[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NEXT STEP TO MARS: DEEP SPACE HABITATS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
May 18, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-78
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
_____________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-875PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
_______________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail,
[email protected].
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., ZOE LOFGREN, California
Wisconsin DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DANA ROHRABACHER, California DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan PAUL TONKO, New York
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California MARK TAKANO, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas BILL FOSTER, Illinois
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
GARY PALMER, Alabama
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
DRAIN LAHOOD, Illinois
------
Subcommittee on Space
HON. BRIAN BABIN, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma AMI BERA, California
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
BILL POSEY, Florida MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
STEVE KNIGHT, California
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
May 18, 2016
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Brian Babin, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 4
Written Statement............................................ 7
Statement by Representative Donna F. Edwards, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 10
Written Statement............................................ 12
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 14
Written Statement............................................ 16
Witnesses:
Mr. Jason Crusan, Director, Advanced Exploration Systems, Human
Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, NASA
Oral Statement............................................... 19
Written Statement............................................ 22
Mr. John Elbon, Vice President and General Manager, Space
Exploration, Boeing Defense, Space, and Security, the Boeing
Company
Oral Statement............................................... 28
Written Statement............................................ 30
Ms. Wanda Sigur, Vice President and General Manager, Civil Space,
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Oral Statement............................................... 38
Written Statement............................................ 40
Mr. Frank Culbertson, President, Space Systems Group, Orbital ATK
Oral Statement............................................... 48
Written Statement............................................ 51
Mr. Andy Weir, Author, The Martian
Oral Statement............................................... 61
Written Statement............................................ 63
Discussion....................................................... 66
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. Jason Crusan, Director, Advanced Exploration Systems, Human
Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, NASA........... 86
Mr. John Elbon, Vice President and General Manager, Space
Exploration, Boeing Defense, Space, and Security, the Boeing
Company........................................................ 98
Ms. Wanda Sigur, Vice President and General Manager, Civil Space,
Lockheed Martin Corporation.................................... 108
Mr. Frank Culbertson, President, Space Systems Group, Orbital ATK 120
Mr. Andy Weir, Author, The Martian............................... 132
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Statement submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 136
Documents submitted to the record................................ 137
NEXT STEP TO MARS: DEEP SPACE HABITATS
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2016
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Space
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:03 p.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bruce
Babin [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0875.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0875.002
Chairman Babin. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee on Space
will now come to order.
And without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Subcommittee at any time.
Welcome to today's hearing titled ``The Next Steps to Mars:
Deep Space Habitats.'' I recognize myself for five minutes for
an opening statement.
The exploration of space, particularly human exploration of
Mars, has intrigued generations around the world. Our sister
planet holds many mysteries, and quite possibly, the keys to
our past and our future. The profound goal of putting humans on
Mars and perhaps establishing a settlement there, fuels our
desire to push the boundaries of what is possible and to reach
far beyond our own planet.
Space exploration is in our DNA. Americans of all ages
watched on their black and white TVs as Neil Armstrong stepped
onto the surface of the Moon. Our collective interests have not
waned since that time. However, we now watch in full color and
high definition as we launch off our planet, land a rover on
Mars, and see our astronauts on the International Space Station
do an EVA to assemble an orbital space laboratory enabled by
the unwavering dedication and hard work of countless thousands
who have contributed to the historical successes and
immeasurable benefits spaceflight and exploration have brought
humanity.
Last year's cinematic blockbuster, The Martian, based on
the book written by Andy Weir, one of our witnesses today,
wrote about the challenges an astronaut faced in order to
survive the hostile environment of Mars faced with much
hostility. This concept is directly related to the topic of our
hearing: examining the challenges and discussing what it is
going to take to turn this science fiction into a reality as we
hope to do in the years ahead.
One of the foremost requirements for success in such a
profound endeavor is the support of Congress, and undoubtedly,
bipartisan, bicameral support is strongly behind this goal. In
fact, bipartisan support for our spaceflight and exploration
programs is so strong that the 2016 NASA Authorization Act
passed the House by a unanimous voice vote. In this turbulent
political climate, a vote like that is very exceptional for any
agency. The House's intent is clear, and I strongly urge our
colleagues in the Senate to join us by taking up and passing a
NASA Authorization bill this year. Doing so, in this election
year, is particularly important as it will provide NASA
programs the stability that they need through the uncertainty
that results during the transition of Presidential
Administrations.
One of the most critical capabilities needed to sustain
humans for a journey to Mars is a habitat. Without a viable
habitat to protect our astronauts from the inhospitable
environment of space, we cannot achieve our goals for human
deep space exploration.
Congress demonstrated its very strong support of space
exploration last year in passing the most significant update to
commercial space law in decades and also by providing robust
and increased funding levels for NASA exploration programs.
In the 2016 appropriations, Congress directed NASA to
invest no less than $55 million for the development of a
habitation augmentation module to maximize the potential of the
SLS/Orion architecture in deep space and to develop a prototype
module no later than 2018.
Astronaut Scott Kelly's nearly year-long mission aboard the
International Space Station has provided substantial scientific
data which we continue to assess, related to the physiological
and psychological impacts humans face during long-duration
space missions. However, much research still needs to be done
to develop systems and operations to mitigate these impacts for
sustaining crew health, and for this reason, it is critical
that the ISS be fully utilized through 2024.
We know what goal we want to achieve: putting humans on
Mars. What continues to be unclear is the detailed plan. How
are we going to accomplish this bold and challenging goal? What
are the requisite precursor missions, the technologies,
sustaining systems, and habitation requirements and current
capabilities? Until this detailed plan is outlined, there are
many unknowns but what we do know is that NASA will need
habitation and there are many questions that surround this
requirement. How will NASA acquire habitation? How will
development be funded? Will NASA develop the capability by
contracting with a company on a cost-plus basis as it did for
the programs in the past? Or will they seek to procure
habitation as a service by leveraging previous development
work? Will NASA use public-private partnerships? And if so, how
will NASA divide the investment? How will it treat the
intellectual property? And will the taxpayer get a deal on the
price if it contributes to the development?
We have tremendous lessons learned related to systems
development along with the pros and cons of various acquisition
approaches. Regardless of the ultimate decision, the
acquisition parameters and requirements must be clear before
any action is taken. NASA simply doesn't have the time or the
budget to experiment on unproven acquisition models. It's long
past time to apply the lessons learned and make the decision
based on what is the most assured and efficient way for NASA to
acquire this capability.
Whatever NASA proposes, I sincerely hope it will be in the
best interests of our American taxpayers. It would be a shame
if we repeat the mistakes of the past: government paying for
the development of habitation capabilities, and then turn
around and pays again to procure the service from the same
provider. NASA's decisions on ``make'' or ``buy'' will be
critical.
Is it possible that industry may be able to provide turnkey
cost-effective services that are developed with minimal
taxpayer support? Is there a market for low-Earth orbit
habitats, sufficient to support a post-ISS paradigm, which can
be leveraged for deep space habit requirements?
We are an exceptional nation of doers, and as we forge a
path through the high ground of space on our journey to Mars, I
have strong faith in the ingenuity of American scientists,
engineers, and the entire industry to address the challenges
posed by deep space exploration and to develop the spaceflight
systems needed to reach our goals in a safe, sustainable and
affordable way.
I'm pleased to welcome our witnesses, and I look forward to
hearing their perspectives as to how NASA should consider
acquiring habitation goods and services to meet future mission
requirements, and thank you all for participating.
And Mr. Weir, I'd like to personally thank you for your
captivating work, The Martian. It has everyone talking about
Mars, which I believe brings us one step closer to making
science fiction, science fact. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Babin follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. I now recognize the Ranking Member, the
gentlewoman from Maryland, for an opening statement.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you very much for holding this hearing today on the ``Next
Steps to Mars: Deep Space Habitats.'' Our Committee and
Subcommittee have actively been examining aspects of the
humans-to-Mars goal as well as how to implement it, and I'm
looking forward to continuing the discussion this afternoon.
I too would like to welcome our distinguished panel of
witnesses. It's a rare opportunity to have NASA, industry
leaders, and a best-selling author together to discuss the
opportunities and challenges involved in sending humans to
Mars. I would also note that in our audience today are many
representatives I see from the industry as well, and so I think
this is an important time for us to really get on the same page
about next directions.
And the fact that we will discuss today one of the critical
elements that's needed to send humans to Mars, habitats,
reflects the current situation that achieving the humans-to-
Mars goal is no longer a question of ``if'' but rather a
question of ``when.'' The ``when'' will, in part, depend on
public support, and so I'm glad that Mr. Weir is here as well
today to provide his perspectives on how popular media, such as
books, movies, and television can help further public support
for the goal of sending humans to Mars.
Other questions we need to address; however, are, of
course, how do we get there and what do we need to be working
on now in technology development, research, and mission
demonstrations if we are to achieve that goal?
This afternoon's hearing will focus on the habitats and
habitat systems needed to protect a crew from the harshness of
space during deep space missions. Habitats will need systems to
provide clean air, water recovery, climate monitoring and
control, and a means for food production. They'll also need to
provide for fire safety within a closed environment, crew
exercise, onboard medical services, and the ability to provide
safe haven from solar particle storms and cosmic galactic rays
that pose risks to crew health and mission operations. So I'm
anxious to hear from our panelists about the concepts for
addressing these challenges and the status of work to date on
habitation systems.
Finally, getting humans to Mars will require much more than
overcoming the technical challenges of developing habitation
systems. It will require national commitment, sustained
support, and resources over multiple decades. Public
excitement, anticipation and engagement in sending humans to
Mars will also play an important role in determining the extent
to which the Nation prioritizes this as a goal.
So I'm pleased, Mr. Chairman, that we also have the
opportunity today to discuss how we can stimulate and leverage
public engagement in the goal of sending humans to Mars. And I
would also say that I share the goal of trying to complete in
this interim period a longer-term authorization for the agency
to set on a path, a direction forward, particularly with
respect to getting humans to Mars and the support of that goal
so that in fact we can make the kind of appropriate transition
from one Administration to the next that doesn't require us to
start from square one. And so I look forward in these next
several months to doing exactly that.
