything. I mean, this is
imminent right now, and I am just so glad to see you take this
action on it.
Dr. Green, currently, the United States is the only country
able to produce plutonium-238 for use in long-distance science-
based missions. If the United States fails to produce enough
plutonium for our civilian space program, how likely is it that
other countries will develop the capability to send missions to
the outer planets of the solar system?
Dr. Green. I feel very confident in our relationship with
the Department of Energy and the support of the Administration
and the wonderful support that we get from Congress to be able
to begin the production of plutonium. We are very much on track
to be able to do that. Working with Department of Energy, we
have actually started to test that process. We generated very
small amounts of plutonium in one of their existing reactors.
We have extracted that and we now are through Department of
Energy developing the procedures and the processes to safely do
that at about a kilogram and a half of plutonium oxide every
year. That will meet our needs, and I believe that will secure
our future, NASA and its approaches to going to places where
there is very low light, whether it is the pole of Mars or
crawling in a permanently shadowed crater on the moon or
Mercury or going out to Pluto or Neptune or Uranus.
So I think we are poised now to be well positioned and good
stewards of a planetary program by your support and getting the
funding necessary for us to regenerate plutonium, and that is
on track.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I truly 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 11:52 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Jim Green
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Philip Christensen
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Jim Bell
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Mark Sykes
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Ms. Joanne Gabrynowicz
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]