And lastly, I'd like to thank again our witnesses for being
here, and I truly do look forward to your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Edwards follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Ms. Edwards.
And I now recognize the Chairman of our full Committee, Mr.
Lamar Smith from Texas.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I too
appreciate our witnesses who are here today as well as the many
stakeholders who are represented in the audience as well. It's
nice to see a full room.
I also want to single out a gentleman sitting in the front
row to my right and compliment him on his tee shirt that says
``Occupy Mars.'' I won't ask any more questions right now but
we'll talk later.
Our hearing covers a critical aspect of our Nation's future
journey to Mars: how our astronauts will live and work during
their journey, and I'm glad that best-selling author Andy Weir
has agreed to join us today. His book, The Martian, along with
the movie by the same name, ignited the world's imagination. It
brought to life an adventure that we can envision in the not-
too-distant future: journeys to Mars with heroic astronauts
putting themselves to the test of overcoming dangers with
ingenuity and courage.
I wrote an op-ed with our colleague, Ed Perlmutter, two
months ago that I would like to submit for the record without
objection, Mr. Chairman.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Chairman Smith. In this article, we discuss the persistence
of purpose and careful planning that is needed to turn such a
mission, the first human space flight to another planet in our
solar system, into reality.
This is not merely a science fiction movie starring Matt
Damon. This is a goal within America's reach. NASA and American
space companies are building the critical components for such a
journey: the Orion crew vehicle and Space Launch System.
The popularity of The Martian as a novel and a film has
shown that the American public is very interested in making
this vision a reality. That is why NASA should not stray from
its primary goal of exploration.
Exploration programs at NASA, both robotic and human, need
to be adequately funded. Unfortunately, the Obama
Administration, year after year, woefully under-budgets the
very programs that will get us to Mars.
At the same time, the Administration continues to push
plans for an unjustified Asteroid Retrieval Mission. The
Asteroid Retrieval Mission is a distraction without any
connection to a larger roadmap to explore our solar system and
is without support from the scientific community or NASA's own
advisory committees. The Government Accountability Office
recently estimated that the total cost for the Asteroid
Retrieval Mission would be $1.72 billion. These funds would be
better spent directly on space exploration with a connection to
future missions to Mars, like deep space habitats and
propulsion technologies.
America leads the world in space exploration but that is a
leadership role we cannot take for granted. It has been over 40
years since astronaut Gene Cernan became the last person to
walk on the moon. It is time to press forward. It is time to
take longer strides. It is time to aim for Mars.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Prior to today's hearing, the Committee received a number
of letters, and I ask unanimous consent to include them in the
record.
[The information follows:]
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Chairman Babin. Now I'd like to introduce our distinguished
witnesses. Our first witness today is Mr. Jason Crusan,
Director of Advanced Exploration Systems, Human Exploration,
and Operations Mission Directorate at NASA. In this role, Mr.
Crusan is the Senior Executive, Manager, Principal Advisor, and
Advocate on Technology and Innovation Approaches leading to new
flight systems capabilities for human exploration. He manages
500 to 600 civil servants with an active portfolio of 20 to 30
engineering and design projects. He leads integration with the
Space Technology Mission Directorate, and the other HEOMD
programs such as the International Space Station and the
Exploration System Divisional--Division programs. Mr. Crusan
holds bachelor's degrees in electrical engineering and physics,
a master's in computer information systems, and is currently a
candidate for a Ph.D. in systems engineering and engineering
management at George Washington University. Very impressive.
Secondly, Mr. John Elbon, who I've had the pleasure of
knowing for a number of years. He is our second witness. John
Elbon is Vice President and General Manager of Space
Exploration at Boeing Defense, Space and Security at the Boeing
Company. In his role at Boeing, Mr. Elbon is responsible for
the strategic direction of Boeing's civil space programs and
support of NASA programs such as the International Space
Station, Commercial Crew Development program, and the Space
Launch System, SLS. Prior to being named Vice President and
General Manager of Space Exploration, Mr. Elbon served as Vice
President and Program Manager for Boeing's commercial programs
as well as the Boeing Program Manager for several NASA programs
which include Constellation, ISS, and the Checkout Assembly and
Payload Processing Services contractor, CAPPS, at Kennedy Space
Center. Mr. Elbon holds a bachelor of aerospace engineering
from Georgia Institute of Technology.
Our third witness today is Ms. Wanda Sigur, Vice President
and General Manager, Civil Space, at Lockheed Martin
Corporation. Ms. Sigur has executive responsibility for
critical national space programs relating to human spaceflight
and space science missions including planetary, solar,
astrophysical, and Earth remote sensing for civil and
governmental agencies. Some of these major programs include the
Orion Multipurpose Crew Vehicle, Hubble and Spitzer space
telescopes, the GOES-R weather satellites, Juno, GRAIL, MAVEN,
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, Mars Odyssey, and OSIRIS-Rex
planetary missions and the company's nuclear space power
programs. She holds a bachelor's degree in mechanical and
material sciences and engineering from Rice University and a
master's degree in business administration from Tulane
University. Welcome, Ms. Sigur.
Our fourth witness today is Mr. Frank Culbertson. Mr.
Culbertson is President of Space Systems Group at Orbital ATK.
Mr. Culbertson is responsible for the execution, business
development, and finances of the company's human spaceflight
science commercial communications and national security
satellite activities as well as technical services to various
government customers. These include some of Orbital's largest
and most important programs such as NASA's Commercial Resupply
Services, or CRS, these initiatives, as well as various
national security-related programs. Throughout his
distinguished career, Mr. Culbertson has received numerous
honors including the Legion of Merit, the Navy Flying Cross,
the Defense Superior Service Medal, the NAAFAI Gagarin Gold
Medal, and the NASA Distinguished Service Medal. As an
astronaut, he logged over 146 days in space over three flights.
He is a graduate of the United States Naval Academy at
Annapolis. Welcome.
Our final today is Mr. Andy Weir, author of The Martian.
Mr. Weir was first hired as a programmer for a national
laboratory at age 15, and he has been working as a software
engineer ever since. He is also a self-proclaimed lifelong
space nerd and a devoted hobbyist of subjects like relativistic
physics, orbital mechanics, and the history of manned
spaceflight. The Martian, which is his first novel, has won
numerous awards and has been adapted to a film directed by
Ridley Scott by the same name, and I'm sure many of us have
seen it.
So I now recognize Mr. Crusan for five minutes to present
his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MR. JASON CRUSAN,
DIRECTOR, ADVANCED EXPLORATION SYSTEMS,
HUMAN EXPLORATION AND OPERATIONS
MISSION DIRECTORATE, NASA
Mr. Crusan. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss NASA's plans for development of habitation capabilities
for the post-International Space Station era.
As you know, the agency plans to continue ISS operations
and utilization through at least 2024. ISS and its successor
capabilities are essential to conducting research on human
health and performance, testing and demonstration of
technologies critical for deep space missions, and expanding
our knowledge of space. These activities comprise our Earth-
reliant portion of our journey to Mars.
The Space Launch System and Orion crew vehicle now well
under development will carry us into the proving ground of
cislunar space where our primary goal for human spaceflight is
to develop the crew capabilities necessary for long duration
transit missions to and from Mars.
The next human exploration capabilities needed beyond SLS
and Orion are deep space long-duration habitation and in-space
propulsion.
Missions in the proving ground will simulate and test Mars
transit systems and operations through limited interaction with
Mission Control, limited cargo supply with no crew exchanges,
and will culminate with a long-duration crew validation
expedition within cislunar space or beyond by the end of the
2020s.
NASA is also actively working on low-Earth transition
strategies for the post-ISS era as well and is encouraging the
private sector to foster both commercial demand and supply for
LEO services. This will allow NASA to focus its resources on
the agency's primary goal to expand human presence into the
solar system and to Mars consistent with Presidential and
Congressional direction.
ISS operations and LEO constitute a foundation for such
expansion by performing key research and technology
developments required for long-duration deep space missions. In
addition to this ISS testing, NASA needs to begin operating at
greater distances from Earth to perform deep space testing
along with continuing to enable the transition of LEO to
private platforms and capabilities.
There are a number of common capabilities that NASA and our
partners must develop over the next five to ten years including
habitation that we're here to discuss today. Such a capability
is the foundation of human spaceflight missions beyond LEO
supporting our plans for Mars-class missions of distance and
duration.
An effective habitation capability comprises a pressurized
volume plus an integrated array of complex systems and
components that include docking capabilities, environmental
control and life support systems, logistics management,
radiation mitigation and monitoring, fire safety technologies,
and crew health capabilities.
To support development of habitation capabilities, NASA is
leveraging information gathered through its Next Space
Technologies for Exploration Partnership, or NextSTEP, broad
agency announcements. NextSTEP is a public-private partnership
model that seeks commercial development approaches to long-
duration deep space capabilities. In NextSTEP phase I, NASA
selected 12 awards including seven in the area of habitation.
The NextSTEP phase I contractors are performing advanced
concept studies and technology development projects. In April
of 2016 this year, the agency issued NextSTEP phase II, which
is specifically addressing and focusing on the development of
long-duration deep space habitation concepts that will result
in prototype units. NASA plans to select multiple proposals
under this solicitation in August of 2016, this year. And the
agency intends to integrate functional systems into our
prototype habitat for ground testing in 2018.
Through the NextSTEP effort, NASA and industry are
identifying commercial capability developments for LEO that
intersect with the agency's long-duration deep space habitation
requirements along with any potential options to leverage these
identified commercial advances toward meeting NASA's
exploration needs while promoting commercial activity in LEO.
NextSTEP is a key aspect of informing the agency's
acquisition strategy for its deep space long-duration
habitation capability along with any considerations of
international partner participation. It is NASA's intent that
LEO eventually support private platforms and capabilities
enabled by commercial markets, academia, and government
agencies with an interest in LEO research and activities while
the agency's primary human spaceflight focus shifts towards
deep space beyond LEO. Private enterprise and affordable
commercial operations in LEO will enable a sustainable step in
our expansion into space. A robust, vibrant commercial
enterprise with many providers and a wide range of private and
public users will enable U.S. industry to support other
government and commercial users safely, reliably and
affordably.
Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to respond to any questions
you or the other members of the Committee may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Crusan follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Mr. Crusan.
I now recognize Mr. Elbon for five minutes to present his
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MR. JOHN ELBON,
VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER,
SPACE EXPLORATION, BOEING DEFENSE,
SPACE, AND SECURITY, THE BOEING COMPANY
Mr. Elbon. Thank you, Chairman Babin, Ranking Member
Edwards, Chairman Smith, members of the Committee. On behalf of
the Boeing Company, thank you for the opportunity to testify
today.
Our Nation is on a journey to put humans on Mars. Sometimes
I think those words roll off our tongue too easily. I'm trained
as an engineer, and I often don't feel I have the capability to
articulate with the enthusiasm and awe that those words
deserve.
If you know where to look in the sky, you can find Mars,
and it's a small dot. When you're there and looking back, Earth
will be a small dot, and we're going there. This is an
incredible feat.
Our longest missions to date have been around a year. The
mission to Mars will be at least three years long. The largest
payload we've landed on Mars to date is just under a ton. To
put humans on the surface of Mars, we'll need to be able to
land 20 to 30 tons.
We've traveled to low-Earth orbit and to the Moon, where
communications delays are up to three seconds. On the journey
to Mars, communication delays will be over 40 minutes. And when
the Mars and the Earth are on opposite sides of the sun, there
will be a blackout for a period of two weeks. We must learn to
operate in space without constant monitoring and control
capability from the ground.
These challenges are difficult, but solving difficult
challenges is what our Nation's human spaceflight is focused on
since its inception.
The key to meeting these challenges is to attack them in
phases, first by developing the necessary technologies close to
home in low-Earth orbit aboard the International Space Station.
Second, by developing systems based on these technologies and
validating them in a proving ground in the area around the
Moon. We refer to this area as cislunar. And then once these
systems are proven safe and reliable, using them to accomplish
our greatest achievement as humans to date: putting humans on
Mars.
We're making great progress through our work aboard the
International Space Station. In addition to breakthrough
scientific discoveries on ISS, we're learning to live for long
periods of time in space and developing reliable systems such
as life support systems that are necessary. This work needs to
continue for the next decade or so when we will be well
underway on the next step.
The next step, of course, is to put a habitat, an outpost,
if you will, in the vicinity of the Moon. This habitat will not
only support validation of the capabilities we need to make the
long journey to Mars but can also enable private industry or
international partners to descend to the lunar surface.
Asteroids could be returned to that outpost for scientific
investigation, perhaps mining. Commercial resupply vehicles can
be contracted for logistic support. And telerobotic exploration
of the far side of the Moon can be conducted from this outpost.
The primary objective of taking the next step to cislunar
is to validate we're ready to go to Mars, but being there will
enable a whole suite of exciting activities.
There is currently an ongoing dialog around the model that
ought to be used for the procurement of this habitation
capability. Habitation developed for use in cislunar will be
expanded for use during the journey to Mars and could also be
used at least in part for a low-Earth orbit vehicle after
retirement of the International Space Station.
As the leader of programs operating under both public-
private partnerships such as Commercial Crew and cost-plus
development contracts such as International Space Station and
the Space Launch System, I've seen the advantages and
challenges of both models. I look forward to discussing these
as well as diving deeper into why cislunar is the next-step
destination during our discussion today.
I'll close by asking you to consider this: somewhere in the
world is a student about 10 to 20 years old, probably studying
math or science, and that student will be the first person to
set foot on Mars. In my view, that's amazing to think about.
Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Elbon follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Mr. Elbon.
And I now recognize Ms. Sigur for five minutes to present
her testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MS. WANDA SIGUR,
VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER,
CIVIL SPACE, LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION
Ms. Sigur. Chairman Babin, Ranking Member Edwards, and
Members of the Committee, I'm pleased to have the opportunity
to talk with you today about the next steps to Mars.
The technologies we're building today will enable human
exploration of deep space. I actually have a few slides.
[Slide.]
So this slide shows the Orion crew module. It is actually
the module that we're going to use on the next exploration
mission, Exploration Mission-1, to fly in 2018, and what you
see here is the crew module being put into the test fixtures
for the proof test. I'm pleased to say that over the last few
weeks, completed the proof test. Everything passed extremely
well, and not only the folks that helped build it but the
analysts excited about the performance that we see.
The vehicle is different. It's a vehicle that's been
designed for deep space exploration from the beginning. And
what's different, of course, is that deep space is so very
different from low-Earth orbit. The requirements are much more
severe, and as Mr. Elbon mentioned, the focus has to be for a
much longer tenure.
This is a thousand-day-plus spacecraft. The capabilities
include radiation-hardened command and control systems. It
provides a radiation storm shelter. There's redundancy.
Recognizing how far away we are from Earth, there needs to be
redundancy in propulsion systems, computers, engines and other
systems. It's got an amazing computing capability. It's got
what we call time-triggered ethernet that's 10 times faster
than your internet at home, which is going to be required for
passing files, for passing videos and information. It's got a
life support system. The life support system accommodates
exercise and it accommodates all those things necessary for
those long missions. It's got a thermal protection system that
not only accommodates the extremely cold environments of deep
space but allows for safe landing whether the mission was to
the Moon or Mars. So we feel that the future of the Orion
spacecraft is a strong one.
I don't know how many of you remember EFT-1. That was the
exploration flight test of the Orion vehicle, the very first
one in 2014. We learned so much from that flight, and we are
building on that success. This vehicle that you see here is
4,000 pounds lighter to accommodate the life support systems.
And so with a focus on performance, affordability, recognizing
that every dollar matters, we've taken a view on what
technologies are necessary to allow us to lean into the future.
Let's go to the next slide, please.
[Slide.]
This is not something that's new for us. Lockheed Martin
has had the great privilege of being involved on every mission
to the planet Mars, and as you look at the progression of a
dozen-plus different missions, you'll see that we've been able
to leverage the smarts of the structures, of the computing
systems to provide an affordable solution to the very hard
challenges that we see. Next slide, please.
[Slide.]
So that concept of building on performance and capability
is one that we've leveraged into our system or habitats. In
order to minimize costs and maximize crew safety, we have an
inclusive view of our architectures to say wouldn't it be great
if we could take advantage of all those capabilities that are
inherent in the Orion system and find ways to produce a lower-
cost solution. In support of NASA's NextSTEP study, we've
designed a deep space habitat that does that. It leverages that
investment in Orion. Next slide.
[Slide.]
Now, this is a great day. This is the day when you see the
Orion and the NextSTEP habitat relying on each other's systems
in order to assure overall success.
But there's more. Next slide, please.
[Slide.]
We're not stopping at habitats. By leaning forward in
accommodating what tasks have to be accomplished in the
schedule that's head of us, you see that leaning forward in
closing on those milestones will allow us to explore NASA's
vision faster. We call this Mars Base Camp.
The concept is simple: transport astronauts from Earth to a
Mars orbiting science laboratory where they can perform real-
time science exploration, analyze the first Martian rock, make
real-time decisions while they're at the planet.
Mars is closer than you think, and we're very much
interested in accelerating the journey.
Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sigur follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Ms. Sigur.
I now recognize Mr. Culbertson for five minutes to present
his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MR. FRANK CULBERTSON,
PRESIDENT, SPACE SYSTEMS GROUP,
ORBITAL ATK
Mr. Culbertson. Thank you, sir. Do we have time with the--
Chairman Babin. We do. We're going to try to get through
both you and Mr. Weir, and then we're going to recess to go
vote, and we'll come immediately back, okay? So let's go ahead.
Mr. Culbertson. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Edwards, Mr. Chairman Smith, distinguished Members of
the Subcommittee and the staff. It's a real honor for me to be
here. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you on
behalf of Orbital ATK regarding our concept for deep space
habitat as a part of the long-term path to Mars exploration.
The Committee leadership has framed the issues very well, I
think, in your opening remarks, and I think my colleagues have
done a good job of talking about the things that are going to
be a challenge for us and how we might be able to move forward
on that. It's an exciting and inspiring time for our Nation's
human space exploration program. NASA is on course to send
humans beyond low-Earth orbit, leveraging what we're doing on
the ISS, Commercial Crew and Cargo programs, as well as the
Space Launch System, Orion, and the new cislunar habitat that
is being proposed and studied.
We want to achieve the goal of landing humans on Mars in
the early 2030s, and we're proud to be supporting our NASA
customer every step of the way.
I think that U.S. leadership in cislunar space is critical
to continue the leadership we have had for a long time in space
in general. It is the high ground but it also is a great
example of what we can do as Americans, and it inspires the
next generation and gives them a place to go.
By combining the new NASA and commercial space sector
capabilities such as on SLS, Orion, Cygnus, we can develop a
deep space habitat and high-power solar electric propulsion,
two of the building blocks for moving on to Mars.
We think a crew-tended lunar orbital station within the
next five years is doable, feasible, and something that we
should be working towards.
Orbital ATK is a global leader in aerospace and defense
technologies. We have delivered a lot of satellites. We have
numbers in here, and they're in my testimony. We have over
1,300 successful years of on-orbit satellite experience, 268
human-rated boosters, and we are building the boosters for the
SLS program. We have 91 satellites currently operating in
space, and we're continuing to collaborate with NASA and our
other customers.
But we do think it's important to transition beyond low-
Earth orbit and to do that soon. The commercial approach that
we've used to develop the Commercial Cargo Resupply Service we
think is a good model for that. I think it'll be a combination
of government programs, public-private partnership, and
commercial endeavors in order to achieve this. We think that
cislunar space does give us the testing ground.
For my colleague, Mr. Bridenstine, who was here earlier,
it's like a shakedown cruise. You've got to go out and test
what you've got before you go and do it for real operationally,
and I think this gives us the opportunity to do that.
If I can have my first slide, please?
[Slide.]
This is an artist's conception of the cislunar habitat
based on the Cygnus module that we used for delivering cargo to
the International Space Station. We think it's a great starting
point, one that's already mature and developed and actually on
the Space Station right now and will finish a 90-day mission in
June. So it can be developed to go beyond low-Earth orbit. Next
picture, please.
[Slide.]
Here's a good picture of the Cygnus itself at the Space
Station, and the next slide, it's a crew selfie, if you will,
of the interior of that module once we delivered the cargo to
the crew, which always is a good day for them. This arrived on
Easter, so they were looking for the Easter eggs. But we're
happy to be able to support that. We think that Cygnus provides
the technology reduction needed to move into cislunar because
there will be challenges there. There will be things that we
have to overcome there that are going to challenge us on the
way to Mars including the radiation environment, the autonomous
operations that are necessary for such a long trip. We're
already using Cygnus for technology development, and at the end
of this current mission, we will activate the Spacecraft Fire
Experiment, or SAFFIRE-1, during free flight as we leave the
station to generate the largest fire ever generated manmade in
space to see how things burn in space, and we know how they
burn on Mars now, Andy, but I think this'll be a great
experiment to enhance the safety of the crew going forward.
Commercial acquisition practices are important and will be
a part of it. I think that encouraging business to move into
low-Earth orbit on a much more comprehensive basis is part of
what's happening right now with Commercial Cargo, Commercial
Crew, and then moving beyond that is a challenge we're going to
have to meet but we think that it will come also. Obviously
humans in space is the big key.
Let me just mention something one of my kids said when I
was training for the Space Station, and I won't embarrass him
by telling you which one. When I was putting him to bed one
night, he said, ``You know, Dad, you're getting pretty old,''
and he wasn't even a teenager yet, and I said, ``What's your
point?'' He said, ``Well, I know you wanted to go to Mars when
you became an astronaut but it's probably not going to happen
while you're active. So I'll tell you what, I'll go for you.''
Well, he's in his 20s now, and his generation is going to go
for me. And by the way I said, ``Well, you know, John Glenn
flew at 77 so don't write me off yet.''
I would love to go to Mars, and I would do it. I think that
we are doing at Orbital ATK and our colleagues throughout
industry, working with NASA to move into this realm, is very,
very important and critical to U.S. leadership and critical to
inspiring the next generation to stay involved, to get into
science, technology, engineering and math, and keep this
country great.
Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Culbertson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Mr. Culbertson.
Mr. Weir, I am deeply apologetic but I've just been told
most of our members have already run to vote. They've already
called for votes. If you don't mind, we'll come back as soon as
the voting is over and reconvene. Is that okay with you?
Mr. Weir. Sure, that works for me.
Chairman Babin. All right.
Mr. Culbertson. Do you want him to put a helmet on or hold
his breath?
Chairman Babin. We will reconvene following the last vote
in this series, and you don't have to have a helmet.
[Recess.]
Chairman Babin. I now reconvene this session of the
Subcommittee on Space, and I apologize. We had to run down and
vote. But that's the nature of the beast here in the United
States Congress.
I now recognize Mr. Andy Weir for five minutes to present
his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MR. ANDY WEIR,
AUTHOR, THE MARTIAN
Mr. Weir. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for inviting me to this hearing.
Unlike the other people you've heard today, I am not a
space expert. I'm just an enthusiast, and I know that. But I do
spend a lot of time thinking about the future of manned
spaceflight and the challenges that come with it. And, to me,
one issue stands out as the largest problem facing long-term
space habitation. The human body is simply not suited to living
for long periods in zero-g. Until this issue is solved, we have
no hope of landing humans on the surface of Mars, nor can we
create permanent residences in space.
Astronauts who spend months in zero-g suffer bone loss and
muscle degradation. Once they return to earth, they have to be
carried out of their capsule by ground crew. It takes days,
sometimes weeks for them to readapt to gravity because their
muscles are simply too weak to stand. Imagine, then, a crew of
astronauts setting foot on the surface of Mars after eight
months in space to get there. They would be unable to move, let
alone execute their mission. This is not an option.
And that's not even the worst part. Weightlessness also
causes degradation of the eyes, and, unlike the bone and muscle
loss which the body will repair once it returns to gravity, the
eye damage is permanent and irreversible.
Astronauts aboard the International Space Station have to
spend two hours per day exercising just to stay remotely
healthy. This means that we dedicate one eighth of all waking
person-hours in space to counteracting the effects of zero-g
habitation. That time could be better spent on experiments,
station upkeep, or simply rest for the crew.
Instead of concentrating on ameliorating the effects of
zero-g, we should concentrate on inventing artificial gravity.
This is not some magical technology straight out of science
fiction. We already know how to do it. You just need to spin
the space station to provide centripetal force. This conjures
up images of huge wheel-in-space constructions that we simply
can't afford to build but centripetal gravity can be
accomplished much more cheaply and easily than the flashy
futuristic visions you've see in films.
For our next space station, we should have the crew
compartment connected to a counterweight by a long cable and
set the entire system spinning. This creates the centrifuge,
which will generate constant outward force for the crew. Inside
the crew compartment, it would be virtually identical to the
gravity we experience on Earth. All physiological problems of
zero-g would be solved.
Some would argue that one of the main purposes of a space
station is to do experiments in zero-g. This is easily
accommodated. We could have a node in the center. This would
provide an area of zero-g for whatever experiments require it.
The astronauts would work in there as needed, but spend most of
their time in the crew node where their bodies get the gravity
they need to remain healthy.
While the concept is simple, the engineering is very
complex. If you were standing in that crew compartment, the
downward force on your head would be less than the downward
force on your feet because your head is closer to the center of
the centrifuge than your feet are. NASA conducted experiments
on the ground with centrifuges in the 1960s. They found that
humans get significant vertigo and dizziness from this effect
if the rotation rate is faster than two revolutions per minute.
I'll spare you the math, but this means the cable connecting
the two nodes would have to be 450 meters long, which is over a
quarter mile.
I have no delusions that such a station would be easy to
accomplish. Not only would it be the most massive space station
ever built, but it would also have to stand up to the forces
that its own artificial gravity creates. Plus, a rotating
station would need very advanced control systems to keep its
solar panels and thermal radiators properly aligned. It would
be a huge engineering challenge to design and implement this
station but huge engineering challenges are what NASA is all
about. I have no doubt they could rise to the occasion.
Once this station were built, its rotation rate could be
adjusted to provide whatever gravity we wanted. We could test
the long-term health effects of lunar gravity or Martian
gravity, or we could leave it at Earth gravity to ensure crew
health. And when the time comes for a human mission to Mars,
the artificial gravity technology proven by this station will
be employed in the vehicle that transports the astronauts
there, ensuring that they are fully healthy and capable when
they first set foot on the red planet.
Thank you, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weir follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Mr. Weir. I appreciate that. I
appreciate all the testimonies, and we're elated and delighted
that all of you people are here to testify before us. Now the
Chair recognizes himself for five minutes.
All of the testimony was fascinating, especially what Mr.
Weir just said on centrifugal force and spinning creating
artificial gravity. But another problem when we send our
astronauts beyond low-Earth orbit is we're exposing them to the
dangers of deep space radiation, and without the Earth's
protective magnetic field, future explorers are vulnerable to
ionizing radiation, solar particle events and galactic cosmic
rays, which pose an increased risk for cancer. This is perhaps
the most serious scientific challenge that we face on the
journey to Mars. And I'm wondering how we protected Matt Damon
that entire time from this radiation and had him return safely.
This is a question for all of you. What kinds of
technologies are being developed that protect our astronauts
from deep space radiation? What are some of the ideas? How are
we integrating radiation protection into our deep space
habitation designs? And I would appreciate an answer from any
one of you or all of you.
Mr. Crusan. So I'll start. Currently, we're doing
investments in a couple different areas. First and foremost,
the monitoring of events starting with our heliophysics efforts
of monitoring the sun on an ongoing basis, then actually
figuring out the modeling effects of the transfer from the sun
into wherever our spacecraft should be, and then actually doing
high-quality monitoring of the actual radiation particles that
come when they get there.
All of our studies internal and the ones we're doing under
the NextSTEP analysis as well with the commercial folks are
looking at optimizing the ability for storm shelters and
deployable storm shelters and the integration of things like
water walls into crew quarters and such. That helps with your
SPE events and such. Galactic cosmic rays are still a
challenge, and there isn't any current technology to address
the high-energy GCR beyond the ability to monitor it and factor
it in the overall dosing that we have, and I'll leave it to my
colleagues to add to that.
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Mr. Crusan.
Mr. Culbertson?
Mr. Culbertson. Yes, sir. My personal experience was that
NASA spends a lot of time investigating what's happening to the
astronauts both while they're in space and after they return.
We go through an annual physical to see whether there are any
residual effects, and the effects that Mr. Weir talked about
are there and real, and we do do a lot of exercising and other
countermeasures.
The radiation aspect is a serious one too, and when you
leave, as you said, the magnetosphere, you're exposed to it
much more, and the types of technologies that Jason mentioned
such as water protection, there's also PVC. People are working
on actually superconductivity as a potential way of protecting
the crew inside. But I think if we use the opportunity to go to
cislunar space and when we first have a module arrive, have
enough sensors on there to really characterize the interior of
what the crew might be exposed to when they arrive later, then
we might be better prepared, and of course, we start with the
short missions there and investigate the effects on the crew
before we actually send them on their long voyages. I think
we'll learn a lot. I do think we will figure out a way to
counter those. I don't think it's impossible.
Chairman Babin. Same here.
Mr. Weir?
Mr. Weir. Yeah, I'll just speak to that a little bit. First
off, NASA recently upped its acceptable radiation lifetime
limit for astronauts in the event that these astronauts were
going to the Moon. So first off, a lot of this, believe it or
not, is solved by a simple policy decision. A very, very
diligent fan sent me a paper that he wrote and later got
published about the radiation dosage received by all of the
members of the Aries program including Mr. Watney on the
surface of Mars, and actually found that the worst of them
would have had an additional four percent mortality likelihood,
and that would've been actually the sys op, Beth Johanssen,
played by Kate Mara in the movie. She would've had the highest
mortality odds added to her because while Mark was on Mars and
Mars was guarding him from half of the galactic radiation that
might be getting at him, the rest of the crew were in space
that entire time, and Johanssen is the youngest and she's
female, both of which are things that increase your mortality
likelihood from radiation.
But just to be clear, we're not talking about people dying
of horrendous radiation sickness. We're talking about a slight
increase in mortality, and astronauts are willing to take
risks, so on the surface of it, I don't think that much needs
to be done at all, and then finally, the best way to deal with
radiation amelioration is mass, just putting water between the
astronauts and the sources of radiation and getting more mass
to LEO. If you want to do that, put more money into private
space travel. They'll drive the price down.
Chairman Babin. Amen.
I think that expends my--unless either one of you would
like to add to that?
Mr. Elbon. I think they covered it. The best solutions that
we know of take a lot of weight so we have to work through that
whole scenario.
Chairman Babin. Right.
Ms. Sigur. I have very little to add, only that we're going
to get smarter the very first mission that we make. Exploration
Mission-1 will have sensors and information that we'll be able
to use to figure out which of these potential solutions makes
sense for us. We're also looking at individual protection
strategies for astronauts, and that might also be something
that would be fruitful as we go forward. So there's more to
come.
Chairman Babin. You bet. Thank you, Ms. Sigur.
You know, I've got a couple of staffers in here I wanted to
introduce real quick, Will Carter and Lauren Jones, and also my
wife, Roxanne, is sitting back there. I just noticed them
there. Thank you for being here.
I'd next like to hear from the gentlewoman from Maryland,
Ms. Edwards.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the
witnesses too and for your patience.
I want to begin with Mr. Crusan. NASA's Journey to Mars
strategy outlines the plans to develop an initial habitation
capability for short-duration missions in cislunar space in the
early 2020s and then to evolve that capability over some period
of time, and I guess the question is whether NASA intends to
accomplish that with habitation demonstrations in cislunar and
what would be needed to extend those capabilities to a habitat
that could support a human mission to Mars. And additionally,
if you could address the question of whether you envision
testing out multiple habitat developments or a single habitat.
These are all details, frankly, that we should be getting to in
a more complex roadmap that the Congress has asked for over
some period of time, but if you could address that, I'd
appreciate it.
Mr. Crusan. Yes, no problem. I appreciate the question. One
of the key aspects of what we're asking for in our NextSTEP
activities with industry is exactly that. We know we need to
get to a habitable volume for a transit to and from Mars that's
greater than 300 cubic meters in volume. There's many different
strategies by which you get to that total volume, though. You
could launch it as a one single unit on one single flight. You
could incrementally build it over a series of modules during
the early 2020s out to the late 2020s. And one of the things
we're asking industry to do is help us optimize, how do you
split up the individual buildout pieces over that period of
time that gets us to the end goal, the larger volume we need,
that also still encourages that LEO transition as well, and
looking for the optimal piece parts that you would actually
come up with for that.
That gets to your second question, is it going to one
habitat or multiple habitats. It could be either. We know we
need to get to that total volume. One of the lessons learned
that we have learned related to the International Space Station
and Mir before that is separate habitable volumes is actually
extremely valuable for us for the event of emergencies like
fire and depressurization. So there will be some semblance of
multiple structures that are assembled together that can be
isolated from a safety perspective but the actual
implementation strategy is what we're exactly studying during
this phase of NextSTEP.
Ms. Edwards. Mr. Elbon and Ms. Sigur and Mr. Culbertson?
Mr. Elbon. I would add a thought to that. I think it is a
critical and important thing that we develop a habitat
capability in cislunar that is evolvable to be the Mars transit
capability. That means that it's going to need to grow and
become more robust as it takes on that larger mission. To some
degree, that's counter to moving the other way, which is
bringing that habitat down to low-Earth orbit. I'll use an
example. When we started the development of the Starliner, the
commercial capsule, the first requirement I wrote across the
top of the board was, it will go nowhere but LEO, and the
reason was, because if we let things creep in there that would
have it a beyond LEO, it would increase the costs and it
wouldn't be a good thin got operate in a commercial
environment.
So I think there's a little bit of a tension there between
expecting whatever we put in cislunar to go on to Mars and also
be able to serve as a basis for a future LEO station, and it's
important that we consider that and work through it as we
address a procurement approach for that cislunar capability.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you.
Ms. Sigur?
Ms. Sigur. I think that as Mr. Crusan said, we're in the
process of developing the elements of what the solution needs
to be, but what I would offer is that what our ultimate
objectives and goals are matter. If we are working on an
opportunity to perform test like you fly assessments at each of
the opportunities that are available whether it's low-Earth
orbit or around the Moon with an eventual objective to head to
Mars, solutions are going to be vastly different. If we
acknowledge that this could be a multinational endeavor, as I
personally think it should be with an opportunity for everybody
to play with ways to consider public-private partnership and
even just flat-out commercialization on our way to reaching
Mars, we establish different requirements. If you're developing
a habitat that will have an ability to be a safe haven, it
would feel different as you're considering design solutions. If
you're looking for standards that allow for various companies
to dock to a consistent geometry, then you're talking about
investing in a plug-and-play configuration perhaps as we're
looking at ways to build things out.
If we're expecting to work in the vicinity of the Moon or
Mars as kind of an anchor location for lots of other great
things to happen, the solution again might be different. So
again, the vision's important, and I think we'll eventually get
through those things but it's going to be a very interesting
couple of years.
Ms. Edwards. Mr. Chairman, can we hear from Mr. Culbertson?
Do you mind?
Chairman Babin. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Culbertson. Thank you. I'll try to be brief.
I agree with what the others have said so far, and I think
there are some really important principles here. One is that if
we have a habitat in the vicinity of the Moon, we have a
destination for Orion. We also have prepositioned supplies, we
have the ability to provide backup capabilities such as power,
maybe even propulsion, and maybe even a way home if the
spacecraft were to have any other problems of some sort, and it
is a dangerous environment where things can happen, so a
certain amount of redundancy early on in testing is important.
As I mentioned earlier, you have to think of this as a
shakedown cruise where you are testing not just the systems but
the people, and not just the people in space but the people on
the ground who are designing things, who are operating, who are
supporting the crew. There's going to be a lot of complicated
aspects to that that are going to have to be more than what
we're doing now in low-Earth orbit. The modular approach I
think is extremely important just like the watertight
compartments on a ship protect the crew if there's anything
that happens to any part of the hull. You may need the same
capability as we learned on the Mir on basically an outpost
around the Moon.
I remember thinking as I was on the Space Station when I
was a little bit more naive about what industry can do that I
could just take the station, and if I had enough propulsion, I
could go on to the Moon or on to Mars, and might want to pick a
different crew but it still was, I think, a technical
capability, and I think that basic principle, even though we
would have to change some of the specifics is what we have to
have as we go beyond low-Earth orbit.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Babin. You're welcome.
Now I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr.
Brooks.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
While I support development of American-made alternatives
to the RD-180 rocket engine, according to Undersecretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Frank
Kendall, ending the use of the RD-180 prior to the availability
of a comparable domestic rocket engine will cost taxpayers over
a billion dollars. What effect will restrictions on the
purchase of RD-180 engines have on NASA and Boeing's CST-100
Starliner commercial crew space system? And my question is
directed to Mr. Elbon.
Mr. Elbon. Thank you. Let's see. We're concerned about
that, even though the legislation that's being discussed
doesn't necessarily target civil space uses, reduction in
flight rate for the Atlas V, which CST-100 flies on, and other
users, by the way, fly on as well to Space Station, reduction
in flight rate could increase the cost of that, and eventually
be an impact. So we're hopeful that that doesn't happen, that
it's able to keep flying and then the flight rate as planned
will allow us to continue to use that for the Starliner as
planned.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Elbon.
My next question will be for Mr. Weir, and I want you to be
thinking of why the American people won't go to Mars, and as a
backdrop, I'm going to mention America's financial condition
because that's going to be what we have to weigh, the pros and
cons. I'm not sure if you're familiar with America's financial
condition but in summary, we're headed to an insolvency and
bankruptcy probably within the next 20 years, maybe in the next
ten years, as a country. I say that looking at a $19 trillion
debt accumulation predominantly over the last decade and a
half, and reports by the Comptroller General, James Daro, and
the Congressional Budget Office waring us that our current
financial path is unsustainable, which is accounting language
for, if you keep doing this, there's going to be a total
collapse of the system.
Additionally, the CBO has warned us that while we had a
series of trillion-dollar deficits under Democratic rule of the
House and Senate in 2007 and 2008 coupled with Barack Obama in
2009 and 2010, since the 2010 elections, we've slowly but
surely gotten our deficits down to $439 billion, which is where
we were last year. This year's deficit, however, has taken a
dramatic turn for the worse. Now it's projected to be in the
neighborhood of $534 billion within six years, a trillion
dollars a year--nonstop trillion-dollar-a-year deficits until
we go insolvent.
So with that kind of financial backdrop, what can you say
to help persuade the American people that Mars is a goal that
we should undertake despite the financial risks that our
country faces?
Mr. Weir. It's funny you should mention the potential
insolvency because in the 1930s, the United States was not in a
great state solvency-wide either, and during that time the
government invested very heavily in building up the commercial
airline space, which cost a lot of money. It required the
government to basically take a bunch of land from various
cities under eminent-domain laws that was worth a lot. It spent
enormous amounts of money in the form of tax breaks and policy
decisions in order to build the burgeoning airline industry.
Since then, it has definitely paid itself off far more than we
ever spent on it in the form of tax revenue from that industry.
So I would say that my answer to your question is that
putting money into a mission to Mars or anything related to
space as long as a lot of that money ends up going toward
commercial development will help bring the commercial space
industry into a profitable situation.
Once the price to low-Earth orbit gets down to the point
where a middle-class American can afford to go into space,
there will be a boom. There will be an economic boom in the
space industry and the United States government will receive
the benefits of that boom in the form of taxes and revenues.
Mr. Brooks. Anybody else want to add to the comments of Mr.
Weir?
Hearing nothing, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Brooks.
And now I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Beyer.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This past weekend, the students of Longfellow Middle School
in my district participated in the Aerospace Industry
Association 2016 Team America Rocketry Challenge, and they are
with us here today. So they'll stand up and we'll recognize
you. Thank you for competing and for your excellence in math
and engineering and technology and science.
And Mr. Weir, of all the protagonists I've run into in my
life, Mark Watney was easily the most adaptable and creative
I've ever seen. You know, he's a great role model, confronting
life-and-death challenges daily and somehow doing it with good
cheer, with humor, and moving forward with extraordinary
resilience. They say every first novel is autobiographical. Who
was your role model for Mark Watney?
Mr. Weir. Well, I admit I based him pretty much on myself
although he's better at all the things I'm good at than I am,
and he doesn't have any of my flaws. So he's what I wish I
were.
Mr. Beyer. That's great. Will there be a sequel?
Mr. Weir. No plans for a sequel. Sorry. I'm working on an
unrelated novel now.
Mr. Beyer. Okay. Great. Excellent. Thank you.
Mr. Crusan, our distinguished Chair in his opening comments
talked about the unjustified Asteroid Retrieval Mission. Do you
have any comments either on behalf of NASA or as a person
paying attention to all those things?
Mr. Crusan. In my remarks and in my testimony, I
highlighted the two required things for sending humans into
deep space. First is habitation, and second is in-space
propulsion. The Asteroid Redirect Mission gives us that in-
space propulsion aspect that we're looking for. To me, that's
the fundamental piece of the Asteroid Redirect Mission along
with operating large-scale solar electric propulsion in deep
space because that will be the experience that we will need to
send cargo into Mars and eventually our crew into Mars as well.
So there is a nice synergy between that.
Mr. Beyer. So it really could well be interpreted as an
essential part of getting to Mars?
Mr. Crusan. Yes.
Mr. Beyer. Great. Well, thank you very much.
And Ms. Sigur, you--in your written testimony, you talked
about how Orion has a time-triggered ethernet that's 10 times
faster than your ethernet at home. I'd like to point out that
Lockheed is in my Congressional district, and if you could get
10 times faster internet for all of us, we'd be very grateful.
Is there any commercial application for the 10 times faster
ethernet, Ms. Sigur?
Ms. Sigur. I will have to get that information and have it
added to my hearing testimony.
Mr. Beyer. That was a very careful response. I appreciate
that.
Mr. Elbon, you talked about how we lack the killer app to
develop the $1 to $2 billion annually needed to get some of the
stuff off the ground. What would the killer app look like?
Mr. Elbon. I'm not sure. If we knew, we would probably get
it out there. The point is, I think we need to focus on
developing demand for activities in low-Earth orbit. We've done
a good job of developing capability, and by that, I mean the
ability to transport cargo and crew there, and we have
destination, the Space Station, and talk of future
destinations. We're very good at providing the supply. We need
to work on the demand, users with money willing to spend on
space. Today we have users willing to spend order of magnitude
hundreds of thousands of dollars to do research or other
activities in space, and to really have a commercial market, we
have to generate revenue in the order of magnitude of at least
a billion or two to support activities like that. So I think
there's a real effort needed to be working on the demand side
of that whole equation.
Mr. Beyer. Well, thank you for putting the challenge out
for all of us. We passed the Science Prize Act earlier this
year. Maybe we can put that as one of the Science Prize
challenges is what needs to be done.
Mr. Weir, I love your idea of abandoning the zero-g gravity
and just spinning the Space Station as they do so often. How
difficult is it going to be to have a counterweight a quarter-
mile away as they travel through space----
Mr. Weir. Well----
Mr. Beyer. --as opposed to when they're stationary.
Mr. Weir. Right. Well, the cable itself--if your space
station were approximately the same size as the International
Space Station, the forces would require the cable itself to
be--I forget the exact diameter but I worked out the mass. The
cable itself would weigh about 10,000 kilograms. Compare that
to the 385,000 kilograms that the International Space Station
weighs. We're talking about one part in 40 of the total mass of
the station would be the cabling. But other than that, that's
it. That's the additional mass. And the counterweight would not
just be some wasted weight. That would be the other half of the
station. There might be another crew node or it might be other
station keeping. You would not have dead weight.
Mr. Beyer. Is there anything in our discovery of
gravitational waves that leads you to some creative thought
about another approach to this?
Mr. Weir. Unfortunately, no. The only technology we have
available to us for artificial gravity is centrifugal force.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you.
I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Pardon me for being in and out. That's the
way we are in Congress sometimes. We've got 10 things to do at
one time.
And let me just note right off the bat that we seem to be
having dual movies here. It's, you know, the Martian versus
Gravity or something like that, you know, because in fact,
there as a movie, Gravity, and this is what I'd like to ask Mr.
Weir. Okay, I take it that you saw the movie Gravity as well?
Mr. Weir. Yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. So we've got these threats that's
called space debris floating around there. Don't you think that
perhaps it would be a better use of our money right now to help
clean up that space debris and perhaps even protecting the
world from an asteroid or a meteorite that could destroy the
whole world? Shouldn't we actually be getting those jobs done
before we spend billions of dollars to try to get to Mars to
plant our flag and come back?
Mr. Weir. Well, we already are protecting the world from
asteroids.
Mr. Rohrabacher. We are?
Mr. Weir. It's called Planetary Defense.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes?
Mr. Weir. And the main way it's done is that we track all
asteroids that are large enough to be any significant threat to
Earth, and that's already being done, and so we know----
Mr. Rohrabacher. We can track, but frankly, it's being
tracked but we don't know what to do after that.
Mr. Weir. Well, we do know that for at least the next 50
years, we have no dangerous asteroids heading our way. But yes,
if we detected something that was a significant threat, I'm
pretty sure this body and your colleagues on the other side of
the building would be willing to, you know, put together some
funding or something to shoot it down. So I feel confident that
that could be taken care of.
As for space debris, people often underestimate how big
Earth orbit is. To give you an idea of how big it is, it's
bigger than the whole world. It's the entire surface of Earth
but bigger. So when people say hey, let's clean up the space
debris, that's like saying hey, can we get rid of all the gum
wrappers in the Pacific Ocean. There are few, they are far
between. They are hard to find, and it's just not viable for us
to track them all down.
What we should be doing is putting in place policies that
prevent people from leaving stuff up in space for very long,
put it into orbit so that it will eventually decay, and if
parts break off, that they will eventually decay and come into
the safety of Earth's atmosphere, and of course, protecting
Earth from anything that we've launched is a non-issue because
we haven't launched anything that's big enough to survive
reentry and hit the ground.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you. I do disagree with you on a
couple of things but let me note that's good. That's what these
hearings are all about is to get different points of view out.
I wonder if the panel agrees with our witness that it's
impossible that there would be a rock headed toward the Earth
enough to do great damage to our Earth that we wouldn't see for
50 years out. I think that there could possibly be something
that might emerge on the radar screen like the one that I think
just recently went by a couple days ago.
Mr. Culbertson. Yes, sir. There's always a possibility that
something could emerge, and as Congressman Bridenstine knows,
if a target's coming right at you in the air, you sometimes
don't see it until it's right on top of you, and that could be
the case. I participated in a study with the National Science
Foundation a few years ago where we did look at the
observational capabilities both on the surface of the Earth and
in space to track the objects that are out there, and he's
right. We haven't detected anything yet that we can track that
is a threat to the Earth. I also agree with him that if we did
detect something and we had time to do something about it, we
would do something about it.
Mr. Rohrabacher. If we had time. That's the big ``if.''
Mr. Culbertson. Right, but right now if you were to say I
want to do a specific thing to protect the Earth against a
specific asteroid or any other object, there are so many
different types of objects out there, settling on only one
solution probably would not be cost-effective. You'd need to
know the threat.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, let's put it this way. It would have
to be one solution but at this point I would like to know,
rather than spending billions of dollars to go to Mars when
they might turn around to take a look at the Earth and see a
big blip because all of a sudden something had hit the planet,
we don't have the plan--I'm not talking about one option. We
don't have a plan that has several options if something big is
spotted headed toward the Earth, and to spend billions of
dollars on what we can't do now, which is what's been outlined
in testimony, and giving up those things we could do, we could
put a plan in place to protect us, and we could put a plan in
place that would actually deal with the--and I would disagree
with--I think it's a little more risky than just bubblegum
wrappers in the Pacific Ocean. And so I think we should do
that.
One last question. You were talking about space habitat. Is
Bigelow--you know, Bigelow put a lot of money, its own money,
into developing new technology for space habitat. Is that part
of the equation is what he's done and what he offers? Is that
going to be part of the equation of what we're talking about
here?
Mr. Crusan. We have contracts right now under NextSTEP with
four commercial firms: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Orbital ATK and
Bigelow Aerospace. So all four are currently under our phase I
activities, and they had an opportunity to move to phase II
just like the others and an ability to on-ramp also other
organizations beyond the four that we are currently working
with.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, there's lots of things that we can
do in space. I hope that we make sure that we don't waste
dollars on things that we don't accomplish anything with, and
on that, the witness--see, I'm an author too. I'm a writer too.
We're both writers. And I agree with you totally.
So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing.
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you.
And now I recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr.
Bridenstine.
And by the way, we are going to go back through a second
round of questions if that's okay with everyone.
Mr. Bridenstine. I approve.
Chairman Babin. Okay.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to bring up a couple of things that I want to make
sure people understand my philosophy on, primarily because of
some of the testimony we just heard.
The Interagency Space Debris Coordination Committee put out
a study not too long ago. It included five other space agencies
from throughout the world and then NASA is the sixth, and it
indicated that in that critical orbital regime from 700
kilometers to 900 kilometers, given the current regulatory
environment, we will continue to see space debris grow. It's
not going to go away. It will continue to grow, and that's if
everything stays the same as far as launch frequency and the
satellites that are launched right now, and we know that that
is not the case. Launch frequencies are going to continue to
increase. We've got constellations that are hundreds and in
many cases--in some cases now thousands of satellites going
into low-Earth orbit, and this is not going to be sustainable
for the long term. We've got to make sure we're doing the right
things on this Committee so that we can mitigate the debris, as
you talked about, but eventually there's going to come a day
when remediation is going to be necessary, and we need to be
very serious and methodical about how we go about that.
I wanted to ask you a question, Mr. Crusan, about one of
the reasons to do the Asteroid Redirect Mission is for
propulsion. Why is it necessary to do an asteroid redirect
mission to create the propulsion capabilities necessary for a
Mars mission?
Mr. Crusan. So there are two aspects that are important,
the actual funding of large-scale solar electric propulsion
systems from the arrays to the power management systems to the
actual thrusters. The other aspect is actually operating a
large-scale system such as that in deep space for a prolonged
period of time to get a good understanding.
Mr. Bridenstine. So why is an asteroid redirect mission
necessary for that?
Mr. Crusan. It's an opportunity to test those critical
systems.
Mr. Bridenstine. So it's not necessary, it's just something
that would be a good idea because it gives us a reason to do
what is necessary?
Mr. Crusan. Yes.
Mr. Bridenstine. Okay. I wanted to ask you a question
regarding the fiscal year 2016 Omnibus. It directed NASA to
have a cislunar habitat prototype ready by 2018 and directed
NASA to spend no less than $55 million specifically on a
habitation module. However, NASA's operations plan for fiscal
year 2016 only allocates $25 million, not the total $55
million, to NextSTEP activities. According to the NextSTEP 2
announcement, ``The initial solicitation is seeking ground
prototype habitation systems.'' It seems as if NASA is only
spending $25 million explicitly on the development of a ground
prototype. Can you explain how NASA's other expenditures meet
the Omnibus directive of $55 million specifically on the
prototype? So $25 million, $55 million. Where's the other $30
million?
Mr. Crusan. So there's two aspects that we're looking at.
You have the habitation systems, the things that which you put
inside the habitat--the life support systems, the radiation
mitigation, things like logistics and the outfitting. Those are
all core systems. And then you have the integrated habitat
itself, the actual module or modules that you would like. Both
of those are needed to go forward. In fiscal year 2016, we're
actually spending in excess of $70 million on habitat systems
at the total level, part of that in the integrated capability
with industry and part of that also with industry on the
habitat systems that are actually going to be inside of that
overall capsule or module that we'll be actually building. So
we believe we're meeting the intent of that by spending in
excess of $70 million on habitat systems and the integrated
habitat capability.
Mr. Bridenstine. Are you guys going to be able to achieve a
prototype habitat for cislunar by 2018?
Mr. Crusan. In our current budget profile? Yes.
Mr. Bridenstine. Now, when you think about--and this is
just because I don't know. I'm asking you, when you think about
having a prototype, what does that mean? Does that mean it's
going to be on the ground? Does that mean it's going to be in
space?
Mr. Crusan. No. So it'll absolutely be a ground prototype,
and we look at form, fit and function. Form and fit, obviously
we believe we can have high fidelity of those. The level of
function is a level of ability to actually build all the
various systems, either in a computer model mode or actual
physical hardware. So it will have high-fidelity form and fit,
and variable fidelity of function, depending on what we see in
our proposals actually on phase II.
Mr. Bridenstine. Awesome.
Mr. Chairman, I'm out of time. Thank you.
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Now I think we will go back through one more time if that's
okay, and my next question would be for Mr. Crusan first but if
anyone else would like to answer, I certainly would appreciate
it.
NASA must ensure its investments in and acquisition
strategies for deep space habitats are in the taxpayers' best
interests. At the same time, a legitimate part of NASA's
strategy for deep space habitats is to make investments that
facilitate private-sector habitats in low-Earth orbit and
beyond. In phase III of NextSTEP, NASA will determine its
acquisition approach for deep space habitats. What types of
acquisition mechanisms should NASA be considering, and what are
the benefits and challenges of these respectively and how
should NASA balance the interests of the taxpayers fostering
commercial markets?
Mr. Crusan. So as you note, there are multiple strategies
that we could go with the final acquisition. In NextSTEP phase
II, we require a corporate resource contribution of 30 percent
at a minimum eligibility requirement on that procurement, on
that solicitation. That is to foster the dual use of whatever
habitation systems for deep space are meant for low-Earth orbit
for that kind of skin in the game of those procurements. That
also allows us the ability for intellectual property related to
commercial endeavors in low-Earth orbit to reside with the
commercial entities as well.
So going forward into the final acquisition, it could be
that one choice we go to a standard cost-plus-type contract or
it could be more of a fixed price in certain elements of the
contract where there's high alignment with commercial needs.
When we talk about a habitat, it could be a subsystem, the
entirety of the system. You could think about service modules
or small propulsion buses that have high alignment, say, with
commercial satellite buses, or the habitat structure be on a
fixed-price basis. So it's much more granular when you start
dividing the various systems that we could approach. So you
wouldn't have to have a single contract methodology for the
entirety of the system end to end. You could actually have
customized acquisition pieces that match best with the
commercial potential of those subsystems, and that's what we're
looking at trying to achieve you of this phase II effort is
looking at how do you divide a system up in such a way that
optimizes the LEO use of components while getting at the deep
space needs that we have, and we know there will be
incompatibility in a few of those areas, and that's what we're
trying to find during the studies.
Chairman Babin. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Crusan. Would anybody
else like to add anything there?
Mr. Elbon. I would like to add----
Chairman Babin. Mr. Elbon, yes, sir.
Mr. Elbon. --a couple of points. You know, the public-
private partnership has worked really well for Commercial
Cargo, and I think we'll find that it'll work really well for
Commercial Crew. It's important, I think, to remember that that
mission is a mission we've been doing since we put John Glenn
in orbit over 50 years ago, well understood the risk postures,
understood the technologies there to do it, and so companies
were able with some very top-level NASA requirements to develop
solutions to do that mission.
We're now going beyond low-Earth orbit into deep space, the
area around the Moon, and we haven't done as much there. The
requirements aren't understood. I think NASA needs to stay in
the middle of those requirements because this thing is going to
evolve into what goes to Mars. And so it's real important that
we look at the differences in the mission and the whole
situation and not look at everything as a nail because we've
got a hammer here.
Chairman Babin. Exactly. Thank you.
And one more question for Mr. Weir. As a writer, you've
inspired many with the possibility of science, technology,
engineering, mathematics, and let's not forget botany. We
certainly need young people devoted to STEM fields if we are
going to Mars. What recommendations do you have for this
Committee and for NASA as to how we can continue to inspire
people with space exploration and the possibilities of STEM?
And these four young ladies sitting in the back I think are
perfect examples of people who are being inspired, and if you
could elaborate on that, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Weir. Well, I would recommend you keep doing cool
stuff. I mean, basically----
Chairman Babin. I've been trying to do that all my life.
Mr. Weir. Yeah. Well, basically people, especially kids,
are motivated by results, by what they see. So ideologies or
concepts or things we might do at some point in the future,
those are less interesting to kids choosing potential careers
than the things that are actually being done. So if you want to
see more kids in STEM, do more cool stuff in space.
Chairman Babin. Good answer. Okay. All right. Thank you so
much.
And now I'd like to recognize the gentlewoman from
Maryland, Ms. Edwards.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, thanks to
the witnesses.
I have a couple of questions actually for the companies who
are here because you have decades of work in space systems, and
I'm just trying to figure out what it is that NASA needs to do
now in conjunction with our elected leadership to make sure
that we're really on pace to get this done, and my concern
rests with the fact that we continue to have this kind of push
and pull with the Administration and the Committee over what
platform we're going to use as the springboard to Mars. Is it
going to be an asteroid retrieval mission? Is it going to be on
the Moon? I mean, all of those different considerations. And I
want to know from your perspective when we need to resolve this
so that we have the ability to move forward in a way that
allows us to put the resources that are necessary to get the
job done. Because I think as long as the Executive Branch and
the Congress are in slightly different places, it's very
confusing, and it's unpredictable, and we don't have the
resources that we need, and in fact, we could be just wasting
money because we'll come up on another Administration starting
from scratch. And so I would just like your opinions of that.
Mr. Elbon?
Mr. Elbon. Yeah, I'll start. I was asked in the Human to
Mars panel this morning what the biggest tent pole was for us
getting to Mars, and my response was just about what you said,
and that is, we need to get on a path and stay on that path,
and it has to survive several Administrations, you know, in a
couple decades here. So I think we have to be careful not to be
distracted by other ideas, not to invest in one path and then
switch to another path. So the answer I would give is as soon
as we can we need to nail down the architecture and the
approach and then stay on that path, keep it funded, and that
will allow us to get to Mars at lower cost and a lower schedule
than switching back and forth.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you.
Ms. Sigur?
Ms. Sigur. And my comment is much along the same lines. A
level of commitment and vision I think are mandatory. NASA has
a great vision to establish certain types of capability. What
we can't afford to do is to start and stop and start and stop
and start and stop. The questions and the issues are very hard.
Multiyear funding would be beneficial, and that once we
establish that there's a vision that we're going to go after,
let's commit.
There's a difference when we're trying to get a commitment
for someone to make a one-off and something that feels like a
business. So having that vision, establishing it for multiple
years and sticking to it I think would be a real benefit.
Ms. Edwards. Mr. Culbertson?
Mr. Culbertson. Yes, ma'am, pretty much along the same
lines. We need a vision. We need leadership. We need decisions
out of the government, both branches of the government, and we
need everybody to be pretty much on the same page. So in my
view, it needs to be as non-partisan as possible, bipartisan
where necessary, but we need decisions and we need the right
level of funding, and also you need to know that as industry,
you're investing in this, it will eventually pay off for you
too, and so if we're going to have to have skin in the game, we
need to understand how NASA or other agencies will allow us to
commercialize that. For example, if we had an X percentage
investment in it, we ought to be able to sell X percentage of
that capability while we are providing that kind of service and
support. Services are a good way to start in this, and we're
doing that with Cargo and Crew and other ways of continuing
those kind of operations in space, and of course,
communications is a great example of how that can evolve into a
standalone industry. Whether we can establish an industry like
that around the Moon, I think that's a long way off but it
certainly could happen, depending on what we discover there.
I also think, to address some of the earlier discussion,
developing the capabilities to do these kind of things will
allow us to address some of the other really hard problems such
as protection of the planet and detecting things further out
and sooner so that if we need to take action, we can do that.
That comes as a byproduct of doing really hard things like this
as we saw going to the Moon.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you. And we don't have time for it here
today but I do think that there's value in providing
information to the Committee about what you perceive as the job
creation and technology creation capabilities that would lend
itself to the way that we begin to think about the value of
investing in this really long-term and quite expensive
endeavor, and the question is, will it pay off in the kind of
way that the space program has over these last almost six
decades. So thank you very much for your consideration.
Chairman Babin. Thank you.
Now I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr.
Bridenstine.
Mr. Bridenstine. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Sigur, I wanted to second your comments about, we need
to have a vision and we need to have something that we can
stick to, and I think all of us on this Committee on both sides
of the aisle agree with that 100 percent, and I agree with you
especially because you're a graduate of Rice University, which
everybody knows is the preeminent engineering school in the
country. Although I was not an engineer there, I highly respect
those who were.
I want to go back for a second. I'm going to sound like a
broken record here but when you think about the space debris
challenge that we have, it is very real, and I know Orbital
ATK, you guys are working on doing some mitigation by extending
the life of satellites that currently exist in space so that we
don't have to continue launching new, but I'm on the Armed
Services Committee, Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, and I can
tell you, you go back to 2007, the Chinese shot down a weather
satellite, created 5,000 pieces of orbital debris. A couple
years later you had an Iridium satellite collide with a Cosmos
satellite, created thousands of more pieces of orbital debris,
all in these critical orbital regimes, and this Interagency
Committee on Space Debris Coordination said that those kind of
collisions, Iridium and Cosmos, will continue to happen on
average every five to nine years, which means they're going to
continue to grow. So these are absolutely necessary.
I believe by making the right investments today, not only
are we protecting low-Earth orbit but we're protecting our
ability to do what's necessary to get to Mars one day. That's
what we're doing.
On the Mars issue going back for a second, the Mitch Daniel
report that came out, the National Research Council put out a
report, said, you know, our budgets, the money we are spending
today and our missions and our strategy absolutely will not get
us to Mars. It wasn't that it was going to be delayed ten years
or delayed 20 years. They flat-out said we're not going to get
there. That should have sounded an alarm for all of us on this
Committee. What is we're doing wrong? And we need to get real
assessments over what we're doing wrong on this Committee so
that we can actually go home and tell our constituents that we
are not investing their money in vain. I mean, that should have
infuriated all of us on this Committee. And so we have those
issues.
Now, when you talk about SLS and you think about specific
mission plans beyond EM-1, I believe we need an increased
launch frequency. I don't think that, you know, launching every
four years is going to get done what we need to get done and
have it be safe. But barring that we're going to increase
launch frequency given the budgets that we have, we need to
increase the utility of every launch that we do, and I wanted
to ask if when it comes to EM-2, Mr. Crusan, do you know, is
there going to be a secondary payload that might be a habitat
that could go out to cislunar or beyond low-Earth orbit?
Mr. Crusan. So one of the things we're looking at is how do
you do that sequence of habitation buildout. So part of the
NextSTEP analysis with industry here is looking at the ability
to co-manifest on SLS and looking at the crew and the ability
for habitation elements or habitation modules per se and how
would you put those on. Consideration for the EM sequence will
have a direct impact on what cargo and what capabilities fly on
each of the exploration missions on SLS. That's what we're
studying actually with industry.
Mr. Bridenstine. So when we think about--and I know I just
asked you the question about the Asteroid Redirect and why is
that necessary, is it possible that we could launch a habitat
on EM-2 and then have that be the target, in essence, for
follow-on SLS missions?
Mr. Crusan. Depending on the size of the habitat, yes.
Technically, there is no reason why you wouldn't put on there.
It's an ability of, is that the right first element or do you
want to split apart your elements of station-keeping capability
or a node or habitat. That's one of the things that we're
working with industry, which pieces of those do you sequence
first.
Mr. Bridenstine. So is it possible, could we use a Delta IV
to put a habitat where it needs to go to make that a target for
the follow-on EM missions?
Mr. Crusan. So under the NextSTEP phase II, we have the co-
manifested option with SLS that people can study and give us
options for that. We also have the ability for industry to
propose alternative launch vehicle options as well including
Delta IV and others, and where we stage that is in deep space,
so as long as those vehicles or whatever proposed vehicle that
they're talking about can throw a reasonable size volume to
cislunar space, then yes, that's an open consideration.
Mr. Bridenstine. Mr. Chairman, if it's all right--I know
I'm out of time. We need to make sure that Congress is aware
and understands what the objective here is and ultimately the
direction we're going to go because I don't want to get another
report in ten years that says under no circumstances will we
ever get to Mars and between now and ten years from now we will
have made all these investments believing one thing and being
told later something else.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Babin. Thank you. Well stated.
I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Beyer.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Sigur, we--my understanding through this is that we've
been taking about habitats in orbit around Moon and later
obviously the habitat that takes us through the thousand-day
journey. And then you've written about the habitats in a Mars
orbit and stationing it there instead, and suggested, at least
in the written testimony, that you might be able to do that by
2028, which is, you know, 4 or five years earlier than we
planned with NASA. Is this built into NASA time frame? And what
are the necessary steps to move to essentially a Mars orbit
rather than something cislunar?
Ms. Sigur. Let me add a couple of points of clarification.
The proposed mission would be one that would be in Mars orbit,
not supplanting a mission to the surface of Mars, which is
still planned as scheduled for the 2030s. The concept is that
at Mars orbit, we'd be able to get smarter, we'd be able to get
information and data, and it would allow for us to have real
information about the planet and make real-time decisions and
accelerate some of the milestones that would be forthcoming,
and again, could happen a lot faster because we're in close
proximity. The steps that we propose are taking advantage of
existing committed missions that we have for Orion SLS with a
view towards leaning forward as was just recently suggested by
Congressman Bridenstine to say let's look to see what's
happening in EM-1, 2, 3 and beyond to see if there are ways for
us to do prepositioning, to see if we can work early tests with
a target towards having before we get to 2024 a habitat system
around the Moon, which does take advantage of using that as a
testing ground for the deep space systems that we have before
we go even further beyond.
So nothing that I've said is intended to preclude those
milestones as steppingstones but really push towards how we can
bring things forward to the left by doing some of the hard
tests earlier.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you.
Mr. Culbertson, you mentioned that Orbital ATK's cislunar
habitat design incorporates lessons that you've learned from
delivering cargo to ISS. Can you talk about what some of those
lessons are?
Mr. Culbertson. Yes, sir. Many of them have to do with
acquisition process in terms of how we built this as an orbital
investment with NASA co-investing but we own the system
basically and we provide the service, and they pay for the
service. You can take that same principle almost anywhere in
the local vicinity--by that, I mean the Moon--by providing
cargo services, crew services, power, other things that you
could provide to any NASA activity that was happening around
the Moon. But a lot of it has to do with how the hardware's
developed, what the level of oversight versus insight is that
NASA would have to have. As long as they set the goals and the
standards and we can meet them, then you can provide the
service and they can get what they need without investing in a
whole lot of hardware. But the commercial industry, of course,
has to show a return for shareholders in order to be able to do
that.
On the technical side, of course, the spacecraft has
performed very well autonomously going to the Space Station,
achieving its rendezvous, stopping at 10 meters and being
grappled by the crew. That kind of autonomy certainly can apply
to any activities in cislunar space. The redundancy that we
have, the spacecraft was based on our 15-year life geocoms that
have a lot of resiliency and reliability in their systems, and
we can fly a lot longer than the 90 days that we currently do
on a Space Station mission. So we think we've got the basics
available to us to move to low-Earth-- I mean to cislunar.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you very much.
Mr. Elbon, you talked and wrote about the challenges of in-
space propulsion, which obviously is very different from
blasting off at Wallops Island. You also wrote about the solar
electric tug using the power of the sun to do the propulsion.
Is that what's generally established as the way we're going to
move from, say, a cislunar station all the way to Mars?
Mr. Elbon. Yeah, one of the building blocks of the
architecture is a solar electric capability that would be used
to accelerate on the way to Mars and then after you're halfway
there you can decelerate, and that is a very efficient kind of
propulsion system from a mass perspective, and as Mr. Crusan
was talking, it's a big part of what will come out of the
Asteroid Retrieval Mission, so we'll have that capability. It's
important for us to be able to do the mission.
Mr. Beyer. And is that really the only form of in-space
propulsion that's being considered?
Mr. Elbon. Well, it will take a lot of--not a lot. In
addition to that, we'll need cryopropulsion, and that gets into
technologies of being able to store the cryo, maybe not just
cry but at least chemical propulsion to allow us to make the
initial increase in Delta V to get away from the Moon and on
the way back from Mars as well.
Mr. Beyer. One last short question.
Mr. Weir, did you pick Matt Damon to play you or----
Mr. Weir. No. My main job on the film was to cash the
check.
Chairman Babin. That is not a bad job, I can tell you that.
This concludes our hearing, and I want to thank each and
every one of you, Mr. Crusan, Mr. Elbon, Ms. Sigur, Mr.
Culbertson and Mr. Weir. It's been a fascinating hearing and I
really have enjoyed it, and we've learned a lot, and I want to
also announce that the record will remain open for two weeks
for additional written comments and written questions from
members who perhaps were not able to make it.
So with that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:32 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]